The bioreactor is then used to grow the muscle cells into fibres, which are turned into edible meat products with a 3D printer.
The technology is still under development and promises many improvements in the coming years, but current research suggests that “cultivated” meat products could be cheaper, safer and healthier than conventional meat.
Producing muscle from tissue grown in vitro does indeed have several advantages, including the absence of ethical concerns, a reduced risk of disease transmission and, last but not least, a lower cost. A major company working in research and development in this field states that by taking a cell sample the size of a sesame seed and feeding it so that it grows naturally into beef, up to 80,000 burgers can be created without any animal being harmed in any way.
In 2008 PETA offered a prize of 1 million dollars to the first company that could supply consumers with cultivated chicken meat by 2012. Among national governments, the Dutch government has invested 4 million dollars in experiments on artificial meat.
For its part, last April the European Commission approved the request to collect signatures for the European citizens’ initiative End The Slaughter Age, which aims to shift subsidies from livestock farming to cellular agriculture.
Advantages
In terms of production sustainability: according to a study by the Oxford Martin School, producing cultivated meat could require up to 96% less energy and 98% less water, and create up to 90% fewer greenhouse gas emissions than conventional meat production.
In terms of food safety: because cultivated meat is produced in a controlled environment, it can be made safer than conventional meat, eliminating the risk of bacterial contamination.
In ethical terms: a study published by Humane Society International found that 3D-printed meat could significantly reduce animal mistreatment.
Challenges
However, several challenges still need to be solved before large-scale production can begin:
- High production costs due to very limited uptake. While producing 3D-printed meat would require significantly fewer resources than conventional meat, it still costs more because it is so little used compared with the traditional method, owing to general mistrust.
- Longer production times. Producing cultivated meat takes longer than producing conventional meat, which could limit its availability.
- Lack of consumer trust. As mentioned above, consumer acceptance is still very low because of a lack of familiarity with the product.
Environmental impact
As we have seen, producing 3D-printed meat could have a significantly lower environmental impact than conventional meat.
However, according to a study published by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, producing cultured meat in the large quantities needed to meet the demand for meat could lead to significant greenhouse gas emissions. This means that, if cultured meat is adopted on a large scale, it may be necessary to find a way to reduce the associated emissions.
So, as the saying goes, “all that glitters is not gold”.
Regulations and ethical considerations
The adoption of 3D-printed meat could also be slowed by potential regulatory problems. Although the technology has the potential to reduce the environmental impact of animal farming and provide other benefits, it could also be seen as a new form of genetically modified food. As such, it could be subject to the same regulations as genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and be considered unsafe for consumption.
Nor should we overlook the fact that “cultivated” meat, while potentially providing a solution to the negative consequences of animal farming, could also cause a significant loss of jobs in the traditional meat industry and lead to a rise in unemployment.
