Cultured Meat in the Great Food Transformation

(1)

CULTURED MEAT IN THE GREAT

FOOD TRANSFORMATION

Aantal woorden / Word count: 17 231

Stamnummer / student number : 01306037

Promotor / supervisor: Prof. Dr. Johan Albrecht

Masterproef voorgedragen tot het bekomen van de graad van:

Master’s Dissertation submitted to obtain the degree of:

Master in Business Engineering: Operations Management

Academiejaar / Academic year: 2019-2020

(2)

(3)

PERMISSION

I declare that the content of this Master’s Dissertation may be consulted and/or reproduced, provided that the source is referenced. Pauline Mast

(4)

(5)

Foreword

This master’s dissertation represents the capstone of an interesting, yet challenging academic trajectory. Throughout the years my determination has been tested, but I am happy to have made it this far. I would like to thank professor Johan Albrecht for giving me the opportunity to work on such an interesting topic and for providing guidance on how to explore this state-of-the-art technology. I was lucky to be able to write a master’s dissertation on a subject matter I was truly interested in. Furthermore, completing my university degree, with this dissertation as a final challenge, would not have been possible without a few people. I would like to thank Hasan, for his relentless faith in me, and my parents, for their continuous support even in difficult times. I also want to thank my friends. They supported me throughout my studies, even as I was struggling to find a balance between studies, procrastination and friends. Finally, I want to sincerely thank Annemie Willemse, for her valuable advice throughout the course of my studies. Pauline Mast Kalken, 11 August 2020

(6)

List of Abbreviations

BAUS Business-as-usual scenario CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention EC European Commission EEA European Environment Agency EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization GHG Greenhouse gas HLPE High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition LCA Life cycle analysis n/a Not available OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OS Optimistic scenario OS-2030 Optimistic scenario in the year 2030 OS-2050 Optimistic scenario in the year 2050 PS Pessimistic scenario PS-2030 Pessimistic scenario in the year 2030 PS-2050 Pessimistic scenario in the year 2050 UN United Nations Units c.w.e. Carcass weight equivalent eq Equivalents r.w.e. Retail weight equivalent yr Year

(9)

List of Tables

Table 1 Macronutrient and caloric intake for protein sources in the healthy reference diet Table 2 Scientific targets for six key Earth system processes and control variables used to quantify the boundaries Table 3 Meat consumption in the EU-28 Table 4 Environmental footprints of different types of traditional meat (per weight of product) Table 5 Environmental footprints of cultured meat (per weight of product)

(10)

List of Figures

Figure 1 Environmental effects in 2010 and 2050 by food groups on various Earth systems based on business-as-usual projections for consumption and production Figure 2 Diet gap between dietary patterns in 2016 and reference diet intakes of food Figure 3 The Shift Wheel framework composed of four strategies Figure 4 Cell culture-based cultured meat production system Figure 5 Actual locations of business-to-customer cultured meat and seafood companies Figure 6 Forecasting versus scenario analysis Figure 7 Commercialisation of cultured meat and obtained share of meat consumption for two scenarios Figure 8 Global meat market forecast (in $ billion) Figure 9 Environmental footprints of beef, pork, poultry and cultured meat (per weight of product) Figure 10 The global warming potential of the total EU-28 meat consumption in three scenarios Figure 11 The eutrophication potential of the total EU-28 meat consumption in three scenarios Figure 12 The blue water footprint of the total EU-28 meat consumption in three scenarios Figure 13 The cropland footprint of the total EU-28 meat consumption in three scenarios

(11)

1 Introduction

Today’s world is confronted with challenging trends regarding population, nutrition and environmental sustainability. A first trend that poses challenges is the growth of the global population. The United Nation’s (UN) World Population Prospects 2019 estimates that the world’s population will reach a total of 9,735 million by 2050, which is an increase of more than 2,022 million people compared to 2019 (UN, 2019). Next, there is a decline in worldwide undernutrition. However, the rate of decline is not sufficient to meet the targets of the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030 (Swinburn et al., 2019). Moreover, Swinburn et al. (2019) speak of an obesity pandemic to describe the rise in obesity all over the world. Finally, planetary boundaries are being crossed. For instance, climate change is in the zone of uncertainty, which implies an increasing risk of destabilizing the state of the Earth system, and genetic diversity, and phosphorus and nitrogen flows are beyond the zone of uncertainty (Steffen et al., 2015). In order to curb these trends, we will need a Great Food Transformation: a wide array of actions and actors working on a global shift to healthy diets that are produced sustainably (Willett et al., 2019). This is an immense task and begs the question of which actions would be needed. In recent years, cultured meat (i.e. meat grown in a laboratory) has been brought forward as a healthy, sustainable solution to conventional meat. Although companies are working on it, this emerging technology has not yet been launched onto the market. As a consequence, not much is known with certainty when it comes to cultured meat’s health or environmental effects. Still, we wonder whether cultured meat could be one of these actions contributing to the Great Food Transformation. What role could cultured meat play in this transformation? Would it contribute to healthy diets? And could it have a positive effect on the environment? The objective of this master’s dissertation is to analyse what role cultured meat can play in the Great Food Transformation. The possible impact of cultured meat will thus be analysed along the two dimensions of the Great Food Transformation: health and environmental sustainability. We will investigate what the potential impact of cultured meat could be on health, and what cultured meat could mean for the environment. On the one hand, the health dimension will be tackled through a qualitative discussion of the global advantages and disadvantages of cultured meat. On the other hand, we will investigate the potential environment effects of cultured meat for a more limited scope. A scenario analysis for Europe will be performed.

(12)

This master’s dissertation is structured as follows. In Chapter 2, the Great Food Transformation will be elaborated on and the impact of meat will discussed in this context. Chapter 3 introduces the need for an alternative, namely cultured meat. This new, emerging technology will be explained and elaborated on. In Chapter 4 and 5, the effects of cultured meat on respectively health and the environment are investigated. Finally, in Chapter 6 we summarize our findings and in Chapter 7 limitations of this master’s dissertation are discussed and ideas for further research are offered.

(13)

2 The Role of Meat in the Great Food Transformation

Given the worrying trends mentioned in the introduction, the question of how we will feed healthy diets to the global population by 2050, while staying within the planetary boundaries, arises. This question was addressed in 2019, when The Lancet published a report titled ‘Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems’. In the report, Willett et al. (2019) introduced an innovative outlook on healthy diets by explicitly linking them with environmental sustainability and food security. Based on this integrated viewpoint, the authors specified scientific targets for both healthy diets and sustainable food production, which together define a ‘safe operating space for food systems’. Operating within this safe operating space ensures optimal human health combined with environmental sustainability on a global scale (Willett et al., 2019). In order to reach this safe operating space for food systems, a Great Food Transformation is needed (Willett et al., 2019). The term was introduced by the EAT-Lancet Commission and the authors defined it as “The unprecedented range of actions taken by all food system sectors across all levels that aim to normalise healthy diets from sustainable food systems” (Willett et al., 2019, p. 450). Indeed, food systems have major challenges ahead. Many different actors will have to work together towards common goals and solutions in different fields will be needed in order to achieve this systems change (Willett et al., 2019). By 2050, the world population’s diet will have to shift towards the proposed healthy reference diet, food waste and losses will have to be reduced drastically and food production practices will have to change and improve (Willett et al., 2019). In the following sections, the impact of meat in the two relevant facets of the Great Food Transformation, namely health and environmental sustainability, will be discussed.

2.1 Meat and Health

Eating meat has both advantages and drawbacks. In terms of nutrition, meat is an excellent source of certain macro- and micronutrients. It provides fats, high-quality proteins, essential minerals and vitamins (Smil, 2013). Minerals in meat include zinc and heme iron and the main vitamins present in meat are vitamins B12 and B6 (Smil, 2013). Compared to non-heme iron, which can be found in plant foods, heme iron present in meat is highly bioavailable and can thus be easily absorbed (Smil, 2013; Steenson & Buttriss, 2020). However, eating meat has been linked to negative health outcomes too. High intake of red and processed meat increases the risk for type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases,

(14)

colorectal cancer and all-cause mortality (Ekmekcioglu et al., 2018). As a matter of fact, processed red meat has been labelled as a group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (Willett et al., 2019). Turning again to the safe operating space for food systems, Willett et al. (2019) have defined a healthy reference diet of 2500 kcal/day with uncertainty ranges, based on food groups and taking into account added fats and sugars. The authors explain that a healthy diet is a diet that promotes health and thus, a diet that prevents malnutrition in all its forms, ranging from undernutrition, micronutrient-related malnutrition to overweight, obesity and diet-related noncommunicable diseases (Willett et al., 2019; World Health Organization, 2020). The specific ranges for protein sources in the healthy reference diet can be found in Table 1. The EAT-Lancet Commission compared the reference diet with country-specific existing diets. The authors report that with this healthy reference diet the adequacy of nutrients increases and the mortality rates decrease. However, the intake of vitamin B12 would not increase since the proposed reference diet globally implies a reduction in animal-based foods, and accordingly implies a reduction in meat (Willett et al., 2019). Table 1 Macronutrient and caloric intake for protein sources in the healthy reference diet Protein sources Macronutrient intake (possible range), g/day Caloric intake, kcal/day Beef and lamb 7 (0-14) 15 Pork 7 (0-14) 15 Chicken and other poultry 29 (0-58) 62 Eggs 13 (0-25) 19 Fish 28 (0-100) 40 Legumes Dry beans, lentils, and peas 50 (0-100) 172 Soy foods 25 (0-50) 112 Peanuts 25 (0-75) 142 Tree nuts 25 149 Note. Adapted from Willett et al. (2019). When looking at meat in a broader sense and not only in terms of nutritional value, raising animals for food and eating animals can have other negative health-related consequences. Food safety and foodborne pathogens, antimicrobial resistance and the emergence of zoonotic diseases will be discussed.

(15)

Raising livestock creates reservoirs of foodborne pathogens (Heredia & García, 2018). Common foodborne bacterial pathogens are Salmonella, Campylobacter, Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli and Listeria monocytogenes (Heredia & García, 2018; Smil, 2013). Human infection can result from eating or drinking contaminated food or water. When speaking of meat and livestock specifically, infection can result from direct contact with infected animals and improper handling or ingestion of contaminated meat. This can result in disease and possibly death (Heredia & García, 2018; Smil, 2013; Sofos, 2008). For instance, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that yearly an estimated 1.35 million infections, 26,500 hospitalizations and 420 deaths result from infection with Salmonella bacteria in the United States. Most of these infections are linked to food (CDC, 2020). While food encompasses more than just meat, the contamination of water, fruits and vegetables by microbial pathogens may be traced to animals. Sofos (2008) states that estimates can relate 80% or more of the illnesses resulting from those contaminations to contact with untreated manure, water contamination caused by manure and human contact with animals. One of the solutions used to address this food safety issue, also causes the next negative health-related aspect of producing meat: antibiotic, or in general, antimicrobial resistance. Antibiotics are not only used in order to control bacterial infections in animals, but they are also added to livestock feed in order to prevent infections and as a growth enhancer (Ferri et al., 2017; Smil, 2013). Although the topic is subject to debate, Ferri et al. (2017) explain that the use of high doses of antibiotics in food animals has contributed to the antibiotic resistance of pathogens. While it is difficult to explicitly demonstrate that the excessive use of antibiotics in food animals has caused an increase of antimicrobial resistance in humans, several studies show correlation (Ferri et al., 2017). A report as part of the Review on Antimicrobial Resistance suggests that by 2050, without action, 10 million deaths each year could be attributed to antimicrobial resistance (O’Neill, 2016). Finally, the intensification of livestock entails certain factors that influence the risk of emergence of zoonotic diseases and transmission to humans (Liverani et al., 2013). An example of a risk factor related to this industrial-style food animal production is closeness of the industrial production units to wildlife or small-scale production units. For instance, encroaching on deforested wildlife habitats increases the risk of zoonotic disease emergence (Liverani et al., 2013). Another risk factor and characteristic of this intensification that increases the risk of transmission is having many animals in confined spaces (Liverani et al., 2013).

(16)

2.2 Meat and Environmental Sustainability

Next to defining a healthy reference diet, Willett et al. (2019) have set scientific targets for a sustainable food production, based on the planetary boundaries framework (Steffen et al., 2015). The world’s food production can then be called sustainable, if that production is operating within the defined boundaries (Willett et al., 2019). As can be seen in Table 2, specific control variables have been defined in order to characterize the general Earth system processes. Table 2 Scientific targets for six key Earth system processes and control variables used to quantify the boundaries

Key Earth system process Control variable Boundary (uncertainty range)

Climate change Greenhouse gas (CH4 and N2O) emissions

5 Gt of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (4.7-5.4)

Nitrogen cycling Nitrogen application 90 Tg of nitrogen per year (65-90;a 90-130b)

Phosphorus cycling Phosphorus application 8 Tg of phosphorus per year (6-12;a 8-16b)

Freshwater use Consumptive water use 2500 km

3_per year

(1000-4000)

Biodiversity loss Extinction rate Ten extinctions per million species-years (1-80)

Land-system change Cropland use 13 million km

2 (11-15) Note. Reprinted from Willett et al. (2019). a _{Lower boundary range if improved production practices and redistribution are not adopted.}b _Upper boundary range if improved production practices and redistribution are adopted and 50% of applied phosphorus is recycled. Unfortunately, today, some of these environmental boundaries are being crossed (Willett et al., 2019). Moreover, Willett et al. (2019) forecast that in 2050 we will be beyond the safe operating space for food systems for every Earth system process, if we continue to produce and consume food as usual (Figure 1).

(17)

Figure 1 Environmental effects in 2010 and 2050 by food groups on various Earth systems based on business-as-usual projections for consumption and production Note. Reprinted from Willett et al. (2019). As can be seen in Figure 1, animal products have a substantial share in each of the environmental control variables. Indeed, livestock production considerably impacts the environment. Livestock production systems have been described as major factors contributing to biodiversity loss, water use and pollution, climate change and air pollution (Steinfeld et al., 2006). Meat production specifically has no good reputation when it comes to environmental sustainability. One of the reasons why meat scores badly on environmental parameters is that raising animals is an inefficient way of producing food (Bhat et al., 2019). In developed countries, the conversion ratios for converting feed into meat have been estimated to be two, four or seven. This means that for every kilogram of poultry, pork or beef that is produced, respectively two, four and seven kilograms of grain are needed (Rosegrant et al., 1999). In following subsections, we will elaborate on each Earth system process and its control variable. Furthermore, the impact of meat on each variable will be elaborated on and specific environmental issues for Europe will be highlighted.

(18)

It is important to recognise that these Earth system processes are interrelated and therefore considerably impact each other (Willett et al., 2019). Following accounts should therefore not be seen in isolation of one another.

2.2.1 Climate change

Climate change is the well-known phenomenon caused by the emission of human-induced greenhouse gases (GHG) and the livestock sector is known to be significantly contributing to it (Gerber et al., 2013). Globally, the sector is responsible for 14.5% of all GHG emissions. From these GHG emissions, 9% is attributed to the production of pig meat and 8% to the production of poultry meat and eggs. The most impressive number, however, is that 41% is attributable to beef cattle (Gerber et al., 2013). From the global livestock GHG emissions, only 20% is caused by consuming fossil fuels (Gerber et al., 2013). The three main greenhouse gas emissions caused by livestock production systems are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions (Gerber et al., 2013). However, the scientific targets for the safe operating space for food systems only include targets for methane and nitrous oxide (Table 2), as those emissions are largely related to inevitable biological processes of food animal production (Willett et al., 2019). Sources of nitrous oxide are for instance manure management, manure application and the use of fertilizers for feed production (Gerber et al., 2013). Methane can also originate from manure management, but is for a large part generated by ruminants which produce this gas during the process of digestion (Gerber et al., 2013). Carbon dioxide emissions are for a large part caused by energy consumption in livestock production systems (Gerber et al., 2013), but in their analysis, Willett et al. (2019) assumed a total decarbonisation of energy and no land-use change for agriculture. Therefore, this GHG is excluded from the scientific targets for GHG emissions. In Europe, 12 to 17% of anthropogenic GHG emissions are attributable to livestock production systems (Albrecht & Vandenberghe, 2015) and for the average European Union (EU) consumer 80% of their non-CO2 agricultural GHG footprint is attributable to animal products (EC, 2019).

2.2.2 Nitrogen and phosphorus cycling

Nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) are nutrients that are essential for plants to grow (Willett et al., 2019). They are, however, usually not sufficiently available in nature. As a consequence, these nutrient elements are used as fertilisers to apply to croplands in order to obtain crop yields that are

(19)

economically viable (Bomans et al., 2005; Willett et al., 2019). Phosphorus is also sometimes added to livestock feed (Bomans et al., 2005). While the use of these nutrients increases crop yields, it has negative consequences for human health and the environment if the use is excessive (Willett et al., 2019). One of the negative environmental consequences of nutrient overload is eutrophication, which is the pollution of surface water with excessive amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus (Bomans et al., 2005). This can lead to an enormous growth of algae, deteriorating water quality, death of fish and a decline in biodiversity (Bomans et al., 2005; Steinfeld et al., 2006). Other consequences are nitrous oxide emissions and nitrates leaching into groundwater (Willett et al., 2019). Nitrates affect the quality of drinking water and are a threat to human health (Steinfeld et al., 2006; Willett et al., 2019). Apart from excessive fertiliser use, manure mismanagement (i.e. insufficient removal or recycling of nutrient elements present in animal waste) can also cause nutrient surpluses (Steinfeld et al., 2006). In short, the challenge of nitrogen and phosphorus application is to balance the use of these nutrient elements in order to find an equilibrium between the advantages they bring for food production and the disadvantages, as discussed above (Willett et al., 2019). However, in 2010, the global boundaries set for nitrogen and phosphorus application were already being crossed by approximately 50% (Figure 1). Given that meat has a low feed-to-meat conversion efficiency, its nutrient footprint is high (EC, 2019). Moreover, livestock produces manure, which can be subject to mismanagement as discussed above. Although no global estimates exist, a third of the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus found in freshwater in the United States is attributable to livestock (Steinfeld et al., 2006). Certain geographical areas can be deficient in phosphorus and nitrogen, while others are saturated (Willett et al., 2019). In Europe, generally speaking, the latter is the case. The excessive use of nutrients, starting in the 1950s, has led to nutrient enrichment and this has caused eutrophication in waters, such as the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea and parts of the Mediterranean Sea and North-East Atlantic (European Environment Agency [EEA], 2019). Regions, such as Flanders in Belgium, the Po-valley region in Italy and the Brittany region in France, are known to have a high phosphorus surplus (Bomans et al., 2005). Moreover, many European lakes and rivers are found to have high nitrogen concentrations and a significant amount of Europeans is potentially at risk of drinking water that is high in nitrates (Grizzetti et al., 2011). Lastly, the soil quality of a substantial part of European agricultural soils is threatened by an excessive use of animal manure and chemical fertiliser (Velthof et al., 2011). Erisman et al. (2011) even go as far as to describe Europe as “the nitrogen hotspot in

(20)

the world” (p. 9), with environmental consequences of nitrogen surplus being very visible and more pronounced than anywhere else.

2.2.3 Freshwater use

Water is essential for human life and is the driver of ecosystems (High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition [HLPE], 2015). Undoubtedly, water is vital for nutrition and food security (HLPE, 2015). However, before we speak of water, some distinctions should be made. First of all, a distinction should be made between water consumption or consumptive water use and non-consumptive water use (Rosegrant et al., 2009; Willett et al., 2019). Rosegrant et al. (2009) define water consumption as “water made unusable for reuse in the same basin through irrecoverable losses including evapotranspiration, seepage to a saline sink, or contamination” (p. 206). Indeed, consumptive water use is water that is lost due to either plant transpiration or evaporation (Willett et al., 2019). Non-consumptive water use is then used to refer to water that is not lost after use (Willett et al., 2019). It flows back to lakes, rivers and aquifers (Willett et al., 2019). Furthermore, there’s a difference between blue water and green water. Blue water refers to surface (i.e. lakes and rivers) and groundwater, while green water refers to rainwater (Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2011). Finally, the water footprint of a product is used to refer to the water that is consumed in order to produce that product (Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2011). Therefore, it follows that the blue water footprint of a product refers to the consumptive blue water use of production, and the higher the footprint, the higher the pressure on water resources (EC, 2019). The boundary defined by the EAT-Lancet Commission for freshwater use is represented by this consumptive blue water use (Table 2). Around 85% of worldwide blue water consumption can be attributed to agriculture (Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2011), while the livestock sector accounts for 8% of global water use (Steinfeld et al., 2006). This water use is mainly attributable to the irrigation of animal feed crops (Steinfeld et al., 2006). Globally, 16% of cropland is irrigated with freshwater from surface water or groundwater, while for 84% of cropland, its freshwater needs are fulfilled by rain (Willett et al., 2019). Generally speaking, animal products have a higher water footprint per unit of nutritional energy than products originating from plants (Gerbens-Leenes et al., 2013). However, it is mainly the green water footprint of the livestock sector that is high (Tuomisto et al., 2014). In the EU-28, 18% of the water footprint of agricultural production can be attributed to poultry and pigmeat, while less than 8% is attributed to beef (EC, 2019).

(21)

Of course, water stress is determined by the proportion of water availability and water consumption (EC, 2019) and consequently, stress on water resources varies by geographical area (HLPE, 2015). In Europe, only 6% of internal water resources are withdrawn, of which 29% is used for irrigation (HLPE, 2015). Nonetheless, the availability of water in central and southern Europe is susceptible to uncertainty associated with climate change (HLPE, 2015). Global warming could cause alterations in precipitation, groundwater recharge, water temperature or runoff (HLPE, 2015).

2.2.4 Land-system change

Around 40% of Earth’s ice-free land surface is devoted to cropland and grazing lands (Willett et al., 2019). When speaking of livestock specifically, 26% of the terrestrial ice-free landmass is in use for grazing (Steinfeld et al., 2006). Willett et al. (2019) estimate that 23% of global cropland use is attributable to animal products (Figure 1), and Steinfeld et al. (2006) state that 33% of global arable land is used for growing animal feed. In total, 70% of the global agricultural land is dedicated to livestock production (Steinfeld et al., 2006). While agricultural land use encompasses cropland and grazing lands, Willett et al. (2019) have defined cropland use as the control variable for land-system change (Table 2). Food production is also the largest cause of land-use change (Willett et al., 2019). Deforestation, caused by an expanding livestock production, is the cause of 9% of the livestock sector’s GHG emissions (Gerber et al., 2013). Next to carbon emissions, this expansion of cropland for animal feed and pasture also causes biodiversity loss and it interrupts natural water cycles (Steinfeld et al., 2006). It is for the largest part taking place in Latin America (Steinfeld et al., 2006). In Eastern and Western Europe, however, the surface used as agricultural land has declined in the last decades. Moreover, a stabilization or slight increase in forest surface has been observed (Steinfeld et al., 2006). This should be seen in light of the high share of cropland in Europe. In Eastern Europe, around 38% of land is used as cropland, while in Western Europe this is 21% of total land (Steinfeld et al., 2006). Smil (2013) suggests that in Western nations, more than half of cropped lands are used for growing animal feed crops. Again, animal products and especially products from grazing animals, have a higher average land footprint per kilogram of product than crops (EC, 2019).

2.2.5 Biodiversity loss

As mentioned before, the planetary boundary of genetic diversity has been crossed. We are now beyond the zone of uncertainty and therefore risk destabilising the state of the Earth system (Steffen

(22)

et al., 2015). Willett et al. (2019) explain that, at present, the sixth mass species extinction is taking place. Paradoxically, food production is an important cause of biodiversity loss and at the same time it depends heavily on biodiversity for productivity and resilience (Willett et al., 2019). Loss of biodiversity is also a major concern in Europe (EEA, 2020). Steinfeld et al. (2006) argue that the livestock industry may be “the leading player in the reduction of biodiversity” (p. xxiii). Livestock’s impact on biodiversity stems from its impacts on other Earth systems, such as climate change, water pollution, habitat change (i.e. fragmentation, destruction or degradation of habitats due to, for instance, deforestation, overgrazing or agricultural intensification) and overexploitation (Steinfeld et al., 2006). Crenna et al. (2019) assessed the impacts of food consumption in the EU-28 on biodiversity. The results were unfavourable for meat. Of the total yearly impact of food consumption of an average EU-28 citizen on loss of species, beef, pork and poultry meat consumption contribute to 52 to 57% of the damage (Crenna et al., 2019). This is both due to the high average meat consumption of a EU citizen and the high environmental impact of meat per kilogram of product (Crenna et al., 2019). The authors conclude that the average European diet influences the richness and diversity of species both in Europe and globally.

(23)

3 Cultured Meat as an Alternative

3.1 Meat Demand, Barriers and the Need for Alternatives

As previously mentioned, reaching the safe operating space for food systems requires, among other things, a shift in the world’s diet and meat intake. Compared to the intake of meat in 2016, shifting to the healthy reference diet implies a reduction in intake of red meat for the global population and a reduction in intake of poultry for the population of Latin America and Caribbean, Middle East and North Africa, Europe and central Asia, and North America (Figure 2). Globally, the per capita meat1 consumption (retail weight) is forecasted to be 34.7 kg in 2020 (OECD/FAO, 2019), while the healthy reference diet proposes a yearly per capita meat consumption2_{of approximately 15.7 kg (Willett et} al., 2019). Moreover, it is estimated that this diet gap will increase over the years. Alexandratos & Bruinsma (2012) forecast that the per capita meat consumption (carcass weight) will reach 45.0 kg per year in 2030 and gradually increase to 49.4 kg per year in 2050. This rise in per capita meat consumption, combined with an increasing world population, results in a growth of 70% in demand for livestock products between 2010 and 2050 (Gerber et al., 2013). In contrast to the global increasing trend of meat demand, according to the European Commission (EC) meat demand in the EU-28 is expected to level off in the next few years and subsequently projected to slightly decline (EC, 2019). However, this decline does not imply that the European meat consumption fits in with the healthy reference diet. The per capita meat consumption (retail weight) in 2019 was 69.8 kg (EC, 2019), which is very high compared to the proposed healthy meat intake. A reduction of barely 1.2 kg is forecasted for 2030 (EC, 2019). In conclusion, current data present a substantial gap between actual and reference meat intake and global future trends only forecast an enlargement of this diet gap. This is problematic, given the negative health and environmental impacts of meat production and consumption. 1_{Beef, veal, poultry meat, pigmeat and sheep meat.} 2_{Based on the healthy reference diet’s midpoints in Table 1.}

(24)

Figure 2 Diet gap between dietary patterns in 2016 and reference diet intakes of food Note. The dotted line represents intakes in reference diet. Reprinted from Willett et al. (2019). Consequently, a dietary shift to healthy reference meat intakes might prove to be a challenge. Rust et al. (2020) state that reducing the overconsumption of meat is a complex task with certain barriers to overcome. Firstly, meat is closely related to identity and can be seen as a cultural or political symbol. Traditions and habits can hinder efforts to reduce meat consumption (Rust et al., 2020). Other barriers are a lack of knowledge about the environmental and health impacts of meat, and the belief that no other protein sources are as good as meat is (Rust et al., 2020). Finally, consumers might prioritize short-term payoffs such as taste, price and convenience, over sustainability and health (Rust et al., 2020). This list is not exhaustive. Furthermore, consumers use justification strategies to maintain meat eating habits, even if they are not aligned with moral concerns (Hartmann & Siegrist, 2020). An example that illustrates the difficulty and sensitivity of changing meat-eating habits, is the online backlash as a reaction to the publication of the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets and sustainable food production (Garcia et al., 2019). The official hashtag #EATLancet was not the only trending hashtag in the period around the EAT-Lancet launch. The hashtag #yes2meat was trending in the same time frame and was used in sceptical or negative tweets about the report (Garcia et al., 2019).

(25)

Given the dietary gap and the barriers to reducing meat consumption, an array of actions and solutions are needed. Willett et al. (2019) propose using policy levers, ranging from soft to hard, to change consumer actions and offers five general strategies to implement the shift towards the safe operating space for food systems. Next to policy levers, however, the free market can be an ally in the quest for reduction of meat consumption. A World Resources Institute working paper points out that the food industry can play a role in impacting consumer’s behaviour and shifting consumption (Ranganathan et al., 2016). The authors introduce the Shift Wheel framework, which was inspired by a range of private sector marketing techniques and which presents four general strategies to shift consumption (Figure 3). The strategy of minimizing disruption by replicating the meat experience is a strategy used by companies that are developing innovative meat substitutes (Ranganathan et al., 2016). These companies either try to mimic the taste and texture of meat by using and manipulating plants or fungi, or they actually produce meat, except that it is grown in a lab (Ranganathan et al., 2016). These meat alternatives might address certain barriers associated with reducing conventional meat consumption and could play a part in the systems change that is needed for the Great Food Transformation. As explained in the introduction, this dissertation will further analyse what role this lab-grown or cultured meat can play in reaching the safe operating space for food systems. Figure 3 The Shift Wheel framework composed of four strategies Note. Reprinted from Ranganathan et al. (2016).

(26)

3.2 Cultured Meat

On a structural level, meat is mainly composed of skeletal muscle and fat tissue (Mattick, Landis, & Allenby, 2015). While conventional meat can be described as meat produced in vivo, cultured meat is meat that is produced in vitro by making use of tissue engineering and cell culturing techniques (Mattick, Landis, & Allenby, 2015; Tuomisto, 2019). The production of cultured meat is a subdivision the wider field of study of cellular agriculture (Stephens et al., 2018). Although differences in opinion exist, there appears to be a consensus in academic literature and in the overall cultured meat field that cultured meat can be defined as real meat (Stephens et al., 2018). The distinction between traditional and cultured meat is then that they are produced in a different environment and by different means (Stephens et al., 2018). Other names for cultured meat are cell-based meat, cellular meat, lab-grown meat, clean meat or in vitro meat (Warner, 2019). In order to avoid confusion, the terms ‘traditional meat’ or ‘conventional meat’ will be used in the following chapters of this dissertation to refer to meat that is obtained by raising and slaughtering animals, while the term ‘cultured meat’ or its synonyms will be used when referring to in vitro meat. When using the term ‘meat’, we refer to meat on a structural level, as described above.

3.2.1 Production process

As mentioned earlier, technologies used to grow cultured meat are based on tissue engineering and cell culturing techniques (Tuomisto, 2019) and were inspired by medical techniques (Bhat et al., 2019). Since meat is for a large part composed of muscle tissue, most research focuses on techniques to culture muscle cells and tissue (Fish et al., 2020). Different methods, such as cell culture, tissue culture, organ printing, nanotechnology and biophotonics, can be used to grow cultured meat (Bhat et al., 2019). However, not every method is realistic yet. Organ printing, nanotechnology and biophotonics could generate cultured meat in the future, but remain speculative methods today (Bhat et al., 2019). Cell culture and tissue culture techniques, on the other hand, are techniques that are currently in use (Bhat et al., 2017). Cell culture techniques are also called scaffolding techniques (Bhat et al., 2017). The general process of culturing meat via cell culture can be described as follows: “The process involves taking biopsies from farm animals, harvesting the stem cells, and then allowing them to proliferate, grow, and differentiate in the media in the presence of specific chemical and physical stimuli” (Bhat et al., 2019, p. 1199). A possible design of such a process is suggested in Figure 4. Indeed, a muscle biopsy is taken from a living animal and adult skeletal muscle stem cells are extracted from this biopsy

(27)

(Mattick, Landis, Allenby, et al., 2015; Tuomisto, 2019). Next, during the cell proliferation phase, the cells multiply in order to reach a certain concentration (Tuomisto, 2019). Since these cells need a framework to grow on (Tuomisto, 2019), they are seeded onto or attached to a scaffold and then inserted in a bioreactor (Bhat et al., 2019; Bhat et al., 2017). This bioreactor is filled with a culture medium, which contains different culture ingredients such as growth factors, hormones and nutrients (Bhat et al., 2019). The stem cells then differentiate into muscle cells, which fuse together, form myotubes and further develop into myofibers3_{, given the right environmental circumstances} (Bhat et al., 2019; Tuomisto, 2019). Finally, the myofibers can be harvested (Bhat et al., 2019). Admittedly, these muscle fibres can only be used for processed meat products, since the layer of muscle cells on scaffolds can only reach a thickness of 100 to 200 µm in static culture (Bhat et al., 2019; Warner, 2019). Highly structured meat, such as a steak or chicken breast, can not be achieved with this scaffold-based method (Bhat et al., 2017). Figure 4 Cell culture-based cultured meat production system Note. Reprinted from Bhat et al. (2019). 3_{Myofibers or muscle fibers are the cellular elements that constitute muscle tissue (Cretoiu et al., 2018).}

(28)

Tissue culture methods, on the other hand, consist in increasing the surface area of explants in a culture medium (Bhat et al., 2019). An explant is defined as “living tissue removed from an organism and placed in a medium for tissue culture” (Merriam-Webster, n.d.), therefore, in contrast to cell culture techniques, no individual cells are extracted. Thus, all tissues present in meat are proportionally present in the explants and their newly grown tissue (Bhat et al., 2019). Using this approach, it is possible to produce highly structured meat (Bhat et al., 2019). Different variations on these methods can support the production of cultured meat that resembles traditional meat more closely. For cell culture methods, electric or mechanical stimulation could increase the thickness of cell strands and provide more structure (Tuomisto, 2019). Next, the use of three-dimensional scaffolds could also enable three-dimensional, more structured tissue culture (Bhat et al., 2017). While tissue culture methods can produce structured meat, for large pieces of meat, such as a whole steak, an artificial vascular network would be required in order to bring oxygen and nutrients to the tissue and eliminate metabolic waste products (Bhat et al., 2019; Tuomisto, 2019). Moreover, production methods should take into account that, apart from skeletal muscle tissue and fat tissue, meat also consists of connective tissue and vascular tissue (Warner, 2019). Research has focused on culturing skeletal muscle, fat or connective cells separately, since each type of cell has its own characteristics and needs to grow (Warner, 2019). However, growing structured meat, such as a steak, would require co-culture of these different cells (Warner, 2019). Unfortunately, no researchers, neither from the medical, nor from the cultured meat field, have yet succeeded in growing a whole muscle, containing all different elements such as blood supply, connective tissue, muscle fibres and fat marbling (Warner, 2019). In 2018, the Israeli cultured meat start-up Aleph Farms revealed their first lab-grown steak, yet it should be noted that it was only 3 mm thick and only made from bovine muscle cells (Warner, 2019).

3.2.2 The cultured meat landscape and its current state

In August 2013, the world’s first cultured beef burger was introduced to the public on a press conference in London (Stephens et al., 2018). The burger was grown in a lab over a time span of three months. Professor Mark Post, a scientist from Maastricht University, led the undertaking (Bhat et al., 2019). Since then, research on the topic of cultured meat increased significantly (Chriki & Hocquette, 2020) and different cultured meat start-ups have emerged (Crosser et al., 2020). Some of them, such as Aleph Farms mentioned earlier, have already introduced their own lab-grown meat prototypes (Stephens et al., 2018). However, up until today cultured meat remains to be produced in laboratories and is no commercial reality yet (Bhat et al., 2019). Besides start-ups and academic

(29)

research, non-profits are other actors that are engaged in facilitating the process of bringing cultured meat to market. The following sections provide a brief introduction to these different actors. 3.2.2.1 Non-profits The Good Food Institute and New Harvest are two non-profit organisations that aim to facilitate, accelerate or promote the market introduction of cultured meat (New Harvest, n.d.-a; The Good Food Institute, n.d.-c). The Good Food Institute, on the one hand, is an advocacy group that focuses on both cultured and plant-based meat and collaborates with investors, entrepreneurs and researchers to encourage the development of these meat alternatives (Bhat et al., 2019; The Good Food Institute, n.d.-c). By providing strategic support, connecting like-minded actors and funding research they hope to boost these safer and better alternatives to meat (The Good Food Institute, n.d.-c). New Harvest, on the other hand, is a research institute that funds and conducts academic research in the field of cellular agriculture (New Harvest, n.d.-a). They focus on open, collaborative research in order to advance the science behind cellular agriculture, which includes cultured meat (New Harvest, n.d.-a). 3.2.2.2 Academic research New Harvest (n.d.-a) states that the field of cellular agriculture is a research field that overlaps with both medical science and food science. Despite this overlap, cellular agriculture is not a focused field of research in either of these sciences (New Harvest, n.d.-a). Indeed, Bhat et al. (2019) explain that there exists no institution or discipline dedicated to this innovative field of study. Therefore, current cultured meat research projects are isolated undertakings (Bhat et al., 2019). As a consequence, it proves to be challenging to secure grants and research funding for cultured meat research projects that address fundamental biotechnological challenges (Bhat et al., 2019; New Harvest, n.d.-b). As non-profit organisations, New Harvest and The Good Food Institute try to bridge this funding gap (New Harvest, n.d.-a; The Good Food Institute, n.d.-b). Nevertheless, Bhat et al. (2019) mention that laboratories of universities, such as University of Ottawa, University of Bath, North Carolina State University, Melbourne University and Tufts University, are involved in the field of cultured meat or possibly intend to be. Moreover, recent developments show that governments are becoming involved. In 2019, the government of India allocated over $0.6 million to cultured meat research (Ramamurthy, 2019) and a consortium of companies and research institutes was granted €3.6 million by the Flemish government in Belgium for cultured foie gras research and development (De Cleene, 2019).

(30)

Academic research on the topic of cultured meat is certainly not only limited to the field of biotechnology. A lot of different areas of knowledge study this topic too (Fernandes et al., 2019). Research about cultured meat includes ethical, socio-economic and cultural reflections, analysis of the market and consumer behaviour and potential pathways for the future (Fernandes et al., 2019). 3.2.2.3 Start-ups Research in the cultured meat field not only takes place as academic research. It also occurs in companies that aim to bring this lab-grown meat to market or in business-to-business companies that work on technologies, such as bioreactors, culture media, scaffolding and more, to solve specific technical challenges with regards to cultured meat (Bhat et al., 2019; Crosser et al., 2020; Stephens et al., 2018). The Good Food Institute reports that by the end of 2019, 55 companies involved in cultured meat and seafood were known to the public worldwide (Crosser et al., 2020). From these 55 companies, 33 business-to-customer companies are working on cultured meat and 15 business-to-business companies are working on technologies to serve the cultured meat and seafood industry (Crosser et al., 2020). The remaining companies are business-to-customer companies working on cultured seafood (Crosser et al., 2020). The cultured meat (and seafood) industry is clearly accelerating: over 35% of these start-ups were founded in 2019 (Crosser et al., 2020). Moreover, at present, 67 companies are listed under the cultivated meat section4_{in a public company database} maintained by The Good Food Institute (The Good Food Institute, n.d.-a). Choudhury et al. (2020), on the other hand, distinguish a more modest amount of 32 business-to-customer cultured meat and seafood start-ups. Similar to The Good Food Institute, the authors state that the number of companies involved in the industry has risen dramatically in the past years. Stephens et al. (2018) observe that, while universities experience difficulties to obtain funding through government and benevolence, cultured meat start-ups have been able to successfully obtain funding through venture capital. Indeed, cell-based meat is seen as a promising new technology and this optimism fuels cycles of investment, often from notable sources (Stephens et al., 2018). Based on publicly available information, Choudhury et al. (2020) report that business-to-customer cultured meat and seafood start-ups have raised around $320 million from 2015 to early 2020. It is worth noting that funding comes from the traditional meat industry too. Bell Food Group, for instance, has invested a total of €7 million in Mosa Meat, a Dutch cultured beef start-up (Askew, 2020). Investments like these are interpreted as strategic decisions for diversification and positioning in the meat market of the future (Askew, 2020). 4_{This section includes business-to-customer cultured meat and seafood start-ups and business-to-business start-ups.}

(31)

Generally, cultured meat start-ups are working on bringing one specific type of meat to market. Most companies are either working on poultry, beef or pork (Choudhury et al., 2020). Mosa Meat, a spin-off from Maastricht University with Mark Post as a key figure, is focusing on bringing cultured ground beef products to market (Chriki & Hocquette, 2020; Mosa Meat, 2019; Stephens et al., 2018). The previously mentioned company Aleph Farms, however, focuses on structured meat, namely cultured steak. JUST, a company based in the United States that was initially focusing on plant-based alternatives to eggs (Shapiro, 2018), has developed cultured chicken nuggets (Stephens et al., 2018). Memphis Meats, another company based in the United States, has presented cultured meat prototypes in the form of duck, chicken, meatballs and beef fajita (Bhat et al., 2019; Stephens et al., 2018). As a final example, the British start-up Higher Steaks recently announced that it managed to produce its first cultured bacon samples, which were a combination of cultured cells and plant-based ingredients (Shieber, 2020). Choudhury et al. (2020) provide an overview of the location of the 32 business-to-customer cultured meat and seafood companies that were identified. The locations are shown in Figure 5. These companies are mainly located in North America, Asia and Europe. One company is located in Australia (Choudhury et al., 2020). Figure 5 Actual locations of business-to-customer cultured meat and seafood companies Note. Reprinted from Choudhury et al. (2020).

(32)

3.2.3 The hopes of cultured meat

An extensive analysis of the potential benefits of cultured meat is performed in review articles such as Bhat et al. (2019), Warner (2019) and Chriki & Hocquette (2020). In these publications, three main themes are put forward as potential benefits of cultured meat production. These common drivers are health and safety, environmental sustainability and animal welfare. Not coincidentally, these are issues of concern for the traditional meat industry. In this section, the hopes of the cultured meat industry regarding cultured meat’s impact on health and safety, and environmental sustainability will be briefly introduced and the impact on animal welfare will be discussed. It should be noted that analyses of clean meat and its potential positive impacts are mainly narratives, instead of facts (Stephens et al., 2018). It remains to be seen whether following hopes become a reality when cultured meat hits the market. 3.2.3.1 Health and safety Cultured meat is a product that is made from scratch and it is therefore possible to modify the nutritional composition (Bhat et al., 2019). Bhat et al. (2019) suggest that the fatty acid profile could be improved compared to conventional meat and that vitamins and minerals could be added during the production process in order to make cultured meat healthier than traditional meat. Moreover, in vitro meat will be produced in a controlled, hygienic environment (Bhat et al., 2019). As a consequence, the meat products are expected to be free of bacterial pathogens, such as Salmonella or Campylobacter, and of other contaminations or diseases (Bhat et al., 2019; Chriki & Hocquette, 2020). Interactions between animals and humans will be reduced, so the occurrence of zoonotic diseases and transmission to humans is expected to decrease (Datar & Betti, 2010). Finally, there would be no need for antibiotics during the production process, hence it is brought forward as a solution to the overuse of antibiotics in livestock farming (Crosser et al., 2020; Specht et al., 2018; Warner, 2019). These potential health and safety impacts of cultured meat will be critically discussed in Chapter 4. 3.2.3.2 Environmental sustainability Proponents of cellular meat present it as a solution to environmental problems caused by traditional meat production (Tuomisto, 2019). As livestock production also produces inedible components, it is likely that the process of culturing meat will be more efficient: Fewer nutrients will be needed to produce the same amount of meat (Bhat et al., 2019). It is therefore suggested that the production

(33)

process would have a lower water footprint and that GHG emissions would be reduced (Bhat et al., 2019; Chriki & Hocquette, 2020). As ruminants produce methane as a result of their specific digestive system, the production of this powerful GHG would naturally be reduced when switching to lab-grown meat (Chriki & Hocquette, 2020). As one might expect, land use could significantly be reduced (Chriki & Hocquette, 2020) and so could the eutrophication potential (Stephens et al., 2018). Finally, it is expected that loss of biodiversity would be reduced compared to traditional meat production systems (Bhat et al., 2019). Based on preliminary data of cultured meat’s environmental footprint, the potential environmental effects will be analysed by means of scenario analyses in Chapter 5. 3.2.3.3 Animal welfare To produce cultured meat, an animal tissue sample is taken from a living animal, but the animal is not harmed in any other way (Mattick, Landis, & Allenby, 2015). Therefore, culturing meat eliminates the process of slaughtering animals. Bhat et al. (2019) also speak of a pain-free harvest, but it is not clear yet to what degree muscle biopsies are painful and how often an animal would have to undergo these biopsies (Woll & Böhm, 2018). Nevertheless, quantitatively speaking, cultivating meat would result in significantly less animals being slaughtered and consequently many activists are supportive of this emerging technology (Woll, 2019). Moreover, it could eliminate large-scale mistreatment of animals (Smil, 2013), as is occurring in certain food animal production systems today. Cell-cultured meat could be the answer to consumers with moral concerns. As previously noted, these consumers use justification strategies in order to keep eating meat. Cultured meat, however, could render certain justification strategies with regards to animal welfare unnecessary.

3.2.4 Roadblocks

The previous section has shown that cultured meat can potentially be an effective solution to problems associated with conventional meat. Moreover, proponents reason that cultured meat is the most suitable replacement to traditional meat, since it actually is real meat (Woll & Böhm, 2018). Certain previously mentioned barriers to reducing the consumption of traditional meat would therefore be eliminated. Unfortunately, other barriers come into play. First, there are some barriers to consider with regards to consumer acceptance (Bhat et al., 2019). Next, regulatory frameworks will need to be established in order to commercialise this novel product. Lastly, many technical challenges still need to be solved in order for cultured meat to reach the market (Bhat et al., 2019).

(34)

3.2.4.1 Consumer acceptance It is not easy to assess consumer acceptance for an emerging technology such as cultured meat (Chriki & Hocquette, 2020). Still, various studies have studied consumer acceptance and they report varying results (Bhat et al., 2019). Initial reactions of consumers to cellular meat are feelings of unnaturalness and disgust and this perception of unnaturalness may lead to low consumer acceptance (Bhat et al., 2019). Other studies, however, report a high willingness to (maybe) try cultured meat (Mancini & Antonioli, 2019, 2020; Palmieri et al., 2020). In any case, consumer perceptions will probably evolve over time, as new information is provided through, for instance, marketing and communication (Bhat et al., 2019; Chriki & Hocquette, 2020). 3.2.4.2 Regulation Bhat et al. (2019) report that, at the time of writing, no regulatory frameworks for cultured meat are in place and that these frameworks will vary across countries. In order for cultured meat to be regulated, the exact production procedures should be established (Warner, 2019). Regulators will mainly be concerned about safety (Stephens et al., 2018), but Chriki & Hocquette (2020) also point out that regulators will have to decide whether cellular meat can be called ‘meat’. It is expected that setting up these regulations will take time (Chriki & Hocquette, 2020). Indeed, Josh Tetrick, the CEO of JUST, described obtaining regulatory approval as their “biggest limiting step to getting [cultured meat] out” (Tetrick, 2019). 3.2.4.3 Technological challenges Although cell and tissue culture techniques are already feasible on a small scale today, several technological challenges still lie ahead in order to bring cultured meat, and in particular structured meat, to market in a cost-effective way (Bhat et al., 2019). Swartz (2019) identifies four technology areas where innovative solutions are needed. First of all, the area of cell sources and cell line development needs further attention (Bhat et al., 2019; Swartz, 2019). The starting cell type that is used for culturing meat has a considerable impact on the subsequent characteristics of the production process and should therefore be carefully considered (Swartz, 2019). In our elaboration on the production process, adult skeletal muscle cells were used to cultivate meat, but other cell types, such as embryonic or induced pluripotent stem cells, can be used (Swartz, 2019). Secondly, further attention should be given to the composition of cell culture media (Swartz, 2019). One aspect of this composition concerns the use of foetal bovine serum. This expensive serum is composed of the blood from a cow’s foetus and is traditionally used in cell culture media in the medical field (Bhat

(35)

et al., 2019). This is, however, problematic for the cell-based meat industry, as it promotes itself as a slaughter-free alternative to traditional meat (Chriki & Hocquette, 2020). Even so, Chriki & Hocquette (2020) report that, based on personal communications, this problem has been solved for cultured meat prototypes and will likely be solved for industrial-scale production too. Indeed, Mosa Meat (2019) states that they were successful at eliminating foetal bovine serum from their cell culture medium. Thirdly, more research into scaffolding biomaterials is needed (Swartz, 2019). And finally, further innovation is required to create new bioreactors that support large-scale production of different types of meat (Swartz, 2019). Next to achieving large-scale production, the challenge of producing in vitro meat that recreates traditional meat in all its sensorial characteristics remains arduous (Bhat et al., 2019; Post, 2012). After all, the flavour of meat is determined by more than a thousand water-soluble and fat-derived constituents (Post, 2012). For companies such as Mosa Meat, next to scaling up, research and development has indeed focused on improving their product, for instance by adding fat (Mosa Meat, 2019). Recent publications have emphasised the need for more publicly available basic research and the importance of increasing open collaboration in order to ensure the commercialisation of cultured meat (Dolgin, 2019; Fish et al., 2020; Specht et al., 2018). Start-ups are selective about which information they are sharing and these intellectual property sharing issues could considerably slow down the process of bringing cellular meat to market (Warner, 2019). As a possible solution, Specht et al. (2018) propose to license or pool intellectual property or to establish patent pledges. As mentioned before, The Good Food Institute and also address this problem by funding open-source research (Dolgin, 2019; New Harvest, n.d.-a).

(36)

4 The Potential Health Impacts of Cultured Meat

In this chapter, we will examine whether cultured meat has a role to play in the health facet of the Great Food Transformation. As previously mentioned, no actual cultured meat products are available yet and the hopes for this novel meat product remain narratives (Warner, 2019). As a consequence, a quantitative analysis of the impacts of cultured meat on health by means of, for instance, calculation of mortality rates or nutrient adequacy is not possible. We will rather relate the health impacts of traditional meat to the promises made by the cultured meat field and critically discuss the potential health implications. As previously shown, the universal healthy reference diet proposed by Willett et al. (2019) globally implies a reduction in animal source foods and a significant reduction in the per capita meat consumption. However, Steenson & Buttriss (2020) state that inadequately replacing animal source foods might cause nutritional deficiencies. Ekmekcioglu et al. (2018) similarly point out that while reducing overconsumption of red meat decreases the risk of disease, a substantial reduction of meat intake may be connected to insufficient intake of certain nutrients. This is particularly true for vulnerable populations (Ekmekcioglu et al., 2018). For example, meat is a concentrated and thus important source of certain vitamins and minerals for young children in developing countries (Godfray et al., 2010). Moreover, it appears to Steenson & Buttriss (2020) that Willett et al. (2019) did not consider the bioavailability of, for instance, heme iron versus non-heme iron in their analysis. Reducing animal-based foods from their diet might thus put adolescent girls at greater risk for iron deficiency (Steenson & Buttriss, 2020). While Willett et al. (2019) acknowledge this risk and put forward iron supplementation as a solution, Vandevijvere et al. (2013) explain that it is likely that only a minority of adolescents regularly take iron supplements. Hence, cultured meat might address these considerations and solve certain issues associated with reduced consumption of traditional meat, all the while having a lower expected environmental impact. However, the reasoning above requires that the nutritional profile of traditional meat be exactly mimicked by cultured meat. Tuomisto (2019) states that theoretically, this is possible. Fat can be included in the final product by means of co-culturing or simply by adding cultured fat in a subsequent stage (Tuomisto, 2019). Moreover, the micronutrient composition of cultured meat can be designed to resemble the composition of conventional meat by adding the necessary nutrients in the culture medium or to the end product (Tuomisto, 2019). It is interesting to note that vitamin B12 or iron do not occur in separate muscle cells: microorganisms residing in the animal generate vitamin B12 and iron originates from blood (Mattick & Allenby, 2012). These nutrients should therefore

(37)

intently be included in the production process of cellular meat. Datar & Betti (2010) warn that including all necessary nutrients in lab-grown meat is a challenging task that requires specific knowledge of every mineral and vitamin. It is, however, also an imperative task in order to produce a competitive meat product (Datar & Betti, 2010). The question then remains whether companies will apply the theory to practice. In their answers to frequently asked questions Memphis Meats explains, “We feed the cell a range of nutrients (amino acids, sugars, trace minerals, and vitamins) normally found in food and compositionally similar to what develops organically in animal body, just in a different format” (Memphis Meats, n.d.). Mosa Meat (2019) states that they are aiming to provide meat that is molecularly equal to conventional meat, and on their website (https://aleph-farms.com) Aleph Farms mentions that their products will provide nutritional quality. These initial observations might suggest that companies are indeed aiming to create meat with the same nutritional profile as conventional meat. A previously mentioned, one of the hopes for cultured meat is creating an even better nutritional composition compared to traditional meat. Being able to cultivate meat products that have the same nutritional profile as traditional meat logically implies the ability of making meat healthier (Datar & Betti, 2010). However, since price and sensory quality appear to be major obstacles for consumer acceptance of meat (Verbeke et al., 2015), it could be expected that providing healthier products may not be the primary focus of cultured meat companies. Making cellular meat healthier by, for example, adjusting the fat quantity (Tuomisto, 2019) may result in a meat product that is perceived as less tasty than the traditional counterpart. Moreover, adding vitamins such as vitamin C, otherwise lacking in meat, to cultured meat (Bhat et al., 2019), would require additional in-depth knowledge of the metabolism of this specific vitamin (Datar & Betti, 2010). This might negatively affect the price of cultured meat products. For instance, Mosa Meat (2019) explains that they are working on making meat products that resemble traditional meat in taste and texture, but they do not mention a focus on making their meat products healthier in comparison to conventional meat. We therefore conclude that it is probable that cultured meat companies will prioritise mimicking traditional meat over providing healthier products. Admittedly, if we assume that cultured meat mimics traditional meat, but does not provide a healthier nutritional profile, health-related risks associated with traditional meat will logically be associated with cultured meat too. High intake of cultured red and processed meat will still increase the risk for type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, colorectal cancer and all-cause mortality (Ekmekcioglu et al., 2018). Mattick & Allenby (2012) also speak of a potential unintended consequence: The availability of seemingly healthful cultured meat might lead to overconsumption.

(38)

When it comes to food safety, concerns are voiced with regards to growth hormones or chemicals present in the culture media (Warner, 2019). Moreover, the rapid growth of cells associated with the production of cultured meat could perhaps present safety hazards, in the sense that deregulated cell lines could arise just as is the case with cancerous cells (Chriki & Hocquette, 2020; Stephens et al., 2018). However, it is safe to assume that food safety standards applied to products available today, will also apply to cultured meat products (New Harvest, n.d.-b). Therefore, we conclude that it is likely that these issues will no longer be relevant for cultured meat products in supermarkets. Chriki & Hocquette (2020) assert that it will be difficult to prevent contamination in cultured meat production systems once the production is scaled up and meat is no longer produced in a laboratory. However, if the system is fully automated under closed conditions, the risk of contamination decreases (Bhat et al., 2019). Moreover, these systems can continuously be monitored (Bhat et al., 2019). (Smil, 2013) also agrees that the risk of foodborne pathogens would significantly decrease. When speaking of foodborne pathogens in animals, Heredia & García (2018) conclude that, while certain interventions are proven to be effective in reducing the risk of contamination, no interventions have been able to completely eliminate bacterial pathogens from animals and food. Culturing meat may not completely eliminate the risk of any contamination, but we argue that it is likely that culturing meat proves to be an effective intervention in this context. Finally turning to the problem of antibiotic overuse in traditional meat production systems, Specht et al. (2018) report that there will be no need to use antibiotics in the production process of cultured meat. However, Warner (2019) observes that it is not yet certain whether antibiotics will be utilized in large-scale production systems. In order to prevent bacterial infections, it is prevalent practice to add antibiotics to culture media when culturing cells long-term (Stephens et al., 2018). Still, Specht et al. (2018) identify antibiotic-free culture media as a design requirement for cultured meat. In a document answering frequently asked questions, Mosa Meat (2019) explains that the sterile environment in which meat is cultivated will enable them to diminish or completely eliminate the use of antibiotics. Chriki & Hocquette (2020) also confirm that in their communications with start-ups, every start-up has declared that they no longer use antibiotics. Therefore, it can be expected that the use of antibiotics will, if not eliminated, at least be reduced when culturing meat instead of raising animals.

Cultured Meat in the Great Food Transformation