Humankind has always changed the world in an attempt to improve living conditions. This
development picked up speed approximately 200 years ago. Each innovation is followed by
a newer one, improving the previous ones. As a result, people are doing better today than
before, health care has never been better and there has never been such an abundance of
food.
However, the world's population projection for 2050 of 10 billion people living together
brings its share of questioning. To cover their basic needs will be challenging. More food and
protein, as well as new forms of energy and transport, will be needed to fulfill the global
demand. How will planet Earth be able to sustainably feed 10 billion stomachs with the
already well-known challenges raised by intensive farming? So far, the answer proposed by
several climate activists was to go vegan, as we have seen in the Cowspiracy documentary
(if you have not seen it yet, go check our latest film review). But recently, a solution cropped
up: lab-grown meat.
Grown from animal cells in Lab, lab-grown meat, also known as cultured meat, in vitro meat,
cell-based meat, or "clean" meat, is often presented as the miracle solution for some of the
Sustainable Development Goals, like "no hunger" or "responsible production and
consumption". It is, indeed, easy to imagine how lab-grown meat would be better for the
planet. By culturing meat in labs, animal slaughter is cut down and emissions from raising,
butchering, and shipping the meat are reduced. Additionally, as cattle farming is stopped,
you also cut down the Methane emission coming from their digestive system. Last but not
least, growing meat in labs would reduce its exposure to antibiotics, pesticides, bacteria,
and disease. And as we have seen with the previous world pandemics, it is very much likely
that the next one will also have its origin in humanity’s seemingly insatiable desire to eat
animals.
However, scientists are pointing out that there has not been any environmental impact
analysis conducted to confirm the environmental sustainability of cultured meat to date. So
far, companies state that in vitro meat would use 96% less water, 98% less land, and
between 35-60% less energy.
However, no data is available to back up these assumptions. A life cycle analysis is missing to
compile and examine all the things going into the making of cell-based meat, like water,
land, or Greenhouse Emissions, to determine the associated environmental impacts directly
attributable to Lab-grown meat throughout its life cycle. It is, for instance, currently
impossible to know for sure if it will need less water than beef cattle production.
Another challenging aspect is the expected reduction in emissions. Raising cattle involves
CO2 and methane. Methane is more potent than CO2, but it disappears more quickly from
the atmosphere (12 years versus thousands of years). So, if producing in-vitro meat cuts
methane emissions, but starts producing a lot of CO2, this will create a problem in the long-
run. This problem was confirmed by a study that found that in the long-term, lab-grown
meat could result in more warming than cows because it is using more energy and
spreading more CO2.
Secondly, producing lab-grown meat is extremely costly. Cells need an important amount of
sugars, salts, and proteins to grow, the latest usually made from animal blood or fetal
serum, being very costly. For instance, in 2018, the price for an ounce of fish serum was
about $850. This also raises ethical issues. If these serums are needed in the production
process, this would not be in adequation with the "clean" and « cruelty-free » meat industry marketers and VCs are trying to sell.
Finally, cell-based meat proposing a solution for methane emissions could be a valuable
idea. However, cultured meat is only grown to replace steaks, hamburgers, nuggets, or
bacon to date. Focusing on the cow example, this point of view forgets to take into
consideration that the cattle industry is also used to make leather, gelatin, candles, pet
food, and above all, to make milk. Looking ahead several years, it is highly unlikely that cell-
based meat will propose a solution entirely replacing current intensive farming meat if no
change in consumption and eating habits are observed.
Overall, to date, the Lab-Grown meat is still very expensive to become a substitute available
to all households. Moreover, the challenges raised by the taste and texture of the product
are making it hard to get into the market. Changing people eating habits is one thing, and a
truly hard one, but making people eating a product made from cellular agriculture is
another one. Not without mentioning that animal agriculture is a job for billions of people,
who use livestock for a living. Finally, as we have seen with the other "use"; of the cattle industry, intensive farming is not only used to grow hamburger. Hence, if we truly want a
sustainable future when it comes to food, the only way to reduce our impact is through
sobriety and a change in our consumption habits. Indeed, it has been proved several times
that regardless of the technological progress made, there is always a Rebound Effect
offsetting the beneficial effects of the new technology implemented. Consequently,
reducing your meat and fish consumption is still the better option nowadays when it comes
to sustainable living.
Comments