An Update On Cell Cultured Meat 

Soon, available to the public will be three “kinds” of meat: (a) plant based meat alternatives (PBMAs) are made from plants; (b) cell cultured meat alternatives (CCMAs) are muscle fibers made in a bioreactor rather than an animal; and (c) genuine meat (GM) contains muscle fiber, adipose tissue, and connective tissue and is made by animals. PBMAs exploded upon the scene with accompanying bravado from their makers forecasting the imminent demise of animal agriculture.¹ They took off like a rocket – largely a result of their novelty – but demand for PBMAs has now stalled under the weight of their overzealous promises and projections.^2,3 CCMAs have not been approved for sale to humans anywhere except Singapore,⁴ yet prognosticators predict: (a) cultivated meat, by 2030, will be superior in taste, half as costly, more nutritious, more healthful, and more convenient that animal-derived food;⁵ and (b) a mass-market introduction of lab-grown meats in late 2023, and it could supplant animal-grown meat within a decade or so.⁶ 

Can Plant-Based Meat Alternatives & Cell Cultured Meat Alternatives Save the Planet? 

Vegans and other activists have long evangelized elimination of animal, meat, poultry, eggs, and milk as a healthier, more humane, and more sustainable way to feed the planet; of late, they have joined forces with the climate-change techies with a strong climate-change-mitigating message to save the planet.⁷ The International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems concluded that: (a) widespread consumption of PBMAs and/or CCMAs would result in less deforestation, less forced labor, and less slaughtering of animals, but that: (b) the CCMA manufacturing industry has such high energy requirements, it would have little or no effect on climate change.⁶ The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that widespread consumption of CCMAs could: (a) cut land use (land used for pastures and to grow feed for animals) by 95%; (b) reduce use of water by 78%; (c) make the planet less vulnerable to extreme weather and natural disasters; (d) stem the loss of diversity; and (e) reduce foodborne illnesses.⁸ 

The Origins of Cell Cultured Meat Alternatives 

In 2013, Mosa Meat™ cultivated the first beef burger; in 2015, Memphis Meats™ was the first CCMA company in the U.S.⁹ The most progressive manufacturers of CCMAs are in Israel (Aleph Farms™, Future Meat Technologies™, MeaTech 3D™, SuperMeat™), in the U.S. (Eat Just™, UPSIDE Foods™) and in the Netherlands (Mosa Meat™, Meatable™).¹⁰ UPSIDE Foods™, using the process of making cultivated meat similar to that used for brewing beer, produced the first cultured beef meatball in 2016, Aleph Farms™ produced the first cultivated steak in 2018, and Eat Just™ launched the first cultured meat (chicken) for commercial sale (in Singapore) in 2020.¹¹ Lux Research® cited that 80 start-up companies which have invested $800 million developing end-products or specific technologies are working in the sector.¹² 

Is Cell Cultured Meat as Popular as Some Say? 

Dave Fusaro (editor of Food Processing) has prematurely declared that “Lab-grown cultured meat is becoming more popular with each passing day.”¹³ It’s premature because the only cell cultured meat/poultry product in commerce is a mixture of 70% cell cultured chicken plus 30% PBMA (made from mung beans) being sold in one restaurant in Singapore at a price “several times the price of real chicken.”¹³ Although meat grown from cells is no longer science fiction, in reality, there are still concerns about “meeting consumer demands” and “scaling up production.”¹¹ And, before it enters commerce, USDA and FDA need to agree on what to call it. Industry consensus presently favors use of either “cell-based meat” or “cultivated meat”, while the two agencies have moved away from use of “lab-grown”, “clean meat”, and “in vitro meat.”¹⁴ 

U.S. Meat Eaters Still Favor Conventional Meat 

Relative to “meeting consumer demand”, will some consumers refuse to buy CCMAs? Consider that, (a) among “meat eaters” in the U.S., 78% favor conventional meat, 13% favor CCMAs, and 9% favor PBMAs – those who prefer CCMAs do so largely because it has the least negative effect on the environment;¹⁵ (b) a study in the United Kingdom revealed that only 34% of consumers were willing to try CCMAs – 49% of those said they find CCMAs “off-putting”, and 29% thought it was “not safe to eat”;¹⁶ (c) the PEW Foundation found that only 20% of U.S. consumers said they would be willing to try “meat grown in a lab” – the “ick” factor loomed large among those who said “No”;¹⁷ and (d) two consumer surveys revealed that some would avoid buying CCMAs because they feel it is a GMO or ultra-processed.^17,18 Conversely, some say that few people will be “anti-lab-grown meat” because that would mean you’re against animal welfare and you’re a climate-change denier.⁶ 

What’s the Appropriate Way to Describe Cell Cultured Meat Alternatives? 

Some CCMA manufacturers use descriptors like “delicious, sustainable, and humane,”¹⁹ all of which are appropriate and fair – and they don’t denigrate the competition. Beef, for example, is also “delicious” (with a unique umami flavor), “sustainable” (humans have eaten animals for millions of years, and farmed them for 10,500 years), and – except in rare occasions – “humane.”^6,20 And, who’s to say there won’t be a rogue, inhumane person who will be biopsying animals to obtain stem cells, or that the same animal won’t be biopsied again, and again, and again.  

It’s when CCMA manufacturers use “better than” claims to make their case that things get sketchy. Claims like “ethically superior”, “healthier”, “more nutritious”, “tastes better”, and “safer” are problematic.^6,18,21 Ashley Peterson (National Chicken Council) says, “Claims that cell cultured products are superior to conventional animal products should be prohibited (by governmental regulatory Agencies) unless such a claim is substantiated by scientific evidence.²² 

People Choose Cell Cultured Meat Alternatives Primarily for their Health 

Developers of cultivated meat can make a strong case that eating more CCMAs would result in less pollution, run-off, and waste, as well as free up some land now used for farming for more environmentally beneficial purposes.²³ Some alt-meat makers push “healthier for the planet” more than “healthier for you” in marketing alt-meat, but recent studies show – once again – that consumers care more about the health benefits of alt-meat products and less about sustainability or saving the planet.²⁴  

A Danish study found that personal health is the most important factor that drives plant based product eating, with environmental concerns coming in a distant second,²⁵ a U.S. study showed that consumers are more likely to accept alt-meat products if they are tied directly to human health,²⁶ and a German study that concluded that ecological concerns for the “health of the planet” were not at all associated with eating more plant based foods but that health-conscious consumers were more likely to buy and eat meat substitutes.²⁷ The German scientists suggested that alt-meat companies should advertise the personal-health benefits of their products; the problem is that there is no evidence that CCMAs are healthier or safer than traditionally farmed meat products.²⁴ 

Studies Show CCMAs aren’t Nutritionally Equivalent to Conventional Meat 

Those properties of a food that are most closely related to its healthfulness are nutrient content and safety (i.e., freedom from physical, chemical, and microbiological hazards). Because cultured meat is produced using real animal cells that are grown to replicate animal tissue, it is expected to duplicate the nutritional makeup of conventional meat, but it does not.²³ CCMAs contain muscle fibers; meat contains muscle fibers, connective tissue, adipose tissue, nerves, veins, arteries, and lymph. So, except for those CCMAs now being trialed with blends of stem cells (muscle fiber stem cells plus those for connective tissue and/or adipose tissue), CCMAs are not identical.  

Research at Duke University suggests that CCMAs and real meat are likely to have substantive differences in some or all of amino acids, dipeptides, vitamins, phenols, immunoglobulins, and types of saturated and unsaturated fatty acids.²⁸ A recent article in Food Science of Animal Resources found that: (a) the content of all amino acids except valine and tyrosine, was significantly different between cultivated vs. traditional products for both chicken and beef; (b) for both species, cultured products had moderately lower levels of several amino acids, including lysine and histidine; and (c) the level of glutamic acid was also lower in cultivated chicken but comparable in cultivated beef.²³ Both PBMAs and CCMAs need additives, fortification, or supplementation of specific nutrients to be nutritionally equivalent to conventional meat/poultry.⁶ 

Is Cell Cultured Meat “Safer” than Conventional Meat? 

Cultivated meat won’t be able to claim that it is “safer than” conventional meat but could be “as safe as.” Its pluses will be: (a) its starter material originates in a clean and controlled laboratory that is essentially sterile; (b) the bioreactor will be pharmaceutical-grade, “clean-room” grade; and (c) antibiotics are blended into the vats that contain the animal cells and growth medium.^6,14,18 Its minuses will be: (a) presence of a single bacteria at the onset of cultivation would condemn the entire batch; (b) disembodied meat cells don’t have immunological protection; and (c) there could never be a “no antibiotics” cultured-meat product.^14,18 What brings the comparison back to neutral is that FDA has promised to use HARPC and GMPs over the culturing-to-harvest stage. USDA will use HACCP to cover the harvest-to-end-product stage.¹⁴ An industry expert believes use of the four types of preventative controls in the Food Safety Plan of FSMA should be used to mitigate physical and chemical hazards.¹¹ 

U.S. Consumers Value Taste Above All Else 

Because cultured meat is produced using real animal cells, it is expected to duplicate the taste and mouthfeel of conventional meat.²³ Of the six attributes that Americans value when making food-purchasing decisions, consumers most value the “taste” of their food while least valuing the “environmental impact” and “social responsibility” of their food.²⁹ Very little is known about the palatability of cultured meat/poultry. Anecdotal information includes: (a) “Consumers may not be willing to embrace CCMAs because of concerns about their taste;”¹⁴ (b) “CCMA tastes better than PBMA;”²¹ (c) “Blind tasting of cultivated-cell vs. traditionally grown chicken found them indistinguishable by a group of professional chefs;”³⁰ and (d) “It is not even close to conventional meat on taste.”⁶ Research published by Food Science of Animal Resources concluded that cell cultured chicken and beef, when compared to their farm-raised counterparts “fell short of a truly authentic meat-eating experience.”²³ There were significant differences in the taste characteristics; the umami, bitterness, and sourness of cultured products were significantly lower than those of traditional chicken and beef.²³ Three reports of potential solutions to the taste problems of CCMAs are: (1) CCMAs made with stem cells for both muscle fibers and intramuscular fat make them closer to real meat/poultry on flavor but can’t mimic meat/poultry texture.⁶ (2) Cultured animal fat can infuse both PBMAs and CCMAs with the signature flavors, aromas, and textures of conventionally farmed meat and poultry.³¹ (3) A 3D-printer blend of vegetable oil and pea protein that mimics the structure of lard provides a solution for replacing the creaminess and mouthfeel of a burger or steak.³² 

Cell Cultured Meat Would Retail at 8X Conventional Meat 

To “meet consumer demand”, cultivated meat must sell at a competitive price. Chef Andrew Gruel (Slapfish™ restaurants) says, “Cell cultured meat is too pricey – even at high-end restaurants.”²¹ CCMA makers claim their products, by 2030, will be half as costly as animal-derived food.⁵ Costs to produce CCMA will never be low enough to put cultivated meat in reach for any but a well-heeled slice of the market.¹⁸ The retail price for a unit of PBMA is 2X that of conventional meat; if it went to retail now, CCMA would be at 8X.⁶ CCMAs could get down to 4X or 5X this year or next but its future is likely to be as a premium-price specialty (e.g., like Wagyu beef).⁶ What will it take to lower CCMA production costs? Manufacturing must be “scaled up” (scale = to climb upward in size via a series of actions or steps) and the cost of growth medium must be reduced. Researchers in the space argue that scientific realities make it nearly impossible for cultured meat to scale up enough to become any kind of significant provider of food protein.³³ Nevertheless, some believe it has lowered CCMA manufacturing costs and improved sustainability. Eat Just™ says its success in selling cultured chicken in Singapore shows that scaling up has decreased its production costs and will ultimately help reduce global warming and improve animal welfare.³⁴ 

Research Suggests Cell Cultured Beef Would Cost $17/LB.  

In 2013, European scientists spent $375,000 to create the first lab-grown burger, cultured in a petri dish using fetal bovine serum (FBS) as the growth medium; if that same protocol was used to produce chicken nuggets in 2022, it would cost $3,000 per pound.³⁵ FBS cost is 55-95% of the total cost of cultivating meat; so, CCMA companies have been, and still are, searching for new, low-cost replacements for FBS.³⁵ Research funded by Open Philanthropy® (a research/investment firm) computed a projection which found that, if produced “at scale”, cell cultured beef would cost $17 per pound (at large scale) to $23 per pound (at smaller scale) compared to $5.05 per pound for conventional ground beef.^36,37 Future Meat Technologies™ has developed a technology for manufacturing CCMAs “at scale”; it involves: (a) use of connective tissue cells (rather than stem cells); (b) proprietary growth medium (rather than FBS); and (c) stainless steel fermenters continuously removing waste products (to maintain a constant physiological environment).³⁸ The system generates CCMAs 10X higher than is the industrial standard and has brought down the cost of cultured chicken, from $18 per pound, to $7.70 per pound, in the last few months.³⁹ 

Developments Could Make CCMAs More Affordable 

In 2020, Mosa Meat™ developed a new growth medium that costs 88X less than FBS.³⁵ In 2021, Aleph Farms™ and Wacker™ announced the development of a growth medium that is much more affordable than FBS,⁴⁰ and UPSIDE Foods™ revealed that it had developed its own growth medium.³⁵ In 2022, Opalia™ eliminated FBS and replaced it with a “cell growth substrate”,⁴¹ BioBetter™ is repurposing tobacco plants – turning them into bioreactors for large-scale protection of the “growth factors” necessary to culture meat cells,⁴² and Intericulture™ announced development of an animal-free growth medium that supports cell growth 2.5X faster than growth with FBS.³⁵ 

And, up to now, most meat analogues – both PBMAs and CCMAs – have been ground, meatballs, or crumbles, but Redefine Meat™ has announced the “first ever” whole cuts of plant based (and the potential for cull-cultured) meat alternatives that look like steaks.⁴³ MeaTech 3D™ has developed a process in which bovine stem cells can be proliferated with improved muscle fiber density, thickness, and length; the process has been used to successfully 3D print a 4-oz. steak comprising both actually living muscle and fat tissue.^44,45 Melissa Sue Sorrells (Alt•Meat) summarized the status of cultured meat as a sector of the food industry, saying, “With cultivated-meat firms breaking ground on innovation facilities, partnering with meat industry titans, and making remarkable advancements on salable product development, early 2022 has been huge for the industry. Is this the tipping point at which cultivated meat goes mainstream?”⁴⁶ 

References 

¹Smith, Gary. 2021. FSNS Newsletter. May Edition. 

²Keefe, Lisa. 2021. Meatingplace. December Edition. 

³Smith, Gary. 2021. FSNS Newsletter. November Edition. 

⁴Venkataram. Harini. 2021. Lux Research®. September Edition. 

⁵Tubb, C. and T. Seba. 2020. The Rethink X Project. September 20 Issue. 

⁶Burton, Steven. 2022. Food Processing. May 27 Issue. 

⁷Sorrells, Melissa. 2022. Alt•Meat. April 12 Issue. 

⁸Finkel, Ed. 2022. Alt•Meat. March Issue. 

⁹Fusaro, Dave. 2021. Food Processing. May 6 Issue.  

¹⁰Fusaro, Dave. 2022. Food Processing. January 4 Issue. 

¹¹Nierengarten, Mary. 2021. Food Safety & Quality. November Edition. 

¹²Danley, Sam. 2021. Meat & Poultry. October 4 Issue. 

¹³Fusaro, Dave. 2021. Food Processing. May 6 Issue. 

¹⁴Pelonis, E. and N. Rainer. 2021. Food Processing. August 25 Issue. 

¹⁵PiplSay®. 2021. Alt•Meat. November Edition. 

¹⁶Gelski, Jeff. 2022. Meat & Poultry. January 14 Issue. 

¹⁷Berman, Rick. 2021. Meatingplace. June 8 Issue. 

¹⁸Budzynski, Brian. 2021. Alt•Meat. November Edition. 

¹⁹Valeti, Uma. 2022. Food Processing. May Edition. 

²⁰Able, Hughes. 2021. Drovers. December 7 Issue.  

²¹Waters, Jesse. 2022. Fox News. March 28 Issue.  

²²Johnston, Tom. 2021. Meatingplace. December 3 Issue. 

²³Gale, Sarah. 2022. Alt•Meat. April Edition. 

²⁴Sorrells, Melissa. 2022. Alt•Meat. May 20 Issue. 

²⁵Peschel, Anne. 2019. Food Quality and Preference. September 15 Issue. 

²⁶Beghin, John. 2021. Iowa State University. August 8 Issue.  

²⁷Klink-Lehmann, Jeanette. 2022. University of Bonn. April 26 Issue. 

²⁸Gibson, Kate. 2021. Meatingplace. July 8 Issue. 

²⁹Lusk, Jayson. 2022. Purdue University. February Edition. 

³⁰Food Engineering. 2022. January 26 Issue. 

³¹Shaffer, Erica. 2022. Meat & Poultry. March 21 Issue.  

³²Finkel, Ed. 2022. Alt•Meat. February 10 Issue.  

³³Fassler, Joe. 2021. The Counter. September Edition. 

³⁴Whittaker, Ryan. 2021. Meat & Poultry. October 4 Issue.  

³⁵Sorrells, Melissa. 2022. Alt•Meat. April 5 Issue. 

³⁶Keefe, Lisa. 2021. Meatingplace. December Edition. 

³⁷Johnston, Tom. 2021. Meatingplace. December Edition. 

³⁸Gelski, Jeff. 2022. Meat & Poultry. February 11 Issue.  

³⁹Watrous, Monica. 2021. Meat & Poultry. December 21 Issue. 

⁴⁰Sims, Bob. 2021. Meat & Poultry. December 10 Issue.  

⁴¹Smith, Benton. 2022. Dairy Processing. March 10 Issue. 

⁴²Fusaro, Dave. 2022. Food Processing. March 29 Issue. 

⁴³Fusaro, Dave. 2021. Food Processing. November 18 Issue. 

⁴⁴Morgan, Tyne. 2021. AgWeb. October 21 Issue.  

⁴⁵Keefe, Lisa. 2022. Alt•Meat. February 9 Issue. 

⁴⁶Sorrells, Melissa. 2022. Alt•Meat. May 24 Issue.