In this guest post, we find that lab-grown meat should not be considered a Climate Change solution. Based on industry-funded studies it will never achieve the economies of scale needed to make a reasonable dent in our meat consumption.
This is a great and well thought-out article. The challenges outlined for bringing lab-grown meat to market are big hurdles for this technology. But I disagree on two points:
- I don't think it is right to say that just because the climate impact will not be seen in 10-20 years, then it is not a "climate solution"
I agree with you, André. As a vegan, lab-grown meat plays a crucial role in addressing the dietary needs of carnivorous animals, from house cats to foxes in sanctuaries, to name two examples. By producing lab-grown meat, we can work towards providing a sustainable and ethical solution for feeding our carnivorous companions.
I recognize this article was written a couple of years ago so the data has changed. With that caveat in mind...
While you have a number of reasonable and accurate arguments (cultivated meat production is extremely challenging), I believe you are being too pessimistic, without pointing to a clear alternative. You have close to 100 billion land animals being killed each year for meat (let alone marine life). This number is rising (higher income + higher population). The increase in veganism and plant-based eating is not happening fast enough. As you point out, animal ag is a leading cause of climate change, land use, water use, animal suffering etc etc. So what is the solution again for tackling this without providing effective meat substitutes?
Plant based and precision fermentation alt proteins are a good option (even if there are market issues at the moment). But we are also seeing dramatic decreases in the cost of bioreactors, media etc as infrastructure-as-a-service providers come on line and there is foundational IP shares acorss the industry.
I also expect improved policy settings when you factor in food security and supply chain concerns (this is why you have net protein importers with limited land investing in this space eg South Korea, Netherlands, Singapore, Gulf states etc).
Don't get me wrong, scaling will be difficult but there does not seem to be a tendency among consumers for widespread adoption of non-meat alternatives. I believe its going to take cultivated meat (materially produced as "real meat") to reduce animal ag. I agree this is not a short term strategy and will take 10+ years for meaningful scale but it could also be one of the most impactful changes we make to our economy and food system. We shouldn't dismiss it because of early stage challenges.
I think that's a perfectly reasonable position. It does come down to ones appetite for "risky" technologies to achieve our net-zero goals. To draw an analogy; I would not consider fusion a climate solution for the same reason that it is unlikely to make a dent in energy production by 2050. This does not mean that we should not invest in either technology. They have their own merits without being on the critical path of climate mitigation and I think I should have been clearer about this.
Fantastic article! I so agree with the points made. Whilst lab-grown meat is an incredible and fascinating product that has its place in the market, realistically it requires specialised infrastructure and expertise, that would only be accessible to a global minority and not make a significant dent in carbon emissions for years to come.
I'm delighted to read such a well-researched article that highlights the risks of hoping that this technology can let us have our cake and eat it too. I'm hopeful that as a global community we can achieve success in advocating for significant positive dietary shifts, whilst still advocating for lab-grown meat.
This is a great and well thought-out article. The challenges outlined for bringing lab-grown meat to market are big hurdles for this technology. But I disagree on two points:
- I don't think it is right to say that just because the climate impact will not be seen in 10-20 years, then it is not a "climate solution"
- The ethical reasons for developing this technology weigh heavier, in my view, than the climate reasons. You touch on this topic in passing only, so I thought I'd write a piece highlighting that angle: https://andresclimate.substack.com/p/cultivated-meat-is-much-more-than
I agree with you, André. As a vegan, lab-grown meat plays a crucial role in addressing the dietary needs of carnivorous animals, from house cats to foxes in sanctuaries, to name two examples. By producing lab-grown meat, we can work towards providing a sustainable and ethical solution for feeding our carnivorous companions.
I recognize this article was written a couple of years ago so the data has changed. With that caveat in mind...
While you have a number of reasonable and accurate arguments (cultivated meat production is extremely challenging), I believe you are being too pessimistic, without pointing to a clear alternative. You have close to 100 billion land animals being killed each year for meat (let alone marine life). This number is rising (higher income + higher population). The increase in veganism and plant-based eating is not happening fast enough. As you point out, animal ag is a leading cause of climate change, land use, water use, animal suffering etc etc. So what is the solution again for tackling this without providing effective meat substitutes?
Plant based and precision fermentation alt proteins are a good option (even if there are market issues at the moment). But we are also seeing dramatic decreases in the cost of bioreactors, media etc as infrastructure-as-a-service providers come on line and there is foundational IP shares acorss the industry.
I also expect improved policy settings when you factor in food security and supply chain concerns (this is why you have net protein importers with limited land investing in this space eg South Korea, Netherlands, Singapore, Gulf states etc).
Don't get me wrong, scaling will be difficult but there does not seem to be a tendency among consumers for widespread adoption of non-meat alternatives. I believe its going to take cultivated meat (materially produced as "real meat") to reduce animal ag. I agree this is not a short term strategy and will take 10+ years for meaningful scale but it could also be one of the most impactful changes we make to our economy and food system. We shouldn't dismiss it because of early stage challenges.
I think that's a perfectly reasonable position. It does come down to ones appetite for "risky" technologies to achieve our net-zero goals. To draw an analogy; I would not consider fusion a climate solution for the same reason that it is unlikely to make a dent in energy production by 2050. This does not mean that we should not invest in either technology. They have their own merits without being on the critical path of climate mitigation and I think I should have been clearer about this.
Thanks for the message, Christoph. Agree that its not an easy or straightforward path. Lets see how the industry develops.
Fantastic article! I so agree with the points made. Whilst lab-grown meat is an incredible and fascinating product that has its place in the market, realistically it requires specialised infrastructure and expertise, that would only be accessible to a global minority and not make a significant dent in carbon emissions for years to come.
I'm delighted to read such a well-researched article that highlights the risks of hoping that this technology can let us have our cake and eat it too. I'm hopeful that as a global community we can achieve success in advocating for significant positive dietary shifts, whilst still advocating for lab-grown meat.