#064 What's Cookin' With Synthetic Meat

Adventures in Sustainable Living Podcast

Episode #64

What’s Cookin’ With Synthetic Meat

We already know that agricultural activities produce some of our greatest environmental impact. Yet some sort of agriculture is needed in order to produce food because we are beyond the point of hunting and gathering. World population is expected to reached 9.8 billion by the year 2050. It is projected that agricultural production will have to increase by 60% to 70 % above current levels in order to feed that population.  

That places us in a conundrum. If we expand our current agricultural activities we continue to destroy the environment that is vital to our survival. Yet if we do not find a way to increase food production, people will essentially starve. 

If you want to listen to the full story, then enjoy this episode on What’s Cookin’ With Synthetic Meat.

Welcome back everyone to the Adventures in Sustainable Living podcast. This is your host Patrick and this is episode 64 which is called What’s Cookin’ With Synthetic Meat.

As mentioned above it is now quite obvious that our agricultural activities are by far one of the greatest drivers of the detrimental environmental changes that are so much a part of the news these days. But, with the growing world population

we obviously need to produce food to survive. Yet if we keep doing what we are doing we are going to completely destroy the environment that is vital to our survival. But if we do not find ways to increase our food production in step with the increase in population sooner or later people will starve.

But finding ways to improve the efficiency of agriculture is really nothing new. I am sure that most of you are familiar with the term GMO, which is a genetically modified organism. For the average consumer what this most commonly refers to is crops that are developed through genetic engineering, also known as biotechnology. The purpose of this is to take a desirable or beneficial trait of a plant found in nature and transfer it to a crop plant, or to change or enhance an existing trait in a plant that is being developed. Doing so thus enhances agricultural production. Thus the advent of GMOs. 

DNA was first discovered in the 1950s and genetically engineered plants were first field tested in the 1980s. The first genetically modified food approved for release was a particular type of tomato which was introduced in 1994.

Now the reason for all the trouble was to develop crops that had a resistance to drought, disease, and insects. To develop plants that had a tolerance to herbicides that allow for better weed control. But also to develop crops with enhanced nutritional content. The most common GMOs are soybean, maize, cotton, canola, and alfalfa. Today GMOs comprise 90% of the soy, cotton, and corn grown in the United States. 

But of course there have always been concerns over the consumption of GMOs. Concerns such as allergies, cancer, and even pesticide residues. What is interesting though is that the use of GMOs have not enhanced crop production after all. What has happed is that weeds have now become resistant to herbicides which has which has lead to increased use of stronger, more toxic pesticide combinations. New GMO combinations seem to only compound the problem. This of course leads to even more pesticide residues in the foods we consume. 

But, GMOs are not truly the focus of this episode. I bring up the subject of GMOs because this is a concrete example of genetic engineering that is commonly known to all of us. It is also an example of how our efforts to manipulate our environment produces even further problems. Which brings me to yet another challenge that we have related to agriculture. 

After much research and reading of numerous articles I do not believe there is any area of agriculture that has a greater impact than that of meat production. Furthermore, over all other meats, beef tops the list of having the greatest greenhouse gas emissions and environmental impact. As Americans on average we consume over 19 billion pounds of beef annually, which is about 57.5 pounds per person. That may sound like a lot but there are countries where people consume even more than we do. We sit it fourth place for the most beef consumed per capita in the global community. 

Which of course brings up the subject again of how we are going to perform this balancing act between increased food production and conservation of the environment. So far conversion to more of a plant based diet seems to be the most beneficial thing to do. However, that is not the complete answer because there is an additional challenge. 

Even if meat consumption is decreased in developed countries in order to mitigate the environmental concerns, the global meat consumption will continue to increase simply because consumers are unwilling to decrease their meat consumption in particular in developing countries such as China, India, and Russia. There is an increasing middle class in these countries and they want luxury products such as meat, cheese, diary, as well as other animal related products.  

Truly the livestock industry is attempting to address this issue with the realization that animal farming must produce larger quantities of not only high quality but also affordable milk, meat, and eggs. Yet the production of these products must address environmental concerns, must be economically viable, socially responsible, and take into consideration animal welfare, climate change, less use of antibiotics and of course sustainability.   

Fortunately there are some very smart people searching for more efficient means of protein production to sustain our growing global population while also addressing our current challenges. There are some amazing alternative agricultural techniques that are indeed promising. And I mentioned some of those in my last episode One Simple Thing Can Change the World. And one of those things could be what is called cell cultured meat, or meat grown in a lab. Advocates of this emerging technology believe this could be the answer for consumers that want to be more responsible but yet do not want to change their diet. 

What I want to do is objectively explore the possibility of lab grown meat. How is it made? Is it ethical? Does it have less of an environmental impact? Can production be scaled to meet the demands of a growing population? Is this really the answer or are we just attempting once again to use technology to manipulate natural processes to our advantage without address our underlying human flaws that got us in this conundrum in the first place.  

Hanni Rutzler, an Austrian nutrition scientist, literally made history when in 2013 she became the first person to taste meat that was grown in a lab instead of a pasture or a factory farm. The meat was developed by Mark Post and colleagues at Maastricht University in the Netherlands. Dr Post and his colleagues essentially pioneered a proof-of-concept for cultured meat by producing the first hamburger patty grow directly from cells. What proof on concept means is a demonstration in principle with the aim of verifying that a particular concept or theory has practical potential. Typically proof of concept is small and may or may not be complete. In other words they simply proved it could be done. 

Now if you think that is far fetched, get a load of this. 

A company called SuperMeat opened a laboratory restaurant in Tel Aviv in order to test the reaction of consumers to their chicken burger. But the world’s first commercially sold cell-cultured meat occurred in December 2020 at a restaurant in Singapore. It was manufactured by the US company Eat Just. 

So, cultured meat is slowly hitting the consumer market place. At this point the bulks of effort has been focused on the most common meats consumed in developed countries, which are beef, pork, and chicken.  However, there are companies that focus on elk, lamb, bison, grouper, as well as other sea foods. 

So, what I am saying is that this technology is very real and the production process is constantly evolving and is driven by multiple companies, research institutions, and big government.   

So, where does this cell-cultured meat come from and how is it produced? 

Cell-cultured meat is essentially grown in vitro, which is a Latin term meaning “within the glass”. This simply means that the meat is grown outside of a living organism and in a laboratory dish. The meat is cultured from stem cells. So, beef is cultured from beef stem cells, chicken from chicken stem cells, etc.

Stem cells are essentially the building blocks of the body. All other cells in the body with specialized functions are derived from stem cells. Under appropriate conditions, in the body or in the laboratory, stem cells divide to form additional cells called daughter cells. The daughter cells either become new stem cells or they differentiate into cells with specialized functions such as heart muscle cells, liver tissue, nerve tissue, brain cells, blood cells, etc.

In the human medical field there is great interest in stem cell therapy for the potential of regenerative medicine, which strives to replace diseased cells with healthy ones. There is also interest in the ability to test new drugs. I do have some experience with stem cell therapy as a veterinarian so the technology behind it is really quite interesting. 

Stem cells can be collected from a variety of tissues such as fat, bone marrow, embryonic cord blood, as well as other sources. Once collected, stem cells are nurtured in a growth medium. Once they have proliferated sufficiently, researchers stimulate them in one manner or another, which is likely proprietary information, to differentiate into muscle or fat cells. This whole process of course completely bypasses the animal itself as well as the slaughter process required to obtain meat the traditional way.

Advocates of lab grown meat offer this as a sustainable alternative for consumers who want to be more responsible but do not want to change their diet. All we have to do is look at the proof of concept with this technology to believe that it is real. However, cultured meat is far from being ready for the grill and  the industry has a lot of challenges to over come. 

Industry Challenges

Yes it is possible to grow meat in the laboratory. But so far this production is limited to something similar to ground beef or chicken nuggets. Researchers are far from producing a one inch thick steak that we can throw on the grill. One of the biggest challenges is to reproduce the complex structure of various livestock muscle cells in a laboratory setting. 

Now the basic process goes something like this. Muscle biopsies are taken in order to harvest the stem cells which will proliferate and differentiate into more muscle and fat cells. That growth process takes place in a very specific culture which also requires the addition of hormones, nutrients, and growth factors.

To date, the best medium for growth is Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS) which comes from the blood of a dead calf. After the cells begin to proliferate they form into small strands called myotubes, which are the building blocks of muscle tissue. These myotubes are then placed into a ring structure and grow into a small piece of muscle tissue. This tissue is then placed on some sort of scaffold structure in order to flood them with nutrients and stretch them as a form of exercise in order to increase their size and protein content. 

The advantage to this process is that few animals are needed in order to produce a tremendous amount of meat. Mostly what is needed of course are lots of calves if fetal bovine serum is to be used. But that serum is extremely expensive. 

Additionally, part of the advantage of in-vitro meat is to be slaughter free and that is not possible if you are using fetal bovine serum. One of the aims of the industry is to find other plant-based mediums that are considerably less expensive yet work as efficiently as fetal bovine serum. Once this problem has been solved, it may be possible to produce in vitro meat at a competitive price. 

Furthermore, live animals naturally produce growth factors and hormones which are necessary for growth and maturation. Cells cultures need the same types of growth factors and hormones too grow. The challenge at this point is to produce these compounds on an industrial scale and to ensure there are no short or long term effects on human health. 

At this point there are a number of limitation to the industry. 

Things such as the cost of the fetal bovine serum, finding an appropriate scaffold material in order to produce thicker cuts of meat, and scaling up the process in order to meet potential demands. Consequently, the industry is still a long way from producing what we would consider real meat which contains a variety of tissues other than muscle fibers. 

Health Concerns

But then there is the question of health concerns, of which there are a lot of unanswered questions. 

Advocates of cell cultured meat lay claim to increased safety of their product due to the meat being produced in a laboratory environment that is fully control by the producers and engineers. There is no potential for contamination at the time of slaughter, no risk of encountering E. coli, Salmonella, or Campylobacter which are responsible for millions of illnesses annually. 

But while this isolated environment may prove to be partially beneficial it is also quite clear that manufacturers are never in complete control of anything. Mistakes of oversight occur frequently in any production setting and these can lead to some fairly drastic health consequences. All you have to do is follow the news about the meat industry to appreciate that this sort of thing frequently happens even today. People are people and people make mistakes. 

Another potential positive aspect of cell cultured meat is that animals are not raised in a confined environment. Consequently, there is no need for vaccinations or antibiotics. 

All this being said, there is virtually no way to determine all of the potential health risks of cultured meat. Due to the tremendously high number of cell divisions and multiplications, in the trillions that is, there is no doubt going to be some sort of dysregulation of some cells lines which is what happens with cancer cells. These types of changes in cell lines have potential and as of yet unknown effects on cell structure and possibly in human metabolism when cultured meat is consumed. 

Another concern is the potential use of antibiotics during the culture process. These can be used to prevent or clean up any contamination. If this happens, it certainly weakens the argument for lack of antibiotics as being a positive aspect of cultured meat. 

Furthermore, it has been suggested that nutritional content in cultured meat can be controlled by adjusting fat content. But as of yet, no effort has been made to control the addition of various micronutrients such as vitamin B12 and iron which are beneficial to our health. Additionally, no one knowns if the way in which cultured meat cells are organized it they are able to potentiate the beneficial affects of micronutrients. 

Obviously there are still a tremendous number of unanswered questions.

Environmental Impact 

But then what about the environment impact of cultured meat relative to standard farm production of meat. 

The argument against standard farm production of meat has always been that of massive green house gas emissions, use of massive amounts of water, and intensive land usage. The production of cultured meat is supposed to show a reduction in all of these factors at least according to advocates of the industry. 

But is this really the case? So let’s take a look at all three. 

First is green house gas emissions. (GHG). It is true that livestock are responsible for a significant portion of greenhouse gas emissions on a global scale, in particular methane. Consequently, the reduction of methane emissions is one of the potential benefits of cultured meat production. But on the contrary, the primary GHG produced by cultured meat production is CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels to warm the cell cultures.

In the end, there is truly no consensus regarding the comparison of lab grown meat versus standard meat production in regards to GHG emissions. We already know that CO2 accumulates and persists in the atmosphere longer than methane and CO2 is the primary gas emitted due to cultured meat production.  

As far as water usage goes, it has long been stated that it takes 15,000 L to produce 1 kg of beef. But the reality is that 95% of this water is used to grow the crops that are fed to the animals. One study looked at the true water usage of meat production and concluded that 550 to 700 L of water per kg of meat was a much more accurate figure. As of yet, there is no definitive conclusion on whether or not cell cultured meat does in fact use less water.  

However, one other factor to consider is that of water contamination. If we look at the industrial processes necessary to produce the growth factors and hormones, waste water discharge and spills into the environment are inevitable. While cultured meat may in fact use less water, there is the possibility of even more environmental contamination. 

So what about land usage. Of course the production of cultured meat requires the use of a lot less land. However, this does not account for the benefits that livestock actually provide for the environment such as helping to maintain soil fertility due to manure, the addition of organic matter, nitrogen, and phosphorus. And this of course helps to maintain biodiversity. 

Ethical Issues and Animal Welfare

Animal welfare issues are also of a major concern in our modern society.  Proponents of cultured meat have already labeled it as “victimless meat”. Although this is not really true if calves have to be killed in order to produce the culture medium. Furthermore, the muscle samples needed to obtain the stem cells have to be collected and that requires biopsy techniques. Plus I can only imagine that one chicken can survive only so many biopsies before it is slaughtered and another one is put on the biopsy table. 

So, regardless, I question whether or not it is even possible to truly produce “victimless meat” unless a single culture is kept for eternity, which is unlikely. But in the end, there is truly no doubt that the numbers of slaughtered animals will be greatly reduced. 

But underneath this budding industry, there is yet another potential victim of circumstance. It is the plight of the small farmer. Much like a large supermarket chain moving into a small community and pushing the 40 year established Mom and Pop supermarket out of business, larger scale meat production does the same to the small farmer. 

Furthermore, the livestock industry serves multiple other valuable functions. Livestock provide much needed income to most of the world’s rural communities. Livestock not only produce meat, milk, and eggs but also fiber, wool, and leather. This also provides a significant source of income for many rural communities around the world. 

There would also be the lost of many cultural services, social events, and open markets. I can personally assure you that there is nothing more stimulating than attending an indigenous market  in South America where locals are selling their products. 

Summary

After researching this topic extensively, I like to sort of compare the issue of synthetic meat to that of GMOs. Twenty six years after the introduction of the first GMO product we now realize that perhaps the advocates of these products were wrong in so many ways. Increased crop yields have not happened. Super weeds are now developing which require the use of stronger compounds with increased toxicity. That means the pesticide residues in our food that the USDA deems as “acceptable” possess even greater toxicity. 

Now that the world is truly on the brink of a crisis situation, which is only going to worsen with time, there are a lot of scientist, researchers, universities, and governments attempting to produce an acceptable alternative protein in order to feed our growing population and concurrently reduce our environmental impact. 

As it stands now, the industry has a lot of challenges to overcome just to produce a decent cultured meat product. Some of those products are already being tested in foreign markets. But there is still legislation that needs to be put in place, ethical issues to over come, and then of course the hurdle of pubic perception.  But we only need to look at the huge growth in the market for milk alternatives as well as the recent growth in plant-based meat alternatives to appreciate that the general public is seeking alternative sources of these proteins. 

From an environmental prospective, so far there is not a lot of evidence to prove that cell cultured meat actually has less of an impact than standard farming practices. Thus far that conclusion is solely based on speculative analysis. That said, this technology is still in its infancy and will continue to evolve with new discoveries and advances that will no doubt optimize production, quality, and efficiency. But it will still be a long time before we are routinely dropping lab grown meat into our shopping carts and going home to have a tasty BBQ. 

But, despite all of the potential advantages to some of this technology, underneath all of this is yet another flaw that is staring us in the face that we are failing to address. 

For example, lab grown meat is being hailed as the best solution to the factory farming of meat. This type of meat production is bad for human health given the amount of antibiotics pumped into the animals as well as the environment the animals are forced to tolerant until the day of their slaughter. In contrast lab grown meat need not have any of these concerns. Once the technology is perfected, lab grown meat will likely be indistinguishable from real meat, will be cheaper to produce and purchase. 

So let’s say that we all switch to lab grown meat for the sake of our health, the reduced expense, and for the environment. But the underlying problem is that we are doing it for our own sake and not really for the sake of the animals. We are thus failing to address our own moral issues.  

This same concept applies to many other technological or economic solutions to solve a moral crisis. Let’s say for example we developed a clean, cheap, and renewable energy source. That method is accepted and adopted and we completely halt climate change. That would be fantastic. 

But again we fail to address the underlying issue. Humanity failed long ago to address our over consumption, our wastefulness, our blatant misuse of our resources related to our take-make-dispose attitude. We have long since lost our respect for the natural world. We have known about the potential affects of climate change for over 100 years and now we take action only when it literally means our own survival. We continued to ignore the underlying concepts of sustainability and carrying on with our cavalier attitude to the plight of future generations. We continue to use money and technology to solve our problems instead of addressing our own moral flaws that got us in the situation in the first place. And without addressing these failures in basic human nature it just leaves us open to committing other atrocities. 

Truly I do not expect everyone to live the way I do, off the grid, hauling and purifying my own water, growing much of my own food and producing much of my own meat. But I can truthfully say that the land I purchased 25 years ago remains entirely in its natural state with the except of maybe two acres out of forty-six. 

This is because as the trees cycle through, I am provided with abundant firewood. There are numerous wild plants that can be harvested for food. There is clean water and plenty of wildlife if I choose to go hunting. In other words, the land left in its natural states supports my sustainable activities. Despite all of this, I will be the first to admit that certain aspects to our live are not exactly convenient. But I am happy to trade a little inconvenience for more personal security and sustainability. 

I truly believe we are on the edge of seeing rapid changes in our world. At this point, it is hard to say whether that will be good or bad. That is yet another reason to adopt a more sustainable lifestyle because it may end up being your best security blanket for an uncertain future. But do it because it is the right thing to do and not just because it has come down to being your only choice. To do so is to fail to address the underlying moral issue that got us here in the first place. 

Resources

The Myth of Cultured Meat: A Review

Will Cell Based Meat Ever Be a Dinner Staple

What is Cell Cultured Meat and When Can You Try It

The Science of Cultivated Meat

Synthetic Meat, Synthetic Beef-The Benefits and Pitfalls of This Emerging Technology

Patrick