I spent a lot of time this week talking to cultivated meat ambassadors, cell-based meat (CBM) business founders, and even politicians about the now and the future of this industry.

One thing that regularly comes up is the topic of the evolution of CBM. And to that regard, I found a really great article that is still more than relevant today, by Jessica Scott-Reid in Corporate Knights: Advocates of lab-grown meat poke holes in claim it's bad for the environment

To avoid revealing too many details from Jessica's piece, two quotes particularly stand out, shedding light on our collective journey. Liz Specht draws an analogy, suggesting that evaluating the environmental impact of solar panels should not be based on outdated 1980s production methods, just as we shouldn't judge the potential of cultivated meat by the standards of current R&D-scale processes.

Similarly, Bruce Friedrich, speaking at the Animal and Vegan Advocacy Summit in Los Angeles, highlighted the flawed logic of doubting the future infrastructure for innovations, likening it to early scepticism around electric vehicles due to the then-lack of charging stations. This, he argues, overlooks the natural progression of innovation.

A recent UC Davis study raises questions about the environmental impact of cell-cultured meat, suggesting it might be more significant than that of traditional meat. This study, still under review, is built on assumptions like the use of pharmaceutical-grade media in cell cultivation, sparking a debate about its accuracy. Could these assumptions be a call to arms for researchers, the industry, and environmentalists to work together on making cell-based meat more eco-friendly?

As I said, this tech is still evolving. It's just getting off the ground, and its current environmental footprint is not set in stone but a stepping stone to something far more efficient than animal protein. At the same time, being open about the challenges and potential of cell-cultured meat helps build public trust and understanding. 

In 2023, Science|Business highlighted the need for increased funding from the European Union for alternatives to conventional meat. While the EU wants to meet its sustainability goals, it has to consider diversifying protein sources through research in non-traditional proteins like lab-grown meat and plant-based options.

SB notes the low investment in alternative protein research despite the potential. Policymakers must leverage partnerships and public financial mechanisms, which [still] largely rely on private investment.

I'd think infrastructure support for startups and engagement with traditional food processors are essential for scaling production and enhancing consumer acceptance. Still, there seems to be a blind spot that leaves novel food startups vulnerable. What measures are being considered to ensure regulatory procedures support developing and commercialising alternative proteins to keep pace with global competitors?

Call for more EU funding for meat alternatives

Now, in 2024, Science|Business reports that Europe's innovative food sector is witnessing challenges with the EU's novel food approval process. This process is considered less efficient than those of other regions, such as Singapore and the US.

"Europe is home to some of the world’s most innovative food companies creating alternative proteins, but many are choosing to launch their products first in the US or Singapore."

Companies like Meatable and Formo, as well as innovators in France and Italy, want to launch their products outside Europe due to faster and clearer approval processes in Singapore and the US. According to SB The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is reported to be understaffed, leading to delays in the review process, despite offering pre-submission advice and engaging in dialogue with stakeholders.

Industry alliances and companies are advocating for more resources for EFSA, clearer guidelines, and support in the application process. The question remains, how will the EU intend to address the current challenges related to the commercial scaling of innovative food technologies to prevent further migration of Europe's food tech companies to more accommodating regulatory environments?

EU novel food start-ups call for more clarity in approval process

European Parliament: What if all our meat were grown in a lab?

The environmental impact of livestock production cannot be understated. It's a concern because of greenhouse gas emissions, its role in land degradation, and chemical fertiliser and methane pollution. This form of production demands considerable resources, including vast amounts of water and land, contributing heavily to deforestation, the loss of biodiversity, and water pollution.

The anticipated global food production needs to rise by 2050, driven by population growth and increasing meat consumption, especially in developing countries. Cell-based meat (CBM) meat offers a promising solution. By cultivating meat in controlled environments through stem cell technology, we can reduce the environmental footprint of livestock farming.

The transition towards lab-grown meat could affect the EU's agricultural sector, impacting economies, employment, and the communities that rely on traditional farming. These impacts must be understood to ensure the sector is prepared for change, supporting farmers and communities in this transition towards a sustainable food system within the EU.

• The EU should allocate funds for R&D to improve efficiency, scalability, and cost-effectiveness. This could involve supporting startups and established companies, universities and research institutions.

• Particularly the EU must support rural development projects that provide alternative income sources for communities affected by the transition.

The adoption of CBM hinges the health benefits and public acceptance. It promises to lower saturated fat intake, eliminate antibiotic use, and reduce disease transmission risks. Simultaneously, educating the public and addressing misconceptions are vital to changing dietary habits and ensuring acceptance. Embracing lab-grown meat involves merging health advantages with efforts to inform consumers.

Policy-making will be the most influencial tool to address the marketing and corporate affairs gaps faced by CBM startups pegged against animal agriculture. The EU can aid this shift by enacting policies that ensure a level playing field. Measures should include clear regulatory standards for the safety and quality of lab-grown meat, streamlined product approval processes, financial incentives like grants and tax breaks for innovation, and government-funded public awareness campaigns to highlight CBM's environmental and ethical advantages. 

When we look at how food is produced worldwide, there's a glaring inefficiency in how plant-based feeds are turned into animal protein. This is particularly true for beef, where just a tiny part of the feed's energy and protein ends up as beef that people can eat. Essentially, we're using a lot of potential human food to produce a much smaller amount of food from animals. 

Despite this, the huge wastage and unnatural elements of animal farming tend to be overlooked. 

Meanwhile, the concept of lab-grown meat, which is made by cultivating cells in a controlled setting, often faces doubt and criticism. This situation highlights the urgent need to think differently about how we produce food, with a focus on new methods that are both sustainable and efficient.

Source: Animals Are The Most Inefficient Way Of Making Protein

Here are two images of technology used to produce synthetically made food products. Can you guess which one is beer and which one is cell-cultured meat?

Actually, I apologise this is a trick question because neither is truly synthetic. Both brewing beer and cultivating meat involve leveraging natural biological processes—fermentation in beer production and cellular growth for cultivated meat. These processes occur in nature, with fermentation being a spontaneous activity where yeasts convert sugars to alcohol and carbon dioxide, and cellular growth being fundamental to organism development. The human intervention in both cases—selecting ingredients and controlling conditions for beer brewing, and providing a nutrient-rich medium for cell cultivation—aims to guide and optimise these natural processes for specific outcomes. While brewing beer has been practised for millennia, cultivating meat is a contemporary innovation, yet both fundamentally rely on understanding and harnessing biological activities. Thus, despite their distinct end products and technological complexities, both processes share a foundation in natural biological phenomena, refined and directed by human ingenuity. 

I'm sure I'm not the only one who enjoys a good coffee in the morning? But I might have to throw my grinder out soon... 🙃

Pluri Inc., a leading biotech company I have written about a few times, announced its cell-based coffee launch. I know right 😯! Perfect coffee.

Pluricoffee

Why is it even necessary? are we going too far now? No because it is a direct countermeasure to the looming global coffee crisis, driven by the effects of global warming. The traditional coffee industry, worth over $130 billion, is under threat as viable land for coffee cultivation is expected to diminish by up to 50% by 2050(1)(2). Pluri's solution, developed using its proprietary 3D technology platform under the new business vertical PluriAgtech, is designed to produce high-quality coffee sustainably on a mass scale.

They're looking at cutting down on water use and the need for large farming areas. This could help address deforestation, fluctuating prices, and the high carbon footprint linked to traditional coffee farming. With the demand for coffee expected to rise sharply, Pluri's method can ease the strain on the environment.

Michal Ogolnik, who has over 20 years of executive management experience in pharma and energy, is leading this project and under her direction, Pluri is setting up a separate subsidiary focused on developing new products and technologies for the coffee industry. Yaky Yanay, the CEO of Pluri, is confident about the role of cell technology in making agriculture and food production more efficient and environmentally friendly. This move is part of Pluri's wider goal to use their technology in different sectors to promote well-being and sustainability. It looks like Pluri could really make a mark in the coffee industry and agricultural technology as a whole.