Global demand for agricultural products is rising, especially meat and animal products (and therewith soy production as animal feed) which are often perceived in emerging and developing countries as luxury products. The same applies for palmoil, which is increasingly used because of its high crop yield, as well as e.g. coffee and cacao. But particularly those products have a very high impact on land use and thereby biodiversity loss.
To change their consumption choices in the moment of decision, consumers need a general awareness of the problem beforehand, and easily understandable information in the moment of buying decision. Labels play an important role and it should be evaluated how the impact on biodiversity can be integrated better in existing ones (it might also be interesting to display effort to reduce food waste in supply chains, since all together 1/3 of food is wasted). But more importantly, if proper alternatives are missing, most consumers will continue the purchase of the high impact product either way. And the closer the substitute is to the original in taste and price, the easier change will come. Whereas substitutes for palmoil can cause considerable environmental damage themselves because of a lower crop yield, the advantages of substitutes for meat are clearer. The focus will hence be on the latter in the following.
We need alternatives – in-vitro meat is one to consider
Two thirds of agricultural land are used for livestock cultivation (Orzechowski, 2015). Also, the livestock sector contributes to 18% of the anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (Gaydhane et al., 2018). Hence, reducing livestock could play an important role to reduce pressure on the remaining forests and untouched ecosystems and hence biodiversity, and at the same time reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Especially when considering that global meat consumption might double by 2050 (Gaydhane et al., 2018).
Commercial in-vitro (cultured) meat production would reduce animal sacrifices and also ensure a reduction in land, water and energy usage. Under certain conditions land usage is 99% lower, GHG emissions 78-96%, and water usage 82-96% lower compared to conventional meat production (Tuomisto & de Mattos, 2011).
There are several startups working on cultured meat. In 2015 the makers of lab-grown burgers announced that the price of burger had dropped from 325,000 USD to 11 per kilogram of in-vitro meat (Crew, 2015). Lab-grown meat might be ready to sell it in big quantities in 5 years. However, there are still important obstacles.
Policy making has to lay down the ground rules now and support innovation
Policy making can play an important role in pathing the way to make cultured meat competitive and ensure its sustainability. In fact, governments and agro-business should have an intrinsic interest to attentively follow this fast and potentially disrupting technology.
First, many entrepreneurs are scared by the lack of regulations. There need to be clear regulatory guidelines for the production and approval processes of lab-grown meat in order to enable startups to work in this field. Under the new food law (Lebensmittelrecht) of 2017, applications for new technically processed food products (novelfood) are examined by the Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office (FSVO). So far, no applications for lab-meat have been handed in. A way to encourage entrepreneurs could be to conduct a study for a hypothetical admission process of the current state of the technology.
Second, while for many (especially Swiss) consumers the quality and naturalness of products is important, a price of in-vitro meat that is lower than conventional meat, would still affect the consumption behavior of a considerable segment of consumers. A subsidy (e.g. for a certain period after market access) of this new technology should be taken into consideration. Especially when considering the high subsidies for the agricultural sector and that the prices of conventional meat do not reflect the enormous external effects of meat production. In order to ensure the impartiality of the government subsidies could be granted to all meat substitutes that fulfill certain requirements (e.g. nutrients). Research & development could be boosted if investors could count on a certain subsidy in the future.
Third, the public perception towards cultured meat is often not favorable. Clear regulatory guidelines and quality testing could improve the trust in these new products. Furthermore, advantages have to be highlighted and ethical concerns discussed. These aspects could be covered in the above-mentioned study.
Fourth, there are still some technological obstacles that need to be overcome. For example, the sensorial characteristics (taste, color appearance, and texture) are still not fully comparable with conventional meat (Gaydhane et al., 2018). Here, e.g. the environmental technology fund could come into action and fund research projects, especially in basic research, or support startups. Alternatives could be competitions and prize money for the best meat substitutes and thereby encourage a race to the top.
Time is running out - policy actions are needed now
Sufficiency and vegetarianism are values that are worth promoting from an ecological point of view. However, in order to reach the majority of consumers, there need to be alternatives for their current live style in order to make them switch products in a reasonable time-frame. Considering the short window of opportunity to effectively stop biodiversity loss and climate change and the market failure resulting from the lacking internalization of external costs, policy makers must act now and evaluate their options to provide and promote alternatives.
Sources:
Gaydhane MK, Mahanta U, Sharma CS, Khandelwal M, Ramakrishna S (2018): Cultured meat: state of the art and future. Biomanufacturing Reviews 3:1.
Orzechowski A (2015): Artificial meat? Feasible approach based on the experience from cell culture studies. J Integr. Agric 14:2017-221.
Tuomisto HL, Teixeira de Mattos MJ (2011): Environmental impacts of cultured meat production. Environ sci technol 45:6117-6123
Crew B (2015): Cost of lab-grown burger patty drops from 325,000 to 11.36. Sci Alert https://www.sciencealert.com/lab-grown-burger-patty-cost-drops-from-325…