Contrary to common perception, lab-grown meat may carry a higher carbon footprint than traditional retail beef, a study by the University of California, Davis, suggests.
This research, yet to undergo peer review, has indicated that the environmental impact of cultured meat, under current and foreseeable production methods, could outstrip that of retail beef by several orders of magnitude.
This study examined the lifecycle energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production stages of both lab-grown meat and traditional beef. A significant obstacle with lab-grown meat is the reliance on highly refined or purified growth media essential for cellular multiplication, a process mirroring pharmaceutical biotechnology. Consequently, this sparks debate over whether cultured meat should be classified as a food or pharmaceutical product.
Lead author Derrick Risner, a doctoral graduate from UC Davis Department of Food Science and Technology, pointed out that refining growth media to pharmaceutical levels necessitates more resources, increasing global warming potential and production costs. Therefore, if the "pharma" approach persists, lab-grown meat may be less environmentally friendly and pricier than conventional beef production.
Global warming potential, as defined by the scientists, signifies the carbon dioxide equivalents released for each kilogram of meat produced. The study revealed that the global warming potential of lab-grown meat, utilizing this refined media, is 4 to 25 times higher than that of retail beef.
The industry, however, aims to produce lab-grown meat predominantly using food-grade ingredients or cultures, thus circumventing the need for costly and energy-intensive pharmaceutical-grade inputs. Under this scenario, the research found that cultured meat could potentially be more environmentally competitive, albeit within a broad spectrum. The global warming potential of such lab-grown meat could range from 80% lower to 26% higher than conventional beef.
Edward Spang, an associate professor in the Department of Food Science and Technology and the corresponding author, warned that cultured meat is not an environmental panacea. Although its environmental impact might reduce in the future, it demands substantial technological progress to enhance the efficiency and affordability of cell culture media.
According to the study, even the most efficient beef production systems outperformed cultured meat across all scenarios, suggesting that bolstering climate-friendly beef production could yield quicker emissions reductions than investing in lab-grown meat.
The UC Davis Cultivated Meat Consortium aims to develop the technology enabling a shift from "pharma to food" in lab-grown meat production, along with establishing cell lines for meat growth and enhancing cultured meat's structure.
Regardless of whether lab-grown meat results in a more environmentally friendly alternative, Risner believes valuable science can still be learned from this research endeavor, possibly leading to cheaper pharmaceuticals.
The study received funding from the UC Davis Innovation Institute for Food and Health and the National Science Foundation Growing Convergence Research grant. Additional authors include Yoonbin Kim and Justin Siegel of UC Davis and Cuong Nguyen of the University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
