In August 2013, a hamburger was fried, served and eaten by three people in London. So far, so unremarkable. Yet this simple meal was broadcast across the world, sparking countless headlines. It was considered, in short, to be a breakthrough culinary moment. Why? No animal slaughter was required to bring this burger to table. Instead, it was made from cultivated meat: a cow muscle grown in a laboratory. The only part of the animal needed to create a meal are stem cells – which are then ‘fed’ vital nutrients and growth factors to cultivate a meat product. Yet if champions cited this as an important breakthrough in making the global food system more ethical, sustainable, and equitable, critics were rather less convinced.
Josh Schonwald, an expert on the future of food who tried the innovative hamburger, said the meat tasted “like an animal protein cake”. Even the burger’s creator, Dr Mark Post, a researcher at the University of Maastricht, pointed out the lack of fattiness in the product, crucial to an appealing taste. Elsewhere, others pointed out this product would have no immediate efficacy with it costing a staggering $325,000. As one BBC journalist pointed out, demand for meat – and alternative proteins – had already peaked anyway. All the same, lab-grown meat prices have dropped by over 99% in the decade since this novel dining experience. A growing global population, coupled with volatile food production processes and markets, are reinvigorating positive interest in alternate foodstuffs. Even when faced with a mixed reception to the first unveiling of lab-grown meat, Dr Post told journalists he was “very happy” with the burger.
The growth of lab-grown
Notwithstanding divided opinion, commercial and regulatory, interest in cultivated meat has rocketed over the past decade. By 2022, $2.6bn in investment backed more than 150 companies who were, at the very least, researching in this area. For its part, cultivated meat has already been greenlit for sale in both Singapore and the United States. Many regulators elsewhere believe they have frameworks in place which could be adapted to authorise lab-grown proteins. Where there are shortfalls, discussions are taking place to understand how best to support commercialisation efforts. In 2023, for instance, the European Commission and European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) convened with researchers and businesses to look at the role regulation plays in alternate protein production. With an Israeli startup having already applied to sell lab-grown beef in Europe, and a Dutch startup ready to start producing cultivated burgers in the thousands, the pressure is on to reach regulatory agreement.
To put it differently, expansion efforts must dovetail with the rise in regulation. But for this to happen, suggests Seth Roberts, a policy manager at Good Food Institute Europe, government bodies and industry stakeholders must work together to cut eye-watering production costs, figuring out risk mitigation – and ultimately build trust with consumers, with only 18% currently willing to try cultivated meat products. With the industry in its infancy, Roberts believes institutional support is critical if production is to be scaled up and startups can navigate regulations when they arrive. As he says: “Dialogue is needed in order to make [cultivated meat] affordable and accessible to everyone and maximise the societal benefits.”
Dialogue is clearly happening. In 2023, to give one prominent example, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), in conjunction with the World Health Organisation, published a paper to help navigate hurdles in the way of more widespread regulation. At the same time, the report’s authors shared evidence around safety risks, while also attempting to further explain differences in terminology, as well as cultural and contextual understanding of lab-grown meat. For a product that has entered just a couple of markets, it is referred to as cell-based, cultivated and cultured – with terms such as artificial, animal-free, slaughterfree, shmeat, Meat.20, and Frankenment also used in various countries.
As Masami Takeuchi, a food safety officer at FAO explains: “It is important for the FAO to provide technical assistance to support its members to have access to such information.”
But as the paper laid out, there is much work to be done. For instance, there are gaps when it comes to understanding all the hazards in cultivated meat production, while many countries still don’t have frameworks or regulations needed for such proteins to hit the market. As a result, Roberts argues, further dialogue is sorely needed. “The report,” he says, “emphasises the need for more global sharing of information between governments to promote transparency and build trust.”
Regulatory hurdles
Takeuchi explains that regulators will need to continue working with industry professionals to better understand risks and processes and then share information on safety concerns. “The processing and preparation stages are the most vulnerable stages,” she adds, “and all food items in the market need to be suitably safe for the consumer.” On the plus side, Takeuchi explains that many hazards in the production of cultivated meat are shared in other food manufacturing processes, including microbiological and allergen contamination. This means risk mitigation processes and regulation for lab-grown meat shouldn’t be a giant leap. Yet that still requires robust stakeholder engagement, clear communication and shared goals to move towards regulation and then marketisation. “This necessarily complicated decision process will also take as much time as needed to achieve,” Takeuchi adds, noting that regulators must appreciate the bureaucracy, culture and legal customs of each market before putting pen to paper.
62%
of American consumers say climate-friendliness makes the most difference to them when choosing meat and poultry.
Even so, many regulators have indicated that their current regulations are sufficient for cell-derived food. That’s true, for instance, when it comes to Food Standards Australia New Zealand, even if specific artificial meat rules haven’t yet been codified. Instead of working on new regulations, Takeuchi therefore suggests integrating rules for cell-based foods into existing nutrition plans. “Some countries may benefit from having a dedicated policy around cell-based food,” she adds, noting that this might move past safety considerations and into how cultivated meat interacts with food security, population nutrition and trade. And while Takeuchi emphasises the importance of local contexts when moving towards regulation, Roberts adds that international cooperation will be critical in both regulatory development and improving production. “Sharing of expertise between regulatory bodies can help,” he says, “while regulators can also play an important role in supporting innovation.”
Roberts continues that governments need to better support research to scale up production and drive understanding around new foods. “How soon cellbased food gets to market depends on how much governments invest in open-access research, develop coherent strategies to support the sector, and provide guidance to help companies navigate the regulatory process,” he explains. Some companies are driving ahead here, with CellRev (UK) and Saint Gobain (France) recently pioneering the reuse of spent material in cultivated meat production. Yet it is such production processes – and the incumbent costs – that are widely cited as blockers in getting this protein to market. As a 2024 study from New Food Innovation found, 70% of consumer choice is dictated by pricing – but alternatives to traditional protein products are often more expensive. Consider that, despite a fall in cost, lab-grown products still cost consumers at least three times more than typical meat products. For her part, Takeuchi adds that, for many startups, cost is the major concern too. “For them,” she says, “the real challenge is less establishing regulatory compliance but more related to [achieving] low production costs.”
“The processing and preparation stages are the most vulnerable stages, and all food items in the market need to be suitably safe for the consumer.”
Masami Takeuchi
Where next?
With pressure to continue communication across industry – to build trust with the public and between industry actors; to drive production improvements and cost savings; and to move towards commercialisation – Roberts argues that publications like the 2023 FAOWHO report are vital. “It provided invaluable insights for policymakers and stakeholders involved in cultivated meat,” he says, “as well as suggestions on how regulators can build robust timely review pathways to ensure the huge benefits of this gamechanging food can be felt by consumers.”
Building on the importance of industry-wide information sharing, the FAO followed up its 2023 report by publishing crib sheets and videos on cellbased food safety. Takeuchi notes that conversations around improving regulator understanding of cultivated meat production processes – and the safety protocols within them – are ongoing. The point, she emphasises, is to build trust in consumers. And with the FAO mandated to address member concerns, and questions at the FAO’s 46th Codex Alimentarius on the food trade focusing on the global outlook of regulatory frameworks for cell-based food, Takeuchi says further updates are likely. As she puts it: “It is possible that FAO, most likely together with WHO, will produce documents to address these requests in 2024 or 2025.”
Yet regulation is only part of the cultivated meat picture. Qatar, for instance, recently announced a cultured meat production facility, even as producers of lab-grown proteins have had products taken off menus in the United States. In short, progress is mixed – and any forward momentum will always take time. Indeed, Takeuchi, for her part, doesn’t expect any damascene moment where these products are suddenly regulated across the world and appear on the shelves, despite the fact that companies in more than 20 countries are developing protein analogues worldwide.
All the same, it’s likely that interest in lab-grown meat won’t go away – meaning pressure will continue to build on regulators, governments and expert industry stakeholders to find solutions. That’s especially when climate and food equity concerns play out in the background, and financiers continue to throw billions of dollars into the sector. While consumption of the next lab-grown burger, wherever that is, likely won’t attract both the high-profile fascination and criticism of the live-streamed 2013 meal, there’s enough vested interest in this industry to ensure it won’t be the last diners chow down on – something that would doubtless keep Dr Post happy indeed.
