WORLD AGRICULTURE 43

comment & opinion

Impact of Cultured Meat on Global Agriculture

Brian J FordGonville & Caius College, University of Cambridge CB2 1TA.

Rothay House, Mayfield Road, Eastrea, Cambridge PE7 2AY E-mail: fordbj:@cardiff.ac.uk

SummaryIdeas on cultured meat have appeared in print for over a century, yet research has commenced only in recent yearsand surprisingly little progress has been made. This is an area in which the European Community has played a moreprominent role than the United States of America. Culturing meat ex vivo proposes unique problems, yet the pres-sures on demand make this a priority area of concern. Even when cultured meat becomes popular and easily avail-able, the rearing of livestock will continue. Conventional agriculture is a crucial component of land management,and our environment will depend upon the raising of grazing animals as much in the future as it has done in thepast. Cultured muscle can never entirely supplant meat from conventional sources. Keywords: meat, cultured, in vitro, mycoprotein, quorn, beef, muscle, Netherlands, United States,biofabrication.

Pressure on resources

Meat production is exertingunsustainable pressures uponthe environment. This form

of agriculture has caused more speciesto become extinct than any other(Myers and Kent, 2005). In CentralAmerica since 1960 more than aquarter of rain-forest has been clearedfor raising cattle and 70 per cent inCosta Rica and Panama has beendestroyed in conversion to rearinglivestock, while in Brazil 40 per cent ofthe land has been cleared for beefproduction (Caulfield,1985). Thissingle agricultural sector consumes 8per cent of all the fresh water in theworld and it occupies almost one-thirdof the world’s surface that is notcovered by ice and permafrost. Raisingmeat currently contributes 18 per centof greenhouse gases to theatmosphere. (FAO, 2006). This isgreater than that produced by theentire world-wide transportationnetwork.

People are regularly encouraged tolimit their use of cars to help maintainthe climate; they are far less likely tobe pressed to cut down on meat con-sumption for a similar reason. As thisjournal has emphasised there are other

examples of disproportionality in oursense of urgency – similarly, althoughmuch attention focusses on the vent-ing of waste carbon dioxide into theatmosphere, there is far less attentionpaid to surplus nitrate in the environ-ment (Smil, 2011). As we contemplatethe future provision of meat, these areissues that demand a more balancedassessment.

Meat production is highly inefficient.A steer requires 100 kg of hay and 4kg of grain to produce 1 kg of beef.American estimates of the amount ofwater needed to produce 1 pound ofbeef vary from 2,500 gallons of waterto an industry estimate 450 gallons,but even the lower estimate isarguably unsustainable. The amount ofcrops that supply the average worldinhabitant is 613 kg per capita annual-ly. In China it is as low as 466 kg, butin the USA, by comparison, the figureis 1,480 kg (Pimentel 2001). This willchange, since the emerging nationsare now rapidly increasing their con-sumption of meat as they seek toemulate the inhabitants of westernnations.

The conclusion is clear – humanswill not be able to consume meat assuch a high proportion of a global diet

in future. Meat substitutes have beenwidely available for some 2,000 yearsand some of these will increase inimportance to compensate for areduced per capita meat supply. InIndonesia, tempeh is a traditional high-protein meat substitute that is pro-duced by fermenting cooked soyabeans with the common pin-mouldRhizopus. The result is an appetisingfoodstuff that is amenable to a widerange of culinary applications. Beancurd made from soy is well known astofu in Japan, though it originated asdoufo in China and it is produced fromthe curds made by coagulating soymilk. These foods are claimed to lowerthe blood levels of low-density lipidsby some 30 per cent (Ford, 2009).More recent arrivals includeascomycete fungi of the genusFusarium. Many species of this genusproduce mycotoxins of economicimportance in agriculture, butFusarium venenatum has been success-fully cultured to produce a mycopro-tein meat substitute. This is marketedas Quorn and, although it is a pro-foundly unnatural and high-technolo-gy product, it is proving to be increas-ingly popular with devotees of healthfoods.

GlossaryAxolotl: an amphibian newt-like crea-ture allied to the salamander.

Mycoprotein: a growth of fungiwhich is rich in protein and suitablefor human consumption

Biofabrication: producing complexproducts from separate ingredientsthat are artificially produced

43 12/10/11 14:27 Page 1

44 WORLD AGRICULTURE

comment & opinionCulturing meatThe ultimate answer would be to cul-ture meat. In this way, commercialcontinuous-process production ofbeefsteak would replace an agricultur-al sector (or, if not replace, at leastsubstitute for much of the time). Theidea is of considerable antiquity. Thefirst mention of cultured meat was in abook written by a German writer whooften wrote under the pseudonym ofVelatus, in reality a scientist namedKurd Laßwitz. His pioneering sciencefiction novel entitled Auf Zwei Planetenof 1897 had Martian invaders bringinga range of novelties to earth, includingsynthetic foodstuffs. One of their inno-vations was cultured meat.

The idea was not further discusseduntil 1930, when the writer and politi-cian Frederick Edwin Smith, First Earlof Birkenhead, wrote this descriptionof ‘life in 2030’ in The Strand maga-zine: “It will no longer be necessary togo to the extravagant length of rear-ing a bullock in order to eat its steak.From one ‘parent’ steak of choice ten-derness it will be possible to grow aslarge and as juicy a steak as can bedesired.” (Smith, 1930). Smith was aclose friend of Winston Churchill, andhe discussed his ideas with him. It willcome as no surprise to anyone accus-tomed to the self-interest of politiciansto find that Churchill took up thecause and wrote about the concept,though without attributing the source.In 1932 he wrote: “With a greaterknowledge of what are called hor-mones, i.e. the chemical messengersin our blood, it will be possible to con-trol growth. We shall escape theabsurdity of growing a whole chickenin order to eat the breast or wing, bygrowing these parts separately under asuitable medium. Synthetic food will,of course, also be used in the future.”(Churchill, 1932). It is interesting toreflect that Smith had peered 100years into the future; Churchill waslooking a mere half-century and hisprognostication has not come true as,for the following seventy years, littleprogress was made towards culturedmeat.

Reasons forslow progressWhy has research into cultured meatproved to be so slow to progress,whereas cultured non-meat cells (likeF. venenatum) have been so muchmore easily exploited? The fundamen-tal reason lies in the complex nature ofmeat. Although taught as being com-

posed of striated muscle, meat is com-posed of a complex and interrelatedsystem of tissue types. Striated musclecoexists with connective tissue (itself acomplex community of fibrocytes andother cell types), adipocytes, tendons,nerve fibres, lymph and blood vessels.Not only are these different tissuesstructurally important, but striatedmuscle itself is relatively tasteless: steakdepends on the ‘marbling’, the extentand distribution of fatty tissues, and itis the fat that confers much of thetaste on roast meat (McGee 2004,Ford 2011).

These facts are often overlooked. Apatent registered in the Netherlands in1999 described the production of cul-tured muscle cells in a three-dimen-sional structure that would be ‘free offat, tendon, bone and gristle’.Freedom from bone would be anadvantage, whereas freedom from fatwould give a bland and unappetisingproduct. Publications on the possibilityof producing animal cells in bulk fre-quently confined themselves to theculture of a single cell type (Varley andBirch, 1999). This is not a viableapproach for the perfection of a meatproduct. Parallel research has beendevoted to systems of producingnutriment on a large scale, and it isnow clear that cyanobacteria are clearcandidates as they have a protein con-tent in dry matter of up to 70 per centand can easily be grown in culture.Photobioreactors would allow us toraise pure cultures of such organismsin large amounts as a feedstock forcultures of animal cells (Ugwu, Aoyagi

and Uchiyama, 2008).

Within the last decade, research hasbegun in a few locations, notably inthe Netherlands (at Utrecht,Eindhoven, Amsterdam andWageningen) and also in the UnitedStates (South Dakota, South Carolinaand Maryland). In 2005 the first com-prehensive paper on cultured meatappeared (Edelman, McFarland,Mironov and Matheny, 2005). Prog-ress has generally been slow, thoughin 2007 the Netherlands authoritiesannounced an investment of 2m Eurosin cultured meat; this remains thelargest single funding for this area ofresearch. In April 2008 the FoodResearch Institute of Norway organ-ised a conference on cultured meat.

F. E. Smith, who became First Earlof Birkenhead, was a prominentpolitician and author who published a prediction of meatproduced in culture for his bookentitled Life in 2030. It was published in London by Brewerand Warren in 1930.

Two years after F. E. Smith’saccount, the young WinstonChurchill was asked to write onlife 50 years in the future. Hetook his friend’s idea andrewrote it with chicken, instead,as the food source. The articleappeared in The Strand magazinein London in 1932.

Professor Bernard Roelen of theFaculty of Veterinary Medicine atUtrecht University provides thislow-power phase micrograph ofimages of porcine muscle stemcells cultured in vitro. No striatedmuscle is yet visible, so these cellsare early in differentiation.

44 12/10/11 14:27 Page 1

WORLD AGRICULTURE 45

comment & opinion

However, when the National NewBiology Initiative was announced bythe National Academies in the USA inSeptember 2009, there was no sup-port for cultured meat. The pressureson conventional agriculture continuedto grow; that same year, beef farmingbecame so unprofitable in Ireland thatthe entire agricultural sector was saidto be ‘near collapse’ (Ryan, 2009). Ifthere is any time to press on with thedevelopment of cultured meat, it issurely now.

Environmental concernsRecent research suggests that the envi-ronmental benefits of cultured meatwould be considerable. Research fromOxford and Amsterdam suggests thatgreenhouse gas emissions could bereduced by as much as 96 per cent,

compared to raising beef through con-ventional agriculture. Energy inputcould be cut by up to 45 per cent,using up to 96 per cent less water, and99 per cent less land (Anon, 2011).There are thus clear incentives fromeconomic and environmental perspec-tives that should drive research ahead.

Yet there remains an agriculturaldimension that we cannot ignore. Wemay be able to look to a future whereenergy could be tapped with high effi-ciency, and thus water supplies can beextended (through desalination) virtu-ally without limit. It is possible to con-template a future where the efficiencyof agriculture is optimised, and wherenitrogen, pesticide and carbon dioxidepollution are better controlled. Ourability to predict such changes is limit-ed, and our prognostications are usu-

ally better seen as reflections of therecent past, rather than indicators ofwhat lies ahead. In particular, ourreliance on current trends as indicatorsof the future is deeply flawed(Spedding, 1996). Can we confidentlylook to a near future in which culturedmeat makes livestock farming obso-lete? There are two reasons to suggestthat this will not come to pass.

First is the sheer complexity of theresearch. As I have emphasised, theintricate structure of meat, as a prod-uct, makes it difficult to recreate exvivo. There have been experiments tocreate a collagen lattice on which cellsmight grow, and even talk of mechani-cal systems to exercise muscle cells inculture so that they become strongerand more like those found in nature. Itmay be that the answer will take ustowards the harnessing of stem cellsand embryonic tissues. Since anaxolotl (Ambystoma mexicanum) canregrow an entire limb, it is clear thatthe potential may exist in more highlyevolved animal species. Furthermore,we know that stem cells generatemeat within the embryonic calf, and itmust be possible to reprise this processin vitro. Since meat develops – in all itshistological complexity – in naturalanimals, it must surely be possible torecreate such conditions in the labora-tory. Creating the entire system maybe easier than turning to biofabrica-tion (Ford, 2011).

The second reason to doubt theabandonment of rearing livestock isthe importance of grazing animals inmaintaining the environment. Thecountryside largely owes its appear-ance and its equilibrium to the grazingof herbivores, and the rearing of sheepand cattle with (to a lesser extent)goats and pigs in maintaining thisenvironment in a form to which ourcivilisation has become accustomed.Although we think of areas like thelush meadows of Germany and thewild vistas of the English Lake Districtas ‘natural and unspoiled’, they areentirely artificial. These romantic land-scapes are the result of land manage-ment and grazing of farm animals overthousands of years. The alternative –re-forestation – would deny the publicopen landscapes for recreational pur-poses and the cover of widespreadwoodland could even pose a securityproblem.

Long-term importanceof livestock

It can thus be seen that the impactof cultured meat on agriculture will be

Oron Catts and Ionat Zurr are artists with the SymbioticA project atthe Centre of Excellence in Biological Arts at the School of Anatomyand Human Biology, University of Western Australia. They have cul-tured sheep cells in vitro as a novel art-form.

The author has recently discussed cultured meat for the BBC on TheOne Show with food critic Jay Rayner. After writing the first bookchapter on the topic in 2009, he has been interviewed about thepotential importance of cultured meat on radio and TV.

45 12/10/11 14:26 Page 1

46 WORLD AGRICULTURE

comment & opinionless than one might at first envisage.Progress in research has proved to beperilously slow. We need to step backfrom looking at ways of synthesisingthe structure of meat, and regard thesystem instead from the standpoint ofthe single cell from which complex tis-sues naturally arise. It may well be thatmycoprotein will prove easier to pro-duce in a meat-like form for manydecades before cultured meatbecomes a reality. Furthermore, evenwhen cultured meat and meat substi-tutes are widely and inexpensivelyavailable, the role of conventional agri-culture will remain of paramountimportance. It is not simply to producemeat that we raise livestock, but alsoto manage the land. No matter howresearch proceeds, and even if theconsumption of meat becomes a cost-ly luxury rather than being seen as abirthright, livestock will remain of fun-damental importance.

In time, cultured meat may becomean essential part of our daily diet. Itsimportance will increase as the pres-sures upon food supply by a mush-rooming population outstrip availabili-ty. It will certainly ameliorate thedemands placed upon finite resourcesof land and inputs. But, no matterhow much this industrial sectorexpands, it will not replace agriculture.It is to the farming of livestock that weowe our surroundings, and no foresee-able research can change that funda-mental fact.

References� Anon (2011) Reduced emissions from laboratory-grown meat, Laboratory News: 4, July.� Caulfield, Catherine (1985) The Rain Forests. New Yorker magazine pp 49, 79, 14 January.� Churchill, W. S. (1932) Fifty years hence, Strand magazine, December.� Edelman, P. D., McFarland, D. C., Mironov, V. A. and Matheny, J. G. (2005) In Vitro Cultured MeatProduction, Tissue Engineering 11 (5/6): 659-662.� FAO (2006) Livestock’s long shadow – environmental issues and options. Food and AgriculturalOrganization of the United Nations, Rome, 2006.� Ford, Brian J. (2009) Culturing Meat for the Future: Anti-death versus anti-life, [chapter in] Tandy,Charles (editor) Death And Anti-Death, 7, Palo Alto: Ria University Press. � Ford, Brian J. (2011) Critical Focus (6): Cultured meat; food for the future, The Microscope 59 (2): 73-81.� McGee, Harold (2004) Food and Cooking. London: Hodder & Stoughton, pp 129-130.� Myers, Norman, and Kent, Jennifer (2005) The New Atlas of Plant Management. Berkeley and LosAngeles: University of California Press.� Pimentel, David (2001) Ecological Integrity: Integrating Environment, Conservation and Health.Washington DC: Island Press.� Ryan, Ray (2009) ICSMA demands urgent action to avoid collapse in beef production, Irish Examiner,23 September.� Smil, V. (2011) Nitrogen cycle and world food production. World Agriculture, 2 (1) 9-13.� Smith, F. E. (1930) The World in 2030, London: Brewer and Warren.� Spedding, Sir Colin (1996) Agriculture and the Citizen, London: Chapman and Hall. � Ugwu, C., Aoyagi, H., and Uchiyama, H. (2008) Photobio-reactors for mass cultivation of algae.Bioresource Technology 99: 4021-4028.� Varley, J., and Birch, J. (1999) Reactor design for large scale suspension animal cell culture.Cytotechnology 29: 177-205.

Various soy products used in vegetarian cooking

46 12/10/11 14:26 Page 1