Americans don’t want lab-grown meat shoved down their throats

Activist investor Ari Nessel recently wrote a piece in The Hill criticizing Florida for banning the sale and distribution of lab-grown meat. Nessel’s position is understandable, given that his company has invested in lab-grown seafood. But in banning or restricting lab-grown meat, states are simply responding to the lack of long-term safety studies and widespread consumer skepticism of this novel — and experimental — food product. 

Lab-grown meat is significantly different from farm-raised meat. Farm-raised meat is a natural product that humans have been consuming safely for thousands of years. 

The production of lab-grown meat has significant differences to natural meat. At a high level, the process involves taking animal cells, putting them in a bioreactor with a growth serum and then harvesting the cells after they divide and grow enough times to produce enough tissue. 

The devil is in the details. Normally, cells can only grow and divide a limited number of times. So some companies use “immortalized” animal cells, which have been modified to grow and divide indefinitely. “Immortalized” cells have been used in medical research, but not as food, and there are no long-term health studies demonstrating their safety, according to Bloomberg. 

The cells are placed in a metal bioreactor and fed a growth serum. What’s in the serum? Good luck finding out. Companies use a variety of chemical growth factors, and can experiment with different levels and combinations of them. The exact formula is considered a trade secret. 

Patents filed with the federal government reveal a number of substances that could be used to stimulate lab-grown meat in a bioreactor. Some of these substances are linked to a variety of negative health effects in humans. Would that be the case for the levels that are used in lab-grown meat? We can’t say for sure, because of the lack of transparency and lack of health studies.

And that’s the problem: Lab-grown meat is a big question mark to consumers. New polling conducted by my organization finds that consumers are widely opposed to lab-grown meat, across political lines. 75 percent of Republicans, 60 percent of Democrats, and 67 percent of independents say they are unwilling to include lab-grown meat in their own diets. A majority of Republicans (62 percent), Democrats (56 percent), and independents (55 percent) support federal or state legislation that restricts the sale of lab-grown meat to consumers.

Consumer health and safety concerns aren’t the only issue for lab-grown meat. Lab-grown meat may also have a significantly worse environmental impact than natural meat. Bioreactor factories use less land than a ranch, but they require a lot more electricity to operate. The growth serum needs to be made to pharmaceutical-level purity to ensure the batch of lab meat isn’t accidentally contaminated, adding additional energy costs to the whole process. 

What’s it add up to? University of California-Davis researchers found last year that lab-grown meat could have 25 times the carbon emissions of beef. 

Nessel claims that “this isn’t about forcing anyone to abandon traditional meat; it’s about adding options to our menu.” Yet Nessel funds animal liberation activists who lobby for restrictions on livestock farmers and on meat sales. One anti-meat group called him “one of the key philanthropists of the Animal Rights movement.” It’s hard to take his appeals to “principles of innovation and free-market competition” seriously when he himself funds vegan activists who work to restrict people from buying natural meat at the grocery store.

Here’s a smarter path forward: Since lab-grown meat companies can’t produce a commercial product yet, and may not be able to for several years, why don’t they spend their efforts on long-term health studies to address the many valid concerns about this experimental food product — instead of trying to figuratively shove lab-grown meat down the public’s throat? 

Otherwise, consumers will continue to say, “Thanks, but we’re not hungry.”

Jack Hubbard is the executive director of the Center for the Environment and Welfare, which advises consumers and companies on issues related to sustainability and animal welfare.