Finding common ground with farmers could make lab-grown meat companies more likely to succeed, says Katherine Lewis.
Farmers are concerned by claims made by lab-grown meat companies, so they want to understand where they fit into this new market.
After decades of research and billions of dollars of investment, it’s becoming increasingly possible that cultured meat will move from the science lab to the kitchen table in the near future. In Singapore, you can now buy small amounts of cultured meat in a restaurant and from a butcher. It has been approved for human consumption in the US, and here in the UK, the Food Standards Agency launched a ‘sandbox programme’ for cell-cultivated products just last week.
But at the same time, there are growing signs of push-back. One of the primary reasons given for bans in Italy and in Florida is protecting traditional farming. This hasn’t been helped by the cultured meat industry making claims that they will “end animal agriculture”. But in all the reams of research into the economic, environmental, and ethical implications of cultured meat, hardly anyone has asked what farmers think, and what it might mean for their businesses.
That’s why, at the Royal Agricultural University, we wanted to bring UK farmers into the conversation. After two years of talking to farmers and growers in groups and one-to-one, as well as researching what they say online, we have just launched our findings.
It will likely come as no surprise that most of the farmer’s first reaction was one of scepticism and concern. This was most obvious online, where the conversation is very polarised. In small groups, the discussions were more nuanced. There was certainly concern, but it was mostly societal rather than self-interested. Compared with next week’s weather and next year’s markets, the possibility of cultured meat competing with their business felt ‘slow burn’. Instead, their concerns echoed those of the general public, centring on public health and the consolidation of power in the food industry.
However, in the group discussions, the farmers entertained the idea that it might also bring new opportunities. And when we spoke to farmers one-on-one, those conversations became even more pragmatic. While still generally sceptical, some could envision supplying into new markets, differentiating their higher welfare or grass-fed produce as ‘the real stuff’, or even producing cultured meat on-farm in systems similar to those being proposed by Respect Farms.
Rather than starting from an ‘all or nothing’ position, where if cultured meat makes it to market, it will “end animal agriculture”, we took the view that it is more likely the two industries would coexist. So, as well as talking to farmers, we looked at potential synergies. We costed agricultural by-products such as rapeseed meal or even bovine blood or hoof and horn meal instead of the ‘off-the-shelf’ amino acids used in the growth media for cultured meat. As well as monetary cost, we also looked at environmental cost, comparing the amino acid sources on a range of factors such as global warming potential, land, and water use.
Early findings suggest that the agricultural by-products could make cultured meat production cheaper and more environmentally sound. And at the same time, it could mean farmers can earn income from something that usually goes to waste or has very little value.
With the threat of more bans in the name of traditional agriculture, working with farmers could certainly benefit the cultured meat industry. As this study shows, there may also be something in it for farmers, and possibly some appetite, too. But for this to happen, the industry will have to change the way they talk about both their own products and about farming.
Katherine Lewis is research engagement manager at the Royal Agricultural University.
Leave a Reply