Is lab-grown meat’s carbon footprint bigger than retail beef?

Lab-grown meat cultured from animal cells has been marketed as more environmentally sustainable than raising a beef animal. However, new research from the University of California Davis suggests that the carbon footprint of cell-cultured meat is more extensive than the industry has let on. 

Researchers at UC-Davis studied the energy cycle and greenhouse gas emissions in each production stage of lab-grown meat and compared it to the farm-to-plate production of raising a beef steer. Currently, the lab-grown meat industry faces the challenge of using purified growth media, which uses living organisms to create ingredients to multiply animal cells, a similar technology used to make pharmaceuticals. 

 "Companies having to purify growth media to pharmaceutical levels use more resources, which then increases global warming potential," says Derrick Risner, doctoral graduate and lead researcher.

A lot of lab-grown meat companies have not been forthcoming with data on their product’s environmental impact, he says. 

“Lab-grown meat companies have not shared enough data, which has left consumers with limited information about the true environmental impact of their products,” says Rebecca Barnett, director of animal health and food safety policy with the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. “This is in contrast to agriculture, with its emissions data widely available through the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Agriculture.” 

 Risner and his team's study also found that the purified media method of production makes cell-cultured meat use four to 25 times more energy than the average for retail beef, which is the emitted carbon dioxide equivalent for each kilogram of meat produced.

Out of the total overall greenhouse gas emissions for agriculture, cattle account for just 2%, according to research studies. For more than 50 years, the beef industry has produced 60% more beef per animal but has also lowered its emissions by 40% per pound of beef, according to Barnett. 

"If this product continues to be produced using the "pharma" approach, it's going to be worse for the environment and more expensive than conventional beef production," Risner adds. 

 Is a climate-friendly burger in the future?

One of the cell-culture industry's goals is to produce lab-grown meat, primarily food-grade ingredients or cultures, without using the expensive and energy-intensive pharmaceutical ingredient process, says Risner. 

Risner's previous research on that production scenario found cultured meat is environmentally competitive but within a wide range. He says that cultured meat's global-warming potential falls between 80% lower to 26% above that of conventional beef production. These results are more promising; however, the leap from "pharma to food" remains a significant technical challenge, he says.

"Our findings suggest that cultured meat is not inherently better for the environment than conventional beef. It's not a panacea," says Edward Spang, a food science and technology professor. "We could reduce its environmental impact in the future, but it will require significant technical advancement to simultaneously increase the performance and decrease the cost of the cell-culture media."

In the study, Risner and Sprang also showed that efficient beef production systems outperform cultured meat across all scenarios (both food and pharma techniques), which suggests that investments toward climate-friendly beef production on the farm may yield more significant reductions in emissions at a faster pace compared with investments with cultured meat.

Many cattle operations are perfecting herd genetics, precision grazing management systems, and adapting feedyard technology, which has significantly improved the conservation of natural resources. Most cell-cultured meat depends on large factories to produce its products at a large scale, which doesn’t provide any of the benefits that traditional farming and ranching does, says Barnett. 

In other words, the evolution of technologies and its role in cultured meat and conventional beef will continue to play a vital role for both to improve efficiency and lower environmental impacts. 

Developing the required technology to help lab-grown meat leap from "pharma to food" is among the goals of the UC-Davis Cultivated Meat Consortium, a cross-disciplinary group of scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, and educators. 

Currently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Department of Agriculture (USDA) have adopted an agreement on the regulation of lab-grown products, with FDA overseeing the cell harvest and USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service assuming jurisdiction over the product post-harvest, adds Barnett. 

Recently, the FDA has approved two companies, Good Meats and Upside Foods, to produce cell-cultured chicken safe for human consumption. The cell-based product is still awaiting approval by USDA. 

"My concern would be the cell-culture industry scaling this up too quickly and doing something harmful for the environment," says Risner.

“Cattle producers aren’t afraid of competition, but consumers deserve transparency regarding the product that they are purchasing. Alternative protein companies should not be allowed to misinform consumers through deceptive marketing practices,” adds Barnett. 

However, even if lab-based meat doesn't result in a more climate-friendly burger, valuable science remains to be learned from the endeavor. 

"It may not lead to environmentally friendly commodity meat, but it could lead to less expensive pharmaceuticals, " he says.