New Research Claims Current Cultured Meat Is Worse For The Environment Than Beef
A new life cycle analysis by researchers at UC Davis has concluded that the current way of trading in the farmed meat industry may be worse on the environment than beef produced by animal agriculture, producing anywhere from 4 to 25 times more CO.2 than traditionally produced beef.
Analysis, which is at this point it has not been peer reviewedit is in stark contrast to previous life cycle analysis (LCA) studies that have concluded the environmental impact of cell cultured meat – which the study calls “animal cell-based meat” or ACBM – is significantly less than conventionally produced beef. However, according to new research, the problem with previous LCAs is that they do not accurately represent the environmental impact of current technologies used in the sets of assumptions for forecasts within techno-economic models.
In particular, the study (which was first reported in IFL Science) says that the significant environmental impact associated with the necessary cleaning of the growing area has not been fully accounted for in previous studies. According to the UC Davis researchers, these previous studies “had high levels of uncertainty in their results and a lack of calculation” in what they believe is the necessary removal of endotoxin needed in the growth media. The calculation of the required cleaning is important say the authors of the study, and they believe that the residual fuel needed in the middle parts of the growth cleaned using the current marketing process is expected to be between 3 and 17 times of the reported condition of “high” for the production of traditional boneless beef.
Although the researchers say that their research is more accurate than previous LCAs that did not accurately simulate the production costs of the refined growth area, they continue to say that this is because the costs built into these techno-economic models are based on current programs that are being developed for the near-term use of ACBM. They say that the industry can be improved as a whole if some of the important issues are resolved before the industry is focused on commercial growth, such as the development of an “environmentally friendly method of endotoxin removal” or “the development of technological innovations that allow the use of inexpensive animal cell culture media produced from agricultural products.”.
“Perhaps focusing on advancing these competing scientific advances ahead of time may lead to a better outcome for all,” they write.
It must also be emphasized that this paper has not been peer-reviewed, so until it has been evaluated by other subject matter experts in the analysis of the life cycle of cell ag in the research community, we must warn to sound the alarm about the possible impact of the current approach towards commercialization. At the same time, the authors of this report, such as Dr. Justin Siegel, they have great writing and a publishing history that suggests they probably wouldn’t put their name behind a controversial ending if they didn’t believe it would continue to be scrutinized.
My guess is that the conclusion of this study will create a lot of interest and can have a big impact on this industry if the findings are considered valid by the wider scientific community. Most of the developers of cultured meat that are currently being funded say they are working on technologies that will lower the cost of cultured meat, but it is not clear if anything has been identified to solve the challenges identified by the authors of this study in the current way of commercializing ACBM.
We’ll be following the reaction to this research from those in the scientific community — and by extension, the investment community — over the next few months.
