Growing Meat in a Tank: Part 3
New data show that this is more harmful to the environment than raising cows for slaughter.
This is the third time I’ve written about the recent trend to ‘grow’ animal protein in bioreactors.
It’s being touted as more environment friendly, because there’s no actual animal eating grass — or as it is with most cows raised for beef — soy or wheat grain derivative products, pooping and burping, and basically making a mess of things in places like Iowa.
The animal is replaced by the cultivation of cells, in a complex chemical medium, that is then ‘harvested’ to produce burger meat, steaks, chicken breasts and pretty much anything else we’re familiar with from the animal world.
When I first touched on the subject, I argued that whatever you choose to eat — whether animal protein or plant-based protein — it’s probably best to make an effort to choose what you eat based on where and how the protein is produced.
The second time I wrote about protein, I mildly scoffed at the efforts of the Hollywood elite to encourage, and invest, in businesses who wanted to grow animal protein in a bioreactor, who were stating that such a method was better for the environment than traditional ways of raising this class of protein.
My basic conclusion, based on the research at the time, was the animal protein grown in a bioreactor from animal cells was difficult, if not impossible, to scale and was harmful to the environment through the energy it would need and the unknown effects on the environment when taking into account the total life cycle of the process.
I found that the claims of the nascent animal cell-based meat (ACBM) industry regarding reducing GHG emissions was based on only one study whose underpinnings for GHG emissions were global averages, rather than country-specific results. This had the effect of over-stating the GHG emission results for ACBM. Further, the study did not even consider comparing itself to regeneratively-raised animals who, based on certain studies, either generate far lower GHG emissions than industrially-raised animals, or even return carbon to the soil.
I also found that the cost efficiencies claimed by ACBM companies was grossly overstated, the nutritional value of ACBM was questionable compared to farm-raised animal protein and the complexity in bringing ACBM to scale were woefully unaddressed by the industry as a whole.
More recent research has revealed that, on the environmental impact front at least, I was on the money.
A new study from the University of California, Davis and University of California, Holtville (Risner et al, and available in pre-print only), examined the entire life cycle of producing animal protein through artificial methods, namely, grown in a bioreactor.
Risner et al start by pointing out the deficiencies in existing life cycle assessments of cellular meat production by noting that, while most authors of current studies acknowledge the high levels of uncertainty in their results, they nevertheless state that the results are proof that ACBM methods are better for the environment than traditional methods of animal protein production.
For me, when there is a high level of uncertainty, it’s not proof of anything. Rather, it’s an indication that there is potential but that more study is required before coming to any definitive conclusions.
Let’s start with the process for growing cellular-based protein. The diagram below is illustrative of the complexity in designing a basic production line.
Risner et al’s approach in assessing this complex process was to use a methodology for life cycle assessments based on standards developed by the International Standards Organization (ISO), which take into account the entire cycle of a particular endeavour, including the initial goal of the enterprise and all the various components of the process to produce, in this case, protein based on growing animal cells in a chemical medium inside a bioreactor.
Risner et al used the production method noted in the figure above, and refined it to include various different growth media to produce the baseline cell structure that produces the finished product, i.e., the cell mass that would be further refined for appearance and shelf stability for retail sale.
In the end, Risner et al found that cellular meat production netted GHG emission results that were between 4 and 25 times greater than the median of existing industrialized beef production methods, and greater still than beef produced using regenerative methods.
What was striking about the Risner et al analysis is that, even with a more thorough life cycle assessment, their findings still excluded the energy consumed by the ACBM production facility; it only considered the fossil fuel consumption required to produce the various growth media required for this process, which by themselves, take considerable energy to produce at the refinement levels required for animal cell growth.
Further, the analysis did not include the GHG emissions generated once the produce had left the production facility through to the retail store, and after, to the consumer home, only mentioning that, inclusion of these factors would further increase the GHG emission profile of ACBM.
Finally, the authors admit that their study did not consider the impact on the environment of producing ACBM at scale, or, as they state, producing a minimum of 100 million kilogrammes of protein annually. For that, additional research is required, including assessments of the energy required to mine basic materials to produce the facilities, plus the additional energy use required to produce the massive amount of refined growth medium used in the production process. Last, but certainly not least, the study made no mention of how the growth medium is to be disposed of once used in the process of producing ACBM. Is it reused? Is it disposed? If so, how, and in what manner?
The Risner et al study is a step in the right direction to better assess the feasibility of producing animal protein through the growth of animal cells in a bioreactor. It’s an important assessment of the production method alone and how it performs in terms of its environmental impact versus current methods of producing animal protein.
However, the study has some drawbacks, namely, it did not consider the energy required for the production process, the environmental impact of what happens with the product once it leaves the factory and it ignored what happens with the huge volume of growth medium once it has been used to produce the protein.
The study confirmed my initial conclusion of 2021 that this process, attractive as it may seem to some, is not necessarily the way forward in our quest to produce sufficient protein for our future needs. It is energy intensive, requires considerable skill to manage the complexity of growing animal cells in such growth media without contamination, and is difficult to scale to produce protein in the volumes that humanity needs.
Rather, I would argue that we should be working on encouraging less animal protein consumption and what we consume should be based on regenerative methods of production. This, coupled with increased plant-based sources of protein (with particular attention on micro-nutrient levels), is a more viable way forward.
The next time someone touts the wonders of cellular based protein — particularly celebrities — it’s important to note that the jury is still out on the costs and benefits of this method of protein production, and whatever they say needs to be taken with a large grain of salt.
