In vitro meat: even worse for the planet than the real one?

While livestock is a big contributor to greenhouse gases, growing meat from stem cells seems like a more sustainable alternative. However, in the very long term, the benefit of global warming could be reversed, estimates a new study. This does not prevent many startups from entering the market, despite production prices for the moment prohibitive and a very uncertain demand from consumers, rather reluctant to highly processed products.

In 2013, the first steak made in vitro could be tasted in London. This "meat" made from stem cells raised in Petri dishes and sprayed with various additives to improve its texture, is supposed to be more ethical, since it does not require killing animals, and more environmentally virtuous since no cow is raised. However, livestock generates 18% of global greenhouse gases, mainly methane (CH 4 ) from rumination and manure and nitrous oxide (N 2 O). A study from Oxford University calculated in 2011 that artificial meat production reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 96% compared to conventional meat, requires 45% less energy and saves up to 96% water.

Artificial meat: the new Eldorado of startups

These issues have led many startups to start manufacturing artificial meat in recent years: Memphis Meats, funded by billionaires Richard Branson and Bill Gates, Just, or Mosa Meat are among the most advanced. Several Israeli startups are also in the ranks like Future Meat Technologies or Aleph Farms. The Japanese startup In agriculture has even promised an artificial foie gras for 2021. Proof of rapid advances in technology, the US administration established in November 2018 a regulatory framework paving the way for the future commercialization of these foods derived from stem cells.

Methane vs. CO 2, the match in Trompe-l'oil

But patterns! According to a new study from Oxford University published in Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, the steak culture would not be as virtuous as thought. The mistake is to consider all greenhouse gases as equivalent, explain the researchers. Most studies simply convert methane emissions into carbon equivalent. It only stays in the atmosphere for 12 years, while CO 2accumulates for thousands of years. "

In vitro steak  more polluting ... at 1,000 years

The researchers have thus taken the data from previous studies but converted the various emissions in terms of CO 2 equivalent over 100 years. They then proceeded to different consumption hypotheses, where traditional meat would be gradually replaced by that produced in the laboratory up to a 1,000-year horizon. As a result, the more we advance in time, the more the advantage of in vitro meat diminishes. After 450 years, even the most polluting livestock farming becomes more competitive in terms of warming than cultured meat, despite a carbon footprint that is almost twice as high.
This is not the first time that the ecological interest of meat in vitro is questioned. In 2015, a study published in the journal Environment Science & Technology had already concluded that in vitro meat required more energy than beef, pork or chicken.

Energy, greenhouse gases, antibiotics, and nitrates ... countless factors to consider

In reality, all this remains purely hypothetical. Apart from the fact that forecasting consumption in 1,000 years is somewhat adventurous, it is difficult to estimate the potential impact of each mode of production: it all depends on the type of energy used to grow the meat cells, manufacturing methods, still in its infancy, and the public's appetite for this type of meat. Similarly, livestock-related emissions vary greatly depending on the cow's diet, where she grazes, and so on. Many other factors are not taken into account. "  The culture of muscle cells requires hormones, the growth factors, the serum fetal calf, the antibiotics and fungicides that will end up in the sewage plants", and criticizes Jean-François Hocquette, a researcher at INRA who coordinated in 2015 a study on the subject. In Vitro meat could, however, bring some benefits, such as reduced animal-borne diseases, reduced nitrates in effluents or transport.

Who wants my artificial meat?

For the moment, it is not anyway questioned to taste this fake meat before a while. In the first place for a question of price. The first steak released from the laboratories in 2013 had thus cost 285,000 euros for 142 grams! Even if the different startups promise competitive final prices compared to traditional meat, "  it's certainly not for the next decade, " Jean-Francois Hocquette sweeps. "  The time of social acceptance is largely underestimated, especially in the Western press, attracted by the revolutionary nature of this innovation, "Says the researcher, for whom there are many other more accessible solutions to feed humanity while respecting the environment and animals.

Many startups have preferred to make their fake meat from a mixture of plant proteins, such as Impossible Foods, Beyond Meat or Moving Mountains. Imitations, it seems, very convincing in terms of taste and texture, but stuffed with additives of all kinds. Ultratransformed industrial foods, far from the current trend of natural recovery.

WHAT YOU MUST REMEMBER

• While livestock is a big contributor to greenhouse gases, growing meat from stem cells seems like a more sustainable alternative.
• In the very long term, however, the environmental benefit is lower because the CO 2 required for its manufacture has a much longer life span than methane in the atmosphere.
• Many startups have yet launched into the market, despite a very uncertain demand from consumers, rather reluctant to highly processed products.