Bioengineered Meat and it’s Potential Contributions to Food Security in the Future- A Literature Review
Keywords:
bioengineered meat, environmental impact, food securityAbstract
The theoretical possibility of bioengineering meat grown in an industrial setting has long captured scientists' imagination. Almost a century after Churchill wrote that we should be growing separate parts of a chicken in a suitable medium, we still grow the whole animal to consume roughly 68% of it. Animal farming is responsible for 15% of the global GHG emissions, but also provides income and food security for farmers in developing countries. With a predicted rise in consumption of meat, reaching 374MT in 2030, due to developing countries increased access to animal-sourced foods, the environmental impact of livestock follows an ascending trend. The question is if bioengineered meat can break the trend while proving to be a viable product for mass consumption.
We aim to evaluate the possible beneficial contributions of bioengineered animal products to ensuring food security for a growing population, through reducing the environmental cost of animal farming for food purposes.
An extensive review of the existing scientific literature reveals that currently, a thorough life cycle analysis for bioengineered meat is still based on incomplete data, although said data is gathered directly from the industry, and has some degree of uncertainty regarding the levels of environmental impact and potential for development.
References
Churchill W., Fifty Years Hence, Strand Magazine, 1931, available at
https://www.nationalchurchillmuseum.org/fifty-years-hence.html
Petroman, C.; Bălan, I.; Petroman, I.; Orboi, M.D.; Banes, A.; Trifu, C.; Marin, D.; National grading of quality of beef and veal carcasses in Romania according to “EUROP” system, Journal of Food Agriculture & Environment, 2009, 7(3-4), 173-174
Livestock, Environment and Development Initiative, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Livestock’s Long Shadow. Environmental Issues and Options, Rome, 2006
United Nations, World Population Prospects, New York, 2015
Edelman, P; McFarland, D; Mironov, V.A.; Matheny, Jason. Commentary In Vitro-Cultured Meat Production, Tissue engineering, 2005, 11, 659-62, 10.1089/ten.2005.11.659.
Wikipedia, 2021. Willem van Eelen address: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willem_van_Eelen
US Patent #7.270.829, Industrial production of meat using cell culture methods, web page address: https://patents.justia.com/patent/7270829
US Patent Application #20060029922, Industrial production of meat, web page address: https://patents.justia.com/patent/20060029922#history
Patent US6835390B1, Method for producing tissue engineered meat for consumption, web page address: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6835390B1/en
European Food Safety Authority, 2002. Home page address: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en
Animal Disease Information System, European Commission, Home page address: https://ec.europa.eu/food/animals/animal-diseases/animal-disease-information-system-adis_en#ecl-inpage-487
Sălășan, C.; Bălan, I.; Suitability of a quality management approach within the public agricultural advisory services, Quality - Access to Success, 2014, 15(140), pp. 81–84
Datar, I.; Betti, M. Possibilities for an in vitro meat production system, Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, 2010, 11(1), 13-22, 10.1016/j.ifset.2009.10.007.
Tuomisto, H.L., Joost Teixeira de Mattos, M., Environmental Impacts of Cultured Meat Production, Environmental Science and Technology, 2011, 45(14), 6117-6123, 10.1021/es200130u
Tuomisto, H.L., Ellis, M.J., Haastrup, P., Environmental impacts of cultured meat: alternative production scenarios. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector. Vashon, WA, (USA): ACLCA; 2014. p. 1360-1366. JRC91013
Mattick, C.S.; Landis, A.E.; Allenby B.R., Genovese N.J. Anticipatory Life Cycle Analysis of In Vitro Biomass Cultivation for Cultured Meat Production in the United States, Environmental Science and Technology, 2015, 49(19), 11941-11949, 10.1021/acs.est.5b01614
Smetana, S., Mathys, A., Knoch, A., Heinz V., Meat alternatives: life cycle assessment of most known meat substitutes, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2015, 20, 1254-1267, 10.1007/s11367-015-0931-6
Sinke, P., Odegard, I., LCA of cultivated meat. Future projections for different scenarios, CE Delft, Delft, 2021
Vergeer, R., Sinke, P., Odegard, I., TEA of cultivated meat. Future projections of different scenarios – corrigendum, CE Delft, Delft, 2021
Szejda, K., Stumpe, M., Raal, L., Tapscott C E., South African Consumer Adoption of Plant-Based and Cultivated Meat: A Segmentation Study, Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 2021, 5, 377, 10.3389/fsufs.2021.744199
Garcez de Oliveira Padilha, L., Malek, L., Umberger, W.J., Food choice drivers of potential lab-grown meat consumers in Australia, British Food Journal, 2021, 123(9), 3014-3031., 10.1108/BFJ-03-2021-0214
Bryant, C., Barnett, J., Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: A systematic review, Meat Science, 2018, 143, 8-17, 10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.04.008
Bryant, C., Barnett, J., Consumer Acceptance of Cultured Meat: An Updated Review (2018–2020), Applied Sciences, 2021, 10(15), 10.3390/app10155201
Baum, M.C., Bröring, S., Lagerkvist, C-J., Information, attitudes, and consumer evaluations of cultivated meat, Food Quality and Preference, 2021, 92, 10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104226
Escribano, A.J.; Peña, M.B.; Díaz-Caro, C.; Elghannam, A.; Crespo-Cebada, E.; Mesías, F.J. Stated Preferences for Plant-Based and Cultured Meat: A Choice Experiment Study of Spanish Consumers. Sustainability, 2021, 13, 8235, 10.3390/su13158235
Rabl, V.A.; Basso, F. When Bad Becomes Worse: Unethical Corporate Behavior May Hamper Consumer Acceptance of Cultured Meat. Sustainability, 2021, 13, 10.3390/su13126770.
