A new report from a team led by the Royal Agricultural University (RAU) in Cirencester, UK, has shown how using by-products from farming could scale up cell-based meat production and bring down costs.

The report, titled ‘Culture Clash? What cultured meat could mean for UK farming’, explores how scientists and companies developing cell-based meat could find “common cause” with farmers.

Chair in rural policy and strategy at the RAU, Tom MacMillan, led the study. He said: “The environmental cost of meat production globally means we need to throttle back, and widening the range of safe, tasty, and affordable alternatives to traditional meat can help. While the jury is out on whether cultured meat will fit the bill, we’ve found that it needn’t spell disaster for farmers.”

“The farmers who spoke to us for this study had lots of concerns about the technology but, for the most part, had many bigger challenges on their plates,” MacMillan continued. “Some were also interested in its opportunities, from supplying raw materials to even producing it on their farms.”

While some countries (Italy, Austria) and US states are attempting to ban – or have passed laws banning (Florida, Alabama, Iowa) cultured meat – MacMillan explained how, instead, he sees this as “all or nothing”. These bans were partly led by political statements about cell-based meat’s perceived threat to farming – the RAU report calls for further engagement between farmers and cultivated meat companies to avoid polarisation.

“Building bridges with farmers is certainly in the cultured meat companies’ interests, as some are starting to see. More surprisingly, we found that keeping the door open may serve farmers better too.”

Working closely with partner farms throughout the UK, the researchers found that some farmers were interested in the opportunities created by cultivated meat, such as providing raw materials for the production process or leasing farm buildings to cultivated meat companies.

Potential farming by-products that could be used in cell-based meat production include the waste of the rapeseed oil manufacturing process, some of which currently goes to animal feed, and blood from traditional meat production, which is sometimes used as fertiliser or wasted. Both are rich in amino acids, which the RAU report states are the costliest and least sustainable ingredients used to cultivate meat.

The research found that using these by-products could reduce the environmental footprint of cell-based meat due to less energy, water and land usage requirements, making the end product more affordable.

Bridging cell-based meat production and farming could also benefit farmers, addressing concerns over the threat the new technology poses to traditional farming.

The RAU research team partnered with nine UK farms to find out what cell-based meat might mean for their individual businesses. Compared with challenges such as changing weather patterns and global commodity markets, the threat of competition from this novel food sector felt like a “slow burn” to them. Their main concerns were about wider social issues, such as big companies controlling the food system or the knock-on effects on rural communities.

Linus Pardoe, UK policy manager at the Good Food Institute Europe, said: “This report demonstrates how building bridges between the cultivated meat sector and agricultural communities can offer benefits to both, and it’s great to see that some farmers recognise the potential opportunities cultivated meat can offer. At a time when debates about the future of food have become polarised, we welcome this study’s urgent call for sustained open dialogue between farmers and the cultivated meat sector.”

The study was guided by an advisory group including farming organisations and cell-based meat players and also involved practical workshops with policymakers, funders, environmental groups and cultivated meat businesses to identify practical next steps.

© Top image: Oxford, UK-based Ivy Farm's cultivated pork sausage

#banning #farming #UK #RoyalAgriculturalUniversity