In the 1932 essay called "Fifty Years Hence", in which he offered his notions of how the world might look in 1982, Winston Churchill wrote: "We shall escape the absurdity of growing a whole chicken in order to eat the breast or wing, by growing these parts separately under a suitable medium.''
It might have taken longer than 50 years, but Churchill was certainly on to something. Today, scientists are slowly converting his ideas to reality by producing small quantities of "cultured meat" in research laboratories. Indeed, Mark Post of Maastricht University, one of the pioneers in the field, claims he will be able to produce a cultured burger by the end of the year.
Cultured meat – also known as in vitro meat or lab-grown meat – draws on the science of stem cell technology used in medicine. Stem cells are extracted from a pig, say, and converted to pig muscle cells. These muscle cells are then cultured on a scaffold with nutrients and essential vitamins and grown to desired quantities.
During the growth process, the muscle cells are also "exercised" using either mechanical stretchers or electric stimulation. The scaffold and the exercise provide the muscle cells with ideal structure, texture and strength, while the growth supplements bestow the cells with optimal nutrition. Ultimately, these cells can be shaped and seasoned into sausages, hamburgers, steaks or mince.
This may sound far-fetched, but you only have to visit your nearest supermarket to find "engineered" products in the form of soya meat options and Quorn. In this context, burgers from cultured meat might seem somewhat more "real" than vegetarian "sausages". But why bother?
Shall we count the reasons?
Meat production is one of the major contributors to global environmental degradation, especially deforestation, global warming, fresh water scarcity and loss of biodiversity. Currently, meat production uses almost one-third of the global land area, which amounts to more than 70% of the total agricultural land; and one-fifth of the global greenhouse gas emissions come from meat production.
According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation's (FAO) latest data, every year each Briton eats about 85kg of meat, which amounts to 33 chickens, one pig, three-quarters of a sheep, and a fifth of a cow. Between 1961 and 2007, British meat consumption increased by 20%, and this trend shows no sign of stopping.
Globally, as developing countries and their people get wealthier, they increase the amount of meat in their diet. This helps to explain the FAO's stark prediction of the doubling of worldwide meat consumption by 2050. If this prediction is accurate, and if there is no change in livestock production methods, all forests would have to be converted to agricultural land, generating ever-increasing amounts of greenhouse gases. To avoid these and other devastating impacts on the environment, changes in meat consumption and production are essential.
Change comes in many forms, runs received wisdom. And one might nod as one hears banal and vacuous philosophical themes such as "change begins with you" or "every little thing helps". But we prefer the hard "numbers, not adjectives" line of David MacKay, professor of natural philosophy. We need huge change and solving the environmental damage due to meat production by adopting vegetarianism is an untenable solution. Global data analysis shows that most people are not keen on a substantial reduction of meat in their diet, so an alternative sustainable way of producing meat is required.
Inspired by the "numbers, not adjectives" principle, we contributed to the assessment of the environmental impacts of cultured meat production and have published our findings in a peer-review journal. The results showed that cultured meat has 80-95% lower greenhouse gas emissions, 99% lower land use and 80-90% lower water use compared to conventionally produced meat in Europe.
Every kilo of conventionally produced meat requires 4kg-10kg of feed, whereas cultured meat significantly increases efficiency by using only 2kg of feed. Based on our results, if cultured meat constituted half of all meat consumed we could halve the greenhouse emissions, and increase the forest cover by 50%, which is equivalent to four times of Brazil's current forest area.
The environmental benefits of cultured meat are even greater when the costs of land use are taken into account. Strategies for carbon sequestration could be used on the land freed from meat agriculture and would include growing new forests. There'd also be an increase in biodiversity as more land could be used for wildlife conservation.
Cultured meat technology could also stop illegal endangered species hunts by providing an alternative way to produce meat from these species. What's more, cultured meat technology is also humane – a huge contrast to the current, industrial factory farms, which work against the natural behaviour of livestock.
In addition to environmental impacts, there are other advantages. First it is, in theory, healthier than conventional meat. The quantity and quality of fat can be controlled, so it is possible to produce cultured meat without any fat or with healthy fats. Also, the spread of animal-borne diseases and epidemic zoonoses can be prevented as a consequence of reduced human-animal contact.
But how does it taste? Unfortunately, we can't yet offer a clear answer as no one is presently allowed to taste cultured meat. Conventionally, taste is influenced by many factors such as the source of muscle cell, the fat content and the texture. Cultured meat's controlled production conditions enable us to add, remove or change any feature of the meat product based on consumer preferences. The cultured meat technology can then – in theory – supply the entire world's meat demands for a year, using only one or few cells and to specific taste requirements.
However, even with all these apparent advantages, very few researchers are working on developing the cultured meat technology. How long before the meat is available in supermarkets depends on the investment in research and development. The most optimistic estimates are that the first commercial product could be available in about five years. The first product will be minced beef or a sausage; steaks might take a little longer. There's a long way to go but we need to start talking about the possibilities. We have a huge problem – how to feed the world. Now we might be at the start of a solution.