The concept of cultured meat, initially introduced by Winston Churchill in his 1931 article "Fifty Years Hence," aimed to address environmental, ethical, and health concerns associated with traditional meat production [1]. It refers to meat synthesised from animal muscle cells in a laboratory setting. In recent years, the development of cultured meat has gained significant traction, with researchers aggressively advocating for its adoption worldwide. Despite the assertion, the cultured meat industry faces numerous social and political challenges. Notably, while Singapore stands as the only country to have approved the commercial sale of cultured meat to meet the demands of its people and ensuring food security, others such as Malaysia has neither developed regulatory framework nor expressed interest in embracing the technology. Certain groups of communities have adopted more stringent stances, prohibiting synthetic meat production, potentially influenced by technical, cultural, or religious considerations.
The divergent viewpoints among nations regarding the cultured meat industry are thought to stem from the intricate ecosystem shaped by various social and political dimensions. I aim to unravel the complexities of these relationships by examining them through the lens of infrastructure, starting from its origins and perceptions, regulatory frameworks to consumerism behaviours, elucidating their impact on the industry's global expansion and sustainability. Finally, I will attempt at elucidating the role of regulations in shaping the ecosystem needed to support the industry and how Malaysia could benefit from this emerging food commodity.
Origins and perception evolutions
Although Churchill's proposition of cultured meat as a substitute for traditional animal meat industry initially captured attention, the idea was first introduced by Frederick Birkenhead in 1929. Birkenhead envisioned the possibility of producing large cuts of meat without the need for raising a bullock [2]. For Churchill, synthetic meat was the perfect solution to food shortages during wartime or disease outbreaks. However, it wasn't until Willem van Eelen, the "Godfather of Cultured Meat," began advocating for the concept that it gained widespread attention. Despite initial scepticism, van Eelen successfully patented his method of synthesising meat from cell cultures in 1993 [3]. This evolution from a mere conceptualisation to a tangible commodity has reshaped consumer perceptions, positioning cultured meat as a viable alternative in the global protein market.
A survey involving 323 Dutch participants in 2022 revealed a notable preference for lab-cultured meat over traditional meat, particularly in terms of willingness to consume [4]. The consensus among the participants is that cultured meat is comparable to original meat, in terms of nutrition, sustainability, and ethics. Interestingly, it is perceived as more sustainable and preferable over insect and plant-based alternatives although this perception is predominantly driven by its palatability, a factor that synthetic meat producers can capitalise on to improve consumer perceptions. Similar sentiments were observed among Singaporean consumers, due to their cultural kiasu-ism trait, who exhibit a greater openness to novel food products to meet their growing consumption demand.
Regulatory frameworks drive investment
Understanding the regulatory landscape surrounding cultured meat requires us to consider the global scale of meat consumption, which quadrupled to 335 million tonnes in 2018 in over half century, contributing to significant greenhouse gas emissions and environmental degradation [5]. In the USA, where per capita meat consumption continues to rise by 4.5 kg annually, concerns over environmental impact from the massive use of farmland spanning 900 million acres, and food security have prompted considerations for synthetic meat production [6]. Regulatory processes, exemplified by the US Department of Agriculture's (USDA) cautious approach in approving cultured meat products, demonstrate a commitment to promoting its speed to market, while concurrently ensuring stringent safety and quality standards compliance. This was evidenced when Vows, the first cultured meat brand, was not approved for sale due to compliance reasons, albeit cleared as safe for human consumption by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). Although USDA's seemingly shrewd verdict is seen as somewhat conflicting to Churchill's aspiration back in the 1930s to witness synthetic meat flies, it also goes to show how robust the American regulation processes are in shaping an ecosystem for the safe development of cultured meat. The outcome of such shrewd yet enabling laws is the spring of many businesses contesting to develop their own cultured meat products with a net investment of $400 million pouring in to build research and production facilities in the USA.
Regrettably, Europe has seen limited progress in regulating the synthetic meat industry, lacking significant advancement. Nevertheless, guidelines have certainly been established to assess its safety for human consumption. The UK has unveiled ambitious plans to foster the development of cultured meat products within its borders, recognising alternative proteins as pivotal for growth in its recently released Government Food Strategy. Under the jurisdiction of the Food Standards agency (FSA), this signals an opportunity for stakeholders, including investors and producers alike to collaborate in establishing a conducive ecosystem for its growth.
In contrast, Singapore with a population of only one-thirteenth to that of the the UK, has emerged as a world's leader in promoting animal-free protein alternatives. This is possible due to its limited arable land and the government's emphasis on raising food self-sufficiency to 30% by 2030 based on the Singapore Green Plan 2030 [7]. Favourable policies, such as the approval of cultured chicken products by the Singaporean Food Safety Agency, have facilitated the growth of the cultured meat industry, attracting $2.8 billion worth of investment to position the country as a global hub for cell-based agriculture.
Consumer behaviours across demographics
The acceptance of cultured meat varies among different consumer demographics. In Muslim-majority countries, halal dietary restrictions pose challenges to the acceptance of synthetically produced meat, as its production method, which is void of slaughtering, may conflict with religious principles. However, variations in fatwas regarding the halal status of cultured meat suggest potential for acceptance with proper adherence to religious guidelines, as evidenced in UAE’s zealous plans to set up a research facility in the Emirates. Jewish communities, governed by kosher dietary laws, may view cultured meat favourably if it meets specific requirements.
In India, where vegetarianism is prevalent due to religious and cultural influences, acceptance of cultured meat may be limited, although it could find a market in regions less influenced by vegetarianism. Vegans, on the other hand, who avoid animal-derived products, may view cultured meat as a viable alternative to conventional meat, although concerns about the use of animal-derived growth mediums may hinder widespread adoption. Addressing ethical and sustainability concerns could facilitate greater acceptance among vegan consumers.
What's in it for Malaysia?
The emergence of cultured meat as a viable food commodity marks a significant shift in the global food industry. While traditional meat production methods remain prevalent, the cultivation of animal cells in controlled environments has gained magnanimous momentum, offering a sustainable and ethical alternative. Countries like Singapore have demonstrated the potential of cultured meat by implementing supportive policies and infrastructure, paving the way for its commercialisation.
Malaysia, with its limited arable land for farming expansion and the ever-increasing demand for sustainable food supplies, stands to benefit from embracing cultured meat. By developing regulatory frameworks and fostering political will, Malaysia can create an enabling environment for cultured meat production, which requires up to 99% less land and 90% less water than traditional livestock farming methods. Additionally addressing cultural and religious considerations, such as those within the Muslim and Indian communities, which form the majority of Malaysian population, with supportive fatwas, edicts and education, will be essential in shaping consumer perceptions and acceptance. As we look towards greener future, it is clear that regulations will play a crucial role in nurturing the inception, development and sustainability of the cultured meat industry, contributing to a more resilient and environmentally conscious food system, and ultimately food security.
References:
[1] Churchill, W. (1952). Fifty Years Hence. In Thoughts and Adventure (pp. 549– 558). Thornton Butterworth Limited.
[2] Birkenhead, F.E.S. The World in 2030 A.D. London: Hodder & Stoughton (1930)
[3] van Eelen, W. F., van Kooten, W. J., & Westerhof, W. (1999). Industrial scale production of meat from in vitro cell cultures.
[4] Cornelissen, K., & Piqueras-Fiszman, B. (2022). Consumers’ perception of cultured meat relative to other meat alternatives and meat itself: A segmentation study. Journal of Food Science.
[5] Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Global livestock environmental assessment model. (2019).
[6] Davis, C.G., Knight, R., & Taylor, H. (2022). Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook: 2022 (pp. 1–2). United States Department of Agriculture.
[7] 30 By 30: Strengthening Our Food Security. Singapore Food Agency; (2022)
Disclaimer: All data are properties of their respective owners, unless otherwise stated. All charts and graphics are properties of Hafeez Hamdan.
This is a free-access document. To cite this work, use: Hafizuddin, H. (2024, March 16). Cultured meat: the future's food security. https://www.hafeezhamdan.com/post/cultured-meat-the-future-food-commodity
Comments