Is “cultured meat” a viable alternative to slaughtering animals and a good comprise between animal welfare and human expectations?

• We need a holistic, multi-criteria, and independent assessment of the so-called “cultured meat.” • The balance of all potential arguments in favor or against “cultured meat” is likely to be negative because all arguments from a human or an animal perspective are weak. • Even the idea that “cultured meat” is a viable alternative to slaughtering animals and is good for animal welfare are still uncertain. The image of meat products has been undermined by some consumer groups due to increasing environmental, ethical, and health concerns. In this context, the relevance of meat substitutes and expectations in terms of labeling (welfare, environmental, or other) has increased. However, it is not certain that these substitutes really live up to consumers’ expectations and are more virtuous than meat in ethical, health, nutritional, or environmental terms (Onwezen et al., 2021). In recent years, alternatives to animal products have evolved and diversified to meet the expectations of certain consumers and could take a significant share of the meat market within a decade. Among these alternatives, “cultured meat” would, according to its promoters, perform significantly better in a life cycle analysis than meat as reviewed (Chriki and Hocquette, 2020). It is presented as a way to reduce the use and abuse of animals as well as health risks. The technology related to “cultured meat” has been continuously developed and improved and its potential market is expanding rapidly to meet consumer demands according to Zhang et al. (2021). The aim of this review is, therefore, to take stock of the current knowledge on the benefits of this “cultured meat,” for which the term “meat” does not seem to be relevant. This review will be divided into two parts: the first will describe the “cultured meat” process and its potential benefits and weaknesses for humans, and the second will focus on the potential ethical issues for animals arising from this new technology, based on principles described in the first part. a) Is “cultured meat” really meat? What are the legal issues? The principle of the “cultured meat” process is to produce a large amount of muscle from a few living cells. In practice, a biopsy is taken from a live animal. When cultured, this piece of muscle will liberate stem cells, which have the ability to proliferate and then transform into different types of cells, such as muscle cells and fat cells. Another option is to work with established cell lines, which implies that animals are not needed after an initial biopsy (Figure 1). In both cases, a very important point is the culture medium that should provide the nutrients, hormones, and growth factors necessary for cell proliferation and differentiation in mature tissue. A major potential benefit will, therefore, be to produce huge amounts of muscle from very few animals or even without any animals, therefore avoiding the potential cruelty of slaughter. The process of “cultured meat” compared with conventional meat production. The process of “cultured meat” compared with conventional meat production. A first important ethical and legal question refers to the nature of the product: is it meat? According to the definition of the American Meat Science Association (Boler and Woerner, 2017), not only for biological or technical reasons but also for semantic and commercial reasons (Ong et al., 2020), “cultured meat” is not really meat. Indeed, meat is defined as “edible tissues from an animal consumed as food” and “to be considered meat, in vitro meat must be originally sourced from an animal cell, be inspected and considered safe for consumption, and be comparable in composition and sensory characteristics to meat derived naturally from animals” according to Boler and Woerner (2017). Consequently, according to the authors of this article, the use of the word “meat” has induced an ambiguity favorable to the advocates of “cultured meat,” who are seeking to get rid of the negative aspects associated with meat (environmental degradation and animal suffering), while taking advantage of the positive values of meat for consumers (strength, vitality, healthiness, etc.). In this way, the start-ups have succeeded in imposing the name “meat” for these cultivated muscle fibers into the everyday language. Indeed, the main keywords used in press articles are “meat” and, to a lesser extent, “food” (Chriki et al., 2020). In the European Union, meat is defined in Annex I of Regulation No. 853/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council as “skeletal muscle of mammalian and avian species recognized as fit for human consumption, with naturally embedded or adhering tissues.” According to the European Commission, meat is formed from different tissues, among them skeletal muscle, bone, connective tissue, blood vessels, adipocytes, or even nerves. Thus, meat industry stakeholders are increasingly trying to ban the use of the term “meat” in the labeling of “cultured meat” products. In addition, it appears that the American legislation is moving toward the recognition of “cultured meat” as “meat” and thus eligible for this designation, but this is not yet decided (Boler and Woerner, 2017). As long as no genetic modification is involved, the approval of the European Commission on the advice of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) under the Novel Foods Regulation is required before “cultured meat” can be marketed in Europe. The main purpose of this regulation is to ensure that novel foods are safe to eat, which is not fully demonstrated at this stage for “cultured meat.” There is, therefore, a need for them to be correctly labeled (so as not to mislead consumers) and not to be nutritionally disadvantageous compared with the foods they seek to replace. Similar food regulations related to “cultured meat” in other parts of the world are under discussion (Chen et al., 2022). In addition, “cultured meat” products with a genetically modified component are currently unlikely to be approved in Europe due to the heavy restrictions on genetically modified foods already in place and the general poor public perception of this technology. Finally, unlike America and Oceania, it is very important to remember that the use of hormones is prohibited for meat production in Europe (Directive 96/22/EU; April 29, 1996). Adding exogenous hormones to the hormones naturally present in a growing animal is forbidden in Europe on the grounds of the precautionary principle, even if these man-made hormones are identical to natural hormones. Hence, it can hardly be anticipated that the European legislator would authorize the use of synthetic hormones for the production of “cultured meat.” However, one could consider that things are different since the meat culture is not done on a living animal. So far, “cultured meat” has only been allowed in Singapore. The regulation of this state clearly indicates that “alternative proteins that do not have a history of being consumed as food will only be allowed for sale after they have been found to be safe for consumption.” To ensure that the safety assessments are rigorously reviewed, the Singapore Safety Agency formed a Novel Food Safety Expert Working Group in March 2020 to provide scientific advice (https://www.sfa.gov.sg/food-information/risk-at-a-glance/safety-of-alternative-protein). No food safety concerns were found for the “cultured chicken” produced by Eat Just and it was approved for sale in Singapore in December 2020, as an ingredient in nuggets. However, although the process was science based, the authorization of “cultured meat” was relatively informal and accelerated in Singapore compared with the process in the EU (as indicated in http://foodhealthlegal.eu/?p=1081). b) Is “cultured meat” really safe? Produced in a fully controlled environment and without any potential contamination from the digestive organs of neighboring animals, “cultured meat” is presented by its advocates as safer than “conventional meat.” The strategic choice to name this novel food “clean meat” refers to this concept of a sterile product, free from any health hazard (Chriki et al., 2020). Indeed, because the production processes are not comparable between conventional meat and “cultured meat,” and without any potential contamination at slaughter, cultured muscle cells have much less opportunity to encounter intestinal pathogens such as Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli, Salmonella, or Campylobacter, three pathogens that are responsible for millions of episodes of illness each year (Bonny et al., 2015). However, as for any innovation, scientists or manufacturers are never in a position to control everything and care should be taken to avoid mistakes, which may lead to negative consequences in terms of health for the consumer (Ong et al., 2021). This occurs frequently nowadays in the industrial production of minced meat (Chriki and Hocquette, 2020). Consumers do worry about the safety of “cultured meat” (Liu et al., 2021) although consumer attitude toward “cultured meat” varies across demographics and cultures (Zhang et al., 2021). A major issue with culturing cells is indeed its potential contamination by pathogenic bacteria, viruses, or fungi (Tomiyama et al., 2020). Regardless of the industry, it is important that Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) measures are implemented. Despite many substantial efforts made by farmers to reduce antimicrobial use, antibiotic resistance still remains one of the major problems facing livestock, leading to huge costs (He et al., 2020). According to “cultured meat” advocates, cultured cells are kept in a controlled environment and close monitoring can easily stop any signs of infection by any type of microorganisms such as bacteria. Thus, the majority of “cultured meat” companies have stated that they will not use antibiotics in their process. Nevertheless, if antibiotics are added to prevent contamination, or even occasionally to stop early contamination and disease, this argument is less convincing. Due to all these uncertainties and the limited scientific literature on the safety of “cultured meat,” some authors such as Ketelings et al. (2021) have highlighted the fact that “the lack of in-depth research related to the hazard and risk characterization of cultured meat is considered to be the biggest barrier in introducing a safe product to the market.” c) Is “cultured meat” really healthy and tasty? With a composition similar to “traditional meat,” “cultured meat” can, according to its advocates, meet both the nutritional and sensory preferences of consumers (Lee et al., 2020). However, it is not clear how close the levels of macro- (such as and and the composition of cultured meat are to of “traditional meat” et al., 2020). it is well that the and of meat on the type of animal and, to a large extent, on the of in a in or than in and can in meat. In the type of to animals the of many However, have been developed by for (such as in the production environment to provide more health, and sensory proteins with of or and are issues because these are also to be to human According to et al. it is likely that “cultured meat” or is at in some of the could the composition of cultured muscle for some that are in and thus the of et al., 2020). Nevertheless, the sensory of “cultured meat” remains to be in to avoid any to the of Finally, any ingredient or added in vitro to “cultured meat” is likely to have nutritional as it is not in its and, therefore, less Indeed, the of the culture medium or the of “cultured meat” could have an on the health benefits of some such as the and of conventional meat is a major for start-ups on “cultured meat.” of the problems is the of this synthetic product due to the lack of a muscle that is for the of meat, for meat. The first in the cell culture in to the of the The second is to the produced into the medium et al., 2020). In the of the biological it is to muscle fibers composition and would be close to in It would be even more to being to the of for or on the species and or to the to or on the position of the in living This natural of is both by the in the and characteristics of proteins and and also by the of muscle according to animal and this first of that are to of the different cell that up the muscle, that produce that and that transform into muscle This also implies control of this to the of meat the one this is not even scientists are in this the other this is not important since more than of the meat consumed is in minced into products which are also In addition, the second point is that meat from the of muscle tissue. Indeed, after the of animals, their and is a process as The of to the of into a in this different are and the muscle proteins leading to of the meat. This is the process of the meat, which is well to this the of the meat also leading to an in its in due to the between the and the which is and which is the of different these not considered by start-ups “meat” by cell culture et al., 2020). This is many were added to the first in vitro to the sensory of meat in terms of and Is “cultured meat” as as “conventional According to its “cultured meat” is likely to be and to produce less is less and use less being compared with “traditional meat from (Lee et al., 2020). However, according to the authors of this article, this type of is and or at as (Chriki and Hocquette, and It is that are responsible for a significant share of from the digestive of are due to not only but also and et al., 2015). As the of is presented as one of the important potential benefits of “cultured meat” compared with conventional However, it is important to that are currently and because the life cycle assessments currently are based on and not really (as “cultured meat” is not yet produced on an industrial and a based on based on is not because should consider for the between and Indeed, in a recent and that would be less with “cultured meat” than with in the but that in the long the of “cultured meat” would be more as less in the than It can, therefore, be that the of on will the and while the due to the from “meat” will Thus, and that the potential advantage of cultivated “meat” in terms of is not consumption, it is that the production of of on of of of As “cultured meat” has been presented by its advocates as about to the can thus be considered similar to that of meat (Chriki and Hocquette, 2020). it is that the production of for animals and the use of of about of the used for to that can only be used for et al., 2017). it is that “cultured meat” will need less than “conventional meat However, this does not an advantage for “cultured meat.” Indeed, animal a by of nutritional from and the and of as from is a of and use is a and between “cultured meat” and conventional meat. Indeed, in this type of the authors do not take into the of environmental and of only and use but also and and animal to reduce and even avoid for the production of for animals, the principles of should be et al., 2020). a) Is “cultured meat” really produced without slaughtering The main potential benefit of “cultured meat” is to produce huge amounts of muscle from a of animal cells, from animals or from cell lines, which proliferate in Thus, this process is likely to use much animals to produce a of meat. on these some authors that the production of “cultured meat” would be more as conventional meat may be considered to animals by some consumers (Ong et al., 2020). animal advocates would thus be to the concept of “cultured meat” or even describe this product as meat,” meat,” or meat” (Chriki et al., 2020). the argument thus to be an alternative that is favorable to the and of “cultured meat” by consumers et al., 2020). Despite the potential to reduce animal use, are a of animal to the of “cultured meat.” The first is the process is based on from living animals to stem cells, some animals will still be The living of these animals should be because they will be to to provide stem cells continuously (Figure welfare issues will for these may have problems with this process of as they with genetic of The of animals and the of biopsy processes must be as this is a in the “cultured meat” production process et al., 2021). good for animal good for animal The of stem cell from species has in recent with a to avoiding of living animals and by with cell with The cell can from a animal from which the muscle cells would be or an or from which the stem cells and stem cells would be et al., 2021). This implies genetic that will the in This also genetic modification for the cells to be to into the tissue. a point of this will avoid However, is required to the of different cell on cell and biological of these have not been in species et al., 2021). the the cell culture process the use of a growth medium in for cell proliferation and of the used at present is by to produce the first cultured and more used by Eat Just to produce “cultured in This is taken from the of at slaughter. Thus, appears to be a need to animals to for the of the production of and to for the of this companies have to the use of in their “cultured meat” production (Chen et al., and some have that they have already done would be based on to growth proteins or proteins and derived from However, at the present do not have any on the likely to that will not be considered as natural by one of the in this process is to the of each component of the which must be for each type of cell or at be well to each stage of cell for the of a or a mature muscle are not the in terms of hormones and growth In addition, for of cell it will be to the medium for both cell at the The has the advantage of the culture of a large of cell However, in the of a synthetic for and to the costs of its which will be it will be necessary to seek the of these according to the type of cells and Hocquette, 2017). b) What will be the of animals if do not need this it is important to that if were to be by cells “cultured meat,” a of the of as well as production of from animals and would be et al., 2020). Indeed, are used as for the of and products with in health, and are still a large of that on for their in and it is likely that the of “cultured meat” by companies would the and food of these In the long would need technical to reduce the of animal in of “cultured meat” According to the authors of this article, this is likely to be a and likely to reduce animal Indeed, a in the of animals may not be without consequences for animal because less and less would within each animal c) What is the for meat? A in such as is the toward ethical or a food consumers would with a with less meat than with no meat et al., 2021). However, the authors point that the of is not a good of It is likely that on will only more important they are more developed as viable alternatives and, therefore, more in other and As the use of and to and is used to and these are likely to a in the in and public concerns. meat,” meat,” vitro meat,” and meat” are all that the consumer is not very The benefits of this have the of many because of its potential to the issues of animal cruelty and environmental problems that can be in conventional and 2021). of this use of animals the this meat to be more than conventional meat, by and The in cruelty in the of “cultured meat” to to these as it with the animals cell and 2021). However, meat products should meet the definition of food products based on the and definition of a With “cultured meat,” it is not yet the at because the product is still and its healthiness, and environmental are still a of as described The product may be also as not natural (Figure while it is as a to animal ethical it with it new ethical issues for both animals and 1). are also on “cultured meat” is with with or to do if are no more animals for for However, this to be less present or in (Chriki and Hocquette, 2020). potential weaknesses and associated with “cultured meat” potential weaknesses and associated with “cultured meat” “cultured meat” meet the definition of a food The of food are based on the definition of by “cultured meat” meet the definition of a food The of food are based on the definition of by In any the potential benefits of cultured meat should be compared with the potential benefits of other such as other new meat from genetically modified or current in the of to take advantage of the potential benefits of natural the consumer food and would not only more food to the increasing human but also reduce the associated with food production and Finally, to the and will be a This review that the “cultured meat be animal welfare There are different to be The first point is that may still need animal products for the culture the proliferation of muscle cells to produce a large amount of “meat” from Indeed, the first “cultured meat” currently marketed in Singapore is produced research to The second point is that “cultured meat” technology is not mature to ensure the production of meat. muscle fibers to minced are Consequently, should not it The point is that only a few related to its environmental have been in scientific with no on this In addition, is a lack of knowledge of the environmental of with a of in the public that “cultured meat” will be more than conventional meat are not The point is because the technology is still in its it is to that it will and products. Indeed, no nutritional are Safety is to based on positive or negative has not been and is on the added at the of the process. about the potential benefits of “cultured meat” are by companies by or by by animal welfare or environmental As a the current is more than and in the public not based on and scientific To be all the benefits of “cultured meat” should be as they are not yet The of potential benefits may not the scientific that “cultured meat” is the way because scientists more on than on Even the that “cultured meat” will avoid slaughtering many animals is not Even if it is it other which will need to be before on the ethical of this new technology. is a in Science at the of is a and has a in and Food In the research has been on meat and consumer expectations related to also with consumer and potential toward “cultured meat.” is a in Science at the of is also an at in the the and nutritional of meat, muscle and consumer expectations related to is a at public research for the and of and the muscle and consumer expectations related to was the of the and research and the was also a of the Council for of and for the Meat and the European of Science is the of the Meat and has been by the Meat and the and and the from the of will the of Science in in as the of the Association for and in 2020 the scientific for and which is by