Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Critical review reveals a lack of Indigenous participation in cellular agriculture governance, highlighting potential threats to food sovereignty and cultural foodways.
In line with growing concerns about climate change, food security, and large-scale animal farming, a significant body of literature has emerged on laboratory-grown foods as potential alternatives to foods produced by conventional means. However, what is missing in the literature are Indigenous perspectives on and approaches to the cultivated foods project. There are few, if any, academic articles or reports on such approaches to be found in databases. In this paper, we argue that the ethical and environmental outcomes of cellular agriculture are not intrinsic to the technology itself, but contingent upon design choices, governance structures, business models, and cultural frameworks that are currently being made with little or no Indigenous participation. We organise the paper around the three terms of the paper’s title. ‘Cells’ examines the technical facets of cellular agriculture such as bioprocess advances, life cycle assessments, and cell sourcing as well as the contours of a literature that treats biological progress as socially neutral. ‘Culture’ examines the relational ontologies that lab-cultivated food disrupts and the culturally constructed discourses around such food. ‘Control’ examines who owns, governs, and benefits from the project and the implications of the technological advances for agrarian livelihoods and Indigenous food sovereignty.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hudson et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: