Digested: The Clean and Dirty of Lab-Grown Meat | Civil Eats

Digested: The Clean and Dirty of Lab-Grown Meat

A new branding campaign by the lab-grown meat industry to call its products “clean meat” raises some big questions.

Who doesn’t want the food they eat to be clean? That may have been what the people behind the Good Food Institute (GFI) were thinking earlier this week when they announced their intention to rebrand lab-grown meat as “clean meat.” According to the new nonprofit group, which represents the companies behind “cultured” animal products such as beef from Memphis Meats, milk from Perfect Day, and other high-tech and plant-based meat alternatives, the term is intended to evoke “clean energy.”

On the group’s blog, Bruce Friedrich, GFI’s executive director and founding partner of New Crop Capital, wrote:

First, “clean meat is a more accurate way of describing real meat grown without animal slaughter. Second, “clean meat” is similar to “clean energy” in that it immediately communicates important aspects of the technology—both the environmental benefits and the decrease in food-borne pathogens and drug residues.

Friedrich’s language immediately problematizes the modern agriculture industry—a great deal of which is inarguably flawed. Alternative proteins could make up one-third of the market by 2050 and the drive to use fewer resources in the food system is important. But will calling this meat “clean” convince consumers? Or will it just make muddier an already-muddy pool of consumer messaging?

In addition to the clean energy comparison, the term also appears to be playing off the idea of “clean eating,” which magazines like Fitness, Eating Well, and Cooking Light define as holistic approach to eating whole, unprocessed foods like fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and lean protein.

And while some “clean food” advocates point to the importance of certified organic and antibiotic-free production practices, the lifestyle choice appears, by and large, to be aimed more at people focused on losing weight and achieving optimal fitness than on changing the food system. But that might be part of the appeal.

At its most simple, “clean eating” is a vague and highly subjective effort to mainstream—or sanitize—the type of diet that health and environmentally-conscious people have followed for, well, forever. It’s genius, really. You take foods once considered fringe or “crunchy,” wave a magic branding wand over them and—poof!—they’re Gwyneth Paltrow and Jessica Alba-approved. Not to mention that clean is a close cousin of tidy—a quality that we have been told can bring magic to our lives.

In this sense, the move by GFI makes a lot of sense. But it’s not without its critics. As Nicolette Hahn Niman, a rancher and the author of Defending Beef, sees it, the clean-dirty dichotomy doesn’t work when you’re talking about where our food comes from.

“If you spend even a few hours on a farm, you quickly see that it’s a beautifully messy enterprise that is all about soil—AKA dirt,” Niman wrote in a recent email. “In fact, the best farms are those that mimic nature’s intense complexity. Applying that term [clean] to lab-generated food might actually make more sense, since it comes from a (theoretically, at least) more sterile environment. But that certainly does not suggest to me that it’s healthier or better for the environment.”

We’ll bring the news to you.

Get the weekly Civil Eats newsletter, delivered to your inbox.

Emily Moose, Director of Outreach for A Greener World, a nonprofit that works with farms and ranches and oversees several humane meat labels including Animal Welfare Approved, begs to differ with GFI’s characterization of all meat as “dirty.”

“There are a lot of unknowns about laboratory-grown meat substitutes, from both a sustainability and food safety perspective,” she said. “We don’t know how much energy it will require, and how scalable—or not—it may be. While scientists beta test this new technology, proven solutions are already right in front of us: high-welfare, certified sustainable meat, dairy, and eggs are being produced every day by farmers and ranchers across the continent.”

Echoing Niman, Moose pointed to what she sees as the benefits of meat production done right: “Environmental regeneration, climate change mitigation, and strong rural communities. Taking food production off of the farm rejects farmers and ranchers right when we need them the most.”

She added that while lab-grown meat makes a lot of promises, “there’s a very real possibility that it will only benefit the patent-holder—as we have seen with GMO technology.”

Andy Bellatti, a dietician who often focuses on plant-based foods (and an occasional Civil Eats contributor), feels that that lab-grown meat has a place on the growing list of options for consumers looking to eat fewer animal products. But, he added, branding and language is only one factor when it comes to turning the tide of consumer behavior. “If the idea is to get people to replace animal-based products with these—the top two factors should be affordability and taste,” he said.

Bellatti is also not convinced that high-tech meat alternatives deserve quite as much press as they’re getting. “Within the plant-based market there’s room for everybody—but it’s very easy when looking at the media to think that the only companies that matter are the ones that are based in a lab,” he said. “I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with [lab-based products], but I think we need to acknowledge the other companies as well—whether that’s legacy meat alternative companies or brand new companies,” which are making interesting foods with novel combinations of beans, whole grains, and vegetables outside of labs.

Thank you for being a loyal reader.

We rely on you. Become a member today to read unlimited stories.

The latter are important, he added, because “When you look at the average American diet, a lot of the nutrients people fall short on—fiber, magnesium, potassium—are plentiful in plant-based foods. I know that’s not necessarily the aim of these [clean meat] companies, but from a public health perspective, we need to keep that in mind.”

It’s tempting to hold out for solutions to all the food system problems at once, but there’s still no silver bullet. And polarizing the debate around the value of animal agriculture may ultimately add more heat than light. Technology can play a role in bettering the food system, but it’s only one piece of a complex and challenging puzzle that will require a wide range of—squeaky clean and down and dirty—solutions.

Twilight Greenaway is the former managing editor and executive editor of Civil Eats. Her articles about food and farming have appeared in The New York Times, NPR.org, The Guardian, Food and Wine, Gastronomica, and Grist, among other. See more at TwilightGreenaway.com. Follow her on Twitter. Read more >

Like the story?
Join the conversation.

  1. Rosie
    I'm down with calling it "clean" meat. It is cleaner for the environment and cleaner in terms of animal suffering, so why not? And no matter what it's called, I cannot wait for it to become mainstream.
  2. UpperLeft Coast
    Lets just stop playing around and go directly to Soylent Green.
  3. I'm one of the rare dietitians these days who actually feels that we need to eat REAL meat, both for nutrition and for the environment. The idea that lab grown meat is better for the environment is nuts compared to how great properly managed herbivores (as Nicolette describes so well in Defending Beef) can be for sequestering carbon. If someone was to do a full life cycle analysis on lab meat vs. grass-fed beef, the answer would be clear. How many inputs are required to grow meat like this? Who are asking these questions? From the nutrition perspective, how does this meat compare to flesh from a living animal? My guess is that the protein level may be somewhat the same, but what about the micronutrient levels?
  4. Make that two dietitians who believe that nature gets the science right.

    Nutrients cycle from plant to animal to soil to microbes in complex and dynamic processes. Man keeps mucking everything up pretending we can manipulate the universe to our personal advantage. Just as people need to learn to work with their bodies to achieve metabolic health, we need to honor the natural balance in ecosysems to effectively feed ourselves and save the planet.
  5. Healthy By Nature
    What happens when man tries to emulate or control Mother Nature? It is always a painful and devastating lesson to learn. But some of the smartest people keep on trying. Hm, maybe they aren't the "smart" ones after all!
  6. Ned
    I don't want any lab grown anything. Sticking with natural meat and veg.

More from

Animal Ag



Cooking Kudzu: The Invasive Species Is on the Menu in the South

Inside Bayer’s State-by-State Efforts to Stop Pesticide Lawsuits

a farmer walks in a cornfield early in the season; superimposed over the picture is the text of the Iowa bill that would prevent anyone from suing chemical companies over harms from pesticides

Chemical Capture: The Power and Impact of the Pesticide Industry

a farm field with a

Native Youth Learn to Heal Their Communities Through Mycelium

A parent walks an infant through a corn field as part of spirit of the sun's traditional ecological knowledge programming. (Photo courtesy of Spirit of the Sun)