The Washington Post
Lab-grown meat
is in your future, and it may be healthier than the real stuff
By Marta Zaraska May 2, 2016
Scientists and
businesses working full steam to produce lab-created meat claim it will be
healthier than conventional meat and more environmentally friendly. But how
much can they improve on old-school pork or beef?
In August 2013,
a team of Dutch scientists showed off their lab-grown burger (cost: $330,000) and even
provided a taste test. Two months ago, the American company Memphis Meats fried
the first-ever lab meatball (cost: $18,000 per pound). Those who have tasted
these items say they barely differ from the real deal.
For some people there’s an ick
factor to the idea of lab-grown meat, but its backers say that cultured meat
may help alleviate the environmental and health challenges posed by the world’s
growing appetite for conventional meats. The Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development estimates that the demand for meat in North America
will increase by 8 percent between 2011 and 2020, in Europe by 7 percent and in
Asia by 56 percent.
Meanwhile,
a 2011 study calculated that growing meat in labs would cut down on the land
required to produce steaks, sausages and bacon by 99 percent and reduce the
associated need for water by 90 percent. What’s more, it found that a pound of
lab-created meat would produce much less polluting greenhouse-gas emissions
than is produced by cows and pigs, even poultry.
Yet a 2015
life-cycle analysis of potential cultured meat production in the United States
painted a less rosy picture if one includes the generation of electricity and
heat required to grow the cells in a lab.
The health benefits of cultured meats are still not
completely clear, either.
In
some aspects, researchers say, lab-grown meat might be better for us. Because
cultured meats would be produced in sterile environments, they would be free of
such dangerous bacteria. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
estimates that pathogens in conventional meat are the most common sources of fatal
food-related infections.
And
the use of antibiotics in food-producing animals — to fight disease and help
the animals grow faster — has been identified as a source of antibiotic-resistant bacteria that is dangerous to
humans. The Food and Drug Administration estimates that the sales of
antibiotics for such usage has been going up — by about 23 percent between 2009
and 2014.
Both Memphis Meats and the Dutch
team, which is trying to make the production of cultured beef more efficient,
said they do not use antibiotics in their products because the
sterile lab process does not require them. They also don’t use growth-promoting hormones, which commercial feedlots give to
most cattle. According to a European Commission report, their adverse
effects in humans may include “developmental, neurobiological, genotoxic and
carcinogenic effects.” One of these hormones, estradiol, has been banned in
farm animals in Europe since 2003 but is still in use in the United States.
As for lab-grown
meat and cancer, the story gets complicated. Last October, the International
Agency for Research on Cancer, which is part of the World Health Organization,
published a report that classified red meats as “probably carcinogenic to
humans” and processed meats as “carcinogenic to humans.” And the head of the
IARC suggested that people “further support public health recommendations to
limit intake of meat.” Yet scientists aren’t sure which elements of
conventional meat are responsible for its potential carcinogenic effects.
There
are a few substances that scientists suspect, though. Among them is heme iron,
which is common in meat and is found almost exclusively in meat. This form of
iron can cause DNA damage and induce formation of N-nitroso compounds, some of
which are potent carcinogens.
A study that
followed nearly 200,000 post-menopausal women found that the amount of heme
iron in their diet was positively associated with an increased risk of breast
cancer.
Other studies
show connections between heme iron intake and colon cancer.
So here is the
good news for lab-grown meat: According to its producers, lab-cultured beef or
pork can be made completely free of heme iron. “I think that removing heme iron
from meat would make for a colon-safer product,” says Graham Colditz, a cancer
researcher at Washington University in St. Louis who has no association with the
groups producing lab meat.
Another thing that might be removed from cultured
meat, or significantly reduced, is saturated fat, which raises the level of bad cholesterol, increasing risk of stroke or heart
disease. Healthier omega-3 fatty acids could take its place. “Stem cells are,
in principle, capable of making omega-3 fatty acids. If we can tap
into that machinery of the cell, then we could make healthier hamburgers,” says
Post, who is working on the fat content of lab-grown beef.
Unfortunately,
potentially carcinogenic compounds found would be harder to get rid of. Among
them are nitrites and nitrates, preservatives that are commonly used in
processed meats such as ham and bacon.
According to Post, because
cultured meats are sterile, they would require much less nitrate to stay safe
to eat. On the other hand, nitrites and nitrates are also used to prevent
oxidation in products such as hot dogs, so that they don’t lose their appealing
color. Lab-grown sausages and hams, Post says, would be “very similar to
regular meat” because the compounds would still be needed to preserve the meat’s
appearance.
Among other
things that would stay in cultured meats are heterocyclic aromatic amines (HAA)
and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). According to the WHO report, these
chemicals can cause DNA damage.
“To be honest, I
wouldn’t know how to affect HAA and PAHs in cultured meat,” admits Post, who
says he isn’t even sure he would “want to change that.” The reason? These
substances are products of the Maillard reaction — the marriage between
carbohydrates and amino acids in a slightly moist, hot environment (think
grilling or roasting) that help give meat its enticing flavor.
“Maillard
reactions are very important,” says Paul Breslin, a nutritional sciences
professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey. “They are the flavor of cooking
and give baked cookies, fresh-baked bread and grilled ribs their characteristic
flavors, which we obviously love.”
And that’s the
catch: If we remove too much fat, the meat will lose juiciness and texture. If
we remove heme iron, it won’t be red but yellow — the color of the beef that
Post is growing in his lab. If we add too much of the omega-3 fatty acids, the
meat may get a fishy flavor.
Lab-grown meat
may be better for the environment and improve on several health aspects of
conventional meat. But for now, at least, it can’t be exactly like regular meat
and have no potential health downsides whatsoever.
“We’re
not there yet,” acknowledges Uma Valeti, a co-founder and the chief executive
officer of Memphis Meats, “but in just a few years, we expect to be selling
protein-packed pork, beef and chicken that tastes identical to conventionally
raised meat but that is cleaner, safer and all-around better than meat from
animals grown on farms.”
At that point we’ll
be able to decide if it also tastes good.
Quiz Questions
- How much was the first-ever lab grown meatball by pound?
- Why do some researchers say that lab grown meat might be better for us?
- What hormone has been banned in farm animals in Europe but is still legal in America?
- What does Graham Colditz say about removing heme iron from meats?
- What will saturated fat be replaced with in lab-grown meat?
- The products of what reaction gives meat its enticing flavor?
- What are one of the consequences of removing fat, iron, or adding to much omega-3?
