Animal husbandry, particularly that involving ruminants such as cattle and cows, has attracted harsh criticism. Attention is drawn to the poor environmental footprint due to a high consumption of water and feed. Criticism is also levelled at the methane emissions that vary depending on the feed, and the poor animal welfare in intensive livestock farming. Cell-cultured products are claimed to provide a more sustainable alternative. This 'cellular agriculture' produces animal products in bioreactors [1]. Their manufacture has no need of a farm but makes use of tissue-specific stem cells taken from living animals and grown in suitable nutrient media. The nutrient media themselves are industrially manufactured, highly complex mixtures of fats, proteins, hormones, vitamins, signal molecules and growth factors. The last-named are often obtained from the umbilical cord blood of bovine embryos. Because this production method is controversial, growth factors are now obtained from genetically modified microorganisms or plants and algae [2]. So individual animal cells gradually grow into meat. Over 100 companies worldwide are now carrying out research on lab meat [1]. In Singapore, the first 'laboratory chicken' is already on the market, and was also licensed in 2023 in the USA. Other animal products in addition to meat, such as milk and fish, are also produced in the laboratory. 'Sustainable, resource-friendly, good for animal welfare, safe' – are some of the promising statements used to promote these products.

As methane is many times more damaging to the climate than CO₂, its reduction is cited as one of the most important benefits of laboratory meat in comparison to conventional animal husbandry. A review by Chriki et al. (2022) on the question of whether lab meat is a real alternative to animal slaughter, showed that this issue has not been adequately investigated [3]. Although cell-cultured meat can have a lower impact on global warming in the short term because it does not emit any methane, in the longer term it could be more damaging because the carbon dioxide emitted in the production process stays in the atmosphere longer [3]. All in all, the quantities of lab meat produced are too small to be able to collect comparable and meaningful data. For instance, the first laboratory beef burger cost 250 euros [1], which is not comparable with a conventional beef burger. In addition, it is not possible to say exactly what the environmental footprint of lab meat is: crucially, for example, whether the industrial manufacture of the nutrient medium is included in the calculations. It is also not true that cell-cultured products are more environmentally friendly in terms of water consumption. Producing 1 kg of beef requires approx. 550 litres of water in comparison to up to 521 litres for 1 kg of lab meat [3]. The water footprint is therefore similar. In addition, producing meat in the laboratory requires a lot of energy, but there are no comparable figures for this to date. In terms of the area requirement, it is obvious that lab meat takes up less land. But in this connection the review article points out that the importance of animal husbandry for the environment, landscape conservation and soil fertility needs to be taken into account for this comparison. The claim that laboratory meat is more animal-friendly also requires critical scrutiny. One point to question is the conditions under which the animals used as stem cell donors are kept.

In biodynamic agriculture animals, particularly cows, are a key element on the farm. They eat feed produced on the farm and not only provide valuable foodstuffs but also high-quality manure that is the basis for building soil fertility and that is spread in the form of composted dung. The animal husbandry is also land-based [4], with the result that the number of animals is adjusted to the soil carrying capacity and not to the stable capacity. Biodynamic farms only keep the number of animals that the farm itself can supply with feed. So no animal feed is imported. At the same time, the amount of dung produced is limited to what the soil can absorb and break down. In a cycle like this, everything is recycled in the best possible way [4]. Animal welfare and soil health are paramount. All this has a beneficial effect on the quality of the food. It reflects animal husbandry and health, but also the feed, crop growing, and the farm and people as a whole. Products of this kind provide nourishment and stimulate the senses. In contrast, food made in the laboratory has no history. It is grown in an environment without any external stimuli and always has the same constituents. If we eat mindfully and train our senses, we can perceive the different effects of foods. According to studies, the taste of a laboratory product is similar to that of an average natural product, but what effect does it really have on us, beyond that of taste?

In-vitro products are manufactured in a completely controlled environment and therefore advertised as being 'safe', meaning that they do not contain any contaminants or disease agents. Only known nutrients are used, so these are dependent on the knowledge of the manufacturer. The biological diversity and countless combinations of substances found in nature are therefore absent from these products, which consist solely of isolated ingredients. This type of food production assumes that foodstuffs contain only nutrients and, above all, that it is nutrients that feed us. If we look to the future with this assumption, we might imagine nutrition consisting of a synthetic uniform paste that can be pressed into any desired form with a 3D printer. But do we really want this? Do we really want to do without the diversity of colours, shapes and aromas from real foods that have a biography and their own character?

If, instead of reducing foods solely to their ingredients, we look at them in full with their potential to stimulate us, it is clear that a living environment is needed in order to create healthy foods. Organic and biodynamic agriculture cultivate the relationship between nature, animals and humans. Human beings are the active creators in this, for example through their choice of foods. If we buy meat from intensive livestock farming, then we are supporting this form of farming. Similarly, if we approve of lab meat, we are supporting alienation from the living. The issue of whether our food will in future come from a laboratory is therefore not just a matter of food production in general but also of our basic attitude towards nature, plants and animals, and to ourselves. Do we want to move further and further away, or do we see ourselves as a part of the whole with which we are connected and with which we want to continue to be connected?

Bibliography

[1] https://www.transgen.de/lebensmittel/2700.fleisch-zellkultur-biotechnologie.html, accessed on 01.03.2024

[2] Willinger G (2024). «Fleisch aus der Retorte», Spektrum der Wissenschaft, 4 (44–49)

[3] Chriki S, Ellies-Oury MP, Hocquette JF (2022). “Is ‘cultured meat’ a viable alternative to slaughtering animals and a good compromise between animal welfare and human expectations?”, Animal Frontiers, 1 (35–42), https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfac002

[4] Maschek L (2023). «Kuh und Klima – eine Frage der Haltung» in: FondsGoetheanum «Kuh und Klima» (1–3), https://www.anthroposophie.ch/files/anthroposophie.ch/content/docs/fg/FG_Kuh_Klima_2023_D_Heft.pdf, accessed on 01.03.2024