A food fight has been brewing over how the government should regulate animal tissue grown in labs.
The prospect of lab-grown tissue has raised the hopes of animal welfare and environmental groups because it is created without slaughter and meant to substitute for traditional pork, beef, chicken, and fish. But divisions have emerged between the traditional meat industry, who are imploring the government to set rules out of concern for their own industry, and the companies creating the lab-grown foods, who fear that regulation could prevent their products from reaching consumers.
Safety regulations have yet to be issued, but they are likely to include standards about how to grow the tissue, how to sign off on its safety, and how to label it in a way that consumers know what they’re buying.
“No one wants to have a ‘gotcha’ moment where they think they are eating one type of flesh and they find out they are eating another type of flesh,” said Sarah Sorscher, deputy regulatory director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest. “We do think the labels should be very clear to people that what they are eating is different.”
But how exactly to label it has been a point of contention, as has the question over which government agency should play a role.
The Food and Drug Administration held a public meeting in July and has another one planned for the end of October, this time with the Department of Agriculture. The cell-based meat appears not to fall neatly under the purview either agency. To create the food, scientists gather animal cells and replicate them into tissue using nutrients in a lab. So far they’ve made chicken nuggets and hamburger patties.
The FDA oversees the safety of medicines made from human cells and tissues, as well as food additives, but the USDA has inspectors who visit meat facilities regularly to make sure they are holding their facilities to specific standards. Fish is is the hands of the FDA, with the exception of catfish, which fall to USDA.
The United States Cattlemen’s Association petitioned the USDA in February asking that companies not be allowed to label their products “beef” or “meat” if they are grown synthetically. The group believes a combination of oversight from both agencies is the best way to proceed.
“We say that meat or beef should pertain exclusively to products derived through animal flesh in the traditional manner, which is through slaughter,” said Lia Biondo, director of policy and outreach for the group.
The National Pork Producers Council also holds that the USDA should be involved and said in public comments that it was “disappointed” the agency had not been invited to the July meeting.
Some evidence shows customers do want to know what they are buying and eating. A recent Consumer Reports survey, for instance, found that 49 percent of participants said cultured foods should be labeled as “meat, but accompanied by an explanation about how it is produced,” while another 40 percent said it should be labeled as “something other than meat.”
But certain groups view strict labeling rules as an attempt to stifle innovation. Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, said the organization is wary of USDA taking over regulations because it also exists for the purpose of promoting the meat industry. She tore into those in the industry who oppose sharing the term “meat” with the lab-grown foods.
“An industry should not be able to quash private enterprise in a country like America where free enterprise and the right to make money is a tenet of the country,” Newkirk said.
But Sorscher from the Center for Science in the Public Interest said that, without clear regulations and labels, cell-based food may never gain trust among consumers, and it may never be able to gain traction.
Even though regulations haven’t been finalized, the lab-grown foods are catching on. Tyson Foods, also a leading producer of traditional meats, has invested in Memphis Meats, which produces cultured foods. Another company, called JUST, said that, subject to regulatory considerations, it will have likely have chicken-based products ready for commercial sale by the end of 2018.
Once the products come together, the foods could be sold like traditional meats, with similar packaging and names. The products aren’t totally animal-free yet; the sector has been using fetal bovine serum to grow tissues, though there is some experimentation with mushrooms.
Bruce Friedrich of the nonprofit Good Food Institute predicted the “clean meat” companies, as he calls them, would become more widespread in the next decade. If companies are able to secure government funding for research and development — something GFI is pressing for — then the products could hit shelves even sooner.
The organization believes current laws give the FDA jurisdiction, but left the door open to a dual role. Friedrich said USDA should at least be part of decision-making, adding that it was “surprising to everyone” that the agency wasn’t represented at the July meeting.
“But the main thing that GFI and the other companies care about is ensuring that there is a transparent process, that there is a swift process, and however clean meat is regulated that it is fair and happens under the current regulatory structure as it exists,” Friedrich said.
The meat industry insists it is looking for a level playing field. The North American Meat Institute points out that the USDA has rigorous check-ins on facilities, inspecting them daily. The FDA, in contrast, is only required to inspect plants every three years.
In a joint letter to the White House, NAMI and the lab-cultured food company Memphis Meats asked for the FDA to oversee the products before they’re distributed, and later have the USDA inspectors. The groups agreed to use the term “cell-based meats” as a name for the products.
The FDA alone may not satisfy outside consumer groups. Consumers Union, for instance, said it was concerned that cell-based companies would exploit an FDA policy that allows for companies to evaluate safety using their own scientists.
Michael Hansen, a senior scientist for the group, said that allowing companies to take this approach was akin to “giving someone an open-book exam and letting them grade themselves, and not even telling the teacher.”
The rules may ultimately end up involving the work of both agencies. FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, who calls the food “cell-cultured foods,” has said both agencies are working closely together on how to move forward.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest would prefer to see Congress get involved, but does not expect that will happen.
“Without legislation it’s hard to see a path forward that wouldn’t involve both agencies giving input,” Sorscher said.
