No pathogen contamination
Monitored production with little human handling should lower the risk of Salmonella or E. coli reaching food.
Reasons
Reasons to consider cellular agriculture
Our own summary of 90 Reasons to Consider Cellular Agriculture by Kristopher Gasteratos (2019), with the original numbering.
How to read this. These are 2019 projections of the technology’s potential, not measured results, and the author accepts that some may not come true. Percentages compare estimates: later life cycle assessments show that impact depends heavily on energy source and scale. The list covers cellular agriculture, not plant-based proteins. See also Julio Cesar Prava’s opinion piece (in Portuguese).
Health and food safety
Lower famine risk
Food supply depends less on livestock and can continue through events that would otherwise stop harvests.
No fecal contamination
Most fecal contamination happens at slaughter. Removing slaughter removes that route; a 2015 Consumer Reports test found fecal-indicator bacteria in all beef sampled.
No added hormones
Growth hormones used to speed up animal growth would not be needed.
Longer shelf life
Cleaner production could keep food safe for longer.
Feeding the future
An added supply route for animal products as the population approaches 10 billion by 2050.
No swine or avian flu
Without farmed animals, this source of zoonotic outbreaks goes away.
Geographic independence
Regions with poor access to animal products could make them locally.
Natural disasters
Animals left behind in floods can contaminate water supplies, as happened after Hurricane Florence. No livestock, no such risk.
Heme iron without animals
People with iron-deficiency conditions who avoid animal products would gain another source of heme iron.
No botulism from carcasses
Not handling slaughtered animals reduces this route of infection.
Man-made disasters
Land-based production sidesteps contamination of seafood by events such as oil spills.
Safe food in a catastrophe
Secure cell banks could provide radiation-free food after a nuclear war or major impact.
No antibiotics in food
The process is not expected to rely on the antibiotics used in animal farming.
Fewer superbugs
Less antibiotic use by the animal protein sector means less pressure toward resistance.
Healthier foods
Nutrition could be tuned, for example with less fat and more protein.
No plastic in seafood
Fish that never swam in the sea do not ingest ocean plastic.
No mercury in seafood
Seafood made without catching fish avoids mercury accumulation.
Safer vegetables
Livestock runoff can contaminate nearby crops, as in a Romaine lettuce recall linked to a cattle farm.
Options for restricted diets
People who avoid animal products but are allergic to soy, nuts or gluten would have more choices.
Biomedical spillovers
Advances could carry over to regenerative medicine and other fields.
Whey without cows
Athletes who only use plant protein could have an animal-free whey.
Prion monitoring
Monitored systems can screen for prions, helping avoid outbreaks like mad cow disease.
Hypoallergenic milk
Dairy could be made suitable for people with milk allergies, especially children.
Better taste
Control over nutritional profiles could also improve flavor.
Environment: land
Cattle: 99% less land
Estimated land saving for beef.
Dairy: 97% less land
Estimated land saving for dairy.
Poultry: 66% less land
Estimated land saving for poultry.
Pigs: 82% less land
Estimated land saving for pork.
Seafood: 55% less land
Estimated land saving for seafood.
Overall: 80% less land
Estimated land saving across products.
Environment: water
Cattle: 98% less water
Estimated water saving for beef.
Dairy: 99.6% less water
Estimated water saving for dairy.
Poultry: 92% less water
Estimated water saving for poultry.
Pigs: 95% less water
Estimated water saving for pork.
Seafood: 86% less water
Estimated water saving for seafood.
Overall: 94% less water
Estimated water saving across products.
Environment: greenhouse gases
Cattle: 96% less GHG
Estimated emissions cut for beef.
Dairy: 65% less GHG
Estimated emissions cut for dairy.
Poultry: 74% less GHG
Estimated emissions cut for poultry.
Pigs: 85% less GHG
Estimated emissions cut for pork.
Seafood: 59% less GHG
Estimated emissions cut for seafood.
Overall: 76% less GHG
Estimated emissions cut across products.
Environment: ecosystems
45% less energy
Estimated energy saving for meat. Later studies show this depends heavily on the energy source.
Less animal waste on land
No livestock means none of the 1.75 billion tons of manure that pollute groundwater.
Less animal waste at sea
Less farm runoff means fewer dead zones and algal blooms.
No bottom trawling
Seafood without nets dragged across the seabed, which destroys old coral.
No fish blood discharge
Aquaculture would no longer release virus-carrying blood into public waters.
Fewer pesticides
Less feed-crop runoff of pesticides and herbicides into oceans.
Less transport pollution
Local production can shorten land and sea freight.
Fewer fishing fleets
Local production reduces polluting fleets.
Less deforestation
Lower grain demand removes a major pressure on forests and leaves room to reforest.
A plastic alternative
Cell-grown rhino horn (keratin) could replace some plastics.
Less ocean plastic
Fishing gear is a large share of plastic in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch (46% in one study).
Human and animal rights
Safer jobs
Less exposure to the injury and amputation risks of industrial meat work.
Lower psychological harm
Workers avoid the trauma, including PTSD, linked to repeated slaughter.
Fewer recall costs
Fewer cullings and contamination recalls paid for with public money.
Safer than tanneries
Cell-grown leather avoids toxic tannery exposures linked to long-term illness.
Less seafood fraud
Tighter control reduces mislabeling, which one survey put at 1 in 3 fish.
No forced labor at sea
Production without fishing fleets removes the setting for forced labor in that industry.
Cheaper food
The source expects prices to keep falling. This remains unproven at scale.
An end to killing for food
Over a trillion animals, most of them fish, are killed for food each year. This removes the need.
Less animal suffering
An alternative to factory farming that needs no animals to be raised.
Less poaching
Cell-grown ivory or rhino horn may undercut the market for poached products.
Pet food
An alternative for owners who do not want to feed their pets conventional animal products.
Less overfishing
Seafood demand can be met without taking fish from threatened ecosystems.
No bycatch
No nets means no dolphins and turtles caught by accident.
Protecting endangered species
Species targeted directly, such as sharks for fin soup, face less pressure.
Less biodiversity loss
Less farmland expansion means less habitat loss.
Grain for people
Grain from poorer countries would no longer be shipped to feed factory-farmed animals.
Environmental justice
Low-income communities near livestock operations would be spared manure spraying and its health effects.
Less wildlife hunting
Products such as bear gallbladder could be made without hunting.
Business and economics
Financial security
Fewer shocks from food scandals, disasters and costly recalls.
Carbon tax exposure
Lower-impact products would be less exposed to future carbon pricing.
Product consistency
Tighter process control gives more consistent output and less fraud.
Welfare premium
Consumers who pay more for high-welfare products may pay for this too.
Independent of climate
Production can run in hot or cold regions alike.
Property values
Homes near intensive livestock facilities lose value, by up to 88% at very close range, per the sources cited.
No surplus buying
Less need for public purchases of surplus, such as the US$20 million of US cheese in 2016.
Domestic production
Land-constrained nations such as Singapore and Japan could produce at home.
Byproduct supply
By-products such as horn could also be grown if farmed supply falls.
Fewer bailouts
Less need for government safety nets for dairy farmers.
New jobs
A new industry creates biotech and agricultural jobs.
Less dairy waste
Better control of output means less wasted dairy.
Future and beyond
Food on Mars
A more sustainable way to feed long missions and future settlements.
Personal production
Home devices could one day let people make custom products.
New animal foods
A wider range of products, including species no longer farmed or even extinct.
Astronaut health
Diet could be adjusted to conditions such as muscle atrophy in space.
Food safety in space
Tightly controlled environments lower pathogen exposure on missions.
New materials
Biomaterials could offer strength and toughness for demanding uses.
Nothing found.