Cellular agriculture is quietly reshaping how we think about food production. By growing animal products from cells rather than raising livestock, the field promises to reduce the environmental toll of traditional farming while addressing ethical concerns. Yet despite its potential, the technology remains in its infancy, grappling with scientific, economic and regulatory challenges before it can reach supermarket shelves at scale.
At its core, cellular agriculture splits into two approaches: *cellular* products, where cells themselves become the final product (such as cultivated meat or mycoprotein), and *acellular* products, where cells act as factories to produce compounds like proteins or fats (as seen in precision fermentation). While mycoprotein-based foods like Quorn have been available for decades, newer innovations—particularly cultivated meat—are still classified as “novel foods” in the EU, requiring rigorous regulatory approval. Cost remains another hurdle. “Many of these products are still significantly more expensive than their conventional counterparts,” notes Hanna Tuomisto, a professor of sustainable food systems at the University of Helsinki and Natural Resources Institute Finland. “Substantial technological advances are needed to make them competitive.”
The environmental case for cultivated meat is compelling, at least in theory. Livestock farming is a major driver of greenhouse gas emissions, land use and water consumption, particularly for beef. Early life cycle assessments (LCAs) suggest that lab-grown meat could drastically reduce these impacts. “Compared to beef, cultivated meat generally shows lower land use and greenhouse gas emissions,” says Tuomisto. However, the picture is more nuanced when stacked against efficient protein sources like poultry. “If cultivated meat requires complex muscle tissue, the production time and energy demands increase, potentially offsetting some sustainability gains,” she adds.
Energy use is a critical factor. Cultivated meat production relies on electricity to replicate the biological processes animals perform naturally, such as temperature regulation and nutrient metabolism. “Right now, cultivated meat often uses more electricity than even beef production,” Tuomisto explains. But optimizations—like switching to food-grade (rather than pharmaceutical-grade) inputs, improving bioreactor efficiency and integrating renewable energy—could tip the balance. Eirini Theodosiou, a senior lecturer in chemical and biochemical engineering at Aston University, points out that water recycling and renewable energy adoption could further enhance sustainability. “Most studies agree that cultivated meat requires less land than conventional farming, though this varies by species,” she says.
Yet these assessments come with caveats. Current LCAs rely heavily on assumptions due to the lack of commercial-scale data, and small changes in variables—such as the source of culture media or the energy mix—can dramatically alter results. A recent, much-debated study claimed cultivated meat could have a carbon footprint 25 times higher than beef, but Tuomisto argues this was based on an unrealistic scenario: assuming pharmaceutical-grade sterility for all inputs. “In reality, food-grade standards would significantly lower energy demands,” she counters. Other variables, like whether water use accounts for recycling or how different meat types (grass-fed beef vs. poultry) are compared, also skew outcomes. “The sustainability of cultivated meat depends entirely on how we model these systems,” Tuomisto concludes.
Scaling up production presents another formidable challenge. The global mammalian cell culture capacity in 2021 stood at just 11.75 million litres—far short of the 300 million litres needed to replace even 1% of current meat production. “Existing bioreactors, designed for pharmaceuticals, aren’t suited for food applications,” Theodosiou explains. “We need fit-for-purpose designs, possibly simpler or entirely new formats like airlift reactors.” Costly cell culture media—particularly amino acids and growth proteins—also pose a barrier. “Scaling these up with current ingredients would make cultivated meat prohibitively expensive,” she says. Researchers are exploring cheaper alternatives, such as hydrolysates or recycled waste streams, but their impact on product quality remains unclear.
Then there’s the challenge of texture. Meat’s complex structure—fat marbling, muscle fibers, connective tissue—isn’t easily replicated in a bioreactor. Enter *scaffolds*: edible frameworks that guide cell growth and differentiation. Traditional microcarriers, used in stem cell research, aren’t ideal for food; detaching cells often requires enzymes that leave residues and reduce yield. Edible scaffolds eliminate this step while potentially improving nutrition and flavour. “Plant-based materials are promising, but they lack the biological cues that promote cell attachment and differentiation,” Theodosiou says. Her lab is testing blends of silk and plant proteins, as well as mycelium (fungal) strains, to create robust, functional scaffolds. Yet natural materials introduce variability—geographical differences, production conditions—and potential issues like allergenicity.
For cultivated meat to truly mimic conventional meat, engineers need clear benchmarks. “We’re still defining what ‘good enough’