To see the mission of the company laid bare was almost shocking in the context of recent news.
But shocking in the most refreshing way. I commend Arturo for his bravery in stating his conviction so boldly.It has been hard not to feel like mission has been eroded in recent years.It was especially seeing GOOD Meat secure the world’s first regulatory approval for cultured meat in 2020 where my faith in the field started to waver. The regulatory documents revealed that animal products, namely, fetal bovine serum, were still used in the product. Was the mission of cellular just a convenient marketing tactic? Would it be quickly tossed aside once there was money to be made?That landmark approval, combined with numerous subsequent announcements about “progress” in the field, many of which amounted to empty promises and empty bioreactors, left many of us wondering if cell ag had sold out.One of the first things our newly hired teammate, Dwayne, did after joining our team was conceive of and assemble our paper, “Cultured meat needs a race to mission, not a race to market,” a call to action (with instructions!) for the field to make a course correction and re-center mission as cellular agriculture’s raison d’être.Over the past ten years since cellular agriculture was named, we have seen the positioning of cellular agriculture players shift, evolve, and diverge...Is cellular agriculture an “or” - where displacement of factory farming is critical? Or is it an “and” - a way to make more food for a growing global population? We see this same debate in energy transition conversations - in the face of declining supply and climate impacts, are we reducing our reliance on fossil fuels or are we expanding the diversity our energy offerings?Similarly, in cellular agriculture, in the face of climate impacts changing the rules of farming, and epidemic viruses challenging food security, are we reducing our reliance on factory farming or are we expanding the diversity of means of producing food?The answer is both, and with a lot of nuance, depending on what region you’re in and the food culture, economy, and politics of that region. It should be no surprise that we saw that first regulatory approval, with compromises, in Singapore, a nation-state dependent on food imports, keen to achieve food sovereignty. And that we see resistance in states and countries with potent food cultures with politicized connections to animal agriculture. And we see different reactions still in resource-rich, export-driven economies. The reality, also, is that cell ag will emerge unto the world at large, and how these different regions and cultures interact, linked through cell ag innovations and supply chains, is still to be seen.With the work of our Directors of Responsible Research & Innovation spread across the US, Canada, and EU, we already see quite a lot of regional variance in the messages behind why we should advance cellular agriculture and how. What seems to rise above the differences is that yes, we do need our food system to evolve in a climate changed world; how cellular agriculture fits in alongside so many other excellent solutions is what we must figure out.Since my trip was to the Bay Area - and my experiences around the time cellular agriculture was named were also quite coastal-American, I will say that in this “first cycle” community in particular, cellular agriculture started firmly as an “or”, pioneered by individuals who are unquestionably driven to end the suffering of animals, who saw companies as an excellent medium to ignite change for animals.(For what it’s worth, New Harvest believes in an ecosystem-approach for igniting change that balances public and private sectors, of which companies are a part, but the balance and timing and state of the science matters a lot.)But as this group of companies moved past friends-and-family funding rounds with like-minded ending-factory-farming-focused impact investors, much of the media engagement shifted towards “and” messaging; that we simply need more means of producing food in an uncertain future.The evolving messaging of course is not as black and white as “and” and “or” makes it seem; but it’s certainly interesting to see messages vary on this spectrum by different players, in different regions, at different times… and also to see how much the varied missions - animals, environment, climate, antibiotic resistance, food security - are spoken about with different weights. |