On August 12, 2008, New Harvest put out a request-for-proposals on investigating the environmental impacts of cultured meat. The research was to be peer-reviewed and published in an academic journal – New Harvest would simply fund the work. New Harvest contributed $10,000 to this research.

Hanna Tuomisto at Oxford University submitted the selected proposal. She was to perform a life cycle assessment, based on a review of current research, of the impact of cultured meat production as compared to conventional meat production. The authors explored the impacts that cultured meat would have on greenhouse gas emissions, energy, land and water use, as well as opportunity costs of land use, should it completely replace conventional meat production in all 27 member states of the European Union.

The paper predicted that, based on current published figures and research, complete replacement of conventional meat with cultured meat would result in an incredible 78-98% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, 99% reduction in land use and 82-96% reduction in water use, and 45% reduction in energy use.

The study has received criticism.

The main criticism is that since a cultured meat production industry doesn’t yet exist, the paper is basically “a fairly complex thought experiment.” It therefore is based on a number of assumptions. Remember, this was 2011. The first cultured meat company would not be founded for another four years, and there was little peer-reviewed literature on the topic.

The authors acknowledge that “as the technology for producing cultured meat in large-scale production plants is currently not well defined, there are many uncertainties about the data of the environmental impacts of cultured meat production presented in this paper.”

For the first time, there were numbers associated with the environmental benefit of cultured meat over conventionally produced livestock.  The paper helped to extend the mission of cultured meat from one focused on animal welfare to one also focused on the environment and mitigating climate change.

The goal of this research was to expand interest and investigation on cultured meat. The media surge associated with the numbers from this study helped 1) attract more people to cultured meat as an area of research, and 2) stimulate further life cycle assessment work.

We have seen more speculative life cycle assessments published since. This becomes easier as cultured meat research advances and more is known about the processes involved.

We’re excited to see a continued discussion, independent of New Harvest, on the impacts of cultured meat production. We hope to spark further investigation in this worthwhile area of research.