China Company Invests Millions In Global Lab-Grown Meat Race; 10-50 Tons Of Annual Production

Chinese companies are investing millions in the global race for lab-grown meat production, also known as cell-cultivated meat or alternative protein. Joe’s Future Food, a company that has raised $14 million from investors since 2019, has completed China’s largest production facility with the capacity to produce 10-50 tons of cell-cultured food annually.

While China hasn’t approved any cell-cultivated products for human consumption, polling shows a strong willingness to try in the major city hubs of Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen where 77% of poll respondents said they would try it. Country-wide, 45% of respondents said they were likely to replace meat consumption with lab-grown meat products, despite only about 6% of survey respondents understanding the concept of lab-grown meat.

The United States FDA has approved cell-cultivated pork, salmon, and chicken based on the safety profile and data provided by the production companies. That is standard protocol for the FDA, which issued a “no questions” letter to the primary US producers, including Good Meat, Upside Foods, and Mission Barnes. The pork product approved by Mission Barnes utilized a

Mission Barns uses a genetically engineered recombinant porcine growth factor as a component in the cell culture media during the cell proliferation phase. The FDA evaluated the safety of the growth factor in its approval based on the company’s comparison to a natural growth hormone found in farm animals, but accepted the company’s comparison to the natural growth factor found in pork, beef, and milk.

The HighWire recently reported on the meat industry monopolies and the “big 4” of JBS, Tyson, Cargill, and National Beef Packing Company (NBPC) that account for 85% of the meat processing in America. JBS is the number one meat processor in the world, having earned $80 billion USD in the last twelve months, more than double the $38 billion the company earned in 2019.

JBS announced two years ago that it was beginning construction on a $62 million Biotech Innovation Center to research ways to make the cell-cultivated meats efficient, scalable, and cost-effective. The meat conglomerate also constructed the largest lab-grown beef facility in Spain in 2023 at a cost of $41 million.

Tyson has invested in Memphis Meats and Future Meat Technologies. Cargill has also made its own investments in lab-grown meat startups.

An ecosystem of nonprofits, trade groups, research institutes, companies, and investors is working to make the novel technology profitable and scalable, as well as marketing techniques to make it more palatable among consumers. The Good Food Institute, a nonprofit think tank founded by Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz and his wife Cari Tuna, conducts research to improve the marketing. GFI is also a member of the Association for Meat, Poultry, and Seafood Innovation (AMPS) alongside lab-grown meat producers.

A GFI report indicates consumers are more likely to be turned off by the phrase “lab-grown,” while they are much more open to terms like “clean meat,” “cultivated meat,” and “cultured meat.” The report states that the term “lab-grown” is inaccurate “in the sense that facilities capable of producing cultivated meat at commercially viable scales look more like breweries than laboratories.”

While the large-scale production facilities do utilize equipment similar to breweries, the upstream steps in the cultivated meat pipeline use lab processes that are nothing like brewing beer. This includes the cell line establishment and banking, strict sterility and contamination controls, and a complex nutrient media profile. Brewing beer requires water, yeast, hops, and malted grains, which do not require upstream laboratory processes. The USDA is requiring these products to carry labels that say “cell-cultivated” or “cell-cultured.”

AMPSI lists the steps of the process, stating that the cells are fed nutrients, “including sugars, salts, fats, vitamins and amino acids – the same types of nutrients that animals need to grow and multiply.” Animal feed, however, does not contain the same specialized and expensive recombinant growth factor used in lab-grown meat processes. The growth factor is typically genetically-engineered and independently tested by the FDA or USDA.

Research Nester estimates the US lab-grown meat market will grow from $292 million to $416 million in the next decade, while Future Market Insights estimates the global market will grow from $5.3 billion to $8 billion by 2035.

The cultivated-meat industry is focusing on perceived environmental benefits of choosing cell-based meat over conventionally raised meat from livestock and removing the need for animal slaughter in the process of meat production. A UC Davis assessment from last year concluded that cultivated or lab-grown meat systems have 4 to 25 times greater than the median global warming potential (GWP) of retail beef. Industry leaders have acknowledged the resource-intensive nature of the production but remain optimistic about improving the efficiency and environmental impact.

While some people identify as vegans and are interested in trying these products when they become available, the Vegan Society stated, “cultured meat is not vegan or a panacea for the horrors of animal use and exploitation.”

Companies are increasing investments globally to scale up the technology, but it is still not clear if the market will accept the product with open arms. Polls indicate that many people do not understand the process behind the production of cultivated-meat and polling results are theoretical regarding products that are only available in a few upscale restaurants in the entire country.

A YouGov poll asked respondents about a theoretical world where lab-grown meat alternatives are “indistinguishable from animal meat in terms of taste, nutrition, and cost. 50% of respondents would choose conventional meat, while 13% said they would choose lab-grown meat. 22% said they were unsure, and 14% said they would eat neither.

Polls can get varying answers depending on how the question is worded and any preconceived notions of the respondents. A 2020 poll among college-aged Canadians found 61% of respondents believe cultivated-meat products are somewhat or very environmentally friendly. 67% of respondents found it to be unnatural, and 33% said it is somewhat or very disgusting.

The perceived environmental benefits are a large part of the support for the product, along with the perceived environmental harm caused by livestock-based agriculture.

Jefferey Jaxen reported for The HighWire about UC Davis Researcher Frank Mitloehner’s review of the data that found significant flaws in the 2006 UN report called Livestock’s Long Shadow, which concluded 18% of the global warming effect is coming from the livestock industry. Mitloehner concluded that the livestock industry accounts for less than 3% of the total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.