Cultivated Meat vs Traditional Meat: Full Comparison
- David Bell
- Jun 16
- 18 min read
Updated: Jun 28
Cultivated meat and traditional meat differ significantly in how they are produced, their impact on the environment, and ethical considerations. Here's what you need to know:
- Cultivated Meat: Made by growing animal cells in controlled environments, requiring no animal slaughter. Uses fewer resources, emits less carbon, and avoids antibiotics. However, it’s currently expensive and faces regulatory hurdles.
- Traditional Meat: Involves raising and slaughtering animals. It's resource-intensive, contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, and raises ethical concerns about animal welfare.
Quick Comparison
Aspect | Cultivated Meat | Traditional Meat |
Production Method | Grown from animal cells in bioreactors | Raising and slaughtering animals |
Animal Welfare | No slaughter; one animal can replace many | Requires slaughter of billions annually |
Resource Use | Uses up to 99% less land and 82–96% less water | High demand for land, water, and feed |
Carbon Footprint | Up to 92% lower emissions (with renewables) | Major contributor to greenhouse gases |
Antibiotics | None required | Heavy use in farming |
Consumer Acceptance | 16–41% of Britons are willing to try it | High due to familiarity |
Cost | Currently expensive; prices are dropping | Affordable and widely available |
Cultivated meat offers a promising alternative to traditional methods, but its success depends on reducing costs, gaining public trust, and scaling production efficiently. The future of meat in the UK may involve a balance of both approaches, driven by sustainability goals and consumer preferences.
How Each Type of Meat is Made
The processes behind cultivated meat and traditional meat production couldn't be more different. One depends on age-old farming methods, while the other uses advanced biotechnology to grow meat directly from animal cells.
How Cultivated Meat is Made
Cultivated meat starts with a small sample of animal cells, which are grown into meat within bioreactors. The journey begins with selecting the right cells - usually stem cells or muscle cells - obtained through a standard biopsy. These cells are chosen for their ability to grow and develop efficiently.
Once selected, the cells are placed in sterile bioreactors and fed a nutrient-rich solution. This solution is packed with proteins, vitamins, minerals, and growth factors to promote cell growth. Engineers carefully monitor and adjust conditions like temperature, pH levels, oxygen, and nutrient flow to optimise growth, a process that typically takes between two to eight weeks [1]. Scaling up production requires precise bioprocess design to ensure efficiency.
For products that mimic complex cuts of meat, such as steaks or chicken breasts, biodegradable scaffolding is used. This framework helps guide the cells into forming the desired shapes and textures.
Finally, the cultivated meat is harvested, processed into various formats - like mince, nuggets, or whole cuts - and packaged for consumers. This entire process happens under sterile and controlled conditions, eliminating the need for antibiotics or growth hormones.
How Traditional Meat is Made
Traditional meat production involves a long chain of steps, including breeding, feeding, housing, veterinary care, transportation, slaughter, and processing. In the UK, livestock farming typically follows one of two approaches.
Extensive farming involves raising animals like cattle and sheep on pasture, allowing them to graze freely. On the other hand, intensive farming houses animals indoors, focusing on maximising production efficiency.
This farm-to-fork process is time-consuming and involves multiple stages, including quality control checks at various points. Traditional meat production is resource-heavy; for instance, producing just one pound of beef can require around 20,000 litres of water (roughly 2,500 gallons) [5]. While these practices are well-established, they face mounting challenges in keeping up with global demand.
Scaling Up Production Challenges
Both cultivated and traditional meat production face significant hurdles when it comes to scaling up, though the challenges differ greatly.
For cultivated meat, the primary obstacles are technological and financial. One of the biggest challenges is the high cost of specialised cell culture media. Experts agree that developing affordable, animal-free culture media is key to improving productivity [1]. Promising advancements have been made, with recent research suggesting that the cost of producing cultivated chicken could drop to around £4.71 per pound ($6.20), making it comparable to organic chicken prices [7]. Regulatory approval is another critical step, as companies like Gourmey seek authorisation for cultivated foie gras, while Meatly has already gained clearance to sell cultivated meat for pet food [7].
Yaakov Nahmias, founder of Believer Meats, highlighted the importance of new manufacturing methods:
"Our findings show that continuous manufacturing enables cultivated meat production at a fraction of current costs, without resorting to genetic modification or mega-factories. This technology brings us closer to making cultivated meat a viable and sustainable alternative to traditional animal farming." [7]
Traditional meat production, on the other hand, grapples with the increasing demand for resources. Global meat production reached 325 million tonnes in 2019 and is expected to rise to 366 million tonnes by 2029 [4]. Meeting this demand requires more land, water, and other resources, intensifying issues like land scarcity, water shortages, and stricter environmental regulations.
The difference between the two methods is striking. Traditional meat production relies on scaling up by increasing the number of animals, which demands more land and resources. In contrast, cultivated meat has the potential for efficient, scalable production that doesn't depend on expanding farmland or livestock numbers. This efficiency is central to the vision of a future where meat production in the UK is sustainable and free from slaughter. By 2040, experts predict that cultivated meat could make up as much as 35% of global meat consumption [4].
Ethical Differences
The ethical divide between cultivated meat and traditional meat production is striking, touching on core issues like animal welfare, public health, and transparency within food systems.
Animal Welfare and Slaughter-Free Production
One of the most notable ethical differences lies in how animals are treated. Traditional meat production necessitates the slaughter of over 80 billion farm animals worldwide every year[9]. Cultivated meat, on the other hand, seeks to drastically reduce or even eliminate this practice. According to FOUR PAWS International:
"The procedure of extracting the stem cells necessary to start the process of cultivating meat is said to be painless or happens under anaesthesia."[9]
To put this into perspective, a single donor animal can replace the meat yield of 400 cattle[9]. This approach spares countless animals from the stress of confinement, transportation, and slaughter, which are hallmarks of industrial farming.
However, a key ethical hurdle remains: the use of Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS), derived from the blood of foetuses taken from slaughtered pregnant cows. In Europe, studies show that 10–15% of cows are pregnant at slaughter, leading to the death of over two million bovine foetuses annually for FBS production[9]. Encouragingly, the industry is moving away from FBS. For instance, in January 2023, Good Meat received regulatory approval in Singapore to use Animal-Component-Free (ACF) media in its production. Similarly, Upside Food became the first company in the United States to secure FDA approval for its cultured chicken, also using ACF media, back in 2022[9].
This shift towards animal-free production methods is drawing attention from ethically conscious consumers. Research suggests that 10% of non-meat eaters would consider eating lab-grown meat if it involved no animal deaths[10]. As FOUR PAWS International explains:
"From an animal welfare perspective this could be attractive to some vegetarians, vegans and those conscientious omnivores interested in reducing their meat intake for ethical reasons."[8]
Beyond improving animal welfare, cultivated meat also addresses practices that pose risks to public health.
Antibiotic Use and Health Risks
Traditional meat production heavily relies on antibiotics to promote growth and prevent disease in livestock. This widespread use has contributed to the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, a serious public health threat. In the United States alone, around 2.8 million people contract infections from antibiotic-resistant bacteria annually, with at least 35,000 deaths as a result[11]. Alarmingly, resistant bacteria are often found in supermarket meat samples[11].
Cultivated meat sidesteps this issue entirely. It is produced in controlled environments that do not require antibiotics. Research highlights:
"Cultivated meat is expected to have numerous benefits over conventional animal agriculture by nature of its controlled and more efficient production process... it's expected that antibiotics will not be used in production (as of 2024, all approved products are manufactured without antibiotics) and will likely result in fewer incidences of foodborne illnesses due to the lack of exposure risk from enteric pathogens."[1]
This antibiotic-free production process not only reduces health risks but also promotes greater transparency and consumer confidence.
Production Transparency and Consumer Trust
Transparency is a cornerstone for building trust among consumers, and this is where cultivated meat has a clear advantage. Traditional meat production relies on complex supply chains involving breeding, feeding, slaughter, and processing, making it difficult to maintain complete transparency. Cultivated meat, however, is produced in laboratory settings where every step can be meticulously monitored and documented.
This transparency resonates strongly with UK consumers. A third of Britons are already open to trying cultivated meat, and acceptance levels in the UK surpass those in most European countries and the United States[3]. Nearly half of Britons (47%) also believe that lab-grown meat will improve animal welfare[10].
The UK government has acknowledged the potential of alternative proteins, recognising them as a key area for growth in its food strategy. The Food Standards Agency has similarly highlighted the benefits of alternative proteins, citing advantages for public health, economic growth, and environmental impact[3]. This level of openness and traceability offers a stark contrast to the often opaque processes of traditional meat production.
Climate and Resource Impact
Building on the earlier discussion of production challenges, the resource demands of different meat production methods highlight their varying effects on the environment.
Land, Water, and Energy Requirements
Producing traditional meat places an enormous strain on natural resources. For instance, cows are a major contributor to methane emissions, accounting for 37% of all human-induced methane globally [13]. On top of that, conventional meat production requires vast amounts of land for grazing and growing animal feed, which often leads to environmental damage [13].
Cultivated meat, on the other hand, requires far fewer resources. Studies comparing cultured meat with conventionally produced European meat show that lab-grown alternatives could use 7–45% less energy, emit 78–96% fewer greenhouse gases, reduce land use by 99%, and cut water consumption by 82–96% [12]. Research from Oxford University supports these findings, suggesting that cultured meat could generate up to 96% fewer greenhouse gases and require 99% less land than traditional meat production [6]. These efficiencies are especially important as the UK works towards meeting its ambitious climate goals.
Carbon Emissions and Climate Goals
The UK's goal of achieving Net Zero by 2050 demands sharp reductions in greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors. Agriculture is currently the fourth largest emitter, contributing 11% of the UK's total greenhouse gas emissions in 2022 [15]. To address this, the Climate Change Committee (CCC) has proposed reducing meat consumption by 25% by 2040 and 35% by 2050, with a specific target of cutting red meat consumption by 40% by 2050 [15].
Cultivated meat could play a key role in reaching these targets. When produced using renewable energy, it has the potential to emit up to 92% less greenhouse gas, use 95% less land, and require 78% less water compared to conventional beef [3]. Beyond reducing emissions from livestock farming, shifting to cultivated meat could also cut emissions linked to importing meat, as livestock farming accounts for about 14% of global greenhouse gas emissions [3].
However, not all studies paint a rosy picture. Current production methods, particularly those relying on pharmaceutical-grade growth media, can increase the environmental footprint of lab-grown meat. Research from UC Davis highlights that, under current conditions, lab-grown meat could have a higher global warming potential than retail beef - up to four to 25 times greater [16]. Derrick Risner from the UC Davis Department of Food Science and Technology explains:
"If companies are having to purify growth media to pharmaceutical levels, it uses more resources, which then increases global warming potential. If this product continues to be produced using the 'pharma' approach, it's going to be worse for the environment and more expensive than conventional beef production." [16]
Alternatively, using food-grade ingredients could significantly reduce this environmental impact. The same study estimates that cultured meat's global warming potential could range from 80% lower to 26% higher than conventional beef, depending on the production methods used [16]. Edward Spang, an associate professor in the same department, provides a balanced view:
"Our findings suggest that cultured meat is not inherently better for the environment than conventional beef. It's not a panacea. It's possible we could reduce its environmental impact in the future, but it will require significant technical advancement to simultaneously increase the performance and decrease the cost of the cell culture media." [16]
Despite these challenges, cultivated meat still holds promise. It could potentially reduce overall climate impact by up to 92% and lower air pollution by as much as 94% compared to traditional meat [14]. As the UK rethinks its approach to sustainable meat production, these figures highlight the potential for a transformative shift in the industry.
Nutrition and Food Safety
Understanding the nutritional value and safety measures of meat is crucial for making informed dietary choices.
Nutritional Content Comparison
Nutritionally, cultivated meat closely resembles traditional meat. Dana Hunnes, PhD, MPH, RD, a clinical dietitian at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, explains:
"In principle, cultivated meat is almost nutritionally identical to farm- or ranch-raised meat" [18].
Traditional meat, particularly red meat, is an important source of iron, zinc, and B vitamins like B12 [17]. Interestingly, recent studies in the UK reveal that lean cuts of meat now contain less fat and altered micronutrient levels compared to past decades [20].
Cultivated meat not only matches traditional meat in nutritional terms but also offers potential customisation. The cell culture medium can be adjusted to enhance specific nutrients, catering to dietary needs or health recommendations [18].
For those mindful of fat content, options exist across both meat types. White meats, such as chicken and turkey, remain naturally lower in fat, especially in breast portions [19]. However, some traditional meats are high in saturated fats, which, when consumed in excess, can contribute to elevated cholesterol levels [17].
Organic meats have been found to contain higher levels of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) compared to conventional meat [21]. While nutrition is key, food safety and quality are equally important considerations.
Food Safety and Quality Standards
Cultivated meat is produced in highly controlled, sterile environments, which significantly lowers the risks associated with farm bacteria, antibiotics, and other contaminants. The Good Food Institute notes:
"Cultured meat is anticipated to reduce the risk of foodborne illnesses compared to conventional meat by limiting direct animal contact during preparation and providing controlled, closed, and aseptic environments for food production" [22].
Supporters of cultivated meat emphasise its safety advantages. It eliminates exposure to farm bacteria like E. coli and salmonella, as well as the antibiotics commonly used in livestock farming [28].
However, cultivated meat production has its own challenges. Risks include potential allergenic materials and contamination from pathogens, such as mycoplasmas found in some cell lines [23]. Producing just 1 kg of cultured meat requires approximately 10^11 cells, which necessitates rigorous quality control measures [23].
The UK's Food Standards Agency (FSA) is working to establish comprehensive regulations for cultivated meat. Professor Robin May, Chief Scientific Advisor at the FSA, highlights the agency’s focus on safety:
"Safe innovation is at the heart of this programme. By prioritising consumer safety and making sure new foods, like cell-cultivated products are safe, we can support growth in innovative sectors. Our aim is to ultimately provide consumers with a wider choice of new food, while maintaining the highest safety standards" [25].
To streamline the approval process, the FSA has introduced a regulatory sandbox while maintaining strict safety assessments. All regulated products undergo thorough safety evaluations [27].
Professor May also points to the advantage of leveraging existing medical expertise:
"Many of the techniques used to create cell-cultivated products have been used to create cell-cultivated medicines previously. So for us, it's a huge advantage to be able to draw on that massive amount of evidence" [28].
The FSA predicts a surge in applications, with at least 15 more applications for cultivated protein products expected in the next two years [24]. Public interest seems promising, as a Food Standards Agency study found that between 16% and 41% of the UK population would be open to trying lab-grown meat [26].
Both traditional and cultivated meats can meet rigorous safety standards when proper protocols are followed. The main difference lies in the types of risks involved and the specific measures required to manage them effectively.
Social and Economic Effects
Cultivated meat has the potential to reshape both the economy and social dynamics in the UK.
UK Consumer Attitudes and Acceptance
In the UK, about a third of consumers are open to trying cultivated meat [3]. Research suggests that anywhere from 16% to 41% of the population would consider giving it a go [35].
Many people see benefits in cultivated meat, with 59% highlighting its positive impact on animal welfare, the environment, and global food security [35]. However, concerns remain - 85% of consumers worry about its safety, the perception of it being unnatural, and how it might affect farmers [35]. While willingness to try cultivated meat has stayed consistent between 2022 and 2024, long-term trends indicate that as people become more familiar with the concept, acceptance may grow. Opinions on its health and nutritional value are largely shaped by the information available [35].
Effects on UK Farming and Rural Areas
As consumer attitudes shift, so does the outlook for farmers and rural communities. Cultivated meat could bring significant changes to British farming. A study involving 75 farmers across six focus groups revealed mixed feelings [31]. Some farmers see cultivated meat as a competitor, while others view it as a chance to differentiate their products, such as marketing pasture-reared meat as "the real thing" [31]. This reflects broader challenges around scaling production and managing resources.
Professor Mike Goodman from the University of Reading commented:
"The farmers' responses provide unique and timely insight into how they are thinking this potentially disruptive technology might not just impact them, their livelihoods and the countryside directly, but how they think it might fundamentally shift UK agro-food systems towards a highly concentrated 'American' model of protein production and consumption" [31].
Tom MacMillan, Elizabeth Creak Chair in rural policy and strategy at the RAU, added:
"Farmers expressed concerns about corporate concentration, public health, and food culture" [34].
New opportunities could emerge, such as farms supplying plant- or animal-based inputs for cultivated meat production [31]. This might include agricultural products like cells, growth media feedstock, and edible scaffolds [32]. Some forward-thinking farmers are already exploring these possibilities, providing animal cells and food-grade ingredients for cultivated meat or even experimenting with on-farm production to expand supply chains [34]. Over time, cultivated meat and other alternatives could lead to significant changes in farming practices, giving businesses time to adapt [33].
One farmer voiced their thoughts:
"There's so much money being thrown at [cultured meat] that we can't afford to ignore it. We need to be raising all sorts of questions about things like waste products and sourcing the inputs and that sort of thing. We should be pinning them down on that now. They're telling us this is the future; they've got to tell us what it means" [31].
Education and Public Awareness Efforts
Beyond economic shifts, public education and awareness will play a key role in this transition. Building understanding and supporting informed policy decisions requires collaboration across sectors. Groups like The Cultivarian Society are stepping up with initiatives such as public awareness campaigns, policy advocacy, newsletters, community events, partnerships with researchers and startups, and educational content on cultivated meat [website].
The economic potential of the cultivated meat market is significant. By 2030, it could add over £2 billion to the UK’s GDP [30]. For every £1 spent on cultivated meat, an estimated £2.70 of additional value may be generated through related production inputs [3]. The industry could also contribute up to £523 million in tax revenue. However, delays in regulatory approval could see the UK falling behind in the global agri-tech race [30].
Experts stress the importance of open dialogue. Linus Pardoe, head of UK policy at the Good Food Institute Europe, stated:
"Moving beyond the polarised debate we've seen in some countries over recent years could provide a 'win-win' – not only benefitting the cultivated meat sector but farmers themselves" [34].
Collaboration in research and innovation will be critical to bridging the gap between farmers and the cultivated meat industry. Educational efforts must address concerns while highlighting economic opportunities. The UK government views alternative proteins as a major growth area [3], and a report from BCG predicts that cultivated meat could capture 6% of the global alternative protein market by 2035 [3]. With the UK being the first European country to introduce cultivated meat in pet food in 2025 [29][2], the groundwork for broader acceptance is already being laid. Through continuous education and outreach, the industry is setting the stage for a smoother transition to a more sustainable approach to meat production in the UK.
Side-by-Side Comparison: Cultivated vs Traditional Meat
When you break it down, cultivated and traditional meat production differ significantly across several key factors. Below is a comparison table that outlines these differences, giving you a clearer picture of how each method stacks up.
Aspect | Cultivated Meat | Traditional Meat |
Animal Welfare | Aims to avoid slaughter; one donor animal could replace 400 cattle in its lifetime [9] | Involves raising and slaughtering over 80 billion farm animals globally each year [9] |
Land Use | Uses up to 95% less land for beef, 72% less for pork, and 63% less for chicken [36] | Requires large areas for grazing and growing feed crops |
Carbon Footprint | Cuts emissions by up to 92% for beef and 44% for pork with renewable energy; slight increase for chicken [36] | Producing 1 kilogram of beef emits the equivalent of 100 kilograms of carbon dioxide [37] |
Water Usage | Uses 82–96% less water compared to traditional livestock farming [13] | High water demand for drinking, feed irrigation, and processing |
Antibiotic Use | No antibiotics needed, lowering the risk of resistance [1] | Heavy reliance on antibiotics in livestock farming |
Food Safety | Lower risk of foodborne illnesses due to absence of enteric pathogens [1] | Greater risk of contamination from animal-borne pathogens |
Production Efficiency | Converts feed into meat 5.8 times more efficiently than beef, 4.6 times more than pork, and 2.8 times more than chicken [36] | Less efficient due to energy lost in animal metabolism |
UK Consumer Acceptance | 16–41% willing to try; 85% express concerns about safety [35][38] | High acceptance due to familiarity and established consumption habits |
This comparison highlights the strengths and challenges of both systems. Cultivated meat shows promise in reducing environmental impact and improving animal welfare. However, traditional meat benefits from its long-standing place in diets and consumer familiarity. It's worth noting that environmental gains from cultivated meat depend heavily on production methods. Edward Spang from UC Davis provides a balanced perspective:
"Our findings suggest that cultured meat is not inherently better for the environment than conventional beef. It's not a panacea" [16].
These insights paint a complex picture of the future of meat production, where the balance between sustainability, ethics, and practicality will shape the industry.
Conclusion: The Future of Meat in the UK
The debate between cultivated and traditional meat presents a pivotal moment for the UK food system. As traditional meat production grapples with rising concerns over climate goals and ethical dilemmas, cultivated meat emerges as a promising alternative - one that allows consumers to enjoy real meat without the associated environmental and ethical costs.
The numbers speak for themselves: livestock farming contributes 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions [6] and uses 77% of the world's agricultural land [3]. In contrast, cultivated meat, when powered by renewable energy, significantly reduces its environmental impact [3]. For a country aiming to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, this represents a meaningful opportunity to cut agricultural emissions while ensuring food security. These potential benefits have placed the UK at the forefront of cultivated meat development.
With £30 million invested in research and widespread recognition of its companies on a global stage [2][39], the UK has taken a leading role in this emerging industry. Such investments highlight the country's readiness to innovate and adapt.
However, significant challenges remain. Production costs vary dramatically, ranging from US$16 to over US$400,000 per kilogram [39], making affordability a pressing issue. Additionally, consumer scepticism persists, with 46% of UK consumers expressing opposition to the sale of cultivated meat [39]. To succeed, the industry must overcome technical hurdles, build public trust, and scale production effectively. Despite these obstacles, progress so far paints an inspiring picture of what lies ahead.
"Cultivated meat could help to diversify our protein supply, boosting food security, driving green economic growth, and reducing climate impacts", says Carlotte Lucas, head of industry at GFI [40].
This analysis underscores the importance of aligning sustainability with ethical practices in the food system. It also resonates with The Cultivarian Society's mission to advocate for a future where real meat is produced without animal suffering. By fostering public understanding and encouraging open dialogue, the gap between scientific innovation and consumer acceptance can be bridged, paving the way for a transition that benefits animals, the planet, and society as a whole.
The future of meat in the UK depends not just on technological progress but on our collective commitment to creating a food system rooted in compassion, sustainability, and forward-thinking principles. Cultivated meat offers a compelling vision of how these values can be realised.
FAQs
What challenges need to be overcome to make cultivated meat more affordable and accessible?
Challenges in Making Cultivated Meat Affordable and Accessible
Bringing cultivated meat to the masses isn’t without its hurdles. Some of the main challenges include high production costs, scaling up manufacturing, navigating complex regulations, and gaining consumer acceptance.
Right now, producing cultivated meat is costly. Advanced technologies like optimising cell growth media and improving bioprocessing methods are essential, but they don’t come cheap. On top of that, scaling up production to meet demand while keeping prices reasonable and maintaining quality is a tough balancing act.
Regulatory processes add another layer of complexity. Approval requirements differ from country to country, and these procedures can take time, delaying how quickly cultivated meat can reach store shelves. Then there’s the consumer side of things - how people perceive and accept cultivated meat will significantly influence its success in the market.
To tackle these challenges, ongoing innovation, strategic investments, and collaboration across industries are crucial steps toward making cultivated meat a practical, affordable alternative to traditional meat.
What is the environmental impact of cultivated meat compared to traditional meat in today’s production systems?
The environmental effects of cultivated meat compared to traditional meat depend heavily on how it is produced. Early studies suggest that cultivated meat could dramatically cut greenhouse gas emissions (by 78–96%), water consumption (by 82–96%), and land use (by as much as 99%) when compared to conventional meat. These reductions point to its potential as a greener alternative.
That said, some research reveals that the current methods of producing cultivated meat may actually have a larger environmental impact than beef. This is mainly due to the energy-intensive nature of lab-based production processes. In certain scenarios, emissions have been estimated to be up to 25 times higher than those from traditional beef farming.
Advances in renewable energy and improvements in production techniques will be essential to unlocking the full environmental benefits of cultivated meat, ensuring it becomes a truly sustainable choice for the future of food.
What are the ethical concerns surrounding the use of Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS) in cultivated meat, and how is the industry responding?
The use of Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS) in producing cultivated meat has sparked ethical concerns. FBS is derived from unborn calves during the slaughter of pregnant cows, often through methods like cardiac puncture performed without anaesthesia. This process can cause considerable distress to the foetus, raising questions about animal welfare.
In response, the cultivated meat industry is working on FBS-free alternatives. These include recombinant proteins, as well as growth media derived from plants or microbes. Some companies have already taken significant steps towards adopting these alternatives, aiming to produce cultivated meat that reflects cruelty-free and ethical values.
Comments