COLLEGE PARK, Md. — During Thursday’s hearing on the regulation of lab-grown meat at the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Gregory Jaffe from the Center for Science in the Public Interest addressed another significant issue in the food industry: GMOs. Jaffe, who leads the biotechnology project at CSPI, noted that prior to the introduction of GMOs into the food supply, the FDA had not made any safety determinations regarding these products. As a result, consumers had to depend on the assurances of ingredient developers about their safety.
Recent surveys indicate that many consumers in the U.S. remain skeptical about the safety of GMOs. In response, manufacturers began reformulating products to be GMO-free, and certain states, along with Congress, enacted laws requiring GMO disclosure. Jaffe suggested that if the FDA had implemented specific regulations to affirm the safety of GMOs, the current market landscape might differ significantly. “I don’t think anyone wants to see a repeat scenario with cultured meat, where products are safe, but consumers believe otherwise,” he cautioned.
Currently, various manufacturers and scientists are developing lab-grown meat, with the earliest market introduction expected by the end of 2018 through JUST. This timeline provides an opportunity for the federal government to determine the appropriate classification and regulatory framework for these new products. The hearing facilitated public dialogue on the surrounding issues of lab-grown meat and offered a platform for input on regulatory approaches. Additionally, an online docket remains open until September 25 for consumers to express their opinions on the matter.
A diverse group of participants, including scientists, manufacturers, attorneys, industry representatives, college students, and consumer advocates, shared their views during the hearing. However, there was a consensus on one key point: it is crucial to initiate these discussions now. Michael Selden, co-founder and CEO of Finless Foods, emphasized the importance of engaging with consumers to foster understanding of these new products. “We cannot simply launch our food into the market and expect consumer trust; food is deeply personal,” he stated.
Many companies developing lab-grown meat welcomed the FDA’s involvement in establishing regulations. Isha Datar, executive director of New Harvest, highlighted the need for the FDA to leave room for future innovations, akin to the transformation of milk into yogurt and cheese. “This technology is a toolbox, not an end product,” she remarked. Datar argued that the FDA’s expertise in regulating other cell-cultivated items, such as medicines, makes it the appropriate agency to oversee lab-grown meat.
Eric Schulze, vice president of product and regulation at Memphis Meats, described their process for creating meat products. They cultivate cells in a sterile environment, providing necessary nutrients and adjusting conditions to promote growth. Once the cells reach the desired state, they are harvested and packaged similarly to conventional meat. Schulze noted that the FDA’s existing regulatory framework aligns well with their production methods, focusing on the characteristics and safety of the final product rather than viewing all new developments as potential hazards.
While several manufacturers and advocacy groups refer to the final product as “clean meat,” a term introduced by the Good Food Institute, Peter Licari, chief technology officer of JUST, asserted that lab-grown meat is inherently safer than traditional meat. The controlled environment in which the cells are cultivated minimizes contamination risks, especially those associated with slaughterhouses. Licari claimed, “We believe clean meat will be similar to conventional meat in all essential aspects, but produced in a manner that significantly reduces contamination risk.”
Selden also mentioned the safety advantages of lab-grown fish, highlighting concerns over mercury levels in certain species and the impact of plastic waste on ocean-caught fish. He stressed that FDA regulation is vital for building public trust in these products. “To alter the food supply, we need the confidence and trust of consumers,” he said. “Collaborating with the FDA is the optimal path to achieve that trust.”
Nevertheless, not everyone supported the FDA’s regulatory oversight or the introduction of lab-grown meat to the market. Consumers Union Senior Scientist Michael Hansen criticized the FDA’s current regulatory framework, pointing out the excessive reliance on voluntary guidelines. He expressed concern that lab-grown meat could potentially bypass thorough safety evaluations via the “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) designation, which allows ingredients to gain approval based solely on proof of safety from scientists, without comprehensive FDA review. Hansen insisted that cultured meat should undergo a premarket safety assessment, deeming the GRAS process inadequate for ensuring safety.
Consumer opinions on labeling varied widely. A survey conducted by Consumers Union revealed that nearly half of respondents were comfortable with the term “meat” if accompanied by an explanation of production methods; however, 40% believed it should be labeled differently. The most favored terms included “lab-grown meat” and “artificial or synthetic meat,” while only 9% supported the term “clean meat.” Maggie Nutter of the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association argued against the use of the term “meat” for lab-grown products, insisting that it should be reserved for protein sourced from animal flesh.
Despite the presence of numerous stakeholders at the hearing, representatives from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), responsible for overseeing conventional meat, were notably absent. Tiffany Lee, director of regulatory and scientific affairs at the North American Meat Institute, expressed disappointment at this absence. She emphasized that while innovation is welcome, the USDA should regulate lab-grown products under the Federal Meat Inspection Act to ensure safety and fair labeling in the marketplace. “The elephant in the room is that companies producing cell-cultured products aspire to market them as meat,” she concluded, urging for proper regulatory oversight.
In addition to the discussions surrounding lab-grown meat, the hearing also touched on health implications related to new food technologies. For instance, the potential impact of additives like calcium citrate in lab-grown products on kidney disease was raised, highlighting the importance of thorough safety assessments in the development of these novel food sources. As the industry evolves, ensuring public trust and safety through rigorous regulatory frameworks will be essential for the acceptance and success of lab-grown meat in the market.