# data[].attributes.body
While many believe it is not ethical to include meat in our diets, I still somewhat agree that it is. A lot of the websites that I saw, even ones that previously endorsed the idea of lab grown meat, (Vox, for example) changed their stances and stated that lab grown meat might actually have an even greater negative on the environment than traditionally farmed animals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What are the Benefits of Lab-grown Meat?Research Summary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cultured meat, or lab-grown meat, is coming soon to a supermarket near you. Long dreamed of by science fiction writers and futuristic game developers, scientifically cultured meats are now ready f…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Finding the best ways to do good. Made possible by The Rockefeller Foundation.

The idea that we should get our hamburgers from a lab and not from a slaughterhouse - the basic premise of the "cultured meat" or "clean meat" movement - tends to get people excited for two main reasons: It could save billions of animals from immense suffering, and it could fight global warming by reducing the number of methane-producing cattle.

But a new study suggests that the second reason may be wrong, and that lab-grown meat could actually be worse for climate change.

Published February 19 in the journal Frontiers for Sustainable Food Systems, the report argues that lab-grown meat, in the long run, may accelerate climate change more than regular beef does.

The authors note that other studies calculating the greenhouse gas emissions of cattle have lumped the gases together as if they're all equivalent. But not all gases are created equal. Yes, cows produce a lot of methane, and methane is very bad for global warming. Yet it only lasts in the atmosphere for a dozen years. Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, lasts more than a century. And you know what releases a lot of CO2? Labs - including those that make cultured meat.

In the couple of days since it came out, the study has already produced several chagrined headlines concluding that clean meat doesn't make for a cleaner environment. The report has us questioning our old assumptions, and that's a good thing. But let's not replace them with new assumptions that are just as problematic.

The authors emphasize that their study is based on highly speculative modeling, which is itself based on some pretty strong assumptions. Two of them are especially glaring. The study models what will happen assuming that 1) lab-grown meat will keep being produced using the same methods of energy generation that currently power production, and 2) this will continue over the course of 1,000 years.

To be fair, the researchers had to pick some time frame for the sake of running their model, and any time frame is going to be fairly arbitrary. But 1,000 years is such a long span that it seems very unlikely we'll still be using such energy-inefficient methods to make lab-grown meat by the end of it.

Whether because clean meat companies will face pressure from their climate-conscious consumers, or because policymakers will step forward to regulate emissions, or because scientists will come up with a way to use cleaner energy to power production ( solar and energy storage technology are improving and getting cheaper as it is), cultured meat will probably notbe made using current methods, even a century from now.

In other words, it's hard to imagine a future scenario where assumptions 1 and 2 will both hold true, producing the most pessimistic of the possible outcomes modeled in the report.

There's another reason to be cautious about the study's findings, as the authors are the first to note: The companies making cultured meat generally don't release data on their production process and how much energy it uses up. They're especially inclined to treat that information as proprietary now that several competitors - from Memphis Meats and Just in the US to Aleph Farms and Future Meat Technologies in Israel - are racing to get their products to market.

"We did the best we could," lead author John Lynch told Quartz this week. "We surveyed all the literature, but it's still a fundamental problem that we have no idea whether [the data] correspond with what the companies are doing or not."

For now, no one's making cultured meat on a massive commercial scale - production is still a relatively small, lab-based affair. Companies are still trying to figure out how to make clean meat more appealing while also making it less wildly expensive. So there would be limited data on how the process works at scale even if the companies were keen to share it.

It may be in the companies' interest to become more forthcoming, though.

Lynch's study only proves we can't assume lab-grown meat will necessarily be better for the environment; the research doesn't prove it will necessarily be worse. But his report isn't the first to warn about cultured meat's potential impact on our climate, and it won't be the last. As more studies come out, consumers are likely to join academic researchers in calling for more transparency. Many of them won't be content to reduce animal suffering if they fear they might be harming the environment in the process.

Over the past decade, the clean meat movement has become associated with twin promises - saving animals and saving the planet. So, naturally, people now want both - and clean meat producers will have to adapt to meet that demand.
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter. Twice a week, you'll get a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling our biggest challenges: improving public health, decreasing human and animal suffering, easing catastrophic risks, and - to put it simply - getting better at doing good.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is lab-grown meat actually worse for the environment?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Finding the best ways to do good. Made possible by The Rockefeller Foundation. The idea that we should get our hamburgers from a lab and not from a slaughterhouse - the basic premise of the "cultured meat" or "clean meat" movement - tends to get people excited for two main reasons: It could save billions of animals from immense suffering, and it could fight global warming by reducing the number of methane-producing cattle.

# data[].attributes.body
"Back in 2013, the world watched as food critics tucked into the first ever lab-grown burger. The small pink patty, prised out of a petri dish and fried in front of the media, was proof that it was possible to grow safe and edible meat without slaughtering a single animal. There was just one problem: the patty had taken two years and over $300,000 to produce.

Even though lab grown meat is completely safe to create and consume, scientists are stuck on how to lower the price of their product.

"In January 2016, a company called Memphis Meats produced a 'cultured meatball' for around $1,000."

While the industry has improved since 2013, the product is still extremely expensive and consumers are unlikely to buy it at that large of a price.

"Not only are blood-based serums a source of worry for vegetarians and vegans, but 'there would not be enough serum in the world to grow all the cells you need to mass-produce.'"

Even though the lab grown meat industry seems like a massive business, it still hasn't reached the ability to mass produce, as well as appeal to groups such as vegetarians and vegans.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Strange Science of the Impossible Burger | WIRED

# data[].attributes.body
"Rising incomes in developing countries means that more people are eating meat than ever before, reducing the amount of land available for much-needed crops, and contributing to climate change. Of course, being able to grow meat artificially can only have a positive impact on animal welfare, too."

If meat is grown in labs instead of at farms, countries will have more space to grow crops while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emission and reducing the effects of global warming.

"Using 'cellular agriculture,' there's no reason why scientists couldn't grow artificial meat with characteristics from a combination of animals, or enhance lab-grown meat with healthier fats, vitamins or vaccines."

Scientists are able to develop a cultured meat filled with vitamins and minerals that can positively impact society without harming a single animal.

"Marie Gibbons, a researcher from North Carolina State University working on cultured meat production, says there is no limit to what scientists could do with flavour."

While being beneficial to the environment and not harming animals, lab grown meat can still be a substitute for people concerned about the taste.

# data[].attributes.body
While the future of lab grown meat looks bright, there are many downsides that scientists still need to work on such as production time, production price, and the inability to mass produce.

# data[].attributes.body
The rapidly growing lab meat industry has the ability to be more environmentally friendly while simultaneously being healthier, cheaper, and even tastier.