Interest in animal cell-based meat (ACBM) as an environmentally conscious replacement for livestock production has been increasing; however, a life cycle assessment (LCA) for the existing production methods of ACBM has not been conducted. Currently, ACBM products are being produced at a small scale, but ACBM companies are intending to scale-up production. Updated findings from recent technoeconomic assessments (TEAs) of ACBM were utilized to perform an LCA of near-term ACBM production. A scenario analysis was conducted utilizing the metabolic requirements examined in the TEAs of ACBM, and a purification factor was utilized to account for growth medium component processing. The results indicate that the environmental impact of near-term ACBM production has the potential to be significantly higher than beef if a highly refined growth medium is utilized for ACBM production. This study highlights the need to develop a sustainable animal cell growth medium that is optimized for high-density animal cell proliferation for ACBM to generate positive economic and environmental benefits.

Interest in animal cell-based meat (ACBM) or laboratory-grown meat has been increasing; however, the economic viability of these potential products has not been thoroughly vetted. Recent studies suggest monoclonal antibody production technology can be adapted for the industrialization of ACBM production. This study provides a scenario-based assessment of the projected cost per kilogram of ACBM produced in the United States based on cellular metabolic requirements and process/chemical engineering conventions. A sensitivity analysis of the model identified the nine most influential cost factors for ACBM production out of 67 initial parameters. The results indicate that technological performance will need to approach technical limits for ACBM to achieve profitably as a commodity. However, the model also suggests that low-volume high-value specialty products could be viable based on current technology.

Predicted famines due to population increase created an interest in the development of protein alternatives during the 1950s. Currently, a renewed interest in protein alternatives has developed as a potential strategy to decrease the environmental impact of protein production and meet the global demand for protein as the population increases. Fusarium venenatum A3/5/3, the organism used for mycoprotein production has been commercially available since the 1980s, however new fungal protein companies are currently interested in scaling up production. To aid guide efforts in this domain, we created an economic model with over 340 inputs that examines the continuous production of mycoprotein utilizing airlift bioreactors. Utilizing a sensitivity analysis, we identified critical processing inputs and then developed a user-friendly Excel model that allows for the exploration of customized production scenarios for interested stakeholders. Our findings indicate that mycoprotein can be cost competitive with beef on a price per protein basis. The findings also indicate that mycoprotein may not be an economically competitive alternative for other types of commodity meats (chicken) or for inexpensive meat-derived products (pet food) that utilize offal or meat byproducts not traditionally consumed in the modern western diet.

Background: Dietary patterns affect both human health and environmental sustainability. Prior research found a ten-unit course on food systems and environmental sustainability shifted dietary intake and reduced dietary carbon footprint among college students. This research evaluated the impact of a similar, more scalable one-unit Foodprint seminar taught at multiple universities. Methods: We used a quasi-experimental pre-post nonequivalent comparison group design (n = 176). As part of the Menus of Change University Research Collaborative, research was conducted at three university campuses in California over four academic terms. All campuses used the same curriculum, which incorporates academic readings, group discussions, and skills-based exercises to evaluate the environmental footprint of different foods. The comparison group comprised students taking unrelated one-unit courses at the same universities. A questionnaire was administered at the beginning and end of each term. Results: Students who took the Foodprint seminar significantly improved their reported vegetable intake by 4.7 weekly servings relative to the comparison group. They also reported significantly decreasing intake of ruminant meat and sugar-sweetened beverages. As a result of dietary shifts, Foodprint seminar students were estimated to have significantly decreased their dietary carbon footprint by 14%. Conclusions: A scalable, one-unit Foodprint seminar may simultaneously promote environmental sustainability and human health.