Can lab-grown food save the planet? | Letters

Daniel Pryor of the Adam Smith Institute, David E Hanke, Georgina Ferry and Prof Mick Watson respond to an article by George Monbiot claiming that lab-grown food will end farming and save the planet

It’s encouraging to find agreement across the political divide on the potential of new technologies to combat climate change, reduce animal suffering and supplant massive agricultural subsidies. The Adam Smith Institute recently released a paper on the topic that made many of the same points as George Monbiot (Lab-grown food will end farming – and save the planet, Journal, 8 January).

One overlooked benefit of lab-grown food is that it may help the UK tackle the crisis in housing affordability. As farming is superseded by precision fermentation, the significant amount of land currently used for livestock farming (including parts of the green belt) will be freed up for development in places that people actually want to live.

However, we’d take a different lesson from the promise of lab-grown meat. Free-market environmentalism and harnessing the power of innovative technologies – supported by market-based measures like a border-adjusted carbon tax – can successfully tackle the problem of manmade climate change without fundamentally uprooting the way we run society. Saving the planet doesn’t have to cost us the earth.
Daniel Pryor
Adam Smith Institute

• There are fundamental reasons why the Solar Foods system that George Monbiot refers to can’t compete with plants for sustainable food production.

The supply of minerals for bacteria has to be assembled chemically, with all the chemical industry’s environmental downsides. By contrast, plant roots pull the right minerals in the right proportions out of mixed-up traces in the environment, using solar energy to fuel selective concentration at no cost, generating no heat or chemical pollution and requiring no purified water.

The machinery by which plants acquire raw materials is itself built by the plant using solar energy in a non-polluting process, not made in a factory. Likewise, the light-energy-trapping machinery of plants is assembled on a planetary scale, with none of the unwelcome by-products of heat and chemical pollution associated with the fabrication of solar cells and wind turbines, and with the generation of hydrogen from water by electricity.

The claim that “the hydrogen pathway used by Solar Foods is about 10 times as efficient as photosynthesis” is meaningless if we’re not told which aspects of the two processes are being compared.

Unlike food from plants, no industrially generated food could provide the right mix of dietary constituents essential for health, such as balanced vitamins, minerals and bulk fibre. Supplying these as additives cancels any advantage of electric food. Plants are still the only source of food with long-term sustainability.
David E Hanke

• There is much food for thought in George Monbiot’s paean to precision fermentation. He has undoubtedly made the case that agricultural business as usual is not an option. However, his techno-utopianism needs to come with a hefty side order of the precautionary principle.

He acknowledges the likely impact on the agricultural sector, arguing that governments should “help farmers into other forms of employment” (that worked out well for the miners and steelworkers), and that “strong anti-trust laws” will limit the commercial rapaciousness of the new producers (ditto the digital giants and fossil fuel companies). Millions of people globally grow, hunt or raise food not to make money, but to feed their families. Where will they get the cash to buy the new stuff? The science may seem simple, but the politics is a minefield.

On top of that we are talking about food, not fuel. Vitamin supplements are less effective for health and wellbeing than a varied, mostly plant-based diet. Will foods based on individual proteins meet all our dietary requirements as well as the complex foods we have evolved to consume? What will be the impact on our gut microbiomes? Or our immune systems? Taste, smell, colour and texture all play a part in palatability: enjoyment is a critical part of our food psychology. No doubt the food processing industry will rise to the challenge of making farmfree food fun, but it could take decades.

A rapid switch to such foods would be a massive experiment on the global public: there would need to be clinical trials. We will not reap the potential advantages if the consequences are not fully explored.
Georgina Ferry

• Globally, over 1.3 billion people rely on livestock farming for their livelihoods, either as farmers or as part of the livestock food supply chain. Meat and dairy have known health benefits, and consumption of animal-based food during early life has been linked with lower levels of malnutrition and improved health outcomes.

In many ways, British farming is the envy of the world, with high levels of sustainability and sensible land use – for example, most sheep are raised on land that could not be used for any other purpose – and the National Farmers’ Union has committed to the sector being carbon neutral by 2040.

It is important to acknowledge that certain types of livestock farming may have issues with sustainability and climate change. But it is not true of all farming systems; and the issues that do exist are being dealt with using the latest research into genetics and biotechnology – for example, recent research has shown that certain types of seaweed can reduce methane emissions from cattle to close to zero.

High-profile movements such as EAT-Lancet and Veganuary gain widespread press coverage, yet the fact that the World Health Organization rejected the EAT-Lancet recommendations was largely unreported, and a recent analysis of sales data showed that Veganuary in 2019 was not associated with a reduction in meat and dairy sales. Farmer data also shows that increased sales of alternative milks have not seen a corresponding reduction in dairy sales.

The global food system, consumer choices and climate change are incredibly complex issues, and anyone who proposes simple solutions is almost certainly not in possession of all the relevant facts and data. Livestock are an important part of humanity’s future food needs.
Prof Mick Watson
University of Edinburgh

• Join the debate – email

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit

• Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition


The GuardianTramp

Related Content

Article image
How livestock grazing is benefiting the planet | Letters
Letters: Readers respond to George Monbiot’s article about the damage caused by organic, pasture-fed beef and lamb


21, Aug, 2022 @4:11 PM

Article image
Why cutting cattle can’t solve the climate crisis | Letters
Letters: Stuart Roberts, vice-president of the NFU, makes the green case for maintaining cattle grazing in the UK, while Simon Fairlie thinks cutting meat production is a distraction


17, Dec, 2019 @4:25 PM

Article image
Ways to step up the fight against global antimicrobial resistance | Letters
Letters: Decision-makers must acknowledge the pivotal role that water, sanitation and hygiene play in preventing infection, writes WaterAid’s Margaret Batty. Meanwhile Matt Ball of the The Good Food Institute says moving to plant-based and clean meat is the best thing we can do to avoid pandemics of antibiotic-resistant superbugs


29, Mar, 2018 @5:02 PM

Article image
This plant-focused diet won’t save the planet | Letters
Letters: Richard Vernon says population reduction would do more for the planet than a change of diet, Stuart Roberts and John Davies extol the benefits of British farming, Dr Michael Antoniou calls for balanced scientific information and Paul Faupel on meeting his dietary needs with chocolate-enrobed brazil nuts


18, Jan, 2019 @4:13 PM

Article image
The Guardian view on Earth-friendly diets: cooking animals is cooking the planet | Editorial
Editorial: Eating less meat will help, but governments remain indispensable actors in solving the climate crisis


21, Aug, 2022 @5:25 PM

Article image
Meat, dairy and nurturing the soil | Letters
Letters: Dr Phillip Williamson, Yvonne Ingham and J Peter Greaves respond to Guardian coverage of the IPCC special report on climate change and land


13, Aug, 2019 @5:30 PM

Article image
The Guardian view on vegans: a dietary challenge | Editorial
Editorial: A huge reduction in meat-eating is called for. No wonder carnivores are feeling defensive


01, Nov, 2018 @6:24 PM

Article image
Food for thought on our carbon footprint | Letters
Letters: Artificially grown ‘meat’ has the potential to reduce carbon emissions, argues Patrick Cosgrove. As for Extinction Rebellion, its aims couldn’t be clearer, according to Mark Haworth-Booth


29, Oct, 2019 @6:33 PM

Article image
How KFC, Subway and McDonald’s can help the fight against antibiotic resistance | Letters
Letters: We are calling on KFC, Subway and McDonald’s to end the routine use of all antibiotics included on the World Health Organisation’s list of medically important antimicrobials, in all of their livestock supply chains


16, Nov, 2016 @7:03 PM

Article image
Reach ‘peak meat’ by 2030 to tackle climate crisis, say scientists
Reducing meat and dairy consumption will cut methane and allow forests to thrive

Damian Carrington Environment editor

12, Dec, 2019 @6:21 AM