Cultured Meat (CM), or lab-grown meat, consists of complex multicellular structures created through various assembly methods. These processes can involve high levels of automation and likely use artificial intelligence (AI) to control and fine-tune production variables: the manufacture of CM is one vision of the future of robotics and AI in agriculture.

CM is often promoted as a way to avoid requiring animals to suffer for the sake of producing meat for human consumption and remedy challenges currently facing the agricultural industry1,2. Structuring meat on the cellular level involves, quite literally, reducing food to its components, which decouples protein and animals. Yet, the processes to create CM remain within an industrial model of vertical integration where economic value is extracted from all possible sources. By undermining the role of individual food producers within their existing ecosystems and prioritising the needs of industrial processes and global markets, CM works to reinforce power asymmetries between those who grow and those who sell food and further alienate people from their environment.

The “Food Sovereignty” movement is a global movement committed to human agency, sustainability, and shared responsibility in the production, distribution, and consumption of food. La Via Campesina, a grassroots movement made up of peasant farmers, fisherfolk, Indigenous peoples, migrants, pastoralists, and other small-scale farmers, defines food sovereignty as “The right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems”3. First conceptualised in response to ‘food security’, a term criticised for its narrow focus on access to food, Food Sovereignty acknowledges the role of improving food security but places greater significance on the intrinsic relationship between agriculture, ecosystems, and cultures3. Rather than promoting a standardised solution to food production, Food Sovereignty represents an alternative to, and rejection of, the neoliberal, industrialised food system.

In 2007, NGOs representing millions of people gathered at the International Forum on Food Sovereignty in Mali and collectively formulated the Nyéléni Declaration for Food Sovereignty, to provide the guiding vision for this movement. In particular, the Nyéléni Declaration set out six pillars that provide a practical platform to promote Food Sovereignty: Food for People, Values Food Providers, Localises Food Systems, Puts Control Locally, Builds Knowledge and Skills, and Works with Nature3.

There is an emerging literature on the ethical and social challenges raised by CM4,5,6. Advocates argue that CM could reduce land, water, and chemical inputs, and eliminate the need to raise and slaughter animals for food, thereby contributing to a sustainable future of farming7,8. Critics are concerned by the further concentration of corporate power9,10, consumer acceptance and food safety1, and that CM will fall short of its environmental promises. Yet there has so far been little discussion on the implications of CM for food sovereignty, with the exception of Baudish et al.11 and Broad12, who draw attention to the role of justice in transitioning to alternative protein sources, and Fernandez13, who considers the short-comings of a Utilitarian evaluation of synthetic meat compared with that of the ecologically-minded concept of food sovereignty. There is, of course, a substantial literature of food sovereignty critiques of colonial capitalist ‘techno-fixes’, CM is just one example of an agricultural biotechnology that forms part of this broader phenomenon. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile examining the implications of the six pillars of Food Sovereignty for CM specifically, as I do here, in order to inform debates about this particular technology. In this paper, I adopt a Food Sovereignty lens and evaluate CM against the six pillars set out in the Nyéléni Declaration using the standard methods of applied ethics. Rather than arguing for an outright rejection of CM technologies, my goal here is to bring CM and food sovereignty into conversation and promote further research into the broader implications of CM for our food systems.

In the following section, I first quote the definition of each of the six pillars provided by Via Campesina and then consider how likely it is that CM will realise the goal set out therein.

Focuses on Food for People - a central right of all peoples must include access to sufficient, healthy and culturally appropriate food3

Industry advocates of cultured meat often promote a ‘feed the world’ narrative to justify this technologically driven approach to food production and focus on increasing production outputs7. Although this narrative remains a dominant feature in agricultural discourse, claims that increased production and availability of food resources will improve the equitable distribution of food, thereby alleviating global hunger, have been heavily criticised14,15. There is little reason to think that CM will be any different when it comes to its capacity to provide access to sufficient and healthy food through its reductive focus on nutrients16. Moreover, food products produced in a lab are detached from the ecological and cultural significance of how food is grown, produced and consumed. People’s food choices are reduced to shallow decisions regarding brands17, rather than including the option of culturally appropriate and place-based foods.

Values Food Providers - the contribution of diverse and often marginalised groups is valued, and actions that could threaten labour displacement are rejected3

CM is highly likely to disadvantage and disempower the diverse cross-section of people and communities currently involved in agriculture by reinforcing power asymmetries between those who grow and those who sell food. While biotechnologies have previously been considered catalysts for encouraging social and economic growth in rural communities, there is a growing argument that these claims are misaligned5. It is highly unlikely that the technologically intensive production methods of CM, which rely heavily on the existence of a sophisticated scientific and material infrastructure, will filter down for use by small-scale food producers. CM circumvents existing local labour markets and parts of the value chain by virtue of a mismatch between existing local skills and the highly technical knowledge required to produce CM. Pastoralists, peasant farmers, and other small-scale farmers associated with traditional animal farming will be directly impacted by the loss of work opportunities. Producers integrated into the livestock value chain as input/output suppliers will also be affected.

Localises Food Systems - providers and consumers maintain a reciprocal relationship that enables effective decision-making on food issues; and resist reliance on multinational food corporations3

CM will likely disconnect local producer and consumer relationships by promoting the values and priorities of remote stakeholders. Therefore, it undermines provider needs and consumer decisions and unnecessarily introduces market competition. These concerns are substantiated by the significant investment and diversification into CM from multinational food companies7,18. A concentrated market can negatively affect local food systems because those creating and distributing have greater control to nudge consumer decisions and are themselves less vulnerable to receiving effective pushback. At the same time, consumers and communities develop an (over)reliance on a concentrated entity19. CM companies could mitigate this risk of disconnection by involving farmers directly20, but the idea that peasant farmers will be able to pay the high cost of entry involved in creating CM or that this would translate into meaningful food choices for consumers is presumptive.

Puts Control Locally - local food providers uphold control and rights across local territories; natural resources are used sustainably, while privatisation and commercialisation are rejected3

Centralised manufacturing of CM encourages outsourcing of food producers. This undermines the strength of local economies and reduces local producer autonomy. By contrast, decentralised production of CM, redistributed sites embedded within local communities, will require manufacturers to access local resources directly. Alternative food movements typically promote local production with shorter supply chains, however, this must be accompanied by community control17. CM contributes to the privatisation and commercialisation of local natural resources by remotely operated multinational food companies, thereby ceding control from the local community. This model involves farmers growing food components assembled in high-tech production facilities where processes are obscured as trade secrets and/or protected by intellectual property. Remote decision-makers can also contribute to the asymmetrical distribution of risks and benefits14. The production of monocultures like this, such as those grown to produce ‘fibre’ or ‘protein’, is notoriously unsustainable. This raises further concerns for environmentally conscious practices.

Builds Knowledge and Skills - food providers and organisations are empowered to use place-based knowledge and disseminate this understanding to future generations. Technologies that threaten this pursuit, such as genetic engineering, are rejected3

CM impacts self-determination by removing individuals and social figures from their networks and undermines access to local knowledge systems. CM is built on technical knowledge of operating systems, which is often difficult to access as a result of educational barriers, property rights and proprietary knowledge. The latter is especially prominent in CM due to the types of investors pushing for an economically and commercially viable product. Technical requirements, such as scaffolding and structure, can directly impact costs to scale - which can remain closely guarded information to limit unnecessary market competition. Loss of knowledge will also likely contribute to the displacement of agricultural expertise21, undermining future opportunities for subsistence farming or acts of resistance against political regimes. CM illustrates the erosion of traditional foodways through dependence on global markets and the disempowering technologies of colonial capitalist food systems.

Works with Nature - food production is embedded within the surrounding ecosystem, using available natural resources, remaining resilient and avoiding harmful or destructive industrialised processes3

CM contributes to the ‘productivist’ approach recognised in agriculture, downplaying the value of interconnected relationships in pursuit of efficiency and maximising outputs. It is a product removed from the ecosystem, produced in siloed and energy-intensive laboratories. Attempting to operate outside the ecosystem also threatens to help ‘lock in’ trends exacerbating existing problems and destructive production methods. Critics of CM plausibly hold that focusing narrowly on food access obscures the importance of sustainability and hence offsets political and social pressure for much-needed change10. Furthermore, if CM’s future developments stay on track to integrate AI and machine learning into its systems, the environmental impacts of these technologies will also need to be taken into account22, which have so far been excluded.

Conclusion

Cultured meat has garnered interest as an influential technology with near-future applications. Yet, how this technology threatens the pursuit of food sovereignty has so far received little attention. It is important that critics, publics and policymakers engage with the current narrative of CM to consider what values ought to be defended and promoted. For those interested in the interconnectedness between empowered people, communities and the environment, further discussion of the role cultured meat will likely play in future society is urgently needed before this technology is considered an appropriate option. Testing CM against the six pillars of the Food Sovereignty movement as outlined by the Nyéléni Declaration reveals that CM is highly unlikely to promote Food Sovereignty.