Is laboratory meat good for health? Does it contain hormones? – breaking latest news

The cultured meat the sustainable alternative to intensive farming? Would it be good for the planet, but bad for health? synthetic? Does it contain hormones?

The In Vitro Meat Debate (grown in the laboratory starting from animal muscle cells and destined, sooner or later, to reach consumer tables) is in full swing after the presentation of the bill by the Italian government which prohibits the production, marketing and importation of so-called synthetic foods. The last statement about that of Paolo DeCastroformer Minister of Agricultural Policies and MEP of the Democratic Party, a point of reference in Brussels for Italian agri-food companies, who declared to Corriere: I don’t see how it is possible that it is authorised, given the current EU ban on the consumption of meat with hormones.

But lab-grown meat contains hormones? We asked three scientists, who are taking part in the debate on a technical level, answering the questions that future consumers ask themselves, above all regarding the salute.

Cell grown meat is obtained by harvesting stem cells from a living muscleto cultivate them in a bioreattore which reproduces the conditions of the animal body. In order for the cells to multiply exponentially (we are talking about a few weeks of cultivation compared to a year and a half to grow a bovine) they are immersed in a culture medium with a blend of nutrients that are, in fact, i growth factors.

They are not hormones – explains Carlo Alberto Redi, Academician of the Lincei, president of the Ethics Committee of the Umberto Veronesi Foundation —. There is an infinitesimal presence of insulin, but all the rest is water, sugars and salts, elements that our body uses normally.
In these cultural broths there are growth factors, which are molecules, peptides – he adds Stefano Erzegovesi, Nutritionist. They are all natural factors, because otherwise the cell would not recognize them. The question: the fact of using these enriched broths could leave an excess of growth factor in the meat and therefore create a carcinogenic product? We do not know. The solution is not to ban, but to keep research and controls going.

The checks are planned and from the available data, no hormones or specific health problems are named: the companies that are producing the meat in vitro are already authorized to work by the European regulatory bodies. For the marketing phase, however, the authorizations are still to be requested and examined: the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) is dealing with it, which will analyze the dossiers presented by the companies on very in-depth aspects. They are more complete than what can be published in scientific journals, they have information that anyone in the scientific community could not have, they are thousands and thousands of pages. On the basis of those observations we could make our counter-deductions, he says Roberto Defezdirector of the IBBR-CNR microbial biotechnology laboratory in Naples and adds: There is a primarily linguistic prejudice: it has nothing synthetic. There is always this myth of returning to nature, but nature did not create intensive farming: we are not hunters who go to the savannah to compete with wild animals in a natural environment.

Language has created fears starting from the “synthetic/artificial” dichotomy – echoes Redi – but this molecularly identical flesh to that obtained by killing an animal, moreover, it becomes almost a “must see” because the production of red meat is no longer sustainable. Cells grown in vitro are no less natural than those that grow and multiply in vivo in animals themselves. What changes is only the context in which they grow up, the laboratory.

Net of the understandable concerns for workers in the sector and for the entire chain that produces meat from animals, i
advantages

that would derive from the promotion of an alternative meat are many: ethical, environmental and health.

First the answer to ethical question: the concrete possibility of almost completely reduce animal suffering today caused by intensive farming, suffering which is not limited only to the killing of the animals themselves, but which also derives from the living conditions to which they are forced.

Then there are the environmental benefitsPreliminary research has concluded that cell cultured meat could use 7-45% less energy, 99% less soil, 82-96% less water, emitting between 78-96% % less emissions, depending on the animal product considered.

Finally, animal husbandry is also creating a gigantic health problem: The overcrowding of animals involves the risk of zoonosis, therefore of the transition from animals to humans infectious diseases and the massive use of drugs, needed in those environments, increases the risk of resistance to antibiotics which is already underway and the prelude to the next pandemic, declares Erzegovesi.
Currently, it is estimated that over the 70% of all antibiotics used on the planet are used for animal breeding; Italy ranks third in the world. Furthermore, even the waste produced by intensive farms is polluted by antibiotics and resistant bacteria, which makes it risky to reuse it as fertilizer for agriculture.

a meat that we cannot do without considering the considerations on the planet (forests, water, antibiotic resistance) and we have no indication of specific dangers or harmfulness. So there is a direct gain from the point of view of the environment and human food health, says Carlo Alberto Redi.

been studied what would be the effects of a diet based on cultured meat compared to those due to the meat we are used to eating? What differences? With this type of meat we have one more possibility – explains Defez -: we can easily regulate the amount of harmful fats o determine other parameters to address specific nutritional and health emergencies. For the rest, the considerations are the same as for the consumption of red meat. Food safety agencies say you shouldn’t consume a lot of it. Will the risk thresholds be the same? I would say yes.

Cultured meat is good for the planet and for animals, but doesn’t mean it’s a healthy food choice: eating three hamburgers a day of cultured meat at the expense of whole grains, legumes and vegetables can make you sick (under the lens above all the increased risk of some types of cancer, ed), because it is in any case a food devoid of fibers and antioxidants, like all animal products, specifies Erzegovesi. So what are we left with? In my opinion, the solution to the health problems of humanity and the planet is not cultivated meat, but what the EAT-Lancet Commission says: the amount of vegetables (fruit, vegetables and legumes) will have to double, while that of foods such as red meat and sugar will have to be reduced by more than 50%, concludes Erzegovesi.