Lab-grown food

What could possibly go wrong??

Yet again, I’ve been inspired by a BBC article, this time it’s one dated 10th March 2025 and titled, Lab-grown food could be sold in UK within two years,

“Meat, dairy and sugar grown in a lab could be on sale in the UK for human consumption for the first time within two years, sooner than expected.”

The emphasis in the article is on ‘speeding up the approval process’; a situation that is being promoted by the Foods Standards Agency! Despite the word ‘food’ in their title, this agency, it would seem, does not understand the meaning of the word, because, as the next line states,

“Such products are grown from cells in small chemical plants.”

The claim being made is that ‘regulations’ are holding back the approval process in the UK for ‘lab-grown food’ to be made available for human consumption. The reason for speeding up the process is because this kind of ‘product’ has already been made available for dogs,

“Dog food made from meat that was grown in factory vats went on sale in the UK for the first time last month.”

The assumption would seem to be that it’s ok for our pets, so now it’s ok for us to eat this ‘stuff’.

However, below is the image used for a BBC article dated 9th February entitled Lab-grown meat goes on sale in UK dog food. I would say that this is not a good choice for an advert - the dog’s expression speaks volumes as far as I’m concerned.

Nevertheless, this is how the manufacturing process is described in that article,

“Owen Ensor, who founded London-based Meatly in 2022, said the manufacturing process was similar to brewing beer.

He said: "You take cells from a single chicken egg. From that we can create an infinite amount of meat for evermore.

"We put it in large, steel fermenters... and after a week we're able to harvest healthy, delicious chicken for our pets."

The clever piece of misdirection can be found in this statement,

“Lab-grown meat, which is genetically indistinguishable from traditionally produced meat…”

Comparable genetics does NOT determine whether a substance is suitable to be classified as a food - or not!

The UK is, unfortunately, by no means alone in manufacturing such products and promoting this nonsense, as the 10th March article states,

“In 2020, Singapore became the first country to authorise the sale of cell-cultivated meat for human consumption, followed by the United States three years later and Israel last year.”

Not all countries or US states are happy with this though; Italy and the state of Alabama have instituted bans against lab-made food.

The main discussion, according to the article, seems to be centred on the topic of safety and details relating to ‘regulations’ - but for me these are side issues and therefore not the significant issues that should be under discussion.

As far as I’m concerned, the key point is the question: Is it appropriate to classify these ‘products’ as food?

So what exactly is ‘food’?

The online OED (Oxford English Dictionary) defines food as,

“Any nutritious substance that people or animals eat or drink in order to maintain life and growth; nourishment, provisions.”

Although not exactly incorrect, this leaves some room for interpretation.

However, it is not easy to see how these ‘lab-grown products’ - I won’t call them foods because they aren’t - adhere to this definition. The process of manufacturing them is described in the article,

“Lab-grown foods are grown into plant or animal tissue from tiny cells. This can sometimes involve gene editing to tweak the food's properties. The claimed benefits are that they are better for the environment and potentially healthier.”

I’ll discuss the impact on the ‘environment’ shortly.

The key point to note in the above statement from the article is the reference to ‘gene editing’.

The questions we need to ask are:

• What exactly is gene editing?

• What does tweaking genes involve in this process?

• How do they know this ‘tweaking’ will improve the product’s properties?

The fundamental point that is missing from this whole discussion in these articles is that foods are NOT merely a conglomeration of individual substances, usually referred to as ‘nutrients’, that are claimed to have specific properties. This too is a controversial topic, because real foods are complex whole organisms, whether plant- or animal-based.

NOTE: This is not a discussion about the pros and cons of different diets, but about the fundamental concept of ‘food’ itself and its real functions.

For me, the issue of ‘lab-grown food’ should unite vegans, vegetarians, omnivores and meat eaters - and everyone in-between - because it’s clear that our entire food supply is under attack. All foods, real foods that is, are potential targets for the ‘fake food’ industry.

In a vague attempt to offer a balanced approach to the topic, the article does cite critics of this process, especially Pat Thomas, director of Beyond GM, who is quoted as having made the extremely valid point that,

“Lab-grown foods are ultimately ultra-processed foods and we are in an era where we are trying to get people to eat fewer ultra-processed foods because they have health implications…”

Unfortunately, this good advice is followed by the less than helpful comment that,

"And it is worth saying that these ultra-processed foods have not been in the human diet before."

The fact that these products have not been ‘in the human diet’ before is not the salient point; it is not the best argument to have put forward. What their fundamental question should have been is whether these products will be recognised by the human body as capable of providing the nourishment it requires for optimal functioning. This is not a question of ‘genetics’, nor is it a question of whether the products contain the ‘right’ individual nutrients.

As I said above, real foods are complex whole organisms, not just a combination of individual ‘nutrients’.

Another of the arguments used in discussions about this issue, relates to the alleged ‘benefits’ of this fake food, as can be seen in the February article about dog food,

“Advocates point to environmental benefits, while critics say cultivated meat is expensive and could harm farming.”

Another argument relates to animal welfare,

“Prof Guy Poppy, from the University of Bristol, said it addressed concerns over animal welfare.”

This is followed by the comment that,

“Prof Andrew Knight, from the University of Winchester, said: "About 20% of all the meat that is consumed by high pet-owning nations - and that would include the United Kingdom - is actually consumed by pets not people."

This clearly plays into the ‘food scarcity’ propaganda, but indicates the huge scale of the pet food industry and its related problems, but that is a whole other topic!

However, a key aspect of the propaganda to support ‘lab-grown products’ is based on the alleged benefits to the environment,

“The former chief scientific adviser at the government's Food Standards Agency added: "This is an opportunity to offer the advantages of meat but without the carbon and environmental footprint."

This ridiculous claim needs to be questioned.

• Where is the evidence that lab-grown meat is actually beneficial and does not have detrimental consequences for the environment?

• What substances are used?

• What processes are involved?

• What resources will be required?

It is obvious that the idea of producing ‘lab-food’ is fully supportive of the 2030 Agenda with its unproven claims about so-called ‘climate change’ and the idea that carbon dioxide is the enemy. Unfortunately, even the critics of lab-grown food promote the ‘climate change’ nonsense.

This is therefore another false dichotomy that is supposed to divide us all, but yet again, as with so many issues, neither ‘side’ is correct.

The actual issue is that we do not have a food shortage, nor do we need ‘fake food’.

What we actually have is a control system that scares people into thinking there is a food shortage, an idea that is tied to unproven claims about an increasing and out of control world population that cannot be fed by current food production levels. But this can be shown to be false in many different ways, not least of which is the outrageous, and acknowledged level of food waste.

This can be seen from the following extract from What Really Makes You Ill?

Other very real problems involve the ownership and control of land that can be used to grow food, as well as the ownership and control of the current food production and distribution systems. This too is covered in some detail in What Really Makes You Ill?

The good news is that these problems can be solved, although not within the current paradigm.

This is yet another situation in which the solutions will be created by people taking back responsibility over food. This can be achieved by supporting local food production and local farmers, for example, or even growing some of your own food.

There are always solutions to what are perceived as ‘problems’ and there are many people creating ideas and implementing solutions.

And this is where the value of community lies; where we can gather with like-minded souls to re-imagine and create our own future.

If ideas like gathering with like-minded people and finding solutions appeal to you, then please consider joining us at Confluence, which will be held on a regenerative farm in Texas between 7th and 11th May 2025.

To emphasise the point about ‘real food’, please be aware that all food served in the full-scale restaurant on the property is grown or raised on the farm or sourced from local farms, providing a delicious farm-to-table experience that nourishes both body and spirit.

CLICK HERE for details and tickets.

Enter code LESTER10 at the checkout to get 10% off the event ticket price.

Dawn 🌹