Introduction

Go ahead: try a plant-based burger. Or maybe some ice cream made with vegan whey protein. Or some tissue culture chicken, now sold in Singapore but soon to be available in the United States. I’m not a connoisseur of fine foods, but I can barely taste a difference between these products and the animal-based products they imitate. The manufactured protein companies are targeting people like me who eat a lot of meat and dairy products. And, if progress like this continues, although there might be only minor changes to the way our food tastes in the future, there will be major changes to food animal agriculture and, consequentially, to food animal medicine.

Substitutes for traditional meat and dairy products can be made from plants, microbial fermentation products, and tissue culture products.^1–3 They can be called synthetic, laboratory grown, manufactured protein, clean meat, cultured meat, or food-as-software. They represent a growing alternative to our current system of producing dietary protein through animal agriculture.

Taking animals out of the food production process is proposed to produce more abundant dietary protein at lower cost while using fewer natural resources. If technological advancements continue as expected, it's going to be tough competition for today's meat and dairy producers, and consequentially, the demand for food animal veterinary medicine could be seriously diminished.

Food Animal Agriculture's Unsolved Problems

Summarized below, fundamental problems associated with food animal agriculture remain largely unsolved and could drive the movement to manufactured proteins.

• Antimicrobial resistance. The use of antimicrobials in animal agriculture has improved production efficiency but contributes to the antimicrobial resistance problems affecting human and veterinary medicine. Details of the methods for producing manufactured proteins are proprietary, but any antimicrobials used could presumably be removed from the edible product and deactivated from waste materials before release into the environment.

• Water usage. Agriculture is responsible for 92% of the freshwater used by humans, and almost a third of this is for animal-based products.⁴ Widespread production of manufactured proteins promises to use a fraction of this amount, although this is unknown until these new technologies are developed.

• Global warming. Methane production in cattle can reportedly be reduced by feeding lemongrass, but the reduction is perhaps only about 3%.⁵ Other additives from plants like seaweed, algae, and garlic promise larger methane reductions. Still, fermentation for production of manufactured proteins should result in much less methane than the amount produced by cattle, and methane that is produced could be contained to prevent its release. A movement away from food animal agriculture could substantially decrease greenhouse gas production.^2,6

• Land usage. Including both pasture and cropland, 41% of the land in the lower 48 states is used for livestock.⁷ Waste from food animal agriculture and runoff from growing animal feed remain largely unsolved problems.

• Animal welfare. There is little evidence that the bacteria and yeast used to make manufactured proteins are sentient. Thus, their exploitation is generally viewed as more acceptable than the use of cows, pigs, and poultry for food production. Tissue culture seemingly exploits no sentient creatures.

• Food safety. Food produced in a farm environment is subject to contamination with Salmonella spp, Campylobacter spp, Escherichia coli, and other foodborne pathogens. Pasteurization or cooking is required, but cross contamination is always a hazard. With total control and containment of every step in the process, manufactured proteins should be free from common foodborne pathogens.

• Inbreeding. Genetic diversity is one of the ways a species protects itself from disease epidemics. Wildlife specialists estimate the effective breeding population of endangered species on the basis of their genetic diversity. The estimated effective breeding population for all US dairy cattle is 39 individuals for Holstein cattle and 30 individuals for Jersey cattle.⁸ Our livestock are becoming a monoculture, and we can expect diminishing returns on further genetic advancements as biological limits are approached. For example, records show that Thoroughbred horses, with an effective population size of 78, don't run any faster now than they did hundreds of years ago.^9–11 We appear to be approaching the biological limits of our livestock species at a time when we have an increasing number of people to feed.

• Nutritional considerations. Meat-based diets typically provide more fat than humans should consume. Manufactured protein has the potential to replace unhealthy fats and add selected vitamins and minerals. Lactose can be removed from alternatives to dairy products, and other deletions or additions can be made to improve human nutrition.

• Consistent supply. Our current food supply can often be erratic because of animal disease outbreaks, trade disputes, economic depression, and changing weather patterns.

• Price. Animal-derived protein is expensive to produce, and future manufactured proteins should eventually be less expensive.^2,3

Ethics of Food Animal Agriculture

Currently, food animal agriculture is needed to produce the dietary protein desired by today's consumers, but food animals may become increasingly unnecessary if large portions of the population switch to alternatives as they become better, cheaper, and more plentiful. The ideal life for food animals is one that is comfortable, healthy, and free of pain until they are humanely slaughtered. To compete with manufactured protein, food animal agriculture will need to move much closer to achieving this goal.

Adaptability of Food Preferences

In the 1950s, pasteurized milk was just being introduced in many locations, and discussions revolved around preferences for milk that was raw, powdered, evaporated, or pasteurized. Many of us concluded that people preferred what they drank when they were children, but that they could eventually get used to a new taste. The taste and texture of many of the currently available manufactured proteins are very similar to the food products they seek to emulate. Older people should learn to accept them, and younger generations will probably learn to prefer them. Of course, certain products, such as steak and fluid milk, will be harder to emulate than others, such as ice cream, some cheeses, and ground beef. Still, transitioning to new products should be possible when people have time to adapt, and new generations may establish new food preferences.

The Future of Food Animal Agriculture

Improvements in food animal agriculture over the past century have been dramatic. For example, milk production per cow has increased almost 3-fold in the past 50 years,¹² and major advancements in environmental stewardship have been made in recent decades in some food animal sectors.^13,14 Still, it is speculated that manufactured proteins will have less of an environmental impact than current food animal agriculture, although it is not known to what extent until these new technologies have been implemented. Some food animal sectors will undoubtedly compete better than others. For example, there may always be a place for grazing ruminants that can live on marginal pastureland. Removing food animals from the production of nutritional protein can, in some ways, be viewed as just the latest improvement in feeding the world's billions of humans. Farmers will still be needed to feed the protein-producing bacterial, fungal, and cell cultures, but it is claimed that manufactured protein production will be many times more efficient in using feedstocks than are food animals.^2,3 Of course, food animal agriculture can be expected to survive in subsistence economies, on hobby farms, and as a way to provide high-end products for special occasions and the wealthy. On the other hand, manufactured protein has technological hurdles to leap, so its advancement may be slower than speculated by some advocates.⁶

Disruption

Economists call it a disruption when a major technological development abruptly changes the market for a product. The agricultural and food sectors accounted for about 70% of US employment in 1840 and now account for only about 11%.^15–17 This downward trend can be expected to continue if manufactured protein captures sufficient market share that large numbers of food animals are removed from the food chain. Major investments and adjustments would be needed to compensate for fallow fields and rural unemployment. Food animal veterinarians will need to adapt if and when this disruption occurs.

Conclusions

Veterinarians working in food animal medicine must effectively confront the health and environmental issues associated with animal agriculture. If the market for manufactured protein grows as expected, future food animal veterinarians may find themselves serving a contracting food animal industry experiencing immense economic pressure. To avoid surprises, food animal veterinarians should closely monitor the health of the animal industries they serve.