Yadira Tejeda-Saldana Says Yes
Director of responsible research & innovation, Canada, New Harvest
With the global population projected to reach 10 billion by 2050, and with natural resources finite, creating sustainable food solutions is critical. This challenge, however, presents an opportunity to innovate and enhance food production through technologies such as cellular agriculture, which uses cells from animals, plants or even microbes (like those for brewing beer) to produce food, including animal-cell-derived meat. Innovation can help feed a growing population by complementing traditional agriculture. While much attention focuses on “lab-grown meat,” cellular agriculture also produces other products, such as cocoa, coffee or vanilla. Their manufacture can be in facilities or integrated into local rural operations, making them familiar and scalable, like yogurt.
Canada’s abundant resources and strong agricultural legacy position us to have a domestic cellular agriculture sector with 86,000 jobs and worth $7.5-billion by 2030. Under certain scenarios, cellular agriculture could improve efficiency and reduce environmental pressures—for example, using less land and creating fewer GHG emissions in meat production. Cell-derived food won’t replace traditional ways but will work with conventional farming to diversify production and strengthen rural resilience. This is crucial, as climate change is already harming farmers and ranchers. A study cited by Farm Credit Canada estimates droughts, floods and storms could lead to $3-billion in agricultural losses between 2022 and 2050. While cellular agriculture still depends on farm inputs, it could help farmers adapt by creating new revenue streams, e.g., converting damaged crops into feedstock for cell-based production.
Canada strongly depends on agri-food trade. We export over 50 per cent of our agricultural production and import roughly 30 per cent of our food and beverages. Global conflicts and trade issues can disrupt this supply chain, emphasizing the urgency of strengthening national food and economic security. This is a call to action for producers, researchers, innovators and consumers to collaborate to build greater resilience. Cellular agriculture can contribute by leveraging cutting-edge technology to boost the efficiency of local food production.
Farms could integrate cellular agriculture alongside crops and livestock, transforming otherwise wasted materials into cell-based products or value-added inputs. By-products from canola or pea processing, for instance, can be repurposed to culture animal cells for meat, advancing a circular economy and reducing reliance on single export markets (e.g., 65 per cent of canola meal goes to the US). This would boost autonomy and jobs and diversify revenue across the agricultural value chain, the way craft brewing and distilling revitalize local economies.
Our choice today is whether to allow cellular agriculture to flourish here or simply observe its benefits from afar. Canada has long been known for high-quality, safe agricultural products. By embracing cellular agriculture we can maintain that reputation while putting ourselves at the forefront of sustainable change. By approving cell-derived meat, we will ensure a thriving agricultural sector for generations to come.
Alice Driver Says No
Author of The Life and Death of the American Worker
When I think of meat and of how invested society is in continuing to subsidize and eat meat, I think of Tender is the Flesh, by Argentinian novelist Agustina Bazterrica. In this dystopian tale, a virus has contaminated all animal meat, and so companies begin to raise humans for slaughter. While that might seem unrelated to lab-grown meat, both proposals represent a future in which societies recognize problems with conventional meat and invest immense resources in creating novel sources of meat that are troubling in their own way.
What do we mean by lab-grown meat? A company extracts cells from a live animal, then grows these at scale in a stainless-steel bioreactor. As the Government of Canada puts it, “The resulting tissues are intended to be used—for example, baked, grilled etc.—like any other food ingredient.” Singapore, Israel, Australia and the US have approved some lab-grown meats for human consumption on a limited scale; Canada has not.
The same global companies that invented modern factory farming, Tyson Foods and Cargill, are now investing in the companies that are producing lab-grown meat. In other words, companies that have caused immense environmental damage and worsened labour standards across the world are now part of the new protein technologies. What companies such as Tyson and Cargill have successfully bet on in the past is that most consumers don’t care how their meat is produced, how it tastes or what harms it creates. With lab meat, these companies are making the same bet.
They are also marketing lab meat to more conscious consumers, calling it the “future of food” and environmentally friendly. This claim, however, merits skepticism. A 2023 study published in ACS Food Science & Technology, for example, suggests that lab meat’s carbon footprint is potentially much worse than that of beef, based on a life-cycle assessment of the energy used and GHGs emitted at all stages of production. The biopharmaceutical industry generally—and the “broth” in which lab meat is grown specifically—is energy-intensive.
But even if in the long term lab-grown meat proves slightly less damaging to the environment than conventional meat, will it matter? Industry projects lab-grown meat will cost the consumer $6–$12 per pound. Independent studies estimate a cost of $17–$23. In this scenario, lab-grown meat, unless it’s subsidized, is unlikely to be the future of food for most of us.
To eat meat is a morally and ethically complicated choice involving animal welfare, workers’ well-being, the environment and human health. Lab-grown meat involves various nuances of these same issues. Big Tech’s solutions are dubious: a vision of a future with an abundance of meat products that do no harm. And if Canada approves lab meat, it risks replicating the factory-farm model, with its tiny number of multinationals dominating the domestic market and food supply. “If we took that money away from Big Meat,” counters food journalist Alicia Kennedy, “there’s so much we can do on smaller scales to make sure food is equitably grown and equitably accessed, and nutritional needs are met along with cultural needs.”
Yadira Tejeda-Saldana responds to Alice Driver
Alice Driver MAKES A compelling argument about the potential of cell-derived meat to perpetuate the flaws of factory farming, and I share her concerns. I’d argue, however, that nowadays companies can still count on most consumers not caring about how their meat is produced, how it tastes or the harm it causes. A 2025 Canadian report indicates that more than 50 per cent of Canadian consumers are concerned about health risks, nutritional value, pesticides and preservative levels in their food. It’s also well documented that rising food prices affect shopping habits. Although consumers are open to purchasing locally produced, healthier or higher quality food, budget constraints are undermining their willingness to improve their food choices. The same report shows that 77 per cent of Canadians are concerned about climate change, with a majority shifting their dietary habits to reduce their impact. Canadians also seek deeper insights into the food they buy, with more than 50 per cent reporting that they look for sustainability information through social media or traditional media.
I’d also agree with Driver that it’s debatable whether cell-derived meat can be more environmentally friendly than conventional meat. Life-cycle assessment studies show a wide range of potential outcomes, which are highly dependent on production assumptions, scale and energy sources. The main challenge is that no mass-production facility currently exists, so projections remain speculative. But the study that Driver cites was widely misrepresented by journalists. That study assumes growth-culture media inputs will be “highly refined,” similar to those used in the biopharmaceutical industry. This refinement is the primary reason why the global-warming potential of cell-derived meat was said to be substantially higher than that of conventional beef. But while highly refined inputs were typical in the early stages of research into cell-derived meat, it’s unlikely large-scale production will rely on such costly inputs. In fact, several companies and researchers are developing less refined food-grade media formulations to lower costs and improve the environmental footprint of cell-derived meat. For instance, they’re exploring agricultural by-products, such as canola meal, as affordable replacements.
We’re developing ways to lower costs and improve the environmental footprint of cell-derived meat.
And even if Driver were correct that the cost of cell-based meat is higher than that of conventional meat, this is a common pattern for new products, especially when manufactured at a small scale. Computers and cell phones were initially very expensive and inaccessible to most people. Scientific and technological advancements have now enabled most people to have them. Pineapples were once rare and expensive for many people. Thanks to ships, refrigeration, canning technology and breeding advancements, however, pineapples can now be found in supermarkets worldwide at an affordable price.
The first burger made using cell-derived technology was estimated to have cost $330,000. Driver’s referenced prices of $6–$12 and $17–$23 per pound already represent a significant decrease from the early days. The industry is focused on addressing scaling-up challenges to make the product more affordable still.
I align with Driver’s views on the moral and ethical issues surrounding meat consumption. It’s all quite nuanced. Food isn’t merely a product; it’s deeply interconnected with cultures, traditions and lifestyles. Accordingly we need to ensure that new food technologies account for this. As a food scientist and avid food lover, I believe in responsibly using technology to address pressing global challenges. Emerging technologies such as cellular agriculture shouldn’t be viewed as a silver bullet or as a trap set by Big Tech. Rather they’re tools that must be governed judiciously. In Canada the cellular agriculture industry remains small, providing ample opportunities to apply lessons from factory farming regarding labour, equity and consolidation. The ecosystem is in development, enabling broad engagement from diverse groups. Canadian researchers recognize this: a project at the University of the Fraser Valley is exploring the social impacts of cellular agriculture and developing guidelines to embed justice from the outset so that the benefits of cellular agriculture reach rural communities, workers and Indigenous stewards.
We should think globally but act locally. With current economic models faltering and the federal government encouraging middle powers such as Canada to develop resilient, homegrown supply chains, opportunities are emerging. Cellular agriculture has the potential to retool our food system without repeating past mistakes. My team at New Harvest is actively pursuing this idea, welcoming grassroots partnerships with diverse communities willing to build a fairer future from the ground up.
Alice Driver responds to Yadira Tejeda-Saldana
It is true that the global population is projected to reach 10 billion by 2050 and that natural resources are finite. I do, however, question why we, as a society, continue to equate sustainability with meat, which, whether factory-farmed or lab-grown, is one of the most energy-intensive foods on the planet to produce. I am interested in exploring the philosophy of meat and the implications of continuing to invest heavily in the consumption of animal flesh. The base assumption of the argument to produce lab-grown meat is that meat is the way to meet the caloric needs of the future population. In a 2025 interview, however, Stanford food and agriculture expert David Lobell said that lab-grown meat probably wouldn’t have a significant impact on food sustainability “anytime soon enough to really matter…”
While it’s true that innovation can help feed a growing population, why is innovation defined as cell-grown meat? Climate change is already harming farmers and ranchers, but an honest discussion would involve acknowledging the environmental impact of all forms of meat. A 2023 UC Davis study found that “the global-warming potential of lab-based meat using these purified media is 4 to 25 times greater than the average for retail beef.” Edward Spang, an associate professor of food science and technology and one of the authors of the study, wrote, “Our findings suggest that cultured meat is not inherently better for the environment than conventional beef. It’s not a panacea.”
Canadians are already some of the most voracious meat-eaters in the world. The easiest, most cost-effective and most direct way for Canadians to address climate change and shrink their ecological footprint would be to reduce their meat consumption, not substitute one form of energy-intensive meat for another.
Scientists have shown that a plant-rich diet that includes only moderate meat consumption could prevent 40,000 early deaths per day by 2050 and cut in half the food-related emissions driving global heating. But we’d need to start right away. I live in Phoenix, Arizona, which has been shattering heat records in 2026, and where the growing number of heat deaths has been covered by The New York Times. The effects of climate change affect us all, and we need to look first to the simple changes, such as eating less meat, that could profoundly help the earth and our own health.
A more sustainable future could involve foods such as crickets, mealworms, algae and seaweed. Sure, people might recoil at the “strangeness” of such foods. But I often wonder why it’s easier for society to invest over $3-billion in meat grown in stainless steel vats than for us to seriously discuss alternative proteins, vegetarianism or veganism. And it’s not like Canadians would be starting from scratch. According to a 2025 study, 7.6 per cent of Canadians are already vegetarian, and 4.6 per cent are vegan.
We should reduce meat eating, not substitute one form of energy-intensive meat for another.
I also question to what extent cellular agriculture could help beleaguered farmers create new revenue streams, because cell culture systems are extremely sensitive. For example, damaged crops couldn’t be used in a lab environment if they had mycotoxins (from mould contamination), chemical contamination or pathogenic microbes. While Canada has abundant natural resources, the lab-grown meat industry has yet to demonstrate that it will reduce environmental pressures on even a small scale, let alone a large one.
And yet I recognize that protein is currently a cultural obsession being used to market everything from popcorn to Doritos. Global meat-packing companies, many of which are also investing in lab-grown meat, wield significant political influence, especially in the US. In 2025 The New York Times declared “Meat is back, on plates and in politics,” citing the influence of the Make America Healthy Again movement, which includes members of the Trump administration such as Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The far-right movement across the globe, including Canadian author Jordan Peterson, has embraced and promoted the carnivore diet.
There is a way to discuss cellular agriculture that recognizes its limitations. The lab-grown meat industry has proven it can attract investment, and it would certainly be a way for Canada to create jobs in a new industry. However, the industry hasn’t proven that it’s at the forefront of sustainable change, nor that it’s the food of the future. It is an expensive, energy-intensive biopharma-derived food product that, at current costs, would be unaffordable to most of the world’s population. We’d be wise to direct our energy elsewhere.
____________________________________________
If you’d like to write a letter to the editor, email us at letters@albertaviews.ca
