Cultivated meat faces scrutiny over food sovereignty concerns

While cultivated meat continues to attract investment as a sustainable alternative to traditional livestock farming, a new academic article argues that the technology may pose a significant challenge to food sovereignty.

In a paper published in npj Sustainable Agriculture, Megan Frances Moss, a researcher in food ethics, evaluates cultivated meat using the six pillars of food sovereignty set out in the 2007 Nyéléni Declaration. These principles emphasize local control, sustainability, and the rights of communities to determine their own food systems. Moss contends that while cultivated meat is often promoted as a solution to animal welfare and environmental issues, it risks reinforcing centralized, industrialized food models that exclude small-scale producers and marginalize traditional food knowledge.

Cultured meat refers to the lab-based production of animal tissue using stem cells and fermentation techniques, often involving artificial intelligence and complex automated systems. The promise of cultivated meat lies in its potential to reduce land, water, and chemical use, as well as eliminate the need for slaughtering animals. However, Moss raises concerns that these benefits come at a cost to local autonomy and ecological connection.

“Cultivated meat is part of an industrial model of vertical integration where economic value is extracted from all possible sources,” writes Moss. “By undermining the role of individual food producers within their existing ecosystems, cultivated meat reinforces power asymmetries between those who grow and those who sell food.”

Applying a food sovereignty lens, the paper argues that cultivated meat technologies are unlikely to meet the Declaration’s goals. Moss points out that the ‘feed the world’ narrative used by cultivated meat advocates tends to focus on nutrient delivery rather than culturally appropriate or ecologically rooted food practices. The products, developed in controlled lab environments, risk reducing food choices to brand preferences rather than supporting diverse food cultures.

Another concern is the potential displacement of traditional farmers and food workers. The technical infrastructure required to produce cultivated meat is largely inaccessible to smallholders, especially in regions with limited scientific and industrial resources. “It is highly unlikely that the technologically intensive production methods of cultivated meat will filter down for use by small-scale food producers,” Moss notes.

Further, the centralization of cultivated meat production could erode local food systems. As Moss explains, “Cultivated meat will likely disconnect local producer and consumer relationships by promoting the values and priorities of remote stakeholders.” She points to growing investment from multinational food companies as evidence of the shift toward concentrated market control.

The paper also addresses the loss of agricultural knowledge that may result from widespread cultivated meat adoption. “Cultivated meat is built on technical knowledge... often difficult to access due to educational barriers and proprietary rights,” she writes. This could marginalize traditional food knowledge and make communities more dependent on commercial technologies.

Moss argues that cultivated meat's emphasis on efficiency and output also distances it from ecological principles. “It is a product removed from the ecosystem, produced in siloed and energy-intensive laboratories,” she says. This disconnect raises questions about the long-term sustainability of cultivated meat, especially given the environmental costs associated with artificial intelligence and high-energy infrastructure.

While the author acknowledges that cultivated meat has potential benefits, including animal welfare improvements and reduced resource use, she stresses the need for a more nuanced discussion about its broader social and political implications. Rather than rejecting cultivated meat outright, the paper calls for further engagement between technology developers, policymakers, and communities to ensure that innovation aligns with principles of justice and equity.

Moss concludes that without careful regulation and meaningful inclusion of diverse voices in its development, cultured meat is “highly unlikely to promote food sovereignty”. Her work invites policymakers and researchers to scrutinize not only what food technologies can achieve, but also who they serve – and at what cost.

(Main photo courtesy of Ivy Farm Technologies)