Ex-ante life cycle assessment of commercial-scale cultivated meat production in 2030

Abstract Purpose Cultivated meat (CM) is attracting increased attention as an environmentally sustainable and animal-friendly alternative to conventional meat. As the technology matures, more data are becoming available and uncertainties decline. The goal of this ex-ante life cycle assessment (LCA) was to provide an outlook of the environmental performance of commercial-scale CM production in 2030 and to compare this to conventional animal production in 2030, using recent and often primary data, combined with scenario analysis. Methods This comparative attributional ex-ante LCA used the ReCiPe Midpoint impact assessment method. System boundaries were cradle-to-gate, and the functional unit was 1 kg of meat. Data were collected from over 15 companies active in CM production and its supply chain. Source data include lab-scale primary data from five CM producers, full-scale primary data from processes in comparable manufacturing fields, data from computational models, and data from published literature. Important data have been cross-checked with additional experts. Scenarios were used to represent the variation in data and to assess the influence of important choices such as energy mix. Ambitious benchmarks were made for conventional beef, pork, and chicken production systems, which include efficient intensive European animal agriculture and incorporate potential improvements for 2030. Results and discussion CM is almost three times more efficient in turning crops into meat than chicken, the most efficient animal, and therefore agricultural land use is low. Nitrogen-related and air pollution emissions of CM are also lower because of this efficiency and because CM is produced in a contained system without manure. CM production is energy-intensive, and therefore the energy mix used for production and in its supply chain is important. Using renewable energy, the carbon footprint is lower than beef and pork and comparable to the ambitious benchmark of chicken. Greenhouse gas profiles are different, being mostly CO 2 for CM and more CH 4 and N 2 O for conventional meats. Climate hotspots are energy used for maintaining temperature in reactors and for biotechnological production of culture medium ingredients. Conclusions CM has the potential to have a lower environmental impact than ambitious conventional meat benchmarks, for most environmental indicators, most clearly agricultural land use, air pollution, and nitrogen-related emissions. The carbon footprint is substantially lower than that of beef. How it compares to chicken and pork depends on energy mixes. While CM production and its upstream supply chain are energy-intensive, using renewable energy can ensure that it is a sustainable alternative to all conventional meats. Recommendations CM producers should optimize energy efficiency and source additional renewable energy, leverage supply chain collaborations to ensure sustainable feedstocks, and search for the environmental optimum of culture medium through combining low-impact ingredients and high-performance medium formulation. Governments should consider this emerging industry’s increased renewable energy demand and the sustainability potential of freed-up agricultural land. Consumers should consider CM not as an extra option on the menu, but as a substitute to higher-impact products.