When Climate Change “Meats” STEM

Climate change is already having dire consequences around the world. As the severity of the problems resulting from climate change continues to escalate, the need to solve them is becoming increasingly important. However, these impacts can be mitigated if action is taken, and STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Maths) can play a key role in tackling climate change. By allowing us to innovate solutions to problems, STEM promotes an approach of analysing both the advantages and disadvantages, which can be weighed against each other to justify the effectiveness of new and innovative solutions. However, unless the effectiveness of a solution is backed by strong evidence, it cannot be deemed useful or gain acceptance from its audience to demonstrate its true value and worth in solving issues that contribute to climate change.

One such major contributor to climate change is food production; the source of one quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions [1]. But what if STEM-based solutions could change both our attitude and lifestyle choices towards the food we eat, and tackle issues like food waste?

This is where climate change meats STEM.

Meat Consumption and Climate Change

Among the diverse contributors to climate change, rising meat consumption is a significant global warming trigger. Over the past 50 years, the rate of meat production has tripled, with more than 80 billion animals reared to be slaughtered for food each year [2, 3].  As a result, the meat and dairy industry alone accounts for ~14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions due to the release of harmful gases in the process of clearing land and rearing livestock [3].

The responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions from livestock is not shared equally by consumers worldwide. A country’s wealth correlates with high levels of meat consumption: people in wealthy countries have greater levels of disposable income, and are therefore able to spend more on meat, which further escalates the levels of greenhouse gas emissions [2].

It is important to recognise that different meats have different carbon footprints, with a 2018 study showing beef - followed by lamb and mutton - to have the highest greenhouse gas emissions of the various food groups investigated, when considering all of the factors in their production [3]. Both cows and sheep are ruminants, and consequently produce a lot of methane - a greenhouse gas that is around 28-34 times more potent than carbon dioxide [3]. Therefore, with the increasing consumption of meat, methane emissions increase, exacerbating global warming.

However, the causes of greenhouse gas emissions from meat consumption and production go beyond methane produced by individual animals. Half of the world’s habitable land is used for agriculture, with livestock taking up nearly 80% of global agricultural land [4]. This increasing demand for land for livestock results in hectares of land being deforested in areas like the Amazon, removing the vital photosynthetic function of trees, and releasing stored carbon back into the atmosphere. This only adds fuel to the fire by hastening the rate of climate change [3].

The Need for Sustainable Alternatives

The environmental impact of meat is clear - so is the solution simply to stop eating meat? 

Unfortunately, despite supermarket shelves and fast-food restaurants around the world serving up vegan alternatives to some of our favourite foods, it is not as simple as switching to a plant-based diet [5]. While this alternative may cater to vegetarians, vegans, or those who would like to try vegan alternatives, some people are strongly opposed to the idea of radically changing their diet [6]. Our diets are influenced by a variety of factors, including economic status, geography, culinary traditions, cultural practices and social norms, not to mention our tastes and preferences [6]. Likewise, primary concerns such as cost, convenience, nutrition and unfamiliarity should be addressed to appeal to a larger audience [7]. For instance, people with allergies could struggle to find foods that they can eat if their allergens are a key part of meat-free diets, meaning meat-free diets won’t necessarily be a healthy option for everyone. For many others, the cost of meat-free alternatives proves prohibitive [7].

With all this in mind, simply stopping people from eating meat would not provide an equitable solution. It is therefore necessary to find a solution that enables the continued consumption of meat while tackling climate change.

Lab-Grown Meat

Figure 1 - Artist’s impression of cultured meat in a petri dish.  Artwork by Kiera McCabe, Lead Artist at Youth STEM Matters.

Lab-grown meat (Fig. 1) is a new process under development that seeks to address the problem of greenhouse gases emitted by farming practices. This method utilises a revolutionary production system in scientific research, known as cell lines [8, 9]. The technique allows us, amongst other things, to culture (grow) the fresh tissue cells obtained from animals to achieve the goal of creating the perfect cut of meat under slaughter-free, lab conditions [8]. Unlike the traditional imitation of meats using plant-based ingredients, such as soy, growing meat in the lab involves taking a cell sample from an animal and letting it duplicate in a petri dish by feeding it a nutrient-rich broth [8]. These carefully developed cells are then put in a cultivator, which plays the role of a fermenting tank, allowing the sample cells to form the constituent parts of meat, such as muscle, fat and connective tissues [8]. 

While the current small-scale production of this new alternative requires a relatively high use of energy, a 2011 study found this process has the potential to reduce up to 95% of global food industry greenhouse gas emissions, use 98% less land and reduce the energy consumption of rearing animals in farms by half once production rates are scaled up to cater to more people [10, 11]. Furthermore, the environmental credentials of lab-grown meat could further increase if the production systems rely more on renewable energy sources rather than the current source of fossil fuels [10, 12].

However, despite being technologically possible and having the potential to be environmentally friendly, there remains a significant hurdle before culture meat can substantially contribute to tackling the climate emergency - cultured meat needs to be appealing to the general public [13, 14]. 2019 and 2020 surveys found that more than half of European meat consumers and two-thirds of Americans were willing to try cultured meat [13]. The highest acceptance for lab-grown meat was in Asia, where cultured meat was first introduced [13]. However, careful consideration must be given to the connotations of words used to describe this meat that may deter public acceptance, as words such as in vitro, artificial, or synthetic may evoke thoughts about the unnatural origin of this meat [14]. Other survey respondents were less willing to try out this alternative due to concerns about the food quality and the manufacturing process [13]. Yet, lab-grown meat can appeal to a wider pool of consumers: according to religious scholars, it can be endorsed as both kosher and halal [13]. By widening the consumer base for lab-grown meat through careful consideration of language, food quality standards assurance, and acceptance by all groups in society, the production of this alternative can increase. This, in turn, would address the environmental impacts associated with small-scale production, and ensure that lab-grown meat is an economically viable - and affordable - alternative [10, 13, 14].

Although growing meat outside the body of an animal reduces the ethical concern for slaughtering animals in traditional meat, a different set of ethical concerns arise in the process of developing cultured meat. Certain methods for developing cultured meat involve using a substance known as the foetal bovine serum [15]. Although this serum is widely used in biomedical research, it is a by-product of the slaughter of animals. However, this concern can be addressed, as more efforts are being taken by the rising culture meat production lines by companies such as Eat Just and Mosa Meats to upscale the manufacturing process whilst removing the need for foetal bovine serum and substituting it for other cruelty-free, plant-based alternatives [5, 15].

The final step in making cultured meat available to the public lies in the cost of production. Currently, the cost of producing cultured meat is higher than conventional meat due to the high cost of the fluid called growth media used to develop the cells [5, 16]. As a result, companies eager to release cultured meat to the public must find a way to make the manufacturing process cheaper, to ensure it is cost-competitive with farmed meat. With further research and development to lower the cost of production, this method has the potential to become more affordable and therefore may be favoured by more people, giving meat-lovers a delicious slaughter-free meal on the table.

Technology Tackling Food Waste

Figure 2 - Food waste. Artwork by Kiera McCabe, Lead Artist at Youth STEM Matters.

Just like how meat consumption is a major contributor to climate change, food wastage (Fig. 2) and its resultant pollution is also considered a major contributor to climate change. Today, almost one third of food produced globally goes to waste [17]. That’s equivalent to about 1.3 billion tons of fruits, vegetables, meat, dairy, seafood, and grains that either never leave the farm, get lost or spoiled during distribution, or are thrown away in hotels, grocery stores, restaurants or home kitchens. Not only could this food have been used to feed the 820 million people who are starving [18], but its impact on the climate is resulting in increased temperatures and levels of gas emissions such as methane.

When food is thrown away, high levels of methane are emitted as the food begins to rot and decompose. While the food industry as a whole is responsible for 26% of global greenhouse emissions, shockingly, 6% of this is a result of food that is never eaten and ends up as waste [19]. Consequently, food wastage is recognised as a mounting, yet avoidable, challenge and has driven the United Nations to set a specific target as part of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 12.3) to “halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses” [20].

Therefore, different strategies are being used to address food waste around the world. For example, South Korea has established a partnership with the Korea Zero Waste Movement Network (KZWMN) - an NGO that works with different government authorities, local communities, and private enterprises - to reduce food waste by 20% [21]. Similarly, in the US emphasis is placed on educating customers to reduce food waste from excess ordering and consumption. With the global cost of food waste averaging $2.8 trillion (USD), a feasible and sustainable solution must be put in place to solve the rising issue of food wastage globally [21]. This is where technology offers a helping hand by complementing and strengthening the current efforts taken by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and other stakeholders, such as governments, individuals and businesses, to help solve the issue of food waste quickly and more effectively.

AI-Based Technology

Admittedly, traditional methods such as education and campaigns help to raise awareness about food waste and change individualistic behaviours. But, can STEM-based innovations provide an even more effective solution?

Within the food industry, Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology is being applied to help restaurants significantly reduce food waste and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, AI is being utilised to better understand the characteristics of this waste stream and ultimately to reduce it, replacing the common - but inefficient and inaccurate - practice of hand sorting and weighing food waste in commercial kitchens. For example, ‘Winnow Vision’ utilises AI to automatically assign a dollar value to each plate of food that is put into its smart waste bin, identifying foods correctly more than 80% of the time [22]. This new AI system has been able to reduce food waste by around 25% by identifying specific leftovers produced, allowing them to be recreated into a new dish [22]. 

Similarly, another solution created by ‘Kitro’ involves using automated services to measure and mitigate food wastes [21]. This system uses an AI-operated camera attached on top of the waste bin to allow returned plates to be systematically analysed, and displayed on an online dashboard, allowing data-driven adjustments to portion sizes and types of food served to be made. Kitro has achieved a 55% reduction in food waste and food cost savings of 5%, with some restaurants being able to decrease food waste collected by more than 10kg per week, resulting in cost savings of $1800 (USD) within five weeks of implementation [21]. 

Despite the benefits these innovative solutions bring, they do have their own drawbacks. The initial installation of the technology involves high costs and with a vast number of restaurants around the world, such solutions would need to be implemented at a large scale and with urgency in order to tackle the pressing issue of climate change. That said, it still allows an action to be taken at the meso-level where businesses can implement such AI-based technologies to cut down on their industrial food loss and waste, making it an effective solution with the potential to make a real impact.

Non-AI-Based Technology

Not every technology tackling food waste utilises AI - there are also many non-AI-based technologies which are providing solutions.  For example, smartphone apps such as ‘Too Good to Go’ - an app that gives restaurants a platform to sell their surplus and unsold food at reduced prices could both reduce food waste and tackle hunger by providing access to cheaper food (supporting SDGs 1: No Poverty and 2: Zero Hunger) [23]. Likewise, ‘Feeding India’ focuses on donations of food for those in need, allowing restaurants and individuals to donate food via the app. The food is then collected and distributed by this non-profit’s network of more than 4500 volunteers - these regular feeding programs run in more than 45 cities in India and have served over 4.8 million meals so far [23].

Focusing on household food waste, websites like Big Oven, Supercook, and MyFridgeFood allow people to search for recipes based on ingredients already in the kitchen and make the most out of what is in their pantry without having to buy new ingredients [17]. This has the added benefits of saving families money and encouraging people to try new meals. Hence, non-AI-based technologies like these websites and applications give opportunities for both individuals and those in the food sector to change their attitudes towards food waste and put it into practice while cooking. When implemented in conjunction with education programmes, zero waste becomes a more achievable target.

For technological solutions like these - both AI-based and non-AI-based - to be effective, it is vital that the awareness of the food waste crisis shown by some pioneering restaurants becomes more widespread so that the sector as a whole can prioritise action to tackle this issue. According to a study focusing on food waste in South Africa, the primary challenge in addressing this issue is a lack of awareness on how food waste can be monitored, measured and reduced [24]. To achieve this, more employees should be educated on the importance of food waste management within their education curriculum and training programmes before becoming restaurant managers, chefs or owners [24]. If these issues are resolved, restaurants can play a substantial role in reducing food waste, consequently reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. Likewise, individuals can also do their part when more are encouraged to download apps and use websites that help to track and reduce household food waste by regularly reusing leftovers.

Conclusion

There is no single solution to reducing the impact of the food industry on the environment. While STEM provides many of the solutions we need, the existence of the technology alone will not tackle the climate impact of our diets. Using both STEM innovations combined with non-STEM solutions may therefore be the most effective method if we want to see a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. In the case of meat consumption, cultured meat presents a STEM-based solution that could reduce meat consumption without limiting people’s dietary preferences. To address the issue of food waste, implementing a combination of both AI-based and non AI-based solutions has been shown to be effective in creating opportunities for more efficient methods of food purchasing, handling, meal planning, and waste prevention in general, and at the same time tackling poverty and hunger. 

Having said that, implementing STEM-based solutions isn’t without its challenges. Access to technology at an affordable cost, availability of investment for companies to develop such solutions, and the provision of the required support for businesses like commercial kitchens to implement new technology will all be critical to the success of STEM-based solutions in the food industry. 

Overall, it is clear that STEM-based solutions can play a key role in solving critical global issues, and will be an important tool in taking climate action within the food industry. But, for such STEM-based solutions to be implemented most effectively, it is vital that they are accompanied by increased climate education across the sector, partnerships between organisations, government funding to drive research and policies which support creating a more sustainable world. In other words, when climate change meats STEM, it’s just like a buffet - a little bit of everything is needed for the best plate.

References

[1] H. Ritchie, “Food production is responsible for one-quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions,” Our World in Data, November 6, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://ourworldindata.org/food-ghg-emissions. [Accessed 17 August 2021].

[2] H. Ritchie and M. Roser, “Meat and Dairy Production,” Our World in Data, November 2019. [Online]. Available: https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production#meat-consumption-tends-to-rise-as-we-get-richer. [Accessed 30 May 2021].

[3] D. Dunne, “Interactive: What is the climate impact of eating meat and dairy?,” CarbonBrief, September 14, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/what-is-the-climate-impact-of-eating-meat-and-dairy/. [Accessed 30 May 2021].

[4] H. Ritchie, “How much of the world’s land would we need in order to feed the global population with the average diet of a given country?,” Our World in Data, October 3, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets. [Accessed 11 July 2021].

[5] B. Kateman, “Will Cultured Meat Soon Be A Common Sight In Supermarkets Across The Globe?,” Forbes, February 17, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.forbes.com/sites/briankateman/2020/02/17/will-cultured-meat-soon-be-a-common-sight-in-supermarkets-across-the-globe/?sh=76dada277c66. [Accessed 30 May 2021].

[6] I. Šedová and T. Vandrovcová, “The Psychology of Meat Consumption,” Handbook of Research on Social Marketing and Its Influence on Animal Origin Food Product Consumption, Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 1-16, 2018. [Online]. Available: http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-4757-0.ch001. 

[7] F. Michel, C. Hartmann and M. Siegrist, “Consumers’ associations, perceptions and acceptance of meat and plant-based meat alternatives,” Food Quality and Preference, vol. 87, 2021. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104063.

[8] M. Reynolds, “The hunt for the master cow that will feed the world,” WIRED, May 25, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/cow-cell-lines-cultured-meat#intcid=_wired-uk-bottom-recirc_68b8a2ad-afb4-4727-bcc4-286910525f33_popular4-1. [Accessed 1 June 2021].

[9] G. Kaur and J. M. Dufour, “Cell lines: Valuable tools or useless artifacts,” Spermatogenesis, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1-5, 2012. Available: https://doi.org/10.4161/spmg.19885.

[10] D. Carrington, “No-Kill, lab-grown meat to go on sale for first time,” The Guardian, December 2, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/02/no-kill-lab-grown-meat-to-go-on-sale-for-first-time. [Accessed August 17 2021].

[11] H. L. Tuomisto and M. J. T. de Mattos, “Environmental Impacts of Cultured Meat Production,” Environmental Science and Technology, vol 45, no. 14, pp. 6117-6123, 2011. Available: https://doi.org/10.1021/es200130u.

[12] European Environment Agency, “Drivers of change: Artificial meat and the environment,” Publications Office of the European Union, December 2, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.2800/631914. [Accessed 17 August 2021]. 

[13] C. Bryant, “Singapore approves cell-cultured chicken bites - who will be the first to try them?,” The Conversation, December 7, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://theconversation.com/singapore-approves-cell-cultured-chicken-bites-who-will-be-the-first-to-try-them-151388. [Accessed 29 May 2021].

[14] W. Verbeke, P. Sans and E. J. Van Loo, “Challenges and prospects for consumer acceptance of cultured meat,” Journal of Integrative Agriculture, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 285-294, 2015. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60884-4. 

[15] M. Ketchell, “Is lab-grown meat good news for animals,” The Conversation, December 8, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://theconversation.com/is-lab-grown-meat-good-news-for-animals-151610. [Accessed 1 June 2021].

[16] R. E. Santo et al., “Considering Plant-Based Meat Substitutes and Cell-Based Meats: A Public Health and Food Systems Perspective,” Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, vol. 4, pp. 104, 2020. Available: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.00134.

[17] Anon, “Fight climate change by preventing food waste,” World Wildlife Fund, n.d. [Online]. Available: https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/fight-climate-change-by-preventing-food-waste. [Accessed 1 June 2021].

[18] UN News, “Over 820 million people suffering from hunger; new UN report reveals stubborn realities of ‘immense’ global challenge,” United Nations, July 15, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/07/1042411. [ Accessed 25 August 2021].

[19] H. Ritchie, “Food waste is responsible for 6% of global greenhouse gas emissions,” Our World in Data, March 18, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://ourworldindata.org/food-waste-emissions. [Accessed 25 August 2021].

[20] Department of Economic and Social Affairs, “Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns,” United Nations, n.d. [Online]. Available: https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal12. [Accessed 25 August 2021]

[21] C. Martin-Rios, A. Hofmann and N. Mackenzie “Sustainability-Oriented Innovations in Food Waste Management Technology,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 210, 2021. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010210.

[22] C. Hackl, “How 4 Companies Are Using AI To Solve Waste Issues On Earth And In Space,” Forbes, July 18, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.forbes.com/sites/cathyhackl/2020/07/18/how-4-companies-are-using-ai-to-solve-waste-issues-on-earth--in-space/?sh=6050b5fa35fa. [Accessed 1 June 2021].

[23] Anon, “Three smart ways innovation is helping reduce food loss and waste,” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, September 28, 2020. [Online]. Available: http://www.fao.org/fao-stories/article/en/c/1309567/. [Accessed 1 June 2021].

[24] S. Sucheran and O. A. Olanrewaju, “Food Waste Management of Restaurants in KwaZulu-Natal,” Proceedings of the 11th Annual International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management Singapore, IEOM Society International, 2021. [Online]. Available: http://www.ieomsociety.org/singapore2021/papers/11.pdf. [Accessed 1 June 2021].