Why the government’s war on synthetic meat is unscientific (as well as comical)

Attending the debate on cultivated meat that is taking place in Italy, and listening to the statements of certain leading exponents of the current government, is probably one of the most surreal and alienating experiences that we will ever experience – or at least there is to be hoped that this is the case, and that it does not become the norm. So let’s see: announcing the prohibition of the marketing and sale on Italian soil, complete with a very high fine foreseen in case of violations, in this regard Minister Lollobrigida went so far as to declare that “Italy is the first nation in the world to say no to synthetic food and the so-called synthetic meat: in our opinion, laboratory products do not guarantee quality or well-being, nor – we say it with pride – the protection of our culture and our tradition”.

And here the laughter begins immediately: the so-called “synthetic meat”, in fact, would be nothing more than a product based on cells grown in special industrial structures. The best traditional German beers, but also from other countries, are produced in very advanced plants that cultivate yeast cells according to the highest quality standards, with a level of automation and continuous laboratory checks to determine the parameters before, during and after brewing. fermentation; what do we do, do we consider beer as “synthetic”, because it is obtained from cells grown in special laboratories on an industrial scale? I can already see this campaign: whoever drinks beer lives for a hundred years, but we don’t want to allow the controlled growth in an incubator of the horrible little cells from which this horrendous laboratory product is obtained?

And we come to the second, comical topic of the sentence quoted: the protection of our culture and our tradition. My great-grandfather was a breeder, and he introduced various breeds of cattle, pigs, even horses into Basilicata; not because he intended to protect some “tradition”, but because he intended to experiment, following the dictates of what was then the most modern animal husbandry, which breeds were best for alleviating the endemic poverty of a town like Lagopesole. His scientific works about him transpire with love for innovation in zootechnics, for the application effort of a knowledge that can be acquired only with modern methods; and I, his nephew, can only laugh at the restoration and defense of an alleged Italian “traditional culture” in terms of animal husbandry. But let’s also admit that there is a traditional zootechnics and a culture to protect; but, I say, must we protect the past, proposing ourselves as Coldiretti wants, or can we stop this unbearable market traditionalism, and also think about innovation and the future?

I realize that we are a country of old people: the only future that the ruling class can see by now is the already old one, because it was invented out of nothing about fifty years ago, and every possible innovation represents a mortal danger for an old country, which he fears he won’t be able to continue living in the era of his idyllic youth – with the foresight, obviously, of inventing an ad-hoc past, all roses and flowers, forgetting that whoever is old today and looks back then looked with hope in forward, trying to put what had preceded him behind him as quickly as possible. The laughter, however, did not end with the sentence quoted: because, as if that weren’t enough, an alleged social injustice was aired, linked to the supposedly too high costs of “synthetic meat”. And it is understood: we therefore expect that now steps will be taken as soon as possible to prohibit the collection and sale of the unjust truffle, as well as the production and sale of the unjust Brunello di Montalcino, and so on leveling, to avoid disparities due to differences in the power of purchase of the Italians. Never be that we should increase the latter, rather than prohibit overpriced products; on the contrary, let’s abolish the luxury of the fashion houses, and let’s all go back to the orbace!

Once the laughter – and tears – associated with the vision that the display of the Coldiretti creed, at least in this form, provokes, it is appropriate to stop just for a moment to talk seriously about cultivated meat, so as to meet someone’s interest among readers who were curious about it. First, cultured meat is a product which, at the moment, is not authorized for marketing in Europe; this for the very good reason that, exactly as happened with the FDA in the USA, the regulatory authorities of the case must carefully evaluate each dossier presented by those interested in the marketing of such a product, a dossier which must contain all the data necessary for a thorough scientific analysis. Therefore, talking about the safety and wholesomeness of something for which there is no useful dossier for evaluation is like talking about the sex of angels.

Secondly, it is worth recalling the strengths claimed by those interested in the development and marketing of cultured meat. First of all, there is an ethical and moral point: it is obviously a “kill-free” product, and for those who care about the life of sentient and intelligent animals, such as those farmed, this is the first, indisputable and most important benefit. Secondly, there are the ecological implications: on the basis of numerous analyzes published in the literature, it is hypothesized that the adoption of cultured meat, coupled with the gradual reduction of farmed animals, would bring benefits in terms of emissions, energy, water and soil consumed due to the livestock supply chain.

Instead of referring to the “ancient traditions”, this is one of the points on which to conduct an accurate scientific analysis, indeed a meta-analysis, because it is not possible to blindly trust those who are developing the products; to do so, however, it is necessary to allow researchers, including national ones, to work freely, moreover also in order to identify solutions where there are hidden problems. A truly independent econometric investigation would also be very useful: what damage could the Italian livestock sector really suffer if this type of product were placed on our market? To date, we have several preliminary investigations, but in the meantime these refer to territories other than ours, and secondly they are often plagued by conflicts of interest (both for and against); keeping out Coldiretti and all the trade associations, the national scientific community would be well able to make a useful contribution to a serious choice, if only one wanted to act rationally instead of looking for 40-50,000 more votes.

So far the considerations of a researcher, but there is a final one, that of a citizen concerned about the paternalistic invasiveness of this government. They started wanting to decide who we can marry and love, and now also what we can eat: off our beds and off our plates.