EU Must Cut the Red Tape for Cultivated Meat, Says Consumer Group

Half of Europeans say eating less meat will become mainstream in the next decade, and a similar number are open to trying cultivated meat, if the EU food safety regulator approves it.

The EU must remove roadblocks and speed up the approval timeline for novel food products to meet its climate goals and “prevent an exodus” of future food companies, implores a consumer advocacy group.

“Europe’s thorough regulatory regime adds a three- to five-year waiting time, which is too long for poorly funded startups to survive. Consequently, new products either fail or companies are forced to launch their products abroad,” Euroconsumers, which works for consumer rights in five European countries, says in a new report.

The call comes on the back of a survey of 4,000 consumers from Belgium, Italy, Portugal and Spain in January, where it found that 44-56% of respondents are willing to give cultivated meat a taste, as long as it’s approved by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and available in their market.

The poll also found that while 87% of Europeans identify as omnivores, 47% have reduced or stopped eating meat, and another 12% intend to do so. In fact, nearly half of them believe that eating less meat will become mainstream in their country within the next decade.

Those who have stopped eating meat are the most likely to stay away from cultivated meat too, but conversely, 43% of consumers who don’t intend to stop eating meat are willing to try cell-cultured versions.

Euroconsumers is asking the EU to include novel proteins like cultivated meat in the Biotech Act, facilitate investments, and make them cheaper and easier to access for consumers, in a bid to meet the bloc’s climate goals and secure its future food supply.

“Of course, cultivated meat is far from the only option to diversify our protein intake and reduce meat – eating more vegetables and legumes comes in first – but as the most ‘meat-like’ alternative to traditional meat, it can appeal to a different segment of consumers that do not feel empowered yet to choose more sustainable food,” it says.

Meat consumption trends in Europe

For a sizeable chunk of the survey population, meat is either too tasty to give up, deeply rooted in their culture, or both. Between 28% and 35% are unwilling to change their eating habits, while 16-29% believe they don’t need to cut back on meat as their intake is already modest.

Meanwhile, 12-27% of consumers think reducing their meat consumption wouldn’t make a difference, and a larger share (between 24% and 38%) believe it is a better source of protein than plant-based alternatives.

But the survey had some encouraging outcomes for the alternative protein space. Fewer than one in five Europeans think these proteins are too expensive, and more than 90% say they have enough information about them and know how to cook them. Very few have found it difficult to cut back on meat when attempting to do so, with the sentiment most popular in Spain (7%), and least in Italy (2%).

However, while consumers’ demands around cultivated meat mirror those for precision fermentation or plant-based proteins, the manufacturing process for the former “is probably the most unconventional to traditional food production methods, allowing for many misconceptions”, the report says.

Despite Italy being the first and only country to have banned cultivated meat, 47% of its citizens say they’d try these proteins, higher than those in Belgium (44%). This intention rises to 53% in Portugal and 56% in Spain.

Health the biggest opportunity for cultivated meat in Europe

Food safety is top of mind for Europeans, 44% of whom don’t trust eating cultured meat, and 51% are afraid of perceived long-term health risks. To that end, health is the top barrier for cultivated meat consumption in Europe, but it’s also a major driver – 38% would include it in their diet if it’s proven to be healthier than conventional meat. And even among those unwilling to try it, 29% would reconsider it for health benefits.

At the same time, one in three respondents believe cell-cultured proteins are safer than conventional meat, as there’s no risk of bacterial contamination and antibiotic use. Crucially, two-thirds trust the EFSA to judge whether cultivated meat is safe for consumption, and 50% would eat it if approved by the regulator.

These consumers also put a lot of trust in farmers (27%) when it comes to ensuring the safety of cultivated meat, much more so than retailers or private companies (11% each). “Cultivated meat can offer opportunities for farmers – but only if we make smart choices now, keep things fair, and make sure benefits don’t just go to a few big players,” states Euroconsumers.

Meanwhile, 48% of Europeans would only buy cultivated meat if it replicates the taste and structure of conventional animal proteins. Price is similarly key, with three in five respondents feeling cultured meat will only be successful if it’s affordable for everyone.

In fact, nearly half expect it to be cheaper than conventional meat, and only 15% would buy it if it’s more expensive (versus 60% who wouldn’t). It highlights the challenge facing the cultivated meat industry, which has reduced production costs remarkably over the previous decade, but still has a long way to go before it can approach price parity with commodity beef, chicken and more.

While half of the consumers in the four countries are aware of cultivated meat, only 13% feel well-informed. This is reflected best in its sustainability credentials – only 22% of Europeans would eat cultivated meat if it were better for the environment, despite 44% believing it is, and another 41% feeling it would have a positive climate impact if approved by the EU.

Euroconsumers highlights how cultivated meat production could reduce beef emissions by 92% and pork emissions by 44%.

How the EU can modernise its novel food regulation

The survey also found that 46% of respondents would like the EU to more proactively support the production and commercialisation of sustainable alternatives to meat. This would entail a rethink of the novel food regulation – so far, only Gourmey (cultured foie gras) and Mosa Meat (cultivated beef fat) have filed for approval in the region.

“Applicants complain that the waiting time for approval is four times longer than in other jurisdictions, and that the high scientific and bureaucratic requirements favour larger companies with more resources,” the report notes.

The EFSA’s performance is currently being evaluated for the first time since its establishment over two decades ago. Euroconsumers calls on the EU to review its budget and resources, which the agency has previously described as “strained”.

“This situation has led to backlogs, with only 22 out of 42 novel food applications reviewed on time in 2023. Human resources play a large part in this, as EFSA needs to use national-level experts who are not very incentivised to contribute their time,” it says.

The regulator does need extra funding, but “not at the expense of impartiality”. Currently, the EFSA doesn’t charge a direct fee for novel food applications (though companies face other expenses), so the report suggests asking the industry to pay a fee to a transparently administered pot that complements – not replaces – the agency’s budget. This would ensure that companies can’t expect a positive verdict just because they paid a fee.

It also recommends dedicating additional or ring-fenced resources to a fast track for reviewing products that could help the EU reach its climate goals more speedily. There also needs to be more clarity about the level of detail required in applications, with a limit on the number of additional requests when other information, like scientific literature or history of safe use, is available. This is crucial to avoid delays.

“More explicit guidance on the acceptable levels of characterisation for novel foods and the specific aspects of production processes requiring detailed documentation would also be helpful,” says Euroconsumers, adding that the EFSA should evaluate the product, not the process.

“Although process changes could introduce contaminants, currently, any change to the production process would require a whole new application. Instead, there could be an accelerated procedure for minor changes to a previously approved production process. This would make innovation and process improvements less costly,” it says.

The report comes weeks after the EU’s agricultural commissioner, Christophe Hansen, committed to developing a protein diversification strategy, after failing to include alternative-protein-friendly recommendations from farmers and climate groups in the Commission’s much-criticised agrifood vision.