Finding a name for lab-grown meat

Here is an issue to chew over: Meat has a replacement, but no one knows what to call it.

Lab-grown. Cell-based. Clean. In vitro. Cultured. Fake. Artificial. Synthetic. Meat 2.0.

These are all terms that refer to the same kind of food, one that is not on the market yet.

But the companies making it have already raised hundreds of millions of dollars worth of investor cash and the close attention of American regulators. Rather than slaughtering animals, this industry uses science to grow what it claims is essentially the same thing as traditional meat.

But what to name it and getting people to eat it, is another matter.

Crucial to public acceptance of any consumer product, of course, is branding. Originally, there was a push for the label "clean meat".

This was seen as a better alternative to the more clinical "lab-grown meat", said Mr Bruce Friedrich, co-founder and executive director of Good Food Institute.

But then the traditional meat industry weighed in, saying the cellular version should not be called meat at all.

"We're using the term 'lab-produced cultured protein'," said Mr Dan Kovich, deputy director of science and technology at the National Pork Producers Council.

Other groups representing meat producers, including North American Meat Institute, National Cattlemen's Beef Association and National Chicken Council, also objected to the "clean meat" label.

Now, other terms seem to be gaining traction. In August, cellular agriculture company Memphis Meats used the term "cell-based" in a letter sent to the White House.

The co-signer was none other than the Meat Institute, the meat industry's main lobbying arm. "We thought it was reasonable and far better than 'clean meat', which is inappropriate and inaccurate," said a spokesman.

Good Food Institute policy director Jessica Almy said it had rethought its position on how to talk about the products too.

At the meeting last month, officials of the Food and Drug Administration and the US Department of Agriculture listened as industry representatives chewed over the labelling issue.

It is important to protect consumers with transparent labelling, Ms Almy testified, adding that there should be some flexibility in labelling requirements.

Ms Barbara Kowalcyk, a professor in the department of food science and technology at Ohio State University, said there were still too many unknowns about the products and how they were made, including food safety risks, for regulators to make any decisions.

"When I asked questions, there weren't good responses, and that suggests we're not ready for prime time," she added.

"Before we put it in the marketplace, we need to know the answers."

According to a survey conducted by Consumers Union, only 5 per cent of Americans think any meat substitutes should be labelled as "meat" without further explanation. The organisation has also called for more transparency.

Eventually, consumers will develop their own shorthand for meat substitutes, for good or for ill, pundits said.

"The mass-adopted term is going to be decided by the public," said Mr Nik Contis, a branding expert at PS212.

Originally published on straitstimes.