Meat 2.0? Clean meat?
Disagreement shows the power of food wording
NEW YORK—If meat is grown in a lab without slaughtering animals, what should it be called?
That question has yet to be decided by regulators, but for the moment it’s pitting animal rights advocates and others against cattle ranchers in a war of words.
Supporters of the science are embracing “clean meat” to describe meat grown by replicating animal cells. Many in the conventional meat industry are irritated by the term and want to stamp it out before it takes hold.
“It implies that traditional beef is dirty,” says Danielle Beck, director of government affairs for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.
The spat shows the power of language as a new industry attempts to reshape eating habits. It’s why the $49.5 billion U.S. beef, poultry, pork and lamb industry is mobilizing to claim ownership of the term “meat.”
Squabbles over language are erupting across the food business as established definitions for mayonnaise and milk are also challenged by the likes of vegan spreads and almond drinks.
What gets to be considered “meat” is a particularly touchy subject as new companies come up with substitutes they say are just like the real thing.
Impossible Burger’s plant-based patty “bleeds” like beef.
Companies such as Memphis Meats are growing meat by culturing animal cells, though it could be years before products are on shelves. Big meat producers like Tyson Foods and Cargill Inc. are among Memphis Meats’ investors.
There’s some confusion over how meat grown by culturing animal cells will be regulated. The U.S. Department of Agriculture oversees meat inspections, while the Food
and Drug Administration oversees other aspects of food safety, including the “standards of identity” that spell out what ingredients can go into products with specific names.
The FDA—which in the past has called out Kraft’s use of the term “pasteurized process cheese food”—plans to hold a public meeting to discuss “cultured” meat next month.
In the meantime, all sides are scrambling to frame the issue in their own words.
The Good Food Institute, an advocacy and lobbying group for meat alternatives, is embracing “clean meat,” which channels the positive connotations of “clean energy.” Other options it tested: “Meat 2.0,” ”Safe Meat” and “Pure Meat.”
“Green Meat” was dismissed early on. “Nobody wants to eat green meat,” said Bruce Friedrich, co-founder of the Good Food Institute.
The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association is fighting to defend what it sees as its linguistic turf.
“Our marching orders were to protect beef nomenclature,” says Beck.
The cattlemen’s group prefers less appetizing terms such as “in vitro meat,” ”synthetic meat” or even “meat byproduct” for meat grown through cultured cells.
For meat alternatives more broadly, it likes “fake meat.”
The U.S. Cattlemen’s Association, a smaller group, also petitioned the USDA in February to enforce that “beef” and “meat” only be used for animals “born, raised and harvested in the traditional manner.”