Florida governor Ron DeSantis banned lab-grown meat earlier this spring, swiftly followed by Alabama. Two states makes this an official trend, but it’s one that the press has mostly treated as a kind of cartoonish culture war story.
And it certainly is, on some level. But I think it also deserves more serious consideration. Cultured meat is still largely hypothetical at this point, but not entirely. It’s received some real investment, and (if there’s anyone reading who works in the rather large universe of climate philanthropy) is an area that deserves more funding. I think it could be a particularly impactful investment for wealthy countries and US states where residents are concerned about climate change but the jurisdiction is too small for local-specific climate targets to make a difference in a global problem.
Because if you managed to create an affordable meat alternative that was functionally identical to animal protein, that could have a gigantic impact on the global emissions trajectory — much larger impact than any conceivable local-only action or activism or advocacy. Right now, Europe is being torn apart by politically unsustainable efforts to force agricultural emissions cuts, when investing significant resources in science would be more sustainable and have a larger payoff.
At the same time, it’s worth acknowledging that proponents of a lab meat ban have a genuine theory of the case, not just a culture war troll.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Slow Boring to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.