Lab-grown meat has emerged as one of the food industry’s most groundbreaking innovations, promising a protein source that bypasses the environmental and ethical issues tied to the livestock industry.
Though yet to be approved for sale in the EU as long as food safety and health questions remain unclarified by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) , it has sparked a lively debate over what to call it. The term that gets chosen could have a profound impact on consumer acceptance and regulatory clarity, but a label that aligns with both scientific accuracy and public perception is proving elusive.
As lab-grown meat approaches the mainstream, it falls under the purview of EU food labelling laws, which require consistency and clarity. A single, well-chosen name could streamline regulations, reduce consumer confusion, and ease international trade.
But how do you name a product that has never before existed?
Some argue for terms like “lab-grown” or “cultured,” which might deter consumers looking for “natural” food. Others champion labels such as “slaughter-free” or “clean meat,” designed to appeal to the ethically conscious or environmentally minded.
The importance of naming lab-grown meat goes beyond mere marketing. It touches on cultural attitudes toward food and taps into a deeper question: what do we believe food should be? Names hold significance in shaping consumer perceptions, and for lab-grown meat to be embraced, its label must strike a delicate balance—truthful but not misleading, scientifically accurate but relatable.
This challenge is intensified by a parallel debate around “ultra-processed foods” (UPFs), another concept that has stirred public and regulatory confusion.
The Troubled Concept of Ultra-Processed Foods
“Ultra-processed foods” is a category that has gained attention as UPFs are commonly linked to obesity and other health issues in public discourse.
However, the term “ultra-processed” itself has proven slippery and is far from being a concept grounded in scientific consensus. Advocates for reduced UPF consumption argue that these foods, characterised by multiple processing stages and artificial ingredients, are inherently harmful. Yet, despite public concern, defining what qualifies as “ultra-processed” is not straightforward.
The categorization of UPFs has led to simplistic associations—often equating UPFs with junk food. However, this view is misleading. Many so-called “health foods,” like vegan substitutes and high-protein snacks, undergo extensive processing but are still marketed as nutritious and sustainable.
For instance, plant-based burgers or dairy-free cheeses often require complex manufacturing to mimic the taste and texture of their animal-derived counterparts. Despite being highly processed, these products enjoy a “health halo,” largely due to skillful branding. Lab-grown meat, if seen as a “synthetic” or “fake” food, risks facing similar challenges in public perception.
Processing Doesn’t Equal Unhealthy
The debate over UPFs illustrates how easy it is to conflate processing with poor nutrition – an assertion that is increasingly challenged by research in the medical and food science fields.
According to a 2019 report by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the World Health Organization (WHO), processing alone doesn’t determine nutritional value. According to the report, “Food processing in itself is not the issue”, considering that “practically all food is processed in some sense and in some way. The term ‘processing’ (…) is very general and therefore not helpful, and so judgements of foods simply because they are ‘processed’ are not meaningful.”
The report furthermore highlights that “attempts to distinguish between different types of processing by using undefined terms such as ‘fast’, ‘convenience’, or ‘junk’ food, cannot be the basis of scientific assessment.”
It’s evident that the FAO calls for more nuanced, evidence-based evaluations of food processing since most modern foods undergo some level of processing, whether it’s pasteurisation, canning, or fortification.
Processing can enhance food safety, preserve nutrients, or make foods more accessible, so dismissing processed foods out of hand ignores the benefits they can provide.
The issue of UPFs is misleading for another important reason, namely by failing to place it into the context of people’s overall diets.
Dr. Jean Adams, a researcher examining UPF classification, argues that unhealthy diets, rather than individual foods, are more often the culprit behind rising obesity rates. “There are very few unhealthy foods, but there are lots of unhealthy diets,” Adams suggests, pointing out that diet quality is about more than single ingredients.
UPFs, he notes, have become an easy target for public health campaigns not because they are inherently harmful, but because cutting them seems like a quick fix to improve overall health.
Learning from the UPF Debate for Lab-Grown Meat
What the UPF debate reveals is that the language used to describe food categories can greatly influence public perception, sometimes more than scientific evidence.
The term “ultra-processed food” carries a negative connotation that has stuck, despite the lack of a universally accepted or scientifically precise definition. This experience offers a cautionary tale for how lab-grown meat is ultimately labelled. Choosing a term that inaccurately frames lab-grown meat as “artificial” or “unnatural” could prevent consumers from exploring its potential benefits, from reduced animal cruelty to lower environmental impact.
As lab-grown meat is inevitably set to become a reality – the UK already approved lab meat consumption, albeit only for pets for now – its success will hinge not only on regulatory approval but also on public acceptance.
As the case of the UPF debate demonstrates, overly simplistic approaches and debates can lead to knee-jerk reactions that obscure complex realities. If lab meat is considered synthetic or fake, then the arbitrary spectrum of what constitutes “real” food and “fake” (ultra-processed) food exposes the entire notion of processed food as absurd as it actually is.
Image credit: Charlie Solorzano via Unsplash
