Lab-grown meat is a loser among Republicans, Democrats

OPINION:

Lab-grown meat is getting clobbered in the political arena. Florida and Alabama recently banned the sale and manufacture of the experimental product. At the same time, Iowa has drawn the line at the state’s youth: Earlier this month, Republican Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed legislation into law that bans lab-grown meat from school lunch programs.

The momentum is likely to continue.

Despite the writings of Paul Krugman in The New York Times arguing this is a niche issue on the right, skepticism of lab-grown meat stretches across the political divide. Unlikely bedfellows such as Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania or Iowa’s governor and Sen. Jon Tester, Montana Democrat, align on the topic.

And according to new polling from the Center for the Environment and Welfare, so does the broader electorate. Clear majorities of Republicans, Democrats and independents say they are unwilling to include the product in their diet. Most also agree the strange new food has no place in school lunchrooms.

The bipartisanship is not surprising, given lab-grown meat’s poor marketing strategy, which alienates both sides of the political spectrum.

For conservatives, the eco-guilt trip pushed by alternative meat companies is far from alluring. Lab-grown meat is being pushed under a cloak of fringe environmentalism that argues that cows and other livestock are destroying the planet.

Many Republicans understand the eco-argument is bogus. In fact, those in the lab-grown meat marketing department have it backward. An analysis from the University of California, Davis, finds the environmental footprint of making lab-grown meat could be 25 times as large as that of farm-raised protein. Why? Because producing it is extremely energy-intensive.

Over the past five years, plant-based fake meat fell into a similar marketing trap that demonized the typical American diet — with Beyond Meat stock prices cratering as a result. At the tail end of last year, the chief executive officer of Impossible Foods acknowledged as much, saying, “The way to get meat eaters to actually buy your product is not to p—- them off, vilify them, insult them and judge them.”

On the flip side of the coin, lab-grown meat doesn’t exactly feed into the organic, clean-eating movement embraced by many on the left, nor does it satisfy the vegan warriors. Creating lab-grown meat sounds more like mad science than a way to put food on the table.

Animal cells from “immortalized” lines are put into a stainless-steel vat. From there, the cells are fed bulking factors until they grow and divide indefinitely. The replication, in many ways, mimics the behavior of a tumor. And once enough of the product is created, it’s forced into a shape that loosely resembles a meat product.

Translation: Lab-grown meat doesn’t seem like it will be embraced by Whole Foods shoppers.

Many shoppers are health-conscious, and the long-term health effects of lab-grown meat are a huge question mark. As Bloomberg News puts it, “There just aren’t any long-term health studies to prove” the safety of immortalized cells for human consumption.

No one — whether a Democrat or a Republican — wants to be a guinea pig. That’s why voters are far from sold on the new food, with those behind the marketing of the product not doing themselves any favors. The grassroots jitters will continue to drive governors, state legislators, and potentially school boards to act.

As a father of young children, I understand the apprehension.

• Jack Hubbard is a partner and owner at Berman and Co.