The discussion over lab-grown meat continued Oct. 23-24 as the USDA and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) hosted meeting to gather input on which agency should have safety oversight and what the product should be called.
Opening the meeting, USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue said the meeting of stakeholders was intended to help develop a framework for how the new technology of cell-cultured meat is regulated by the federal government.
Since his appointment, Perdue has said he welcomes new technology and said he was excited to get input to help guide federal agency decisions on public policy moving forward.
“The room today is filled with individuals who have an interest in ensuring that the food on America’s tables remains safe, wholesome and accurately labeled—these are challenges,” Perdue said. “As new technologies that have never been thought about in the past come to fruition it’s very important that we have a framework that encourages innovation and encourages new technology while we provide the responsibility of a public, safe, wholesome and nutritious food supply.”
Perdue noted that industry innovators and consumers coming together in meetings like this are important to help determine the roles of USDA and FDA. Simply put, he said the purpose of the hearing was to talk about “Who does what, and how do we come together as one federal government to make the best decisions for the public at large. And, how do we make sure those kinds of regulatory framework and protocols are clear and concise and easily be complied with?”
There needs to be a clear understanding of the roles and responsibilities of both the Federal Drug Administration as well as the USDA in the production and commercialization of this new technology,” Perdue said.
The ag secretary went on to talk about the growing world population—estimated to be 9 billion by 2050—and the need to find new and safe proteins. But he noted, “New proteins should be treated in the same fashion as past products.” He pointed to safe processing, production and innovation to make sure the new products don’t have any unsafe of unhealthy aspects to them.
“It’s my review that both of our agencies need to be open to innovation and welcoming of innovation that will help to feed people. The projected population of our planet demands it, so we’ll need to produce the same amount of food—this is startling—over the next 50 years as we have in the history of civilization. That’s the exponential result of demographic change. To do that I believe in our motto, ‘We must do right and feed everyone.’”
FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb, in addressing the meeting, noted that technology has advanced rapidly over the last few years and numerous companies are currently working to harness this technology to develop new products. He said it is clear that cell-cultured products will take many forms and predicted, “It won’t be long before these products reach wide scale and a wide marketplace.”
In discussing expected stakeholder comments regarding safety and oversight, Gottleib said, “We fully anticipate that both FDA and USDA will have active roles in the regulatory oversight of cell-cultured products and the feedback we hear from you today will help us to advance this inter-agency cooperation and these discussions as they go forward.”
Gottlieb also commented that the two agencies take seriously their shared mission to protect public health, and although oversight has yet to be determined, “consumer safety will always be at the forefront of our work.”
Stakeholder input
Representing the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), President Elect Jennifer Houston talked about safety concerns and her opinion on who should have oversight of lab-grown meat products. She explained that NCBA members are committed to producing safe, healthy, nutritious and affordable cattle and beef and said, “For that reason it is imperative that the Food Safety Inspection Service assert primary jurisdiction over cell-cultured products.”
Houston went on to say that while the chemical, physical and microbial risks and hazards associated with those products will likely differ from conventional beef or meat products, any product derived from livestock cells will surely be subject to similar vulnerabilities that can be effectively addressed through USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) oversight.
After her testimony, Houston said, “Why I think, and our cattle producers think, FSIS should be the agency has to do with the continuous daily inspection that our product that we produce safely every day goes under. And they [inspectors] are there every day, they are looking every day, which is very unlike what FDA does.” She added that cattle producers feel that if these new lab-grown products are going to compete in the marketplace against traditionally produced beef, that they should be held to the same safety and regulatory standards.
Reflecting on the meeting, Houston said, “It was more of what we don’t know than what we do. Lots of hazards and potential hazards were brought up that need to be well thought out and we think that FSIS is the perfect agency to take that over.”
Kevin Kester, NCBA’s current president, provided testimony on the second day of the meeting regarding marketing or specifically labeling guidelines. He explained that product labels are a “defining feature of the shopping experience for consumers.” He went on to say that the federal government understands this, which is why it requires fair and accurate product labels. He noted that it is in this spirit that two critical steps must be taken to ensure lab-grown, fake meat labels are fair and accurate.
[inline_image file=”4743beebaa6f1ee62a60bbe7ab9b0d00.png” caption=”Kevin Kester”]
First, he said, “Lab-grown fake meat labels should be held to the same standards as other meat labels. Given that the goal of these products is to compete directly with real meat, only USDA oversight can adequately ensure this outcome.”
Secondly, he noted, “Lab-grown fake meat manufacturers must not be permitted to use the term ‘beef’ and any associated nomenclature. NCBA firmly believes that the term ‘beef’ should only be applicable to products derived from livestock raised by farmers and ranchers.”
Additionally, Kester provided testimony saying that as lab-grown fake meat products seek to differentiate themselves to consumers, NCBA encourages USDA to consider developing a federal standard of identity for these products along with appropriate labeling descriptors.
Kester also noted that if, after scientific review, it is determined that lab-grown meat products meet one of the definitions promulgated under the Federal Meat Inspection Act there is “no legal justification that would warrant FDA’s involvement in inspecting these products, including their labeling or marketing.”
Building a brand
Houston and Kester also commented on the effort beef producers have put into building consumer confidence and building a brand that differentiates it from other protein products. This message was echoed by Dani Beer, past president of the United States Cattlemen’s Association.
Beer commented, “I raise beef and I know that the term ‘meat’ and more specifically ‘beef’ pertains exclusively to a protein food product that was harvested from the flesh of an animal in the traditional manner. I believe that cultured, cell-based proteins is not what my beef consumer expect.”
She also noted that allowing “cell-based proteins or plant-based proteins to bear the label of ‘meat’ or ‘beef’ on the USDA federal meat inspection shield or stamp would be misleading.”
Going on, Beer discussed the investment cattle producers have made in promoting their product through the mandatory beef checkoff. Talking about the idea of alternate proteins being called “beef,” Beer said, “It is wrong for beef producers to pay to promote a cell-cultured product. The alternative protein industry should not be allowed to villainize the beef cattle industry.”
The FDA and USDA will continue accepting comments until Nov. 26. Comments can be submitted online at www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FSIS-2018-0036. — Rae Price,WLJeditor
