In the world of politics and government agencies, much like children on a playground, those who come to play are often at odds over who is control. This seems to be the scenario developing between the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the USDA over the issue of regulating cell-cultured or lab-grown meat.
FDA held a public meeting July 12 to discuss foods produced using animal cell culture technology. The five-hour meeting saw numerous FDA representatives presenting information on the issue with few presentations from animal agriculture representatives and no representation from USDA.
The two agencies share oversight of a large number of food products with USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service overseeing traditional meat products. The introduction of cultured meat products has caused the agencies to begin jockeying for position to regulate cell cultured protein products. The manufacturers of “fake” meat seem to favor FDA oversight, while traditional livestock producers favor USDA as the regulating agency.
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) Director of Government Relations Danielle Beck presented testimony at the meeting but said the organization did not address the questions that FDA posed because it believes it is too early in the process. She added, “The appropriate agency to be asking those questions is whoever is going to be regulating it. We believe that USDA is the appropriate regulators and FDA was putting the cart before the horse today.”
As the only livestock producer represented, Maggie Nutter of Montana, mentioned the amount of money spent by the Beef Checkoff to promote traditional beef. She told the hearing she didn’t like the idea of a fake meat product riding the coattails of the good reputation of traditionally produced beef.
“When other products use the term meat or beef they are taking advantage of the years of hard work the Beef Check-Off program has put in in building’s beef’s good reputation,” Nutter said.
“They are hijacking our trademark branding for the benefit of their own marketing. As ranchers we don’t want anything that isn’t beef to be called beef or to use terms connected to meat.”
She stressed the importance proper labeling to differentiate lab-grown protein from traditional beef products.
“We believe the term ‘meat’ pertains exclusively to a protein food product that was harvested from the flesh of an animal in the traditional manner. Cultured cell proteins would not be included in this definition.”
Lia Biondo, U.S. Cattlemen’s Association (USCA) Director of Policy and Outreach commenting on the meeting told WLJ, “USCA served as the sole producer voice in the public meeting, joined by the meat lobby groups, who testified that these products should be considered meat. We disagree with that sentiment—these products do not originate from the flesh of an animal harvested in the traditional manner and therefore should not be allowed to hijack our terminology.”
She added, “Let’s first clearly establish that these are not meat products, and then we can move on to jurisdictional issues and other concerns raised by those organizations and companies invested in these products.”
Representing another angle that also involves cattle, the National Milk Producer Federation spoke about products not derived from cattle that are labeled as milk, something that group has been fighting against for close to 20 years.
In an apparent turn of attitude on July 17, speaking to a Politico Pro Summit in Washington, D.C., Scott Gottlieb, commissioner of the FDA, appeared to admit the agency let its standards slip on the milk labeling issue. He noted that regulations from the FDA define milk as a “lacteal secretion” from an animal, typically a cow. Government definitions of food like this are known as “standards of identity” and are generally used to help customers know what they are eating and drinking.
“An almond doesn’t lactate,” Gottlieb said. “The question is, ‘Have we been enforcing our own standard of identity?’ The answer is: probably not.”
Consumer attitudes
A recent survey conducted by Consumer Reports and released the same day as the FDA hearing shows that the vast majority of Americans think meat produced in a lab from cultured animal cells should be differentiated in some way from conventional meat on the label.
“By an overwhelming margin, our survey found that consumers want clear labels identifying meat produced in the lab from cultured animal cells,” said Dr. Michael Hansen, senior scientist for Consumers Union, the advocacy division of Consumer Reports.
“Federal regulators should ensure these emerging food products are clearly labeled so consumers can make informed choices for their families and easily distinguish them from conventional meat.”
The survey found 49 percent of consumers believe cultured products should be labeled as “meat” but with an explanation of how it was produced, another 40 percent said it should be labeled as something other than meat.
The survey also asked consumers to choose among seven terms that would be considered accurate labels for the cultured protein products, the most commonly chosen terms were “lab-grown meat” (35 percent) and “artificial or synthetic meat” (34 percent). The least commonly chosen terms were “cultured meat” (11 percent), “clean meat” (9 percent), and “in vitro meat” (8 percent).
Beck told WLJ NCBA’s argument is not about limiting competition, “We are happy to compete against any other protein out there. It’s important though that consumers know exactly what they are buying. And quite frankly, if you want to call yourselves meat then you should play by the same set of rules.”
Next steps
Taking note of USDA’s absence at the July 12 meeting, a bipartisan letter from the House of Representatives to the Office of Management and Budget called for a follow-up meeting, “with both agencies as equal participants.”
The July 11 letter from Reps. Robert Aderholt (R-AL), Sanford Bishop (D-GA), Michael Conaway (R-TX), and Collin Peterson (D-MN) said, in part, “We are aware that the White House Domestic Policy Council called a meeting with the two agencies after FDA announced their intent to hold a public meeting on this topic. We are disappointed that after the White House meeting, FDA is still proceeding with the meeting on July 12 without USDA involvement as outlined in the agenda released by FDA.”
The leaders of the House Agriculture Committee and Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies also wrote, “Moving forward, we would request that as the Administration continues to evaluate these technologies, USDA and FDA be required to work together to ensure the best available science is used in a fair and open process to protect food safety and accurate labeling standards in a manner that reflects USDA’s long standing role as the nation’s regulator of meat and poultry safety.”
WLJ contacted USDA to ask about the agency’s notable absence and whether or not it would hold its own hearing on the subject, but as of press time had not received a response.
In announcing the meeting, FDA said it would allow interested parties to comment on these emerging food technologies. Although few comments were offered at the meeting, written comments can be submitted until Sept. 25.
The next step for NCBA, according to Beck, is to prepare and submit written comments on the topic of cell-cultured meat. Other organizations, agencies, and individuals can also submit comments online at regulations.gov and entering the docket number FDA-2018-N-2155-0001 in the search bar.
FDA said the comments will be the “focus of future engagement with stakeholders and the public.” The press release also noted that FDA will leverage the expertise of the its science board during its regular scheduled meeting in October “to further inform our efforts.”
Concluding its comments, FDA wrote, “As this field continues to advance, it will be important for FDA to provide timely information to both consumers and industry given the agency’s expertise and role in advancing food safety. The agency is committed to working with stakeholders to foster innovation while ensuring the safety of our nation’s food supply.” — Rae Price, WLJ editor
