The meat on the plate is reduced to a clash that is now a soup of various positions: science and ideology, respect for the environment and fashionable environmentalism. And while the government rejoices at the definitive green light in the Chamber of the bill banning the production and sale of "synthetic meat"; the opposition, part of the scientific community, animal rights activists and vegetarians protest. One against the other, while consumers - that is, those who ultimately say the last word on the palatability of food - unless they have a degree in food technology struggle to find an agreement.

«I go to the market and chat with people. When I ask "Would you eat a steak made in a laboratory?", do you know what they answer? Giuseppe Pulina, professor of ethics and sustainability of livestock farming at the University of Sassari, is the president of the Sustainable Meats association (made up of Assocarni, Assica and Unaitalia). Among the most cited scientists in the world in the field of animal sciences, he is the expert called by the Senate - when in recent months it was preparing to examine the text of the law - to draw up a report on the point of scientific knowledge in the field of food safety and environmental impact of laboratory-produced meat. "There are many reasons why a steak like this can never be comparable to a natural steak."

Professor, you are biased. It represents an association made up of the three largest producer associations.

«I am first of all a university professor and I am a scientist. I'm the one who speaks to Sustainable Meats, and I say what science says, not what Sustainable Meats wants to hear."

Are you happy with the green light for the law?

«Yes, as a consumer and as a scientist, because we put a stop to artificial meat».

Those who defend its production say that there is nothing synthetic about it and that it should be called cultured meat.

«It's true, there is nothing synthetic because the process arises from cells removed from animals. But there's nothing cultivated either. The only cultivated meat is that which comes from animal husbandry. I would call it artificial meat because the cells are artificially bred."

Regardless of the definition, why does he say that laboratory meat is not the same as slaughtered meat?

«For a series of reasons. The first is that with the cells removed via biopsy, different tissues are developed: on one side the muscle, on another the fat, on yet another the connective tissue. Different parts which are then ground together with the same supports, made of cellulose, pectin, collagen etc., on which the same cells are made to grow. But do you know what the most serious thing is?".

Say.

«To grow in the multiplication broth, these cells need hormonal factors. We, however, cannot give them to animals, they are prohibited. Well, natural meat has no hormones, artificial meat does, and what's more they must be removed."

But natural meat comes from animals also grown with hormones, right?

«Hormones as growth promoters have been banned for over fifty years for cattle and since 1981 for all other farmed species. Animals produce their hormones naturally, like us, it is the process of life. They produce them and, like all other waste from cellular work, metabolize and excrete them. However, they must be removed from artificial meat."

What does it mean?

«It means that they have to be washed away as the cultured cells work and multiply. Here, if these wastes are metabolized and expelled through the blood cycle, the lymphatic system, etc. in the animal, they must be removed in the bioreactors in which the meat is produced. But no one yet knows how many, and what exactly, these waste elements are, because a lot of stuff goes into them, from hormones to antifungals, up to pectin and antifoam."

The environmental factor, however, is not insignificant. In support of laboratory meat, the advantages in terms of water saving and reduction of Co2 emissions are recalled.

«No advantages, and I bring concrete data. First point, in the laboratory the entire waste elimination process, which is absolutely essential, leads to emissions from a minimum of 246 to a maximum of 1,508 of Co2 per kilo of product, 4 to 22 times higher than the emissions per kilo of raised beef ».

Why?

«Because they are very expensive purification processes in terms of resource consumption and environmental impact. Especially when we move from small cell cultures, such as those today, to large reactors planned for the industrial-scale production of artificial meat."

However, it is livestock farming that emits large quantities of carbon.

«Look, agriculture is the only human activity that, in addition to emitting carbon, simultaneously absorbs it».

Through what?

«The soil, the grass. Tree-lined pastures - our meriagos - are the system that conserves the most carbon of all. If I have animals grazing, it is true that they emit Co2, but the whole system removes much more from the environment."

Yes, but then the animals are locked up in the stable and fattened.

«But the carbon credits they accumulated in the first phase are more than enough to also offset the emissions in the fattening phase. With artificial meat the emissions are just produced."

Professor, don't you think that in the end it is the consumers who decide?

«The point is that, as always, it is good to rely on scientific data. And in science the precautionary principle applies. In short, if there is a potential danger whose risk we do not know, it is better to keep it under control until there is more evidence both on the nature of the risk and on the effects on the population."

So why are you happy with a law that hinders research?

«No one says not to do research. Indeed, it should be done to understand the effects of this meat on human health. But for the moment, until we are sure that we have obtained a truly healthy product in the laboratory, it is best to use the precautionary principle."

Laboratory meat is not a drug.

«But it is still in the experimental phase. Nobody is managing to produce it in the quantities we would like. The point is that they should set up a real pharmaceutical industry, otherwise they can't do it. This is a food that should be evaluated as a drug, it is not a novel food. And then, do we want to deny the concern of the FAO, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization?".

Why is she worried?

«The FAO sees the risk of billions of people being dependent on very few capital centers that invest in food production in laboratories. It is a topic that should not be overlooked, because putting everyone's food in the hands of a few does not mean applying science well."

Piera Serusi

© Riproduzione riservata