Approved GMO Cultivated Meat 

Your comments are giving me ideas for forecasting questions: 
- Will the first cultivated meat GMO product contain GMOs?
- What percentage of the first 10 cultivated meats approved by US regulators will contain GMOs? 

Are GMO cell lines important for scaling? I don't know, but I agree it likely makes it easier. I need to look into this more. 

Somebody to watch on this note is Meatly who is selling GMO-free cultivated meat pet food in Europe and Asia. And I have a somewhat uncertain belief cultivated pet food will reach larger scale faster than cultivated meat for humans so could be a preview. 

Btw, found this map of GMO grown around the world (here)

Trump and Cultivated Meat 

You have a valid point that they regulatory agencies are not more public-facing politicians, but it does show that the power dynamics in MAGA are far from completely against cultivated meat. (A little review of that here)

I have only done some searching, but it is worth noting CATO has came out against state bans, and Vivek Ramaswamy has been very pro it (though it is unclear me how much power he holds in MAGA, he might run for a governorship though).

It is worth noting some of those Republican officials who are doing things that seem part of the culture war, like mandated labels, also think it will become part of the American diet. "The way we’re headed, lab-grown meat is going to become a part of life whether we like it or not,” said Neyer, R-Shepherd. “But we have to make sure people have the ability to choose whether they consume it or not." (source)

Btw, I would appreciate it if you would consider making a forecast related to state bans-- see here. Your view point would make a healthy counter to my more bullish views. 

Other 

A big reason why people don't like GMOs is because of their associations with pesticides and chemicals, and the concern about pesticides is much more general than GMOs. RFK Jr. said cultivated meat was "pesticide-laden ingredients" which is absurd. Why would you need pesticides when the food is grown in a sparking clean lab? Especially compared to the all the crops animals need to eat. 

So pesticides and chemicals, specifically the lack of coming in contact with them, could be a very large selling point for some of the public (5% to 20% i would guess). A decent portion of Americans are reasonable and aren't anti-vax, and would be open to hearing out this line of persuasion in my opinion. 

Thank you for taking the time to write this as I learned a lot! I do have some quips, some of which I wrote down below. 

Cultivated Meat Approved by US Regulators Is Mostly Non-GMO

“This piece is about drawing an analogy between cultivated meat and GMOs, but in fact this isn’t just an analogy, as about half of the companies working on cultivated meat use genetic modification of the cultivated cells! So not only is cultivated meat an unsettling new technology, it also uses a technology which consumers famously hate.” 

The cited source: “A 2023 survey found that nearly half of cultivated meat companies are exploring genetic engineering for either R&D or commercial use, and several patents describing various engineering approaches have been filed. Ultimately, the extent of genetic engineering and types of modifications incorporated into final products will depend on the regulatory approval process for engineered products and consumer perceptions in different regions.”

There have been five cultivated meats approved in the US, three are GMO-free, one likely uses a GMO cell line and one I don't know. For the uncertain ones, I'm learning towards they do use GMOs because if they were free of that why wouldn't they make that very clear? 

Three are Non-GMO

• Mission Barns ““The fact that our process is Non GMO is attractive to potential partners in Asia and Europe.” (source)
• Believer Meats is not GMO (source)
• Good Meat
  • “According to GOOD Meat’s safety dossier, GOOD Meat’s cells are “not recombinant or engineered (i.e., non-GMO) and have not been exposed to any viruses or viral DNA” while tests “indicate that the starting cells used for cultured chicken do not have tumorigenic potential.” (source)

Not Certain, But I Would Guess Are GMO

• Upside does seem to be considered to be GMO (source)
• Wildtype – no public information I could find. 

Europe 

Only two cultivated meat companies have applied for approval, Gourmey  and Mosa Meats, and both are non-GMO. Source for Gourmey (source) and Mosa Meats (source). 

Rest of the world

Also, remember there is cultivated meat research, business and regulatory activity in India, China, and other parts of the world which I haven’t checked. But are likely self-aware about their country’s stance on GMO, and if they aren't their investors will make them so since they want a return on their investment, and therefore probably won’t use GMO cell lines.  

Trump’s FDA Has Approved More Cultivated Meat Than Biden’s FDA

“RFK Jr (the US Secretary of Health) has also made negative comments about cultivated meat before taking office. The fact that cultivated meat is becoming a culture war issue before making it onto supermarket shelves doesn’t bode well.” 

RFK Jr.’s negative and strange remarks about “pesticide filled” cultivated meat has been a very poor indicator of what the FDA has done under his indirect leadership (FDA is under HHS). Biden’s FDA approved two cultivated meats in his 4 year term, while RFK Jr’s FDA has approved 3 cultivated meats in less than a year. 

The FDA under RFK Jr. has approved so many cultivated meats RFK Jr’s own media outlet, Children’s Health Defense, called the government agency “captured” by industry on the news of Wildtype’s approval. What is behind this strange mismatch between rhetoric and actions? I only have theories and they mainly revolve around cross political pressure. 

Under Biden (Though Started Under Trump’s First Term)

• UPSIDE Food
  • Started: 2015
  • FDA approval: Nov. 16, 2022
    • FDA press release (source)
• Good Meat (A Brand of Just Eat)
  • Started: 2017(?)
  • FDA Approval: March 21st, 2023(source)

Under Trump’s Second Term/RFK Jr. 

• Mission Barn
  • Started: 2018
  • FDA: March 7, 2025 (source)
• Wildtype
  • Started: 2016
  • FDA: May 29th, 2025 (source)
• Believer Meats (was Future Meat Technologies)
  • Started: 2018
  • FDA: July 24th, 2025 (source)

(Placeholder For More Critiques)

I think there are more facts that have been left out in your post that make your case less strong, and support a more moderate position. But I am too lazy at the moment to write these out and dig up sources so here are some crude bullet points: 

•  EU government investment in startups and partnering government agencies with those startups with the explicit goal of bringing it to market. (Counter point: the EU government has historically been more pro-GMO than individual member countries so might end up true of cultivated meat too.)
• Texas and Indiana’s cultivated meats have an expiration date of 2027 while the other bans are indefinite. That is a big difference when it comes to possibly legalizing cultivated meat in those states.
• There are more reasons to think GMOs are going to be treated differently by the public, like some of the same reasons people dislike GMOs they might like cultivated meat. But I am too lazy at the moment to write these out.
• People eat more GMOs than is given credit for. Tons of foods in Walmart that working class people eat all the time contain GMOs. Like many health concerns, a smaller portion of people actually care enough and/or have enough energy to change behavior and many can't be bothered no matter how they respond to a survey question. 

I want to end by saying I appreciate the effort you put in your post, and I am glad to see more discussion/debate around this. Even though I got my quips, I have updated significantly in the direction of being fearful that cultivated meat might end up like GMOs because of your arguments. And your post pushed me to think harder in the areas where I disagreed. I need to explore this topic more. 

thank you! I will give it a read

Thank you for the studies, will take a look. I would think you could find either adding a new meat-based products and its affects in the marketing literature or something analogous -- though I haven't looked. 

I appreciate the thoughtful reply. My view hasn't changed to much, but I have updated towards more uncertainty. 

Regards (2) however, I think the text being subtle is the opposite of  "experimental realism" as when businesses introduce a new product they often give it a graphic treatment that highlights it and explain its value to customers. 

Also, regarding Lewis' comment, I don't know how much a figure from 2015, a decade ago, when there was far less familiarity and knowledge of PMA can be regarded as converging evidence for your outcome. 

Excited to more research in this area! : ) 

Thank you for your work on this! 

I appreciate y'all studying this and helping us learn more about what we can do to advance plant-based options, and I especially love that it is open access. I do have some questions tho. 

(A) "Despite widespread optimism, simply increasing the number of PMAs on restaurant menus may not consistently reduce meat selection." Is this a reasonable expectation of any new food ingredient? Are there studies that show just adding a new ingredient, any ingredient whether plant-based or not, to a menu would result in uptake of it? 

It seems to me, and I could be missing something, that this study might be studying the habitual nature of consumers, and less so their preferences about plant-based meat. A possible way to have controlled for this would be to have a new animal meat item and see how many people chose it. 

If your general model of consumers, or people generally, is that they are cognitive misers, it seems that model would predict this result regardless if the additional items were plant based or meat based. So the casual factor would be habit, not the kind of protein. That would still be informative for plant-adoption and be a large barrier, but it be saying less about plant-based preferences and more about just needing to do proper UX and marketing. 

(B) I saw y'all did awareness checks on what people thought the point of the study was, but curious why y'all didn't do an awareness check on whether they noticed if there was a plant-based option in the menu or not? Like how many people are taking the time to read the small grey on white text? And with steak or chicken, you don't need to because those are familiar and instantly understood. Without that, it is unclear to me, whether you are testing people's preference for plant-based options or their ability to notice new items. 

Hi Elif, my chaotic ADHD brain found it easy to follow because of how well structured it is,  thank you for taking the time and effort to write this!

I did have some notes on data the survey section, 

“In fact, national surveys in the United States show that most people believe it is “very important” (52%) or “important” (32%) to prevent farm animals from suffering (Animal Welfare Institute). Data from the Center for a Livable Future shows that 57% of voters support stricter regulation of industrial farms, and 43% support banning new ones altogether. Given that the share of vegans in the total population is still very small, these findings are striking. This suggests there’s far more potential than we might assume,  but perhaps not enough “thresholds” have been crossed yet for these views to turn into action.”

For the first figures, I believe you are referring to a 2015 survey that was not done by AWI but by Consumer Reports National Research Center, and cited by AWI (source). The latter by John Hopkin’s Livable Future Center (source) in 2019. 

I don’t think these are the highest quality surveys on this topic, and probably don’t reflect an accurate picture of American attitudes towards. 

In 2022, Rethink Priorities did surveys with a more rigorous methodological design (see here). In addition to them asking if they supported banning slaughterhouses, for example, they also had participants to explain their reasoning. They found that when asked to explain their reasoning only about 8% of people supported the banning of slaughterhouses, and in the control, where they didn’t ask them to explain their reasoning it was 20%. Rethink Priorities also pre-registered their study so that others could hold them accountable if they p-hacked or messed with the methodology to get the results they wanted. 

8% is far better than nothing, but it is closer to the percentage of the population that is either vegan or vegetarian. 

Adding this study to the paragraph with the other studies you included will give readers a more rounded perspective on what the literature says, helping them to avoid, what is in effect, the publication bias. 

Feel free to include welfare concerns. The UK government has been moving in that direction so regulations that require a welfare assessment could be impactful.

The reason why a welfare argument is not included is honestly a mess up on my end. 

Originally I thought the welfare argument, while the most convincing personally, is the least politically viable. I still believe that but another advocate argued it should be included and I ended up agreeing, and planned on adding it. I ended up forgetting to add it however.