Filenews 29 December 2025 - by Marilena Panayi
Replacing meat with plant-based substitutes is probably now a thing of the past. Laboratory-made meat, i.e. meat that is not meat but looks like it, contains all proteins and other ingredients but is not part of any animal, is the new puzzle for the international scientific community. Meat with protein from insects, microbial fermentations or even cells from animal tissues processed in the laboratory, are under discussion or even under construction and it is possible that we will soon see them on the market or even on our plates.
After all, scientists in various parts of the world have already entered the laboratories and are trying to bring to our plate a, as acceptable as possible form of an alternative steak or an alternative burger, with the question not being whether alternative meat can gain ground in the market since several plant-based substitutes have been circulating and consumed by millions of people for years.
In this case, the question concerns whether consumers, even if the food they see on their plate looks 100% like a steak, will prefer it and consume it, since they know that protein from insects or bacteria or yeasts grown in a tank or animal tissues that have been cultured has been used for its manufacture.
In Asia, specific types of meat have already been "cooked" and a share of this emerging industry is probably also being sought by Europe, with the European Commission having already contacted the Advisory Committee of the European Academies of Sciences (EASAC) and specifically the Life Sciences and Public Health group, asking for its opinion. In fact, the Cyprus Academy of Sciences, Letters, and Arts is represented in this group by Professor Leontios Kostrikis.
The Commission's report has been prepared and is in the hands of the EU for further action. It is an extensive scientific text, which attempts to map alternatives to meat, in the context of the environmental objectives of the European Union, taking into account, among other things, the pressures on traditional livestock farming. It analyzes the data, explains the alternatives and at the same time records some doubts as to whether this particular meat production technology can be accepted.
The most well-known and already widespread alternative is plant-based meat substitutes. These are products based on plant-based proteins, such as soy or pea, and have been processed to mimic the taste, texture and appearance of meat.
As pointed out in the report, these products can help reduce the consumption of animal products, however, the Academy notes that "plant-based" should not be considered synonymous with "healthy" and explains that many of these foods are ultra-processed, with an increased salt and fat content, which poses risks to human health.
Much of the report is dedicated to the use of insects as a source of protein for manufactured meats, with the academy recognising the advantages of this by recording, among other things, the use of fewer natural resources, which in this case is to avoid killing animals.
The scientists themselves, of course, underline the "strong cultural aversion that exists in Europe towards the idea of eating insects", while admitting that "social acceptance will be low and rather difficult to reverse". For this reason, it is emphasized that their use must be done in a way that makes them an "invisible ingredient" that will not be visible on the consumer's plate.
The report also examines the production of proteins through microbial fermentation, using bacteria or yeasts grown in tanks.
This is a technology that is closer to already known practices of the food industry, but on a larger scale.
In this case, the Academy recognizes the positives of this practice, but emphasizes the need for strict safety controls and clear labeling, so that the consumer knows exactly what he is consuming.
As far as cultivated or laboratory meat is concerned, the report also includes specific and particularly interesting information.
It is real animal tissue, which is produced from cells grown in a laboratory environment, without the breeding and slaughter of animals.
In this alternative, the academy probably keeps its distance. He points out that its production requires high energy consumption, very high costs and at the same time the environmental benefit of this technology has not been documented. At the same time, the Report records the caution with which this type of products will be treated as too "artificial", "even disgusting", in order to win the preference of consumers.
The "precision fermentation" technology is described in a similar way, which concerns "programmed" microorganisms, which produce proteins identical to animal ones. Scientists recognize the potential of this technology but do not fail to point out various regulatory, social and ethical questions that it entails.
Reservation and social resistance
As far as policy proposals are concerned, EASAC does not recommend the abolition of meat or the imposition of specific dietary choices. On the contrary, it calls for the development of a clear regulatory framework, the strengthening of research and, above all, for full and comprehensible information for consumers.
In general and in a freer interpretation, the overall conclusion of the report is clearly more cautious than what is presented in the public debate.
Alternatives to meat exist, but they come with technological uncertainties, social resistance, and cultural barriers.
As it is implicitly underlined, "no solution can be imposed in the absence of society. The future of nutrition will not only be judged in the laboratories, but in whether citizens trust what finally reaches their plate."
In any case, the debate on the future of nutrition in Europe is ongoing, with the concept of "alternative meat" needing different interpretations, since under the same condition foods of a completely different nature coexist, from simple plant products to complex biotechnological applications.
