How the lobbying industry is blocking food innovation
Following regulators, lobbyists, and farmers from Brussels committee rooms to Tuscan farm kitchens, Europe’s Not So Cultured War on Cultivated Foods reveals how subsidies, cultural nostalgia, and industrial muscle conspire to block cell-grown meat, and how cracking that grip could free vast farmland, cool the climate, and spare billions of animals.
days left
83
Europe’s Not-So Cultured War on Cultivated Foods is a chronicle of the political struggle over slaughter-free meat across the continent. Drawing on policy minutes, leaked lobbying memos, and life-cycle data, it reveals how livestock subsidies, culture-based identity politics, and opaque links between regulators and industry have stalled approvals for cultivated protein. Case studies from Italy, France, Germany, and Eastern Europe examine tactics, ranging from naming-law skirmishes to outright bans, while contrasting examples from the Netherlands, Denmark, and Singapore highlight practical alternatives. The book argues that rigorous safety rules can coexist with open scientific inquiry. It outlines reforms, including diverting a fraction of farm aid to public cell-culture research, enforcing transparency in lobbying, and granting farmers equity stakes in new facilities. It warns that Europe will miss climate and animal-welfare targets if policy does not change soon.
Readers of current affairs, food politics and climate policy, professionals in ag tech, ESG investing and NGO advocacy who require a European case study of regulatory capture and a concise explainer for cultivated meat science.
I began my career in 2010 as a software tester in Germany and later moved to IBM in 2022, where I completed an MBA in AI ethics. The same ethical lens that guided my work on trustworthy artificial intelligence drew me toward cultivated meat, a field where cell biology, robotics and data modelling meet the task of feeding humanity without slaughter or deforestation. Today, I focus on scaling cell-based protein systems, translating a decade of enterprise-grade innovation into bioreactor reliability and regulatory strategy, and keeping one question at the centre of everything I do: how can technology satisfy our appetite while healing the planet?
The publishers will be visible after the campaign has ended.
Dear Author,
You worked hard to write your manuscript, and you know that expert assistance is needed to ready it for the market. But perhaps you didn’t realize that working with a publisher is no longer necessary—especially publishers who charge fees to produce your book upfront and "share" more of your revenue whenever a book is sold.
1106 Design is an author services company that has served over 4,000 authors since 2001. We offer all the editorial and design services you’d expect from a publisher, transforming your manuscript into a polished book. But here's the difference: we help you secure print-on-demand printing and worldwide distribution in YOUR name. This means you'll earn several dollars more for every book sold instead of a meager “royalty” and never lose control of your book or your book files.
We understand that your book is not just a passion project but also a potential source of income. No two books or authors are alike. That's why we'll customize a package of services tailored to your needs at affordable prices, starting at $5,555. And here's the best part: after this one-time investment, every penny of revenue from book sales is deposited directly to your bank account, never to ours first.
If this sounds like a better way to publish your book, I invite you to browse our services, design samples, no-surprises pricing, outstanding customer reviews, and educational articles at https://1106design.com. You can download a free PDF of my book, "Publish Like the Pros: A Brief Guide to Quality Self-Publishing and an Insider's Look at a Misunderstood Industry," and request a free, no-obligation consultation.
1106 Design is rated A+ by the Better Business Bureau. We are a “Highly Recommended Expert” at IngramSpark.com and rated "Excellent" at Alli, The Alliance for Independent Authors, at SelfPublishingAdvice.org. Alli's "watchdog list" of the best and worst publishing services companies is an invaluable resource.
How can we serve you today?
Sincerely,
Michele DeFilippo, owner
100 copies • Completed manuscript.
eBooks2go, Inc. was founded in 2011 to provide the missing link for all your publishing needs. Our end-to-end solutions provide the guidance and support that enable publishers and independent authors to pursue their passions. To date, we have helped more than 1,000 authors and 250 publishers worldwide. We offer an array of simple and affordable solutions to assist self-publishing authors at every stage of the book publishing process. Our comprehensive service offering includes editing, print and eBook production, book marketing, cover designs, ISBN registration, and even website designs. We are a single source for all of your publishing needs.
“Suspicion always haunts the guilty mind”
- William Shakespeare, King Henry VI
In 2015, two years after the $300,000 cultured-burger demonstration, a small circle of industry strategists realised that (like computers and solar panels) the new technology’s costs would fall steeply with scale. Those strategists immediately began mapping out ways to slow or stop that price decline before it reached commercial scale. Cost-curve projections circulating in 2015 suggested that cultured-meat prices could drop by an order of magnitude within a decade, a trajectory familiar to anyone who had followed Moore’s Law or the solar-PV learning rate. A few industry strategists spooked themselves with a question: "What if novel meat follows the same trajectory?"
Farm Europe, an agribusiness-backed think-tank set up in Brussels in 2015, was one of the first to crystallise the threat. Its founders, who are veterans of French grain co-ops, Italian meat processors and ag-chem giants like Bayer, explicitly framed their mission as "defending Europe's food model" in the face of "silicon-valley style disruption." Inside the farmers' super-lobby COPA-COGECA, a small technical working group began tracking alt-protein patents and venture deals. Their conclusion was that within ten years, bioreactors could erode Europe's €170 bn livestock sector. Across the Atlantic, lobby analysts in Washington voiced the same anxiety. Staff at the National Cattlemen's Beef Association circulated a 2015 memo warning that "lab-grown look-alikes" could repeat the soy-burger saga at far greater scale. Word crossed the Atlantic via trade-association networks.
Once the alarm was sounded, those actors moved quickly on three fronts. They lobbied the European Parliament and Council to embed an explicit precautionary test in Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 on Novel Foods. The adopted wording requires multi-year, data-intensive files before a cell-based product can reach the market. This effectively delays commercial launch to the late 2020s even for companies ready to build today. That clause alone buys actors roughly five years before the first commercial sale. Then they commissioned life-cycle studies that emphasised hypothetical high energy use of bioreactors, which studies French farm groups still cite today, to seed doubt about climate benefits. And finally, Farm Europe wooed Coldiretti (IT), FNSEA (FR) and DBV (DE) into a cross-border caucus that would later rebrand as European Livestock Voice. Within a year, a previously fragmented farm lobby was speaking with one voice, well before the wider public had formed an opinion.
By helping embed a deliberately heavy precautionary filter into the EU Novel Foods law of 2015, they ensured every cultivated-meat report would spend three to five years (and roughly €2 to 4 million) inching through EFSA before a single bite could be sold. Having a tough regulatory approval process might benefit cell-based products in the long run, but the “Frankenstein food” slogans drafted in those early meetings still headline rallies from Rome to Budapest today. And, while livestock continues to harvest subsidies worth about 1,200 times the public research money granted to alt-protein, many European investors have chosen easier pastures. Put simply, established players turned their doubts into stricter regulation, cultural mud-slinging, and a skewed funding landscape that keeps their protective moat wide as the technology advances.
So let's follow the money that flows from livestock subsidies to lobbying front groups. On its registration form, Farm Europe declared support from Bayer, from French grain and oil-seed cooperatives like Avril and InVivo, from the agri-insurer Groupama, and from the two most powerful national farm lobbies, Coldiretti in Italy and FNSEA in France. A few months later, the European Commission awarded Farm Europe a €150,000 research grant; I'll let the reader decide the strength of the ethical line between public study and private advocacy, if they can even find one. With that seed money, the group hires analysts, publishes its first briefing on "synthetic meat", and builds the contact list that will blossom into European Livestock Voice four years later.
Inside COPA-COGECA, the 2015 travel budget is mediocre, but every flight and hotel is paid out of subscription fees that trace back to CAP subsidies. Minutes from those early meetings show members swapping patent alerts and venture-capital headlines, then drafting talking points that paint bioreactors as energy-wasting. Lobby disclosures filed the following year confirm that animal-source food interests are already spending about three times as much in Brussels as all plant-based and cultivated-meat actors combined. Corporate money crosses the Atlantic at the same time. Elanco, the Indiana animal-health giant that earns about half of its revenue from livestock medicines, renews its allied-member fees to the North American Meat Institute and steps up sponsorship of Cattlemen to Cattlemen, the television programme of the United States beef lobby. None of that cash is targeted at Europe, but the networks are porous. NAMI staff swap policy memos with COPA-COGECA consultants and Farm Europe researchers appear at US conferences that same year. The message flows with the money and is simple: hold the line.
What stings most is the sense of history repeating itself. Over thirty years, researchers showed step by step that vertebrate stem cells can multiply. They proved that serum can be replaced by plant factors. They demonstrated that scaffolds can give muscle firmness. The science reached the point where celebration felt justified. The policy sphere reacted with the same caution once shown to wind turbines in the 1970s and to solar panels in the 1990s. Costs kept falling as the concept gained clear proof. Established companies hesitated, and institutions that ought to have welcomed the new evidence instead financed the opposition.
“He that complies against his will, is of his own opinion still.”
- Samuel Butler, Hudibras
The mood in the boardrooms heated over the 12 months that followed the lobbyists’ early gains. By 2016, decision-makers were reading new cues and, almost overnight, cultured meat went from distant curiosity to a strategic priority. What triggered the turn? In February, Memphis Meats coaxed a meatball from its bioreactor, pricing the sample at just under one hundred dollars per gram and mapping a route to commercial scale. Those who had waved away the 2013 burger as theatre here saw a reproducible protocol and a credible cost curve. Laboratory meat had become a technical playbook in search of capital. When the money flowed, venture funds schooled in renewable energy recognised the familiar glide of costs and, though moving with caution, started courting cell-ag founders.
Tyson launched on 10 October 2016 when it took a 5 % stake in Beyond Meat and framed the move as a vote for the future of protein. Within days, Reuters revealed that the packers were hedging; Cargill had also rebadged its meat division as a protein group, a linguistic tactic that preempted diversification while avoiding drama. By 5 December, Tyson had launched Tyson New Ventures, a 150-million-dollar vehicle whose first cheque again favoured Beyond Meat over laboratory-grown hopefuls. Equity, rhetoric, and ring-fenced capital nudged their peers from wariness to movement. In the 12-month lull that followed, the majors watched market data, political rumblings, and public taste convergences, then Cargill joined Memphis Meats’ Series A in August 2017, and Tyson followed five months later. The North American Meat Institute’s victory in the January 2016 dietary-guideline dispute had already shown that lobbying remains the industry’s front-rank defence even while corporate venture teams trek through Californian accelerators in search of tomorrow’s disruptor. If you want a deeper dive, look at Lusk’s analysis of protein portfolio strategies. The core point stands: Tyson’s sequence of purchase, phrase, and fund forced the established packers to act, and that early trio of moves still frames the field.
All of this would be typically negligible, crony capitalist banter if not for the global narrative unfolding in parallel. The Paris Agreement entered into effect in November 2016, binding signatories to a temperature ceiling that, translated into sectoral targets, implies roughly a one-third cut in agricultural emissions before mid-century. By 2015, researchers were publishing life-cycle assessments. One paper in Environmental Science & Technology estimated that cultured beef could cut land use by 99 % and reduce water withdrawal by more than 80% while drawing more electricity than poultry. The newly founded Good Food Institute unfolded these results through investor memos and media primers from March 2016 onward, positioning cell culture as the logical ally of Paris.
Sustainability officers began asking procurement teams whether a pilot project in cultured protein might future-proof the brand, and consumer data supplied a further nudge. Migros, Switzerland’s largest retailer, logged 590 V-Label or Vegan Flower products by December, a 57 % jump on 2015 and clear proof that shoppers were ready to test novel formats. Marketing managers felt that the same early adopters would sample cultivated products once regulatory gates opened, creating a first-mover advantage for whoever could serve them. The European Union’s Novel Foods Regulation, adopted on 25 November 2015, set out a demanding, time-limited authorisation path of 18 months from application to Brussels’ verdict. Corporate planners were given a calendar instead of a black box, and for technology chiefs, clarity mattered more than delay, allowing them to schedule hiring rounds, capital calls and scale-up milestones with unique confidence. The convergence of demonstrable science, eager capital, climate pressure, soft consumer demand, and a visible approval track convinced many companies that the window for entry had opened. The lobby wall thrown up in 2015 stood, but by the close of 2016, the smarter companies suspected that waiting outside was riskier than tunnelling through.
Alongside the Memphis meatball, the steeply declining cost curve drew notice. The Wall Street Journal reported that in February 2016, a pound of cultured meat cost about 18 thousand dollars, roughly 70 times less than the 2013 Post burger. Newspapers everywhere reproduced a photo of a fork lifting a greyish morsel from a Petri dish, and that image soothed corporate strategists who viewed cell culture as mere showmanship. Regulators heard this and began mapping their own terrain, starting in London, with civil servants at the Food Standards Agency and the Department for Environment. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs set out deadlines for every stage of an EU novel foods application and cautioned ministers that no tasting event could proceed until Brussels signed off on the final step. This was an early signal of the intricate bureaucracy ahead. Their working papers already recorded questions from farming unions who feared a late-breaking “Frankenstein” backlash should the rules appear too lax. Berlin’s parliamentary Office for Technology Assessment issued its Fleisch 2.0 brief in May 2016 and, with evident unease between the lines, cited calculations suggesting that cultured poultry or pork could demand three to four times the process energy of barn-raised equivalents, handing German sceptics an environmental talking point they still use today.
Swiss supermarket chains reported an unexpected surge in plant-based burgers and sausages, a trend they linked to rising climate awareness. The headlines injected the term “Laborfleisch” into the Swiss press and prodded meat processors to ask whether real competitors might arrive sooner than anyone had planned. Corporate strategy evidence pointed to consumers who were already trying pea protein patties. Regulators, cautious but engaged, had begun to sketch a legal pathway, so a moderate investment in cell culture appeared sensible. This logic explains why, before the year closed, first-tier protein companies opened conversations with precisely the startups their lobbyists were trying to stall.
“Momentum begets momentum, and the best way to start is to start.”
- Gil Penchina
Switzerland’s revised Foodstuffs Act took effect on 1 May 2017 and scrapped the old positive principle. By classifying cell-grown protein as a novel food, it allowed everything from cultured fillet to chia seed to enter the market once safety checks were met. A guidance letter in December confirmed that these products would follow the same authorisation route as insects. Investors spotted the signal when, on 24 July 2017, FoodNavigator advised feed companies that their only hedge was laboratory meat, as prices were moving in a single direction.
On 13 October 2017, the German poultry group PHW (Wiesenhof) bought a low-seven-figure stake in the Israeli start-up SuperMeat, the first visible bet by a major EU meat processor on cell culture. The three-month negotiation also set up a joint research board, and the press note released in early January 2018 hailed the deal as the start of a long-term partnership to bring “clean chicken” to Europeans. A week later, the pork giant Tönnies, keen not to fall behind its rival, updated its corporate website to say it had been in contact with several cultivated meat producers and had monitored the market very closely for years, a signal that suppliers such as REWE took as the first step in a hedge strategy.
French scientific circles noticed the shift when Jean-François Hocquette reported that press coverage had surged since 2017. By 2020, more than twelve thousand French-language articles on viande artificielle had appeared, most of which had been published after that watershed year. Even in the more guarded United Kingdom, internal notes show the National Farmers Union commissioning its first threat assessment on “lab meat” during the summer of 2017. Lobby groups read the same tea leaves and reacted fast, and within days of the PHW deal, advisers to the German Farmers’ Association (DBV) drafted talking points dismissing “künstliches Fleisch” as a mirage. Drafts became public in early 2018 but were circulated inside ministries before Christmas 2017. In London, factory-farm-friendly MPs discreetly warned the Food Standards Agency not to “rush novelty,” a line they lifted from the NFU briefing of November 2017.
Civil society funding moved in step in December 2017 when the Open Philanthropy Project transferred €1.14 million to L214. The money was targeted at cutting chicken demand and at smoothing the arrival of cultivated meat in France, money that rural weeklies attacked as foreign interference. The uproar reinforced the message already reaching ministers through the NFU, the DBV and Swiss meat unions that the battle over labelling would be semantic, procedural and rapid.
2017 left a growing paper trail of money that paints an ever more colourful picture of persuasion and capture. In Germany, the pork conglomerate Tönnies had, by year-end 2017, donated €158,000 to the ruling CDU since 2002 (more than to any other party). Several CDU agriculture committee members were themselves livestock farmers, a dual role watchdogs later flagged as “institutionalised conflict of interest”. While the donations were legal, they coincided with the party’s push inside Brussels to keep “socio-economic impacts” on the table whenever novel foods were assessed, a clause that lobbyists hoped would slow EFSA approvals. Similar entanglements appeared in Bern, where meat industry representatives sat on the advisory panel that drafted the 2017 Swiss labelling rules, although no formal investigation followed.
Although Rome passed no new measures in 2017, parliamentary hearings on the tension between tradition and synthetic foods exposed a group of lawmakers determined to protect cibo naturale at any price. Transcripts record members of parliament warning that cultured meat might weaken Italy’s culinary heritage and infringe EU quality-mark rules, an argument Coldiretti and supportive ministers later folded into the 2023 ban. However, undeterred, a group of French biotechnologists that had prototyped serum-free chicken cells through late 2017 formally incorporated Vital Meat in the first quarter of 2018. The company’s launch, which was touted as the country’s first cultivated meat venture, showed that despite the superficial biases, French know-how was now robust enough to chase pilot-scale production rather than pure research. Furthermore, designer Koert van Mensvoort cultured a small batch of beef in 2017 for a public “bistro of the future.” When he tried to cook it for journalists on 2 May 2018, food-safety inspectors sealed the plates and confiscated the meat. The confiscation stressed, paradoxically, that the product existed in adequate quantity and quality to be eaten. This ushered in a technical milestone reached the year before, thankfully, which was made visible only when regulators intervened.
The author hasn't added any updates, yet.