Cellular agriculture – the propagation of animal tissues in-vitro using cell culturing techniques as well as biomass and precision fermentation – has generated tens of billions of dollars in private investment, globally. The potential benefits and promises are widely discussed: climate and water savings, personalized nutrition, local and regionalized food systems, and economic development, among others1,2,3,4. And yet, in 2025, the landscape for cellular agriculture is radically different than it was just one or two years ago. In North America, cellular agriculture has been conceptualized synonymously as an extension of ultra-processed foods, an opaque big-pharmaceuticals industry, and an expert-class of researchers and politicians hostile toward traditional agri-food industry in the pursuit of climate neutrality. Cultural backlash has bled into legislative changes, where in the United States, states such as Florida are passing bans on the sale of cellular agriculture products5. In Europe, anti-Genetic Modification (GM) sentiment and skepticism may complicate and stymie regulation pathways6.

Scholars recognize that novel directions for the cellular agriculture industry are required to support resilient and fair food systems7; however, concrete research recommendations must be advanced to achieve this goal. This is crucial at a time when it remains unknown how exactly cellular agriculture will permeate agri-food systems. Informed by previous research8 and collaborations, this piece recommends three directions for research to pursue more socially and politically desirable futures for industry that may lower political friction with incumbent agrifood business; support more informed public engagement, marketplace choice, and food safety regulations; as well as foster stronger public agency over emergent agri-food technologies. These directions are as follows: exploring deeper forms of integration and collaboration with conventional agriculture, disseminating more open and accessible research and products, and advancing accessible small and medium scale production systems (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Research directions supporting more socially desirable futures for the cellular agriculture industry.

Full size image

Main text

Exploring possibilities for integration into conventional agri-food systems

While earlier discussions of cellular agriculture technology promised the next steak, the discourse has softened. Now, lab-grown products are being integrated into hybridized products – the promise is not about replacement of meat cuts, but integration into processed protein products9. Currently, much research and commercial attention is given toward hybridized cellular and plant- based products (e.g., Impossible Burger, Eat Just, Perfect Day). Combining cultivated cells with plant-derived proteins can reduce costs of cellular agriculture and increase its sensory characteristics, getting products to market quicker10.

While ingredient production for processed foods is a promising pathway for cellular agriculture inputs into supply chains, deeper forms of value chain integration are possible9. Work with farmers and breeders can establish markets for rare and high-quality livestock tissues for cell lines, in addition to exploring opportunities for the on-farm co-production of cellular agriculture and livestock-derived products11. Scenarios can be envisioned wherein farmers reduce herd size, compensated by bioreactors fermenting and/or culturing proteins and fats12. Techno-economic assessments (TEAs) are required to model and evaluate such hybridized conventional-cellular agriculture systems; however, as of yet, TEA studies of cellular agriculture have primarily explored standalone bioreactor designs and facilities13.

Integration between cellular and conventional agriculture also occurs at broader scales and across value chains. Biproducts from conventional agri-food systems can be sourced as inputs from operations within, adjacent-to, or nearby cellular production facilities14. Creating more circular and tightly coupled resource loops for feedstock and other inputs mitigates embodied carbon emissions across the life cycle of the cellular agriculture product15,16. Identifying opportunities for resource circularity requires research into lower impact and locally sourced materials, as inputs. For example, circular agriculture production systems may be incentivized as alternatives to fetal bovine serum are developed with alternative grow media that can, ideally, be cost-effective, animal- free, as well as regionally sourced. Hydrolysates of various forms of cattle feed (e.g., grasses and pellets) can induce cell growth with less fetal bovine serum inputs17. Decellularized banana and spinach leaves, mycelia, and other unexplored materials have promise to act as scaffolding materials for cell cultivation18,19,20. Further place-based research into regional materials that can replace current inputs will pave the way for deeper forms of integration between cellular and conventional agriculture industry.

Driving open and transparent communication of research findings

A suite of authors and practitioners are exploring opportunities for open science, social financing, and what may be considered more just cellular agriculture development pathways21,22. Communication regarding the uncertainties and omissions of industry impacts is needed in these scenarios. For example, there is debate over the actual climate implications of the technology where, depending on the constitution of local power grids, energy intensive facilities may generate significant emissions23. Further, decarbonized scenarios for cellular agriculture production will generate greater demand for critical minerals that may exceed primary production capacity for some materials24. Consequential lifecycle assessments are required to assess the possible environmental uncertainties of cellular agriculture production, recognizing broader impacts and tradeoffs across coupled social-ecological systems16. As technologies scale, such assessments ought to be grounded in real, rather than speculative, data.

Uncertainties regarding cellular agriculture production are not limited to environmental impacts

How the industry may transform the countryside, and if and under what policy conditions agricultural and grazing lands are rewilded, remain unexplored questions12,25. Further, how cellular agriculture-derived products interact with deep cultural ties to diverse protein sources within Indigenous, hunter, angler, and rural communities, merits deeper reflection26. Integrating social and economic impacts into assessments of cellular agriculture outcomes can better anticipate some of these challenges27,28.

Open communication regarding the use of GM cellular agriculture is also required to gain public trust. Immortalized cell lines may or may not leverage GM techniques (e.g., gene editing or viral transfection to introduce desired genetic modifications)29, while precision fermentation technologies genetically modify microorganisms to produce desired molecules. Leveraging alternatives to direct genetic manipulation of cellular agriculture inputs may be more socially acceptable30. Where GM tools are used, communicating the similarity of cellular agriculture with familiar fermentation technologies that employ these same techniques (e.g., biopharmaceuticals as well as the production of rennet and insulin) is a potential strategy. In either case, whether or not leveraging GM technologies, clear communication from researchers and companies regarding their production techniques is desirable and necessary for public accountability.

Funding and governance frameworks will also play key roles in shaping open and transparent cellular agriculture research directions. Initial frameworks relied upon private sector investment, venture capital, and high-profile endorsements that have incentivized shortcuts (e.g., use of animal-based ingredients, over-hyped valuations), challenging the industry’s reputation and delivery on its most prescient goals31. Increasing government commitments (in funding and regulation) are required and are indeed now occurring, spurring trust and confidence in the nascent industry32. There is substantial opportunity for open science and communication with funding models now shifting from private toward public-private research and development. Instruction can be taken from the emerging field of artificial intelligence (AI), which is seeing massive public investment in infrastructure and basic research, in contrast with private investment that tends to emphasize commercial application33. While governments are at the forefront of establishing ethical ‘red lines’ for AI, separating market from public interest is a challenge34. This merits consideration as similar directions now unfold in the cellular agriculture industry.

Scaling up and down and out

Researchers argue that scaling out small and medium scales of production is achievable but inefficient for mass-market penetration, compared to scaling-up to high volume production at single sites35. Bioreactors that can proliferate cells at massive volumes are needed to achieve this goal, in addition to scaling meat fabrication through the use of automated biofabrication and 3D- printing technologies36,37. Foundational knowledge regarding these key technologies should be open and accessible to facilitate collaboration and enable quicker pathways to scale. Open science regarding these technologies for cellular agriculture, especially including cell lines and bioreactors, will support broader participation within the industry alongside a more robust innovation ecosystem that is no longer hindered by limiting infrastructures21.

Where cost and size of bioprocessing scales upward, however, access to cellular agriculture technology likely decreases – a key concern for farmers, researchers, and the public11. Cellular agriculture technologies and products must scale not just through the size of bioreactors or the vertical integration of single firms, but through scaling out smaller-scale units for localized production and distribution38,39. Technologies that are downscaled may be more useful to prospective producers as well as accessible to the public40. This affords the opportunity to replicate and multiply production systems, owned by a larger variety of companies, organizations, and individuals, rather than rely on the dominance a singular set of large-scale companies41. With lower cost of infrastructure and greater public familiarity with cellular agriculture as a food production technique, alternative governance models can be explored such as cooperative ownership systems, neighbourhood or borough-scale distribution chains, among other as-of-yet unimagined approaches.

Outlook

Cellular agriculture emerged as a response to public concerns over animal welfare and the social and environmental state of conventional protein production. However, the industry has and continues to face significant political backlash from those skeptical of its health implications and interactions with conventional agri-food industry. Natural and social scientists are well positioned to lead conversation and the pursuit of more socially desirable futures for the industry. A future for cellular agriculture that is more strongly integrated with conventional agri-food systems, that is not only scaled-up but down and out as well, and that is openly communicative and curious in exploring its potential social, economic, and ecological uncertainties will likely be better accepted. While these considerations have already been advocated and debated for several years, they have yet to be tied to concrete research recommendations.

To arrive at this future, there is need for research into a more open and decentralized industry. Cellular agriculture firms that work in concert with conventional agri-food actors (farmers, processors) will likely face a path to commercialization with less political resistance. Further development of commercial opportunities and scales of production that are suitable for primary producers will better integrate the industry within conventional agri-food systems. Open communication regarding the promise and shortcomings of cellular agriculture is needed, alongside exploration of alternative pathways (or pathways adjacent) to genetic modification. Notwithstanding the need to scale-up production for mass market penetration and affordability, research is also needed to produce downscaled cellular agriculture models to be owned and operated by many agri-food system actors, rather than singular biotech or agri-food companies. With such efforts supported, cellular agriculture will likely face a less fraught pathway to public acceptance.