Climate protection is more important than a clear conscience

Lab tank chicken breast: Migros invests in the nutrition of the future. To do this, a large distributor cooperates with the Israeli food company Supermeat. In just three years, poultry products from the retort should be on the shelves in Switzerland. Pros, according to the manufacturer: no animal suffering, less waste of resources, less climate impact.

But is lab chicken really an ethically sound alternative to climate-killing animal husbandry? The likelihood that the plan will not work is high. Large investments in the food technology industry lead to economic restrictions, as a result of which environmental problems are not solved, but only shifted. Instead of saving the world, the emissions of the companies involved may actually increase carbon emissions. The production of laboratory meat requires a huge amount of energy. This only makes sense if the electricity comes from renewable sources. Otherwise, greenhouse gases from animal husbandry will only be replaced by huge amounts of CO₂ from burning fossil fuels. It sounds almost absurd when food companies announce their expansion plans in the midst of a global energy crisis.

Of course, there are advantages to lab-grown meat: since it can replace millions of livestock, it requires less pasture and less water. Fewer cattle means less methane emissions from their digestive tracts, and water bodies are no longer oversaturated with ammonia from animal manure. In addition, it is no longer necessary to slaughter animals to grow meat. But is this enough for sustainability?

Reliable studies on the environmental impact of laboratory meat are rare—the industry is silent. It makes you doubt. Scientific projections, based on the limited data available, indicate that laboratory chicken may have a greater environmental impact than conventional poultry. So from an ethical point of view, it would hardly be an ideal choice.

In addition, there are high costs: while growing animal cells is more efficient than fattening animals, their complex composition makes them expensive. And working with living cells without an immune system still requires completely microbial-free production. In addition to high initial investments, the risk of production losses is high. Can technology get rid of these shortcomings? If not, it becomes difficult with sustainability and competitiveness.

Let’s make a prediction: it’s 2026. In addition to veal loin and plant-based burgers, the Migros supermarket under Zurich’s main train station also has chicken pieces from Supermeat. Who would take advantage of an offer that can’t compete with plant-based products on price and doesn’t have more environmental benefits than regular chicken? Less animal suffering is good, but climate change is more important. Other substitute products are already being criticized for saving resources due to cost pressure and difficult processing.

So Migros would do well to critically observe developments – and, if necessary, pull the cord.