Emerging food technologies, from gene editing to cultured meat, may not be a new topic, but it’s one that producers must stay on top of as they look toward tomorrow. Competitiveness, exports and innovation’s role in reshaping global protein markets could prove incredibly challenging without keen awareness and a plan for the future.
Cultured Meat: Niche or Competitor?
During a forward-looking discussion at the American Association of Swine Veterinarians (AASV) meeting in Las Vegas, Eric Schulze, chief technology officer of Omeat, described cellular agriculture as animal cells grown outside the body for human food. While there are many food products approved for sale outside of the U.S., the FDA has cleared six in this country, already having cleared six in this country, including a cultivated bacon product last year.
“We are much further ahead than people realize in gene editing in this area,” Schulze says. He noted that cattle convert roughly 24 to 30 calories of feed into one calorie of beef, while “the current efficiency in our (lab-based) system is three to one” because cultured cells don’t require bones, immune systems, or reproduction. However, high electricity, and pharmaceutical-grade input costs remain barriers to scale.
In pork, Schulze acknowledged limited development so far: “I really want to see more in the pork space, but for now it’s been limited to bacon.”
The implication being that cultured pork is not yet a volume competitor, but blended products or niche offerings could emerge, especially in markets receptive to biotechnology.
Global Implications
Dave Shoup, an Ohio veterinarian and pork producer, brought the conversation home with a pointed question to the panel of experts about international acceptance of these tech-centric products. With U.S. pork still facing hurdles in certain export markets over gene editing, he asked whether cultured meat might receive broader global acceptance — particularly in Asia-Pacific nations — compared to gene-edited livestock.
Schulze says, “Asia-Pacific nations have largely accepted them. That’s where you can purchase them right now,” noting stronger consumer tolerance for genetic engineering and cultured meat in import-dependent regions. In contrast, he said Europe remains more restrictive.
This verbal exchange underscored a critical point for producers: regulatory and consumer attitudes abroad directly affect competitiveness at home.
Gene Editing: A Regulatory Disadvantage?
University of California-Davis animal genomics professor Alison Van Eenennaam warns that the biggest disruption may not be the technology itself, but rather, regulatory disparity.
“The biggest disruptor is going to be the superiority of the other countries regulatory approaches,” she says. “Developing nations are going to leapfrog us.”
According to Van Eenennaam, if U.S. gene editing remains mired in regulatory uncertainty, U.S. producers could end up losing out. She adds, “While other pork-producing nations move forward, producers abroad could gain health, efficiency, or sustainability advantages over our domestic producers.”
Consumer Perception & Policy Risk
Ashley Johnson, director of food policy for NPPC, noted that many policymakers and consumers “have put everything in this black box of scary things” when it comes to biotechnology. She notes that distinctions between gene editing, GMOs and cultured meat are often lost.
For his part, Patrick Webb, assistant chief veterinarian with the National Pork Board, emphasized the industry’s role in clarity and preparedness for not only things like foreign animal disease, but technology that is not well understood.
He says, “Our role is to make sure that we help producers understand what the technology is, and then what the effect of that technology may be in the marketplace.”
Of course, that marketplace includes exports, which are nearly 30% of U.S. pork production. Webb adds a sobering reminder by adding, “that goes away overnight if our markets close.”
Leading Through Disruption
What are the biggest disruptions ahead?
• Van Eenennaam points to regulatory stagnation.
• Johnson cites growing distrust in food science.
• Schulze notes gene-edited animals themselves could outcompete cultured systems.
• Webb focuses on foreign animal disease and trade interruptions.
For pork producers, the message was clear: innovation is accelerating globally. The real disruption may hinge less on laboratory breakthroughs and more on regulation, trade policy and consumer trust.
