Podcast - GLP-1 Drugs and Cultivated Meat: What’s the Impact on the Food and Agriculture Industry?

Peter Tabor: Hello everybody and welcome to another edition of Eyes on Washington, the podcast series from Holland & Knight, where we look at policy and regulatory issues affecting all manner of client issues. And we wanted to delve into a new area.

I'll introduce myself. My name is Pete Tabor. I am a senior policy advisor here at Holland & Knight in Washington, D.C., and the co-lead of our agriculture and food team. And I'm really excited to be able to start this conversation, what I hope is a series of conversations with a colleague and friend of mine to really explore some issues in the food and agriculture space. Mostly from a policy and regulatory standpoint, but just really scanning the horizon — or whatever term you want to use — covering the waterfront of new issues that we think folks should be aware of and maybe talk to us more about.

So again, you know who I am now, and I'd like to introduce my friend and colleague Jack Bobo. Jack, you want to say a few words? Tell us where you are and your history. We've known each other for many years, so it's great to be talking to you. 

Jack Bobo: It's great to be here. Thanks for inviting me on the program. I think we've known each other for about 20 years, and currently I am the director of the Food Systems Institute at the University of Nottingham in the U.K. We first met, of course, while you were at the Department of Agriculture in the Foreign Agricultural Service and I was at the U.S. Department of State doing global food policy. I spent 13 years at the State Department, but after that had a career working in biotechnology companies, working as a food futurist, and just before joining the university, I was with the Nature Conservancy — some may know it's the world's largest conservation organization — as director of food and water policy. But yeah, I'm really interested in all things that relate to the food system, and so this sounds like a terrific topic to cover.

Peter Tabor: Yeah. Thanks. And yeah, we've fought a few battles together, alongside shoulder to shoulder, particularly when it comes to genetically engineered crops, going back almost 20 years to when those crops were being introduced here in the United States and working through issues that they faced both here domestically from a regulatory standpoint and then abroad with market access. 

But here today, we're here to talk about two topics. I'll mention them both right now, and then we'll delve into each one individually. They are GLP-1 drugs, which are obesity or diabetes drugs, and cultivated meat. So let's jump into GLP-1 drugs —  and we've got a little bit of education to provide to our listeners —  and then to discuss it. And that allows us to have a more deeper discussion of the policy and the implications of what the marketplace looks like.

So I think the first question that we want to answer — ask and then answer — for our listeners is: what are GLP-1 drugs? And how do they work in the body to promote weight loss and diabetes management? And I think a lot of folks are going to know what we're talking about. I'm not going to mention any trade names, but folks know when we're talking about weight loss drugs or diabetes drugs. I think they're very prominently advertised on television, radio, etc., in print. But these are drugs that have been developed and commercialized in past — in recent years —  really helping consumers address obesity. And I think it's important to really understand what these drugs do, but also understand that this is really a paradigm shift for medicine and for understanding obesity. Because I think in the past — and Jack, you can opine on this — obesity was looked at as an issue related to willpower. And if you just follow these steps, etc., you could see results that you're looking at in terms of a healthier body, but then healthier lifestyle and how all that relates. And now the conversation has shifted somewhat to looking at obesity as maybe more of a disease that requires some medical diagnosis and treatment. And so that is where the GLP drugs have come in, because these drugs, they operate to and these are — I think we'll call them glucagon-like peptide-1 drugs — and they are agonists and they're a class of diabetes drugs that help the brain regulate appetite and reduce feelings of hunger. So that's where we are now. And I think from a diabetes standpoint, the drug has seen some success. But then there's this side benefit that's really interesting, and that is it has contributed to weight loss among the users of these drugs. So, Jack, maybe you can delve a little more into that, but that's kind of like the broad definition of what we're looking at. 

Jack Bobo: Yeah , I think it's interesting because, you know, a lot of the things when you're talking about policy and regulation, people know about it — that are listening to this podcast — probably because it impacts their work. But, you know, I think when it comes to GLP-1, a lot of people are aware of it because of their personal lives, because somebody they know are taking it. I think like 1 in 8 Americans have tried these drugs. And so, you know, it's becoming pretty prominent.

I'd like to step back for a second, though, and just talk for a moment about like why does this matter? And how did we get here? Because, you know, I think many of us know that there's an obesity epidemic in the United States and really around the world. And just to put some numbers to that for your listeners, 42 percent of all Americans are obese, 75 percent are overweight or obese. And the rest of the world is, like, coming right along. So this isn't just a U.S. problem, but it's a global challenge. And Americans spend literally tens of billions of dollars on weight loss products that absolutely just don't work. And so, you know, there is a huge demand for something that does work and that there's a need for it. And, you know, back in 2021, you know, I wrote a book Why Smart People Make Bad Food Choices. And in that book, I really talk about the consumer psychology that impacts our decisions. But in the book, I really propose that we focus more on the food environment. How can we reshape our food environment so it simply delivers healthier outcomes? Well, I still think that's the way to go. But I think that, you know, it's a tough sell for many people because you have to really change all the food in the environment around us. And I think that these products provide an easier path for most people to achieve the outcomes they want. And so, you know, I think that we can only expect their use to explode over the next few years.

Peter Tabor: So you've provided incredible context there, and you've provided some percentages. I think it's also, you know, the raw numbers are important to kind of grasp the scale of the issue in terms of obesity. That means that 100 million American adults are considered obese by health standards promulgated by the CDC. And that means 22 million Americans are categorized as severely obese. So this is a problem. And again, you know, for a lot of people, maybe lifestyle changes do result in the weight loss that they're seeking and addressing diabetes. But now we've seen these drugs be available commercially. And I think that kind of goes to the second question, is why have they seen such a surge in popularity? You hinted at that. But I think that what we've seen recently is astonishing.

And maybe after I'm done here, you can comment on whether we've seen this with another drug that's been introduced. And so what we're looking at is a drug that's been introduced to treat diabetes, which, I think, — and you can correct me on this if I'm wrong — which I think means that a lot of times it's going to be prescribed for diabetes and it might be covered by health insurance for diabetes treatment. It has this ancillary or very important side benefit potentially for some users of weight loss, but it might not be covered for weight loss from a health insurance standpoint. And I think that's, you know, an important thing to note. But we're also looking at the initial uptake of these drugs, which is significant. I think certain estimates say that, you know, up to 13 percent of the U.S. population could be on these diabetes/"weight loss" drugs by 2030. And that's, you know, a significant portion of the U.S. population, and that's where we will get in a few minutes, to, you know, the implications for food and agricultural production and consumption. We're already starting to see some of these trends develop. But maybe you can talk a little bit more, Jack, about, you know, why we've seen such a significant surge in their popularity. 

Jack Bobo: I think you're right, though, in what you said. I mean, it's gone from being a diabetes treatment to, for people suffering from obesity to people that, you know, many of them, you know, may not quite be even at that point of obesity yet and are just interested in accessing these products. And you're right also that, you know, for many people, these are just not going to be covered by health insurance. And so, you know, it can be quite expensive for the average person. 

I think that, you know, what's interesting to me, though, is not just where we are today, but, you know, where we're going to be in three to five years. And when I look at the pipeline, you know, there are half a dozen products that are coming along. Some of these are injectables. Some of them are, you know, they're hoping to be, you know, oral. So you're going to be able to take a pill that might make it easier for some people to take them. And I think that as the cost comes down, as government puts pressure on these companies not to charge so much because, you know, they don't want to blow our insurance programs by spending, you know, $1,000 per person. I mean you mentioned the numbers. You know, if 10 million people are spending $1,000 a month on a new drug, that's quickly going to bankrupt the system. And so we're going to have to find alternatives. And if the price comes down and if access increases, you know, it might not be 13 percent of the U.S. population on these products by 2030, it could be 20, 30, 50 percent, because, remember, 42 percent of Americans are obese. So that means there's at least 42 percent that, you know, might want to access these. But a lot of people that are just overweight would access them if they could and if the price was right. And so just the enormity of this needs to be taken into consideration because they're just very few things where consumers are fighting to get a product as opposed to government trying to encourage them to do something that's healthier for them. But, you know, again, I don't want to oversell these products. I mean, our conversation isn't really about, you know, whether or not somebody should take the product. Our conversation is about what are the implications of these products.

Peter Tabor: Yeah, exactly. I think it's important to note, for example, I'm not a health or life sciences expert. My background, like yours, is in food and agriculture policy, regulation, etc. But it is important to lay the background for this conversation to understand what these drugs do, why we've seen this surge in popularity. The backdrop is, you know, there's an obesity epidemic, termed by some. And this drug has rather quickly changed the landscape for a lot of folks in terms of their prospects for diabetes treatment and weight loss. But now it's having these effects that we're seeing with this rapid uptake in food production and consumption patterns. So that gets us to the next question, which is, you know, how is the rising popularity of these GLP-1 drugs impacting consumer food choices and eating habits? And I've seen a lot of anecdotal information that shows, you know, some folks are reporting 20, 25 percent reduction in calories consumed. Differences — and, of course, this is anecdotal because it's personal — but differences in reduced interest in snacks, more interest in fresh fruit, vegetable, dairy, significantly, in some cases, reduced appetite for alcohol. And maybe, Jack, you can talk about this. We'll delve into how this might impact food and agriculture policy. But what are we seeing — or what are you seeing — in terms of how these drugs are impacting consumer choices? 

Jack Bobo: Definitely there was a lot of fear, I think, in the snacking world when these products were first sort of being announced and their impact on people's behavior was being assessed. I think that a lot of the companies have sort of sat back and thought about, OK, well, what is also the opportunity here? And so I think, absolutely, companies that are in the snacking space need to be thinking about this. People tend to, you know, consume less of the sugary and salty snacks. And so it's going to change the types of things they choose. But, you know, food companies also can produce different types of foods. And so I was moderating a session on GLP-1 drugs at a conference in London and at that event, you know, we had different large food companies. And so you have some food companies that are developing new products to help people that are on the drugs to be able to better withstand some of the side effects, you know, which could be nausea, vomiting and other things so that they would be able to maintain use of the products. You have other companies that are developing products for the off ramp so that people don't have to keep using these drugs forever. That at a certain point, if they reach their weight goal, they can have additional products that are going to work within their lifestyle and diet so that they don't rebound, which is a real fear — well, which tends to happen with these products when people stop using them. And then you have other companies that think, well, we can develop natural alternatives so that you could take food products that have the same impact on GLP-1 in the body so that maybe you don't have to take the medical or the drug version. You could just eat different foods or foods with different ingredients. And so I think we're seeing this explosion in innovation in the food space in response to this new trend.

Peter Tabor: Yeah, I think it's important to note, as you said, you know, the way that food and agriculture companies are in a certain sense reacting or responding to these developments. And we've seen different types of reactions. For example, I know that a retail giant — which shall remain unnamed — in an earnings statement early this year, they, I think, raised some eyebrows because, as a retail entity that services everything in grocery to the pharmacy area, they kind of have eyes into consumer behavior and consumer purchases across the board. And they reported that they were seeing a slight pullback in purchasing or spend from customers who were on GLP-1 drugs. And so they were able to observe this trend occurring almost in real time in their stores.

At the same time, we have, and this is kind of interesting to see how focused some of this is — definitely in the United States. And then you're in the U.K. so there was a conference there on it. I would say, you know, perhaps more in the developed world, you know, where we tend to see higher obesity rates. There was another large confection company, sweets and snack and confectionery maker. And they were saying that they're seeing little-to-no impact of the GLP-1 drugs on their volume of sales. But the interesting part there is that 75 percent of their sales are in the emerging markets around the world and they're outside — 75 percent are outside the United States — and a large portion of those sales are in emerging countries. So I think it goes even more to characterize this phenomenon we're seeing is something we're observing in the more advanced markets where there's one, you know, more of an obesity epidemic and two, better capture of data. And I think that is what's driving a lot of this in terms of this understanding. Not only this understanding of the trends we're seeing, but so quickly whereas maybe in past years we might not see this data translated or we might not see this so quickly, but we're seeing these effects and we're able to monitor and observe them. 

Jack Bobo: I think that's definitely right. I think companies are beginning to get a handle on it. And, you know, they're certainly making plans. If they're not, they should be. I think that just from the drug perspective, this is a $70 to $100 billion market potential just on the drug side. And if you have that big a drug side, you're going to have a similar size and scale on the food and agriculture side because, you know, that's a $2 trillion industry. And so if you impact 10 or 15 or 20 percent of it, then you know you're definitely going to have broader repercussions. 

Peter Tabor: Yeah. So that kind of brings us to the next step in this conversation. And that is, you know, what are the potential impacts of these GLP-1 drugs on the food industry, on agriculture production? Because especially in sectors like snacks, fast food and beverages, we're starting to see these impacts being felt. And what your job and my job, to a certain extent, is to help folks understand what these trends mean for their business. And this goes all the way up the chain, because if there's reduced meat consumption, well, that obviously impacts livestock, etc., but that impacts the grain producers as well, who the majority of grain production in the United States is for feed. And so maybe you can talk a little bit about what we're seeing in terms of these trends towards reduced snacking, perhaps different beverage choices perhaps. Again, talking about the population taking these drugs, which could be growing, you know, maybe increased interest in healthier snacks like fruits, vegetables, seafood. 

Jack Bobo: So I think there are a few ways that we could consider this. But I think one is just the, you know, we already said that, you know, it could be 13 percent of consumers on these. I think it could be dramatically more than that. But it's not just the impact that it has on the consumer who's taking the medication, because if they're taking it and they're eating different things, they're probably buying different things for the household. And so I think, as more and more people are taking these products, they're going to have an impact not just on the main person, but the other person in the household. The kids are going to be exposed to a completely different basket. And so as the numbers increase, it's going to have more and more of a spillover effect on others in society. And so, you know, I think there's this multiplier effect of it. I think some of the data suggests that people tend to consume the same amount of protein, but they tend to switch from maybe beef to more poultry. And so it's a little unclear exactly what that impact could have, but that's definitely going to shift demand in the market. I think that, you know, if you think about the fact that, you know, there are 1 or 2 billion people on the planet that are suffering from obesity or overweight, sort of the scale of the potential, you know, globally to impact the entire food system is just enormous. And so companies and, you know — whether that's companies or those in the value chain suppliers — you know, they all need to be thinking about, you know, what would this mean if there was a 10 or 20 percent shift in the kinds of foods that consumers are purchasing? You know, one, how do we prepare for it? Two, what are the implications for global supply chains? Three, how do you get ahead of these trends so you're not getting run over by them? So if you're in the livestock sector  you may feel like, OK, this is, you know, this is a threat to us, but it's also an opportunity because it doesn't just, you know, Americans consume less beef, that doesn't mean we have to produce less beef. That just means there's less demand here in the United States. And that may mean that there's more importance on global trade and global supply chains. And so, you know, that could end up being a net positive for the planet in terms of, you know, just greenhouse gas emissions. Because if the U.S. exports more beef, that reduces pressure on deforestation and other things. And so I think, you know, people should think through not just the direct implications, but the second and third order implications of this shift. 

Peter Tabor: Yeah, I think you touched on a couple of really interesting points. One, which is that household effect, that spillover effect that you referred to, which is, you know, certain people who may be making the purchasing decisions for their household are — if they're taking these drugs, then their purchasing decisions are influenced by their own experience. And by default, their families are I guess part of that process and feeling the effects. And you also mentioned from a policy standpoint, you know, reduction in beef or certain types of meat, which is potential. We're going to see how, you know, how pronounced that effect is, if at all. But it's not necessarily a lose-lose situation for the livestock industry. They'll want to monitor this closely.

Here at Holland & Knight, we work really closely with both USDA, FDA and on Capitol Hill. The Farm Bill, as you know, is being debated. We'll see if we get one this year. It's unlikely, but it's still possible. But these trends are things that we need to factor into those conversations with regulators and with policymakers, because I think that's the goal here, is to really understand these effects and then develop policies that incorporate them and direct resources where they need to be to serve the needs of businesses, you know, address the interests of consumers here and around the world. So I think this is really interesting.

If folks want to delve into this more, I think, you know, I think we'll wrap this up by maybe asking you, Jack, in terms of, you know, how this growth of GLP drugs influences innovation in food technology. I think you highlighted the fact that we're seeing, you know, households perhaps changing their buying preferences. But then there's also, in response to that, there are some effects that I think you alluded to earlier in terms of these GLP-1 drugs. Yes, they address diabetes and obesity, but they can also, you know, lead to some reduction in muscle mass. So there's different trends in terms of food technology that we might want to touch on as we kind of close out this conversation and move to the next topic. But I'll ask you, you know, how you think this trend might influence innovation and food technology in terms of new food products or nutrition-focused technologies.

Jack Bobo: I mean, I was really blown away by the amount of innovation that there is already in the space and that there is plans. So I think, you know, we should definitely stay tuned and understand that. I think that it also drives interest in global supply chains and thinking about trade deals and other things. And so organizations should be considering not just the direct implications, but, you know, what other markets are there for their products and what impact is this going to have, you know, on their sort of longer term trends. 

Peter Tabor: Yeah, I think, as you said, this has these broader implications. If we're looking at 13 or 15 percent of the U.S. population perhaps taking these drugs that's I'd say a realistic number. 13 percent of the U.S. population is approximately 50 million people. But as you said — and I think it's the case — you know, that number could go up higher because it could rise significantly because we're looking at a potential population that's significant, 100 million people. So this is something that that we will want to keep our eye on. We will want to incorporate this into our thinking about policy and regulation going down the road. And, you know, we invite our clients and listeners to contact us and, you know, if they want to delve deeper into this. 

So now we're going to switch topics, and we're going to talk about cultivated meat. And again, I think it's important to start this conversation by really discussing what is cultivated meat? It's a high-profile issue. And going back, Jack, you and I worked on genetically engineered crops and their introduction going back to the mid-'90s, and there's really not as many parallels, when I got started thinking about this, there's not as many parallels as I would like. And you may have some that you want to tease out. So correct me if I'm wrong, but, you know, when we go back to GE crops in the 1990s, this is really directed towards farmers addressing needs on the farm, increasing output, whereas cultivated meat seems to have been introduced really to address issues that are broader and that may be more — it seems almost more consumer-driven as opposed to farmer-driven.

So I'll really quickly, I'll ask this question, I'll attempt to answer it and then I'm going to kick it to you, Jack, in terms of what is cultivated meat? Now, cultivated meat, as I understand it, is our meat products that are genetically meat because they’re cells that are taken from an animal, could be seafood, fish could be poultry, it could be livestock. And it's grown in a medium outside the animal. So it is given nutrients and then it is harvested. But there is no slaughter process. In general terms, the amount of nutrients necessary to raise the meat in a protected environment — in a bioreactor in fact — it requires much less nutrients than raising the entire animal where, you know, we're talking about 60 percent of the animal might go for human food consumption, whereas  in a cultivated meat setting, 100 percent of what you're producing — or essentially 100 percent of what you're producing — is meat that can enter the marketplace. So maybe you can delve a little bit more, Jack, into, you know, put some meat on the bones, pardon the pun, in terms of the definition of, you know, what we're looking at in terms of cultivated meat. 

Jack Bobo: I think you really covered it, you know, it's taking cells from an animal — it could be a biopsy, it could be from a slaughtered animal — and then multiplying those cells. And in a bioreactor, it's fermentation. It's a little bit like, you know, brewing beer or something like that where you multiply the cells. And then at the end of that, you're going to be harvesting it. It could be in a continuous process. And I think at the moment that it's more of a slurry that they're putting together and turning it into a product that, you know, might be more like a, you know, hamburger or meatball if you add some structure to it. But, you know, it's not exactly what we think of as meat today, and so there's still a lot of work to go in terms of turning that slurry of cells into a product that the consumer would recognize as meat. 

Peter Tabor: Yeah. That rounds out, hopefully our listeners understand now, you know — if they didn't already — you know, what we're talking about when we're talking about cultivated meat. The technology's relatively new. I think the first cultivated meat was developed about 10 years ago at Maastricht University in the Netherlands. And so I guess it's in its relative infancy. And we need to also understand that, you know, just as there are with raising animals for human food, production and consumption — there are animal safety and pathogen and bacteria concerns in terms of raising animals, and there's similar — well not similar — but there are concerns as well with product safety for cultivated meat in the sense that, to put it bluntly, I mean yes you are growing these cells for and they become meat cells or fat cells and muscle cells. But you have to be careful that you're not introducing anything else because it will consume that medium as well — those nutrients as well — and they can grow and propagate in that environment. So there are food safety concerns associated with cultivated meat, just as there are with meat conventionally from animals that are born, raised, slaughtered and processed.

So now we shifted to see, you know, what kind of problems we think that cultivated meat has been developed to address, and it kind of circles back to this issue where in the '80s and '90s genetically engineered crops — products with herbicide tolerance or pesticide resistance — those were really developed to address farmer concerns. And now we're talking more about something that's addressing some broader concerns. And I know we're talking about climate change because I think 13 percent of GHG emissions relate to animal agriculture, roughly speaking, we're talking about animal welfare concerns. And so, Jack, maybe you can talk a little bit more about, you know, what these products in the cultivated meat space are really designed to address, what challenges they're designed to address. 

Jack Bobo: I think you touched on the main two that are sort of the moral/ethical reasons that many go into starting these companies or that many venture capitalists are the reason that they're investing. And then the other is the environmental impact of our current food system. You know, just, again, to put that all into perspective, as you said, 10 to 15 percent of all greenhouse gases come directly from the AG sector. Another 10 to 15 percent come from deforestation, 80 percent of which is caused by agriculture, by expanding livestock or, you know, soy production or palm or things like that. And so, you know, the food system impacts about a third of all greenhouse gas emissions. That's almost as much as the energy sector. And we have to find a way of producing that future protein in a sustainable and nutritious and equitable way. You know, we're going to be adding, you know, one-and-a-half to 2 billion people to the planet by 2050. And we can't do that by adding another 20 billion livestock animals. That's probably not going to work. And yet we need to make sure that we nutritiously feed all of those additional people. And so there's this huge challenge of meeting future protein needs in a way that's more sustainable as well as decreasing the impact of the food that we already consume.

Peter Tabor: Yeah, I think it's important to note you raised a couple of interesting points that kind of lead to the next part of the conversation. But one thing in particular is that it looks like, especially considering where cultivated meat is in terms of scale of production — we'll touch on that in a sec — but it looks like this is an effort, perhaps in many cases, it seems to be an effort to complement traditional production because I don't think — at least in the early terms — that cultivated meat is in any position to replace conventional meat production. And it goes to the challenges that we're seeing in cultivated meat space. And I'll touch on three and just mention them and then maybe ask you, Jack, to kind of dig into them a bit. And one is the scalability question. I think we're really looking at, you know, very limited production amounts available now and very limited places. The other is the taste and texture challenge. Ensuring, I think, you know, as opposed to plant-derived proteins that attempt to replace conventional meat, the cultivated meat space is or these products are designed to mimic exactly what you would find from meat from animals born raised in slaughter. And the third is price. Meaning right now, I think we're looking at products that are multiples of two, three, four-x, what their conventional counterparts cost. And so the first and the last one are probably related. The more you increase production, the cheaper it becomes. But maybe you can touch on some of these challenges that the cultivated meat space is facing just from almost like a technological or scalability standpoint. We'll get to the other challenges in a sec. 

Jack Bobo: So, you know, I've had a chance to try these products. And, you know, I tried it in the form of a meatball and meatballs only need to be about 60 percent meat in order to be able to be called a meatball. And so it was interesting. I went down to visit one of the companies with a team from the university here that work on cultivated meat. And about half the people in the group were able to identify which one was the cultivated, and half the group actually got it wrong. We all knew which one was the plant based, I can tell you that. So they definitely, you know, are doing a much better job than plant based in terms of meeting consumer expectations.

I think in terms of scale and cost, I mean, scale is a lot related to cost because in order to build bioreactors that can produce tens of millions of pounds of meat, you know, that's a huge financial investment. And I don't think people are thinking about just how big an investment that is. And it's just going to take time to do it. And we need to figure out how to produce these products at scale. And so just building, you know, a bioreactor that can produce 1,000 pounds of meat a day, it's harder than doing it in a glass vial in the back of your company, you know. So there's a lot of expense in figuring out how these systems are going to work. 

On that cost side, though, you know, I'm not one of those people that are as skeptical that it has to get down to price parity in order for it to be a success. And, you know, the example I give is, well, let's say that they never get cheaper than 10 times more expensive than real meat. Well, that doesn't mean they're useless. I mean, it could be that you add 2 percent of fat or meat to an otherwise hybrid product that might use genetically engineered heme to give it that bloody taste. And now all of a sudden, you've got a hybrid product that's plant-based plus some fermentation heme, plus this cultivated meat in, you know, 2, 3, 5 percent. Well, that's not going to blow the cost of your product, but it could dramatically change the taste profile, the organoleptic properties of that product. 

And so I think the future in many ways is hybrid. And while the companies are very focused on sort of a full meat product, I don't think we have to get there, you know, soon in order for these products to be able to start to find a return on their investment. 

Peter Tabor: Yeah, that's an interesting observation. I think a lot of us have been kind of focused on viewing these products — these cultivated meat products — as, you know, a standalone product whereas what you're indicating is there might be a movement towards incorporating this technology and having it be part of, like you said, a hybrid product. I think there's also, you know, some consumer acceptance challenges that will need to be met. But I also think it's pretty obvious that depending demographically who you're looking at, I think younger segments of the population are definitely more open to this type of technology in their food. I think also because they may be — and this cuts across all of the demographic or age groups — but some folks and some younger folks may be more inclined to factor in different issues like climate and animal welfare into their purchasing decisions. And they may study up on this stuff to really better understand it. And then we'll get into the policy-making atmosphere or environment here in the United States in a sec. But if you've got any comments on that thought, you know, like what we're looking at in terms of the broader food system, consumer demand of this technology becomes more available or more prevalent. 

Jack Bobo: Yeah, I think that younger people tend to be open to newer products, and so they're going to be open to giving these products a try. You know, if they don't meet their taste expectations, then I think they'll suffer. I think that's been one of the problems with the plant-based products, that people are willing to give it a try, but, you know, they're not going to keep coming back if it doesn't, you know, meet their needs. And so, you know, I think that those who don't think there's any consumer market are probably a little bit too pessimistic about how this technology is going to develop. I think they meet a lot of the taste profile the way they are now. You know, when they scale, we'll just have to wait and see whether or not they continue to, you know, meet that expectation. 

Peter Tabor: Yeah. So this technology is interesting in that there's been a tremendous amount of attention, or perhaps you could even term it "hype," around these products. But they are available in only very limited quantities. And so I think that the test will be to see what we, you know, how this technology can be ramped up. We should circle back as well to, you know, we have a deep understanding of the regulatory landscape, meaning FDA and USDA have a joint agreement to regulate this technology. FDA's role is for the cell cultivation, if you will, and cell line selection, etc., and then when it's harvested, they use the same term as conventional agriculture does. Then USDA takes over. And, you know, that system has not really, I mean, it's out there. It's publicly available for review. It's agreed upon. And it creates the opportunity for these companies to actually put something on the market. Well, it just hasn't been tested as much because there aren't that many products available yet. We'll see how that regulatory approach works as the level of activity in this sector grows. 

Jack Bobo: I think the companies have been relatively happy with how the regulators have approached this, including, I think the livestock sector that wanted there to be a robust role for USDA in the process. I think many of the cultivated meat companies originally wanted to be regulated by FDA. I think that would have been a mistake. One, because USDA regulates meat. So if you want to be called meat, you better have a role for USDA. And two, because FDA doesn't have preemption. And so if products were only regulated by FDA, they might have states that added regulatory burden to that, whereas USDA's rules tend to have that preemption. And so they're less likely to end up with state-level additional regulatory requirements. 

Peter Tabor: Well, and that's a perfect segue way into the last portion of this conversation. And that is, you know, we talked briefly about the regulatory landscape, which is pretty straightforward. The policy landscape is vastly different right now because I think these cultivated meat products, even though they're largely unavailable around the country — around the United States — you know, due to the issues with scalability costs, etc. But from a legislative standpoint, at the state level, we've seen two states so far ban the sale and in some cases manufacture of these products. That's Alabama and Florida. Their legislatures have banned the sale of cultivated meat. And then several states — eight or nine at least — have passed standards or enacted standards for labeling of these products because they want to ensure that they're not marketed as conventional meat. And my understanding is that the cultivated meat companies are very forthright and willing and able to ensure that the consumers understand you are not purchasing a conventional meat product, you're purchasing a cultivated meat product. So they do actually want to differentiate their product from conventional meat. 

Jack Bobo: I think that's right. And so I think that every one of the companies wants people to know what they're doing and what they're consuming. I think there'll probably be some disagreement about whether or not it's a label that might turn off the consumer. And, you know, I think there's a bit of danger in that. Early when these products — well five years ago, if we'd been talking about this, we wouldn't have been talking about cultivated meat. We'd be talking about the term "clean meat," which many people haven't heard of, but that was the old term of art for these products. And I actually spent 10 months working with the companies to get them to stop using that term because I think it denigrated the livestock sector. It created tension. And sort of to their credit, the industry sort of all agreed that they wouldn't call it clean meat, which sort of implied that the current conventional meat was dirty and unethical. And so I do think there's an important conversation that has to happen about whether or not these products are actually good for the food, the livestock sector or whether or not, you know, it's competition. And I think, ultimately, that the future of protein demands that we have alternatives, whether it's plant based, fermentation or cultivated in order to meet those future protein requirements. And I think that's in the best interest of the livestock sector. 

Peter Tabor: Yeah, I think, Jack, you and I have been working on food and agriculture issues for 20-plus years. And that number has been out there for so long. You know, we're going to have to feed 9 billion people by the year 2050. And so I think it's — from a policy standpoint, I think, and a regulatory standpoint, I think that challenge needs to be met with every tool we have available to us from a regulatory standpoint and a policymaking standpoint. Our job, I think, is to just share or raise awareness about these technologies, what they really are, what they aren't, and then help our clients or help stakeholders really engage with the policymakers and the regulators to share information and to ideally move policy in a direction that makes these technologies available. And to a certain extent —  yes, we're trying to address some big picture issues here — but also, you know, there's a consumer choice factor that I think, you know, the marketplace is important and it determines, you know, some of these outcomes a little bit. But we also, you know, I think policymakers increasingly, you know, whether it's a climate change issue that states and agricultural states are facing, there's an increasing acknowledgment that, you know, we need more tools available to us, and hopefully we can make as many of these tools available, you know, across the board for interested consumers, interested food producers. 

Jack Bobo: Totally. When I look forward, I see a lot of opportunity. You know, if we need 50 percent more protein by 2050, you know, we can either do it by expanding animal AG, which means adding 20 billion animals to the planet and cutting down 10 or 15 percent of the forest. That's actually not a great future for the livestock sector because if demand increases and supply of real meat increases, their income is flat. On the other hand, if demand increases by 50 percent and you meet that future demand through alternative proteins like cultivated meat, well, their income has to go up if demand increases, but supply of real meat is flat. And so I think we often sort of misunderstand which future is best for us. And so I see a real opportunity for both innovation and meeting the future protein needs, but in a way that actually increases the income of livestock producers today in the United States, or at least in countries that are, you know, very productive. 

Peter Tabor: Yeah, I think that's also really important to note that, you know, from an animal agriculture standpoint, the United States really is leading the way in terms of producing with fewer emissions. Livestock production in the United States is, it employs a lot of technologies. There's companies employing technologies to capture methane and use it in their operations and reduce overall GHG emissions. And I think this is, you know, just another conversation that needs to be had around different production methods. And so we'll see this. We’ve seen at the federal level. We haven't really seen a push on the cultivated meat front, although it did come up in discussions around the National Defense Authorization Act. And we're well-positioned to kind of monitor all that and provide inputs and opportunities for engagement with policymakers on this. But it's something that I think folks need to be aware of.

You know, both of these topics we've discussed really relate to consumer interest in addressing, you know, improving their health or greater awareness about, you know, effects of food production. And I think those conversations are more and more — whereas I think they were more farmer-centric and related to the food producers, they're happening in the broader environment. So I think it's smart for us to, you know, really have these conversations and raise awareness about, you know, what these issues really are, what the implications really are. So I thank you, Jack, for joining me in this conversation. Hopefully we can do it again. I think we've discussed, you know, possibly a couple of other topics that hopefully our listeners will be interested in, but I’ll allow you to close with a few thoughts. 

Jack Bobo: I guess my only thought would be that I think that both of these conversations highlight the importance of transparent, predictable and science-based regulations. If you have those things, you can have much more innovation, and that creates consumer choice and consumers then can decide what's best for them. But I think that, you know, that science foundation is critical. And that's part of the message to policymakers and others that, you know, create a conducive environment, and technology will come. 

Peter Tabor: Yeah, that's a great note to end on. I think in both our careers, we've been extolling the virtues of science-based regulation because it really does allow technologies to solve problems. And it also, you know, in a sense will allow consumers greater options available to them and at the same time as we're trying to address some of these problems that we're becoming more aware of.

Well, thank you, Jack. Really appreciate you taking some time today. We’ll do this again, hopefully. And thank you to all our listeners. And we'll talk to you again soon.