What this innovation-profile is based on
Finding crucial information on this topic isn’t very easy. However, talking with important actors in the field, reading scientific articles, reports and the press helped me to write the following review. It is of course bound to evolve. If you want to share pieces of information that could improve it, please let me know in the comments or the contact form.
What is this innovation path
Livestock production is a growing problem on a global scale, and especially in Europe. The main issues at stake are animal welfare, environmental sustainability, and human health. Despite this, developed countries inhabitants seem attached to animal products. Thus, cultivating meat and other animal products could be a solution. Simply said, it consists in growing animal tissue in a controlled environment using cellular technology, thereby making the raising and killing for food unnecessary.
As beautifully says Sentience Politics, this approach shows great potential of meeting all the requirements of a humane, sustainable and healthy form of meat production. But it comes with important scientific, technical, business, cultural and legislative challenges, which could be temporary obstacles to cost-competitiveness. If you want more information on why we could need cultured alternatives to animal products, I recommend you to read this report.
For now, what matters is to understand the goal of this innovation review : exploring the idea of “founding a start-up working on cultured animal products in Europe”. Over the past few years, developing cultured animal products has essentially been targeted by start-ups in the US and in Israel. But not so much has been done in Europe, even though things are moving.
Thus, this report is aimed at giving readability to potential start-up founders and other actors of the ecosystem. You will see that some elements are specific to cellular agriculture, while some others, like business opportunities exploration, must also take into account the broader picture of the food tech industry.
Table of contents
- Opportunities for cellular agriculture start-ups
- The state of the art
- Sectoral investment trends
- Corporate enthusiasm
- Government programs
- Agrifood tech funds
- Challenges facing cellular agriculture start-ups
- Research funding
- Product realism
- Consumer acceptance
- Competition from other food techs
- How high-impact can clean meat start-ups be
- Impact of clean meat
- Impact of founding a cultured meat start-up
- Should you try this option ?
- Common background
- The everyday life of a founder
- Success factors
- Is it better than the other options ?
- Working on plant-based substitutes
- Working as a cellular agriculture researcher
- Working in a political organization
- How to get started ?
- Join a community
- Learn about the industry
- Find a co-founder
- Writing minimum viable plans
- Incubators and Accelerators
- How to succeed once you’re in
- Final words
- The Author
Opportunities for cellular agriculture start-ups
The state of the art
There is only one publicized actor in Europe. Mosa Meat, which was co-founded by Professor Mark Post, created the first cultured hamburger back in 2013. The Maastricht-based start-up has now set an ambitious new target : it wants to bring a commercialised lab meat product to European consumers by 2021. Apart from that, little information is available.
However, I have found that the Good Food Institute is very likely to expand its activities in Europe, since they recently published a job offer in the region. This means that an environment aimed at helping start-ups to develop could emerge. Moreover, discussions I had helped me to discover that some people are setting up their company in France, Germany, and the UK. It is reasonable to think there are other people working on it off the radar, while they may be very few – let’s speculate less than 30.
Sectoral investment trends
According to AgFunder, in the last three years, investment activity in food and agriculture innovation has increased. In the first half of 2017, agrifood tech startups in Europe raised 674 million euros . Note : these figures don’t tell us about cellular agriculture and alternatives to animal products, but just about the food tech sector.
What are the most active countries ?
The UK is the most active European country for agrifood tech investment, with 21 startups (out of 79) raising funding in H1. Next come France and Germany, where nine startups raised rounds in each country. Ireland and Italy both contributed eight deals during the period, with Holland contributing five and Sweden four. The remaining countries of Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Latvia, Norway, Russia, Slovakia, Spain, and Switzerland contributed three deals or less. 
Important to note : the majority of the activity is at a funding seed stage, “highlighting the relative immaturity of the space in the region.” 
According to AgFunder again, European companies have quickly and widely picked up food tech and agtech as a strategic priority :
Large European companies like Nestlé, Rabobank, and Unilever all have platforms to stay on top of emerging startups and technologies in food and agriculture; for Rabobank, it’s the multi-location FoodBytes! business competition and accelerator program Terra.
Corporates are also getting involved in externally organized and managed initiatives like the European FoodNexus Startup Challenge, which aims to identify and accelerate leading food and agtech startups. Launched in seven European countries, including Denmark, Spain, and The Netherlands the challenge, coordinated by StartLife, will help startups grow by connecting them to corporate partners, including Unilever, Nutreco and FrieslandCampina, a dairy giant. 
When it comes to cultured meat especially, we can note that Mosa Meat has secured the backing of two industry heavyweights : Switzerland’s largest meat producer, Bell Food Group, and the VC arm of medicines and vaccines developer Merck, M Ventures. This is a good sign for the development of clean meat in Europe.
Some governmental initiatives are aimed at fostering the development of start-ups at all phases, from applied research to scaling up internationally. The European Commission has its Horizon2020 program, an $80 billion fund to stimulate early-stage research and innovation across sectors and bring new technologies to market across Europe. The program requires the public sector and the industry, including start-ups, to work together in delivering innovation. One of the former recipients of this program has been a food tech company, so it reasonable to think that such governmental initiatives shouldn’t be neglected. 
Agrifood tech funds
The following funds are not necessarily focused on cellular agriculture, but they show enthusiasm for food tech innovation :
In December 2016 The Netherlands witnessed the launch of a new seed fund, Future Food Fund, dedicated to early-stage food and agtech startups and backed by the Dutch government. Other European agrifood tech funds includeAnterra Capital,CapAgro, and Finistere Ventures, which recentlyopened a new office in Ireland. US acceleratorThe Yield Lab also has a presence in Ireland.Aqua-Spark in the Netherlands is focused specifically on seafood and aquaculture technology startups.
But perhaps there’s still not enough going on in Europe as Anterra recently opened an office in Boston, US to ‘export’ European technologies and startup teams to the US, likely to benefit from larger markets and, perhaps, better exit opportunities. 
However, funds dedicated to cellular agriculture don’t seem to exist yet.
Challenges facing cellular agriculture start-ups
Many parts of this section contain pieces of information coming from Sentience Politics’ report. To go further and find the sources of what is said here, I invite you to read it.
Much of the basic technology research needed to mass produce cultured meat has yet to be done. Most research into cellular agriculture to date has been undertaken as isolated projects, but due to the absence of widespread academic interest, these promising initiatives lack of funding, which compromises their development.
Clean meat is expected to have the same (appealing) properties of conventional meat. Today, it’s not yet the case. If it is possible to improve taste, texture and nutritional composition, significant improvements are still needed. According to Sentience Politics, improving ground beef products to the point of market-competitive texture is much less challenging and therefore remains the primary focus for now.
Culture medium : progress in this area is severely hindered by the fact that optimal cell lines have not yet been found, as individual cell lines often require distinct medium formulations to proliferate. Biomass from micro-algae seems the preferred source for the nutrients needed in culture media, however scaling up its production poses technical challenges, which are on the way to be resolved, but not by actors having shown an interest in cellular agriculture.
Energy requirements : whether or not the energy requirements present a problem depends on the efficiency of renewable energy sources, which may improve in the future thanks to rapid developments in solar power and other renewables.
Muscle production : to achieve muscle tissue that has the potential to fully replicate meat, multiple cell types are required, which can involve 3D cultures. 
Cell sources : there are two possible cell sources to form tissue engineered cellular agriculture products : primary cells isolated from the original tissue, or cell lines. There is much debate as to the optimal cells to use in terms of animal type, breed, and tissue from which the cells are taken. 
More details on technological challenges in this article.
In June 2016, the production cost of the only private company making cultured beef was 36 000€/kg, which is far less than the cost of the first burger unveiled in 2013 (650 000€/kg). One leading researcher said (in late 2015) that combining pharmaceutical bioreactor technology to existing tissue culture techniques can already reduce costs to 60€/kg of cultured ground beef.
Today, at the end of 2018, these costs are likely to have plummeted. Actually, Mosa Meat thinks it can bring down the cost per unit of products made in their pilot plant to 9€, with further savings to follow. 
Europe is not a single market, which means there are many borders, cultures, and market characteristics. Sometimes government regulation on food safety and certification can very, which can be a limit to scaling the business. “Scaling the process” has clearly been identified as a barrier for cellular agriculture.
Another challenge might be that European are typically more risk-averse than their American counterparts, according to many entrepreneurs. 
More, the start-up ecosystem seems to be less well-defined than in the US, which can pose some readability issues.
As AgFunder sums it up, to help agrifood tech in Europe grow, the region needs to focus on making resources and opportunities available to entrepreneurs in order to capitalize on the early-stage bets and help them successfully mature. 
The new regulatory pathway for clean meat products in the European Union is relatively clear. Cultured meat is recognized as “novel foods” – which means companies should get an authorization from the European Commission before entering the market -, but according to Sentience politics, “the relative infancy of the science behind it means that current food industry regulations are generally not prepared for commercial production at any significant scale. If you want to know more about the new European regulation, here is an analysis applied to clean meat.
Studies carried out on European people is very rare. Faunalytics advanced works concern essentially American people. Happily enough, I have found some cases mentioned in Sentience politics’ report :
A small-scale survey of Dutch consumers found that, when asked if they were willing to try cultured meat once it becomes available, being given information about its environmental benefits caused positive responses to increase from 25% to 43%, a near-doubling compared with basic informing about the technology itself. Recent online polls conducted on social news media sites have shown that 7 out of every 10 respondents would like to try cultured meat once it becomes available.
There could be some “argumentative” objections about “unnaturality”, foetal bovine serum, or the fact that clean meat doesn’t try to educate people to change their attitudes. But all of them can easily be countered :
- Culturing meat is just reproducing the “natural” cell growth process currently happening in animal bodies. If not using animals can seem to be “artificial” , the end result is as just “real” as conventional meat, and thus poses no greater heath risk : in fact, since it is manufactured in a controlled environment, cultured meat is far less likely to contain harmful by-products, unhealthy fats, and food-borne pathogens than its conventional counterpart.
- FBS use is temporary. All actors of the field know that only cultured products without FBS are ethically acceptable and economically viable. They put all their efforts into replacing it with plants, algae and fungi.
- The development of cultured meat does contribute indirectly to a long-term change in social norms and attitudes. Indeed, by eliminating the need to rely on conventional meat and defending this everyday behaviour, cultured meat makes it psychologically easier to care about nonhuman animals both on an individual and on a political level.
Concerning risks of consumer rejection, FoodNavigator also cites studies showing that consumers from southern European countries, which have established culinary traditions, seem to be fairly reticent while consumers from the UK, Netherlands, Belgium and the US are the most receptive.
As explained in this article, these existing studies of consumer acceptance and public perception remain informative, but it is important to recognise the potential for perceptions to change.
An important part of this section has been written thanks to elements shared in this report. I invite you once again to read it.
Competition from other food techs
Cellular agriculture start-ups are not the only ones on the market. Other type of innovations are aimed at “revolutionizing” the sector. I have identified :
- Insect farming
- Crop technology improvement
Note : algae-growing is not only a competitor. Indeed, they could also be an ally for cultured meat companies, but it depends on what algae companies decide to do. If they work on algae biofuels, that can be interesting for cell’ ag’ people, as micro-algae seems to be the preferred source of biomass needed in the meat cultivation process. Thus, the acceleration of algae biofuels could well benefit to cultured meat development.
Also important : for the moment, competition between clean meat companies don’t seem to be an issue at all.
To say the least, the institutional landscape in relation to cultured meat is yet to be shaped. However, a crucial question is how governments could provide financial and training support for small-scale (meat, or not) producers who want to adopt cultured meat production.
This short document produced by the European Parliament deals with the role of institutions in the development of cultured meat.
How high-impact can clean meat start-ups be
We shouldn’t mistake “impact of building a clean-meat start-up” for “general impact of clean-meat”.
Impact of clean meat as a whole
As large-scale industrial processes don’t exist yet, this section is quite speculative. Here is a sum up of what we know to this day. Research cited has been essentially conducted in Europe. You can find more in Sentience Politics’ report, which has helped me a lot to find these elements :
- Environmental impact : life cycle analyses have so far predicted that cultured meat would require 99% lower land use and 82-96% lower water use than its animal agriculture equivalents.  Energy use predictions are higher due to the electrical energy that would be needed to provide sufficient heat to the culturing process.  However, on the whole, cultured meat is expected to be largely more resource efficient than animal agriculture, especially when predictions of future meat consumption are take into account. 
- Zoom on environmental pollution : cultured meat would produce 78-96% less greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than conventional meat.  Replacing all meat production with cultured meat could reduce EU emissions by two orders of magnitude.  It would also eliminate the need for manure disposal and management.  Instead, clean meat could use monitored and quality-controlled filtration systems. 
- Human health : sterile production makes producing meat from cell cultures safer than conventional production through animal husbandry.  Moreover, the conventional risks of zoonotic infection are not present, and antibiotics are not required during production.
- Animal welfare : cultured meat does not rely on slaughtering animals at any point in the manufacturing process. Depending on the method and type of cell used, a single “parent cell” could theoretically supply the annual demand for meat products before needing replacement. Collecting cells takes a few minutes and do little harm to animals – nothing compared to currently practices in the meat industry. Culture medium, a liquid involved in the process to grow the cells, required an animal product called FBS, but this latter is on the way to be replaced. Prototypes of FBS-free culture media based on plants, fungi and micro-algae have already been demonstrated.
On the whole, it appears that by gradually replacing animal agriculture, large-scale production of cultured meat could greatly reduce animal suffering, human disease risk, and environmental problems. But according to Sentience politics evaluation, “it will be an extremely difficult, costly and time-consuming challenge, requiring several years’ worth of concerted efforts across multiple disciplines before cultured meat can rival conventional meat products.”
Other researchers point out that despite a lot of “narratives”, nothing has been really achieved, so we should remain careful with predictions. They remind us that we cannot exclude the absence of “substitution effect”. Despite these reservations, they judge “reasonable to argue that the production of small-scale cultured meat products of edible quality should be achievable in the near future and in some regards is possible now.” However, when it comes to more ambitious production target (producing cultured meat on a scale that could make marked impacts on global climate change), they say it is likely to take many decades, “if it is at all possible”.
One of the reasons of the difficulty to estimate its potential success is the complexity of the environment. Government policies, including regulation, tax and subsidy regimes, could play a big part while being quite unpredictable. Another uncertainty is the motivation of future people who will join the movement. Until today, people working on cultured meat were clearly ethically motivated, but it is possible that these motivations won’t be shared and pursued by future meat producers.
All in all, given its potentially important return on animal and human welfare (the same goes for the environment), accelerating cultured meat development is likely to be a worthwhile investment for the moment.
Impact of founding a cultured meat start-up
Given the very few actors working on it, this speculative evaluation is fraught with uncertainty, especially when it comes to Europe. What we can see is that in the US and in Israel, the most dynamic actors are start-ups, and they are the ones expected to bring clean meat to the market. Moreover, this recent research article informs us that “much of the advanced work in the field is conducted within start-up companies”. In their conclusion, you can read : “from publicly available information it seems the start-ups are currently more successful in attracting funding through venture capital than the Universities are through government and charity funding streams.”
But most of their founders do have a scientific background (more about it later) and seem to have done some cellular agriculture research before creating their company, which highlights the crucial role of this research, especially at a beginning stage.
However, Isha Datar, executive director at New Harvest, explained that “as the start-ups in the space now develop their own technologies, intellectual property will result, giving them particular expertise in one part of the process or another, and thus a supply chain may emerge”. This suggests that start-ups are well placed to have an impact.
Finally, GFI report indicates that in the short-term, “the first products that come to market may be hybrid products wherein clean meat is included as part of plant-based products”. The next step being not so complex ground meat products, followed by more structured items (fish fillets, chicken breasts). This suggests that start-ups could have to work with the plant-based-products industry to bring a first generation of products to the market.
Should you try this option ?
Filling this section has been very tough and, paradoxically, this is one of the most important. I didn’t want to do reverse-engineering and telling you “how to become the next Mosa Meat”, but I think that this is important to consider where other cultured-meat-start-up pioneers come from. Let’s not wait another minute :
- Mark Post, Mosa Meat : professor of Vascular Physiology, now CSO
- Peter Verstrate, Mosa Meat : comes from the processed meat industry, now CEO
- Uma Valeti – Nicholas Genoves – Will Clem, founders of Memphis Meats : all scientists
- Ido Savir, SuperMeat : Former Software Developer and Project Manager, now CEO
- Michael Selden, Finless Foods : biochemist, now CEO
- Josh Tetrick, Hampton Creeks (now JUST) : business background, now CEO
This list is far from being comprehensive, but is as though a lot of founders do have a scientific background. Interestingly, it doesn’t seem to be the case for the founder of JUST Inc, which looks like a very promising company. So maybe having a scientific background or so is not the most important factor, if you’re a good learner and know how to surround yourself with the right people. I invite people with more implication than me to share their views on that (or maybe I should check it for myself – let’s have some skin in the game).
The life of a founder
What does the everyday life of a founder of a cultured meat start-up look like ?
The tasks that a founder must complete are all mentioned in the GFI Start-up guide. However we know that there is also a psychological and humane dimension, which you cannot grasp in manuals. This is why I invite you to read these feedbacks of start-up founders. Maybe you will have more specific answers here in the future.
More research, feedbacks (and sales) are needed before completing this part.
Is it better than the other options ?
Working on plant-based substitutes
Plant-based meat substitutes do matter, and will continue to gain momentum. However, despite decades of improvements, they have not proven sufficiently effective at replacing meat in people’s diets.  This is in all likelihood because of their lack of resemblance to meat.
That said, a second generation of plant-based alternatives is emerging, and they could well make up for the flaws of their ancestors. For example, the new UK-based company Moving Moutains produces a plant-based “B12 Burger” that bleeds like meat. The Vegetarian Butcher, based in Netherlands, also focuses on “life-like” taste and texture for meat and fish plant-based substitutes. We can also cite Gold & Green in this category. More details on these companies in this article.
So starting a company working on these kind of substitutes would be a great move for people who cannot have access to cellular agriculture technology. I nonetheless think that more research need to be done on real opportunities for plant-based substitutes start-ups to succeed on the market and make an impact, given that this field is growingly invested by important actors of the food industry.
Concerning the future of plant-based substitutes themselves, this research article explains that they must play a role in the “multifaceted response [to issues at stake] which includes a range of approaches, like promoting meat reduction and plant-based proteins.”
Working as a cellular agriculture researcher
Cultured meat research has received very little attention so far, making it relatively easy to conduct basic research that may later prove important to further development.
Sentience Politics recommends that due to its high uncertainty, “pioneering science should ideally take place within the low-risk research climate of academia, with funding provided by governments and nonprofits to ensure that findings become publicly available. This will enable widespread adoption and refinement of techniques across scientific disciplines worldwide.” At this time, research focus points seem to be : optimal cell lines, plant-based culture media, scaling-up of bioreactors, and perfusion system for growing complex muscle tissue.
This is also what I have obtained while discussing with important actors of the field : research is really needed in Europe, so if you’re a biologist (or plan to be so) and not especially at ease with risk, consider this option.
If you want to know where you can do research, try to contact the Cellular Agriculture Society.
Working in a political organization
Government subsidies, increased national budgets for bio- and agrotechnology research can accelerate the development of cultured products. This means that we could soon require new regulatory frameworks in countries where production plants are to be implemented. As a consequence, involvement from political organizations might play a key role. However, more research must be conducted on “where you can do it” and what “can you really do”. Personally working in an institution, I will try to explore this path in a sooner or later future – probably later. The good aspect of this option is that you don’t have to be a biologist to accelerate change. By the way, the EU Parliament has produced a short document on the role of institutions.
How to get started ?
This section is inspired from GFI’s Startup Manual, an almost 99-page long document gathering important information about how to start your “good” food company. The guide is addressed to potential innovators in both plant-based alternatives and cultured animal products. Here are lessons that are valuable in Europe.
Join a community
The Good Food Institute proposes to join their GFI ideas community. It is an interesting first move (having monthly calls and joining a Slack group), albeit (quite) limited for the moment, as the GFI is not yet physically present in Europe.
There also exists a slack group called Clean Meat Europe, and if you’re interested in joining it, just let me know, using the contact form.
Meeting people engaged in the Effective Altruism movement might also be a valuable first step, given that they (generally) show an interest for the topic. So try to see whether a local group of effective altruists exists not far from your location and try to share your views on cellular agriculture with them.
Learn about the industry
One of the best ways to learn is reading specific resources tailored for you (e.g. someone potentially interested in founding a clean animal product company). This is the case of the GFI’s report Mapping Emerging Industries: Opportunities in Clean Meat. They have also published a peer-reviewed article in Biochemical Engineering Journal. More resources dealing with clean meat can be found on GFI’s blog and this list of academic papers. Without forgetting Paul Shapiro’s book Clean Meat.
You should also keep an eye to what’s happening in the food industry. Here is a list recommended by Emily Malina. The GFI recommends newsletters like Food+Tech Connect, Specialty Food News, Food Navigator, and the resources you can find on their own website.
Find a co-founder
Association with a co-founder is recommended, as it can help to get (particularly challenging) things done faster. Complementarity of skills and and solid links must be sought. Read this article to know the right parameters to check in a “co-founder relationship”.
Do some feasibility research
Before launching your company, conducting an objective analysis to know whether you should should really “go or letting it to others” can be helpful. The aspects you will have to check :
- Market feasibility : what is the current size of the market in the targeted industry ? What about expected growth, competitors, consumers behaviour, and established actors present in the landscape ? Don’t hesitate to talk with potential customers to get some “real-life” input and feedback in your strategy, especially in European countries where food can really be matter of identity.
- Technical feasibility : what does the company need to deliver the product (from labs to R&D and regulatory expertise) ? Could the company really bring an answer to these needs ?
- Commercial feasibility : could the business be viable ? What would be costs and cash flows ?
- Risk assessment : Using traditional “strategic” tools to analyse the micro-environment in which the business operates, and identify strengths and opportunities as well as your weaknesses and threats.
Writing minimum viable plans
How to run your company, minimize risks and seize opportunities ? This is the question your business plan should answer to. The following aspects must be covered :
- Company description and mission
- Market analysis, including potential customers, partners and competitors
- Organization and management, including current team and hiring plan
- Description of product or service
- Marketing and forecasting
- Funding requirements and use
- Current financial state and projections
- Key milestones, in the short, middle, and long-term
See here for a business plan template or an example of executive summary. Other questions more specific to the food industry matter. They include : product development, manufacturing and packaging, channel strategy, and regulatory considerations. They are all covered in the GFI Startup Manual, so I will let you deep into them if you’re interested.
Last but not least, being a technological company, you should also work on questions like :
- What differentiates you from existing companies
- What are the risks and how can I prepare in case they happen ?
- What intellectual property strategy ?
- What’s the right balance between integration and contract out ? Can I identify transactional costs ?
- Do I have the technical skills I need ?
After that, you can create your company. This subject is detailed in the second section of the startup guide, so I won’t talk more about it for the moment.
Incubators and Accelerators
Some incubators or accelerators focus on food biotech in Europe.   It is unclear whether being followed by one of them can increase the chance of building a successful ag’ tech start-up , but chances are that funding and adequate networking are helpful. Given the emerging and uncertain context, I recommend to give them a try. Here is a list of structures I have found. Note : there are more biotechnology-oriented incubators, but I’ve only listed the ones that are openly concerned about food.
StartupBootCamp FoodTech is present in Rome (Italy) and Eindhoven (Netherlands), but is open to applications from other countries. They have a 3 month acceleration program.
AgFunder is an online-based agriculture-focused marketplace. They offer support through funding start-ups but also exposure to industry clientele, executives, professionals and partners.
Eurasanté Bio-Incubator, located in Lille, partly based on food technology.
Genopole, located in Evry, open to environmental, agronomic and industrial biotechnology.
ProVeg helps start-ups working on animal products alternatives.
StartLife, a Netherlands-based incubator for agrifood tech startups, can help start-ups from various European countries.
Dig Eat All , located in San Sebastian, offers funding, workspace, opportunities for strategic partnering and mentorship programs.
Reimagine Food Prometheus, located in Barcelona, offers a training program that includes networking with leading food companies and experts in the industry.
Kickstart Accelerator, looking for new innovations with a high growth potential in the food industry. According to Agtech Careers, “they have an 11-week program that offers founders of startups CHF 15,000 seed funding with an opportunity to get a grant of CHF 25,000. Once the program concludes, startups get a chance to impress investors and other corporate leaders. Other than funding, startups have access to a shared working space, mentors, and potential industry partners.” They usually don’t charge any fees or take any equity in return for funding.
If you know more actors or think that one of the structures that I have mentioned here are irrelevant, please let me know in the comments.
How to succeed once you’re in ?
As none of the cultured meat start-ups mentioned in this review has already entered the market, for the moment, we can’t talk about lessons learned from tremendous success stories. However, it is never too early to prepare well.
The Good Food Institute has identified important steps of the cultured-meat-company creation process. They include :
- Hiring a Lawyer
- Determining your Company Structure and Form Your Business
- Post-formation Setup Activities
- Founder’s Stock
- Business Insurance
- Hiring Workers
- Human Resources
To know more about creating your company, read the start-up manual. The following chapters focus on funding your company, creating your product, then selling it (the product).
At this stage, following all these suggestions already seems to be a good job. Further information will be added when more feedback is available.
The plan of this article has been somewhat inspired by the shape of career reviews made by 80 000 hours, so I owe them a mention.
I especially thank the people who took the time to answer my requests.
I invite you to share your views or to suggest improvements in the comments. Remark : it can be language and style improvements, as I’m French and have written this directly in English. As it’s my first writing, let me know if you want to read more reviews like that.
Health Management Master Degree, doing an apprenticeship at the French Health Department, member of Effective Altruism France, and working on the development of plant-based substitutes in collective restaurants. I’m also doing (Master Degree) research on the contribution of Blockchain and AI in health data management and governance.
 Neil Stephens et al., 2018 Aug, Bringing cultured meat to market: Technical, socio-political, and regulatory challenges in cellular agriculture : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6078906/
 Neil Stephens et al., ibid.
 A huge economic and technical challenge’ : Mosa Meat CEO on scaling cultured meat production , 19-Jul-2018 by Katy Askew : https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2018/07/19/Mosa-Meat-CEO-on-the-huge-challenge-of-scaling-production?utm_source=copyright&utm_medium=OnSite&utm_campaign=copyright
 AgFunder News, ibid.
 Hanna L Tuomisto and M Joost Teixeira de Mattos. Environmental impacts of cultured meat production.Environ.Sci. Technol., 45(14):6117–6123, 15 July 2
 Carolyn S Mattick, Amy E Landis, Braden R Allenby, and Nicholas J Genovese. Anticipatory life cycle analysis of in vitro biomass cultivation for cultured meat production in the united states.Environ. Sci. Technol. , 49(19):11941–11949, 6 October 2015
 Nathan Fiala. The value of cultured meat: An estimate of the externality costs of meat consumption. Internet: http://www. new-harvest. org/img/files/fiala_2010. pdf [Feb. 5, 2013], 2010
 Hanna L Tuomisto and M Joost Teixeira de Mattos. Environmental impacts of cultured meat production.Environ.Sci. Technol., 45(14):6117–6123, 15 July 2
 Hanna L Tuomisto and Avijit G Roy. Could cultured meat reduce environmental impact of agriculture in europe? 4 October 2012.
 Bitten. Bitten 2016 // isha datar // on animal products without animals, 29 February
 Sam Harris and Uma Valeti. Meat without misery
 Nicolas Genovese and Kris Notaro. The crusade for a cultured alternative to animal meat: An interview with nicholas genovese, PhD PETA. http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/notaro20111005, 2011.
 Stefan Schubert. Prioritisation of policy interventions to support cultured animal products and plant-based substitutes of animal products. June 2016.