{"id":7774,"date":"2020-09-22T13:42:17","date_gmt":"2020-09-22T17:42:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/edfish\/?p=7774"},"modified":"2020-09-23T09:38:58","modified_gmt":"2020-09-23T13:38:58","slug":"cell-based-cultured-or-something-else-the-new-seafood-labeling-challenge","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/edfish\/2020\/09\/22\/cell-based-cultured-or-something-else-the-new-seafood-labeling-challenge\/","title":{"rendered":"Cell-based, cultured\u2026 or something else? The new seafood labeling challenge."},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"By Tom Neltner, J.D.<\/a>, Environmental Defense Fund Chemicals policy director<\/em><\/p>\n

Meat and seafood derived from animal cells grown outside the animal are likely coming to your kitchen table. The process involves culturing cells in tanks and combining them into a consumable product using extrusion, 3-D printing or other processes commonly used in food industry. The product is nearly identical to conventional meat and seafood.<\/p>\n

But when consumers can make that choice depends on the scaling-up of the technology and securing regulatory approvals. Beyond ensuring these products are safe, a key issue is finding a name for them that does not mislead consumers \u2014 enabling them to make informed choices about what they are buying. We have seen marketing studies<\/a> favor \u201ccultivated meat\u201d and government reports<\/a> use \u201ccell-cultured meat,\u201d but they lack sufficient scientific rigor to meet the labeling need. Here, we discuss a recent study covering this newfound seafood labeling challenge.<\/p>\n

In July, a peer-reviewed study<\/a> by Rutgers University researchers, William Hallman<\/a> and his son, helped advance the discussion on the appropriate name for seafood. The study, which included more than 3,000 adult participants, found that the term \u201ccell-based\u201d was most appropriate for seafood grown outside the animal, with \u201ccell-cultured\u201d a close second. \u201cCultivated\u201d without the word \u201ccell\u201d was found to be misleading since 54% of consumers incorrectly thought the seafood was farm-raised. Because the analysis was funded by BlueNalu<\/a> \u2014 a start-up adapting the innovative technology to produce seafood, which is currently ahead in the race to reach the market \u2014 we were concerned it might be biased, but a close review showed a solid analysis.<\/p>\n

The study also revealed that even with the top two terms, many consumers were still confused, emphasizing the need for consistent consumer education \u2014 in labeling and marketing \u2014 from the companies. For that reason, we were pleased to see the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Department of Agriculture announce they were jointly developing labeling principles<\/a> for meat and seafood that would provide the needed consistency.<\/p>\n

FDA labeling requirements<\/strong><\/p>\n

Seafood labeling is particularly critical because seafood is a major food allergen. While the product may be grown outside the animal, it still poses a risk to consumers with fish or seafood allergies. Therefore, federal law<\/a> requires packaging to identify the species of fish or shellfish.<\/p>\n

In addition, FDA regulations<\/a> require that the name accurately describe, in as simple and direct terms as possible, the basic nature of the food and not be confusingly similar to another food. In particular, the name for seafood grown outside of an animal must clearly differentiate itself from wild-caught or farm-raised seafood.<\/p>\n

To date, the FDA and USDA (which has complementing labeling jurisdiction for names of most meat) have not provided guidance on the most appropriate labeling term. However, based on statements made in a recent webinar<\/a>, we expect guidance to come later this year. The Hallmans\u2019 study should be useful for the agencies.<\/p>\n

Label options considered<\/strong><\/p>\n

The study authors reviewed the literature, internet searches and consumer studies and settled on seven options to describe seafood grown outside the animal ranging from cell-based to cultured to cultivated, to more detailed options such as \u201cGrown Directly from the Cells of ___.\u201d They did not consider options such as \u201csynthetic meat\u201d or \u201ccruelty-free meat\u201d because the former was seen as inaccurate and the latter as derogatory to conventional meat, and therefore wouldn\u2019t meet legal labeling requirements.<\/p>\n

The study compared seven options for seafood grown outside the animal to three others: \u201cwild-caught,\u201d \u201cfarm-raised\u201d and simply the name of the seafood (with no descriptor) as a control. For the basic seafood name, the study used salmon, tuna and shrimp since they represent 55% of all seafood consumed in the U.S.<\/p>\n

\"\"
Figure 1: Examples of label offered to survey participants (copied from study).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Survey method<\/strong><\/p>\n

The survey used high-quality images of the front of packages as in Figure 1. The nutrition facts panel was the same for all 10 options presented (seven descriptors for seafood grown outside the animal, wild-caught, farm-raised and none). Hallman recruited 3,186 participants in February and March 2020 from a web-based consumer panel with more than 3.2 million active members. The authors selected them to produce a nationally representative sample of adults based on responses to email invitations to 8,845 randomly-selected panel members and a follow-up questionnaire.<\/p>\n

Survey participants were first given a definition of seafood that included both fish, shellfish and crustaceans. They were asked how often they had eaten seafood in the previous year and then repeatedly shown only one of the 30 images (3 species of seafood and 10 options of each). Only at the end were participants given a definition of cell-based seafood and asked some final questions.[1]<\/a> Almost a third were moderately, very or extremely familiar with the idea of producing just the parts of the seafood that people eat instead of catching or raising them whole.<\/p>\n

Distinguishing from wild-caught and farm-raised <\/strong><\/p>\n

When the label used the words \u201cWild-Caught\u201d or \u201cFarm-Raised\u201d to describe how the seafood was raised, about 90% of consumers correctly identified it, meaning about 10% of participants got it wrong. This result marks the best we can expect from any description. In contrast, when no description was given, 53% said the seafood was neither wild-caught or farm raised; this represents the minimum we should expect any description should achieve. Falling significantly below 53% means the description is misleading.<\/p>\n

When consumers were given a label with one of the seven options for seafood grown outside the animal and tested to see if they could distinguish them from wild-caught or farm-raised, Hallman found that the results fell into three groups:<\/p>\n