Precision fermentation risks recreating industrial agriculture’s monocultures, experts warn

Precision fermentation could reproduce some of the same input dependencies, biological uniformity and corporate concentration associated with industrial agriculture unless the sector diversifies its feedstocks and production systems, a researcher has warned in a new collection of expert perspectives published in One Earth.

• Wen Shan Yew warned that reliance on refined glucose could leave precision fermentation dependent on the same corn and sugarcane monocultures it sought to bypass.
• Yew called for microbial hosts capable of using CO₂, methane, formate and food-industry sidestreams, alongside greater diversity in the microorganisms used for production.
• Contributors also examined regulation, nutrition, consumer adoption, farmers and workers as alternative proteins move toward larger-scale production.

The warning formed part of a One Earth Voices article titled Scaling alternative proteins for net benefits, which brought together researchers and food-system experts to examine how plant-based foods, fermentation, cultivated meat and other alternative proteins could develop without repeating the shortcomings of conventional industrial food production.

Wen Shan Yew of the National University of Singapore focused specifically on precision fermentation and questioned one of the assumptions underpinning its environmental proposition.

“Precision fermentation is marketed as a clean break from industrial agriculture: brew proteins in a bioreactor, sparing land and livestock,” Yew wrote. “Yet most fermenters are fed refined glucose extracted from the same corn and cane monocultures we claim to escape, and feedstock alone can exceed half the production cost per kilogram, even as the bioeconomy’s glucose demand outpaces supply.”

The concern extended beyond carbon sources. Yew argued that convergence around a limited number of microbial production strains and increasingly centralized manufacturing infrastructure could introduce vulnerabilities familiar from conventional agriculture.

“As the field converges on a handful of workhorse chassis, a few sugar sources, and centralized mega-biofoundries, we risk reconstructing industrial agriculture’s defining pathologies: input dependency, genetic uniformity, and corporate concentration, one trophic level downward,” he wrote.

Yew called for a synthetic biology strategy to be developed before today's production infrastructure became entrenched. This would include engineering microbial hosts capable of metabolizing one-carbon and waste feedstocks such as CO₂, methane, formate and food-industry sidestreams instead of relying on first-generation sugars.

He also advocated greater diversity among the microbial hosts used for production rather than standardization around a limited number of strains.

Gas fermentation offered one existing route. Yew noted that microbes capable of converting captured carbon into protein already existed and argued that their use should now be prioritized.

He also called for distributed, regionally owned manufacturing as a way of keeping economic value and resilience within communities rather than concentrating production among a small number of multinational companies.

“Decoupling food from land accomplishes little if we recouple it to industrial sugar,” he wrote. “Architecting fermentation around circular carbon and biological diversity transforms alternative protein from an efficiency story into a planetary-health advance.”

The question of diversity appeared elsewhere in the collection.

Morten Otto Alexander Sommer of the Technical University of Denmark argued that microbial foods could broaden the raw-material base of food production because microorganisms can grow on substrates beyond those available to conventional crops and livestock.

“Microbes can grow on a far wider range of substrates than crops or livestock, including agricultural and industrial side-streams that are currently underutilized as human food,” Sommer wrote.

He suggested that expanding those inputs could reduce dependence on a small number of staple feed crops while making food production more resilient to climate change and geopolitical disruption.

Fermentation could also affect the nutritional characteristics of foods themselves, Sommer argued, including through the generation of fiber and bioactive compounds and improvements in bioavailability.

“We can therefore aim to design foods that are healthy to eat, not merely high in protein,” he wrote.

Rodrigo Ledesma-Amaro of the Bezos Center for Sustainable Protein at Imperial College London similarly argued that alternative proteins offered an opportunity to reconsider how food processing was designed.

He noted that food processing was essential to feeding a growing population and was not inherently detrimental to health. Controlled alternative protein production systems could create opportunities to improve food safety, consistency and nutritional quality.

Ledesma-Amaro cited approaches including cellular scaffolds for texture in cultivated meat, in situ vitamin production during fermentation of plant-based foods and yeast-derived ingredients that could reduce the need for added salt.

The wider collection also examined the role of regulation as alternative protein technologies moved toward larger-scale production.

Andy Jarvis of the Bezos Earth Fund argued that the industry should avoid the industrial agriculture model of expanding first and managing unintended consequences afterward.

“Alternative proteins should not repeat one of industrial agriculture’s costliest mistakes: scaling first and managing consequences later,” Jarvis wrote. “The sector is under pressure to move quickly, but early failures in safety, transparency, or labeling would damage public confidence for decades.”

Jarvis pointed to regulatory sandboxes, including the UK Food Standards Agency's program for cell-cultivated products, as a model that could allow companies to engage regulators earlier while helping public agencies develop the expertise required to assess novel foods.

He also cautioned against treating alternative proteins as a single technological category, highlighting differences between plant-based foods, traditional fermentation, precision fermentation and cultivated meat in their production systems, processing requirements, risks and consumer familiarity.

Benjamin Bodirsky and Florian Humpenöder of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research also argued that the regulatory environment would influence whether alternative proteins delivered their environmental potential.

They warned that without environmental safeguards, land spared by alternative proteins could instead be reclaimed for biofuel production, eroding footprint gains. They also argued that the advantages accumulated by early-moving plant-based technologies could crowd out potentially more efficient options such as microbial protein.

Their contribution called for measures including halting deforestation, taxing pollution such as nitrogen surpluses, temporary subsidies or quotas for emerging industries, and livelihood-diversification programs to help manage structural changes in agricultural employment.

Consumer adoption presented another challenge.

Lei Cong of Lincoln University argued that technological progress and consumer adoption did not necessarily advance together, with consumers too often expected to adapt to innovations rather than influence their development.

Although alternative protein products had reached the market, Cong argued that long-term success would ultimately depend on everyday purchasing and consumption decisions, with transparent information and credible claims helping consumers make informed choices.

Carla S. Santos of Universidade Católica Portuguesa also warned against simply replacing animal proteins with a narrow range of alternative ingredients while retaining standardized supply chains and centralized processing.

She pointed to the growing reliance on ingredients including soy, pea and wheat proteins and argued instead for greater crop diversity, regional adaptation and stronger links with local food cultures.

Bruce Friedrich, Founder & President of The Good Food Institute, focused on the implications of the transition for farmers, workers and communities. In a LinkedIn post discussing the One Earth collection, Friedrich described his contribution as centering farmers and workers in alternative protein policy.

“Alternative meats will not automatically fix every problem in the food system,” Friedrich wrote in One Earth. “But if they succeed on the core metric - delicious meat at the same or lower cost - the benefits will be immense: lower food prices, less pressure on land and water, far less deforestation and climate emissions, and major reductions in antimicrobial resistance and pandemic risk.”

Friedrich argued that governments should treat alternative proteins as essential to the public interest. He called for open-access science, transparent regulation and public investment, alongside support for farmers to participate in what he described as the new protein economy.

That could involve growing higher-value crops, restoring ecosystems and building more resilient regional supply chains.

Friedrich also argued that a successful transition could benefit workers and communities. He contrasted industrial farms and slaughterhouses with plant-based and cultivated meat production facilities, which he suggested could resemble modern food manufacturing.

“Done well, this transition can also be a win for workers and communities,” he wrote. “Industrial farms and slaughterhouses are among the hardest, most dangerous, and least desirable places to work, and they often blight nearby communities with pollution and stench.”

“Plant-based and cultivated meat facilities can look much more like modern food manufacturing - or breweries for meat: cleaner, safer, and welcome sources of good jobs. That is a food system worth building.”

Taken together, the contributions examined choices extending well beyond the technical performance of individual alternative protein technologies, from the substrates entering fermentation tanks to the regulation, supply chains and employment structures surrounding them.

For precision fermentation in particular, Yew argued that decisions around feedstocks, microbial hosts and manufacturing infrastructure needed to be made before today's production model became difficult to change.

“Decoupling food from land accomplishes little if we recouple it to industrial sugar,” he wrote.

If you liked this, check these out...

• In Meat, Bruce Friedrich makes the case that the future of protein will be built, not argued

• Perceived ‘naturalness’ shapes public support for cultivated meat and other climate technologies

• Seeking alt-meat's product-market-technology fit