Integrating cultivated beef into conventional beef production systems: Food system models for just transition

Primary data: Semi-structured interviews

Primary data was collected through in-depth interviews with three main stakeholder groups:

Beef producers in the United States, primarily operating feedlot systems, and in France, primarily operating extensive grazing systems.

A total of 40 in-depth interviews were conducted. In the United States, 13 stakeholders, including 10 beef producers and 3 experts, were interviewed. In France, 17 stakeholders comprising 12 beef producers and 5 experts were interviewed. We also included 10 experts representing the global cultivated meat industry and researchers. The expert category included participants with expertise in livestock systems, cultivated meat, food policy, sustainability transitions, agricultural economics, and food innovation.

A purposive sampling approach was used in this study. Snowball sampling helped identify additional relevant participants. The interview duration was 30–90 min and was conducted in-person and virtually, depending on availability and location. A semi-structured interview guide with open-ended questions covered the following five areas:

Risks and challenges in beef production.

The themes utilised in the interview guides are included in Supplemental Material 2, Table S.2.1.

All interviews were audio-recorded with the consent of the participants. The study adhered to ethical standards regarding confidentiality, voluntary participation, and secure handling of sensitive information. In France, interviews with producers were conducted with the assistance of a French interpreter. After sending interview invitations to experts, researchers, the cultivated meat industry and beef producers, 40 stakeholders were agreed to be interviewed. Supplemental Material 2 (Table S.2.2) provides details of the respondents and interviews. Transcripts from the French interviews were translated into English prior to coding. All transcripts were anonymised and uploaded into NVivo 14 for thematic coding and matrix analyses. Data collection continued until saturation was reached, ensuring that no substantially new themes emerged from subsequent interviews (Bouncken et al., 2025).

The US sample included producers from key cattle-producing states such as Kansas, Nebraska, Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee. Most interviews were conducted online, reflecting the wide geographical spread of participants. The sample also included experts from universities and policy-oriented think tanks, primarily based in California, who provided broader perspectives on livestock sustainability debates, regulatory developments, and emerging protein technologies. The French sample included producers primarily from Nouvelle-Aquitaine, with additional expert representation from the Massif Central region representing a diversity of breeds and market orientations.

Secondary data: Industry document and policy analysis

A total of 15 documents were purposively selected and coded to supplement interview data and enable triangulation: policy and regulatory documents from the United States (5), France and the European Union (5); five global industry publications on cultivated meat, sustainability transitions, and inclusive business models (Supplemental Material 2, Table S.2.3).

These documents were collected from authoritative sources such as government departments, regulatory agencies and leading cultivated meat and agri-food industry platforms. This selection followed a purposive sampling strategy that focused on policy relevance, institutional authority, and thematic alignment with the study's area of interest (Bowen 2009; Mogalakwe 2006). Document analysis complements the primary data, and offers insights into institutional perspectives and policy directions. The inclusion of documents enabled methodological triangulation with stakeholder interviews, thus strengthening the analytical depth and trustworthiness of the study (Golafshani, 2003; Nowell et al., 2017).

Risks and challenges of beef production

Farmers in both countries said that unpredictable weather, such as droughts, is making it harder to grow feed and raise cattle (Supplemental Material 4, Table S.4.1). US producers emphasised the severity of recent multi-year droughts and French farmers pointed to the growing challenge of early spring droughts that threaten grass growth and silage production. A French farmer explained:

While we’ve long experienced hot summers, a concerning phenomenon has emerged: early spring droughts. If we want to continue livestock farming in these areas, it's essential to secure this period without relying excessively on water. This means ensuring sufficient grass growth in spring to produce silage or hay. This will be a key issue in the coming months and years (FF4).

When it comes to labour-related risks, the differences between the two countries become more noticeable (Supplemental Material 4, Table S.4.1). In the United States, the labour shortage is a major concern. Beef producers struggle to find and keep workers, and many fear for the future of their operations. In France, the problem is less about labour availability and more about youth disengagement and the challenge of succession planning. Although both countries worry about the next generation, in the United States, it is linked to immediate labour shortages, while in France, it is more about long-term continuity of the farm. On the economic and market side, French farmers are more concerned about profit margins and their dependence on subsidies, such as payments from the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP). In contrast, the US producers are more focused on business resilience and staying almost amid constant risks. As one American producer put it, ‘I have to spend way too much time dodging bullets, finding protectionary tools in working with bankers in a very high equity need, it's not enjoyable’ (UF2).

In both countries, producers face financial pressure, but the sources of the pressure differ. France relies more on public support, while US producers express the strain of surviving market shifts without much of a safety net (Supplemental Material 4, Table S.4.1). Producers in both countries voiced frustration with regulatory demands. In France, this was coded more frequently, with many expressing pressures between environmental expectations and feasibility. In the United States, participants highlighted mismatches between existing infrastructure (e.g. limited packing capacity) and new regulatory or technological demands.

Beyond these longstanding challenges, producers in both countries are increasingly concerned about the emergence of cultivated meat and alternative proteins (Supplemental Material 5). While US and French farmers share uncertainty about how this trend may affect their future, they interpret these risks differently. US producers are feeling growing market pressure, particularly from shifting retail space and consumer attention. In contrast, French farmers express concerns about both cultural and environmental issues. Many view these alternatives as undermining the tradition of animal husbandry and the values of their rural life. Several were sceptical of environmental claims associated with cultivated beef and perceived the innovation not only as an economic threat but also a challenge to their identity.

Market demand and the future of meat

Beef producers, researchers, and experts are witnessing significant shifts in the future of meat demand, driven by climate change, shifting consumer values and emerging technologies (Supplemental Material 4, Table S.4.2). Many participants noted that conventional meat is undergoing a transition with concerns about rising costs, environmental pressures, and demographic change affecting production continuity. Market uncertainty is another dominant theme across regions. US producers described struggling with the volatility of both environmental and economic conditions. French producers shared a similar dissatisfaction with rapidly shifting market and policy signals: ‘We adapt every year, policies shift, markets shift, it's exhausting’ (FF1).

Cultivated meat actors suggest that the future of meat lies in a diverse and de-centralised system, combining conventional, regenerative, and cellular production models, acknowledging both limitations and opportunities in current systems (Supplemental Material 4, Table S.4.2). Regarding the positioning of cultivated beef, there is a growing consensus that its early market success will lie in niche and high-end segments, rather than mass substitution (Supplemental Material 6). US farmers showed some openness to co-existence, provided transparency and labelling are ensured. As one producer expressed: ‘There's room for both cultivated and conventional, but clear labelling is needed’ (UF6). As for consumers, globally, their responses were found to be conditional on price, taste, and health appeal, underscoring the importance of effective communication and trust.

Policy and industry influence in shaping a just transition

One of the most defining factors shaping the future of meat and protein systems is the regulatory and policy environment (Supplemental Material 4, Table S.4.3). Across interviews and policy documents, it is emphasised that the rules and standards governing food systems are increasingly complex and often lag behind technological advancement. The joint United States Department of Agriculture-Food and Drug Administration (USDA-FDA) agreement confirms this complexity, stating their commitment to ‘ongoing cooperation to refine the details regarding the Parties’ respective roles to provide for comprehensive and coordinated oversight’ for cell-based meat, especially around labelling and safety standards (FSIS-FDA, 2023). In France, regulatory ambiguity around cultivated meat is intensified by a societal scepticism toward technology. This scepticism is reflected in EFSA's novel food guidance, which highlights the importance of biosafety and ethical sourcing but also reveals significant regulatory gaps in consumer labelling, traceability, and risk assessment for novel protein technologies (EFSA NDA Panel et al., 2024). One French expert explained:

We have a lot of the civil society in France that is quite dubious about technology in the food industry as something that would be either problematic in terms of health and environmental concerns. But this is a kind of a general assessment, necessarily grounded by science (FE4).

Transparency remains a recurring demand among US producers. Regulatory documents, such as the USDA-FSIS policy, now mandate pre-approved labelling and inspection for cultivated meat products to ensure public trust and market integrity (FSIS-FDA, 2023). In both the United States and France, farmers emphasised the critical role of government policy in enabling or undermining their resilience. For many, the viability of small and medium producers is tightly linked to public support. In the US context, although some producers expressed concern about regulatory shifts, it is important to note that livestock producers rely heavily on Farm Bill-related subsidies, crop insurance, and disaster assistance, forms of support that remain central to their economic stability. This urgency is endorsed in USDA's Climate-Smart Agriculture Strategy, which supports rural economies and ‘voluntary incentives that benefit producers’ are critical to a climate-aligned transition (USDA, 2021). In France, the reliance on CAP subsidies was a recurring theme. French strategy documents such as the Sustainable Nutritional Behaviour Change (SNBC-2) Summary and Farm to Fork Strategy reaffirm this dependence, promoting ecological transitions but offering limited clarity on protein system transformation (F2F Strategy, 2020; Ministère de la Transition Écologique, 2020).

US experts pointed out gaps in support for innovators and early adopters, calling for better policy design. Meanwhile, cultivated meat and global experts advocated for context-specific and inclusive innovation frameworks, noting that equitable transitions depend on who has access to emerging tools. The Agricultural Innovation Agenda in the United States echoes this concern by encouraging inclusivity and private–public collaboration to ensure equity in technology deployment (USDA AIA Vision Statement, 2020). A just transition is also defined by governance and inclusion, particularly procedural justice, because many interviewees voiced concerns about power imbalances in the food system. US and French experts agreed that farmers often have little say in decisions that directly affect their livelihoods. Global and cultivated meat stakeholders observed that conventional producers continue to receive established subsidies and policy support, while regulatory requirements for novel proteins appear to be tightening. Several US states have introduced or passed restrictions on cultivated meat, and comparable initiatives have emerged in parts of Europe (e.g. Italy, with France considering similar measures). These developments indicate a policy landscape in which regulatory changes for emerging protein technologies co-exist with long-standing support for traditional protein sectors. Global voices highlighted how lobbying can skew regulatory priorities: ‘Policies reflect who holds power in the system, it's not usually the farmer’ (GE6).

Addressing these imbalances will require not just technical regulation but strong, inclusive processes and ethical frameworks. Balancing the challenges faced by innovation will also be important for understanding how the transition unfolds, a topic examined further in the discussion and conclusion. This balance between innovation and justice is critical for a food future that works for all. In the agricultural context, operationalising a just transition requires linking high-level principles to concrete instruments such as agri-environmental schemes, carbon farming programmes, or territorial transition contracts. These mechanisms can reward farmers for environmental services while acknowledging their cultural heritage and professional know-how as part of a fair transformation process.

Sustainable and inclusive business models for transition

Model 1: Feedlot-cultivated beef hybrid co-production model (for: US feedlot producers interested in diversification without leaving cattle production)

This model enables feedlot producers to participate in the cultivated beef value chain supplying animal inputs (cells, feed by-products) and hosting bioreactor modules through joint ventures while continuing conventional cattle production (Figure 3; Supplemental Material 6, Table S.6.1). Producers may partner with cultivated beef firms to host small-scale bioreactor modules near or on farms and supply inputs such as animal cells, land, energy, feed by-products, or manure-derived resources. In return, they could receive income through joint ventures, input supply, or profit-sharing arrangements.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

US models of feedlot transitions: hybrid co-production (Model 1) and feedlot-to-bioreactor co-operative shift (Model 2).

The model links on-farm feedlot activities with regional processing hubs that coordinate cell cultivation, hybrid product formulation, and distribution. Co-branding and transparent labelling could help maintain continuity with existing feedlot identity while responding to sustainability and quality expectations. Training programmes would also be needed to support staff transition into basic bio-processing, monitoring, and related technical roles.

This model offers producers opportunities for revenue diversification, risk management, job retention, and participation in emerging protein markets without requiring them to abandon cattle production. However, it would require investment, technical training, clear governance arrangements, and fair partnerships to ensure that producers benefit as active participants rather than only as low-value input suppliers.

Model 2: Feedlot to bioreactor transition co-op (for the producers seeking long-term exit from cattle production but desiring continuity in protein production)

This model is focused on de-centralised and inclusive transition; this model supports gradual substitution of conventional meat with cultivated beef produced by the same producers (Figure 3; Supplemental Material 6, Table S.6.2). It reduces the dependency on volatile commodity markets. In this model, small and medium-sized feedlot producers who want to gradually stop raising cattle due to low profits or future policy pressures can join/create a co-operative that owns and operates cultivated beef bioreactors. Instead of losing their farms or leaving the industry, they invest in the new system. Their land and buildings are repurposed, and former feedlot workers are retrained to work in biomanufacturing. This gives them steady income and helps keep rural communities alive, while also reducing emissions and modernising the local food system.

Producer-owned co-operatives managing small-scale bioreactors to enable distributed cultivated beef production at or near farm sites, focusing on institutional buyers and niche consumers. This model offers higher autonomy and ownership among small and mid-sized producers, along with lower GHG emissions and flexibility in production. It also promotes regenerative land use on former feedlot land. However. It requires training and heavy financial support mechanisms. In this model, beef producers take on the role of co-op members who own and operate the cultivated beef system, recipients of public incentives for sustainable innovation, and act as agents of localised protein production.

Model 3: Pasture-based co-production model (for French extensive cattle producers seeking to diversify, preserve cultural practices, and access emerging protein markets without abandoning livestock entirely)

This model preserves cultural and ecological functions of pasture-based beef while integrating cultivated beef into less culturally sensitive product categories (e.g. ready meals) (Figure 4; Supplemental Material 6, Table S.6.3). This supports a dual system that maximises ecological and market synergies. In this model, French farmers who raise cattle on open pastures keep doing what they’ve always done. However, they also sell a small sample of animal cells or natural materials (e.g. grass feed) to cultivated beef companies. This means they keep their cows, preserve the landscape and local food identity, and still earn new income from a future-looking industry. Instead of competition, this model encourages harmony between tradition and innovation.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 4.

French models of pasture-based co-production (Model 3) and regional biofood innovation clusters (Model 4).

Extensive beef production can be maintained for high-quality conventional markets, while cultivated beef is developed for processed and export markets. Territorial branding would combine environmental stewardship and innovation. This model supports rural livelihoods and preserves landscape value. It also opens access to new markets and climate funding opportunities. At the same time, it requires strong consumer communication and alignment with ethical sourcing. Beef producers play the role of providers of cell lines or co-branding partners. They also serve as custodians of traditional systems co-existing with innovation, and benefit from climate-linked subsidies and territorial development funds. While this model provides an inspiring avenue for co-existence between tradition and innovation, its implementation would face practical constraints. Rural areas where extensive systems dominate often lack the biotechnological infrastructure needed for cell-based production. Moreover, the association of ‘cultivated’ and ‘terroir’ identities may raise symbolic and marketing challenges that must be carefully addressed through transparent communication and territorial governance.

Model 4: Regional biofood innovation clusters (for the French regional governments, co-operatives, and innovation hubs aiming to foster collaborative cultivated beef development while anchoring traditional producers)

This model is designed as a landscape-level shift, this model creates a regional ecosystem of innovation anchored by sustainability and food security goals. It enables new entrants and existing producers to participate in emerging bioeconomies (Figure 4; Supplemental Material 6, Table S.6.4). This model brings together everyone in the region, including farmers, governments, researchers, and startups, into a single network. Instead of each farmer working alone, the region shares bioreactors, labs, and marketing. Traditional beef farmers can join the project by providing inputs, accessing training, and even co-owning facilities. It transforms rural areas into centres of innovation, creating jobs, keeping young people engaged in farming, and allowing cultivated beef to grow in harmony with local culture.

In this model, cross-sector clusters integrate cultivated beef, precision agriculture, and agri-food startups. They share infrastructure (labs, logistics, marketing) supported by the regional government with a focus on youth employment and food resilience. It promotes long-term competitiveness and food sovereignty. However, this model requires a high level of coordination and depends on public investment, with some risk of fragmentation before reaching scale. Beef producers play important roles as co-creators in cluster activities through training, partnerships, and pilot projects. They also act as transition agents, gaining upgraded roles and new income streams while being protected under transition justice frameworks and policy safeguards. This model resonates with existing French initiatives such as the ‘Territoires d’innovation’ programmes or the Agri Sud-Ouest Innovation cluster, which already promote cross-sectoral collaborations among farmers, research institutions, and regional authorities. Embedding cultivated beef initiatives within such structures could enhance feasibility, legitimacy, and youth engagement at the territorial level.

Technological and infrastructure

A key challenge is aligning cultivated beef requirements, such as bioreactors, sterile production environments, and growth-media supply chains, with existing beef infrastructure. In the United States, feedlot producers were concerned that current equipment and land use may not suit these new systems. Although barns or storage units could potentially be repurposed, this would still require investment, technical expertise, and regulatory clarity (Mattick et al., 2015; Stephens et al., 2018). Similar barriers exist in France, particularly in rural pasture-based regions with limited biotechnology infrastructure. Blended public–private finance could help reduce upfront costs, de-risk early adoption, and support shared regional infrastructure.

Economic viability and social equity

Inclusive models, such as co-operatives or hybrid meat ventures, may face short-term profitability challenges because shared decision-making can reduce efficiency and increase coordination costs (Ryschawy et al., 2019). Hybrid products may also remain too expensive for lower-income consumers, limiting food access benefits (IPES-Food 2022). Conversely, company-led models may scale faster but risk increasing farmer dependence if firms control patents, technologies, or supply chains. Shared-value agreements, benefit-sharing contracts, and public procurement for affordable hybrid products could help balance profitability, producer equity, and consumer access.

Cultural resistance and perceptions

Cultural acceptability is a major challenge, especially in France, where beef production is closely linked to culinary heritage, terroir, and artisanal practices. Cultivated beef may be perceived as threatening authenticity, producer identity, and consumer trust. Similar concerns appeared in the United States, particularly around labelling and whether cultivated products should use the term ‘beef’. Co-branding, regional identity, transparent communication, and participatory branding involving farmers, chefs, and food councils could help reduce distrust and strengthen cultural legitimacy (Bryant and Barnett, 2019; Joshi et al., 2026b).

Policy and governance complexities

Policy frameworks for cultivated meat remain fragmented, with classification, labelling, and food safety rules still evolving. Aligning cultivated meat with agricultural, environmental, and rural-development goals is also challenging (Jaisli and Brunori, 2024). Public funding and incentives must avoid widening inequalities between large and small producers or between conventional and alternative protein sectors (FAO, 2023; Jaisli and Brunori, 2024). Integrated transition frameworks and multi-stakeholder advisory councils could help ensure that regulation and incentives support diverse producer groups.

Environmental sustainability and energy intensity

Cultivated meat may reduce land use and GHG emissions, but its actual environmental impact depends on energy sources, production scale, and material inputs (IPES-Food, 2022; Lynch and Pierrehumbert, 2019). In fossil-fuel-dependent regions, emissions benefits may be limited. Circular approaches, such as waste reuse and manure integration, also require infrastructure and monitoring that may be lacking in rural areas. Linking cultivated meat development with renewable energy transitions and energy-efficient bioreactor systems could improve sustainability outcomes.

Each model requires balancing the trade-offs among inclusivity, efficiency, cultural values, and sustainability goals. A one-size-fits-all solution is not feasible.