Summary Download PDF

Forfattere: Mads Dahl Gjefsen, Rob Burton, Sissel Rønning, Christian A. Klöckner, Richard Helliwell, Klaus Mittenzwei, Hugh Campbell, Gary Polhill, Nick Roxburgh, Kenneth Vilhelmsen

When Protein2.0 was funded in 2018 there were 30 startups working on cultivated proteins investing sums of money ranging between tens of thousands and a few hundreds of thousands of U.S. dollars. Now, as we approach the end of 2022, there are hundreds of startups engaged in the development of meat and milk proteins (including some worth over a billion US dollars) and a growing commercial support infrastructure.

  • Richard Helliwell
  • Michelle Baker
  • Alexander D. Williams
  • Steven P.T. Hooton
  • Elizabeth King
  • Thomas Dodsworth
  • Rosa María Baena-Nogueras
  • Andrew Warry
  • Catherine A. Ortori
  • Henry Todman
  • Charlotte J. Gray-Hammerton
  • Alexander C.W. Pritchard
  • Ethan Iles
  • Ryan Cook
  • Richard D. Emes
  • Michael A. Jones
  • Theodore Kypraios
  • Helen West
  • David A. Barrett
  • Stephen J. Ramsden
  • Rachel L. Gomes
  • Chris Hudson
  • Andrew D. Millard
  • Sujatha Raman
  • Carol Morris
  • Christine E.R. Dodd
  • Jan-Ulrich Kreft
  • Jon L. Hobman
  • Dov J. Stekel

Writers: Michelle Baker, Alexander D. Williams, Steven P.T. Hooton, Richard Helliwell, Elizabeth King,Thomas Dodsworth, Rosa María Baena-Nogueras, Andrew Warry, Catherine A. Ortori, Henry Todman, Charlotte J. Gray-Hammerton, Alexander C.W. Pritchard, Ethan Iles, Ryan Cook, Richard D. Emes, Michael A. Jones, Theodore Kypraios, Helen West, David A. Barrett, Stephen J. Ramsden, Rachel L. Gomes, Chris Hudson, Andrew D. Millard, Sujatha Raman, Carol Morris, Christine E.R. Dodd, Jan-Ulrich Kreft, Jon L. Hobman, Dov J. Stekel

Waste from dairy production is one of the largest sources of contamination from antimicrobial resistant bacteria (ARB) and genes (ARGs) in many parts of the world. However, studies to date do not provide necessary evidence to inform antimicrobial resistance (AMR) countermeasures. We undertook a detailed, interdisciplinary, longitudinal analysis of dairy slurry waste. The slurry contained a population of ARB and ARGs, with resistances to current, historical and never-used on-farm antibiotics; resistances were associated with Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria and mobile elements (ISEcp1, Tn916, Tn21-family transposons). Modelling and experimental work suggested that these populations are in dynamic equilibrium, with microbial death balanced by fresh input. Consequently, storing slurry without further waste input for at least 60 days was predicted to reduce ARB spread onto land, with > 99 % reduction in cephalosporin resistant Escherichia coli. The model also indicated that for farms with low antibiotic use, further reductions are unlikely to reduce AMR further. We conclude that the slurry tank is a critical point for measurement and control of AMR, and that actions to limit the spread of AMR from dairy waste should combine responsible antibiotic use, including low total quantity, avoidance of human critical antibiotics, and choosing antibiotics with shorter half-lives, coupled with appropriate slurry storage.

Environment International, Volume 169,


Writers: Richard Helliwell, Carol Morris and Stephen Jones
The desire to govern antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in animal agriculture has gained renewed prominence in the UK and international policy and practice in response to growing concern about the impact of AMR infections on human and animal health. This article adopts a more-than-human approach inspired by assemblage and biopolitical thinking to explore how diverse actors work to assemble a regime of governance in animal agriculture through their efforts to tackle AMR. How agricultural animals are represented and positioned in this process, and the consequences of these efforts for broader agricultural animal–human relation in UK animal agriculture is also a concern. Qualitative, empirical material is produced from documents published by government, industry organisations, NGOs and retailers. We highlight the negotiated contingencies of actions on AMR in UK animal agriculture and reflect on the limited extent to which they constitute a new front in the regulation of agricultural animals.


Cellular food technologies aim to decouple animal protein production from animal bodies and address the negative environmental, ethical, and human health implications of animal agriculture through its substitution. This marks a major rupture with previous expectations for agricultural biotechnology. If technically and commercially successful cellular agriculture could have far reaching effects that have yet to be the subject of concerted public or political discussion. These include, fundamentally altering human-nature relations, disrupting existing food systems, patterns of land use, rural economies, drivers of environmental change and biodiversity in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.

In this paper we explore the environmental and rural visions of cellular agriculture in mainstream news and industry media, their contestation and the narrative silences. These silences represent the under- and un-explored questions, contingencies, and eventualities of envisioned developments. Our analysis highlights how anticipated efficiency gains are central to the realisation of several interlinked but separate positive environmental visions. Notably, that cellular agriculture will be able to replace conventional agriculture and feed the future whilst reducing environmental burdens and land use pressures. However, these visions leave many potential consequences unaddressed. We therefore explore these narrative silences. In doing so we explore the creative and destructive potential of these technologies with a specific emphasis on their environmental, rural, and spatial implications. In conclusion, we identify and anticipate environmental and rural policy implications stemming from these technologies that require further consideration, public and political discussion. Journal of Rural Studies, Volume 84, May 2021, Pages 180-191