A new study in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry suggests that while cultured beef cells generally contain fewer traditional protein allergens than conventional beef, they may elicit stronger IgE responses in individuals with alpha-gal syndrome. The research underscores the complex biological differences between lab-grown and farm-raised meat as the industry moves closer to commercialization. By examining how these proteins interact with human immune systems, scientists hope to establish more rigorous safety protocols for this rapidly developing sector.
The investigation compared the protein composition of cow muscle cells grown in controlled laboratory environments with that of traditional beef. Researchers found that while cultured cells maintained a consistent protein makeup regardless of culture duration, their allergenic potential differed from their natural counterparts. These findings challenge the assumption that cultivated meat will behave identically to conventional meat in the human digestive and immune systems.
One of the most notable findings involves alpha-gal syndrome, a red meat allergy triggered by tick bites. The study showed that cultured cow cells exhibited high reactivity with human IgE in blood samples from alpha-gal–sensitive individuals, potentially due to a higher concentration of alpha-gal–modified proteins in the lab-grown cells. “This study demonstrates that meat grown from cells can change in ways that matter for food allergies,” explained corresponding author Renwick Dobson, PhD, professor of biochemistry at the University of Canterbury.
At the same time, the study found that cultured meat may pose lower IgE reactivity for individuals with more common meat protein allergies. Blood samples from people with conventional meat allergies showed less IgE binding when exposed to both digested and undigested cultured cells compared with traditional steak. The researchers also noted that three allergenic proteins were present at similar levels in both cultured and conventional beef, and that the World Health Organization has not formally classified these proteins as meat allergens. These results suggest that cultivated meat’s allergenic profile may differ in meaningful but nuanced ways, rather than presenting a uniformly higher or lower risk.
The researchers emphasized that because cultivated meat is produced under specific, controlled conditions, the resulting muscle cells can contain different quantities of proteins than those found in traditional livestock. This variation is why the team argues against a “one-size-fits-all” approach to food safety. As Dobson noted, “Our results show why food safety assessments for cultivated meat need to look carefully at allergy-related proteins, rather than assuming they behave the same as those in conventional meat.”
Looking ahead, the research team plans to expand their work to include final, processed cultivated meat products rather than just isolated cells. This is a critical next step, as processing methods and added components could further influence the allergenic profile of the finished food. The study authors—some of whom are co-founders, employees, or shareholders in Opo Bio Aotearoa—underscored the need for careful evaluation as these products move toward broader public availability.
Ultimately, the study serves as a call for a multidisciplinary approach to food innovation. Ensuring that lab-grown meat is a viable alternative to industrial agriculture requires more than engineering success; it also demands clinical and regulatory validation. “The development of cultivated meats will require coordinated efforts among scientific, regulatory, and clinical teams to deliver products that are not only safe and sustainable but also accepted and trusted by the public,” Dobson concluded.
