Cyber Threats in Lab-Grown Meat Production: Securing the Future of Food

SWARNALI GHOSH | DATE: JULY 01, 2025

Introduction: The Double-Edged Sword of Lab-Grown Meat

Lab-grown meat—also called cultured or cell-based meat—is no longer science fiction. It’s becoming a real-world solution to environmental, ethical, and food-security concerns. But as with any tech-driven revolution, a hidden threat looms: cyberattacks aimed at the systems that will produce our synthetic steaks. Lab-grown meat, once a futuristic concept, is now a reality. Companies like UPSIDE Foods and GOOD Meat have already received regulatory approvals, with cultivated chicken hitting restaurant menus in the U.S. and Singapore. The promise is immense: reduced environmental impact, ethical production, and a potential solution to global food insecurity. But as the industry scales, a new challenge emerges—cybersecurity. The high-tech nature of lab-grown meat production, reliant on AI-driven bioreactors, automated systems, and cloud-based supply chains, makes it a prime target for cyberattacks. A single breach could disrupt production, compromise food safety, or even lead to contamination, putting public health at risk.

Why Cybersecurity Matters in Cultivated Meat

The Rise of Digitized Bioproduction: Modern cultivated meat relies on complex bioreactors, sensors, control systems, and cloud platforms to manage temperature, nutrient supply, contamination checks, and more. This convergence of IT and operational tech (OT) opens vulnerabilities, just like in traditional agriculture and food processing.

Safety & Public Health at Stake: A breach could manipulate culturing conditions—temperature, pH, nutrient levels—in ways that ruin product safety or cause spoilage. This is not just a financial risk; it's a matter of public health and trust.

Spoofing Supply Chains: With emerging biotech supply chains—cells, media, scaffolding—interactions between vendors and labs are increasingly digital. A compromised supply chain could lead to malware-laced DNA or media contamination.

Key Cyber Threats in Cultivated Meat Production

Ransomware: Holding Bioreactors Hostage: Imagine a scenario where hackers infiltrate a lab’s control systems and freeze bioreactors mid-production, demanding millions to restore operations. Given that bioreactor scaling is critical for cost reduction, downtime could be catastrophic.

Data Theft: Stealing the "Secret Sauce": Lab-grown meat companies invest heavily in proprietary cell lines and growth media formulations. A cyberattack could: Leak trade secrets to competitors. Alter genetic data, leading to unsafe or ineffective products.

Supply Chain Sabotage: Hackers could tamper with nutrient mixes, introducing toxins. Disrupting temperature controls, spoiling cell cultures. Fake safety certifications are allowing contaminated products to reach consumers.

Misinformation & Consumer Distrust: Beyond direct attacks, fake news and manipulated data could erode public trust. If hackers spread false claims about lab-grown meat safety (e.g., "causes cancer"), the industry could face backlash before it even scales.

Types of Threats to Cultivated Meat Systems

Ransomware & Malware: As seen in the 2021 JBS attack, ransomware can halt food production in hours. JBS paid US$11 million to restore operations. Cultivated meat firms could face even higher stakes if expensive bioreactors and proprietary processes are frozen.

Phishing & Social Engineering: Human entry remains weak: Deceptive emails could trick staff into handing over credentials, as is widely plaguing the food and beverage sector.

OT System Exploits: SCADA or MES controllers for bioreactors often run unpatched; hackers could employ DoS attacks, man-in-the-middle exploits, or data manipulation.

Cyber-Bio Attacks: Theoretically, attackers might sabotage biological protocols at the genetic level, embedding malicious instructions in DNA sequences—though such attacks are currently experimental.

Supply Chain Attacks: Third-party software, sensors, or even bioprocess materials could be vectors; injecting malware through vendors is a growing threat.

Espionage & IP Theft: Proprietary cell lines, media recipes, and process optimizations are commercial gold. They're prime targets for nation-state or competitor spies.

Risk Amplifiers in Cultured Meat

Legacy Biotech Equipment: Many labs use dated instruments not designed for networked operation, creating exploitable openings.

Digital-Physical Fusion: Real-time control of living cultures intensifies risk—automated systems mean malware can have immediate biological effects.

Fragmented Ecosystem: A Wide variety of stakeholders—universities, startups, component vendors—make unified security harder.

Regulatory Uncertainty: Cultured meat is still navigating its legal path; cybersecurity standards haven’t caught up.

Cyber‑Security Blueprint for Cultured Meat Firms

Secure OT & Bioreactor Control:

Network Segmentation: Create strict boundaries between IT networks and operational technology (OT) or biosystems using dedicated firewalls. This isolation reduces the risk of lateral movement by attackers within the infrastructure.

Prompt Patching: Ensure all software and firmware—especially for lab instruments and controllers—are updated regularly. Legacy equipment critical to operations must follow tailored security protocols to address known vulnerabilities.

Secure Remote Access: Implement Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) combined with Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) for all remote logins. This dual-layered approach significantly lowers the risk of unauthorized access to bioreactors and automation systems.

Worker Training & Culture:

Phishing and Social Engineering Drills: Conduct regular, mandatory simulations to test employee awareness of phishing and deception tactics. These exercises help build a security-first mindset and reduce the likelihood of successful human-targeted attacks.

Unified Incident Reporting and Response: Develop a streamlined protocol for reporting cyber incidents that involves both IT and laboratory personnel. Regular joint response drills ensure swift coordination and minimize disruption during actual breaches.

Digital Integrity of Bio‑Assets:

Immutable Cell Line Tracking: Use tamper-proof log systems, such as blockchain, to chronologically track cell line provenance and modifications. This ensures data integrity and allows for transparent audits across the entire development lifecycle.

Media Formula Integrity Checks: Introduce automated verification protocols for any changes in growth media composition or sequencing. Such checks help quickly detect unauthorized alterations that could compromise bio-product quality or safety.

Secure Supply‑Chain Collaboration:

Vendor Cybersecurity Assessment: Evaluate all third-party vendors for strong cybersecurity practices, including secure development and communication protocols. Ensure encrypted channels and thorough code reviews are mandatory parts of supplier agreements.

Trusted Firmware and Downloads: Install only firmware that carries verified digital signatures and ensure software packages are authenticated using cryptographic hash validation. Downloads must originate exclusively from authenticated, trusted sources to prevent supply chain compromise.

Central Info‑Sharing & Red Teams:

Join Agri-Food ISAC for Threat Intelligence: Collaborate with an Agriculture and Food ISAC to access timely cyber threat intelligence and sector-specific security insights. Participation enhances situational awareness and fosters collaboration across the sector to mitigate emerging risks.

Conduct Red Team Penetration Testing: Schedule frequent red-team exercises to simulate real-world cyberattacks on both IT and biotech systems. These tests uncover hidden vulnerabilities and help strengthen overall organizational resilience.

Backup, Outage & Crisis Planning:

Air-Gapped Backups for Critical Bioprocess Data: Maintain offline, physically isolated backups of bioreactor configurations, operational parameters, and production recipes. This ensures rapid recovery and data integrity in the event of ransomware attacks or system compromise.

Manual Protocols for Operational Continuity: Develop and document manual cultivation methods to maintain essential bio-production during digital outages. These fallback procedures help sustain critical output when automated or networked systems are unavailable.

Regulatory & Legal Alignment:

Adhere to Emerging Cybersecurity Regulations: Ensure compliance with evolving frameworks like the EU’s NIS2 Directive, FDA’s Food Defense guidelines, and future biotech-specific mandates. Staying aligned with these standards helps safeguard critical systems and avoid legal or operational setbacks.

Monitor Legislative Developments for Support: Track proposed policies such as the U.S. Farm and Food Cybersecurity Act to anticipate new resources and obligations. Proactive engagement with legislation positions organizations to benefit from federal guidance and funding opportunities.

Stronger Cybersecurity Frameworks:

Biannual Cyber Threat Assessments: The 2025 Farm and Food Cybersecurity Act requires agricultural and food entities to conduct cybersecurity risk evaluations twice a year. These assessments help identify evolving threats and ensure timely updates to defense strategies.

Mandatory Cyber Crisis Simulations: The legislation mandates regular simulation exercises to test response readiness across critical food and agriculture systems. These drills strengthen coordination and preparedness for real-world cyber emergencies.

Protecting Automated Systems:

Multi-Factor Authentication for Bioreactor Access: Enforce MFA on all systems controlling bioreactors to prevent unauthorized access through compromised credentials. This added layer of security significantly reduces the risk of targeted cyber intrusions.

Isolated Air-Gapped Networks: Physically separate vital systems, such as bioreactors and control units, from internet-connected networks. Air-gapping minimizes exposure to external threats and limits the attack surface.

AI-Powered Breach Detection: Deploy artificial intelligence tools to continuously monitor systems and flag unusual behavior in real time. These smart detection mechanisms enable faster response to cyber threats and potential sabotage.

Public-Private Collaboration:

Collaborative Intelligence via Food and Ag-ISAC: The Food and Agriculture ISAC enables companies to exchange real-time cyber threat data and best practices securely. This collective defense approach strengthens the entire sector’s resilience against emerging cyber risks.

Government-Funded Cybersecurity Research in Food-Tech: Public investment in cybersecurity R&D supports innovation in protecting food-tech infrastructure and digital systems. Such initiatives drive the development of advanced tools tailored to the unique needs of the agri-food industry.

A Sector-Wide Security Imperative

Cultivated meat pioneers should rally around collective security:

Establish a Dedicated Cell Meat ISAC: Create a specialized Information Sharing and Analysis Centre for cultivated meat to foster collaboration among startups, suppliers, and regulators. The platform will promote shared lab use, exchange of cyber incident experiences, and unified security practices.

Collaborate with Government Cybersecurity Agencies: Partner with national cybersecurity bodies like CISA (U.S.) and ENISA (EU) for threat intelligence, training, and joint cyber response exercises. Such engagement enhances preparedness and ensures alignment with national security protocols.

Team Up with OT-Biotech Cybersecurity Experts: Form alliances with firms that specialize in securing operational technology and biotech environments. Combining domain knowledge with cyber expertise is essential to safeguard complex, hybrid infrastructures.

The Bigger Picture: Food Security vs. Cyber Risk

Lab-grown meat could reduce reliance on traditional livestock, cutting methane emissions and land use. But if cyber threats aren’t addressed, the industry could face:

Cyber-Induced Production Halts and Food Insecurity: A single cyberattack can halt lab-grown meat operations, disrupting supply chains and intensifying food shortages in vulnerable regions. Such shutdowns risk cascading effects on global nutrition, especially in areas relying on alternative protein sources.

Biosecurity Breaches Triggering Safety and Regulatory Setbacks: Compromised bioreactor environments could spark contamination fears, leading to product recalls and delays in regulatory greenlights. These incidents may fuel public mistrust and regulatory hesitance, stalling market entry for next-gen food innovations.

Investor Retreat and Innovation Paralysis: High-profile cybersecurity failures can erode investor confidence, drying up funding for cultivated meat ventures. This chilling effect may slow breakthroughs in sustainability, forcing startups into survival mode instead of scaling up.

Conclusion: Cyber‑Safe Meat = Future‑Safe Food

Lab-grown meat is a beacon of sustainable food innovation. But its promise depends on a fortress of trust, rooted in bulletproof cybersecurity. The future of cellular agriculture—ethical, ecological, delicious—is at stake. Securing it means foreseeing digital sabotage, avoiding bioscientific cyber threats, and embedding resilience into every petri dish and bioreactor. The next food revolution depends on it—not just for investor ROI, but for global health, trust, and a crisis-proof food future. The promise of lab-grown meat is too great to ignore—but so are the cyber risks. From ransomware attacks to supply chain sabotage, the industry must prioritize cybersecurity now before a major breach derails progress. By adopting stronger regulations, advanced tech defenses, and industry-wide collaboration, we can ensure that the future of food is not just sustainable, but also secure.

Citations/References

1. Wikipedia contributors. (2024, October 24). JBS S.A. ransomware attack. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JBS_S.A._ransomware_attack

2. Entwistle, B. (2024, August 2). Essential cybersecurity measures for the food industry: Protect your supply chain & data. Red Team Worldwide. https://www.redteamworldwide.com/essential-cybersecurity-measures-food-industry/

3. Neethirajan, S. (2025). Safeguarding digital livestock farming - a comprehensive cybersecurity roadmap for dairy and poultry industries. Frontiers in Big Data, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdata.2025.1556157

4. Wikipedia contributors. (2023, December 3). CyberBioSecurity. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberbiosecurity

5. Entwistle, B. (2024, August 2). Top Strategies for Cybersecurity in the Food Industry: Protect Your Business from Threats. Red Team Worldwide. https://www.redteamworldwide.com/top-strategies-cybersecurity-food-industry/

6. Lab-grown meat: 53 hazards identified by FAO-WHO | European Livestock Voice. (n.d.). https://meatthefacts.eu/home/activity/beyond-the-headlines/lab-grown-meat-53-hazards-identified-by-fao-who/

7. Zandonadi, R. P., Ramos, M. C., Elias, F. T. S., & Guimarães, N. S. (2025). Global Insights into Cultured Meat: Uncovering Production Processes, Potential Hazards, Regulatory Frameworks, and Key Challenges—A Scoping Review. Foods, 14(1), 129. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14010129

8. Leis, B. (2025, June 18). Though not yet on grocery shelves, lab-grown meat is focus of new laws and legislation - CSG Midwest. CSG Midwest. https://csgmidwest.org/2025/04/25/though-not-yet-on-grocery-shelves-lab-grown-meat-is-focus-of-new-laws-and-legislation/

9. Ching, X. L., Zainal, N. a. a. B., Luang-In, V., & Ling, N., MA. (2022). Lab-based meat the future food. Environmental Advances, 10, 100315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envadv.2022.100315

Image Citations

1. Is lab-grown food the way to improve sustainability and tackle food security? (n.d.). https://www.peak-recruit.com/blog/2024/02/is-lab-grown-food-the-way-to-improve-sustainability-and-tackle-food-security?source=google.com

2. Munteanu, C., Mireşan, V., Răducu, C., Ihuţ, A., Uiuiu, P., Pop, D., Neacşu, A., Cenariu, M., & Groza, I. (2021). Can cultured meat be an alternative to farm animal production for a sustainable and healthier lifestyle? Frontiers in Nutrition, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2021.749298

3. Ching, X. L., Zainal, N. a. a. B., Luang-In, V., & Ling, N., MA. (2022). Lab-based meat the future food. Environmental Advances, 10, 100315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envadv.2022.100315

4. Fleming, A. (2024, July 1). What is lab-grown meat? How it’s made, environmental impact and more. BBC Science Focus Magazine. https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/what-is-lab-grown-meat-a-scientist-explains-the-taste-production-and-safety-of-artificial-foods

5. Labriculture not a ‘cure all’ for climate-friendly meat production, researchers warn. (2019, February 20). FoodNavigator.com. https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2019/02/20/Labriculture-not-a-cure-all-for-climate-friendly-meat-production-researchers-warn/