The human population has doubled in the last 50 years, from 4 billion to 8 billion. If the trend continues, population models indicate that by 2060, the population is likely to reach 10 billion. This increase, coupled with uncertainties stemming from climate change, access to clean water and environmental degradation, creates great insecurity in access to food in several regions and countries of the world. Therefore, agriculture in the 21st century requires an update that will lead to access to safe and sustainable food.
In this rarefied climate, bioengineering and biotechnology offer potential solutions to many of today's problems. From genetically modifying organisms to make them more resilient to adverse conditions, to improving their nutritional and organoleptic properties. Modifying an organism is now easier and safer than ever before, and a growing number of research groups have focused on developing plant varieties that can prevent and withstand the challenges of the future.
But in addition to agriculture, a growing number of more environmentally friendly alternative protein sources are being explored. Algae, fungi and yeasts are now being cultivated in laboratories that offer similar nutritional values to meat, with scalable potential to feed thousands of people. With these properties on the table, they promise to guarantee the consumption of quality protein for the population. However, one of the most important of these is the cultivation of laboratory meat, made with cells that are the same as those contained in cattle or pigs, but which are not developed in an animal, but in a bioreactor. This alternative, which is more ethical and sustainable, is an interesting idea that, together with the previous ones, would make it possible to reduce the consumption of resources and the carbon footprint of humanity in order to guarantee a sustainable future.
INSIDE. The next phase in the evolution of bionutrients
Humans have artificially modified the genomes of plants and animals by selecting for their most attractive traits. Bigger and tastier fruits, higher-yielding vegetables, or more docile animals are the result of thousands of years of humans moulding nature to their needs. These modifications were slow, but little by little they gave rise to the enormous variety and types of fruit, vegetables and breeds of different animals that we can find today.
With the discovery of mutagenic compounds and radiation in the early 20th century, researchers of the time realised that they no longer had to wait for nature to generate variations in plants by chance. They could speed up the process by chemical and physical processes and give rise to thousands of different plants. Then began the laborious task of choosing those varieties that were most suitable for cultivation.
However, in the late 20th century, with increasing knowledge of nature, plant physiology and genetics, the ability to direct modifications increased dramatically and a paradigm shift in our understanding of agriculture occurred. Figure 1 reviews the challenges for enabling research and innovation in synthetic biology.
Now it is no longer necessary to look for naturally occurring variations in plants, but these modifications can be generated artificially, by deleting or activating genes to create genetically modified organisms (GMOs).OMG[U1] ). Within GMOs there is a particular type of modification called transgenic, which is created by taking a gene from one organism and introducing it into another. In this way, certain advantageous characteristics can be included that can give the food a new property that could not have been achieved naturally. The best known case of a transgenic organism in recent decades is Golden rice, a variety of rice (Oryza sativa) that was engineered to produce the vitamin A precursor beta-carotene from its grains. To do this, the cascade of reactions that produce this substance was genetically engineered and introduced into the rice plant, whose grains showed a yellowish colour.
The patent for its production is released for humanitarian situations, as the initial idea was to combat vitamin A deficiency. This condition, common in poor regions with very limited access to varied food, can lead to disorders including blindness. However, it was not well received by farmers and associations, who burned pilot crops and caused a huge delay in its implementation. Their arguments include the fact that rice does not contain enough beta-carotene to be effective in combating vitamin A deficiency blindness and that it degrades quickly. In addition, they fear that indigenous and traditional varieties will be lost to these crops, as they could cross-pollinate and transmit their DNA into the environment. They therefore advocate other methods such as the introduction of more balanced diets. At the other extreme, scientists argue that golden rice is not a miracle cure-all, but a useful tool to tackle the problem from various angles.
Other crops have also sought to solve nutritional problems for certain populations with difficult access to an adequate variety of food. Other varieties of genetically modified rice have been developed, such as the biofortified [U2] with zinc and iron[i], The purple rice, supplemented with anthocyanins (antioxidant compounds), has the potential to prevent deficiencies and diseases such as cancer.[ii]. None of these has been commercialised to date, although this has not prevented the emergence of more varieties, both of rice and of other plants, fungi and animals.
Today, CRISPR-derived gene-editing tools have enabled the democratisation of genetic engineering. These tools, discovered by the Alicante researcher Francis Mojica in archaea found in Santa Pola, were adapted for use in eukaryotes by the 2020 Nobel Prize winners in Chemistry Jennifer A. Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier. The discovery marked a turning point in the genetic modification of organisms, as the cost of modifying a genome was dramatically reduced by using CRISPR. This opened the door for hundreds of laboratories around the world to use this technology.
Thanks to CRISPR, it has been possible to develop plants that are more resistant to droughts or floods, varieties that require less fertilisers and pesticides, or foods that take longer to lose their organoleptic properties once harvested. And not only plants, but also fungi, yeasts and even animals can benefit from these tools to be more efficient, tastier, or to include some property to ensure food safety.
CRISPR also has an advantage over traditional methods of genetic modification: it leaves no trace in the organism. In other words, a genetic modification carried out with CRISPR cannot be distinguished from a plant variety obtained by artificial selection. Therefore, the regulations for this type of food can be much simpler than for GMOs.
An example of this speed of regulation is the case of mushrooms created by scientist Yinong Yang in 2016. Yang used CRISPR/Cas9 to disable the gene for polyphenol oxidase, an enzyme that causes the mushroom to turn brown under minor shocks or stresses. Due to the technique used, the mushrooms were not treated as transgenic (as no gene had been introduced) and just five months after their creation they were already on the market. Thanks to these mushrooms, not so much food is wasted, as their shelf life is increased.[iii]. To give you an idea of the bureaucratic speed, it took 20 years for AquAdvantage's genetically modified salmon, which included a faster-growing gene, to pass FDA regulations.[iv].
As can be seen in Figure 2, bioengineering is changing our relationship with plants in a radical way. After 10 years of CRISPR, a large number of plant varieties have been developed and commercialised for human and animal consumption. Some examples are:
- Bananas that don't brown. The Philippines Department of Agriculture and Bureau of Plant Industry has authorised the creation of banana plantations modified to slow the browning of bananas after harvesting. The company marketing the banana, Tropic Bioscience, in collaboration with Syngenta, expects to commercialise the banana in the next few years.
- Striga-resistant sorghum. Sorghum is a ubiquitous cereal in Africa. It is used for both human and animal consumption. But its cultivation can be affected by a parasitic plant of the genus Striga, which weakens it and reduces its yield. As a result, resistant sorghum varieties have been developed in Kenya and are currently being tested in controlled fields.
- French beans for mechanised cultivation. One of the problems of the mung bean (Vigna unguiculata) is that the plant develops several harvests simultaneously on each plant. This makes automated harvesting difficult, as the harvesting machines cannot distinguish between ripe and unripe pods. And their subsequent separation is very complex. Seeing this problem, the company BetterSeeds has developed a variety that only generates one harvest.
- Disease-resistant pigs: In the animal sector, the British biotech company Genus has developed a race[U3] CRISPR-edited porcine resistant to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus. These animals do not express the virus entry protein in their cells and therefore cannot become infected or develop the disease.
There are many more examples, such as avocados that do not oxidise, gluten-free wheat, tomatoes with vitamin D or potatoes that do not generate acrylamide even when stored cold, perfect for frying without producing carcinogens, as well as other resistant varieties that could be in supermarkets in the future.
But it is not all good news. Consumers often repudiate this type of food because they do not consider it to be natural or because they believe it can be harmful to their health. Farmers, for their part, fear that traditional varieties will be lost due to the cultivation of GMOs, and that the buying and selling of seeds will lead to an oligopoly in which the big biotech companies will make more profit and impoverish the sector. Moreover, activists against GMOs have carried out very forceful actions (burning of pilot fields, sabotage of installations, etc.), which has led to the abandonment of several plant breeding projects.
The development of technologies for the application of micro-organisms is another major agent of change in the world of nutrition. The first evidence of the use of micro-organisms dates back 13,000 years to an archaeological site in the Haifa cave in Israel. In this cave, associated with the Natufian culture, in addition to about 30 remains of individuals buried in flower beds, archaeologists found a series of stone-carved mortars with very interesting contents. Attached to their walls, the vessels contained traces of starch and phytoliths, microscopic plant particles consistent with the transformation of cereals into an alcoholic beverage.
The production of alcohol marked a turning point in food safety, as the low alcohol content destroyed pathogens in water. Subsequently, the development of yoghurt and cheeses allowed a food of high nutritional value, such as dairy products, to have its place in gastronomy, and the development of vinegar provided a new method of preservation. These foods were developed without an understanding of the biological mechanisms, and it was not until the 19th century that renowned scientists such as Louis Pasteur identified the micro-organisms involved.
In a culture, each bacterium or yeast acts as a small factory in which it is offered a resource and creates a product of interest, such as ethanol, lactic acid, or acetic acid. However, by knowing exactly the molecular and genetic mechanisms that drive these conversions, biotechnology has been able to develop a huge range of micro-organisms that can generate high value-added products.
The process involves techniques that we have already seen in this chapter, but in this case, they are entirely focused on creating a product in the most efficient way possible, without having to generate a complete organism. The so-called precision fermentation allows huge quantities of proteins and compounds such as collagen, casein, and a long etcetera to be generated, identical to those produced by animals, but all within a bioreactor. This produces proteins such as albumin, present in eggs, enzymes for bakery products, lactases that break down lactose in food and make it suitable for intolerant people, or myoglobin of bacterial origin, a substitute for that found in meat.
The method has certain advantages, such as the fact that production is much more controlled and therefore more stable, and that the carbon footprint is usually much smaller. In addition, it also reduces product lead times and allows production to be changed according to the processes that are of most interest. However, they are also subject to various risks, such as possible contamination, which means the total loss of the bioreactor, or total dependence on stable access to electricity and control systems.
The regulatory framework varies from region to region, but generally requires a thorough safety assessment to ensure that the product is safe for both consumers and the environment. In the European Union, specific legislation sets out the criteria for assessing the safety of food ingredients derived from genetically modified micro-organisms. This includes ensuring that production strains are not detectable in final food products.
Single cell protein (SP) is a mass of dried cells that can also be referred to as bioprotein, microbial protein or biomass. Microorganisms that also grow in bioreactors, such as algae, yeast, fungi and bacteria, are used to produce UCPs, but their function is only to produce as many proteins as possible. Fungi and bacteria are usually the micro-organisms from which the highest yields are obtained due to the speed of their growth. PUC also contain other substances such as carbohydrates, vitamins and minerals, and their production can be modified to favour the production of certain essential amino acids such as lysine, methionine or threonine.
Including PUC as an ingredient in certain foods (either added or as a substitute for other ingredients) can improve their nutritional properties and provide extra protein to ensure a balanced diet. For this reason, its inclusion in animal feed and in preparations intended for human consumption is being studied.[v].
Another advantage is that PUC production typically uses agricultural residues. Although there is debate as to whether this is an advantage as, in some ways, it may also mean that their production inherits the ecological, water and carbon footprint of traditional agriculture. However, there are methods by which micro-organisms can be produced independently or by recycling other waste to make them more efficient. In any case, the efficiency of cellular agriculture is generally much higher than traditional agriculture. This is shown in studies by several researchers who have demonstrated that microbial protein production powered by photovoltaics could use 10 times less land for an equivalent amount of protein compared to soybean cultivation.[vi].
However, in addition to the opportunity, new risks also emerge that need to be taken into account as they may put human health at risk. These can be of two types: contaminants in the crop, and impurities and risks specific to the metabolic pathways used. Therefore, a thorough control of all products and by-products created by micro-organisms must be carried out. In all cases, innovation in food production must be accompanied by a thorough food safety assessment.[vii].
In the world of bioreactors, there is a very special type that, instead of bacteria or yeast, grows eukaryotic cells such as those that make up mammals. In this case, the product is the cells themselves, which are then amalgamated into so-called «laboratory meat». In other words, these are the same cells that make up meat, but they do not come from a living animal. One of the most interesting projects on lab meat culminated its first phase in August 2013, when a beef burger entirely cultivated by this method was presented for the first time. The feat took place at Maastricht University by a team led by researcher Mark Post, and at the time it was sold as “the quarter million euro burger” as that was approximately the price it cost to develop.
To create the meat, the researchers introduced beef stem cells into a bioreactor. These cells are able to reproduce and transform into the muscle, fat and connective tissue cells that make up a normal hamburger. Once the researchers have a sufficient number of cells, they squash them together into a mass similar to the minced meat that makes up a hamburger. Ten years after the feat, there are more than 60 companies involved in the production of lab-grown meat, with varying degrees of success. [viii]
Lab-grown meats reproduce whole cuts such as steaks, chops or sashimi. Their organoleptic and nutritional properties are reasonably close to the original product, although their adoption is still in its early stages, and they must overcome regulatory and cost barriers. In addition, although sold as «100% animal-free meat», a substance called «foetal bovine serum», extracted from the blood of bovine foetuses during their slaughter, is generally used during their culture. The cocktail of hormones in this mixture ensures that the cells in the bioreactor divide. Methods for the replacement of this substance with others of chemical or plant origin are currently being studied.
Finally, various cultures around the world consume insects as part of their diet. Due to their physiognomy, insects have a large amount of protein in relation to their weight, which makes them a very interesting food to include in the diet of the future. However, the population, at least in Spain, seems reluctant to accept their presence in supermarkets despite their many benefits.
Among these benefits is their rearing, as producing an insect farm is very efficient both in terms of the space required and the use of water and feed resources. Another advantage is that, due to their metabolism, insects can efficiently convert food into biomass, which translates into high production. In addition, a large number of products can be obtained from them, both for livestock and for human consumption.
Although new forms of food production can be shocking, as they differ greatly from what is understood by agriculture and animal husbandry, they are an exciting development towards a more ethical and sustainable future. These technologies make it possible to create high quality products in less space and time, sometimes using waste as their food source. These systems also ensure greater control over production and can therefore be key to ensuring food safety.
The confluence of advanced gene editing, bioreactors, and insects portends a future with optimal nutritional profiles to ensure that food goes hand in hand with health. To achieve this future, scientists, industry and regulatory agencies will also need to pull in the same direction to scale these solutions and achieve a resilient food system in the face of an evolving future of uncertainty.
IN ACTION. Produce where you consume and secure the food chain.
Food can be used as a military and diplomatic weapon[ix]. Recent crises, increased uncertainty in supply chains and extreme events associated with climate change have shown that food security has become a key geo-strategic issue. Up to 30% of global production of the main staple crops - wheat, rice, maize, potatoes and soybeans - is wasted, and up to 70% of yield losses in major crops are due to adverse environmental conditions. And dependence on products from third countries remains a major conditioning factor. In mid-2025, the United States raised its agricultural trade deficit forecast for the full fiscal year to $49.5 billion.[x]. 2.2 billion surplus in food and beverage trade with third countries and a deficit of 2.6 billion in raw materials, many of which are linked to food.[xi]. Strengthening the bio-industry is, in both cases, one of the ways to ensure food independence.
In response to world population growth and accelerated demand for food and agricultural products, the countryside has managed to increase its production by accentuating intensification strategies and taking steps to diversify and globalise. The sector has introduced regenerative farming practices and is increasingly taking advantage of data and digital applications to consolidate precision farming. But it is not enough.
New bioeconomy products are emerging as a key alternative in the race to ensure security of supply. They can contribute to meeting this need, introducing more flexibility and a wider variety of tools for the field.[xii]. The engineering of plants, mammalian cells and micro-organisms opens the door to new foods and ingredients produced in a sustainable, environmentally friendly and animal-free way. Alongside these, increasingly mature technologies such as genome editing and microbial-based food production are already at the forefront of the exploration of meat and dairy substitutes.[xiii]. The use of cellular agriculture, i.e. the production of food using cell cultures, is being investigated to obtain new and functional ingredients adapted to the needs of infants.[xiv] who cannot be breastfed, for example, few objectives can be more fundamental and strategic for a country than that. That is why public bodies are increasingly willing to make things easier: the first cultured meat product (cell-grown chicken) was approved in 2020 by the Food Agency of Singapore, and the oil Calyno Calyxt paved the way for the supply of genome-edited plant products in the United States.
Biotechnology and human enhancement technologies (BHE) are by no means new, but the unprecedented pace of innovation around them, driven by the convergence with artificial intelligence (AI), is. As can be seen in Figure 3, investment in this area corroborates the perception of growth potential. The emerging biorevolution will transform our society, from healthcare and public health to industrial process manufacturing, security and defence.[xv]. This is the vision of NATO, which envisions a world in which bio-manufacturing and synthetic biology offer environmentally friendly alternatives to dependence on third countries in the supply chain. In February 2024, allied defence ministers endorsed NATO's BHE Strategy.[xvi], The first international agreement governing emerging biotechnology in defence and security. They pledged to promote the development and use of these technologies for defence and peaceful purposes, and as a means of protection against proliferation risks.
A robust, secure and adaptable food system will be fundamental to civil security, global stability and the long-term strategic interests of societies. Biotechnologies for food production will contribute to strengthening the resilience of the supply chain and reduce the risks of agricultural bioterrorism.[xvii], The US Department of Agriculture (DoD), which threatens traditional practices, either through attacks on production infrastructures or through the introduction of animal pathogens. Following the US Department of Defense's (DoD) announcement that it will invest $1 billion in bio-manufacturing over the next few years, the Good Food Institute (GFI) recommended that it prioritise biotechnology-based food production and invest in safe, efficient and diversified methods.
In the face of supply chain vulnerabilities, fermentation, plant-based food manufacturing and cellular agriculture require fewer inputs and links. More food options will reduce the risk of future food-related conflicts and open the way to boosting local production, whether at points deployed on the ground where needed, at sea or even in space. The location of production facilities will be adaptable and not strictly dependent on environmental factors. With this «design anywhere, grow anywhere» approach, distributed bio-manufacturing will allow regions to capitalise on their specific strengths, promote self-sufficiency and reduce waste. This will not only boost the economic development of rural communities, but also enable rapid response and production of supplies during emergencies or natural disasters.
To develop such a new local supply model, however, technical barriers will need to be overcome, such as replicating bioprocesses currently carried out elsewhere and adapting them to local conditions of climate and available raw materials. It will also require a transition from single-purpose facilities to facilities capable of running multiple processes resulting in a diverse product portfolio.
This is not only a geo-strategic issue, but also an economic one, because expanding bio-based options could help counteract the growing concentration of the food sector, and lessen the impact of potential shortages or disruptions. Alternative proteins, such as those associated with soybeans, peas or pulses, for example, offer sustainable solutions to growing demand and allow for a more efficient use of land and water resources. Distributed manufacturing based on synthetic biology can also be harnessed for products that do not require industrial production, such as propane, electricity, water treatment or waste management.
A McKinsey report[xviii] 2020 analysed a portfolio of around 400 synthetic biology applications. According to its estimates, they could have a direct economic impact of between two and four trillion dollars globally per year over the next 10 to 20 years. This will require a shift from its current model of archipelago and isolated research foci to a more connected and coordinated approach. One of the key drivers of this process should be the availability of funding, although venture capital's quest for short-term returns is often incompatible with synthetic biology timelines, which require years to reach scale and become financially viable. In 2021, following the COVID-19 pandemic, global venture capital investment in synthetic biology peaked at more than $20bn; but by 2023, that figure had fallen to just over $5bn. Banks and pension funds are beginning to look at how to invest in synthetic biology, and legislation proposing «BioBonds» (government bonds for biomedical research) is under consideration in the US Congress.[xix].
Bioindustrial production has already become a crucial sector for the US bioeconomy, accounting for more than 5% of GDP and worth more than $950 billion, larger than the construction sector and equivalent to the ICT sector.[xx]. To maintain and expand leadership in biotechnology and biomanufacturing, the United States has taken steps such as the recent Executive Order on Advancing the Bioeconomy.[xxi] and the provisions included in the CHIPS and Science Act, as well as the Inflation Reduction Act.
The US has historically been a leader in food biotechnology innovation, research and regulation, with more patents, companies and Nobel Prize winners in biotechnology than any other country, but maintaining and strengthening that position will require increased public investment.[xxii]. Countries such as China, Israel and Singapore are increasingly prioritising these investments. Significantly, in 2022, governments globally invested $635 million in alternative protein technologies worldwide, while the cumulative US investment was only $45 million. To adapt to the new times, the US Senate's National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology (NSCEB) has already suggested the creation of a National Biotechnology Coordination Office, an investment of at least $15 billion over the next five years, an optimisation of the regulatory framework and has called for clearer signals to the market, especially at the intersection of AI and biotechnology.
Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping has identified biotechnology as a critical sector in China's bid to become a global scientific superpower. Its Military-Civilian Fusion strategy facilitates the direct transfer of cutting-edge data and technologies to the People's Liberation Army (PLA), and biotechnology is central to this. To support its biotech ambitions, China has built a comprehensive legal and regulatory framework that ensures full control over the management of genetic and biological resources. The 2020 Biosafety Law allows for strict control of critical biotechnology-related sectors and their strategic alignment with national priorities. In 2017, the FBI warned that China had gained significant access to US genomic data and biological samples through research collaborations, investments, mergers and acquisitions.[xxiii]. These concerns were echoed by the US National Academy of Sciences in 2022.
According to the US CSIS, China's approach to biotechnology is strategic and defence-linked: if it is unable to produce innovation in a particular field, it acquires intellectual property abroad; state entities then inject capital into domestic biotech companies to launch their products into global supply chains. Over the past decade, China has dramatically increased its investment in biotechnology. Biopharmaceutical R&D has increased 400-fold and the market value of biotech companies increased 100-fold between 2016 and 2021, to the point where they are now collectively worth $300bn. There is concern that the current dependence on 79% by US pharmaceutical companies, which need to buy essential components for their manufacturing from Chinese companies, will extend to food.
China's government supports its domestic biotech industry through funding, regulatory simplification and diplomatic support. The CCP's Military-Civilian Fusion strategy aims to use biotech-powered troops (it calls it «smart warfare») to turn the PLA into a «world-class army» by 2049.[xxiv]. It has created more than 100 biotech research parks and 17 industrial clusters.[xxv] . Chinese tech giant Baidu's CEO Robin Li founded BioMap.[xxvi], BioMap, a life sciences and AI company with offices in Beijing, Suzhou, Hong Kong and Palo Alto, announced the first foundational life sciences AI model capable of reaching more than 100 billion parameters, the largest in the industry. In 2024, BioMap signed an agreement with Hong Kong Investment Corporation, a state-owned fund, to launch a bioinformatics innovation accelerator programme in Hong Kong.
To a lesser extent, the EU is arguably following in the footsteps of the US. Its bioindustry faces challenges such as long R&D lead times to develop the product and production model, low initial profit margins, and the need to scale up production volume quickly amid huge barriers to expanding manufacturing capacity.[xxvii]. It is still difficult for companies to exchange knowledge, attract early-stage investors, and gain access to domestic bioproduction, bio-manufacturing and bio-processing infrastructure and facilities on a commercial scale.
Within the EU, different scientific committees have provided assessments and opinions to the European Commission.[xxviii], and organisations such as EUSynBioS are mapping all synthetic biology research labs, institutions and organisations. But the ecosystem is heterogeneous, dispersed and lagging behind in the number of «synthetic biology» patents compared to the US, which at the end of the last decade accounted for almost half of the total approved worldwide, followed by Japan. European countries together accounted for about a quarter of the world's patents, with Switzerland on the rise. Companies involved in the production of bioproducts, both for industrial and food purposes, include Biosyntia, AMSilk, Insempra, Mosa Meat, Meatable, Biocleave, EVbiotech and Gourmey.
The UK government is being the most active in Europe. It has earmarked £2 billion for a strategy to build new or re-engineered biological systems, such as cells or proteins. It also includes regulation that is conducive to bringing products derived from engineered biology to market. The country has proclaimed its intention to be a world leader in innovation in responsibly engineered biology by 2030.[xxix]. It is in fact one of its five critical technologies, on a par with artificial intelligence, future telecommunications, semiconductors and quantum technologies.[xxx].
Approaches to cellular biotechnology include synthetic biology and precision fermentation. In the latter field, yeast is one of the most dynamic areas of innovation, driven by advances in metabolic engineering that have simplified transfer from natural source to production host. Computational tools have been developed to facilitate such transfer; methods to discover and modify enzymes that can be carried from plants; precision parts libraries; techniques to assemble and integrate large multi-gene pathways; and genome editing models to redirect carbon flow.[xxxi].
The range of food additives derived from engineered yeast is growing rapidly, with emerging products containing vitamin E (DSM), stevia (Amyris and DSM) and whey (Perfect Day). Transfer by fermentation facilitates access to chemicals present in low quantities in nature and serves as a platform to produce new molecules. Biomass fermentation allows the production of protein-rich foods, while precision fermentation generates specific proteins, enzymes, flavour compounds, vitamins, pigments and fats.
Many expectations are being raised around this emerging field of technology. It is estimated that, from 2030 onwards, many products could be conceived as systems with cells designed to work together and integrate with non-living materials or electronics. The burger of the future could be grown using consortia of bacteria, fungi and livestock cells, similar to yoghurt or cheese, that work together to build tactile structures and synthesise molecules that perform the functions of nutrition, taste and fragrance.[xxxii].
AI technologies have come to bring a new scale to the whole process. They create predictive models to analyse the behaviour and interactions of complex systems, with the advantage that machine learning (ML) algorithms can increasingly assess the uncertainties of their predictions and thus improve the design of experiments.[xxxiii]. Several automated biotech labs, such as Emerald Cloud Lab, Recursion, Ginkgo BioWorks and OpenTrons are revolutionising the way traditional research is conducted by running millions of automated experiments through cloud labs, where massive amounts of data are generated.
The model supports simultaneous experiments and their integration into digital twins of living systems to increase productivity and reduce costs. All this activity can also be controlled remotely from anywhere in the world. Communication between laboratories in the cloud and the ability to redirect data from one facility to another allows research centres with specialised functions to operate together in a network.
Not everything can be digitised, however. Biotechnologies inevitably require the creation of physical products, unlike computational analyses carried out in a purely electronic environment, which can pose significant resource, data, skills and knowledge challenges. Even so, AI is demonstrating an improved facility for hypothesis generation, information gathering, design and execution of digital and real-world experiments, and iterative adaptation based on the results.
As in other technological fields, such as health, the limitation of available open data repositories is, however, an obstacle to the development of biotechnology models, at least in Europe. Annotation and classification criteria are not homogeneous, silos are abundant, metadata are missing, and there are often phenomena of over-representation of collectives and under-representation of many genetic diversities within individual species, with consequent biases. Automated experimentation and data curation are helping to overcome this problem and provide data resources for biotechnology R&D.[xxxiv]. The next step will be to give biological laboratories access to computing resources and data such as those provided by supercomputers, because the datasets required for predictive modelling are growing rapidly, at scales of terabytes and petabytes, and will eventually overwhelm existing resources.[xxxv].
The European Green Pact sets the political target of having at least 25% of agricultural land under organic farming by 2030. In 2022, that percentage stood at 10.5%. Research has shown that the 25% organic land target is unlikely to ensure sustainable food production in the EU if modern biotechnology is excluded.[xxxvi]. In the US, the BioCATALYST network is designed to provide high-throughput AI and data analytics resources, as well as to generate large-scale datasets and experimental resources. It is expected to help research on bio-based materials and living systems with new functions for homeland security and defence applications.
When reliable results are obtained, it will be time for entities such as the Biological Technologies Office (BTO)[xxxvii] of the US DARPA, whose mission is to facilitate the transition of fundamental research in areas such as biology to meet urgent and long-term defence and national security needs. The BTO said it will consider, among other things, proposals related to emerging threats to global food and water supplies and the development of countermeasures that can be implemented on a regional or global scale.
In the medium term (5-10 years), the OECD estimates that a further reduction in DNA synthesis costs could make the research process, currently a major obstacle for innovators in developing countries, faster and cheaper.[xxxviii]. In the long term (10+ years), advanced capabilities in the design of new genomes could allow for the upstream construction of synthetic cells and even new synthetic organisms.
The rise of synthetic biology as a general platform technology could have as dramatic an impact on society as the digital revolution. However, it is key to keep the potential interrelationships between food security and biosafety, which acts as a safeguard for food security, although it often ends up being the big casualty, constantly on the move.[xxxix]. The definition of food security often cited by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) states that food security is «secure physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets the dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life for all people, at all times». The growing adoption of non-native species that accompanies increasingly distributed production, including genetically modified organisms, may exacerbate biosafety pressures.
The ‘One Biosafety’ initiative’[xl] includes an integrated vision of food production and respect for the planet's own limits. It warns that synthetic biology could pose new risks to nature. If poorly implemented or managed, it could, for example, introduce unwanted genetic traits into native species, threatening their persistence. Other risks could be indirect, such as the use of synthetic biology to open new agricultural frontiers, threatening biodiversity through land conversion. But on the other hand, synthetic biology could open up new opportunities for nature conservation. For example, it could offer solutions to currently unsolvable threats to biodiversity, such as those caused by invasive alien species and diseases. These opportunities could also be indirect, perhaps by enabling the sustainable intensification of agriculture and thereby reducing pressure on natural ecosystems in other areas. Securing food supply, in order to provide stability to societies, will require the search for a new environmental balance; it will have to be done in accordance with Nature.
IN SPAIN. From the field to the table with a new added value.
In Spain, bioengineering applied to nutrients is a common line of innovation in the agri-food industry that has managed to establish a solid alliance with public and private research centres. Projects such as SYNTHBIOMICS (Disruptive Synthetic Biology Innovations to boost health, food, sustainable energy and industrial decarbonisation), promoted in Navarra by the National Renewable Energy Centre (CENER) and CNTA, explore these biotechnological innovations to address challenges in health and food. The Institute of Molecular and Cellular Biology of Plants (IBMCP) has succeeded in developing a method to increase the beta-carotene content of plant leaves by up to 30 times, which will increase their vitamin A content. In the BOILÀ project, the AINIA technology centre has developed new, healthier and more sustainable fat structures, capable of maintaining the technological and sensory properties of traditional solid fats, to replace ingredients such as butter, palm oil or hydrogenated fats with alternatives with a better nutritional profile and less environmental impact.
In such a strategic sector for Spanish industry, as part of this wave of technological transformation, companies are emerging that are transforming the conventional view of the sector. Tebrio, for example, is a pioneering biotechnology company in the production and transformation of the insect Tenebrio molitor. It will set up the world's largest insect farm in Salamanca, with a total surface area of 90,000 square metres when its six phases are completed, five of them for breeding and one for processing. It will have an annual production capacity of more than 100,000 tonnes of high quality proteins and lipids for the production of animal feed products, organic 100% biofertilisers and chitosan, with applications in the pharmaceutical, cosmetics and bioplastics sectors.
Examples of innovative entrepreneurship abound. The start-up Impact Upcycled Foods has launched Impact Oat, the first range of food ingredients derived from the oat drink manufacturing process; Yuït uses ingredients such as pea protein and mixed vegetables to design nutritional profiles; Naturae et Salus' biofactory uses biotechnology to extract vitamins, minerals and bioactive molecules from fungi and vegetables for the food industry; AlgaEnergy focuses on making the most of microalgae in both cosmetics and food; and Foody's and Cocuus have brought to market BACON! a food produced by 3D bioprinting.
The Navarre startup MOA Foodtech was one of the 71 companies selected in early 2025 by the European Innovation Council (EIC) to receive grants and equity investment.[xli]. They will be used to develop its Non-GMO Directed Fermentation project, which uses artificial intelligence (AI) to transform by-products from the agri-food industry into high added-value ingredients. It does this by designing processes and directing fermentation towards a specific product, without the need to use genetically modified microorganisms. In this way, it can expand its range of ingredients with high nutritional value, avoid regulatory barriers to market entry and adopt a circular economy approach. Precisely, Navarra has introduced some of the fields of action envisaged for synthetic biology in its Smart Specialisation Strategy (S4) and has designed a Synthetic Biology Business Plan, BioSintNA[xlii], The public company Sodena is at the head of the programme. It includes up to 65 actions and six areas of action. In addition, the regional government has located the synthetic biology laboratory in a business complex called the IRIS Digital Innovation Pole.[xliii], recently inaugurated. In addition to being the centre that concentrates all the region's knowledge on innovation and digitisation, it is also a “one-stop shop” to promote the digital transformation of the business fabric.
[i] Trijatmiko, K., Dueñas, C., Tsakirpaloglou, N. et al. Biofortified indica rice attains iron and zinc nutrition dietary targets in the field. Sci Rep 6, 19792 (2016). doi: 10.1038/srep19792 (Accessed: 03/07/2025).
[ii] Zhu, Q. et al. (2017) ‘Development of “purple endosperm rice” by engineering anthocyanin biosynthesis in the endosperm with a high-efficiency transgene stacking system’, Molecular Plant, 10(7), pp. 918-929. doi:10.1016/j.molp.2017.05.008. (Accessed: 03/07/2025).
[iii] Waltz, E. Gene-edited CRISPR mushroom escapes US regulation. Nature 532, 293 (2016). doi: 1038/nature.2016.19754 (Accessed: 03/07/2025).
[iv] Medicine, C. for V. (no date) Aquadvantage Salmon fact sheet, U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/aquadvantage-salmon/aquadvantage-salmon-fact-sheet (Accessed: 03/07/2025).
[v] Sharif, M. et al. (2021) ‘Single cell protein: Sources, mechanism of production, nutritional value and its uses in aquaculture nutrition’, Aquaculture, 531, p. 735885. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.735885. (Accessed: 03/07/2025).
[vi] Leger, D. et al. (2021) ‘Photovoltaic-driven microbial protein production can use land and sunlight more efficiently than conventional crops’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(26). doi:10.1073/pnas.2015025118.
[vii] Fytsilis, V.D. et al. (2024) ‘Toxicological risks of dairy proteins produced through cellular agriculture: Current State of Knowledge, challenges and future perspectives’, Future Foods, doi:10.1016/j.fufo.2024.100412. doi:10.1016/j.fufo.2024.100412. (Accessed: 03/07/2025).
[viii] Lab-grown meat: How it is made and its pros and cons (no date) Eufic. Available at: https://www.eufic.org/es/produccion-de-alimentos/articulo/carne-cultivada-en-laboratorio-como-se-elabora-y-cuales-son-sus-pros-y-sus-contras (Accessed: 03/07/2025).
[ix] Messer, E., & Cohen, M. Food as a Weapon, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Food Studies, 18 June 2024, doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780197762530.013.17
[x] https://www.eleconomista.com.mx/empresas/duda-integridad-usda-retraso-cambios-reporte-sobre-deficit-comercial-agricola-20250609-762866.html
[xi] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-euro-indicators/w/6-18032025-ap
[xii] https://www.syngenta.com/products/biologicals
[xiii] “The future of food”, Nature Reviews Bioengineering, 9 November 2023.
[xiv] Lucile Yart, Cellular agriculture for milk bioactive production, Nature Reviews Bioengineering, 9 October 2023, doi.org/10.1038/s44222-023-00112-x
[xv] Sydney Reis, Zoe Stanley-Lockman, “Healthier, cleaner, greener: a NATO strategy for the coming bio-revolution”, NATO Review, 30 May 2024
[xvi] https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_224669.htm
[xvii] “Defense Production Act: The Department of Defense should invest in food biomanufacturing to advance national security”, Good Food Institute, December 2023.
[xviii] Chui, M. et al. “The Bio Revolution: Innovations transforming economies, societies, and our lives”, McKinsey, 2020.
[xix] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7539
[xx] “Safeguarding the Bioeconomy”, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2020, https://doi.org/10.17226/25525.
[xxi] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/09/12/executive-order-on-advancing-biotechnology-and-biomanufacturing-innovation-for-a-sustainable-safe-and-secure-american-bioeconomy/
[xxii] Marcia McNutt, “Winning a noble race”, PNAS, 21 December 2023, doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2321322120
[xxiii] “Prepared Statement of Edward H. You, Supervisory Special Agent, Biological Countermeasures Unit, Countermeasures and Operations Section, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Directorate, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Safeguarding the Bioeconomy: U.S. Opportunities and Challenges”, U.S.-Economic and Security Review Commission, 16 March 2017
[xxiv] International Security Advisory Board, «Report on Biotechnology in the People's Republic of China's Military-Civilian Fusion Strategy», U.S. Department of State, 12 November 2024.
[xxv] Anna Puglisi, Daniel Chou, “China's Industrial Clusters. Building AI-Driven Bio-Discovery Capacity”, Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET), June 2022, doi.org/10.51593/20220012
[xxvi] https://www.biomap.com/en/
[xxvii] Michael A. Fisher, “Advancing the U.S. Bioindustrial Production Sector”, FAS, 20 January 2023, accessed 26/06/2025
[xxviii] Stefano Donati et al., Synthetic biology in Europe: current community landscape and future perspectives, Biotechnology Notes, 2022, doi.org/10.1016/j.biotno.2022.07.003
[xxix] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-publishes-2-billion-vision-for-engineering-biology-to-revolutionise-medicine-food-and-environmental-protection
[xxx] https://www.ukri.org/what-we-do/browse-our-areas-of-investment-and-support/synthetic-biology-for-growth/
[xxxi] Christopher A. Voigt, Synthetic biology 2020-2030: six commercially-available products that are changing our world, Nature Communications, 11 December 2020, doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-20122-2
[xxxii] Christopher A. Voigt, Synthetic biology 2020-2030: six commercially-available products that are changing our world, Nature Communications, 11 December 2020, doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-20122-2
[xxxiii] National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. “Strategic Report on Research and Development in Biotechnology for Defense Innovation.” The National Academies Press, 2025, https://doi.org/10.17226/27971
[xxxiv] “Artificial Intelligence and Automated Laboratories for Biotechnology: Leveraging Opportunities and Mitigating Risks: Proceedings of a Workshop-in Brief”, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2024.
[xxxv] Rajeeva, A. “AI Datasets Need to Get Smaller-and Better”, InfoWorld, 15 June 2024, accessed on 02/02/2025
[xxxvi] De La Cruz, V.Y.V. et al. “Yield gap between organic and conventional farming systems across climate types and sub-types: A meta-analysis”, Agric. Syst., October 2023, doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2023.103732
[xxxvii] https://www.darpa.mil/about/offices/bto
[xxxviii] Douglas K. R. Robinson, Daniel Nadal, “Synthetic biology in focus: Policy issues and opportunities in engineering life”, OECD, March 2025, dx.doi.org/10.1787/3e6510cf-en
[xxxix] Marnie L. Campbell, Chad L. Hewitt, Chi T.U. Le, Views on biosecurity and food security as we work toward reconciling an approach that addresses two global problems for a sustainable outcome, Cell Reports Sustainability, 27 September 2024, doi.org/10.1016/j.crsus.2024.2024.100218
[xl] Philip E. Hulme, “One Biosecurity: a unified concept to integrate human, animal, plant, and environmental health”, Emerg Top Life Sci, 28 October 2020
[xli] “Navarra startup MOA Foodtech receives 14.8 million euro investment commitment from the European Commission”, Revista Alimentaria, 19 February 2025.
[xlii] “Navarra projects the Synthetic Biology Business Plan ‘BioSintNa’, led by Sodena, with 65 strategic actions”, biotech-spain.com, 28 March 2025.
[xliii] www.navarra.es/es/-/nota-prensa/polo-de-innovacion-iris-10-millones-de-euros-en-una-infraestructura-unica-en-espana-para-el-desarrollo-digital-y-de-la-biologia-sintetica