Cheese from the Fermenter: What Is Really Behind the Viral “Lab Cheese” Video
The video opens with a claim that immediately made me want to take a closer look.
In essence, it says that a new “lab cheese” could now reach supermarket shelves without being tested. After lab-grown meat, artificial milk and butter, it claims that the first ready-made pizzas are now even being sold with a cheese that no longer comes from a cow.
The US company New Culture is shown.
The technology behind it does indeed sound futuristic: microorganisms are genetically modified to produce casein—the milk protein largely responsible for mozzarella melting, stretching into strings and developing the structure we associate with cheese when baked.
This casein does not come from cow’s milk.
It is created in a fermentation tank.
It is then purified and processed, together with water, plant-based fats, salt, sugar, starch and minerals, into a mozzarella-like product.
So far, the core of the video is indeed correct.
But this is where the problems begin.
Because according to my research, this product is not simply already sitting on American supermarket shelves; nor is there evidence that it is being sold on a mass scale on ready-made pizzas. And in Austria or the European Union, a comparable novel food could not simply be brought onto the market under the same regulatory model anyway.
That is why the story is far more interesting than the video suggests.
Because between “everything is harmless” and “we are being fed lab cheese without being asked” lies a new food technology that we will probably be discussing far more often in the future.
What is actually being made here?
The most important term is:
Precision fermentation.
At first, that sounds more complicated than its basic principle actually is.
Humans have used microorganisms to make food for thousands of years. Yeasts produce alcohol and carbon dioxide. Lactic acid bacteria transform milk into yoghurt or cheese. Microorganisms produce flavours, acids, enzymes and many other substances.
Precision fermentation makes this process much more targeted.
A microorganism—such as a yeast, fungus or bacterium—is given the genetic information for one very specific protein. It is then cultivated under controlled conditions in a fermenter and supplied with nutrients.
The microorganism thus functions, in a sense, like a biological production facility.
In New Culture’s case, it is intended to produce casein.
The company itself states that the microorganisms receive sugar and other nutrients in large steel tanks. After fermentation, the casein produced is separated from the liquid, purified and obtained as a protein powder [2].
The protein is then processed with other ingredients into mozzarella.
So this is not cow’s milk.
But neither is it a conventional plant-based substitute product.
And it is not “lab-grown meat” either
This is precisely where the video conflates things that need to be clearly distinguished technologically.
With cultivated meat, animal cells are multiplied. Those cells are then intended to become muscle, fat or other tissue.
With the precision fermentation of casein, by contrast, no piece of cow tissue is grown.
Nor does a cow cell grow into cheese.
Instead, microorganisms produce a defined protein.
The UK Food Standards Agency accordingly describes precision fermentation as a technology in which genetically modified microorganisms are used to specifically produce functional components such as proteins or enzymes [3].
“Lab cheese” is therefore a media-friendly term.
It is not a particularly scientifically precise one.
A more accurate description would be:
Food containing milk protein produced through precision fermentation.
Of course, that sounds less spectacular.
Is “a gene from a cow” really being taken?
This claim in the video also has a kernel of truth, but is simplified.
To produce a protein such as casein microbially, the production organism needs the genetic blueprint for that protein.
This information can be introduced into the microorganism through genetic engineering.
But that does not necessarily mean that someone today takes a piece of DNA from a cow and then directly inserts it into a yeast.
Known DNA sequences can be synthetically produced.
The crucial information is:
The microorganism is genetically modified so that it produces a protein whose structure corresponds, or is intended to correspond, to that of an animal milk protein.
After all, this molecular similarity is the very purpose of the technology.
Because an ordinary plant protein does not behave like casein when making cheese.
Why is casein so important?
Anyone who has tried many plant-based cheese alternatives will know the problem.
Flavour can be imitated relatively well.
Fat too.
Colour, certainly.
But recreating the behaviour of mozzarella when heated is surprisingly difficult.
Caseins form complex structures in cow’s milk. They are responsible for coagulation, texture, elasticity and many of the typical characteristics of cheese.
New Culture is therefore not simply producing just any protein.
The company is trying to reproduce precisely the functional component that many previous plant-based cheese alternatives lack.
In 2026, the company was granted another US patent for this. The patented product combines precision-fermented alpha-S1-casein with plant oils, salts, sugar and other components [4].
Technologically, that is certainly remarkable.
What is actually in this “mozzarella”?
New Culture has published its ingredients itself.
According to the company, the current formulation contains, among other things:
water, casein produced through precision fermentation, sunflower oil, coconut oil, salt, sugar, starch and added minerals [5].
The video refers to the product, in essence, as cheese made from “seed oils”.
That is rhetorically effective.
But precision is worthwhile here too.
Sunflower oil is indeed a seed oil.
Coconut oil, however, is not.
And above all, the mere fact that a food contains plant oil says nothing in itself about whether it is harmful to health.
It is certainly possible to discuss whether a food made up through extensive technological formulation should be considered nutritionally equivalent to traditional mozzarella.
But “contains plant oil” does not automatically mean:
dangerous.
Is this cheese now “real cheese”?
Technologically, this becomes almost philosophical.
New Culture itself calls its product “animal-free dairy cheese”.
The company argues:
The key milk protein is real, or bioidentical, casein. Only the cow is no longer needed to produce it [6].
In the United States, this marketing question may be handled differently.
In the European Union, it is legally much more difficult.
Because terms such as milk, butter, whey, casein, cheese and yoghurt are generally reserved for dairy products here.
EU Regulation 1308/2013 defines dairy products as products derived exclusively from milk and explicitly reserves the designation “cheese” for such products [7].
Under the current European framework, a product whose protein does not come from animal milk could therefore not simply be called conventional “mozzarella cheese” without further ado.
The specific legal name for any precision-fermentation product that might one day be authorised would have to be clarified through the relevant authorisation and labelling procedure.
Austria already knows this debate—from analogue cheese
The question of cheese-like products is not entirely new.
Years ago, there was already intensive debate about so-called analogue cheese.
These were often products made from vegetable fat and protein intended to replace cheese visually and functionally—for example on pizzas, baguettes or in food service.
As early as 2009, the Austrian Food Codex made clear:
The designation “cheese” may only be used for dairy products. If a product looks like cheese but actually uses a substitute mixture, this must be clearly indicated. One possible description suggested was, for example, a “vegetable fat and protein preparation for melting” [8].
AGES later investigated food service establishments and found fault with several samples in which dishes suggested cheese but had in fact used analogue products [9].
New Culture’s product, however, is not simply the same old analogue cheese in new packaging.
The key difference is precisely that it contains a functional milk protein—albeit one that is not isolated from milk but produced by microorganisms.
Now for the video’s biggest claim: is it really already being sold in supermarkets?
This is where it becomes problematic.
The video gives the impression that the new cheese is now already being sold without testing in supermarkets or on ready-made pizzas.
Based on current research, I can find no solid evidence for this.
On the contrary.
As recently as July 2026, New Culture itself wrote that it would introduce the mozzarella in food service via pizzerias in the future [10].
The company continues to state on its own website that it will first bring the cheese to pizzerias and refers to planned cooperation with Pizzeria Mozza in Los Angeles [11].
An industry report of 8 July 2026 is even clearer.
There, New Culture explicitly said that the product was not yet being produced at commercial mass scale. Its current focus was on food service, particularly pizzerias [12].
This means the claim that the cheese is now already regularly available in supermarkets or being sold on ready-made pizzas on a mass scale is, based on what is currently publicly documented, not correct.
But had the company not announced a launch for 2024?
Yes.
And that is exactly what makes the story interesting.
As early as 2023, New Culture announced that it would first offer its product from 2024 at the well-known Pizzeria Mozza in Los Angeles [13].
That timetable was clearly not implemented as originally announced.
Because even in 2026, the company continues to speak of an upcoming food-service launch.
This happens relatively often with new food technologies.
A product can work in the laboratory.
It can pass tastings.
It can even reach regulatory milestones.
But mass production, costs, approvals, supply chains and reproducible industrial quality are an entirely different scale again.
What, then, do the alleged five million dollars mean?
Here too, the video quickly turns an interesting figure into something else.
In March 2025, New Culture reported:
five million US dollars in “early demand”.
The company explicitly referred to pre-launch interest from pizzerias, independent businesses and, in some cases, larger chains [14].
That is not the same as five million dollars in revenue.
Nor does it necessarily mean five million dollars in firmly paid orders.
According to the company, it represents demand or commercial interest before the actual market launch.
For a start-up, that figure is certainly noteworthy.
But it should not be used to construct a narrative of mass marketing that is already under way.
And is Kraft Heinz really behind it?
This claim, too, is neither entirely wrong nor as simple as the video makes it seem.
In 2019, Evolv Ventures led a 3.5-million-dollar funding round in New Culture.
Evolv Ventures was a venture fund with up to 100 million dollars in funding that was financed or supported by Kraft Heinz [15].
There is therefore indeed a financial connection between Kraft Heinz and New Culture.
But that does not automatically mean:
Kraft Heinz owns New Culture.
Kraft Heinz produces this mozzarella.
Or Kraft Heinz is now secretly bringing it into supermarkets through its well-known cheese brands.
There is no solid evidence for any of that.
It is a start-up investment through a venture fund.
That is a difference.
Now it gets really interesting: was the product reviewed by the FDA?
Here, the video makes one of its strongest points.
In 2024, New Culture itself announced that it had classified its casein as GRAS.
GRAS means:
Generally Recognized as Safe.
The crucial point, however, is this:
New Culture explicitly refers to a Self-GRAS determination.
According to the company, it had an independent panel of qualified scientific and toxicology experts assess its safety documentation and, on that basis, concluded itself that the intended use of the casein was GRAS [16].
And this is where a peculiarity of US food law begins.
Companies in the US could indeed determine GRAS status themselves
Under the US system still in force, a company may determine for certain food ingredients that an intended use should be classified as GRAS.
As of September 2026, notification to the FDA is generally still voluntary.
The FDA itself writes:
A company that concludes a use is GRAS may, but under the currently applicable rule is not required to, inform the agency [17].
If no voluntary GRAS notice is submitted, the FDA also does not conduct a conventional pre-market review of that specific ingredient before it enters the market.
In this sense, the video’s central criticism identifies a real issue.
Even the US government now calls it a “loophole”
That is particularly noteworthy.
In March 2025, the US Department of Health and Human Services explicitly directed the FDA to examine options for eliminating the self-affirmed GRAS process.
The department itself described the existing option as a “loophole”.
Its reasoning:
Companies could use new ingredients without first having to inform the FDA or the public [18].
And the reform has since progressed further.
On 10 August 2026, the FDA published a proposed rule under which mandatory notifications to the agency would be required in future for certain or new GRAS uses [19].
This is extremely important context.
Because it shows:
Criticism of the American Self-GRAS system is not a wild internet conspiracy theory.
US authorities themselves see a need for reform.
Does that mean “no one checked the safety”?
No.
And this is precisely the distinction missing from the video.
New Culture says that an independent expert panel reviewed its documentation and found the intended use safe [16].
That is not the same as:
“No one looked at it.”
But it is also not the same as:
“The FDA reviewed all data and officially approved the product.”
These two statements are frequently confused in public debate.
The accurate wording is:
New Culture made its own GRAS determination for its casein based on an external expert assessment. I was unable to establish that there was a regular FDA pre-market review followed by an official “No Questions” letter for this specific New Culture ingredient.
That is indeed a distinction consumers are entitled to discuss.
GRAS does not mean “healthy”, incidentally
This is also frequently misunderstood.
A safety assessment essentially answers the question:
Can a particular ingredient be considered safe for health under its intended conditions of use?
It does not automatically answer:
Is this food particularly healthy?
Should it be eaten every day?
Is it nutritionally better than traditional cheese?
For example, a food high in sugar can be legally safe as a food without therefore being a particularly advisable everyday food.
Safety and nutritional quality are two different questions.
Could something like this also be sold in Austria without review?
Here, the answer is much clearer:
It does not work as simply in the European Union as it does under the American Self-GRAS system.
Novel foods are subject to the Novel Food Regulation.
A food that was not consumed to a significant degree in the European Union before 15 May 1997 and falls within the relevant novel-food categories generally requires authorisation before it can be marketed.
The European Commission describes the procedure clearly:
A novel food may only be placed on the market after an application for authorisation has been processed, a risk assessment by the European Food Safety Authority EFSA has been carried out where applicable, the Commission has adopted the relevant legal act, and the food has been added to the Union list [20].
That is a genuine pre-market procedure.
Precision-fermented milk proteins are in fact treated as novel foods in Europe
There is already a concrete example.
The Israeli company Remilk applied in the EU for authorisation of beta-lactoglobulin, a whey protein produced through fermentation with the help of genetically modified microorganisms.
The official application explicitly notes:
Since this novel protein source had no relevant history of consumption in the EU before 1997, authorisation under the Novel Food Regulation was applied for [21].
This regulatory pathway shows exactly how Europe treats such products.
For New Culture’s casein, I could find no authorisation in the current EU Union list.
There is therefore currently no basis for assuming that this particular New Culture mozzarella could simply be placed on a supermarket shelf in Austria.
Austrian consumers would therefore not suddenly buy this cheese without noticing
At least under current European law, the scenario presented in the video would be considerably more difficult in Austria.
Before marketing, questions including composition, manufacturing process, impurities, microbiological safety, toxicological aspects, allergies and nutritional effects would have to be clarified.
In addition, specific labelling requirements could form part of an authorisation [20].
That is a significant difference from the American debate.
And it is precisely why a German-language video describing US law should not automatically create the impression that the same situation also applies in Austria.
Is this new casein genetically modified?
Here, a distinction must be made between the manufacturing process and the final product.
New Culture uses genetically modified microorganisms to produce the casein.
According to the company, these production organisms are then removed and are not present in the finished cheese [22].
This basic principle is common in precision fermentation.
The UK Food Standards Agency also describes manufacturing processes in which the target protein is separated and purified from cell mass, production organisms and fermentation medium after fermentation [3].
The statement:
“There are genetically modified bacteria in the cheese”
would therefore be false without corresponding evidence.
The accurate statement would be:
Genetically modified microorganisms are used as production tools.
Is this technology entirely new?
Surprisingly, no.
And that is probably one of the most compelling aspects of the whole story.
As early as 1990, the US FDA confirmed that chymosin produced by genetically modified E. coli was GRAS [23].
Chymosin is the enzyme that causes milk to coagulate in cheese-making.
Today, fermentation-produced chymosin is widespread in the international cheese industry. Scientific reviews describe how a large share of industrial cheese production has used fermentatively produced or recombinant chymosin for years [24].
That means:
Genetically modified microorganisms being used to produce a substance for cheese is by no means an invention of 2026.
What is new is the scale and function.
With chymosin, the microorganism produces an enzyme that helps in cheese production.
With New Culture, by contrast, the microorganism is intended to produce a central main component of the food itself: casein.
That is a different dimension.
Is precision fermentation safe?
Any absolute answer here would be irresponsible.
“Completely harmless” would be just as premature as:
“This cannot possibly be safe.”
Precision fermentation is a production platform.
Its safety depends on:
which microorganism is used,
which genetic modification has been made,
which protein is produced,
which fermentation medium is used,
how completely production organisms and by-products are removed,
which impurities may arise,
how the protein is purified
and in what quantities it is later consumed.
A current study by the UK Food Standards Agency therefore identifies several groups of potential risks that should be considered in authorisation procedures.
These include chemical residues, microbial contamination, components of host cells, potential toxins, unintended biological effects and allergies [25].
This does not mean that these problems are automatically present in New Culture’s product.
It means:
These are exactly the things that must be examined in a new product.
And milk proteins pose a very real allergy issue
Here, the label “animal-free” could easily be misleading.
Someone who is lactose intolerant may, in principle, be able to tolerate such a product, because it need not contain conventional cow’s milk and therefore need not contain the corresponding lactose.
But someone with a milk protein allergy faces a different issue.
Casein itself is a major milk allergen.
And if precision fermentation is meant to produce a protein as functionally and structurally similar as possible to cow protein, its allergenic potential does not simply disappear because no cow was involved.
New Culture itself therefore explicitly says:
People with a milk allergy would also have an allergic reaction to the animal-free cheese [26].
The European Remilk application also explicitly states that the fermentatively produced beta-lactoglobulin corresponds to the relevant milk protein in terms of allergenic potential [21].
“Animal-free” therefore does not mean “free of milk protein”
This is enormously important for consumers.
A product could be:
made without cows,
lactose-free,
free of animal fat
and still contain a relevant milk allergen.
This is precisely why the future labelling of such foods will play a central role.
A person with a milk allergy must not infer from wording such as “animal-free” or “cow-free”:
Then it is automatically safe for me.
Scientists are addressing precisely this issue
A review paper published in September 2026 specifically examines the allergenicity of food proteins produced through precision fermentation.
The authors point out that many of the proteins currently being produced are deliberately structural copies of known milk or egg proteins—and some of these proteins are known allergens.
There is also a second level:
Depending on the microorganism and production process, protein folding, glycosylation, residual proteins from the production organism or other characteristics may differ slightly from the animal original.
A systematic allergen assessment is therefore required [27].
Science is therefore saying neither:
“dangerous.”
nor:
“completely identical and therefore irrelevant.”
It says:
assess it.
And that is sensible.
Is there already evidence that people have been harmed by proteins like these?
For New Culture, I currently find no solid evidence of documented harm to human health.
But neither can one conclude from this that decades of consumer experience already exist.
The technology for food proteins on this scale is young.
In an analysis of precision-fermentation applications, the UK Food Standards Agency notes that several products still have data gaps, for example concerning protein digestion, allergies, cell-line characterisation and possible nutritional disadvantage [28].
That is a good reason for careful authorisation procedures.
It is not evidence of a specific health hazard.
Is the new cheese nutritionally better?
This, too, cannot currently be answered responsibly in general terms.
New Culture states that its formulation contains, among other things, five grams of protein per serving and promotes the absence of lactose and cholesterol [5].
The company can also deliberately alter its composition.
That is precisely where a potential advantage of such technologies lies.
Fat profiles, minerals or protein levels could be designed in a targeted way.
But a technically optimised nutrient profile does not automatically make a product nutritionally superior.
And an ingredients list of isolated protein, plant oils, starch, sugar, salt and minerals is not the same as the matrix of a traditional mozzarella.
The long-term nutritional effects of such products must therefore be considered separately.
Is it “ultra-processed”?
Under various classification systems, many such composite products would probably fall into categories of highly or ultra-processed foods.
But caution is necessary here too.
The term “ultra-processed” initially describes a degree of processing.
It does not automatically prove that a specific food must be harmful to health.
An ultra-processed product can be nutritionally unfavourable.
But depending on its composition, it may also be comparatively balanced.
Anyone wishing to critically assess a new technology should therefore speak instead about specific characteristics:
protein.
fat quality.
salt.
energy content.
additives.
digestibility.
allergenicity.
and actual consumption amounts.
That is more meaningful than the label “artificial”.
And how natural is conventional cheese, really?
This question may seem provocative.
But it helps put things into context.
Traditional cheese is also created through a technological process.
Milk is standardised.
Pasteurised or heat-treated.
Inoculated with cultures.
Coagulated.
Cut.
Heated.
Pressed.
Salted.
Aged.
Enzymes are used.
Microorganisms influence flavour and structure.
In industrial cheese production, enzymes produced by genetically modified microorganisms have sometimes been used for decades [23][24].
The distinction is therefore not between:
“nature” and “laboratory”.
But between different biological production systems.
Even so, New Culture is a major technological step
Because until now, the cow produced the casein.
It eats.
Digests.
Lives.
Produces milk.
The milk is milked and processed.
Precision fermentation attempts to bypass part of this system.
Instead of feeding an entire animal so that it produces milk protein among other things, a microorganism is directly optimised to produce that protein.
From a biotechnology perspective, that is fascinating.
From a societal perspective, it raises enormous questions.
What happens to dairy farming?
To farming businesses?
To regional food production?
To animal husbandry?
To international commodity and sugar flows?
To patents on production organisms and protein technologies?
And to the market power of a small number of biotechnology companies?
This debate will go far beyond the question of whether the cheese melts well on a pizza.
One of the most obvious advantages concerns animal welfare
If a milk protein can actually be produced without a cow, then neither dairy cows nor calves are needed for that protein.
In principle, that means:
no insemination of cows for this production,
no milk production,
no separation within production cycles,
no animal housing,
no barn,
no slaughter of an animal as part of this production system.
For people who care about animal welfare, that is a considerable advantage.
The video itself even acknowledges this point at the end.
And it should not be downplayed.
If the technology works at industrial scale, it can indeed partly replace animal production.
But is it automatically better for the environment?
This is exactly where marketing quickly becomes dangerous.
New Culture itself claims that its technology can reduce land and water use by more than 90 per cent and greenhouse-gas emissions by more than 50 per cent [29].
However, such figures come from the company.
I would therefore not simply accept them as neutral scientific fact.
Independent life-cycle assessments show instead:
The ecological potential of precision fermentation may be substantial.
But it depends heavily on how it is produced.
Electricity, sugar and purification determine the environmental footprint
A peer-reviewed life-cycle assessment compared microbially produced beta-lactoglobulin with conventionally produced milk protein.
The result was particularly interesting.
Depending on location, electricity mix, sugar source and purification process, the calculated emissions of the fermentatively produced protein ranged from about 5.5 to 17.6 tonnes of CO₂ equivalents per tonne of protein.
The conventional milk protein in the same study came to around 10 tonnes of CO₂ equivalents per tonne of protein [30].
This means:
Under favourable conditions, precision fermentation can perform significantly better.
Under unfavourable conditions, it can even perform worse.
That is extremely important.
A fermenter does not run on magic energy
Large bioreactors must be:
built,
sterilised,
heated or cooled,
aerated,
stirred
and monitored.
Microorganisms need nutrients.
Often sugar.
Afterwards, the desired protein must be separated from cell material, water, nutrients and by-products.
This so-called downstream processing can be technically and energy intensive.
A current scientific analysis from 2026 therefore explicitly concludes:
The actual sustainability of precision fermentation is not yet automatically guaranteed. The electricity mix, raw materials, yield, scaling, and waste and wastewater treatment are among the decisive factors [31].
This dispels another simple narrative:
“Fermenter = automatically green.”
No.
At the same time, the system has a structural advantage
A cow is not a casein reactor.
Nor should it be.
It is an animal whose body performs many biological functions.
It needs feed.
Land.
Water.
It produces metabolic products.
Ruminants produce methane.
It requires housing or pasture.
A microorganism, by contrast, can be optimised for a very specific production process.
That is precisely why there is, in principle, considerable potential for lower land requirements and less direct animal husbandry.
Whether that potential is actually realised in practice will be determined by industrial implementation.
Not by the marketing brochure.
And casein, of all proteins, is one of the most difficult
The technology is also far from trivial.
A scientific review published in September 2026 describes precision-fermented casein as particularly challenging.
Problems include:
yield,
protein heterogeneity,
secretion,
proteolysis,
structure formation
and scalability.
Caseins in particular are functionally complex and more difficult to produce microbially than some whey proteins [32].
New Culture has therefore changed its formulation so that, according to its own information, it now requires 28 per cent less casein produced in-house than before [33].
That is technologically interesting.
But it also shows:
The cost and production volume of casein apparently remain a central challenge.
And that also explains why the major supermarket launch has not happened yet
A prototype is different from millions of kilograms of food.
To sell a new cheese on a mass scale, a company has to:
produce sufficient protein,
guarantee consistent quality,
meet food-law requirements,
build supply chains,
reduce production costs,
find processing partners,
organise cold chains,
and generate sufficient demand.
In July 2026, New Culture itself confirmed that it was not yet producing at mass-market scale [12].
This dismantles one of the video’s most dramatic impressions:
We are not currently facing American refrigerated shelves full of secretly introduced New Culture pizzas.
What we are seeing is a company that has been trying for years to scale an entirely new, technologically demanding food category economically in the first place.
But that is precisely why regulation should be discussed now
The fact that the product is not yet on shelves at mass scale does not mean the issue is unimportant.
On the contrary.
Now is the right time for this discussion.
If precision fermentation does reach industrial scale, the future may bring not only casein and whey proteins.
But also:
egg proteins.
fats.
enzymes.
flavours.
vitamins.
functional proteins.
and numerous other components of food.
The fundamental question is therefore:
How do we want to deal with foods whose molecules resemble or correspond to familiar animal components, but whose production pathway is entirely new?
From a technological perspective, the answer may increasingly be:
No.
From an economic, cultural, ecological and societal perspective, the answer will be much more complicated.
And that is exactly why New Culture may be more interesting than the individual piece of mozzarella.
Consumers must be able to understand what they are buying
I consider this point decisive.
A product should not provoke fear simply because it is made using biotechnology.
But it should not disappear behind euphemistic marketing language either.
“Animal-free.”
“Cow-free.”
“Nature-identical.”
“Fermentation made.”
“Next generation dairy.”
Such terms may sound positive.
But they do not automatically explain what is actually happening.
In my view, understandable labelling should make it clear:
that the protein was produced through precision fermentation,
that genetically modified microorganisms were used as production organisms,
whether those organisms are present in the final product,
which protein it contains,
and which allergens result from it.
That would not be a warning label.
It would be transparency.
Does “LAB CHEESE” therefore have to appear on the package?
No.
Because “lab cheese” is not a clearly defined food-law term.
And it would even be technically misleading.
At a later industrial scale, precision fermentation does not take place in a test tube, but in fermentation facilities.
Beer is not called “tank alcohol”, either.
Yoghurt is not called “bacteria milk”.
Insulin from recombinant microorganisms is not called “lab insulin”.
Labelling should therefore be scientifically understandable rather than emotive.
But it should not obscure the production method either.
What is true in the video—and what is not?
| Claim in the video | Research finding |
|---|---|
| New Culture produces casein without cows | Correct. The protein is made through precision fermentation. [2] |
| Genetically modified microorganisms are used for this | Correct. They serve as production organisms. [22] |
| The finished product contains, among other things, casein and plant oils | Correct. New Culture lists water, sunflower and coconut oil, salt, sugar, starch, minerals and casein. [5] |
| Kraft Heinz is behind it | Partly correct. A venture fund supported by Kraft Heinz invested in New Culture. That is not the same as ownership or direct production. [15] |
| There is already five million dollars in demand | With an important qualification. The company reported five million dollars in “early demand” or pre-launch interest—not five million dollars in confirmed retail sales. [14] |
| The cheese is now being sold in supermarkets or on ready-made pizza | I can find no evidence of this. As recently as July 2026, New Culture was not in commercial mass production and initially planned to target the food-service market. [12] |
| The FDA approved New Culture’s casein | Not in that sense. New Culture made a Self-GRAS assessment. This is not a conventional FDA pre-market approval. [16–19] |
| Companies in the US can classify new ingredients as GRAS themselves | Correct in principle. The previous system permits this; however, the FDA proposed a reform in 2026. [17–19] |
| Nobody reviewed the product | False or misleading. New Culture reports an independent expert assessment; however, the FDA itself apparently did not conduct a regular pre-market review. [16] |
| A comparable product could also simply be sold in Austria without testing | False. In the EU, novel foods are generally subject to Novel Food authorisation procedures. [20][21] |
| People with a milk allergy can eat it without concern | False. Casein is a milk allergen. New Culture warns of this itself. [26][27] |
| Precision fermentation is an entirely new technology | False. Recombinant enzymes for cheese production have been used for decades. [23][24] |
| The process is automatically more environmentally friendly | Not automatically. Its footprint depends heavily on energy, raw materials, yield and processing. [30][31] |
The video is therefore not completely wrong
And that is exactly why it is so interesting.
It would be easy simply to dismiss the video as scaremongering.
But that would be wrong too.
Because some points are indeed justified.
The American Self-GRAS system currently still gives companies considerably more responsibility of their own than many European consumers would probably expect.
The US government itself now wants to close precisely this regulatory gap [18][19].
The question of the long-term safety of new proteins, allergies and process impurities is also scientifically legitimate.
As is the question:
How transparently should such foods be labelled?
The video becomes problematic where it mixes justified criticism with fear
“Laboratory.”
“Untested.”
“Genetically manipulated.”
“Seed oils.”
“Supermarket.”
“Ready-made pizza.”
Each of these words creates a particular image.
Put together, they quickly create this impression:
A food industry has secretly developed an untested artificial cheese and is already slipping it into our food.
That overall picture does not stand up to scrutiny.
The technology is real.
So is the American regulatory problem.
But I cannot find the alleged current mass marketing.
And different authorisation rules apply in Europe.
Perhaps “artificial” is the wrong category anyway
What does artificial actually mean in food?
A protein is first and foremost a molecule.
A casein synthesised by a cow and recombinant casein produced as identically as possible are not automatically fundamentally different simply because one molecule comes from an udder and the other from a fermenter.
What matters is:
structure.
purity.
digestibility.
allergenicity.
impurities.
dose.
and effect.
At the same time, the production pathway is naturally socially relevant.
Because it affects:
agriculture,
animal husbandry,
the environment,
jobs,
patents,
market power
and food culture.
That is why we should fall neither into technological enthusiasm nor technological fear.
Perhaps the bigger revolution is not really about cheese at all
Imagine that we could deliberately produce the functional components of animal foods in fermenters in the future.
Not just milk protein.
But particular fats.
egg proteins.
flavours.
enzymes.
nutrients.
Then a fundamental question would arise:
Do we need the entire animal at all for certain food components?
From a technological perspective, the answer could increasingly be:
No.
From an economic, cultural, ecological and societal perspective, the answer will be much more complicated.
And that is precisely why New Culture may be more interesting than the individual piece of mozzarella.
What would this mean for farmers?
If such technologies do eventually scale cost-effectively, they could alter parts of the global dairy industry.
In particular, those areas where milk today is used mainly as a source of raw material for:
proteins,
powders,
industrial cheese,
ingredients
and functional food components.
A regional mountain cheese made with grazing cattle, origin, craftsmanship and centuries of culture is something different from industrial casein for a frozen pizza.
That distinction will become important in the future.
Perhaps, in the long term, precision fermentation will compete less with high-quality regional cheese than with highly industrialised raw-material supply chains.
However, that cannot yet be predicted responsibly today.
And for animals?
Here, the answer is clearer.
If a milk protein is produced without an animal, that specific protein does not require a cow.
From an animal-welfare perspective, this technology therefore has enormous potential.
There is no need to celebrate precision fermentation uncritically for that reason.
But anyone discussing its disadvantages should also honestly acknowledge this advantage.
Criticism of technology is only credible when it also recognises the positive aspects of the same technology.
And for us consumers?
We will probably have to get used to a new category of food.
Not entirely animal-based.
Not plant-based.
Not cultivated meat.
Not conventional fermentation.
But:
animal proteins produced by microorganisms without animals.
These foods will be difficult to describe using conventional terms alone.
And that is exactly why regulation and labelling will be so important.
Because people should be able to decide for themselves whether they want to eat such a product.
But to do so, they must be able to understand what it is.
My conclusion: the truly unsettling thing is not the fermenter
After this research, I see the video much more differently than I did when first watching it.
No:
Based on what is currently documented, we are not suddenly being supplied in Austria with New Culture’s “lab cheese” on frozen pizza without noticing.
No:
The company does not currently appear to be producing at mass-market scale.
No:
The connection to Kraft Heinz does not mean Kraft Heinz is secretly replacing its well-known cheese with a biotech product.
And no:
Precision fermentation is not simply the same thing as lab-grown meat.
But some of the video’s questions are absolutely justified.
The fact that companies in the US can bring new food ingredients to market through their own GRAS determination without mandatory FDA pre-market review is indeed a regulatory special case.
So much so that US authorities themselves are now trying to change it.
The scientific questions surrounding new fermented proteins are real as well.
Allergenicity.
Purity.
Production residues.
Long-term experience.
Nutritional quality.
Environmental footprint.
All of this deserves careful examination.
But that is precisely why we should not confuse fear with education.
“Lab cheese” sounds threatening. “Precision-fermented casein” sounds harmless. At first, both say surprisingly little about whether a specific product is safe, healthy or sustainable.
The word does not determine that.
The data does.
And for Austria, one point is particularly important:
In the European Union, we have a system in which novel foods generally have to be assessed and authorised before they enter the market.
That system should remain strict.
Remain transparent.
And keep pace with the speed of biotechnology.
Because these foods will come.
Perhaps not tomorrow.
Perhaps not from New Culture specifically.
But the technology is developing quickly.
And when it does, I hope for neither an industry telling us that everything new is automatically sustainable and wonderful, nor social-media videos turning every new technology immediately into a threat.
I hope for something far less spectacular:
a comprehensible authorisation process, independent research, clear labelling, and every person’s freedom to decide for themselves what ends up on their plate.
That is how modern food technology should work.
RECHERCHE
Sources
- [1]Ausgangsvideo „Künstlicher Käse“, vom Nutzer zur Analyse bereitgestellt. Im Video werden unter anderem New Culture, Kraft Heinz, Präzisionsfermentation, Self-GRAS, Pflanzenöle und ein angeblicher aktueller Marktstart thematisiert.
- [2]New Culture (2026): Darstellung der Casein- und Mozzarella-Herstellung. Das Unternehmen beschreibt Fermentation von Zucker in großen Tanks, Gewinnung des Caseins als Proteinpulver und Weiterverarbeitung mit weiteren Zutaten.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [3]UK Food Standards Agency (2025/2026): Wissenschaftliche Definition und Sicherheitsbewertung von Precision Fermentation. Präzisionsfermentation nutzt unter anderem genetisch veränderte Mikroorganismen zur gezielten Herstellung funktioneller Komponenten.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [4]New Culture / FoodNavigator (2026): Patent und technische Beschreibung des tierfrei produzierten Mozzarellas mit rekombinantem Alpha-S1-Casein.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [5]New Culture (2025): „Cheese: Label, Ingredients, Nutritionals“. Unternehmensangaben zu Wasser, Sonnenblumenöl, Kokosöl, Salz, Zucker, Stärke, Mineralstoffen und fermentativ hergestelltem Casein.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [6]New Culture: FAQ und Darstellung des „animal-free dairy“-Konzepts.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [7]Europäische Union: Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1308/2013. Definition von Milch und Milcherzeugnissen; Bezeichnungen wie Molke, Butter, Casein, Käse und Joghurt sind grundsätzlich Milcherzeugnissen vorbehalten.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [8]Österreichisches Lebensmittelbuch (2009): Begriffsbestimmung für käseähnliche Erzeugnisse und Kennzeichnung von Pflanzenfett-Eiweißzubereitungen.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [9]AGES: Schwerpunktaktion „Authentizität von Käsen in der Gastronomie“. Mehrere Proben wurden wegen irreführender Verwendung beziehungsweise Bezeichnung von Analogprodukten beanstandet.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [10]New Culture (2026): Aktuelle Kommerzialisierungsstrategie. Das Unternehmen spricht im Juli 2026 weiterhin von einem zukünftigen Launch über Pizzerien und Foodservice.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [11]New Culture (2026): Unternehmenswebsite mit aktuellem Hinweis auf einen geplanten Start über Pizzerien und Pizzeria Mozza.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [12]FoodNavigator / DairyReporter (8. Juli 2026): New Culture produziert noch nicht im kommerziellen Massenmaßstab und konzentriert sich zunächst auf Foodservice und Pizzerien.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [13]New Culture (2023): Ursprüngliche Ankündigung eines Starts bei Pizzeria Mozza ab 2024.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [14]New Culture (2025): „$5M in Early Demand“. Unternehmensangabe über fünf Millionen Dollar Pre-Launch-Nachfrage beziehungsweise frühes kommerzielles Interesse.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [15]Kraft Heinz Company (2019): Finanzierungsrunde von New Culture unter Führung von Evolv Ventures, einem von Kraft Heinz unterstützten Venture-Fonds.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [16]New Culture (2024): Self-GRAS-Feststellung für tierfreies Casein nach Unternehmensangaben auf Grundlage eines unabhängigen Expertenpanels.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [17]U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2026): GRAS-Regelwerk. Nach der derzeit geltenden Regelung ist eine GRAS-Mitteilung an die FDA grundsätzlich freiwillig.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [18]U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2025): Anweisung an die FDA, eine Abschaffung des Self-GRAS-Pfades zu prüfen; das Ministerium bezeichnet die bestehende Möglichkeit ausdrücklich als regulatorisches „loophole“.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [19]U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2026): Vorschlag zur Reform des GRAS-Verfahrens und zur verpflichtenden Meldung bestimmter GRAS-Verwendungen.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [20]Europäische Kommission: Novel-Food-Zulassungsverfahren. Neuartige Lebensmittel dürfen erst nach entsprechender Zulassung und Aufnahme in die Unionsliste in der EU vermarktet werden.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [21]Europäische Kommission: Novel-Food-Antrag für fermentativ produziertes Beta-Lactoglobulin von Remilk. Der Antrag bestätigt sowohl Novel-Food-Status als auch das Allergiepotenzial des rekombinanten Milchproteins.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [22]New Culture: Unternehmensangabe zum Einsatz gentechnisch veränderter Produktionsorganismen und deren Entfernung vor Herstellung des Endprodukts.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [23]U.S. FDA (1990): GRAS-Anerkennung von durch genetisch veränderte E.-coli-Kulturen produziertem Chymosin für die Käseherstellung.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [24]Wissenschaftliche Literatur zur Käseherstellung: Fermentativ produziertes rekombinantes Chymosin wird seit Jahrzehnten in großem Umfang als Gerinnungsenzym verwendet.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [25]UK Food Standards Agency (2026): „Technical Production Methods of Precision-Fermented Foods – Identification and Characterisation of Hazards“. Überblick über chemische, mikrobielle, gentechnikspezifische und produktbezogene Risiken, die bei Präzisionsfermentation bewertet werden müssen.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [26]New Culture: Hinweis, dass das tierfrei hergestellte Produkt Casein enthält und deshalb für Personen mit Milcheiweißallergie nicht geeignet ist.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [27]Ham, J.-H. et al. (2026): „Allergenicity Assessment of Precision Fermentation-Derived Food Proteins“. Foods, 15(17), 3153. Übersicht zu bekannten Allergenen, Proteinstruktur und Sicherheitsbewertung präzisionsfermentierter Proteine.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [28]UK Food Standards Agency (2025): Review zu Sicherheitsbewertungen von Präzisionsfermentation. Als zentrale Herausforderungen werden unter anderem Bioinformatik, Zelllinienintegrität, Proteinverdauung, Allergien und mögliche ernährungsphysiologische Nachteile genannt.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [29]New Culture: Unternehmensangaben zu mehr als 90 Prozent geringerem Land- und Wasserbedarf sowie mehr als 50 Prozent geringeren Treibhausgasemissionen. Diese Werte sind Unternehmensangaben und werden im Artikel deshalb nicht als unabhängige wissenschaftliche Tatsachen behandelt.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [30]Behm, K. et al. (2022): „Comparison of carbon footprint and water scarcity footprint of milk protein produced by cellular agriculture and the dairy industry“. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 27, 1017–1034. Je nach Szenario stark unterschiedliche Klima- und Wasserbilanzen fermentativ produzierten Milchproteins.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [31]David, L. H.; Juliano, P.; Ridoutt, B. (2026): „The role of techno-economic and life cycle assessment in guiding precision fermentation towards sustainable food production“. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 168, 105488. Nachhaltigkeit hängt entscheidend von Skalierung, Energie, Feedstock sowie Abfall- und Abwasserbehandlung ab.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [32]„Animal-free caseins by precision fermentation: technical challenges and perspectives“ (2026), Trends in Food Science & Technology. Übersicht zu Ausbeute, Heterogenität, Sekretion, Proteolyse und Skalierungsproblemen von fermentativ hergestelltem Casein.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [33]New Culture (2024): „Same Great Mozzarella, Half the Casein“. Das Unternehmen reduzierte nach eigenen Angaben den benötigten Caseinanteil seiner Formulierung um 28 Prozent.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE