Winston Churchill, a carnivore to the core, saw the future of meat back in 1936. “Fifty years hence,” he wrote, “we shall escape the absurdity of growing a whole chicken in order to eat the breast or wing, by growing these parts separately under a suitable medium.”

Churchill’s timing was out by at least three decades, but his prediction is steadily moving closer to reality. While governments chew over the science of meat production — from the US Food and Drug Administration’s recent backing for the consumption of meat and milk from cloned animals to this week’s revelation of a calf born to a cloned cow in Shropshire — scientists are now working feverishly on a third solution.

In different parts of the world, rival research teams are racing to produce meat using cell-culture technology. Several patents have been filed. Scientists at Nasa has been experimenting since 2001 and the Dutch Government is sponsoring a $4 million (£2 million) project to cultivate pork meat.

The idea may be stomach-turning, but the science for making pork in a Petri dish already exists.

Put simply, the process relies on a muscle precursor cell known as a myoblast, a sort of stem cell preprogrammed to grow into muscle. This cell is extracted from a living animal, and encouraged to multiply in a nutritional broth of glucose, amino acids, minerals and growth factors — Churchill’s “suitable medium”. The cells are poured on to a “scaffold” and placed in a bioreactor, where they are stretched, possibly using electrical impulses, until they form muscle fibres.

The resulting flesh is then peeled off in a “meat-sheet”and may be ground up for sausages, patties or nuggets.

Those readers now choking on their morning fry-ups will be relieved to learn that it is not quite that easy. For a start, the process is prohibitively costly. Growing one kilo of “meat” costs about $10,000, making this by far the most expensive fillet steak in the world. Merely creating a commercially viable growth medium for the cells is a monumental challenge.

Proponents of cultured meat argue that if the hurdles can be overcome then the implications for the human food chain are revolutionary – in terms of animal ethics, environmental protection, and human health. “The effect would be enormous, because there are so many problems associated with meat production,” says Jason Matheny, director of New Harvest, a non-profit group in the US promoting such research.

Meat that has never been part of an entire living animal is potentially far cleaner and healthier. Free from growth hormones and antibiotics, cultured meat could be made healthier by removing the harmful fats and introducing “good” fats such as omega-3.

The world consumes 240 billion kilos of meat each year. But more than 75 per cent of what is fed to an animal is lost through metabolism or inedible parts such as bones. In theory, with cultured meat, nothing is wasted, nothing suffers and nothing dies.

Many of the worst human diseases — BSE, TB, avian flu — are associated with animals, while livestock produce greenhouse gases, deforestation, nitrate contamination and pollution from fertiliser and pesticides. Every kilo of beef requires 16,000 litres of water to produce, according to the Institute for Water Education.

“Right now we raise about 40 billion animals for food,” says Mr Matheny. “It does seem that in vitro meat is a better solution for getting our protein. We can solve all of these problems at one stroke.”

Times Recommends

• C&G axed - 1,660 jobs to be lost
• UK house prices rise 1.1% as buyers return
• Mixed reaction to US banks repaying bailouts