Has Campbell Soup partnered with 3D-food printing startups or labs?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Campbell’s has publicly denied using 3D‑printed, lab‑grown, or “bioengineered” chicken in its soups and says its chicken comes from USDA‑approved U.S. suppliers and is “real” chicken [1] [2]. Independent reporting and industry coverage show no public evidence that Campbell’s has deployed 3D‑printed or cell‑based meat in its products; the controversy stems from leaked audio of an executive and subsequent company rebuttals [3] [4].
1. How the question arose — an executive’s leaked audio
The idea that Campbell’s used 3D‑printed chicken originated in leaked recordings attributed to an IT vice president complaining about “bioengineered meat” and saying he didn’t want to “eat a piece of chicken that came from a 3D printer” [5] [6]. That recording went viral, prompted media stories and social posts, and produced immediate reputational fallout for the company [4] [7].
2. Campbell’s public response: categorical denial
Campbell’s issued a direct and repeated statement: the company “does not use 3D‑printed chicken, lab‑grown chicken, or any form of artificial or bioengineered meat in our soups,” and it emphasizes that the chicken meat in its soups comes from “long‑trusted, USDA approved U.S. suppliers” [1] [8]. The company placed the executive on leave and called the alleged comments “vulgar, offensive and false” [4] [9].
3. What outside reporting finds — no public evidence of a partnership
Trade and technology outlets reporting on the episode say there is “no public indication” that a major packaged‑food company like Campbell’s is using 3D printing, bioprinting, or cell‑based meat in its products, and note that Campbell’s involvement in alternative proteins is limited to investments and plant‑based brands rather than bioprinting partnerships [3]. Reporting cites KFC’s separate collaboration with a bioprinting firm as an example of 3D‑printed food experiments elsewhere, underscoring that such projects exist in the industry but are not linked to Campbell’s [10] [11].
4. Regulatory and legal aftershocks
The episode triggered official scrutiny: at least one state attorney general signaled consumer‑protection interest and said their office would seek answers from Campbell’s after the claims surfaced [12] [11]. Meanwhile, court filings and internal personnel disputes around the recorded conversation have become part of the broader public record, complicating the narrative of how the claims emerged [9] [5].
5. Corporate footprint in food‑tech — investments, not bioprinting operations
Reporting notes Campbell’s broader exposure to food‑tech through brand ownership (Pacific Foods) and its venture arm, Acre Venture Partners, which has invested in food‑tech startups and plant‑based products — but these mentions do not equate to deploying 3D‑printed or lab‑grown meat in canned soups [3]. Available sources do not mention any formal partnership or pilot between Campbell’s and 3D‑food printing startups or bioprinting labs.
6. Competing viewpoints and implicit agendas
Sources present two competing frames: the viral recording implies internal knowledge or intent, while Campbell’s corporate statements deny any such use; independent industry observers side with the company in noting lack of public evidence [4] [3]. Political and media actors have incentives to amplify sensational claims (viral audio, consumer anxiety about “bioengineered” food) while Campbell’s has a clear reputational and commercial interest in distancing itself from novel or controversial protein technologies [7] [1].
7. Limitations and what remains unproven
Public reporting and company statements address current product ingredients and lack of public evidence for 3D‑printed chicken in Campbell’s soups, but available sources do not provide exhaustive internal procurement records or confirm whether Campbell’s has ever explored research collaborations behind closed doors; those specifics are not found in current reporting [3] [1].
8. Bottom line for readers
Based on the available reporting, Campbell’s has not partnered publicly with 3D‑food printing startups or labs nor used 3D‑printed or lab‑grown chicken in its soups; the allegation originated from leaked audio and has been repeatedly denied by the company, and independent coverage finds no public proof to the contrary [1] [3] [4]. If new documentary evidence emerges — contracts, press releases, or credible third‑party confirmations — the public record would need to be updated, but such evidence is not present in current sources [3].