Lab-Grown Meat Could Be On Store Shelves By 2022 (techcrunch.com) 127
Thanks to Future Meat Technologies, lab-grown meat could be hitting store shelves by 2022. The company "has raised $14 million in new financing to build its first pilot manufacturing facilities to bring the cost of production of a cell-made steak down to $10 per pound -- or $4 if the meat is combined with plant-based meat substitutes," reports TechCrunch. From the report: The $10 price tag is a whole lot lower than the $50 target that experts from the Good Food Institute were talking about back in April of this year -- and represents a significant cost reduction that makes lab-grown meat a potentially commercially viable option much sooner than anyone expected. "With this investment, we're thrilled to bring cultured meat from the lab to the factory floor and begin working with our industrial partners to bring our product to market," said Rom Kshuk, the chief executive officer of Future Meat Technologies, in a statement. "We're not only developing a global network of investors and advisors with expertise across the meat and ingredient supply chains, but also providing the company with sufficient runway to achieve commercially viable production costs within the next two years."
Unlike its other competitors, Future Meat Technologies doesn't have any interest in selling its products directly to consumers. Rather, the company wants to be the supplier of the hardware and cell lines that anyone would need to become a manufacturer of lab-grown meat. The secret to Future Meat's success is its use of undifferentiated fibroblast cells that can be triggered with small molecules to turn into either fat cells or muscle cells. Once the fat and muscle starts growing, they're placed in a culture with a specific resin that removes waste materials that have been an impediment to growth at large scales, according to chief science officer and founder Yaakov Nahmias. While Future Meat doesn't rely on fetal bovine serum to grow its meat products, it does use small molecules derived from CHO cells (Chinese hamster ovaries), which are used in new medical research and drug manufacturing. "Nahmias says using a refrigerator-sized bioreactor, a manufacturer could get about half a ton of meat and fat in about 14 days," adds TechCrunch. "In about one month, growers can make an amount of meat equivalent of two cows' worth of meat (a cow takes about 12 to 18 months to raise for slaughter)."
Unlike its other competitors, Future Meat Technologies doesn't have any interest in selling its products directly to consumers. Rather, the company wants to be the supplier of the hardware and cell lines that anyone would need to become a manufacturer of lab-grown meat. The secret to Future Meat's success is its use of undifferentiated fibroblast cells that can be triggered with small molecules to turn into either fat cells or muscle cells. Once the fat and muscle starts growing, they're placed in a culture with a specific resin that removes waste materials that have been an impediment to growth at large scales, according to chief science officer and founder Yaakov Nahmias. While Future Meat doesn't rely on fetal bovine serum to grow its meat products, it does use small molecules derived from CHO cells (Chinese hamster ovaries), which are used in new medical research and drug manufacturing. "Nahmias says using a refrigerator-sized bioreactor, a manufacturer could get about half a ton of meat and fat in about 14 days," adds TechCrunch. "In about one month, growers can make an amount of meat equivalent of two cows' worth of meat (a cow takes about 12 to 18 months to raise for slaughter)."
Looking forward to it (Score:4, Interesting)
This could potentially be great - consistently good meat, grown to spec, lower levels of medication etc.
Re:Looking forward to it (Score:4, Insightful)
This could potentially be great - consistently good meat, grown to spec, lower levels of medication etc.
Funnily enough variation in the raw ingredients is one thing that I find that makes food interesting. I would find having a particular cut of meat being identical year in and year out to be totally boring.
On the other hand, reducing antibiotics etc. would be a great goal. However I am not sure what large scale production processes would require in order to supply a food-safe product to consumers - they may be bad in their own way.
Re: (Score:3)
This could potentially be great - consistently good meat, grown to spec, lower levels of medication etc.
Funnily enough variation in the raw ingredients is one thing that I find that makes food interesting. I would find having a particular cut of meat being identical year in and year out to be totally boring.
On the other hand, reducing antibiotics etc. would be a great goal. However I am not sure what large scale production processes would require in order to supply a food-safe product to consumers - they may be bad in their own way.
I understand your point but you can always vary the herbs, spices and methods of cooking. Take two good steaks today, how they're cooked adds much more variety than the individual steaks themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, for the most part there's not much variation in how steaks are cooked, aside from the doneness.
However, two steaks of the same cut can vary GREATLY with regard to marbling, which is where much of the flavor comes from. There are also other textural variations.
Re:Looking forward to it (Score:5, Interesting)
If people want it, let them have it.
I prefer mine to be real dead animal based.
So, let's at least have clear labeling on this stuff when it hits the markets.
Re:Looking forward to it (Score:5, Funny)
I currently try to NOT eat heavily processed foods.
I buy and cook mostly from scratch as best I reasonably can.
Lab grown meat, is by nature, heavily processed...
I'd prefer my meat to be more simply processed...killed, skinned, cut into pieces.
I believe lab grown meat has many more steps involving chemical baths and other manipulations.
Also, I don't eat chicken nuggets.
Re:Looking forward to it (Score:4, Insightful)
There may be a question around how all those nutrient rich environments for growing stuff in a lab are going to be kept free from germs that also want to thrive in that nutrient rich environment.
And that's before we think about how the nutrients are created, and whether soil health will continue to decline, as current estimates say our global soils will be depleted in 60 years, at which point everything stops.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it's justified to worry about which chemicals will be used and to want more transparency on that end, and some people are just going to want to stay away altogether, which is fine. I don't think there's anything inherently worse about the process than the "natural" one, though. I think any problems will likely come from attempts to optimize the process by cutting corners and using chemical
Re:Looking forward to it (Score:4, Insightful)
Funnily enough variation in the raw ingredients is one thing that I find that makes food interesting.
It also makes it harder to work with, more costly, and much more wasteful. Variation requires more skill to deal with less ideal food to make it cook as well as more ideal food. Saying variation in food is interesting the same as saying, "I like to get shitty food occasionally because it keeps things interesting."
I've got my brisket smoking technique largely dialed in. However, the vast difference in briskets I get still requires me to be very careful and pay close attention to what I'm doing. Sometimes I'll get one with a massive fat cap and some deep fat pockets in it, other times I'll get one with a lot less. That difference means I need to adjust each time, and sometimes I need to trim off/out a lot of material to get to an ideal smoking size/consistency.
If I could get an "ideal" brisket each time, it would mean a lot less attention and effort on my part to get delicious, juicy, fatty smoked brisket. Nobody wants a drier, chewier brisket because it was a lot leaner and most people don't want one with gobs of wobbly fat hanging off it. While cooking technique can mitigate those issues, why would you want that challenge if you didn't have to have it? Maybe if you're a champion BBQ cook and your claim to fame is being able to handle any farm grown cut you'll want to tackle the variety, but for the vast majority of us, we just want to eat properly cooked, delicious food, with the least amount of effort on our part.
I really fail to see how your claim that variation is better makes a lot of sense.
We've already reduced variability in all of our manufactured foods. Look at dried pasta as a great example. We have lots of different kinds, but within a particular brand and type every piece of pasta is pretty much identical. This means there's a very simple cooking recipe and you get the perfect doneness if you follow it. If that was true of meat, it would be no less useful.
Yes, if you boil rigatoni and eat it plain all of the time it will be boring, even if perfectly cooked. But if some pieces were falling apart and some were crunchy after cooking, it wouldn't make it more interesting. It would make it worse. Variety in the food isn't what makes it interesting. What makes it interesting is what you do before, during, and after cooking it properly.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, cooking, while it is not rocket surgery...it is an
Re: (Score:3)
While I support its creation as with current technology we can't bring cows with us in spacecraft as we settle other planets, it's not something I'm particularly interested in trying for myself. I'm not big on artificial ingredients or highly processed foods, and I don't think you can get any more processed or artificial than this.
Re: (Score:3)
I see no reason there could not be different flavors of this lab grown meat. They said the bioreactor was the size of a refrigerator so more than one will be used.
And if it works there will be multiple companies producing it and competing for market share, one way is to make your product different from the others.
Re: Looking forward to it (Score:2)
Pretty sure they could easily randomize the growing process by changing growing conditions. I am assuming a lot of this would be robotized.
Re: (Score:2)
consistently good meat
Who says?
lower levels of medication
Yeah meat just grows naturally in a lab, you don't need to add any hormones at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it?
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on whether the hormones are consumed during the growth process or not. Trying to add more than an animal can use is how we run into problems with people.
But eliminating the antibiotics is a big win.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think this would be any difference in vat-grown compared to "organic"?
If pumping more hormones into the meat means more yield where a surplus and waste of hormones that remains in the meat is cheaper than a potential lack of hormones that result in lower yield, what do you think will be done?
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think this would be any difference in vat-grown compared to "organic"?
I don't particularly. I'm concerned about replication errors which would show up in an animal and make it non-viable, but which won't be caught in this process, too. But I was answering the question asked. It's conceivable that they'll figure out how to do it safely, which I can acknowledge even though I'm skeptical.
Even if they do figure out how to do it safely, it will probably be cheaper to do it unsafely, so the cheap products will probably always be bad without massive oversight.
Re: (Score:2)
Not arguing, but I'm curious why it would necessarily matter, and why unwanted organisms wouldn't grow in a lab environment.
Re:Looking forward to it.... or not... (Score:2)
Or it could be crap. Taste variation likely disappears. Currently, multiple genetic pools, genetic differences within breeds, different diets and environments yield variations in taste and texture. Examples for beef: angus versus shorthorn, grass-fed versus grain-fed, free range versus feed lot, etc.
The likely shallow genetic pool of lab grown meat may impact food safety: are there any health consequences to long-term consumption of a genetically identical food product? What risks of possible mutation
Not ground Beef only (Score:2)
Ground beef isn't the single only source of food for most people.
You'd still have remaining diversity in whatever you decide to use as a side dish to the lab-burger.
You're probably going to also eat some vegetables.
You'll get a tiny bit of diversity if you source said vegetables from industrially grown, bought in the super-market.
You'll get a lot more diversity if you source said vegetables from local small permaculture farms or grow it yourself into your garden.
The last one above also has a generally posit
Re: (Score:2)
A labger and lablad. With labies and labvy. 100% grown in a food processor.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it's a great idea and should be pursued. I'm not planning to beta test it, however. My days of being an early adopter don't extend to my food supply.
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't even seen the product yet, and you're already associating it with some anti-corporate screed? Does Future Meat Technologies count as a "massive corporation"? They do have at least one major partner (Tyson), but otherwise they're fairly small:
https://www.crunchbase.com/org... [crunchbase.com]
There are likely some who dislike them simply because they're . . . Jews. Uh oh.
Also, what makes this food "hyper processed"? It's basically going to be vat-grown protein, likely formed into shape by an extruder or something
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't even seen the product yet
It's lab grown meat. It is by definition highly processed. That's a fact.
There are likely some who dislike them simply because they're . . . Jews.
Stop being anti-semetic, this has nothing to do with Jewish people and everything to do with highly processed foods.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you answered your question with your first statement after said question.
No, I think processing can also imply BUILDING foods artificially, by use of instruments, chemicals, etc....
Chinese hampster ovaries? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Who exactly objects to just eating regular meat but will be fine with something made with hampster ovaries? Hell I love good old fashioned meat but my food animal/cute pet distinction is too strong for that.
1) Initially, there's an existing very large and growing, group of people that eat meat alternatives containing dairy, eggs, Brazillian Soya, Palm Oil etc. How likely is it that they'll be worried about something else in very small print on the label.
2) If it does eventually go mass market, how likely is it that the manufacturers will be forced to label it differently anyway?
Re: (Score:3)
cheap meat (Score:3)
the prize of meat should probably go down as it's now less expensive to produce it.
another sidethough i have is if anybody knows how vegatarians/veganists stand on this.
no animals were hurt during the creation of this meat nor did it impact the environment, they shouldn't have any objection against eating it?
Re: (Score:3)
the prize of meat should probably go down as it's now less expensive to produce it.
I think you don't know how the world works. Yes, according to economics you would be right. However economics does not apply to the real world. In the real world this stuff will be more expensive as it will be marketed as the "more humane meat", "meat that saves animal's lives", "non cruelty meat" etc. Certainly worth a premium to some people.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
However economics does not apply to the real world.
Economics do, in fact, apply to the real world. You go on to rationalize that economics don't apply because fake meat would be treated as a luxury good. The explanation you give for this utilizes theories rooted in economics. Therefore, if we accept the premise that economics do not apply to the real world, we must also assume that your argument does not apply to the real world. Reductio ad absurdum.
Posted AC b/c I modded.
Re:cheap meat (Score:5, Informative)
Vegetarians are not one homogeneous group who all think the same thing, so it's going to depend on the individual.
Some just don't like the taste or texture of meat. Some stopped eating it on environmental grounds. Some don't like the idea of killing animals for food. Some don't eat meat for health/dietary reasons. Some occasionally eat meat but mostly prefer the taste of plant based foods. Some even do it to save money.
Re:cheap meat (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Great plot for a "young hitler" cartoon. He could start out blaming the problems in his crib on a somehow-jewish plushie, then blame the problems on his dinner plate on the veg, and work his way up...
Re: (Score:2)
Hitler was a vegetarian. But not because he loved animals. It was because he hated vegetables.
It's even worse when you realize that one of Hitler's regular supplements was derived from human stool...
Re: (Score:3)
Hitler was a vegetarian. But not because he loved animals. It was because he hated vegetables.
Most specifically the Jerusalem Artichoke.
Re: (Score:2)
[ Ba ] [ Co ] [ N ] periodically
Re: (Score:2)
Twenty years ago a vegetarian said the ethical problem was tied to eating meat itself, beyond just the killing of an animal.
So yes, there are vegetarians out there who believe in some quasi-mystical connection between the eating of meat, regardless of source, and savagery or whatevs.
Re: (Score:3)
Twenty years ago a vegetarian said the ethical problem was tied to eating meat itself, beyond just the killing of an animal.
So yes, there are vegetarians out there who believe in some quasi-mystical connection between the eating of meat, regardless of source, and savagery or whatevs.
Yeah - different people, different reasons.
The problem with all of this is that there is no ethical problem tied to eating meat. If eating meat was an ethical problem, then all predators and omnivores would be evil without question.
In this world, there are predator species, and prey species. A prey specie is not inherently ethical by virtue of it's veganism, it is just how it evolved, and it's biological processes are adapted to provide needed nutriments.
Likewise, the lion is not evil. It is doing wh
Re: (Score:2)
While it's certainly a fringe belief I don't personally endorse, there are definitely people who believe that. Just because an ethical belief leads to a conclusion you find extreme or tragic doesn't mean the belief is wrong. There might ever have been a notable ethicist / philosopher who claimed any "bad" conclusion from an ethical proposition invalidated the proposition - there's been a lot of stuff said
Re: (Score:2)
Twenty years ago a vegetarian said the ethical problem was tied to eating meat itself, beyond just the killing of an animal.
So yes, there are vegetarians out there who believe in some quasi-mystical connection between the eating of meat, regardless of source, and savagery or whatevs.
I eat (and enjoy) meat; but I hate that it is savage to the animals involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Should it be called Meat? (Score:2)
It was only a short time ago that all sorts of things were argued in
Should the Word 'Milk' Be Used To Describe Nondairy Milk-Alternative Products? [slashdot.org]
I'm sure that people who raise live animals for food production are going to have a different definition of Meat than those people who are building Meat in a production line.
Yeah, no. (Score:4, Insightful)
There is more to meat than just protein. There is a food chain and what was eaten to create the meat is important. In wild animals, you will notice that most predators like to eat grazing animals and not other predators. Why? That's where the nutrition is. Animals are smart like that. We have sat behind desks for too long and lost the ability to be intuitive about our food.
I'm sure lab meat may have some place, but probably the people eating it aren't going to set any longevity records. Time will tell.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is more to meat than just protein. There is a food chain and what was eaten to create the meat is important.
Except most modern feedstock animals don't eat the foods they evolved to eat or would otherwise eat in the wild. Hell, they were feeding cattle meal made from sheep bones and scrap meat (which is how we had mad cow outbreaks). When's the last time you saw free range cattle munching on a corn cob or lamb shank?
Re: (Score:3)
When's the last time you saw free range cattle munching on a corn cob or lamb shank?
Maybe not lamb because it's probably a bit too big, but cows do eat the occasional mouse, rabbit, or bird they kill. Go type "cow eats rabbit" into google and you'll get a rather horrifying education. I wouldn't totally rule out lambs or parts of them if a cow has access to them.
And they will happily eat the grasses that are the distant ancestors of the same plant we modified to be corn, and actual corn if they can find some growing wild. Cows fucking love corn.
You talk like someone who hasn't spent a lot o
Re: (Score:2)
You talk like someone who hasn't spent a lot of time around cows....
Used to spend summers growing up with my grandparents who lived next to a cow pasture that raises beef cattle. Of course, it's a small farm, maybe only 100 head or so max at a time. So all they ever eat is grass or hay.
Re: (Score:2)
You think an animal cares about the food chain? That's cute.
The main reason predators prefer non-predators is simply that predators tend to have sharp fangs and teeth due to the nature of their feeding habits and hence are also quite capable of remaining uneaten.
Animals care about risk/reward and input/output. They're in the minmax game even more than any corporation on the planet: Minimal input for maximal gains.
Related illnesses should be invisible until 2062. (Score:2)
Denial PR should be spread until 2122.
People not eating artificial crap ... right after the apocalypse. *fingers crossed*
Re: (Score:2)
right after the apocalypse
Dog food is still artificial crap...
Re: (Score:2)
But those peas and carrots and rice in it is for good veggie nutrition and not to sell the dopey owner on cheap filler as a benefit!
Who wants this? (Score:3)
Re:Who wants this? (Score:4, Interesting)
Most meat eaters don't want it because it's not meat. Who will buy it?
If it looks like meat, is made from the same materials as meat, feels like meat (ie texture), and, most importantly, tastes like meat, to me it's meat, whether it came from a living animal or not.
In fact all things (including price) being equal, morally I would prefer lab grown meat over meat from a living, sentient being. This is especially true since I am aware that the conditions that modern, commercial stock animals experience isn't exactly the best. But, I like the taste of meat and humans are evolved to eat meat so I would never go vegetarian.
Re: (Score:2)
If it looks like meat, is made from the same materials as meat, feels like meat (ie texture), and, most importantly, tastes like meat, to me it's meat
Not everyone shares your low standards.
You forgot the most important definition : grown in a live animal body from natural processes.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot the most important definition : grown in a live animal body from natural processes.
I fail to see how that is the most important definition. If it is physically and chemically similar in every single respect (including texture and taste) other than it was grown in a lab rather than on an animal, it's the same thing. Unless you think the fear of seeing its death adds a certain flavor profile?
Re: (Score:2)
I fail to see how that is the most important definition. If it is physically and chemically similar in every single respect (including texture and taste) other than it was grown in a lab rather than on an animal, it's the same thing. Unless you think the fear of seeing its death adds a certain flavor profile?
The Cruelty Is the Point.
I fucking love steak and eat meat all the time, but if there was an alternative that was 90 or even 80% as good I'd jump on that immediately. Killing animals is a regrettabl e side-effect, not a selling point to me.
Re: (Score:2)
I fucking love steak and eat meat all the time, but if there was an alternative that was 90 or even 80% as good I'd jump on that immediately. Killing animals is a regrettabl e side-effect, not a selling point to me.
That's what I'm saying. If I can enjoy all (or close enough to all) of the meaty goodness without all of the accompanying death, I'm all for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, same here.
Re: (Score:2)
Meat eaters will eat it if it somehow becomes significantly cheaper. That's a long way off. But some vegetarians will eat it, ones that like meat but don't eat animals because they can't handle the reality of being an omnivore — where animals have to die that you may have a balanced diet.
Re: (Score:3)
But some vegetarians will eat it, ones that like meat but don't eat animals because they can't handle the reality of being an omnivore — where animals have to die that you may have a balanced diet.
Like I said above, I can (and do) handle the fact that animals have to die so I can eat, but if I can make so that an animal doesn't have to die without changing my diet or my budget then why not do it? All things being equal, something not dying is generally preferable to something dying.
Re: (Score:2)
$10/lb is already significantly cheaper than filet mignon. And Wagyu Kobe beef is incredibly expensive regardless of the cut.
Re: (Score:2)
$10/lb is already significantly cheaper than filet mignon. And Wagyu Kobe beef is incredibly expensive regardless of the cut.
And if they can make it that good, it will be easy to sell.
Re: (Score:2)
If they can make it half that good for $2/lb it will sell too.
Re: (Score:2)
Provided that meat is at this quality level.
10 bucks a pound is more expensive than cheap meat cuts and WAY above ground beef. The question is what quality level that meat will compete with. Because until it can compete with "normal" meat, the number of animals not dying for food reasons is negligible.
Re: (Score:2)
Meat eaters will eat it if it somehow becomes significantly cheaper. That's a long way off. But some vegetarians will eat it, ones that like meat but don't eat animals because they can't handle the reality of being an omnivore — where animals have to die that you may have a balanced diet.
I'm not a vegetarian, because I believe it's healthy to have some meat in your diet; but, I do limit my meat intake, I don't eat meat more than once a day and I limit my portion sizes.
I would absolutely eat more meat if it is lab grown, and not multiple times the cost of the stuff grown in the fields.
I already only eat cage free eggs and chicken. That costs more.
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm not a vegetarian, because I believe it's healthy to have some meat in your diet; but, I do limit my meat intake, I don't eat meat more than once a day and I limit my portion sizes."
Me too. I think it would be for to difficult to eat more than one 32oz Porterhouse steak per day, so I limit my meat intake to one meal a day. And I limit my portion size -- the 48 oz Porterhouse is just a tad too big, once you account for the baked potato with loads of real butter, cheddar cheese, and sour cream.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems that most vegetarians don't want it because it is meat. Most meat eaters don't want it because it's not meat. Who will buy it?
I will buy it at least once. Whether I buy it again will depend on price and quality.
I'd feel much better about eating lab-grown meat rather than slaughtered meat... but if it tastes bad or has bad texture I will block out the image of the little lamb getting slaughtered to make my chianti lamb shanks.
Re: (Score:2)
I am sorry, but it is already clear by now that you can't make a good steak or burger with non-meat alternative without loading it still with fat and salt. There is just no way around it. The impossible burger contains just as much salt and fat as regular burger.
Even regular steak meat becomes more premium the more fat marbles it has in it. Fat gives meat juice and flavor, this is why the more marbled a steak is, the more expensive it is (the exception is tenderloin which is a great cut of meat, with little
Re: (Score:2)
That's why this is an important development. If you'd read the summary, it says,
The secret to Future Meat's success is its use of undifferentiated fibroblast cells that can be triggered with small molecules to turn into either fat cells or muscle cells.
Theoretically they should be able to make an ideal matrix of fat and muscle to create the best marbling ever. Hell, it might even end up as micro-marbling or something new, rather than what nature designed and man refined over centuries of selective breeding.
Re: (Score:2)
Or they could be like everyone else and use ketchup.
Very Curious What the End Product Is Like (Score:5, Interesting)
As the son of a small beef farmer I'll be interested to see exactly what this turns out like, after the market video stage is passed and they have to actually let people eat it.
For one, the taste and texture of meat is influenced by the environment of the cow and its genetics in very consistent ways. The easy example is Kobe beef, which gets its characteristic texture from the very uniformly spaced fat in the meat. Also, for biological reasons I don't entirely understand animal feedstocks usually impart distinct flavors in meat, such that certain feeds are added or avoided to create a quality product for the audience consuming it. I'm told Australians prefer meat Americans would consider game-y, for example, because their cattle are leaner and range fed.
There's also the question of nutrition. Meat in general is very nutritionally complete (to the point there are human populations that subsist entirely on it). That's because its full of oils, amino acids, and vitamins that humans have evolved to utilize very efficiently. And those nutrients aren't equivalent to what you can get from most plants, which you typically have to work much harder to get the same level of nutrition from. My guess is little to none of that is going to end up in this product... maybe some basic vitamin fortification? Is this stuff going to be basically flavored cardboard nutritionally?
From the videos and the way I see them talk about it... it feels very much like this won't end up being good for cuts of meat like full steak, at least not initially. They're usually demoing small bits of meat, on a skewer or similar. Which makes me think the process is still kind of wild, where you maybe seed this stuff on a matrix and let it run after that. I don't know if $10 a pound is where they need to be at that point. The easiest place to hide meat that tastes like crap and has low nutritional value is in a cheap burger that's heavily spiced. Ground beef is about $3.75 retail right now, which is probably why they threw out the "Costs $4 if you add plant stuff!" blurb. That's going to be a really tough market to break into... particularly because a lot of burger is waste cuts anyway, so there will always be actually cattle meat pushing down prices, and that will be marketed as a premium product next to yours.
Like I said, I'm interested. If it doesn't suck I might even eat it. But I'm sure not buying their stock.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The market for prime cuts is much smaller then the market for ground beef and other processed products which is what this company is probably targeting. Whatever it is, I can't imagine it will be any worst than the "pink slime" the big chains were using
So it looks like they can selectively create either fat or meat cells, but it's unclear if that is on the same "framework", or separate production lines (for lack of a better term). If you could create both types of cells in a controlled manner on the same matrix, then you could theoretically make prime cuts such as ribeye or even control the marbling. You wouldn't be able to get the full flavor profile of grilling or roasting something on the bone (unless someone is also working on making lab grown bones
Re: (Score:3)
The bone doesn't provide any flavor [seriouseats.com] to the meat itself - it's merely acting as a thermal barrier, which could be provided with a tie-on, reusable piece of ceramic.
Gnawing on a bone covered in fat and a bit of gristle is, of course, intensely flavorful, but if you are just eating the meat, it has no effect.
Engineered meat that only has muscle and fat cells shouldn't be the end goal - some amount of connective tissue should be part of the mix. Connective tissue breaks down into collagen, which gives meat its
Re: (Score:2)
If they can recreate prime cuts for less than they cost now, they are going to be winners. What that will do to the beef and restaurant industry will be very interesting.
If they can make filet for the price of sirloin, the demand for sirloins and top rounds will go down dramatically, and the price of real filets will have to drop as well. If those all aren't making money, I'm not sure how the financial loss gets spread into the rest of the cuts, or even if it can be.
If they undercut the beef industry, just
Re: (Score:2)
If they can recreate prime cuts for less than they cost now, they are going to be winners. What that will do to the beef and restaurant industry will be very interesting.
If they can make filet for the price of sirloin, the demand for sirloins and top rounds will go down dramatically, and the price of real filets will have to drop as well. If those all aren't making money, I'm not sure how the financial loss gets spread into the rest of the cuts, or even if it can be.
If they undercut the beef industry, just about every restaurant will shift to selling high quality, low cost prime cuts. If you can get a prime cut for the price of a burger, how many people go for the burger? If my options are a thin sliced filet mignon sandwich and a ground chuck burger, I'm definitely eating less burgers.
You'll still have higher end restaurants selling "real" beef at a premium. But chain places would be all over it. Even if the quality isn't quite there (a little tougher, or a little less flavor), if you get a 12oz ribeye and 2 sides for $10, as long as it's "decent" that's a win for most people.
Re: (Score:2)
The Inuit/Eskimos come to mind, as well as Lapland reindeer nomads.
All eat mainly meat, and sea food. In summer there may be some berries and roots, but that is probably 2 or 3 months a year.
A 100% meat diet is something that humans can survive (and thrive) on ...
Now we need some side dishes (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah. the age of ultra-processed food.
Grow it. Grow it now! (Score:2)
Lab-Grown Meat Could Be On Store Shelves By 2022
Oh my god, finally! One of the holy grails of science fiction!
I'll have 12 inches, doc.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh my god, finally! One of the holy grails of science fiction!
I'll have 12 inches, doc.
You can already get 12 inches from a plastic surgeon.
Can't wait (Score:3)
Engineering the bad parts out of it? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm curious to see how they will eliminate things like cholesterol, saturated fat, trimethylamines (which the human body oxidizes into TMAO) and neu5ac (which the human body converts to neu5gc) out of "cultured meat".
Right next to the Velveeta (Score:2)
Bet that crap doesn't need to be refrigerated either. *runs screaming from the room*
Do not want. (Score:2)
One day all food that most humans eat (Score:2)
will be created in a lab rather than on farms or in the wild. Everything will be synthetic. Perhaps there will be a black market for the plebes, or an exclusive one for the rich to get various natural food.
Glad I won't be around for that.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
> There is nothing wrong with the real thing for me.
FTFY.
> Anyone that says different is someone I believe to have a mental illness.
No one died and made you God to judge other people's beliefs as magically being "inferior" to yours.
If you are unable to respect other people's belief then why should anyone respect yours??
Your false dichotomy "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" is exactly how a cult is brainwashed. Your username is appropriate.
Re: (Score:3)
"The real thing" is getting really expensive. Veggie substitute meat has too much soy in it (along with the phytoestrogens which you may not want). Industrially-produced vat-grown meat is a pretty good solution to forced removal of animal protein from the "common man's" diet.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it? Last time I checked meat is getting cheaper and cheaper, I even dare say that it's never been as cheap as it is now compared to the purchasing power of the average person.
Re: (Score:2)
As a meat eater, I can definitively state that you're a real fucking cunt.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot your [/sarcasm] tags....someone might take you as serious.
Re: (Score:2)
Word is a nuclear war between Pakistan and India would put an end to global warming, all without doing a single thing (other than let the Paki's and Indians kill themselves). There would then be no need to fiddle around with carbon footprints. It would upset the polistitians however because they would have to find a new scam to use to steal other people's money.