Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Biotech

The Struggle To Name Lab-Grown Meat (qz.com) 258

The debate over what to call cell-cultured meat remains unresolved -- and it could soon develop into a headache for the global lab-grown meat technology startups working to bring clean meat to consumers. Quartz reports: The window of opportunity to unify around a term for motherless meat is closing. If cultivated meat companies such as JUST, Memphis Meats, Aleph Farms, and Finless Foods want to present a consistent face before the first cell-based meat is unveiled to consumers, they'll likely have to act in 2020. That's when industry insiders speculate Singaporean food regulators will be the first in the world to approve serving in vitro meat. Back in 2013, when the possibility of growing meat in a laboratory setting was first introduced in London (paywall), the term "lab-grown meat" dominated international headlines. The unveiling of a real product on the market will likely draw the same kind of attention -- offering a rare second chance to make a first impression on consumers. Unlike plant-based meat imitators, these alternatives are grown from actual animal cells into fat and muscle tissue, producing a real meat product without killing an animal. The process is said to leave a much smaller environmental footprint than conventional animal agriculture.

But what are people supposed to call this new meat when they talk about it with their friends and family? Producers say it won't be grown in labs in the future. Instead, it will be in standard food processing facilities. So what wording will distinguish it from conventional meat? Is it in vitro meat? Too weird, some say. Lab-grown meat? Not accurate. Animal-free meat? Nope. Motherless meat? Immaculate meat? Those are long shots, too. Ask people working in the industry about their collective indecision and many respond with groans. Some even say they don't rank the naming issue as a high priority.
"Clean meat was the original label, and of course that's changed over time to cultured," says Brian Spears, the founder and CEO of New Age Meats. "Then there was cell-based. And now we are a cultivated company."

"The basic term for it should be something that is accurate and comforting," says Josh Balk, who co-founded JUST.

Bruce Friedrich, executive director of the Good Food Institute, started referring to the meat as "cultivated meat," arguing that use of the term was backed with real data (PDF).
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Struggle To Name Lab-Grown Meat

Comments Filter:
  • "Motherless Meat" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RitchCraft ( 6454710 ) on Monday December 16, 2019 @08:54PM (#59526834)
    When I read that I thought it was perfect!
    • That, or just "labmeat".

      Just sayin', people get lazy. Take whatever you see in the headlines and chop out most of it.

  • "Frankenmeat", done! However, are frankfurters then called "frankenfrankfurters"?

  • Fake meat should be called Feat.
    • Re:Feat. (Score:5, Funny)

      by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Monday December 16, 2019 @09:18PM (#59526924) Homepage Journal

      If it's not meat, then I would suggest that it must be 7-bit bitwise inverse of meat.

      m = 0b1101101; ~0b1101101 = 0b0010010 = 0x12 = DC2
      e = 0b1100101; ~0b1100101 = 0b0011010 = 0x1A = SUB
      a = 0b1100001; ~0b1100001 = 0b0011110 = 0x1E = RS
      t = 0b1110100; ~0b1110100 = 0b0001011 = 0xB = VT

      The only problem is that the result is unprintable, but that's probably okay, because the ~meat is also probably inedible. :-)

      But since the news media will scream about having to transliterate nonprinting characters, I guess we could go for eight-bit bitwise inversion and make it unicode instead.

      ~m = 0b10010010 = 0x92
      ~e = 0b10011010 = 0x9A
      ~a = 0b10011110 = 0x9E
      ~t = 0b10001011 = 0x8B

      0x929A 0x9E8B translates into a couple of Chinese characters, transliterated as "Yáo mí" (because I can't post Chinese glyphs on Slashdot). And according to Google Translate, in English, that means "Moose". Not sure why it translates it with a capital "M".

      So apparently, moose is not meat. Then again, anybody who has ever tried it could tell you that. Either way, we should clearly call it Moose... with a capital "M" and, perhaps, a registered trademark symbol at the end.

      • 0x929A 0x9E8B translates into a couple of Chinese characters,

        Yan....can Cook?

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Re:Feat. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by apoc.famine ( 621563 ) <apoc.famine@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Tuesday December 17, 2019 @11:01AM (#59528650) Journal

        So apparently, moose is not meat. Then again, anybody who has ever tried it could tell you that.

        Um, you are 100%, completely wrong. Moose is delicious. My dad shot a small moose one time and ended up with something like 300lbs of moose meat after he split it with his brother. We had moose steaks and mooseburgers (50/50 blended with ground pork), mooseloaf, moosestrogonoff, moose chili, moose jerky, mooseroast....soooo much moose.

        And after a year or so of eating mostly moose, we were actually sad to have to go back to beef. Moose is like the best qualities of beef mixed with the best qualities of venison.

        And as an aside, that will teach the moose to bite my sister.

  • Full synthetic will be better than natural. Natural food contains toxins. Nature drives species into extinction. I mean, nature didn't look out for the dinosaurs or the millions of species that have gone extinct in the past. The only way forward is to not be dependent on killing and eat plants and animals. Farming is harmful to the environment. We should be synthesizing all our protein, not relying on destroying life for us to live. Plants have toxins that our liver has to process and get rid of. We are muc

    • There is no logic that dictates we have to rely on killing living things for our sustenance.

      Sure there is. Nature wants us off the fucking planet. Can't you tell?

    • Full synthetic will be better than natural. Natural food contains toxins. Nature drives species into extinction. I mean, nature didn't look out for the dinosaurs or the millions of species that have gone extinct in the past. The only way forward is to not be dependent on killing and eat plants and animals. Farming is harmful to the environment. We should be synthesizing all our protein, not relying on destroying life for us to live. Plants have toxins that our liver has to process and get rid of. We are much better off with purely synthetic food. If you think that somehow God or Nature or the FSM or whatever is somehow forcing us to rely on animals or plants for food that is not logical. There is no logic that dictates we have to rely on killing living things for our sustenance.

      What a great and noble post! Yet, what in nature inspires us to assume the feasibility of "nutrition without attrition?"

    • Re:Synthetic (Score:5, Informative)

      by barakn ( 641218 ) on Monday December 16, 2019 @11:28PM (#59527324)

      People who bring up toxins in food are usually really worried about their colons and do a lot of enemas. Bat shit crazy.

      • You really don't get it. I am against colon cleanse and enema BS. I also don't like the so called organic and anti-GMO nonsense. I am saying with synthetic food we would have better control.

        • > I am saying with synthetic food we would have better control.

          We also have excellent control of cola and cheese puffs. It does not make them nutritionally wise, especially as a major portion of our diet.

        • by lgw ( 121541 )

          So you're saying it will be full of preservatives and HFCS, like every other damn thing we have "better control" of? Pass. Perfect fit for a Big Mac tho.

      • by Cyberax ( 705495 )
        Yet plants do have anti-nutritional compounds. Soy is famous for it, you HAVE to cook it to be edible. Potatoes contain solanin, which is not that good either.
      • by Kjella ( 173770 )

        People who bring up toxins in food are usually really worried about their colons and do a lot of enemas. Bat shit crazy.

        Yeah the nutters are there. But it's more like the other way around, there's plenty plants and berries that will make you sick because they contain toxins or are at least indigestable hence they're not food, we eat only a small part of it or we don't eat it until it's cooked. It's thousands of years of selection through agriculture that has created modern day foods, just like domestication for animals. And getting rid of most contaminants is an even more recent achievement, it's not that long ago dying from

    • I guess Tool had it all wrong.

      And the angel of the lord came unto me, snatching me up from my place of slumber.
      And took me on high, and higher still until we moved to the spaces betwixt the air itself.
      And he brought me into a vast farmlands of our own Midwest.
      And as we descended, cries of impending doom rose from the soil.
      One thousand, nay a million voices full of fear. And terror possessed me then

      And I begged, "Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured screams?"

      And the angel said unto me, "These are the cries of the carrots, the cries of the carrots!
      You see, Reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day and to them it is the holocaust."

      And I sprang from my slumber drenched in sweat like the tears of one million terrified brothers and roared,
      "Hear me now, I have seen the light! They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you!
      Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers!"

      Can I get an amen? Can I get a hallelujah? Thank you Jesus

      This is necessary
      This is necessary
      Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on...

      This is necessary
      This is necessary
      Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life...

      This is necessary
      This is necessary
      Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on...

      This is necessary
      This is necessary
      Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life!

    • There is no logic that dictates we have to rely on killing living things for our sustenance.

      Well then stop doing it and see how far your logic takes you.
      We are walking bags of very complicated chemical reactions mostly suspended in water. We (and every other living thing) got this way from a long laborious trial by fire, if you want to change it overnight, go for it. You first.

      BTW this "motherless meat" has toxins in it ass well, which your liver will have to process, this just removes the ethical pro

  • by skam240 ( 789197 ) on Monday December 16, 2019 @09:05PM (#59526880)

    It's likely those who find the concept of meat "grown" as unsettling will want as objectionable term as possible put on the product as will the traditional meat industry.

    Personally, I just want something denoting the quality of the meat. If the "cut" or "grind" is of the same quality as what comes from an animal and pricing is comparable I'd take the lab grown any day the week. After that it becomes a complex relationship of quality, versus cost, versus source.

    I just hope they're able to adopt a proper term for the stuff so that consumers aren't put off by the whole "source" category although ultimately I could care less about the "lab grown? Ew!" crowd's concerns. I care about efficiency, quality, and cost. Given how massively inefficient cow farming is I very strongly hope that the lab grown stuff can be competitive in my other two categories as it would solve a number of problems.

    • Ultimately, all meat is grown. How about, grown with genetic precision in ultra-sterile laboratory conditions, versus random genetic/environmental accident?

      • by skam240 ( 789197 )

        Some how I think that would be unwieldy on the packaging :)

        I of course get your point though.

      • Just like pure crystal sugar, essentially a drug, is so much more desirable than "random" fruits... And pure cocaine is so much healthier than cocal leaves ... riiight? ;)

        Reminds of that Japanese candy that consists of a bunch of white powders, clear liquids, food colorings, a mold, and a tiny spoon, to create some ... "food" for your ... healthy healthy ... children.

    • As long as the distinction is CLEARLY marked, I don't care if they bring it to the store.

      If someone wants lab grown meat, more power to them.

      I will still prefer my dead animal real stuff...and want to make sure I get what I pay for.

      I don't think it should be allowed to be called beef, pork, chicken or fish....since that to date has always meat that dead version of the animal that was fully formed and living prior to becoming food.

      I can't imagine why anyone would have objections to knowing what they're e

      • by skam240 ( 789197 )

        I guess transparency is in fact important as long as it is done properly. I just don't comprehend how lab grown versus not is important in any meaningful context.

        If the flesh is of the same quality what on earth is the down side between it coming from an actual animal versus it come from a lab. Honestly, all I can see is up sides and I really don't understand at all the objections. Meat is meat, if it comes from a more efficient source then all the better.

    • I just hope they're able to adopt a proper term for the stuff so that consumers aren't put off by the whole "source" category although ultimately
      The US of Awesomeness is not even able to proper label (aka make a law to enforce proper labeling) of GMO food.
      There are people here on /. thinking, or more precisely proclaiming: "Everyone who is not selling GMO food can make a 100% GMO free 'label' on it! We do not need a law!"
      Obviously I'm not running through a shop to find the non GMO food by examining a label

  • ... on Wednesdays in grade school: Mystery Meat.

  • by gurps_npc ( 621217 ) on Monday December 16, 2019 @09:21PM (#59526948) Homepage

    "Vat grown" is what I see in Science Fiction stories. Seems appropriate to me.

    Does not sound too artificial as it has the word 'grown' in it. Implies something plausible, if not 100% accurate.

    Has no implication of 'fake' yet at the same time clearly states that this is not 'on the hoof' so to speak.

  • No-Kill Meat (Score:5, Interesting)

    by poity ( 465672 ) on Monday December 16, 2019 @09:33PM (#59526994)

    It's direct and less likely to be seen as a veneer of bullshit word-crafting as "motherless" or "cultivated", especially in the eyes of whom I imagine are the biggest meat consumers -- guys.

    Also, just a heads-up to the boomers running these marketing departments, "Motherless" is a popular porn website, and many male customers may have already associated this word with images of depraved and unethical shit.

    • No-kill meat just sounds like somebody stabbed a cow, scooped out a burger's worth and put a bandage over the wound.

      Could call it green meat for the environmental benefits, but that's not a popular meat color.

      Vat meat or cultivated meat works for me.

    • by Evtim ( 1022085 )

      Everything we do kills a lot of life. News at 11.

      I heard the number 7.3 billion animals per year killed by grain production alone. Vegetarians and vegans have as much blood on their hands as everyone else. It is the epitome of spoiled, privileged, hypocritical crap to claim their hands are clean. Oh, those 7.3 billion are mostly rodents and birds. Well, is their life is not as sacred as a cow's life?

      I have a question. If grass eating is so much better, profitable, healthier, cheaper and so on, as claimed by

  • LGBT

    Lab

    Grown

    Biologicals

    and

    Tasty

    PETA will start all kinds of nonsense about mitochondrial cruelty, and the MEAT Lobby will pour out their cash to make sure the FDA is never able to legitimize the mystery meat.

    Other projected impacts would be the feed crop industry, soy, corn, ground up sheep and chicken bits...

  • While it satisfies the truth in advertising problem, I doubt it will do much to promote the product :P

  • so crazy it just might work...

  • Is it better than spam?
  • http://www.kithfan.org/work/tr... [kithfan.org]

    "Mark: You know, and it got to that I was combining my meats, ya know. Steak with baloney. Pastrami with everyday, ordinary chicken. But still, no one meat turned me on...

    Bruce: So you're saying... no ONE meat is what you were looking for?

    Mark: Far out, man! You read my mind!

    Bruce: Well then, maybe Por-Eef is the meat for you?"

  • Xxxx cell culture (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ShieldW0lf ( 601553 ) on Monday December 16, 2019 @10:30PM (#59527180) Journal

    Bovine cell culture. Suidae cell culture. Poultry cell culture. Etc.

    It's not meat. Meat is animal flesh served as food, and nothing that isn't made of animal flesh should legally be able to be marketed as meat.

    • It's not meat. Meat is animal flesh served as food

      Incorrect. Meat means any food [etymonline.com]. If you can accept that the English language changed to narrow the definition, then you can also accept that it can change again to widen it to include cultured meat.

      Even today, we refer to many non-animal products as meats - an example most people are familiar with is referring to the meat of fruits or nuts. Particularly those with discreet components, eg Coconut meat [healthline.com] vs coconut milk.

      Lastly, check out Sweetbreads [wikipedia.org]. The English language is not as black & white as you think.

      • No, not incorrect.

        Jesus. The front page of the site you linked to, https://www.etymonline.com/ [etymonline.com], clearly states:

        "This is a map of the wheel-ruts of modern English. Etymologies are not definitions; they're explanations of what our words meant and how they sounded 600 or 2,000 years ago."

        Try checking the dictionary:

        https://www.britannica.com/top... [britannica.com]

        "Meat, the flesh or other edible parts of animals (usually domesticated cattle, swine, and sheep) used for food, including not only the muscles and fat but also the

        • "Try checking the dictionary: https://www.britannica.com/top [britannica.com]... [britannica.com]"

          First of all, that's an encyclopedia, which isn't really the best source for word definitions.

          But ignoring that for a minute, the page you linked has a video captioned "Developing alternatives to livestock meat, including growing meat in the lab." literally before the 'definition' that they give for meat. So you basically just disproved your own argument.
  • And of course they will fry/grill it with animal fat.

  • Beefe, Porke, Muttone, Goate. Bisone, Deere, Elke, Rabbite

    Chickene, Ducke, Ostriche, Pheasante, Goosee.

    Codde, Haddocke, Hakee, Tunae, Lobstere, Shrimpe/Prawnse, Crabe,

    (Also Dogge, Catte, Ratte, as culturally appropriate.

    I'll leave the pronunciation to others.

    You're welcome.
  • Cross between meat and petri
    • Cross between meat and petri

      I would call the meat: Lab meat, but any dishes made from lab meat, petri dishes ;P

  • "Green Meat"

  • Meta Meat. Makes for an easy logo too.
  • Nu-Meat? In Blade Runner the sushi was called nu-sush or something like that.
  • If Strawberry Nesquik can exist without having any actual strawberries in it, then we can anything whatever we want to. Call it meat. I don't care, only the meat lobby cares. A lobby clearly stronger than the strawberry lobby. Is that the kind of world we want, the one where the one with the most money gets to make the rules?

  • Don't have a cow, man. Eat ya meit.
    (sounds like "mate")
  • The beef industry has made such a show of defining the term "meat" and "burger," I just really would like to see the look on their face if grocery stores started having the option for "Slaughterless protein patties" next to the beef industry's products. The term "Slaughterless protein patties" avoids both the words "meat" and "burger." Hence it addresses the stated concerns of the beef industry's that labeling needs to be honest and accurate to avoid misleading the public. Anything else the public might
  • Early in 2020 they should pitch it as a green alternative to give up meat for Lent. Given it probably contains soy, therefore it should be called soylent green.
  • Because let's face it, there was never anything natural...

  • by nospam007 ( 722110 ) * on Tuesday December 17, 2019 @02:39AM (#59527634)

    Just because.

  • The US and EU agro lobbies won't accept anything sold as "meat" on a large scale if it's not from an animal. Not without a serious fight, anyway. And even should they become the minority source in the end, they will have lots of muscle (heh!) to reckon with for quite some time still. We'll need a common name for it before then.

    If owned the Naugahyde brand I would be busy negotiating licencsing agreements to sell Naugaburgers(tm) etc right now. But that would still be a brand name, we need a commodity name

  • Seems pretty obvious to me... Lab-grown MEAT... drop the M, use the L from Lab, and have a pun with L337 which shows "superiority", in this case to meat (arguable, but I'm sure the people pushing this stuff would consider it so); it is a name and a slogan all in one. Easy. Feel free to contact me for naming rights.

  • A long time ago I read an SF book (or story) that envisaged lab grown meat. I think there was some huge blob of meat that kept while pieces were cut off. In the plot I think they had some secret subversive hiding place hidden under the meat which they called Superchicken. I can't find anything about it online, if anyone recognizes it, a pointer would be appreciated.

    Anyway, that's the idea: In honor of this forgotten but prophetic piece of literature we should call it 'Super----'.

    Superchicken
    Superpork
    Superbe

  • I Can’t Believe It’s Not Meat!

  • Is it really that complicated to name it Cultured Meat?
    Like we name Cultured Pearls.
    It reflect on the technically engineered growth of a material in a controlled environment, rather than the same material naturally grown it its natural environment.

    I have the feeling this is not a true honest debate, but some marketing tactic to probe public opinion and acceptance. Cultured Meat Products need to be defined before scaling-up production. Marketing people will sell you what they want, as long as it is named/wra

  • How about... Prion-roulette-Patties? FDA-less-beef? Regrettable-Foodstuff? Sinew-in-a-vat? Not-witha-ten-foot-pole-patties? Undead-Burgers? Life-Challenged-Processed-Foodstuff? Inorgano-burgers? Moo-less? Festerburgers? Mis-steaks?
  • im - not
    mortem- death


    or maybe amortem
    a - without
    But that mixes Greek and Latin...
  • Why not call it "meat"? - That's exactly what it is. Veggies/vegans still won't eat it as it originally came from an animal (many cell generations before), so the only real difference is its environmental credentials. If they really really want to call it something else, how's about enviro-meat, or e-meat?

    • by Chrisq ( 894406 )

      Veggies/vegans still won't eat it as it originally came from an animal (many cell generations before)

      Actually that is an open discussion. Agriculture kills animals, so some see it that at some point the harm done killing one animal per x-million portions will make it less harmful than vegetable alternatives. If the manufacturers wanted to make it an even more difficult choice for vegetarians and vegans they would take a starter tissue sample as a biopsy for an animal that would then be kept in high welfare conditions for the rest of its life.

      Of course this argument only applies to ethical vegetarians who m

      • I wouldn't even say they killed the original. They very well could have. But they might have also just taken a sample from a living creature. Still some people would be against the stealing of a creatures cells without consent or the subjection to testing. Can't please everyone.

  • Because that is about right for the texture before "texturization". ("Mmmmhhh... texturization!")

    Althoug regarding the health aspects, we could name it "Yet-Another-Hard-To-Pin-Down-Long-Term-Health-Hazard-We-Will-Take-Decades-And-Millions-Of-Sick-People-To-Verify" or "Yahto-pidal-the-hawe-wita-damos-petov" for short. Just rolls off the inflamed swollen tongue, doesn't it? ;)

  • The food of the future, great for ecology, made exclusively in Soylent laboratories... Even better than our previous Soylent Red product...

  • by NormalVisual ( 565491 ) on Tuesday December 17, 2019 @06:31AM (#59527914)

    Seriously though, while I do think it needs to be labeled transparently to be able to distinguish from "real" meat, it's going to be an uphill battle to find a name that's appealing to potential customers. Personally, I don't care what it's called - I just think it'd be awesome to be able to get a ribeye steak without having to kill an animal to do it.

  • "Cultivated meat" and "lab-grown meat" are fine for the scientific papers, but for marketing you want something simple and catchy. So I propose we shorten "GRown mEAT" into "GREAT"! The tag-line is easy: "I'd like a GREAT burger please!"

    Of course, in most English dialects "great" doesn't rhyme with "meat". We could go with "GREET" instead, but then we're just getting silly. ;)

  • They should call it "Salty AF" because of the high sodium.

  • How about chicken little in honor of Frederik Pohl?

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.

Working...