SuperMeat raises $3M for lab-grown chicken
venturebeat.com
venturebeat.com
Same taste and no ethical issue ? I am ready to pay a big premium for that.
So the objection would be because it is a cultural taboo (and as others have mentioned, would it be safe ?) .
Morally speaking, yeah sure. Practically speaking, no?
Animals may not be an energy efficient food, but they are the only way to get meat.
I meant compared to lab-grown meat, as most of the energy from food is not used for building muscles but rather for the brain.
How are you able to say this? Have you seen any data about how efficient lab-grown mean is to produce?
Being vegan is that efficient either.
I'm interested in reading more about athletic advantages gained from consuming meat. Is there a reason that other sources of protein aren't giving the same benefit?
https://www.muscleforlife.com/animal-protein-vs-plant-protei...
For cattle, it takes 100 calories of grains to produce 10 calories of beef.
1. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/nil-zacharias/its-time-to-end...
2. http://www.goodfoodworld.com/2012/01/grass-fed-vs-feedlot-be...
Most all cattle start their life being grass fed.
What exactly are the processes by which animal meat is grown and what kind of resources are required? I assume whatever sauce they're grown in is both a trade secret and also not just sugar water with some protein powder mixed in...
If the process of growing meat in a vat requires vast amounts of amino acids that need to be either extracted from another natural source (or else needs to be synthesized in a precursor process) then how much is known about the negative impact of that resource extraction and/or synthesis?
Will a pound of lab-grown meat use less water than a pound of comparable nature-grown meat? And if not, is it more ethical to prevent the killing of farm animals or prevent the continued waste of our most precious natural resource?
I'm well aware of the negative impact of factory farming, but you already have options for spending more on meat for non-factory farmed meats (at least we do in the NW of USA) and I somehow doubt the economics will scale to where McD is gonna be able to sell $2 double-cheeseburgers using lab grown meat. Is this really going to move the needle, or just make some rich people to feel better about themselves?
I know vegans who have no qualms eating tofu despite the damage that the soy industry has done to entire species[0]... is reducing the suffering of farm animals actually more ethical than preserving the overall biodiversity of our planet?
So how do the lab-grown meats actually measure up in that context? That's really my main question here.
I, obviously, have my doubts that it measures well and have been advocating for an increase in entomophagy (eating crickets, mealworms, soldier fly larvae, etc) which provide comparable protein/nutrient profiles to farm meats while requiring a fraction of the inputs (notably water and land) and a massive decrease in the sentient suffering of the protein source (most are just put into hibernation and don't wake up). I haven't made one yet, but I think a 50/50 ethical-beef/mealworm burger will probably be great with the right seasoning and would be cheaper to make (at scale), more ethical and still provide comparable nutrition.
[0] http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/agriculture/soy/im...
1. Suffering caused to conscious beings directly to produce a meal;
2. Suffering caused to conscious beings indirectly (e.g. crop monocultures impacting biodiversity; animal products used in the production of a "vegetarian" meal).
3. Total biomass required per calorie.
"Clean meat" seems likely a better performer in all three categories, unless animal-derived amino acids are required — but that feels like a non-starter. Why bother to liquefy and reconstitute a cow muscle?
Unrelatedly, this strikes me as one of those things where economies of scale will develop surprisingly quickly. Meat is a huge industry, and it costs a lot of money to actually raise animals. There's a lot of incentive to make cheaper meat. The fact that it can get bootstrapped by guilt-inclined non-vegetarians is just bonus runway.
With respect to environmental harm, these are usually accidents of bad practices more than necessities of, say, eating tofu.
Thus far, killing animals has been pretty closely tied to eating their flesh.
Separating those two is also exciting to me.
Yups. But for most definitions it is going to be a heck of a lot more ethical!
> What exactly are the processes by which animal meat is grown and what kind of resources are required? I assume whatever sauce they're grown in is both a trade secret and also not just sugar water with some protein powder mixed in...
Ethically, growing it in a sentient being, thereby commodified, often made part of an industrial production process, is EXTREMELY unethical. The animals that we produce for food know concepts like "family", "pain" and "danger". While they may have the children taken from them, or may be "raped" in order to force reproduction.
> If the process of growing meat in a vat requires vast amounts of amino acids that need to be either extracted from another natural source (or else needs to be synthesized in a precursor process) then how much is known about the negative impact of that resource extraction and/or synthesis?
We're going to find out. I find this more to be part of the economic viability question then the ethical question. I know economics can provide many ethical dilemmas, but in my view they rarely stack up to justify enclosing/hurting/raping/child-robbing/killing sentient beings.
> Will a pound of lab-grown meat use less water than a pound of comparable nature-grown meat? And if not, is it more ethical to prevent the killing of farm animals or prevent the continued waste of our most precious natural resource?
If you are concerned with this: you can switch to a plantbased diet! http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article19970922....
To my understanding all you give up when going plant-based is some taste bud pleasure and the convenience of not having to change your habits.
And the taste bud pleasure "gap" is being closed by initiatives like the one described in the linked article.
> I'm well aware of the negative impact of factory farming, but you already have options for spending more on meat for non-factory farmed meats
Going non-factory-farmed hugely increases the resource consumption for a pieces of meat. I thought you were concerned with resource consumption?
Also, while non-factory-farmed is better for the animals, it is still not nice to transport and kill them. Heck, they still need to be fenced!
> I somehow doubt the economics will scale to where McD is gonna be able to sell $2 double-cheeseburgers using lab grown meat.
$2 burgers is not something sustainable. We should aim for $2 salads or $2 falafels or $2 <be creative with plants>.
> Is this really going to move the needle, or just make some rich people to feel better about themselves?
Lab grown meat is going to make the discussion very pure. If we can provide the same experience/conveinience without the animals suffering, then what sick fuck would still pay for animal-based product?
And why only rich people? The has the potential to be lots cheaper on the long run.
> I know vegans who have no qualms eating tofu despite the damage that the soy industry has done to entire species...
About half of US soy is produced for animal feed[1]. I think worldwide this number is much higher (US imports feed). Also land use for animal farming (including what they need for growing feed) is HUMONGOUS compared to the land needed to feed a human on a plant-based diet.
[1] http://www.sustainabletable.org/260/animal-feed
> is reducing the suffering of farm animals actually more ethical than preserving the overall biodiversity of our planet?
Farm animals have nothing to do with biodiversity. Nothing. They are like the mono-crop field in plant agriculture. If you want to preserve biodiversity, preserve forests. And the major reason to cut forests is for (directly or indirectly) animal agriculture.
> So how do the lab-grown meats actually measure up in that context? That's really my main question here.
As I mentioned time will tell. It is likely to be much more efficient than animal agriculture.
> I, obviously, have my doubts that it measures well and have been advocating for an increase in entomophagy (eating crickets, mealworms, soldier fly larvae, etc)
Great! Did you try to eat them?
I'm also concerned with ethics/environment/health, and started a WFPB diet. A major improvement.
> I think a 50/50 ethical-beef/mealworm burger will probably be great with the right seasoning and would be cheaper to make (at scale), more ethical and still provide comparable nutrition.
There is no "ethical beef", just "more ethical than the current appalling situation".
Nutrition wise, a well balanced plant-based diet is superior to eating a regular amount of animal-based product alongside your plants.
I wasn't looking to get into a debate regarding the ethics of eating animals vs not eating them. I'm very clear in my ethics regarding that. I, personally, find myself much more concerned with the living system as a whole, rather than individuals.
> About half of US soy is produced for animal feed[1]. I think worldwide this number is much higher (US imports feed). Also land use for animal farming (including what they need for growing feed) is HUMONGOUS compared to the land needed to feed a human on a plant-based diet.
This is a really good point, though I really wished I used a different example because my main point was that many veggies and vegans don't really care about the big picture so long as they can convince themselves their conscious is clean. They're the people in the Trolley Car Problem who would never push a large person onto the tracks to save five other people, but if you gave them a button that served the same function then they would go ahead and push that.
It is, of course, the same cognitive dissonance that allows factory farming to continue since plenty of people admit they could never kill a cow while munching on a burger. Just a few layers of abstraction give people peace of mind and technology enables people to hide behind more layers every day.
> Lab grown meat is going to make the discussion very pure.
I seriously doubt that. What technology can you think of that has made any discussion more "pure"?
> If we can provide the same experience/conveinience without the animals suffering, then what sick fuck would still pay for animal-based product?
Probably any "sick fuck" who doesn't have the means to spend half their paycheck on lab-grown protein sources, though I suppose they'd be more of a "poor fuck". Many people don't bother making a distinction between the two.
> Going non-factory-farmed hugely increases the resource consumption for a pieces of meat. I thought you were concerned with resource consumption?
One assumption that's constantly made regarding meat consumption, both as it relates to ecology and nutrition, is that we're either talking about 0 meat consumption or the typical average American diet of meat consumption, totally excluding the middle. I do not think that the average American diet of animal meat is sustainable or healthy and this is why I advocate for substitutes that don't cost billions in R&D and have a better chance of reaching the price point for an average American. Lets not forget that wages for average Americans are stagnant, so given inflation and other increasing costs the goal posts for what would be a reasonable protein price point is moving. So even if it gets cheaper over time, it's a race.
My main point in all this was to try to get people to think twice about just lauding lab meat without considering the potential issues. I'm not going to continue here because I try to maintain a policy of not having emotional conversations with people I can't look in the eye and you are obviously quite passionate about this.
Again, I appreciate the thoughtful and well-researched response, though I find it noteworthy that neither you, nor anyone else that responded, seemed to address the actual comparison of resources for lab grown meat vs nature grown meat.
Here is something published 7 years ago which I had to find on my own (found in search of response to your comment, thanks for that) which did a pretty good job of answering my core question and softening me to the lab meat:
https://phys.org/news/2011-06-lab-grown-meat-emissions-energ...
However, I also found a more recent article on lab meat which I found aligned with the core point I've been trying to make on many other issues as well:
https://phys.org/news/2017-12-lab-grown-meat-humanity-moral....
We're not using technology to become more moral or ethical, we're using it to become lazier and more complacent. The same attitude that allows people to eat meat without caring about the conditions under which it was made isn't going to change when lab meat becomes available... which means that if companies that make lab meat DO end up having to cut costs by killing some other ecosystem, they probably won't care about that either.
For me, whether you eat meat or veggies doesn't determine how ethical you are as a person, it's how much energy you're actually willing to spend on giving a shit about how your actions affect others.
So go vegan. Have a look at Cowspiracy for example. Our meat consumption is killing our habitat on this planet.
> > About half of US soy is produced for animal feed[1]. I think worldwide this number is much higher (US imports feed). Also land use for animal farming (including what they need for growing feed) is HUMONGOUS compared to the land needed to feed a human on a plant-based diet.
> This is a really good point, though I really wished I used a different example because my main point was that many veggies and vegans don't really care about the big picture so long as they can convince themselves their conscious is clean.
How do you know? I say it's BS as the vegans I know are making a daily effort to improve the shituation, while omnis keep coming with lame excuses.
> They're the people in the Trolley Car Problem who would never push a large person onto the tracks to save five other people, but if you gave them a button that served the same function then they would go ahead and push that.
laughs Sorry man, not even replying to this. Any research to back this statement up? I guess nah.
> It is, of course, the same cognitive dissonance that allows factory farming to continue since plenty of people admit they could never kill a cow while munching on a burger. Just a few layers of abstraction give people peace of mind and technology enables people to hide behind more layers every day.
Yes. And it is the vegans that are the exception here. I picked fruit! I pulled a cabbage from soil. I would never like to kill an animal, not even when it give me taste pleasure.
> > Lab grown meat is going to make the discussion very pure. > > If we can provide the same experience/conveinience without the animals suffering, then what sick fuck would still pay for animal-based product?
> Probably any "sick fuck" who doesn't have the means to spend half their paycheck on lab-grown protein sources
I forgot to say that the price-at-shop is same of cheaper for the faux meat. So that what I mean by a pure discussion: we have the same-price-same-experience right here, why buy cruelty?
> > Going non-factory-farmed hugely increases the resource consumption for a pieces of meat. I thought you were concerned with resource consumption?
> One assumption [...] it's a race.
Are you concerned with resource consumption or not? If yes: do your research and go (mostly) vegan. Why wait for it to be to expensive for you to pay for?
> My main point in all this was to try to get people to think twice about just lauding lab meat without considering the potential issues. I'm not going to continue here because I try to maintain a policy of not h
Without substantial foundation that's called F.U.D.
> Having emotional conversations with people I can't look in the eye and you are obviously quite passionate about this.
So what. Yes I try to make a difference. My passion is not the point here.
> Again, I appreciate the thoughtful and well-researched response
Thanks for noticing. :)
> though I find it noteworthy that neither you, nor anyone else that responded, seemed to address the actual comparison of resources for lab grown meat vs nature grown meat.
Because it is still a question mark. It has all the potential to be much more sustainable. That's why Gates/Branson/etc are investing in this: they know we need to live more sustainable or die as a species. It is not a choice at this point.
> We're not using technology to become more moral or ethical, we're using it to become lazier and more complacent.
The ethical impact of this tech is a side-effect. The ones investing are simply looking to make money. That we cannot grow further with our livestock numbers is primarily an economic factor for the investors. It just happens to line up at this point.
> The same attitude that allows people to eat meat without caring about the conditions under which it was made isn't going to change when lab meat becomes available...
Says who? At the same price/experience it has the potential to make a huge difference! I know loads of peeps who'd switch (or pretty much have switch since the alternative are good enough for them). They do not need to re-learn cooking, just pick the other "meat" and do as you always do.
> which means that if companies that make lab meat DO end up having to cut costs by killing some other ecosystem, they probably won't care about that either.
Srsly. Where do you get this from? What ecosystem are you talking about?
Not the ecosystems in the forests that where cut for animal agriculture of the GMO soy/corn field to feed them...
Get a grip man. You're chasing ghosts.
> For me, whether you eat meat or veggies doesn't determine how ethical you are as a person
For me it does because, in your own words:
> it's how much energy you're actually willing to spend on giving a shit about how your actions affect others.
And going vegan is an effort, try it, and you save many animals by doing so. That industry is so ugly you would not be able to swallow that piece of corpse when you had to look at movies showing its practices.
I really wish for you to try to consume cruelty free, you seem to have the capacity to understand it will help (though still trying to deny it with --in my opinion-- highly convoluted reasoning).
> So what. Yes I try to make a difference. My passion is not the point here.
You gotta take some deep breaths before you reply because you and every other vegan I end up engaged with lay it on so thick with the defensive self-righteousness that you are more apt to have people dig their heels in. This doesn't end up making any difference except to how you feel about yourself and the social cred you get amongst your bubble-buddies when you share how much you "destroyed" some rando on the internet.
My point was that you can't see me and I can't see you, so you don't truly see me as another person, just some adversary or potential convert to get a notch in the belt. I took the time to calm myself, do some more research and then reply respectfully (imo) to most of your points.
> Because it is still a question mark. It has all the potential to be much more sustainable. That's why Gates/Branson/etc are investing in this: they know we need to live more sustainable or die as a species. It is not a choice at this point.
See, you obviously didn't even click the last two links I sent in your rush to shove more of your own information down my throat, because the first link is for an article about a study that specifically asks the main question in my original post... and their findings support your position, I mean wow...
> Says who? At the same price/experience it has the potential to make a huge difference! I know loads of peeps who'd switch (or pretty much have switch since the alternative are good enough for them). They do not need to re-learn cooking, just pick the other "meat" and do as you always do.
> "Srsly. Where do you get this from?"
From the second link you didn't look at, I was literally paraphrasing the article for you, but it makes the points much better than me, cause, ya know, professional writer at scientific publication.
So yeah, if you want to make a difference in online debate then you should probably leave your ego in whatever room your computer isn't and actually try listening to whoever you're engaged with. Good night and good luck in your crusade.
Does anybody have any more information about the company's specific technology here? I've done some research into this space, and the big blocker at the moment is the use of Fetal Bovine Serum which is used to "grow" the meat. FBS is exactly what it sounds like, so it's not a huge victory to make lab grown meat if it requires liquid-cow-baby to actually grow.
A plant-based FBS replacement would be the holy grail for this industry. Some companies have claimed to have done it but nobody has actually publicly demonstrated it yet. If there are any investors out there looking to make an impactful investment in this space, please invest heavily into solving the FBS problem.
EDIT: From SuperMeat's FAQ:
> Does clean meat contain animal products?
> One of SuperMeat's purposes is to produce meat products without having to resort to ongoing animal use. SuperMeat has developed a unique technology that will make that happen, without having to use animal serum or other animal ingredients.
So, they are claiming to have solved the serum problem, which is good. Others have also made this claim, but so far nobody has had a public demonstration, let alone actually create a commercial product, so this is still vapourware. Still, I wish them luck.
I think fake meat is having an electric car moment, where there is suddenly a product every bit as good as the previous technology, just more expensive. When the price comes down, real meat will seem gratuitously cruel and unsustainable.
I'd argue most people actually know it's morally wrong and just choose to eat it out of convenience.
Most mammalian cell culture requires "serum," the non-cellular fraction of blood from a similar critter which contains a pretty complex mixture of growth factors, hormones etc. plus other proteiny things like collagen.
Serum-free cell culture is tricky in well characterized cell lines, and "meat" is tissue culture from cells which is tricky in itself, at production scale which is also tricky by itself. For context, pharma companies manufacturing biologics at scale do use animal serum in cultures despite animal products being a vector for contamination issues which have literally killed successful pharma companies.
Also, cell culture requires antibiotics much more than animal farming requires antibiotics, so don't expect "ethical" tissue culture groups to voluntarily minimize antibiotic usage any more than farmers do
tl;dr cells grown in labs like to eat animal products and other things that people consider unethical
Edit: If you can grow realistic muscle tissue at feeding-people scale you've accomplished something much bigger than "ethical meat." If you're just producing animal cells-- basically textureless slime-- it would be more ethical to process existing waste meat into a palatable form aka rebranding "pink slime" as "recycled meat" or something.
In summary, in the case of chicken it might not be as hard to beat the "real thing". (Though in my book, the "real thing" picks through grass for its food and spends its days running around a barnyard. That might be hard to compete with.)
Also, funny to imagine someone walking into a16z with just a piece of chicken and walking out with a $3 million check.
In the mean time, I think this is the wrong way to try to solve the issue. Raising a few chickens is not a big deal. I live in rural Michigan, many of my neighbors have chickens with no real environmental impact and not much cost at all.
All of the problems come from industrialized livestock practices. If we simply outlawed those practices, and/or put huge taxes and tariffs on the products the issue would solve itself (in that the monetary cost of meat would reflect its real costs, and consumption would drop accordingly.)
But rather than eat lab meat, maybe people would migrate to plant-based substitutes such as jackfruit, reported yesterday, 'I think there's meat in my burger and I'm vegan':
http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2018-01-02/jackfruit-findin...
His "Rules for Rulers" video is an excellent summary of The Dictator's Handbook [1], itself a summary of well-regarded selectorate theory [2]. I have yet to watch a CPG Grey video which does not honestly separate fact from opinion, and ensure the former is well sourced.
His delivery is excellent. But that, alone, is not substitute for well-written and -researched material.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Po...
But regardless, replying to someone with "Hey watch this 40 minute CGP Grey video which explains why you're wrong." is both hilarious and insulting on multiple levels.
CPG Grey's summaries are just that, summaries. They miss nuance by design. In many cases nuance isn't necessary. If someone is arguing over what is on what continent, CPG Grey's "What Are Continents?" video [1] is an acceptable response. It's just a summary. But even the summary adequately shows the baselessness of the question.
TL; DR CPG Grey's videos are, on average, of better quality than many newspapers, blogs and other secondary sources. It's perfectly fine to reference them.
IMHO it's not a better society when we're forcing people to eat synthetic meat grown in a lab.
If you've got a real winner on cost, taste, or ecological impact, then compete in the open market and make a better chicken nugget.
What would need to happen is to push the idea that cultured chicken meat is more uniform in quality (well, assuming that it will be.)
I'm advocating making the price of things (including meat) reflect their actual cost instead of allowing producers to offset those costs on the rest of us and future generations (e.g. by dumping the waste from thousands of chickens in public water systems.)