Scientists just invented a soybean that taste like pork | Hacker News Reader

Scientists just invented a soybean that taste like pork

fastcompany.com

The synthetic plant based meat foods are missing the point - the flavor comes from the fat, not the protein! Plant based whey, or heme, or pork protein isn't gonna do it. We want the fat!!

I wish folks would quit harping on this. Make soybeans more delicious - wonderful! Whether they are 'like pork' is irrelevant. Pork is different from chicken and beef and gator and rabbit... let these new foods taste like themselves. We can come up with good recipes for them too.

Many consumers want the taste of pork, and perhaps this will help them get it without causing the death of an animal.

People don't seem to want recipes for new flavors, they want to eat what they already like and in a more sustainable and less harmful way.

That flies in the face of so much evidence. People don't want new flavors? Every snack food in the store is all about the new flavor. Every restaurant that opens downtown is about new recipes, new fusions and on and on.

You can get people to eat delicious things pretty easily. The fewer that eat pork the more expensive it becomes. Luring them to the cheaper, tastier alternative is an obvious ploy. Better than disappointing folks again and again with false claims of 'tastes just like pork' or whatever.

When I go to the store, I see the same old flavors rebranded as something new and maybe put on a new medium (ex: casava chips). When I see people grocery shop, they aren't looking for exotic meats, they want chicken breasts and ground beef. People attach themselves to specific products and specific flavors for life (some people are lifelong coke drinkers and hate Pepsi).

People like what's familiar and they find comfort in it. Unless you have a killer marketing plan to get consumers to try your new flavors, betting on comfort and familiarity and differentiating on something the consumer is passionate about, such as cost or climate impact, is a winning strategy.

Until you build contempt by repeated failure. Like so many dismiss meat substitutes now, since they have disappointed for so long. That's the environment 'new meat' enters regardless of wishes and well-reasoned defenses.

I suggest the other approach will yield better results. It's a matter of marketing, which can change choices and preferences given time.

I dont think something vegetable will taste and feel the same as real meat. It is a blidn alley.

Instead focus on making food with plants that taste good.

You tell someone, this hamburger made with "plant based derivative" will taste just the same as the real working. The guy bites into it and is immediately disappointed.

If instead you can say here is a burger that is plant based. I think it tastes pretty good. The guy bites into it and evaluates the taste on its own. perhaps it takes ok.

Focus on making great plant based food that takes good on its own. Not telling your thing is just like steak, because it is not.

We have rich and old cultures in the world that are mostly based on plant-based foods with natural ingrediens.

I think actually competing with meat will be exceptionally difficult. I don't understand why startups don't start smaller: how about a soy bean with a full, balanced profile of amino acids for humans and very little else? Taste can be manufactured after.

I also note they carefully avoid referring to these are what they are GMOs or any references to concerns around soy intake (though I think those are mostly unfounded?)

Soy beans already contain all essential amino acids

I thought (happy to be corrected) that some are in quite small quantities, hence you have to eat a LOT of beans to get all of the one(s) least available there?

In many places the information about amino-acid content in vegetables is not presented in a useful form.

It should always be presented by specifying how much you have to eat daily to cover the body necessities.

For example 167 g of lentils per day ensures adequate quantities of all amino-acids, except methionine, while 500 g of wheat flour per day ensures adequate quantities of all amino-acids, except lysine.

Searching now quickly the Web, I see a claim that 4 cups per day of soybean should provide all amino-acids.

I have no idea how much a cup of soybean is, but I assume that it is more than 100 g, so 4 cups might mean more than 500 g, which is too much to eat daily for an average human, without gaining weight.

The only way to eat so much is to use a preparation method that separates proteins from starch.

Where I live, in Europe, using soybean as the main source of proteins for human consumption would be impractically expensive. If meat is avoided, here it is much cheaper and simpler to use a combination of lentils or peas with home-made wheat bread from which most of the starch is removed by washing the dough before baking, which results in a bread highly enriched in proteins.

Thanks

All modern foods are 'GMO' in that they are genetically modified by humans for palatability. The whole 'GMO' thang is a scary story used to manufacture outrage or something.

No requirement to use the language of fear to describe your own products.

We can argue over terms, but if there was no differences between selective breeding and modern techniques, we would not both with modern techniques...

Faster. More accurate. Better selectivity.

The old technique was 'let somebody fool around in their back yard and hope they don't make poison or kill the plant or create a superweed'. Today it's 'make the flavor better without doing something random as well'

After all kudzu and bermudagrass were 'naturally genetically modified'. That worked out great.

>The old technique was 'let somebody fool around in their back yard and hope they don't make poison or kill the plant or create a superweed

How is GM less likely to do this?

I'm not against GMO per se. But we don't have the controls in place if something completely novel has unintended consequences. Selective breeding is slower and more limited, which at present is a feature.

Well, so far the 'natural' foods have a monopoly on invasiveness and superweed generation. So I'll just bat that ball back at you: doesn't doing it carefully and deliberately (instead of randomly and blindly) have a better chance at a better outcome? Yes, it does.

Any examples of superweeds that have been bred by humans to be that way?

The other way to view it, is as a genetic novelty in the ecosystem, a genetic novelty more akin to GM than selective breeding.

My issue is one of food safety primarily. Sure you can put fish DNA in a plant and it may well do what you want, but what are the side effects of that? Is there a novel compound that causes cancer?

Of course you could do tests and long term studies to confirm this isn't the case. But that isn't being done.

Of course the same risk is there with non GM, but A it moves slower, B you are limited to the species barrier. I if accidentally breed a carcinogenic tomato, at least it's only a tomato. If I genetically modify all staple crops and then discover it's carcinogenic, that's a harder problem to avoid if you actually want to not starve.

Bermuda grass. Kudzu.

I can see no evidence for kudzu.

I can see mention of Bermuda grass being bred. But I can't see mention if that's being introduced to new areas.

And all these things are sort of the point: ancient, modern and crispr etc techniques are fundamentally different and have different outcomes. Hence it is not unreasonable to ask which was used to create what someone is selling...

Also more range: you cannot move whole genes from vastly different organisms using selective breeding (good luck selectively breeding arctic fish with strawberries to get that anti-freeze gene).

Personally I don't particularly care what technique was used. But I very much doubt the motives: are they making the flavour better by just adding more sugar? And to allow for that, and faster harvest reducing the vitamin content? Is the "apple" I am eating actually closer to a chocolate bar nutritionally than the Apple I ate 20 years ago? Maybe I just want to keep the same old fashioned one, even if it is different to the original wild apples from 27000 BC?

I think the same logic applies to "organic" produce. It is not a matter of whether X is safe. Is it a matter of if I can be bothered to track 1000 Xs and assess all of their safety and understand them all and cope with every new X etc. Or just get this other thing...

Genes jump around a lot. You have virus genes in you. Genes move between plants and animals all the time.

This GMO-is-different-and-evil stuff is shallow unexamined nonsense. That's what I was getting at.

Back to my point: better to know a new species is carefully crafted and not random-backyard-meddling. For obvious reasons. Apricot pits have cyanide. Beans, parsnips have toxins that hurt us. We've been seeking better versions of these things for centuries. Now we can have them for the asking.

Let me off the Luddite bus, please.

I think you're over-estimating how many species suddenly gain new genes from other genuses. But that is sort of beside my point: you say carefully crafted and I agree. But carefully crafted to be healthy and ecologically sound or to be profitable? We don't need more profitable unhealthy food.

So what am I meant to do, personally review every piece of GMO at a genetic level for changes that I do not want? or just decline the lot?

And who should have the right to tell me I don't get to know what I am eating?

I am sure there are at least some luddites who just fear the new. But that does not address the actual points raised here and you can't dismiss the real questions because the people asking them are standing next to hippies...

Not a single thing ever been done to make backyard crossbreeding be 'ecologically sound' or healthy.

You don't know what you are eating now. It's not substantially different. That's my point, and one that folks are resistant to accepting. No surprise: they're resistant to any change in their notions.

You're getting tied up in contradictions again.

If the old food was no different to the new food then why change it? If it is different then I want to know and I want the right to opt out.

Similarly, we are changing the nutritional content because that is the point. But I don't need to worry because it will be the same nutritionally as the old food. So what is the point.

This is where we are losing each other. If there is no difference why bother? If there is, I want to know all the details and have the opportunity to opt out. That is not unreasonable right?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com