Researchers take inspiration from cotton candy to make a gelatin scaffolding, which could help realize the dream of more sustainable steaks and chicken breasts.
PHOTOGRAPH: ERLON SILVA/GETTY
When Cypher is selling out his compatriots over dinner with Agent Smith in The Matrix, he muses: “I know this steak doesn’t exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? Ignorance is bliss.”
In a simulation like the Matrix, ones and zeroes represent every nuance of that steak—the texture, the smell, the flavor. Here in 2019, scientists are still stuck in the lab, racing to reverse-engineer animal flesh component by component, with the goal of one day feeding the carnivores among us in a (theoretically) more sustainable way. To that end, Harvard researchers have taken inspiration from a cotton candy machine to develop a kind of meat scaffold made of thin strands of gelatin that mimic muscle fibers, on which animals cells grow. It’s a step toward steaks, chicken breasts, and pulled pork grown in a factory instead of a field—but before you get too hungry, understand that it’ll be quite some time before slabs of lab-grown meat land on your plate.
Testing showed the gelatinous material had a similar texture to real meat.VIDEO: HARVARD UNIVERSITY
So, about that cotton candy machine: The carnival version works by heating sugar in a container and spinning it at high speed, flinging the sugar out and crystalizing it into strands, which form into a cloud, usually colored pink. Same principle behind the machine these researchers pieced together—though theirs spins much faster, at 30,000 rpm. And pardon this next metaphor, but the next component is a sort of toilet bowl. “If you put that cotton candy machine upside down in a toilet bowl full of solvent, you could spin a whole lot of fibers,” says Harvard bioengineer Kit Parker, a coauthor on a new paper describing the work.
PHOTOGRAPH: HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Most Popular
BUSINESS
IBM Says Google’s Quantum Leap Was a Quantum Flop
TOM SIMONITE
ADVERTISEMENT
The solvent, a mixture of ethanol and water, keeps the fibers from falling apart as they fling out of the supercharged cotton candy machine. The fibers themselves are made of pig-derived gelatin, which is a product of broken-down collagen. In a regular steak, collagen forms what’s known as the extracellular matrix, or the scaffolding that holds the meat together. How it’s cooked, then, defines its structure and flavor. For instance, you’ve probably had at least one terribly cooked steak that curls up at the edges. “It’s not very tasty, it’s pretty dry,” says Parker. “The collagen curled up instead of transitioning into gelatin.” By contrast, in slow-cooked pulled pork, the low temperatures give collagen the chance to turn into flavor-packed gelatin. And by using gelatin to make these fibers, the researchers can create a tender meat analog.
Speaking of pulled pork, you know how it comes apart into that mass of fibers? That’s because skeletal muscle cells fuse together into long strands. With these lab-spun gelatin fibers, the researchers provided a similar kind of scaffolding, to which they added either cow or rabbit cells. “You don’t want the cells to be like bricks in a brick building,” says Parker. “You want them to be nice and long, like that pulled pork. So having these long fibers, the cells attach to the fibers and they form protein junctions, and then they grow along the length of the fiber.”
Rabbit cells (the white bits) adhere to the gelatin fibers.PHOTOGRAPH: HARVARD UNIVERSITY
The end product is a meat analog whose consistency rivals the real thing. Parker and his colleagues ran a “texture profile analysis”—more or less a little metal hammer that presses down on the material to test its consistency. “Lo and behold, the chewability, or the toughness of this meat, is pretty similar to the other kinds of meat that you might see in the store,” adds Parker.
Now, some big caveats here: The researchers didn’t do a taste test because for one, this isn’t a food-safe lab. Also, this lab-grown meat isn’t cooked, which will transform it in complex, yet to be studied ways. And growing the animal cells—whether in a petri dish, as other lab-grown meat companies are tinkering with, or on these gelatin fibers—is still a tricky process that requires the right temperature, moisture, and nutrient content.
PHOTOGRAPH: HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Most Popular
It’s all very expensive, in large part because the process requires pricey animal-derived serums to nourish the growing cells. But the focus on the cost of lab-grown meat has overshadowed some of the industry’s challenges with nailing the chewiness. “Up until this point, a lot of the talk has been about reducing costs and scaling up,” says Elliot Swartz, senior scientist the Good Food Institute, which promotes the lab-grown meat industry. “All those things are extremely important, but there’s also a lot of work to be done on this replication of texture to make these products that consumers are going to want to buy.”
At the moment, companies can grow animal cells to make unstructured products like ground beef or chorizo just fine, because it’s a mush of meat. But to actually replicate a steak in the lab—hoo boy, that’s going to take some work. Not only does the meat have to grow in nice fibers, you have to incorporate connective tissues and fat—that critical component that makes a rib eye so good and lean chicken kinda meh. If it all comes together and lab-grown steaks eventually are what’s for dinner, they’ll be meticulously engineered foods that somehow look and smell like meat before and after cooking, and then somehow taste and feel like meat in your mouth.
Companies are moving quickly to bring to market meat products that are grown from animal cells in a lab.
Similar to companies like Beyond Meat and Impossible Burger, cultured meat will replicate the taste and consistency of traditional meat.
The move to the lab will appeal to people concerned about land-based animal agriculture and its role in accelerating climate change.
Some researchers speculate the rise of the cultured meat could actually make climate change worse.
Startup founder Didier Toubia holds a petri dish and a plate with a steak in his hands. The Petri dish contains certain stem cells of a cow from which a steak will be bred in the laboratory in three to four weeks.
Ilia Yechimovich | picture alliance | Getty Images
Companies across the world are moving quickly to bring to the market hamburgers and other meat products that are grown from animal cells in a lab.
Lab-grown meat will replicate the taste and consistency of traditional meat. Many expect the move to the lab will especially appeal to people concerned about the role land-based animal agriculture has in accelerating climate change.
But as investments and research ramp up for lab-grown meat, more people are debating the environmental and health implications of widespread production of alternatives.
Some researchers speculate that depending on the efficiency of the production process, the rise of the cultured meat industry could actually make climate change worse than traditional beef production. One issue is the longer lasting impact of carbon pollution versus methane gas pollution.
“Lab meat doesn’t solve anything from an environmental perspective, since the energy emissions are so high,” said Marco Springmann, a senior environmental researcher at the University of Oxford.
“So much money is poured into meat labs, but even with that amount of money, the product still has a carbon footprint that is roughly five times the carbon footprint of chicken and ten times higher than plant-based processed meats,” he said.
Despite these findings, commitment to protecting the environment is at the forefront of marketing efforts by plant-based protein and lab-created meat companies. Analysts project the market could be worth as much as $85 billion by 2030.
Animal agriculture remains a giant global economic force. It’s responsible for nearly 15% of global greenhouse emissions, according to United Nations estimates. Roughly 65% of those emissions come from beef and dairy cattle.
Companies say cultured meat is the future
Dozens of start-ups are racing to be the first to sell their lab-grown beef within the year. So far, the U.S. has at least nine cell-culturing companies out of the several dozen worldwide. The leading industries plan to release the first products, including like ground beef and chicken nuggets, by the end of this year.
Proponents of cultured meat say that producing it in a lab helps preserve endangered species and other animals, reduces greenhouse gas emissions and significantly curbs land and water use. Most of the cultured meat start-ups boast a firm commitment to protecting the environment.
MosaMeat in the Netherlands says that cultured meat generates up to 96% lower greenhouse gas emissions, and the company predicts that once cultured meat becomes a mass-market food, there will be no need for industrial farms.
In the U.S., San Francisco-based Memphis Meats says its businesses use significantly less land, water energy and foot inputs. Tyson Foods and Cargill have both invested in the company.
Future Meat Technologies says its cultured products will take up 99% less land, 96% less freshwater and emit 80% less greenhouse gases than traditional meat production, according to its Life Cycle Assessment.
“One of the reasons that Future Meat Technologies stands out in the cultured meat field is that our proprietary high yield production process lends itself naturally to distributive manufacturing,” said the company’s founder Koby Nahmias. “Because it’s so efficient, I think we’ll see more than an add-on to cattle production, but that it will start replacing it.”
The company’s process will allow farmers to shift production to a more sustainable, lower-risk and high-efficiency process, Nahmias said, and the small size of the company’s production modules can also be powered by renewable energy.
Production a work in progress
Since the cultured-meat industry is in such an early stage, it’s difficult to assess the actual carbon footprint of producing on a large scale without clear data on production processes.
As companies continue to develop their alternative meat products they’ll likely face increasingly climate-conscious consumers or stricter regulations on emissions as the planet warms. This could encourage the growing industry to use cleaner energy and technologies for cultured meat, researchers say.
However, if large-scale cultured meat industries start producing a lot of carbon dioxide pollution, it could be as damaging for the planet as the beef and cattle emissions, according to the research published in the journal Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems.
The impact would depend on decarbonized energy generation and the production systems cultured meat companies use, the study says. The research points out that emissions from a meat lab produce energy made up of carbon dioxide, which persists in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. In contrast, methane, a potent greenhouse gas produced by raising and killing cattle, disappears from the atmosphere in about 12 years.
“In the past year, we’ve seen more hype and investment around cultured meat,” said John Lynch, a researcher at Oxford University and co-author of the report.
WATCH NOW
VIDEO00:36
How ‘cultured meat’ can turn one cow into 175M burgers
“If these companies want to sell cultured meat as an environmental alternative, they will need to look at renewable energy resources for production. They need to have the drive to do it,” he said.
Of course, that research is based on speculating about how labs will produce their products and contain emissions. The companies are not yet producing on a commercial scale and are still trying to cut costs as they compete to bring the product to the market.
“We’ll need to take a step back and urge a bit more caution if environmental messaging continues to be a big part of advertising for cultured meat,” Lynch said. “The interest of the companies is making it clear how will they produce in an environmentally sustainable way.”
In a similar movement away from eating animals, companies like Beyond Meat and Impossible Burger have gained popularity over the past few years. They produce fake meat products made from pea protein or genetically modified soy for consumers who want the taste to imitate a real burger, and market the environmental benefits of their products.
However, those fake meat products have also been debated by scientists, who argue that it’s healthier and better for the environment to consume plant foods rather than processed alternatives.
Future Meat’s Nahmias said that the research indicating that lab-grown meat could be worse for the environment than regular beef was widely “mischaracterized” as a claim against cultured meat.
“Under extreme cases, if you’re using polluting energy, you can get to parity with traditional meat,” he said. “We’re far away from that extreme case, so I don’t see that as a problem.”
Future Meat’s efficiency is expected to improve 10 times more in their new pilot production facility, he added, and the distributive manufacturing model will allow producers to couple each small facility to local renewable energy production.
“We are working in an industry with tight margins and thus a necessity for efficiency,” said Cai Linton, founder of London-based start-up Multus Media, a group that’s working to reduce the cost of lab-grown meat.
“As a company, our biggest environmental policy will be minimizing waste, particularly with regard to single-use plastics and fresh-water, and ensuring the electricity we use is produced sustainably and in a clean way.”
Linton said that by the time his start-up is ready to scale up, he’s confident the facilities will have net-zero carbon emissions.
“At this early stage, our estimations on efficiency and environmental impact will always be open to scrutiny since they are only projections,” he said. “We must also consider that although the research and development required to create a commercially viable product may not have environmental protection at its core, the long term benefits of this technology far outweigh the short-term cost.”
Vegans, we have a problem. We’re insulting each other, we’re alienating each other, we’re destroying each other’s businesses and reputations, and we’re playing right into the hands of the animal exploitation industry. To paraphrase a line from one of my favorite television Presidents (Jed Bartlett of The West Wing), we’re eating our young. And if we don’t get our act together soon, this movement we’re all passionately fighting for will never make the impact we crave or the change the animals need.
For those of you who were lucky enough to miss out on 2018’s burger-induced vegan community meltdown, here’s the basic story. Impossible Foods debuted their plant-based burger patty that many consumers consider to be the closest imitation of a cow-based patty. The smell, the texture, the juiciness…it’s so beef-like, many vegans are too creeped out to even try it. According to Impossible Foods, the Impossible Burger uses 1/20 the land, requires 1/4 the water, and produces 1/8 the greenhouse gas emissions compared to its cow-based counterpart. For those of us who like plant-based meats, it was a dream come true, right?
But then came the news that Impossible Foods’ proprietary “heme”, the groundbreaking ingredient that gives the burgers their beefy flavor, was tested on animals. Rats, to be specific. Because this newly developed ingredient hadn’t previously been used in food, Impossible Foods agreed to participate in animal testing in hopes of earning official approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). From what I understand, the testing wasn’t legally mandated, but had the potential to make a big difference in terms of distribution approvals.
Cue the internet outrage. Not one day of outrage, this was months of battles taking place in comments sections across the vegan cyber world. The Chicago Vegans Facebook group damn near collapsed into itself like a dying star. I watched vegan icons be smeared for daring to post a photo of themselves eating the Impossible Burger. I saw people defriend one another for coming to a different conclusion on the issue than they did. I personally lost quite a few followers (some of whom left very unkind farewell messages) after mentioning the burger on my Instagram story.
Just a sampling of vegans fighting with vegans about the Impossible Burger
And these are the people who are supposed to be on the SAME TEAM. The people getting sucked into these rage fests didn’t seem to respect or even acknowledge that they all felt as passionately as they did because of a shared love of animals. The pro-burger side was outraged that the anti-burger side couldn’t seem to appreciate the end goal of potentially saving billions of cows with a revolutionary plant-based patty. The anti-burger side was outraged that people who typically boycott products tested on animals were bending their ethics for this one item.
Meanwhile, as vegans spent weeks hurling insults at other vegans (making sure to end every conversation with, “don’t you dare call yourself a vegan!”), cattle transport trucks continued to transport victims to the slaughterhouse. Dairy cows had their newborn babies ripped away. Millions of dogs, cats, rats, and other animals were injected with chemicals and tested on in excruciating ways. The industrial animal exploitation machine didn’t just turn off because we happened to be distracted. In fact, it’s my very strong assumption that our infighting was exactly what cattle farmers dream of.
Personally, I have eaten and will continue to eat the Impossible Burger. I often lean more towards the “ends justify the means” side of the philosophical spectrum, and for me, this falls into that category. Pat Brown, Impossible Foods’ founder and CEO, has been vegetarian for four decades and vegan (if the vegan police are still letting him call himself that) for 14 years. I’ve read his statement on the issue, and while I still have no idea what I would have done in his situation, I fully understand how he arrived at the difficult conclusion that he needed to allow the testing. Just like I understand how my friends who run other big name plant-based food companies repeatedly paid for and consumed animal products for comparison’s sake while developing their plant-based alternatives. Yes, these vegan entrepreneurs and chefs take bites of real chicken flesh and real chicken eggs in the process of perfecting their vegan counterparts. And no, I won’t tell you who those people or companies are, because I don’t want to send the vegan army after them.
I also understand and empathize with the animal advocates who don’t want to support Impossible Foods. I know their reasoning comes from an opposition to animal cruelty, and I of course share that opposition. I actually welcome people who disagree with me yet want to discuss the issue civilly, in the way that people working towards the same end goal are supposed to do.
Unfortunately, it seems I’m in the minority on this. Vocal vegans seem willing and sometimes even happy to tear one another apart in a never-ending game of “who’s the most vegan?” While I guess this makes our egos feel better, I’m not sure how it helps the animals. My strong fear is that unless we tackle this insidious in-fighting now, we won’t be prepared for the inevitable dilemmas ahead.
I imagine the next battle will be over lab-grown “clean meats”, once they actually come to market. There are numerous companies working on this technology, and as I understand it, some animal cells may still be required to initiate the growth process. Just For All (previously known as Hampton Creek Foods), claims their lab-grown meat can be harvested from feathers that naturally fall off of healthy, happy chickens. Mosa Meats, a pioneer in the industry, has struggled to move past the use of fetal bovine serum. Fetal bovine serum has to be harvested from an unborn calf; obviously, this would require animal slaughter. In any case, the technology as it stands seems to still rely on the use of animals, either dead or alive.
Just For All claims they’ll release their lab-grown “clean meat” by the end of 2018
Leaders in the vegan community are already starting to develop varying opinions on the subject. Most are supportive, but skeptical– which is basically how I’d describe my stance. I often say that any industry that exploits animals for profit will eventually abuse them (hence, why I don’t eat or wear any animal products), but is that true if the industry is run by genuine animal advocates?
If we find ourselves in a situation where “clean” chicken meat can be produced from fallen feathers collected from chickens roaming freely on a sanctuary-like plot of land, I’m totally behind it. However, if we’re forcibly impregnating cows to slaughter and collect serum from their fetuses, I’m not really on board. Earlier I said I tend to fall on the “ends justify the means” side of the spectrum, but it’s never that black and white. If cells from one slaughtered cow were able to feed one billion humans, would I support it? Maybe. If cells from one slaughtered cow were able to feed 100 humans? Probably not.
Ethics are tricky, and these issues are going to become increasingly more complex. In addition to the lab-grown meat controversy, we’re inevitably going to face other debates. McDonalds, a corporation most vegans despise, will undoubtedly eventually release vegan burgers in the United States (they’ve already launched the McVegan burger in Europe). Vegans who purchase it in order to support the distribution of affordable cruelty-free food will certainly be chastised for supporting an evil empire. Vegans who boycott it will be insulted and degraded for failing to understand economics. Friendships will end, fights will go on, and we’ll lose focus all over again.
McDonalds’ McVegan Burger has already launched in some European countries!
That is, unless we get a grip on ourselves. Unless we remind ourselves during every one of these new ethical dilemmas that regardless of our tactics, we are all on the same side. We’re all fighting this fight because we abhor suffering and needless violence, and we’re trying to create a world without those things. As the vegan community continues to expand, we’ll hear new voices and new perspectives; we should welcome this rather than cast it out.
According to the Top Trends In Prepared Foods Report (2017), the number of self identified vegans in the United States has risen 600% in the past three years! That’s incredible news, but it means our demographics are changing rapidly. This movement is attracting people across all age groups, professions, political parties, ethnicities, education levels, and personality types. Things are only going to get more complicated going forward, and we need to be ready.
If you were hoping to stumble upon a magical solution in this post, I’m sorry to disappoint you. This is simply an invitation for some self-reflection. I don’t have the answers. Instead, I have some questions. Questions I recommend that we all ask before publicly commenting on The Next Great Vegan Battle, whatever it may be:
Ask yourself: Is my comment offering a unique, constructive insight? Am I using insulting or sarcastic language to offend, embarrass, or upset other animal advocates? Would I want someone who just went vegan this week to read this comment? Would I want people who still eat animals to read this? Would my comment please those who are still profiting from animal exploitation? Is this comment pleasing to my ego, and if so, why?
If we remember to ask ourselves these questions before we engage, we have a much better shot at productive, healthy, respectful discussions. We all have egos and strong opinions, and I certainly don’t claim to be immune to any of this drama. I’m sure I’ve played a negative role numerous times over the years, but I’m becoming more and more aware of how harmful that attitude is to animals. It’s only when we work together and resolve our differences respectfully that we actually create meaningful change.
Suffering animals are counting on us. We need to do better.
DAN KITWOOD / GETTY IMAGESSAN FRANCISCO—The thought I had when the $100 chicken nugget hit my expectant tongue was the one cartoon villains have when they entrap a foreign critter and roast him over a spit: It tastes like chicken.
That’s because it was chicken—albeit chicken that had never laid an egg, sprouted a feather, or been swept through an electrified-water bath for slaughter. This chicken began life as a primordial mush in a bioreactor whose dimensions and brand I’m not allowed to describe to you, for intellectual-property reasons. Before that, it was a collection of cells swirling calmly in a red-hued, nutrient-rich “media,” with a glass flask for an eggshell. The chicken is definitely real, and technically animal flesh, but it left the world as it entered it—a mass of meat, ready for human consumption, with no brain or wings or feet.
Sign up for The Atlantic’s daily newsletter.
Each weekday evening, get an overview of the day’s biggest news, along with fascinating ideas, images, and voices.
Email Address (required)
Sign Up
Thanks for signing up!
This meat was what most of the world calls “lab grown,” but what Just, the company that makes the nugget, and other Silicon Valley start-ups want me to call “cultured meat” or “cell-based” meat, or better yet, “clean meat.” The argument is that almost all the food we eat, at some point, crosses a laboratory, whether in the course of researching flavors or perfecting packaging. So it is not fair to single out this particular product as being associated with freaky science. (Yes, I raised the point that all meat is technically cell-based, too, and no, this did not persuade anyone at the start-ups.)
“Every big brewery has a little room in the back which is clean, and has people in white lab coats, and they’re not ‘lab-grown’ beer,” argues Michael Selden, the co-founder of a cell-based-fish start-up, Finless Foods. “But we’re for some reason lab-grown fish, even though it really is the exact same thing.”
Regardless of what you call it, Just and others say it’s coming. Just, which was called Hampton Creek until last year, started out making vegan “eggs” and mayonnaise, then revealed in 2017 that it had also been working on cultured meat. The nugget was served to me to demonstrate that Just isn’t vaporware, in Silicon Valley parlance, or in this case, vapor-poultry. There’s a there there, and it’s edible.
Just has been mired in turmoil in recent years, as board members resigned and former employees complained of shoddy science. (CEO Josh Tetrick calls the claims “blatantly wrong.”) Because of what the company said are regulatory hurdles, Just missed its goal of making a commercial sale of the chicken nuggets by the end of 2018. The Atlantic ran a somewhat unflattering profile of Tetrick in 2017, implying that the company is more style than substance.
Tetrick seemed eager to prove this magazine wrong. He told me he tries not to get too down about bad press. A couple of years ago, “we were pretty much just selling mayonnaise,” he said. But now the plant-based Just Egg, which was practically a prototype when the Atlantic article came out, is in grocery stores, and as of this week, you can order it at Bareburger and the mid-Atlantic chain Silver Diner.
Cultured chicken is, too, now on the horizon—that is, if people are willing to eat it. And if Just can ever make enough of it to feed them.
Tetrick is hawklike and southern, which, when combined with his conservational tendencies, lends him young–Al Gore energy. He’s nostalgic for chicken wings even though he’s vegan and does not eat them. When I visited Just a few weeks ago, he showed me a photo of wads of meat and fat in a bowl. They are chunks of Japanese beef that the company hopes to grow into a cultured version by scraping off samples within 24 hours of the animal’s demise. This product wasn’t ready for me to taste yet, but it’s important, in Tetrick’s view, to be a little bit aspirational. “If my team cannot see where we want to go, they’re never gonna go there,” he said.
“There” is a world in which cultured meat is inexpensive and everyone eats it, even if those same people have never heard of tempeh. Living, breathing, belching livestock is responsible for 15 percent of global greenhouse-gas emissions, about on par with cars. But Tetrick thinks that for many Americans, flavor and price rule the shopping cart, not environmentalism.
“I was born in Birmingham, Alabama, so imagine one of my friends who doesn’t care about any of the shit that I’m doing now,” he said, while perched on a bar stool in front of Just’s test kitchen. This hypothetical friend goes to a Piggly Wiggly to buy burgers. Except—oh wait!—next to the animal-based patties wrapped in clear plastic, he sees a Just burger patty for less money. “That, to me, is what it’s gonna take in order to break the dam of a habit,” Tetrick said.
Animal meat is a habit that many young Americans are ready to abandon. A quarter of 25-to-34-year-old Americans now say they are vegans or vegetarians, prompting The Economist to proclaim 2019 “the year of the vegan.” Burger King this month introduced a Whopper made with a plant-based Impossible patty. True, chicken grown in a bioreactor like Just’s is still animal, not vegetable; but without the factory-farming component, some vegetarians and vegans might be inclined to love their chickens and eat them too.
I am the ideal customer for this, because I enjoy meat-like flavors but don’t appreciate the more carnal elements of meat. I’m sure the Wrangler-clad Texan Council will revoke my Texanship for saying this, but I have never had a rare steak. I’ve never eaten something and thought, I wish this would make more of a murdery mess on my plate. And yet, I have no interest in passing up barbecue or Tex-Mex when I visit home or in telling my first-generation immigrant parents that I no longer eat meat. I would like a protein-rich substance that reminds me of my childhood and injects a robust, savory essence into my salad. I do not, however, care if that substance was ever technically alive.
Because frankly, life for many mass-bred animals is no life at all. In her book Big Chicken, Maryn McKenna describes seeing 30,000 birds crammed into a hot shed, some with bellies rubbed raw and legs twisted underneath them. Or, behold this description of the chicken-slaughtering process in a 2017 New Yorker story about Case Farms in Canton, Ohio:
At the plant, the birds are dumped into a chute that leads to the “live hang” area, a room bathed in black light, which keeps the birds calm. Every two seconds, employees grab a chicken and hang it upside down by its feet. “This piece here is called a breast rub,” Chester Hawk, the plant’s burly maintenance manager, told me, pointing to a plastic pad. “It’s rubbing their breast, and it’s giving them a calming sensation. You can see the bird coming toward the stunner. He’s very calm.” The birds are stunned by an electric pulse before entering the “kill room,” where a razor slits their throats as they pass. The room looks like the set of a horror movie: blood splatters everywhere and pools on the floor. One worker, known as the “backup killer,” stands in the middle, poking chickens with his knife and slicing their necks if they’re still alive.
(In response to the New Yorker story, Case Farms issued a statement that read, in part, “Our employees and growers share a committed responsibility to ensure the well-being and humane handling of all animals in our care.”)
Just’s process, meanwhile, is much more clinical. The company takes live cells from biopsies that don’t require the death of the chicken. It then isolates the cells that are most likely to grow, and gently nurtures them in tank-like bioreactors in a soup of proteins, sugar, and vitamins.
Across the bay from Just, in Emeryville, California, Finless Foods is attempting to perform this same procedure on fish. It’s not as far along as Just: Finless Foods has only 11 employees, to Just’s 120. Its office looks even less like a traditional workplace, with mismatched desks that early employees picked up from a used-furniture store. Its largest bioreactor only holds a liter of fish meat, while Just expects that in the “near term,” its bioreactors will have a capacity of hundreds to thousands of liters.
Finless Foods’ Michael Selden rattled off an assortment of environmental and social injustices that motivate the need for cultured meat, from microplasticsin our oceans, to greenhouse gases from shipping, to what he calls “environmental imperialism”: “The way that we get our food is very much just sort of like, we take what we want,” he told me. “If you live in San Francisco and you eat bluefin tuna, that bluefin tuna almost definitely comes from the Philippines. And we basically have fishing fleets in the Philippines that are, like, destroying local ecosystems to feed us.”
Whether Americans are sufficiently distraught over the state of Filipino ecosystems to replace a dinnertime staple remains to be seen. But for now, these companies have bigger challenges to getting to market.
For Finless Foods, a major hurdle is texture. It aims to make cultured bluefin tuna, which in animal form glistens like raspberry jam and springs back like a wet sponge. “I will not say we’ve fully solved that problem, because I’d be totally lying,” Selden said. The few journalists who have tasted the product were served a carp croquette that one reporter described as having “a pleasant aftertaste of the sea, though not fish as such.” Selden is looking into 3-D printing as a potential path to creating a sashimi-like simulacrum.
Similarly, when I asked Tetrick when his nuggets would actually be on sale, he glanced at Andrew Noyes, Just’s PR guy. “I know Andrew loves when I give timelines,” he said coyly. “I drive him crazy. It’s more likely than not … between now and the end of the year that we’re selling outside of the United States.”
Before that happens, the bioreactors needs to get larger, and there have to be many, many more of them, without sacrificing quality. Tetrick estimated that there would need to be 25 to 100 culturing facilities just to fulfill America’s demand for meat. These companies are also searching for a way to reduce the cost of the “media”—the vitamin slush the cells incubate in—potentially by reusing it.
Finally, the Just employees told me, they need the U.S. government to figure out a way to regulate the product, so people can rest assured that it’s not going to make them ill.
Al Almanza, the former acting deputy undersecretary for food safety at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, agrees that there aren’t enough data yet for food inspectors to know what’s normal or abnormal—and thus potentially unsafe—in a cultured-chicken plant. But he also says that regulators would probably expedite approval for Just if the company reached a scale at which it could sell its cultured meat, which it hasn’t yet. (The USDA did not return a request for comment.) And while Just argues that its process is better, from a food-safety standpoint, than animal slaughter, we only have the company’s word to go on at this point.
“Unless you have a perfectly sterile facility, with a cleanroom, and the bioreactors are being operated by robots, you’re at risk of some kind of contamination,” says Ben Wurgaft, a writer and historian who’s writing a book about laboratory-grown meat.
The U.S. Cattlemen’s Association has argued that only beef that’s been raised and slaughtered should be labeled “beef.” Just fervently hopes that when labeling rules do come down, it will be allowed to call its product “meat,” rather than “lab-grown meat,” for the good of public relations, if not fairness. “Back in Alabama, where all my old friends drive pickup trucks, imagine if Tesla put out a really fast, really affordable pickup truck, but Tesla couldn’t call it a pickup truck,” Tetrick said. “On the back, they had to say, like, ‘Electric mobility transport wheeler,’ or some godforsaken name. My friends do not want to drive that, because it fucks with their identity, unfortunately.”
On my visit to Just’s office, I asked Josh Hyman, the company’s chief of staff for research and development, whether the concept of cultured meat ever weirds anyone out.
“Yeah! I think it does,” he said as he prepared to fry up my $100 nugget from its frozen state. “Till you explain it.”
This is what Tetrick calls the “cultural component,” or letting “the consumer know this is a positive thing and they should eat it for dinner.”
As I chewed my nugget, I realized that though its taste asymptotically approached chicken, it was not, alas, chicken. It was crunchy, thanks to the fried, breaded coating; it was flavorful, thanks to the salt and spices inside; and its innards were creamy, which frankly is an improvement on the graininess of most processed nuggets. But it lacked the gamey animal kick that screams “chicken.”
We like meat to taste a certain way, but I realized that if I had never before had chicken, I might prefer this. Why is gaminess a virtue, anyway? Some people relish traditions such as hunting and fishing and the more visceral experiences with meat they provide. But if Just and similar companies are successful, future generations might only know chicken to be a pleasant, meat-esque paste, with no bones and skins to speak of. In fact, our entire notion of animal products might become unhinged from animals. The idea that human gustatory pleasure necessarily involves the inhumane farming of other creatures might come to be seen as outdated and gauche. A “real” chicken sandwich might be viewed, in some quarters, as barbarous as poaching. That is, if the bioreactor thing gets worked out.
Several Just employees have culinary backgrounds, and Hyman presided in front of the tasting table like a proud chef. There was heating up and cooling down of a pot of oil to reach the perfect temperature for my nugget. Noyes, who lived in D.C. before moving out West, shifted warily and remarked a few times that we were running “behind schedule.”
After serving me the nugget, Hyman scrambled up a custard-colored mung-bean egg substitute—the Just Egg, which comes in a squeeze bottle. It was fine; I don’t love scrambled eggs. Then he fed me a dairy-free rum-raisin ice cream that was one of the best desserts I’ve ever had.
Finally, he served up a breakfast sandwich made with a firm, plant-based “egg” patty. The patty had a pleasing earthiness, offset perfectly by a glop of spicy, stringy pimento cheese. Even at 3 p.m., after a full lunch, it was objectively tasty. If I had been hungover, it would have been heaven.
For those seeking to eat less actual meat for health or ethical reasons but still wanting to experience the taste of meat, plant-based meat substitutes and meat grown in a lab can offer alternatives. The Onion breaks down the differences between plant-based meat and lab-grown meat.
Benefits:
Plant-based meat: Humane way to get doctor-recommended daily meat taste
Lab-grown meat: More natural than current meat products
Taste:
Plant-based meat: Approximate
Lab-grown meat: Hubristic
Cost:
Plant-based meat: Too expensive
Lab-grown meat: Way too expensive
Biggest Advantage:
Plant-based meat: Lets you feel superior to humans who eat animals
Lab-grown meat: Lets you feel superior to gods who create animals
Good With Ranch?:
Plant-based meat: Nah
Lab-grown meat: Not really
Number Of People Switching To It:
Plant-based meat: Not nearly enough to meaningfully help environment
Lab-grown meat: Not nearly enough to meaningfully help environment
Chicken nuggets usually get a pretty bad rap. Whether they’re filled with mystery meat or come with a mouthful of additives, they also involve slaughtering an animal. But the nugget I’m about to eat from San Francisco-based Just was grown in a lab, using cells taken from a living chicken. It’s cultured meat (and cruelty-free).
Carnivores, breathe a sigh of relief.
Watch this:Trying a lab-grown chicken nugget
7:58
Unlike entirely plant-based products such as the Impossible Burger, the Just chicken nugget is actual meat.
Cultured meat, also called lab-grown or clean meat, starts with the collection of cells, usually done through a biopsy so the animals aren’t harmed. Just says it has also been able to get cells from a chicken feather. The most viable cells are chosen and then given the right nutrients they need to grow in a bioreactor. In the case of this chicken nugget, those nutrients are plant-based.
Not only does cultured meat avoid sacrificing animals, it could take fewer resources to produce than traditional livestock. Around 14.5 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions are from livestock, according to a report from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. But one study questions how environmentally friendly clean meat products could be if the process is energy-intensive.
The chicken nugget once plated with Just’s plant-based mayo as a dipping sauce.
CNET
ADVERTISING
Just’s cultured chicken product takes around two weeks to grow in a bioreactor. The team of chefs plays a major part in creating the product once the scientists have developed the biology. “They are really the ones that can assemble everything and come up with the ideal ratios of cell types,” says Vitor Santo, director of cellular agriculture.
So what does it actually taste like? The crunch from the breading and the smell from the fry was exactly what I expected from a good chicken nugget. But I was pleasantly surprised at how similar the cultured chicken itself tasted compared to the real deal, even if it didn’t look like your typical KFC or McDonald’s nugget. You can watch the video to find out more.
Just’s next cultured meat product will be wagyu beef. Several other companies are also developing clean meat derived from animal cells, like Memphis Meats (chicken and duck) and SuperMeat (also chicken).
If you’re hankering to try your own cultured chicken nugget, you’ll have to hold tight a little longer. The nugget needs to get USDA and FDA approval in the US, but Just says it’ll first be available in selected high-end restaurants in Asia later this year once it gets regulatory approval.
The video on this page is an episode of Beta Test, the show that puts you in the front seat with me as I test out crazy tech products and experiences. Check back each month for a new show! You can also find the series on YouTube.
Meat grown in a lab may become more detrimental to the planet than some types of cattle farming, a new study suggests. Published in Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, the findings show that this form of food production could generate large quantities of carbon dioxide that will go on to shape climate change hundreds of years into the future.
But, the research also comes with some major caveats–chiefly, that it overlooks the potential for this emerging new industry to switch to green energy.
We’re currently making big technological leaps in culturing meat from animal cells, which is increasingly touted as a better alternative to other forms of meat production, like cattle farming. Growing meat in a lab side-steps the environmental and ethical impacts of raising beef in pastures, and killing these animals for food; producing meat this way is especially celebrated for generating much less of the methane and nitrous oxide that cows are famous for emitting, both of which are particularly powerful greenhouse gases.
Yet, making cultured meat does still require large amounts of energy to power production and maintain growth temperature for cells–and that results in carbon dioxide emissions, the Oxford University researchers point out in their study. CO2 also comes with its own unique set of challenges: methane may be more potent but it lasts in the atmosphere for only 12 years, whereas CO2 lingers for thousands, meaning it accumulates and worsens climate change in the long-run.
So, to truly compare the impact of farmed cattle and lab-grown meat, the researchers separately considered the amount of methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide arising from each types of food production. That’s a departure from previous emissions estimates, which have typically relied on ‘carbon dioxide equivalents’, a standard way of measuring emissions impact that equates the likes of methane with carbon dioxide–without taking their very different climate effects into account.
Using this more nuanced measure, the researchers were able to closely compare the climate impact of three beef production systems, and four possible methods of culturing meat, and to project their impacts 1000 years into the future. This was also modeled according to different possible consumption pathways–including a global decline in meat consumption to more sustainable levels.
This revealed that if both types of meat production were ramped up in the future to satisfy a continually growing global demand, initially the more potent effects of methane from live cattle would increase global warming. But over time these effects diminish, as methane dissipates in the atmosphere. Conversely, greater amounts of CO2 generated by labriculture would then start to accumulate, and ultimately intensify warming in millennia to come, because of the gas’s incredible longevity. Overall, labriculture is “increasingly outperformed by all of the cattle systems the longer that production is maintained,” the researchers write.
Even if humans started to reign in their appetite for meat over the 1000-year period, they found that the CO2 from cultured meat production would continue to accumulate and persist, still exceeding the warming impact of some types of beef production. However, this comes with a critical caveat. Expanding pasture land for cows–which often means deforestation–is itself a huge source of CO2 emissions in cattle farming, but the researchers say they weren’t able to include this factor in their analysis. That would likely skew the results.
Similarly, producing large amounts of meat in the confines of a lab would reduce the conversion of forested land into pasture for farming cattle–in turn keeping more CO2 trapped in the ground. This is a benefit of lab-grown meat that wasn’t thoroughly explored in the study.
The paper makes another potentially problematic assumption, which is that labriculture will always rely on fossil fuels to power its operations. However, renewable energy could potentially provide some of that energy in the future–especially likely in an industry that’s trying to be green. If that happened, it would completely change the high emissions profile of lab-grown meat that’s presented in this study.
Nevertheless, what the research does prove is that when estimating the climate impact of food, relying on CO2 equivalents alone could be misleading. Methane doesn’t have the same long-term climate impact as some studies suggest, and this way of thinking about emissions may actually minimise CO2’s cumulative role in altering our climate.
The study also underscores the valuable fact that renewable energy streams will be essential to producing lab-grown burgers and the like, if they’re to have a place in our sustainable food future.