60
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2025
60 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
50297 readers
279 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
If they’re tasty, no less unhealthy, and affordable, I’ll eat ’em. Grown muscle tissue isn’t connected to a nervous system, never mind a brain. They’re no more “animal” than tofu as far as I’m concerned.
But I can think of a couple of major likely problems:
I'm very much not up-to-date on the lab grown meat industry (so take this with a grain of salt), but I have done cell culture.
There's a reason most scifi with food grown in vats references bacteria, yeast, and algae. Single celled organisms have to be relatively self sufficient. You can grow more yeast/bacteria by feeding plain sugar to it. There are other nutrients eventually needed, but they can be given in simple forms (e.g., oxygen, inorganic salts, etc.) that you can isolate or create through simple chemistry alone.
Vertebrate cells are part of a highly complex system where they require sugars/salts/etc, but also growth factors, antibodies, and a whole host of other proteins, fats, steroids, etc. Some of those can be created in a lab with chemistry or special bacteria/yeast, but for the most part, scientists use fetal bovine serum. It's a byproduct of slaughtering pregnant cattle, and it contains a lot of those things that are just too hard to create otherwise.
Cells also need to be given the right niche do grow and differentiate into the target cell type, so muscle needs to exercise, arteries need pulsatile fluid flow, nerves need electrical signals, etc. Without an immune system, everything needs to be done in a sterile environment.
All of that adds up to an ecological footprint that's extremely difficult to reduce below the natural product.
Lab grown muscles don't need exercise, nor do they need arteries or nervous systems
Your conclusion is simply wrong. Much of the resource requirements in a natural product is the non-muscle portions of the animal, and most importantly the cost of keeping all those cells alive until slaughter
It's incredibly easy to reduce the ecological footprint, because most of it is not necessary for lab grown meat
I, personally, have grown muscle tissue in a laboratory environment, so I know what it takes to actually grow muscle tissue. What I'm not familiar with is what the lab-grown meat industry practices are, but I just looked into it briefly.
There are 2 companies currently with approval to sell a lab-grown meat product in the US: Upside Foods and Good Meat.
Both sell chicken. Upside Food's process is outlined in their FDA submission. They specifically state: "several media protein components (e.g., bovine serum albumin, growth factors) are required for sustaining cell viability and growth during the culture process" i.e., they rely on albumin from cattle like I suspected.
Unfortunately, since the "creation of chicken cells" is FDA regulated, but "production of chicken meat" is USDA regulated, that document doesn't actually go into detail on how the cells are turned into the final product. This Wired article, however, says that they are basically just laying out sheets of the cells, and then manually stacking them to give some structure, which is not a scalable solution. Also, it seems like they are somewhat falling apart as a company not that they are running out of VC money. It looks like they are also trying to pivot into producing some sort of primarily plant based sausage with a little chicken cells thrown in. I'm assuming that's a last gasp to produce something profitable.
Good Meats, on the other hand, I can't find as much information on. The equivalent FDA document is on the other side of a link that seems broken. According to what they publish on their site, they are essentially vat growing cells, straining them off, and then extruding them into a shape.
In both cases, I don't think it's accurate to call the product "meat" since the cells will not have the structure of muscle cells (long strands), and there isn't any tissue organization or adhesion to an extracellular matrix. It's more of a pate even though they called a fillet.
The ecological footprint of both of the companies is greater than just conventional chicken production. I know this because both websites try really carefully to make it seem like they are better, but they can't say that they are.
Upside foods phrases all of their claims as "what if we could do x, y, and z?" Rather than saying that they can do it. Good Meats similarly has an FAQ of "is it better than conventional?" and their response is "we believe it will be".