Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lab-Grown Meat Is Safe to Eat, FDA Says

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 493 posts

Re: Lab-Grown Meat Is Safe to Eat, FDA Says

#431

Post by BoorishBears »

virtualritz wrote: post #419
BoorishBears wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because you're likely part of the disconnected 1%, even if you're nowhere near that relative to others in your country. People think of robber barons twirling the mustaches when they picture the 1%, but for global topics, the 1% even includes people who are considered "poor" by western standards. And, like the robber barons twirling mustaches people picture for their local 1%, you can't extrapolate any good da…

I think you misread my comment. It was meant exactly as written. "It feels". It is factually not so and I didn't contest the OPs assertion. However, many things that are now common where adapted by the broad populace because they wanted to copy/be as fancy as the 1%. On of the most prominent examples is probably the British accent. ;)

I think you misread mine. It's explaining why you can feel that way while OPs assertion is true. It's not claiming you contested anything.

You feel that way because you're disconnected from the poor being referenced by "living in central Berlin"

Re: Lab-Grown Meat Is Safe to Eat, FDA Says

#432

Post by esotericimpl »

coldpie wrote: post #39
glitchc wrote: post #4

Look forward to lab-grown burgers and steaks!

Me too. Aside from the environmental improvements, there's some pretty cool stuff they could in theory do with this tech. Making consistent, perfect cuts of meat with little waste. It's early days, but this is pretty promising tech and I'm excited to see where it goes.

No post body was provided.

Re: Lab-Grown Meat Is Safe to Eat, FDA Says

#433

Post by uplifter »

theptip wrote: post #361
achou wrote: post #180

David Humbird's 2021 paper "Scale-up economics for cultured meat"[1] is a pretty damning study of the problems with lab-grown meat. His core conclusion: "Capital- and operating-cost analyses of conceptual cell-mass production facilities indicate economics that would likely preclude the affordability of their products as food." Does anyone know if the problems that Humbird describes have somehow been solved? [1] https…

I think the approach of this paper is akin to estimating the cost of Microsoft's BHAG ("a PC on every desk") based on the costs of building mainframe computers in 1970. Here's the key leap of questionable logic (IMO): > The capital cost of a conceptual bulk animal cell-culture process is developed from the bare-equipment costs of its most important items. From this purchased equipment cost, a total capital investment…

> The fundamental question is whether food-grade fermentation/culturing processes like those used in beer or yoghurt can suffice

Analyzing probable cost of fake meat production by comparison with existing cultured food manufacturing is sensible, but fake meat has some differentiating aspects to be accounted for.

A prime difference between these fermentation processes and a hypothetical cultured meat system is that the single cells involved in making beer and yogurt are simpler, much faster breading species than the multicellular lines which develop into complex animal tissue. Another difference is that whereas fermentation involves partial digestion of a portion of the growth medium by the fermenting microbes, creating a volume of artificial meat would require synthesizing cell dense tissue to fill the entire volume. So with artificial meat you need more growth and the growth will be slower, factors which both expand the opportunities for contamination. So preventing contamination will be more important and more challenging with lab meat than with these fermentation products.

I agree with your assessment that the source paper is exceedingly pessimistic about the costs. There is no physical reason why cultured meat production couldn't eventually be cheaper than natural meat production, the hurdles are only technological.

edit: spelling

Re: Lab-Grown Meat Is Safe to Eat, FDA Says

#434

Post by sieabahlpark »

myshpa wrote: post #382
randomdata wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We could rewild huge parts of the Earth Probably not without radically changing how we grow plants for human consumption, assuming we still eat plants and don't move to an all-meat diet. Looking over the data for the area I farm, according to government figures, 36% of the cropland is used for animal food. Most farmers here grow a rotation of soybeans, corn, edible beans, and wheat. The edible beans and wheat are i…

If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets Half of the world’s habitable land is used for agriculture ... and 77% of it is used for livestock: meat and dairy https://ourworldindata.org/land-use More than three-quarters (77%) of global soy is fed to livestock for meat and dairy production. Most of the rest…

No post body was provided.

Re: Lab-Grown Meat Is Safe to Eat, FDA Says

#435

Post by rootusrootus »

jklinger410 wrote: post #375
dalbasal wrote: post #137

Polling my own bubble, I'm dubious about lab meat. Across the board, it seems that people want lab grown meat for others. Vegans want omnivores to eat it. Omnivores think it'd be good for vegans. Meanwhile, any mass market product is likely to be some sort of processed meat product. Sausage, mince chicken nugget or somesuch. These aren't generally premium products, so you need to go really low for price competitivene…

> It just seems like a solution looking for a problem to me. Vegans primary objection to eating meat is that it is murder. Meat eaters primary issue with vegan cuisine is that it does not include meat. Hope this helps!

> Meat eaters primary issue with vegan cuisine is that it does not include meat.

In my extended group of acquaintances, the distaste for typical vegan food isn't that it doesn't have meat, it's that it tries to pretend that it does and ends up being kinda gross as a result.

Re: Lab-Grown Meat Is Safe to Eat, FDA Says

#436

Post by rootusrootus »

coldpie wrote: post #207
worik wrote: post #181

The article says: > Some hope that lab-grown meat could reduce the carbon footprint of the food industry. Some hope. What are the facts? I am sceptical that a lab process can be more efficient than a biological process. And being less efficient would it not use more energy, resources, and release more carbon? The energy for biological processes is often largely solar, for lab processes often largely from fossil fuels…

I also don't have any data, but my gut feeling is the opposite. There's a lot of waste[1] in growing a whole animal (skin, bones, organs, unused muscles, etc), not to mention the time and space required. It seems to me that growing only the "good parts" would be far more efficient, but you feel the opposite. It's impossible to know who's right. I wonder what the efficiency will be like in the future, I think that's t…

> [1] Waste purely from the perspective of growing human food. I understand many parts of the animal are actually used for other purposes.

That's pretty important. If we replace the high margin steak part of the animal with lab grown equivalents, what is the plan for all the things we've learned to make with the rest of the cow?

Re: Lab-Grown Meat Is Safe to Eat, FDA Says

#437

Post by rootusrootus »

cwkoss wrote: post #252
worik wrote: post #181

The article says: > Some hope that lab-grown meat could reduce the carbon footprint of the food industry. Some hope. What are the facts? I am sceptical that a lab process can be more efficient than a biological process. And being less efficient would it not use more energy, resources, and release more carbon? The energy for biological processes is often largely solar, for lab processes often largely from fossil fuels…

Animals do a lot of stuff (and have a lot of parts) which are not necessary when producing a steak or ground meat. Will use more GRID energy, but require significantly less arable land per unit. (And thus probably less fossil fuels, because agriculture uses a lot).

> Animals do a lot of stuff (and have a lot of parts) which are not necessary when producing a steak or ground meat.

Useful parts, which will have to be replaced right along with replacing the profitable steak parts.

Re: Lab-Grown Meat Is Safe to Eat, FDA Says

#438

Post by cwkoss »

rootusrootus wrote: post #437
cwkoss wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Animals do a lot of stuff (and have a lot of parts) which are not necessary when producing a steak or ground meat. Will use more GRID energy, but require significantly less arable land per unit. (And thus probably less fossil fuels, because agriculture uses a lot).

> Animals do a lot of stuff (and have a lot of parts) which are not necessary when producing a steak or ground meat. Useful parts, which will have to be replaced right along with replacing the profitable steak parts.

Aren't most of those parts only 'useful' because they are a cheap byproduct of steak production?

Re: Lab-Grown Meat Is Safe to Eat, FDA Says

#439

Post by coldpie »

rootusrootus wrote: post #436
coldpie wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also don't have any data, but my gut feeling is the opposite. There's a lot of waste[1] in growing a whole animal (skin, bones, organs, unused muscles, etc), not to mention the time and space required. It seems to me that growing only the "good parts" would be far more efficient, but you feel the opposite. It's impossible to know who's right. I wonder what the efficiency will be like in the future, I think that's t…

> [1] Waste purely from the perspective of growing human food. I understand many parts of the animal are actually used for other purposes. That's pretty important. If we replace the high margin steak part of the animal with lab grown equivalents, what is the plan for all the things we've learned to make with the rest of the cow?

We'll figure it out. Even in the most optimistic case, it's not like it's going to be a lightswitch where all food animals suddenly disappear overnight.

Re: Lab-Grown Meat Is Safe to Eat, FDA Says

#440

Post by dalbasal »

theptip wrote: post #373
dalbasal wrote: post #137

Polling my own bubble, I'm dubious about lab meat. Across the board, it seems that people want lab grown meat for others. Vegans want omnivores to eat it. Omnivores think it'd be good for vegans. Meanwhile, any mass market product is likely to be some sort of processed meat product. Sausage, mince chicken nugget or somesuch. These aren't generally premium products, so you need to go really low for price competitivene…

I think one must keep in mind that the conceptual idea of eating cultured meat is one thing, and the practical economic reality is another. If a cultured meat "chik'n nugget" is cheaper than a mechanically-reconstituted-real-chicken-meat nugget, and the quality is the same, lots of people will buy the cheaper cultured option. The same logic applies for basically every fast food product, and also every Costco-bulk mea…

Agreed.

I don't see the economic realities stacking up. The price of cheap, processed meat products is pretty low... and not all of the price is ingredients. It's a long way to the bottom.

Meanwhile, the higher end ethical consumers... it's hard to predict their consumer preferences/choices. I suppose some vegans want meat and some omnivores want to be vegan... but as I said, I'm dubious about these groups' real size.

This won't get to $1 per kg overnight. There probably needs to be adequate demand all along the continuum to fuel volume price reductions.

I also think it's naive to assume that environmental (eg energy/carbon savings) benefits will materialize. Its equally naive to assume eco consumers will buy the story otherwise, over the long term.

The main bull case seems to rely on overwhelming cost advantage. Where's the reason to think this will happen.?

Post reply on HN