4 ms·

Thanks for posting that. I read through it, it seemed like the main arguments against lab grown meat were: 1. It will take a lot of investment, it's unclear if

by rnk 3y ago

Thanks for posting that. I read through it, it seemed like the main arguments against lab grown meat were: 1. It will take a lot of investment, it's unclear if it will produce enough to matter. 2. It might not get close to real meat in taste and texture 3. Lots of people wouldn't switch even if it tastes like real meat. This was disappointing because I was expecting an analysis of the greenhouse gas contribution of lab grown meat. I didn't see anything (long article with lots of charts, I could have missed it). This is the key issue to me, will lab grown meat significantly help. I am fine with some meat substitutes, I want healthy and tastes good, lots of veg food is like that without trying to be meat.

paulcole 3y ago
> Lots of people wouldn't switch even if it tastes like real meat This is the key part. If lab grown meat was a climate change solution, most people would shrug and keep eating regular meat.
- t43562 3y ago
  I think it doesn't matter one iota - because if they won't accept lab grown meat they won't accept any other change such as making their favorite national foods out of chicken.
  - paulcole 3y ago
    Yes, that’s the point.
- satvikpendem 3y ago
  They will if it's cheaper for the same quality.
froh 3y ago
thanks for the TL;DR it saves me the same disappointment of not finding a commission in carbon footprint per protein content I think the taste question can and will be solved, e.g. I've found some oat based "milk" doesn't taste like oat any more and I love it. I agree the CO2/methane/whatever footprint is the core info, and the 1. 2. 3. you quite from the article are just distracting from that.
- kibwen 3y ago
  Non-dairy milk is also more convenient, because it lasts for longer than a week. I'm not vegan, but I buy oat milk because I can leave it in the fridge, opened, for two months and it's still fine.
- spondylosaurus 3y ago
  Which type of oat milk is it? So far all the oat milks I've tried have been unpleasantly oily compared to soy or almond milks. Maybe I need to keep trying...
  - froh 3y ago
    I'm in Europe. I like "alpro oat milk no sugar." and as I prefer full fat over half fat, I add "alpro cooking cream soda 14%"
    - froh 3y ago
      soya. not soda. sorry.
panarchy 3y ago
My takes: 1. Everything takes investment, that's how capitalism works and if we're in a stage of capitalism where we can no longer invest in the future then the future is doomed. 2. It also might get close, be better, or people won't care. 3. People eat meat slurry chicken nuggets without complaint. If they can price themselves cheaper (which will be hard with all the subsidies the meat industry gets to be fair) and cover it in enough batter and spices, and not draw attention to it being lab made ("Naturally tasting meat!") it will sell. Not everything needs to be a steak and eating a steak is not the most popular form of meat consumption. 4. Any reduction is good. Not everything needs to be or even should be treated like it has to be some magic bullet that completely obliterates the competition. Having options is good.
- ghusto 3y ago
  About investment: It wasn't just that it would take investment, it was that the investment option for making difference in emissions were not feasible. From the article: > a facility that would use huge bioreactors to produce 10,000 metric tons of meat per year at an upfront capital cost of $450 million. 10,000 metric tons might sound like a lot until you learn that it would only amount to 0.002% of meat production in the US. Further, due to the high capital expenditure, investors would have to lock themself into 30-year repayment terms to keep the price per kilogram competitive > ... > So investors are faced with the “choice” of either throwing away absurd amounts of money to maybe make the tiniest dent in our meat production or to make a profit with a niche luxury product
  - Spivak 3y ago
    I feel like this is just a statement that the market for meat is supermassive and you can't just overnight have your production capacity at comparable levels to that of the entire country. Meat itself used to be a niche luxury item.
    - chrismatic 3y ago
      There is a significant difference between scaling up high-tech pharma-grade facilities and just breeding more cattle.
chrismatic 3y ago
> 2. It might not get close to real meat in taste and texture That's not in the article, I think. > This was disappointing because I was expecting an analysis of the greenhouse gas contribution of lab grown meat. I didn't see anything (long article with lots of charts, I could have missed it). This is the key issue to me, will lab grown meat significantly help. I am fine with some meat substitutes, I want healthy and tastes good, lots of veg food is like that without trying to be meat. I also would love to have this analysis, however, the data simply does not exist yet which adds to the uncertainty. I would also argue that the outlook on the techno-economic aspects is more pessimistic than what you put in 1. To quote the relevant section: > It doesn’t scale. One of the chief proponents of lab-grown meat, the Good Food Institute (GFI), commissioned a techno-economic analysis (TEA) to project what the production of cell-cultivated meat in 2030 might look like. They imagine a facility that would use huge bioreactors to produce 10,000 metric tons of meat per year at an upfront capital cost of $450 million. 10,000 metric tons might sound like a lot until you learn that it would only amount to 0.002% of meat production in the US. Further, due to the high capital expenditure, investors would have to lock themself into 30-year repayment terms to keep the price per kilogram competitive - this is why supporters of the technology are calling for substantial public investments. So investors are faced with the “choice” of either throwing away absurd amounts of money to maybe make the tiniest dent in our meat production or to make a profit with a niche luxury product. My only argument then is that this is a bet that we cannot afford to make, especially when reductionism already gets us there. Fully agree on the points about veggies being good on their own.

by rnk 3y ago

paulcole 3y ago

> Lots of people wouldn't switch even if it tastes like real meat This is the key part. If lab grown meat was a climate change solution, most people would shrug and keep eating regular meat.

t43562 3y ago
I think it doesn't matter one iota - because if they won't accept lab grown meat they won't accept any other change such as making their favorite national foods out of chicken.
- paulcole 3y ago
  Yes, that’s the point.
satvikpendem 3y ago
They will if it's cheaper for the same quality.

froh 3y ago

thanks for the TL;DR it saves me the same disappointment of not finding a commission in carbon footprint per protein content I think the taste question can and will be solved, e.g. I've found some oat based "milk" doesn't taste like oat any more and I love it. I agree the CO2/methane/whatever footprint is the core info, and the 1. 2. 3. you quite from the article are just distracting from that.

kibwen 3y ago
Non-dairy milk is also more convenient, because it lasts for longer than a week. I'm not vegan, but I buy oat milk because I can leave it in the fridge, opened, for two months and it's still fine.
spondylosaurus 3y ago
Which type of oat milk is it? So far all the oat milks I've tried have been unpleasantly oily compared to soy or almond milks. Maybe I need to keep trying...
- froh 3y ago
  I'm in Europe. I like "alpro oat milk no sugar." and as I prefer full fat over half fat, I add "alpro cooking cream soda 14%"
  - froh 3y ago
    soya. not soda. sorry.

panarchy 3y ago

My takes: 1. Everything takes investment, that's how capitalism works and if we're in a stage of capitalism where we can no longer invest in the future then the future is doomed. 2. It also might get close, be better, or people won't care. 3. People eat meat slurry chicken nuggets without complaint. If they can price themselves cheaper (which will be hard with all the subsidies the meat industry gets to be fair) and cover it in enough batter and spices, and not draw attention to it being lab made ("Naturally tasting meat!") it will sell. Not everything needs to be a steak and eating a steak is not the most popular form of meat consumption. 4. Any reduction is good. Not everything needs to be or even should be treated like it has to be some magic bullet that completely obliterates the competition. Having options is good.

ghusto 3y ago
About investment: It wasn't just that it would take investment, it was that the investment option for making difference in emissions were not feasible. From the article: > a facility that would use huge bioreactors to produce 10,000 metric tons of meat per year at an upfront capital cost of $450 million. 10,000 metric tons might sound like a lot until you learn that it would only amount to 0.002% of meat production in the US. Further, due to the high capital expenditure, investors would have to lock themself into 30-year repayment terms to keep the price per kilogram competitive > ... > So investors are faced with the “choice” of either throwing away absurd amounts of money to maybe make the tiniest dent in our meat production or to make a profit with a niche luxury product
- Spivak 3y ago
  I feel like this is just a statement that the market for meat is supermassive and you can't just overnight have your production capacity at comparable levels to that of the entire country. Meat itself used to be a niche luxury item.
  - chrismatic 3y ago
    There is a significant difference between scaling up high-tech pharma-grade facilities and just breeding more cattle.

chrismatic 3y ago

> 2. It might not get close to real meat in taste and texture That's not in the article, I think. > This was disappointing because I was expecting an analysis of the greenhouse gas contribution of lab grown meat. I didn't see anything (long article with lots of charts, I could have missed it). This is the key issue to me, will lab grown meat significantly help. I am fine with some meat substitutes, I want healthy and tastes good, lots of veg food is like that without trying to be meat. I also would love to have this analysis, however, the data simply does not exist yet which adds to the uncertainty. I would also argue that the outlook on the techno-economic aspects is more pessimistic than what you put in 1. To quote the relevant section: > It doesn’t scale. One of the chief proponents of lab-grown meat, the Good Food Institute (GFI), commissioned a techno-economic analysis (TEA) to project what the production of cell-cultivated meat in 2030 might look like. They imagine a facility that would use huge bioreactors to produce 10,000 metric tons of meat per year at an upfront capital cost of $450 million. 10,000 metric tons might sound like a lot until you learn that it would only amount to 0.002% of meat production in the US. Further, due to the high capital expenditure, investors would have to lock themself into 30-year repayment terms to keep the price per kilogram competitive - this is why supporters of the technology are calling for substantial public investments. So investors are faced with the “choice” of either throwing away absurd amounts of money to maybe make the tiniest dent in our meat production or to make a profit with a niche luxury product. My only argument then is that this is a bet that we cannot afford to make, especially when reductionism already gets us there. Fully agree on the points about veggies being good on their own.