7 ms·

Biz Stone Explains Why Twitter’s Co-Founders Are Betting On Vegan Meat Startup

23 points by shawnc 14y ago

naner 14y ago
This is great (I'm a big proponent of synthetic meat, which is similar, and the potential of engineered foods in general) but I'm not so sure Biz is the best judge of what real meat tastes and feels like if he has been a long time vegan. Also it will be extremely difficult to get Americans to switch to fake meat, no matter how cheap/tasty/nutritious it is. We are a pretty superstitious culture.
- shawnc 14y ago
  Superstitious but there's also a lot of identity from eating meats. Especially for men. Eating muscle meats like Steak is a big deal, and we as men are somehow less macho and manly if we don't eat these. It might sound ludicrous, but when I became vegetarian it was amazing the comments I got from friends all around not being a man from the decision. A wife of one friend piped up "I dunno, I think it's more manly to stick to something you believe in, than do something just cause it'd be 'Manly'."
excuse-me 14y ago
I don't like vegan meat. Vegans are often stringy and tasteless. I would prefer eating corn fed Iowans whenever I am involved in a plane crash in the Andes
AznHisoka 14y ago
Humans are meant to eat meat, not just veggies.
- mistercow 14y ago
  What do you mean by "meant to"? I suppose humans are also "meant to" be eaten by bears or die from minor infections, but I'm not exactly eager to sign up for that, are you?
  - SeanLuke 14y ago
    I think he's referring to Vitamin B12.
    - mistercow 14y ago
      Fortunately, modern technology makes it very easy to get adequate B12 without consuming any animal products.
  - mc32 14y ago
    I think one (not being a prey for a bear) takes no biological re-adjustment (well, except provisions to live longer, I suppose). On the other hand, getting used to a radically different diet would take many generations to adjust to. For example, after a few thousand years, some people are not yet used to cow's milk, or used to wheat. Long term, yes, nature should take care of that.
    - mistercow 14y ago
      Huh? I've been a vegetarian for 16 years, and a vegan for one year, and I'm quite adjusted. I don't remember any generations passing in that time, but I might not have been paying attention.
      - mc32 14y ago
        I meant adjusting naturally to the different source of nutrition. If you're a vegan, you would normally need to be very careful of your diet so that you do not introduce nutritional deficiencies into your system, or you would need to subsidize your nutrition with vitamins. Long term, the body could find a way to bypass the nutritional subsidies --it could take a very long time (cows had to develop additional stomachs to adjust to eating primarily grass, for example).
        sdm 14y ago
        Ahhh... you have to be pretty careful with what you eat if you eat meat as well to. Just walk down the street for examples. Generally, the length of our digestive system is sited as one of the main reasons we are so poorly adapted at eating meat.
- drcube 14y ago
  Then you should applaud this company, which is trying to bring meat to those who can't otherwise eat it for health or ethical reasons.
  - lupatus 14y ago
    But, it isn't actually meat... It is full of phytoestrogen-supplying soy, industrially-processed plant fillers from peas and barley, and other chemicals like titanium dioxide. I would rather eat a steak with a bowl of pea-barley porridge on the side.
- ceejayoz 14y ago
  We're meant to die at 40, too. I'm not a vegetarian, because I love my meat, but if you can give me a meat replacement that's indistinguishable in nutrition, texture, and flavour, what's wrong with that?
  - jacoblyles 14y ago
    It's not indistinguishable in nutrition.
    - ceejayoz 14y ago
      Not yet, but I'd imagine there are plenty of folks working on that.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
      It's not that hard to find a meat-free diet that supplies all the nutrition that you require. Meat-heavy diets come with their own problems, and there's no point in replicating those with something "indistinguishable".
- xcallmejudasx 14y ago
  Can you site some proof that we are physically meant to eat meat that doesn't use observation as the main reasoning? We are usually characterized as omnivores because of a vast amount of observation of people eating meat, however our bodies aren't exactly designed for it. For starters, the small intestine of carnivores is much shorter than non-carnivores and has a higher level of acidity in the stomach. This is because the nutrients need to be extracted and the waste expelled before the meat rots inside the body(which it partially does in a human body since our intestine is much longer by comparison than other carnivores). There's also the issue of short, dull, canines and much smaller temporalis muscle that powers the jaw. This is why we have to spend more time chewing and grinding meat down into smaller pieces instead of just tearing off chunks and swallowing it whole like most carnivores. We wouldn't be able very easily bite through hide and tear chunks of meat off nor would we be able to digest (most)raw meat without getting sick. Most of our carnivorous traits are remnants from evolution that were never replaced. We more closely resemble a herbivore that has maintained some basic primal ability to process meat than we do a carnivore that has adapted to process vegetation.
  - drcube 14y ago
    We're omnivores, not carnivores. Hence the teeth and intestines. Cecil Adams had this to say in 1990, I'd be interested if others would provide an update: "Like the hard-core carnivores, we have fairly simple digestive systems well suited to the consumption of animal protein, which breaks down quickly. Contrary to what your magazine article says, the human small intestine, at 23 feet, is a little under eight times body length (assuming a mouth-to-anus "body length" of three feet). This is about midway between cats (three times body length), dogs (3-1/2 times), and other well-known meat eaters on the one hand and plant eaters such as cattle (20 to 1) and horses (12 to 1) on the other. This tends to support the idea that we are omnivores. Herbivores also have a variety of specialized digestive organs capable of breaking down cellulose, the main component of plant tissue. Humans find cellulose totally indigestible, and even plant eaters have to take their time with it. If you were a ruminant (cud eater), for instance, you might have a stomach with four compartments, enabling you to cough up last night's alfalfa and chew on it all over again. Or you might have an enlarged cecum, a sac attached to the intestines, where rabbits and such store food until their intestinal bacteria have time to do their stuff. Digestion in such cases takes place by a process of fermentation — bacteria actually "eat" the cellulose and the host animal consumes what results, namely bacteria dung. The story is roughly the same with teeth. We're equipped with an all-purpose set of ivories equally suited to liver and onions." http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/674/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/674/are-humans-meat...
mmagin 14y ago
"no saturated fat" So we're still hung up on that.
- mistercow 14y ago
  Yes. Believe it or not, despite what certain faddists would have you believe, the "lots of saturated fat is actually really good for you" position is still contradicted by the vast preponderance of evidence.
  - jacoblyles 14y ago
    The evidence that shows that saturated fat is bad for you is based on large-scale population surveys that only demonstrate that most Americans who eat lots of saturated fat are unhealthy. They don't demonstrate a causal link between saturated fat and heart disease. On the other hand, there are plentiful clinical experimental studies which show health benefits from switching to a diet heavier in saturated fats, including favorable changes in cholesterol levels and body composition. Peruse these articles when you get a chance: http://www.nmsociety.org/low-carb-research.html http://www.nmsociety.org/low-carb-research.html In particular, it's important to note that Americans have decreased their saturated fat intake since the government told them to in the 70s, and heart disease rates have gone up: http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0899-9007/PIIS0899900710002893.pdf http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/08...
    - grgbrn 14y ago
      It's a complex topic, and I'm no expert. But based on all of the contradictory studies out there, I don't think it's quite as simple as you're making it sound. For example, a new study done in Sweden was in the press recently which sounds to run counter to the ones you've linked to. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2157532/Atkins-diet-causes-heart-disease-risk-linked-surge-cholesterol-levels.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2157532/Atkins-die... http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/06/time-to-retire-the-low-carb-diet-fad/258343/ http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/06/time-to-re...
jacoblyles 14y ago
What are the vegans going to do when they find out that saturated animal fats are good for you? http://www.menshealth.com/nutrition/saturated-fat-0 http://www.menshealth.com/nutrition/saturated-fat-0 I'm looking forward to the schadenfreude I get as Americans continue to reduce their saturated fat intake and continue to suffer from more diabetes and heart disease.
- ceejayoz 14y ago
  And where does that article say saturated animal fats? Plenty of saturated fat in coconut oil, chocolate, etc.
- mistercow 14y ago
  From the article: >There's no good evidence of that I love when people use "there's no good evidence" to mean "there is a tiny amount of evidence to the contrary, and that's the only evidence I am choosing to pay attention to". People are silly.
SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
> Even the most devout vegans and vegetarians have to admit that today’s meat substitutes are no substitute for the real thing. Some of them are tasty, but none actually have the same taste and texture of a piece of chicken, a burger, or a steak. So what? Vegetarianism doesn't work that way. I don't walk into the supermarket thinking "what's the meatiest meat substitute that I can find today?", I think "lets get some fresh fruit and veg, and yoghurt and cheese". Also, if you are looking for a meat substitute, have you tried Quorn? ( http://www.quorn.co.uk/ http://www.quorn.co.uk/ )
- Codhisattva 14y ago
  I've tried it - it's not like meat but it's better than textured vegetable protein by a long shot. The weirdest thing about it is that some people are seriously allergic to it so it's got a heck of a warning label.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
    > some people are seriously allergic to it so it's got a heck of a warning label I heard that. Of course, you could say the same thing about peanuts and mushrooms.
    - Codhisattva 14y ago
      Quorn is actually a mushroom.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
        Close but not quite - it's a fungus ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusarium_venenatum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusarium_venenatum ). Since fungi have been around for a very, very long time they have a lot of genetic variation - it's not that close to mushrooms, not even the same phylum as the common mushrooms ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agaricus_bisporus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agaricus_bisporus ).
jasonallen 14y ago
I want to like this, but it conflicts with Michael Pollan's rules for eating ("don't eat anything your great grandmother wouldn't recognize as food"). Their chicken strips contain titanium dioxide. I'm no expert, but wikipedia says we probably shouldn't be eating that. What am I missing?
- raverbashing 14y ago
  "I'm no expert, but wikipedia says we probably shouldn't be eating that. What am I missing?" I think you answered your own question there. Oh by the way you've already put TiO2 several times in your mouth
- excuse-me 14y ago
  >Don't eat anything your great grandmother wouldn't recognize as food Erm, Tripe, blood pudding, sweet breads VS Tiramasu, Sushi, Lobster Sorry Gran!
  - mikeryan 14y ago
    Sweet breads vs tiramisu? Is there a competition between fried thymus and pancreas and a cake made out of cookies and marscapone cheese? BTW my great grandmother would recognize the blood pudding, sweet breads and tripe. She was Irish. I'm pretty sure there's a lot of great gran's who'd recognize the others.
    - excuse-me 14y ago
      Yes that was rather my point to the glib "don't eat anything your grandmother wouldn't recognise"! My dear old grandmother never saw Tiramasu, Sushi or a Lobster (at least on a plate) and wouldn't recognise it as food. However some of the stuff she did eat - urgghhhh !
- infinitex 14y ago
  And meat does not contain any chemicals? Here is a 40 page list of stuff you can find in your meat besides antibiotics and growth hormone: http://concordfood.ning.com/forum/attachment/download?id=4942197%3AUploadedFile%3A141 http://concordfood.ning.com/forum/attachment/download?id=494... To list a few: Chlorine dioxide, Lauramide arginine ethyl ester, Potassium diacetate, Sodium hypochlorite, Hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, Ammonium hydroxide, Sodium tripolyphosphate, Bacteriophage preparation, Cetylpyridinium chloride
dons 14y ago
It should be possible to dramatically lower the cost of protein produced this way. It is just so much more efficient to grow corn, soy and pea protein and then consume it directly, rather than feeding it to cattle first, to harvest a fraction of the input protein as meat. This stuff could win on cost alone.
- planetguy 14y ago
  >This stuff could win on cost alone For whom? Certainly not for me, I'm quite willing to pay a cost premium for real meat. For poor third-world villagers, then? I have my doubts. I mean, so many cultures in the world attach so much cultural significance to eating meat, and the less often you get to eat it the more significant it is. As far as point-missing innovations go, this reminds me of the Fleshlight more than anything else. You'd think that "feels just like a real vagina, only much cheaper and less trouble" would be a selling point, but it turns out that they're significantly less popular than the real thing. Oh, I'm sure they'll sell some of this stuff, there's a whole freezerful of gross-looking fake-meat products at my local supermarket. But it's not going to change the habits of any genuine omnivores.
  - excuse-me 14y ago
    Depends what the real meat premium gets to. Would a real meat eater rather eat a $5 burger made from (well you really don't want to know what burger meat is made from) or a $5 fake-steak sandwich that looks and tastes like steak? The initial market is going be fashionable fake meat for Wholefoods/Trader-Joes consumers. But assuming this is eventually cheaper than meat, keeps longer, has less problems with bugs/contamination/spoilage, is quicker easier to shape into burgers plus lower fat and healthier then fast food chains are going to offer it.
    - planetguy 14y ago
      "Would a real meat eater rather eat a $5 burger made from (well you really don't want to know what burger meat is made from)" Umm, yes please? Y'know what burger meat is made from? It's made from cow. Don't be squeamish, your ancestors ate far grosser bits of animals than you're gonna get in your hamburger.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
unwiredben 14y ago
As a long-time vegetarian, I'm really excited about this. I just hope they're able to get distribution here in Austin soon, although with the Whole Foods group HQed here, I expect that won't take too long.
roopeshv 14y ago
> "They were coming at it from this big science, super practical, scalable angle. They were saying, 'We want to get into the multi-billion-dollar meat industry with a plant-based meat.' show us the science. (anyone who fucking links me to documentaries, and non-cited articles/studies, i'll fucking punch them in the face)

23 points by shawnc 14y ago

naner 14y ago

This is great (I'm a big proponent of synthetic meat, which is similar, and the potential of engineered foods in general) but I'm not so sure Biz is the best judge of what real meat tastes and feels like if he has been a long time vegan. Also it will be extremely difficult to get Americans to switch to fake meat, no matter how cheap/tasty/nutritious it is. We are a pretty superstitious culture.

shawnc 14y ago
Superstitious but there's also a lot of identity from eating meats. Especially for men. Eating muscle meats like Steak is a big deal, and we as men are somehow less macho and manly if we don't eat these. It might sound ludicrous, but when I became vegetarian it was amazing the comments I got from friends all around not being a man from the decision. A wife of one friend piped up "I dunno, I think it's more manly to stick to something you believe in, than do something just cause it'd be 'Manly'."

excuse-me 14y ago

I don't like vegan meat. Vegans are often stringy and tasteless. I would prefer eating corn fed Iowans whenever I am involved in a plane crash in the Andes

AznHisoka 14y ago

Humans are meant to eat meat, not just veggies.

mistercow 14y ago
What do you mean by "meant to"? I suppose humans are also "meant to" be eaten by bears or die from minor infections, but I'm not exactly eager to sign up for that, are you?
- SeanLuke 14y ago
  I think he's referring to Vitamin B12.
  - mistercow 14y ago
    Fortunately, modern technology makes it very easy to get adequate B12 without consuming any animal products.
- mc32 14y ago
  I think one (not being a prey for a bear) takes no biological re-adjustment (well, except provisions to live longer, I suppose). On the other hand, getting used to a radically different diet would take many generations to adjust to. For example, after a few thousand years, some people are not yet used to cow's milk, or used to wheat. Long term, yes, nature should take care of that.
  - mistercow 14y ago
    Huh? I've been a vegetarian for 16 years, and a vegan for one year, and I'm quite adjusted. I don't remember any generations passing in that time, but I might not have been paying attention.
    - mc32 14y ago
      I meant adjusting naturally to the different source of nutrition. If you're a vegan, you would normally need to be very careful of your diet so that you do not introduce nutritional deficiencies into your system, or you would need to subsidize your nutrition with vitamins. Long term, the body could find a way to bypass the nutritional subsidies --it could take a very long time (cows had to develop additional stomachs to adjust to eating primarily grass, for example).
      - sdm 14y ago
        Ahhh... you have to be pretty careful with what you eat if you eat meat as well to. Just walk down the street for examples. Generally, the length of our digestive system is sited as one of the main reasons we are so poorly adapted at eating meat.
drcube 14y ago
Then you should applaud this company, which is trying to bring meat to those who can't otherwise eat it for health or ethical reasons.
- lupatus 14y ago
  But, it isn't actually meat... It is full of phytoestrogen-supplying soy, industrially-processed plant fillers from peas and barley, and other chemicals like titanium dioxide. I would rather eat a steak with a bowl of pea-barley porridge on the side.
ceejayoz 14y ago
We're meant to die at 40, too. I'm not a vegetarian, because I love my meat, but if you can give me a meat replacement that's indistinguishable in nutrition, texture, and flavour, what's wrong with that?
- jacoblyles 14y ago
  It's not indistinguishable in nutrition.
  - ceejayoz 14y ago
    Not yet, but I'd imagine there are plenty of folks working on that.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
    It's not that hard to find a meat-free diet that supplies all the nutrition that you require. Meat-heavy diets come with their own problems, and there's no point in replicating those with something "indistinguishable".
xcallmejudasx 14y ago
Can you site some proof that we are physically meant to eat meat that doesn't use observation as the main reasoning? We are usually characterized as omnivores because of a vast amount of observation of people eating meat, however our bodies aren't exactly designed for it. For starters, the small intestine of carnivores is much shorter than non-carnivores and has a higher level of acidity in the stomach. This is because the nutrients need to be extracted and the waste expelled before the meat rots inside the body(which it partially does in a human body since our intestine is much longer by comparison than other carnivores). There's also the issue of short, dull, canines and much smaller temporalis muscle that powers the jaw. This is why we have to spend more time chewing and grinding meat down into smaller pieces instead of just tearing off chunks and swallowing it whole like most carnivores. We wouldn't be able very easily bite through hide and tear chunks of meat off nor would we be able to digest (most)raw meat without getting sick. Most of our carnivorous traits are remnants from evolution that were never replaced. We more closely resemble a herbivore that has maintained some basic primal ability to process meat than we do a carnivore that has adapted to process vegetation.
- drcube 14y ago
  We're omnivores, not carnivores. Hence the teeth and intestines. Cecil Adams had this to say in 1990, I'd be interested if others would provide an update: "Like the hard-core carnivores, we have fairly simple digestive systems well suited to the consumption of animal protein, which breaks down quickly. Contrary to what your magazine article says, the human small intestine, at 23 feet, is a little under eight times body length (assuming a mouth-to-anus "body length" of three feet). This is about midway between cats (three times body length), dogs (3-1/2 times), and other well-known meat eaters on the one hand and plant eaters such as cattle (20 to 1) and horses (12 to 1) on the other. This tends to support the idea that we are omnivores. Herbivores also have a variety of specialized digestive organs capable of breaking down cellulose, the main component of plant tissue. Humans find cellulose totally indigestible, and even plant eaters have to take their time with it. If you were a ruminant (cud eater), for instance, you might have a stomach with four compartments, enabling you to cough up last night's alfalfa and chew on it all over again. Or you might have an enlarged cecum, a sac attached to the intestines, where rabbits and such store food until their intestinal bacteria have time to do their stuff. Digestion in such cases takes place by a process of fermentation — bacteria actually "eat" the cellulose and the host animal consumes what results, namely bacteria dung. The story is roughly the same with teeth. We're equipped with an all-purpose set of ivories equally suited to liver and onions." http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/674/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/674/are-humans-meat...

mmagin 14y ago

"no saturated fat" So we're still hung up on that.

mistercow 14y ago
Yes. Believe it or not, despite what certain faddists would have you believe, the "lots of saturated fat is actually really good for you" position is still contradicted by the vast preponderance of evidence.
- jacoblyles 14y ago
  The evidence that shows that saturated fat is bad for you is based on large-scale population surveys that only demonstrate that most Americans who eat lots of saturated fat are unhealthy. They don't demonstrate a causal link between saturated fat and heart disease. On the other hand, there are plentiful clinical experimental studies which show health benefits from switching to a diet heavier in saturated fats, including favorable changes in cholesterol levels and body composition. Peruse these articles when you get a chance: http://www.nmsociety.org/low-carb-research.html http://www.nmsociety.org/low-carb-research.html In particular, it's important to note that Americans have decreased their saturated fat intake since the government told them to in the 70s, and heart disease rates have gone up: http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0899-9007/PIIS0899900710002893.pdf http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/08...
  - grgbrn 14y ago
    It's a complex topic, and I'm no expert. But based on all of the contradictory studies out there, I don't think it's quite as simple as you're making it sound. For example, a new study done in Sweden was in the press recently which sounds to run counter to the ones you've linked to. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2157532/Atkins-diet-causes-heart-disease-risk-linked-surge-cholesterol-levels.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2157532/Atkins-die... http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/06/time-to-retire-the-low-carb-diet-fad/258343/ http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/06/time-to-re...

jacoblyles 14y ago

What are the vegans going to do when they find out that saturated animal fats are good for you? http://www.menshealth.com/nutrition/saturated-fat-0 http://www.menshealth.com/nutrition/saturated-fat-0 I'm looking forward to the schadenfreude I get as Americans continue to reduce their saturated fat intake and continue to suffer from more diabetes and heart disease.

ceejayoz 14y ago
And where does that article say saturated animal fats? Plenty of saturated fat in coconut oil, chocolate, etc.
mistercow 14y ago
From the article: >There's no good evidence of that I love when people use "there's no good evidence" to mean "there is a tiny amount of evidence to the contrary, and that's the only evidence I am choosing to pay attention to". People are silly.

SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago

> Even the most devout vegans and vegetarians have to admit that today’s meat substitutes are no substitute for the real thing. Some of them are tasty, but none actually have the same taste and texture of a piece of chicken, a burger, or a steak. So what? Vegetarianism doesn't work that way. I don't walk into the supermarket thinking "what's the meatiest meat substitute that I can find today?", I think "lets get some fresh fruit and veg, and yoghurt and cheese". Also, if you are looking for a meat substitute, have you tried Quorn? ( http://www.quorn.co.uk/ http://www.quorn.co.uk/ )

Codhisattva 14y ago
I've tried it - it's not like meat but it's better than textured vegetable protein by a long shot. The weirdest thing about it is that some people are seriously allergic to it so it's got a heck of a warning label.
- SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
  > some people are seriously allergic to it so it's got a heck of a warning label I heard that. Of course, you could say the same thing about peanuts and mushrooms.
  - Codhisattva 14y ago
    Quorn is actually a mushroom.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
      Close but not quite - it's a fungus ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusarium_venenatum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusarium_venenatum ). Since fungi have been around for a very, very long time they have a lot of genetic variation - it's not that close to mushrooms, not even the same phylum as the common mushrooms ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agaricus_bisporus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agaricus_bisporus ).

jasonallen 14y ago

I want to like this, but it conflicts with Michael Pollan's rules for eating ("don't eat anything your great grandmother wouldn't recognize as food"). Their chicken strips contain titanium dioxide. I'm no expert, but wikipedia says we probably shouldn't be eating that. What am I missing?

raverbashing 14y ago
"I'm no expert, but wikipedia says we probably shouldn't be eating that. What am I missing?" I think you answered your own question there. Oh by the way you've already put TiO2 several times in your mouth
excuse-me 14y ago
>Don't eat anything your great grandmother wouldn't recognize as food Erm, Tripe, blood pudding, sweet breads VS Tiramasu, Sushi, Lobster Sorry Gran!
- mikeryan 14y ago
  Sweet breads vs tiramisu? Is there a competition between fried thymus and pancreas and a cake made out of cookies and marscapone cheese? BTW my great grandmother would recognize the blood pudding, sweet breads and tripe. She was Irish. I'm pretty sure there's a lot of great gran's who'd recognize the others.
  - excuse-me 14y ago
    Yes that was rather my point to the glib "don't eat anything your grandmother wouldn't recognise"! My dear old grandmother never saw Tiramasu, Sushi or a Lobster (at least on a plate) and wouldn't recognise it as food. However some of the stuff she did eat - urgghhhh !
infinitex 14y ago
And meat does not contain any chemicals? Here is a 40 page list of stuff you can find in your meat besides antibiotics and growth hormone: http://concordfood.ning.com/forum/attachment/download?id=4942197%3AUploadedFile%3A141 http://concordfood.ning.com/forum/attachment/download?id=494... To list a few: Chlorine dioxide, Lauramide arginine ethyl ester, Potassium diacetate, Sodium hypochlorite, Hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, Ammonium hydroxide, Sodium tripolyphosphate, Bacteriophage preparation, Cetylpyridinium chloride

dons 14y ago

It should be possible to dramatically lower the cost of protein produced this way. It is just so much more efficient to grow corn, soy and pea protein and then consume it directly, rather than feeding it to cattle first, to harvest a fraction of the input protein as meat. This stuff could win on cost alone.

planetguy 14y ago
>This stuff could win on cost alone For whom? Certainly not for me, I'm quite willing to pay a cost premium for real meat. For poor third-world villagers, then? I have my doubts. I mean, so many cultures in the world attach so much cultural significance to eating meat, and the less often you get to eat it the more significant it is. As far as point-missing innovations go, this reminds me of the Fleshlight more than anything else. You'd think that "feels just like a real vagina, only much cheaper and less trouble" would be a selling point, but it turns out that they're significantly less popular than the real thing. Oh, I'm sure they'll sell some of this stuff, there's a whole freezerful of gross-looking fake-meat products at my local supermarket. But it's not going to change the habits of any genuine omnivores.
- excuse-me 14y ago
  Depends what the real meat premium gets to. Would a real meat eater rather eat a $5 burger made from (well you really don't want to know what burger meat is made from) or a $5 fake-steak sandwich that looks and tastes like steak? The initial market is going be fashionable fake meat for Wholefoods/Trader-Joes consumers. But assuming this is eventually cheaper than meat, keeps longer, has less problems with bugs/contamination/spoilage, is quicker easier to shape into burgers plus lower fat and healthier then fast food chains are going to offer it.
  - planetguy 14y ago
    "Would a real meat eater rather eat a $5 burger made from (well you really don't want to know what burger meat is made from)" Umm, yes please? Y'know what burger meat is made from? It's made from cow. Don't be squeamish, your ancestors ate far grosser bits of animals than you're gonna get in your hamburger.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

unwiredben 14y ago

As a long-time vegetarian, I'm really excited about this. I just hope they're able to get distribution here in Austin soon, although with the Whole Foods group HQed here, I expect that won't take too long.

roopeshv 14y ago

> "They were coming at it from this big science, super practical, scalable angle. They were saying, 'We want to get into the multi-billion-dollar meat industry with a plant-based meat.' show us the science. (anyone who fucking links me to documentaries, and non-cited articles/studies, i'll fucking punch them in the face)