Lab-grown meat will soon be sold in the U.S., but who will buy It?
Chicken that is grown entirely in a laboratory, without harming a single bird, could be sold in supermarkets in the coming months. But critics say the doubts about lab-grown meat have not been appropriately explored.
Last November, when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration disclosed that chicken from a California firm called UPSIDE Foods did not raise safety concerns, it drily upended how humans have obtained animal protein for thousands of generations.
“The FDA is ready to work with additional firms developing cultured animal cell food and production processes to ensure their food is safe and lawful,” the agency said in a statement at the time.
Assuming UPSIDE obtains clearances from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, its chicken – grown entirely in a laboratory without harming a single bird – could be sold in supermarkets in the coming months.
“Ultimately, we want our products to be available everywhere meat is sold, including retail and food service channels,” a company spokesperson said. The upscale French restaurant Atelier Crenn in San Francisco will have UPSIDE chicken on its menu once it is approved, she added.
Known as lab-grown or cultured meat, a product such as UPSIDE’s is created using stem cells and other tissue obtained from a chicken, cow or other livestock. Those cells are then multiplied in a nutrient-dense environment, usually in conjunction with a “scaffold” of plant-based materials or gelatin to give them a familiar form, such as a chicken breast or a ribeye steak. A Dutch company called Mosa Meat claims it can produce 80,000 hamburgers derived from a cluster of tissue the size of a sesame seed.
Critics say the doubts about lab-grown meat and the possibility it could merge “Brave New World” with “The Jungle” and “Soylent Green” have not been appropriately explored.
That’s a far cry from when it took months of work to create the first lab-grown hamburger a decade ago. That minuscule patty – which did not contain any fat and was literally plucked from a Petri dish to go into a frying pan – cost about $325,000 to produce.
Just a decade later, an Israeli company called Future Meat said it can produce lab-grown meat for about $1.70 per pound. It plans to open a production facility in the U.S. sometime in 2023 and distribute its products under the brand name “Believer.”
Costs for production have sunk so low that researchers at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh expect sometime in early 2024 to produce lab-grown Wagyu steak to showcase the viability of growing high-end cuts of beef cheaply. The Carnegie Mellon team is producing its Wagyu using a consumer 3-D printer bought secondhand on eBay and modified to print the highly marbled flesh using a method developed by the university. The device costs $200 – about the same as a pound of Wagyu in the U.S. The initiative’s modest five-figure budget was successfully crowdfunded last year.
“The big cost is going to be the cells (which are being extracted by a cow somewhere in Pennsylvania), but otherwise printing doesn’t add much to the process,” said Rosalyn Abbott, a Carnegie Mellon assistant professor of bioengineering who is co-leader on the project. “But it adds value, unlike doing this with ground meat.”
Lab-Grown Meat’s Promise
Proponents of lab-grown meat say it will cut down on traditional agriculture, which has been a leading contributor to deforestation, water shortages and contaminated waterways from animal waste, as well as climate change.
An Oxford University study from 2011 concludes lab-grown meat could have greenhouse emissions 96 percent lower compared to traditionally raised livestock. Moreover, proponents of lab-grown meat claim that the suffering of animals would decline dramatically, as they would no longer need to be warehoused and slaughtered. A recently opened 26-story high-rise in China dedicated to the raising and slaughtering of pigs illustrates the current plight of livestock in stark terms.
Scientists may even learn how to tweak lab-grown meat to make it more nutritious. Natural red meat is high in saturated fat and, if it’s eaten too often, can lead to chronic diseases. In lab versions, the saturated fat could be swapped for healthier, omega-3 fatty acids.
But critics say the doubts about lab-grown meat and the possibility it could merge “Brave New World” with “The Jungle” and “Soylent Green” have not been appropriately explored.
A Slippery Slope?
Some academics who have studied the moral and ethical issues surrounding lab-grown meat believe it will have a tough path ahead gaining acceptance by consumers. Should it actually succeed in gaining acceptance, many ethical questions must be answered.
“People might be interested” in lab-grown meat, perhaps as a curiosity, said Carlos Alvaro, an associate professor of philosophy at the New York City College of Technology, part of the City University of New York. But the allure of traditionally sourced meat has been baked – or perhaps grilled – into people’s minds for so long that they may not want to make the switch. Plant-based meat provides a recent example of the uphill battle involved in changing old food habits, with Beyond Meat’s stock prices dipping nearly 80 percent in 2022.
"There are many studies showing that people don’t really care about the environment (to that extent)," Alvaro said. "So I don’t know how you would convince people to do this because of the environment.”
“From my research, I understand that the taste (of lab-grown meat) is not quite there,” Alvaro said, noting that the amino acids, sugars and other nutrients required to grow cultivated meat do not mimic what livestock are fed. He also observed that the multiplication of cells as part of the process “really mimic cancer cells” in the way they grow, another off-putting thought for would-be consumers of the product.
Alvaro is also convinced the public will not buy into any argument that lab-grown meat is more environmentally friendly.
“If people care about the environment, they either try and consume considerably less meat and other animal products, or they go vegan or vegetarian,” he said. “But there are many studies showing that people don’t really care about the environment (to that extent). So I don’t know how you would convince people to do this because of the environment.”
Ben Bramble, a professor at Australian National University who previously held posts at Princeton and Trinity College in Ireland, takes a slightly different tack. He noted that “if lab-grown meat becomes cheaper, healthier, or tastier than regular meat, there will be a large market for it. If it becomes all of these things, it will dominate the market.”
However, Bramble has misgivings about that occurring. He believes a smooth transition from traditionally sourced meat to a lab-grown version would allow humans to elide over the decades of animal cruelty perpetrated by large-scale agriculture, without fully reckoning with and learning from this injustice.
“My fear is that if we all switch over to lab-grown meat because it has become cheaper, healthier, or tastier than regular meat, we might never come to realize what we have done, and the terrible things we are capable of,” he said. “This would be a catastrophe.”
Bramble’s writings about cultured meat also raise some serious moral conundrums. If, for example, animal meat may be cultivated without killing animals, why not create products from human protein?
Actually, that’s already happened.
It occurred in 2019, when Orkan Telhan, a professor of fine arts at the University of Pennsylvania, collaborated with two scientists to create an art exhibit at the Philadelphia Museum of Art on the future of foodstuffs.
Although the exhibit included bioengineered bread and genetically modified salmon, it was an installation called “Ouroboros Steak” that drew the most attention. That was comprised of pieces of human flesh grown in a lab from cultivated cells and expired blood products obtained from online sources.
The exhibit was presented as four tiny morsels of red meat – shaped in patterns suggesting an ouroboros, a dragon eating its own tail. They were placed in tiny individual saucers atop a larger plate and placemat with a calico pattern, suggesting an item to order in a diner. The artwork drew international headlines – as well as condemnation for Telhan’s vision.
Telhan’s artwork is intended to critique the overarching assumption that lab-grown meat will eventually replace more traditional production methods, as well as the lack of transparency surrounding many processed foodstuffs. “They think that this problem (from industrial-scale agriculture) is going be solved by this new technology,” Telhan said. “I am critical (of) that perspective.”
Unlike Bramble, Telhan is not against lab-grown meat, so long as its producers are transparent about the sourcing of materials and its cultivation. But he believes that large-scale agricultural meat production – which dates back centuries – is not going to be replaced so quickly.
“We see this again and again with different industries, like algae-based fuels. A lot of companies were excited about this, and promoted it,” Telhan said. “And years later, we know these fuels work. But to be able to displace the oil industry means building the infrastructure to scale takes billions of dollars, and nobody has the patience or money to do it.”
Alvaro concurred on this point, which he believes is already weakened because a large swath of consumers aren’t concerned about environmental degradation.
“They’re going to have to sell this big, but in order to convince people to do so, they have to convince them to eat this product instead of regular meat,” Alvaro said.
Hidden Tweaks?
Moreover, if lab-based meat does obtain a significant market share, Telhan suggested companies may do things to the product – such as to genetically modify it to become more profitable – and never notify consumers. That is a particular concern in the U.S., where regulations regarding such modifications are vastly more relaxed than in the European Union.
“I think that they have really good objectives, and they aspire to good objectives,” Telhan said. “But the system itself doesn't really allow for that much transparency.”
No matter what the future holds, sometime next year Carnegie Mellon is expected to hold a press conference announcing it has produced a cut of the world’s most expensive beef with the help of a modified piece of consumer electronics. It will likely take place at around the same time UPSIDE chicken will be available for purchase in supermarkets and restaurants, pending the USDA’s approvals.
Abbott, the Carnegie Mellon professor, suggested the future event will be both informative and celebratory.
“I think Carnegie Mellon would have someone potentially cook it for us,” she said. “Like have a really good chef in New York City do it.”
Your phone could show if a bridge is about to collapse
Researchers have tested a new smartphone app that could gather data about whether bridges are "structurally deficient" —a low-cost citizen-scientist alternative to current methods that are expensive and complex.
In summer 2017, Thomas Matarazzo, then a postdoctoral researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, landed in San Francisco with a colleague. They rented two cars, drove up to the Golden Gate bridge, timing it to the city’s rush hour, and rode over to the other side in heavy traffic. Once they reached the other end, they turned around and did it again. And again. And again.
“I drove over that bridge 100 times over five days, back and forth,” says Matarazzo, now an associate director of High-Performance Computing in the Center for Innovation in Engineering at the United States Military Academy, West Point. “It was surprisingly stressful, I never anticipated that. I had to maintain the speed of about 30 miles an hour when the speed limit is 45. I felt bad for everybody behind me.”
Matarazzo had to drive slowly because the quality of data they were collecting depended on it. The pair was designing and testing a new smartphone app that could gather data about the bridge’s structural integrity—a low-cost citizen-scientist alternative to the current industrial methods, which aren’t always possible, partly because they’re expensive and complex. In the era of aging infrastructure, when some bridges in the United States and other countries are structurally unsound to the point of collapsing, such an app could inform authorities about the need for urgent repairs, or at least prompt closing the most dangerous structures.
There are 619,588 bridges in the U.S., and some of them are very old. For example, the Benjamin Franklin Bridge connecting Philadelphia to Camden, N.J., is 96-years-old while the Brooklyn Bridge is 153. So it’s hardly surprising that many could use some upgrades. “In the U.S., a lot of them were built in the post-World War II period to accommodate the surge of motorization,” says Carlo Ratti, architect and engineer who directs the Senseable City Lab at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “They are beginning to reach the end of their life.”
According to the 2022 American Road & Transportation Builders Association’s report, one in three U.S. bridges needs repair or replacement. The Department of Transportation (DOT) National Bridge Inventory (NBI) database reveals concerning numbers. Thirty-six percent of U.S. bridges need repair work and over 78,000 bridges should be replaced. More than 43,500 bridges are rated in poor condition and classified as “structurally deficient” – an alarming description. Yet, people drive over them 167.5 million times a day. The Pittsburgh bridge which collapsed in January this year—only hours before President Biden arrived to discuss the new infrastructure law—was on the “poor” rating list.
Assessing the structural integrity of a bridge is not an easy endeavor. Most of the time, these are visual inspections, Matarazzo explains. Engineers check cracks, rust and other signs of wear and tear. They also check for wildlife—birds which may build nests or even small animals that make homes inside the bridge structures, which can slowly chip at the structure. However, visual inspections may not tell the whole story. A more sophisticated and significantly more expensive inspection requires placing special sensors on the bridge that essentially listen to how the bridge vibrates.
“Some bridges can afford expensive sensors to do the job, but that comes at a very high cost—hundreds of thousands of dollars per bridge per year,” Ratti says.
We may think of bridges as immovable steel and concrete monoliths, but they naturally vibrate, oscillating slightly. That movement can be influenced by the traffic that passes over them, and even by wind. Bridges of different types vibrate differently—some have longer vibrational frequencies and others shorter ones. A good way to visualize this phenomenon is to place a ruler over the edge of a desk and flick it slightly. If the ruler protrudes far off the desk, it will vibrate slowly. But if you shorten the end that hangs off, it will vibrate much faster. It works similarly with bridges, except there are more factors at play, including not only the length, but also the design and the materials used.
The long suspension bridges such as the Golden Gate or Verrazano Narrows, which hang on a series of cables, are more flexible, and their vibration amplitudes are longer. The Golden Gate Bridge can vibrate at 0.106 Hertz, where one Hertz is one oscillation per second. “Think about standing on the bridge for about 10 seconds—that's how long it takes for it to move all the way up and all the way down in one oscillation,” Matarazzo says.
On the contrary, the concrete span bridges that rest on multiple columns like Brooklyn Bridge or Manhattan Bridge, are “stiffer” and have greater vibrational frequencies. A concrete bridge can have a frequency of 10 Hertz, moving 10 times in one second—like that shorter stretch of a ruler.
The special devices that can pick up and record these vibrations over time are called accelerometers. A network of these devices for each bridge can cost $20,000 to $50,000, and more—and require trained personnel to place them. The sensors also must stay on the bridge for some time to establish what’s a healthy vibrational baseline for a given bridge. Maintaining them adds to the cost. “Some bridges can afford expensive sensors to do the job, but that comes at a very high cost—hundreds of thousands of dollars per bridge per year,” Ratti says.
Making sense of the readouts they gather is another challenge, which requires a high level of technical expertise. “You generally need somebody, some type of expert capable of doing the analysis to translate that data into information,” says Matarazzo, which ticks up the price, so doing visual inspections often proves to be a more economical choice for state-level DOTs with tight budgets. “The existing systems work well, but have downsides,” Ratti says. The team thought the old method could use some modernizing.
Smartphones, which are carried by millions of people, contain dozens of sensors, including the accelerometers capable of picking up the bridges’ vibrations. That’s why Matarazzo and his colleague drove over the bridge 100 times—they were trying to pick up enough data. Timing it to rush hour supported that goal because traffic caused more “excitation,” Matarazzo explains. “Excitation is a big word we use when we talk about what drives the vibration,” he says. “When there's a lot of traffic, there's more excitation and more vibration.” They also collaborated with Uber, whose drivers made 72 trips across the bridge to gather data in different cars.
The next step was to clean the data from “noise”—various vibrations that weren’t relevant to the bridge but came from the cars themselves. “It could be jumps in speed, it could be potholes, it could be a bunch of other things," Matarazzo says. But as the team gathered more data, it became easier to tell the bridge vibrational frequencies from all others because the noises generated by cars, traffic and other things tend to “cancel out.”
The team specifically picked the Golden Gate bridge because the civil structural engineering community had studied it extensively over the years and collected a host of vibrational data, using traditional sensors. When the researchers compared their app-collected frequencies with those gathered by 240 accelerometers formerly placed on the Golden Gate, the results were the same—the data from the phones converged with that from the bridge’s sensors. The smartphone-collected data were just as good as those from industry devices.
The study authors estimate that officials could use crowdsourced data to make key improvements that would help new bridges to last about 14 years longer.
The team also tested their method on a different type of bridge—not a suspension one like the Golden Gate, but a concrete span bridge in Ciampino, Italy. There they compared 280 car trips over the bridge to the six sensors that had been placed on the bridge for seven months. The results were slightly less matching, but a larger volume of trips would fix the divergence, the researchers wrote in their study, titled Crowdsourcing bridge dynamic monitoring with smartphone vehicle trips, published last month in Nature Communications Engineering.
Although the smartphones proved effective, the app is not quite ready to be rolled out commercially for people to start using. “It is still a pilot version,” so there’s room for improvement, says Ratti, who co-authored the study. “But on a more optimistic note, it has really low barriers to entry—all you need is smartphones on cars—so that makes the system easy to reach a global audience.” And the study authors estimate that the use of crowdsourced data would result in a new bridge lasting about 14 years longer.
Matarazzo hopes that the app could be eventually accessible for your average citizen scientist to collect the data and supply it to their local transportation authorities. “I hope that this idea can spark a different type of relationship with infrastructure where people think about the data they're collecting as some type of contribution or investment into their communities,” he says. “So that they can help their own department of transportation, their own municipality to support that bridge and keep it maintained better, longer and safer.”
Lina Zeldovich has written about science, medicine and technology for Popular Science, Smithsonian, National Geographic, Scientific American, Reader’s Digest, the New York Times and other major national and international publications. A Columbia J-School alumna, she has won several awards for her stories, including the ASJA Crisis Coverage Award for Covid reporting, and has been a contributing editor at Nautilus Magazine. In 2021, Zeldovich released her first book, The Other Dark Matter, published by the University of Chicago Press, about the science and business of turning waste into wealth and health. You can find her on http://linazeldovich.com/ and @linazeldovich.
The Friday Five: Sugar could help catch cancer early
In this week's Friday Five, catching cancer early could depend on sugar, how to boost memory in a flash, a tiny sandwich cake could help the heart, and meet the top banana in the fight against Covid.
The Friday Five covers five stories in research that you may have missed this week. There are plenty of controversies and troubling ethical issues in science – and we get into many of them in our online magazine – but this news roundup focuses on scientific creativity and progress to give you a therapeutic dose of inspiration headed into the weekend.
Listen on Apple | Listen on Spotify | Listen on Stitcher | Listen on Amazon | Listen on Google
Here are the promising studies covered in this week's Friday Five:
- Catching cancer early could depend on sugar
- How to boost memory in a flash
- This is your brain on books
- A tiny sandwich cake could help the heart
- Meet the top banana for fighting Covid variants