We’re past the dawn of the age of engineered food. The next step is the convergence of additive manufacturing and tissue engineering. That’ll give us 3-D-printed steak.
We love organic food. We hate genetically modified food.
That’s how the cool kids think these days.
But the nerds have more complete information.
So what the hell are we going to do with 3-D-printed food? Based on recent experience, the answer will come down to marketing, rather than science.
There’s not much empirical support for the conclusion that organic production is better for you or for the environment.
But organic food is definitely more expensive, so there is a potential “status” effect.
Meanwhile, a May 2016 report by the National Academy of Sciences found no evidence that genetically modified organisms (GMO) threaten either human health or the planet.
In fact, engineered crops could help solve global food shortages and at the same time mitigate the negative impact of climate change.
The science doesn’t matter.
According to survey results released last week by the Pew Research Center: “55% of Americans believe organically grown produce is healthier than conventionally grown varieties.”
There is some confirmation bias: 40% of Americans say “most” or “some” of what they eat is organic, and 75% of these folks believe organic is healthier than conventional production.
There’s not much empirical support for the conclusion that organic production is better for you or for the environment.
This is one topic in American culture and society — perhaps the one topic — not tied to politics. Nor is there much to do with “education, income, geography, or having minor children.”
The Pew Research Center’s survey of 1,480 adults from all 50 states conducted from May 10 to June 6, 2016, found that “roughly equal shares of Republicans (39%) and Democrats (40%) feel that GM foods are worse for people’s health.”
Moreover, 50% of Republicans and 60% of Democrats think organic foods are better for you.
In other words, we — red and blue alike — are all anti-science.
The critical factor lies in “individual concerns and philosophies about the relationship between food and well-being.”
As Pew notes:
One indicator of such philosophies is the degree of concern people have about the issue of GM foods. The minority of U.S. adults who care deeply about the issue of GM foods (16%) are much more likely than those with less concern about this issue to consider GM foods worse for health (75% versus 17% of those with no or not too much concern about GM foods); they are also much more likely to consider organic produce healthier: 81% compared with 35% of those with no or not too much concern about GM foods.
Another factor is the level of attention that individuals pay to healthy eating. “The 18% of Americans who are particularly focused on healthy and nutritious eating are especially likely to consider organic produce healthier than conventionally grown produce.”
These numbers are likely the result of successful marketing, on one hand, and, on the other, failure to communicate.
Pressure from peers to “go organic” is particularly intense.
That’s despite facts such as “the pesticide residue on conventional produce is only a miniscule fraction of the amount one would need to consume to have any discernible effect” and that “a child would have to consume an impossible 1,500 servings of conventional strawberries in one day before any effect occurred.”
Yet there’s Whole Foods Market Inc. (WFM), now a $10 billion company with annual revenue of about $15.7 billion for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016.
Monsanto Co. (MON), the poster child for Big, Bad Global Agribusiness, did about $13.5 billion in sales during its fiscal year ended August 31, 2016.
We’re on the cusp of another revolution in food production that might make the GMO wars seem quaint by comparison.
You have an agriculture industry whose “secrecy, lack of transparency in labeling, aggressiveness, and overblown claims for benefits have caused much harm to the scientific community,” as Marion Nestle, Paulette Goddard Professor in the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health at New York University, put it in an email to Scientific American.
We’re on the cusp of another revolution in food production that might make the GMO wars seem quaint by comparison.
The convergence of additive manufacturing and biofabrication is going to put steak on your table in the very near future.
So what will we make of 3-D-printed meat?
3-D printing is already impacting the food industry via machinery such as the ChefJet Pro, manufactured by 3D Systems Corp. (DDD).
This 3-D printer — a prototype originally developed to bind together plastic polymers — has enabled “chef-scientists” at the Culinary Institute of America to reimagine classic dishes such as peach Melba in, well, three dimensions, including “a sprinkling of crunchy sugar feathers, so lifelike that they appeared to ruffle when the dish was set down.”
Another company, Natural Machines, markets the Foodini, “a new generation kitchen appliance that combines technology, food, art, and design” with the intent to “streamline some of cooking’s more rote activities.”
Like the ChefJet Pro, the Foodini’s feedstock is prepared ingredients. These machines turn sugar and dough into attractive, complex shapes difficult for humans to execute.
That’s no big deal… in the context of a world where we can now grow turkey meat in a test tube.
As GlobalMeatNews.com notes:
3-D-printed meat production will become technically feasible and could create competition for traditional meat producers as consumers will ultimately be able to print their own meat products — although much research and development still remains, say American food academics.
We’re talking now about biofabrication — “the use of cells, proteins, biological materials and biomaterials as building blocks to manufacture biological systems and/or therapeutic products.” Its main disciplines are tissue engineering (TE) and regenerative medicine (RM).
So what will we make of 3-D-printed meat?
Modern Meadow, a startup founded by the brains behind Organovo Holdings Inc. (ONVO), is focused on another aspect of livestock replacement: making animal-free leather.
A recently closed $40 million Series B funding round “will enable the company’s transition from research and development to manufacturing — and the commercialization of biofabricated leather for the first time.”
Modern Meadow’s technology focuses on designing, growing, and assembling collagen, the primary biological component of leather. Its plans for meat are more long-term in nature.
Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing, via his Horizon Ventures fund, and Mark Zuckerberg, through Iconiq Capital, have participated in multiple financing rounds.
ARTIS Ventures, Singapore-based sovereign wealth fund Temasek, Breakout Ventures, Red Swan Ventures, Collaborative Fund and former Apple Inc. (AAPL) executive Tony Fadell have also invested in the research and development phase.
According to Modern Meadow, global consumption of meat approaches 300 million tons per year. It’ll be 500 million tons by 2050.
This is a substantial problem: Research indicates that the nitrous oxide released during agro-biofuel production and the production of methane from agriculture activity such as raising cattle may render efforts to replace fossil fuels moot.
As Business Insider reports, “Modern Meadow says its solution will mean 99% less land required for the animals, 96% less water used to create the meat, 96% fewer greenhouse gases emitted, 45% less energy needed to produce the meat, and, of course, it will keep animals from being hurt or killed.”
Here’s the question that’ll have to be answered: Is it actually meat?
NBNBC
According to the Chicago Tribune, Tyson Foods Inc. (TSX) has launched $150 million venture fund to “develop new food technologies.”
“Tyson New Ventures,” writes Robert Channick, “will invest in ag-tech startups creating alternative forms of protein, eliminating food waste and tapping the ‘internet of food’ to promote efficiencies in the food chain.”
The unit has already taken a 5% stake in Beyond Meat, which makes a pea-based veggie burger. The Bill Gates-backed plant-based protein producer already has its product in Chicago-area Whole Foods outlets.
Smart Investing,
David Dittman
Editorial Director, Wall Street Daily
The post Would You Eat 3-D-Printed Meat? appeared first on Wall Street Daily.
By David Dittman
Related posts:
Wall Street Daily: Innovate or Die
Can the Currency of the Darknet Find Its Way Into the Light?
Blockchain: The Little-Known Innovation Quietly Disrupting the Financial Services Industry
Biomedicine: How to “Print” a Heart on a Chip