4

This article seems to say that it's possible to create the complex structure of a steak today. Is there any more of a reliable source that discusses the actual implementation of lab grown steak? Ground or minced beef exists.

Toubia said each of the thinly-sliced steaks they made as part of this prototype took 2-3 weeks to produce and cost $50.

businessinsider.com/aleph-farms-israeli-startup-makes-first-lab-grown-clean-steak-meat-photos-video-2018-12

It just seems unlikely that an actual steak, other than the one quoted, has been synthetically designed. The article is supplementary to show that some form of steak already exists. What about steak that is of complex enough structure to emulate sirloin, T-bone, etc?

Should this question be moved to the biology SE?

adamaero
  • 1,254
  • 1
  • 10
  • 23
  • 3
    This is an interesting question but in its current form it feels like it hinges on the subjective question, "What's close enough to steak to be called a steak?". It's an area of tech undergoing gradual improvement - some will taste this product and judge it crosses the line ("Yes, that tastes like steak to me"), others will disagree. Can you think of a way of making this question *objective*? Maybe, does this product contain the same *variety* (fats, sinew, etc) as a steak? – user56reinstatemonica8 Dec 17 '18 at 13:02
  • @user568458 - Agreed. It seems to me that this is more a question of opinion and judgement than hard science. The stuff being produced at present is apparently on the hairy edge of "edible", so it's up to public opinion to judge when it becomes "real". – Daniel R Hicks Dec 17 '18 at 13:37
  • What do you mean by "it seems false"? What assertion in particular are you challenging here? Are you challenging that they've made the things they're describing as minute steaks, or are you challenging that those are actually "steak"? – Ben Barden Jul 26 '19 at 15:48
  • 1
    The edit makes it clear this isn't a specific claim, but a speculative question. – Oddthinking Jul 27 '19 at 01:52
  • No, that news article is supplementary. :/ – adamaero Jul 29 '19 at 13:17
  • @DanielRHicks What do you mean "edible"? Synthetically made foods are just as edible as natural. McDonald's foods aren't less edible... – adamaero Jul 29 '19 at 13:25
  • @user568458 Just steaks that emulate larger cuts: sirloin, T-bone, etc. How many grains of sand does it take to make a beach? Instead of a bucket, a dump truck worth of sand. It's fuzzy, but the difference is discernible. – adamaero Jul 29 '19 at 13:40

1 Answers1

-5

According to Wikipedia, in what appears to be a well researched (for a change) article, yes and no.

While lab grown meat exists (and was in fact first presented in 2013 at an experimental scale) it's not actually meat in the way that a steak is. It's a replicated single type muscle cell it seems, so lacks the variety in materials found in actual meat. It's pretty much pure collagen and protein, no fat at all, for example.

Also, the cost is horrendous. Again according to Wikipedia it cost about $5300 per kilo in 2017 (last data they have about cost), hardly something to compete with the $25 or so per kilo of real steak (medium quality cuts), let alone with the less than $10 per kilo for mince meat, which is all that it's been used for in experiments to date.

IMO (and that's personal opinion) you're more likely to succeed in breeding lab cloned cattle and slaughtering those. Probably going to be a lot cheaper, and provide a better end product (and it's been done, at least with sheep). Whether you'd call that lab grown meat is up to you.

jwenting
  • 3,904
  • 28
  • 29
  • 7
    Wikipedia changes and isn't a trusted source in itself. Please follow up some of the links and confirm that they say what Wikipedia claims. – Oddthinking Dec 17 '18 at 05:01
  • 8
    "breeding lab cloned cattle and slaughtering those." - But those cattle would still have nervous systems, thus not fulfilling the promise of "ethical meat", and would still have to grow up with a full metabolism, thus not fulfilling the promise of "environmentally friendly meat". And you can't even claim that it's organic and free-range. At this point you should probably just use normal cattle breeding instead. – Sebastian Redl Dec 17 '18 at 10:58
  • @SebastianRedl never said it would be something vegan fanatics would like... That's not the point. The point is it's another way to get meat out of a lab experiment... And those vegans wouldn't agree with the stuff out of a test tube either as the stem cells needed to generate it are harvested from living cattle. – jwenting Dec 17 '18 at 11:13
  • 8
    "it's not actually meat in the way the steak it" - that's *the whole point of the claim* (and question). That's why the article says "world's first". The claim is that previous attempts weren't meat-like ("none has publicly achieved the goal of replicating the texture, shape, and mouthfeel of savory, chewy sirloin"), but this is. Your answer is essentially "previous attempts weren't meat-like". – user56reinstatemonica8 Dec 17 '18 at 12:48
  • 6
    The point about cost isn't relevant because this article is about one-off batches produced by scientists in a lab. *Of course* prototypes are expensive; if it works, economies of scale may be engineered later. And the IMO and comments miss the point - it's about creating meat that avoids the huge energy pyramid loss of raising and sustaining an entire cow when all you want is the meat. Hence the article says "environmentally friendly" - needs less land, and is *potentially* very efficient with much less waste. – user56reinstatemonica8 Dec 17 '18 at 12:56
  • @user568458 OP asked about commercial availability, for that cost very much IS important. – jwenting Dec 18 '18 at 05:20
  • @jwenting "breeding lab cloned cattle" is last century technics. There is AFAK two ways to produce muscle tissue in vitro that is in a way pallatable: (rna)virus on muscle introducing tumorlike growth or stem cell activation on (biopsy) cell material. Both are patented in the netherlands. – ABri Dec 26 '18 at 20:07
  • @ABri What exactly is "stem cell activation on (biopsy) cell material?" – Barry Harrison Jul 29 '19 at 14:58
  • 1
    @jwenting the first transistor cost $380. They now cost under a millionth of a cent. I don't think that cost is a reasonable objection. – 0xDBFB7 Jul 29 '19 at 20:27