Hide table of contents

This is a linkpost for GFI’s most recent report on trends in scaling cultivated meat.

As a student, I spent over 10 years studying human diseases and pandemics. I constantly asked myself: how can I increase my impact? My pharmaceuticals job felt unlikely to be the best answer. 

As I learned more about the cruelty in the meat, dairy and egg industries, I realized that we need technology to replace animal agriculture in addition to individuals choosing to go vegan and promoting veganism. We need to change the culture and educate individuals, but we also need to change the system.

As a cultivated meat senior scientist at GFI, I spent a lot of time last year conducting a survey to determine trends in cultivated meat production, identify challenges, and provide useful insights to investors, researchers, and suppliers.

Below are the selected key insights from the report.

  • The industry currently operates on a small scale, with most productions at the kilogram level. Many companies plan to scale up with large bioreactors in the next three years, enabling significantly larger annual production in the order of tons.
  • Companies are exploring various bioprocessing techniques and bioreactor designs for process optimization, including stirred-tank or air-lift bioreactors, fed-batch or continuous modes of operation, and strategies like recycling and filtration to reduce costs.
  • Some companies face knowledge gaps in regulatory affairs, signaling a need for collaboration with regulatory agencies to establish frameworks.
  • Cultivated meat companies are investigating diverse fit-for-purpose scaling strategies, bioreactors, and operational methods. Due to the specific requirements of each cell type and product, a universal bioprocess and scaling solution may not be feasible. Consequently, there’s a demand for additional techno-economic models and experimental data to fine-tune bioprocesses for each specific product type.

66

1
0

Reactions

1
0
Comments5


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Thank you! I remember looking into this a few years ago as due diligence for a new job. My impression at the time was that even if the requisite technological breakthroughs were developed (big if), they wouldn’t be able to proliferate and scale up to make cultivated meat more than 1% of global meat consumption by 2100, due to inherent physical limitations around contamination above the 10kL scale.

In your interviews, did you get a sense for how companies were planning to adapt to this, or is the general consensus that this limitation can be surpassed? I know Vow, for example, are just targeting high-end consumers with small production runs where they’ll be able to squeeze high margins out of it—but I still hear rhetoric about preventing climate change and solving world hunger from almost every player in the space. Is that just rhetoric for raising capital?

Hi there,
Contamination overall doesn't seem to be a major concern. There is no inherent physical limitation to control contamination above 10kL scale. This is commonly already done in pharma. With larger scales the only issue is that risk of contamination can cost a lot as a lot of material will have to be discarded. Overall the batch failure rate is low in pharma:
https://www.bioprocessonline.com/doc/bioprocessing-sees-continued-improvements-in-batch-failure-reductions-in-0001

For cultivated meat the trick is to do so without relying on expensive Good Manufacturing Practices (i.e. high end and expensive clean rooms). 

There are other areas to improve that will reduce the risk of contamination. For instance, more automated or continuous processes reduce the risk of contamination. There is also ongoing research on peptides with antibiotic properties that will go away during purification or cooking. 

Another way to mitigate the contamination risk is to scale out instead of scale up. So use 10 x 10kL bioreactors instead of 1x100kL one. 

Overall, contamination risk does not seem to be a major risk. Bigger challenges are reducing the cost of media and bioreactors! 
 

Also you can watch my presentation. At 16:37 I share a personal story about running cell culture in office area! 
 


Hope this helps! 



 

Yes—my understanding was, as you note, that the right clean rooms are still orders of magnitude too expensive on a capital & ongoing basis to produce meat at consumer prices. The difference from the pharma industry is that they charge orders of magnitude more per volume of product, which can support this cost. I also understand that splitting reactors might not be a favourable clean trade-off either, since at the same volume, 10x1kL reactors take up more space (and therefore more clean room costs) & are more expensive to operate.

Reading your reply, is it correct that the major cultivated meat companies won’t be able to hit consumer pricing or scale anytime soon because of those major technological breakthroughs they need to achieve first?

For anyone interested in how to go from research to large-scale production, there recently was an article about that in Works in Progress: https://worksinprogress.co/issue/getting-materials-out-of-the-lab/

It will be very difficult for cultivated meat to scale in a world where 99% of people and 99.99% of politicians just stick their heads in the sand and pretend the current systems - with massive animal suffering, climate damage, antibiotic use and increasing land-use - is sustainable. 

Once we stop thinking of this as "can we make it work?" but as "we have to make this work!" we'll discover solutions. 

For example, regarding contamination (comments below), maybe the right approach is not to look for 0% risk of contamination, but to find the right sweet-spot, even if that means some batches need to be discarded. Remember that the correct comparison for this is not pharma, but rather factory farming, with animals often living in their own excrement and being pumped full of antibiotics to keep them "healthy", with terrible consequences not just for the animals but also for antibiotic resistance, which is now a major cause of human deaths. 

Yet, there are countries in the EU seeking to ban cultivated meat, or to stop it from being labelled "meat," as politicians bow to the power of the powerful agriculture sector. 

I don't have a solution (I wish!), but with elections coming up in so many countries, I wonder if there's an opportunity for many of us to ask politicians why they are not aggressively supporting and funding what is possibly the most important technological challenge the world is facing. 

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
(Audio version here, or search for "Joe Carlsmith Audio" on your podcast app.) > “There comes a moment when the children who have been playing at burglars hush suddenly: was that a real footstep in the hall?”  > > - C.S. Lewis “The Human Condition,” by René Magritte (Image source here) 1. Introduction Sometimes, my thinking feels more “real” to me; and sometimes, it feels more “fake.” I want to do the real version, so I want to understand this spectrum better. This essay offers some reflections.  I give a bunch of examples of this “fake vs. real” spectrum below -- in AI, philosophy, competitive debate, everyday life, and religion. My current sense is that it brings together a cluster of related dimensions, namely: * Map vs. world: Is my mind directed at an abstraction, or it is trying to see past its model to the world beyond? * Hollow vs. solid: Am I using concepts/premises/frames that I secretly suspect are bullshit, or do I expect them to point at basically real stuff, even if imperfectly? * Rote vs. new: Is the thinking pre-computed, or is new processing occurring? * Soldier vs. scout: Is the thinking trying to defend a pre-chosen position, or is it just trying to get to the truth? * Dry vs. visceral: Does the content feel abstract and heady, or does it grip me at some more gut level? These dimensions aren’t the same. But I think they’re correlated – and I offer some speculations about why. In particular, I speculate about their relationship to the “telos” of thinking – that is, to the thing that thinking is “supposed to” do.  I also describe some tags I’m currently using when I remind myself to “really think.” In particular:  * Going slow * Following curiosity/aliveness * Staying in touch with why I’m thinking about something * Tethering my concepts to referents that feel “real” to me * Reminding myself that “arguments are lenses on the world” * Tuning into a relaxing sense of “helplessness” about the truth * Just actually imagining differ
Garrison
 ·  · 7m read
 · 
This is the full text of a post from "The Obsolete Newsletter," a Substack that I write about the intersection of capitalism, geopolitics, and artificial intelligence. I’m a freelance journalist and the author of a forthcoming book called Obsolete: Power, Profit, and the Race to build Machine Superintelligence. Consider subscribing to stay up to date with my work. Wow. The Wall Street Journal just reported that, "a consortium of investors led by Elon Musk is offering $97.4 billion to buy the nonprofit that controls OpenAI." Technically, they can't actually do that, so I'm going to assume that Musk is trying to buy all of the nonprofit's assets, which include governing control over OpenAI's for-profit, as well as all the profits above the company's profit caps. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman already tweeted, "no thank you but we will buy twitter for $9.74 billion if you want." (Musk, for his part, replied with just the word: "Swindler.") Even if Altman were willing, it's not clear if this bid could even go through. It can probably best be understood as an attempt to throw a wrench in OpenAI's ongoing plan to restructure fully into a for-profit company. To complete the transition, OpenAI needs to compensate its nonprofit for the fair market value of what it is giving up. In October, The Information reported that OpenAI was planning to give the nonprofit at least 25 percent of the new company, at the time, worth $37.5 billion. But in late January, the Financial Times reported that the nonprofit might only receive around $30 billion, "but a final price is yet to be determined." That's still a lot of money, but many experts I've spoken with think it drastically undervalues what the nonprofit is giving up. Musk has sued to block OpenAI's conversion, arguing that he would be irreparably harmed if it went through. But while Musk's suit seems unlikely to succeed, his latest gambit might significantly drive up the price OpenAI has to pay. (My guess is that Altman will still ma
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
When we built a calculator to help meat-eaters offset the animal welfare impact of their diet through donations (like carbon offsets), we didn't expect it to become one of our most effective tools for engaging new donors. In this post we explain how it works, why it seems particularly promising for increasing support for farmed animal charities, and what you can do to support this work if you think it’s worthwhile. In the comments I’ll also share our answers to some frequently asked questions and concerns some people have when thinking about the idea of an ‘animal welfare offset’. Background FarmKind is a donation platform whose mission is to support the animal movement by raising funds from the general public for some of the most effective charities working to fix factory farming. When we built our platform, we directionally estimated how much a donation to each of our recommended charities helps animals, to show users.  This also made it possible for us to calculate how much someone would need to donate to do as much good for farmed animals as their diet harms them – like carbon offsetting, but for animal welfare. So we built it. What we didn’t expect was how much something we built as a side project would capture peoples’ imaginations!  What it is and what it isn’t What it is:  * An engaging tool for bringing to life the idea that there are still ways to help farmed animals even if you’re unable/unwilling to go vegetarian/vegan. * A way to help people get a rough sense of how much they might want to give to do an amount of good that’s commensurate with the harm to farmed animals caused by their diet What it isn’t:  * A perfectly accurate crystal ball to determine how much a given individual would need to donate to exactly offset their diet. See the caveats here to understand why you shouldn’t take this (or any other charity impact estimate) literally. All models are wrong but some are useful. * A flashy piece of software (yet!). It was built as