We Solve for X: Andras Forgacs on sustainable, scalable meat

Problem: 8% of the world''s water supply and one third of the world's non-ice landmass is used for raising livestock for meat and leather. At least 18% of the greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere are from the livestock industry.
Solution: Fundamentally change the way meat is produced by growing the meat directly instead of raising the entire animal.
Technology: 3D printing and tissue engineering now allow bioprinting: the design and fabrication of three-dimesional tissues. The meat created in this process could be carefully designed to have the same mouth feel, texture and flavor as traditional meat.
More at we.SolveforX.com

[@johnny_eth]

Oh please, no patronizing. I'm european. I had not seen that suggestion from you. And I agree with it. Subsidizing of the food industry has been historically done to make food affordable for all, but that distorts completely the market and creates unsustainable consumption patterns. If any, subsidies should be given to people in goods, not money. Governments should not subsidize corporate profit (at least not directly). I think that would be a good way to adjust consumption patterns.

[@SnuggleLess]

My main concern is how far this might go. Yes, this is great for ending the slaughter of animals for us to eat and possible put better vitamins in the meats themselves. But will this lead to: milk, wool, eggs, veg stables, fruits and even fish? Will this down the line of maybe 100yrs end farming? Make more room for the human population to grow because now we can just pump out food without fearing to not have enough land to grow it on? :x

[@djenept]

How do we power a bio 3D printer without releasing green house gases?

[@monicam874]

Absolutely brilliant.

[@NorCalSCChico]

Completely agree!

[@djenept]

I am not being a critic, I am literally asking is there a way that we could completely remove the need for fossil fuels from the process. It seems that in essence that is the goal of this technological age.

[@johnyma22]

Just to be clear, this isn't meat free or vegetarian. The animal tissue is still required, see the illustration at 9:15

[@Afghanxx]

He never said anything about not producing green house gases. If you paid attention, you would see a chart that said it would cost 45% less energy, and therefore produce a lot less green house gas.

[@SailorBarsoom]

Thank you. Somebody has to put out some facts, even if the "frankenfood" crowd prides themselves on not caring about facts. Just in case it's read by somebody who does care. Also, Andras Forgacs' reply was not spam, and whoever marked it as such is a liar.

[@lisavg2710]

Unnatural! What will this do to OUR health?!

[@jroperschannel]

well said

[@lauratomlinson1035]

Amazing, this would solve a lot of problems. Higher demand for meat means that animal welfare is taking a back seat; animals are crowded into factories, given antibiotics in their food and GM to grow at a faster rate to decrease production time. This affects the animal growing e.g chickens bones break b'cause of lack of vit D and burn themselves in their own ammonia from their faeces.Consumers are at a higher risk of resistance to anti-biotics, no new antibiotics being developed. I'd be worried!

[@Exophrine]

he said he had it himself, and he did serve it to his company...and they're all fine and well...so far

[@CrystalHeartsLOL]

You can probably get the sample after the animal has passed. And even if this were not so, all he is talking about is a a biopsy. People get biopsy's all the time. You get your sample, and can grow much more meat with it.

[@SailorBarsoom]

I agree, and of course there's no reason we can't improve agriculture too. After all, people will still eat fruits, grains, and vegetables.

[@DarkRenaissance2012]

Boy this is gonna be tasty stuff!! :O

[@richardfkessler1]

Diet is a culturally conditioned behavior. Cost is a universal concern. Make a better hamburger and deliver it to market for less and the product will be commercially successful. Typically, externality based costs such greenhouse gas emissions cannot be taxed to the source point of emissions. Other costs such as land and energy do go into the production costs of meat. In the end consumer preference and market forces become and should be the determinative facts because they remain the most efficient means of allocating scarce resources for various competing and conflicting ends.

[@mhud]

It is unreasonable to expect much more efficiency out of livestock. Turning nutrients into muscle cells is much more efficient than feeding "normal" livestock with all its overhead--Brain, bones, ligaments, skin, hair, plus all the energy that's wasted moving around. Livestock will still have to build all those ancillary systems and "waste" its input, even if you put it in a tiny cruel cage. I fully believe petri meat will be way more cost effective, especially when replacing large animals.

[@jroperschannel]

agreed

[@tgoddard1988]

I am 100% behind this!! Been waiting for ages for governments to put all they can into this technology!! Can you imagine what it would do to poverty when they manage to make it cost effective!!?? Plus veggies can get off my back for eating their pets!.... :-P

[@SailorBarsoom]

The printers and such could be powered by electricity from fossil fuels, nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, geothermal... anything that makes electricity.

[@aronchai]

I'm all for this, but let's keep the issues in mind: it's likely that these meat cultures will require even more antibiotics to keep them bacteria-free than present day farm animals.

[@iam2strong]

My brain is intrigued. My belly is confused.

[@sloanemichaele]

I have other visions from science fiction... Anybody remember "Soylent Green" or "Silent Running"?

[@DarkRenaissance2012]

How do we know they are ( and will be ) fine and well? Do you expect their heads to explode suddenly when they take a bite? lol

[@SailorBarsoom]

It's meat. It's exactly the same molecules you find in a hamburger, sausage, or chicken noodle soup. The original sample actually comes from a cow, pig, or chicken. So the only way this is going to be poisonous is if beef, pork, and chicken are already poisonous. In which case what's the difference?

[@bludgeon314]

might take a while, but just imagine: infinite bacon.... *drool*

[@SailorBarsoom]

You've got something there with the limited ownership of news outlets. Even if that isn't an intentional global elite thing, it has much the same effect as if it were. I didn't read "Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars." I've got a lot of stuff to read, to watch. I'm not going to be able to get to everything.

[@whydontyouwork]

This some sci fi crazy sheet

[@lisavg2710]

Yep, so far..

[@gjs9366]

We really should just engineer Frankenstein Monsters®, with whatever ooey-gooey bits we want, use them to do some heavy lifting (to soften up the delicious muscles) then murder, ah, slaughter them and then... BBQ time! Yum-yum, I’m salivating already.

[@NorCalSCChico]

You did not read my comment very thoroughly, I said GRASS FED. The sustainability problem clearly centers on the huge inefficiencies of oil inputs to produce grain, which is then shunted to inappropriately feed cattle. Cows evolved to eat grass, not grains.

[@PassionataDance]

X = Solent red

[@WillofNewZealand]

Epic, which way shall they jump, value and buy me out, don't value licences and licence values end all over,don't do anything and licences hold value and i remain the only person that can make commercial use of One print burger ,so you can make burgers in a single print for free but no money can be made,ending capitilizium for this line of products and products licenced this way. I'd like to think i'd be paid out so money can continue to be made but its up to those with money. End money or not?

[@SailorBarsoom]

These are not synthetic "meats;" these are real meat grown from a sample taken from a real animal. Exactly the same molecules as in the killed-an-animal-for-it meat. Exactly the same molecules as in the uses-lots-of-water-and-land meat. It's the same substance. It isn't made of plastic. And let the rich delicacy-hunters... hunt. Ranches could become hunting preserves, and hunters can kill their own meat. I'm cool with that. Maybe we agree more than I thought.

[@ShahabVaziri]

appreciate the innovation here but maybe our problem is over population and dietary imbalance + even if you succeed in attaining significant market share regardless of what you inject these synthetic "meats" with it will never be fresh and organic meat thus turning real meat into a delicacy that will be sought after with greater demand...

[@greenlionfarms]

This whole speech and all of his numbers and facts are based on the idea that we would not improve our current ag practices. Things like permaculture and appropriate crop rotations and land management can dramatically reduce his alarmist numbers.

[@johnny_eth]

Yes, cows eat grass. But grass needs to grow too. And grass crops have much lower yield than cereal crops. And cows are not 100% efficient. Most of the nutrition value of the crops that are fed to the animal are not returned 100% in the meat it produces. Most of the nutrition is wasted during the animal's life cycle. And that's the point: no mater how you turn the equation, using resources to feed animals is much more wasteful than using them directly to produce plants for people.

[@SnuggleLess]

There is far to many humans as it is. I personally think our population will keep growing till we outgrow the world. Unlike other species of animals where their population is controlled by its environment, humans push past and over come. Which results is over population. It might sound dark, but I feel we are in need for some form of population control. Just because we can have over 10billian humans and keep growing doesn't mean it's a good idea . . .

[@Leo-eq1hc]

It's not the cost of food that puts a nation in poverty, it's that nations greedy government.

[@SailorBarsoom]

He's actually promoting technology to allow nine billion people to live a good life. That way, we don't NEED any depopulation. There can be enough for all.

[@johnny_eth]

...and they produce manure to fertilize the ground. Cows as all other animals are part of natural cycles, no problem with that. My argument is in regards to massive meat production for human consumption. That is a big waste of resources, and with rising population, more demand for meat will perpetuate the current situation of parts of the world population not having access to those resources and the food they could produce. We only have 1 planet, yet westerners consume as if we had 3 or 4.

[@Qazic12]

If your thoughts on poverty can be summed up in a soundbyte, you don't understand its complexity.

[@AZURA888]

In the future Everything will be designed, humans will do engineering everywhere, that level of control will cause the price to drop but population will not grow over 9,5 billion people, because the birth rate in cities is not enough to maintain a fast growth like that of the 20 century, so people will live longer and better but to 2100 the world population will be of 5 billions and most of the economy will be fully controled by A.I. so there will be not economic crisis. In effect thanks to nanotechnology the trash will not exist. The crime will dissapear due to smart nanocameras, drones, smart machines there will be not place to hide, even now there are some developed countries with almost zero murders, that will be the rule in the future.

[@johnny_eth]

Which numbers are meaningless ? A herbivore animal is also not efficient. Most of the feed is wasted anyway: you don't get 100% output for the nutrition and energy the animal is fed. If the resources that are used to feed the animal are used to produce vegetables one can eat directly, than that is the most efficient we can get right now.

[@potatoes366]

Cloned meat! Yummy.

[@SSanf]

The average person eats 2/3 lbs. of meat a day??? That's a LOT of meat!

[@Musathic495]

Bacteria-free environment --> Bacteria-free meat.

[@smalrebelion]

Start with cat/dog food.

[@SharathJeppu]

Is this the reason why it is called Freakonomics? When nature has already engineered it for you, we have this urge to engineer it all over again. This whole calculation of energy and resources does not sound right. A self sustainable village economy achieves the perfect balance without this complex technological requirement.

[@NorCalSCChico]

This is so painful. His quoted numbers are meaningless with grass fed meat. Growing this in a lab is NOT going to show the efficiency of photosynthesis+herbivore.

[@NorCalSCChico]

You are describing a system devoid of animal predation...that's not how biology works. India has a cattle population of nearly 300 million... these are NOT utilizing resources that could go to humans, they are passively producing calories in the form of dairy, converting grasses to human compatible nutrition. In the 1800's the bison population of the plains was nearly as large as todays feed-lot cattle. During the recent drought, native grassees were unaffected while corn withered.

[@lisavg2710]

Seems you're full of them

[@GameMasterEdge]

vegetarians could eat meat, MADNESS

[@JayStarzz]

These guys can spit the statistics & scientific bullshit at me all day . . I ain't buying into this shit

[@SailorBarsoom]

Poorly said, and false. You need the right temperatures (which is why they don't grow pineapple in Alaska); you need to control pests ("plague of locusts" and all); you need a lot of energy, which can be provided by farmers, slaves, draft animals, diesel, or electricity. And of course you need know-how. If you don't know how to plant (just throwing it on the ground usually isn't enough), care for, and harvest your crop properly, you'll starve. And what has that got to do with meat, anyway?

[@jroperschannel]

this is not natural so its not going to be good for you in my opinion

[@BrimSt0ne28]

FedupwithR I think your tinfoil hat is on WAAAAY too tight. Take it off. Come out and see the sun. Buy a puppy. And enjoy your life

[@cthorm]

What a horrible world this technology will help create. A world where the population of sentient humans is not constrained by scarcity or environmental impact. Yes, that sounds truly heinous... Wut?

[@ecosvaldo]

This is freaking disgusting! I would rather die of starvation then be force-fed this biological crap.