3D printed meat: It’s what’s for dinner | Cutting Edge – CNET News

38 comments

Join the conversation! Add your comment

Instresting!
Posted by DeN123412 (2 comments )
August 15, 2012 5:34 AM (PDT) Like Reply Link Flag

Hm – the possibilities are interesting; ‘printed’ foodstuffs would be useful for astronauts going to the Moon or Mars, by saving space; or folks trying to diet, because the stuff would control the nutrients.

Question is, would it be as tasty & appealing as Soylent Green?

Posted by solitare_pax (9099 comments )
August 15, 2012 5:38 AM (PDT) Like (7) Reply Link Flag

Food isn’t just a combination of nutrients. That’s where most dietary advice has gone wrong and why obesity and related illnesses have skyrocketed ever since people began obsessing over numbers. It’s really simple: eat crap and you get crap. What’s hard for people these days to understand is almost everything is crap. If you can’t tell me which plant or animal it comes from, and which part was used, it’s probably lost its value as food. It’s a food substitute, at best.
Posted by Gnostradamus (152 comments )
August 15, 2012 5:54 AM (PDT) Like (5) Link Flag

@Gnostradamus

Technically, it is just a combination of nutrients. Well, nutrients and other matter. There is no reason whatsoever that it wouldn’t be possible for us to one day reproduce actual food artificially.

Posted by ddesy (3669 comments )
August 15, 2012 6:08 AM (PDT) Like (3) Link Flag

Uh, neither. Food is neither a simple combination of nutrients, nor some “greater than the sum of the parts.” The catch is that most foods contain complex chemicals like assembled proteins, complex carbohydrates, et c. and that the instant the food is collected, these chemicals begin to degrade.

The real issue I suspect artificial meat will have is carcinogens. Simply throw together the chemical components (and bear in mind that these nutritional components are not the easiest chemicals to synthesize) and they will self-assemble into some food molecules, and some toxins or carcinogens. Simply having the right chemicals isn’t good enough.

Posted by Fheredin (92 comments )
August 15, 2012 8:27 AM (PDT) Like (4) Link Flag

@Fheredin,

Granted that it’s possible for the process to go wrong and generate carcinogens but this is not inevitable. It’s a matter of perfecting the process. It is also true that natural food can contain natural carcinogens, so a process like this may, some day, provide food that is less carcinogenic than natural food. Certainly, however, I would not want to be an early adopter.

Posted by Fingal (716 comments )
August 15, 2012 10:54 AM (PDT) Like (1) Link Flag

People are moving to more organic, less processed, less chemicals in their food. This seems to be going in the opposite direction.
Posted by freemarket–2008 (3555 comments )
August 15, 2012 5:43 AM (PDT) Like (6) Reply Link Flag

Not necessarily. If you can generate something that is the same as regular meat and don’t highly process the result, the problem is solved.

Also, all food is chemical in nature. Whether or not it is made of naturally occurring chemicals is the question.

Posted by ddesy (3669 comments )
August 15, 2012 6:10 AM (PDT) Like (2) Link Flag

True; the disposal of waste itself is a daunting task (although some farmers are using it to generate electricity these days) not to mention keeping the entire processing chain clean, sanitary – and appealing.

After all, who wants to eat something dubbed “pink slime”?

Posted by solitare_pax (9099 comments )
August 15, 2012 6:36 AM (PDT) Like (4) Link Flag

And what would you expect “printed” meat to be made from? It doesn’t just appear out of thin air but would need to be made from something, I’d imagine something very much like pink slime.
Posted by MegaProcrastination (1055 comments )
August 15, 2012 9:39 AM (PDT) Like Link Flag

I would word that a bit differently: People are increasingly buying food marketed as organic and less processed. Keep in mind that the definition of organic is different for every kind of food, A chemical is anything made of molecules (as opposed to subatomic particles or pure energy) and it’s difficult to draw the line between processing and cooking. This all leads to a lot of fuzzy logic.
Posted by Fingal (716 comments )
August 15, 2012 11:02 AM (PDT) Like (1) Link Flag

Fake Beef. It’s what’s for dinner!
Posted by instigator24 (195 comments )
August 15, 2012 5:46 AM (PDT) Like (3) Reply Link Flag

Fake Beef, to go along with everything else that’s fake in peoples lives…Fake Breasts, Fake Buttocks, Fake Lips, Fake Facebook Pictures, Fake Resumes, Fake Life.

A Fake Country…a Fake World…a Fake Race. ****-Sapien-Fakus.

~ M

Posted by Nadrakas (31 comments )
August 15, 2012 9:27 AM (PDT) Like (3) Link Flag

The beginnings of Star Trek:TNG’s “food replicators”?
Posted by theewatcher (110 comments )
August 15, 2012 5:51 AM (PDT) Like (4) Reply Link Flag

Probably more like Star Trek: TOS’s food replicators.
Posted by Fingal (716 comments )
August 15, 2012 11:57 AM (PDT) Like Link Flag

Star Trek’s Food Replicator around the corner? If we do go to other planets, would it be cheaper to clone the animals there for food or to replicate it using the 3D printer?
Posted by Chris_Basilio (1 comment )
August 16, 2012 1:14 AM (PDT) Like Link Flag

Yeah I raise cattle and work in the meat department at my local Kroger store. This is insulting first off. You cannot replace the nutritional value of natural meat, and to even get rid of people to cut meat to replace them with something that prints it out. Listen to that, that just sound unnatural and absurd. So what are you going to buy. Actual REAL meat, or psychokinetic meat from a printer.
Posted by RAILERSWIM (13 comments )
August 15, 2012 6:01 AM (PDT) Like (2) Reply Link Flag

“Psychokinetic meat?” What?

I’m sorry, but that’s just FUD. That sounds like something Alex Jones and his nut-job followers would suggest.

Posted by ddesy (3669 comments )
August 15, 2012 6:11 AM (PDT) Like (3) Link Flag

Sorry, auto correct. To correct my phone’s correction, I meant to say synthetic.
Posted by RAILERSWIM (13 comments )
August 15, 2012 6:33 AM (PDT) Like (2) Link Flag

Sorry auto-correct. I meant synthetic meat.
Posted by RAILERSWIM (13 comments )
August 15, 2012 6:36 AM (PDT) Like (1) Link Flag

@RAILERSWIM

If the result tastes close enough, provides at least the same nutritional value, and has a sufficiently pleasing texture, then it will sell provided it is less expensive than the real thing.

As for your concern for cattle ranchers and meat cutters, I hate to break it to you, but there have been a great many kinds of workers who have had to find other ways to make a living as the Industrial and Technology Revolutions have pushed technology into various spheres.

Posted by c|net Reader (776 comments )
August 15, 2012 9:34 AM (PDT) Like Link Flag

Haha! I like that, “psychokinetic meat”. 😀

I was reading a couple of months or so back that scientists are working on growing meat in a lab. The protein content is considerably lower than animal meat, though, which would mean a person would need to eat more of it to get the same “nutrition”.

Give me meat off a hoofed critter any day. Lab-produced meat sounds so wrong. No one here eats much in the way of lunch meat or hot dogs either because there’s no telling what goes into that stuff.

Posted by MegaProcrastination (1055 comments )
August 15, 2012 9:52 AM (PDT) Like Link Flag

There is nothing “natural” about today’s “meat,” what with artificial ***** extraction and artificial insemination, genetic manipulation, intensive confinement, unnatural feedstuffs given to animals, and pharmaceuticals to keep the poor creatures healthy long enough to reach slaughterable “market-weight.” And, nutritional value? Don’t even get me started. Can anyone say high fat and bad cholesterol? Plant-based protein sources are low fat, far more nutritionally rich, and contain beneficial fiber, which all animal-based protein sources lack.

Hey, if this stuff prevents animal cruelty as it’s well known to exist in factory farms and industrialized slaughterhouses, I’m all in favor! I’ve lost my taste and habit for animal flesh, but for die-hard flesh eaters, bring it on!

Posted by Veganforever (6 comments )
August 15, 2012 3:28 PM (PDT) Like (1) Link Flag

Gives new meaning to soy-based inks.

Actually, maybe it is not soy-based if it is ink imported from Japan. See this story:

http://www.dailytech.com/Japanese+Make+Delicious+Nourishing+Steaks+From+Human…

Posted by IrishBrewer (13 comments )
August 15, 2012 6:11 AM (PDT) Like Reply Link Flag

Oh..my..word!

From the article you linked:
“The new “meat” is also healthier than traditional meat as it’s an ideal mix of 63% proteins, 25% carbohydrates, 3% lipids and 9% minerals. The small fat content, in particular makes the feces steaks healthier than their animal counterpart.”

I think I’m going to throw up now.

Posted by MegaProcrastination (1055 comments )
August 15, 2012 9:59 AM (PDT) Like Link Flag

It doesn’t matter how they make it or what they call it, it is not and never will be real meat. It seems to me there are better uses for the dollars that are being spent on what amounts to a Star Trek geeks wet dream.
Posted by W-D (53 comments )
August 15, 2012 7:00 AM (PDT) Like (1) Reply Link Flag

is the meat we have now real? pumped full of growth hormones and antibiotics? unless you’re buying “organic” meat there are quite a few foreign chemicals in the meat you eat.

what about insulin that diabetics use? or hormone therapy for patients? it’s all synthetic to some degree. I see this synthetic meat as the same thing. quality is much more easily controlled. think about getting a perfect steak every time you go to the store. no worry about whether it will be tough or not. you can perfectly control the fat content. no diseases. no mad cow, no e coli, no salmonella. sanitary conditions, reproducible results.

i’m all for this if they can make it taste as good as the meat we now buy at the store.

Posted by oheckyeah (40 comments )
August 15, 2012 7:30 AM (PDT) Like (1) Link Flag

@Irish, real meat means it came from a once living animal.

But, if you feel better now after your irrelevant rant, good for you.

Posted by W-D (53 comments )
August 15, 2012 7:39 AM (PDT) Like Link Flag

“”””is the meat we have now real? pumped full of growth hormones and antibiotics?””””

Why do people still believe meat produced in the US is still pumped full of growth hormones? It’s not! No hormones are allowed in the production of meat in this country and the meat is tested for such.

Did you know that the chickens you buy in the store are a hybrid that grows to a ready to butcher size in a matter of weeks? There are absolutely no growth hormones involved. My mom raised them for our freezer. I raised them for my freezer! They’re a cross between a White Rock and a Cornish. The result is a sterile strain that grows so fast it’ll make your head spin. Their appetites are voracious and they must have food kept in front of them at all times or they start cannibalizing. It was originally advised to raise them with lights on 24/7 so they would grow even faster (and still may be as far as I know). Under these conditions, their growth will outpace their legs’ capacity to even support themselves. When I raised them I made sure they NEVER had light overnight in order to slow the growth rate. Even then, it only took twelve weeks to have them ready for the freezer.

Beef cattle are bred to produce the most meat. Milk cows are bred to produce the most milk. When I was a kid we always had a milk cow in the pasture and she’d be at least ten years old before we butchered her and turned her into ground beef. The breed of Holstein most dairies use now are often milked three times a day and are burnt out within four to five years without the hormones they used to give them to produce more milk. Before BST was banned their life expectancy was even shorter.

Before crying foul, though, over what the dairy industry does, think about this: if dairy cows were treated the way they were fifty years ago, back when my dad was a dairyman with a forty-head herd that was on a pasture, milk would cost at least $7 a gallon. Even pastured, they need extra feed in the winter and needed supplemented in the summer. Because of speculation and futures trading in dairy products, dairy owners only make a profit for part of the year. If milk is around $3 a gallon, they’re making a profit. When it hits $2.00 a gallon they’re losing money. (Milk prices usually bottom out during the summer which results in cheap cheese and butter during the holiday season.) Most people aren’t willing to pay $7 for a gallon of milk or pound of cheese.

Posted by MegaProcrastination (1055 comments )
August 15, 2012 10:29 AM (PDT) Like (1) Link Flag

Very interesting. I wonder if it has the potential to produce enough, and efficiently enough, to impact the industrial farms we have now. I wouldn’t mind seeing some of those go the way of the dinosaur.
Posted by joolaboola (145 comments )
August 15, 2012 7:05 AM (PDT) Like (1) Reply Link Flag

This is old news. We’ve had this technology for years now. Anyone ever hear about the McRib?
Posted by Koninbeor (90 comments )
August 15, 2012 8:15 AM (PDT) Like Reply Link Flag

Yummy, yummy. I can just taste something coming from a 3D printer replacing my nice rib eye. I think Soylent Green will be more popular long before anything coming from the Modern Meadow.
Posted by JoelinPDX (31 comments )
August 15, 2012 10:34 AM (PDT) Like Reply Link Flag

Soylent green isn’t people!!!
Posted by db32–2008 (146 comments )
August 15, 2012 11:06 AM (PDT) Like Reply Link Flag

So, print me off a nice filet Mignon, medium, and some french fries. Better yet, print off a few iPads, and a new car. I am pretty sure this will NOT be economically feasible.
Posted by rphunter (60 comments )
August 15, 2012 1:15 PM (PDT) Like Reply Link Flag

There is nothing “natural” about today’s “meat,” what with artificial ***** extraction and artificial insemination, genetic manipulation, intensive confinement, unnatural feedstuffs given to animals, and pharmaceuticals to keep the poor creatures healthy long enough to reach slaughterable “market-weight.” And, nutritional value? Don’t even get me started. Can anyone say high fat and bad cholesterol? Plant-based protein sources are low fat, far more nutritionally rich, and contain beneficial fiber, which all animal-based protein sources lack.

Hey, if this stuff prevents animal cruelty as it’s well known to exist in factory farms and industrialized slaughterhouses, I’m all in favor! I’ve lost my taste and habit for animal flesh, but for die-hard flesh eaters, bring it on!

Posted by Veganforever (6 comments )
August 15, 2012 3:29 PM (PDT) Like (1) Reply Link Flag

They been selling this for a long time now, its called a Franks, HotDogs, Wieners.
Posted by LinuxRules (204 comments )
August 16, 2012 10:44 AM (PDT) Like Reply Link Flag

For the present, this stuff makes pink slime seem like Wagyu.
Posted by AARDVARK2000 (1 comment )
August 16, 2012 2:06 PM (PDT) Like Reply Link Flag

Let every american know that, make a documentary, end it with a similar statement as your last sentence. Maybe people will cut spending elsewhere (style, beauty, alcohol…) and invest the outcome of their skill(=money) into species-appropriate farming of animals.

Or they don’t.

But at least it then is a decision made in full awareness of the situation you described.

Posted by AlmightyNewWorld (1 comment )
August 17, 2012 6:11 AM (PDT) Like Reply Link Flag

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s