Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Fake Banner
By Stephanie Pulford | March 23rd 2009 12:29 PM | 18 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More Run and Tumble articles

All

About Stephanie Pulford

As engineering grad student at UCDavis, I am interested in the common ground between biology and machinery. Incidentally, my column's title refers to the way bacteria navigate-- first they "run"... Full Bio

“Let’s say tomorrow some crazy guy bombs America or poisons all your river or puts a lot of nuclear radiation out and all your livestock is poisoned.  What you will eat?”

“Vegetables!” I answered.

“OK. Only vegetables?” Dr. Mironov asked incredulously.  Dr. Mironov is an assistant professor of cell biology at the Medical University of South Carolina, a founding member of New-harvest.org, and the tissue engineer responsible for creating edible in vitro chicken. Thanks to a series of PETA publicity stunts, his name has been inexorably linked to the animal rights movement and the neologism “schmeat”.  Yet he is not himself a vegetarian.  “I really want to eat normal meat and I want to make sarcomeres. So I am a troublemaker.”

Dr. Mironov's In Vitro Meat

Dr. Mironov was referring to a Stalin quote-- Uncle Joe reportedly proclaimed that in every population, five percent are troublemakers.  This estimate could just as easily apply to vegetarians.  A 2006 Harris Interactive poll revealed 2.3% of Americans are strict vegetarians, and 6.3% don’t eat poultry.  Though an increasing number of products are being targeted at vegetarians, their lobbying tactics are often notoriously unpersuasive to omnivores. What prompted Dr. Mironov to throw his hat into the in vitro meat race? Had he seen Chicken Run too many times? Was he attempting to impress Pamela Anderson?

“The reason why I was involved was money.”  In 2002 NASA announced a grant for researching life-sustaining technology, particularly space food.  Dr. Mironov contacted them to ask if meat production was included. “They said yes, so we created a team.”  He joined with researchers who produced chitosan, polymers, and cell lines from edible animals. “And I was some kind of tissue engineer who put it all together.  Two million dollar grant, and NASA said no.” The money went instead to projects such as Purdue’s self-sustaining environment designs.  “So this was the end of the story!”

Not quite.  According to Mironov, an incendiary article in New Scientist suggested that if PETA really stood behind their tenets, they’d grow their own cells in a test tube and eat themselves.  Ever the provocateurs, PETA decided to put their money where their mouth is.  Dr. Mironov got a phone call from PETA reps who wanted to send him biopsies of human cells for culture.  “I said, I’ve got no license to do this.  I’ve got M.D., but it’s not American, it’s Russian-- and I don’t want to participate in high-tech cannibalism.”

But PETA kept pursuing in vitro meat.  They sent Dr. Mironov enough funding to publish in Tissue Engineering, which led to a round of publicity and the creation of the New Harvest website.  

NASA's rotating bioreactor. Last year PETA announced that they would award a million dollar prize for the first in vitro chicken that was indistinguishable from whole-animal meat and was competitively marketed in at least ten states.  “Which is unrealistic. To have a taste like natural meat you must have a live culture, and it is not scalable technology.”  Mironov’s prototype chicken meat is cultured using a benchtop bioreactor of only a few liters.  Industrial production would require the design of a low-shear bioreactor several stories high. “You’re talking about creating new industry.  So it’s not a million dollars.  Not even ten million dollars.”

Industrial and marketing problems create the bottleneck in laboratory meat creation.  The scientific technology is already in place.  Using techniques more familiar to regenerative medicine than food science, muscle progenitor cells can be grown on an edible polymer scaffold.  These are frequently microbeads of chitosan, a biopolymer found in mushrooms and crab shells, or collagen, a major component Jell-o as well as our own extracellular matrix.  

Chitosan has a few fringe benefits.  It can be used as the polymer basis of a temperature-dependent hydrogel— microbeads of chitosan grow and shrink drastically with a small temperature change, permitting cyclic stretching of cells.  These cell “fitness centers”, as Dr. Mironov calls them, help the cells to develop correctly without the use of growth factors.  And chitosan absorbs fat.  “The beauty of mushrooms is this is fat-absorbing agent. So you can eat meat that is very fatty and very tasty, but because chitosan is not absorbed, it’ll go out.  If we combine tissue engineering with meat we can claim this is functional food.”

 A DramatizationDr. Mironov anticipates that the nutritional possibilities of in vitro meat will be key to finding an initial foothold in the market.  “Let’s say somebody give me ten million dollars for five years.  My first product will be some kind of waffle or food bar where I have sheets of chitosan.  And between them this mass of muscle tissue, and nuts on top.”  The nuts produce tryptophan, which in turn creates seratonin, which suppresses appetite. “We can put as much fat as possible, because it will not be absorbed.  It will be very tasty, it will reduce the appetite, and it will be very expensive.   Only for Hollywood celebrities who want to lose weight.” And as it became more popular, economy of scale would kick in. The process of creating tissue engineered meat products would plummet, making in vitro meat a reasonably affordable component of your taco casserole.  

There is another reason to get schmeat to schmelebrities before us regular schmoes.  Food culture can be remarkably resistant to changes in dietary staples.  We’ll need the tastemakers to promote in vitro meat before it catches on. “Food is very conservative stuff, and to force people to eat something new—it’s a culture process. It must be proved.  It’s very difficult.  But America is probably most flexible in this case.  Not like French people.  America likes to try new stuff.”

Perhaps.  But a goal of in vitro meat is to make something that won’t seem new.   In its unprocessed state on a dish, in vitro meat looks decidedly alien.  Last week Steven Colbert remarked that Mironov’s in vitro chicken muscle looked like “an egg yolk made of blood”.  

Sarcomeric structure of muscles. Though he is not legally allowed to taste the chicken culture himself, Dr. Mironov is quick to defend it. “I have natural cells, they create natural sarcomeric structural fibers.  And if they have the same biochemical composition— actin, myosin, all this stuff— it’s meat!”

“Everybody asks, ‘how will it taste?’  There are no such things as natural tastes in America. You have 30 companies in NJ which create artificial flavor.  So all American food is artificially flavored.  How do you want it to taste? You can design whatever you want.  So the question about taste is basically baseless.”

Though PETA has been the loudest proponent of in vitro meat, the animal rights activists may ultimately have little to do with the embrace of no-kill chicken.  Dr. Mironov thinks that constraints such as agriculturally viable space, the energy revolution, and sustainability will make lab-created meat an attractive alternative even if food culture is slow to embrace it.  “If you look at the density in Singapore and New York, and people start to use land to produce ethanol, where are you going to get food for the animals? It’s not sustainable!”

Mironov envisions a future in which families can pick up cell lines at the supermarket, pop them in a coffee-machine sized bioreactor at home, and have burgers the next day.  “When I say it’s the inevitable inescapable future, it’s just a question of time! So, when do we start to do this? When venture capital decides it’s the right time.  And they didn’t decide yet.”

Comments

adaptivecomplexity's picture
He's got one thing going for him - his in vitro chicken looks as nasty as real raw chicken!  (That's not to imply that I don't love chicken, especially the deep-fried variety.)
Fascinating article.

Stephanie Pulford's picture
Which reminds me... the annoying thing about in vitro meat is that on the record they're not allowed to fry up the chicken and taste it, but you know someone's tried it at some point.  Jason Matheny admits as much in an interview somewhere, but those researchers can't go talk about it.  For cryin' out loud, someone in this country has sampled the $50,000 Mc Nugget, and it bugs me that we can't ask that person what it was like.

adaptivecomplexity's picture
I'm sure you're right - there is no way that the grad students in the lab refrained from tasting it. You've got toothpicks, bunsen burners, a little NaCl, all right there in the lab - that's too much temptation to resist.

Hank's picture
“The reason why I was involved was money.” 

I like his honesty and 
 “Let’s say somebody give me ten million dollars for five years. My first product will be some kind of waffle or food bar where I have sheets of chitosan. And between them this mass of muscle tissue, and nuts on top.”

That had to be the most fun interview ever.

logicman's picture
Did m'sieur enjoy his Chicken Mironov avec muscle les cellules d'ancêtre sur un échafaudage comestible de polymère a la saveur et couleur artificielles ?

One more wafer m'sieur?

Alternate Allele's picture
"So you can eat meat that is very fatty and very tasty, but because chitosan is not absorbed, it’ll go out."

Ugh yeah... does anyone else have the word "Olestra" come to mind, or is that just me?

Seriously though, chitosan does has some useful biomedical applications.  It's also used for weight loss but those claims are of course unsubstantiated. 

Overall, I'm skeptical of chitosan and I don't know how comfortable I am with ingesting yet another substance my body doesn't know how to process (like partially-hydrogenated fats).

Honestly, I would become a vegetarian before I lived off of petri dish meat.  On second thought, I think I'd rather eat stray animals before I ate petri dish meat or became a vegetarian.  Yup. 

I once read a book by a very talented author named Margaret Atwood. It believe it was written in the earlier '90s, but I could be wrong. The book is called "Oryx and Crake" and you should all read it if you haven't. It is set in a post-modern society, in which much genetic engineering is taking place, and biology is the basis of all, or at least most knowledge. In the book, people developed a new way to grow chicken which would be economical and cruelty-free, and would produce chicken nearly indistinguishable from the real stuff. They called it "chickie-nobs." I was disgusted with this concept and have teased many of my KFC-loving friends about eating what seemed to me equivalent to these chickie-nobs, and frankly, I thought it was simply a cute way to illustrate how astoundingly and frighteningly far the human race will go to preserve their unsustainable life style. Mr. Mironov, you have proved me wrong. I fear for all of us, I really do.

Stephanie Pulford's picture
And I watched a movie that revealed that Soylent Green is, in fact, people. 
Most vegetarians would draw a line between  KFC and a cruelty-free
nugget.  People are made to eat meat; abstaining from it is a personal
choice.  Constructs such as test tube meat make it easier for some
people to make that choice.  As a vegetarian who spends every St.
Patrick's day missing corned beef, I'd gladly have a tissue engineered
alternative.  Do you have any idea what cabbage and corned beef stew
tastes like without corned beef?  It tastes like cabbage.

logicman's picture
I was trying hard to remember that title!

Soylent Green.
You've read the book, you've seen the movie, now eat the -
RAIN CHECK!

well, personally I think that simply eating chicken isn't cruel. What is cruel is supporting companies that essentially torture then chickens and THEN feed them to us. In my opinion, we should be working towards proper methods of farming animals rather than simply not farming them at all. After all, what will happen to domestic cows and chickens and swine? They can't survive the wild, it is no longer in their genes. Are you proposing we simply let these species die out? I think that would be rather cruel as well. We are omnivorous animals by choice. I, too am a vegetarian, actually, but as I stated above, I appose the corporations running the meat farm business, not meat itself.

Stephanie Pulford's picture
Are you proposing we simply let these species die out?


Nah, like most vegetarians I'm fairly opposed to extinction.  I'm also not such a big fan of Kantian ethics; I don't think that my hypothetical sampling of a synthetic McNugget in any way suggests that I need to worry that the entire world is going to do the exact same thing on the exact same day. 

I am sort of interested in your proposal that we keep killing and eating animals as a way to keep them from extinction.  I believe that was covered in the Matthew Broderick movie, The Freshman.  Panda steak, anyone?

Gerhard Adam's picture
Let me preface my comments to be clear that I'm not attacking your viewpoint or attitude towards being a vegetarian, especially since you have not presented your position with a "moral high ground" attitude.

"I am sort of interested in your proposal that we keep killing and eating animals as a way to keep them from extinction."

It's really the only way it can play out, since they are domesticated and can't survive in the wild (such as it is).   Therefore a domesticated cow that is set free will assuredly die since it has no means for dealing with predators.  In addition, with reduced habitat, the "Johnny-Come-Lately's" would have no chance against their more experienced competitors.

So  I'm not clear on why the argument is often advanced against killing animals, yet there's no guilt in letting other animals kill animals.  This would imply that somehow humans should abstain from normal biological functions on principle.  Which brings me to the question of "what is the principle that should lead to such a conclusion"?

I don't think there's any controversy about the desire to reduce or eliminate cruelty and improve conditions for food animals.  However, why should it be desirable that a tuna survive against my desire to eat it?  Is a shark more justified in the kill than a human?

While I can appreciate individuals choosing (for whatever reason), their desire to be vegetarians or vegans, I'm not persuaded that there is a sound philosophical basis for such a position beyond personal preference.  Is the scavenger more noble because he waits for the animal to die before feeding?

How does a vegetarian reconcile their belief when feeding pets that are carnivorous?  Is it OK to kill an animal to feed a lion/tiger in a zoo? 

I can't help but notice that in all these discussions about animals for food, there is almost never any suggestion that perhaps humans should reduce their population size and consequently their need for food.

Like it or not, biology does not operate on a "right to life" principle.  There is nothing fundamentally wrong with raising an animal and killing it for food.  It doesn't have to involve cruelty nor maliciousness.  It's just the way things work.  I guess I find the concept (specifically vegan) to be an interesting form of "kingdom" bias, since it is OK to kill living things, just so long as they don't belong to the animal kingdom.

My daughter actually suggested a T-shirt for me which read:

"Do you know how many plants died to make that salad you're eating?"

Thank you Mr. Adam, you have saved me the trouble of replying to Stephanie's comment. You pretty much paraphrased my position in the argument. I will further add that my previous comment had more to it than just the mention of domesticated animals becoming extinct if they were not to be farmed for food. I'll also add that my personal reason for being vegetarian consists of two parts: the first is that I'm simply not fond of the taste of most meats, however I do eat seafood. The second reason is that I don't want to support the corrupt corporations in their animal-torturing ways. I do however fully stand behind the human right to sustenance. Before you attack my eating of seafood, let me point out that the conditions in which farmed fish find themselves are much better than those of factory farmed animals, and the fish that aren't farmed are caught wild, which is in itself a problem, but it is also an entirely different argument.

Gerhard Adam's picture
As I mentioned in my post, people can eat whatever they like for whatever reason they like.  My only objection is when one takes the moral high ground as if anyone that doesn't adhere to their view is being barbaric, or immoral.

The issues you raise about factory farms and cruelty are all very legitimate, but to me, they represent a much bigger societal issue than simply that of food. 

Agreed, they do present a much larger societal issue, and the entirety of said issue must be dealt with and accordingly reacted to. This includes the food-related part.

rholley's picture
I remember reading a science fiction story in which the central character mused that the square cross-section of the fish fingers he was eating might be the result of natural selection, as the shape which could most easily escape through the mesh of a net.

logicman's picture
I remember reading a science fiction story in which the central
character mused that the square cross-section of the fish fingers he
was eating might be the result of natural selection, as the shape which
could most easily escape through the mesh of a net.

Wunderlich!  10/10 for biology!

No one has said anything about methane!

That's the real reason this is "inescapable future of mankind."

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.