Slashdot Mirror
3-D Printable Food Gets Funding From NASA
cervesaebraciator writes
"According to Quartz, '[Anjan Contractor's] Systems & Materials Research Corporation just got a six month, $125,000 grant from NASA to create a prototype of his universal food synthesizer. But Contractor, a mechanical engineer with a background in 3-D printing, envisions a much more mundane — and ultimately more important — use for the technology. He sees a day when every kitchen has a 3-D printer, and the earth's 12 billion people feed themselves customized, nutritionally-appropriate meals synthesized one layer at a time, from cartridges of powder and oils they buy at the corner grocery store. Contractor's vision would mean the end of food waste, because the powder his system will use is shelf-stable for up to 30 years, so that each cartridge, whether it contains sugars, complex carbohydrates, protein or some other basic building block, would be fully exhausted before being returned to the store.' No word yet on whether anyone other than the guy trying to sell the technology thinks it'll make palatable food."
The replicator!!!
We already eat foods that could be stored for years.
But I still prefer to dry-freeze them in blocks and then cut them up on my CNC into regular food shapes.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
I hope it has a way to print a decent texture.. I would prefer not to live off mush.
You have 5 Moderator Points!
Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
Exactly. With this new 3d printing technology people will now want to MAKE FOOD AT HOME! My god! We need to make it so its strictly regulated and people can only get food from government approved sites.
...has already dispatched a team.
Food Oil Cartridge is too low to allow non-oil based printing. You must replace ALL cartridges to continue printing.
The printer has detected a refilled cartridge in it's carrier; system lock-out until brand new cartridge is inserted.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
delicious and easy to print
Astronauts will be eating a lot of nachos on Mars.
You heard it here first.
Please tell me what this chemical free food is?
Make sure there is none of that dihydrogen monoxide in it, that stuff is lethal.
OK, so who will be the first to post the phrase "almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea"?
Oh, it was me.
Real life is overrated.
...don't care about palatable! i've seen children in cambodia eat bread crusts that are moldy, dirty, and soggy. quite sad, especially when 5U$D can buy enough bags of food to feed 30 kids for a day.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Other than astronauts and zombie bunkers, I don't see the appeal. We already pack strange synthetic food into cans that have more than enough shelf life for most occasions. I'd be willing to bet I'd prefer the taste and texture of said canned goods to whatever playdough this thing prints out. The only food that occasionally gets wasted around my house is fresh fruits, vegetables, and meat; none of which would really be replaced by this technology. If you find a way to print something more palatable that what I can already get from a can, then let me know.
I already have something like this. I input basic food components (including powders and oil, as needed) in a ordered fashion (sometimes layer by layer), and after a short time, I extract a customized, nutritionally-appropriate meal.
It's called an "oven".
"There is an ever growing movement of people who don't want to eat anything that has loose synthetic origin or contains any "chemicals"."
People use pod coffee machines because they are easy, don't waste coffee, produce better tasting coffee and the coffee is no more synthetic or loaded with chemicals than any other.
Because today's food made from powder sucks because of the method of reconstitution, and not the fact that it was made into a fucking powder in the first place.
Here's another food 3D printer!
Wow!
You are completely right, food like this would likely not contain any fibres. So digesting and moving it through your guts will be difficult, especially if your diet is based heavy on it.
What is wrong witha fresh salad? And how would you print that in such a machine?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The geometry of food has an effect on how we perceive taste, so it wouldn't shock me if chefs to specialize in molecular gastronomy started experimenting with novel structures once 3d food printers become commonplace.
A thousand quatloos to the first person to design creme bruleé shell with the texture of cotton candy, 3d printed in a popsicle form factor.
3D Printing Tips and Tricks at Zheng3.com
Tea, Earl Grey, Hot!
the Nutri-Matic machine provided him with a plastic cup filled with a liquid that was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
3D printers turns materials i,e, thermoplastic) into a shape. But you still need the base materials. We are far from CHON food syntetizers. They must have some input, and better to be nutrient complete (and not what they think is nutrient complete, but what our body effectively needs). What it will use? Insects?, Soylent green ?
Anyway, just giving shape to something that you already have don't seem so big breakthrough. Just making a smoothie with them should be pretty similar.
Surely you mean his little known novella Rendezvous with Ramen?
You are completely right, food like this would likely not contain any fibres.
Fiber...in a powder. I wonder what it will take to invent that? Maybe someday they can even make it flavorless and colorless!
(T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
Add insect powder.
Worrying about food with chemicals in it is old school now. If you haven't heard, some food is now made with atoms. BAN ATOMIC FOOD.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
No. Not just 'no', but 'Are you flipping crazy?' no.
Brown rice, beans (any kind you like, or multiple cooked together), dice a tomato and a chili into it. Microwave to warm. Chop some cheese and green onions, mix it in, microwave some more until hot. Eat with chips or tortillas. Less than five minutes, and I can do it so stoned that I can hardly focus on changing the CD player.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
As good or better depending on the blend. I used to keep a grinder and fresh grind for each pot. At one point I had Kona shipped direct from the plantation, roasted a weeks worth at a time manually and ground that fresh daily.
The sealed pod keeps the coffee fresh. The pressurized system forcing the hot water through the grounds and making each cup fresh makes a huge difference. Especially on the second or third cup of the day.
Toss in creme fresh and real sugar and you are looking at a great cup of coffee every time. Of course it depends on the variety. Surprisingly the Starbucks varieties are actually quite good. They taste like burnt crap if you go to an actual Starbucks.
A great example I have seen showing processed vs non-processed foods is to simply put the food in a bowl of water. A lot of processed food will within a matter of minutes puff up to a multiple of their size, and when stirred will simply break up into a liquid solution. Natural (unprocessed, even minimally processed) foods will generally stay together for a lot longer.
That's not exactly a surprising observation. Same thing is true of most particleboard vs. unprocessed wood as well. You've failed to demonstrate at all why this would be a problem. Try your test on some chicken flesh compared to an identical piece of chicken flesh that's been chewed, swallowed, then chemically processed by enzymes and stomach acids in a human stomach. After you've tried that test, you may understand why your argument is easily dismissed by most people when you put it that way.
That said, there are reasons more heavily processed foods may be worse for you than unprocessed. One of those reasons is that the processed foods often simply come from poorer base materials than the unprocessed foods, which is why they needed to be processed in the first place. If the unprocessed food is a nice cut of chicken breast and the processed food is ground up chicken cartilage with a little bone and other otherwise less than usable bits of the chicken after everything is else is stripped off, then the processed food typically won't be as good. That's not universally true though. The hydroxyl-apatite in ground bone can actually be an ideal source of bio-available calcium, for example, and various organ meats which people typically shun in low-processed form are full of great nutrition. The majority of what goes into the processed chicken patty, however, is crap. Figuratively and also, to some degree, literally. Processes get developed to extract the maximum nutrition from food. This should be a good thing in a hungry world. Unfortunately, it's a hungry world with marketing departments and a heavy profit motive.
Processing of food isn't inherently evil. People have been processing food to extract more nutrition from it for millennia. Grinding bones to make your bread (bone cakes are full of calcium and nutritious bone marrow) is just one example. Another set of great examples are demonstrated by Pellagra and Kwashiorkor which are two medical conditions. You may not have heard of Pellagra, but just think of a typical portrayal of leprosy and you won't go far wrong. Kwashiorkor you have probably seen in ads for hunger-relief charities: swollen ankles, distended belly, hair loss, loss of teeth, dermatitis. These conditions are specialized forms of malnutrition that can occur in individuals who may actually be getting enough food to survive (although they may frequently be generally malnourished as well), but are suffering from niacin or protein deficiencies. They both tend to show up among people who live essentially exclusively on corn (poor Italian peasants in the case of Pellagra, and mostly African children living on food aid for Kwashiorkor). The all-corn diet might be providing enough calories, but is deficient in some vital nutrients. As it turns out, South American natives living on the same diet weren't suffering from these same issues. The reason comes down to food processing. Traditional preparation of corn involves nixtamalizing it, which basically means boiling it in a lime (the mineral, not the fruit) solution. The resulting processed food, called nixtamal is more nutritious (technically, it has fewer calories, but it provides a wider variety of nutrients) and people using it as a staple food are less likely to develop extreme nutritional disorders.
Going back to the downsides of processing food, there's the issue of preservation. Some processing, of course, preserves much of the nutritive value of the food for a very long time. Examples of this are salting, dehydrating and pickling. The processing does, however, often destroy some of the nutrients in the food as well and it typically involves p
You do know agriculture is a human invention, don't you? And that since the dawn of agriculture, people have been putting all kinds of shit (literally) on their food to make it grow. None of this was "natural".
Herbicides and fungicides and insecticides exist in the "organic" plants we eat. They're just ones produced by the plant. Most of our synthetic ones are basically copies of pre-existing natural defences. Sticking some of the natural world's produce into our food would go very badly for us...
It should be: Tea, Earl Grey, hot.
We need to make it so its strictly regulated and people can only get food from government approved sites.
?! Are you and the mods fucking double retarded? Grow you some wheat, dumbass.
Now just imagine how fucking moronic you sound to me.