Slashdot Mirror
A Fresh Take On Fake Meat
JMarshall writes: Impossible Foods, a Silicon Valley food start-up started by a Stanford professor who quit his job, just raised $108 million to pursue a plant-based burger that truly tastes like meat. This ACS article explains how Impossible Foods and other startups and researchers are tackling the tricky chemical and engineering challenge of making fake meat that tastes real. "Meat flavors and aromas come from thousands of volatile small molecules released by muscle and fat cell destruction. Flavor precursors start with an animal’s diet, which influences the molecular composition of its cells. After slaughter, enzymes in an animal’s muscle cells begin breaking down biomolecules into simpler amino acids, sugars, and fatty acids. This means some flavor molecules develop even as the meat ages during its trip to the store. Other flavor and aroma components emerge from reactions between sugars, amino acids, or fatty acids as the meat is cooked."
Our bodies evolved over millions of years to eat meat. The fact that your senses crave the smells, taste, and texture of meat means... your body wants meat. Now, we all know that you should eat it in moderation because of the problems of overeating. But meat in reasonable portions is naturally good for you.
All of this biochemical engineering to come up with a meat substitute is reminiscent of all the chemical companies trying to come up with artificial sweeteners. The end result is probably as bad for you or worse than the original.
Eat your meat. That way you can have your pudding.
Why not just genetically engineer plants that grow meat, that way you get the best of both, flavor and saving the fuzzy animals. I look forward to sampling the bacon bush and porterhouse tree.
Cheaper is about the only justification I could see for it. As the FDA has been getting more and more of a clue lately, it's basically been found that red meat isn't actually bad for you after all. The original belief in that (as well as the belief that meat causes high cholesterol) originated from some poorly done studies in the early 60's and late 70's.
Are people who are concerned about what they eat going to embrace a chemical s**t storm just because it's meatless?
They will if they are the sort who abstain from meat due to ethical considerations (the "fish are friends, not food" crowd). Your chemic shitstorm isn't alive so there's no ethical debate about eating them.
Also normal people who don't give two shits will eat it. I eat normal meat but if this tasted like real meat, and wasn't substantially less healthy or more costly, I'd eat it for sure.
If it comes even close in price I can see restaurants choosing it because then they don't have to have separate vegetarian and vegan menu options.
So what do these people think they're going to do with the millions of cows with no natural habitat?
Eat them but not breed any more?
The original belief in that (as well as the belief that meat causes high cholesterol) originated from some poorly done studies in the early 60's and late 70's.
FWIW, there are many contradictory studies made in this area that correlate read-meat consumption with higher mortality. Earlier studies that blamed cholesterol and fat in meat were poor studies, but there are more modern studies that illustrate correlation. Some studies blame gut bacteria that converts Carnitine into TMAO. Some blame the nitrates in processed meat. Some studies show an increased link with certain cancers. Some studies blame poor dental hygiene causing a general inflammation response leading to heart disease.
We may not know the truth yet in this matter, except there is some correlation (but if there is actually causation is a bit of a mystery still).