Slashdot Mirror
Italian Bioengineer Develops 3D-Printed Vegan Steak From Plant-Based Proteins (dezeen.com)
Italian bioengineer Giuseppe Scionti from Spanish startup Novameat has invented the "world's first" 3D-printed meat-free steak made from vegetable proteins, which mimics the texture of beef. From a report: Vegan ingredients such as rice, peas and seaweed, which provide the amino acids needed for a healthy diet, are turned into a food paste that is 3D-printed to form a raw, steak-like substance. Despite an abundance of meat-free products already on the market that taste similar to animal meats, Scionti found that these are limited to imitation burgers, chicken nuggets or meatballs. None of the offerings reproduce a piece of "fibrous flesh" such as steak or chicken breast. In an effort to reduce the impact of animal agriculture and to improve people's nutrition, the Milanese researcher set out to create a plant-based alternative to "fleshy" meat products.
if it isn't meat...
This is just Animal 57.
(Soylent Green is people!)
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Really? If a paste going through a nozzle counts as "3D printed", every tube of Cake Mate needs a new label.
Seriously, I thought 3D printing hype died down years ago?
If you'll excuse me, I have to go 3D print some paste on my toothbrush before I go to bed...
Mostly random stuff.
I only eat my food when it's alive. I don't even like eating gagh if they're not moving much.
I invented a process to turn ribeye steak into tofu.
Why is this not a thing, I wonder?
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
1) It takes 30 minutes to print a 100g "steak" which appears to be a little larger than a quarter.
2) No information on it's taste or consistency. Being translucent is not a good sign.
I really want someone to make a replacement for meat, not because I give a shit about the animals but because they are heavily subsidized and damaging to both the environment and our bodies. This isn't going to cut it.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Why would you insult someone who is trying to improve the world? You may not realize it but the level of animal products per capita in the US is unsustainable and therefore will need to be replaced with something. It's better we figure out how to do so sooner rather than later.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
This is my "I don't care" face. (-__-)
You're only "trying" to understand so you can fail. You're quite the intellectual heavyweight, obviously.
Strawman argument, that's not "improving the world." Your definition of "improving the world" is not accepted.
What nonsense to say it's unsustainable. It is very sustainable and only an engineering problem to make more meat.
If you try to apply logical and rational thought to a vegan die-hard, you are going to be really disappointed.
"Despite an abundance of meat-free products already on the market that taste similar to animal meats"
ROFL
Good luck naming one. Maybe after so long without tasting a juicy steak or burger you forget what one tastes like... and I do mean entirely forget.
How is "I eat meat. Meat is yummy" vegan bashing? It sounds like you're carnivore bashing. In fact, how is your first question vegan bashing? Are you too insecure to answer (or ignore) questions?
They keep saying "you are what you eat", and since cattle eat grass, I figure by eating a steak I'm eating vegetables... Time for another salad - a nice, big, New York Strip salad, medium rare!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The last time we tried to transform The Great Prairie from the perfect habitat for meat on the hoof to crop farmland, it resulted in the greatest ecological disaster in the history of the US: The Dust Bowl.
Some people, like myself, are omnivores who know animals - sentients - suffer and die so I can have a meal. I don't like that, so I started minimizing my meat-eating. I love meat however. So if someone could give me something that tastes exactly like meat, I'd devour it.
As far as vegans (no dairy or eggs): the egg industry keep chickens in battery cages. If you understand what the battery hens endure, and you're smart enough to care, then you might try to avoid battery eggs. But that's easy to do because there are lots of cage free eggs out there nowadays. Dairy...? Veal comes out of the dairy industry, and the calves are separated from their mothers way early. Veal is a brutal industry. When the Millenium comes, I imagine veal farmers will be hanging outside their empty barns. I don't have the force of will to avoid dairy though, though I should IMO. Eggs I only eat the non-battery kind. Meat... like I say, if they can give me a suffering-free alternative, I'm all over it.
Not everyone cares. Most don't I suppose. Gotta have the intellectual firepower to think about this stuff, be able to model the existence of other sentients. Hyena doesn't care about what the wildebeest thinks. Nature is in fact brutal. But if I can avoid being brutal, I'll do it because I like to reduce the level of suffering on the planet.
I think they believe that if they can come up with a substitute that doesn't make everyone instantly gag, then they can call us all terrorists for "choosing" to eat animals when there's "an alternative".
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Even in the animal kingdom this is true.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
trying to improve the world?
Because one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. Improvement is subjective.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Did you get your computer from the forest? Which tree do you plug it into?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
You may not realize it but the level of animal products per capita in the US is unsustainable
Cows are a renewable resource. They fucking eat grass. If humanity becomes doomed because we can't figure out how to grow grass for cows to eat, we deserve our fate.
Furthermore, if you're talking about cow farts, we can clean that shit out of the atmosphere with technology that exists today. If it actually became a problem, we'd have more motivation to use it.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
That is supposed to be a steak? Looks more like a gummy bear.
Perhaps I can sell you some organically grown, all natural, free range C code? It's easier to keep down than the hormone-free Java. It will compile on any homeopathic (13x and higher dilution only) OS so long as you have a holistic architecture. It's all very natural and ethical, it'll just cost you ten times more for all that extra naturalness and ethincs, which is sort of funny because if so much less goes into it, you'd think it would be cheaper. Well, fuck you, give me your money so you can improve the world!
Perhaps you should go look at some human biological evolution or some animal evolution for that matter. Omnivores pretty much eat meat whenever they can, meat is typically opportunistic but it's a huge advantage for those that can get it. It's the reason we evolved the way we did and the reason we can get really sick long term if we don't eat any meat at all (by choice or otherwise) - vitamin B12, dehydration and iron deficiencies (resulting in reduced development in children) being the primary ones.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
If you try to apply logical and rational thought to a die-hard, you are going to be really disappointed. That applies to vegans, "carnivore" humans, atheists, evangelicals, scientists, etc, etc. The real question is why would people want to eat something that tastes and/or feels like meat but refuse to kill an animal? Perhaps because they think raising and killing an animal just to eat it is wrong when there are alternatives like faux meat?
There's also the ecological question of whether animal meat vs faux meat is harmful to the planet. There's around 19 billion chickens, 1.4 billion cattle, and around 1 billion sheep and pigs (I presume each). A large percentage of those are slaughtered or exploited (constantly milked or egg laying) for human consumption yearly. The resources to feed those animals is usually a substantial amount of the food supply for which if the land were used in more diverse production would apply equal or greater food resources at lower water, erosion, etc levels.
I say all this as a meat eater. I realize that just because meat is delicious and I want to eat it quite regularly doesn't mean it's good for me or the planet. Those who are offended by those who merely look for alternatives clearly have issues.
Those who are offended by those who go beyond mere efforts of persuasion into the area of harassment or worse obviously have reason to be upset--as in all die-hards. It is not only too simplistic but obviously wrong to bring up vegan die-hards as an example of the norm of vegans any more than it is to point at all the morbidly obese or heart attack at 30 meat eaters.
But, yea, keep on hating.
I think the idea is that it can be made more cheaply, and if it tastes good enough, it will take over the market. This is probably correct, as with increasing competition for meat, the price will probably go up...and the Chinese have started being able to afford it.
The question is, "Will it taste good enough?". So far the answer has been "not really" for most people, and "yes" for some, and "Why mimic meat?" for others. But each incremental step causes an additional group of people to say "yes". When I was growing up the only vegetarians were people with either religious obligations or severe economic (or health) problems. These days the stuff doesn't taste nearly as bad...or maybe my taster has just gotten more used to it.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Meat has an interesting textural quality mostly absent from vegetables and fruit and even when present with fundamentally different nutritionally qualities, which makes it impossible to emulate meals which people grew up with.
They want something familiar, without the murder.
It is very sustainable and only an engineering problem to make more meat.
Everything is only an engineering problem. The question is, when does the cost become too high to continue?
I looked into your past posts because I had a feeling you might be one of the many people worthy of the label "foe" but I found you to be an intelligent and interesting person. You are rough around the edges like rusty razor blades but not the typical "out of your fucking mind" extremism that fails to comport to logic that's become the staple of post-2008 Slashdot. Congratulations, you win nothing.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Someone walks up to you and says:
..what do you mean you won't help me, I said I want to improve the world!
..what do you mean you won't help me, I said I want to improve the world!
Hey, I want to improve the world, too! Here, help me spread this weaponized virus that will kill 90% of the humans on the planet, then stop and leave us alone!
Someone else walks up to you and says:
Hey, I want to improve the world, too! Here, take this bomb and go blow up that Mosque full of muslims, then take this assault rifle and go kill as many blacks as you can!
Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.
Your definition of "improving the world" is not accepted.
THAT. THat, thAT. THAT's the problem. Who decides who's right? The SJW / PITA / whatever people have already decided they're right and everyone else is wrong and in some cases must be immediately stopped. Discussion? Convincing other people? Who has time for that?
Let's say we all agree that pollution is bad and needs to be reduced. THEY want to remove all coal plants, I want to remove half, YOU want to remove the single absolute worst offender (by whatever standards.) Who's right? We ALL are. Who's wrong? We ALL are.
Who's in control? Well that's an interesting question. In the US it's supposed to be a democracy, with people arguing for both sides and somehow coming to an agreement. Except people have lost faith in (some/all of) their elected officials, and Climate Change! Save the Baby Whales! Save the Amazon! seem to have reached a fever pitch. But I'm sure we can still go higher -- after all, fatigue sets in so you have to be louder and louder to attract and keep attention. Luckily we have "filter bubbles" and "safe spaces" and Facebook communities to keep us from the horrible din of conflicting ideas.
Remember Windows viruses and hoaxes a decade ago? X is bad / wrong, tell all your friends about it right NOW! Don't check with anyone, this too important for that. you're our only hope, Obi Wan User, don't let us down.
It is very sustainable and only an engineering problem to make more meat.
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
I'll bite. I eat meat. Meat is yummy. Your body has evolved so that things that are good for you taste yummy. By not eating meat, you are depriving your body of nutrients it needs to survive. Vegetarians and especially vegans have to be careful to supplement their diet with pills or sufficient quantities of specific plants which provide those nutrients. Thus indicating that theirs is the diet which is innately unnatural and unhealthy. You can make an argument against eating too much meat, but that does not translate into an argument for eating no meat at all.
The argument that eating meat is cruel is easy to shoot down too. If your reasoning is based on minimizing the amount of cruelty animals suffer, consider that the fate of nearly every living thing is to be eaten alive. It just happens out of our sight most of the time. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Living to a ripe old age and dying of natural causes (organ failure) is something almost unique to humans and the few animals we adopt as pets. Nearly all wild animals die young, painfully, and frequently with what most people would consider close to the "maximum" amount of suffering possible. In contrast, the way we dispatch domesticated animals for meat is quick, painless, and humane. So you actually reduce the total amount of cruelty suffered by animals by replacing wild animals in the environment with domesticated ones, protect them from predators and disease with our fences and medicines, then dispatch them painlessly when you're ready to slaughter them.
Then there's the argument that meat is too resource-intensive. That the world's human population is growing beyond the land's capability to feed it, so we need to start eating lower on the food chain. Except that's false too. Nearly all of the world's population growth is happening in developing nations. The developed countries (where most meat eating happens) have close to zero population growth; some even have negative population growth (their population is shrinking). So they're clearly able to feed their populations using the land and resources they have. If you want to reduce population growth, the key is to help all countries on the planet become economically developed. Regressing to an agrarian society is actually counterproductive, and will result in even faster population growth.
The only argument for vegetarianism / veganism I've heard which makes sense is the energy intensity one. You can feed the population using less energy per capita if everyone eats plants (even after accounting for supplements to make up nutrients normally obtained from meat). But the entirety of modern civilization is based on being able to generate more energy per capita than in the past. As a nation develops, the percentage of its economic output devoted to food production decreases. Since everyone still must be eating (the same amount of food is being produced per capita), that means the country is producing more energy per capita than before. And that excess energy is being spent on productive tasks other than food production. If there's plenty of excess energy, why not use some of it to raise meat if you want?
Note that if the scientists researching this are able to produce something which tastes like meat but requires less energy to produce than raising animals, I will have no qualms about switching to it. Less energy to produce translates into lower cost, so it'll be a simple economic decision. Contrary to the imaginations of vegetarians / vegans, knowing an animal died to feed you is not a part of the enjoyment from eating meat.
We are not omnivores, neither our teeth nor our digestive system is ready for meat.
Our teeth are just fine for chewing meat. They aren't very good at biting through thick hide, or for killing animals, but that's because we've used spears and knives. Our teeth aren't very good for eating fruit (makes them rot), or eating hard plant matter (wears them down too quickly).
Our digestive system is also just fine for meat. Compared to other apes we have a longer small intestine. We also have bigger kidneys to help process excess protein.
Oh, of course if we cook it, then we can eat meat
Yes, and our teeth have adapted to that habit. If you eat vegetables, you need to cook them too (in order to make starches easier to digest and to neutralize a variety of toxins), otherwise it's pretty much impossible to get enough calories in the wild.
How about some'a nice gabba-gool? You may as well 3d-print it and serve it, since I bet a lot of people don't know what it is anyway.
If you take a country like New Zealand, replacing meat with a vegetable alternative will massively cut down emmissions. And in reply to those not understanding the vegan mindset. Part of that mindset is to reduce the amount of pain and suffering humans cause animals. Replacing meat with and alternative means less animals butchered (perhaps).
I reserve the write to mangle english.
It's not directed at vegan's, it's directed at meat eating people to try the vegan way... But having tasted a lot of those vegan burgers/chicken-/shormalike alternatives, they all tend to taste like cardboard.. Therefore I take these articles not really serious until I tasted it myself. Personally I don't mind if they can replace meat with vegan products if the products actually taste the same, but till now it still hasn't happened. But vegans tend to preach their way of life is better and healthier, even though there isn't any shred of scientific proof.
Pointing out the fatal flaw in someone's argument is not anger, Mr. ad hominem.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
We've been making fibrous food for centuries, it's called noodles. Surely you can "print" a vegan-friendly steak-like material in mere seconds using the same method.
100 grams every 30 minutes will never sell, my family would need to have a 3d printer working on this for 16 hours a day to survive off of this "meat", and we would most definitely not prefer vegan "steak" unless it's substantially cheaper.
Indeed. I've recently patented the '3D cow pasture' - it's a bit like vertical gardening, except with cows.
this becomes the most millennial thing i've ever read on /.
So it must look like steak and taste like shit.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Other than sounding fancy and futuristic, why not just mix a bunch of proteins together like all other fake meat does?
No seriously, let them develop this....more steak for the rest of us unethical evil meat eaters.
End of Line.
Please tell me how this horrificly over processed fake meat is any better than the soy'd, GMO monstrosities that we already have today?
Vegans need to stop making imitations and make creations of their own. Vegan steak, please. How about a 4 day cured and smoked watermelon?
https://www.foodandwine.com/ne...
There are a lot of other vegetarian meats available, many more convincing than the meat in the article.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Again a flawed argument. Meat is neither richer in protein nor richer in calories compared to plant based food. Of course grass is not what I talk about.
I do eat meat, but I do not convince myself it is somehow healthy or even necessary to eat.
Humans evolved on a diet that included fish, milk, eats, and red meat. Lacking any of these means a diet lacking in the vital vitamin B-12. People can live on a diet lacking animal products today only because of synthetic B-12 supplements. This is not anything close to a "natural" diet. A diet that requires synthetic additives to meet a vital nutritional need is quite likely not all that healthy, and quite possibly not "sustainable".
The argument was that humans are omnivores and therefore a diet of all plant matter is an option, the truth is that this is not an option. It is only with modern technology to synthesize B-12 in a factory that vegans can survive today. Humans could not live on a diet lacking animal products only a few decades ago. This is most evident in the evolutionary shift in adults able to tolerate lactose. The humans that did not drink milk from animals tended to die off. Those humans that domesticated animals for food tended to have a better chance of survival than those that did not. Humans evolved from cultures that ate cooked vegetables and meat. A diet lacking cooked vegetables and meat is going to be a diet that is lacking in something important to life.
Eating a diet that varies so wildly from our ancestors is a diet that puts a person's health at risk. If you value animal life more than your own then you deserve to die a painful death, you are an error in the evolutionary process and your death will correct it.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
And I thought it would be some kind of bullshit reason...
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
I prefer my food to come from smaller, woke, artisan factories.
Reminds me of a sign I saw at a truck stop: "Artisan egg sandwiches".
My immediate thought was that I'd rather take the egg home and put it in an incubator. What will hatch? A stonemason? Glassblower?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Make meat substitutes passable (it doesn't even have to be quite as good as the real thing, though that would be best) and cheaper than meat, and it will take off. With steak being so expensive, and also so bad for the environment, that could be both an attainable goal and a big win. It's got to look appealing too though, since it's not going to be breaded or put in a bun.
And while we're at it, what about those people who play Grand Theft Auto? It's almost as if they're saying they don't believe in violent robbery but they're happy to pretend to do it.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Candy makers beat them to it. and they look tastier https://previews.123rf.com/ima...