Gwynne Dyer: The world's most important hamburger

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      The most important hamburger in the history of the world was cooked (but only half-eaten) in London on Monday (August 5). It was grown in a lab, not cut from a cow, and it tasted—well, not quite good enough to fool the experts, but then they forgot the ketchup, mustard, cheese, onion, bacon, tomato, and lettuce. Not to mention the fries.

      “I miss the fat, there's a leanness to it,” said food writer Josh Schonwald, “but the general bite feels like a hamburger.” Austrian food critic Hanni Ruetzler agreed: “It's not that juicy, but the consistency is perfect. This is meat to me. It’s not falling apart; it's really something to bite on.” Even in a blind tasting, she added, she would say that it was real meat and not a soya copy.

      Of course she would. It was real meat, grown from a cow’s stem cells just like the flesh of its own body. It tasted lean because the stem cells the experimenters used were only programmed to make muscle tissue, not fat. (They’re working on that). The real test was whether tens of billions of lab-grown muscle cells could be organised into something with the consistency of proper meat, not mush, and the lab-burger passed that test with flying colours.

      But why would anybody want to pass that test? What’s wrong with just eating cows—and sheep and pigs and chickens? Far beyond the objections of vegetarians and animal-rights activists, what’s wrong with eating “natural” meat is that there are too many of us, eating too much of it, and we’re running out of land to grow it on.

      “Right now, we are using 70 percent of all our agricultural capacity to grow meat through livestock,” Professor Mark Post, the lead researcher, told The Independent at a conference in Vancouver last year. “You are going to need alternatives. If we don’t do anything, meat will become a luxury food and will become very expensive....”

      “Livestock also contributes a lot to greenhouse gas emissions, more so than our entire transport system,” explained Post, a medical physiologist at Maastricht University in the Netherlands. “Livestock produces 39 percent of global methane, five percent of the CO2, and 40 percent of the nitrous oxide. Eventually, we will have an eco-tax on meat.” On meat raised in the open air, that is.

      Whereas meat grown in the lab is a potentially inexhaustible resource, and it does far less environmental damage. According to an Oxford University study published in 2011, a tonne of “cultured” beef would require 99 percent less land and between 82 and 96 percent less water than its “natural” rival, and would produce between 78 and 95 percent less greenhouse gas. It would also use 45 percent less energy.

      These are seriously impressive numbers. If Post’s process can scale up successfully, then in ten or twenty years we could be producing enough meat for a growing global population even though many people are eating more meat per capita as their incomes rise. Moreover, we would be able to turn most of that 70 percent of agricultural land back into forest and prairie, or switch it to growing grain for human consumption.

      “There are basically three things that can happen going forward,” said Google co-founder Sergey Brin, who bankrolled Post’s research. “One is that we can all become vegetarian. I don't think that's really likely. The second is we ignore the issues, and that leads to continued environmental harm. The third option is we do something new.”

      “Some people think this is science fiction, I actually think that's a good thing. If what you're doing is not seen by some people as science fiction, it's probably not transformative enough....We're trying to create the first cultured beef hamburger. From there I'm optimistic we can really scale (up) by leaps and bounds.”

      You probably can. Post’s technique involves extracting stem cells from cow muscle tissue and growing them in vitro for three weeks, providing nutrients and growth-promoting chemicals. Then the mass of new cells is transferred to smaller dishes where they find themselves between two electrodes—and self-organize into strips of muscle tissue.

      Then you give the new muscle tissue some exercise (to bulk it up) by applying small shocks that make it contract. And then it’s hamburger meat, ready to be cooked. Growing an actual steak would be more complex, but in theory it could be done by getting the strips of muscle tissue to take shape on a biodegradable lattice that includes artificial blood vessels to deliver nutrients and oxygen to the interior of the steak.

      So let’s assume that you can produce this beef in industrial quantities, complete with fat cells so that it tastes just like the meat that comes from the slaughterhouse. Could you get people to buy it?

      No problem. Just price it about 20 percent cheaper than the “real thing”. Those of us who are keeping up with the Joneses will buy the premium product; the rest of us will buy the one that’s just as good but costs less.

      Oh, and why didn’t they eat the whole hamburger on Monday? Because there was no way that you could share out what was left equally between so many journalists, and they sometimes get quite nasty if they’re thwarted. So Mark Post said he’d take it home to his children.

      Comments

      9 Comments

      JohnCan45

      Aug 7, 2013 at 11:00am

      Encouraging news, and another indicator that the way out of the ecological trap we have built is the further advancement of science and technology. Going back to some pre-industrial way of living was never in the cards.

      Lilasuka

      Aug 8, 2013 at 1:32am

      Most of the world can become vegetarian! Giving up eating meat is not has hard as giving up smoking. So much effort is being done when the better and simplifier solution is available all the time. Ban advertising meat that does not include a picture of the animals eyes when they are being slaughtered. Make the meat consumers pay the real cost of meat that includes all the environmental damage involved. All that is required is the full truth and real economics - then any sensible person will never eat meat again.

      Dennis Ryan

      Aug 8, 2013 at 6:37am

      To me, this is just another version of doing things the hard way. Many cultures on our planet happily eat insects as a part of their diet, and the last I heard they are in abundance, and I do mean abundance. I've never eaten an insect, and I would probably squirm the first time I ate one because I am brought up on beef. But, given the alternative, I think I could change my diet. I am simply concerned about how hi-tech we seem to be going.

      Lee L

      Aug 8, 2013 at 11:12am

      Lilasuka...
      How is it, since the rise of environmental activism, that a FARM for gawdsake is equated to alarming environmental damage. Last time I looked, you had to have a FARM to grow veggies, just as you need a FARM to raise cattle. More to the point, the real problem isn't our diet, as I see it. It is our numbers. Here in North America, we have yet to full up a virgin continent. The real issues are appearing in India, China and other Asian countries where population growth will outstrip the ability of farmland to feed the next generations. Clearly, rather than BAN meat advertising, would it not be more effective to help FUND family planning and contraception in those places? That's really the only answer that is ... ummm.. sustainable.

      RUK

      Aug 8, 2013 at 3:56pm

      @Lee

      I think that advertising has its place.

      In just my generation, smokers have gone from omnipresent to social pariahs, the few grey-faced miserable creatures shivering in the rain. Regulation played a part but so did advertising.

      Ditto seat belt usage.

      And now we have ads telling us to turn off our cell phones in theatres (people are not naturally courteous, it seems) and now these funny/creepy messages starring a markedly hostile plastic water bottle.

      Socialization through ads is pretty well proven and is going to play a part in getting homo sapiens into a new generation.

      But you're right on about family planning and contraception.

      IMO only China takes it seriously.

      If I were King of the World, it would be very tempting to have a mandatory vasectomization of every male infant when it gets its shots. That's all I'd do. No more accidental pregnancies. If a man really really wants a kid it would be a simple in-office procedure.

      If you really want a baby, you'll welcome the needle in your balls.

      If you are really not sure you want a baby, you're going to give the needle in your balls a pass.

      Governments of the world, I am not going to patent this idea -- feel free to implement it.

      nitroglycol

      Aug 9, 2013 at 12:48pm

      @Lilasuka: In theory, you're right; most people can become vegetarian with little or no trouble. In practice, meat from stem cells is going to be an easier sell with a lot of people. Myself, I'm fine with tofu, but there are some people for whom (psychologically) there is no substitute for meat, and given that reality this is a very positive development.

      UrbanSurvivor13

      Aug 10, 2013 at 7:51pm

      @RUK...

      Glad YOU aint the King of the world, misanthrope.

      McRocket

      Aug 14, 2013 at 1:40pm

      I am a vegetarian - my diet is far more healthy then ANY meat-rich diet.
      Better for the colon, digestion and general health; costs far less then 'meat lovers' diets and gives me more then enough protein (a common misconception about veggie diets is they don't provide enough protein...total nonsense).
      If the dietary ignoramuses want to est real or lab-grown meat - go ahead.
      I'll stick to my diet and have better health, equally great taste (if you are a little creative) and more money in my pocket.

      Ernest Payne

      Aug 16, 2013 at 4:43pm

      Frankly most people eating "fast food" hamburger would probably not notice the difference in taste or texture. It might just save us all from the diseases that rage through the fast food meat industry.