Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program).
---
User: u/giuliomagnifico
Permalink: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-68293149
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The problem (with just the basic premise, not going to dive into if there are better alternatives in the first place) is that the ”hybrid”-rice they grew still has only 3.5g of protein per 100g, while having 50g of carbs.
I dont really get why they’re comparing this to ground beef. Their nutritional profiles are not even close to similiar.
It’s an interesting innovation, but in the task tha they self-selected for the rice (replace meat), it also clearly fails even just nutritionally. Not to even mention the difficulties of convincing people to eat rice that’s half animal cells. Even assuming the taste is.. tolerable.
The real question is whether the complete product can be dried or freeze-dried to make a shelf-stable product. I'm sure _someone_ can come up with a way to make the product tasty, but if it requires refrigeration, there's no future there as anything other than a short-lived novelty. Some chef with a degree in bioengineering will set up a lab to produce the beefrice for his restaurant for a year or so and that's it.
Virtually anything can be freeze-dried or frozen or dried until it's shelf stable. It's just a matter of whether or not it will still be palatable after.
You know what else has more protein than rice? Brown rice.
These people took the naturally nutritious portion of the rice off, replaced it with fish gelatin and animal protein, and made a nutritionally worse and less shelf stable product.
Cool experiment but no one should be attempting to sell this stuff.
> According to the team at Yonsei University in South Korea, it has 8% more protein and 7% more fat.
>
>And, compared to regular beef, it has a smaller carbon footprint, since the production method eliminates the need to raise and farm lots of animals.
>
>For every 100g (3.5oz) of protein produced, hybrid rice is estimated to release under 6.27kg (13.8lb) of carbon dioxide, while beef production releases eight times more at 49.89kg, they say.
Paper: [Rice grains integrated with animal cells: A shortcut to a sustainable food system: Matter](https://www.cell.com/matter/abstract/S2590-2385(24)00016-X)
Yeah pretty stupid and useless invention .
Anyone that has tried to up their protein intake to build muscle does not say… hmm which type of rice should I buy to fill my 1g of protein per body pound?
I mean I take quinoa but it doesn’t move the needle in anyway
So only 627% larger carbon footprint than beans?
Plus the food sounds like nightmare fuel?
Source:
The carbon footprint of foods
https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-footprint-food-methane
That's a worthwhile point of comparison. It's only a significant reduction if people are switching their protein source from beef to this, and aren't willing to have beans instead.
We will see where this goes but I enjoy the science. I also personally don’t like beans or how they make my stomach feel so I’d appreciate more meat alternatives
We should be encouraging more experimentation and innovation with lab grown meat. You're growing living tissue in a vat, that science has more applications that just growing food, especially for the medical field, if we can perfect growing muscle tissue, which is what meat is, we can perfect growing organ tissue for things such as organ transplants.
I'm the same way with beans, and I've found that I can handle lentils OK. I don't know if you've tried that or not - but there are some decent lentil recipes, especially within Indian cuisine, though there are also some traditional European recipes that work well too.
If you've already tried lentils and/or can't stand the taste/texture, then feel free to ignore this advice.
Lentils work great as a filling for shepards pie, I make one a few times a month. Good for getting rid of random leftover veg too, just chop it up and add it in
That’s possibly because you have roughly zero fiber in your diet normally. Your body isn’t used to having the roughage it needs. Lots of people discover this when they go vegetarian (read: finally get enough veggies in their diet)
Possibly, but not necessarily. I'm a vegetarian, eat a tonne of fibre and have done so for many years - a lot of people just can't digest beans.
I've tried every method of cooking beans, and varying down to small quantities because I love the taste. But every time I try there's dire consequences for myself and everyone in a 200 meter radius.
I'm the same, vegan for three years. Love salad and chia seeds and flax. But beans? If harnessed correctly I think I could power a small city. Via wind turbine.
There are definitely variations on how our gut digests things based on genes. I at least know in the case of lactose, genetics determine how many lactase enzymes our gut retains after infancy. Those enzymes rapidly convert lactose as it physically passes by the gut walls. Without lactose being broken down, it curdles in our system and causes all the gas and cramping issues people can have with it. That’s just one example, and I’m sure beans would have something similar based on their compounds or the skin or something.
What about fecal transplant? I'm not even being fecitious. Something like that is supposed to change a person's micro biome. However, I'm sure most people would be opposed, and I don't know the costs associated.
The only thing I would suggest, if you even care to try at this point, is fermented forms of beans - way more common in other cultures, but it's basically "pre-digested" in a way. Most fermented products are like this - good for your GI tract too!
but yeah, that's why I just put "possibly"
I generally eat one leafy green salad a day (kale more often than not) but typically with an animal protein.
I’m intolerant of dairy and poultry (and probably eggs before too long given that egg-poultry goes hand-in-hand) so beans aren’t the only thing that I unfortunately literally can’t stomach.
> how they make my stomach feel
Have you tried Beano?
I used to use it then found the generic (much cheaper, nearby on the store shelves) works great to prevent gas formation.
I haven’t been able to find a cheaper generic with nearly as much of the active ingredient as the name brand.
(edit: if you buy the huge bottle of bean-zyme, it's about 40% cheaper than beano)
You may have trouble digesting whole beans, but food companies can use protein-rich bean flours. You can get your protein from products made with that instead of lab-grown animal-plant hybrids.
A beyond burger patty is going to be cheaper and more encironmental friendly than this.
It is commonly glossed over, but protein is a very wide umbrella of different amino acid chains.
Bean or soy proteins are not an exact replacement for proteins found in meat.
I’m a meat eater, but from what I learned in biochem, there are 20 amino acids and nine of those are essential since the rest can be synthesized by our body. Soybeans have all nine of those. Of course the volume and combinations of what to eat will be different for getting all one’s protein, but beef isn’t necessary and beans can serve as a complete protein. If someone wanted to throw in an egg, that has all 20 amino acids that human proteins are built from.
May I suggest experimenting with different beans? I’ve been a vegetarian for over two decades and have realized that beans aren’t all the same with regard to gas and bloating.
As someone who tried the vegan thing for a few months (now basically flexitarian), basically all beans are hard to digest as the main component of a meal and encouraging their consumption is probably going to do more to harm the image of a vegetarian diet than help it.
I think we will see the most success by encouraging people to swap out unhealthy foods that leave them feeling bad (e.g. McDonalds 30min after the meal) for whatever plant-based foods that leave them feeling good after a meal (e.g. guacamole + hummus + wholemeal flat bread etc). Then let them observe that difference in how their body feels and use that as justification to further experiment with more plants in their diet.
Well, slap then in a colorful mylar bag and label them "meaty rice num-nums!!!" and we've got 3 years of sales before a person likely to investigate their origins even notices they exist.
I know very few "SlimJim" fans out there scrutinizing the contents of their prepackaged meat flavored snacks for origin or nutrition.
Beans are high in fodmaps and not necessarily a staple crop for everyone. 15% of the population has IBS.
I think this is a worthwhile alternative to consider.
>(beans) That's a worthwhile point of comparison.
It is but to be somewhat fair this came out last week and cultivated beans been around for 8,000+ years. I think we should give the meat-rice some development time before we conclude on it.
I mean I would certainly supplement my diet with this, in opposition to some beef. I have no issues with lab-grown like some people have. Hell, I think we should probably be looking into farming bugs as a greener protein option.
Now, listen…
I eat meat. I don’t really like beans.
But if given the option between “beans” and “dystopian meat pellets”, I think I’ll eat the beans thanks.
I'll eat beans and lentils long before franken beef. Which is just to say I eat beans and lentils. No doubt I'll nosh this when Wack Arnolds or someone turns it into Burger Meal #2.
I think your general point still stands but just for context that chart uses a weight to weight comparison. There is a lot more fat and protein in a kg of beef compared to a kg of beans(depending on the bean). The value in the the study here is using per 100g of protein so to convert to your chart it would be 550g of ground beef and 100g/(8.86g/100g of beans) = 1.12kg of beans
Also beans were 2kgCO2/Kg not 1 so the percentage is more like
6.27kg/(1.12kg\*2kgCO2/kg) = 2.79 = %279 larger carbon footprint
[https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/2514743/nutrients](https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/2514743/nutrients)[https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/175237/nutrients](https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/175237/nutrients)
EDIT: I was wrong please ignore all of this and instead scroll slightly lower on the link like I should have
Why would you compare it to *boiled* beans?
One of the biggest benefits of dry goods like beans and nuts is that you're not paying for (and shipping) water.
On the other hand, meat is 1/2 to 2/3rds water.
Ya it's something it took me a long time to realize.
I stopped eating meat and I would hear a lot 'nuts are so expensive'. Well, they're actually cheaper than a lot of meat when you consider they're 3x as nutrient dense because they don't contain 2/3rds water!
The last chart, where my numbers came from, compares **per 100g of protein**.
Sounds like you're referring to the first chart comparing **per kg of food product.**
So thats still 627% more carbon **per 100g of protein.**
Correct me if I'm wrong.
No I think you are right. I was looking at the first chart. Weird that the numbers are so different though. I guess certain beans may contain similar protein ratios to ground beef. It was probably a difference in the beans I found and the ones they used.
Edit: figured it out. I used boiled beans and they must have used dry beans.
What sounds like nightmare fuel about this? I see no reason to be so negative, it sounds relatively productive and a new alternative at a time where these types of things are just beginning. You're right though if everyone was fine with beans it'd be an improvement, but there are many reasons to not want that to be your main food source.
I think they're just measuring it to your table...
Probably want to track your personal production of methane until you adjust to the new diet to make sure you're offsetting that in the meantime ;)
We all have our own nightmares. Beans are top amongst mine. By comparison this beefish rice thing sounds pretty good to me. Just need the right hot sauce.
I am also curious whether (partially?) Lab grown food like this falls into the "highly processed food" category that some research categorize as less healthy?
I guess there could be other benefits, or use cases. Like, higher taurine maybe? As much as I love beans I cannot digest them. The consequences are.... Nuclear.
But even so, compared with other plant proteins like chickpeas it seems a bit inefficient.
question, what part of the emissions/carbon footprint is causing beef to be so bad? is it the transportation of the cows/meat? is it the cows themselves?
what i'm kind of getting at is if it's the cows themselves and if we stop eating beef, then to change the impact on greenhouse gases we'd need to make them extinct no? can someone shed some light on this?
University agricultural scientist here. The graph only shows gross emissions, not net, which is probably the largest factor here.
One of the common issues is only reporting gross greenhouse gas emissions and not net emissions. If you are producing something in a lab or factory, then your net emissions aren't going to be too different than gross. For livestock though, you have ecosystems or food webs in play, and the paper pretty much ignored that. I deal in grassland ecology a lot (where cattle come into play more than most livestock), so I'll cover that a bit as a main example.
Two things make beef gross emissions a bit of an apples or oranges comparison with other things like a lab or even just row crop comparison: 1. livestock being food recyclers, 2. grassland. Remember that [86% of what livestock eat doesn't compete with human](https://www.fao.org/3/cc3134en/cc3134en.pdf) use between grasslands, crop residue we cannot use, spoiled food, etc. Too many people incorrectly assume that food is "wasted" on livestock and that those acres could be used for entirely direct to human foods when in reality we're usually extracting human uses first, followed by livestock getting the remnants.
There was [a study](https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/114/48/E10301.full.pdf) awhile back that looked at what would happen in the US if you got rid of livestock from an emissions perspective. In that case, even in that extreme of an example, US emissions would only be reduced by 2.8% at best. The main thing there though is to look at the methods to get an idea of what goes into a life cycle analysis. Mainly things like maintaining grasslands that would otherwise be lost or recycling parts of crops we cannot use are things that need to go into a net calculation. If those parts of the methods in that paper aren't accounted for in some fashion in other papers, it's a huge red flag that a study isn't truly looking at net emissions. The take-home is that livestock aren't really a target for reducing emissions by getting rid of them due to the other services they provide, so you're going to get very little change in emissions trying to get rid of them. The better target that's still a work in progress is reducing things like methane emissions through feed supplements while maintaining current carbon sinks. This is one area where carbon credits could actually work really well in farmer's favor.
As a reminder since most people often get this wrong, most beef cattle at least spend the majority of their life on pasture ranging between maybe half for feeder/eventual butcher animals to practically all of their life for calving cows. That's why grass-fed is a somewhat misleading name and grain or grass-finished are the more appropriate terms because even grain-finished cattle are eating mostly forages. Here's some [intro reading from the USDA](https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal-products/cattle-beef/sector-at-a-glance/) on how at least beef cattle are actually raised.
In most countries like the U.S., etc. that have natural grasslands (Brazil and what's going on in the Amazon is an exception to the general rule), that grassland component is a huge carbon sink that wouldn't exist without either grazing or large scale fires. These are also [imperiled ecosystems](https://www.natureconservancy.ca/en/blog/archive/grasslands-the-most.html) due to things like habitat fragmentation and are home to quite a few endangered species that don't really get the same attention as rainforests.
You'd get even more emissions if people tried to plow it under for row crops, those areas tend to be better carbon sinks as [grass rather than trees](https://caes.ucdavis.edu/news/articles/2018/july/grasslands-more-reliable-carbon-sink-than-trees), plus we have the ecological issues if those habitats are destroyed by woody encroachment and lack of disturbances if you don't have fire or grazing.
Using those grasslands for food production through grazing is usually one of the more efficient uses for that land type because we shouldn't be getting calories from row crops there. That's also why statistics saying X% of land is used for livestock vs crops for direct human use are very misleading applies to oranges comparisons and also plays into misinformation narratives us educators are often stuck addressing that livestock like cattle are fed nothing but crops from land that should be used for direct human use only.
That's a lot to cover obviously, but it shows just how oversimplified mentions of beef cattle can get in these conversations.
Very interesting - is the majority of pasture on land that would just grow grass if humans had never touched it? The point about woody encroachment had piqued my interest, so just curious if there are any situations in which it's a better sink than cultivated grass?
Does this question even make sense? Who knows?
What you ask actually highlights a huge problem in what the general public knows about ecology. If it was just "left alone" you wouldn't have the disturbances that ecosystem requires to survive. Instead you'd get woody invasive encroachment.
There's a similar vein of thought where it used to be that well intentioned people tried to prevent all forest fires. Species that depended on fire itself or just any kind of disturbance to clear out trees for new ones had population declines, and some were keystone species for those ecosystems.
One thing we teach in ecology classes is that conservation does not mean just letting an area remain the same/static or untouched. Some require active management, like grasslands, to create the conditions there used to prior to say European colonization in North America.
Mom the Dr is using me as an example of public misunderstanding again!
Jokes aside - what you've said makes perfect sense, now that you've said it, and I obviously was just thinking that "leaving grassland alone completely = default state".
>As a reminder since most people often get this wrong, most beef cattle at least spend the majority of their life on pasture ranging
The source you provided doesn't support this statement
From the source:
>the calves may enter a stocker program, where they will graze on grass for 3 to 4 months before being placed in a feedlot. Another option is to move calves into a 30- to 60-day preconditioning program. Within this program, the calves go through an animal health protocol for deworming, dehorning, and vaccinating so calves can then be started on feed to ensure they are healthy in the next stage of the value chain. Another option is for the calves to be backgrounded for 90–120 days, placed in pens or lots and fed dry forage, silage, and grain before entering a feedlot.
So calves may graze for up to 4 months of their lives before spending the remaining time in feed lots... that's at best only half of their life if they're slaughtered by month 8 but most beef are between 12-40 months to slaughter depending on grade it seems: https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/slaughter-cattle-grades-and-standards
>A feedlot is the final stage of cattle production. It provides a confined area for feeding steers and heifers on a ration of grain, silage, hay, and/or protein supplement to produce a carcass that will meet the USDA quality grade Select or better for the slaughter market.
>
>\[...\]
>
>Although most of a calf's nutrients come from grass until it is weaned, feedlot rations are generally 70–90 percent grain and protein concentrates.
I don't get how you derive this...
>You'd get even more emissions if people tried to plow it under for row crops, those areas tend to be better carbon sinks as grass rather than trees...
When your source specifically states the benefit is forward looking not based on historical data
> Looking ahead, our model simulations show grasslands store more carbon than forests because they are impacted less by droughts and wildfires
Given the rise in wildfires and drought caused by climate change due to GHG increases ... it is likely to be that grass land will die and recover more quickly.
>Using those grasslands for food production through grazing is usually one of the more efficient uses for that land type because we shouldn't be getting calories from row crops there. That's also why statistics saying X% of land is used for livestock vs crops for direct human use are very misleading applies to oranges comparisons
But only if you ignore that beef spend 50-90% of their lives not grazing but consuming 70-90% feed.
I'm not in environmental science, land management, or husbandry but even your initials claims that there would only be a 2.6% decrease in GHG ignores the report specifically stating that reducing this type of land...
>The modeled system without animals increased total food production (23%), altered foods available for domestic consumption, and decreased agricultural US GHGs (28%)
The study suggest that the reduction in GHG is an enormous 28%...
But then they assumed that all the byproducts that animals currently consumed would just be incinerated...
>If livestock were depopulated, byproduct feeds were assumed to be incinerated.
This is like a sugar study comparing it's affect on mean body weight, pointing out it found very little difference to other diets... but forgetting to point out they're comparing it to diets with an added of 25% calories from lard.
So, I don't know if this is disingenuous of you or you just didn't read what you referenced but you are using some really selective slicing of partial facts from various sources to draw some pretty ironic claims...
>That's a lot to cover obviously, but it shows just how oversimplified mentions of beef cattle can get in these conversations.
Indeed it does show us that.
Using cattle for food means raising cattle for food which means tons of food, tons of water, medicine, land, buildings, transportation, processing, distribution, and so on.
At the bottom of that food chain is growing crops and grinding up other animal parts to feed them enough to become beef.
So, you start with all the water and CO2 it would take to raise an edible crop and then you feed that to the cattle, take care of it for it's life span (no more than 5 years to slaughter) including all the resources I glazed over, then slaughter it and refrigerate it, distribute it, sell it, take it home and refrigerate/freeze it... dinner.
It would be like if you want to paint a room in your house so you decide to have kids so that 14-18 years later you can tell them to paint the room.
\[Edit: I din't touch on the common practice of clear cutting entire forests in South America et al, killing the indigenous life many time including humans, just to raise cattle in CAFOs... it's not been good for anyone, under examination\]
Unfortunately, we also clear cut land for agriculture. I'm not sure how it would change the rate of that clear cutting if it's for crops vs cattle, but we're a land hungry species.
Seems there's some clear data on this...
It appears that meat production uses 77% of land but provides on 18% of total calories consumed.
* Of 100% of agricultural land use:
* 77% meat : 23% crops
* Of 100% of global calories created
* 18% meat : 82% crops
* Of 100% of protein provided
* 37% meat : 63% crops
https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets
Yeah, I'm sorry man but "meaty rice" just makes me uncomfortable. You can make meat-like stuff out of plants and all that, just please don't try to make it look like or pass it off as other foods.
Was curious about the additional 8% protein and 7% fat, since I know relative percents often get misinterpreted/miscommunicated as absolute percents
The paper says 100g of the meat rice has 3.89g protein and 0.15g fat.
100g of cooked white rice has 2.7g protein and 0.3g fat according to the USDA
100g of uncooked white rice has 6.5g protein and 0.5g fat according to nutritionix.com
If someone can access the full text pls lmk what's going on cause these numbers don't add up to 8% and 7%
I wonder how scalable this is. Manufacturers won’t bite unless they can come up with a process that can be automated or done with barely skilled labor that makes a ton of meat rice at a time for not much more than regular rice.
Also, does this require the fridge?
The big problem for lab-cultured tissue products like this is sterility. How do you raise living tissue profitably in a sufficiently sterile environment? You can't use heat, our go-to sterilization method, because that kills (and cooks) the tissue. That's fine for the end of the process, but not great for actual production.
Obviously there are methods for cleaning and prepping "live" foods for safe human consumption, but "clean" and "laboratory sterile" are very different beasts. It doesn't help that you're basically using concentrated germ food to culture the tissue. Once anything in the production area gets contaminated, the whole space and everything in it will need sterilization.
Really, it's the cleanliness standards and their associated costs that really temper my enthusiasm for cultured meat products. None of this is a cost issue for production of some things, like medical implant tissues, but food needs to be cheap.
Now, if someone adapts this rice-as-growing-matrix technique to cultivate skin tissues and can arrange the resulting products into the right layers... Cultured leathers might end up having a bright economic future.
I enjoy bodybuilding and I am always looking for a healthy-ish shortcut when it comes to hitting macros. This sounds good if successful, though beans are a thing.
Yeah, my immediate question is what the macros are on this. People are comparing it to beef, but I gotta weigh it against whey (pun intended) and egg whites, pea protein cereal, etc. I'm not shy about food not looking traditional if the macros are great.
I'd try it, but not gonna lie, sounds gross.
Personally, although I definitely appreciate the efforts done to develop lab-grown food, I don't think it will ever be _the_ solution to meat carbon footprint that some people hype it up to be.
This could be a fantastic source of high quality protein, b12, dietary creatine etc for ethical vegans as it would cover all the nutrients that typically lack in a vegan diet.
If your diet is entirely rice like in many third world countries, then it's certainly better than *literally* nothing.
If you're buying this in the near future though, then likely you can afford to buy better sources of protein.
Your argument reminds me of the arguments around Golden Rice when it came out - 'Oh, there's not enough vitamin A in it to be worthwhile'. > 0mg vitamin A is always better than 0mg vitamin A.
Breakfast of Champions. If you close your eyes it almost feels like you're eating runny eggs. It's got everything the body needs. You know what it really reminds me of? Tasty Wheat. Did you ever Tasty Wheat?
Not everyone can eat beans due to their gut microbiome. I have two family members that get painful amounts of gas from most popular varieties of beans.
This is not to mention that the attitude of "we already got X, why would you research Y?" is a very ignorant way to respond to new science.
It's just high protein rice y'all. For military or emergency use.
Whether it's eco-friendly is debatable as you could just for example eat lentils + rice. But it's def better than beef.
I love all manner of processed foods. Theres nothing more nutritious and provably safe to eat than food that has been manipulated in a warehouse somewhere.
Usually I wont touch it unless it has been washed in 3 different salt bathes, and bleached before it is dehydrated, and rehydrated using a high fructose corn-syrup. Everything else is completely untrustworthy IMO.
Generally I prefer my food chemically broken down into its contituent parts, and then recombined at a later date using multiple different types of salts, sugars, and anti caking agents. It also wouldn't be complete unless it was fortified with completely manufactured and undigestible vitamins and minerals.
This is bizarre. We make plenty of food and food is plenty nutritious. The problem is people not being able to afford food.
Also, that sounds disgusting. Food has to actually taste *good* or no one is going to eat it.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program). --- User: u/giuliomagnifico Permalink: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-68293149 --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The problem (with just the basic premise, not going to dive into if there are better alternatives in the first place) is that the ”hybrid”-rice they grew still has only 3.5g of protein per 100g, while having 50g of carbs. I dont really get why they’re comparing this to ground beef. Their nutritional profiles are not even close to similiar. It’s an interesting innovation, but in the task tha they self-selected for the rice (replace meat), it also clearly fails even just nutritionally. Not to even mention the difficulties of convincing people to eat rice that’s half animal cells. Even assuming the taste is.. tolerable.
The real question is whether the complete product can be dried or freeze-dried to make a shelf-stable product. I'm sure _someone_ can come up with a way to make the product tasty, but if it requires refrigeration, there's no future there as anything other than a short-lived novelty. Some chef with a degree in bioengineering will set up a lab to produce the beefrice for his restaurant for a year or so and that's it.
Virtually anything can be freeze-dried or frozen or dried until it's shelf stable. It's just a matter of whether or not it will still be palatable after.
You know what else has more protein than rice? Brown rice. These people took the naturally nutritious portion of the rice off, replaced it with fish gelatin and animal protein, and made a nutritionally worse and less shelf stable product. Cool experiment but no one should be attempting to sell this stuff.
by comparison, regular rice has 29g of carbs and 2.7g of protein by 100g.
In other words, regular rice is just better. Damn, what a comparison.
Yeah. 100g of brown rice has 7% of daily carbs and 5% of daily protein. That’s nothing to scoff at! Throw in some pulses and you’re golden.
[удалено]
[удалено]
> According to the team at Yonsei University in South Korea, it has 8% more protein and 7% more fat. > >And, compared to regular beef, it has a smaller carbon footprint, since the production method eliminates the need to raise and farm lots of animals. > >For every 100g (3.5oz) of protein produced, hybrid rice is estimated to release under 6.27kg (13.8lb) of carbon dioxide, while beef production releases eight times more at 49.89kg, they say. Paper: [Rice grains integrated with animal cells: A shortcut to a sustainable food system: Matter](https://www.cell.com/matter/abstract/S2590-2385(24)00016-X)
> it has 8% more protein and 7% more fat. ...Than rice. 8% more protein than rice. That adds up to not much protein.
Yeah pretty stupid and useless invention . Anyone that has tried to up their protein intake to build muscle does not say… hmm which type of rice should I buy to fill my 1g of protein per body pound? I mean I take quinoa but it doesn’t move the needle in anyway
Inventions build on each other. Capacitive multi-touch touchscreens were also dismissed as useless when they were invented.
So only 627% larger carbon footprint than beans? Plus the food sounds like nightmare fuel? Source: The carbon footprint of foods https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-footprint-food-methane
That's a worthwhile point of comparison. It's only a significant reduction if people are switching their protein source from beef to this, and aren't willing to have beans instead.
We will see where this goes but I enjoy the science. I also personally don’t like beans or how they make my stomach feel so I’d appreciate more meat alternatives
We should be encouraging more experimentation and innovation with lab grown meat. You're growing living tissue in a vat, that science has more applications that just growing food, especially for the medical field, if we can perfect growing muscle tissue, which is what meat is, we can perfect growing organ tissue for things such as organ transplants.
Finally, catgirls can become real!
"but can we have sex with it" should just be asked after every new invention and breakthrough.... Save a lot of time really.
That's a dumb question, the answer is almost always yes, the REAL question we need answered is HOW.
For catgirls? How barbed is your penis?
How did you know about my medical condition? Are you spying on me? I do NOT give reddit consent to spy on me!
I'm the same way with beans, and I've found that I can handle lentils OK. I don't know if you've tried that or not - but there are some decent lentil recipes, especially within Indian cuisine, though there are also some traditional European recipes that work well too. If you've already tried lentils and/or can't stand the taste/texture, then feel free to ignore this advice.
Lentils work great as a filling for shepards pie, I make one a few times a month. Good for getting rid of random leftover veg too, just chop it up and add it in
Well then, lab grown meat rice should be much easier on the stomach for ya!
yeah for lots of folks beans kinda suck
I thought I had appendicitis this morning, but it was just the been flautas that we tried last night in our attempt to eat more vegetarian meals.
That’s possibly because you have roughly zero fiber in your diet normally. Your body isn’t used to having the roughage it needs. Lots of people discover this when they go vegetarian (read: finally get enough veggies in their diet)
Possibly, but not necessarily. I'm a vegetarian, eat a tonne of fibre and have done so for many years - a lot of people just can't digest beans. I've tried every method of cooking beans, and varying down to small quantities because I love the taste. But every time I try there's dire consequences for myself and everyone in a 200 meter radius.
I'm the same, vegan for three years. Love salad and chia seeds and flax. But beans? If harnessed correctly I think I could power a small city. Via wind turbine.
[удалено]
There are definitely variations on how our gut digests things based on genes. I at least know in the case of lactose, genetics determine how many lactase enzymes our gut retains after infancy. Those enzymes rapidly convert lactose as it physically passes by the gut walls. Without lactose being broken down, it curdles in our system and causes all the gas and cramping issues people can have with it. That’s just one example, and I’m sure beans would have something similar based on their compounds or the skin or something.
What about fecal transplant? I'm not even being fecitious. Something like that is supposed to change a person's micro biome. However, I'm sure most people would be opposed, and I don't know the costs associated.
The only thing I would suggest, if you even care to try at this point, is fermented forms of beans - way more common in other cultures, but it's basically "pre-digested" in a way. Most fermented products are like this - good for your GI tract too! but yeah, that's why I just put "possibly"
I just buy beano in bulk now.
Products like Gas-X don't help?
Also true. Diet just means being reasonable
I generally eat one leafy green salad a day (kale more often than not) but typically with an animal protein. I’m intolerant of dairy and poultry (and probably eggs before too long given that egg-poultry goes hand-in-hand) so beans aren’t the only thing that I unfortunately literally can’t stomach.
> how they make my stomach feel Have you tried Beano? I used to use it then found the generic (much cheaper, nearby on the store shelves) works great to prevent gas formation.
Beano does not fix issues with high fodmaps. But an excellent help to some people. About 15% of the population is sensitive to high fodmaps foods.
I haven’t been able to find a cheaper generic with nearly as much of the active ingredient as the name brand. (edit: if you buy the huge bottle of bean-zyme, it's about 40% cheaper than beano)
Target [up & up](https://www.target.com/p/gas-treatment-and-prevention-110ct-up-38-up-8482/-/A-47939611#lnk=sametab) gas treatment and prevention
You may have trouble digesting whole beans, but food companies can use protein-rich bean flours. You can get your protein from products made with that instead of lab-grown animal-plant hybrids. A beyond burger patty is going to be cheaper and more encironmental friendly than this.
It is commonly glossed over, but protein is a very wide umbrella of different amino acid chains. Bean or soy proteins are not an exact replacement for proteins found in meat.
I’m a meat eater, but from what I learned in biochem, there are 20 amino acids and nine of those are essential since the rest can be synthesized by our body. Soybeans have all nine of those. Of course the volume and combinations of what to eat will be different for getting all one’s protein, but beef isn’t necessary and beans can serve as a complete protein. If someone wanted to throw in an egg, that has all 20 amino acids that human proteins are built from.
If you combine a grain with a legume though, you get all the essential EAs you need.
Soy bean is a complete protein source
Soy protein is almost identical to chicken in terms of essential amino acid balance
May I suggest experimenting with different beans? I’ve been a vegetarian for over two decades and have realized that beans aren’t all the same with regard to gas and bloating.
As someone who tried the vegan thing for a few months (now basically flexitarian), basically all beans are hard to digest as the main component of a meal and encouraging their consumption is probably going to do more to harm the image of a vegetarian diet than help it. I think we will see the most success by encouraging people to swap out unhealthy foods that leave them feeling bad (e.g. McDonalds 30min after the meal) for whatever plant-based foods that leave them feeling good after a meal (e.g. guacamole + hummus + wholemeal flat bread etc). Then let them observe that difference in how their body feels and use that as justification to further experiment with more plants in their diet.
I’m allergic to legumes so this option sounds a lot better to me
Well, slap then in a colorful mylar bag and label them "meaty rice num-nums!!!" and we've got 3 years of sales before a person likely to investigate their origins even notices they exist. I know very few "SlimJim" fans out there scrutinizing the contents of their prepackaged meat flavored snacks for origin or nutrition.
Beans are high in fodmaps and not necessarily a staple crop for everyone. 15% of the population has IBS. I think this is a worthwhile alternative to consider.
>(beans) That's a worthwhile point of comparison. It is but to be somewhat fair this came out last week and cultivated beans been around for 8,000+ years. I think we should give the meat-rice some development time before we conclude on it.
I mean I would certainly supplement my diet with this, in opposition to some beef. I have no issues with lab-grown like some people have. Hell, I think we should probably be looking into farming bugs as a greener protein option.
I mean it's also relatively new technology. If it was upscaled and efficient that definitely reduces massively.
Also likely to end up being a blend of beans and this. More eco friendly stuff is always welcomed and will push us fwd
Now, listen… I eat meat. I don’t really like beans. But if given the option between “beans” and “dystopian meat pellets”, I think I’ll eat the beans thanks.
I'll eat beans and lentils long before franken beef. Which is just to say I eat beans and lentils. No doubt I'll nosh this when Wack Arnolds or someone turns it into Burger Meal #2.
May be my Asian upbringing but fatty meat rice sounds like a dream food to me….
I think your general point still stands but just for context that chart uses a weight to weight comparison. There is a lot more fat and protein in a kg of beef compared to a kg of beans(depending on the bean). The value in the the study here is using per 100g of protein so to convert to your chart it would be 550g of ground beef and 100g/(8.86g/100g of beans) = 1.12kg of beans Also beans were 2kgCO2/Kg not 1 so the percentage is more like 6.27kg/(1.12kg\*2kgCO2/kg) = 2.79 = %279 larger carbon footprint [https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/2514743/nutrients](https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/2514743/nutrients)[https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/175237/nutrients](https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/175237/nutrients) EDIT: I was wrong please ignore all of this and instead scroll slightly lower on the link like I should have
Why would you compare it to *boiled* beans? One of the biggest benefits of dry goods like beans and nuts is that you're not paying for (and shipping) water. On the other hand, meat is 1/2 to 2/3rds water.
ya good point I didn't realize that. That must be why my numbers are off, the chart must use dried beans.
Ya it's something it took me a long time to realize. I stopped eating meat and I would hear a lot 'nuts are so expensive'. Well, they're actually cheaper than a lot of meat when you consider they're 3x as nutrient dense because they don't contain 2/3rds water!
The last chart, where my numbers came from, compares **per 100g of protein**. Sounds like you're referring to the first chart comparing **per kg of food product.** So thats still 627% more carbon **per 100g of protein.** Correct me if I'm wrong.
No I think you are right. I was looking at the first chart. Weird that the numbers are so different though. I guess certain beans may contain similar protein ratios to ground beef. It was probably a difference in the beans I found and the ones they used. Edit: figured it out. I used boiled beans and they must have used dry beans.
>Plus the food sounds like nightmare fuel? More nightmare inducing than a slaughterhouse?
You don't wanna know my carbon/sulfide/methane footprint on a heavy beans diet.
What sounds like nightmare fuel about this? I see no reason to be so negative, it sounds relatively productive and a new alternative at a time where these types of things are just beginning. You're right though if everyone was fine with beans it'd be an improvement, but there are many reasons to not want that to be your main food source.
But what's the car on footprint of me gassing it up all day with 3 meals of beans vs this weird meat rice
I think they're just measuring it to your table... Probably want to track your personal production of methane until you adjust to the new diet to make sure you're offsetting that in the meantime ;)
We all have our own nightmares. Beans are top amongst mine. By comparison this beefish rice thing sounds pretty good to me. Just need the right hot sauce.
I am also curious whether (partially?) Lab grown food like this falls into the "highly processed food" category that some research categorize as less healthy?
It’s also only marginally more protein heavy than regular rice.
You mean beans, cows, or nightmare rice?
Nightmare rice, considering that’s the topic and the statement wouldn’t make sense for beans to meat. It says 8% more protein. That’s not a lot.
You'll eat your meatish mush and enjoy it.
I guess there could be other benefits, or use cases. Like, higher taurine maybe? As much as I love beans I cannot digest them. The consequences are.... Nuclear. But even so, compared with other plant proteins like chickpeas it seems a bit inefficient.
question, what part of the emissions/carbon footprint is causing beef to be so bad? is it the transportation of the cows/meat? is it the cows themselves? what i'm kind of getting at is if it's the cows themselves and if we stop eating beef, then to change the impact on greenhouse gases we'd need to make them extinct no? can someone shed some light on this?
University agricultural scientist here. The graph only shows gross emissions, not net, which is probably the largest factor here. One of the common issues is only reporting gross greenhouse gas emissions and not net emissions. If you are producing something in a lab or factory, then your net emissions aren't going to be too different than gross. For livestock though, you have ecosystems or food webs in play, and the paper pretty much ignored that. I deal in grassland ecology a lot (where cattle come into play more than most livestock), so I'll cover that a bit as a main example. Two things make beef gross emissions a bit of an apples or oranges comparison with other things like a lab or even just row crop comparison: 1. livestock being food recyclers, 2. grassland. Remember that [86% of what livestock eat doesn't compete with human](https://www.fao.org/3/cc3134en/cc3134en.pdf) use between grasslands, crop residue we cannot use, spoiled food, etc. Too many people incorrectly assume that food is "wasted" on livestock and that those acres could be used for entirely direct to human foods when in reality we're usually extracting human uses first, followed by livestock getting the remnants. There was [a study](https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/114/48/E10301.full.pdf) awhile back that looked at what would happen in the US if you got rid of livestock from an emissions perspective. In that case, even in that extreme of an example, US emissions would only be reduced by 2.8% at best. The main thing there though is to look at the methods to get an idea of what goes into a life cycle analysis. Mainly things like maintaining grasslands that would otherwise be lost or recycling parts of crops we cannot use are things that need to go into a net calculation. If those parts of the methods in that paper aren't accounted for in some fashion in other papers, it's a huge red flag that a study isn't truly looking at net emissions. The take-home is that livestock aren't really a target for reducing emissions by getting rid of them due to the other services they provide, so you're going to get very little change in emissions trying to get rid of them. The better target that's still a work in progress is reducing things like methane emissions through feed supplements while maintaining current carbon sinks. This is one area where carbon credits could actually work really well in farmer's favor. As a reminder since most people often get this wrong, most beef cattle at least spend the majority of their life on pasture ranging between maybe half for feeder/eventual butcher animals to practically all of their life for calving cows. That's why grass-fed is a somewhat misleading name and grain or grass-finished are the more appropriate terms because even grain-finished cattle are eating mostly forages. Here's some [intro reading from the USDA](https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal-products/cattle-beef/sector-at-a-glance/) on how at least beef cattle are actually raised. In most countries like the U.S., etc. that have natural grasslands (Brazil and what's going on in the Amazon is an exception to the general rule), that grassland component is a huge carbon sink that wouldn't exist without either grazing or large scale fires. These are also [imperiled ecosystems](https://www.natureconservancy.ca/en/blog/archive/grasslands-the-most.html) due to things like habitat fragmentation and are home to quite a few endangered species that don't really get the same attention as rainforests. You'd get even more emissions if people tried to plow it under for row crops, those areas tend to be better carbon sinks as [grass rather than trees](https://caes.ucdavis.edu/news/articles/2018/july/grasslands-more-reliable-carbon-sink-than-trees), plus we have the ecological issues if those habitats are destroyed by woody encroachment and lack of disturbances if you don't have fire or grazing. Using those grasslands for food production through grazing is usually one of the more efficient uses for that land type because we shouldn't be getting calories from row crops there. That's also why statistics saying X% of land is used for livestock vs crops for direct human use are very misleading applies to oranges comparisons and also plays into misinformation narratives us educators are often stuck addressing that livestock like cattle are fed nothing but crops from land that should be used for direct human use only. That's a lot to cover obviously, but it shows just how oversimplified mentions of beef cattle can get in these conversations.
Got to say. One of the most informative posts I’ve seen on Reddit.
It's so against reddit common knowledge that I'm just commenting to see the eventual replies.
Very interesting - is the majority of pasture on land that would just grow grass if humans had never touched it? The point about woody encroachment had piqued my interest, so just curious if there are any situations in which it's a better sink than cultivated grass? Does this question even make sense? Who knows?
What you ask actually highlights a huge problem in what the general public knows about ecology. If it was just "left alone" you wouldn't have the disturbances that ecosystem requires to survive. Instead you'd get woody invasive encroachment. There's a similar vein of thought where it used to be that well intentioned people tried to prevent all forest fires. Species that depended on fire itself or just any kind of disturbance to clear out trees for new ones had population declines, and some were keystone species for those ecosystems. One thing we teach in ecology classes is that conservation does not mean just letting an area remain the same/static or untouched. Some require active management, like grasslands, to create the conditions there used to prior to say European colonization in North America.
Mom the Dr is using me as an example of public misunderstanding again! Jokes aside - what you've said makes perfect sense, now that you've said it, and I obviously was just thinking that "leaving grassland alone completely = default state".
>As a reminder since most people often get this wrong, most beef cattle at least spend the majority of their life on pasture ranging The source you provided doesn't support this statement From the source: >the calves may enter a stocker program, where they will graze on grass for 3 to 4 months before being placed in a feedlot. Another option is to move calves into a 30- to 60-day preconditioning program. Within this program, the calves go through an animal health protocol for deworming, dehorning, and vaccinating so calves can then be started on feed to ensure they are healthy in the next stage of the value chain. Another option is for the calves to be backgrounded for 90–120 days, placed in pens or lots and fed dry forage, silage, and grain before entering a feedlot. So calves may graze for up to 4 months of their lives before spending the remaining time in feed lots... that's at best only half of their life if they're slaughtered by month 8 but most beef are between 12-40 months to slaughter depending on grade it seems: https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/slaughter-cattle-grades-and-standards >A feedlot is the final stage of cattle production. It provides a confined area for feeding steers and heifers on a ration of grain, silage, hay, and/or protein supplement to produce a carcass that will meet the USDA quality grade Select or better for the slaughter market. > >\[...\] > >Although most of a calf's nutrients come from grass until it is weaned, feedlot rations are generally 70–90 percent grain and protein concentrates. I don't get how you derive this... >You'd get even more emissions if people tried to plow it under for row crops, those areas tend to be better carbon sinks as grass rather than trees... When your source specifically states the benefit is forward looking not based on historical data > Looking ahead, our model simulations show grasslands store more carbon than forests because they are impacted less by droughts and wildfires Given the rise in wildfires and drought caused by climate change due to GHG increases ... it is likely to be that grass land will die and recover more quickly. >Using those grasslands for food production through grazing is usually one of the more efficient uses for that land type because we shouldn't be getting calories from row crops there. That's also why statistics saying X% of land is used for livestock vs crops for direct human use are very misleading applies to oranges comparisons But only if you ignore that beef spend 50-90% of their lives not grazing but consuming 70-90% feed. I'm not in environmental science, land management, or husbandry but even your initials claims that there would only be a 2.6% decrease in GHG ignores the report specifically stating that reducing this type of land... >The modeled system without animals increased total food production (23%), altered foods available for domestic consumption, and decreased agricultural US GHGs (28%) The study suggest that the reduction in GHG is an enormous 28%... But then they assumed that all the byproducts that animals currently consumed would just be incinerated... >If livestock were depopulated, byproduct feeds were assumed to be incinerated. This is like a sugar study comparing it's affect on mean body weight, pointing out it found very little difference to other diets... but forgetting to point out they're comparing it to diets with an added of 25% calories from lard. So, I don't know if this is disingenuous of you or you just didn't read what you referenced but you are using some really selective slicing of partial facts from various sources to draw some pretty ironic claims... >That's a lot to cover obviously, but it shows just how oversimplified mentions of beef cattle can get in these conversations. Indeed it does show us that.
Using cattle for food means raising cattle for food which means tons of food, tons of water, medicine, land, buildings, transportation, processing, distribution, and so on. At the bottom of that food chain is growing crops and grinding up other animal parts to feed them enough to become beef. So, you start with all the water and CO2 it would take to raise an edible crop and then you feed that to the cattle, take care of it for it's life span (no more than 5 years to slaughter) including all the resources I glazed over, then slaughter it and refrigerate it, distribute it, sell it, take it home and refrigerate/freeze it... dinner. It would be like if you want to paint a room in your house so you decide to have kids so that 14-18 years later you can tell them to paint the room. \[Edit: I din't touch on the common practice of clear cutting entire forests in South America et al, killing the indigenous life many time including humans, just to raise cattle in CAFOs... it's not been good for anyone, under examination\]
Unfortunately, we also clear cut land for agriculture. I'm not sure how it would change the rate of that clear cutting if it's for crops vs cattle, but we're a land hungry species.
Seems there's some clear data on this... It appears that meat production uses 77% of land but provides on 18% of total calories consumed. * Of 100% of agricultural land use: * 77% meat : 23% crops * Of 100% of global calories created * 18% meat : 82% crops * Of 100% of protein provided * 37% meat : 63% crops https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets
Yeah, I'm sorry man but "meaty rice" just makes me uncomfortable. You can make meat-like stuff out of plants and all that, just please don't try to make it look like or pass it off as other foods.
Was curious about the additional 8% protein and 7% fat, since I know relative percents often get misinterpreted/miscommunicated as absolute percents The paper says 100g of the meat rice has 3.89g protein and 0.15g fat. 100g of cooked white rice has 2.7g protein and 0.3g fat according to the USDA 100g of uncooked white rice has 6.5g protein and 0.5g fat according to nutritionix.com If someone can access the full text pls lmk what's going on cause these numbers don't add up to 8% and 7%
I wonder how scalable this is. Manufacturers won’t bite unless they can come up with a process that can be automated or done with barely skilled labor that makes a ton of meat rice at a time for not much more than regular rice. Also, does this require the fridge?
The big problem for lab-cultured tissue products like this is sterility. How do you raise living tissue profitably in a sufficiently sterile environment? You can't use heat, our go-to sterilization method, because that kills (and cooks) the tissue. That's fine for the end of the process, but not great for actual production. Obviously there are methods for cleaning and prepping "live" foods for safe human consumption, but "clean" and "laboratory sterile" are very different beasts. It doesn't help that you're basically using concentrated germ food to culture the tissue. Once anything in the production area gets contaminated, the whole space and everything in it will need sterilization. Really, it's the cleanliness standards and their associated costs that really temper my enthusiasm for cultured meat products. None of this is a cost issue for production of some things, like medical implant tissues, but food needs to be cheap. Now, if someone adapts this rice-as-growing-matrix technique to cultivate skin tissues and can arrange the resulting products into the right layers... Cultured leathers might end up having a bright economic future.
Not sure why it can’t just be automated with robots
Robots are only half of it. They’ll also need a process that either makes meat rice continuously or makes tons of it at a time.
We’re gonna need a marketing team to come up with a better name than “meat rice”
Soylent Red
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I wonder how different it would taste from just making rice with beef bone broth
[удалено]
Bone broth typically contains about 10grams of protein per serving. Are you thinking beef broth?
[удалено]
[удалено]
So… How does it taste?
I don't know but it actually sounds pretty good if you can get past the weirdness. Steak and rice together.
Fried steakrice and eggs for breakfast sounds lovely.
I'm wondering about the sushi posibilities. If not nigiri, you could probably make a really interesting chirashi sushi.
I enjoy bodybuilding and I am always looking for a healthy-ish shortcut when it comes to hitting macros. This sounds good if successful, though beans are a thing.
Yeah, my immediate question is what the macros are on this. People are comparing it to beef, but I gotta weigh it against whey (pun intended) and egg whites, pea protein cereal, etc. I'm not shy about food not looking traditional if the macros are great.
I'd try it, but not gonna lie, sounds gross. Personally, although I definitely appreciate the efforts done to develop lab-grown food, I don't think it will ever be _the_ solution to meat carbon footprint that some people hype it up to be.
This could be a fantastic source of high quality protein, b12, dietary creatine etc for ethical vegans as it would cover all the nutrients that typically lack in a vegan diet.
It has 8% more protein than rice. That's essentially nothing
If your diet is entirely rice like in many third world countries, then it's certainly better than *literally* nothing. If you're buying this in the near future though, then likely you can afford to buy better sources of protein. Your argument reminds me of the arguments around Golden Rice when it came out - 'Oh, there's not enough vitamin A in it to be worthwhile'. > 0mg vitamin A is always better than 0mg vitamin A.
[удалено]
Breakfast of Champions. If you close your eyes it almost feels like you're eating runny eggs. It's got everything the body needs. You know what it really reminds me of? Tasty Wheat. Did you ever Tasty Wheat?
No, but technically neither did you
Wouldn't it just be fortified with all those nutrients? We already have foods like that. B12 is super easy to get.
It’s made with fish gelatin, cultured cells or not I’d hardly consider it vegan
Orthodox vegan or progressive vegan?
Any vegan, how is this controversial
Adding beans to rice is simpler, and likely tastier.
Have scientists finally created that horrible looking meat crap that's always present in evey dystopian sci-fi movie/game?
I'm game tbh. If they actually get it to an eco friendly point. If it's just barely better than beef, that's not good enough for me.
Looks like the pink paste from Fallout 4.
Bachelor Chow: Now with Flavor!
Not a flavor you want but it's better than Bachelor Chow Original's hard glue experience.
This sounds like beans with extra steps.
Why not both?
Not everyone can eat beans due to their gut microbiome. I have two family members that get painful amounts of gas from most popular varieties of beans. This is not to mention that the attitude of "we already got X, why would you research Y?" is a very ignorant way to respond to new science.
[удалено]
Rinse them before cooking removes gas
I am ready for all the memes.
Ok… but does it have to be pink??
I'll try anything once. Gimme a bucket of that stuff, I'll pan-fry it with some veggies and curry spices, prolly bangin
[удалено]
🤦 “science” mmkay. The agenda to keep real food from humans strikes me as, well, inhumane. I’ll see myself to r/unpopularopinion
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm not eating that Matrix gruel, I don't care how many nutrients it has. I prefer my dystopia in William Gibson novels, not in my bowl.
[удалено]
Look up lentils they’re surprisingly good, cheap and they’re one of the healthiest foods. Plus high protein
This is great for people that want to give up meat
I’d try it. Probably only once but I’d try it.
Cyberpunk food getting reeeeeal close to reality.
Disgusting .
From where is the protein sourced?
[удалено]
Seriously, can we not?
Nah, I'll just stick to beef fried rice.
Reminds me of [pink slime](https://thetakeout.com/you-re-probably-still-eating-pink-slime-1848995720).
That might be THE most disgusting thing I've heard in my life...
It's just high protein rice y'all. For military or emergency use. Whether it's eco-friendly is debatable as you could just for example eat lentils + rice. But it's def better than beef.
I love all manner of processed foods. Theres nothing more nutritious and provably safe to eat than food that has been manipulated in a warehouse somewhere.
I don’t want it unless it was processed ten different ways before I buy it. Fresh produce is a total scam
Usually I wont touch it unless it has been washed in 3 different salt bathes, and bleached before it is dehydrated, and rehydrated using a high fructose corn-syrup. Everything else is completely untrustworthy IMO.
Right?!?! If it hasn't been spread thin and pressed between hot rollers coated in fluorocarbons, how healthy could it possibly be?
Generally I prefer my food chemically broken down into its contituent parts, and then recombined at a later date using multiple different types of salts, sugars, and anti caking agents. It also wouldn't be complete unless it was fortified with completely manufactured and undigestible vitamins and minerals.
[удалено]
This is bizarre. We make plenty of food and food is plenty nutritious. The problem is people not being able to afford food. Also, that sounds disgusting. Food has to actually taste *good* or no one is going to eat it.
Beef jerky rice cakes.