Search

Cultured meat, which involves growing meat in a laboratory rather than breeding animals, offers potential benefits in terms of sustainability, health, and animal welfare compared to conventional meat production. However, the cultured meat production process involves several stages, each with potential hazards requiring careful monitoring and control. Microbial contamination risks exist in the initial cell collection from source animals and the surrounding environment. During cell proliferation, hazards may include chemical residues from media components such as antibiotics and growth factors, as well as microbial issues from improper bioreactor sterilization. In the differentiation stage where cells become muscle tissue, potential hazards include residues from scaffolding materials, microcarriers, and media components. Final maturation and harvesting stages risk environmental contamination from nonsterile conditions, equipment, or worker handling if proper aseptic conditions are not maintained. This review examines the key microbiological and chemical hazards that must be monitored and controlled during the manufacturing process for cultured meats. It describes some conventional and emerging novel techniques that could be applied for the detection of microbial and chemical hazards in cultured meat. The review also outlines the current evolving regulatory landscape around cultured meat and explains how thorough detection and characterization of microbiological and chemical hazards through advanced analytical techniques can provide crucial data to help develop robust, evidence‐based food safety regulations specifically tailored for the cultured meat industry. Implementing new digital food safety methods is recommended for further research on the sensitive and effective detection of microbiological and chemical hazards in cultured meat. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Meat is an important component of the food basket of India and it plays a critical role in meeting protein demand and ensuring the nutritional security of the ever-growing population. Concerns related to environmental impact, shrinking resources, and animal welfare issues continue to haunt the meat industry. Cultured meat on the other hand promises to produce meat without the need to rear the livestock by utilizing fewer resources with minimum impact on the environment. Here, an effort has been made to capture the perception of Indian consumers towards cultured meat by conducting a survey. Results of the survey revealed that about 60.52% of the respondents are willing to buy the cultured meat if made available. It was found that 45.9% of the respondents who are willing to buy cultured meat are ready to pay a premium price range between 10-30%. Among the respondents, 54.0, 59.1 and 66.5% opinedthat cultured meat is a potential alternative to traditional meat in view of challenges like sustainability, nutritional security, and animal welfare, respectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In November 2023, the Italian Parliament approved a law banning cell-cultured meat and the use of meat-sounding names for alternative protein products. The law aims to protect the national culinary heritage and echoes similar provisions in French Décret n° 2022-947, which banned the use of certain meat names for non-animal products. The Italian law goes further than its French counterpart by introducing a blanket ban on meat derived from cell cultures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on legal aspects related to animal husbandry labelling, meat industry regulations and environmental information in product labelling. Topics discussed include the new animal husbandry labelling act; the Italian ban on meat-sounding names and cell-cultured meat; the regulatory situation in the European Union (EU) on lab-grown ingredients imitating milk proteins; and highlighting the need for transparency and sustainability in product labeling and consumer choices.

Cultured meat production requires microcarriers, hydrogels, and scaffolds for 3D growth and support. Co-culturing techniques of probiotic bacteria and cell cultures are available. Probiotic bacteria efficiently produce antimicrobial substances, hydrogels, and fibril scaffolds. Probiotic bacteria can be genetically manipulated to grow only when it serves the cell culture. Probiotic bacteria can be genetically manipulated to serve as biosensors for lactate production and to remove lactate waste. Introducing probiotic bacteria into cultured meat can improve the design, function, and cost production and should be further explored. Cultivated meat is emerging to replace traditional livestock industries, which have ecological costs, including land and water overuse and considerable carbon emissions. During cultivated meat production, mammalian cells can increase their numbers dramatically through self-renewal/proliferation and transform into mature cells, such as muscle or fat cells, through maturation/differentiation. Here, we address opportunities for introducing probiotic bacteria into the cultivated meat industry, including using them to produce renewable antimicrobials and scaffolding materials. We also offer solutions to challenges, including the growth of bacteria and mammalian cells, the effect of probiotic bacteria on production costs, and the effect of bacteria and their products on texture and taste. Our summary provides a promising framework for applying microbial composites in the cultivated meat industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bone protein is a significant secondary product of the meat industry, comprising a substantial quantity of protein. These proteins could be broken down through enzymatic hydrolysis to generate antioxidant peptides. This study aimed to produce antioxidant peptides from bovine bone extract by enzymatic hydrolysis utilizing Flavourzyme and Protamex by optimizing enzyme amounts and time using the Box-Behnken design. The final optimized conditions obtained through the model were as follows: The amount of Flavourzyme was 1,100 U, the amount of Protamex was 2,814 U, and the time was 3.77 (h). Bovine bone extract hydrolysate (BBEH) was purified stepwise using ultrafiltration membranes with molecular cutoffs of 5, 3, and 1 kDa. To assess the antioxidant capacity of the fractions, several methods were used, including radical scavenging activity "1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH)," "2,2'-azino-bis (3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) (ABTS)," metal chelating activity (MCA), reducing power (RP), and thiobarbituric acid assay (TBA). The results indicated that the ultrafiltration fraction with a molecular weight of less than 1 kDa showed significant antioxidant activity, with 48, 42, and 50% inhibition rates for DPPH, ABTS, and metal chelating, respectively. Using size exclusion chromatography, the fraction with a molecular weight less than 1 kDa was further separated into five sub-fractions: Frac-I, Frac-II, Frac-III, Frac-IV, and Frac-V. Sub-Frac-III, which exhibits significant DPPH radical scavenging activity (55%) and a reducing power of 0.8 at 700 nm, was separated into six sub-sub-fractions using reversedphase HPLC (RP-HPLC) based on molecular weight and hydrophobicity. The sub-sub-fraction with the highest value for DPPH radical scavenging activity was sub-Fra-III-6, which exhibited approximately 69.45% activity. The sub-Fra-III-6 was analyzed using LC-MS/MS, which identified two specific peptides: Ala-Pro-Phe with a mass of 333.12 Da and Asp-His-Val with a mass of 369.14 Da. These two peptides are likely the primary peptides that might have a crucial role in antioxidant capacity. It can be concluded that BBEH is a valuable source of natural antioxidants and has the potential to serve as a viable resource in the cultured meat industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Cultured meat, also known as laboratory‐grown or cell‐based meat, is a promising concept in the food industry that involves culturing animal cells in vitro to produce meat products, bypassing the need for traditional animal rearing and slaughter. This technology offers solutions to key challenges associated with conventional meat production, including environmental sustainability, animal welfare and food security. However, the cultured meat industry must overcome significant hurdles to achieve commercial viability. Scaling up production to meet the increasing demand for meat is a considerable challenge, requiring a scalable edible scaffold, eliminating the need for separate scaffold removal, and ensuring product safety. Various edible materials, including polysaccharides and proteins, along with fabrication techniques like electrospinning and 3D printing, are explored in this review article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study is to examine the perceptions of young people between the ages of 18-22 in Türkiye, studying at universities and representing generation Z regarding the consumption of artificial meat and to determine whether there will be a consumer base for artificial meat in Türkiye in the coming years. For this purpose, face-to-face interviews were conducted with a total of 227 individuals, 95 (41.85%) female and 132 (58.15%) male participants. Both quantitative descriptive and qualitative descriptive analysis were used in the research. Qualitative analyses were evaluated using Maxqda 20 Package Program. 77 respondents (33.92%) stated that they could consume artificial meat. 29 (30.52%) female and 45 (34.09%) male participants stated that they could consume artificial meat. Participants stated that they would not consume artificial meat because they were concerned about artificial meat being unhealthy, unnatural, insufficient in terms of nutritional value, unsafe, negatively affecting animal husbandry, and posing a problem in terms of belief. As a result, contrary to expectations, generation Z living in Türkiye has a high potential to consume artificial meat. As long as the concerns of the participants are clarified, we foresee that there will be a more serious increase in the artificial meat consumption potential of the generation Z, which will represent the Turkish population in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study was to investigate the recent development of meat analog, industrialization, and the related legal changes worldwide. Summarizing the current status of the industrialization of meat analog, studies on plant-based meat, mycoprotein, and edible insects were mainly conducted to investigate their sensory properties (texture, taste, flavor, and color resembling meat), nutritional and safety evaluations, acquisition method of meat alternatives, and commercialization. Cultured meat is mainly studied for developing muscle satellite cell acquisition and support techniques or materials for the formation of structures. However, these technologies have not reached the level for active industrialization. Even though there are differences in the food categories and labeling between countries, it is common to cause confusion or to relay false information to consumers; therefore, it is important to provide accurate information. In this study, there were some differences in the food classification and food definition (labeling) contents for each country and state depending on the product shape or form, raw materials, and ingredients. Therefore, this study can provide information about the current research available on meat alternatives, improve regulation, and clarify laws related to the meat analog industry, which can potentially grow alongside the livestock industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Chinese Institute of Food Science & Technology is the property of Journal of Chinese Institute of Food Science & Technology Periodical Office and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Cultured meat is an emerging green alternative for livestock and poultry meat, and obtained from cell cultured in laboratories or factories. Three-dimensional (3D) scaffolds are widely used in cultured meat production by simulating extracellular matrix to support cell culture in vitro. Currently, the scaffolds used for the fabrication of cultured meat lack the research on porous structures, which limit cell growth and differentiation and simulation of distinct textural characteristics of traditional meat. Therefore, this study investigated the efficacy of food-grade scaffolds prepared with different gelatin concentrations and freezing temperatures to support cell attachment and growth. The result showed 6% gelatin scaffolds prepared at −80 °C or liquid nitrogen demonstrated suitable porous structures and promoted the proliferation and differentiation of muscle stem cells (MSCs) to improve the expression of genes and proteins (myogenin and myosin) related to myogenic progression. The scaffolds also created 3D-engineered cultured meat tissues that closely mimic the mechanical properties of traditional meat. This study provides the theoretical baseline for developing porous scaffolds for efficient cultured meat production in the meat substitute industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Developing cultured meat from animal cells 20 years ago might have been questionable. However, the cultivation of meat without the need for animal slaughter is already a reality, and public pressure to commercialize these products has gained increasing strength in recent years. Conventional meat production and export sectors play a fundamental role in the economy of countries with an agricultural tradition. However, the meat industry's negative environmental and social impacts, such as deforestation, greenhouse gas emissions, and animal welfare concerns, have grown as demand for meat has increased. This review discusses perspectives on the global introduction of cultured meat and how it could impact economic dynamism in countries dependent on conventional livestock farming. Several countries with a livestock tradition and meat-importing countries have invested heavily in developing cultured meat and have pressed for changes in public policies and regulations to make the commercialization of these products viable. This review provided insight into the legislative challenges cultured meat may face in traditional meat-producing and exporting countries. The vision and behavior of leading meat production and export countries differ entirely. There is strong interest in the technological advancement of cultured meat in some countries, while in others, powerful interest groups have been pessimistic about cultured meat entering the market. Furthermore, this review highlights that introducing new technology has significant potential to reconfigure the social landscape and cause environmental, economic, and political impacts on society. [Display omitted] • Cultured meat challenges traditional animal production, disrupting established economic models. • Cultured meat offers a chance to reduce the environmental impact of livestock farming. • Alignment with ethical consumption trends brings market opportunities. • Embracing cultured meat technology enhances global competitiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past ten years, administrative law scholarship has increasingly focused on interactions between multiple agencies. As part of this trend, most scholars have called for policymakers to combine multiple agencies, rather than rely on a single agency, to solve policy problems. The literature in this area espouses the benefits of shared regulatory space. But very little of this scholarship addresses when shared jurisdiction is problematic. This is particularly concerning when an agency opts into or cedes oversight authority to another agency at will, with little regard for whether the second agency is an appropriate regulator. The case of cell-cultured (or lab-grown) meat presents one such example. In 2018, both the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture separately announced that regulating cell-cultured meat fell under their sole purview, to the exclusion of the other agency. After much back-and-forth, the agencies issued a joint statement announcing a shared system of regulatory oversight. This Article argues that the FDA should not have ceded any of its regulatory authority to the USDA because joint regulation of cell-cultured meat, as between the FDA and USDA, is both inappropriate and unnecessary. USDA involvement is inappropriate because the Department suffers from a mixed mandate problem. Not only is the Department tasked with maximizing agricultural industry profits (and minimizing losses), but it is also tasked with nourishing Americans (and improving nutrition and health). In the case of cell-cultured meat, these two goals are diametrically opposed. Further, USDA involvement is inappropriate given the Department's purview, as set by Congress, and its concomitant expertise. As it relates to meat, the USDA exists specifically to monitor the safety and sanitation of the nation's farms, slaughterhouses, and meat processing and packaging plants. Consequently, all the Department's meat-related regulations and expertise are in these areas. USDA involvement in the regulation of cell-cultured meat is also unnecessary because it is redundant. Accordingly, this Article's analysis belies the notion that all agency collaboration is good collaboration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Shipin Kexue/ Food Science is the property of Food Science Editorial Department and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Cell‐cultured meat and seafood offer a sustainable opportunity to meet the world's increasing demand for protein in a climate‐changed world. A responsible, data‐driven approach to assess and demonstrate safety of cell‐cultured meat and seafood can support consumer acceptance and help fully realize the potential of these products. As an initial step toward a thorough demonstration of safety, this review identifies hazards that could be introduced during manufacturing, evaluates applicability of existing safety assessment approaches, and highlights research priorities that could support safe commercialization. Input was gathered from members of the cultured meat and seafood industry, researchers, regulators, and food safety experts. A series of workshops were held with 87 industry representatives and researchers to create a modular manufacturing process diagram, which served as a framework to identify potential chemical and biological hazards along the steps of the manufacturing process that could affect the safety of a final food product. Interviews and feedback on draft documents validated the process diagram and supported hazard identification and evaluation of applicable safety methods. Most hazards are not expected to be novel; therefore, safety assessment methods from a range of fields, such as conventional and novel foods, foods produced from biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, and so forth, are likely to be applicable. However, additional assessment of novel inputs or products with significant differences from existing foods may be necessary. Further research on the safety of the inputs and associated residues, potential for contamination, and development of standardized safety assessment approaches (particularly animal‐free methods) is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Shipin Kexue/ Food Science is the property of Food Science Editorial Department and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Cultured meat involves producing meat from animal cells, not from slaughtered animals. This innovation has the potential to revolutionize the meat industry, with wide implications for the environment, health and animal welfare. The main purpose of this paper is to stimulate some economic research on cultured meat. In particular, this paper includes a prospective discussion on the demand and supply of cultured meat. It also discusses some early results on the environmental impacts of cultured meat, emphasizing the promises (e.g., regarding the reduction in land use) but also the uncertainties. It then argues that cultured meat is a moral improvement compared to conventional meat. Finally, it discusses some regulatory issues, and the need for more public support to the innovation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cultured meat has shown a great potential to address food sustainability and nutritional security in near future. Unlike conventional meat, the cultured meat is humane and doesn't offend the sentiments of animal lovers, hence may satisfy the needs of a larger segment of the society. The technology promises the designer, pathogen-free, ethical and eco-friendly meat product. But there are many techno-social, economic and other challenges that has not resolved yet and play a decisive role in survivability and viability of in-vitro technology. The review covers wide range of challenges that cultured meat technology is facing right from Petri dish of lab to the plate of consumer. The factors behind survivability and viability of in-vitro technology have been reviewed. Further, the effects of technology on the economy of agriculture based developing countries have also been revisited. Public acceptance, structural incompetency, and economy of the products are main areas which need due consideration for the successful acceptance of the cultured meat in food market. In a current scenario of Covid-19 pandemics, cultured meat may emerge as a basic need of muscle food industry. However, complete replacement of conventional meat with cultured meat may le to adverse long-term impact on agriculture-based economies of developing countries. • Cultured meat is a synthetically grown lab meat produced in a bioreactor. • Environment sustainability, animal welfare and food safety are main aims of cultured meat. • Consumer acceptability is a key factor to survivability of cultured meat industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study was to develop a novel edible scaffold by utilizing yeast proteins, which could partially replace collagen and produce hypoallergenic, odorless, and highly nutritious cell-cultured meat that meets the demands of a more significant number of consumers. The scaffold comprised proanthocyanidins, dialdehyde chitosan, collagen, and different proportions of yeast proteins (YP). The results indicated that the scaffold possessed excellent mechanical properties and biocompatibility, and supported cell proliferation and myogenic differentiation. Additionally, we evaluated the texture characteristics of the cultured meat models and traditional beef and discovered that the YP30 cultured meat model had similar springiness and chewiness as beef. Subsequently, further analyzed the similarity between the cultured meat models and traditional beef in appearance, taste, and nutrition. Further results illustrated that the yeast protein cultured meat model exhibited a complete model structure and comparable color and taste to beef after frying. Moreover, it was concluded that the protein content of the YP30 cultured meat model was closer to that of beef. These findings suggested that the edible scaffold using yeast proteins has enormous potential to facilitate the sustainable development of the cell-cultured meat industry. • Yeast protein partially replaced collagen and developed a novel edible scaffold. • Yeast protein scaffold produced hypoallergenic, odorless, and highly nutritious cultured meat. • Yeast protein cultured meat model exhibited a comparable color and taste to beef after frying. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[Display omitted] • The work demonstrates an effective approach for cultured meat (CM) production. • The present work highlights the use of nature inspired plant-based scaffolds as a platform for in vitro meat culture. • In this work a blend of biopolymers is coated on decellularized apple to behave as scaffold for CM production. • Here, bovine muscle satellite cells (BSC) and NIH/3T3 fibroblast cells are co cultured on the fabricated scaffolds. Substantial efforts are underway to tackle the current challenges of sustainability and environmental impacts linked to orthodox animal agriculture. This had led to advancement in food innovation guiding the fabrication of edible scaffolds based cultured meat. This current research work aims to develop and validate a new approach in fabricating a 3D porous scaffold of decellularized apple coated with a polymer mixture of gelatin/alginate for cultivated meat production. The fabricated noncoated (A) and coated (CA) 3D scaffolds presented different ratios of pore sizes with the medium-sized pores (100–250 µm) being higher in the case of CA. The water absorption capacity of CA (∼64 %) was almost two folds compared to A (∼31 %) with delayed digestion in the presence of gastric simulated juice with or without pepsin. Both the scaffolds showed the capability to adhere and proliferate muscle satellite cells as single cell culture and muscle satellite along with NIH/3T3 fibroblast cells as co-culture. However, the CA scaffolds showed enhanced capability to adhere and proliferate the two cell lines on its surface compared to A. This work demonstrates an efficient way to fabricate decellularized plant scaffolds with high potential to be used in the production of cultured meat for the food industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A variety of advocates argue that industrialized animal food production creates major problems related to the global food supply, climate change, animal suffering, and diet-related public health maladies. The alternative protein sector – encompassing both the nascent cell-based meat industry (also known as cultured, lab-grown, clean, cultivated, or in vitro meat) and the long-standing but evolving enterprise of plant-based meat production – has emerged in response. With a focus on the reality-defining power of metaphors, this article draws from a mixed set of qualitative materials to investigate the perspectives of alternative protein advocates, identifying two dominant conceptual metaphors that permeate their discourse. First, the metaphor that "meat is made" aims to transform the concept of meat itself, such that it is decoupled from its long-standing connection to animal farming and is understood instead as a set of tastes and textures that can be reconstructed through food science and biotechnology. Second, the metaphor of "the market" for alternative meats situates innovation, capital investment, and insights from behavioral economics and marketing as the primary agents for creating a "post-animal bioeconomy." At the same time as these metaphors highlight particular aspects of the enterprise, they also serve to downplay a set of public concerns, including those related to the sector's overall public health, cultural, economic, and ecological impacts. At a moment when alternative meats are being granted increased public attention, understanding the metaphors that characterize the industry offers environmental communication scholars the opportunity to examine its promise and limitations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Shipin Kexue/ Food Science is the property of Food Science Editorial Department and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Developments in the field of cultured meat go fast. At the end of 2019 and at the beginning of 2020, several companies on both sides of the Atlantic announced new funding rounds. Furthermore, an alternative for the controversial fetal bovine serum (FBS), a by-product made from the blood of cow fetuses, was reported to be within reach. In the Dutch Parliament, it was discussed if and how the development of cultured meat should be supported. All of these developments result in market access for cultured meat becoming more and more a reality. This article therefore aims to further clarify such market access in regulatory terms and to respond, where appropriate, to an article on this topic previously published in EFFL. Market access requirements include that the applicant makes a proposal for the name of the product. In this article, we shall therefore discuss the key question if cultured meat can actually be called 'meat'. This article will also provide a comparison of the regulatory requirements between the EU and the US, as far as currently known. Finally, it will discuss the new EFSA transparency requirements as of 2021, which are expected to be of high impact for cultured meat companies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]