The following is a comprehensive up to the minute list of public companies producing cell based meat inputs or investing in cell based meat production.

🧬Agilent Technologies (USA): Gene synthesis used in cellular fermentation and protein expression.
💲A (NYSE)
🔗www.Agilent.com

👃👅Amyris: Acellular cultured flavors, fragrances and Cannabidiol (CBD).
💲AMRS (NASDAQ)
🔗https://amyris.com

Archer Daniels Midland Venture Capital (USA):ADM (NYSE)
💲Participated in $18.2 million financing of Geltor.
🤝Joint development agreement with Perfect Day Foods to […]

The following is a comprehensive up to the minute list of public companies producing cell based meat inputs or investing in cell based meat production.

🧬Agilent Technologies (USA): Gene synthesis used in cellular fermentation and protein expression.
💲A (NYSE)
🔗www.Agilent.com

👃👅Amyris: Acellular cultured flavors, fragrances and Cannabidiol (CBD).
💲AMRS (NASDAQ)
🔗https://amyris.com

Archer Daniels Midland Venture Capital (USA):ADM (NYSE)
💲Participated in $18.2 million financing of Geltor.
🤝Joint development agreement with Perfect Day Foods to develop and commercialize animal-free dairy proteins.
🔗https://www.adm.com

🐄Bell Food Group (SWITZERLAND): BELL (SWX)
💲Participated in $8.8 million financing of Mosa Meat.
🔗https://www.bellfoodgroup.com/en

🧬Bioneer Corp (KOREA): Gene synthesis used in cellular fermentation and protein expression.
💲064550 (KOSDAQ)
🔗http://www.bioneer.com

🧬Bio-Rad (USA): Gene synthesis used in cellular fermentation and protein expression.
💲BIO (NYSE)
🔗www.bio-rad.com

BP Ventures (USA): BP (NYSE)
💲Participated in $40 million financing of Synthetic Genomics (Gene synthesis used in cellular fermentation and protein expression.)
🔗bp.com

🧬Brooks Automation (USA): Acquired Gene synthesis company GeneWiz.
💲BRKS (NASDAQ)
🔗https://www.brooks.com

🌱Cronos Group (CA): Partnership with Gingko Bioworks to produce cultured cannabinoids through cellular fermentation.
💲CRON (NASDAQ)
🔗https://thecronosgroup.com

Evolv Ventures (USA): KHC (NASDAQ)
💲Kraft Heinz's $100 million venture capital fund. No known investments in cell tech yet, but fund is devoted to emerging tech companies transforming the food industry.

Illumina: Gene synthesis used in cellular fermentation and protein expression.
💲ILMN (NASDAQ)
🔗https://www.illumina.com

🌱Intrexon (USA): Cellular plant propagation technology (Boticelli™️)
💲XON (NASDAQ)
🔗https://www.dna.com/

🧬GE Life Sciences (USA): Gene synthesis used in cellular fermentation and protein expression.
GE (NYSE)
🔗www.gelifesciences.com

Givaudan (Switzerland): Cell based flavors and fragrances.
💲 (OTCMKTS: GVDNY)
🔗 https://www.givaudan.com/

🧬Integrated DNA Technologies (USA): Gene synthesis used in cellular fermentation and protein expression.
💲Acquired by Danaher (DHR)
🔗https://www.idtdna.com/pages

🧬Lonza (SWITZERLAND): Gene synthesis used in cellular fermentation and protein expression.
💲LZAGF (OTCMKTS)
🔗www.lonza.com

Merk (USA): MRK (NYSE)
💲M Ventures, Merck subsidiary venture capital group co-led $8.8 million financing of Mosa Meat.
🔗http://www.m-ventures.com

🧬Millipore Sigma (USA): Gene synthesis used in cellular fermentation and protein expression.
💲Acquired by Merck, NASDAQ:SIAL
🔗 http://www.emdmillipore.com/US/en

Neto Group (ISRAEL): NTO (TLV)
💲Participated in $2.2 million financing of Future Meat Technologies.
🔗https://www.neto.org.il/en

🐄🍜Nissin Foods Group (JAPAN): Synthesizing cell based diced steak
💲TYO: 2897
🔗https://www.nissin.com/en_jp

🌱OrganiGram (CANADA): ORGIF (OTCMKTS)
💲Participated in $11.6 million financing of Hyasynth Bio, to produce cultured cannabinoids through cellular fermentation.
🔗https://www.organigram.ca/

Royal DSM (NETHERLANDS): RDSMY (OTCMKTS)
🤝50/50 joint partnership with Cargill to produce acellular cultured stevia called Eversweet.
🔗 dsm.com

🧫 Sartorius (GERMANY): Fermentation and bioreactors used for cellular fermentation and protein expression.
💲SRT (ETR)
🔗 https://www.sartorius.com/us-en

Strauss Group (ISRAEL): STRS (TLV)
💲The Strauss Group start up incubator called The Kitchen, part of the Strauss Group Alpha Venture Hub financed Aleph Farms (exact amount unknown).
🔗 thekitchenhub.com/portfolio

🧫💉Thermo Fisher Scientific (USA): Stem cell cultures.
💲TMO (NYSE)
🔗 https://www.thermofisher.com

🧬 Twist Biosciences (USA): Gene synthesis used in cellular fermentation and protein expression.
💲TWST (NASDAQ)
🔗https://twistbioscience.com

Tyson (USA): TSN (NYSE)
💲Tyson New Ventures, venture capital arm of Tyson Foods led $2.2 million financing of Future Meat Technologies.
💲Tyson New Ventures participated in $20.1 million financing of Memphis Meats.
🔗tysonfoods.com

UBS (SWITZERLAND): UGBLF (OTCMKTS)
💲Participated in $387.5 million financing of Impossible Foods.
🔗ubs.com/innovation


At Cell Based Tech, we deliver business-reader-friendly cellular based food news. We realize our readers of venture capitalists, analysts, food brand executives, and private investors seek smart brevity. This is our promise. If you want to stay on top and even ahead of the cell based tech landscape, sign up for the Cell Based Tech newsletter. If it is not worthy of your time, you can unsubscribe at any time. No hard feelings.


source:giphy

Although tried and true vegan staples like tofu stir fry, lentils and falafel have served plant based eaters well over the years, the options and palates for new age plant based eaters are transforming. The concept of plant based foods with animal based textures and flavors is becoming a phenomenon. It turns out, consumers desire and crave the savory umami juiciness of a hamburger. Add a little “healthy” and “good for the environment”, and you’ve got a recipe that […]

source:giphy

Although tried and true vegan staples like tofu stir fry, lentils and falafel have served plant based eaters well over the years, the options and palates for new age plant based eaters are transforming. The concept of plant based foods with animal based textures and flavors is becoming a phenomenon. It turns out, consumers desire and crave the savory umami juiciness of a hamburger. Add a little “healthy” and “good for the environment”, and you’ve got a recipe that is attracting even the meatiest of meat lovers.

Cue, cell based tech, referred to as cellular fermentation in the food science world. It’s the technology that is opening the culinary flood gates to this fantastical world of plant based products that look and taste strikingly close to the “real thing”. Imagine Willy Wonka’s factory, but replace candy with plants, and Oompa Loompas with scientific foodies.

Cellular fermentation works by taking DNA molecules and inserting them into bacteria or yeast and fermenting the molecules. This process of inserting DNA into yeast is a form of genetic engineering that can yield proteins identical to the DNA of the starting material.

Many companies and investors are jumping on board and using cellular fermentation to cultivate proteins sans animals. Some of the more novel companies are turning to new food and protein sources altogether, such as Sustainable Bioproducts. They are working with microorganisms from Yellowstone National Park that are high in protein and can be finagled into many common products like veggie burgers or yogurt. Another company, Motif Ingredients, is engineering foods like sturgeon eggs and camel milk -- an effort to promote biodiversity in our diets.

One company, New Culture, based in New Zealand is looking to more common products that consumers know and love like creamy cheese with the perfect stretch across the top of your pizza slice. New Culture plans to make cow cheese without the cow (sign up to be on their waitlist). According to Co-Founder/CEO Matt Gibson, New Culture is taking the essential proteins that give dairy cheese its unique properties and delicious flavor and sustainably producing these proteins with the help of microbes. “From there we add plant-based lipids, sugars and minerals to make a vegan cheese that has all the properties of dairy cheese without any of the unsustainable and unhealthy drawbacks. Our first product is fresh Mozzarella,” said Gibson. Some of these health features include no cholesterol, very little to no saturated fats, and lactose-free.

The overall impact of cellular fermentation on the plant based industry has incredible potential for products like New Culture’s plant based mozzarella. “Cellular fermentation is key for us to be able to produce these fundamental proteins that don't just provide taste but also the meltability, the texture and all the other traits we love about dairy cheese” said Gibson.

Scientists are quickly realizing how to isolate and produce animal proteins that enable umami, juicy, ooey gooey flavors and textures without animals and without traditional agriculture methods. When produced in a controlled lab setting, these proteins can be specifically tailored from a nutritional perspective and utilized in a variety of plant based products, making them nearly indistinguishable from the “real thing”.

Does the future of food sound a bit grandiose through cell based tech? Where does that leave falafel, lentils, and tofu stir fry?


At Cell Based Tech, we deliver business-reader-friendly cellular based food news. We realize our readers of venture capitalists, analysts, food brand executives, and private investors seek smart brevity. This is our promise. If you want to stay on top and even ahead of the cell based tech landscape, sign up for the Cell Based Tech newsletter. If it is not worthy of your time, you can unsubscribe at any time. No hard feelings.





source:giphy

🍜 Cell based meat in-your-ramen-research is underway! Hiroki Ando, President and CEO of Nissin Food Holdings has been working with researchers at the Institute of Industrial Science and Technology (Uni. Tokyo) to produce diced steak using cell based technology. The research group had success in the maturation process of bovine muscle cells feeding the cells vitamin C and using collagen gel as a scaffold structure. http://cellbased.link/6ff20

Why We Care: Diced steak is the meat component of ramen and Nissin […]

source:giphy

🍜 Cell based meat in-your-ramen-research is underway! Hiroki Ando, President and CEO of Nissin Food Holdings has been working with researchers at the Institute of Industrial Science and Technology (Uni. Tokyo) to produce diced steak using cell based technology. The research group had success in the maturation process of bovine muscle cells feeding the cells vitamin C and using collagen gel as a scaffold structure. http://cellbased.link/6ff20

Why We Care: Diced steak is the meat component of ramen and Nissin is a global ramen powerhouse. This is the first example we’ve seen of a food processor incorporating cell based meat into their product, creating a more vertically integrated supply chain.

Investments

At the 11th Research, Innovation and Enterprise Council (RIEC) Meeting in Singapore, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong confirmed an investment of $144 million shall be allocated to carry out R&D in Sustainable Urban Food Production, Future Foods and Food Safety Science & Innovation. Food innovation includes "improvement of the functionality, formulation and flavor of plant-based protein food products, as well as developing scaffolding techniques with sustainable, cost-effective cell culture media for cell-based cultured meat." http://cellbased.link/daa64

Advancements

🌽 Last week, we reported on researchers from University of Bath using grass as scaffolding to grow cell based meat. This week, researchers from Penn State and the University of Alabama are experimenting with the use of starch fibers (from corn) as scaffolding for cell based meat.

What this means: The scaffold used in cell based meat production will ultimately become part of the finished product that we eat. Many of the current scaffolds used in biomedical applications are made from plastic, which will not fly for consumption. Companies must find scaffolding for cells that take into consideration a variety of design requirements: bio-compatibility, biodegradability, elasticity, pore size, geometry, tensile strength while being edible and economically efficient. http://cellbased.link/a02c0

🌿 Another week, another cell based cannabinoid. Public company Amyris, Inc. (Nasdaq:AMRS) has officially announced an agreement to develop, license, and commercialize cell based cannabinoids for newly formed cannabis company LAVVAN, Inc.

What Amyris gets: $300 million of R&D and milestone payments plus long-term royalties for the development of synthetic cannabinoids.

LAVVAN will be responsible for the global manufacturing and commercialization of the cannabinoids.

According to an Amyris company press release, the company is poised to bring consistent and pure cannabinoids, synthesized through fermentation, rather than plant propagation. Amyris is already a leader in cellular fermentation technology and currently using their platforms for products in skin care, flavors, fragrances and sweeteners. http://cellbased.link/b745f

source:giphy

The Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare holds the regulatory key to CRISPR-edited foods in Japan. The advisory panel to the ministry has recommended gene edited foods shall not require safety screening. The advisory panel believes gene edited foods, whereby genes are mutated within the organism itself are safe and essentially no different from traditional breeding methods. http://cellbased.link/genome-4c4af

Why We Care: Just last week we heard about two cell based meat companies employing the use of CRISPR editing […]

source:giphy

The Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare holds the regulatory key to CRISPR-edited foods in Japan. The advisory panel to the ministry has recommended gene edited foods shall not require safety screening. The advisory panel believes gene edited foods, whereby genes are mutated within the organism itself are safe and essentially no different from traditional breeding methods. http://cellbased.link/genome-4c4af

Why We Care: Just last week we heard about two cell based meat companies employing the use of CRISPR editing to improve cellular regeneration in vitro. This is a big step for Japan and may inspire food innovators to blossom in Japan.

Advancements

Based in the United Kingdom, University of Bath, Dr. Marianne Ellis and a team of Biochemical Engineers, are working on the latest cell based meat project funded by New Harvest.

Their approach? Use grass as the scaffold!
This means grass will provide the structure for cells to replicate and live on. Dr. Ellis made no clear remarks as to the type of cell culture media they will be using or how far along their team is in the process. According to an interview with Dr. Ellis, she believes Dutch company, Mosa Meat to be the most advanced and that according to Mosa Meat we are looking at four to five years before we are seeing cell based meat in supermarkets. http://cellbased.link/lab-plate-45017

Investments

🦈 Cell based meat hits Shark Tank! Cultured pet food company, Wild Earth, inks a $550,000 investment from Mark Cuban for a 10% stake in the company. "There's an enormous potential market for lower-cost, sustainable protein to feed the growing worldwide pet population and Wild Earth is now the alpha dog in this space," said Cuban. http://cellbased.link/wild-earth-d26e2

🍤 Singapore based, Shiok Meats, becomes the first cell based meat company to join Y Combinator. Shiok Meats plans to focus their efforts on the production of cultured shrimp. http://cellbased.link/batch-part-88ec5

Publicity

French market research firm, Ipsos, conducted a research report of 1001 Belgian consumers attitudes toward meat consumption and perception of cell based meat. http://cellbased.link/3004d

  • 4 out of 10 respondents had a positive attitude
  • 4 out of 10 had a neutral first impression
  • 15% had a negative attitude
  • 38% of respondents believe there is a need for cell based meat production
  • Age seems to be irrelevant as 30% of respondents across all ages have a positive first impression of cell based meat
  • 24% of respondents are willing to pay up to 10% more for cell based meat compared to conventionally produced meat

🌱Plant Based World Conference & Expo, June 7-8 @ Jacob K. Javits Convention Center, New York City. http://cellbased.link/welcome-plant-95287

Here is what to look forward to:

  • Speaker Lisa Feria CEO, StrayDog Capital (invested in Geltor, Blue Nalu, SuperMeat, Aleph Farms, Memphis Meats, and Mosa Meat)
  • Speaker T.K. Pillan Partner and Co-founder PowerPlant Ventures (invested in JUST)
  • Speaker Lou Cooperhouse, President and Founder of cell based fish company, Blue Nalu
  • Expo Samples! This will feature some awesome brands including Wild Earth cell based pet treats!

source:giphy

Cell based meat companies, New Age Meats and Memphis Meats are employing gene editing tool CRISPR to assist in cell tissue growth. http://cellbased.link/997ab

Why We Care: CRISPR could potentially help scientists address two major challenges associated with producing cell based meat

  1. Limited lifespan of cell based meat starter cells: CRISPR has the potential to encourage animal cells to keep regenerating without the need to continuously biopsy animal tissue to culture more meat. According to a patent filed by
[…]

source:giphy

Cell based meat companies, New Age Meats and Memphis Meats are employing gene editing tool CRISPR to assist in cell tissue growth. http://cellbased.link/997ab

Why We Care: CRISPR could potentially help scientists address two major challenges associated with producing cell based meat

  1. Limited lifespan of cell based meat starter cells: CRISPR has the potential to encourage animal cells to keep regenerating without the need to continuously biopsy animal tissue to culture more meat. According to a patent filed by Memphis Meats, CRISPR would allow "genetic amendments, which extend the renewal capacity of cells” http://cellbased.link/cbtpatent1
  2. (Bye, bye, bye) Fetal Bovine Growth Serum: CRISPR has the potential to enable cells to renew and replicate without the use of fetal bovine serum.

Bottom Line: Most cell based meat companies are still in the early stages of the production life cycle, focused on cell growth and regeneration -- industrialization is 6-10 years out.

Regulation - it's a party!

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a formal agreement to share joint regulatory oversight of cell based meat. According to the agreement, "FDA oversees cell collection, cell banks, and cell growth and differentiation. A transition from FDA to FSIS oversight will occur during the cell harvest stage. FSIS will oversee the production and labeling of human food products derived from the cells of livestock and poultry." http://cellbased.link/usda-93dcf

Publicity

According to a survey conducted by Frontiers, consumers in China are looking to lead the charge in adoption of cell based meat. Researchers from Frontiers surveyed 3,030 respondents: 987 in the USA, 1,024 in India, and 1,019 in China. http://cellbased.link/food-neophobia-6ca81

Here's what they found:

USA

  • 23.6% were not at all likely to purchase lab grown meat
  • 46.6% were somewhat or moderately likely
  • 29.8% were very or extremely likely

CHINA

  • 6.7% were not at all likely to purchase lab grown meat
  • 33.9% were somewhat or moderately likely
  • 59.3% were very or extremely likely

INDIA

  • 10.7% were not at all likely to purchase lab grown meat
  • 37.7% were somewhat or moderately likely
  • 48.7% were very or extremely likely

Source: Giphy

How are products like Impossible Burger made?

The technology used to make the Impossible Burger taste like meat is the same technology being used to make cow free milk, plant free cannabinoids, chicken free eggs and a whole host of novel protein compounds.

This technology is called cellular fermentation. It works by taking DNA molecules and inserting them into bacteria or yeast and fermenting the molecules. This process of inserting DNA into yeast is a form of […]

Source: Giphy

How are products like Impossible Burger made?

The technology used to make the Impossible Burger taste like meat is the same technology being used to make cow free milk, plant free cannabinoids, chicken free eggs and a whole host of novel protein compounds.

This technology is called cellular fermentation. It works by taking DNA molecules and inserting them into bacteria or yeast and fermenting the molecules. This process of inserting DNA into yeast is a form of genetic engineering that can yield proteins identical to the DNA of the starting material.

The opportunities with this technology are vast as they enable development of novel proteins and ingredients without the traditional inputs of agriculture like land, water and animals. This technology fosters ingredient innovation -- we open up possibilities for marijuana plant medicine, synthesizing CBD & THC molecules with specialized medicinal properties. Companies are exploring diverse culinary applications: synthesizing plant proteins like soy leghemoglobin (Impossible Burger is the first use case for mass commercialization). Other companies are synthesizing animal proteins such as camel milk as cellular fermentation becomes a playground for scientists to experiment with previously obscure and extinct ingredients, fragrances and flavors.

Illustration: Brooke Sunness

Jay Keasling, chemical and bio-molecular engineer at UC Berkeley and his team of researchers, insert genes from the marijuana plant into yeast to synthesize cannabinoids. Through the process, they learned something rather surprising: cannabinoids can be generated from starter molecules (DNA) that do not actually exist in the marijuana plant itself. Further, cannabinoids may be altered in the lab to create novel forms of cannabinoids that potentially have more specific medical applications. http://cellbased.link/produce-low-40004

Keasling has gone […]

Illustration: Brooke Sunness

Jay Keasling, chemical and bio-molecular engineer at UC Berkeley and his team of researchers, insert genes from the marijuana plant into yeast to synthesize cannabinoids. Through the process, they learned something rather surprising: cannabinoids can be generated from starter molecules (DNA) that do not actually exist in the marijuana plant itself. Further, cannabinoids may be altered in the lab to create novel forms of cannabinoids that potentially have more specific medical applications. http://cellbased.link/produce-low-40004

Keasling has gone on to create Demetrix, a company that will license the technology from Berkeley to synthesize cannabinoids through yeast fermentation.

Why We Care: There are a handful of companies working on this technology, but Keasling's team is the first to report successful synthesis of cannabinoids in a lab -- which provides incredible potential for medical applications in addition to maximizing yield and eliminating the traditional resources of land, water, light and seeds.

source:giphy

Motif Ingredients, spun out of Boston based Gingko Bioworks, has launched with plans to engineer animal based proteins like milk and eggs through cellular fermentation. The company has raised $90 million in series A financing from Breakthrough Energy Ventures, Louis Dreyfus Company, Fonterra, and Viking Global Investors. http://cellbased.link/ginkgo-a07e8

Why We Care: Gingko’s platform for bioengineering is currently applied to produce consumer products ranging from cannabis to fragrances. Now they are thinking beyond […]

source:giphy

Motif Ingredients, spun out of Boston based Gingko Bioworks, has launched with plans to engineer animal based proteins like milk and eggs through cellular fermentation. The company has raised $90 million in series A financing from Breakthrough Energy Ventures, Louis Dreyfus Company, Fonterra, and Viking Global Investors. http://cellbased.link/ginkgo-a07e8

Why We Care: Gingko's platform for bioengineering is currently applied to produce consumer products ranging from cannabis to fragrances. Now they are thinking beyond conventional cow's milk and chicken eggs to engineer new foods like sturgeon eggs and camel milk -- an effort to promote biodiversity, as we move away from animal agriculture towards cellular agriculture.

Advancements

Angel Yeast, a China based yeast company has announced their plans to focus on the global bioengineering industry by supplying nutrient inputs used in microbial fermentation and cell culture. http://cellbased.link/yeast-3cffb

The worlds first cell cultured dog treats made by biotech startup, Wild Earth are now available in boutique retail locations and online through the subscription service PupJoy. The Koji protein dog snacks are made by synthesizing live fungal strains of Koji and growing these strains through cellular fermentation. http://cellbased.link/wild-earth-0b5b6

Check out Wild Type’s proposed cell based meat value chain. The green and orange colors indicate Wild Type’s level of focus in each area, which is similar across the industry.

Graphic by Wild Type

Givaudan (OTCMKTS: GVDNY), global leader in production of flavors and fragrances may be producing inputs that cell based meat companies could integrate in the “prototyping & refinement” phase of flavoring the meat.

On Monday, Givaudan announced a partnership with The Kitchen, part of the Strauss […]

Check out Wild Type's proposed cell based meat value chain. The green and orange colors indicate Wild Type's level of focus in each area, which is similar across the industry.

Graphic by Wild Type

Givaudan (OTCMKTS: GVDNY), global leader in production of flavors and fragrances may be producing inputs that cell based meat companies could integrate in the "prototyping & refinement" phase of flavoring the meat.

On Monday, Givaudan announced a partnership with The Kitchen, part of the Strauss Group Alpha Venture Hub.
http://cellbased.link/partnership-3ac95

Why We Care: The Kitchen incubator has an investment portfolio of companies that are actively shaping the future of food and alternative protein production processes. One noteworthy company, Aleph Farms, is developing cell based meat and focusing specifically on creating the worlds first lab grown steak. The Kitchen partnership with Givaudan demonstrates potential collaboration that could improve upon the cell based meat value chain.

Investments

Plant based egg and soon-to-be cell based meat company, JUST Inc is seeking to raise $200 million in funding. http://cellbased.link/egg-free-4e377

Since hosting the Next Gen Food Forum in November, China based venture firm, Dao Foods International, Inc has been relatively quiet. Dao's latest cell based tech move is a partnership with U.S. based venture firm New Crop Capital whereby Dao will serve as the financial advisor to New Crop for China focused plant based and clean meat ventures.

New Crop Capital is an investor in Dao Foods and is deep in the cell based meat game, with additional investments in Mosa Meat, Memphis Meats, Geltor, Blue Nalu, Aleph Farms. http://cellbased.link/beijing-china-f4a18

Advancements

Funded by the Government of Maharashtra, the State University of Mumbai's Institute of Chemical Technology, has announced plans to establish a Centre for Excellence in Cellular Agriculture. The Centre is set to open in 2020 and will be the world's first state funded research facility dedicated to cellular agriculture. http://cellbased.link/joined-hands-3ebc2

📢 Make Your Voice Heard!

The University of Edinburgh and AbacusBio Limited are conducting a survey to gauge consumer attitudes on gene edited meat. http://cellbased.link/editing-food-14336

Cell based flavor and fragrance company, Amyris, Inc. AMRS (NASDAQ) announced a cannabinoid development, licensing and commercialization partnership valued at up to $255 million with a confidential partner. According to the company’s press release, the $255 million will include an upfront payment and future payments based on milestones over the next 12-36 months. http://cellbased.link/26f0d

There are currently three other public companies working on cell based cannabinoid production
– Cronos Group (CRON) in partnership with Gingko Bioworks […]

Cell based flavor and fragrance company, Amyris, Inc. AMRS (NASDAQ) announced a cannabinoid development, licensing and commercialization partnership valued at up to $255 million with a confidential partner. According to the company's press release, the $255 million will include an upfront payment and future payments based on milestones over the next 12-36 months. http://cellbased.link/26f0d

There are currently three other public companies working on cell based cannabinoid production
Cronos Group (CRON) in partnership with Gingko Bioworks 
Organigram (ORGIF) in partnership with Hyasynth Bio
Intrexon (XON) in partnership with Next Green Wave (NXGWF)

What this means. Using cellular technology to propagate cannabis plant compounds in a lab has the potential to maximize yield and eliminates the traditional resources of land, water, light and seeds.

Source:Brooke Sunness

Culture Biosciences, a bioreactor facility that companies can use to test cellular fermentation experiments secured $5.5 million in funding led by Section 32, with participation from Refactor Capital and Verily. Culture Biosciences already has a roster of clients including Modern Meadow and Geltor. http://cellbased.link/culture-b0aaf

Cellular fermentation technology is used by companies like Impossible Foods to produce heme and Perfect Day Foods to produce cow free milk.

Why We Care: Culture Biosciences is establishing a […]

Source:Brooke Sunness

Culture Biosciences, a bioreactor facility that companies can use to test cellular fermentation experiments secured $5.5 million in funding led by Section 32, with participation from Refactor Capital and Verily. Culture Biosciences already has a roster of clients including Modern Meadow and Geltor. http://cellbased.link/culture-b0aaf

Cellular fermentation technology is used by companies like Impossible Foods to produce heme and Perfect Day Foods to produce cow free milk.

Why We Care: Culture Biosciences is establishing a link in the supply chain for cellular fermentation. The cellular fermentation market has vast potential to create everything from cannabinoids to heme to gelatin without the use of traditional environmentally straining resources.

source:giphy

Perfect Day Foods raised $34.8 million in a series B round. Investors include ADM Capital, Horizons Ventures, and Temasek Holdings. http://cellbased.link/perfect-day-626b8

Other cell tech investments by these venture capital firms include:
– ADM Capital (NYSE: ADM): Participated in $18.2 million financing of Geltor
– Temasek Holdings: Participated in $387.5 million financing of Impossible Foods

How is Perfect Day Milk Made?

Production begins with a DNA sequence that is inserted into yeast and creates fermentation, subsequently yielding […]

source:giphy

Perfect Day Foods raised $34.8 million in a series B round. Investors include ADM Capital, Horizons Ventures, and Temasek Holdings. http://cellbased.link/perfect-day-626b8

Other cell tech investments by these venture capital firms include:
- ADM Capital (NYSE: ADM): Participated in $18.2 million financing of Geltor
- Temasek Holdings: Participated in $387.5 million financing of Impossible Foods

How is Perfect Day Milk Made?

Production begins with a DNA sequence that is inserted into yeast and creates fermentation, subsequently yielding new cells. The new cells are genetically identical to the DNA of the starting material. Read more about this process here.

source:giphy

Chicago based startup, Sustainable Bioproducts, is working to bring microorganisms from the pristine Yellowstone National Park all the way to your plate. These microbes have a neutral flavor and contain all 9 essential amino acids, making them complete protein sources. The company plans to proliferate the high protein microbes in a lab via acellular fermentation. They hope to have microbe products for sale within two years, which could include everything from veggie burgers to yogurt.

Sustainable Bioproducts […]

source:giphy

Chicago based startup, Sustainable Bioproducts, is working to bring microorganisms from the pristine Yellowstone National Park all the way to your plate. These microbes have a neutral flavor and contain all 9 essential amino acids, making them complete protein sources. The company plans to proliferate the high protein microbes in a lab via acellular fermentation. They hope to have microbe products for sale within two years, which could include everything from veggie burgers to yogurt.

Sustainable Bioproducts closed a $33 million funding round on Monday led by venture capital firm 1955 Capital. Investors also include Breakthrough Energy Ventures, led by Bill Gates and public companies Danone SA (OTCMKTS: DANOY) and Archer-Danials-Midland Co (NYSE: ADM). http://cellbased.link/584b9

Why we care: This discovery highlights the potential of acellular agriculture to generate protein and other food sources inexpensively and with minimal environmental impact.

Investments

Cell based flavor and fragrance company, Amyris, Inc. AMRS (NASDAQ) announced a cannabinoid development, licensing and commercialization partnership valued at up to $255 million with a confidential partner. According to the company's press release, the $255 million will include an upfront payment and future payments based on milestones over the next 12-36 months. http://cellbased.link/26f0d

There are currently three other public companies working on cell based cannabinoid production.
- Cronos Group (CRON) in partnership with Gingko Bioworks
- Organigram (ORGIF) in partnership with Hyasynth Bio
- Intrexon (XON) in partnership with Next Green Wave (NXGWF)

What this means. Using cellular technology to propagate cannabis plant compounds in a lab has the potential to maximize yield and eliminates the traditional resources of land, water, light and seeds.

Advancements

Applikon Biotechnology B.V. a Dutch based bioprocess equipment supplier announced a partnership with Meatable to supply single-use stirred tank bioreactors necessary to cultivate iPSC (stem cells) in volume. Applikon has designated a "CLEANMEAT" team to develop the bioreactors and plans to rollout the first product within three years. http://cellbased.link/95e1e

Publicity

In an interview with Food Ingredients First, Niccolo Manzoni, Co-Founder and Managing Partner of Five Seasons Ventures, Paris-based venture capital firm, predicts lab grown meat is 10 years out from being available in the mainstream. As for acellular products like milk, eggs and heme, Manzoni is excited about the timing and affordability of these products on the horizon. http://cellbased.link/plant-based-adea

source:meatable

Cell based meat company, Meatable, may arguably be overcoming the challenges associated with bringing cell based meat to market.

Cell Based Meat Challenges:

[…]

source:meatable

Cell based meat company, Meatable, may arguably be overcoming the challenges associated with bringing cell based meat to market.

Cell Based Meat Challenges:

What Meatable Is Doing: Meatable is licensing a proprietary technology called, OPTi-OX, which was developed by Dr. Mark Kotter (neurosurgery clinician scientist and lecturer at University of Cambridge) and his team at Elpis BioMed. OPTi-OX is a form of genetic intervention that converts pluripotent stem cells into any desired cell type. Learn more about how this technology works here.

Solutions via Meatable with OPTi-OX:

  • Faster Doubling Time: 20,000 strands of muscle fiber in 3-5 days with OPTi-OX.
  • Indefinite Life Span: a single vial of stem cells sourced from a single umbilical cord proliferate indefinitely.
  • Animal Free Serum: The cells grow off of E8, a completely animal free cell culture medium made up of amino acids, vitamins, minerals and salts.

Meatable is currently working on isolating the cells, so once the company reaches the phase of adding OPTi-OX, they will produce consistent and homogeneous cell batches in a matter of days. 

Meatable CTO, Daan Luining, says that they'll be producing cell based meat in a self perpetuating small scale bioreactor by 2021. Daan anticipates cell based meat will be consumer affordable in 6-8 years.

With the keto diet in full swing and omega-3 supplement sales rising, “healthy fats” are all the rage. One Spanish company, Cubiq Foods, is capitalizing on this trend with the production of cell based animal fats. Venture capitalists are also eyeing this trend as Cubiq Foods secured a 12 million Euro (13.6 M USD) investment from the Spanish private equity firm Moira Capital Partners SGEIC. http://cellbased.link/cubiq7c196

Why We Care: Fats are another important component of the cell to […]

With the keto diet in full swing and omega-3 supplement sales rising, "healthy fats" are all the rage. One Spanish company, Cubiq Foods, is capitalizing on this trend with the production of cell based animal fats. Venture capitalists are also eyeing this trend as Cubiq Foods secured a 12 million Euro (13.6 M USD) investment from the Spanish private equity firm Moira Capital Partners SGEIC. http://cellbased.link/cubiq7c196

Why We Care: Fats are another important component of the cell to table dinner plate. Cubiq Foods has stated they expect to reach plates this year with a production capacity of 5.6 tons increasing to 700 tons by 2021 with expected sales to reach 26 million by 2022.

source:giphy

There are dozens of companies working on cell based meat production, but Intrexon is the first company to work on cell based plant production — a process by which plant cells are isolated from the mother plant and grown in cell culture media.

Intrexon Corporation (NASDAQ: XON) is bringing the first cell based plant technology known as Boticelli™️ to market through a strategic licensing deal with publicly traded pot company Next Green Wave NXGWF (OTCMKTS). http://cellbased.link/intre8f5f9

Why […]

source:giphy

There are dozens of companies working on cell based meat production, but Intrexon is the first company to work on cell based plant production -- a process by which plant cells are isolated from the mother plant and grown in cell culture media.

Intrexon Corporation (NASDAQ: XON) is bringing the first cell based plant technology known as Boticelli™️ to market through a strategic licensing deal with publicly traded pot company Next Green Wave NXGWF (OTCMKTS). http://cellbased.link/intre8f5f9

Why we care: Intrexon's cell technology is groundbreaking and paving the way for a much broader set of advancements in cell based plant production beyond just cannabis. For now, Intrexon and Next Green Wave will reap some major benefits as high volume propagation of cannabis varietals could position both companies at the forefront of this massive industry.

Intrexon Tweeted: “Introducing Botticelli: A proprietary method to elicit a genotype-independent pluripotent response in plant cells or tissues that allows high-throughput plant regeneration. The platform moved from an internal research tool to significant focus in partnering conversations.” Simply, Intrexon realized the potential to license this cellular regeneration technology to plant based producers.

Investments

Thousand Oaks Biopharmaceuticals, a China based cell culture media manufacturer, raises $45 million in series A funding led by New Alliance Capital. http://cellbased.link/thousb3fdf

Regulation - First Missouri, up next Nebraska

Effective January 1st, if you write meat on a product sold in Missouri that is not derived from livestock or poultry you could be looking at up to one year in jail, a fine up to $2,000, or both. Keep reading ➡
http://cellbased.link/missob80f6

On January 10, Senator Carol Blood of Nebraska introduced a legislative bill to the agriculture committee "to provide for truth in advertising and labeling in the sale of meat and food plants." The bill states that "no person advertising, offering for sale, or selling meat or a food plan shall engage in any misleading or deceptive practices including misrepresenting a product as meat that is not derived from livestock or poultry." Set to become active on January 1st 2020, any violation of this bill is a Class I misdemeanor. [PDF]

Labeling Public Opinion

"Allergens are an important point to be addressed when establishing new labels for these products. In a molecular level, these products will contain the same tissue cells as conventional meat, which means that someone allergic to conventional meat would be allergic to cell-based meat as well. NASDA is most concerned at this point about fish cell-based meat products, as fish is one of the eight most well-known allergens." Nathan Bowen, NASDA Executive Director

Don't miss a weekly report. Get it to your inbox. Weekly Cell Based Tech, in 5 minutes or less.






Acellular: acellular production includes the synthesis of proteins such as eggsgelatin, and milk. Acellular production begins with a DNA sequence that is inserted into yeast and creates fermentation, subsequently yielding new cells. The new cells are genetically identical to the DNA of the starting material.

The company most well known for using acellular production is Impossible Foods. Impossible uses acellular technology to culture soy leghemoglobin used in their Impossible Burger. For a full list of […]

Acellular: acellular production includes the synthesis of proteins such as eggsgelatin, and milk. Acellular production begins with a DNA sequence that is inserted into yeast and creates fermentation, subsequently yielding new cells. The new cells are genetically identical to the DNA of the starting material.

The company most well known for using acellular production is Impossible Foods. Impossible uses acellular technology to culture soy leghemoglobin used in their Impossible Burger. For a full list of cell based companies go here.

January 1, 2019, the Missouri Department of Agriculture amendment to the Meat Advertising Law went into effect. The amendment states: “Misrepresenting the cut, grade, brand or trade name, or weight or measure of any product, or misrepresenting a product as meat that is not derived from harvested production livestock or poultry is deemed a Class A Misdemeanor. The law will not apply if there is a prominent statement on the front of the package that the product is “plant-based,” “veggie,” […]

January 1, 2019, the Missouri Department of Agriculture amendment to the Meat Advertising Law went into effect. The amendment states: "Misrepresenting the cut, grade, brand or trade name, or weight or measure of any product, or misrepresenting a product as meat that is not derived from harvested production livestock or poultry is deemed a Class A Misdemeanor. The law will not apply if there is a prominent statement on the front of the package that the product is “plant-based,” “veggie,” “lab-grown,” “lab-created,” or a comparable qualifier; AND a prominent statement on the package that the product is “made from plants,” “grown in a lab,” or a comparable disclosure."

Need to know: If you write meat on a product sold in Missouri that is not derived from livestock or poultry you could be looking at up to one year in jail, a fine up to $2,000, or both.

Why we care: The last Agriculture Census in 2012 reported that Missouri had over $4 billion in annual livestock sales, ranking in the top 4 in the United States. Based on this information, we wonder what political and regulatory impact top 5 livestock producing state representatives have over the USDA and FDA labeling discussion? Could this state law pave the way for other top livestock producing states to follow suit?

Get to the point: Qualifying cell based meat as grown in a lab is misleading. On an industrialized scale, cell based meat will be grown in a food production facility. Meat made from animal cells is accurate, but in the state of Missouri, consumers won't be afforded the luxury of transparency (at least for now).

Investments-Cell-Based-Tech-Lab-Grown-Meat-Companies-Financial-Stocks

Although widely known as lab grown or clean meat, cell based meat is the official term for meat made from the cells of an animal, and grown in a petri dish 🧫

What’s the potential?

The processes to make lab grown meat are still being developed, but potential benefits include higher yields, lower consumer costs, higher quality, and lower environmental impact. For space enthusiasts: consider the potential of feeding a space station or a Mars colony.

Lab Grown

[…]

Investments-Cell-Based-Tech-Lab-Grown-Meat-Companies-Financial-Stocks

Although widely known as lab grown or clean meat, cell based meat is the official term for meat made from the cells of an animal, and grown in a petri dish 🧫

What's the potential?

The processes to make lab grown meat are still being developed, but potential benefits include higher yields, lower consumer costs, higher quality, and lower environmental impact. For space enthusiasts: consider the potential of feeding a space station or a Mars colony.

Lab Grown Meat Companies

There are a number of startups globally who are developing cell based meat and foods, with global investments around $1.2 billion. These companies are currently focused on taste, cell culture media, and being able to mass produce at a competitive market price.

Wondering where you can buy it?

Lab grown meat is not available for purchase anywhere in the world. There are some non-meat cell based ingredients available like cell based heme (derived from soybeans), which is found in the plant-based Impossible Burger. Lab grown meat is expected to be available for purchase in 2 to 3 years. However, we are about 6 years away before we see cell based meat in grocery stores, sold at an affordable price.

How is lab grown meat made?

There are currently two processes of making lab grown meat. Read about them and the critical considerations.

Tell us what you think about lab grown meat.

1. Muscle Pre-Cursor Cells (starting cells taken from the animal to replicate)
2. Scaffold (a supportive structure for the cells to grow)
3. Bioreactor (an aseptic temperature and PH controlled environment i.e. a home)
4. Cell Culture Media (a growth medium i.e. food)

Muscle pre-cursor cells are starter cells taken through a biopsy from an animal and used to cultivate tissues.  Muscle pre-cursor cells have a limited lifespan and will regularly need replenishing in the form of another tissue biopsy from an animal.

Scaffolds[…]

1. Muscle Pre-Cursor Cells (starting cells taken from the animal to replicate)
2. Scaffold (a supportive structure for the cells to grow)
3. Bioreactor (an aseptic temperature and PH controlled environment i.e. a home)
4. Cell Culture Media (a growth medium i.e. food)

Muscle pre-cursor cells are starter cells taken through a biopsy from an animal and used to cultivate tissues.  Muscle pre-cursor cells have a limited lifespan and will regularly need replenishing in the form of another tissue biopsy from an animal.

Scaffolds provide structure for cells to replicate and enables the growth of a variety of structures of meat such as steaks or chicken breasts. There are materials that can be used as scaffolds -- all containing a set of design requirements: biocompatibility, biodegradability, elasticity, pore size, geometry, tensile strength. Some examples of scaffold materials are silk, collagen, gellan gum and alginate.

A cell based tech scaffold is not a physical structure or stage like those used for construction.

A bioreactor is an aseptic environment with a controlled temperature and PH that supports cell proliferation. A bioreactor enables cell based meat to be produced on a large scale and a clean, stable environment for the cells to grow.

Cell culture media contains nutrients (both organic and inorganic): vitamins, salts, O2 and CO2 gas phases, serum proteins, carbohydrates, cofactors.

Serum proteins are an integral component to cell culture media. Serum provides various growth factors and hormones involved in growth promotion and specialized cell function.

The most common serum on the market is fetal bovine serum: blood taken from an unborn calf whose mother was slaughtered. Therefore reliant on the current system of slaughterhouse agriculture and contrary to the point of cell based meat production.

There are companies working on artificial cell culture media that do not contain fetal bovine serum, but it is still not clear as to whether these serums can efficiently promote cell growth.

🎩 Hats off to the publicity and marketing teams over at Impossible Foods — hypebeasts of the century.

Impossible burger is making multiple headlines this week. On Monday, Impossible received a much anticipated “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) certification from the FDA for their burger’s star ingredient, Soy leghemoglobin. Today, Impossible released their new 2.0 vegan meat patties at the CES 2019. The 2.0 version is cholesterol, hormone, antibiotic and gluten free, but the heme is genetically engineered.

Why […]

🎩 Hats off to the publicity and marketing teams over at Impossible Foods -- hypebeasts of the century.

Impossible burger is making multiple headlines this week. On Monday, Impossible received a much anticipated "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS) certification from the FDA for their burger's star ingredient, Soy leghemoglobin. Today, Impossible released their new 2.0 vegan meat patties at the CES 2019. The 2.0 version is cholesterol, hormone, antibiotic and gluten free, but the heme is genetically engineered.

Why we care? GRAS certification enables Impossible to sell their veg-heme meat in grocery stores. BUT starting January 1st 2020 there is a mandatory bioengineered labeling law that will go into effect. Impossible would be smart to push hard this year before consumers face the bioengineered label. Consumers don't seem to fuss (and they may not know) about Impossible's genetically engineered ingredient at the moment, but we'll just have to wait and see how consumers respond to a bioengineered label:

USDA GMO label

In the meantime: Starting tomorrow, Impossible burger 2.0 will be debuting on the menus of some of the hottest and most exclusive restaurants. Check out the list here.

Source:ofc.org.uk

Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of the United Kingdom, spoke at The Oxford Farming Conference on January, 3 2019 about technologies shaping the future of agriculture. Secretary Gove believes we are moving into the 4th agricultural revolution, a revolution that will include cell based meat.

Why we care: Secretary Gove argues that due to a high price tag and consumer perception, we are “very far” from introducing eaters to cell based […]

Source:ofc.org.uk

Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of the United Kingdom, spoke at The Oxford Farming Conference on January, 3 2019 about technologies shaping the future of agriculture. Secretary Gove believes we are moving into the 4th agricultural revolution, a revolution that will include cell based meat.

Why we care: Secretary Gove argues that due to a high price tag and consumer perception, we are "very far" from introducing eaters to cell based meat. "Very far" resembles a timid uncertainty, but an interesting expectation from a Big 5 government.

CBT Ranking:The U.K. is tied for 6th in our Global Landscape charts.

For ease of access, below is the full transcript of Michael Gove's speech at the Oxford Farming Conference 2019, originally published on gov.uk.


Introduction - History tells us science is the future
One of my favourite Radio Four programmes, second only to Farming Today, is The Long View.

Presented by the superbly talented Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland, The Long View asks us to consider current events in their historical context, draws parallels between the controversies of our time and the challenges of our past.

Few professions take a longer view than agriculture. Farmers plan, invest and produce for the long-term. While those of us in Westminster live in a world of hourly Twitter storms and daily news cycles where a week is now a very long time in politics, farming requires the patience and foresight to think in harvests and lifecycles, to see beyond the immediate and scan the far horizon.

Of course, the immediate political question which all of us must wrestle with is Brexit - and more particularly how Britain leaves the European Union in less than three months’ time. And I will address that question head on in a moment.

But first I do want to take a deliberately longer view. Because, hugely significant as the changes generated by Brexit will be, it’s important that we consider them in the broader context of the wider forces driving change in farming, food policy and our relationship with the rest of the natural world.

Because the truth is as this conference designed to underline. Our world is entering a fourth agricultural revolution.

The first revolution was the move from hunting and gathering to settlement and cultivation - which made possible the generation of surpluses, the beginning of trade and the establishment of civilisation.

The second agricultural revolution was pioneered here in Britain from the 17th through to the 19th centuries. British farmers and land owners developed more sophisticated crop rotation and new mixed farming methods which more efficiently turned pasture into protein and waste into fertiliser. Alongside the development of new seed drills, selective breeding, large-scale drainage schemes and land reclamation all these changes dramatically increased food production. That helped drive an equally dramatic increase in population numbers, which in turn sustained the industrial revolution.

The third agricultural revolution was even more significant in its scale. In the middle decades of the last century, pioneering work by visionary scientists such as Norman Borlaug, whose granddaughter is with us here today, transformed the scale of food production worldwide. New seed varieties were generated that powerfully improved yields and, alongside improvements in fertiliser manufacture, pest control and other forms of crop protection, they allowed developing nations to overcome scarcity and hunger, laying the groundwork for the global economic growth which has lifted billions out of poverty.

Now, we are on the verge of another revolution in how we produce our food.

That is why I particularly welcome what your chairman, Tom Allen-Stevens, called earlier the ‘brazenly positive’ tone of this conference. ‘We stand on the threshold of new horizons,’ Tom argued. ‘Never before has our industry been offered the World of Opportunity that presents itself here, before us, today.’

He’s right. Accelerating technological advances he mentioned such as the drive towards artificial intelligence, the more sophisticated than ever analysis of big data, drone development, machine learning and robotics will together allow us to dramatically improve productivity on traditionally farmed land not least by reducing the need for labour, minimising the imprint of vehicles on the soil, applying inputs overall more precisely, adjusting cultivation techniques more sensitively and therefore using far fewer natural resources, whether carbon, nitrogen or water, in order to maximise growth.

Data analytics, allied to sensors which monitor the health of livestock, will also allow us to develop the optimal environment for animals, helping us to get their nutrition right, safeguard their welfare and improve both dairy and meat production.

Gene-editing holds out the promise of dramatically accelerating the gains we have secured through selective breeding in the past. The ability to give Mother Nature a helping hand by driving the process of evolution at higher speed should allow us to develop plant varieties and crops which are more resistant to disease and pests and less reliant on chemical protection and chemical fertiliser. They will be higher-yielding and more environmentally sustainable.

Vertical farming, with vegetables grown in temperature, moisture and nutrition-controlled indoor environments can also guarantee improvements in yield while at the same time limiting environmental externalities. And of course, vertical farms not only minimise land use but can of course be located close to the urban population centres they serve.

We are also likely to see more and more of our need for protein met by aquaculture and cellular agriculture. Fish farming is an increasingly efficient way of using crops to generate nutritious proteins. And advances in synthetic biology may allow us to create traditional animal products - from gelatine and egg whites to milk and even meat - in labs.

The potential for Britain to lead in this revolution is huge. Which is why Tom Allen-Stevens is right to look to the future with confidence.

Of course, there are challenges. To take advantage of precision technology, AI, robotics and data analytics requires a level of capital investment which is not available to all. There are important ethical, and economic, questions about gene-editing which we need to debate. Vertical farming relies on energy inputs which are currently costly and carbon-intensive. Fish farming of course generates its own environmental externalities. And lab-grown proteins, meanwhile, are very far from everyone’s idea of a mouth-watering treat - and are currently extremely expensive.

But while there are big questions we need to debate about how we handle these new technologies - and where better to debate them than at the Oxford Farming Conference? - we cannot wish away these changes any more than we can ignore having to deal with the impact of climate change, air pollution, soil depletion, global population growth, the stress placed on water resources, the tide of plastic in our oceans, deforestation and biodiversity loss.

Because the background against which this fourth agricultural revolution is occurring - indeed many of the stimuli for it - are the environmental and social factors I’ve just, briefly, listed.

The requirement to use less carbon, to limit the nitrous oxide entering our atmosphere and the nitrates entering our rivers, to improve the organic content and fertility of our soil, to renew, reuse and recycle finite natural resources and yet, at the same time, to also improve resource productivity as the human population grows, all these are the forces driving technological innovation.

Science is thus both making us aware of why agriculture needs to change and also enabling that change to meet our needs.

This fourth agricultural revolution will therefore require us to change the way we work on the land and invest in its future, will force us to reform the role of Government in regulating and supporting farming; will demand new thinking and new talent in food production, and will, inevitably, require tough choices to be made. For some, the adjustment will be undoubtedly challenging.

But no change is not an option.

Reform is vital to modernise the sector and capitalise on technological advances. In 2016/17, more than half of the UK’s farms earned less than £20,000 and a fifth made no profit at all. As John Varley of Clinton Estates observes: ‘These statistics would make most investors that are not looking for tax breaks steer well clear.’

If, however, we embrace the potential of the fourth revolution we can guarantee the future of the United Kingdom as a major global food producer; we can play our part in alleviating poverty and scarcity; we can replenish our store of natural capital, secure investment for the innovations in tackling waste, pollution and emissions which the world will increasingly need - and hand on both a healthier economy and an enriched environment to the next generation. So as the German statesman Otto von Bismarck once put it, ‘If revolution there is to be, far better to undertake it than undergo it.’

So today I hope to outline how Defra sees its role in the midst of this fourth revolution - with respect to all the areas for which the department is responsible - food, the rural economy, and our environment.

Thinking strategically about food
Food first.

Food production has been a success story for Britain. Food and drink is our biggest manufacturing sector, with our food and drink contributing £113 billion to the economy every year. And the consumer has benefited from the enterprise and innovation of our food producers. British citizens have a wider choice of high-quality food than ever before and the cost of food for the consumer has fallen significantly in recent decades.

We have safe, nutritious, affordable food in abundance in this country because of our farmers - their hard work, enterprise and commitment.

But we cannot take this bounty for granted. And nor can we ignore the looming problems that we face.

In a world facing the pressures I listed earlier, how do we provide food security for this country? Do the economics of contemporary food production add up? How do we help those, in this country, and across the globe, who are living in poverty? The diet is central to health, does our approach to food currently maximise human well-being? And critically what do we think is required to make food production in this country truly sustainable?

The fourth agricultural revolution would require us to rethink the future of food in any case, but if coming scientific and technical innovations are to be harnessed wisely, and in harmony with human flourishing, then we need as a country to have a much wider, and more informed, debate about food.

That is why I have asked Defra’s lead non-executive director, the food entrepreneur Henry Dimbleby, to lead on the development of a new Food Strategy. He will be visiting farms and food producers and working with people across the industry to ensure we ask the right questions.

On food security, for example, I think that it is critical that we conceptualise the challenge properly. Our food security currently rests on both healthy domestic food production and of course global trading links.

Healthy domestic production in the future is likely to require not just investment in new technology but are also improving the resilience of the environment on which we depend for future growth. So food security in the future should mean for example, returning soils to robust health, and improving their organic content.

It should also mean keeping pollinator numbers healthy and improving animal welfare and husbandry to minimise health problems and disease risk.

It will probably also require us to build in resilience and flexibility to our agricultural sector so we can deal with changes we cannot anticipate by ensuring we having diversity in the size and type of farm business in this country.

And it also means guarding against those looming changes we can foresee - taking steps to minimise flood risk, adapt to climate change and safeguard biodiversity so we have a rich bank of natural capital on which to draw for the future.

Food security necessarily also involves providing consumers not just with a plentiful and resilient supply of food but with guarantees on provenance and welfare. Which is why the new Livestock Information Programme which Minette Batters has championed and helped to secure this year is so important. It will enable us to reassure domestic consumers on the safety of our produce as well as securing a competitive edge in a world market where quality is increasingly key.

Now of course with respect to future trade, we know that there will always be food, and materials required for food production, which we will have to source from abroad.

But we also know that climate change is going to have an impact on the resilience, and range, of food production in other countries particularly in the global south - so countries like our own will have to play an even more important role in world food production.

And if we are to maintain our own resilience and reputation for quality, that means we must maintain our own high environmental and animal welfare standards, and we must not barter them away in pursuit of a necessarily short-term trade-off.

And that takes me to another one of the key questions about the economics of food production. Affordable food for every citizen is a key goal of public policy. But we should be clear about the real costs of food production.

Beef or soybeans produced to scale on land in other countries that have been cleared of vast hectares of forests may appear cheap but in fact such food is costing the earth. The loss of forest cover imposes environmental costs on all of us, as valuable carbon sinks disappear and a defence against climate change is dismantled. The argument that we can lower the cost of food by importing from countries that have pursued deforestation policies ignores the fact that we all have to pay for the environmental damage in other ways.

There are, of course, other key economic questions the food strategy must address. While consumers have enjoyed the benefits of increased efficiency in British farming why have farmers not reaped anything like the same benefits?

Compared with a generation ago, it is often the case that farmers receive a lower share of the money that we, the public, hand over to supermarkets and other food retailers. That’s in part because of post-farm gate innovation, and supermarkets offering consumers added value – scrubbed potatoes; chickens seasoned and sold in roasting bags – which customers are happy to pay more for, but that innovation has inevitably reduced the percentage of the final price which has gone to the farmer.

So as farmers become even more efficient, and get an even better return per hectare – how can we ensure that we have a profitable farm sector alongside low prices for good food?

Part of the answer is greater transparency. The more information we have – and especially the more information an increasingly discerning public have when they make consumer choices - the better markets work. And if markets aren’t working because some players are operating unfairly or anti-competitively, then government should intervene.

Intervention is also required when it comes to health. The growth in obesity, the acceleration in numbers of patients with Type 2 Diabetes, the spiralling in cases of diet-related heart disease and cancers, all require us to look at the impact of what we eat on how we live, and die.

This challenge, however, requires very careful handling. A crude attempt to label certain foods, meat and dairy, as somehow inherently unhealthy does not do justice to the scale and complexity of the problem and neither does crude calorie labelling.

A proper food strategy must look more widely at the socio-economic factors and trends relating to diet and health problems such as obesity, diabetes and other diet-related illnesses. The fact that these problems disproportionately affect more disadvantaged sectors of society should offend our sense of social justice. That’s why we need to ask searching questions about just where, how and why poor diet occurs – and seek answers.

I want our Food Strategy to be ambitious, to ask big questions, to challenge lazy orthodoxies. To place food security on a sounder footing, enable food producers to plan for the future with confidence, provide a proper understanding of the real economics of the food industry, harness the potential of new technology to improve productivity, make that productivity growth genuinely sustainable - and to improve the nation’s health. I see our Food Strategy as another opportunity for Britain to show a lead in this world of opportunity.

Of course there is already one conspicuous way in which we do lead the world in terms of food. Our universities are home to some of the most respected agriculture, food and environmental science, vet medicine, land management, chemistry, zoology and botany departments in the world. A new generation of farmers, scientists, bio and agri-tech entrepreneurs are already reinforcing Britain’s reputation as a centre of excellence in innovation.

But I want us to go further. There is a huge opportunity for British talent to shape the Fourth Agricultural Revolution. We need to ensure we attract even more talent people into the food and farming industry.

I have been hugely encouraged in that regard by the work of colleagues such as Don Curry, Fiona Kendrick, Peter Kendall and Minette Batters who have been collaborating to think creatively about the skills and talent we will need in the future to maintain leadership in the food production sector.

And we will be saying more about what Government can do to help when recommendations come forward through the Food and Drink Sector Council but I have already been discussing with the Business Secretary Greg Clark and the new Higher Education and Science Minister Chris Skidmore the need for all us collectively to show even greater ambition.

Enhancing the environment for rural businesses
Now of course, food is at the heart of every farming business and farming is the backbone of the rural economy. Our ambition at Defra to lead the world in our thinking about food depends on our ability in the first place to maintain a healthy farming sector and overall a robust rural economy. That in turn requires us to think about the role of Government in supporting all those who work and live in the countryside.

We have already pledged to spend the same level on farm support in cash terms after we leave the European Union right up to the end of this Parliament. That is and often forgotten a greater degree of security over future funding for farming than that enjoyed by any other existing EU nation.

I recognise, however, that farming, because it is a quintessentially long-term business, benefits from as much certainty as possible about the future. And with the scale of change coming that I mentioned earlier, the more assurance we can provide the better.

I cannot, here, entirely pre-empt the outcome of the Government’s Spending Review. But both the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury are committed to using that review to support growth, encourage technological innovation, demonstrate British leadership in areas of business excellence as well as spreading prosperity more equitably across the country. So if we can embrace the changes I’ve been discussing today, we will ensure British agriculture, and the rural economy more widely, will be able to benefit in that Spending Review. Embracing change, supporting reform is the key to unlocking the Treasury’s special box.

But while I cannot pre-empt the outcome of the Spending Review I can continue to demonstrate the case for, and put in place the policies that will underpin, long-term investment.

That is why we have secured a seven-year agricultural transition, beyond the 21-month transition period set out in the EU Withdrawal Agreement, to enable farm businesses to plan ahead.

That is also why we have published proposals to allow for agricultural support payments to be rolled forward into a lump sum which can used now to re-model farm businesses for the future.

And it is also why we have commissioned a review by Lord Bew of Donnegore to look at what factors should be taken into account to ensure an equitable intra-UK allocation of domestic farm support funding.

And, again, in advance of the Spending Review the government has also made a commitment to invest in the extension and improvement of rural broadband coverage. In the Budget the government announced that it would invest a further £200m over the next two years providing full fibre broadband in rural areas. This is in line with the ‘outside-in approach’ set out in last year’s Future Telecoms Infrastructure Review, which committed to connecting remote rural areas so that the UK has a truly nationwide, state-of-the-art, broadband network at last.

Because we all now, the potential of the Fourth Agricultural Revolution will only be fully realised if we ensure the very best levels of digital connectivity across rural Britain and that is why this investment has been prioritised.

All of these investments sit alongside our other commitments to invest in rural communities. In our Agriculture Bill we make provision for payments to improve productivity specifically, to support collaboration and to help rural businesses cope with change. It is critically important that we support efforts to bring farmers together, and also support innovation and collaboration – because that will help ensure that we keep a wide range of different farm businesses resilient in the face of change.

As I mentioned earlier in the context of food security, it is particularly important that we are sensitive to the need of smaller farmers, because I’m acutely aware that for many of them, the changes in how we provide support and the changes in how technology will affect food production raise real challenges. But in many parts of the country it is smaller farmers who preserve, in the words of the Prince of Wales, the culture in agriculture. From the Lake District to Exmoor, from East Sussex to Teesdale, there is alongside our natural environment a delicate human ecology we need to consider, we also need to consider the natural environment as we seek to conserve and enhance.

And in reflecting on the challenges faced by smaller farmers, especially livestock farmers, it is important to be straight about the really significant challenge which would be posed by a no deal Brexit.

Now as I suspect some of you may know, I argued for Britain to leave the European Union and I believe strongly that our departure allows us to rejuvenate our democracy, make power more accountable, escape from the bureaucratic straitjacket of the CAP and develop a more vibrant farming sector with access to technologies the EU is turning its back on.

Leaving the EU also means we can end support for inefficient area-based payments which as we know reward the already wealthy and hold back innovation, and we can move to support genuine productivity enhancement – and also support public goods like clean air or climate change mitigation which stem from the improvement of soil health, the improvement of water quality and or the improvement of pollinator habitats. We can also better support our organic farming, landscape restoration and biodiversity enrichment; as well as improving public access to the countryside.

All of these are real gains which our departure from the EU can bring risk, but these real gains risk being undermined if we leave the EU without a deal.

Of course, a nation as adaptable, resilient and creative as ours can and will flourish over time, even without a deal.

But the turbulence which would be generated by our departure without a deal would be considerable. As I said earlier, it would hit those who are our smaller farmers and smaller food businesses.

I know that some of the predictions about what might happen without a deal have been dismissed as another episode of Project Fear, a re-run of the lurid claims in the 2016 referendum that a vote to leave would trigger an automatic recession.

At the time, I vigorously rejected those projections and indeed was criticised by some for being too dismissive of expert opinion. Well, no recession came and the economic forecasts turned out to be unfounded. But while Project Fear proved to be fiction, when we look at what a no-deal Brexit could involve we do need to be clear about the costs and facts.

A no-deal Brexit means we would face overall tariff rates of around 11% on agricultural products. But some sectors would be much more severely affected.

According to the AHDB’s excellent Horizon report, we export around 15% of our beef production and around a third of lamb. In both cases about 90% of that export trade goes to the EU. Some of that trade is routed through Rotterdam to other markets beyond the EU but most of it goes to European consumers.

It’s a grim but inescapable fact that in the event of a no-deal Brexit, the effective tariffs on beef and sheep meat would be above 40% - in some cases well above that.

While exchange rates might take some of the strain, the costs imposed by new tariffs would undoubtedly exceed any adjustment in the currency markets. And, of course, if the pound does make exports more competitive, it also feeds inflationary pressures at home.

Tariffs are not the only issue. While the EU have pledged to accelerate the process whereby the UK is recognised as a third country and we can continue to export food to their markets freely, all products of animal origin will have to go through border inspection posts and, at the moment, the EU have said 100% of products will face sanitary and phytosanitary checks.

Much of our trade currently reaches European markets through the narrow straits between Dover and Calais. At the moment there are no border inspection posts at Calais. While we do hope the French take steps to build capacity there, that capacity is unlikely by the end of March to be generous.

The EU have also said that hauliers from the UK can carry export goods to EU markets but they cannot make multiple journeys from EU country to EU country and thus the costs of haulage could rise as well.

The combination of significant tariffs when none exist now, friction and checks at the border when none exist now and requirements to re-route or pay more for transport when current arrangements are frictionless, will all add to costs for producers.

As will new labelling requirements, potential delays in the recognition of organic products, potentially reduced labour flows and the need to provide export health certificates for the EU market which are not needed now.

Of course we can, and are at Defra, doing everything to mitigate those costs and are developing plans to help support the industry in a variety of contingencies. But nobody can be blithe or blasé about the real impact on food producers of leaving without a deal.

That is just one of the reasons why I hope my colleagues in Parliament support the Prime Minister’s deal. It isn’t perfect – but we should never make the perfect the enemy of the good. It not only gives us a 21-month transition period in which current access is completely unaffected, it also allows us to maintain continuous tariff-free and quota-free access to EU markets for our exporters after that, allows us to diverge from EU regulation in many areas after the transition; means that we will leave the Common Agricultural Policy and it also ends all mandatory payments to the EU.

If Parliament doesn’t back the Prime Minister’s deal all those gains will be put at risk. If we do secure support for the deal, however, then we can forge ahead with further reforms which can put Britain in a world-leading position, not just in food production but also in the wise stewardship of our natural assets.

The critical business of enhancing the environment
Outside the EU and the CAP we can reward farmers for the goods they generate which are not rewarded in the market.

Our proposed Environmental Land Management contracts will provide farmers and other land managers with a pipeline of income to supplement the money they make from food production, forestry and other business activities. ELMs should be seen as an additional crop, with the Government, rather than a commercial player, entering into a contract with farmers to ensure we increase the provision of environmental services, many of which will also enhance farm productivity.

ELM payments are designed not just to complement existing sources of income but also complement existing initiatives many farmers already pursue.

For example, the adoption of minimum tillage techniques can not only decrease costs and improve productivity but it also reduces run-off and erosion. That is a public good which contributes to improving water quality and for which farmers could be paid.

Similarly, farmers who have chosen to go organic can secure a premium in the market for their produce but their contribution to improving the level of organic matter in our soil also leads to more carbon sequestration and broader environmental resilience. These public goods too could be rewarded.

Uplands livestock farmers, including commoners of course, are responsible for maintaining some of our most iconic landscapes in the condition which not just sustains their farm businesses but also acts as a habitat for precious native species. Improved habitats with more diverse wildlife – which are likely to attract tourist income to less favoured areas – are also a public good we could recognise.

Equally, farmers could be rewarded for enhancing the natural capital of which they are stewards - protecting ancient woodland, bringing woodland under active management or restoring peat bogs. These all generate public goods by adding to our carbon storage, boosting air quality, tackling global warming, and also improving water quality.

And because we recognise that farming is a long-term business we believe these public goods should be paid for through multi-annual contracts.

I recognise that there will be wariness among some about how we propose to administer these contracts because the recent record of delivery with environmental and countryside stewardship payments has been so woeful.

But recent changes at both Natural England and the Rural Payments Agency are beginning to address the problems we face. And we are relentlessly focused on how to streamline the bureaucracy we have inherited under the CAP to ensure farmers can concentrate on their core business of sustainable food production and enhancement of our natural capital.

That is why I commissioned Dame Glenys Stacey to look at the whole landscape of farm regulation and inspection. Her report, which is a brilliant analysis of how to make inspection more proportionate, focused and effective, makes clear that outside the EU and the CAP we can have less onerous inspection, simpler regulation and greater confidence in the maintenance of high standards. Just as I believe we can be world leaders in food production and environmental enhancement so I believe we can, building on Dame Glenys’s work, set the global gold standard in trusted, transparent and efficient regulation of farming.

There is a world of opportunity for British agriculture if we are prepared to embrace the opportunities that our policy reforms and the wider technological revolution can bring.

With an ambitious new Food Strategy, a properly funded 25 Year Environment Plan, rising investment in agritech, world-leading centres of agricultural science, a new generation of entrepreneurs in the food industry, an innovative new system of support for the provision of environmental services and, above all, farmers across the country committed to demonstrating leadership in everything they do - I believe this country, just as it led the Great Agricultural Revolution of the 18th century can be the vanguard nation for this century’s New Agricultural Revolution. And I look forward to the participants in this Oxford Farming Conference leading the way.

Strauss Group Ltd. (SGLJF), known internationally for their Sabra hummus, has a start up incubator called The Kitchen, part of the Strauss Group Alpha Venture Hub.

Need to know: The Kitchen incubator has an investment portfolio of companies that are actively shaping the future of food and alternative protein production processes. One noteworthy company, Aleph Farms, is developing cell based meat and focusing specifically on creating the worlds first lab grown steak. 

Why we care: This […]

Strauss Group Ltd. (SGLJF), known internationally for their Sabra hummus, has a start up incubator called The Kitchen, part of the Strauss Group Alpha Venture Hub.

Need to know: The Kitchen incubator has an investment portfolio of companies that are actively shaping the future of food and alternative protein production processes. One noteworthy company, Aleph Farms, is developing cell based meat and focusing specifically on creating the worlds first lab grown steak. 

Why we care: This week, Aleph Farms successfully created the first cell cultured steak. This is a major breakthrough, as other companies in the space have been unable to achieve the cellular matrix necessary to grow a complete steak -- ground beef or sausage structure have been the benchmark. According to the press release from the company, Aleph Farms has been able to develop their steak through a bio-engineering platform developed in collaboration with the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa


[Religious] Publicity 

The Jewish National Sport of Debate on cell based meat is well underway! The question: will cell based meat follow the same kosher guidelines as conventional meat? http://cellbased.link/ebde5

Public Opinion

"No bones is a problem as it imparts a pretty direct effect on the flavor and texture of the meat. So we may see livestock becoming more boutique and upscale due to that." http://cellbased.link/l7c7a2

Rather than being threatened by impending technologies with cell based meat, Japanese Waygu beef rancher, Toriyama is excited about the prospects of making his high quality product more accessible globally. 

Need to know: Cell based meat producer, JUST and Japanese Waygu beef company, Toriyama Farm Ltd have entered into a partnership to use Waygu cell lines to produce cell based Waygu beef.

Why we care: What would you rather buy at the same affordable price? Conventionally produced meat OR […]

Rather than being threatened by impending technologies with cell based meat, Japanese Waygu beef rancher, Toriyama is excited about the prospects of making his high quality product more accessible globally. 

Need to know: Cell based meat producer, JUST and Japanese Waygu beef company, Toriyama Farm Ltd have entered into a partnership to use Waygu cell lines to produce cell based Waygu beef.

Why we care: What would you rather buy at the same affordable price? Conventionally produced meat OR the world's most tender beef engineered with the perfect balance of umami? http://cellbased.link/wagyu


Advancements

Cargill is pouring big money into the future of protein with a $70 million new headquarters in Witchita, Kansas -- designed to foster innovation and collaboration. While no specific areas of innovation were mentioned, we recall Cargill's interest in cell based meat with their 2017 investment in Memphis Meats.

http://cellbased.link/a16aca


Publicity

What's that wonderfully strong smell wafting from the Halal food truck in NYC? It could very well be an Impossible Burger! They just secured Halal certification. Coming to Royal Halal Grill soon! http://cellbased.link/dbcd6


The Great Label Debate

The Support

"The growing global population needs to become independent from large-scale animal agriculture. The environment cannot sustain the waste, methane, and CO2 emissions produced by factory farms." by Isabelle Lelogeais http://cellbased.link/l7c7a2

The Opposition

"Why label something made from chemicals and animal cells as meat? Meat is meat. It is harvested from an animal grown and protected by those of us who make it our business to raise cattle or other livestock and fish for human consumption." by Paul Symens http://cellbased.link/c3ec

There are two types of stem cells:

1. Mature Stem Cells

– Other Given Names: Adult Cells, Somatic Cells, Multipotent Cells

Obtained from body tissues, post-birth umbilical cords and placentas.

Mature stem cells can only yield cells from the same tissue type of which they originated. For example, a lung stem cell can only yield a lung stem cell and cannot yield a neural stem cell; this means they are multipotent.

2. Early Stem Cells

– Other Given Names: Embryonic, […]

There are two types of stem cells:

1. Mature Stem Cells

- Other Given Names: Adult Cells, Somatic Cells, Multipotent Cells

Obtained from body tissues, post-birth umbilical cords and placentas.

Mature stem cells can only yield cells from the same tissue type of which they originated. For example, a lung stem cell can only yield a lung stem cell and cannot yield a neural stem cell; this means they are multipotent.

2. Early Stem Cells

- Other Given Names: Embryonic, Pluripotent

Obtained from pre-embryos created by the in vitro fertilization process.

Early stem cells can yield cells for any tissue type. For example, an early stem cell can yield a lung stem cell or a neural stem cell: this means they are pluripotent.

Pluripotent stem cells have much greater potential than multipotent stem cells in cell based therapy applications because they can give rise to almost any tissue cell type in our body. However, it is difficult to obtain these pluripotent stem cells because they are only available in embryos. This brings us to 2006 when scientist Shinya Yamanaka discovered four specific genes encoding transcription factors which could convert adult cells (multipotent) into pluripotent stem cells. This technique, labeled ‘induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)’, won Professor Shinya Yamanaka along with Cambridge’s Sir John Gurdon a Nobel Prize in 2012.

Fast forward to 2017, Dr. Mark Kotter, researcher at The Cambridge Department of Clinical Neurosciences published a research paper entitled “Inducible and deterministic forward programming of human pluripotent stem cells”. The paper outlines the discovery of a proprietary technology, OPTi-OX. The process starts with an induced pluripotent stem cell which is engineered for a specific cell type and then reprogramed to an adult stem cell The result: consistent and homogeneous cell batches produced in a matter of days. 

mature stem cell ☞ iPSC ☞ r e p r o g r a m ☞ mature stem cell

How does this relate to cell based meat production?

Dr. Kotter is now working with Meatable, a Netherlands-based company that produces cell-based meat. The OPTi-OX technology has been licensed to Meatable through Cambridge Enterprise, the University of Cambridge’s tech-transfer arm (via Kotter’s spin-out company Elpis BioMed). Meatable says they will use OPTi-OX to convert pluripotent cells into bovine muscle and fat cells significantly faster then they could without it.

Read the full interview at University of Cambridge Here!

CEO of Twist Bioscience (TWST), Emily Leproust, Ph.D is scheduled to present at Evercore ISI HealthCONx Conference on Thursday, November 29, 2018. You can watch live at 8:45am ET, or if you miss it you can watch it within 90 days here:  cellbased.link/tst223b1

Need to Know: Twist Bioscience manufactures synthetic DNA and boasts an impressive, proprietary silicone platform designed to synthesize genes at exponentially greater speeds than the current industry standard. This advanced technology is what landed TWST a massive […]

CEO of Twist Bioscience (TWST), Emily Leproust, Ph.D is scheduled to present at Evercore ISI HealthCONx Conference on Thursday, November 29, 2018. You can watch live at 8:45am ET, or if you miss it you can watch it within 90 days here:  cellbased.link/tst223b1

Need to Know: Twist Bioscience manufactures synthetic DNA and boasts an impressive, proprietary silicone platform designed to synthesize genes at exponentially greater speeds than the current industry standard. This advanced technology is what landed TWST a massive contract with Ginkgo Bioworks - supplying up to 1.3B base pairs of DNA over four years.

All that and more here if you'd like to read their HealthCONx Conference presentation or download below:


Advancements

Dr. Mark Kotter and The Cambridge Department of Clinical Neurosciences are partnering with Meatable to implement a new proprietary technique to convert pluripotent cells into bovine muscle and fat cells called OPTI-OX.

Before this conversion happens, Meatable extracts umbilical cord stem cells from a calf after birth and subsequently transcribes these cells into pluripotent stem cells. Dr. Kotter and Meatable believe that OPTI-OX will convert pluripotent cells into bovine muscle and fat cells significantly faster and with a high level of accuracy. https://www.varsity.co.uk/science/16612


Publicity

What do the top U.S. based cell based food startups have in common? Clara Foods, Geltor, Finless Foods, Memphis Meats, New Wave Foods, New Age Meats are all backed by the Biotech incubator, IndieBio -- the company establishing Silicon Valley as the leading biology hub in the world. http://cellbased.link/bloom80a34

Rethink Events is hosting Agri-Food Innovation Week in Singapore. Thursday’s agenda, will feature a segment on cell-based meat opportunities in Southeast Asia. Here’s the speaker lineup:


Regulation

The Italian Agricultural Association, Coldiretti, has expressed disdain towards cell based meat on the basis that 75% of Italians have a negative view of the product. The total data set was not provided. http://cellbased.link/b8e8d

Brooks Automation Inc. (Nasdaq: BRKS) expands its Life Sciences division with its acquisition of Genewiz Group on November 15th. Brooks Life Sciences division specializes in cell tissue and harvesting collection as well as storage and transportation of live cell tissue. With the addition of Genewiz to the Life Sciences division, Brooks will add gene synthesis to their product offerings — a critical input for acellular production.

The Genewiz acquisition was announced just days prior to the Brooks Q4 earnings call […]

Brooks Automation Inc. (Nasdaq: BRKS) expands its Life Sciences division with its acquisition of Genewiz Group on November 15th. Brooks Life Sciences division specializes in cell tissue and harvesting collection as well as storage and transportation of live cell tissue. With the addition of Genewiz to the Life Sciences division, Brooks will add gene synthesis to their product offerings -- a critical input for acellular production.

The Genewiz acquisition was announced just days prior to the Brooks Q4 earnings call on Monday the 19th. While earnings were below Wall Street expectations, the company's product portfolio demonstrates agility to evolve towards trends in the cell based production landscape. Brooks is expecting to close 2019 with the Life Sciences division accounting for more than 40% of the company's overall revenue. For the year, the company reported profit of $116.6 million, or $1.64 per share.

Investments

Not just any Prince of Saudi Arabia, Vegan Prince Khaled Bin Alwaleed, broke his own personal rule of not investing in companies at the seed stage for the hot cell based startup, Geltor. Vegan Prince KBA talks more about his Geltor investment and involvement in Memphis Meats and JUST, INC in an exclusive interview with VegNews.

Advancements

A partnership between Perfect Day and Archer Daniels Midland (NYSE:ADM) means cell based milk could fill your cereal bowls in 2019.  http://cellbased.link/ed1dd4

Regulation

On Friday, November 16th the USDA issued a press release stating both the USDA and FDA will jointly oversee the production of cell based meat products. The FDA will oversee cell collection and growth while the USDA will oversee cell harvesting and labeling. The press release refers to cell based meat as "food products derived from the cells of livestock and poultry."  http://cellbased.link/2024f


The Great Label Debate!


The Support

"It should be labeled as what it is, meat, and all meat should be have a label detailing how it was produced. I do not want to be tricked into eating meat made in a dirty factory farm or slaughter house."

posted by Tommy Drake on http://cellbased.link/regul98c65

The Opposition

"Lab grown meat is not beef!"

posted by Kress Barton on http://cellbased.link/regul20396

How is GMO Fish different from Cell Based Fish? To understand the differences, lets compare two types of fish:

1. AquAdvantage Salmon (produced by AquaBounty Technologies)

🐠🧬 →   🐟 →  RAS FACILITY  →  🍣

AquAdvantage salmon is an Atlantic salmon that is genetically modified to grow twice as fast as the non-genetically modified Atlantic salmon. This is done by inserting a growth hormone gene from a Chinook salmon into a fertilized Atlantic salmon egg. By integrating this Chinook growth […]

How is GMO Fish different from Cell Based Fish? To understand the differences, lets compare two types of fish:

1. AquAdvantage Salmon (produced by AquaBounty Technologies)

🐠🧬 →   🐟 →  RAS FACILITY  →  🍣

AquAdvantage salmon is an Atlantic salmon that is genetically modified to grow twice as fast as the non-genetically modified Atlantic salmon. This is done by inserting a growth hormone gene from a Chinook salmon into a fertilized Atlantic salmon egg. By integrating this Chinook growth hormone gene into the genome of an Atlantic salmon, AquaBounty Technologies reduces the time to market from three years to 18 months. The fish are raised in a land-based recirculating aquaculture systems, RAS for short, which are indoor fish tanks in warehouses.

2. Finless Foods Bluefin Tuna

🐠 →  🧫 →  SCAFFOLD  →  CELL CULTURE MEDIA  →   🍣

Cell based tuna is grown using a tissue biopsy of cells from a single Bluefin tuna. The cells are placed inside a flask (petri dish) with a scaffold (supportive structure) and a cell culture media (food). Inside these flasks, the cells multiply and form strands of muscle tissue.

The main differences are: 

Growth Process: The GMO fish are grown in a recirculating aquaculture system which resembles the environment the fish are grown in conventional fish farming - there is water and fish food. The cell based fish are grown inside of a petri dish with cell culture media rather than fish food.

In Sum: GMO fish are still growing fish, whilst cell based fish are growing fish cell tissue. Cell based fish food (cell culture media) and cell lines could be genetically engineered, but we will not know for sure until cell based food processes are finalized.

🇺🇸 USA | ~ $1.18 billion

With more than a dozen companies working on cellular and acellular food production, and over $80 million invested in the space, US venture capitalists are recognizing the fiscal opportunities and societal importance of cell based food production. The USDA and FDA are taking measures to determine the regulatory structure for which cell based meat will be governed, in preparation for these products to come to market within the next 2 years.

🇮🇱 ISRAEL | $11.9 million

Israeli […]

🇺🇸 USA | ~ $1.18 billion

With more than a dozen companies working on cellular and acellular food production, and over $80 million invested in the space, US venture capitalists are recognizing the fiscal opportunities and societal importance of cell based food production. The USDA and FDA are taking measures to determine the regulatory structure for which cell based meat will be governed, in preparation for these products to come to market within the next 2 years.

🇮🇱 ISRAEL | $11.9 million

Israeli biotech firms and venture capital incubators are laying the foundation for a strong cell based meat production export economy.  One notable Israeli company, Future Meat Technologies has received $2.2 million in a seed investment round co-led by Tyson Ventures, the venture capital arm of Tyson Foods, Inc. Additionally, China has signed a trade agreement with Israel worth $300 million to import cell based meat made by companies SuperMeat and Future Meat Technologies. Lastly, the Israel Innovation Authority, an independent publicly funded agency, is fueling cell based innovation by providing infrastructure, and access to international capital. 

🇳🇱 NETHERLANDS | ~ $16.3 million

Netherlands has four companies producing cell based meat. Meatable and Mosa Meat are the most significant. Mosa Meat is known for creating the world’s first lab grown meat burger in 2013. Since then, Mosa Meat has received some noteworthy investments from major tech moguls, including an $8 million investment from Google’s co-founder Sergey Brin. Meatable is also another hot company and are licensing a proprietary technology to produce cell based meats with induced pluripotent stem cells. Read More about that here.

🇨🇦 CANADA | ~ $1 million

Canada has one company working on cell based meat, Appleton Farms, and one company working on cell based fish, Seafuture. The Canadian government is closely monitoring and waiting to see how the regulations evolve in the United States. Canada will likely follow the regulatory framework that the United States develops for these products.

🇯🇵 JAPAN | ~ $2.7 million

Japan currently has one company pursuing cell based meat production: Intergriculture. The Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Fund Corporation for Innovation, Value-chain and Expansion Japan is a Japanese government fund, and an investor in Intergriculture -- demonstrating the country’s interest in progressing cellular meat production within the country. With the rising price of Waygu beef, and the heavy reliance on agricultural imports, Japan is seriously considering cell based tech as a viable long term food production process.

🇸🇬 SINGAPORE | ~ $1 million

Singapore has one company working on cell based seafood, Shiok Meats. Asia’s leading agribusiness group, Wilmar International, based in Singapore has expressed the importance food tech advancements that address the reformulating of food production and processing.

🇨🇳 CHINA | ~ $1 million

China has one company working on development of cell based meat, Avant Meats. Chinese government officials and venture capital groups are working diligently to ensure cell based meat hits the plates of Chinese consumers. China has already signed a $300 million trade deal with Israel to import cell based meats. Dao Foods International, a cross-border impact venture capital company, co-founded by Albert Tseng, is primarily focused on introducing plant-based and clean meat in China. 

🇬🇧 UNITED KINGDOMS | ~ $1 million

The United Kingdom has one company pursuing cell based meat, Higher Steaks. The UK regulatory bodies have been quiet regarding labeling of these new products. 

🇹🇷 TURKEY | ~ $500,000

Turkey has one company pursuing cell based meat technology, Biftek

Simply put, the action plan released by the FDA five days after the joint meeting between the USDA and FDA to discuss cell based labeling and regulation, has nothing to do with cell based tech. The report details the FDA plans to support biotech companies in genome editing and the use of gene drives, but fails to mention cell based meat production as an area of technological advancement. Here’s what the action plan says to us: 

With the looming threat […]

Simply put, the action plan released by the FDA five days after the joint meeting between the USDA and FDA to discuss cell based labeling and regulation, has nothing to do with cell based tech. The report details the FDA plans to support biotech companies in genome editing and the use of gene drives, but fails to mention cell based meat production as an area of technological advancement. Here's what the action plan says to us: 

With the looming threat of cell based meat as a replacement for traditional agriculture methods, the FDA and Interagency Task Force on Agriculture and Rural Prosperity, are turning to GMOs to preserve the vitality of rural agriculture.


We've posted the Action Plan here for ease of access and reading. It's also available in PDF format on FDA.gov.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is pleased to share the Plant and Animal Biotechnology Innovation Action Plan. This plan provides an overview of the key priorities the FDA will pursue to support innovation in plant and animal biotechnology and to advance the agency’s public health mission.

Many of the priorities outlined within this Action Plan are well underway and will be rolled out, including for public input as appropriate, over the course of the next 12 months. We expect to continue implementation of the commitments made under this Action Plan through 2020.

Background

Scientific advancements such as genome editing have led to the ability to more efficiently and precisely alter the genomes of plants and animals to produce desired traits. Genome editing
technologies, including use of gene drives, in plants and animals are generating great excitement about potential applications in areas including food (for humans and animals), agriculture, and health – as well as questions about potential risks. Applications being explored include:

  • Altering specific traits of plant foods or fungi (e.g., increased tolerance to environmental stresses, improved fatty acid profiles of oilseeds for human diets);
  • Improving the health and welfare of food-producing animals (e.g., pigs resistant to diseases such as African swine fever as well as porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus);
  • Producing plants or animals for human medical use (e.g., xenotransplantation, production of pharmaceutical substances); and
  • Altering organisms to reduce or eliminate their ability to carry or transmit infectious diseases (e.g., mosquitoes that are vectors of viruses or parasites causing dengue fever, Zika virus, or malaria; ticks that transmit bacteria causing Lyme disease).

Modernizing the biotechnology regulatory system

In 2015, the FDA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Department of Agriculture began to modernize the regulatory framework for biotechnology products to ensure the preparedness of federal regulatory agencies for future products of biotechnology. The agencies published two key documents:

To better understand the landscape of future products of biotechnology, the FDA, EPA, and USDA commissioned a study conducted by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which published a report titled, “Preparing for Future Products of Biotechnology” in 2017.

In addition, the FDA issued key documents to update and help improve the predictability of our regulatory decision-making. For example, in October 2017, the FDA, working with EPA, issued Guidance for Industry #236 to clarify the delineation of responsibilities between the FDA and EPA for oversight of mosquito-related products (including those involving the application of biotechnology). In January 2017, the FDA published two documents to begin the process of clarifying our regulatory approach to genome editing in animals, and in plant varieties used for food: (1) a draft revised Guidance for Industry (GFI) #187 on the oversight of intentionally altered genomic DNA in animals (in the corresponding Notice of Availability published in the Federal Register (FR), the FDA asked for public input on a series of questions to help inform our thinking (82 FR 6561; January 19, 2017)); and (2) a Request for Comments on questions related to use of genome editing in new plant varieties used for food for humans and animals (82 FR 6564; January 19, 2017).

Moreover, the FDA worked with federal partners on the Interagency Task Force on Agriculture and Rural Prosperity, which issued its report in January 2018, identifying several recommendations on harnessing technological innovation in agricultural production. The goals of this Action Plan align with the objectives of that ongoing effort and we look forward to the continued close collaboration and engagement with our federal partners.

Plant and Animal Biotechnology Innovation Action Plan

The FDA’s Action Plan aims to implement and clarify risk-based policies with the goals of ensuring that developers know what they need to do to efficiently bring a product to market, and that consumers and the public understand how the FDA’s regulatory system helps ensure the safety of such products. The Action Plan identifies concrete priorities in three key areas:

I. Advancing public health by promoting innovation

The FDA has a flexible, risk-based approach to the oversight of food and animal products of biotechnology, focusing on safety, effectiveness, and/or regulatory questions relevant to each product for its intended use. Our approach includes, when appropriate, updating and clarifying
science-based policies to support innovation and ensure that our regulatory processes are efficient, predictable and proportionate to risk.

Fostering innovations in animal biotechnology

The FDA will continue to support innovation in animal biotechnology through key policy activities. As we implement the priorities identified here, we recognize the importance of enabling developers to bring innovative and transformational products of benefit to consumers and animals. We intend to clarify and appropriately tailor our regulatory oversight considering the unique factors relevant to animals developed with biotechnology, including food-producing and biopharm (i.e. that produce medical products) animals.

The FDA has reviewed the feedback we received on the draft revised GFI #187 and, considering the concerns some stakeholders have raised, we believe a public dialogue and exchange of information with stakeholders is an important element of the plan. A first step in this dialogue is to hold a webinar on December 3, 2018 (see public webinar announcement), to review the science behind genome editing in animals, the promising uses of this technology in animals, the potential risks, and information about CVM’s risk-based approach to the oversight of intentional genomic alterations to animals. We also would like to communicate our regulatory approach directly to our stakeholders using plain language that is more easily understandable than in our regulatory documents. Such a webinar will also be helpful in explaining to product developers how our approach seeks to be as flexible as possible within the law.

The FDA is committed to adopting and clarifying a comprehensive policy framework for the development and oversight of animal biotechnology products, including for drug and food products derived from intentionally genetically altered animals. Our comprehensive framework – to be detailed in a set of guidance documents that we intend to release over the next year – will more clearly describe how the FDA is applying its regulatory oversight based on the risk profile of different types of products. Through various guidance documents, taken together, the FDA intends to advance an efficient, science-based pathway to market for safe animal biotechnology derived products. The FDA believes this modern framework will balance the agency’s commitment to safety with mechanisms to drive innovation to help usher in new, beneficial products to consumers and animals.

The FDA is establishing a new pilot program, the Veterinary Innovation Program (VIP), to provide intensive assistance, both technical and programmatic, for developers seeking FDA approval of intentionally altered genomic DNA in animals and animal cells, tissues, and cell- or tissue based products that provide a benefit to human health, animal health, animal well-being (e.g. husbandry improvements), or food production. The goal of the VIP is to facilitate advancements in the development of innovative animal products by providing greater certainty in the regulatory process, encouraging development and research, and supporting an efficient and predictable pathway to approval for certain innovative animal products.

In 2019, the agency intends to publish guidance to clarify the FDA’s regulatory approach to the regulation of intentional genomic alterations in animals, including through genome editing. This regulatory approach would be characterized by risk-based categories that include: an FDA decision not to enforce approval requirements with no prior review, an FDA decision not to enforce approval requirements following a review of data that address specific risk questions, and an FDA decision to review for approval with data requirements proportionate to the risk associated with the particular product. This regulatory approach includes flexibility to transfer products across these categories based on specific conditions as we gain familiarity with different product risk profiles. In a complementary draft guidance, the FDA intends to clarify its regulatory approach for categories of intentionally genetically altered animals used in research and plans to outline, based on risk, when the FDA intends to exercise enforcement discretion (i.e., the FDA’s decision not to enforce approval requirements in certain situations, as outlined above) or when it intends to enforce the requirement for an approved new animal drug application. Such clarification will enhance regulatory predictability for developers.

Also in 2019, to further support early efforts in animal biotechnology research and development, the FDA intends to publish draft guidance for industry to establish an alternative type of file as a repository for information exchanges with the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) for products that are in early development stages or that are developed for pure research and that may never progress to a marketable product. This would provide a means for CVM to ensure basic standards of safety for such products (e.g. keeping such animals out of the food supply) while also avoiding imposition of user fees and lessening certain administrative burdens of maintaining an Investigational New Animal Drug file.

Finally, to enhance the transparency of our decisions, the FDA intends to list on its website the specific animals or categories of animals with intentional genomic alterations for which the FDA has made a risk-based determination to exercise enforcement discretion with regard to premarket approval requirements.

Advancing innovations in plant biotechnology

In the area of plant biotechnology innovation, the FDA’s policy priorities will be aimed at helping to ensure the safety of food (for humans and animals) derived from genome-edited food crops. The FDA has over 25 years of experience overseeing the safety of foods from new plant varieties produced through genetic engineering. The agency will take lessons learned from this longstanding experience to clarify our policy approach to evaluation of the safety of food from genome edited crops. Having reviewed the comments received on the Request for Comments, we intend to develop guidance for industry explaining how the FDA’s current regulatory policy for foods derived from new plant varieties applies to foods produced using genome editing. We intend to publish the draft guidance for public comment in early 2019. In addition, over the next two years, we intend to begin updating the existing procedures for voluntary premarket consultations with industry to reflect the FDA’s 25 years of experience with foods derived from biotechnology plants and considering any additional issues related to genome editing of food crops.

II. Strengthening public outreach and communication

The agency will use a robust public communication strategy, with direct support and involvement from the FDA’s Commissioner and senior agency leaders, to engage with our stakeholders on innovations in plant and animal biotechnology. The agency’s efforts will be aimed at explaining our science-based regulatory approach, increasing understanding of our regulatory frameworks that protect public health, keeping our stakeholders informed of our ongoing work, and providing opportunities for public input.

As we adopt, clarify, and implement our policy approaches to future plant and animal biotechnology products, the FDA will actively engage with stakeholders to ensure understanding and provide opportunity for dialogue. Where appropriate, the FDA may hold public meetings in coordination with the issuance of guidance documents. The FDA also intends to perform active outreach to industry, particularly small developers, animal producers and farmers, and other stakeholders. These outreach efforts will be aimed at increasing understanding of the FDA’s regulatory oversight approaches and how best to engage with the agency on questions related to regulatory status or safety evaluations of products. The FDA is also reviewing plant and animal biotechnology information available on our website to streamline the information and make it more accessible.

Moreover, as part of our continuous education and outreach efforts, we will issue information on scientific and regulatory issues pertaining to biotechnology derived human and animal food products, as we implement these initiatives.

III. Increasing engagement with domestic and international partners

Strong partnerships with our domestic and international public health partners are an essential aspect of our efforts to advance plant and animal biotechnology innovation. The FDA will actively engage with our federal and international partners through coordinated and collaborative actions to support regulatory alignment and efficiency, and enhance regulatory science to inform our decisions. For example, the FDA will continue to work with EPA and USDA on regulatory approaches to products obtained using genome editing and other new plant and animal development techniques, consistent with our respective regulatory authorities and with the Coordinated Framework. The FDA and USDA have recently announced a formal agreement to bolster interagency coordination and collaboration, and biotechnology is a targeted area of focus for an FDA-USDA working group under this agreement.

The FDA will work with foreign regulatory agencies to support scientific and, where possible, regulatory alignment regarding products of genome editing. Our efforts will include working through FDA’s foreign offices. FDA also will explore existing or new memoranda of understanding or similar agreements with foreign governments as mechanisms to share information and incorporate efficiencies into our regulatory processes. Moreover, we will continue to provide leadership in international fora to enhance understanding of the FDA’s science- and risk-based regulatory approach that ensures safety of FDA-regulated biotechnology products.

The FDA believes that public-private partnerships that are able to bridge a broad range of disciplines, expertise, and experience will help to ensure safe use of potentially transformative biotechnology tools, such as gene drives that may help control vector-borne disease. The FDA will work with domestic and international partners and engage in a dialogue about how such tools may eventually strengthen measures to address diseases conveyed by vectors such as mosquitoes and ticks. The dialogue will address the novel ecological, environmental, and public health challenges posed by the cross-border nature of such diseases and the potential permanence of gene drive solutions to vector-borne disease.

Taken together, these priorities are intended to ensure the safety of plant and animal biotechnology products, foster continued public confidence in the FDA’s regulation of these products, and avoid unnecessary barriers to future innovation consistent with the FDA’s mission to protect and promote public health. FDA will continue to work with EPA and USDA on regulatory approaches to products obtained using genome editing and other new plant and animal development techniques, consistent with our respective regulatory authorities and with the Coordinated Framework. The FDA and USDA have recently announced a formal agreement to bolster interagency coordination and collaboration, and biotechnology is a targeted area of focus for an FDA-USDA working group under this agreement.

Today is the Next Gen Good Food Forum in Beijing Zhongguancun, China. It’s hosted by Dao Ventures, a China based venture capital firm established to introduce alternative meat sources to China.

We’re not overwhelmingly excited about the agenda, and are left wondering who from China is going to be attending that is going to take the information and do something with it. If China pumps the money into this that it’s capable of, well who knows the possibilities (the […]

Today is the Next Gen Good Food Forum in Beijing Zhongguancun, China. It’s hosted by Dao Ventures, a China based venture capital firm established to introduce alternative meat sources to China.

We're not overwhelmingly excited about the agenda, and are left wondering who from China is going to be attending that is going to take the information and do something with it. If China pumps the money into this that it's capable of, well who knows the possibilities (the WeChat of cell based meat). The highlights are Shi Liu from BlackRock and New Crop Capital founding member, Chris Kerr (New Crop Capital has a plate full of cell based investments). 

China's been relatively quiet since the 300 million dollar trade agreement in 2017 with Israel. Why might cell based meat relevant to China now? Recent swine flu outbreaks certainly help the cause. 

Investments

Bye Bye Baby, Formula. Ginkgo Bioworks invests $14 million in Glycosyn LLC to scale production of human milk.  http://cellbased.link/a6ca5

Advancements

New Age Meats realized a 12x cost savings per sausage link since last month. http://cellbased.link/s7155d

Publicity

Tom Mastrobuoni of Tyson Ventures, Christie Lagally of Seattle Food Tech, and Thomas Bowman of JUST, Inc. discuss the future of meat at the 2018 Smart Kitchen Summit.  http://cellbased.link/cf9a7

Cell Based Meat goes to Hollywood, I mean Mars. So says Dr. Michele Perchonok, as part of Nat Geos show, Mars. Season 2 premiered on November 12th. http://cellbased.link/5330a 

Regulation

Unfortunately, many of the public comments about the USDA and FDA Joint Public Meeting on cell based meat production aren't effectively addressing the question, "How should cell based meat be labeled?"

Submit your comment and help influence the future of food. http://cellbased.link/regulations 

The Support

"[Cell based meat] classifies as meat based on the biology, but should be labeled to identify it as "cell-based" (or equivalent) meat for transparency, although I believe this distinction will become irrelevant once these products are fully accepted by consumers."

Sam Butler, posted on http://cellbased.link/regulations 

The Opposition

"Meat is made up of at least a dozen different cell types (e.g. fat cells, muscle, connective tissue), always in specific ratios necessary for life (this should be obvious). Cell cultures will never replicate this complexity and will inevitably lead to chronic disease of the humans consuming them due to the lack of our bodies to digest non-evolutionary foods. Maybe we can digest lab grown meat in 2 million years of evolution, but until then countless people will die if it is allowed into the food supply."

Matthew Klein, posted on http://cellbased.link/regulations 


GENERAL TERMS


🧼 CLEAN MEAT

Meat produced in an aseptic environment (petri dish). 
Grown in vitro (outside of the animal), the meat is not subject to the same pathogens and bacteria as conventionally farmed animals. 

👩🏾‍🔬 LAB GROWN

Meat “grown” or produced in a lab as opposed to raised on a farm. As the process becomes industrialized, cell based meat will be made in food production facilities, not labs. 

🧫 CELL BASED

Meat is synthesized from cells rather than from […]


GENERAL TERMS


🧼 CLEAN MEAT

Meat produced in an aseptic environment (petri dish). 
Grown in vitro (outside of the animal), the meat is not subject to the same pathogens and bacteria as conventionally farmed animals. 

👩🏾‍🔬 LAB GROWN

Meat "grown" or produced in a lab as opposed to raised on a farm. As the process becomes industrialized, cell based meat will be made in food production facilities, not labs. 

🧫 CELL BASED

Meat is synthesized from cells rather than from animal slaughter.

🧪 CULTURED

The removal of cells from an animal or plant and their growth in a favorable artificial environment.


🏛 FDA TERMS 


ANIMAL CELL CULTURE FOOD TECHNOLOGY

The controlled growth of animal cells from livestock poultry, fish, or other animals, their subsequent differentiation into various cell types, and their collection and processing into food.


📋 UNDER REVIEW 


“Cell cultured food from chickens” \\Eric Christianson, Purdue Farms

There are ongoing discussions between the FDA, USDA, and key cell based stakeholders to determine the labeling standard for cell based food products.

As of the most recent joint assembly meeting held by the FDA and USDA, October 2018:

Conventional meat farmers and corporations deeply invested in traditional meat farming are advocating for cell based meat to be labeled as, "cell cultured food from [meat]".

Company representatives from Memphis Meats and Finless Foods are advocating for cell based meat t0 be labeled as, "cell based [meat]".

*Due to the above mentioned statements, all of the General Terms listed are not to be considered as official FDA or labeling terms.


🌿 PLANT BASED SUBSTITUTES


Do not be fooled. Most "vegan" meat companies do not use any cell based technology. The only company currently using cell based tech to engineer plant based "meat substitutes" is Impossible Foods. Impossible Foods uses acellular fermentation to multiply a heme-containing protein called soy leghemoglobin. More on their process here: http://cellbased.link/m8e52d

The cell based food landscape can be broken down into two segments:

Acellular: acellular production includes the synthesis of proteins such as eggs, gelatin, and milk. Acellular production begins with a DNA sequence that is inserted into yeast and creates fermentation, subsequently yielding new cells. The new cells are genetically identical to the DNA of the starting material.

🧬 →  YEAST  →  FERMENTATION  →  🥛

Cellular: cellular production includes the synthesis of animal meat & fish. There […]

The cell based food landscape can be broken down into two segments:

Acellular: acellular production includes the synthesis of proteins such as eggs, gelatin, and milk. Acellular production begins with a DNA sequence that is inserted into yeast and creates fermentation, subsequently yielding new cells. The new cells are genetically identical to the DNA of the starting material.

🧬 →  YEAST  →  FERMENTATION  →  🥛

Cellular: cellular production includes the synthesis of animal meat & fish. There are currently two processes to produce cell based meat. 

Process 1: 🐄  →   🧫  →  SCAFFOLD  →  SERUM  →  🍔

This process begins with cells obtained from a tissue biopsy of an animal from a particular species. The cells are placed inside a flask (petri dish) with a scaffold (supportive structure) and a nutrient dense serum (food). Inside these flasks, the cells multiply and form strands of muscle tissue.

This method of cellular agriculture faces some particular challenges in scalability:

💰Too Expensive: fetal bovine serum, the current “food” available on the market is too expensive.

⏱Too Slow: it current takes 20,000 strands of muscle fiber to form a burger, which takes up to 3 months.

🧫Too Small: the cellular growth process takes place inside a single flask, which is not suitable for industrial production.

Process 2: 🐮  →   🧫  →  SCAFFOLD  → IPSC  →  OPTi-OX → 🍔

This process begins with stem cells obtained from a calf umbilical cord. The cells are placed inside a flask (petri dish) with a scaffold (supportive structure) and transcribed into induced pluripotent stem cells. Using proprietary technology (OPTi-OX), the stem cells convert into bovine muscle and fat tissue. Using electrical stimulation, the bovine muscle cells are contracted (exercised) to grow.

This method of cellular agriculture is described to be superior in time and cost efficiency.