Archive link: https://archive.is/dgC4T Title edited to reduce click-baityness. From the article: It's noteworthy that this is an effort to make biomimetic animal fats and plant oils, not...
Title edited to reduce click-baityness. From the article:
Fatty acids — compounds of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon atoms — are the building blocks of all the fats and oils in food. In nature, plants and animals produce them, but Savor, the California-based startup that organized the tasting, is replicating those molecules with methane captured from coal mining or natural gas drilling.
The methane-butter-laced mushroom steaks and butter-braised cabbage also on offer make for a “really bizarre meal,” Savor co-founder Ian McKay said — one that he says will be available at American restaurants and bakeries in the coming months.
The company, which is backed by billionaire Bill Gates, is part of a growing slate of startups tapping everything from fungus to sawdust to make more environmentally friendly fats and oils. Traditional agricultural businesses are facing tougher scrutiny over their impact on the planet, with regulators rolling out new laws such as the European Union’s ban on food items linked to deforestation.
It's noteworthy that this is an effort to make biomimetic animal fats and plant oils, not hydrogenated vegetable oils that emulate the high temperature melting properties of animal or nut-derived fats like milkfat or palm oil and cocoa butter.
Biosynthesis of fatty acids and food oils is more straightforward than protein synthesis or culture, so there's a good chance one or more of these startups will be profitable. There's a certain amount of greenwashing involved in promoting the use of carbon dioxide and methane as feedstocks, but eliminating chemical byproducts and allergenic proteins from fermentation processes might be a safety benefit. In the end, it's all industrial chemistry.
The science fiction nerd in me is ecstatic about being able to make food out of the raw small molecules you could find in space or from reprocessed wastes - e.g. carbonaceous chondrite asteroids and plastics. The gastronome part of me is less enthusiastic about ultraprocessed ingredients with additives to make them more appetizing than real food, and tastes that lose the complexity and subtle variations of nature.
This seems like one of many (many) small steps toward achieving Star Trek-esque food synthesizers. I imagine that in the distant future, human spacefarers would like something on the dinner menu...
This seems like one of many (many) small steps toward achieving Star Trek-esque food synthesizers.
I imagine that in the distant future, human spacefarers would like something on the dinner menu besides algae sludge.
Boy do I have problems with this article. This is a morning rant for me so apologies ahead of time if something seems nonsensical or off in tone. One simple problem I have with this is an early...
Boy do I have problems with this article. This is a morning rant for me so apologies ahead of time if something seems nonsensical or off in tone.
One simple problem I have with this is an early quote that talks about “alternative proteins” like Beyond Meat falling in popularity. But that honestly seems like a bad faith comparison. Those are approximations of meat made with plant material. Why are they not comparing it to other companies who are going the same route and using controlled fermentation to make actual synthetic meat products?
But beyond that, the main reasons why the author thinks these are great is because of environmental factors, but that strikes me as greenwashing - or at least something adjacent to it. For the plant based oils, the carbon cost of producing them is orders of magnitude smaller than animal fats. That argument actually works very well for butter, I suppose, but that is kind of forgetting the fact that butter is also really bad for your health because of the saturated fats; tons of people have replaced butter they purchase with plant based alternatives for their health, and there are some fairly good facsimiles already on the market. It sounds like one company is trying to produce the compounds that make butter smell like butter, which is the major sensory factor lacking in substitutes, and I think that’s a much better solution because they can simply be inserted into those butter alternative formulations.
In any case, I don’t think that any one thing is going to stop us from producing dairy because Western societies put dairy products in just about everything; milk and butter production byproducts also have wide uses.
And then there is palm oil. The top concern for palm oil is less the carbon impact and more the deforestation due to large plantations where oil palms are grown. But this isn’t a good problem of necessity, it’s a byproduct of the market and demand for it. We are simply using too much of it. That is why it is so cheap. If we wanted to solve that problem, we would tax it to discourage use. The only way we could impact that issue otherwise would be if they can make it cheaper than the slave-labor produced oil being produced. If they can do it, great. I hope they can do it and make a big change in the world. But I’m not holding my breath.
Of all the fats they mentioned the one I think is most interesting is cocoa. That’s another crop that is produced by slave labor, and the price is still high because we simply can’t get enough of it; that’s why the cheap chocolate candy is made with milk and vegetable fats. A lot of cosmetics also use cocoa butter, and the ones that use them instead of palm oil are generally considered to be better - or at least “nicer”.
The problem with these oils all have a single unifying cause; they are all caused because we are consuming too much of them. It’s not just bad for the planet, it’s bad for our health. The key to solving these problems is to consume them more sensibly.
In the meanwhile these companies are all competing against the real things, all of which have huge industries and markets propping them up. If these companies become successful, they will help ameliorate these specific issues to a small extent. But these companies not only surviving long enough to get a market but also overtaking the markets they intend to replace, is so unlikely that I would think calling them moonshots would be generous.
I think all of these companies are going good things. I want them to succeed. I just find the article far too optimistic and unrealistic.
More cynically: if people will pay for it, and the government doesn't prohibit a company from offering it, then capitalism demands that it be offered.
In any case, I don’t think that any one thing is going to stop us from producing dairy because Western societies put dairy products in just about everything; milk and butter production byproducts also have wide uses.
More cynically: if people will pay for it, and the government doesn't prohibit a company from offering it, then capitalism demands that it be offered.
Archive link: https://archive.is/dgC4T
Title edited to reduce click-baityness. From the article:
It's noteworthy that this is an effort to make biomimetic animal fats and plant oils, not hydrogenated vegetable oils that emulate the high temperature melting properties of animal or nut-derived fats like milkfat or palm oil and cocoa butter.
Biosynthesis of fatty acids and food oils is more straightforward than protein synthesis or culture, so there's a good chance one or more of these startups will be profitable. There's a certain amount of greenwashing involved in promoting the use of carbon dioxide and methane as feedstocks, but eliminating chemical byproducts and allergenic proteins from fermentation processes might be a safety benefit. In the end, it's all industrial chemistry.
The science fiction nerd in me is ecstatic about being able to make food out of the raw small molecules you could find in space or from reprocessed wastes - e.g. carbonaceous chondrite asteroids and plastics. The gastronome part of me is less enthusiastic about ultraprocessed ingredients with additives to make them more appetizing than real food, and tastes that lose the complexity and subtle variations of nature.
This seems like one of many (many) small steps toward achieving Star Trek-esque food synthesizers.
I imagine that in the distant future, human spacefarers would like something on the dinner menu besides algae sludge.
Boy do I have problems with this article. This is a morning rant for me so apologies ahead of time if something seems nonsensical or off in tone.
One simple problem I have with this is an early quote that talks about “alternative proteins” like Beyond Meat falling in popularity. But that honestly seems like a bad faith comparison. Those are approximations of meat made with plant material. Why are they not comparing it to other companies who are going the same route and using controlled fermentation to make actual synthetic meat products?
But beyond that, the main reasons why the author thinks these are great is because of environmental factors, but that strikes me as greenwashing - or at least something adjacent to it. For the plant based oils, the carbon cost of producing them is orders of magnitude smaller than animal fats. That argument actually works very well for butter, I suppose, but that is kind of forgetting the fact that butter is also really bad for your health because of the saturated fats; tons of people have replaced butter they purchase with plant based alternatives for their health, and there are some fairly good facsimiles already on the market. It sounds like one company is trying to produce the compounds that make butter smell like butter, which is the major sensory factor lacking in substitutes, and I think that’s a much better solution because they can simply be inserted into those butter alternative formulations.
In any case, I don’t think that any one thing is going to stop us from producing dairy because Western societies put dairy products in just about everything; milk and butter production byproducts also have wide uses.
And then there is palm oil. The top concern for palm oil is less the carbon impact and more the deforestation due to large plantations where oil palms are grown. But this isn’t a good problem of necessity, it’s a byproduct of the market and demand for it. We are simply using too much of it. That is why it is so cheap. If we wanted to solve that problem, we would tax it to discourage use. The only way we could impact that issue otherwise would be if they can make it cheaper than the slave-labor produced oil being produced. If they can do it, great. I hope they can do it and make a big change in the world. But I’m not holding my breath.
Of all the fats they mentioned the one I think is most interesting is cocoa. That’s another crop that is produced by slave labor, and the price is still high because we simply can’t get enough of it; that’s why the cheap chocolate candy is made with milk and vegetable fats. A lot of cosmetics also use cocoa butter, and the ones that use them instead of palm oil are generally considered to be better - or at least “nicer”.
The problem with these oils all have a single unifying cause; they are all caused because we are consuming too much of them. It’s not just bad for the planet, it’s bad for our health. The key to solving these problems is to consume them more sensibly.
In the meanwhile these companies are all competing against the real things, all of which have huge industries and markets propping them up. If these companies become successful, they will help ameliorate these specific issues to a small extent. But these companies not only surviving long enough to get a market but also overtaking the markets they intend to replace, is so unlikely that I would think calling them moonshots would be generous.
I think all of these companies are going good things. I want them to succeed. I just find the article far too optimistic and unrealistic.
More cynically: if people will pay for it, and the government doesn't prohibit a company from offering it, then capitalism demands that it be offered.