Close Ad

The Spoon

Daily news and analysis about the food tech revolution

cultured meat

David Welch on GMO Controversy and Its Lessons for the Cell-Cultured Meat Industry

The introduction of GMO crops in the 1990s was a moment of opportunity for international agriculture—yet communications with consumers went wrong.

GMO crops have been called frankenfoods, mutants, and carcinogens. According to the Pew Research Center, roughly half of U.S. adults believe that GMO foods are less healthy than GMO-free foods. The Non-GMO Project reports that its butterfly graphic is “the fastest-growing label in the natural products industry.”

Now Chief Scientific Officer and Co-Founder at Synthesis Capital, an investment management firm focused on food system transformation, David Welch has a researcher’s outlook on the rollout of GMO crops. He spent his undergraduate years studying plant biology at UC Berkeley. In his later experience as a research assistant, some of his work focused on genetically modified crops like barley and maize.

Last week, I got on Zoom with Welch to unpack the parallels between the launch of GMO crops and the advent of cell-cultured meats today.

Avoiding a communication breakdown

Around the time when GM crops were first introduced to the public, the scientific community was still debating the safety implications of modified foods. Welch believes that some of that early discourse sowed the seeds of public uncertainty about the safety of GMO foods. Even once the scientific community had reached a consensus, it was difficult to clear up the confusion that had already been created.

“I’m not suggesting that you should stop negative discussions from taking place, and I think it’s fine to have some dissenting views,” says Welch. Yet the lack of clear communication regarding the underlying science of GMOs likely had an impact on public acceptance, an important lesson for the cell-cultured meat industry: “There’s an opportunity for the industry to work closely together to make sure that the science is communicated in a non-confusing way.”

Welch hopes to see companies, governments, and academics work together to develop a common language for describing cell cultivation concepts. That language could help to smooth out issues in the regulation and labeling arena, which has already proven to be a contentious zone for plant-based products.

Importantly, that common language would also help to standardize communications with the public—“so that you don’t have 20 companies talking about the science in 20 different ways, which then creates confusion,” says Welch.

Regulation and mistrust

Even in the U.S., where some GM ingredients have been widely adopted, the regulation of modified crops is notoriously arduous.

“It’s a very expensive and multi-year process to get a GMO crop approved in basically any country,” says Welch. “And I think there’s some evidence through consumer research that that leads to distrust in the technology. People think, if they have to regulate this so stringently, then it must be dangerous.”

Here, he says, lies a potential parallel between GM and cell-cultured meat technologies. In the U.S. and most other countries, the alternative meat industry is still awaiting a regulatory framework. That framework could ultimately affect consumers’ views of cell-cultured meats.

“I’m not suggesting that we should have no regulation,” says Welch. “I think that the regulatory authorities and the companies need to work together to create a regulatory pathway that is safe, but not so onerous that the public perceives the technology as very risky because there’s so much regulation attached to it.”

The future of food work

“One of the other tensions that existed with GM crops was how they were rolled out into the market and the impact that had on some farming communities,” says Welch. From the beginning, seeds for GMO commodity crops were controlled by a few large companies, a trend that has only intensified since the technology was first introduced. “Those companies ended up with a lot of control over the farmers, and I think that’s had negative effects on some farmers.”

There’s another lesson there for cell-cultured meat companies: Many consumers’ perceptions of alternative meat products could well be affected by the industry’s impact on their own communities.

“I think it’s important for the entire food industry to start talking about this,” says Welch. “I believe there’s going to be a future where there are far more alternative meats than conventional meats on the market. And we need to think about what that means for all of the people who are employed through the conventional meat and seafood industries, and what the future looks like for them in terms of new jobs.”

As cell-cultured meat makes its first forays into the U.S. market, producers are sure to face communications challenges. However, Welch notes that there are also opportunities to build trust with consumers by being transparent about the cell cultivation process.

“The way we currently produce meat and seafood, there’s that hidden step between the field—if the animal ever lived on a field—and the point where it gets to your plate,” he says. “I think it’s really exciting that consumers will be able to see how their meat is being made much more openly in the future.”

These Four Startups Are Growing Animal-free Scaffolds for Cell-Cultured Meat

It’s one thing to grow an amorphous blob of muscle or fat cells in a bioreactor—and another thing to recreate the structure of animal tissue. In order to make a complex product like a steak or a salmon fillet, cell-cultured meat producers need to provide their stem cells with a scaffold to grow on.

In nature, growing stem cells are housed within a structure of proteins and polysaccharides called the extracellular matrix. The cells’ interaction with this environment guides the way that they adhere, differentiate, and migrate.

Both cell-based meat manufacturers and business-to-business suppliers in the industry are experimenting with different scaffolding materials that can mimic the extracellular matrix. Below, we’ll discuss some scaffolding solutions and the startups that are exploring them.

You might notice that all of the materials we mention are animal-free—a significant development as alternative meat companies seek to reduce their dependence on animal inputs.


1. DaNAgreen is developing extracellular matrix stand-ins for both clinical and food applications. On its website, the South Korean startup describes Protinet™-P, its scaffolding product for cell-cultured meat manufacturing, as “a food that incubates food.” Protinet™-P scaffolds are completely edible, as they’re made from isolated plant proteins.

DanNAgreen currently offers its products in custom sizes and shapes. The company plans to spend the next few years scaling up production.

2. Seawith, a cell-cultured meat company also based in South Korea, is using algae-based scaffolds to grow its products. Along with being nutrient-rich, algae is relatively easy and inexpensive to grow. In The Spoon’s recent interview with Seawith, we learned that the company credits its algae scaffolding with the development of thicker cell-based steaks.

The company hopes to start selling its cell-cultured meat products to restaurants by 2023, though the team is awaiting regulatory decisions from the South Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety.

3. Excell is exploring the use of fungal mycelium as a scaffolding substrate. Mycelium contains the polymer chitin, which can be made to mimic some of the polysaccharides found in the natural extracellular matrix. Some fungi also have a meaty taste and texture, so it’s possible that mycelium-based substrates could enhance the sensory experience of eating cell-cultured meat.

Excell is currently offering mycelium scaffolding culture kits to researchers and product developers, and collecting feedback on how its products perform.

4. Matrix Meats of Ohio is approaching the challenge in a different way. The company uses an electrospinning technique to build nanofiber scaffolds. As FoodNavigator has reported, Matrix’s scaffolds can be made of a combination of different materials, which could allow cell-based meat producers to grow cultured muscles and fats together on a single structure.

Matrix works directly with cell-cultured meat startups to develop custom scaffolding solutions for their products. Client companies can control the scaffolding material, fiber size, and other factors.

These innovations with plant and fungi-based scaffolds could just be the start. Animal-derived collagen has been widely studied as a cellular scaffold material (which makes sense, as collagen is one of the proteins found in the natural extracellular matrix)—and it may be possible to make animal collagen scaffolds without using actual animals. Researchers have managed to produce animal collagen using gene-edited tobacco plants, and recombinant collagen produced by bacteria and yeast also look promising.

Advancements in animal-free scaffolding should help cell-cultured meat producers to cut costs and reduce their environmental impacts. (And this isn’t just a hypothetical: With its algae scaffold, DaNAgreen has been able to produce cell-based steaks at near price-parity with conventional products.) We’re likely to see much more innovation in the field as cell-cultured companies explore hybrid production options.

Meet Three Startups Developing Growth Mediums to Feed Cell-cultured Meat

Culture medium is one of the key building blocks for cell-cultured meat production: In order to grow stem cells into blobs of muscle and fat, you need a nutritious serum to feed and raise the cells.

For most of the nascent industry’s history, fetal bovine serum (or FBS) has been the only viable growth substrate. This reliance on FBS presents a quandary for startups seeking to market their products as ethical and sustainable: The serum is extracted from cow fetuses after slaughtering pregnant cows. FBS is also expensive—an issue for companies seeking to scale down production costs.

To get around the problems of FBS, some of the big names in cell-cultured meat have been developing their own alternative growth mediums. Mosa Meat announced last year that it had converted to a new medium that costs 88 times less than FBS. But there’s also a smattering of growth medium startups developing growth mediums to sell as stand-alone products. Here are some names to know in this space:


1. Multus Media’s Proliferum M serum is formulated with a proprietary mixture of proteins and other ingredients. Designed to facilitate growth for mammalian cells, the serum demonstrates what the company calls universibility: It can support a range of different cell lines.

Multus is currently working with partner companies to test Proliferum M. The company hopes to bring its first product to market later in 2021. (For more on Multus, check out our recent interview with company CEO Cai Linton.)

2. Back of the Yards Algae Sciences manufactures food ingredients like dyes and protein powders—all from algae. The company is experimenting with an algae-based culture medium in their research and development lab, seeking solutions for beef, pork, chicken, and fish cell growth. (And they’ve had some success, as Food Dive reported earlier this year.) Back of the Yards hasn’t yet released details about when their medium might become commercially available.

Seawith, a South Korean company, is also using algae to create culture medium and scaffolding for its cell-based meat products.

3. Biftek is working on a microorganism-based growth medium, although the Turkish startup hasn’t revealed what kinds of microorganisms it’s using. Biftek recently received a financial boost from CULT Food Science, a Canadian investment platform. They’ll use the money to send out culture medium samples to cell-based meat producers and apply for patents.


These aren’t the only serum ideas out there. There’s been some academic research around the use of platelet lysate (a liquid derived from blood platelets) as an alternative culture medium. Agulos Biotech is working on a simulated version of porcine platelet lysate. Driven by the theory that growing muscle cells in blood would produce better-tasting meat, Cultured Blood is developing a substrate of cell-cultured blood.

The cell-cultured meat industry is expected to be worth $248 million by 2026, and many industry leaders believe that cell-based products will reach price parity with conventional meat by then. In order to live up to these expectations, the industry will need to identify sustainable, cost-efficient culture mediums. One of the approaches above might be the key to unlocking more affordable, ethical, cell-based meat.

Eat Just Partners with Qatar Free Zones to Bring Cultured Meat Facility to the MENA Region

Eat Just announced today that it has partnered with Doha Venture Capital (DVC) and Qatar Free Zones Authority (QFZA) to build a cultured meat facility in the Middle East and Northern Africa (MENA) region.

The new facility will be located in the Umm Alhoul Free Zone in Qatar, and will at first house Eat Just’s cultured meat division, GOOD Meat. Eventually, the facility will accommodate Eat Just’s plant-based egg brand JUST Egg as well. In addition to those brands, the facility will also conduct research and development, engineering, and business development.

According to the press announcement, the Qatar Free Zones Authority and Qatar’s Ministry of Public Health have indicated that they will grant regulatory approval for GOOD Meat’s cultured chicken “very soon” and have formally granted an expert license for the cell-based meat. If Qatar does come through with this approval, it would be the second region in the world to approve the sale of cultured meat, following Singapore’s decision to do so in December of last year.

Gaining regulatory approval in more countries around the world is obviously a key milestone that needs to be reached in order for cultured meat to gain any sort of traction. Cell-based meat startups around the world have raised a ton of money over the past year, and the technology is rapidly maturing. But all the funding and the best technology in the world doesn’t mean anything if you aren’t allowed to sell your product.

While there are skeptics that doubt cell-based meat will ever be able to economically scale, a number of startups have made moves that aim to bring it to market. After two drastic price reductions this year, the production price of Israel-based Future Meat’s cell-based chicken is now $4 for 110g (check out our recent podcast interview with Future Meat Founder and CSO Yaakov Nahmias for more). Here in the U.S. Memphis Meats re-branded to the more consumer-friendly UPSIDE Foods and announced a partnership with the Altier Crenn restaurant in San Francisco.

Eat Just has definitely pushed its way to the front of the cultured meat pack, however. It is the first company to ever commercially sell its cultured meat, and now it will have large-scale production facilities in both Singapore and Qatar.

Koby Nahmias Knew Cell-Based Meat Had Huge Potential But Was Too Expensive. He Set About Changing That.

Something was bothering Yaakov Nahmias.

The longtime bioengineer had been sitting alongside the Charles River near MIT drinking coffee when he got a call from an investor in Israel who wanted to know what he thought about Mark Post’s famous quarter-million euro hamburger.

“I told him, it’s probably the silliest idea I’ve ever heard,” said Nahmias, who also goes by Koby, in an interview with The Spoon.

It wasn’t the science itself Nahmias thought was silly – the longtime bioengineer knew making a burger in a lab was an impressive scientific feat – but rather the idea that consumers would pay hundreds of dollars, let alone hundreds of thousands, for a burger no matter how science-forward meat the meat is.

Sitting there, Nahmias began to think about what it would take to bring down the cost of growing meat in a bioreactor to result in prices approachable enough for the average consumer.

It wouldn’t be easy. As the founding director of the Alexander Grass Center for Bioengineering at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a longtime consultant to the pharma industry, Nahmias knew that this type of complicated biotech cell-reproduction work was hugely expensive and – the way things were structured back in 2015 – totally impractical for producing low-cost consumables.

Yaakov “Koby” Nahmias

But Nahmias also thought that maybe it didn’t need to be this way. After all, he had colleagues who ran an insect farm, which had a much lower cost per unit of biomass produced. So why, he wondered, was creating meat using cellular agriculture so much more expensive than other forms of biomass production?

One reason was that cells produced make a lots of toxins like ammonia. And, unlike insects which have livers to remove these toxins, cells produced in bioreactors “essentially grow in their own urine,” Nahmias said.

When he looked around for systems are good at ammonia removal, the obvious example was the aquarium.

“If you’re growing fish, and and you are giving them too much food, there is too much protein that breaks down into ammonia,” said Nahmias. “The only way to treat it is by adding zeolites that will bind the ammonia relatively fast. So using that type of insight, you can design a process that will do it at scale.”

Another early insight Nahmias had was that pharma bioreactors often grew one type of animal cell – hamster ovary cells – which are commonly used for vaccine development. While hamster cells grow easily in traditional bioreactors, that’s not the case with meat like beef or chicken.

But perhaps the biggest challenge Nahmias saw was the cost of growth medium used to feed the cells. After consulting to the pharma industry for the last decade, he knew it took about 10 liters of culture medium to make 1 kilogram of biomass. At what he estimated to be $20 per liter for medium at that time, he thought even with the world’s most advanced tech, they’d start hit a cost floor of around $200 per kilogram.

He would spend the next six months focused on reengineering the process of cell-based meat production. But this was only the beginning. Nahmias knew that it would take some time to commercialize his work.

So not long after, he would start a company called SuperMeat with a couple of other cofounders, where he further developed these early ideas. That company would eventually split up a year later and Nahmias would go on to found his current company, Future Meat Technologies, where he set about creating a scaled system for making low-cost cell-based meat.

Fast forward to today and he’s doing just that. Future Meat regularly makes news about reaching ever lower prices for its cell-based chicken, which is why I wanted to talk to him about how he achieved cost milestones that many have thought wouldn’t be achievable for at least half a decade.

You can listen to my full interview with Nahmias on the latest episode of The Food Tech Show. Just click play below or get the episode at Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.

Shiok Meats Acquires Gaia Foods, Will Add Beef to Its Cultured Meat Lineup

Shiok Meats, a company best known for its developments in cultured seafood, has acquired a 90 percent steak in Gaia Foods, according to Tech in Asia, which broke the news. Financial terms of the deal were not disclosed.

Through the deal, Singapore’s Shiok Meats will add “a variety of red meat products” to its roster, since the company will be able to draw on Gaia Foods expertise in developing cultured beef. Gaia, also based in Singapore is also developing cultured pork and mutton.

Both companies are targeting markets in Asia, including Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, China, Japan, Taiwan, India, and South Korea. Shiok Meats hopes to blend cultured beef and shrimp in order to create a product that can be used in a variety of dishes, from dumplings and noodles to spring rolls.

Shiok raised an undisclosed round of bridge funding last month that will go towards building out a production facility in Singapore. The company said at the time of the funding that it plans to launch commercially in that market by 2023 at the latest. Speaking to Tech in Asia today, company CEO Sandhya Sriram said Shiok Meats is ready to “power through to commercialization.”

Singapore is currently the only country in the world that has granted regulatory approval to sell cultured meat, and to just one company, Eat Just. Gaining its own approval — in Singapore and elsewhere — will be a major next step for Shiok on its path to commercialization. 

Beyond regulatory approval, Shiok Meats and every other company developing cultivated meat has a host of challenges to contend with before consumers can buy their products en masse at restaurants and grocery stores. Those challenges span everything from making cell lines more available to finding cheaper, less ethically hazy growth mediums, and educating the average consumer about what cultured meat actually is and why we need to consider it as a protein source in the first place.  

Gaia founders Vinayaka Srinivas and Hung Nguyen will lead the Shiok Meats technical team’s development process for cultured red meat products for the company moving forward. Meanwhile, Sriram told Tech in Asia that deals like this one will become “priorities” in the near-term future for the company.

Multus Media Raises $2.2M for Cultured Meat Serum Replacement

Multus Media, a startup working on a replacement for animal serum used in cultivating meat, announced today that it has raised a £1.6 milliion (~$2.2M USD) Seed round of funding. Investors in the round include SOSV, Zero Carbon Capital, Marinya Capital and angel investor Sake Bosch. The round also includes an equity-free grant of £106,000 (~$146,000 USD) from the UK Research and Innovation Council.

Founded in 2019, Multus Media was spun out of SOSV’s IndieBio program and is developing a new type of growth medium for use in creating cultured meat that is more economical that current solutions. Serum is what cultivated animal cells are placed in, allowing them to grow and form cultured meat. Serum is also an expensive part of the cultivation process with the controversial fetal bovine serum costing $200 per liter. But it’s not just the cost of the serum itself, it’s how much is used to culture meat.

As Cai Linton, Multus Media CEO explained to me last week, part of the issue is how quickly existing serum formulations deplete. Linton said that because of this depletion, serums need to be replaced every two to three days in order to keep the meat cells growing. Multus is developing a formulation that will last twice that, saving cultured meat companies money because they don’t need to buy as much of it.

Right now, Multus has identified the formulation of proteins, compounds and other ingredients it needs to make its serum. The next phase will be producing the serum, dubbed Proliferum M. Linton said that the company is looking to bring its first product to market by the end of this year, and ramp up production by the end of 2022. Multus’ formulation is not animal free at this point, though Linton said it will be as they scale up production. By 2026, the company projects that Proliferum M will cost less than $1 per liter.

There are a number of startups working on novel replacements for animal-based growth serums. In South Korea, Seawith is using algae to create both growth serum and scaffolding in cultured meat. In Canada, Future Fields is developing an animal-free serum designed to cultivate chicken.

Bringing the cost of cultured meat into parity with animal meat is a critical part of the market gaining widespread adoption. We’ve already seen companies like Mosa Meat and Future Meat both slash the production costs of their cultured meat over the past year. Perhaps Multus Media can help them, and other players in the space, bring those costs down even further.

Mzansi Meat Co. is Bringing Cultured Meat to Africa

After Eat Just gained regulatory approval in Singapore for its cultured meat last year, companies from countries all over the world are racing to bring their cultured meat products to market. We’ve heard news from Asia, the United States, Europe, and Australia regarding cultured meat, but one continent that seems to be left out of this space is Africa. Mzansi Meat Co., based in South Africa, is changing this as the first cultured meat company on the continent of Africa.

This week I spoke with Brett Thompson, a co-founder and the CEO of Mzansi Meat Co., who said he realized “There is no one doing cultivated meat or cellular agriculture in the entire African continent, which is insane to think about. The opportunity was there, and that is the beginning of our story.” The co-founders formed the company in 2020, and shortly after connected with scientist and CEO of Wild Earth, Ryan Bethencourt. Bethencourt invested in Mzansi Meat Co., which enabled the co-founders to start building out a team.

Mzansi Meat Co. is developing cell lines by extracting cells from animal donors, which are not harmed in the process. After the cells are extracted, they are grown in a bioreactor and then are differentiated into muscle and fat cells. Cultured meat companies have traditionally used FBS (fetal bovine serum) as a growth medium, but Mzansi is in discussion with companies that create growth factors from non-animal derived sources. The company will first focus on beef, using the biomass end product as an ingredient for ground meat. Eventually, the company will work on producing cultured whole cuts.

Representing the food and farming culture of Africa is important to Mzansi Meat Co., and the company will be extracting cells from indigenous cattle breeds. Recently, the start-up asked South Africa’s president Cyril Ramaphosa if they could extract cells from his prize-winning Ankole cattle herd to produce sought-after beef cuts without any slaughter.

“Braai” means to barbeque or grill food over an open fire, and this type of social gathering is a huge part of African culture. More urbanized countries and areas in Africa, like South Africa, tend to gravitate towards eating more Western styles of meat analogs for braais, like sausages and burgers patties. Mzansi Meat Co. will first start out with these analogs, and then begin producing more traditionally African cuts of meat.

As the first cultured meat company in Africa, Mzansi Meat Co. does not seem to face local competition in this space. However, Thompson said that there are possibly one or two other cultured meat start-ups in South Africa (this is currently all the information we have). With Mzansi, we are starting to see more activity with alternative proteins in Africa. VeggieVictory is the first plant-based meat company in Nigeria, and earlier this year it raised an undisclosed pre-seed round (Bethencourt also invested in this company).

Mzansi Meat Co. is currently in its pilot production phase, and hopes to have its first products available to sample by the end of this year. By the second half of next year, the company aims to have its products on retail shelves.

UPDATE: This article originally stated that Mzansi Meat does not face competition in South Africa; according to Thompson there are one or two other cultured meat start-ups in the country.

Impossible CEO Doubles Down on Doubting Cultured Meat: “Complete Vaporware”

You can’t say Impossible Foods CEO Pat Brown is a flip-flopper when it comes to downplaying the future of cell-based meat. At our Smart Kitchen Summit in October of last year, Brown declared that cultured meat was “never going to be a thing,” and based on a Washington Post interview that ran this morning, he’s only strengthened his resolve over the past nine months.

In a Q&A, Post reporter Laura Reilly asked Brown whether he thought the labeling battles currently being fought over plant-based meat will repeat with cell-based meat. Brown responded:

Cultivated meat is complete vaporware. Don’t hold your breath. The fact is that the economics of animal cell cultures as a food production system in no conceivable way can compete with the current industry. If you could use cultured cells to make any reasonable replica of an animal tissue, which would you do: Sell it for $5 a pound as meat, or sell it for $1 million a pound to treat people with muscle-wasting diseases?

It’s actually hard to make a reasonable facsimile of an animal tissue from cultured cells. Theoretically it’s doable, and there’s no question that it will be done at some point. But it will never be done with anything remotely like the economics you need for food.

He went on to make an analogy about transportation and recreating a horse instead of building a car. His point being, trying to recreate existing animal meat means your stuck with the same limitations of those animals. Both points are pretty much the same arguments he made at SKS last year, but what’s interesting is that so many advances have happened in the cultured meat space since that time.

Perhaps the biggest milestone hit was that cultured meat is being sold to consumers. Sure, right now it’s just one company (GOOD Meat) selling it in one country (Singapore), but people are actually consuming cultivated meat right now. They’re even getting it delivered to their homes.

We’ve also seen a ton of investment in the cultured meat space, funding a range of startups tackling a variety of issues. The aforementioned GOOD Meat raised $170 million, Aleph Farms just raised $105 million, Misson Barns raised $24 million, and Meatable raised $47 million, just to name a few.

At the same time we’ve seen some companies drastically bring down the costs of their cultured products. Mosa Meat generated more than a 65x cost reduction in the creation of its cultured fat. Future Meat has reduced the production price of its cultured chicken breast twice this year, bringing it down to $4 per 110g serving. And Avant Meats said it has achieved a 90 percent reduction in the cost of producing its cultured functional proteins.

And finally, just this month, it was reported that CPG giant Nestlé has partnered with Future Meat to develop some type of plant-based/cultivated meat hybrid product. If this bears out, having a massive company like Nestlé involved could definitely push the cultivated meat sector forward and closer to a reality for consumers.

As the CEO of Impossible Foods, which has raised $1.6 billion in funding and is in the plant-based meat business, Brown obviously has a horse in this race. Part of his poo-pooing cultured meat is protecting his company, and part of it is generating headlines and discussion. He’s right to have some skepticism, cultivated meat still needs to reach price parity with animal meat, regulations need to be created in markets around the world, and we need to see if consumers will even want “lab-grown” meat. But doubling down on the exact same arguments against cultivated meat year after year, when so many obvious advances have been made, seems to just deny the reality of an evolving situation.

MeaTech Says It Will Develop Cultured Pork Products

Israel-based alt-protein company MeaTech 3D has begun research and development activities around cultivated pork, the company announced today. 

Initial activities will focus largely on developing porcine cell lines, which the company says could expand its number of potential addressable markets since pork is the most widely consumed meat in the world. The porcine cell lines will add to MeaTech’s existing cell ag efforts, including cell lines for beef and chicken.

In May of this year, the company announced plans for a pilot production facility that will first be used to increase the production of its cultured fat product and then go on to produce entire cuts of cultivated meat using the company’s 3D bioprinting technology. 

Cell lines are a crucial step in the process of making cultivated meat, since cells are the starting inputs for any eventual product. However, creating new cell lines is an expensive and time-consuming process, and researchers are still figuring out which types of cells are best suited for the kind of large-scale manufacturing most cultured meat companies are aspiring to eventually do.

Most of those companies so far have stuck to developing cultured beef or chicken products, not pork. Despite the latter being the world’s most most popular meat, a very small handful of companies is actually focused on that particular protein right now. Future Meat Technologies, also based in Israel, says its newly opened production facility is producing cultured pork. Dutch startup Meatable, New Age Meats, and Higher Steaks have also done pork prototypes during the last few years. 

MeaTech’s specific focus on cell line development will further set it apart from the masses as more companies announce plans to explore cultured pork products in the future.

Future Meat Opens Production Facility, Aims to Sell Cultured Meat in the US by 2022

Future Meat has officially opened what it says is the world’s first production facility for cultured meat. The plant, located in the company’s hometown of Rehovot, Israel, is a big step in accelerating Future Meat’s timeline for getting regulatory approval to sell cultured meat and then actually getting products onto consumers’ plates.

Future Meat says the plant can produce 500 kilograms of cultured meat per day, which is equivalent to roughly 5,000 hamburgers. Those numbers may pale in comparison to traditional meat (this McDonald’s factory produces 5 million burgers every day), but for the extremely nascent cultured meat industry, they make for significant progress. 

Prof. Yaakov Nahmias, founder and chief scientific officer of Future Meat Technologies, told The Spoon that the new facility is currently processing cultured chicken, pork, and lamb. Beef production will arrive soon. The company’s first official products to come out of the facility will be a cultured chicken breast, chicken fingers, and hamburgers. 

Earlier this year, Future Meat told The Spoon it has been able to decrease the cost of cultured meat production by 1,000x over the last three years. At last check, the company had brought the cost of its cultured chicken breast down to $7.50 USD per quarter-pound serving. It followed that up with news that the production price could drop to $2 within the next 12 to 18 months.

Future Meat’s end products will be a combination of cell-cultured and plant-based protein. Nahmias said that his company’s products are 45 to 75 percent cultured meat, with an edible scaffold made of plant protein. Cell-based protein will replace plant-based elements in future generations of product as the cost of cultured meat continues to decrease.

No technologies out there, he said, use 100 percent cultured meat. “Meat is composed of cells and a three-dimensional protein scaffold that holds the cells together. Companies are either adding the edible scaffold to the cells or adding the cells to the edible scaffold. It is pretty much the same.”

Importantly, Future Meat has also developed a serum-free growth medium for feeding cells. This allows the company to avoid using the controversial fetal bovine serum (FBS), which is both expensive and ethically controversial. According to Nahmias, Future Meat’s medium is made up of a mixture of amino acids, oils, glucose, and naturally occurring hormones. “Removing serum is a critics step in market realization of cultured meat,” he said. “Companies that fail to do that require the slaughter of dozens of calves to grow a single hamburger.” The company’s chicken, lamb, and pork cells are currently growing “in scale” without serum at the production facility.

Future Meat may be the first to open the doors on a production facility for cultured meat, but others won’t be long in coming. Bioprinting startup MeaTech 3D, also based in Israel, says it will have a production facility operational by 2022. San Francisco, California-based Wildtype also opened a production facility this week, though it is focused solely on cultured seafood at the moment and is therefore not a direct competitor to Future Meat. 

Down the line, Future Meat would like to open another production facility, ideally in the United States. For now, Future Meat is working to get regulatory approval here in the U.S., with the goal of selling its products in foodservice venues next year.

Red to Green Podcast: How Cultured Meat is Ripe Terrain for Conspiracy Theories

Qanon. The Deep State. 5G microchip injections.

We live in a golden age of conspiracy theories. These circular reasoning belief systems once relegated to the fringes have entered the mainstream, fueled by social media, validated by politicians and celebrities and calcified by repetition and confirmation bias.

Food is no stranger to conspiracy theories. Whether it’s worries about GMOs being used to hurt our health, that KFC breeds mutant chickens or that there was once a great fondue cheese cartel (or wait, that one’s true), these food conspiracy theories are just as pernicious and persistent as those that plague politics.

And here’s the problem: we’re only getting started. As we move forward into the world where more and more of our calories are from impressive and hard to fathom technology, it’s safe to say we say we’ll likely see many more food-based conspiracy theories.

All of which is why found this conversation Red to Green’s Marina Schmidt had with Dr. Daniel Jolley, a professor from the UK who researches conspiracy theories and their impact, so fascinating. Schmidt and Jolley go deep on how future food, particularly cultured meat, is an area that is ripe for conspiracy theories. And, as discussed by Schmidt and Jack Bobo in the previous episode, this means that the companies behind this new food need to think seriously about preparing for a polarized world where they need to work hard to counter false beliefs about their product.

You can listen to the full conversation here, download it on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts, or read the transcript of the conversation below.

Marina Schmidt

Yes, finally, conspiracy theories. What an interesting topic, while we do focus on the term conspiracies, the basic principles we talk about also apply to the questions. How do we convince skeptics? How do we engage in communication? How should we deal with issues like fake news that will arise? Once cultured meat gets the attention of mainstream media more and more. There hasn’t been much researched on, on conspiracy theories until recently. And professor Daniel jolly from whom you will hear today is one of the people leading this field.

He’s a senior lecturer in the department of psychology at  North Umbria university in the UK, his research focuses on the consequences of conspiracy theories and has been featured on BBC in the New York times, the guardian financial times, Huffington post, et cetera, et cetera. In 2020 to date, his media engagement has had an estimated reach of 1 billion people.

I haven’t seen the topic of cultured meat, conspiracies discussed anywhere else in such detail. So I’m excited for you to listen in. Let’s jump right in.   

Daniel, it’s really lovely to have you on red to green.

Dr. Daniel Jolley

Absolute pleasure. Thanks for the invite.

Marina Schmidt

You know, oftentimes people, when I talk to them about conspiracy theories in the field, some say, well, why would you care about what’s some weird people talk about in their niches, but then at the same time, it seems that conspiracy theories have become way more widespread. What would you respond to that?

Dr. Daniel Jolley

I think that it’s a good stereotype and a good mix of separation. And indeed that was the perception may 10, 15 years ago, where it was suggested that only a small number of people believed in conspiracies and they were on the fringes of society. They had no impact in essence, but actually polls have demonstrated that they are widespread.

In the UK, 60% of people believe at least one conspiracy. Similar findings have been found in America. So this is a significant body of people who are subscribing to the viewpoints, where they believe in that there’s peripheral groups that they’re doing something sinister.

And typically they’re believe something sinister to do with a large event or large issue. So it could be to do with climate change, could to do with vaccines and COVID to do with COVID 19. So that one group is conspiring against the other.

So in essence, what you find is that when people are drawn to these viewpoints, they can actually change how they act in the world. Because of course, if you believe that climate change is a hoax and it’s not happening. Why would you reduce your carbon footprint? If you believe that vaccines are dangerous because doctors or nurses cover up the dangers to make a profit, why would you vaccinate?

And particularly it’s very prominent right now with, of course the COVID-19 vaccine. Again, if you think it’s all a hoax or you think that so many, the sentence too is going on, you are less likely to want to vaccinate yourself.  But of course, the basis is not in truth. These things are not true. COVID-19 is happening.

Climate change is happening. Vaccines are safe. They will help us be COVID 19. These are things that are based in facts. If people for different reasons, going down the line of, ‘well they’re dangerous X, Y, and Z’… that could impact the smooth running of society. It could impact how me and you engage.

And of course, cultured meat is a new field. It is something that even me personally, I’m still learning about, but it has all of the key ingredients of conspiracy beliefs to flourish. And we can obviously get into that during this podcast, but it certainly, to me, looking from the outset, potential flourishing ground for these narratives to really develop.

Marina Schmidt

Yeah, definitely. And that’s exactly why I wanted to talk to you because that aligns with my beliefs about the field. I think it’s quite exciting that right now we are witnessing the emergence of a completely new product category. When I talked to some people from the field about it, I sometimes get the response ‘any press is good press.’

Do you think that’s true?

Dr. Daniel Jolley

Hmm. So we know with conspiracy theories that once people are exposed to them, they can be very resistant to correction. And also they can be very influential, straight away. They can impact us without us realizing. I mean by that is research has shown that when you’re exposed to this, these narratives, it makes you think differently about that event, whilst it wouldn’t impact your behaviors immediately, of course, because you need to digest information, it takes a bit of a time for you to actually impact your behavior.

For example, you vaccinate, or whether you use that product, t it would initially make you more skeptical towards that product. It will change your opinion towards it. Arguably, a one-time exposure on a Twitter feed is probably going to have a minimal impact. It will probably  fade away.

But of course, prolonged exposure where you find yourselves, maybe in a Twitter algorithm or on the YouTube trending page where there’s different recommended videos, you may find yourself in essence, in a bit of a rabbit hole. Where you you’re then be recommended similar videos. That, of course, will then reaffirm that, that prior belief and suddenly your belief may indeed then become much more resistant to change.

And as we see with social media, interesting research recently highlighted that Amazon books also play along along with algorithms. Whereby if you were searching about cultured meat or the myths around that, I suspect there will be recommended books or articles that may be a bit more conspiratorial.

The caveat is it’s just not one post. It’s stuff over a period of time. It’s not just that you read one thing and suddenly you’re a changed person. That, of course, isn’t true. It’s that prolonged exposure that I think is more problematic.

Marina Schmidt

Yes. And also how it fits into all of the previous information that has been propagated. I mean, partially that’s actually an interesting point that was raised in our episode four with Jack Bobo. You’re saying that, by attacking the animal agriculture industry for being sinister, for having toxic ingredients in their meats or for not following regulation, eit undermines the trust in the food system. Ironically, which may over the long term hurt the cultured meat industry or the alternative protein space overall. So how would you see the cultured meat conspiracies fitting in with macro trends before that? For example, the overall distrust in the quality of food, et cetera?

Dr. Daniel Jolley

it’s a good question.  in essence, it’s all going back to that distrust of biomedical therapies, which of course is slightly different here, but of course it’s science-based and it’s science driven. I mean, know that people who believe in conspiracies favor the alternatives, they favor herbals, they favor organic foods herbal supplements.They pull back from vaccines.

In general, if you believe people that are involved in plots and schemes in general, in the world, you are likely to believe in multiple types of conspiracies. So typically someone who believes that the climate change isn’t happening are also susceptible to believe that vaccines are dangerous, that the Americans didn’t go to the moon, that potentially cultured meat.

Is actually some kind of conspiracy to kind of  change the world population. Or it’s dangerous, or that it’s made to make profits.

So  with the modified food. A poll a few years ago found that actually  12% of people believed  in the conspiracy that (GMOs) are being used to shrink the world population. Only 19% have actually heard of that conspiracy previously.

If you think of other kind of medical conspiracies, but for example, that governments are hiding the cure for cancer as a way to keep making profits. 63% of the sample had heard of that conspiracy, where 37% of those people believed in it. So just from that example  of the modified food, this area is not as widely heard of. People aren’t aware of these things occurring. And of course this isn’t even asking about culture of meat. So I suspect if we can kind of predict the future a couple of years where cultured meat is more in our mainstream.

So I’m thinking when it’s mentioned on the news more regularly, when it’s something that we can see and actually pick up in supermarkets, I think there’ll be much more of uptake with people being skeptical of that food because they believe in an essence of conspiracy beliefs.

Marina Schmidt

Yeah. In a previous interview, I think it was episode two of the season with Isha Datar, we mentioned this uptake curve. So you have the early adopters and then you have at getting into the mainstream and you have the laggards, et cetera. And it’s this bell shaped curve, somewhat of increasing adoption. And I’m wondering how you would see this, considering that once things reach the mainstream, there tends to be an uptake in negative press and criticism and fake news potentially. So how do you see this bell curve actually being shaped?

Dr. Daniel Jolley

Well, when I think about  this area, I can see similarities with technology advancements. So thinking of 5G. 5G is a very topical thing to be talking about, and there are a whole range of misinformation, fake news and conspiracy theories.

With COVID-19. there was an uptake in people believing that COVID was caused by 5G.  And then that then led to people trying to set a light to these 5G towers because they thought if they could stop the 5G towers, then that would stop COVID.

So for me, I’m seeing kind of similarities here with potentially the emergence of that technology. And I think potentially people listening now could learn from the communication strategies of people in the phone industry, from the governments trying to tackle misinformation with 5G that is still ongoing.

I think from my perspective, it was a very kind of similar journey with this that they (wireless carriers) thought, ‘Oh, it’ll be fine. We’ll just put X and information to say what 5G is, what 4G is, what 3G is, and that will be fine. People will just be happy with that.

But of course it’s been demonstrated that that is just not true. That when people have these suspicions of the government of people in power, that they’re hesitant to engage in these new technologies.

Thinking back to, 1900’s where Spanish flu came, people thought it was due to the telephone. That it was a telephone that was causing this flu. So these kind of links with trying to understand the issues because events are always kind of comes from some kind of advancement, something that the government is potentially trying to roll out.

So I think with this. Potentially, it could be a very similar tactic being used in that people may think it will be taken on automatically when that actually might not be true. So for me, it’s thinking about what can we learn from the 5g roll out now?  I’ve seen so many great campaigns, for example, in Australia, where I think it was Vodafone were having in essence  misinformation campaigns to try and highlight 5G doesn’t cause COVID in essence. So potentially trying to prebunk people’s misperceptions about this meat and, in essence, trying to highlight the positives. If there are any criticisms, to try and tackle that to try and be up front with that, to try and highlight.  how this meat has, of course, has been developed, because of course that would be a question.

People wouldn’t go about people wonder is it safe? So I think by being able to work through and see good practice from other things that I’ve unfortunately had a very similar journey, I think will be really positive.

Marina Schmidt

Hm. Interesting. I feel that in our industry information is seen as the great balm to nervous minds. So when in doubt, just throw information on it or educate people. Once people understand the technology, once they understand the facts, then they obviously will like it. And once they try it.

In another interview of the season, we touched upon how GMOs actually got a bad one reputation by the companies over-communicating. The big safety measures they’re using. Publishing these long form papers, describing the technology and risk assessments and digital data. And that was again on the spectrum of over-communicating making people wonder, well, if you need to publish all that stuff, it seems to be quite dangerous.

So it’s, so counter-intuitive, it’s fascinating how irrational this is.  So where do we strike the balance between we need to be upfront with what we’re talking about, but also then if we talk too much ourselves about the potential dangers and risks, and also arguments against cultured meat, then we are drawing attention to these things?

Dr. Daniel Jolley

Hmm. I think what you raised there is this, the science communication and how it really needs to be targeted to the particular audience where the average person is unlikely to sit through and read a 20 page risk assessment, because not only is that quite dry material for any, most of every everyone, it’s not going to be motivated to read that instead, it needs to be a much more accessible.

Fun, arguably humorous way to get them engaged in the content. So the example I mentioned earlier  with 5g and Vodafone. These adverts are shorter, they’re engaging. They were fun to watch, but they were also informative they’re in essence, using humor as a way to educate.

So people were therefore engaged to learn about this topic. Of course, if people wanted to learn more about the Pacifics that can exist as well. In essence, potentially  the campaign is to have multiple passage to it where you’ve got the more public facing, engaging content that in essence can.

Demystify some of the, fake news based around  that particular area. And also then more the scientific where they can go through the risk assessments or indeed whatever it is.

The majority of people would not engage in conspiratorial thinking about this particular issue. It would just be a small arguably minority who are more susceptible to engage in this type of thinking. So it’s trying to work out how detrimental could that be?  the NHS in the UK.

Put a campaign about vaccines AIDS, but in the comments on their Facebook or on their Twitter feed are then conspiratorial. So you’ve then got, you’ve even got the concern of, well, do we, as the organization or the charity or whatever it is, respond to those comments or do we ignore those comments?

Problem with responding is you’re then given. Light to these issues and you’re debating,  that particular point. If you ignore other people are then reading the comments and they’re seeing that those are being ignored. So does that mean that it’s true or false? So I think potentially how the campaigns that Harvest had the strategy comes deals with those types of situations is something that we need to kind of understand and.

I know from some people that I spoke to, they, when they have those comments, they try and respond privately to those people and to try and offer Cantu arguments and try and discuss with them that by that particular issue to do the vaccine or whatever it is.

But of course that’s problematic in its own, right as well.  And then in essence has been aware of that coming and thinking of ways to try and catch argumented.

So, yeah. Do you go ahead and you pre booked some of these myths and then potentially people who are then commenting, you know, with conspiratory narratives, you then can link to videos linked to infographics that explain  what has happened or indeed under the root. 

Marina Schmidt

In one of the other interviews of you, I remember you were talking about the issue that conspiracy theories. An overall negative controversial press has a POL it’s attention driving, and to be able to contract that we need to possibly create storylines and narratives that are even more engaging, even more interesting.

And. I mean we do focus on conspiracy theories, but when we talk about that, I always also think about just overall our media landscape and how journalism has become so attention driven, like quick attention driven, as we know, bad news sells more than good news. for example, from talking to people in the field, I’ve heard that even if they would talk to journalists and send them.

Nice pictures and tell them how to talk about it. So not call it Frankenstein meat, not call it lab ground, but call it cultured or cultivated meat. The end result would be the magazine, especially the mainstream outlets, publishing the stuff that gets people more anxious and angry. So do you have any best practices of how to deal with that?

Dr. Daniel Jolley

That’s a good point because of course we know in general that anxiety and anger can breed conspiratorial thinking, because in essence, when you have those feelings, you’re trying to make sense of that particular issue with that particular topic or that event. And by believing that conspiracy, Oh, it’s the government always doctors or whatever it is, can at least.

Try and make me feel less anxious, could try and make you feel less threatened. So potentially an article that presents this area in that particular way, may indeed drive the conspiratorial narratives. So I think as you say back to the point, is it, the communication strategy potentially is really important as a way to ensure that the language that is being used, is it going to breed conspiratory beliefs?

Because of course, people may already be coming into this area. A bit intrigued, but also it’s skeptical of  how will this work? How is it being designed? Is it safe? Which of course are legitimate questions to ask. They are questions. I’m sure we will all ask. It comes conspiratorial.

Of course, when you have those questions, but then you think, wow, it’s, it’s some kind of government conspiracy. They’re trying to make money wherever they say, well, it’s all part of the conspiracy. And then they, in essence, you discredit any evidence and you stick to your prior beliefs. So potentially  people ask questions with different motives in a way.

And of course  fake news is different to conspiratorial beliefs because, so it could just be fake. And not conspiratorial. It could suggest, you know, that this, this meat has to be made by doing weird to it.

I think an example, but do sit with there isn’t someone covering something up, which of course will be really a payment to someone and potentially someone who’s feeling anxious. They also pick up this as well. So I think it’s been trying to be clear with what this is. And has to be developed and in essence, dry and pre bunk, some of the, of the deceptions.

So it could be potentially just, they get out loud, like have a good focus group with people to talk about their concerns or their questions and potentially to see, well, okay. How widespread are these questions? Could we try and preempt some of these questions? We’ve some potentially engaging PR or indeed conversations.

Marina Schmidt

Hmm. A lot of that is inherently logical. I’ve heard you stayed in a different interview. Conspiracy theories are inherently logical. Also when people believe in fake news,    there’s also this pattern of, I don’t believe any mainstream media. So I believe this single block on the internet that has all the answers.

Dr. Daniel Jolley

Yeah.

Marina Schmidt

The tricky thing is that the reason for these beliefs is so entirely irrational. So how do you address that? Can you fix that even with logic? 

Dr. Daniel Jolley

So people who are already skeptical of biomedical therapies in general, Maybe would be skeptical of these type of new technology in essence, because there were believe that the scientists have doing something shady behind the scenes.

And in essence, it is all down to that high status power person or group rather who kind of supports this viewpoint. So, so we trusted research found that a biomedical therapy that will supported by a low power source or seemed to be quite favorable. But as soon as that same therapy was supported by a high power source, favorability dropped the floor.

So in essence, it was the power source, who was the one influence in that belief. In essence, whether . high power source was, seemed to be conspiratorial or dots. So potentially if a Revit of stakeholders are talking about cultured meat, not just the government, but for more low power sources. So I think your charity secret people who haven’t necessarily got a vested interest in this area.

They indeed, maybe more trustworthy, but I think for that bit of research that could demonstrate that actually,  is it really biomedical? That is the issue or is it the power source who’s supported that particular approach is that the issue potentially, and by having a much more larger stakeholders involved in the communication, we be able to get a more diverse range of people involved in that area.

But I’ve always found that research really interested in how that same product could be viewed very differently, depending on who supports it.

Marina Schmidt

That’s quite interesting. You spark the idea in me that maybe especially in the cultured meat space, there’s an opportunity to tell founders stories because it does come not from the corporations, which makes it different from the GMO case. But it does come from a lot of individuals that come together aligned around.

Values like animal ethics, environmental concerns.  a belief in innovation and improving the world. Right?  there’s an opportunity to build trust, not by arguing through hard facts, but by arguing. for stories.  over the millennia. we have been passing on information through powerful stories . regarding the connection between conspiracy and and science. In episode four Jack Bobo argued that companies should not use science in there. Product argumentation because science is inherently polarizing and it will drive away a certain part of the population instinctively.

And then I also talked to Rafa, who is the CEO often alternative dairy company called formo who argued that in their communication, they focus on science on the one hand. It is because they are addressing early doctors. but. In a broader scheme. He believes people don’t trust science, that’s something he wants to change.

So he wants to communicate. science is awesome. Look at what science can enable. What do you think about these two viewpoints?

Dr. Daniel Jolley

I think it’s really interesting. I suppose it makes me think about COVID-19 of course. And the head of vaccine has been talked about in science communication, whereby there’s been at least in the UK, a lot of push trying to understand. The how the vaccine have been developed and at the start lots of questions about, well, how has it been developed so quickly and understand which of course were not conspiratorial.

It was just legitimate questions, which then scientists were then going games. And for example, using their own Twitter feeds to explain in essence how that vaccine was developed and then got the NHS staff talking about the success of the vaccine and how they’re seeing the impact in the hospitals. So I think potentially that science communication where it’s directed and trying to make it accessible, I think is really good.

Of course, when you’ve then got it much more complex. So we mentioned earlier about releasing folder where you’ve got. Tired is a page as any arguably of different risk assessments that we’re not missing, that you can digest potentially it’s both. If it gives someone that sort of information, they may push back on it because they just don’t understand it.

And then they may indeed think, well,  what do we need or this? if someone was to send a journal article to me from, you know, a cell background where it’s the.

This is the science of how this meat is formed. I wouldn’t understand it. I wouldn’t want to understand it, but instead, and much more interactive seminar interactive, video, something on YouTube, even just using the platform Tik Tok to communicate in a very, more accessible, fun way will be really dynamic to, of course, that kind of reminds me as well is when we’re thinking about communication, you thinking about  the adults, but we’ve also got young people.

These arguably the young people are the ones who are going to be using this type of technology. They’re going to be using this type of meat, which means that maybe each targeting communication towards your groups.  So by trying to demystify, and even from the early stage, he’s targeting teenagers could be a really interesting marketing strategy whereby.

We know from research that I’ve done recently, that age 14 seems to be a peak time for  young people to believe in conspiracy theories. Because at 14 it’s, when people are relying less on their family, that they can walk to their friends are really, that’s where they can get a social media account age 12, 13, it’s where people are relying less on their emotional regulation and much more relying just on the emotions. So in essence, they’re not thinking about how they’re feeling that was kind of acting, which means that the anxiety, the threat, the uncertainty, trying to look to see what others are doing, can make them more susceptible, to believe in conspiracies.

And I think it’s good to communicate science. It’s just making sure you communicate science in a very accessible way, such as podcasts like this.

Marina Schmidt

Yeah.  the topic is so vast and I think we’ve touched not just on conspiracy theories. We also talked about fake news. I think another topic that will be important is crisis communication. There will be a point in time at which something will go wrong. And some company will have a mishap and then the media will be all over it, covering it in depth.

And I think an important part of the discussion is that consumer adoption and consumer acceptance is not a linear progression. So people start eating things and they stop eating things that can change their mind once they try it, it doesn’t mean that they are one over. And they’re going to continue only eating cell cultured meat.

The thing, another thing that’s really nerves me as I, as I’m thinking about these topics is with no GMO and no gluten and no soy.  it’s such a phrasing question because suddenly soy becomes something that is inherently bad or gluten becomes something that’s inherently bad because why would you otherwise buy products where there’s a label of no soy, no gluten.

Right. and it’s all these small, psychological influences that will accumulate into. How much impact this field is going to have over the longterm.  if we want to have a big impact, we want to have the majority of people switch to alternatives in a way from conventional agriculture products.

So lots, lots of things to talk about.  what other case studies or examples would you recommend to listeners to look into, to learn about how to address conspiracy theories, fake news or crisis community?

Dr. Daniel Jolley

So there’s actually quite a bit of literature that has come out of COVID-19 because eight speed, a flourishing van for conspiracy narratives, because in essence, it has all the key ingredients for why conspiracy theories, flourish, anxiety, that 4s join uncertainty big event, which means that they’ve been on a lot of interests.

But I think what we are learning is that it’s a challenge. And that, of course, people who have these beliefs, they really hold onto them. They, they come. That’s social identity, which means that people are motivated to defend their beliefs and they would engage in dialogue to defend them.

So potentially it’s thinking about ways that we have a much more productive conversation with someone. And it’s not a case of going in and saying, you’re writing home, you’re writing over wrong. That’s the only way you’re wrong. And I’m right. It is going in and trying to have a conversation is trying to understand why did that person have those particular polices start with, why do they believe?

For example, if, if they do, if they really cultured meat is some kind of conspiracy to make profit, why do they think that, Oh, then and dry and kind of. Tease apart, some of their psychology, is it all based in anxiety that they’ve all read about what they eat potentially? Are they just trying to offer some kind of reassurances to themselves about the world, the world that they live in?

And of course, it’s also promoting people to think more critically about the information they digest, where for me on personal level, I try and think about the emotional reaction that I have to things. So, as I mentioned previously, if I, when I read something and I feel really angry or really happy by reading it, it’s worth thinking, do I have this reaction?

Because it’s true because I just like what it says.  it’s biomedical, it’s biomedical therapy. Ish. It’s obviously at the same thing, of course, but it’s very much in the same pot in my view. And of course, people who believe in conspiracy theories push back on that.

And so I suspect there will be a similar pushback on this competence.

Marina Schmidt

Yeah, interesting side note, the GMOs for example, are more accepted in a biomedical setting than they are in a food setting. So people tend to be even more queasy about anything that is in their food and that they consume on a regular basis. to get to some of the ending questions, if you would have 50 million in what businesses, what you invested in or in what initiatives.

Dr. Daniel Jolley

So I suppose, because I’m really interested, biased in fake news can split theories with information. I think it’s trying to develop different strategies to help people think more critically. So of course, it’s that balance of wanting to make sure people can ask questions. And to question everything, but to be able to have the skill sets, to think through what they are being exposed to.

Having children’s schools think through evidence and be able to give them the skill sets. There could be really useful, in essence, do studies to work out what is the best way to intervene.  Regarding food, sustainability or agriculture. What is an unusual opinion that you hold that many people would disagree with?  I felt like I’ve learned a lot by engaging in this podcast. I didn’t really know much of a cultured meat really  it’s kind of bypass me a little bit, and that’s why I talked about at the start that I think. These are the kind of the key ingredients for a conspiracy theory to blue in the future when it comes more mainstream, when people are more aware of this area, because let’s say even me, who’s tensely a bit more aware because of my research area wasn’t really tapped into it.

That’s probably why I’ve not really got anything controversial to say, because I don’t really know about it. Maybe that’s controversial. It’s on, right? The fact that I’m a guest here and I’m learning, you know, through the process.

Marina Schmidt

Daniel how can listeners connect with you?

Dr. Daniel Jolley

So they can find me on Twitter @DrDanielJolley, or they can just search in Google and you’ll find my website or videos or anything else that I’ve suggested.

Marina Schmidt

It was really, really interesting to talk to you. Very insightful and very happy. We got to discuss this topic.

Dr. Daniel Jolley

Pleasure. Thank you.