Tag Archives: meat

Could Meat Be the Key to Living to 100? Exploring Its Surprising Role in Longevity

Posted on by
Reply
Centenarian Hu Zaizhong celebrates his 100th birthday in northern China, April 24, 2021. Surrounded by family, he shared six wishes that symbolize a life well-lived.

Celebrating 100 years with love and memories

Xinhua/Shutterstock

Longevity advocates, such as Brian Johnson, often push boundaries in their pursuit of immortality. For those of us looking to celebrate a century with less complexity, dietary changes are typically the first step. While plant-based diets are frequently recommended, recent studies in China indicate many centenarians include meat in their diets, potentially offering crucial benefits, especially for those with low body weight.

Meat is a source of essential amino acids that influence a signaling molecule named mTOR, linked to the aging process. Although numerous studies recommend reducing meat intake for longevity and disease prevention, it’s important to note that vegetarian diets have been associated with increased fractures and instances of malnutrition.

These challenges can be particularly pronounced for older adults with weaker bones, resulting in slower recovery post-surgery. According to Wang Kaiyue from Fudan University in Shanghai, understanding the link between diet and longevity is essential. Wang and colleagues analyzed data from a centralized health database focusing on individuals aged 65 and above.

Within their study, 5,203 participants aged 80 and older in 1998, who were free from cardiovascular conditions, diabetes, or cancer, were surveyed. Approximately 80% identified as meat eaters, while others followed a mainly plant-based diet but occasionally consumed animal products.

Interestingly, meat consumers demonstrated a higher probability of living to age 100 compared to those following vegetarian, pescatarian, or vegan diets. This finding held statistical significance when body weight factored into the analysis.

The likelihood of reaching 100 grew, especially among underweight meat eaters, with 30% reporting daily meat consumption, compared to 24% of underweight vegetarians in 1998. This trend was less pronounced among heavier individuals.

While heavy consumption of meat has been linked with obesity, research supports the role of animal proteins in building stronger muscles and enhancing bone health. According to Wang, such benefits are particularly significant for those lacking body mass.

Nonetheless, a diet rich in vegetables is crucial, with findings indicating participants who consumed vegetables daily tended to have extended lifespans.

“Older adults often face unique nutritional challenges,” says Wang. “Our research implies that dietary guidelines for older individuals should prioritize nutritional balance over strict avoidance of animal products, particularly for those with low body weight.”

This particular outcome may not hold true globally, as dietary habits differ significantly, but “the biological principles connecting nutrition and aging likely have universal relevance,” Wang adds.

According to James Webster from the University of Oxford, while this discovery is noteworthy, it should not drastically alter dietary practices. His team’s previous study highlighted a potential link between vegetarianism and the risk of femoral neck fractures, suggesting potential health issues with a strict vegetarian diet. However, Webster stresses that several studies illuminate the benefits of vegetarianism, especially concerning overall health.

Both vegetarian and meat-inclusive diets can be either healthy or detrimental, depending on nutritional content quality, Webster notes. “Identifying the nutrients essential for a balanced and healthful lifestyle is key,” he says, recommending a rich intake of whole grains, fruits, and vegetables while limiting salt, sugar, and saturated fats.

“Ultimately, more research is needed to determine the optimal diets for longevity, but a comprehensive view of dietary patterns is imperative,” concludes Webster.

Topics:

Source: www.newscientist.com

Ancient Woolly Rhinoceros Genome Found in Frozen Wolf Pup’s Stomach Meat

Posted on by
Reply

Woolly Rhinoceros - an ancient herbivore

Woolly Rhinoceros: Icon of the Last Ice Age

History Collection / Alamy

A recently reconstructed genome from a piece of flesh found in the stomach of a wolf pup, dated to 14,400 years ago, reveals that the woolly rhinoceros was genetically robust despite its close proximity to extinction.

While the exact cause of the young female wolf pup’s death, near present-day Tumato in northern Siberia, remains a mystery, it is believed she and her sister, referred to as Tumat puppies, had recently consumed woolly rhinoceros meat (Coelodonta antiquitatis). Their mother inadvertently caused their burial in permafrost when their burrow collapsed.

The first puppy was discovered on-site in 2011, with the second found in 2015. Examination of one puppy’s stomach contents revealed remnants of woolly rhino meat.

Edana Road, a member of the research team at Stockholm University, remarked that the preserved material resembled “fluffy jerky.”

“It was astonishing to see hair still intact,” Lord commented.

Lord stated that the preservation of the tissue was almost miraculous.

“It’s remarkable that, thousands of years later, we retrieved a beautifully preserved mummified wolf pup, analyzed its stomach contents, and uncovered this woolly rhinoceros tissue, shedding light on a previously different species,” Lord adds.

Tumat Wolf Pup: Evidence of Woolly Rhinoceros Diet

Mietje Germonpre

Lord’s team successfully reconstructed the woolly rhinoceros genome, identifying it as a female with no signs of inbreeding.

This groundbreaking finding is significant because it marks the first time DNA has been recovered from a woolly rhinoceros close to the time of its extinction.

The cause behind the woolly rhinoceros’ extinction remains a topic of debate, encompassing the impacts of human hunting, climate change, and inbreeding.

Another researcher on the team, Darren Love, noted that the sample’s hair was yellowish, leading to initial thoughts that it belonged to a cave lion carcass (Panthera spelaea) until DNA analysis was performed.

“As far as I know, sequencing an entire ancient genome from stomach contents has never been accomplished before,” Darren stated.

The research team compared the new genome with two others from the woolly rhinoceros, dating back 18,000 and 49,000 years, discovering no evolution in genetic diversity or inbreeding levels over time.

“Had populations dwindled, we would expect a drop in genetic diversity among woolly rhinoceroses, alongside an increase in inbreeding,” Darren explained.

The researchers concluded that the most probable driver behind the woolly rhinoceros extinction was a rapid climate shift between 14,700 and 12,900 years ago, during the Bølling-Allerød Interstadial, which drastically altered the species’ habitat.

Topics:

Source: www.newscientist.com

This Device Lets You Cultivate Your Own Meat at Home

Posted on by
Reply

Growing your own fruits and vegetables isn’t a novel idea. But what if you could cultivate your own meat right at home? This is the vision that Japanese companies are striving to turn into reality.

Shojinmeat Project empowers individuals to grow their own meat, much like planting vegetables, without harming any animals in the process.

This innovation is known as cultivated meat, created by harvesting some animal cells and nurturing them in tanks referred to as bioreactors. It’s authentic meat, but it doesn’t come from farms or slaughterhouses.

What is the Shojinmeat Project?

Yuki Hanu serves as the founder and director of the Shojinmeat project, describing his company as a non-profit citizen science initiative. The goal is to allow chefs and food lovers to grow custom meat on location.

While the project hasn’t completely perfected the growth of whole pork cuts yet, it has made promising progress.

“We’ve successfully established completely DIY methods for cultivating animal cells,” Hanu remarks. The project plans to provide instructions for growing small amounts of meat at home, including a shopping list of easily accessible items you can find online or locally.

A spin-off of the Shojinmeat Project, Integrated Culture, has developed a bioreactor system that can be used in both household and restaurant settings. Although it’s pre-assembled and slightly less DIY than the Shojinmeat kit, Hanu claims it’s significantly cheaper than traditional lab-grade bioreactors used in commercial meat production.

Integrated Culture provides more variety; according to Hanu, their bioreactors can grow over 30 types of cells from various animals and fish. “However, it is an industrial process,” he adds.

In comparison, Shojinmeat suggests using chicken for home cultivation, as it’s easier to source and grow than other types of meat.

Individuals looking to grow their own meat can select from various Integrated Culture kits in different sizes or get advice from the Shojinmeat project to build their own setups – Credit: Shojinmeat Project

Understanding the Process

So, you’ve decided to grow your own chicken at home. What’s the first step? It’s time for some shopping.

The Shojinmeat project presents a list of items that can be sourced from supermarkets or online, amounting to around 60,000 yen (about £300 or $400).

Essential items to gather include fertilized chicken eggs, warm towels, sports drinks, and collagen-coated dishes, though you can modify the components as you like.

The aim is to replicate the conditions found in lab cell cultures. Hanu explains: “Once the right cells are placed in the appropriate medium, they will grow under the right conditions for a set duration.”

Once you’ve obtained everything necessary, extract the cells from the fertilized chicken eggs and maintain them at a temperature of 37°C (98.6°F) with a pH of 7.4.

This is where an incubator comes in handy, but fortunately, the towels can serve a warming purpose.

Chicken cells require attachment to a structure known as a cell scaffold, fulfilled by your collagen-coated dishes.

Additionally, the cells need a supply of sugar, amino acids, vitamins, and minerals, which Hanu refers to as the “basal medium.” This is where your sports drink comes into play.

If you’re not inclined to manage all these individual components, you can opt for the Cellular Agriculture Starter Kit from Integrated Culture. It includes all essential basal media, serum, starter cells, and necessary cell scaffolds, though it starts at a minimum of £440 ($600).

read more

Safety is understandably a concern when preparing food, especially meat. However, according to Hanu, the key priority once you’re operational is to keep your equipment clean, which should help mitigate issues with your homemade meat.

“It’s crucial to prevent contamination from mold, bacteria, and other unwanted elements,” he points out. “This is the most frequent cause of failure in cell culture.”

One effective strategy is to add egg whites containing a naturally antibacterial protein called lysozyme. Although Hanu emphasizes this is not 100% foolproof, it’s just one of several measures to help your cells flourish.

Remember to cook your meat before consuming it, just like you would with any other raw chicken, to avoid foodborne illness.

Once operational, the primary challenge is maintaining a clean environment to prevent contamination – Credit: Shojinmeat Project

Results: A Small Yield

After all this effort, you may hope for sufficient cells to produce a whole roast chicken. However, you might come away a bit let down.

Hanu indicates that the Shojinmeat method can currently yield around one gram of edible meat.

“Creating meat effectively at home has been made possible through the development of equipment and protocols, but the volume and quality of what you can produce requires further consideration,” he states. “At present, it might be rather modest, but it’s termed ‘DIY cell culture.’”

Hanu acknowledges that his homemade meat sample was too small to be used in recipes, adding:

Not only is the quantity of homegrown meat lacking, but cultivated meat in laboratories can replicate intricate textures that mimic real meat fibers using plant fibers and 3D printing. However, homemade versions haven’t achieved this level yet.

“Generating full muscle tissue with marbling and texture involves sophisticated tissue engineering,” Hanu explains. “With our technology, our products are cultured cytoplasmic, yielding a final product more akin to spam or sausage.”

If you still dream of producing gourmet chicken sausage at home, these DIY kits could help make that a reality.

Who knows? In a few years, your newest kitchen gadget may not be an air fryer; instead, an incubator could be quietly nurturing your rib-eye steak right beside it.

read more:

Source: www.sciencefocus.com

Why Are We Drawn to Fake Lips but Reluctant About Fake Meat?

Posted on by
Reply
A new scientist. Science News and Long read from expert journalists covering science, technology, health and environmental developments from various websites and magazines.

With the complexities of modern consumer psychology, we are increasingly comfortable with the idea of injecting synthetic substances into our faces, yet we hesitate to consume them.

The cosmetics sector is thriving. Dermatological fillers and wrinkle-reducing neurotoxins have now become standard procedures in the injection market. It is projected to more than double by 2030.

At the same time, jewelry has also experienced a synthetic makeover. Initially criticized for being artificial, lab-grown diamonds are now gaining market traction, as sales of natural gems are declining. Luxury buyers seem unfazed by the term “fake,” as long as the allure remains.

However, when it comes to beauty, I draw the line at lunchtime while embracing composites. From plant-based substitutes to lab-cultured proteins, despite their clear advantages, they often face public resistance.

This skepticism may stem from our intrinsic respect for “nature,” viewed as a hallmark of purity, credibility, and safety. This tendency is referred to as Natural Bias in psychology. Even when the risks are lower than industrial agriculture, it helps explain our aversion to “synthetic meat.”

This preference isn’t unreasonable. For early humans, avoiding unknown foods was essential for survival, as strong disgust responses helped curb the consumption of harmful items. Yet, our instincts have not adapted to innovation, and what is currently seen as “natural” may harbor significant risks. Hormone-laden beef carries heavy environmental costs related to animal agriculture.

Unlike jewelry and cosmetics, food continues to provoke visceral reactions, which presents a serious challenge. As we seek to meet the protein needs of a global population projected to approach 10 billion by mid-century, food innovation isn’t just beneficial—it’s crucial. The demands of land, water, and emissions from livestock farming are unsustainable at current scales. Cultivated meat and precision fermentation—bioengineering organisms like yeast to produce proteins—are viable alternatives, yet consumer skepticism stemming from outdated naturalistic biases has hindered their acceptance.

This reluctance isn’t based merely on taste or health. Blind taste tests show that plant-based proteins can often replicate the mouthfeel of meat, frequently matching or exceeding nutritional profiles. Economically, alternative proteins, particularly plant-based options, are becoming more affordable. The real challenges lie in psychological barriers and a fear of technological advancements.

One way to navigate this is through transparency. Educating consumers about alternative protein production processes and comparing them to familiar operations like cheese-making and brewing can help build trust. Presenting alternative proteins as an evolution of tradition rather than a radical departure can also aid acceptance.

Additionally, we need to challenge the myth that today’s meat is somehow “natural.” A typical supermarket pack of sausages results from a lengthy process involving feed additives, pharmaceuticals, genetic manipulation, and large-scale industrial practices. If we’re apprehensive about “synthesis,” perhaps it’s worth considering what conventional meat production truly entails.

Our biases towards “natural” once ensured survival. Now, they may obstruct our embrace of technologies vital for long-term food security, environmental stability, and public health. After all, if we can welcome synthesis in the form of anti-aging injections, lip fillers, and lab-grown diamonds, it might be time to extend that pragmatism to our diets.

Sophie Atwood is the Behavior Science Consultant at Behavior Global, UK.

Topics:

Source: www.newscientist.com

Gene Editing Could Soon Transform Our Meat: Here’s What It Means

Posted on by
Reply

From hot dogs to crispy bacon, by 2026, many food staples in the US will utilize gene-edited meat. Indeed, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently given the green light to the agricultural use of certain genetically enhanced pigs. Other global regulators may soon follow suit.

But should we be concerned? Is this modified pork safe? And what about the ethics of creating these pigs?

Firstly, it’s important to note that not all gene-edited animals are produced in a laboratory setting. Instead, these livestock come from animals whose DNA has been modified early in their development, often conferring advantageous traits starting from a single cell or fertilized egg.

This gene editing isn’t focused on enhancing pork flavor; it’s primarily aimed at safeguarding the pigs from diseases.

For instance, a UK company is currently developing genetic modifications in pigs that render them resistant to Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome (PRRS), a virus that significantly weakens the immune system of pigs. PRRS poses a serious threat, leading to the deaths of piglets, miscarriages in pregnant sows, and increased vulnerability to other infections.

Pork is the third most consumed meat in the United States after chicken and beef.

These genetically enhanced pigs are significant particularly because there is currently no effective vaccine for PRRS.

The stakes are high, with efforts to manage PRRS costing the US pork industry about $1.2 billion (£878 million) each year.

When the virus does break through, the implications can be dire. In 2006, a pandemic in China infected over 2 million pigs, resulting in 400,000 deaths.

CRISPR Bacon

How much have these pigs really changed? That’s a valid concern. However, the actual modifications are surprisingly minor.

To combat the PRRS virus, scientists have edited out a portion of the CD163 protein in the pig’s DNA, which the virus uses to invade pig cells.

Pigs with this genetic modification show resistance to nearly all known strains of PRRS, but they are otherwise similar to conventional pigs. Despite initial fears that viruses could evolve to bypass edited proteins, this hasn’t occurred.

Dr. Christine Tait-Burkard, a researcher at the University of Edinburgh’s Roslin Institute, describes the original CD163 protein as “like nine beads on a string,” with only one bead—the fifth one—removed during editing.

This minor alteration is sufficient to block viral infection, she elucidates, while not significantly affecting other protein functions (such as those involved in clearing damaged red blood cells).

Interestingly, the gene rearrangement could also occur naturally in some pigs. “It’s possible there is a pig somewhere in the world resistant to this virus,” Tait-Burkard states. “However, we don’t have the luxury of time for natural breeding, so we must utilize biotechnology to introduce it into our breeding programs.”

The editing employs a toolkit known as CRISPR, a Nobel Prize-winning technology that has gained popularity in scientific research for its efficiency, precision, and affordability. The CRISPR tool uses a “guide” sequence to target DNA, employing protein “scissors”—naturally occurring proteins found in bacteria—to make necessary cuts. Minor adjustments, such as those seen in PRRS-resistant pigs, disable particular genes.

A New Norm?

Once they hit grocery store shelves, PRRS-resistant pigs are expected to become the first widely consumed gene-edited animals. However, they are not the first genetically modified products available to consumers.

Hypoallergenic “Gal Safe” Pork, designed for consumers with meat allergies, received approval in 2020. In 2022, the FDA also approved a type of cow known as Smooth cow—a breed enhanced with traits from naturally occurring genetic variants in tropical cows for shorter hair and better heat recovery. Additionally, genetically modified “Aquadvantage” Salmon is available in the US, albeit primarily sold in restaurants.

The situation is more complex across the Atlantic. As it stands, gene-edited foods cannot be marketed in the EU, and legislation for Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) in the UK lays groundwork for breeding gene-edited crops, but it has not yet been extended to animals.

Even if regulations evolve globally, will consumers be eager to purchase gene-edited sausages and bacon?

The labeling for this new gene-edited pork remains undecided, but Dr. Katie Sanders, a communications specialist at North Carolina State University, suggests that there is greater potential for consumer acceptance compared to traditional genetically modified (GM) foods. This perception stems from the belief that gene-edited products appear more natural.

In the past, genetically modified (GM) crops stirred up fears and headlines focused on “frankenfood.” However, many of these crops were ultimately approved, with most scientists considering them safe for consumption. These GM crops often incorporate foreign genes—like “Bt” corn, which carries genes from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis to repel insect pests.

In contrast, the current wave of CRISPR-edited foods only features modifications that could naturally occur within the species. Scientists have not created an entirely new variety of pigs.

Sanders and her colleagues, along with associate professor Jean Parera at Texas A&M University, conducted a national survey of more than 2,000 Americans to gauge attitudes towards CRISPR-edited pork. While results await publication, Sanders notes that respondents generally indicated a likelihood to purchase CRISPR-edited pork.

This trend was especially noted in urban populations (compared to rural ones) and among those with lower educational attainment (as opposed to individuals with degrees).

In 2006, PRRS outbreaks in China affected over 2 million pigs, leading to 400,000 deaths.

When asked how producers can persuade more consumers to adopt gene-edited meat, Parrella emphasized the importance of “responsible use and ethical considerations surrounding CRISPR applications.”

Initial marketing of PRRS-resistant pigs highlights these ethical considerations, demonstrating they have been addressed. A division of the industry, known as The Pig Improvement Company—yes, that’s its actual name—underscores benefits like enhanced animal welfare, reduced antibiotic reliance, and positive environmental effects.

If their messaging resonates, could more gene-edited animals find their way to our dinner tables? Perhaps. Scientists at the Roslin Institute are currently researching edits to combat other livestock diseases, including the bovine diarrhea virus.

However, Tait-Burkard cautions that engineering resistance to specific viruses, like avian influenza, may pose more significant challenges or require edits harmful to animal cells. The proteins they edited for pig PRR resistance are “excellent targets,” but they are challenging to identify.

For traits linked to productivity, such as improved breeding and meat quality, the agricultural sector is already refining efficient breeding techniques to achieve these objectives. As such, it’s unlikely that costly gene editing will be utilized to create “super” meat anytime soon.

Nonetheless, if gene editing can enhance animal protection, minimize antibiotics, and alleviate environmental burdens, it could swiftly transition from novelty to normalcy—provided animal welfare remains uncompromised.

Read more:

Source: www.sciencefocus.com

Research: Early Drivers of Fire Use for Meat Preservation and Predator Protection, Not Cooking

Posted on by
Reply

The advent of fire marks a significant point in human evolution, though scholars continue to debate its primary function. While cooking is frequently regarded as a key factor, researchers from Tel Aviv University propose that the protection of meat and fat from predators is more plausible. Homo Erectus lived during the Lower Paleolithic era, approximately 1.9 to 0.78 million years ago.

Homo Erectus.” width=”580″ height=”435″ srcset=”https://cdn.sci.news/images/2018/07/image_6228_1-Neanderthal-Fire-Use.jpg 580w, https://cdn.sci.news/images/2018/07/image_6228_1-Neanderthal-Fire-Use-300×225.jpg 300w” sizes=”(max-width: 580px) 100vw, 580px”/>

Miki Ben-Dor & Ran Barkai’s research highlights the nutritional value of meat and fat from large prey in the Lower Paleolithic, questioning the significance of culinary practices in shaping human dietary evolution and offering new insights into adaptations in Homo Erectus.

“The origins of fire usage is a ‘burning’ question among prehistoric researchers globally,” stated Professor Barkay, a co-author of the study.

“By around 400,000 years ago, it was widely accepted that fire was commonly used in domestic settings. I concur with the idea of meat roasting, as well as its use for lighting and heating.”

“However, there remains a debate concerning the past million years, with various theories put forth to explain early human interactions with fire.”

“This study aimed to approach this issue from a new angle.”

“For early humans, the use of fire wasn’t a given; most archaeological sites dated around 400,000 years ago show no signs of fire usage,” explained Dr. Miki Ben-Dor, lead author of the study from Tel Aviv University.

“However, in many early locations, there are clear indications of fire usage, even if there’s no evidence of burnt bones or roasted meat.”

“We see early humans—nearly Homo Erectus—utilizing fire sporadically for specific purposes rather than regularly.”

“Collecting fuel, igniting a fire, and maintaining it involved substantial effort, requiring a compelling energy-efficient reason.”

“We propose a new hypothesis for that motivation.”

In their research, the authors reviewed existing literature on all identified prehistoric sites between 1.8 million and 800,000 years ago where fire evidence has been found.

They identified nine sites globally, including Gesher Benot Ya’aqov and Evron Quarry in Israel, six sites in Africa, and one site in Spain.

The study also drew from ethnographic research on contemporary hunter-gatherer societies, relating their behaviors to ancient conditions.

“We examined the common features of these nine ancient sites and found they all contained a significant number of bones from large animals, mainly elephants, hippos, and rhinoceroses,” Dr. Ben-Dor noted.

“Previous research has shown these large animals were critical to early human diets, providing a substantial portion of their caloric needs.”

“For instance, the meat and fat from a single elephant can supply millions of calories, enough to sustain a group of 20 to 30 people for over a month.”

“Thus, hunting elephants and hippos was highly valuable—essentially a ‘bank’ of meat and fat that required protection and preservation, as it was sought after by predators and susceptible to decay.”

Through their analysis of findings and assessments of energetic benefits of preserving meat and fat, the researchers arrived at new conclusions that challenge previous theories. Early fires served dual purposes: first, to safeguard valuable resources from predators, and second, to facilitate smoking and prevent spoilage.

“This study introduces a novel perspective on the motivations behind early human fire use: the necessity to protect large game from other predators and the long-term preservation of substantial meat supplies,” Professor Barkay explained.

“Cooking may have occurred occasionally after fire was established for these protective purposes.”

“Such usage could elucidate evidence of fish roasting around 800,000 years ago found at Gesher Benot Ya’aqov.”

“Our approach aligns with evolving global theories that characterize major prehistoric trends as adaptations to hunting and consuming large animals, followed by a gradual shift to smaller prey exploitation.”

Survey results were published in the journal Nutrition Frontier.

____

Miki Ben-Dor & Ran Barkai. 2025. The bioenergy approach supports the conservation and protection of prey, rather than cooking, as a primary driver for early use of fire. Front. Nutr. 12; doi:10.3389/fnut.2025.1585182

Source: www.sci.news

What’s the Maximum Amount of Meat for a Sustainable Diet?

Posted on by
Reply

You can enjoy a healthy and sustainable diet without completely eliminating meat. Recent research.

Scientists at the Denmark Institute of Technology have analyzed 2,500 foods and concluded that consuming less than 255g of pork or chicken weekly is beneficial for both the environment and your health.

“We understand that the planet faces significant environmental challenges, while millions are dealing with hunger and malnutrition,” stated Dr. Caroline Helev Guevara from the University of Technology, Denmark, who led the research. BBC Science Focus.

“While there’s a strong emphasis on increasing plant-based food consumption, it’s still uncertain how much of it is necessary and whether these changes can truly have a positive impact.”

Agriculture utilizes 70% of the world’s freshwater – Credit: Getty Images/Pete Starman

The team led by Guevara examined 11 different diets, including options with red or white meat, pescetarian, vegetarian, vegan, and various flexible diets, to determine if they were “sufficient.”

They formulated thousands of food combinations within these dietary patterns, evaluating both their nutritional value and environmental impact.

Environmental effects were assessed in five key areas: carbon dioxide emissions, land use, water consumption, biodiversity loss, and fertilizer-contaminated water.

The findings revealed that it is possible to nourish the global population healthily without excessively harming the planet, with a variety of dietary choices available.

“We possess enough resources to provide healthy, nutritious foods to the global populace without surpassing environmental limits,” said Guevara. “This is promising news.”

The research identified around 100,000 healthy and sustainable food combinations. While vegan and vegetarian diets showed the greatest benefits, those including less than 255g of pork and chicken were also feasible—equivalent to two chicken breasts or one large pork chop.

The only option that was entirely off the table was lean meat, as it was deemed less viable due to its higher environmental impact relative to the nutrition it delivers.

“Producing lean meat generates more greenhouse gas emissions (mainly methane) than poultry and pork, mainly due to how ruminants digest their food.”

However, although such diets are feasible, their practical implementation may pose challenges.

“A significant shift in our food consumption habits is essential right now,” Guevara noted. “Our research focuses on what can physically be done, not what is socially or economically accessible. Structural changes are necessary to turn these sustainable diets into reality.”

About our experts

Caroline Helev Guevara is a postdoctoral researcher at the Faculty of Environmental Resources Engineering, University of Technology, Denmark. She investigates the impact of human activities and industries on the environment.

read more:

Source: www.sciencefocus.com

Study Suggests Vegetarians React to Eating Meat as They Would to Consuming Waste

Posted on by
Reply

Vegetarians have a similar reaction to meat as they do to eating feces or human flesh, according to recent research from Oxford University.

A study involving 252 vegetarians and 57 meat eaters examined whether this aversion was influenced by the source of the food being plant or animal-based.

Initially, participants were shown a range of vegetables commonly disliked, including raw onions, green olives, sprouts, beetroot, and overripe fruit, and were asked to envision eating them. Both groups expressed “disgust” towards these vegetables. Essentially, the flavors and textures were perceived negatively.

Next, participants looked at pre-cooked chicken, bacon, and steak. Here, the vegetarians reacted quite differently. They experienced feelings of nausea, voiced ideological objections, and stated they found anything that had been in contact with meat unappealing.

All the meat is clean and cooked.

The reactions of aversion were similar to those elicited when participants were asked to imagine consuming human feces or the flesh of humans or dogs (the meat was actually just plain meat labeled accordingly—no harm came to any dogs, although a few humans faced bad treatment).

“Disgust is an ancient evolutionary mechanism observed in various species and acts as a straightforward response to ‘bad’ preferences, primarily linked to bitter and sour tastes,” stated Elisa Becker, the lead researcher from Oxford University, in an interview with BBC Science Focus.

“Aversion, in contrast, is likely a uniquely human response stemming from more complex thoughts about food and its meanings.”

The distinction between these reactions may lie in evolutionary history. Aversion enabled early humans to avoid toxic plants with unpleasant flavors, while disgust developed as a more sophisticated reaction to the unseen risks associated with meat, which can harbor pathogens and parasites.

“Disgust does not arise solely from taste but is triggered by animal products, including meat and our own bodily substances. These are prime carriers for pathogens,” Becker explained. “The purpose of disgust is to protect us from toxins and diseases.”

This insight may assist initiatives aimed at promoting sustainable diets by altering perceptions of certain foods.

“It could be beneficial for people seeking to reduce their meat consumption or increase vegetable intake,” Becker remarked. “Novel, more sustainable protein sources (like insects or lab-grown meat) can often invoke disgust. Understanding this instinct can help us overcome it.”

About our experts

Elisa Becker is a postdoctoral researcher at the Faculty of Primary Care Health Sciences at Oxford University. She investigates behavioral change interventions that assist individuals in reducing meat consumption, focusing on the emotional processing of meat and the effectiveness of various strategies.

read more

Source: www.sciencefocus.com

Inside the Museum: Beetles Feeding on Meat for Scientific Research

Posted on by
Reply

Navigating past the enormous hanging blue whales and the Alaska brown bear on the ground floor of the American Museum of Natural History, you’ll stumble upon an unassuming, concealed door. Above it are small signs.

“Bug colony.”

Behind this door, accessible solely to a select group of museum staff, thousands of carnivorous skin beetles tirelessly work around the clock, carrying out specimen preparation tasks that even the museum’s most skilled professionals cannot manage.

They consume the flesh from animal skeletons, leaving only pristine bones behind.

Many skeletons are too intricate for human cleaning, so the museum’s osteologic preparation team turns to these six-legged workers to ready specimens for research and display.

The operation takes place in three gray wooden boxes, about the size of a foot locker, which house the colony. These boxes are lined with stainless steel, and their flexible tops unveil a range of small creatures, including beetles, feasting on the remnants of primarily birds. They devour morsels of flesh still attached to the carcasses.

The room resonates with soft, crackling noises. “Adding milk makes it sound like frying food or cooking rice,” mentioned Rob Pascocello, a colony caretaker.

The beetles are tiny—only a few millimeters long—capable of entering the narrowest crevices in animals and nibble away without damaging fragile skeletal structures, according to Scott Schaefer, the overseer of the museum’s vast collection of specimens and artifacts, which comprises over 30 million items.

“They do an exceptional, meticulous job that human hands cannot replicate due to delicacy,” Schaefer explained. “It’s gentler than boiling the specimens or subjecting them to chemicals or acids.”

Museum representatives state that this industrious colony has processed countless carcasses, including a significant portion of the over 30,000 bird skeleton specimens housed for decades. “They slip into tiny spaces and go unnoticed, continuing to feed until there’s nothing left,” Schaefer noted.

On a recent weekday, Paul Sweet, the collection manager for ornithology, stood in the bug room, pointing out that the name is misleading from a scientific standpoint.

True bugs, known scientifically as Hemiptera, have mouthparts designed for piercing and sucking. In contrast, beetles—known as Coleoptera—typically have a cylindrical shape with chewing mouthparts.

The colony has effectively reduced the once vibrant pink flamingos into mere bundles of bones. The majestic snowy owl was similarly transformed. Among the remnants was a tiny skeleton in a canister, with bones smaller than a toothpick.

“That’s a songbird,” Pascocello remarked.

Skin beetles are scavengers commonly found in the wild, nests, and animal burrows, feasting on deceased animals.

Museum officials mentioned that this dermatological colony, introduced from Africa in the 1930s, has remained self-sufficient. Sweet noted that the current beetle population has been at the museum for 35 years, though it remains uncertain whether they are descendants of the original colony.

Regardless, beetles only live for six months, leading Pascocello to humorously state, “they’re all related.” He also mentioned having a backup colony in his bedroom during the museum’s closure due to the coronavirus pandemic.

On this particular day, Sweet was preparing to feed the colony a Northern Gannet, a seabird recovered from Midland Beach on Staten Island. It had already been stripped, dried, and had most of its meat removed by researchers before being handed over to the beetles for final preparation.

Within minutes, the bodies were swarming with beetles. While smaller birds can be entirely cleaned in just a couple of days, a larger skeleton, like that of a gannet, may take up to two weeks.

Pascocello once provided beetles to feed orangutans, while Sweet had given them the remains of an emu. However, the size of the specimens presented determines how they are handled; larger ones must be provided in pieces, such as the remains of a Cuban crocodile named Fidel, sourced from the Bronx Zoo in 2005.

Before pristine skeletons are boxed and cataloged, they are soaked in water and frozen for several days to eliminate any residual beetles and eggs.

Beetles pose no threat to humans, but an infestation within the museum’s specimen collection is undesirable. A sufficient quantity of beetles means strips of petrolatum jelly at the top of the box and sticky patches on the room’s doorway.

If the supply of specimens falls short, Pascocello will resort to chicken as an emergency food source. Sweet mentioned providing the colony with pig feet during the pandemic, as it was the least expensive meat available at the supermarket.

The beetle’s voracious appetite serves as a reminder that significant scientific work doesn’t always happen in spotless laboratories. Above the door, beneath the “Bug Colony” sign, a handwritten note reads:

“The unpleasant odor emanating from behind this door is perfectly normal.”

Source: www.nytimes.com

New study reveals Australopithecus did not regularly consume meat

Posted on by
Reply

Australopithecus had a varied but plant-based diet, as indicated by stable isotope data analysis from seven human specimens collected in Sterkfontein, South Africa, 3.5 million years ago.

Lüdecke others. claim that Australopithecus In Sterkfontein, mammalian meat was not regularly consumed. Image credit: Cicero Moraes / CC BY-SA 3.0.

“Tooth enamel is the hardest tissue in the mammalian body and can preserve the isotopic fingerprint of an animal’s diet for millions of years,” says geochemist Dr Tina Lüdecke from the University of the Witwatersrand. said.

“When animals digest food, a biochemical reaction involves light isotopes of nitrogen (14yeah). ”

“Therefore, the breakdown products produced in their bodies include a high proportion of 14N.”

“When these light nitrogen compounds are excreted in urine, feces, or sweat, the proportion of heavy nitrogen increases (15N) It ​​provides the body with this light nitrogen compared to the food it takes in. ”

“This means that herbivores have higher nitrogen isotope ratios than the plants they consume, and carnivores have higher nitrogen isotope ratios than their prey.”

“Therefore, the higher the 15From N 14The higher the N ratio in the tissue sample, the higher the trophic position of the organism in the food web. ”

Nitrogen isotope ratios have long been used to study the diet of hair, nails, bones, and many other organic materials in modern animals and humans.

However, in fossil materials, these measurements have until now been limited to samples only tens of thousands of years old, as the organic material degrades over time.

In the new study, Luedecke and colleagues used a new technique to measure nitrogen isotope ratios in the enamel of fossilized teeth that are millions of years old.

They found that the nitrogen isotope ratio in tooth enamel was Australopithecus Abundances varied but were consistently low, similar to herbivore populations, and much lower than modern carnivore populations.

They conclude that the diets of these hominins, although diverse, consisted largely or exclusively of plant-based foods.

Therefore, Australopithecus did not regularly hunt large mammals, as Neanderthals did millions of years later, for example.

Although researchers cannot completely rule out the possibility that they occasionally consumed animal protein sources such as eggs or termites, there is evidence that their diet was primarily vegetarian.

“Our method opens up exciting possibilities for understanding human evolution and has the potential to answer important questions, such as when did our ancestors start incorporating meat into their diets?” And was the onset of meat eating associated with an increase in brain volume?” said Dr. Alfredo Martínez García, a researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry.

“This study represents a major step in extending our ability to better understand the diets and nutrient levels of all animals to multi-million-year scales.”

“This study provides clear evidence that the diet did not include large amounts of meat.”

“A pioneering application of this new method was pioneered at the Sterkfontein site, which continues to make fundamental contributions to science 89 years after the first hominin fossils were discovered there by Robert Bloom. We are honored to have received this recognition,” said Professor Dominic Stratford, Director of the Center. Research in Sterkfontein Cave.

of study Published in a magazine science.

_____

Tina Ludecke others. 2025. Australopithecus In Sterkfontein, very little mammalian meat was consumed. science 387 (6731): 309-314;doi: 10.1126/science.adq7315

Source: www.sci.news

Cooking releases artificial flavors that enhance the quality of lab-grown meat

Posted on by
Reply

Flavored cultured meat

Yonsei University

Lab-grown meat could potentially taste better thanks to aroma chemicals that activate when cooked and give off a meaty scent – or, if you prefer, coffee or potato.

Meat grown from cell cultures has already been produced in a variety of forms, such as steaks and meatballs, that resemble slaughtered meat, but matching the taste has proven harder: The flavor of traditional meat is too complex and unstable to withstand the lengthy lab process.

One of the key components of cooked meat's flavor is the Maillard reaction, named after the French chemist who discovered that temperatures between 140 and 165°C (280 and 330°F) give cooked foods their distinctive flavor. Jinkee Hong Researchers at Yonsei University in Seoul, South Korea, say they have devised a way to simulate the Maillard reaction by adding “switchable flavour compounds” (SFCs) to a 3D gelatin-based hydrogel called a “scaffold” that remains stable during meat cultivation.

When heated to 150°C, the chemicals “switch on” and release flavors, making the cultured protein more palatable: “When we heated SFC, it actually tasted like meat,” Hong says, though he declined to confirm whether the team actually ate meat.

These SFCs can also be used to create different flavor profiles. For example, the researchers say they tested three compounds, which produced flavors that mimicked roasted meat, coffee, roasted nuts, onion and potatoes. “You can diversify and customize the flavor compounds released from the SFCs,” Hong says.

One big problem is that the chemicals involved are not currently considered safe for human consumption. “Because the materials and culture media have not been approved as edible materials, we cannot guarantee their safety,” Hong says. “However, our strategy can be applied to conventional edible materials and we believe it would be safer than the materials we used in this study.”

Johannes Le Couteur Researchers at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, said they were skeptical of the study for a number of reasons, including that the flavor tests primarily used electronic noses to evaluate chemicals released, rather than humans judging whether a scent was appetizing.

“This type of material cannot feed humans,” Le Coutur said. “While cell-based meat is a promising technology concept, this particular flavoring method will never be able to provide safe, sustainable protein to low- and moderate-income communities in need.”

topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com

Possible Replacement for Beef: A Gelatinous Meat Mass

Posted on by
Reply

Recent advancements in cultured meat technology are poised to enhance the flavor profile of cultured meat products, making them more akin to traditional meat in taste.

Scientists have devised a “flavor-switchable scaffold” that releases meat flavor compounds when exposed to cooking temperatures.

Professor Jin-Kee Hong, a co-author of a study published in 2011 in Nature Communications, emphasized the significance of this innovation. Speaking to BBC Science Focus, he stated, “Many researchers are focusing on creating various bioscaffolds to produce 3D cultured meat from livestock cells.”

However, Hong highlighted that the current emphasis has been primarily on biological aspects, neglecting consumer preferences such as flavor, texture, and taste. He stressed, “…techniques to manipulate the sensory characteristics of cultured tissues are essential for their recognition as food.”

The new gelatin-based scaffold contains flavor compounds that break down during cooking, releasing a meaty flavor similar to traditional meats.

Chemical analysis, including testing with an electronic nose (e-nose), demonstrated that the new flavor profile of cultured meat closely resembles that of grilled beef.

According to the study’s lead author, Miley Lee, the cultured meat exhibits a meat-like flavor and texture, albeit not identical to conventional meat. Lee expressed optimism about narrowing this flavor gap through the development of bioscaffolds with more meat-like properties in the future.

Cells are cultured on a flavor-changing scaffold to produce meaty-flavored cultured meat. – Image courtesy of Yonsei University

Cultured meat is increasingly viewed as a sustainable alternative to traditional animal protein, offering consumers a beloved food while significantly reducing environmental impact and ethical issues associated with animal slaughter, as per Hong.

Moreover, customizing cultured meat to meet specific consumer preferences could position it as a healthier food choice in the future. Lee pointed out that, given its lab-grown nature, all properties of cultured meat can be tailored to meet consumer needs, such as high protein content and no fat.

Despite these breakthroughs, researchers acknowledge current limitations and the need for further exploration. “While many are developing scaffolds for cultured meat production, there is still a long road ahead to achieve meat that perfectly mimics traditional options,” Hong remarked.

Lee added that scaling up cultured meat production for cost-effectiveness and commercial viability remains a challenge, with costs still prohibitive for widespread availability.

Nonetheless, the team remains hopeful in finding solutions in the future. Lee expressed optimism, stating, “We believe our efforts can make a substantial contribution to cultured meat development and the global community.”

About our experts

Jinkee Hong, a Professor in the Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering at Yonsei University, heads the Nanocomposite Materials Institute, focusing on cutting-edge research in functional polymers.

Miley Lee, a student in the integrated Masters and PhD program at Yonsei University, specializes in scaffold engineering, drug delivery for cell stimulation, and bioelectrical stimulation. She has contributed to numerous research papers in prestigious journals and holds the first authorship on several.

Read more:

Source: www.sciencefocus.com

‘Spanish Tech Startup Aims to Introduce 3D Printed Meat to Our Tables’

Posted on by
Reply

Cocuus, a cutting-edge technology start-up headquartered in an industrial park on the outskirts of Pamplona, ​​takes on a group of drunken tourists who willingly surrender to the sound of fate, horns and hooves during a bull run in a Spanish city. They are just as happy to embrace every bit of the clichés of their sector. A festival held every July.

Table soccer? check.lager and IPA on tap? check. Inspirational Message – Preferably an homage to Alice in Wonderland with “Before Breakfast She Believes in Six Impossible Things”? Check. How about sci-fi memorabilia, perhaps Tintin's moon rocket or Alien's xenomorph head? Check. clearly.

A clue as to what's different lies in the platters of oysters, tuna, foie gras, bacon, nuggets, steak and charcuterie displayed at the bar. Nothing is what it seems. Steak and pork do contain meat, but like other dishes, they are the result of years of research into “copycat foods,” culminating in the rapid burst of 3D printing.

Founded six years ago by Patxi Larumbe and Daniel Rico, Cocuus continues its loud and disruptive quest to fuse science, technology, and nutrition. It announced its existence three years ago when the duo decided to attract meat lovers in Pamplona and beyond by 3D printing steaks and posting them on social media.




Patsi Larumbe with 3D machinery to produce shrimp. Photo: Markel Redondo/Guardian

“I knew that if I was going to print something, it had to be something that would piss people off,” says Larumbe, who quit a €100,000-a-year job in construction materials to focus on the startup.

“We knew that printing a big steak would upset a lot of people in Spain, especially in northern Spain. So we printed the steak and posted it on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. 700,000 people. We got replies. Most of them were people telling us to shove it up our butts. It was crazy and I was really happy.”

Even better, the product also attracted the attention of American food company Cargill, which is now one of Coccus' major investors. This Spanish company also specializes in formulations and machinery used in food printing, and for the past few years has designed and manufactured multi-nozzle printers that can create food products that mimic the taste and texture of meat and fish. . The hardware can also be painted on molded purees to look like a plate of chicken and chips or hake and peas, creating meals that stimulate the eyes and appetites of people with swallowing difficulties.

As befits a self-confessed bunch of sci-fi geeks, much of the inspiration comes from the transport plane that beams the crew of the USS Enterprise between the ship and the planet's surface. Larrambe said Social Media Steak is the result of experimenting with the idea of ​​converting steak cells into data that can be teleported. After taking X-rays and cross-sectional scans of real steaks, they located the cells that make up the meat, fat, and bones, converted them into data, and entered them into a printer.




Larumbe cooks 3D vegan steaks. Photo: Markel Redondo/Guardian

“We're a group of physicists, geometry mathematicians, geeks, and Star Trek and Star Wars enthusiasts who are starting to research food,” Larumbe says. “Every food company studies things in very similar ways, using nutritionists and food technologists, and they come to very similar conclusions to existing ones. To come up with new cakes. If you get a bunch of bakers together, they'll come up with something very similar to what already exists and what we know as cake.”

But if you combine a physicist with a nutritionist, a machine maker, a baker and a comedian, he added, “you'll create a new kind of cake.”

Cocuus' bacon and foie gras are made from a rich vegetable paste, while the steaks are made with real beef from 50kg of meat that would otherwise be discarded or made into cat food when cows are slaughtered. The fat in steak marbling is made from a vegetable mixture and is much lower in saturated fat than the real thing.

Mr Larumbe exudes confidence in his products as surely as his printers extrude meat and vegetable pastes, but he also takes a swipe at many of his supposed rivals and says they've made light work of the vegan burger boom in recent years. He dismissed it as a “bubble” and pointed out the huge costs and low costs. Yields of lab-grown meat.




Cocuus' 3D printed meat steaks contain real beef. Photo: Markel Redondo/Guardian

When asked what sets his company apart in an already crowded field, he insists it's scale. Cocuus and its partner Foody's have sold 80,000 pieces of meat-free foie gras and 200,000 pieces of cholesterol-free vegan bacon since the products hit Carrefour store shelves last September. Cocius also has the production capacity to produce 1,000 tons of bacon and his 3,000 tons of foie gras annually at his factory in the city of Tudela.

“We are the first company in the world to successfully do this on an industrial scale rather than on an experimental scale,” says Larumbe.

“Secondly, our imitation is complete and has never existed before. There was a vegetarian version, but the content was bad. Thirdly, there is something fundamentally wrong here. We have scientists coming up with different formulations and technologies. All of this means we are the most advanced company in the world in this field, and one that partners with the largest international food companies. about it.”

What has the local reaction been like in areas where beef is highly revered?

Making bacon without pigs or “seeing a bunch of idiots make steaks with 3D printing” may not be appealing to Navarre's farmers, Larumbe admits. But after learning more about the company and understanding that more money could be made for the cows thanks to new technology that utilizes parts that were traditionally thrown or fed to cats, many He says people are coming.

Once again, after spending an hour or two with him, you get the impression that Larumbe doesn't really care about other people's opinions.

“Humanity progresses because of people who disagree,” he says. “There is no progress if you and I agree. We don't agree on everything.”

Source: www.theguardian.com

Researchers find natural method to enhance the meat-like qualities of plant-based meat

Posted on by
Reply

Recent research has revealed that fermenting alliums such as onions with fungi can naturally mimic the flavor of meat, offering a promising solution for enhancing plant-based meat substitutes without the use of synthetic additives. measures are provided.

Plant-based alternatives like tempeh and bean burgers offer protein-rich options for those looking to cut back on meat. However, it is difficult to imitate the taste and aroma of meat, and many companies use artificial additives for this purpose. Recent research in ACS Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry revealed a promising solution. Onions, chives, and leeks can produce natural compounds that resemble meat flavors when fermented with typical fungi.

An innovative approach to natural meat flavoring

When food manufacturers want their plant-based meat alternatives to taste more like meat, they often add precursor ingredients found in the meat that transform into flavorants during cooking. Alternatively, flavors are first prepared by heating flavor precursors or other chemical manipulations and then added to the product.

Because these flavors are created through a synthetic process, many countries do not allow food manufacturers to label them as “natural.” To utilize plant-based “natural” meat flavors, flavor chemicals must be physically extracted from plants or produced biochemically using enzymes, bacteria, and fungi. So YanYan Zhang and colleagues wanted to see if they could produce the same chemicals from vegetables and spices using fungi, which are known for producing meat-like tastes and smells from synthetic ingredients.

Allium releases the aroma of meat

The team fermented different fungi seed After experimenting with different foods, I found that meaty aromas only come from foods in the allium family, such as onions and leeks. The sample with the strongest aroma was one in which the fungus Polyporus umbellatus was used to ferment onions for 18 hours, producing a fatty and meaty aroma similar to liverwurst.

The researchers used gas chromatography-mass spectrometry to analyze onion ferments to identify flavor and odor chemicals, many of which are known to be responsible for various flavors in meat. discovered a chemical substance. One of the chemicals they identified was bis(2-methyl-3-furyl) disulfide, a strong odorant found in meat and savory foods.

The researchers say the high sulfur content of alliums contributes to their ability to produce meat-flavoring compounds, and these compounds often also contain sulfur. These onion ferments could one day be used as a natural flavoring agent in a variety of plant-based meat substitutes, the researchers say.

Reference: “Sensoproteomic discovery of taste-modulating peptides and taste re-engineering of soy sauce” Manon Jünger, Verena Karolin Mittermeier-Kleßinger, Anastasia Farrenkopf, Andreas Dunkel, Timo Stark, Sonja Fröhlich, Veronika Somoza, Corinna Dawid, and Thomas Hofmann, 2022 May 20th Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.2c01688

The authors acknowledge funding from Adalbert-Raps-Stiftung.

Source: scitechdaily.com