New Harvest’s New Developmental Director / BevLab Workshop in Toronto / First Two Journal Club Papers
The best way to keep up with New Harvest and our activities, meet our community, and see how you can get involved is to subscribe to our newsletter.
As reviewed by Ben Wurgaft & Kevin Schneider.
Benjamin Aldes Wurgaft is an historian currently researching and writing a book on efforts to create cultured meat. Supported by the National Science Foundation (award #1331003), he is based at MIT’s Anthropology Program. You can read his most recent writing on cultured meat here.
A native of Boston, MA, Kevin Schneider graduated from FSU Law in 2013 and has been living and practicing as a civil rights attorney in NYC for the past year or so. A long-time animal rights activist, Kevin also works in the emerging food space, and imagines a day in the not-too-far future where our meat will come from a lab in Brooklyn.
Thoughts by Ben Wurgaft
On 10.16.2014, the Museum of Food and Drink hosted a roundtable discussion on the future of meat. MOFAD is not yet a brick-and-mortar museum, but rather an organization dedicated to conversations about food, food history and food science, they hope to soon have a physical location in New York City; the event itself was hosted at the Manny Cantor Center on East Broadway. One of the heads of MOFAD, the chef and bartender Dave Arnold, moderated the discussion – another member of the roundtable group, Patrick Martins (head of Heritage Foods USA and author of the recent Carnivore’s Manifesto) is also on the board of trustees of MOFAD. The other members of the roundtable were Isha Datar, head of New Harvest, Peter Singer, perhaps vegetarianism’s best-known voice in academic philosophy, and Mark Budolfson, a postdoctoral fellow at Princeton who also works on ethics as it pertains to human-nonhuman animal relations.
Dave Arnold effectively took part in the discussion at many points, and it’s notable that he’s a very influential figure in contemporary food innovation; his bar, Booker and Dax, comes close to being a “molecular gastronomy” cocktail bar, and I’ve had the pleasure of visiting it on several occasions. It’s important to note that MOFAD’s roundtable was not focused on cultured meat – it was not intended to be a referendum on cultured meat, or on the ethical status of vegetarianism or meat-eating. Instead it was an effort to get together several influential people with strong views on meat, debate the pros and cons of the meat industry as it stands, and ask what kinds of change are desirable or possible.
In fact, the disagreements between the panelists themselves were relatively minor but interesting: to a person, they believe that large-scale industrial animal agriculture needs to go. They may differ in their reasoning, some stressing environmental damage and others stressing animal suffering, but they agree that the future of meat should be different than the present. Singer and Martins glossed the greatest difference on the panel, namely the difference between them, early on: whereas Martins endorses smaller-scale animal husbandry, slaughter and butchery (call it “artisanal” if you will) Singer hopes that meat will have no future at all – save, perhaps, for a future of cultured meat; in this regard, Singer’s views partially aligned with those of Datar. Martins’ hope is that in the future meat will be incredibly expensive relative to the present, and that we will consume far less of it – but that what we consume, will be of the highest quality. He is, notably, the founder of the US branch of the international organization Slow Food, which explains some of his emphasis on small quantities, high expense and high quality. As an aside, I’d like to understand better Martins’ approach to the problem of Slow Food and class – he implies that he’s on the side of food equality, but the classic critique of Slow Food is that it promotes food practices that only the very rich can really afford.
But the two important and interesting fault lines in the evening’s discussion, from my perspective, were respectively those between Dave Arnold and Isha Datar (or, more properly, between Arnold and proponents of cultured meat) and between the representatives of the organization Collectively Free and Patrick Martins. The first fault line appeared at two moments in the discussion, when Arnold asked if proponents of cultured meat actually “hate food,” and when he asked if other forms of “ersatz meat” (his term) seem like an easier path than cultured meat. Datar’s response to the latter question was that New Harvest is in favor of an approach that embraces a wide array of solutions – not just cultured meat but also vegetable-based forms of “ersatz meat.” I found this particular conflict very important: Arnold seemed to imply a comparison between cultured meat and other things that “aren’t food,” such as Soylent, and such things have drawn scorn from the ranks of more elite foodies, like Arnold.
The question, as Modern Meadow’s Andras Forgacs asked during the later Q&A, is why Arnold takes such a view, given his own work as an innovator in food science (Booker and Dax R&D staff are often on hiatus, designing new drinks and techniques, for example) – why is “cultured meat” a form of innovation that doesn’t appeal to him, while other forms of innovation do? Or, in Forgacs’ words, what is the difference between a kitchen and a lab? But Arnold’s response implied that the kitchen/lab distinction isn’t the important thing: he wants ingredients, he said, that have “integrity” from growth to the point of eating. He didn’t define integrity, but I don’t think he needed to: good soil, well-treated agricultural workers, sustainable practices, high-quality seed or stock, etc.
The second conflict began when members of Collectively Free began a direct action (what they call an “intervention”) during the Q&A. Seeming to target Martins – the only panelist directly involved with the meat industry – they held up signs depicting animals, and insisted “they want to live. Will you let them live.”? Responses from both the panelists and audience ranged wildly – simply put, it was a huge scene, which seems to be what Collectively Free wanted, and Arnold was put in the position of having to defend the panel and try to turn the evening back into a discussion. One Collectively Free sign, depicting a lobster asking “will you let me live?” led to a brief conversation about which kinds of animals might, in fact, possess self-awareness and a desire to live – if we can even know. For me, this was crucial. Arnold had, earlier in the discussion, raised the point that we have to consider whether humans and non-human animal are not, in fact, absolutely different – here, the question was essentially whether or not humans can have, depending on how one wishes to spin the issue, property rights over non-human animals, stewardship over species, and so forth.
Thus one important philosophical question lingered after the roundtable, namely that of the purpose and meaning of animal life. This is one of the questions we have to grapple with as we think about Collectively Free’s claim that “they want to live.” Do non-human animals experience themselves as having an existence that is sustained over time, much as we experience ourselves? Do they “want to live” in the same way that many of us do? And do their lives have a purpose, either a purpose given by their human breeders (i.e., to grow, be slaughtered and be eaten) or an internal purpose? Collectively Free did not present this as a question for discussion, but rather as an answer intended to stop discussion, and yet (as the panelists noted) the answer is hardly obvious. I left the MOFAD event that evening feeling a bit sorry for the panelists whose discussion had been disrupted, but rather glad that some of the deeper philosophical issues about meat, had surfaced.
Thoughts by Kevin Schneider
“History matters.” “Meat should be expensive—people should eat less meat, but eat good meat.” “We’re saving breeds of pigs and turkeys from extinction.” “Pigs and turkeys are made to be food, not pets.” “They don’t desire to live like you or me; they just live from moment to moment.” “An individual choosing to be vegan is a candle in the wind—they do not have any meaningful impact on animal suffering; we ought to focus on policy changes.” “History matters.”
Interesting and challenging ideas all, in their own way. And the entire panel would certainly agree that we eat way too much meat. But the speakers hailing from the above “side” seemed to falter on their own swords—words like “history” and “policy” sound great, but they are in the end mere rhetorical vessels that must be filled with the nitty-gritty details. After all, history has seen plenty of awful things justified on the basis of “history” and “tradition,” likewise with “policy.”
There was a palpable bias against cultured meat on the panel, particularly from the moderator. And when Dr. Peter Singer shifted the topic to environmental ethics and the links between meat and climate change, the moderator bizarrely “reminded” Dr. Singer that the focus of his seminal 1975 work Animal Liberation was really the ethics of killing for food, not about the environment. There goes that hand of history again?
Fortunately, there was a light on the panel—New Harvest’s very own Isha Datar. Pressed for answers about cultured meat, Isha did not invoke grand, vague themes like “history” or “policy.” Rather, she imparted a vision where free commerce and technology can be a far more efficient vehicle for protecting animals, human health, and environment. This is just the beginning of the conversation, but cultured meat already has a seat at the table.
Above all, Isha reminds us that there is great value in being a “candle in the wind.”
Marko Vide is a web designer, developer, advisor and project manager from Slovenia, who has been involved with the web industry since 1996 and started his freelance career in 2003.
Since that time he has worked for a great many of companies and organizations, many of which were human and animal rights oriented or promoted vegetarian diets or alternative meat development (Compassion Over Killing, Get Vegucated, Kind Green Planet, VeggieHappy, etc.). He started working for New Harvest in the very beginning, back in 2004.
Alongside his job in the web industry, he is drawn to environmental and social activism and transpersonal psychology and is still trying to figure out how to blend them all together. As a hobby, he is completing a Bachelor’s degree in Psychotherapy Science at Sigmund Freud University in Vienna.
New Harvest: How did you first discover the concept of cultured meat?
Marko Vide: I first heard of the concept back in 2004 when Gaverick Matheny contacted me and asked if I would be interested in building a website for a non-profit organization he just founded and named New Harvest. Going through the website material that was being prepared this concept of cultured meat kept coming up, which is something I never heard of before and thought of as quite interesting.
Would you incorporate cultured meat into your diet?
Yes, absolutely. I would much prefer to eat cultured meat instead of meat that came from factory farms. I also think it could be of great use at difficult to access outposts such as in space, deep sea, Antarctica, etc.
My only real concern regarding cultured meat is that along with other modern methods of food production, it’s creating a growing gap between modern man and his food sources, therefore in some way contributing to further alienation between human beings and the greater natural systems around us. I think we would all treat our environment differently, if we would be made aware on daily basis that’s where our sustenance comes from.
How did you come in contact with New Harvest?
In early 2000s I’ve left my job and started an independent freelance career. As it happened a lot of my new clients were involved in vegetarian and animal rights activism. They liked my work, word got around and one day Gaverick got in touch and asked if we could do a project together. And so it began.
What changes have stood out to you in regards to New Harvest or cultured meat developments since you became involved in 2004?
As I was always involved more with the web development issues for New Harvest, I never really dived deep into the back-end research that the organization was doing over the years, so I cannot say much about that. Still, it would be hard to overlook the major changes that took place in the last two years, when Isha Datar took over the position of the executive director.
Isha brought some very exciting new energy along with a clear vision that basically completely transformed New Harvest as I knew it. Before she came on, the organization was not doing much in terms of online self-promotion and was I think more directed towards research itself.
With Isha this all changed overnight. In a very short timeframe she led the complete revamp of the website and its associated features, created a much stronger social media presence, brought in a great number of new volunteers, helped organize an editorial staff that is throwing out some very interesting articles and newsletters regularly, helped set up a growing online library and a journal club, implemented new tools that help develop researchers connect with each other, increased the donor base, set up merchandise… So much that I’ve actually lost track of it all.
Overall the organization has since early 2013 grown tremendously and became a much more lively and exciting place. It’s almost unrecognizable from the organization I started to work with back in 2004 when it often felt it was just Gaverick and me doing the online work.
Why did you begin working for social activism organizations?
Although I was involved with social activism for years, this was never really connected to my web development job and I kept the two quite separated until I started freelancing. Even then, I never really exclusively sought social activism organizations to work with. I was just sending out proposals to a great number of potential clients and requests from social activism organizations started to come in first and after that they never really stopped.
Are you a vegetarian? If so, why?
Working for years for a number of vegetarian non-profits, I was always somewhat afraid somebody was going to ask me that question. Mostly as my answer is no, I’m not a vegetarian although I experimented with various types of diets because of health issues and that included vegetarianism. But I eventually found that there are other types of diet that suit my physical constitution and helped my health problems better, so after a while I’ve settled with those.
Is there one cause that is most important to you?
The cause that is dearest to my heart is definitely environmental activism. That is something that I’ve been involved with for a long time, and it has become an essential part of my being. To paraphrase Stanislav Grof, one of my favorite authors, since we humans are primarily biological beings, it’s quite obvious that our priority as a species should be to keep our biosphere sustainable and stable enough for it to continue to support us. That means enough clean water, air, and soil to grow our food in. Without those elements it’s impossible to survive, so every other priority such as economy, profits, politics and ideologies should never be allowed to override these fundamental biological imperatives. That we are even debating such things as economy vs. global warming is sheer madness.
What is transpersonal psychology and why are you interested in it?
Transpersonal psychology is a fourth force in psychology (next to psychoanalysis, behaviorism and humanistic psychology) that sees human beings not just as biological machines whose consciousness starts and birth and ends at death, but as much more complex beings who also have an important spiritual component to them. In its understanding of human psyche it attempts to integrate modern Western psychology with more ancient Eastern psychologies into a single contemporary school of thought. An important aspect of its thinking is also the recognition that non-ordinary states of awareness can be useful and healing, instead of just pathologizing them, which unfortunately is what psychiatry and more mainstream psychology often does.
What would you like to do with your psychotherapy degree once you have graduated?
Honestly, I’m not sure. Although I’m quite fascinated with psychology I thought of my formal studies more of a sideline project and not as a serious job prospect. That might change down the line or if a nice scholarship comes along that would enable me to upgrade it, but for now I’ll just put it in a nice frame and put it on a wall.
What new technology are you looking forward to becoming a reality in your lifetime?
I think that humanity has already developed enough amazing technologies that can enable it to solve most of our most difficult predicaments and create a much better world for itself and the beings we share this planet with. So I’m not actually looking forward to any new technology to become reality, but would much prefer to see humanity transform the way it thinks and sees itself and the world around itself and the direction we apply our existing technologies towards.
That we’re globally spending $1.5 trillion a year on weapons (“tools used to blow each other up”) is just mad. Think of what that money could do if invested in tools used to actually build something and improve our lives. Things like medicine, food, shelter, education, renewable energy sources.
Of course that won’t happen as long we keep fearing each other, find greed, selfishness and competition as something natural and normal and as long as we continue to strive to control everything and everybody around us. I think that any kind of new technological innovation, without adjoined inner transformation of humanity won’t radically improve the world we live in, so the latter is something I would actually love see happening in my lifetime.
Thanks Marko, it was great to learn more about you and your point of view!
New York City Discussion / Muufri receives two million / Ingenious Workshop / Contribute Essays and Ideas
The best way to keep up with New Harvest and our activities, meet our community, and see how you can get involved is to subscribe to our newsletter.
As reviewed by Linnea Laestadius and Alexandra Sexton
Linnea Laestadius is an Assistant Professor of Public Health Policy and Administration at the University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee. Much of her research is focused on the promotion of environmentally sustainable diets. She is currently exploring questions related to both cultured meat and plant-based meat analogs. She can be reached at Llaestad@uwm.edu
Alexandra Sexton is a Geography PhD student at King’s College London researching the biopolitical implications of cultured meat and edible insects as solutions to global food security. Her general research interests are in the politics of consumption, materialities of food, (bio)ethics and developing innovative methodologies for food research. She can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org or on Twitter @read_and_eat_
Thoughts by Linnea:
For two days in the middle of September 2014, the small English town of Rothbury became a key site for the discussion of the ethics of cultured meat and enhanced animals. Organized by Dr. Jan Deckers of Newcastle University and sponsored by the Wellcome Trust, the conference (The Ethics of In-Vitro Flesh and Enhanced Animals) brought together a disciplinarily and geographically diverse group of scholars to engage with important questions about the ethics of biotechnology and animals. One participant remarked that we had more individuals engaged with the ethics of cultured meat in the room than there were scientists involved in publishing on the actual development of cultured meat. Cultured meat and the enhancement of animals are clearly issues that pique a certain fascination among those in the social sciences and humanities. Of the two, cultured meat in particular drew the attention of presenters.
Needless to say, the conference presentations were highly engaging and made for some rich conversations both in the sessions and afterhours. While it’s difficult to concisely capture two days of presentations and discussion, some of the reoccurring themes related to the naturalness of cultured meat and enhanced animals (Is it natural and should it matter if it is natural?), current public perceptions of cultured meat (Do initial and immediate reactions differ from attitudes following further reflection?), strategies for public acceptance and overcoming the well-known ‘yuck factor’ (Should we work toward acceptance, and if so, how?), the ethical implications of cultured meat and enhancement for animals themselves (Do these avenues offer meaningful ethical benefits for animals or simply commoditize them in new ways?), and more general questions about the ontology of cultured meat. The conference ended with thoughts by organizer Jan Deckers on how we might best operationalize the idea of naturalness.
While opinions on cultured meat and its ethical performance varied significantly, I think there was near consensus on the possibility of cultured meat to generate benefits for animals and society in certain scenarios. That said, there were certainly some ethical reservations presented as well. One of these reservations was that such technologies do not move us past the utilization and commodification of animals for human use. In my own interpretation, much of the discussion about the ethics of cultured meat hinged on how pragmatic we want to be about dietary change and how plausible different cultured meat/conventional meat scenarios might be in the long term. Personally, I’m looking forward to seeing more research on how public acceptance of cultured meat compares to acceptance of already available plant-based meat analogs.
In short, the conference was very much representative of the larger scholarly and public discussions around cultured meat and enhanced animals. All of the presentations were recorded and will eventually be posted online for those with an interest (and I encourage you to view them once they are posted!).
Some further thoughts from Alexandra:
Following Linnea’s excellent overview of the conference and the topics that were explored, I would just add that for me one of the most interesting themes that recurred over the two days was the debate about the ontology of cultured meat. Questions concerning whether cultured meat is the same as ‘traditional’ meat, and if it is indeed helpful to view and promote it as the same were prominent throughout many of the conversations.
For me, I think there are both advantages and points of caution for associating cultured meat with traditional meat products. One of the main benefits is the existence of an established consumer acceptance of certain meats, and if cultured meat can be seen to align with these products it is assumed that resistance will be somewhat minimised. However, I feel cultured meat has an exciting opportunity to position itself as a ‘new way’ of meat production in the public imagination, one that is distanced from all of the ethical, environmental and health issues associated with the intensive livestock industry.
As was mentioned in a number of conference presentations, many consumers are in fact open to the cultured meat method and acknowledge its potential to increase animal and environmental welfare in the meat industry (whether this potential can be realised is another subject for debate, and, as Linnea notes, this was also a key topic of discussion at the conference). Engaging people in discussions about what meat ‘is’ and the reasons and expectations around those beliefs is, in my view, an important part of the cultured meat discourse and something which should certainly be continued within scholarly and public conversations.
This was just one of the many rich discussion points that the conference engaged with. Thanks again to Dr. Jan Deckers for convening the conference and to all the presenters for such thought-provoking papers.
April 15, 2014: I emailed two New Harvest volunteers that had never met each other before with an idea. Did they want to start a company to produce milk in cell culture?
My friend Pantea from Synbiota had told me that a new biotechnology accelerator was seeking applicants for summer 2014 and winners would have access to laboratory space, mentorship and $30,000 in initial funding. She wondered if I knew any new start-ups that could apply. I didn’t… but I started thinking. Meat – that’s kinda tough for a few months in the lab. But milk – now that was something you get going in just one summer.
Ryan Pandya was one of the first people I had spoken with after I joined as New Harvest’s director in January 2013. He had dabbled in cultured meat research and first brought to my attention the idea of making milk in cell culture. He was a biological and chemical engineer who had just graduated from Tufts University. Perumal Gandhi I had met for the first time less than a month before – he sent me a message on LinkedIn in March asking advice for how to tailor his education. He had a biotechnology undergrad degree and was doing a Masters in Biomedical Engineering at Stonybrook University on a student visa. They were the only two people I’ve met in New Harvest’s network that had mentioned the idea of producing milk in cell culture.
I emailed both of them, asking if they wanted to apply. Amazingly, they did. It was a crazy time crunch. The deadline was in 4 days.
April 19, 2014: We submit our proposal as the “New Harvest Dairy Project”
Ryan had already done a lot of work on proposals around producing milk in cell culture. He had recently moved to an entrepreneurial co-living space in Boston called Krash, and he got in by posing the idea of producing milk in cell culture. Over the next few hours, and days, I was just shocked and impressed to see how Perumal and Ryan burst forth with all this research literally overnight. Patent searches, protein structures, pros and cons on different steps in the production process. It was inspiring, to say the absolute least.
Four days later, after several hours on Google Hangouts, Google Docs and Prezi, we had a sound presentation. One day ahead of schedule! Check out our proposal presentation here!!
April 22, 2014: Ireland, here we come!
WE GOT IT! We were thrown into a frenzy of incorporating, buying plane tickets, opening bank accounts, getting visas and quitting jobs. We kept stumbling on what to call this thing. The names we came up with were embarrassing, to say the least (Noccau, Herdler, Bovino are just a sampleof the atrocities we came up with). Finally we got on a call and decided on Muufri. Great searchability, a free .com, and we thought it sounded awesome. Haven’t looked back since!
April 28, 2014: Muufri incorporates.
April 30, 2014: Ryan lands in Cork, Ireland.
When I first saw photos of Ryan in Ireland I couldn’t help but think to myself - “What have I done?!!?!” Seemed to turn out OK though…
May 8, 2014: New Harvest’s Dairy Project goes out in the NH newsletter
Feedback from the newsletter was fantastic. The Muufri team was already receiving fan mail and media inquiries from journalists, including New Scientist – a forefront science magazine in the UK.
May 16, 2014: Perumal lands in Cork.
May 19, 2014: Isha lands in Cork. The Muufri team meets in person for the first time ever.
Meeting for the first time was nuts. I mean, we were all essentially strangers. I was shocked by how well we got along online and how well we seemed to work together remotely. But what about in person?
It turned out to be a breeze. The other accelerator teams there thought we were all old friends – not that we had just met. It was unbelievable.
The following weeks and months turned out to be a flurry of experiments, research, and making contacts. Without a doubt, New Harvest helped hook Muufri up with all kinds of resources and connections.
June 5, 2014: Natalie lands in Cork.
During the summer of 2014, Natalie Rubio was New Harvest’s star intern. Knowing she was up for travel this summer, I invited her to come to Ireland to work more closely with me (Natalie and I were also working remotely) and help out with Muufri/take advantage of the accelerator environment and learning experience. Natalie stayed for a whole month and is to date continuing to help both New Harvest and Muufri.
June 30, 2014: Muufri’s self-authored article appears in New Scientist.
The summer proceeds with a lot of hard work in the lab and online. This article is our first non-New Harvest-related appearance online. It just explodes and we get follow on articles with the Washington Post and the Daily Mail. Muufri goes on to be mentioned in agriculture and dairy industry publications, too.
July 2, 2014: Horizons Ventures contacts Muufri.
Muufri had been engaging with several investors throughout their time in Ireland, but were especially blown away when Horizons contacted us. The disruptive investment group has a killer portfolio including huge brands like Facebook, Siri and Spotify, alongside our inspiring friends Hampton Creek and Modern Meadow. They had seen our piece in New Scientist and wanted to chat.
July 31, 2014: Ryan, Perumal and Isha land in Hong Kong to meet with Horizons Ventures.
This was one of the most surreal things for me. I got my ticket to Hong Kong the day before flying out, and the whole 15 hour flight I was thinking to myself: this is nuts. We were getting the richest man in Asia excited about creating a progressive food system. Our conversation was great and we could feel the excitement. We wanted to do something big and Horizons wanted to help us do that.
As we worked through the paperwork, I decided to remove myself as a company founder on paper. It is important to me to keep the non-profit voice strong in this new, emerging industry. It will help the industry grow faster, more responsibly, and encourage cooperation and communication. I was more than happy to put the future of Muufri in Ryan and Perumal’s extremely able hands.
August 29, 2014: Muufri meets again – in New York City
It is beginning to get ridiculous how we’ve been meeting up in places where none of us live. This trip turns out to be more of a fun visit. We check out Modern Meadow’s Brooklyn lab, which is just beautifully outfitted with the most high tech gear – then we check out the community at Genspace and meet a lot of talented folks who can relate to our modern-day, internet-relationship start-up story.
September 1, 2014: Muufri moves to San Francisco.
And really, this is where phase two of the adventure begins. The team starts securing laboratory and office space and the search for new hires begins.
September 30, 2013: $2 Million lands in Muufri’s bank account.
And this is where it all started to finally feel real. I mean, the past 5 months and 15 days had just been an absolutely whirlwind. We were an idea – a seed – blowing in the wind. We went on an international adventure, three people from three different countries – Canada, the US, and India, meeting in three other countries – Ireland, the US and China, not knowing where we were going to land. It was the kind of whirlwind which seems like it’s gonna just blow over or blow away and be gone as quickly as it came. But seeing the money in the bank was like seeing Muufri planting some roots. We’re trying to break ground on making a food future which is sustainable, healthy and humane. This is really, truly, just the beginning.
Call for UK Engineers / Biotechnology Debate in London / In Vitro Meat Cookbook of Ideas / New York Museum of Food and Drink Debate / Journal Club Round II / October Conference San Francisco / Beyond Meat in Chains
The best way to keep up with New Harvest and our activities, meet our community, and see how you can get involved is to subscribe to our newsletter.
Tasting Modern Meadows’ Cultured Meat / “Real Vegan Cheese” Campaign Success / Museum of Food and Drink / Seminar on Plant Based Food with Pat Brown / “Alternative Proteins, Alternative Futures” Review
*Update: Pat Brown’s seminar is taking place in Berkeley, not Stanford. Read about the event here.
Sherrie Tullsen-Chin is a long-term New Harvest volunteer; involved with the fundraising team and Google AdWords campaign. Sherrie lives in San Jose, California and attended the recent cultured meat panel in San Francisco, on August 26th, 2014. Dr. Mark Post and Ben Wurgaft were panelists, alongside members of the insect protein industry. Sherrie kindly wrote up her thoughts on the event in the blog post below to share the experience with those who could not attend!
Last week, I was one of about 60 very lucky individuals to attend the forum: Alternative Proteins, Alternative Futures at the Dutch consulate in San Francisco. The event was jointly sponsored by the Consulate General of the Netherlands and Institute for the Future, headquartered in Palo Alto, California. The event consisted of a talk by Dr. Mark Post of Masstricht University, creator of the world’s first cultured beef burger, followed by a panel discussion with other innovators and entrepreneurs in the area of developing alternative, efficient, and sustainable sources of protein.
Dr. Mark Post to Speak in Silicon Valley / Successful Teespring Campaign / Free Harvard Webinar on Livestock / Meat Conference Rothbury, England