Thank you! I remember looking into this a few years ago as due diligence for a new job. My impression at the time was that even if the requisite technological breakthroughs were developed (big if), they wouldn’t be able to proliferate and scale up to make cultivated meat more than 1% of global meat consumption by 2100, due to inherent physical limitations around contamination above the 10kL scale.
In your interviews, did you get a sense for how companies were planning to adapt to this, or is the general consensus that this limitation can be surpassed? I know Vow, for example, are just targeting high-end consumers with small production runs where they’ll be able to squeeze high margins out of it—but I still hear rhetoric about preventing climate change and solving world hunger from almost every player in the space. Is that just rhetoric for raising capital?
Hi there, Contamination overall doesn’t seem to be a major concern. There is no inherent physical limitation to control contamination above 10kL scale. This is commonly already done in pharma. With larger scales the only issue is that risk of contamination can cost a lot as a lot of material will have to be discarded. Overall the batch failure rate is low in pharma: https://www.bioprocessonline.com/doc/bioprocessing-sees-continued-improvements-in-batch-failure-reductions-in-0001
For cultivated meat the trick is to do so without relying on expensive Good Manufacturing Practices (i.e. high end and expensive clean rooms).
There are other areas to improve that will reduce the risk of contamination. For instance, more automated or continuous processes reduce the risk of contamination. There is also ongoing research on peptides with antibiotic properties that will go away during purification or cooking.
Another way to mitigate the contamination risk is to scale out instead of scale up. So use 10 x 10kL bioreactors instead of 1x100kL one.
Overall, contamination risk does not seem to be a major risk. Bigger challenges are reducing the cost of media and bioreactors!
Also you can watch my presentation. At 16:37 I share a personal story about running cell culture in office area!
Yes—my understanding was, as you note, that the right clean rooms are still orders of magnitude too expensive on a capital & ongoing basis to produce meat at consumer prices. The difference from the pharma industry is that they charge orders of magnitude more per volume of product, which can support this cost. I also understand that splitting reactors might not be a favourable clean trade-off either, since at the same volume, 10x1kL reactors take up more space (and therefore more clean room costs) & are more expensive to operate.
Reading your reply, is it correct that the major cultivated meat companies won’t be able to hit consumer pricing or scale anytime soon because of those major technological breakthroughs they need to achieve first?
Thank you! I remember looking into this a few years ago as due diligence for a new job. My impression at the time was that even if the requisite technological breakthroughs were developed (big if), they wouldn’t be able to proliferate and scale up to make cultivated meat more than 1% of global meat consumption by 2100, due to inherent physical limitations around contamination above the 10kL scale.
In your interviews, did you get a sense for how companies were planning to adapt to this, or is the general consensus that this limitation can be surpassed? I know Vow, for example, are just targeting high-end consumers with small production runs where they’ll be able to squeeze high margins out of it—but I still hear rhetoric about preventing climate change and solving world hunger from almost every player in the space. Is that just rhetoric for raising capital?
Hi there,
Contamination overall doesn’t seem to be a major concern. There is no inherent physical limitation to control contamination above 10kL scale. This is commonly already done in pharma. With larger scales the only issue is that risk of contamination can cost a lot as a lot of material will have to be discarded. Overall the batch failure rate is low in pharma:
https://www.bioprocessonline.com/doc/bioprocessing-sees-continued-improvements-in-batch-failure-reductions-in-0001
For cultivated meat the trick is to do so without relying on expensive Good Manufacturing Practices (i.e. high end and expensive clean rooms).
There are other areas to improve that will reduce the risk of contamination. For instance, more automated or continuous processes reduce the risk of contamination. There is also ongoing research on peptides with antibiotic properties that will go away during purification or cooking.
Another way to mitigate the contamination risk is to scale out instead of scale up. So use 10 x 10kL bioreactors instead of 1x100kL one.
Overall, contamination risk does not seem to be a major risk. Bigger challenges are reducing the cost of media and bioreactors!
Also you can watch my presentation. At 16:37 I share a personal story about running cell culture in office area!
Hope this helps!
Yes—my understanding was, as you note, that the right clean rooms are still orders of magnitude too expensive on a capital & ongoing basis to produce meat at consumer prices. The difference from the pharma industry is that they charge orders of magnitude more per volume of product, which can support this cost. I also understand that splitting reactors might not be a favourable clean trade-off either, since at the same volume, 10x1kL reactors take up more space (and therefore more clean room costs) & are more expensive to operate.
Reading your reply, is it correct that the major cultivated meat companies won’t be able to hit consumer pricing or scale anytime soon because of those major technological breakthroughs they need to achieve first?