• @Whelks_chance@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    154 months ago

    I like this idea. Animals care far less about the texture of meat, which I think is one of the most common complaints about meat substitute food eaten by humans.

    • @Longpork3@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      74 months ago

      The flip side to this, is that the vast majority of meat in pet foods is effectively waste from human-grade meats, for the same reason. That means the price point for competition in pet foods is significantly lower.

      It also means that there won’t be as direct of an impact on livestock numbers should pet food be sourced via synthetic meats, as it just means the byproducts which would enter the food chain for dogs instead become waste products with a cost of disposal.

      • @sunbeam60
        link
        English
        7
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        They’re only introducing it to pets because it requires very few approvals compared to human consumption. Once it’s worked for a few years (assuming) and their production systems have ramped up, seeking human approval will be much easier.

        Pet food is a stepping stone.

      • @jabjoe@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        24 months ago

        If this cheaper that offcuts humans won’t eat, that is extremely promising.

        This should be way better for the environment, way cheaper and free a lot of land.

        So wasteful to grow a whole animal for few cuts of it’s muscle.