REVIEW ARTICLE

Prospectus of cultured meat—advancing meat alternatives

Zuhaib Fayaz Bhat & Hina Fayaz

Revised: 8 October 2010 /Accepted: 7 December 2010 /Published online: 30 December 2010# Association of Food Scientists & Technologists (India) 2010

Abstract The in vitro production of meat is probablyfeasible with existing tissue engineering techniques andmay offer health and environmental advantages by reducingenvironmental pollution and land use associated withcurrent meat production systems. By culturing loosemyosatellite cells on a substrate, it is probably possible toproduce cultured meat by harvesting mature muscle cellsafter differentiation and processing them into various meatproducts. Besides reducing the animal suffering significantly,it will also ensure sustainable production of designer,chemically safe and disease free meat with favourablenutritional profile as the conditions in an in vitro meatproduction system are controlled andmanipulatable. However,the production of highly-structured, unprocessed meat facesconsiderably greater technical challenges and a great deal ofresearch is still needed to establish a sustainable in vitro meatculturing system on an industrial scale. This review discussesthe requirements that need to be met to increase the feasibilityof meat production in vitro, which include finding anappropriate stem cell source and being able to grow them in

a three dimensional environment inside a bioreactor, providingessential cues for proliferation and differentiation.

Keywords Cultured meat . Meat substitute . Need .

Challenges

Introduction

The livestock sector is the fastest growing agricultural sub-sector globally, employing 1.3 billion people (Steinfeldet al. 2006a) and supporting about 4 billion peopleworldwide (Thornton et al. 2002). Besides the draughtpower, livestock provides us foods of animal originincluding meat required to maintain the health of a humanbody (Nestle 1999). Humans are taxonomically omnivorousand meat provides several essential nutrients unavailable inplant sources. Meat is specifically valuable as a source ofomega-3 fatty acids, vitamin B12, protein and highlybioavailable iron (Bender 1992; Verma and Banerjee2010). The consumption of meat and other animal productscan alleviate nutritional deficiency which is still widespreadin developing countries and can secure a better physical andmental development of children (Delgado 2003; Speedy2003). Population growth, urbanization, economic growthand flourishing markets all lead to the increasing demandfor meat and animal products (Delgado 2003; Costales et al.2006; Steinfeld et al. 2006a, b). Also, changing nutritionalneeds driven by growing incomes and demographictransitions, there is an increased need for livestock productsincluding meat on a global scale (Rosegrant et al. 1999;Speedy 2003; Steinfeld et al. 2006a, b). Apart from thenutritional status, meat and other animal products play animportant social role in the modern society. Until 2020,

Z. F. Bhat (*)Division of Livestock Products Technology, Faculty of VeterinarySciences and Animal Husbandry, Sher-e-Kashmir University ofAgricultural Sciences and Technology of Jammu,R. S. Pura,Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir, India 181 102e-mail: zuhaibbhat@yahoo.co.in

H. FayazDivision of Biotechnology, University of Kashmir,Hazratbal,Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India 190006e-mail: bhat.hina@rediffmail.com

J Food Sci Technol (Mar–Apr 2011) 48(2):125–140DOI 10.1007/s13197-010-0198-7

meat demand is expected to increase highly in developingcountries and slightly in developed counties (Rosegrantet al. 1999; Delgado 2003). To meet these increased meatdemands of modern society, animals are intensively keptand production is optimized disregarding the well-being ofthe animals. Throughout history, domestic animals wereable to adapt to the changing conditions, however sinceWorld War II the pace of change is increased to such adramatic extent that this is no longer fully possible (Crok2003). Because of the high number of animals being usedan efficient and cheap production system is required.Herding of animals in confined spaces in unfavorableconditions is practiced. The adaptability of the animals isnot high enough to cope with these unnatural conditions,and high stress levels are observed, resulting in disease,abnormal behaviour and death (Crok 2003).

Globally, 30% of the land surface is used for livestockproduction with 33% of arable land being used for growinglivestock feed crops and 26% being used for grazing(Steinfeld et al. 2006a). About 70% of the fresh water useand 20% of the energy consumption of mankind is directlyor indirectly used for food production, of which aconsiderable proportion is used for the production of meat.Livestock species, particularly ruminants, are responsiblefor greenhouse gas emissions, including methane fromalimentary tract fermentation and nitrous oxide that may beemitted from decomposing manure and fertilizer. Thelivestock sector contributes 18% of the anthropogenicgreenhouse gas emissions and 37% of the anthropogenicmethane emissions to the atmosphere worldwide (Steinfeldet al. 2006a). It is anticipated that by the year 2050 globalpopulation will increase from 6 billion (in 2000) to 9 billionpeople which will be accompanied by a rise in annualgreenhouse gas emissions from 11.2 to 19.7 gigatonne ofcarbondioxide, carbon equivalent and in the same periodannual global meat production will rise from 228 (in 2000)to 465 million tonnes (Steinfeld et al. 2006).

The water use for livestock and accompanying feed cropproduction also has a dramatic effect on the environmentsuch as a decrease in the fresh water supply, erosion andsubsequent habitat and biodiversity loss (Asner et al. 2004;Savadogo et al. 2007). Land use, including that for thelivestock sector, has increased dramatically in the pastdecades, leading to loss and fragmentation of habitats.Together with animal feed production, meat production isresponsible for the emissions of nitrogen and phosphorus,pesticide contamination of water, heavy metal contamina-tion of soil, and acid rain from ammonia emissions(de Haan et al. 1997). In addition, there is the problem ofantibiotics being used as growth promoters for animals keptin intensive farming. This use probably contributes to theemergence of multi-drug-resistant strains of pathogenicbacteria (Sanders 1999). Another problem is that of animal

disease epidemics and more serious threat is posed by thechicken flu, as this can lead to possible new influenzaepidemics or even pandemics, which can kill millions ofpeople (Webster 2002). Nutrition related diseases, such ascardiovascular disease and diabetes, associated with the over-consumption of animal fats are now responsible for a third ofglobal mortality (WHO 2001). Food-borne illnesses havebecome increasingly problematic, with a six fold increase ingastro-enteritis and food poisoning in industrialized countriesin the last 20 years (Nicholson et al. 2000) and the mostcommon causes of food borne diseases in EU, USA andCanada are contaminated meats and animal products (Barnardet al. 1995; Mead et al. 1999; Nataro and Kaper 1998;European Food Safety Authority 2006; Fisher and Meakens2006). Thus, it is clear that conventional meat production hasa great impact on land, water, animal welfare and energy use,as well as on the emission of greenhouse gases and pollutants(Avery 1997; Solomon and Johnston 1997; van Eelen et al.1999; Reay 2002). Continuation of production as usual willlead to further environmental degradation and destruction ofhabitats. However, solutions are within reach, many of whichare from the scientific sector, however, although these willnot be immediate but will need investment in the form oftime and money, and possibly changes in consumer’s habits.Scientific innovations can and should come from all sectorsinvolved and an important contribution can be made via thegeneration of meat alternatives using improvements ofalready existing concepts and products. An example of sucha concept is to make edible products from in vitro musclecells, cultured from stem cells, outside the animal in abioreactor (Figs. 1 and 2). Although, in vitro meat technologyis still at a very early stage, this holds great promise as asolution to reduce livestock’s impact on the environment.

In vitro culturing means to grow cell types of eitheranimal or plant origin without the organism from which it isderived. Culturing involves the extraction of cells from theorganism and transferring them onto or into a suitablegrowth medium. This medium contains nutrients, energysources, growth factors, etc. depending on the goal of thecell culture. Cell (or tissue) culturing may be performed forthe production of edible animal muscle, better known asmeat, that requires the proliferation of a small amount ofmuscle cells to a large muscle cell mass or tissue. The ideaof cultured meat for human consumption is not new butwas predicted long back by Winston Churchill in the 1920s.In essay ‘Fifty Years Hence’ later published in ‘Thoughtsand adventures’ in 1932, he declared that “Fifty yearshence” we shall escape the absurdity of growing a wholechicken in order to eat the breast or wing by growing theseparts separately under a suitable medium. In 1912, AlexisCarrel managed to keep a piece of chick heart muscle aliveand beating in a Petri dish. This experiment demonstratedthat it was possible to keep muscle tissue alive outside the

126 J Food Sci Technol (Mar–Apr 2011) 48(2):125–140

body, provided that it was nourished with suitable nutrients.It was much later in the early 1950s when Willem vanEelen of Netherlands independently had the idea of usingtissue culture for the generation of meat products. Since atthat time the concept of stem cells and the in vitro culture ofcells still had to emerge, it took until 1999 before vanEelen’s theoretical idea was patented. Some efforts havealready been put into culturing artificial meat. SymbioticAharvested muscle biopsies from frogs and kept these tissuesalive and growing in culture dishes (Catts and Zurr 2002).

Other research initiatives have also achieved keepingmuscle tissue alive in a fungal medium, anticipating onthe infection risk associated with serum–based media. In2002, a study involving the use of muscle tissue from thecommon goldfish (Carassius auratus) cultured in Petridishes was published in which the possibilities of culturinganimal muscle protein for long term space flights orhabituation of space stations were explored. In this studymuscle tissue cultured with crude cell extracts showed alimited increase in cell mass and the cultured muscle

Fig. 1 Scaffold-based culturedmeat production

J Food Sci Technol (Mar–Apr 2011) 48(2):125–140 127

explants so obtained were washed, dipped in olive oil withspices, covered in breadcrumbs and fried. A test-paneljudged these processed explants and agreed that the productwas acceptable as food (Benjaminson et al. 2002).

Cultured meat has the potential to greatly reduce animalsuffering and make eating animals unnecessary, even whilesatisfying all the nutritional and hedonic requirements ofmeat eaters (Holmes and Dacey 2008). Furthermore, from acommercial perspective, animals are notoriously unreliableas a raw material for meat production, due to illness, stressand uneven growth. Cultured meat is potentially a muchmore reliable alternative. In comparison with animals, aproduct from a bioreactor could be attractive as it does notcome with all the vicissitudes of animals. Furthermore,cultured meat is not bound to soil or place, which opens up

possibilities for new places of production and for alternativeland use. However, from a perspective of social acceptance,the technological character of cultured meat can have anegative value, and associations with Frankenstein, cloning,transgenesis and unknown risks are close at hand.

There are two different ideas regarding the concept ofthe cultured meat. Because people like meat and culturedmeat is explicitly introduced as an alternative to theproblems of normal meat, cultured meat should be asmeat-like as possible in order to be a real alternative for‘traditional’ meat from animals. It is therefore importantthat an alternative should have a similar taste andnutritional value. On the other hand, a new product needsa profile of its own; otherwise it will not be able tocompete. From this perspective, it is not essential for the

Fig. 2 Possible in vitro meatproduction scheme

128 J Food Sci Technol (Mar–Apr 2011) 48(2):125–140

product to resemble and should in fact be clearly distinctivefrom traditional meat.

Need of cultured meat

1. Designer meat: By manipulating the composition of theculture medium, the flavor and fatty acid compositionof the cultured meat can be influenced. Moreover,health aspects of the meat can be enhanced by addingfactors to the culture medium which might have anadvantageous effect on the health, like certain types ofvitamins (van Eelen et al. 1999). Co-culturing withother cell types might further enhance the meat quality,like coculturing with fat-producing adipocytes usingthe right culture medium can increase the fat content.Fat content can also be controlled by supplementationof fats after production and the ratio of saturated topoly-unsaturated fatty acids could be better controlled.Furthermore, with the advent of functional and enrichedfoods, consumers are more willing to try products thathave been altered to have particular nutritional charac-teristics (Korhonen 2002; Burdock et al. 2006).

2. As laboratory produced meat does not come from aliving animal, it therefore significantly minimizes thereligious taboos like Jhatka, Halal etc. (Pathak et al.2008; Bhat and Bhat 2011).

3. The incidence of food borne disease could be signifi-cantly reduced. The chance of meat contaminationwould be lower due to strict quality control rules, suchas Good Manufacturing Practice, that are impossible tointroduce in modern animal farms, slaughterhouses, ormeat packing plants. In addition, the risks of exposureto pesticides, arsenic, dioxins, and hormones associatedwith conventional meat could be significantly reduced.

4. The global trade of meats from rare and endangeredanimals has reduced wild populations of many speciesin many countries. In theory, cells from captive rare orendangered animals (or even cells from samples ofextinct animals) could be used to produce exotic meatsin cultures.

5. Theoretically, a single farm animal may be used toproduce the world’s meat supply and thus it reduces theanimal use.

6. An animal kept for conventional meat productionsupports, in addition to muscle tissue, biologicalstructures required for successful living, locomotionand reproduction. These include bones, respiratorysystem, digestive system, skin, and the nervous system.As they are not required to produce meat in an in vitrosystem, it reduces the amount of nutrients and energyneeded for growth and maintenance of muscle tissue.

7. In vitro system takes significantly lower time to growthe meat than traditional meat production. It takesseveral weeks instead of months (for chickens) or years(for pigs and cows) before the meat can be harvested.This means that the time that tissue has to bemaintained is much smaller and thus, the amount offeed and labor required per kg of in vitro cultured meatis much lower.

8. Unlike farm animals, bioreactors for in vitro meatproduction do not need extra space and can be stackedup in a fabric hall. For these reasons, the nutritionalcosts for in vitro cultured meat will be significantlylower than for traditionally cultured meat. The financialadvantages are yet unclear and it might very well bethat the decrease in costs of resources, labor, and land iscompensated by the extra costs of a stricter hygieneregime, stricter control, computer management, etc.

9. The launch costs of long term manned space missionsare currently very high that renders the prospect oflaunching the necessary food in preprocessed formunattractive. Moreover, astronauts often dislike thetraditional space-foods and as a result, eat less of itthan they normally would with variety in food choice(Zandstra et al. 2000). As for current space missions,supply and physiochemical regeneration (of water andoxygen) are the most cost-effective, but for longerperiods and permanent bases, bioregeneration becomesmore attractive (Drysdale et al. 2003). A controlledecological life support system (celss) would not onlyprovide fresh food to the astronauts, but also deal withwaste, and provide oxygen and water (Saha andTrumbo 1996; Benjaminson et al. 1998; Drysdaleet al. 2003).

There are other situations also in which it is costly to re-supply people with food, and in which it is more economicalto produce food in situ. These include scientific stations inPolar Regions, troop encampments in isolated theaters of warand bunkers designed for long-term survival of personnelfollowing a nuclear or biological attack. Thus, long-termspace missions, such as a settlement on the Moon or a flight toMars, will likely involve some food production in situ withina settlement or spacecraft, to reduce lift-off weight and itsassociated costs.

10. Need for other protein sources demands production ofcultured meat. Cultured meat may be the preferredalternative because it is, unlike the other products,animal-derived and with respect to composition mostlike meat.

11. A definite market is available for meat substitutes.Examples are legume-based and mycoprotein-basedmeat substitutes.

J Food Sci Technol (Mar–Apr 2011) 48(2):125–140 129

12. A small market comprising the vegetarians that do noteat meat for ethical reasons is also available.

13. Like the growing population, demand for meat isincreasing at present and it will not be possible toproduce all that meat in an environmental and animalfriendly way. Thus, there is a rather conventional meatmarket for in vitro meat.

14. Animal proteins can be produced using plants andfungi. They are animal friendly, sustainable and havebeen used to make a variety of good products that arenot expensive. The disadvantage of these products isthe lack of a good texture and a taste and suchproducts are however no solution for the craving formeat.

15. Cultured meat will be safer than conventional meatand due to the non-sustainability of traditional meatproduction there is a huge market for this. If theprocessing technology becomes very advanced onemay think that the actual protein sources can be frombacteria, algae, plants, yeast as well as well as fromtissue culture.

16. There is definitely a need and a market for culturedmeat on a society level, but there is no need for adifferent new taste. One of the most important reasonsto produce in vitro meat would be consumer demand.More and more people are interested in cultured meat,and it can be a very successful product.

17. Other factors like potential impact on reducingcardiovascular diseases and greenhouse gas emis-sions, liberation of land for nature (including wildanimals), prevention of animal suffering and preven-tion of food scarcity that can be expected with anincreasing world population.

Culturing of in vitro meat

Commonly meat may be defined as the flesh part of farmanimals that mostly contains the skeletal muscle composedof bundles of muscle fibers. During embryological develop-ment, committed muscle tissue formation begins withmononucleated myoblasts of limited proliferation capacity(Benjaminson et al. 2002). Myoblasts fuse with each otherand form multinucleated myotubes, which mature into anon-proliferative myofiber (Campion 1984). Postnatally,increases in number of myofibers and number of nuclei permyofiber are kept minimal, except in instances requiringrepair or regeneration. In these cases, myosatellite cells areresponsible for generating new myofibers or contributingadditional myonuclei to existing ones (Le Grand andRudnicki 2007). Located between the basal lamina andsarcolemma of an associated myofiber, mononucleatedmyosatellite cells are normally in a quiescent, non-dividing

state (Hill et al. 2003). When activated in vivo by weight-bearing stress or injury, myosatellite cells asymmetricallydivide into self-renewing myoblasts and committed myofibers(Benjaminson et al. 2002; Le Grand and Rudnicki 2007).

Some efforts have already been put into culturing artificialmeat but obviously, small biopsies will not be practical forlarge–scale meat production. Therefore, it is proposed to usetissue engineering to produce in vitro cultured meat. With thehelp of tissue engineering it is attempted to mimic neo-organogenesis ex vivo for the treatment of various diseasesand surgical reconstruction. It is a powerful technique that ismainly being designated for regenerative medicine in a widevariety of tissues and organs (Bach et al. 2003; Mol et al.2005). In particular, tissue engineering of skeletal muscle hasmany applications, ranging from in vitro model systems fordrug–screening (Vandenburgh et al. 2008), pressure sores(Gawlitta et al. 2007) and physiology to in vivo transplan-tation to treat muscular dystrophy and muscular defects(Boldrin et al. 2008). Obviously, tissue engineering couldalso be employed for the in vitro production of skeletalmuscle tissue from farm animals for consumption purposes(Edelman et al. 2005).

Production of tissue in vitro necessitates the use of largequantities of cells, but differentiated cells exhibit a limitedproliferative capacity. In contrast, there are stem cells thatmaintain or regain the capacity to self-renew, which meansthat these cells continue to proliferate. Stem cells are uniquein their capacity to remain in a rather undifferentiated statefor a substantial amount of population doublings whileretaining the ability to differentiate into at least one specificcell type (Roelen and Lopes 2008). Muscle fibers can becultured in vitro, however, they do not proliferate and as analternative, satellite cells (stem cells) can be cultured.Myosatellite cells are a very small proportion (1–5%) ofthe cell population of muscle tissue, and this percentage isdependent on muscle fiber composition and organism age(Allen et al. 1997). The proliferative capacity of satellitecells decreases with the age of the donor and also dependson the species and disease state of the donor. Furthermore,myosatellite cells are much more abundant in muscles ofyoung animals than in muscles of older animals and thus,typically, neonatal individuals are selected for the isolationof these cells (Hawke and Garry 2001) that offer optimalregenerative potential and myofiber morphology (longermyofibers and greater myofiber density) in vitro (Delo et al.2008). For isolation, mincing of complete muscles isfollowed by enzymatic treatment and satellite cells arethereafter separated by differential centrifugation, preplating,precoll gradients, or a combination thereof. Besides manyadditional techniques can be used as well (Burton et al. 2000).On the removal of growth factors from the culture medium,these myoblasts fuse to form myofibers and after fusion, theystart to contract randomly (Wolpert et al. 1998).

130 J Food Sci Technol (Mar–Apr 2011) 48(2):125–140

The only aim to develop an in vitro meat productionsystem (imps) is the proliferation of animal muscle tissue.Small muscle-like organs have been demonstrated to growfrom co-cultures of myoblasts and fibroblasts. These organs,termed myooids, are able to contract both spontaneously andby electrical stimulation, albeit with only a fraction of theforce observed in control muscles probably because of lack ofinnervation (Dennis and Kosnik 2000; Dennis et al. 2001;Kosnik et al. 2001). The diameter of myooids is limited atmost to 1 mm (Kosnik et al. 2001) due to the lack ofperfusion which is probably the biggest problem toovercome in designing an in vitro meat production system.There are different design approaches for an in vitro meatproduction system, all of which are designed to overcomethe diffusion barrier and can be roughly divided into cellculture and tissue culture.

Cell culture

Currently there are two detailed proposals based onemerging field of tissue engineering (Boland et al. 2003;Zandonella 2003) for using cell culture for producing invitro meat. Both these proposals are similar in nature andneither of the two has been tested. One of the two proposalsto create an in vitro meat production system has beenwritten by Vladimir Mironov for the NASA (Wolfson2002) while the other proposal has been written by Willemvan Eelen who also holds a worldwide patent for thissystem (van Eelen et al. 1999). Both of these systems workby growing myoblasts in suspension in a culture medium.Mironov proposal uses a bioreactor in which cells aregrown together with collagen spheres to provide a substrateonto which the myoblasts can attach and differentiatewhereas van Eelen’s proposal uses a collagen meshworkand the culture medium is refreshed from time to time orpercolated through the meshwork. Once differentiated intomyofibers, the mixture of collagen and muscle cells can beharvested and used as meat. Other edible proteins or artificialsubstrates can be used in place of collagen. Alternatively, vanEelen’s proposal may use two-dimensional monolayers ofmuscle cells sandwiched onto each other after harvesting.Both of these cell culture based proposals will provide muscleproteins which will not be structured as meat but may be usedin processed meat products.

Tissue culture

Unlike cell culture techniques, tissue culture based techniquesaim at creating meat which is structured as such. This can bedone by creating muscle tissue de novo, like in tissueengineering, or by proliferating existing muscle tissue, like

Benjaminson et al. (2002) who cultured Gold fish (Carassiusauratus) muscle explants. Benjaminson in another experi-ment kept chicken muscles alive in a Petri dish for at most2 months before it got necrosed (Wolfson 2002). Tissueculture techniques have the advantages that explants containall the tissues which make up meat in the right proportionsand closely mimics in vivo situation but the control over theproduction process is limited. According to VladimirMironov entirely artificial muscle can be created with tissueengineering techniques by a branching network of edibleporous polymer through which nutrients are perfused andmyoblasts and other cell types can attach (Wolfson 2002).Such a design using the artificial capillaries for the purposeof tissue-engineering has been proposed (Technology Review2003; Zandonella 2003). Like the myooids, it is possible toco-culture the myoblasts with other cell types to create amore realistic muscle structure which can be organized inmuch the same way as real muscles (Dennis and Kosnik2000; Dennis et al. 2001; Kosnik et al. 2001).

Considering the benefits of an in vitro meat productionsystem, it is not surprising that a number of parties haveproposed and patented the methodology for actualizing thisidea (Vein 2004; Van Eelen et al. 1999; Edelman et al.2005). As of yet none of these processes, though detailed,have been tested, this review introduces the techniques sofar proposed. This is partially because livestock animal celllines have not been well-established in vitro (Talbot andBlomberg 2008) and because growing muscle cells ex vivoon a large scale is certainly a vast and unexploredundertaking. The technical demands of large scale produc-tion are unseen in the world of medical research, wheremost efforts in growing tissue ex vivo have been directed.The nutritional composition of ex vivo engineered muscletissue has not yet been paid much attention. As a result,establishment of an in vitro meat production system is facedwith many unique challenges so far unexplored in the fieldof tissue engineering.

Challenges for the production of cultured meaton commercial scale

Cultured meat technology is still in its infancy and the mostimportant challenge is sufficient knowledge of the biologyof the stem cell and its differentiation into muscle cells.Tissue engineering on a very large scale is the secondrequirement along with the maintenance of constantconditions around all individual cells in a large-scalereactor with sophisticated instrumentation for measuringand controlling conditions. Need of cell growth anddifferentiation and subsequent release from support withoutdamage upon harvesting is third requirement along with theneed for on-site cleaning and sterilization systems in the

J Food Sci Technol (Mar–Apr 2011) 48(2):125–140 131

large-scale reactors. Studies are required to determine theconsumer preferences and marketing strategies. When meatfrom animals is available why would a consumer prefercultured meat and if it is all about sustainability or animalwelfare issues, than eating more plant proteins and lessanimal protein is a good alternative. The followingchallenges have to be met before cultured meat can beproduced on a commercial scale:

Generation of suitable stem cell lines from farm animalspecies In vitro meat can be produced by culturing the cellsfrom farm animal species in large quantities starting from arelatively small number. Culturing embryonic stem cellswould be ideal for this purpose since these cells have analmost infinite self-renewal capacity and theoretically it isbeing said that one such cell line would be sufficient toliterally feed the world. In theory, after the embryonic stemcell line is established, its unlimited regenerative potentialeliminates the need to harvest more cells from embryoshowever; the slow accumulation of genetic mutations overtime may determine a maximum proliferation period for auseful long-term ES culture (Amit et al. 2000). Whileembryonic stem cells are an attractive option for theirunlimited proliferative capacity, these cells must be specifi-cally stimulated to differentiate into myoblasts and mayinaccurately recapitulate myogenesis (Bach et al. 2003).Although embryonic stem cells have been cultured for manygenerations but so far it has not been possible to culture celllines with unlimited self-renewal potential from pre-implantation embryos of farm animal species. Until now,true embryonic stem cell lines have only been generatedfrom mouse, rhesus monkey, human and rat embryos (Talbotand Blomberg 2008) but the social resistance to culturedmeat obtained from mouse, rat or rhesus monkey will beconsiderable and will not result in a marketable product. Theculture conditions required to keep mouse and humanembryonic cells undifferentiated are different from theconditions that will be required for embryonic cells of farmanimal species and fundamental research on the earlydevelopment of embryos of these species can provide clues.

However, different efforts invested into establishingungulate stem-cell lines over the past two decades havebeen generally unsuccessful with difficulties arising in therecognition, isolation and differentiation of these cells(Keefer et al. 2007). According to Bach et al. (2003)myosatellite cells are the preferred source of primarymyoblasts although, they have the disadvantage of being arare muscle tissue cell type with limited regenerativepotential because they recapitulate myogenesis more closelythan immortal myogenic cell lines. Myosatellite cells isolatedfrom different animal species have different benefits andlimitations as a cell source and that isolated from differentmuscles have different capabilities to proliferate, differentiate,

or be regulated by growth modifiers (Burton et al. 2000).Myosatellite cells have been isolated and characterized fromthe skeletal muscle tissue of cattle (Dodson et al. 1987),chicken (Yablonka-Reuveni et al. 1987), fish (Powell et al.1989), lambs (Dodson et al. 1986), pigs (Blanton Blanton etal. 1999, Wilschut et al. 2008), and turkeys (McFarland et al.1988). Porcine muscle progenitor cells have the potential formultilineage differentiation into adipogenic, osteogenic andchondrogenic lineages, which may play a role in thedevelopment of co-cultures (Wilschut et al. 2008). Advancedtechnology in tissue engineering and cell biology offer somealternate cell options having practical applications andmultilineage potential allowing for co-culture developmentwith suitability for large-scale operations.

Alternatively, we can use adult stem cells from farmanimal species and myosatellite cells are one example of anadult stem-cell type with multilineage potential (Asakuraet al. 2001). Adult stem cells have been isolated fromseveral different adult tissues (Wagers and Weissman 2004)but their in vitro proliferation capacity is not unlimited andcan proliferate in vitro for several months at most. Thesecells also have the capacity to differentiate into skeletalmuscle cells, although not very efficiently but for now,these are the most promising cell type for use in theproduction of cultured meat. A rare population of multi-potent cells found in adipose tissue known as adiposetissue-derived adult stem cells (ADSCs) is another relevantcell type for in vitro meat production (Gimble et al. 2007)which can be obtained from subcutaneous fat and subse-quently transdifferentiated to myogenic, osteogenic, chon-drogenic or adipogenic cell lineages (Kim et al. 2006).However, adult stem cells are prone to malignant transfor-mation in long-term culture (Lazennec and Jorgensen 2008)that is the greatest matter of debate. It has been observedthat adipose tissue-derived adult stem cells immortalize athigh frequency and undergo spontaneous transformation inlong-term (4–5 months) culturing (Rubio et al. 2005), whileevidence of adult stem cells remaining untransformed havealso been reported (Bernardo et al. 2007). To minimize therisk of spontaneous transformation, re-harvesting of adultstem cells may be necessary in an in vitro meat productionsystem and as such obtaining ADSCs from subcutaneousfat is far less invasive than collection of myosatellite cellsfrom muscle tissue.

Matsumoto et al. (2007) reported that mature adipocytescan be dedifferentiated in vitro into a multipotent preadi-pocyte cell line known as dedifferentiated fat (DFAT) cells,reversion of a terminally differentiated cell into a multi-potent cell type. These DFAT cells are capable of beingtransdifferentiated into skeletal myocytes (Kazama et al.2008) and appear to be an attractive alternative to the use ofstem cells. This process known as “ceiling culture method”certainly seems achievable on an industrial scale but

132 J Food Sci Technol (Mar–Apr 2011) 48(2):125–140

Rizzino (2007) has put forth the argument that many of theclaims of transdifferentiation, dedifferentiation and multi-potency of once terminally differentiated cells may be dueto abnormal processes resulting in cellular look-alikes.

Safe media for culturing of stem cells In vitro meat wouldneed an affordable medium system to enjoy its potentialadvantages over conventional meat production and thatmedium must contain the necessary nutritional componentsavailable in free form to myoblasts and accompanying cells.Myoblast culturing usually takes place in animal sera, acostly media that does not lend itself well to consumeracceptance or large-scale use. Animal sera are from adult,newborn or fetal source, with fetal bovine serum being thestandard supplement for cell culture media (Coecke et al.2005). Because of its in vivo source, it can have a largenumber of constituents in highly variable composition andpotentially introduce pathogenic agents (Shah 1999). Theharvest of fetal bovine serum also raises ethical concern andfor the generation of an animal-free protein product, theaddition of fetal calf serum to the cells would not be anoption and it is therefore essential to develop a serum-freeculture medium. Commercially available serum replace-ments and serum-free culture media offer some morerealistic options for culturing mammalian cells in vitro.Serum-free media reduce operating costs and processvariability while lessening the potential source of infectiousagents (Froud 1999). Improvements in the composition ofcommercially available cell culture media have enhanced ourability to successfully culture many types of animal cells andserum-free media have been developed to support in vitromyosatellite cell cultures from the turkey (McFarland et al.1991), sheep (Dodson and Mathison 1988) and pig (Doumitet al. 1993). Variations among different serum-free mediaoutline the fact that satellite cells from different species havedifferent requirements and respond differentially to certainadditives (Dodson et al. 1996). Ultroser G is an example of acommercially available serum substitute containing growthfactors, binding proteins, adhesin factors, vitamins, hor-mones, mineral trace elements and has been designedspecially to replace fetal bovine serum for growth ofanchorage-dependent cells in vitro (Duque et al. 2003).Benjaminson et al. (2002) succeeded in using a serum-freemedium made from maitake mushroom extract that achievedhigher rates of growth than fetal bovine serum and recentlyit has been shown that lipids such as sphingosine-1-phosphate can replace serum in supporting the growth anddifferentiation of embryonic tissue explants. In most cases,serum-free media are supplemented with purified proteins ofanimal origin (Merten 1999).

Indeed such media have already been generated and areavailable from various companies for biomedical purposes;however, their price is incompatible with the generation of

an affordable edible product. Therefore, a cell culturemedium has to be developed that does not contain productsof animal origin and enables culturing of cells at anaffordable price.

Safe differentiation media to produce muscle cells For stemcell culturing it is important that these cells remainundifferentiated and maintain their capacity to proliferateand for the production of cultured meat a specific andefficient differentiation process initiated with specificgrowth factors is needed. An appropriate array of growthfactors is required to growing muscle cells in culture inaddition to proper nutrition and these growth factors aresynthesized and released by muscle cells themselves and, intissues, are also provided by other cell types locally(paracrine effects) and non-locally (endocrine effects). Themyosatellite cells of different species respond differentiallyto the same regulatory factors (Burton et al. 2000) and assuch extrinsic regulatory factors must be specific to thechosen cell type and species. Furthermore, formulation maybe required to change over the course of the culturingprocess from proliferation period to the differentiation andmaturation period, requiring different set of factors. Amultitude of regulatory factors have been identified asbeing capable of inducing myosatellite cell proliferation(Cheng et al. 2006), and the regulation of meat animal-derived myosatellite cells by hormones, polypeptide growthfactors and extracellular matrix proteins has also beeninvestigated (Dodson et al. 1996; Doumit et al. 1993).Purified growth factors or hormones may be supplementedinto the media from an external source such as transgenicbacterial, plant or animal species which produce recombi-nant proteins (Houdebine 2009). Alternatively, a sort ofsynthetic paracrine signalling system can be arranged sothat co-cultured cell types can secrete growth factors whichcan promote cell growth and proliferation in neighbouringcells. Appropriate co-culture systems like hepatocytes maybe developed to provide growth factors necessary for culturedmuscle production that provide insulin-like growth factorswhich stimulate myoblast proliferation and differentiation(Cen et al. 2008) as well as myosatellite cell proliferation inseveral meat-animal species in vitro (Dodson et al. 1996).Typically, investigators initiate differentiation and fusion ofmyoblasts by lowering the levels of mitogenic growthfactors and the proliferating cells then commence synthesisof insulin-like growth factor-II, which leads to differentiationand formation of multinucleated myotubes (Florini et al.1991) and stimulate myocyte maturation (Wilson et al.2003). So, the successful system must be capable ofchanging the growth factor composition of the media.Currently the most efficient method to let (mouse) stemcells differentiate into skeletal muscle cells is to culture themin a medium that contains 2% horse serum instead of 10 or

J Food Sci Technol (Mar–Apr 2011) 48(2):125–140 133

20% fetal calf serum. However, for the generation ofcultured meat, it is essential that the cells are cultured anddifferentiated without animal products, so a chemicallydefined culture medium has to be developed that enablesthe differentiation of stem cells to skeletal muscle cells.

Tissue engineering of muscle fibers The possibility to forma 3-dimensional structure of cells is restricted in the absenceof blood flow that provides oxygen and nutrients to thecells and removes metabolic end products. Because of thelimitations in nutrient diffusion, the in vitro culturing ofcells is limited to only a few layers of cells. A solution tothis problem may be provided by culture of cells on edibleor biodegradable synthetic or biological scaffolds whichwould provide shape and structure to the engineered tissue.Another solution would be the processing of these thinlayers of cells into a meat based product. Alternatively,deformable micro-carrier beads of edible (non-animal)material may be developed that enable production ofsecondary myotubes in suspension which may be used asan animal protein ingredient in a wide variety of products.Alternatively, products of animal origin with a meat-likeappearance and texture can be made by addition offibroblasts (for firmness) and fat cells (for taste) to themyotubes.

Scaffolds As myoblasts are anchorage-dependent cells, asubstratum or scaffold must be provided for proliferationand differentiation to occur (Stoker et al. 1968). Scaffoldingmechanisms differ in shape, composition and characteristicsto optimize muscle cell and tissue morphology. An idealscaffold must have a large surface area for growth andattachment, be flexible to allow for contraction as myo-blasts are capable of spontaneous contraction, maximizemedium diffusion and be easily dissociated from the meatculture. A best scaffold is one that mimics the in vivosituation as myotubes differentiate optimally on scaffoldwith a tissue-like stiffness (Engler et al. 2004) and its by-products must be edible and natural and may be derivedfrom non-animal sources, though inedible scaffold materialscannot be disregarded. New biomaterials may be developedthat offer additional characteristics, such as fulfilling therequirement of contraction for proliferation and differentiation(De Deyne 2000). Thus, challenge is to develop a scaffoldthat can mechanically stretch attached cells to stimulatedifferentiation and a flexible substratum to prevent detach-ment of developing myotubes that will normally undergospontaneous contraction.

Edelman et al. (2005) proposed porous beads made ofedible collagen as a substrate while as Van Eelen et al.(1999) proposed a collagen meshwork described as a“collagen sponge” of bovine origin. The tribeculatestructure of the sponge allows for increased surface area

and diffusion, but may impede harvesting of the tissueculture. Other possible scaffold forms include large elasticsheets or an array of long, thin filaments. Cytodex-3 micro-carrier beads have been used as scaffolds in rotarybioreactors but these beads have no stretching potential.One elegant approach to mechanically stretch myoblastswould be to use edible, stimuli-sensitive porous micro-spheres made from cellulose, alginate, chitosan, or collagen(Edelman et al. 2005) that undergo, at minimum, a 10%change in surface area following small changes in temperatureor pH. Once myoblasts attach to the spheres, they could bestretched periodically provided such variation in the pH ortemperature would not negatively affect cell proliferation,adhesion, and growth. Jun et al. (2009) have found thatgrowing myoblasts on electrically conductive fibers inducestheir differentiation, forming more myotubes of greaterlength without the addition of electrical stimulation but useof such inedible scaffolding systems necessitates simple andnondestructive techniques for removal of the culture fromthe scaffold.

Furthermore, there are greater technical challenges indeveloping a scaffold for large and highly structured meatsdue to the absence of vascular system. There is a need tobuild a branching network from an edible, elastic, andporous material, through which nutrients can be perfusedand myoblasts and other cell types can then attach to thisnetwork. Edelman et al. (2005) acknowledge that a cast ofan existing vascularization network, such as that in nativemuscle tissue, can be used to create a collagen networkmimicking native vessel architecture. Taking this a stepfurther, Borenstein et al. (2002) has proposed an approachto create such a network by creating a cast onto which acollagen solution or a biocompatible polymer is spread andafter solidification seeding the network with endothelialcells. Following dissolution of the polymer mold, successfulproliferation could theoretically leave behind a network ofendothelial tissue, a branched network of micro-channels,which can be stacked onto each other to form a three-dimensional network onto which one could growmyocytes. Asynthetic vascular system would then require a circulationpumping system and a soluble oxygen carrier in the mediumto be fully functional. But at this moment creation of theseartificial vascular networks does not translate well into massproduction due to the microfabrication processes required.Alternatively, Benjaminson et al. (2002) proposed an attemptto create a highly structured meat without a scaffold bysolving the vascularization problem through controlledangiogenesis of explants.

Another important factor is the texture and microstruc-ture of scaffolds as texturized surfaces can attend to specificrequirements of muscle cells, one of which is myofiberalignment. This myofiber organization is an importantdeterminant for the functional characteristics of muscle

134 J Food Sci Technol (Mar–Apr 2011) 48(2):125–140

and the textural characteristics of meat. Lam et al. (2006)cultured myoblasts on a substrate with a wavy micro-patterned surface to mimic native muscle architecture andfound that the wave pattern aligned differentiated musclecells while promoting myoblast fusion to produce alignedmyotubes. While using scaffold-based techniques for meatculturing, micropatterned surfaces could allow muscletissue to assume a two dimensional structure more similarto that of meat of native origin. Riboldi et al. (2005) utilizedelectrospinning, a process that uses electrical charge toextract very fine fibers from liquids, by using electrospunmicrofibrous meshwork membranes as a scaffold forskeletal myocytes. These membranes offer high surfacearea to volume ratio in addition to some elastic properties.Electrospinning creates very smooth fibers, which may nottranslate well into a good adhesive surface and coatingelectrospun polymer fibers with extracellular matrix pro-teins, such as collagen or fibronectin, promotes attachmentby ligand–receptor binding interactions (Riboldi et al.2005). Electrospinning shows promise for scaffold formationbecause the process is simple, controllable, reproducible andcapable of producing polymers with special properties byco-spinning (Riboldi et al. 2005).

Production of meat by the scaffold-based technique facesa technical challenge of removal of the scaffolding system.Confluent cultured cell sheets are conventionally removedenzymatically or mechanically, but these two methodsdamage the cells and the extracellular matrix they may beproducing (Canavan et al. 2005). However, thermorespon-sive coatings which change from hydrophobic to hydro-philic at lowered temperatures can release cultured cells andextracellular matrix as an intact sheet upon cooling (daSilva et al. 2007). This method known as “thermal liftoff,”results in undamaged sheets that maintain the ability toadhere if transferred onto another substrate (da Silva et al.2007) and opens the possibility of stacking sheets to createa three-dimensional product. Lam et al. (2009) havepresented a method for detaching culture as a confluentsheet from a non-adhesive micropatterned surface using thebiodegradation of selective attachment protein laminin.However, culturing on a scaffold may not result in a two-dimensional confluent “sheet” of culture. The contractileforces exerted after scaffold removal by the cytoskeleton ofthe myocyte are no longer balanced by adhesion to asurface that causes the cell lawn to contract and aggregate,forming a detached multicellular spheroid (da Silva et al.2007). To remove the culture as a sheet, a hydrophilicmembrane or gel placed on the apical surface of the culturebefore detachment can provide physical support and use ofa fibrin hydrogel is ideal for skeletal muscle tissue becausecells can migrate, proliferate and produce their ownextracellular matrix within it while degrading excess fibrin(Lam et al. 2009). These two-dimensional sheets could be

stacked to create a three-dimensional product as suggestedby Van Eelen et al. (1999).

Industrial bioreactors Production of in vitro meat forprocessed meat based products will require large-scaleculturing in large bioreactors as stem cells and skeletalmuscle cells require a solid surface for culturing and a largesurface area is needed for the generation of sufficientnumber of muscle cells. Cultured meat production is likelyto require the development of new bioreactors that maintainlow shear and uniform perfusion at large volumes. Thebioreactor designing is intended to promote the growth oftissue cultures which accurately resemble native tissuearchitecture and provides an environment which allows forincreased culture volumes. A laminar flow of the medium iscreated in rotating wall vessel bioreactors by rotating thecylindrical wall at a speed that balances centrifugal force,drag force and gravitational force, leaving the three-dimensional culture submerged in the medium in a perpetualfree fall state (Carrier et al. 1999) that improves diffusion withhigh mass transfer rates at minimal levels of shear stress,producing three dimensional tissues with structures verysimilar to those in vivo (Martin et al. 2004). Direct perfusionbioreactors appear more appropriate for scaffold basedmyocyte cultivation allowing flow of medium through aporous scaffold with gas exchange taking place in anexternal fluid loop (Carrier et al. 2002). Besides offeringhigh mass transfer they also offer significant shear stress, sodetermining an appropriate flow rate is essential (Martinet al. 2004). Direct perfusion bioreactors are also used forhigh-density, uniform myocyte cell seeding (Radisic et al.2003). Another method of increasing medium perfusion isby vascularizing the tissue being grown. Levenberg et al.(2005) had induced endothelial vessel networks in skeletalmuscle tissue constructs by using a co-culture of myoblasts,embryonic fibroblasts and endothelial cells co-seeded onto ahighly porous biodegradable scaffold. Research size rotatingbioreactors have been scaled up to three liters and,theoretically, scale up to industrial sizes should not affectthe physics of the system.

Adequate perfusion of the cultured tissue is required toproduce large culture quantities and it is necessary to haveadequate oxygen perfusion during cell seeding and cultiva-tion on the scaffold as cell viability and density positivelycorrelate with the oxygen gradient in statically grown tissuecultures (Radisic et al. 2008). Adequate oxygen perfusion ismediated by bioreactors which increase mass transportbetween culture medium and cells and by the use of oxygencarriers to mimic hemoglobin provided oxygen supply tomaintain high oxygen concentrations in solution, similar tothat of blood. Oxygen carriers are either modified versionsof hemoglobin or artificially produced perfluorochemicals(PFCs) that are chemically inert (Lowe 2006). Many

J Food Sci Technol (Mar–Apr 2011) 48(2):125–140 135

chemically modified hemoglobins have been developed buttheir bovine or human source makes them an unfitcandidate and alternatively, human hemoglobin has beenproduced by genetically modified plants (Dieryck et al.1997) and microorganisms (Zuckerman et al. 1998).

Atrophy and Exercise One of the potential problemsassociated with cultured meat is that of atrophy or musclewasting due to a reduction of cell size (Fox 1996) causedby lack of use, denervation, or one of a variety of diseases(Charge et al. 2002; Ohira et al. 2002). Regular contractionis a necessity for skeletal muscle and promotes differentiationand healthy myofiber morphology while preventing atrophy.Muscle in vivo is innervated, allowing for regular, controlledcontraction whereas in vitro system would necessarily culturedenervated muscle tissue, so contraction must be stimulatedby alternate means. It might be possible that mechanical orelectrical stimulation can promote growth and structure of thecultured meat as newly formed myotubes in culture start tocontract spontaneously (Wolpert et al. 1998) or as a matter offact, myooids also contract spontaneously at approximately1 Hz. once formed (Dennis and Kosnik 2000). So exerciseby electrical stimulation might be a viable solution toovercome atrophy in an in vitro meat production system.Cha et al. (2006) have found that administration of cyclicmechanical strain to a highly porous scaffold sheet promotesdifferentiation and alignment of smooth muscle cells.Edelman et al. (2005) and Van Eelen et al. (1999) proposedmechanical stretching of scaffolds and expandable scaffoldbeads to fulfill the requirement of providing contraction. deDeyne (2000) noted that external mechanical contraction isless effective than electrical stimulation in promoting muscledevelopment. Electrical stimulation, feasible on a large scale,induces contraction internally as opposed to passively andaids in differentiation and sarcomere formation. Even growthon electrically conductive fibers without application ofelectrical stimulation sufficed in reaping the benefits ofinduced contraction (Jun et al. 2009).

Senescence In vitro meat production system based onsatellite cells still imposes a challenge of senescence thatcan be tackled either by starting fresh cell culture wheneverneeded or by immortalizing cell culture or by usingembryonic stem cell cultures. Fresh satellite cells can beextracted without harming the animal donors (van Eelenet al. 1999) from time to time to start new cell cultures,although animal slaughter is a more common practice(Burton et al. 2000). Second approach involves modifica-tion of the cells in culture so that senescence can beovercome by involving the ectopic expression of the genefor the telomerase enzyme (Alberts et al. 1994). Anadditional expression of an oncogene may be required to

overcome senescence (Prowse and Greider 1995; Counteret al. 1998; Lustig 1999; O’Hare et al. 2001) but thismethod falls within the domain of genetic modification,which might severely hinder consumer acceptance. Thirdapproach involves embryonic stem cells which are pluripotentand apparently have an unlimited capability for division(Burdon et al. 2002) and thus, embryonic stem cell culturederived from a single donor can be theoretically propagatedunlimited but embryonic stem cells have to differentiate tomuscle cells before they can be used.

Food processing technology New food processing technolo-gies need to be developed to make in vitro meat based productsattractive and that will depend on the starting material whethersuspensions of small myotubes, myofibers on scaffolds ormicrospheres, etc. are utilized. The first in vitro meat basedproduct may be developed using small pieces of culturedmuscle fiber as raw material.

Risks of contamination Cultured meat will be safer andmore sustainable than conventional meat but productionmay be less safe because of risks of contamination.Cultured meat may have a completely different risk profilethan conventional meat and much attention would requireto be paid to the safety of added substrates and othercompounds of the culture medium. So, there are fewer riskswith respect to microbial contamination but more risk ofcontamination of substrates.

Discussion

It is anticipated that during the next 40 years global meatconsumption will double with 50% increase in globalpopulation and if no actions are taken, it will beaccompanied with an almost doubling of the greenhousegas emissions. Meat production requires a relatively highproportion of land, energy, fresh water use, and moreover,livestock contributes significantly to the emission ofgreenhouse gases and, in many countries, to the pollutionof water and soil. Reducing the use of products of animalorigin and replacement of dietary animal (vertebrate)proteins by plant, fungal, or even insect proteins particu-larly in societies where the consumption of animal proteinsis very high seems one of the solutions. Production of invitro meat by culturing large amounts of muscle cellsderived from stem cells of farm animal species is yetanother prospective possibility. No animals are needed inthe preparation of the meat products by this technologywhich may combine a favorable ecological footprint withsimilar nutritional values and sensory qualities as some of

136 J Food Sci Technol (Mar–Apr 2011) 48(2):125–140

the conventional products. The essential requirements forthe production of cultured meat may be summarized as:

1. A suitable, bona fide, stem cell line that can proliferateindefinitely. Both embryonic stem cells and adult stemcells having a minimal self-renewal capacity may besuitable.

2. Separate culture media must be developed for growthand for the differentiation of the stem cells that do notcontain products of animal origin at prices that arecompatible with food production.

3. Formation of a three-dimensional structure of fusedmuscle cells (myofibers) with edible non-animal originscaffolds or hydrogels to circumvent the absence ofvascularization. Many factors that are important forculturing muscle tissue together with biochemical andbiophysical stimuli (electrical and mechanical) areimportant in the differentiation and maturation ofmuscle tissue.

4. Cost effectiveness of the cultured meat: it must beproduced at prices that are comparable with factorygate prices for cheap meat.

5. A favorable ecological footprint compared to theconventional production of meat.

6. Consumer acceptance: no scientific study has beenconducted about the ethical and societal aspects ofcultured meat production and consumption.

Conclusion

In vitro meat holds great promises as an alternative totraditionally produced meat, if consumer resistance can beovercome. Since crucial knowledge is still lacking on thebiology and technology, it may be concluded that commer-cial production of cultured meat is as yet not possible andthe focus must be on filling these gaps in knowledge.Furthermore, knowledge is lacking with respect to ethicaland societal issues and a great body of research has to beperformed before this kind of meat can be produced on anindustrial scale.

References

Alberts B, Bray D, Lewis J, Raff M, Roberts K, Watson JD (1994)Molecular biology of the cell, 3rd edn. Garland, New York

Allen RE, Temm-Grove CJ, Sheehan SM, Rice G (1997) Skeletalmuscle satellite cell cultures. Methods Cell Biol 52:155–176

Amit M, Carpenter MK, Inokuma MS, Chiu CP, Harris CP, WaknitzMA et al (2000) Clonally derived human embryonic stem celllines maintain pluripotency and proliferative potential forprolonged periods of culture. Dev Biol 227(2):271–278

Asakura A, Komaki M, Rudnicki M (2001) Muscle satellite cells aremulti-potential stem cells that exhibit myogenic, osteogenic, andadipogenic differentiation. Differentiation 68(4–5):245–253

Asner GP, Elmore AJ, Olander LP, Martin RE, Harris AT (2004)Grazing systems, ecosystem responses and global change. AnnuRev Environ Resour 29:261–299

Avery A (1997) Red meat production can be part of an environmen-tally sound future. J Am Diet Assoc 97(11):1249–1250

Bach AD, Stem-Straeter J, Beier JP, Bannasch H, Stark GB (2003)Engineering of muscle tissue. Clin Plast Surg 30(4):589–599

Barnard ND, Nicholson A, Howard JL (1995) The medical costsattributable to meat consumption. Prev Med 24:646–655

Bender A (1992) Meat and meat products in human nutrition indeveloping countries. Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations (FAO), Food and Nutrition Paper 53, Italy, Rome

Benjaminson M, Lehrer S, Macklin D (1998) Bioconversion systemsfor food and water on long term space missions. Acta Astronaut43(3–6):329–348

Benjaminson MA, Gilchriest JA, Lorenz M (2002) In vitro ediblemuscle protein production system (MPPS): Stage 1, fish. ActaAstronaut 51(12):879–889

Bernardo ME, Zaffaroni N, Novara F, Cometa AM, Avanzini MA,Moretta A et al (2007) Human bone marrow-derived mesenchy-mal stem cells do not undergo transformation after long-term invitro culture and do not exhibit telomere maintenance mecha-nisms. Cancer Res 67(19):9142–9149

Bhat ZF, Bhat H (2011) Animal-free meat biofabrication. Am J FoodTechnol 6(6):441–459

Blanton JR, Grand AL, McFarland DC, Robinson JP, Bidwell CA(1999) Isolation of two populations of myoblasts from porcineskeletal muscle. Muscle Nerve 22(1):43–50

Boland T, Mironov V, Gutowska A, Roth E, Markwald R (2003) Celland organ printing 2: fusion of cell aggregates in three-dimensional gels. Anat Rec 272A(2):497–502

Boldrin L, Malerba A, Vitiello L, Cimetta E, Piccoli M, Messina Cet al (2008) Efficient delivery of human single fiber derivedmuscle precursor cells via biocompatible scaffold. Cell Trans-plant 17(5):577–584

Borenstein JT, Terai H, King KR, Weinberg EJ, Kaazempur-MofradMR, Vacanti JP (2002) Microfabrication technology for vascu-larized tissue engineering. Biomed Microdevices 4(3):167–175

Burdock GA, Carabin GI, Griffiths GC (2006) The importance ofGRAS to the functional food and nutraceutical industries.Toxicology 221(1):17–27

Burdon T, Smith A, Savatier P (2002) Signalling, cell cycle andpluripotency in embryonic stem cells. Trends Cell Biol 12(9):432–438

Burton NM, Vierck JL, Krabbenhoft L, Byrne K, Dodson MV (2000)Methods for animal satellite cell culture under a variety ofconditions. Methods Cell Sci 22(1):51–61

Campion DR (1984) The muscle satellite cell: a review. Int Rev Cytol87:225–251

Canavan HE, Cheng X, Graham DJ, Ratner BD, Castner DG (2005)Cell sheet detachment affects the extracellular matrix: a surfacescience study comparing thermal liftoff, enzymatic, and mechan-ical methods. J Biomed Mater Res 75A(1):1–13

Carrier RL, Papadaki M, Rupnick M, Schoen FJ, Bursac N, Langer Ret al (1999) Cardiac tissue engineering: cell seeding, cultivationparameters and tissue construct characterization. BiotechnolBioeng 64(5):580–589

Carrier RL, Rupnick M, Langer R, Schoen FJ, Freed LE, Vunjak-Novakovic G (2002) Perfusion improves tissue architecture ofengineered cardiac muscle. Tissue Eng 8(2):175–188

Catts O, Zurr I (2002) Growing semi-living sculptures: Tissue cultureand art project. In: Leonardo 35(4):365–370

J Food Sci Technol (Mar–Apr 2011) 48(2):125–140 137

Cen S, Zhang J, Huang F, Yang Z, Xie H (2008) Effect of IGF-I onproliferation and differentiation of primary human embryonicmyoblasts. Chinese Journal of Reparative and ReconstructiveSurgery 22(1):84–87

Cha JM, Park SN, Noh SH, Suh H (2006) Time-dependent modulationof alignment and differentiation of smooth muscle cells seededon a porous substrate undergoing cyclic mechanical strain. ArtifOrgans 30(4):250–258

Charge S, Brack A, Hughes S (2002) Aging-related satellite celldifferentiation defect occurs prematurely after Ski-inducedmuscle hypertrophy. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 283(4):C1228–C1241

Cheng L, Gu X, Sanderson JE, Wang X, Lee K, Yao X et al (2006) Anew function of a previously isolated compound that stimulatesactivation and differentiation of myogenic precursor cells leadingto efficient myofiber regeneration and muscle repair. Int JBiochem Cell Biol 38(7):1123–1133

Coecke S, Balls M, Bowe G, Davis J, Gstraunthaler G, Hartung T et al(2005) Guidance on good cell culture practice: a report of thesecond ECVAM Task Force on good cell culture practice. AlternLab Anim 33(3):261–287

Costales A, Gerber P, Steinfeld H (2006) Underneath the livestockrevolution. Livestock report, Rome, Italy: Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations

Counter C, Hahn W, Wei W, Caddle S, Beijersbergen R, Lansdorp P,Sedivy J, Weinberg R (1998) Dissociation among in vitrotelomerase activity, telomere maintenance, and cellular immor-talization. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95(25):14723–14728

Crok M (2003) Bij de beesten af. Natuur and Techniek 71(4):46–49Da Silva RMP, Mano JF, Reis RL (2007) Smart thermoresponsive

coatings and surfaces for tissue engineering: switching cell-material boundaries. Trends Biotechnol 25(12):577–583

De Deyne PG (2000) Formation of sarcomeres in developingmyotubes: role of mechanical stretch and contractile activation.Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 279(6):C1801–C1811

de Haan C, Steinfeld H, Blackburn H (1997) Livestock and theenvironment: finding a balance. Food and Agriculture Organiza-tion of the United Nations, World Bank and US Agency forInternational Development

Delgado CL (2003) Rising consumption of meat and milk indeveloping countries has created a new food revolution. J Nutr133:3907S–3910S

Delo DM, Eberlie D, Williams JK, Anderrson KE, Atala A, Soker S(2008) Angiogenic gene modification of skeletal muscle cells tocompensate for ageing induced decline in bioengineered func-tional muscle tissue. BJU Int 102(7):878–884

Dennis R, Kosnik P 2nd (2000) Excitability and isometric contractileproperties of mammalian skeletal muscle constructs engineeredin vitro. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Anim 36(5):327–335

Dennis R, Kosnik P 2nd, Gilbert M, Faulkner J (2001) Excitabilityand contractility of skeletal muscle engineered from primarycultures and cell lines. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 280(2):C288–C295

Dieryck W, Pagnier J, Poyart C, Marden M, Gruber V, Bournat P et al(1997) Human haemoglobin from transgenic tobacco. Nature 386(6620):29–30

Dodson MV, Mathison BA (1988) Comparison of ovine and ratmuscle-derived satellite cells: response to insulin. Tissue Cell 20(6):909–918

Dodson MV, McFarland DC, Martin EL, Brannon MA (1986)Isolation of satellite cells from ovine skeletal muscles. J TissueCult Methods 10(4):233–237

Dodson MV, Martin EL, Brannon MA, Mathison BA, McFarland DC(1987) Optimization of bovine satellite cell derived myotubeformation in vitro. Tissue Cell 19(2):159–166

Dodson MV, McFarland DC, Grant AL, Doumit ME, Velleman SG(1996) Extrinsic regulation of domestic animal-derived satellitecells. Domest Anim Endocrinol 13(2):107–126

Doumit ME, Cook DR, Merkel RA (1993) Fibroblast growth factor,epidermal growth factor, insulin-like growth factor and platelet-derived growth factor-BB stimulate proliferate of clonallyderived porcine myogenic satellite cells. J Cell Physiol 157(2):326–332

Drysdale A, Ewert M, Hanford A (2003) Life support approaches forMars missions. Adv Space Res 31(1):51–61

Duque P, Gómez E, Diaz E, Facal N, Hidalgo C, Diez C (2003) Use oftwo replacements of serum during bovine embryo culture invitro. Theriogenology 59(3–4):889–899

Edelman PD, McFarland DC, Mironov VA, Matheny JG (2005)Commentary: in vitro-cultured meat production. Tissue Eng 11(5):659–662

Engler AJ, Griffin MA, Sen S, Bönnemann CG, Sweeney HL, DischerDE (2004) Myotubes differentiate optimally on substrates withtissue-like stiffness, pathological implications for soft or stiffmicroenvironments. J Cell Biol 166(6):877–887

European Food Safety Authority (2006) The community summaryreport on trends and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic agents,antimicrobial resistance and food borne outbreaks in theEuropean Union in 2005. EFSA J 94:2–288

Fisher IS, Meakens S (2006) Surveillance of enteric pathogens inEurope and beyond: enter-net annual report for 2004. EuroSurveillance: Bulletin Européen sur les Maladies Transmissibles11, E060824.060823. Available at: http://www.hpa.org.uk/hpa/inter/enter-net/Enter-net%20annual%20report%202004.pdf, (26March 2007 last date accessed)

Florini JR, Magri KA, Ewton DZ, James PL, Grindstaff K, RotweinPS (1991) Spontaneous differentiation of skeletal myoblasts isdependent upon autocrine secretion of insulin-like growth factor-II. J Biol Chem 266(24):15917–15923

Fox SI (1996) Human physiology. Wim C, Brown, BostonFroud SJ (1999) The development, benefits and disadvantages of

serum-free media. Dev Biol Stand 99:157–166Gawlitta D, Oomens CW, Bader DL, Baaijens FP, Bouten CV (2007)

Temporal differences in the influence of ischemic factors anddeformation on the metabolism of engineered skeletal muscle. JAppl Physiol 103(2):464–473

Gimble JM, Katz AJ, Bunnell BA (2007) Adipose-derived stem cellsfor regenerative medicine. Circ Res 100(9):1249–1260

Hawke T, Garry D (2001) Myogenic satellite cells: physiology tomolecular biology. J Appl Physiol 91(2):534–551

Hill M, Wernig A, Goldspink G (2003) Muscle satellite (stem) cellactivation during local tissue injury and repair. J Anat 203(1):89–99

Holmes PD, Dacey A (2008) Vegetarian meat: could technology saveanimals and satisfy meat eaters? J Agric Environ Ethics 21:579–596

Houdebine LM (2009) Production of pharmaceutical proteins bytransgenic animals. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis 32(2):107–121

Jun I, Jeong S, Shin H (2009) The stimulation of myoblastdifferentiation by electrically conductive sub-micron fibers.Biomaterials 30(11):2038–2047

Kazama T, Fujie M, Endo T, Kano K (2008) Mature adipocyte-deriveddedifferentiated fat cells can transdifferentiate into skeletalmyo-cytes in vitro. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 377(3):780–785

Keefer CL, Pant D, Blomberg L, Talbot NC (2007) Challenges andprospects for the establishment of embryonic stem cell lines ofdomesticated ungulates. Anim Reprod Sci 98(1–2):147–168

Kim MJ, Choi YS, Yang SH, Hong HN, Cho SW, Cha SM et al(2006) Muscle regeneration by adipose tissue-derived adult stem

138 J Food Sci Technol (Mar–Apr 2011) 48(2):125–140

cells attached to injectable PLGA spheres. Biochem Biophys ResCommun 348(2):386–392

Korhonen H (2002) Technology options for new nutritional concepts.Int J Dairy Technol 55(2):79–88

Kosnik P, Faulkner J, Dennis R (2001) Functional development ofengineered skeletal muscle from adult and neonatal rats. TissueEng 7(5):573–584

Lam MT, Sim S, Zhu X, Takayama S (2006) The effect of continuouswavy micropatterns on silicone substrates on the alignment ofskeletal muscle myoblasts and myotubes. Biomaterials 27(24):4340–4347

Lam MT, Huang YC, Birla RK, Takayama S (2009) Microfeatureguided skeletal muscle tissue engineering for highly organizedthree-dimensional free-standing constructs. Biomaterials 30(6):1150–1155

Lazennec G, Jorgensen C (2008) Concise review: adult multipotentstromal cells and cancer: risk or benefit? Stem Cells 26(6):1387–1394

Le Grand F, Rudnicki MA (2007) Skeletal muscle satellite cells andadult myogenesis. Curr Opin Cell Biol 19(6):628–633

Levenberg S, Rouwkema J, Macdonald M, Garfein ES, Kohane DS,Darland DC et al (2005) Engineering vascularized skeletalmuscle tissue. Nat Biotechnol 23(7):879–884

Lowe K (2006) Blood substitutes: from chemistry to clinic. J MaterChem 16(43):4189–4196

Lustig A (1999) Crisis intervention: the role of telomerase. Proc NatlAcad Sci USA 96(7):3339–3341

Martin I, Wendt D, Herberer M (2004) The role of bioreactors intissue engineering. Trends Biotechnol 22(2):80–86

Matsumoto T, Kano K, Kondo D, Fukuda N, Iribe Y, Tanaka N et al(2007) Mature adipocyte-derived dedifferentiated fat cells exhibitmultilineage potential. J Cell Physiol 215(1):210–222

McFarland DC, Doumit ME, Minshall RD (1988) The turkeymyogenic satellite cell: optimization of in vitro proliferationand differentiation. Tissue Cell 20(6):899–908

McFarland DC, Pesall JE, Norberg JM, Dvoracek MA (1991)Proliferation of the turkey myogenic satellite cell in a serum-free medium. Comp Biochem Physiol 99(1–2):163–167

Mead P, Slutsker L, Dietz A, McCaig L, Bresee J, Shapiro C, GriffinP, Tauxe R (1999) Food-related illness and death in the UnitedStates. Emerg Infect Dis 5(5):607–625

Merten OW (1999) Safety issues of animal products used in serum-free media. Dev Biol Stand 99:167–180

Mol A, Driessen NJ, Rutten MC, Hoerstrup SP, Bouten CV, BaaijensFP (2005) Tissue engineering of human heart valve leaflets: anovel bioreactor for a strain-based conditioning approach. AnnBiomed Eng 33(12):1778–1788

Nataro JP, Kaper JB (1998) Diarrheagenic Escherichia coli. ClinMicrobiol Rev 11:142–201

Nestle M (1999) Animal vs. plant foods in human diets and health: isthe historical record unequivocal? Proc Nutr Soc 58:211–218

Nicholson FA, Hutchison ML, Smith KA, Keevil CW, Chambers BJ,Moore A (2000) A study on farm manure applications toagricultural land and an assessment of the risks of pathogentransfer into the food chain. Project Number FS2526, Final reportto the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, London

O’Hare M, Bond J, Clarke C, Takeuchi Y, Atherton A, Berry C,Moody J, Silver A, Davies D, Alsop A, Neville A, Jat P (2001)Conditional immortalization of freshly isolated human mammaryfibroblasts and endothelial cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98(2):646–651

Ohira Y, Yoshinaga T, Nomura T, Kawano F, Ishihara A, Nonaka I,Roy R, Edgerton V (2002) Gravitational unloading effects onmuscle fiber size, phenotype and myonuclear number. Adv SpaceRes 30(4):777–781

Pathak V, Bukhari SAA, Bhat ZF, Sharma N (2008) Prospectus of in-vitro meat. Indian Food Industry Nov-Dec:33–35

Powell RE, Dodson MV, Cloud JG (1989) Cultivation and differen-tiation of satellite cells from skeletal muscle of the rainbow troutSalmo gairdneri. J Exp Zool 250(3):333–338

Prowse K, Greider C (1995) Developmental and tissue-specificregulation of mouse telomerase and telomere length. Proc NatlAcad Sci USA 92(11):4818–4822

Radisic M, Euloth M, Yang L, Langer R, Freed LE, Vunjak-Novakovic G (2003) High-density seeding of myocyte cells forcardiac tissue engineering. Biotechnol Bioeng 82(4):403–414

Radisic M, Marsano A, Maidhof R, Wang Y, Vunjak-Novakovic G(2008) Cardiac tissue engineering using perfusion bioreactorsystems. Nat Protoc 3(4):719–738

Reay D (2002) Intensive farming, US-style, is not sustainableworldwide. Nature 417(6884):15

Riboldi SA, Sampaolesi M, Neuenschwander P, Cossu G, Mantero S(2005) Electrospun degradable polyesterurethane membranes:potential scaffolds for skeletal muscle tissue engineering.Biomaterials 26(22):4606–4615

Rizzino A (2007) A challenge for regenerative medicine: propergenetic programming, not cellular mimicry. Dev Dyn 236(12):3199–3207

Roelen BA, Lopes SM (2008) Of stem cells and gametes: similaritiesand differences. Curr Med Chem 15:1249–1256

Rosegrant M, Leach N, Gerpacio R (1999) Alternative futures for worldcereal and meat consumption. Proc Nutr Soc 58(2):219–234

Rubio D, Garcia-Castro J, Martin MC, de la Fuente R, Cigudosa JC,Lloyd AC et al (2005) Spontaneous human adult stem celltransformation. Cancer Res 65(8):3035–3039

Saha P, Trumbo P (1996) The nutritional adequacy of a limited vegandiet for a controlled ecological life-support system. Adv SpaceRes 18(4–5):63–72

Sanders T (1999) The nutritional adequacy of plant-based diets. ProcNutr Soc 58(2):265–269

Savadogo P, Sawadogo L, Tiveau D (2007) Effects of grazingintensity and prescribed fire on soil physical and hydrologicalproperties and pasture yield in the savanna woodlands of BurkinaFaso. Agricult Ecosys Environ 118:80–92

Shah G (1999) Why do we still use serum in production ofbiopharmaceuticals? Dev Biol Stand 99:17–22

Solomon R, Johnston C (1997) Production of red meat should becurbed in order to conserve natural resources. J Am Diet Assoc97(11):1249

Speedy AW (2003) Global production and consumption of animalsource foods. J Nutr 133:4048S–4053S

Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, Rosales M, De Haan C(2006a) Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues andoptions (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations, p. xxi). Available at: www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.pdf. Accessed March 7, 2008

Steinfeld H, Wassenaar T, Jutzi S (2006b) Livestock productionsystems in developing countries: status, drivers, trends. RevueScientifique et Technique de l’Office International des Epizoo-ties, Paris 25(2):505–516

Stoker M, O’Neil C, Berryman S, Waxman V (1968) Anchorage andgrowth regulation in normal and virus-transformed cells. Int JCancer 3:683–693

Talbot NC, Blomberg LA (2008) The pursuit of ES cell lines ofdomesticated ungulates. Stem Cell Reviews and Reports 4(3):235–254

Technology Review (2003) Fractals support growing organs. Tech-nology Research News. http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2003/073003/Fractals_support_growing_organs_073003. AccessedJuly 30/August 6, 2003

J Food Sci Technol (Mar–Apr 2011) 48(2):125–140 139

Thornton P, Kruska R, Henninger N, Kristjanson P, Reid R, Atieno F,Odero A, Ndegwa T (2002) Mapping poverty and livestock inthe developing world. International Livestock Research Institute,Nairobi, p 124

Van Eelen WF, van Kooten WJ, Westerhof W (1999) WO/1999/031223: industrial production of meat from in vitro cell cultures.Patent Description http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=1999031223 Accessed Mar. 2009

Vandenburgh H, Shansky J, Benesch-Lee F, Barbata V, Reid J, Thorrez Let al (2008) Drug screening platform based on the contractility oftissue engineered muscle. Muscle Nerve 37(4):438–447

Vein J (2004) Method for producing tissue engineered meat forconsumption. US Patent Number 6835390, http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6835390.html-12/28/2004

Verma AK, Banerjee R (2010) Dietary fibre as functional ingredient inmeat products: a novel approach for healthy living: a review. JFood Sci Technol 47(3):247–257

Wagers AJ, Weissman IL (2004) Plasticity of adult stem cells. Cell116(5):639–648

Webster R (2002) The importance of animal influenza for humandisease. Vaccine 20(Suppl 2):S16–S20

WHO (2001) Global burden of disease estimates for 2001.Geneva, World Health Organization. http://www3.who.int/whosis/menu.cfm?path=evidence,burden,burden_estimates,

burden_estimates_2001&language=english, accessed 9 April2004

Wilschut KJ, Jaksani S, Van Den Dolder J, Haagsman HP, Roelen BAJ(2008) Isolation and characterization of porcine adult muscle-derived progenitor cells. J Cell Biochem 105(5):1228–1239

Wilson EM, Hsieh MM, Rotwein P (2003) Autocrine growth factorsignaling by insulin-like growth factor-II mediates myod-stimulated myocyte maturation. J Biol Chem 278(42):41109–41113

Wolfson W (2002) Raising the steaks. New Sci 176:60–63Wolpert L, Beddington R, Brockes J, Jessel T, Lawrence P,

Meyerowitz E (1998) Principles of development. CurrentBiology, 1st edn. Oxford University Press

Yablonka-Reuveni Z, Quinn LS, Nameroff M (1987) Isolation andclonal analysis of satellite cells from chicken pectoralis muscle.Dev Biol 119(1):252–259

Zandonella C (2003) Tissue engineering: the beat goes on. Nature 421(6926):884–886

Zandstra E, de Graaf C, van Trijp H (2000) Effects of variety andrepeated in-home consumption on product acceptance. Appetite35(2):113–119

Zuckerman SH, Doyle MP, Gorczynski R, Rosenthal GJ (1998)Preclinical biology of recombinant human hemoglobin, rHb1.1.Artif Cells Blood Substit Immobil Biotechnol 26(3):231–257

140 J Food Sci Technol (Mar–Apr 2011) 48(2):125–140