The Marketing of Cultured Meat November 23, 2009

One thing that worries me about the prospects of cultured or in-vitro meat is its potential to attract bad press and be labeled as a “Frankenfood.”  This blog has tracked some of the damaging press that GM food has attracted and the same thing could potentially happen to lab-grown meat as well.  These issues are important with the marketing of any product, but especially with food, because of their importance to our lifestyle, culture, and habits.

My first problem with in-vitro meat is the name.  “In-vitro meat” sounds more like a science project than a food, and “cultured meat” is not much better.  Why not call it “clean meat,” I wondered?  So I asked someone who should know: Jason Matheny, co-founder of New Harvest, a non-profit that promotes research on in-vitro meat.

Me: “‘In-vitro meat’ sounds like a terrible name.  Why don’t you call it ‘clean meat’?”
JM: “Actually, there is a guy who used to work for us who suggested the name ‘clean meat,’ and there was someone else who suggested the name ‘pure meat.’  These names are certainly better from a marketing perspective, but the scientists who do the research on cultured meat didn’t feel comfortable with it.  Their objection to it was that it sounded like a marketing term.  They didn’t like the idea that, as scientists, they would be marketing a term.  They felt that ‘cultured meat’ or ‘hydroponic meat’ was more scientifically accurate.”

I can understand the sentiment of the scientists, but at the same time I think it’s unfortunate that they are passing up an opportunity to market this product at the pre-commercial stage.  As soon as a VC-backed firm takes this on, however, you can bet that they’ll pick a better name for it.

Me: “I don’t mean to be too critical, but how did the Colbert Report get to interview one of the scientists at New Harvest for their story on Shmeat?  The clip is hilarious, but I think it’s very bad publicity for cultured meat.”
JM: “They actually contacted me about this story, and I felt that it was not a good idea to accept the interview, so I declined, and I sent out an email to my colleagues who work with in-vitro meat saying, ‘you may have received an email from the Colbert Report, here are my reasons why I chose not to participate,’ but of course the were free to make their own decisions and I guess they felt differently.”

Me: “In the story, they show a picture of in-vitro meat that looks more like an egg yolk.  I know I’m not supposed to ask you if you’ve tasted it, but have they made cultured meat that looks palatable yet?”

JM: (Laughs) “That was an early prototype, very primitive, and the cells were actually fibroblasts, not muscle tissue.  The muscle tissue that has been grown in the lab is the same as muscle tissue in live animals, there’s no reason it wouldn’t be as palatable as regular chicken nuggets.  Chicken nuggets are actually made out of something called meat slurry, which is basically muscle tissue that is sucked off the bodies of dead birds after the good meat has been taken and is then ground up into a mush that can be molded into different shapes.  The bar isn’t set very high.”

So I have a question for you, the reader: How do you think cultured meat should be marketed?  What name do you think is most appetizing?  Comments are welcome.