Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by hybrid_cluster 1722 days ago
> this project has been part of our overall endeavor to develop the biotechnological production of daily and familiar commodities that are conventionally produced by agriculture.

I'm afraid I have to call BS. The nutrient medium used to feed the cell cultures will contain glucose or sucrose most likely from industrially-grown corn or sugarcane as a carbon source and other nutrients.

I.e. in this case biotech isn't getting rid of an agricultural production process and magically replacing it with something sustainable - it's simply shifting the agricultural supply chain more upstream and out of view.

Could it still be more sustainable compared to traditional coffee growing? I doubt it very much given all the input required to run commercial-scale bioreactors. Those things are energy intensive, produce waste water, and require complex nutrient broths and sterility. If you're claiming sustainability benefits in such a fuzzy situation, at least have an LCA to back up the claims.

What about commercial feasibility? Extremely unlikely. Most if not all of the dealbreakers recently outlined in the context of commercial-scale lab-grown meat will apply here too [0].

But perhaps they can bioengineer some novel coffee characteristics unobtainable otherwise and sell it for $500 a cup.

[0] https://thecounter.org/lab-grown-cultivated-meat-cost-at-sca...

2 comments

The PRL-4 media referenced is mostly the same macro and micronutrients that all plants need plus a small amount of sucrose (30 g/L) with 10% coconut milk added.
Unfortunately, small amount of sugar = even smaller amount of useful product. I.e. for all we know the yields/cell densities (not reported) are so low that you need more land to grow sugarcane and coconut trees than to grow the amount of coffea plants needed for a similar amount coffee.
European sugar is from sugarbeet.
I know nothing of agriculture but I would think corn is much more sustainable than coffee beans. So it’s a step in the right direction at least, isn’t it?
Looking corn farming's environmental impact in the US (eutrophication & Gulf of Mexico deadzone, top soil erosion, biodiversity losses), I wouldn't be so sure.