Wed 6 May, 11am–12pm ET (16:00–17:00 CET) — informal pre-session for those with May 8 conflicts.
Fri 8 May, 9:00–10:00am ET (15:00–16:00 CET) — European morning drop-in for EU/UK time zones.
Plus pre/post-workshop async materials for everyone.
The problem
Animal welfare funders, including Animal Charity Evaluators, Open Philanthropy, and others, must decide how to allocate resources across different approaches to reducing animal suffering. Corporate campaigns for cage-free commitments are seen to have clear, measurable impactsAnimal Charity Evaluators rates corporate campaigns (e.g., cage-free and broiler welfare commitments) among the most cost-effective animal welfare interventions, with documented and measurable outcomes.. Cultivated meat development is more speculative: potentially transformative, particularly if it comes close to cost parity with conventional meat, but highly uncertain.
The core question is deceptively simple:*Why cost matters for funding decisions — but isn't sufficient. "CM can plausibly achieve near price parity" is highly correlated with "funding CM is likely to have high animal welfare impact per dollar." If CM can never get close to cost parity, additional funding is almost certainly wasted. But cost parity is necessary, not sufficient: CM funding could still have low impact if (a) CM would succeed soon regardless of marginal funding, or (b) even cheap CM fails to displace conventional meat due to consumer or regulatory barriers. We discuss this in more detail in our EA Forum post and PQ definitions. What will cultivated meat cost to produce? If costs fall dramatically, CM could displace a substantial share of conventional meat production and spare billions of animals.**There may also be important environmental benefits, reduction of animal-to-human disease vectors, and other consequences — but we are primarily focused on the animal welfare implications for this workshop. If costs remain high, funding CM development may have been a poor use of limited animal welfare resources compared to proven interventions.
This is part of The Unjournal's Pivotal Questions initiative: working with impact-focused organizations to identify their highest-value research questions, connect them to evidence, and commission expert evaluations that can inform real decisions.
What sparked this workshop
We recently completed an evaluation of Rethink Priorities' forecasting work on cultured meat production. The evaluators noted that while the original forecasts (from 2022) were valuable, the field has evolved: new TEAs have been published, some claiming dramatically lower costs (e.g., Pasitka et al. 2024 at ~$6/lb), while others remain pessimistic. See our EA Forum post for further discussion.July 2025: "Is cultured meat commercially viable? Unjournal's first Pivotal Question" — background on the PQ project, focal questions, and research pipeline.
Through The Unjournal's Pivotal Questions evaluator process, we're commissioning expert assessments of key TEAs, including the optimistic Pasitka et al. paper and comparative analyses like the Goodwin 2024 scoping review. This workshop brings together TEA authors, evaluators, and funders to synthesize what the evidence tells us and what it means for funding decisions.
What we want to achieve
This workshop brings together TEA researchers, evaluators, and stakeholders to dig into the specific technical and economic disagreements driving the cost debate. We're organizing the discussion around key cruxes such as:
1. Where do the TEAs actually disagree — and why?
Pasitka et al.Pasitka et al. (2024), "Empirical economic analysis shows cost-effective continuous manufacturing of cultivated chicken using animal-free medium," Nature Food. Claims ~$6.20/lb via continuous perfusion with animal-free medium. Note: Believer Meats (the authors' company) shut down in Dec 2025. The paper uses spontaneously immortalised cell lines; gene-edited alternatives could substantially alter these projections. projects ~$6/lb; HumbirdHumbird (2021), "Scale-up economics for cultured meat," Biotechnology and Bioengineering. Commissioned by Open Philanthropy. Concludes CM faces "extreme, intractable technical challenges at food scale." projects $17–23/lb. This large gap isn't random — it traces to specific assumptions about media costs, bioreactor design, and scale-up pathways. Which assumptions matter most?
2. Media costs: How cheap can they get?
Media is the largest variable cost. GFI's recent amino acid supply chain analysisGFI (Dec 2025), "Amino acid cost and supply chain analysis for cultivated meat." Based on real quotes from amino acid suppliers and CM manufacturers. Reports that Humbird's amino acid prices may have been overestimated by 2–10x. suggests Humbird may have overestimated amino acid prices by 2–10x. Will plant hydrolysates replace expensive purified growth factors (CM_12)? What are realistic media costs per kg of output by 2036 (CM_14)?
3. Bioreactors & scale-up: What's the real cost of capacity?
Pharma-grade vs food-grade vs custom-built bioreactors (CM_20). Some companies claim custom bioreactors for under $1M. What cell densities are achievable at 20,000-liter scale (CM_16)? How does process choice (batch vs continuous perfusion) change the picture?
4. From TEA to reality: bridging the gap
Optimistic cost projections don't always translate into commercial success — Believer Meats, for example, published favorable TEA results in Nature Food before shutting down in late 2025. What does the gap between modeled costs and commercial viability tell us? What are TEAs missing?
5. Cell line technology: does gene editing change the picture?
Most publicly available TEA data — including Pasitka et al. and Believer MeatsBeliever Meats used spontaneously immortalised cells. Pasitka et al. described their spontaneous immortalisation protocol in avian and bovine cells. Gene-edited cell lines can grow without or with minimal growth factors, at high densities, in single-cell suspension — dramatically changing cost projections. See: Riquelme-Guzman et al. (2024), iScience. — is based on spontaneously immortalised cell lines, not gene-edited ones. Gene editing can generate cells that grow without expensive growth factors and at much higher densities, potentially eliminating the largest cost driver. Yet current models rarely model gene-editing scenarios explicitly. Gene editing is permitted in most jurisdictionsGene editing is legally permitted in the US, UK, and most non-EU jurisdictions. Upside Foods received US regulatory approval using gene-edited cell lines. The EU is more restrictive, but is not representative of the global regulatory environment. See: CRISPR regulations tracker. outside the EU. How should cost models account for gene-editing scenarios — and what is the realistic timeline for gene-edited lines to enter commercial production?
These cruxes are interconnected — media costs depend on cell density, bioreactor choice affects media efficiency, and TEA methodology choices cut across all of them. Together they feed into our focal question CM_01: What will CM cost per edible kg in 2036?
Explore the Evidence
Before or after the workshop, dig into the cost modeling and background resources:
📊
Cost Projection Dashboard
Interactive Monte Carlo simulation — adjust parameters and see how they affect cost projections across 30,000 runs.
📚
How Cultured Chicken Is Made
Cost-focused production overview with video explainers, key papers, and interactive calculation tools.
Technical documentation: model methodology & parameter reference →
💬 Join the discussion on GitHub
Substantive debate on cost, biology, welfare, and methodology — and any longer threaded discussion that others can reply to and build on — lives on GitHub Discussions. For anything beyond a brief inline note, please post there rather than in Hypothes.is, so the conversation stays organized, discoverable, and threaded.
Suggested Reading
No pre-reading is required. These are for participants who want to engage with the primary evidence before or after the workshop. Starred items are highest priority.
Core TEAs — the disagreement
⭐ Pasitka et al. (2024)"Empirical economic analysis shows cost-effective continuous manufacturing of cultivated chicken using animal-free medium," Nature Food. Claims ~$6.20/lb ($13.7/kg) via continuous perfusion. Note: Believer Meats (the authors' company) shut down Dec 2025. — Nature Food. The optimistic case: ~$6/lb with continuous production.
⭐ Humbird (2021)"Scale-up economics for cultured meat," Biotechnology and Bioengineering. Commissioned by Open Philanthropy. Concludes CM faces "extreme, intractable technical challenges at food scale." Estimated $17–23/lb. — Open Phil. The pessimistic case: $17–23/lb, "intractable" challenges.
⭐ Goodwin, Aimutis & Shirwaiker (2024)"A scoping review of cultivated meat techno-economic analyses to inform future research directions for scaled-up manufacturing," Nature Food. Neutral comparative review of all major TEAs. Concludes CM is "unlikely to be competitive under the current paradigm." — Nature Food. Scoping review: where TEAs agree and disagree.
Media costs & supply chain
⭐ GFI amino acid report (Dec 2025)"Amino acid cost and supply chain analysis for cultivated meat." Based on real quotes from amino acid suppliers and CM manufacturers. Reports that Humbird's amino acid prices may have been overestimated by 2–10x. — GFI. Real supplier data suggesting Humbird's AA costs may have been overestimated by 2–10x.
GFI cell growth modeling (Nov 2025)"Cell growth modeling review for cultivated meat production." Examines limitations of current TEAs for predicting actual growth performance. — GFI. How to model cell growth more realistically than current TEAs do.
Forecasting & prior Unjournal work
Dullaghan & Zhang (2022)"Forecasts estimate limited cultured meat production through 2050," Rethink Priorities. Evaluated by The Unjournal — evaluators noted it was somewhat out of date but provided a useful forecasting framework. — Unjournal evaluation. RP forecasts + the Unjournal evaluators' assessment.
Lever VC (Apr 2025)"A Second Generation of Cultivated Meat Companies Breaks Through Projected Cost Barriers." Claims media costs 30x lower than predicted, cell densities 60–90 g/L, production costs as low as $10–15/kg cell mass. Note: Lever VC is financially invested in CM companies. — Lever VC. Industry report claiming cost barriers broken. (Note: authored by CM investors.)
Cell line technology & gene editing
Riquelme-Guzman et al. (2024)Gene editing strategies for cultivated meat cell lines and their implications for scalability and cost reduction. Published in iScience. Argues that gene editing enabling growth-factor-free, high-density cell lines is key to commercial viability. — iScience. Gene editing approaches and cost implications for CM cell lines. (Note: current public TEA data is based on spontaneously immortalised cells, not gene-edited lines.)
CRISPR Gene Editing Regulations Tracker (Genetic Literacy Project). Global regulatory environment for gene editing — permitted in the US, UK, and most non-EU jurisdictions. Upside Foods received US regulatory approval using gene-edited lines.
Environmental dimension
Risner et al. (2024)"Environmental impacts of cultured meat," ACS Food Science & Technology. Life cycle assessment finding CM's global warming potential could be 4–25x greater than retail beef if pharmaceutical-grade purification is required. GFI published a formal critique (Swartz et al.). — ACS Food Sci & Tech. LCA raising environmental cost concerns. See also: GFI/Swartz rebuttal.
How the workshop is structured
The workshop is fully online (~3.5 hours of live sessions over a 4-hour window, with enforced breaks), organized in three segments so you can join the parts most relevant to you. We also support asynchronous participation — submit beliefs and comments before or after the live event.
Planned Agenda
This is coming together along these lines; sessions and timing may still be adjusted before the workshop. The overall structure — three sessions on 8 May plus the additional drop-ins — is confirmed.
Informal pre-session · Wed May 6 · 11:00–12:00 ET (4–5pm UK · 5–6pm CET)
Optional European morning drop-in · Fri May 8 · 9:00–10:00 ET (15:00–16:00 CET · 14:00–15:00 UK)
Main workshop · Fri May 8 · 11:00–15:00 ET (4–8pm UK · 5–9pm CET)
All times US Eastern. Drop in for any session — no obligation to attend all three. Pre-workshop and post-workshop materials will be shared with all registered participants regardless of live attendance.
We plan to record the workshop and share it publicly (with an AI-queryable transcript), similar to our recent wellbeing workshop. Participants can opt out of recording for specific segments.
Outputs: We aim to produce a synthesis of expert cost beliefs (with uncertainty ranges), a structured summary of key disagreements, and an updated research prioritization for The Unjournal's ongoing CM evaluations. These will be shared publicly to inform funders and researchers beyond those in the room. Participants will receive a post-workshop survey, and results will be published on this site — see the wellbeing workshop survey results as an example of what this looks like.
Confirmed Participants (RSVPs)
See confirmed participants — 24 confirmed (show)
| Participant | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Elliot Swartz | Good Food Institute | TEA Author / Discussant |
| Claire Bomkamp | Good Food Institute | Industry perspective |
| Derrick Risner | UC Davis | TEA Author (Risner et al.) |
| Ellie Contreras | Tufts University | Researcher (tissue engineering) |
| Tom Bry-Chevalier | Université de Lorraine | Researcher |
| Jakub Kozlowski | — | Cost model developer |
| David Manheim | Technion / ALTER | Unjournal Evaluator |
| Oana Kubinyecz | Cell Ag UK | Industry / Co-Director |
| Valentin Klotzbücher | — | Organizer (Unjournal) |
| Andrew Stout | Tufts University / Kaplan Lab | Researcher (Beefy-R TEA co-author) |
| Natalie Rubio | Tufts CCA / Deco Labs | Researcher / Industry |
| Matt McNulty | Tufts Center for Cellular Agriculture | Strategy & Operations |
| Jordi Morales-Dalmau | Cultimate Foods | Industry R&D / Scale-up |
| Aleksandra Fuchs | ACIB (Austrian Centre of Industrial Biotechnology) | Researcher (bioprocess / media) |
| Nike Schiavo | Bruno Cell | Industry |
| Joana T. Rosa | S2AQUAcoLAB | Researcher |
| Mirjam Capuder | University of Maribor | Researcher |
| Tarka Abraham | Ivy Farm Technologies | Industry |
| Stefano Lattanzi | Bruno Cell | Industry (CEO) |
| Zhuoran Du | University of New South Wales | Researcher / RA |
| Affif Grazette | Wageningen University | Researcher |
| Dexter Oelrichs | Ambitious Impact | EA / Stakeholder |
| Anaiz Gul Fareed | The Unjournal | Organizer (Unjournal) |
| David Reinstein | The Unjournal | Organizer |
We're still recruiting participants, especially those with hands-on production, bioprocess engineering, and independent TEA experience. Submit your availability →
Get Involved
We're actively recruiting participants in three roles:
PQ Evaluators
Compensated ($400–800) to assess TEAs, state calibrated beliefs on CM_01 and subquestions, and evaluate key papers. Learn more →
Workshop Participants
TEA researchers, bioprocess engineers, cell biologists, and food scientists with relevant expertise. Join for any segments that interest you. Indicate interest →
Stakeholders & Funders
Animal welfare funders, policy analysts, and industry representatives. We want to help you identify your pivotal questions and refine your beliefs based on research and evidence. Get in touch →
Know someone who should be involved? Suggest a participant or share this page.
The Key Questions
We've operationalized the cost debate into specific, quantifiable questions. The focal question:
CM_01 — Focal Question
What will be the average production cost (per edible kg) of cultured chicken meat in 2036, across all large-scale plants in the world?
Defined as (annualized capital + operating costs) ÷ annual kg output, in 2025 USD. Forecast on Metaculus →
Workshop cruxes map to specific subquestions that feed into CM_01 (click to expand)
CM_12: Will most CM be produced using hydrolysates (replacing growth factors) by 2036?
CM_14: What will cell media cost per kg of CM output in 2036?
CM_16: What cell density is achievable in a 20,000-liter bioreactor by 2036?
CM_20: What share of companies will build their own bioreactors by 2036?
Full questions and beliefs form → · CM_01 on Metaculus → · Expert aggregation (CM_03) →
Other Pivotal Questions Workshops
About this page
Some content on these workshop pages was drafted with AI assistance based on our own source materials, notes, and research. We've reviewed it carefully, but errors or unclear passages may remain. If you spot anything incorrect or confusing, please let us know — ideally via a Hypothes.is annotation on the relevant passage, or by emailing contact@unjournal.org.