Cultivated meat: costs and funding decisions

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 ~$13.7/kg 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 ~$13/kg; 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 $38–51/kg. This large gap isn't random — it traces to specific assumptions about media costs, bioreactor design, and scale-up pathways. Which assumptions matter most? See component-by-component TEA comparison →

Media costs are a major uncertainty. 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 or yeast hydrolysates replace expensive purified amino acids in the base media (CM_12)? What are realistic media costs per kg of output by 2036 (CM_14)? How TEAs treat media costs →

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 (Fed-batchFed-batch: nutrients added incrementally during the run, but without continuous media exchange; cells harvested at the end. This differs from true "batch" culture (no media addition at all), which is not viable for CM because cells rapidly deplete nutrients and accumulate toxic waste products. Fed-batch is simpler to operate than perfusion but achieves lower cell densities — a key cost disadvantage for high-volume CM production. vs. perfusionPerfusion: continuous media exchange with cell retention (e.g. via a filter); cells harvested at end of run. Higher cell densities than fed-batch, used in Pasitka et al.'s optimistic projections. vs. continuous harvestingContinuous harvesting: both cells and spent media are continuously removed; fresh media replenishes the reactor in a steady-state operation. Highest potential productivity but operationally complex and less common in CM at present.) change the picture? Cell density & process assumptions across TEAs → · Capital costs →

Optimistic cost projections don't always translate into commercial success — and there are many reasons a company might struggle beyond production costs alone. Some companiesSeveral cultivated meat companies have experienced commercial difficulties in recent years, including Believer Meats (late 2025). The reasons behind any specific case are rarely fully public and are typically complex — production costs, regulatory timing, market conditions, and funding environment can all play a role. These developments shouldn't be read as simple refutations of any particular TEA methodology. that made significant technical progress have nonetheless faced commercial difficulties. What can the gap between modeled costs and commercial realities tell us about what TEAs might be missing or underweighting? Cautious synthesis across TEAs →

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 could generate cells that need fewer expensive growth factors or achieve higher densities, materially changing cost projections. Yet current models rarely represent gene-editing scenarios explicitly. Regulatory treatment is product- and jurisdiction-specificThe US does not give gene-edited cultured-cell lines a blanket clearance. FDA's pre-market consultation examines a defined cell material and production process; for USDA-amenable species such as chicken, USDA-FSIS oversees the post-harvest stage and label approval. A completed UPSIDE Foods consultation included a bioengineered TERT-expressing chicken line, demonstrating one product-specific pathway rather than general pre-approval. Other jurisdictions use different frameworks. See FDA's current overview.. How should cost models account for gene-editing scenarios — and what is the realistic timeline for particular lines and products to reach commercial production in particular markets? Growth factor assumptions across TEAs →

The workshop was held online on May 8, 2026. S1 and S3 were public and recorded. S2 was off-record and is not summarized beyond its announced scope.

Agenda and session details · Edited recordings · Workshop feedback

Researchers, industry representatives, evaluators, and animal welfare stakeholders contributed. See the workshop agenda for session contributors.

The project builds on The Unjournal's evaluation of Rethink Priorities' production forecasts and the initial pivotal question.

Part of the Pivotal Questions initiative. See other projects and workshops.