Progress in Nutritional and Safety Evaluation of Cultured Meat
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/zdpz4876Keywords:
Cell Cultured Meat, Food Safety, 3D bioprinting technology.Abstract
As a new protein source, the nutritional regulation potential and safety of cell cultured meat have attracted much attention. Nowadays, a team has successfully prepared cell-cultured pork belly through 3D bioprinting technology, which has solved the key technical problems of co-printing and co-culture of muscle and adipose tissue. This paper systematically reviewed the key research of the past five years and found that the precise regulation of protein components can be achieved through protein engineering regulation (amino acid score increased by 15%), and lipidomics reconstruction can control the arrangement and distribution of cells more accurately, but there is still a gap of 28% in the bioutilisation of iron elements; the closed production system makes microorganisms The risk of pollution is reduced by 97%, but a new immunogenicity evaluation standard needs to be established. There are also many challenges that need to be overcome in terms of technology, cost, market acceptance and supervision. Research now confirms that cell-cultured meat has the technical feasibility of replacing traditional meat, but its long-term edible effect still needs to be thoroughly verified. In the future, the application of 3D printing technology and the development of personalized nutrition products will provide more innovative opportunities for cell cultured meat to meet the dietary needs of different consumers. Cell cultured meat is expected to become the innovation engine of the global food industry, promoting sustainable development and diversification of food supply through industrial coordination and global layout.
Downloads
References
[1] Tuomisto H L, Ellis M J, Haastrup P. Environmental impacts of cultured meat production: A systematic review [J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2022, 56 (6): 3840 – 3852.
[2] Alexandratos N, Bruinsma J. World agriculture towards 2030/2050: The 2012 revision [R]. Rome: ESA Working Paper, 2012: 80 – 84.
[3] Godfray H C J, Aveyard P, Garnett T, et al. Meat consumption, health, and the environment [J]. Science, 2018, 361 (6399): 243.
[4] Lu Chengkuan. Discovery of key genes for sorghum resistance to parasitism [N]. Science and Technology Daily, 2025 - 02 - 13 (002).
[5] Kumar P, Singh R, Zhang Y, Wang L, et al. Advances in metabolic engineering for sustainable bioproduction [J]. Biotechnology Advances, 2023, 64: 108152.
[6] Fraeye I, De Mey E, Dewulf L, Paelinck H, et al. Opportunities and challenges for sustainable production of cultured meat: A review [J]. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 2021, 116: 520 – 534.
[7] Bomkamp C, Saha S, Ferreira G M, Wong B G, et al. Engineering microbial consortia for enhanced biomanufacturing of complex molecules [J]. ACS Synthetic Biology, 2023, 12 (3): 891 – 905.
[8] Stephens N, Ellis M J, Post M J, Lammers P J, et al. Toxicological and safety assessment of cultured meat technologies: Current challenges and future perspectives[J]. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 2023, 175: 113702.
[9] Tian Liuling, Gu Chengbo. Ethical issues and countermeasures in the development of cultured meat [J]. Food and Fermentation Industries, 2023, 49 (24): 338 – 346.
[10] Verbeke W, Sans P, Van Loo E J. Challenges and prospects for consumer acceptance of cultured meat [J]. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2015, 14 (2): 285– 294.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Highlights in Science, Engineering and Technology

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.







