Talk:Upside Foods

RfC: Article versions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There are competing visions for this short article. The first paragraph is not contested:

Memphis Meats is a food technology company headquartered in San Francisco aiming to "remake modern animal agriculture" by growing cultured meat. The company was founded by three scientists: Uma Valeti (CEO), Nicholas Genovese (CSO), and Will Clem. Valeti is a cardiologist and medical professor at the University of Minnesota.

References

Version 1 of the 2nd paragraph

As of February 2016, it cost the company $18,000 to produce one pound of in-vitro beef, but the company expects to scale the process up and sell to consumers within five years. It is also experimenting with stem cells from pigs and chickens. Valeti claims that his product will be more sustainable than beef derived from butchering an animal, which requires 23-to-1 ratio of Calories used to Calories produced. Valeti claims that the company's process will reduce the ratio to 3-to-1. He also claims it will require 90% less water and land. In February 2016, the company revealed a video showing the "world's first cultured meatball." In January 2016, the company released a video showcasing the world's first cultured meatball; in March 2017, they revealed chicken tenders and duck a l’orange, which the company deemed the world's first cultured poultry.

Version 2 of the 2nd paragraph

The company plans to produce various meat products using biotechnology to induce stem cells to differentiate into muscle tissue and to manufacture the meat products in bioreactorsusing industrial fermentation. As of February 2016, it cost the company $18,000 to produce one pound of in-vitro beef, but the company expected to scale the process up and sell to consumers within five years. As of March 2017, the company had demonstrated prototype meatball, chicken, and duck products.

References

Version 3 (note, this was added after 3 !votes had been cast; all three !voters notified of change)

In February 2016, the company released a video showing what it called "the world's first cultured meatball." The company claimed it cost $18,000 to produce one pound of cultured beef, but it expected to scale the process up and sell to consumers within five years. The company praised the taste of the product as well as the sustainability benefits. In March 2017, it release a similar video showing chicken tenders and duck a l’orange, which the company deemed the world's first cultured poultry. The company said a pound of cultured chicken cost $9,000 and reiterated the expected commercial release of 2021.

References

Version 4 of the 2nd paragraph

The company plans to produce various meat products using biotechnology to induce stem cells to differentiate into muscle tissue and to manufacture the meat products in bioreactors. Memphis Meats has published videos of what it deemed "meatless" meatballs, chicken tenders and duck a l'orange. At the time of their production, the company said the production cost of its in-vitro beef was $18,000 per pound, while its cultured chicken and duck products cost $9,000 per pound.

References

Please indicate which version you understand best complies with WP policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC) (redacted v2 to address fuss over industrial fermentation Jytdog (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)) (version4 added by IP here at 04:37, 22 March 2017 Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC))

Update: Version 4 self-withdrawn in light of work on new version below.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

!votes

• 2nd version. This takes an encyclopedic view and is NPOV and well-sourced. It doesn't serve as a vehicle to transmit or evaluate the hype that this biotech company is generating to keep investor interest while it develops its products, which are not anticipated to reach the market for at least another 4 years. (We will have at least another 4 years of "exciting" PR from this company) Their planned products might never reach the market and even if the products reach the market, their products may never be commercially feasible. The claims about the energy ratios of production are all WP:CRYSTALBALL marketing hype; the company cannot know those figures until they actually succeed in scaling up, which they haven't done yet. There are many reasons why this effort might go no where, and there is no reason for WP to jump every time this startup WP:FARTs. Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
• 2nd version. (In case anyone wants to know, I came here when I saw the RfC notice, and I watchlist RfC pages and respond when one seems interesting – but I was also aware previously that there has been a dispute at this page.) For me, this isn't even close. The second version is succinct and to-the-point, whereas the first version is full of WP:CLAIM to a degree that gets cloying, and comes across as both editorial and speculative. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

  The third version was added after my original comment. I still prefer the second version, but I think it would be a good idea to make the third version, with a bit of revision, into a third paragraph. The third version is less of a summary, and more an account of specific events. That would make for a good additional paragraph, I think. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm probably happy with that outcome too. Utsill (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Good, thanks. I see there is now a version 4: I think that it's briefer than is necessary. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

As a general comment, I appreciate that editors just coming now to this RfC are facing a "herding cats" sort of situation, in that a discussion of the content has been going on in parallel with the older options listed above. If nothing else, editors may want to use the RfC choices to indicate how much or how little detail they would like to include, as well as what kinds of details. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Please don't fall for a false dichotomy (update 23:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC) it's now four versions)- this presentation is actually quite contrived. Jytdog's originally only presented the status quo (which no one wanted) and, of course, his ideal version ... directing RFC viewers to choose. I and another user, who both reject this format ... have added alternatives simply in case others come and fall for this transparent vote packaging. More to the point: I have tried to distill the differences between versions down in the section below, but Jytdog insists those are not the real questions. Jytdog insists that this debate is a stand in for a larger moral battle, pitting the true a beautiful Wikipedia users against those who - and this is actually a quotation from him - want to "make this article into a proxy for the company's website and follow the blow-by-blow PR."diff It's not actually necessary to accept this sort of moralizing, which is why most of the users who were involved in the debate above have not participated in this poll. The issue is not "what does this decision mean for future edits?" but rather "what's the best version of the article we can make." Thus, even though I have contributed version 4, I am abstaining from voting. This type of artificial packaging is not consistent with attempting to reach a consensus. It's a bad vote.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

(redacted without markup at 22:05, 22 March 2017 in this diff) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs)

• 3rd version [I currently think this selection of examples to vote amongst is misleading. I guess the 3rd version is still my preferred of these 4, but see the discussion below for better options. I basically agree with JonRichField below.] I agree with 216.12.10.118 that this is a silly comparison, though I'd note that I'm still not sure why people think cultured meat is fermented. I'm pretty sure it isn't. Also, I don't think an explanation of cultured meat is necessary here given there's a linked WP article on it. Utsill (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• 2nd version.My opinion: factual and not promotional. I think this sentence needs refinement: "The company claimed it cost $18,000 to produce one pound of cultured beef, but it expected to scale the process up and sell to consumers within five years" I think the point left unwritten is the scaling will make the cost/pound lower which will make the beef price competitively priced with regular beef. CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, @CuriousMind01:, you think the sentence should make that point? So e.g. it should say "The company claimed it cost $18,000 to produce one pound of cultured beef, but it expected to scale the process up and sell to consumers within five years, which would mean the cultured beef is competitively priced with regular beef."? Or something else? Utsill (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Please see discussionCuriousMind01 (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• 2nd version. NPOV, well-sourced, and just like the cultured meat: without any excess fat. - MrOllie (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

  --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• 2nd version. This reads like something written by a neutral encyclopaedist, with the PR hype removed. Readers will want to know what they've achieved, and maybe what they plan to achieve; not what videos they've made. Maproom (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• Phew! None! I reckon that this version of the RFC has been superseded by the discussion below, for all practical purposes. The exchanges have covered so much ground that I for one am not inclined to remasticate the matter. If Tryptofish, 216, and Jytdog would like to come up with either a proposed single substantive version or a new RFC based on selection of options reflecting their collective or respective preferences, that would be better than trying to resolve this one. It certainly would be better if the concepts were better separated into distinct paragraphs, as some of them have attempted to do, so that we could do better at selecting the resolved from the residual issues instead of trying to settle everything at a go. It also would make better reading. JonRichfield (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
• 2nd version, but needs trimming I am not happy with adding a bunch of unverified scientific claims to the article, particularly when the sources themselves say it is simply the company quoting them. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• 2nd version, or 4th. Both concentrate on the most important facts first and give more anecdotal evidence later. 2nd sounds better to me, but 4th is also acceptable. “WarKosign” 07:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion

Why are we pretending like these things are a package deal? There's no logical reason why the calorie ratio sentence has to go with the specific products sentence. There's no reason why the first sentence in the second version can't go in the first version. Why couldn't the first version mention industrial fermentation? It's a false dichotomy. (As I see it ... option 1 is basically the status quo, which currently everyone wants changed ... and option 2 is Jytdog's version.) As stated, we should settle on basic questions and answer them individually.

1. Category: How should we address the cultured products?
   1. Should we mention how those products were announced (via video)?
   2. Should we mention anything else about the publicity?
   3. Should we mention the specific products or generalize them (i.e. "chicken tenders" or "chicken"?)
2. Category: What should we detail about production?
   1. Should we mention the companies plans for production?
   2. Should we mention the claims about calories used:produced ratios?
   3. Should we mention costs?

That simply makes more sense.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this, though I appreciate Jytdog putting forward a concrete decision we can make. There are clearly too many variables being shoved together here with the second choice having both Jytdog's more debatable suggestions as well as some uncontroversial improvements. I'd also note that Memphis Meats nor any other cultured meat lab I know of is planning to use fermentation in their products. I'm not sure where Jytdog is getting that notion from. My suggestion version, just splicing together these two options in a way that retains the information but also maintains coherence and encyclopedic perspective, is:

Note - moved into body of Rfc Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I expect this version could be improved. My main opinion here is just that we should include all of the information, at least regarding the "firsts." I'm flexible on wording, order, etc. I tried to defuse the Company Founder's sustainability claims, since I think those are borderline promotional given the source. Utsill (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Moved it up into the RfC Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay. To clarify myself, I'd like people who believe cultured meat uses fermentation to provide RS('s) supporting that claim if they want it included in the article because I currently believe it is not part of the process. Utsill (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• The key distinction is whether or not the article will include all the blow-by-blow of the company's PR hype as it is released. The 2nd version is (in my view) written for the long term, with an NPOV. The 1st and 3rd violates NOTNEWS and UNDUE by following the blow-by-blow and amplifying the hype. There really is no compromise between doing so or not, which is why I went the RfC route. Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• Note - addressed objection to "industrial fermentation". That is a side show to whether or not we transmit and amplify the blow-by-blow hype. Jytdog (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Jytdog, First: I respect the effort; I honestly understand it is extremely difficult to work out conclusions on things like this (and, full disclosure: I am not exactly attached to any option as it stands). Still, I do think the suggestion that there is no compromise is misguided. This notion that we have two sets of editors, one supporting NPOV and one supporting turning WP into a PR machine ... well, it's a bit Manichaean, no? This isn't the forces of good vs. the forces of evil. I still feel like, while more difficult, answering the questions above is the best route. Why not, for example, have a discussion on whether or not to include that the company used videos to announce their cultured products? I think it might be worth acknowledging that there are some users who might think the modality is worthy of inclusion (I myself am *totally* apathetic on that subject - you'll notice I haven't mentioned it), and that does't necessarily mean that they are evil PR supporters.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I have written nothing about anybody here having a financial interest in this article. Please don't misrepresent what i have written. Jytdog (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

... Sorry didn't mean to suggest that - when I said "corporate PR sponsors" I meant supporters of corporate PR (clarified). Because seriously, you're treating the opposing side as though it's a group of users who are in favor of turning WP into a PR machine. This notion that "COMPROMISE IS FUTILE AND IMPOSSIBLE" is just not rooted in the tone of this page. Again: Why not, for example, have a discussion on whether or not to include that the company used videos to announce their cultured products? Instead you're saying "Here's the good side / here's the evil side." It's not productive. We can find a middle ground.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. There really is no middle ground between a perspective that aims to add content every time the company makes a press release and the press covers it, or when the company makes a posting on its own blog on the one hand, and a more conservative, longterm encyclopedic view on the other. The method of PR (video or standard press release or blog posting) is very secondary to what we are actually doing here. If the community decides to make this article into a proxy for the company's website and follow the blow-by-blow PR, then sure, the trivia about how PR is conducted could be included. In that case, why not?

The fundamental question is what is Wikipedia? Per WP:NOT, we are not a vehicle for WP:PROMO and we are WP:NOTNEWS and we don't include WP:CRYSTALBALL predictions and per NPOV all that is UNDUE. That is what version 2 expresses. It is not about good and evil. Just what WP is, and what it isn't. Jytdog (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, no one is suggesting that we should update this Wikipedia page every time the company makes a new announcement. The problem is that you're assuming that is the opposing perspective, and that assumption is tainting your ability to acquire a consensus. Again, you're straw manning. And that's literally what I started this convo to try to pull everyone back from: pretending like this is good vs. evil. It's not. And Crystal Ball doesn't apply here - no one is suggesting a sentence saying "The meat will CHANGE THE WORLD," nor is anyone suggesting a sentence saying "The company will probably fail." In fact, all of the content questions, if you would look at them, concern events that have already occurred and how we treat them. Whether or not we say that the company announced its products with a video has nothing to do with predicting the future. The questions are more specific, and the issue is far more complicated than you're treating it.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 03:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I hear your perspective on what you think i have been saying. I don't agree with it nor with your characterizations of it, which continue to misrepresent it, bizarrely. (I said nothing about the mode of PR itself having anything to do with NOT or UNDUE). I started the RfC to bring in more perspectives, and it will run, and we will see what the community says. Jytdog (talk) 04:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC) (added clarification Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC))

Off-topic and personalizing. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Reminder: the goal is to use discussion to build a consensus, not present a false dichotomy for users to vote on. I've started a conversation below on the actual questions under consideration, would appreciate your input.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 04:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Consensus will be established by assessing the policy-and-guideline-based !votes in the RfC. We don't have to solve this now - the RfC will run its 30 days and we will see where it ends up. The questions below do not accurately represent the points of dissent; the versions above do. I am not responding further to you here. You are WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion. Jytdog (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Update: To clarify, Jytdog accused me of bludgeoning after I had already responded here. So this is the real issue with the good vs. evil approach. The questions below are actually the differences between the versions you proposed. It's just you want them to be bundled up into a dichotomy; you're packaging those questions and pretending like there's a larger theme or reason that they have to be connected. There's not.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 04:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Note, comment to which I responded was deleted here, leaving the thread below as nonsense. Jytdog (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Note: I incorporated my comment, which was moved here by Jytdog, into my vote here, for those who are interested ... although this line of discussion was always nonsense--216.12.10.118 (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC) I left your v4 in the RfC but moved your argument for it down here. Please do not amend the RfC in the future; it is not your place to do that. And RfCs need to be neutral - the RfC question itself is not a place to argue for your version, against me, or anything else. Jytdog (talk) Your "please" which presents the false dichotomy comment goes above and mine, pointing out the false dichotomy, goes below? Huh, I can't imagine why you might make that edit. But sure make a vague comment about what my place is.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC) You have made your reviews on the RfC very clear. You have said it so many times that you have formed a WP:Wall of text and it is unlikely anyone will read through this discussion section, since it has become so long. This is the self-defeating aspect of bludgeoning a discussion. Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Breaking News: "You're writing too much," complains local user who has written more than anyone (how's the WP:ANI going?).--216.12.10.118 (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Calm talk, everyone. Please focus on the content, not one another. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion

Looking at how the RfC discussion has been going, and also at the discussion below about forward-looking statements, I'd like to suggest a 3-paragraph version for the page. I'm using the current version for paragraph 1, the 2nd proposal for paragraph 2 (with the correction about the bioreactor), and a modification of the 3rd proposal for paragraph 3, taking into account the comments about it, as well as continuity.

Memphis Meats is a food technology company headquartered in San Francisco aiming to "remake modern animal agriculture" by growing cultured meat. The company was founded by three scientists: Uma Valeti (CEO), Nicholas Genovese (CSO), and Will Clem. Valeti is a cardiologist and medical professor at the University of Minnesota.

The company plans to produce various meat products using biotechnology to induce stem cells to differentiate into muscle tissue and to manufacture the meat products in bioreactors. As of February 2016, it cost the company $18,000 to produce one pound of in-vitro beef, but the company expected to scale the process up and sell to consumers within five years. As of March 2017, the company had demonstrated prototype meatball, chicken, and duck products.

In February 2016, the company released a video showing what it called "the world's first cultured meatball." The company drew attention the taste of the product as well as sustainability considerations. In March 2017, it release a similar video showing chicken tenders and duck a l'orange, which the company described as the world's first cultured poultry, saying that commercial release is expected for 2021.

References

I tend to think that it would be better to have three paragraphs of text, instead of two. Perhaps this could be a starting point. I hope it helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I generally like your extension! There may be some redundancy, but beyond that I have two major questions: [1] if we include the cost for beef ... should we also include the cost for the poultry? [2] Do we have a reliable source saying that the company called the faux-chicken/duck the "world's first cultured poultry"? I know that's been a claim of a few versions, but I can't even find the word "poultry" mentioned in these linked sources.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm opposed to the 3rd paragraph as UNDUE and promotional. Please keep in mind that we have 4 more years (probably) of the company coming out with more PR before they launch any actual products... and they may never do. More generally, the RfC started only yesterday; it is barely underway and too early to assess anything. Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Your text implies you think the company does not meet notability guidelines. Have you considered WP:AFD? After all, you repeatedly mention that the company has no products, and you seem highly concerned with using information from news articles, yet all of the sources in this article are news articles. (So really, you're just picking and choosing which information you like from those articles, while complaining that anyone who picks different pieces of the articles is violating policy, specifically WP:NOTNEWS ... interesting tactic.)--216.12.10.118 (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) About the pricing for poultry, I just don't think it's that interesting, and leaving it out helps a bit with avoiding making it sound promotional. About sourcing for the poultry claim, I haven't checked it, and given the concerns about being promotional, I'd say strike it. About the complaining about undue, I think that's nonsense (and annoying). The proposed text simply provides a bit more information, and if it later becomes outdated, it can be revised then. And it's not too early to make suggestions. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

IP, the notability issue was raised above and I responded there, in this diff. You again misrepresent what i have already written. Trypto, sorry you are annoyed: I would and do say the same about WP reporting the blow-by-blow PR of any biotech company, or litigation, or whatever. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: User:Jytdog oh when you tried to apply WP:GNG to content, even though notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article? Got it.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS andWP:UNDUE have nothing to do with GNG; I did not apply GNG to content. Jytdog (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Alright I'll take your word for it; I must have misunderstood your posts (despite their great numbers). I'm focusing on Tryptofish's draft below (this is what working to a consensus looks like); I think we should both make this less personal.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: User:Tryptofish I did try to update Version 4 to include both the pricing for the beef and poultry products (simply because I think if one is valid for inclusion, per WP:NOTPAPER the other should be included; it's just more information). That said, I still like your version. I would certainly be satisfied if that was the final draft. Frankly, I'd probably be satisfied with any of the versions proposed, even Jytdog's (though I prefer yours and mine to his). The only thing that I think is shoddy is Jytdog turning this into a vote (asking for people to pick a side, which he does at the top of the RFC, is asking for a vote, regardless of whether you call them "not votes") and building a straw man - as he does above (no one is arguing the article should be a blow by blow PR report). Now we have a question of what to do with this version ... do you want to add it as "Version 5" to the RFC? We'd then have to notify previous voters.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Since we are talking, in part, about what annoys me, I strongly advise both of you to stop commenting on one another's tactics, motivations, nonadherence to policy, or anything else except the page content. I'm getting real close to opening a new ANI section. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

In February 2016, the company released a video showing what it called "the world's first cultured meatball."[1][5][6] The company drew attention the taste of the product as well as sustainability considerations.[6] In March 2017, it release a similar video showing chicken tenders and duck a l'orange, which the company described as the world's first cultured poultry, saying that commercial release is expected for 2021.[3][4][7] I am not comfortable adding this per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:WEIGHT. This is reported by WSJ and other newspaper largely quoted it. I don't considered these "intellectually independent" sources. Not every incident is noteworthy enough to be included, particularly ones in which it is the company claiming something. Personally, I am even on the fence about the notability of this company. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Two quick things: 1) just for convenience, the current version of this work is featured below (in the last section break; I'm about to try to make this mass of text cleaner with sections). 2) I think it's important to note that the WSJ piece is not a "breaking news: this happened" piece, like the other articles are, nor is the Common Reader piece. Besides those notes, I might agree that there could be a notability issue with the entire company here, but if the company is notable, as I've detailed, I disagree with the NOTNEWS invocation.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Clean break

Alright - starting a new section. I realize I got too heated, I'll put aside detailing what caused that and just start fresh here. I do still have major concerns about voting on this, but this conversation can run parallel to the voting. Tryptofish, I modified my version 4 after I saw your version (throwing in the additional information concerning price), but I'm not thoroughly attached to anything. Just for the sake of throwing the idea out there - here's a further merge. Jytdog, I think this current iterationl downplays some of the elements you dislike:

Memphis Meats is a food technology company headquartered in San Francisco aiming to "remake modern animal agriculture" by growing cultured meat. The company was founded by three scientists: Uma Valeti (CEO), Nicholas Genovese (CSO), and Will Clem. Valeti is a cardiologist and medical professor at the University of Minnesota.

The company plans to produce various meat products using biotechnology to induce stem cells to differentiate into muscle tissue and to manufacture the meat products in bioreactors. In February 2016, Memphis Meats has published a videos of a what it deemed described as "meatless" cultured meatball; the company followed up the clip with a March 2017 video featuring what it described as cultured chicken and duck.

At the time of their production, the company said the production cost of its in-vitro beef was $18,000 per pound, while its cultured chicken and duck products cost $9,000 per pound. The company claims that anticipates commercial releases of the products are expected for by 2021.

References

Now we have both costs (yay extra info!); the specific names of the products while a "company called" line used to emphasize that those names were generated by the company, and the release date (which I actually did not include in my version because I thought that line sounded a bit promo-y, but I see Jytdog, Utsill and Tryptofish all think it is worth mentioning). Again, I'm not attached to anything in this - if you think the poultry price is too much - let's kill it. I'm up for whatever.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Dates are lacking (compare with Tryptofish's), which are needed per WP:RELTIME. Jytdog (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

My principal concern is with the last sentence. If it's going to be a single sentence, I'd rather just move it into the second paragraph. And I do not like the verb "to claim" here, per WP:CLAIM. I would change "deemed" to "described as", and "claims" to "projects". Also, some references got repeated. If those things were to be fixed, I'd be fine with this version. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm okay with all of those things! Is that what everyone agrees to? Update: I replaced deemed with "described as"; I replaced "claims" with "anticipates" (it sounds a little less promotional to me than projects, but I'm not dying on that hill if someone prefers projects); and I removed relative "has" per WP:RELTIME (and Jytdog's suggestion). I had some difficulty putting in the precise years, though if one of you wants to articulate them, by all means!--216.12.10.118 (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

This leaves out what Utsill wanted and that will be a key person to wait for. New issue - I am unaware of the company describing its products as "meatless" and the quotes make it appear that this is quoting them; i checked the texts of the sources and none of them say that (might be in a video). Jytdog (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Great catch - in fact, it's definitely not meatless; they start with meat cells. I scratched meatless from the entry and replaced it with cultured. Also - Tryptofish - having now watched the videos, I have to apologize - the company itself describes the chicken and duck as "the first [non-slaughtered] chicken." (So it's not in the reliable sources, but it is in the company's video)--216.12.10.118 (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The date thing can be solved by "As of X" as in trypto's version. We don't need the exact dates when the videos published; it is true that "as of march 2017" the company had published the 3 videos. The meat cost was "as of Feb 2016" and the poultry cost was "as of march 2017". Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't want to create a mountain out of a mole hill on this, but I don't love "as of" for saying the company made videos. (Yes, technically I suppose the sentence could date ... in the sense that the company could make ... more videos? ... but for me that stretches the limits of what "as of" is used for). I tried including exact dates (and a time of the production line for the costs), and I included "followed up" (which I had Utsill and I had previously questioned whether to use), which I think I feel much more confident doing now that I've watched their chicken/duck video, which opens with "One year after making history with the world's first clean meatball." --216.12.10.118 (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Total self reversal here: I changed chicken tenders to "chicken" and duck a l'orange to "duck." ... I don't know where the duck a l'orange originally came from (I suppose I trusted the prior versions) .... but in the video all Valeti says plainly "chicken" and "duck" (he doesn't even say "a l'orange").--216.12.10.118 (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

just so there are dates. Jytdog (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Done, I think? (Right?)--216.12.10.118 (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Memphis Meats is a food technology company headquartered in San Francisco aiming to "remake modern animal agriculture" by growing cultured meat. The company was founded by three scientists: Uma Valeti (CEO), Nicholas Genovese (CSO), and Will Clem. Valeti is a cardiologist and medical professor at the University of Minnesota.

The company plans to produce various meat products using biotechnology to induce stem cells to differentiate into muscle tissue and to manufacture the meat products in bioreactors. In February 2016 Memphis Meats published a video of a cultured meatball, and in March 2017 the company published a video of cultured chicken and duck dishes.

The company said the production cost of its in-vitro beef was $18,000 per pound, and that the production cost of its cultured poultry was $9,000 per pound. The company said it anticipated commercial releases of the its products by 2021, once it cut production costs and developed a replacement for fetal bovine serum.

References

• i fixed the date parameters in the references (we don't need accessdate for articles that have a dateline, and we should cite the dateline), addressed some informalities in the style and made some other style tweaks (e.g the WL for cultured goes to culture), and removed the redaction markup. There is some WP:OVERCITE but i can live with this. Jytdog (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Is that true on access date? I actually had no idea! I assumed Wikipedia citation style was basically off-brand Chicago. And that looks great to me - I re-added a cultured link - but this time to the right page, Cultured meat.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• This isn't that bad. I would change it in the following ways:

• I would include the dish names for the chicken (chicken tenders) and duck (duck a l'orange). I think the fact that these dishes were produced, and not other chicken/duck dishes, is important information for the field of biotechnology and cultured meat but especially for those interested in the social and cultural culinary content of the article.
• I would include the sentence, "The company praised the taste of the product as well as the sustainability benefits," or a similar one. When the company's activities have been covered by RS's, the taste and sustainability has been strongly emphasized. Indeed, if these products don't match non-cultured meat on taste, and don't exceed in sustainability, they are not nearly as important to the food system. I think the sentence sufficiently qualifies that those benefits have not been verified by third parties, but I would be okay with additional qualification.
• I would replace "in-vitro" with "cultured." I think in-vitro is an inaccessible term to many people, and we've already used cultured in the article (it's inaccessible without introduction as well). No need to add unnecessary complexity. In fact, it'd probably be good to note in the first sentence of the second paragraph that it's just a description of the cultured meat process.
• I would change "commercial releases of the products" to "commercial release." I don't think they have stated that they will be releasing multiple products, just that they plan to do some releasing (maybe of just one product) in 2021.

Utsill (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Various responses from the IP. I'm not strongly in favor or opposed to any of these, but here are my general thoughts:

• I initially was in favor of the dishes being named, and there are some sources that specify the dishes (like Vice), so I'd be okay throwing it back in, although the company itself doesn't seem to claim that those choices were at all relevant, so I'd be worried that that evaluation is OR.
• Saying that the company praised its own product seems a little excessive. I can't imagine a film page including a line like "Dreamworks called it great!" At the same time, the sources do seem to note the claim.
• I personally think using both in-vitro and cultured is fine; I don't consider in-vitro to be inaccessible, but whichever.
• Does the company not claim a release for the chicken? If so, that change should definitely happen. P.s. everybody I have discovered that another person on this IP address (in my apartment building) is also editing from WP ... so I will likely be retiring so that there isn't confusion.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Minor, but I think a better analogy than "Dreamworks called it great!" would be "Dreamworks said the film inspired viewers to care more about the environment." I can definitely imagine a film page including that. Utsill (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm fine with anything along these lines. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• I am with the IP on their responses to Utsill's bullets, but stronger. no to #1 and #2, don't care one way or the other about #3 or #4. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Regarding: I think this sentence needs refinement: "The company claimed it cost $18,000 to produce one pound of cultured beef, but it expected to scale the process up and sell to consumers within five years" I think the point left unwritten is the scaling will make the cost/pound lower which will make the beef price competitively priced with regular beef. CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, @CuriousMind01:, you think the sentence should make that point? So e.g. it should say "The company claimed it cost $18,000 to produce one pound of cultured beef, but it expected to scale the process up and sell to consumers within five years, which would mean the cultured beef is competitively priced with regular beef."? Or something else? Utsill (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft: "The company claimed a pound of cultured beef cost $18,000 to produce, and plans to increase production to make the beef cost/pound lower and competitively priced to buying consumers."CuriousMind01 (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay. For what it's worth, I'm fine with that if it also included "within five years," "by 2021," or some version of that piece of information. Utsill (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to throw a wrench in after I said it was ok with me, but I would object to making forward-looking statements about improving costs unless we have an independent source that says that the price will come down. (Also, WP:CLAIM.) I think that I could go along with: "The company claimed said a pound of cultured beef cost $18,000 to produce, and plans to increase production and reduce prices." That's as far as I would be willing to go. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing to be said here; it is obvious that getting costs someplace reasonable is a key hurdle for them. (fwiw, the price of gold today is about $19,000 per pound) Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The specific timeline is what seems important, not just that "getting costs someplace reasonable is a key hurdle for them." I think that comment is a strawman argument. Utsill (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The proposed content does have the projected timeline. If you are not going to agree to this compromise version, we'll just let the RfC run. You can see how things are trending but of course we will wait to see what the close is. There is no point continuing our basic disagreement about what WP is for in many small discussions that just replay the basic disagreement. Jytdog (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Quick note: CuriousMind01 is responding to a sentence in the article as written, not the proposed version above. That said I think we can mention something about how the company plans to reduce cost - as written the final two sentences in the current proposal could make a reader think that the company is planning a release that costs $18,000 per pound. Also we could mention that the company hopes to replace its use of fetal bovine serum with a plant based substitute (per WSJ and The Common Reader). So perhaps:
"The company said it anticipated commercial releases of the products by 2021, after it cuts costs and finds a plant-based substitute for fetal bovine serum."
--216.12.10.118 (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I follow this field closely, and I believe that Memphis Meats has neither confirmed nor denied what kind of serum they're using. I'd guess the reason for that is that they don't want other companies to know how easy/hard for them it has been to do so, because they might indicate which method worked for MM. Utsill (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Careful on the OR front there. Two reliable sources say they're using fetal bovine serum. Here's the Wall Street Journal Article:

"While the source cells can be collected from animals without slaughtering them, Memphis Meats and others have relied on fetal bovine serum, drawn from unborn calves' blood, to help start the process. Mr. Valeti said Memphis Meats will be able to replace the serum with a plant-based alternative in the near future, and Mr. Post says he also expects to be able to eliminate its use. Without the serum, there will be no need for antibiotics, according to the researchers"

--137.54.45.206 (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

That quote does not say they're using fetal bovine serum, just that they were using it to some extent - not in all products - in early 2016. I don't disagree with that claim. It's not WP:OR to be unwilling to broaden a claim in this way. Utsill (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

To be clear: the OR I was discussing was the "I follow the field closely, and I believe" line. Certainly the valence of the opinion does not determine whether its OR or not - didn't mean to suggest that. I also think that you're adding the "for some products" reading, which isn't included in the text of the Common Reader nor the WSJ.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay. To be clear for my statement, that wasn't meant to be OR, only, "If MM had said this somewhere, I think I would know about it." I don't think anything in your quote implies FBS was used in all products, or any other quote I know about. Would be happy to see something saying differently. Utsill (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I mean we have four reliable sources that say Memphis Meats uses FBS, including quite a few that say all cultured meat uses FBS:

• Gizmodo: At this point, all lab-grown meat relies on fetal bovine serum, a nutrient-rich cocktail extracted from the blood of unborn calves. link.
• Vice: No animals are killed in the process, although the company does use fetal bovine serum from unborn calves' blood to get the party started. link
• Wall Street Journal
• Chemistry World: "All companies working in cultured meat use fetal bovine serum (FBS) as the growth medium and are working on replacing it with animal-free alternatives. Derived from unborn calves, FBS is expensive and comes with potential animal welfare and food safety problems. Schulze says Memphis Meats is phasing out the serum while rolling out a proprietary medium. ‘It is an essential tenet of our mission to be completely serum-free,’ he stresses." link

But what reliable source you have to suggest that they are not using FBS? Side note: I'm not sure what to do about the fact that this discussion seemingly hit a semi-consensus on certain topics, but the RFC above seems to be hitting a consensus on version 2.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

My sense from the initial discussion was that consensus was not possible via local discussion because of different viewpoints on WP:NOT. That remains the case per comments here and heck this edit, just today. I will withdraw the RfC if we get clear consensus to leave out the NOTNEWS/PROMO stuff now and in the future, so we don't have to revisit this later. The very clear trend of the RfC is still "leave it out", and if we need to wait 30 days and get a close that says that, so be it; there is no deadline here. Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, to be clear, some of your views on WP:NOT seem to have changed (since you said you would be okay with, say, the fact that the company used videos being mentioned, which before you were not at all okay including), yes? Ultimately i'm fine going with version 2 above if, as appears the case, all the established users here want to take a vote. I mean, to be blunt this is what I tried to warn against ... that it, in fact, was possible for a compromise to be made (as evidenced by the progress made since we all started discussing) ... and that people would vote rather than discuss (notice how no one is even looking down here at the current version ... which is why the discussion up top looks nothing like the discussion here and why it looks like there are two different consensuses) but Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion is just an essay, so w/e.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

No they have not changed. See this comment above. And I already said why I launched the RfC and while it is still necessary. Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Well looks like you changed something (to be clear I commend you for this - the fact that we were all able to adjust what we wanted and start working for a compromise is a great sign - even you, me and Tryptofish had very conflicting views at first!!). But alas, when people are using an RFC as a threat (yikes), I think it's clear the community isn't valuing WP:Consensus. But again, if that's what the community wants, then by all means - we can do the vote. (Of course you could always add this version and then update all of the users that a version 5 has been proposed, but I assume you don't want to do that). I do hope that for your future Wikipedia career, though, that you've learned that there's some value in attempting compromise.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not agree with any of that and am not responding further; please recall Tryptofish's advice. Jytdog (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't mean to take to supercilious a tone, but I think you can probably understand why I'm frustrated: packaging the debate (which in fact concerned many sub issues and not one overarching issue) was not the way to move forward, as I repeatedly said. I mean, again, you me and Tryptofish all didn't agree at first ... and yet there you are ... in the edit history ... saying you would be fine with a version that the three of us worked on. It's just disappointing; we now have a version that four users have worked on (some of Utsill's recommendations have also been put in, only ones consistent with the version you first proffered) ... and it's not represented in the vote you set up above. Still, a vote is a vote.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• I suggest changing what is now the last sentence of this version to: The company said it anticipated price reductions and commercial release of the products by 2021. Short clear, and it really does not trigger any issues to say simply that they say that they anticipate price reductions. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I like that sentence; although I think mentioning the fetal bovine serum somewhere else in the article might be worth it (again both the Common Reader and the WSJ talk about this).--216.12.10.118 (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, to me, the mention of the serum is unclear: either we have to explain why it is used and why it is expensive, or many readers will wonder what it has to do with lowering costs. I'm thinking in terms of general public readers. And a lengthy explanation would be undue weight, so I think it's simpler to just leave it out. (Maybe information about fetal bovine serum would be useful at cultured meat?) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking we wouldn't even have to dwell on the expense, personally I think the use of fetal bovine serum (and the company's desire for an alternative) is itself significant, but fair enough! Let's throw your version in. Are there any remaining objections?--216.12.10.118 (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Current version

• As best as I can tell from the talk page history, there has been a tl;dr discussion about the serum (and I do not want to bother reading it carefully, as it appears to be a lot of arguing over something I don't care about) – but nobody has really addressed my point about leaving the whole thing about serum out, altogether. It seems to me that that's what we should do, and then we will be just about done. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

In other words, I propose the following:

Memphis Meats is a food technology company headquartered in San Francisco aiming to "remake modern animal agriculture" by growing cultured meat. The company was founded by three scientists: Uma Valeti (CEO), Nicholas Genovese (CSO), and Will Clem. Valeti is a cardiologist and medical professor at the University of Minnesota.

The company plans to produce various meat products using biotechnology to induce stem cells to differentiate into muscle tissue and to manufacture the meat products in bioreactors. In February 2016 Memphis Meats published a video of a cultured meatball, and in March 2017 the company published a video of cultured chicken and duck dishes.

The company said the production cost of itsthe in-vitro beef was $18,000 per pound, and that the production cost of its the cultured poultry was $9,000 per pound. The company said it anticipated price cost reductions and commercial release of the its products by 2021.

References

I think that this is consistent with what editors have been saying in the RfC, and it sure looks to me like what we should go with. OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd recommend the Chemistry World article - the serum is an issue and you have an employee for the company saying "It's an essential tenet of our mission to be serum-free." You also have many reliable sources noting this reliance as being significant... frankly I think leaving it out is a bit friendly to Memphis Meats, but alas if no one else agree, I'll bow out.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, as I said before, I think that we either have to explain the serum in some detail or leave it out, or readers will be confused, and I don't think that it's important enough to explain in detail. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

It is actually "cost reductions" that the company has to achieve (which, if they can do it, will allow them to set a competitive price). Don't care either way about the serum. With regard to going with this, there is still opposition from Utsill in this discussion, and folks participated in the pre-RfC discussion who wanted more promotional content like "first X". I don't believe that this can be stably implemented yet. But I am fine with this and with Version 2 in the RfC. Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not in a hurry. And I agree about "cost". It seems to me that the RfC is in the process of moving the consensus away from the more promotional approach. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I want to note that I disagree with that assessment of the RfC so far, both in its direction and the loaded statement of one side as a "more promotional approach." It seems to me that average opinions have moved towards inclusionism, perhaps with the exception of the "sustainability benefits" information. Probably not important for us to have this meta-discussion though.Utsill (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Utsill to be clear, do you agree to implement the version above, or not? If you do we can be done here. If not, we'll let the RfC ride. Jytdog (talk) 01:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

That seems like an odd comment ... this discussion is part of the RfC. Huh. Yeah if the question of the RfC was "should we be promotional?" .... well, not a single user every suggested we should be promotional, so thank god we have a "no" answer for that. All in all, I think each of us learned a lot! Utsill, just to be clear, could you bullet your complaints with the current draft again? I know we addressed some of them, so an updated list would be nice. I'm good with this--216.12.10.118 (talk) 03:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing odd about asking if we have consensus for this version or not, which is exactly what I asked Utsill. Exactly. And please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to your "If not, we'll let the RfC ride" notion, which struck me as similar to your previous comment, but absolutely asking if there's a consensus is okay! Didn't mean to imply otherwise. Utsill my mistake - if you do agree on this version we should absolutely roll with it - that's why I mentioned above, "I'm good with this." (Thought that was rather unambiguous but I suppose things happen when interpreting the written language.) I only meant to request a bulleted list if you're unhappy with the version - again, sorry if that somehow wasn't clear.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, I am not happy with the version above. I think I would be happy with it if it (a) included the dish names, (b) included a statement similar about the proposed sustainability/taste benefits, and (c) had the word "cultured" instead of "in-vitro," (d) said "commercial release" instead of "commercial release of the products." As I mentioned above, I think both (a) and (b) are necessary for understanding the social and culinary importance of the company's announcements. I think (c) is a big improvement for reader clarity, and (d) is just for accuracy, since the company did not specify that multiple products are expected to be released in 2021. I think this RfC could continue with the above version contrasted with a version with (a)-(d) implemented if you disagree with (a)-(d). I don't expect to change my mind on (a)-(d) unless I see a bit of WP policy I haven't seen before that suggests they are misguided. Utsill (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, this discussion is extremely convoluted and is making my head spin. Anyway, I think we should leave anything about the serum out of this. Absolutely no mention of scientific claims, unless there are reliable secondary sources backing it up, preferably reliably published papers. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

(b) included a statement similar about the proposed sustainability/taste benefits Absolutely not, per WP:NOTPROMO. This kind of stuff goes on their website, not here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for replying User:Utsill. These are the key differences that were already very clear prior to the RfC, and are why I launched the RfC; what you want is still captured by Version 3 in the RfC. There is no need to continue this discussion; the RfC can just ride until it times out. Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

"There is no need to continue this discussion; the RfC can just ride until it times out." - The discussion is part of the RfC.

So a few responses to User:Utsill,

• Re (a): a prior version that we all agreed to had the dish names; I actually removed them because the dish names were not something that the company (nor most the reliable sources) emphasized; it seems a little strange for us to emphasize it. You say, "I think the fact that these dishes were produced, and not other chicken/duck dishes, is important information for the field of biotechnology" ... but is a reliable source saying that? Still, while I'm against adding this information back; it's a soft preference. I won't object if it is re-added.
• Re (b):
  • Taste: I'm still pretty strongly against any taste evaluation provided by the company. It just doesn't seem encyclopedic. Again, commenting on the company's promoting the taste on its product seems like commenting on how Dreamworks thought one of its movies was great.
  • Sustainability: I think if we're going to include what the company says about its sustainability ethos, we have to include FBS, which the company has also addressed, but I'd prefer not including any. We currently cover the sustainability argument quite a bit in the cultured meat article. For that reason, I'm against.
• Re (c): We use cultured four times. We use in-vitro once. I hyperlinked in-vitro to add clarity, but I see no reason why "in-vitro" would confuse a reader, and it is an acceptable synonym, as mentioned in the first sentence of the cultured meat article. I think the aversion to using in-vitro doesn't make sense.
• Re (d) I see your point here - I've gone ahead and changed "the" to "its" to improve the accuracy of the sentence. That's the wording the company uses (as well as the reliable sources): "The team expects to continue reducing production costs dramatically, with a target launch of its products to consumers in 2021."

That's all my thoughts.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

This a discussion, that has simply continued the disagreement that drove the RfC. The discussion has done nothing to move the needle on the basic disagreement that drove the RfC which is centered on b) and to a lesser extent a). (the difference between Version 2 and Version 3) The purpose of this RfC, as in any RfC, is to get broader input on that basic disagreement. Which is exactly what is happening. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about the reasons for the RfC.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Correction: Which is what is not happening. What's happening is you have people voting on different old versions of the article that don't even reflect the current edition that you, Tryptofish, Utsill and I have worked on ... so the survey is - obvious to anyone reading all of both - very divergent from the discussion (if the RfC had been more specific and not packaged a bunch of random changes into one deal ... that might have been nice), but that's okay! Regardless, let's wait for Utsill to respond before we go any further on assuming that the discussion is fruitless. Listen, I'm not trying to imply that you're being stubborn in any way shape or form. The reality is the current version we've all been discussing (which I guess at some point we can add to the RfC if you're attached to the survey) is the result of a bunch of compromises on all of our parts, and I genuinely give you credit for a lot of it. Mostly, I'm glad Tryptofish stopped us from bickering and we got together and worked up this version. But let's give Utsill more than a passing chance to contribute as well.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC) Several new people have looked at the options presented in the RfC (which accurately capture the differences that have existed from the get-go, and still remain, unchanged) and have provided their thoughts (not just "votes" but policy/guideline based thoughts) and we will get even more as time goes on. The discussion and versions down here, all just develop version 2 a little, and leave out version 3. There are people who remain committed to version 3 and the approach that generates it. Of course if Utsill will yield to consensus earlier than the 30 days, that would be fine. if it takes a close to get them to yield, so be it. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC) For future reference, getting to this point - have the disagreement narrowed down to two sentences ... and THEN calling in a third party or RfC would have been the better strategy. User:Jytdog, I actually suspect you and I agree on the unstated issues here (see the first three bullet points I wrote just above, I think we're in agreement there), but this kind of transposition is just not at all refined. At best the survey indicates how editors preferred content in a certain context ... Furthermore, should we do another survey between Version 2 and this current proposal (which did, I think we can acknowledge, combine elements of all the versions)? Should this proposal be added to the survey? There are lots of questions. Fortunately, I'm not giving up the discussion just yet.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC) The difference and the commitments were already clear before I launched the RfC. That is why I launched it. I went along with this discussion because that is what I do; I have also been aware that this discussion was unlikely to resolve the fundamental disagreement Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify - are you and I in agreement on the remaining questions?--216.12.10.118 (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

If I had to pick one of (a)-(d) to "fight for," one I think is most important, it'd be the inclusion of the purported sustainability of the product. It is the case that I prefer the above version to Version #2 in the RfC !votes list of versions. I am also not-that-strongly-against dropping my arguments of (c) and (d), since they are about clarity, not the actual information in the article. Utsill (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Utsill, the key issue is your b), which is in your version 3 and not in version 2 or in the elaboration of version 2. If you will accept the version down here and not try to add the stuff in your b and version 3, we can be done here. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Just a heads up: not for nothing, I think I already fixed "d" (see above - used the company wording that was also used in reliable sources). Also: User: Tryptofish, good catch on price --> cost.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

It was Jytdog who pointed out the price/cost thing. I simply implemented it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Props to User:Jytdog then (I was originally correct in my mistake! ; ) )--216.12.10.118 (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

You did fix (d), though my criticism was also unwarranted. Thanks for sharing that press release. It changed my mind. Utsill (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

If we are going to say "in vitro", I agree that it needs to be blue-linked. But I would also go along with changing it to "cultured", if that gets us to consensus. It's not a big deal to me, and I've been thinking that "in vitro" has sounded a bit clunky, whereas it would not be too repetitive to change it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I can live with either of those options as well. Utsill (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned I was a soft against on this, in-vitro is currently hyperlinked, but okay let's do cultured. --216.12.10.118 (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The Final Point of Contention - Sustainability

Okay User:Utsill, I'll admit I'm initially opposed to this, as I mentioned above, but I am much more open to a sustainability discussion than I am to, say, the company's reports of its products tastes. I think the key question is how do you think we should address sustainability? Could you do a mock up sentence? That the company has a certain ethos might be notable, but us speculating on the impact of cultured meat wouldn't be appropriate (and a discussion of the environmental impact of cultured meat is already on cultured meat)--216.12.10.118 (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all the fixes. I am much happier with the current version, and I do think the case for the sustainability information is much stronger than that for the taste information. I think the sustainability info doesn't need a whole sentence. Just modify the existing sentence to, "In February 2016 Memphis Meats published a video of a cultured meatball, praising it as a more sustainable food than conventional meat, and in March 2017 the company published a video of cultured chicken and duck dishes." Note, I would still prefer this to say, "In February 2016 Memphis Meats published a video of a cultured meatball, praising it as a more sustainable food than conventional meat, and in March 2017 the company published a video of cultured chicken tenders and duck a l'orange." Utsill (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess my objection rests in ... why does the company's "praise" for its own product deserve mention?--216.12.10.118 (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Let me suggest this: in paragraph 2, change and to manufacture the meat products in to and to manufacture sustainable meat products in. (Change "the" → "sustainable".) That frames it in terms of stated intention, instead of in terms of self-praise. Would that work? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I don't care whether it's framed as self-praise or intent, as long as the information about the social context is there. Utsill (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Because it's important - really, essential - to understanding why Memphis Meats' announcements have been such a big deal. Few people care if MM came out with a meatball that had cool tech behind it, but no benefits for sustainability. This is the claim they're making that makes their work interesting and important in the grander scheme of things - because of its potential to create a more sustainable meat industry. You can see this in all the media coverage of their work and discussion of it by public figures. Utsill (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I would be good with Tryptofish's version! What are your thoughts Utsill? (And Jytdog)--216.12.10.118 (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The costs of animal-generated meat are well known. A company that could sustainably and affordably provide cultured meat would of course be not only interesting but important. Whether this company will be able to actually do that, is unknown - they haven't figured out scale-up yet, so they can't figure out their actual cost of goods nor the environmental cost of those goods. Their sustainability claims are just marketing hype, at this time.

And if getting the costs of good down so they can actually start to make money, means they have to throw concern about sustainability out the window, you can bet your right arm that this is what their investors will make them do.

In any case , all the marketing hype (like claims about first X, and calling their prototype dishes products, etc) is not in version 2, and not in the tweaking of version 2 down here, and what everybody in the RfC has opposed thus far. So no. Jytdog (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Jytdog, is that also in response to Tryptofish's version? Utsill I do think I agree with Jytdog on too heavy an emphasis on the company's own evaluation. (Especially because, in your version, it sounds like the company is praising what they produce as more sustainable ... when that seems to not be the case at the moment.) But I think the intent component of the first sentence is sufficient enough for me to be okay with Tryptofish's version. (I would also be okay with taking out "remake modern agriculture" in the first sentence, and adding "sustainable" before cultured meat).--216.12.10.118 (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) That said, I would accept something like: "The company aims to eventually produce cultured meat products that are affordable and sustainable; along with bringing down its costs, the company is conducting basic research to discover a way to avoid using fetal bovine serum as part of the cell culture process." That could be sourced to the gizmodo ref. It clarifies the challenges (and risks to investors and the hopeful) and has no hype. Jytdog (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Awesome - only thing I would nitpick there is the semi-awkward structure (we could probably kill "eventually"), but that would work for me. I like that it mentions the fetal bovine serum (FBS) issue, which as mentioned I do think should be included in any discussion of the aims/challenges the company has. I'm glad you liked the Gizmodo link - I did think that was one of the best ones. (The Chemistry World link that I linked above along with the Gizmodo link is also pretty good, if you're so inclined.) User:Tryptofish and User:Utsill is Jytdog's version alright with you all? If so, I think we have an agreement.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

My reaction is that's a bit awkward and wordy, and goes into too many topics. @Jytdog: could you, instead, go along with what I said above: in paragraph 2, change and to manufacture the meat products in to and to manufacture sustainable meat products in. (Change "the" → "sustainable".)? It's a lot simpler than what you just suggested. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Even though I do think FBS is worth mentioning (because almost every story that we cite that isn't a straight up "look a video!" story talked about FBS: Wall Street Journal, Common Reader, Gizmodo, Vice, Chemistry World all mention it in connection to Memphis Meats) ... I would softly prefer Tryptofish's version. It's a little smoother. That said, I would be okay with either.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

if we are going to talk about the goal of sustainability then we need to identify their key hurdles to meeting the goal (like we do on cost) and FBS is probably high on the list of challenges (along with the environmental costs of all the high tech stuff they need - while cows are inefficient engines for turning sunlight into food, the goods in that production chain are low tech commodities - not the high tech stuff required for this) Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC) (strike that bit to make sure it is off the table Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC))

You are overthinking this. We can blue-link sustainability, but there is no need to build a Rube Goldberg machine over all the other stuff. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I had trimmed the stuff above about other costs-of-goods factors as that is too much detail and i proposed no content about that, but that got lost. Sorry about that bit. What i actually proposed content on, is biotech business 101 stuff - their value proposition and their challenges to realizing it. Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's step back a bit. I think you made the discussion more complicated than it needs to be. I'd rather keep working with the version above. I really don't think this page is the place for a lesson on biotech business 101. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure we can step back to the version above. But this is an article about an early stage biotech company; there is a long road between aims and reality and we need to mind that gap -- just like we wouldn't hype the safety of a drug candidate that cleared a Phase I trial, we shouldn't downplay the risk that this company's products will never be affordable or sustainable. Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good. My intention is to minimize any implication about future success or failure. To be clear, I'm talking about a sentence in the second paragraph above: The company plans to produce various meat products using biotechnology to induce stem cells to differentiate into muscle tissue and to manufacture the meat products in bioreactors. What I suggested was simply to change "and to manufacture the meat products" to "and to manufacture sustainable meat products". Just changing the word "the", and it's about their stated plans, not making any predictions in Wikipedia's voice. Alternatively, we could change "plans to produce various meat products" to either "plans to produce sustainable meat products" or "plans to produce various sustainable meat products". Any of those ways would be very simple. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

To some degree, I don't think it's our job to speculate on that risk, and I think forcing it is leading to some of the awkwardness (a la "aims to eventually"). THAT said, I completely agree we shouldn't imply that the company is on the verge of success (or make any normative evaluation of the company). Perhaps this is two separate issues. Issue 1: Tryptofish, would you potentially be okay putting "sustainable" in the first sentence in lieu of "remake modern agriculture"? ("Remake modern agriculture," even when quoted, sounds like a bit much to me. So ...

"Memphis Meats is a food technology company headquartered in San Francisco aiming to grow sustainable cultured meat."

If you're set on your version I'm okay with that as well. As to Issue 2: FBS, I do think it's worth mentioning (again, so many articles bring this up), but last time I brought this up I know a majority said we should pass.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I could go with that too. I edit-conflicted with you, and suggested some other options as well. I'm OK with any of these. And I think we really need to leave out the stuff about serum. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Alright I'm good with all of those! And if you are certain on the serum I'll certainly yield there.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Good! Utsill has already said OK to it. So, Jytdog: you might as well pick one of the above choices, if there is one that works for you, and then maybe (?!) we will actually have a consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Am willing to include the sustainability thing as an aim but only with context (i.e. the FSB stuff). Trypto I don't understand your opposition to mentioning FSB, really. Above you said it is too complicated for a general reader, but that is what the 2 wikilinks are for in the version i proposed - fetal bovine serum and cell culture). Am unwilling to communicate the hype (which every other company in the cultured meat industry does as well) without entree to the challenges. Jytdog (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand what "hype" is. Can you explain what makes for hype in what we are actually discussing here? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure just read what Utsill has been saying. All the fervor - the hope and hype - is "revolutionizing" our current unsustainable meat production with sustainable cultured meat. It is the very heart of the hype. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

But that is no longer what we are discussing. How many times do I have to repeat myself? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Ouch. Maybe this will help - for early stage drug companies, we don't say that their aim is "to discover safe and effective drugs to treat cancer, a disease that kills (big number) people every year". We just say their aim is "to discover drugs that treat cancer" We don't get into the details of the discovery/development process in every one of those articles either, or even about say how terrible cancer is that it needs a treatment. We rely on the WLs. Here the company "aims to create cultured meat." Why should anybody care and why is it hard? They can read cultured meat to find out just like they can go read cancer, drug discovery, and drug development. (also I think we have all agreed to remove the "revolutionize X" from the first sentence.... we somehow all missed that up to now) Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you realize that everyone here except you has agreed to change the first sentence to "Memphis Meats is a food technology company headquartered in San Francisco aiming to grow sustainable cultured meat."? And that's all that I have been asking you about? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I was making it explicit that we were taking out the "revolution" bit. The issue is "sustainable". You are acting uncharacteristically here . Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm trying to bring this to consensus, and it's not easy when I keep getting edit conflicts because other editors are saving their edits too soon. You equated what I proposed and the other editors agreed with, with something completely different. It's not my fault that you keep responding to the wrong question. And note: the language is that they aim for that. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

.... hahhaha I've been suggesting changing the first sentence for an hour now! Must be blind to my posts--216.12.10.118 (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I have read everything you have written. Please see my note above. Jytdog (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Let's ratchet it down just a little. Why don't we change the first sentence - frankly saying they aim to produce sustainable cultured meat is LESS promotional than saying they aim to "remake modern agriculture." I must say I am surprised that fetal bovine serum has now become a hot issue (previously it appeared I was the only one who thought it should be included!), but we can decide to change the first sentence without having a discussion on FBS. Jytdog, I like your version; I tried toning it down just a hair.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Newest version

Memphis Meats is a food technology company headquartered in San Francisco aiming to grow sustainable cultured meat. The company was founded by three scientists: Uma Valeti (CEO), Nicholas Genovese (CSO), and Will Clem. Valeti is a cardiologist and medical professor at the University of Minnesota.

The company plans to produce various meat products using biotechnology to induce stem cells to differentiate into muscle tissue and to manufacture the meat products in bioreactors. In February 2016 Memphis Meats published a video of a cultured meatball, and in March 2017 the company published a video of cultured chicken and duck dishes.

The production cost of the cultured beef was $18,000 per pound, and the production cost of the cultured poultry was $9,000 per pound. The company said it anticipated cost reductions and commercial release of its products by 2021.

References

Fine with me. I am more than ready to be done here. Jytdog (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC) (context changed after I wrote this Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC))

Apologies for the late context change! I realized I should have listed both rather than just list one and describe the other.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I am okay with either, but I softly prefer option 1. @Jytdog: @Tryptofish: Sorry I set this up so you guys could choose one or the other, and then I ran into a million edit conflicts (So Jytdog I set up Option 1 / Option 2 after you wrote that).--216.12.10.118 (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• This was done all wrong, and I keep getting edit conflicts every time I try to fix it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, I fixed it. This isn't a question of options, and I'm pretty confident that what I have here is actually the most current version under discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Wait ... how is it changed? This is the old version - I think option 2 here is just what you have above, no? (I accidentally had double of one before, but I fixed that before you blanked.) Regardless, I'm glad it's all sorted. I was showing two different versions, one featuring the FBS aspect (which, in fairness, the reliable sources, Jytdog and I have at least suggested might be worth mentioning), but if you're not up for that discussion I am fine ending it here. To be clear: I think what we have now is great. --216.12.10.118 (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I got rid of both of them, because they both had mistakes. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Huh, I keep going over it and I don't see a difference - but I'll take your word for it! Ah I see - you changed in vitro to "cultured." Alright, so the final dispute is FBS. The only reason I'm pushing FBS is because almost every reliable source mentions it ... so why aren't we including it? Because it's too technical? Seems odd to say that something is too technical for Wikipedia, but appropriate for the Wall Street Journal and Gizmodo. I mean I do think I agree with Jytdog here, and I'm just wondering what the reasons are for leaving it out--216.12.10.118 (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Simply blue-linking it doesn't make it sufficiently clear, and we don't need to go into as much detail as those two sources did. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Sentence in Dispute: Valeti said the company planned to reduce costs by scaling production and finding a replacement for fetal bovine serum, an expensive growth medium for the cell culture.

So it's way more than two sources.

These are the sources that mention bovine cells.

References

Just to be clear: we already cite four of those sources. (WSJ, Fox, Common Reader and Fortune Magazine). The remaining three are Gizmodo, Chemistry World and Vice. The WSJ story, the Common Reader story, the Gizmodo story, the Chemistry World story, the Fox story and the Vice story all talk about how the company plans to phase out FBS. Who does not mention bovine cells? One of the two Fortune Magazine pieces and the CNet article. At some point the reliable sources seem to agree this should be mentioned, and I feel pretty strongly that describing FBS as a growth medium is fairly straightforward without being egregiously detailed

All Sources (Minus the Memphis Meats Team Page); Note: Some Sources Use the shorthand "Bovine Serum" Instead of Fetal Bovine Serum"

Source	Mentions FBS	Mentions Company Plans to Phase Out FBS
WSJ	X	X
Fox	X	X
Vice	X	X
Gizmodo	X	X
Common Reader	X	X
Chemistry World	X	X
Fortune 1	X
Fortune 2
CNET

--216.12.10.118 (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand the resistance to including mention of FBL. Tryptofish I usually understand your reasoning for things but not here. Jytdog (talk) 04:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

BUT I will not oppose the "newest version" above. Good enough. Jytdog (talk) 07:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: If you wish, I will elaborate on this further at your or my user talk page. But I am pleased today to log back in and see that you have ended the RfC, and I think I understand from what you said here that you can accept the "newest version" in this talk section.

If it's the case that the "newest version" here has consensus, then we can request a lifting of the page protection, implement that version, and consider the content dispute to have been successfully resolved. I hope that is the case.

Here, in abundant detail, is my reasoning about the serum and the proposed sentence that is the topic of all that source information and table above. As I have said repeatedly, if we add content about the serum issue, we need to make it clear to a general readership, and it's not self-evident. If, hypothetically, we could say something like "According to (name of one source: Wall Street Journal, or Fortune, or another source), the use of FSB is the major impediment to Memphis Meats being able to reduce production costs and produce a sustainable and meat-free product, and Memphis Meats says that they are working on doing that" maybe that would take care of any SYNTH issues and also, with proper blue-linking, make the ideas clear to non-expert readers. But that has not been proposed, and everything I have seen proposed falls short of that. And even what I just said fails to cover scaling of production, which really also needs to be part of it. And, like the sentence above, it would be helpful to also explain that it's part of the growth medium for cultured cells. This stuff is obvious to scientists like us, but not the general public. And from what I've just said, it becomes pretty clear that we would need more than one sentence to contain all of that. And that, in turn, would become a large part of this very short page, which seems to me to be UNDUE. And look above at how many sources we are potentially dealing with here. All in all, it strikes me as more appropriate as a topic on the cultured meats page. So, is there a need that would be fulfilled by adding so much information on this short page? Well, as of yesterday, the argument for doing so was that it might allow us to say "aiming to grow sustainable cultured meat" instead of just "aiming to grow cultured meat" in the lead sentence. And for me, that is bang-my-head-against-the-wall ridiculous. We aren't saying that they do or will produce a sustainable product. We're just saying that they say that they "aim" to do so. Duh. Would they not aim to do so? Of course not. They are a start-up in an industry sector where that is the "aim". It's no more hype or promotional than saying that a car start-up is "aiming" to make fuel-efficient cars. For me, the "newest version", above, is NPOV: not hype, not promotional. And that was what all the disputing and page protection has been about. There comes a point where editors need to take "yes" as an answer. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. We'll see what kind of consensus we can get around this version. Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I am okay with this version. I weakly prefer the inclusion of the FBS content, with the qualification Tryptofish mentions (as I generally prefer more content on WP), but I don't think it or any other information is important enough for me to hold back consensus, at this time. Am I the last one to endorse this version? I'm not sure. Despite our struggles and disagreements, I think there were a lot of good points made in this discussion, so thank you for that, everybody. Utsill (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I am impressed, and thank everyone involved. I learned a lot about the topic and the finer points of the English tongue just by following this discussion; as it is, if everybody agrees, I shall lift the full-protection in about 6 hours. Cheeers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 07:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks both of you, Utsill and Lectonar. This is very good news indeed, to have resolved the content dispute. And I see that Utsill has already updated the page. Looks good! Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawn version

Extended content

Memphis Meats is a food technology company headquartered in San Francisco aiming to replace meat produced from animals with cultured meat. The company was founded in 2015 by three scientists: Uma Valeti (CEO), Nicholas Genovese (CSO), and Will Clem. Valeti is a cardiologist and medical professor at the University of Minnesota. The company plans to produce various meat products using biotechnology to induce stem cells to differentiate into muscle tissue and to manufacture the meat products in bioreactors. In February 2016 Memphis Meats published a video of a prototype meatball, and in March 2017 the company published a video of prototype chicken and duck dishes. At the time the videos were released, the production cost of its cultured beef was $18,000 per pound and of its cultured poultry was $9,000 per pound. The company aims to eventually produce cultured meat products that are affordable and sustainable; along with bringing down its costs, the company is conducting basic research to discover a way to avoid using fetal bovine serum as part of the cell culture process. In 2017, the company projected that it would start selling products in 2021. References -There you go. Added some more tweaks per RELTIME. Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC) (withdrawn Jytdog (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)) Meh. Please see my question to you above. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC) if we are going to talk about the goal of sustainability then we need to identify their key hurdles to meeting the goal (like we do on cost) and FBS is probably high on the list of challenges. The clunky sentence pairs their two main goals with their challenges to meeting those goals. I would be OK leaving the sentence out and not mentioning sustainability at all. Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

forward-looking statements

The first version of the article especially, contain mostly statements of the nature of "the company expects to" "the company will" , the company plans..." All of this is the pure opinion of those with the most direct possible conflict of interest, and none of them can be taken as other than their hopes or perhaps fantasies. Even were this a promotional advertisement aimed at investors, all such sentences would need to be qualified with the required legal phrase and it's multi-sentence disclaimer I used as my section heading.

What can be said, is that" according to the company, it hopes to..." , or intends to ... . Anything they may say about the cost of scaling up production is their own extrapolation, or more exactly, what they would like to convince the reader is their own extrapolation. According to good sources, the WSJ and Fortune, "Memphis Meats wants to sell its meat commercially by 2021" Until then, even in their imagination, they will not have actually produced any commercial product. Nor have they actually demonstrated "chicken tenders" or "duck a l'orange"--chicken tenders and duck a l'orange are preparations of meat produced by butchering an animal. They have produced material from cultured chicken (or duck) cells that can be made to give the appearance & sensation of these dishes. What the FDA will eventually allow them to call it is altogether speculative. Meanwhile, I suppose our article could say "which they call ...".

Their videos are of course advertisements, but they have been referred to in good sources. They are not usable external links, but they can be mentioned in the article. My version might be a little different from Jytdog's, but it would be pretty close to it. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting we replicate company predictions without qualifying them as such, which seems to be the position you're arguing against. If you think the qualification suggested above is insufficient, I'm not seeing that distinction in your comment, e.g. which wording do you oppose? And which wording do you support as qualification?

I think the point about whether the products actually are "chicken tenders" and "duck a l'orange" you're making is WP:Original Research. The RS's refer to the products with these terms, and to deviate from that would be OR. Utsill (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

We are allowed to (required to, actually) paraphrase what the sources say without falling afoul of WP:OR. - MrOllie (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that this is paraphrasing. To clarify, I believe that you're claiming that they are not actually "chicken tenders" and "duck a l'orange," while the RS's say they are. Utsill (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

If someone wrote 'They are not really chicken tenders', that would be OR. That's not happening here - we are exercising editorial judgement about the wording, which we are definitely allowed to do. We are under no requirement to follow the wording of a source exactly, especially if there is decent reason to think the source's wording is off (see, for example, nearly every press article summarizing a scientific paper ever written). - MrOllie (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

That's the assessment I disagree with. I don't think it's acceptable editorial judgment to change the wording like that. I don't think there's a decent reason to think the source's wording is off. Utsill (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It may well be, there is a specific USDA definition for a 'Chicken tender' (it must be a strip of 100% chicken breast) that they probably won't meet. Should've called it a 'Chicken finger', that has no specific definition that I know of. We won't really know until they submit for labeling, but there is no pressing reason to be over specific in the mean time. - MrOllie (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

This edit is a pretty bad case of WP:PROMO. Firstly, not every single event is noteworthy enough for a mentioning. Secondly mentioning it in Wikipedia's voice is pretty much a misrepresentation. The source for this information is this Yahoo article which is essentially a redressed press release without any independent verification. I don't see any consensus to add this back, so I would appreciate if this is not added back. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The entire discussion above is about this. (And there are many more sources than that.) The reason the page was locked originally was to prevent edit warring while a consensus was reached.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 05:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I have been going through the discussion and the sources gradually (though it is overwhelming), but as of now, my view is similar to what DGG says above. The content published in WSJ is claims by the company. Fortune is actually referring to WSJ article. Ultimately, none of them have verified the scientific claims. We also consider how intellectually independent the sources are of one another. If I go by the weight of coverage, I honestly don't see enough to include it here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Listen, by all means, engage in the discussion above, but you're usurpation of the discussion and unilateral action is why the page is protected again. Your thoughts are interesting (though I may disagree with them ... this intellectual independence seems like a rather abstract concept that isn't grounded in WP policy ... unless you mean when there's a direct reliance of one source on another), so please do add them to the above ("Current version" is where the discussion is currently, the link will take you up there)--137.54.8.212 (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you same as "216.12.10.118". Anyway, I am commenting above, but the discussion above seems to be slightly different. As for "intellectually independent", we use that to find the WP:WEIGHT. Multiple sources basing their reports on one source (without independently fact checking) is not useful. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah so the latter - well as you can see from the ton of sources above, it's certainly not the case that they're all based on the Wall Street Journal article.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Engineering, Production, and Innovation Center is now open

The Engineering, Production, and Innovation Center is now open. This is confirmed on their website and in a few news reports. See: https://www.cnet.com/health/cultivated-meat-factory-opens-for-public-tours-in-a-bid-to-explain-what-it-does/ and https://www.fastcompany.com/90692577/take-a-look-inside-this-shiny-industrial-cultivated-meat-factory-of-the-future and also https://www.sfchronicle.com/food/article/It-s-not-science-fiction-New-East-Bay-16590589.phpSF. I hope this can be added to the main article. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Looks like this content has been added. Bipsshaw0 (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)