Cultivarians on Taste, Texture, and 'Realness' of Meat
- David Bell
- 5 hours ago
- 9 min read
Here’s the short answer: cultivated meat already comes close in burgers, mince, sausages and some hybrid products, but texture is still the main weak point.
If you want the headline in one glance, it’s this:
Biologically, it is meat because it comes from animal cells.
On taste, some tests came close to standard meat, with 96% acceptance for one cultivated steak and 58% liking for one public chicken tasting.
On texture, results are mixed. Tasters still reported dry, paste-like and rubbery bites in some products.
In everyday UK meals, it looks most convincing in foods like burgers, bacon, sausages and meatballs, where structure matters less than in a whole cut.
What I take from the evidence is simple: cultivated meat can already fit some day-to-day eating without slaughter, but it does not yet match standard meat across every format.
A few points stand out straight away:
Aleph Farms: cultivated steak had 96% acceptance, close to 98% for standard beef.
SuperMeat: in a blind tasting, 2 out of 3 experts misidentified the cultivated chicken.
Upside Foods: 73% of tasters still wanted better taste or texture.
Main limit: missing fat, connective tissue and structure still affect mouthfeel.
Product | Main result | What it shows |
Aleph Farms steak | 96% acceptance | Close to beef in a controlled tasting |
SuperMeat chicken | 2 of 3 experts got it wrong | Minced formats can pass as meat |
BioTech Foods sausages | Matched key texture measures | Processed products can match bite |
Upside Foods chicken | 58% liked taste, 73% wanted improvement | Taste can work even when texture does not |
So when Cultivarians ask whether cultivated meat is “real”, I’d say the answer depends on three things: what it is, how it eats, and whether it fits the meals people already make. This piece shows where that claim holds up, and where it still falls short.
Case studies where cultivated meat matched conventional meat on taste and texture
Blind and controlled tastings with beef, chicken, burgers and sausages
The clearest examples come from blind tastings paired with texture checks. Put simply, this is the sensory test that matters most: does cultivated meat taste and feel like meat? Whole cuts, mince and processed products each show something a bit different.
In March 2026, Aleph Farms ran a blind taste test at its Rehovot site in Israel with New Sense Research. Sixty regular meat-eaters compared the company’s Aleph Cuts Petit Steak - made from Black Angus cells with a soy and wheat matrix - against conventional beef. The cultivated steak reached 96% acceptance, versus 98% for conventional beef [4]. It also scored 7.6/10 for tenderness compared with 7.3/10 for standard beef, while juiciness came in at 7.4/10 versus 7.7/10 [4]. Half of those taking part said they would order it in a restaurant, almost the same as the 51% recorded for conventional beef [4].
In February 2022, SuperMeat held a public blind tasting at its Tel Aviv restaurant, The Chicken. Three culinary experts - Michal Ansky, Yair Yosefi and Lee Abramovich - tasted unseasoned minced cultivated chicken alongside conventional chicken. Ansky and Yosefi got the samples wrong, while Abramovich said he could not tell them apart [5]. In burger form, tasters still recognised it as chicken, which suggests that familiar formats can make acceptance easier [5].
BioTech Foods approached the question from a different angle. In mechanical texture tests, it reported that cultivated Frankfurt-style sausages matched conventional versions on hardness, springiness, chewiness and first-bite snap [6].
What these results mean for Cultivarian eating
For Cultivarians, that pattern is encouraging. Meat made without slaughter does not have to feel like a downgrade. The point lands hardest in familiar foods such as steaks, burgers and sausages, where tenderness, juiciness and bite shape the whole meal. But there’s still a catch: when fat, fibres or structure are not fully there, texture gaps start to show.
Comparison table: reported sensory outcomes across documented case studies
The results differ by product type and test method, as shown below.
Case Study | Product Type | Tasting Setting | Evaluators | Taste & Texture Outcome | Contribution to 'Realness' |
Aleph Farms | Petit Steak (hybrid beef) | Facility blind test | 60 meat-eaters | 96% acceptance; 7.6/10 tenderness; 7.4/10 juiciness [4] | Near-parity in whole-cut texture and purchase intent |
SuperMeat | Minced chicken / burger | Public blind tasting | 3 culinary experts | 2 of 3 misidentified the cultivated sample; burger format tested better [5] | Familiar formats help cultivated meat read as conventional meat |
BioTech Foods | Frankfurt-style sausages | Mechanical texture tests | Researchers | Matched hardness, springiness, chewiness and first-bite snap [6] | Confirms mechanical parity in processed meat |
Mission Barns | Bacon (hybrid) | Investor tasting | VC partners | Hybrid product was reported to mimic conventional pork flavour [3] | Shows why cultivated fat matters for aroma and taste |
sbb-itb-4eaa753
Case studies showing texture gaps, mixed reactions and product limits
Where tasters noticed uneven bite and dryness
Even the strongest tastings left one issue out in the open: texture gaps. Michal Ansky correctly identified the cultivated sample. Her verdict:
"It's very hard to detect because we have minced meat… It needs more fat, it needs skin… This is a paste: it is pâté and it is dry."
That gets to the heart of the problem in many early products. The flavour can be close to cultivated meat vs traditional meat comparisons, but if fat, skin and connective tissue are missing, the mouthfeel can seem processed instead of fully meat-like.
The same pattern showed up in June 2024, when Upside Foods hosted a public tasting in Miami, Florida, just before a state ban took effect. Attendees tried cultivated chicken in a seasoned tostada. 58% liked the taste, but that did not settle whether it felt like meat. 73% wanted better taste or texture [2][8]. “Rubbery” came up again and again as a texture description, and some tasters wondered if the seasoning was covering up the product’s actual consistency [2][8].
Why texture depends on fat, fibres and product form
Early products often do not have enough fat or connective tissue, so the bite can come across as dry, rubbery or paste-like. That is why something can taste right and still feel unfinished.
Product form matters just as much. Minced or ground formats can hide structural gaps more easily, because people already expect a softer, less fibrous texture. A burger patty or nugget does not have to copy muscle fibre in the same way. Whole cuts are much harder. Producing a structured piece of tissue that behaves like a chicken breast or steak calls for scaffolding, mature fibre differentiation and fat distribution that the current science is still trying to deliver [5][7]. As Ido Savir, CEO of SuperMeat, acknowledged:
"The first-generation product that we offer is unstructured/ground meat… we [are] developing a unique technology… to grow tissue-like structures in full suspension without any carrier or scaffolding."
Cultivated muscle also tends to contain less IMP, which can make umami weaker.
These limits matter because the idea of “real” meat is not just about flavour. Texture, juiciness and structure all shape that judgement, and that feeds straight into how Cultivarians think about meat realness.
Comparison table: strengths and limits in early public tastings
Product Case Study | Form | Reported Strengths | Reported Weaknesses | What it means for Cultivarian 'realness' |
SuperMeat Chicken (Tel Aviv, Feb 2022) | Minced/ground | Rich flavour; indistinguishable in burger form [5] | Dry; paste-like; lacks fat and skin [5] | Works best in burgers and nuggets; less convincing as a whole cut |
Upside Foods Chicken (Miami, Jun 2024) | Seasoned tostada | Authentic chicken flavour; 58% liked the taste [2] | Rubbery texture; 73% wanted better taste or texture [2][8] | May face more scrutiny in home cooking where texture is easier to notice |
Mark Post Burger (2013 prototype) | Minced patty | Early proof of concept; showed the need for cultivated fat [7] | Slightly dry; lacked fat-driven juiciness [7] | Early proof of concept; showed the need for cultivated fat |
How Cultivarians define the 'realness' of meat
Biology, perception and attachment to meat
The tasting results matter because Cultivarians don't judge 'realness' by chemistry alone. They judge it by whether something is recognised as meat when people cook it, serve it and eat it.
For Cultivarians, cultivated meat is biologically real meat. The harder test comes later: does it register as meat in taste, texture and cooking? The case studies make that split clear. Biological realness is one thing. Sensory and social realness are another.
Recognition sits at the centre of all this. Brian Cooley, former editor at CNET and a technology commentator, put it plainly when assessing Wildtype's cultivated salmon:
"You would have to tell someone that the Wildtype lox wasn't conventional for them to suspect it was anything different. That's the crucial bar to clear for any alt-protein." [3]
That bar matters not just at the table, but in the kitchen too.
How cultivated meat fits into roast dinners, bacon sandwiches and other UK foods
Realness feels strongest when cultivated ingredients cook and serve like meat in familiar dishes. Gustaf Brandberg, an investor in Mission Barns, described tasting their cultivated pork fat products this way:
"The bacon tastes just like bacon should, and the meatballs and salami could trick just anyone into thinking that they are made of meat." [3]
In a UK setting, that means foods people already know well: bacon sandwiches, roast dinners and other everyday meals. If a product works in burgers or bacon, it's much closer to replacing slaughter in ordinary UK eating. Hybrid formats help here because they deliver the sizzle and bite that make bacon feel like bacon [3].
The three dimensions below show where cultivated meat already lines up with meat, and where it still depends on hybrids or processed formats.
Comparison table: biological meat, sensory meat and social meat
Dimension | What it means | Where cultivated meat stands | Cultivarian view |
Biological | Grown from animal cells; identical tissue at a cellular level | Fully met - cultivated meat is animal tissue, not an imitation [3] | The method changed; the meat did not |
Sensory | Tastes, smells and behaves like meat during cooking | Mostly met in minced and ground formats; whole cuts remain a work in progress [1][3] | Better fat and texture move the product closer to full realness |
Social | Fits into food culture, rituals and shared meals | Emerging - hybrid products already work in familiar formats like bacon and meatballs [3] | Realness is strongest when cultivated meat fits into everyday UK dishes |
World's First Cultivated Meat Blind Tasting
Conclusion: What the case studies show about meat without slaughter
Taken together, these case studies point to a simple pattern. Cultivated meat in ground and processed formats - nuggets, burgers and lox - already comes close to conventional meat in taste and texture.
A 2024 Florida tasting of Upside Foods' cultivated chicken shows that pretty plainly: 58% of participants liked the taste, while 11% did not and 11% had a mixed reaction [2]. At the same time, 73% asked for better taste or texture [2]. So the message is pretty clear. People can already enjoy it, but there is still work to do.
The biggest gap is texture. Some tasters described certain products as rubbery or too uniform. And whole cuts are still the hardest part, because muscle structure and marbling are difficult to replicate, especially in whole cuts.
That helps explain why, for Cultivarians, realness is not only about what happens on the tongue. It is made from animal cells and browns in the pan like conventional meat [1]. That biological match, along with familiar cooking behaviour, is what makes it feel real [1].
The overall pattern is straightforward: cultivated meat is already suitable for everyday eating in many formats, while still getting better where texture is hardest to match. For Cultivarians, that is the point: real meat without slaughter.
FAQs
Why is texture harder to match than taste?
Texture is much harder to copy because conventional meat has a layered structure of muscle fibres, connective tissue and fat that develops over an animal’s lifetime.
That’s why cultivated meat tends to work best in ground formats. But when you move to whole cuts, things get a lot tougher. Matching the fibrous structure, marbling, tenderness and bite of a steak or fillet is still a major challenge. Producers need to build that internal structure and mouthfeel from scratch, rather than relying on nature to do the job over time.
Which cultivated meat products feel most convincing today?
Cultivated meat works best right now in products with a softer, more even texture, like nuggets, meatballs and burgers. In these formats, it can come very close to the savoury taste and meaty mouthfeel of conventional meat, and often does a better job than plant-based options.
Hybrid products can also do a good job of matching the flavour and fat profile of meats like bacon or salami. But whole cuts, such as steaks or roasts, are still much harder to copy.
What makes cultivated meat seem 'real' to diners?
Cultivated meat feels like the real thing because, at a biological level, it matches conventional meat. It contains the same muscle proteins and fats, and because it’s grown from animal cells, it develops the fibrous texture and savoury umami flavour people expect.
It also browns and builds aroma during cooking in much the same way as slaughtered meat. That makes it familiar not just in taste, but in how people cook with it too.
Comments