We tried 3D-printed meat and wished we hadn't
Just because you can 3D print something doesn't mean you should.
A truly convincing dupe for animal proteins — steaks, chicken breasts and fish fillets — is a holy grail for food companies.
For decades, scientists have pressed various substances into shapes approximating animal flesh, from faux bacon to Tofurky to Impossible Burgers , using ever-advancing technologies. Some do it in the name of health, others to create protein sources that reduce the suffering of animals or the immense environmental toll of industrial meat production. The latest frontier for the category is 3D printing: Israel-based brand Perfecta Foods recently launched in grocery stores in the United States, promising convincing plant-based versions of popular cuts of meat, all made by printers.
Plant-based "filet mignon" and "chicken breast" from Perfecta. -
The brand's parent company, Steakholder , boasts that its MX200 Printer can "precisely layer plant-based and cultivated ingredients, replicating the intricate texture and taste of traditional meat." The process involves vats of a paste-like substance being fed through a machine that purports to mimic the muscled texture and marbling of real animal proteins.
Get Eat Voraciously newsletter
Recipes, food trends and culinary inspiration. Sign up for free
The products have caused a stir, with some consumers expressing concern that the 3D printing process used to make them isn't mentioned on its packaging. (Food laws require companies to disclose ingredients, not process.)
Labeling aside, we were intrigued by the company's promise of plant products that truly resembled whole cuts of meat. And so we located two varieties — the "filet mignon" and the "chicken breast" — at natural food stores in Maryland, and cooked them according to the directions. In the filet's favor, the imitation steak cost less than the real thing: It was about $10 for a 9.2-ounce package, compared to the $24 of an equivalent cut of animal meat. (My Whole Foods was selling tenderloin for $42 a pound.) The chicken wasn't as good of a deal — it was $9.50 for the same size portion, which would cost about $3.45 for the real thing at $6 a pound.
The faux filet mignon more closely resembled ground meat than a steak. -
But the taste? Now, in my tenure at The Washington Post, I should note that I have sampled some questionable meat-adjacent products, from hot-dog flavored candy corn to Spam redolent of figgy pudding . I've tried chicken-less "nuggets" from grocery freezers and fast-food drive-throughs .
But nothing I had tasted before prepared me for the Perfecta experience.
The products are sold frozen, and instructions call for thawing them first. Out of the package, the faux filets were completely unconvincing, resembling ground beef more than a cut of beef and shaped more like strips than the rounded filets with visible graining depicted on the packaging.
Most Read From The Washington Post
The 3D-printed filet mignon released a reddish liquid during cooking. -
The "filets" lacked the distinct fibers and grain of a steak, and had none of the appealing irregularity of a piece of meat. Cooked, it was uniformly dense, with a peculiar processed, hot-dog-like quality. While pan-searing, per the instructions, it released some reddish liquid that perhaps was meant to evoke the juices of a steak, but once it was done, it still didn't look like meat — or even the reasonably appealing facsimile thereof shown on the box.
The taste was worse, though I should have been warned by the plastic-like smell it emitted while cooking. Rather than the savory richness of beef, I got an unpleasant artificial flavor, tinged with a bitter, sour note that lingered in my mouth. If I hadn't known what I was eating, I might have wondered whether I'd accidentally ingested the packaging rather than its contents.
I hoped that the chicken would be better — after all, the real thing often has a milder flavor than beef does, and I figured that a faux version might be … well, less offensive.
Reader, I was wrong.
Perfecta's plant-based chicken suffered the same spongy texture as its imitation filet. -
A 3D-printed plant-based chicken breast from Perfecta, front, shown with a real cooked chicken breast. -
The chicken had the same ground-meat texture and strange synthetic smell, and the flavor was every bit as off-putting. It did brown up a bit better than the fake steak, but it still didn't hold together like an actual cut of poultry. It didn't evoke a chicken breast so much as an approximation of one that had been dreamed up by someone who had never actually eaten chicken.
I kept trying to find something to like about it. The technology is certainly interesting. And I appreciate the ambition behind creating alternatives to animal products, particularly ones that might eventually replicate whole cuts of meat rather than the burgers and nuggets that have dominated the category.
The ingredients aren't appealing. The first two for the "filet" are water and soy flour, while the "chicken" lists water and wheat gluten. And both products include methylcellulose, a thickening agent often used in other meat alternatives — and in some bulk-forming laxatives.
Most importantly, though, I couldn't get past a very basic problem: Namely, I didn't want to eat them.
The interior of a sliced 3D-printed, plant-based filet mignon from Perfecta, at front, with a beef filet in the background. -
