please see this paper for gene editing and what the technology can be used for https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004224021023

I agree this should be discussed, but should concern only the cells that end up in the final biomass, not any processing aids

The fact that the GFs are produced by genetic modifications of a production organism does not restrict their use even in jurisdictions like the EU (which is the most strict). GFs are used as "processing aids" during cell culture, expected to be removed from the final biomass. Therefore it is not a concern per se if they are produced in genetically modified organisms (there are some requirements to prove their safety but it is something very simple to do)

certain cells can be adapted to grow with reduced amounts, AND gene editing can reduce significantly the need for growth factors - there are multiple strategies to do that, including mutation in growth factor receptors (to activate them) or by "helping" the cells expressing their own growth factors

just saw this is mentioned below for the CRISPR-modified cell lines. I think the technology is there, but needs to be demonstrated and safety needs to be proven

I am not sure this is true - this is more for a fed-batch system where you still supplement the cells with stuff, otherwise as cells increase in density they will run out of nutrients pretty fast

cells in a bank don't lose performance; that's why the banking system is in place. All cells in a bank are supposed to perform the same way to ensure safety of the production process

also the banking system works in a tiered way, to also ensure that you don't easily "run out" of vials.

not true, they are usually limited in what cell types they can differentiate into

the description, Pros and cons here are more appropriate for the immortalised cells by gene editing. Spontaneous immortalisation don't have these Pros and Cons, and the reference paper refers to spontaneous immortalisation. The concepts of spontaneous vs gene edited immortalisation are used interchangeably throughout this page and it is confusing - especially because the distinction is extremely important when it comes to regulatory approvals but also risks during production process

but they can be immortalised (spontaneously or by gene editing) --> immortalised cells are usually adult stem cells (from tissue) that are then immortalised

embryonic stem cells are also used, and they are naturally immortal, but might have problems with consumer acceptance

this here is contradicting the above explanation that a cell line is derived from only one cell

or tissue at slaughter

I would not say artificially -cells can only be immortalised spontaneously (as discussed in the table above explaining Why chicken) or through targeted genetic modification

a cell line in the cultivated meat context is never derived from one cell only (this is the case sometimes in pharmacies industry only), but from a population of cells that the researchers select for (based on the desired trait)

or from animals at slaughter, which is more common

this is not a natural trait - spontaneous immortalisation means that a few cells acquired some spontaneous mutations which allow them to divide in culture for longer than other cells. It is a rare event that can happen in all cells, but it is very random (hence "spontaneous"). In fish cells for example this can happen even more often. In other species (cow, pigs) it apparently happens less often, but it can still happen given enough time (Pasitka et al published the paper in 2025 spontaneously immortalising beef cells)

hydrolysates can't replace growth factors technically; they could help replace the fetal bovine serum potentially, but you still require growth factors

I don't think batch should be mentioned, this is not a realistic solution and there is no way cells can grow to high densities in batch culture (batch culture means that media is never topped-up or exchanged, which means that cells run out of nutrients and cellular waste products will accumulate and stop the cells from growing in a few days).

I know it is specified in the Production cost model that we are only referring to the biomass at harvest and not final product, but I think on this page it is not clear that that is the case. I think the cost of the actual biomass at harvest can be a higher than conventional chicken, since the biomass will be mainly used in the 1st generation products at x % inclusion rate in hybrid products; And hybrid products can save billions of animals as well - and can help with the consumer transition towards products with higher inclusion rates

this link is not working