Singapore’s appetite for alternative meat seems to be waning, with yet another lab-grown meat company biting the dust.

Cultivated meat company Avant Proteins is shutting down its Singapore operations, reported a notice on Singapore’s Government Gazette.

The seafood cell research company declared on Jan 30 that it was voluntarily winding up its business here due to its liabilities.

Alternative proteins are foods that have the same taste, texture, and experience of animal products that consumers love–just made in different ways. They comprise plant-based food, cultivated (lab-grown) meat or fungi-based derivatives from fermentation.

Avant Proteins is a research firm founded in 2018 by Hong Kong-based Avant, which calls itself Asia’s first cultivated fish company. The former had goals of producing fish meat without killing them.

As of Feb 10, the firm’s Hong Kong entity, Avant Meats Company, remains a private company limited by shares, according to the Hong Kong Companies Registry.

Avant Proteins’ departure from Singapore is the latest of at least three lab-grown meat companies that have struggled to scale operations in the Republic, years after it hit global headlines in 2020 as the first country to approve the commercial sale of cultured meat.

Cultivated meat is made by growing animal cells in bioreactors, a process similar to brewing beer.

This approach is considered more humane and sustainable than traditional farming, using far less land and labour.

However, the sector has faced hurdles since 2023, struggling to scale up due to difficulties in commercialising the technology, high costs, and uncertain consumer demand.

Avant’s co-founder Carrie Chan told The Straits Times in 2024 that investors had become “more conservative” due to economic conditions.

“Some are thinking (this sector) is more challenging, and they should not be investing in anything at the pre-revenue stage as the tech involved can be difficult to scale up quickly,” Chan said back then.

Checks on the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority’s database found that Avant Biotechnology was still live, while Avant Proteins is in liquidation, as at Feb 11.

Short life span in Singapore

After establishing itself in Hong Kong in 2018, Avant revealed plans in 2021 to expand into Singapore by opening a research lab in collaboration with A*STAR’s Bioprocessing Technology Institute (BTI).

The lab was launched to scale up production of food-grade cultivated fish fillets and fish maw.

A*STAR stated that the collaboration concluded as scheduled two years later, with Avant establishing its own pilot facility in Woodlands.

“Through this work, A*STAR BTI and Avant Meats gained valuable insights into upstream bioprocessing, production challenges and scale-up considerations,” it said.

According to its latest LinkedIn post, Avant subsequently ramped up operations at its Woodlands pilot facility, noting that it had contributed to public education on the future of animal proteins.

The post also highlighted that the company had commercialised skincare technology using cultivated fish cells and continued to advance its cultivated fish products toward approval by the Singapore Food Agency.

However, as of Feb 11, Avant Meats’ website—which showcased both its skincare line and lab-grown meat—went offline, though the site for its skincare technology remains active.

Restaurants are axing plant-based meat from their menus due to high costs and low demand

Once a prominent menu feature, plant-based meat dishes have quietly disappeared from several restaurants, while others have reduced their selections or moved them to optional add-ons at an extra charge, said a Channel News Asia report.

The global appetite for plant-based meat saw the sharpest rise between 2018 and 2020. During this period, numerous casual dining chains, even Asian restaurants, jumped on the trend, incorporating plant-based “Impossible” meat options into their menus.

Experts linked the surge to a combination of factors: aggressive marketing, rising consumer interest in health-conscious and sustainable eating, and, in Singapore, the government’s focus on alternative proteins to bolster food security.

They’ve also noted that the appeal of plant-based meats has declined once the novelty faded. Improvements in taste and texture still lagged behind expectations and struggled to justify their high prices.

Instead of imitating meat, some restaurants are shifting their focus to whole-food, plant-based options.

For example, vegan burger eatery Veganburg has emphasized whole-food vegan patties over highly processed meat substitutes. Its operations director, Blessed Chee, noted that the store discontinued Impossible plant-based meat due to cost considerations.

A 340g packet of minced Impossible beef retails for S$12.12 while 1kg of real minced beef costs S$11.35 on Fairprice’s website.

Is cultivated meat heading in the same direction to becoming a flop?

Previously, California-based Eat Just had suspended its cultivated meat production in Singapore, while local company Shiok Meats merged with Singapore-based Umami Bioworks, a specialist in marine cell cultivation.

For years, companies have promised that commercially-viable lab-grown meat was right around the corner, but repeated missed product launches and setbacks have eroded investor confidence in the space. From 2024 to 2025, total investment in the cultivated meat industry dipped by 74%, from US$139 million to US$36 million.

Only time will tell if lab-grown meat will follow in plant-based meat’s footsteps or carve a direction of sustaining a presence here in Singapore.

• Read other articles we’ve written on Singaporean businesses here.

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

Instantly become a color expert with the Nix Mini 3 Color Sensor. This portable device puts all paint fan decks in your pocket, offering access to over 200,000 brand-name paint colors and essential color codes like RGB, HEX, and CMYK. Perfect for designers, contractors, and homeowners. The Mini 3 features Bluetooth connectivity, Debris and splash resistance, and free access to the Nix Toolkit app for precise and convenient color matching. This newest version improves accuracy with 3x enhanced resolution over the Mini 2 and significant improvements to battery life and Bluetooth connectivity. The Nix Mini 3 ensures reliable color management for any project. Additionally, it matches premium libraries like Pantone, RAL, and NCS with monthly or annual subscription options. It’s on sale for $69.97 for a limited time.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Filed Under: daily deal

Whether you’re interested in background music for your next party or you’re looking to upgrade a stereo system, there’s a speaker set ready for you. Speakers tend to be designed with a specific purpose in mind. For example, you might need speakers for your TV, computer speakers or a set for a specific room. Or perhaps you need portable Bluetooth speakers to take on a trip. There’s a speaker for every situation.

from the taking-an-interest dept

In the last few years, the Supreme Court has been paying a lot more attention to the internet than it ever has before, and the cases keep on coming. This is already having a big impact on how the internet functions, and it doesn’t look likely to stop any time soon. Given all that, this week our own Cathy Gellis joins the podcast for a discussion all about the past, present, and future of SCOTUS and the internet.

You can also download this episode directly in MP3 format.

Follow the Techdirt Podcast on Soundcloud, subscribe via Apple Podcasts or Spotify, or grab the RSS feed. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes right here on Techdirt.

Filed Under: podcast, scotus, supreme court

While Android beta testers were exploring the newly-launched Android 16 QPR3 Beta 2.1, Google decided to surprise everyone. The official Android Beta Program handle on Reddit has confirmed the arrival of Android 17 Beta 1, and it’s coming sooner than you’d think.

“We are looking forward to our next Beta program cycle that covers our Android 17 Platform Release (26Q2),” says Google. It says the upcoming update will build on the Android 16 QPR platform release and include the “latest bug fixes and improvements.”

A surprise at the end of the cycle

The timing isn’t exactly shocking, as Android 16 QPR3 Beta 2.1 is the last update in the cycle. What’s unique, however, is Google’s route. Instead of pushing Android 17 via the Developer Preview stage, the company is jumping straight into the first beta.

Current beta testers (those enrolled in the Android Beta Program with an eligible Pixel smartphone) will automatically receive the Android 17 update once it goes live (which could be sometime in the coming weeks).

On the one hand, it’s good that Google is seeding the Android 17 update promptly to beta testers, making the initial build available for a wider testing audience.

The fine print beta testers shouldn’t ignore

However, once testers upgrade to Android 17 Beta 1, they won’t be able to roll back to the previous stable version until the cycle ends (which would be around June 2026) without wiping their device.

Anyways, that also implies that Google is planning to release the stable Android 17 version around the same time. Regular users should expect the major Android update to hit their Pixel devices in or around June 2026.

As for what’s new in Android 17 Beta 1? Google hasn’t spilled the beans yet. Even so, we expect to see the usual early-beta performance improvements and software refinements, sprinkled with a couple of visual adjustments.

This year, Americans are celebrating the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. That statement of foundational political principles and national identity in the summer of 1776 capped off a year of armed conflict marked by the first shots at Lexington and Concord, the shocking British casualties at Bunker’s Hill, and the ensuing siege of Boston in the spring and summer of 1775. Those conflicts saw the ascent of George Washington to the office of Commander in Chief of the Continental Army — the first national office held by the man who would earn the right to be called the father of our country. Like the greatest of statesmen, Washington proved equally capable of defending his country in war and of governing it in peace.

On Sept. 10, 2025, tragedy struck Utah Valley University, where I teach. At the time, my colleagues and I were hosting Junior ROTC cadets from around the state for the first of a series of Constitution Day events on the theme of George Washington’s constitutional legacy. Washington’s example of courage, moderation, wisdom and civic charity are always relevant models for American students. But that day, the importance of virtuous civic leadership in the face of threats to American prosperity and freedom was visceral and poignant.

For teachers, navigating Americans’ deep disagreements in the classroom feels risky. Early survey evidence suggests that the assassination of Charlie Kirk has only increased the tension. Rather than sparking a renewed commitment to open dialogue, Kirk’s killing has intensified the silence.

According to an October 2025 survey of college students from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a notable portion of students have become less comfortable expressing their views on controversial topics in class (45 percent), in common campus spaces (43 percent), and on social media (48 percent), after what happened to Kirk.

A general might seem like an odd model for civil discourse following such a tragic event, but in the American experience, our greatest military leaders furnish helpful examples. With Washington, this is not difficult to see.

At the most basic level, Washington’s steady devotion to the rule of law and constitutional self-government is foundational to Americans’ ability to navigate our political differences. We all operate under the same framework — the Constitution — and must adhere to it as our common bond, even as we seek to improve it and navigate our differences and disagreements about the common good.

Washington lived out this commitment in his conduct at Newburgh in 1783 when he put down a budding coup by his own disgruntled officers and later when he twice laid aside unparalleled executive power, first as commander in chief and later as president of the United States.

In his farewell address at the end of his long public service he pressed home the importance of constitutional fidelity as the bedrock of American citizenship.

“The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government,” he wrote. “But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.”

Navigating Disagreement With Respect

At a more practical level, Washington navigated constant opposition to his command of the Continental army with grace. As president, he presided over a cabinet riven by political division, and even personal animosity. He spoke to his fellow citizens across important differences in a way that reminded them of their common American citizenship and their common humanity. His letter to the Hebrew Congregation at Newport is a model.

But even more important than Washington’s ability to communicate what he held in common with his fellow citizens was his ability to do that while disagreeing with them fundamentally. While famously skeptical of political parties, Washington was not one to dodge controversy. He would not sacrifice his view of the common good for the sake of avoiding an argument.

Washington’s willingness to contend for his principles serves as an important lesson to students and teachers of civic education: civil discourse does not mean avoiding disagreement. It does not mean giving up or surrendering our convictions. It does not mean hiding or concealing our objections to laws or policies or ideas simply for the sake of maintaining the appearance of agreement and civility.

It’s easy to lament our fractured discourse. But as teachers and educators, we must work to repair it. School leaders and administrators should actively support civil discourse and defend the educators who teach it, as well as provide a forum for students who want to express their views. Fostering this courage isn’t about asking students to be martyrs for their beliefs. It’s about creating a positive environment for productive disagreement.

For robust civil discourse, it is important to cultivate courage, humility and civic charity. To foster courage, teachers can scaffold robust debate by starting with discussion topics that lower the social risk of speaking and then building up to more challenging questions, so that each student has a chance to be heard. To instill humility, the first object of discourse should be on understanding a problem from all sides rather than settling a debate. Humility requires a recognition that we may be wrong, or at the very least that we certainly have something more to learn. Human beings are finite and rarely have a complete understanding of the question at hand.

Nurturing Humility and Reasoning Skills

Teachers can nurture civic charity by framing classroom debates as a collaborative, not confrontational, approach to a solution. The parliamentary model of addressing the chair rather than individuals in a debate can help students to see their peers not as enemies but as partners working towards a common goal.

Students should always be pressed to “steel man” arguments, even for positions they don’t hold. This builds intellectual humility, sharpens reasoning skills, and detaches contentious ideas from the people who hold them. Intellectually serious and fact-based comparisons between our present and the past are indispensable. Flippant dismissals of opposing views as fascist and communist will not advance the truth-seeking enterprise.

In other words, we can teach them to be like Washington, who used civil disagreement among his cabinet members to formulate compromises where possible and to proceed with decisions on controversial matters having treated all sides with due respect where compromise is not possible.

I have so far suggested means of supporting civil discourse in the midst of our present divisions and about those issues that divide Americans. But perhaps the most important thing we do for students as civic educators is to help them step outside our current political divisions. Our founding principles and institutions form a pre-partisan constitutional inheritance that was crafted long before the left-right ideological frameworks and red-blue partisan divides we ham-handedly use to put ourselves in political tribes came into fashion.

Examining our country’s historical debates over how best to live up to our constitutional principles engages students with scenarios and questions for which their current partisan frameworks do not provide a clear answer. It reminds them, as Washington sought to do in his farewell address, of the inheritance they hold in common with each other as Americans.