Blood is not the unhealthy part of red meat. Couldn't you market these "blood steaks" to health and environmentally conscious people who want something that tastes a bit more like meat than a soy patty?
Although I agree that selling blood at scale would need clever marketing. It seems like the blood imitation in the article would have similar problems, since it looks and tastes like blood.
It narrows the market, it requires explaining and justification, and it's unappetizing. It sounds like they've figured out a good approach to heme, why bother using actual blood?
>Yet although organic crops are grown without the use of chemicals, an organic certification does allow farmers to use animal waste, including blood meal and bone meal, to fertilize fields. Some organic farms purchase these animal by-products from slaughterhouses and other non-organic sources. The animals have been given antibiotics and hormones throughout their lives, and exposed to pesticides and other chemicals.
So why isn't there an organic+ that only uses organic animal waste? My guess is that it's because it's not worth advertising. Most people probably don't want to think about what kind of waste their produce grew in, and hearing that these potatoes grew in hormone free blood meal doesn't really make you more inclined to buy them. Whereas veganic can explain it's advantages without making you think it's gross. Plus the potential audience for veganic is all inclusive.
Although I agree that selling blood at scale would need clever marketing. It seems like the blood imitation in the article would have similar problems, since it looks and tastes like blood.