Did Campbell Soup file patents or trademarks related to 3D food printing?
Executive summary
Campbell’s has publicly denied using 3D‑printed, lab‑grown, or “bioengineered” chicken in its soups and said the comments came from a now‑fired executive after a leaked recording; Campbell’s statement: “we do not use 3D‑printed chicken, lab‑grown chicken, or any form of artificial or bioengineered meat in our soups” [1]. Available reporting documents the leaked audio, subsequent internal action and investigations, but the provided sources do not mention any Campbell’s patents or trademarks related specifically to 3D food printing [2] [3].
1. What the recording said and how Campbell’s responded
A leaked recording attributed to Martin Bally, a Campbell’s IT vice president, includes a line asserting Campbell’s chicken “came from a 3D printer,” and calls the product “bioengineered meat,” which sparked media coverage and internal action; Campbell’s called the claims “inaccurate” and “patently absurd” while stressing it uses “100 percent real chicken” from USDA‑approved suppliers [2] [1] [4].
2. Personnel fallout and legal context
Following publication of the audio and a lawsuit filed by a former employee, Campbell’s placed Bally on leave and later confirmed the voice was his and that he was no longer employed; the dispute also features a separate racial‑harassment and retaliation lawsuit that provides much of the leaked audio’s public context [2] [5] [6].
3. Public and regulatory reaction — probes and stock impact
The audio prompted public alarm and at least one state investigation reported in the press — for example, Florida’s attorney general was reported to be launching a probe into the lab‑grown/3D‑printed meat claims — and Campbell’s stock dropped after the allegations surfaced [7] [6].
4. What the sources say about 3D‑printed meat in industry — not Campbell’s
Industry reporting notes that 3D‑printed or lab‑grown meat is a real area of food‑tech research and that other firms and quick‑service brands have explored printing or cell‑cultured nuggets, but the articles explicitly distinguish that exploration from Campbell’s current practice and emphasize there is no evidence Campbell’s uses those processes in its soups [2] [8].
5. On the specific question of patents and trademarks
Available sources in this set do not mention any Campbell’s patents or trademarks for 3D food printing or related technology. Reporting focuses on the leaked audio, corporate denials, personnel and legal fallout, and industry context — it does not document company filings, patent families, trademark registrations, or licensing deals tied to 3D food printing attributed to Campbell’s [2] [3] [8].
6. Competing narratives and where reporting disagrees
Mainstream outlets and Campbell’s public statement converge on the denial that Campbell’s uses printed or lab‑grown chicken [1] [2]. Some commentators and blogs invoke prior controversies (e.g., “mechanically separated” meats, or the fact that food tech exists) to argue Bally’s claim was plausible or a misdescription, but those pieces present speculation rather than documented evidence that Campbell’s uses 3D printing for its meats [9] [10]. Snopes and other fact‑checking pieces frame the social posts as amplified by the leaked audio and note Campbell’s denial [3].
7. Limitations in the reporting and what remains unanswered
The sources provided do not include patent office searches, trademark databases, or corporate IP disclosures that would definitively confirm or deny filings by Campbell’s related to 3D food printing; they also do not include primary documents from Campbell’s R&D or procurement showing technology adoption [3] [8]. Therefore it is not possible from these articles alone to assert whether Campbell’s has ever filed patents or trademarks in this technical space; available reporting simply does not mention such filings [2] [1].
8. How to verify patents or trademarks if you want a definitive answer
To resolve this question beyond the sampled reporting, check the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) databases, the European Patent Office (Espacenet), and Campbell’s investor/R&D disclosures for patent families and trademark registrations that include keywords like “3D printing,” “bioprint,” “cell‑cultured,” “reconstituted meat,” or “printed food.” The current news sources do not provide those searches or their results [3].
Summary takeaway: reporting documents a damaging audio leak, a company denial that it uses 3D‑printed or lab‑grown chicken, and consequent personnel and regulatory fallout [1] [2] [7], but the supplied sources do not mention any Campbell’s patents or trademarks relating to 3D food printing — that specific IP question is not answered in the available reporting [3].