Lab Grown Meat gets closer to see consumer plates

[Jito463]

1 hour ago, Shally said:

Well were (SIC) 100% sure the method we have to day is NOT beneficial.

While you may be 100% sure, don't apply that to everyone around you.  Also, we have no idea whether this replacement would be in any way, shape or form beneficial.  I'm not saying it should be banned, but you will not catch me going out to buy a lab-grown steak (not that I buy steak anyways, except for occasionally at the restaurant, but I digress).

 

The system we have provides food to people all over the world.  How is that not beneficial?  Could it be improved?  Sure, I'm certain there are plenty of ways we could improve on our current system.  Do I believe this is the best alternative?  Not on your life.

[Syntaxvgm]

35 minutes ago, bitsandpieces said:

I'm gonna stop replying on this topic because some people only seem interested into preaching and not having a true debate on the why

There's also the issue that meat contains some nutrients needed for the human body to develop, nutrients that can't be synthesized and have to be sourced from natural meat

 

True NPCs 

You brought less facts to the table than people that want to ban "assault rifles". In fact 0, you brought nothing. 

You can't just spit out the NPC bullshit in this case and tell yourself you win by default. I really think you miss the 'point' of the meme- people unwilling or unable to consider facts or anything other than what they are told by the media or whatever. So, in this case, you.

[The Benjamins]

8 minutes ago, Syntaxvgm said:

You brought less facts to the table than people that want to ban "assault rifles". In fact 0, you brought nothing. 

You can't just spit out the NPC bullshit in this case and tell yourself you win by default. I really think you miss the 'point' of the meme- people unwilling or unable to consider facts or anything other than what they are told by the media or whatever. So, in this case, you.

Isn't it great, the irony.

[Amazonsucks]

9 hours ago, RorzNZ said:

GMO foods are fine to eat. Foods treated with modern pesticides are fine to eat

Plenty of scientists and decades of research says otherwise. Only recently have the genomics of the human microbiota been seriously studied, and the impact and safety of both GMO foods with novel proteins and the pesticides used with them on the human microbioe are being called into question.

 

It was only in the last couple of years that glyphosate was listed as a carcinogen, despite whistleblowing scientists saying so for years. 

 

Most food on the shelves is filled with garbage that people dont even realize. The neurologically active food additive business is particularly unscrupulous as well. What are essentially addictive and toxic compounds can be labeled as "spices" or "flavoring" in the USA anyway.

 

Obviously not all modern food is bad, but to say that eating food treated with pesticides or GMOs are universally safe without exception is false. For pesticides it depends on how close to harvest theyre sprayed and whether or not the pesticide lingers on the food.

 

GMOs are another story, because it depends on the alteration done to the crop and whether it has an impact on the microbiome and consequently the proteome of the organism ingesting it.

 

Those are the things i rarely see either side of the argument address: the microbiome and the proteome. Yet, they are the things that people discussing the safety of GMO food and pesticides should really be discussing, and both are on the cutting edge of research.

 

 

[Syntaxvgm]

9 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

Plenty of scientists and decades of research says otherwise. Only recently have the genomics of the human microbiota been seriously studied, and the impact and safety of both GMO foods with novel proteins and the pesticides used with them on the human microbioe are being called into question.

 

It was only in the last couple of years that glyphosate was listed as a carcinogen, despite whistleblowing scientists saying so for years. 

 

Most food on the shelves is filled with garbage that people dont even realize. The neurologically active food additive business is particularly unscrupulous as well. What are essentially addictive and toxic compounds can be labeled as "spices" or "flavoring" in the USA anyway.

Again, I separate this. True the crops themselves were engineered to withstand glyphosate, but the genetic engineering isn't the case of the harm here at all- it's the pesticide and the shitty companies behind the technology, like usual. 

[Amazonsucks]

7 minutes ago, Syntaxvgm said:

Again, I separate this. True the crops themselves were engineered to withstand glyphosate, but the genetic engineering isn't the case of the hard here at all- it's the pesticide and the shitty companies behind the technology, like usual. 

Unless the food crop itself is altered in such a way that it affects the microbiome or proteome of the organism ingesting it. It depends on the alteration made to the genome of the crop. I edited my previous post to include that.

 

GMOs are often created by combining genes from different kingdoms, which cannot happen in nature. For example, the alteration done to Roundup Ready crops is to insert bacterial DNA into the genome of plants, which wont happen in nature since theyre not interfertile.

 

This can create novel protein expression in the altered crop, leading to potentially detrimental microbiome and proteome changes in the organism consuming the crop.

[dizmo]

5 hours ago, Supportsneedlove said:

I don't know where this is viable, where I'm from anything less than 200 cows isn't even enough to live off of. 

Really?

In the US, 90% of farms have fewer than 100 head of cattle.

In Canada, farms can have as low as 20.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Amazonsucks said:

Plenty of scientists and decades of research says otherwise. Only recently have the genomics of the human microbiota been seriously studied, and the impact and safety of both GMO foods with novel proteins and the pesticides used with them on the human microbioe are being called into question.

 

It was only in the last couple of years that glyphosate was listed as a carcinogen, despite whistleblowing scientists saying so for years. 

 

Most food on the shelves is filled with garbage that people dont even realize. The neurologically active food additive business is particularly unscrupulous as well. What are essentially addictive and toxic compounds can be labeled as "spices" or "flavoring" in the USA anyway.

 

Obviously not all modern food is bad, but to say that eating food treated with pesticides or GMOs are universally safe without exception is false. For pesticides it depends on how close to harvest theyre sprayed and whether or not the pesticide lingers on the food.

 

GMOs are another story, because it depends on the alteration done to the crop and whether it has an impact on the microbiome and consequently the proteome of the organism ingesting it.

 

Those are the things i rarely see either side of the argument address: the microbiome and the proteome. Yet, they are the things that people discussing the safety of GMO food and pesticides should really be discussing, and both are on the cutting edge of research.

 

 

Settle ya kettle guess who is one of those scientists. The microbiome and proteome have been studied for quite some time now. In the USA where there are much less regulations it might be unsafe, but in the modern world we're ok.

[AkatsukiKun]

Praise our Alien Overlords, I too love my Advent Burgers, yum yum yum!

[bcredeur97]

Im am kinda nervous that there may be something being missed that we maybe do not know about or do not understand yet that might say.. 20 years from now, be discovered and we all go

"well... I guess this is killing all of us"

I hope not. But that makes me nervous. No one thought smoking was bad a long time ago. turns your lungs into tar and kills you. I guess now we can detect that kind of stuff easily early on now for something stupid like that to happen, but will people have to start eating this stuff regularly before we notice potentially long term effects?

[bcredeur97]

3 hours ago, Shally said:

It soon will be cheaper. Without a doubt. That's why people will buy it. 
 

as we've seen with literally EVERYTHING in human history:

cost and convenience outweigh ANYTHING else.  Want something to go mainstream? Make it cost less and more convenient than anything else. Done. you're basically in the money already if you accomplish those two things lol...

 

even if we find out one day that synthetic meats are maybe long-term harmful for some reason:
The minority will be the ones to complain. the 90% will just go out and buy it because cheap food.

[SocomSuade]

Good points on both sides but idk. I do not like this. 

Regarding feeding the homeless - yeah right. This will not change any of that. If anything the main reason for this to even be a thing is so the FDA can make more money and control more.

 

Environmentalists? Come on, do you really think even if we went 100% this lab route this would stop any global warming or any other hazards to the environment with all of the other and way more harmful things our governments are doing?

 

Meh, I will stay away from the hippie meat if this ever becomes a thing.

[SocomSuade]

7 hours ago, Tech_Dreamer said:

on the bright side this will indeed reduce those brutal slaughter from our side if it comes down to this being an alternative & people widely accepting it,  technically seeing it as 'life as nature provide we can co-exist without harming another species or in from a moral high ground (a proper one) this is actually a good thing.

 

on the other side , how it will impact things?  in terms of Natural & authentic to manufactured & lab grown.  i'm pretty sure if you were offered fresh coconut water in a glass & on another flavored water with added mineral & vitamins similar to that of coconut that tastes the same , you'd prefer the actual thing, but that entirely depends on personal politics, i've argued with vegans before , so people have reasons to follow things in a certain way . so preference will be a big factor here.

 

every living thing in the food chain have survived in this planet for so long sudden change maybe good or maybe bad , we may have reduced cancer causing agents if this is much cleaner form of food material, so it might be good, or might mutate our system in long term due to sudden change & bite back harder , who knows?

Well the comical piece to me here is these last two words. Nobody knows, not a single one of you (us) here nor do the scientists who are pursuing this. Only time will tell. Stop acting like you guys are scientists or already know the outcome of something like this

[FPSwithaWacomTablet]

13 hours ago, The Benjamins said:

Well complex meats are still far away, like steak. But I don't think natural meat will ever die, it will just become the premium option.

O hail the manga meat

 

[Muffin_man17]

7 hours ago, Jito463 said:

Just yesterday, in fact.  Why, just the other day I was having a fascinating conversation with a lizard over the benefits of AMD vs Intel.

Perhaps because we're less trusting than you that this actually is beneficial.

We don't know how safe or beneficial this electricity is for lighting so we'll stick with our whale fat oil instead...

[mr moose]

I really despise people who say "we don't know the long term effects so we shouldn't eat it"   Every year our understanding of whats healthy and unhealthy grows.  Arguments of ignorance in the past do not apply to science of the present and of the future.   Otherwise we should all still have a very low survival rate from birth, still be subject to small pox and polio because all changes to our diet and medicine (which have all lead to longer healthier lives) at one point could be considered by someone as having "unknown long term side effects".

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jito463]

27 minutes ago, Muffin_man17 said:

We don't know how safe or beneficial this electricity is for lighting so we'll stick with our whale fat oil instead...

Straw. man.  Some assembly required.

23 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Every year our understanding the claims of whats healthy and unhealthy grows.

Fixed that for you.  I've been around long enough to see claims of this being bad for you, then suddenly it's good for you.  Then that is bad for, and suddenly it's good for you again.  I don't trust any of it and will just eat what I like.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Straw. man.  Some assembly required.

Fixed that for you.  I've been around long enough to see claims of this being bad for you, then suddenly it's good for you.  Then that is bad for, and suddenly it's good for you again.  I don't trust any of it and will just eat what I like.

Yes, things change with understanding, but you need to be careful to separate the scientific consensus from company marketing.   One is the best conclusion from all the known data while the other is cherry picked data to promote an industry position.    Sometimes the consensus is on the fence, and that's fine but you will always find people who will tell you the science agrees with X only for more evidence to tip the scale the other direction later.

[Jito463]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

but you need to be careful to separate the scientific consensus

I don't trust scientific "consensus", either.  Science doesn't work that way.  Either it's a provable fact or not.  If it is a provable fact, then no consensus is needed.

 

The whole idea behind a consensus is nothing more than "this number of people agree with my theory, so it must be right".

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

I don't trust scientific "consensus", either.  Science doesn't work that way.  Either it's a provable fact or not.  If it is a provable fact, then no consensus is needed.

 

The whole idea behind a consensus is nothing more than "this number of people agree with my theory, so it must be right".

That's not what a scientific consensus is founded on. It is not about agreement like a vote or feeling, it is agreement based on the sheer validity of all the data.

 

If you have 70 articles published that conclude animal fats are good for you and only 15 that conclude they are not then the scientific consensus after due consideration will be that animal fats are good for you.

 

It's not one person said this and I agree. It's 70 people concluded this after extensive study and it out weighs the 30 who concluded different. 

 

 

[Jito463]

7 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

The whole idea behind a consensus is nothing more than "this number of people agree with my theory, so it must be right"

Just now, mr moose said:

It's not one person said this and I agree. It's 70 people concluded this after extensive study and it out ways the 30 who concluded different. 

You literally just agreed with me after saying you disagree with me.  You just said it in a different way.

[mr moose]

22 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

You literally just agreed with me after saying you disagree with me.  You just said it in a different way.

no, you said X number of people agree with my theory,  implying there is one study that many scientists agree with. that is not the case, it is many scientists looking at many studies and drawing the same conclusion.   The fact is they agree is due to the merits of studies, not the opinions of the scientists who did the study.

[Jito463]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

no, you said X number of people agree with my theory,  implying there is one study that many scientists agree with. that is not the case, it is many scientists looking at many studies and drawing the same conclusion.   The fact is they agree is due to the merits of studies, not the opinions of the scientists who did the study.

It still boils down to how many scientists agree with a theory.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

It still boils down to how many scientists agree with a theory.

No it doesn't.  Not by a long shot.

 

In it's crudest form it is many professionals agreeing on the evidence.  Don't confuse theory with evidence with hypothesis.

[NumLock21]

Once humans stopped eating real meat, we're gonna have cows ending up where they're not suppose to be.