Lab Grown Meat gets closer to see consumer plates

[Brooksie359]

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I don't think "wants to be more natural" is a valid reason though.

If someone decided to pour a bunch of oil into the ocean "because they felt like it" then I don't think that would be a sufficient reason either.

 

Both pouring oil into the ocean and eating meat contribute greatly to destruction of our environment, it is expensive and it does nothing but fill people with a false sense of accomplishment or something.

 

And don't get me wrong. I eat meat, and I love it. I eat meat like 12 times a week, if not more, and I am sure other people do it too. That's why I think it is important to find an alternative to our currently extremely inefficient method of producing meat (a problem that is only amplified by things like free range meat) with all of its drawbacks (like speeding up the development and spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria).

 

Once you start advocating against the solution to big environmental issues and health risks then you kind of need a better reason than "it's not natural".

Our current meat production is certainly not natural either. At least not the meat that 90% of us eat is, and things like "organic, free range meat" is way to expensive and wasteful for mass scale production to meet demands.

 

People need to realize that things like organic food is a luxury that not everyone can afford. And I don't mean that in the sense that I can't pay a couple of bucks extra to get some organic tomatoes over the regular ones. I mean that in the sense that if everyone switched over to only eating organic, our food production capacity would drop to somewhere between 50 and 80% of what we got today. Considering the fact that we already have millions of people starving to death every year, saying that we should cut food production in half (by some estimates) is kind of insane.

It's like saying you are OK with killing millions of people because you think eating salad sprayed with things like Rotenone makes you feel better than eating one sprayed with a synthetic pesticide. It's complete lunacy.

 

 

Not sure what you mean by "lover lever" but I assume that's crops grown to feed things like cattle? If that's the case, then I think you got cause and effect confused.

We don't have a large meat industry because we happened to have a much of cattle feed lying around. We started growing more food for cattle because the meat industries demands have grown larger and larger.

If the demand for meat got smaller, the 50% of farm land you said is used for "lover lever" would be allocated to other things.

One person not wanting to eat synthetic meat is not equivalent to someone dumping oil into the ocean. If the cost benfits are good enough then most will switch over but that won't stop others from wanting real meat. It's strange that you think someone needs a a strong argument to choose what type of food they eat. 

[ARikozuM]

I'll continue to pay for local, farm-raised, antibiotic-free chicken and beef. There are benefits from working at a vet clinic. 

 

I also forgot about the wild-caught fish. 

[TetraSky]

Well, as long as the nutritional value is as high/higher compared to actual meat... and the cost isn't more than meat, I wouldn't mind having some for dinner. 
That said, I doubt it will be anytime soon.

[Master Jelly]

I wish my meat could be grown in a lab. maybe I wouldn't disappoint women then. 

[InertiaSelling]

30 minutes ago, Master Jelly said:

I wish my meat could be grown in a lab. maybe I wouldn't disappoint women then. 

Username checks out.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Realistically speaking. There is no good reason to not grow our own protein-only supplements directly. Tofu exists on this base principle (and many others), but still requires the growing of copious excess crop for the protein content.

 

It is unfathomable that by the same principles lab-grown meat (assuming you can get it to the same or lower specific energy requirements) should not be used and promoted.

 

Of course we are a ways away from that level, but it's a good end goal.

 

Besides, the FDA and/or whoever else you want to regulate the safety and purity of these things can do that far easier in a controlled lab than on a farm.

 

On this same principle, even if it was possible, ethanol as used for any (non-food) scientific is always distilled from petroleum because that yields more consistent and pure products.

Side rant... not worth deleting, but also not directly relevant.

Spoiler

In fact... while some misguided people look at GMO crops as a source of technology going too far, a good counter example of people willfully ignoring progress for the sake of "historical precedent" is looking at alchohol.

 

In the US (and most of the world), alcohol for human drinking (unless labeled otherwise in such a way to reduce the likelihood someone might buy it, just like tobacco warnings etc) is restricted to being produced only from recently deceased fermented material. This results in a minimum additional radioactivity content. Regardless the fact that fossil oil-produced alcohol is cheaper, cleaner, and safer (impurity control) to consume.

 

And these same people think linear no-threshold is a valid model for radioactivity. If you do think that model is valid, then effectively requiring a base level of radioactivity in your drinking product directly leads to proportional cancer rates and other radiation related disease pathways.

 

Of course LNT isn't physically accurate, but yeah, point is most people aren't actually doing the math and calculating the cost-benefits to society and individuals or they would choose dramatically different choices.

 

And that isn't to say that people can't choose different value matrices to decide their actions, but inconsistent value matrices are great ways to kill more people (or whatever utilitarian process you want to maximize against) than otherwise.

 

 

Edit: I have no problem with stricter regulation and testing of GMO or any of these other engineered products. But blanket knee jerk bans/rejections of them is straight up condemning people by comparison. Also by GMO.. I specifically mean trans-genic GMOs. Humans have been genetically modifying organisms (through phenotypic modification) for at least 100k years

 

[MoonSpot]

54 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

There are benefits from working at a vet clinic.

???

  Benefits like free samples?

[ARikozuM]

11 minutes ago, MoonSpot said:

???

 

  Reveal hidden contents

  Benefits like free samples?

 

I can't speak for places like that.

 

The US does need more stringent laws in place to ensure that livestock and fowl receive ample range to roam. Better titer and ASA practices need to be put in place along with lower prevalence of antibiotics such as oxytetracycline or feed such as BT corn since we don't fully understand how it affects our livestock. 

[Lach1230]

10 hours ago, Shally said:

Then go out and hunt animals because there is no naturally raised meat on the market.

Parents own some land (6 Acres) Have a couple head of Dexter cattle on it, worm/fly treatment a few times a year. Some food in the dry months thats about it. Harvest at 9-12 months for 60-80kg of meat.

 

(Not very uncommon in Australia at least)

 

You pay a butcher to come kill, butcher and dispose of the cow for a few hundred.

 

I'll defiantly try it, but I don't think ill stop eating natural meat.

[thorhammerz]

5 hours ago, ignaloidas said:

...

 

No one else would want them and Intel would loose a lot of profit. Same with the farmers.

Yes...? Is that not natural...? Were you expecting everyone to win...?

 

The advent of deep-water navigation created winners for any European power capable of floating a boat (with guns mounted onto it), and making a roundabout trip to haul goodies from halfway around the world, but literally gutted the Ottoman Empire of their spice tariff revenues. Wasn't particularly great for the Native Americans either.

 

The advent of the industrial revolution created winners in the city (or rather, the already-well-monied-and-well-connected-and-quick-to-act), but losers for anyone manufacturing (use of that term is as loose as possible) anything by themselves (aka cottage industries). Food for thought: the two areas of the world that industrialized the fastest (when they occurred) and most successfully.... gave us Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.

 

The advent (if or when it comes: there are still many hurdles both regulatory, technical, and financial to overcome first) of factory-grown meat will likewise produce winners and losers.

The only difference between this change and the next is how close one is positioned to either those who stand to benefit, or those to stand to suffer losses. Change is classified as "good" in the history books when there are more winners than losers (at least, in the writer's eyes).

[williamcll]

would vegans eat this meat?

[Syntaxvgm]

4 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

There is plenty of evidence that specific GMO food crops, and the concomitant use of pesticides, specifically glyphosate(finally listed as a carcinogen), causes harm to humans and the environment. 

 

Im sure there are unscientific people who are anti GMO, but there are plenty of scientists and researchers who speak out against the tech as it is being irresponsibly used to maximize profit.

 

I see a similar situation with lab grown meat. Youd end up with a situation where only massive corporations can produce meat, and smaller farmers will simply go out of business. You have undoubtedly seen the results of agribusiness on farmers. Its a monopolistic tactic.

 

And that seems like a really backwards way of looking at things from my point of view. Seems like so many people are happy with a race to the bottom in price, that they completely ignore quality. I realize thats just a product of marketing conditioning people to want the cheapest possible thing so they can buy more things, but personally i would rather have things grow up in quality, not simply down in price.

 

I guess thats just a sign of the times though. 

 

 

I think the main problem is people who are anti-gmo base their beliefs on feeling and the shitty companies behind the tech like monsanto  bayer. GMO shouldn't be dismissed entirely as bad. Really, it's about the only realistic way to bring food to the entire population. (or hopefully close to it). I know what we do now is a lot different that the breeding that we've done in the past -I also have a problem with people giving the "we've been doing it for thousands of years" argument. There are some problems- but 99% of them are bullshit. 

Pesticides suck though, I think most people accept that. We go through a  cycle of introduce pesticides> it's a miracle > jk it's killing everything it touches, and it's in the water supply > ban it > hey look new pesticide. 
I think pesticides are also part of the reason (see shitty companies) why GMO gets a bad reputation since it's such a "nearby" issue. 

[Jito463]

13 hours ago, The Benjamins said:

So would you eat Lab Grown meat.

In a word, NO!  I don't care how safe they say it is, I won't eat Soylent Green lab grown meat.

12 hours ago, Sakkura said:

That's a poor argument. Farming is not natural either, or using computers.

Farming is as natural as it gets, and computers are just an advanced form of counting (which is also perfectly natural).

12 hours ago, Ben Quigley said:

Nor are most medications but you trust them right?

I don't.  I don't take any medicine unless I have absolutely no other choice.  I even stopped taking my high BP meds in favor of vitamins to regulate it instead.

8 hours ago, GoldenLag said:

fun fact. there is a correlation between the amount of horses in the world and the amount of people dying by bullet, stab and similar injuries. 

Also, ice cream consumption linked to shark attacks.

7 hours ago, poochyena said:

You sound like the type who buys straws just to throw into the ocean and modify's your truck for rolling coal.

Wait, that's a thing?  Seriously?  How did I not know about this.  SWEET!

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I don't think "wants to be more natural" is a valid reason though.

And I don't think you claiming it's not valid makes it invalid.  Just because you don't accept it, doesn't mean there's no validity in that statement.

1 hour ago, williamcll said:

would vegans eat this meat?

Vegetarians might, but vegans are the militant branch of vegetarianism.  I can't see anyone who claims to be a vegan ever eating this.

[Amazonsucks]

1 hour ago, Syntaxvgm said:

I think the main problem is people who are anti-gmo base their beliefs on feeling and the shitty companies behind the tech like monsanto  bayer. GMO shouldn't be dismissed entirely as bad. Really, it's about the only realistic way to bring food to the entire population. (or hopefully close to it). I know what we do now is a lot different that the breeding that we've done in the past -I also have a problem with people giving the "we've been doing it for thousands of years" argument. There are some problems- but 99% of them are bullshit. 

Pesticides suck though, I think most people accept that. We go through a  cycle of introduce pesticides> it's a miracle > jk it's killing everything it touches, and it's in the water supply > ban it > hey look new pesticide. 
I think pesticides are also part of the reason (see shitty companies) why GMO gets a bad reputation since it's such a "nearby" issue. 

Exactly. I am not anti GMO tech, generally speaking, because i understand how it works. The way its been done by those unethical companies and the basically fraudulent studies they do internally to verify safety, or in collusion with corrupt FDA officials is the problem.

 

There's no reason to use glyphosate the way its used, as much as its used, or in uses not even for pest control(drying crops).

 

I do avoid current GMOs, not because i think GMOs are intrinsically bad,but because the companies that make them are notoriously unethical and known for making unsafe products. 

 

Current GMOs arent usually about improving food quality for the consumer. Its about patenting lifeforms and making maximum profit at any cost, including human health.

 

@Jito463 Youre right to distrust a lot of them. There are tons of drugs that are made to maximize profit at the expense of the patient. SSRI antidepressants, a lot of autoimmune infusion drugs, and tons of the drugs you see advertised on TV(a uniquely American phenomenon) are either known to be more harmful than beneficial and left on the market(SSRIs) or are constantly being recalled.

 

On American TV its like you see a commercial for a drug and literally right after it you will see a commercial for a class action lawsuit for some drug that's dangerous.

 

All that stuff is on the market so it MUST be safe right? I would regard lab grown meat as no different until time proves otherwise. Not that i eat much meat anyway.

[RejZoR]

I love it when there are always tree huggers who defend vegteterianism because eating plants is good but eating cows is bad because cows are bad because they fart and because they ruin whatever. But they ignore huge crop fields for which they need to cut down huge forests, that get dusted with pesticides heavily because stuff for us people needs to be all perfect, shiny and without a single defect. They freaking always ignore this and when you point it out just like I did right now, they'll defend it with "but most of it is to feed cattle". Ehm, no it isn't. The stuff for cattle isn't dusted so heavily because cows don't care if food isn't absolutely spotless like humans do. Not to mention large portion of their food comes from rejected stuff that doesn't qualify for humans. But keep on trying to say huge fields are exclusively for animals all the time. You need massive fields to harvest sufficient amounts of soy, grain or corn and huge amount of it is for our diet or our products. Soy is stuffed in nearly all processed foods. Grains like wheat are basic material for all bakery products and corn is mostly used for starch and glucose syrup production.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, RejZoR said:

I love it when there are always tree huggers who defend vegteterianism because eating plants is good but eating cows is bad because cows are bad because they fart and because they ruin whatever. But they ignore huge crop fields for which they need to cut down huge forests, that get dusted with pesticides heavily because stuff for us people needs to be all perfect, shiny and without a single defect. They freaking always ignore this and when you point it out just like I did right now, they'll defend it with "but most of it is to feed cattle". Ehm, no it isn't. The stuff for cattle isn't dusted so heavily because cows don't care if food isn't absolutely spotless like humans do. Not to mention large portion of their food comes from rejected stuff that doesn't qualify for humans. But keep on trying to say huge fields are exclusively for animals all the time. You need massive fields to harvest sufficient amounts of soy, grain or corn and huge amount of it is for our diet or our products. Soy is stuffed in nearly all processed foods. Grains like wheat are basic material for all bakery products and corn is mostly used for starch and glucose syrup production.

In Australia first grade produce isn't even that heavily dusted with pesticides, I often find caterpillars in my veges from the supermarket.  Sometimes I doubt farmers around here even bother with pesticides half the time.  But if they did I would hope they where using low the lower doses of glyphosate than the slightly more dangerous higher doses of organic approved pesticides.   Comparing a bees dick to mossies foreskin  I know, but if we are going to split hairs then glyphosate wins on the NOEL. 

[RejZoR]

Main problem is that when income of farmers depends on crops integrity, they will dust the crops. They can't afford to lose it all due to some disease or pest. I don't think caterpillars are really an issue. They might eat some, but the real issue are diseases that get spread by insects like wildfire and they can lose whole fields because of it. It's possible chemicals aren't even affecting caterpillars. Or they infest the food later on after it was picked.

[Guest]

Everyone seems to be getting a milk curd about all this, if you like it, get it, if you don't like it, there are many farms out there that take good care of the animals before slaughter and try and buy from them, I don't go to takeaways and prefer to buy meat at markets rather than from the supermarket. Always buy FairTrade and Free Range even if it costs more. 

 

Factory farms are absolutely cruel and not how we do things here in NZ. It is illegal here but some sickos get away with it. 

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

In Australia first grade produce isn't even that heavily dusted with pesticides, I often find caterpillars in my veges from the supermarket.  Sometimes I doubt farmers around here even bother with pesticides half the time.  But if they did I would hope they where using low the lower doses of glyphosate than the slightly more dangerous higher doses of organic approved pesticides.   Comparing a bees dick to mossies foreskin  I know, but if we are going to split hairs then glyphosate wins on the NOEL. 

Not really much need to bother, but I guess in the US where they have locusts and whatnot its a different story. What really grinds my gears is the silly people who dont like GMO foods that claim it gives them Autism etc. GMO foods are fine to eat. Foods treated with modern pesticides are fine to eat, and always make sure to wash your food properly because legionnaires and other pathogens are quite real indeed. 

[mr moose]

11 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Main problem is that when income of farmers depends on crops integrity, they will dust the crops. They can't afford to lose it all due to some disease or pest. I don't think caterpillars are really an issue. They might eat some, but the real issue are diseases that get spread by insects like wildfire and they can lose whole fields because of it. It's possible chemicals aren't even affecting caterpillars. Or they infest the food later on after it was picked.

I'm confident if a caterpillar or moth can survive in my lettuce, then whatever chemical they may have used won't be much of a threat to me.  Besides,  I rinse them all before I eat them anyway.

 

 

[Curufinwe_wins]

2 hours ago, Syntaxvgm said:

I think the main problem is people who are anti-gmo base their beliefs on feeling and the shitty companies behind the tech like monsanto  bayer. GMO shouldn't be dismissed entirely as bad. Really, it's about the only realistic way to bring food to the entire population. (or hopefully close to it). I know what we do now is a lot different that the breeding that we've done in the past -I also have a problem with people giving the "we've been doing it for thousands of years" argument. There are some problems- but 99% of them are bullshit. 

Pesticides suck though, I think most people accept that. We go through a  cycle of introduce pesticides> it's a miracle > jk it's killing everything it touches, and it's in the water supply > ban it > hey look new pesticide. 
I think pesticides are also part of the reason (see shitty companies) why GMO gets a bad reputation since it's such a "nearby" issue. 

Organic methods don't necessarily use lower quantity of pesticides... (Some claim 'pesticide free', but many others use copious quantities of 'organic' pesticides, which are generally less effective... at least in cost)

 

This is the result of a number of factors really:

 

1. Obviously... pesticides work. Crop yield is higher, and thus specific land use is lower.

2. Organic farming requires vastly more fertilizer than conventional methods. These fertilizers (acting in part as pesticides) run off as well and get in our water supplies.

 

(Not comprehensive list).... And I'm not saying that we can't improve different things... but it should be self-evident that if 'organic methods' were just better... then the conventional methods would BE the organic methods. There is no free lunch.

 

[RejZoR]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

I'm confident if a caterpillar or moth can survive in my lettuce, then whatever chemical they may have used won't be much of a threat to me.  Besides,  I rinse them all before I eat them anyway.

 

 

That's not entirely true. We have an anti-headache medication called Lekadol which contains Paracetamol which is known to be dadly for dogs and cats if ingested, but helps humans releave headache. Things can work the other way around too... Just because some organism can tolerate something, it doesn't mean some other can too. The weight doesn't even matter quite often because some substances get excreted without organism doing anything with it.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, RejZoR said:

That's not entirely true. We have an anti-headache medication called Lekadol which contains Paracetamol which is known to be dadly for dogs and cats if ingested, but helps humans releave headache. Things can work the other way around too... Just because some organism can tolerate something, it doesn't mean some other can too. The weight doesn't even matter quite often because some substances get excreted without organism doing anything with it.

Yeah, I get all that. I used to be part of a group for the promotion of the scientific consensus.  We got faced with a lot of woo science you have to slowly debunk before you can start with the intricacies, I am now at the stage where I just don't bother with the technical bits unless the conversation warrants it.

 

 

[Sakkura]

3 hours ago, Jito463 said:

Farming is as natural as it gets, and computers are just an advanced form of counting (which is also perfectly natural).

That's nonsense. Agriculture was invented around 11,000 years ago. And computers are not natural, no. When's the last time you ran into a flock of reindeer with a server or a lizard with a laptop?

[Canada EH]

16 hours ago, The Benjamins said:

I am really interested in Lab Grown meat becoming available. I can see it being higher quality, more humane, cheaper (when it gets big enough). It will also reduce the environmental impact the meat industry currently has.

A few things here.

 

Lab Grown Meat would be GMO no doubt about that!

Cheaper, perhaps but I doubt it.

Env impact of the meat industry, so what beef vs poultry?

Beef has a mega impact, takes 1000L of water to make 1lb of beef, methane, hormones, pasture land. Goats mowing your lawn is the new age!

[RejZoR]

19 minutes ago, Canada EH said:

A few things here.

 

Lab Grown Meat would be GMO no doubt about that!

Cheaper, perhaps but I doubt it.

Env impact of the meat industry, so what beef vs poultry?

Beef has a mega impact, takes 1000L of water to make 1lb of beef, methane, hormones, pasture land. Goats mowing your lawn is the new age!

Ok, so, they consume all that to live. Which they would one way or the other if they are alive. And if we all of a sudden don't need them anymore, what do you think it would happen to them? Just released intot he wild with cows just randomly wandering through fields and forests? No. They'd basically be gone as species.