Test tube meat

[pete34]

Would you eat test tube meat?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2012/02/would-you-eat-test-tube-meat.html

It would be nice to eat meat without killing somethin

we need meat for mental clarity and strength

[shruman]

Cell death is MURDER!

LOL

[ballzac]

Would you eat test tube meat?

 

Yes, absolutely, 100%!

I eat meat, but there is certainly a level of cognitive dissonance that I feel because of my ethical beliefs. Test-tube meat would solve this. I think it's unfortunate that there is such political resistance to certain forms of technology, and this sort of thing falls into that category. This is a cause that vegetarians/vegans who choose to be so because of their ethics should promote, but there is often resistance from exactly these people. The number of people who will be convinced to stop eating meat is a very small minority, but the number of people who could be convinced to eat test-tube meat in the long run is an overwhelming majority. There would be people who would not eat it for religious reasons, and there would also be people who choose the 'natural' alternative because they believe it to be superior. But the fact is that, after the initial sense of repulsion that many people will have, most people couldn't care less. Test-tube meat will ultimately be cheaper, so fast food joints will choose it over farmed animals. This will make an enormous difference to our impact on animal lives and climate change. There will be options at the supermarkets, and most of us will choose the cheaper alternative which would be the test-tube meat. At first a lot of people will be suspicious of it, but once we have a generation that has grown up in a world where a lot of meat doesn't come from animals, the resistance to it will gradually disappear.

There is a concern that the meat produced will cater to the lowest common denominator, and the quality will therefore be low, but we will have so much more control over the properties of the meat and its nutritional content, that it's possible that we will actually see meat of the highest quality.

[whitewind]

The amount of farmland currently under pasture is absolutely enormous; a huge proportion of Amazonian deforestation ends up being farmed for cattle and soy beans to feed cattle in the US (that doesn't necessarily mean that the trees won't get turned in to charcoal anyway - see this news story gallery here)

Farmland could be turned back in to forest, but I have the nasty feeling that someone would still find an excuse for clearing it, if not for charcoal then for still more food to feed our massively expanding population - it will still be profitable and easier for third world farmers to produce the old fashioned way.

Without tackling increasing population and the requirement for continual economic growth, even test-tube meat will have but a tiny impact on environmental degradation. As far as ethical concerns go, it would clearly be much more reasonable to eat cell blocks as opposed to killing living creatures, so I have no objection to the new technology, though I would be cautious of anything which might be subject to gene modification, and anything which might bv controlled by Monsanto / Bayer (or any major corporation for that matter).

[Darklight]

Test tube meat- all very well, but do the liquid media ingredients used to nourish the cell cultures while they're growing contain any animal products?

If so it's a phenomenal waste of energy, growing and processing meat products to feed meat cells

Anyone in this field have any ideas? I'm talking about things like foetal calf serum as a possible ingredient to existing ethical meat cultures

The use of these pharmaceutical animal derivatives may only be temporary- should be encouraged as only temporary- if/ where they are used at all. The production process is abhorrent even to me, and I'm a carnivore. It may be possible to identify the specific growth factor driving the in-vitro cell replication and sythesise it using environmentally friendly tech that could still bring test-tube meat under the calorie inputs it takes to produce real meat

But I bet it's a way off yet. And it does bear some scrutiny. Not just for the ethical production of test tube meat but as a comparison of energy efficiency

[dionysus]

pretty cool idea, but how would it taste? simulated food goods often arent very good quality, i know i would rather buy a nice bone of leg ham rather than a nice can of spiced ham. also, what would then happen to stock farms/farmers, would they have to do culls to keep numbers acceptable that then wouldnt even be eaten? one last question, what wold be more expensive to manufacture, a cow (throuigh farming) or hiring scientists to grow a muscle in a jar? sad, but often production cost dictates which ideas we go for

[Darklight]

Taste like chicken maybe ;)

[Mycot]

Why not just eat insects instead of all this test tube stupidity?

Edited June 18, 2012 by Mycot

[Stillman]

coming from a butchering background I would like to try the product. A lot of flavour/ texture in meat is directly atributed to what muscle it is and what it is being fed. Also how much excersize it goes through. I imagine the first trials would be pretty ordinary.

[nothinghead]

we need meat for mental clarity and strength

 

we really don't

Without tackling increasing population and the requirement for continual economic growth, even test-tube meat will have but a tiny impact on environmental degradation.

 

Totally agree with you that deforestation is something that needs to change soon (esp. in the amazon where it means displacement, murder, and rape for the Indigenous peoples, as well as being catastrophic in an environmental sense), but one change that would be pretty positive would be that it's long been known that producing meat for consumption entails a massive amount of consequential c02 production (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jul/19/climatechange.climatechange). Darklight raises the question of 'tube meat' production efficiency, which is something I know nothing about, but it'd be interesting to compare its waste by-products to those expelled by the meat industry today (you'd also have to look at the other negative effects of meat production like water usage, aquatic ecosystem pollution and other contamination etc etc etc).

On the animal ethics side of things, tube meat sounds like a great alternative to the livestock industries. I still wouldn't eat it tho. It's soylent green or nothing for me!

[Stillman]

soylent green lol

[Belching]

coming from a butchering background I would like to try the product. A lot of flavour/ texture in meat is directly atributed to what muscle it is and what it is being fed. Also how much excersize it goes through. I imagine the first trials would be pretty ordinary.

 

Probably it would be 'plumped' to make it taste more like 'real' meat. They could maybe grow fat cells in strategic places to make it resemble specific cuts?

[Stillman]

No doubt they could reconstitute it first into any shape or texture. The more I think of it the more it creeps me out. I eat meat I have slaughtered animals we have raised. I understand the large scale augment against commercial meat supply etc, But I think an animal raised in humane conditions, for the purpose for eating is going to taste so much better than fake meat. Eating should be a pleasure, something to be enjoyed after all. I don't want to eat spacefood stix ever lol.

[shortly]

Would you eat test tube meat?

I'd rather not, just the same as i prefer not to eat the months old fair from the stupidmarket.

For me its about the energy or life of our food and giving thanks for the life that was given so that that we can eat. And that extends to all living things, regardless of what is on the plate, be it animal, plant or fungi.

And yes i do prefer to kill my own when i can, not because i enjoy it but because it allows me to show proper respect.

[r2pi]

^^^ what he said.

For me, if following our genetic endowment and taking our natural place in ecosystems as an omnivore causes environmental damage, then the problem is not with the practice but rather with our population level.

The world probably couldn't cope with 7 billion koalas either - but would we them lock them up in concrete enclosures, feed them artificial foods, and encourage them to keep breeding? No - it would be cruel, stupid and ultimately unsustainable. So why do we do this with humans?

[Xenodimensional]

we need meat for mental clarity and strength

 

I've done a *lot* of reading about the topic of nutrition and there is no basis for your claims despite what Sam Neill has told you.

Mycoproteins are a way to a more sustainable and ethical future and I'd wager that they're tastier and better for you than the abominable frankenmeat.

[Darklight]

Mycoproteins! Noice! Haven't tried Quorn yet but will put it on the list

But they may have the added advantage of not needing complex and energy intensive resources to replicate, which is also a part of ethical production IMO. And we can do them *now*

[Stillman]

I will have to look into that, I'd love to grow edible mushies in general, but outside of those kits at Bunnings I just can't get it right lol.

[pete34]

Cell death is MURDER! LOL

G'day shruman

Yes, Torture and murder

i saw this truck loaded with chickens and it put me of chicken for a month or so

Yes, absolutely, 100%! I eat meat, but there is certainly a level of cognitive dissonance that I feel because of my ethical beliefs. Test-tube meat would solve this. I think it's unfortunate that there is such political resistance to certain forms of technology, and this sort of thing falls into that category. This is a cause that vegetarians/vegans who choose to be so because of their ethics should promote, but there is often resistance from exactly these people. The number of people who will be convinced to stop eating meat is a very small minority, but the number of people who could be convinced to eat test-tube meat in the long run is an overwhelming majority. There would be people who would not eat it for religious reasons, and there would also be people who choose the 'natural' alternative because they believe it to be superior. But the fact is that, after the initial sense of repulsion that many people will have, most people couldn't care less. Test-tube meat will ultimately be cheaper, so fast food joints will choose it over farmed animals. This will make an enormous difference to our impact on animal lives and climate change. There will be options at the supermarkets, and most of us will choose the cheaper alternative which would be the test-tube meat. At first a lot of people will be suspicious of it, but once we have a generation that has grown up in a world where a lot of meat doesn't come from animals, the resistance to it will gradually disappear. There is a concern that the meat produced will cater to the lowest common denominator, and the quality will therefore be low, but we will have so much more control over the properties of the meat and its nutritional content, that it's possible that we will actually see meat of the highest quality.

G'day ballzac

Yes i agree, glad to see your enthusiasm

Political/public resistance to new technology is common but you cant stop progress

yes hopefully vegans would see its not cruel so eat it, taste will be same once they get the hang of it then mass production will make it way more cost effective. Gene modification wouldnt be needed but if it was its no harm

The amount of farmland currently under pasture is absolutely enormous; a huge proportion of Amazonian deforestation ends up being farmed for cattle and soy beans to feed cattle in the US (that doesn't necessarily mean that the trees won't get turned in to charcoal anyway - see this news story gallery here) Farmland could be turned back in to forest, but I have the nasty feeling that someone would still find an excuse for clearing it, if not for charcoal then for still more food to feed our massively expanding population - it will still be profitable and easier for third world farmers to produce the old fashioned way. Without tackling increasing population and the requirement for continual economic growth, even test-tube meat will have but a tiny impact on environmental degradation. As far as ethical concerns go, it would clearly be much more reasonable to eat cell blocks as opposed to killing living creatures, so I have no objection to the new technology, though I would be cautious of anything which might be subject to gene modification, and anything which might bv controlled by Monsanto / Bayer (or any major corporation for that matter).

G'day whitewind

Meat production is the biggest issue for loss of species if you take meat production out of the equation nature would rejoice

gene modification wouldn't be needed, but if it was gene modification is progress but yes caution would be needed, learning progresses from trial and error. Monsanto / bayer might be easily beaten in court over patents they have, its just they settle before it gets to court like they did with the breast cancer gene

Test tube meat- all very well, but do the liquid media ingredients used to nourish the cell cultures while they're growing contain any animal products? If so it's a phenomenal waste of energy, growing and processing meat products to feed meat cells Anyone in this field have any ideas? I'm talking about things like foetal calf serum as a possible ingredient to existing ethical meat cultures The use of these pharmaceutical animal derivatives may only be temporary- should be encouraged as only temporary- if/ where they are used at all. The production process is abhorrent even to me, and I'm a carnivore. It may be possible to identify the specific growth factor driving the in-vitro cell replication and sythesise it using environmentally friendly tech that could still bring test-tube meat under the calorie inputs it takes to produce real meat But I bet it's a way off yet. And it does bear some scrutiny. Not just for the ethical production of test tube meat but as a comparison of energy efficiency

G'day Darklight

They know it needs to be more efficient and would be pointless to make cows with cows, its far less energy, less labour,land,oil

they would need some tissue to start other than that no animal products are needed only amino acids, vitamins, inorganic salts.

Synthetic cell and tissue culture media and components.

NOT

Chromosome culture kit.

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=864&showFR=1&subpartNode=21:8.0.1.1.18.3

sound better than eating tortured caged animals that are laden with bad chemicals and need to be slaughtered? Its no worse than how they make cheese in big vats only they wont sit it on a shelf for years or be slaughtered

yes it will get scrutiny thats for sure but less than GMO

pretty cool idea, but how would it taste? simulated food goods often arent very good quality, i know i would rather buy a nice bone of leg ham rather than a nice can of spiced ham. also, what would then happen to stock farms/farmers, would they have to do culls to keep numbers acceptable that then wouldnt even be eaten? one last question, what wold be more expensive to manufacture, a cow (throuigh farming) or hiring scientists to grow a muscle in a jar? sad, but often production cost dictates which ideas we go for

G'day dionysus

its not simulated its just grown in a vat, same meat/DNA,they know it needs to be more efficient and taste the same

its way less resources all round so costs would be less

farmers could grow trees ;-)

[pete34]

Taste like chicken maybe ;)

chicken, lamb,cow whatever the meat culture was originally taken from, its the same process an animal does to make meat but in a vat

Why not just eat insects instead of all this test tube stupidity?

G'day Mycot

insects are ok but we would run out of edible insects and damage nature more, even better the oldest, algae, spirulina is a good way to get natural vitamins the body likes

you cant stop progress mate, be it test tube meat or gene modification

coming from a butchering background I would like to try the product. A lot of flavour/ texture in meat is directly atributed to what muscle it is and what it is being fed. Also how much excersize it goes through. I imagine the first trials would be pretty ordinary.

G'day Stillman

the different cuts of meat would just be a modification to the growing process, exercise would be a chemical difference

yes as with all things the 1st steps are ordinary

we really don't Totally agree with you that deforestation is something that needs to change soon (esp. in the amazon where it means displacement, murder, and rape for the Indigenous peoples, as well as being catastrophic in an environmental sense), but one change that would be pretty positive would be that it's long been known that producing meat for consumption entails a massive amount of consequential c02 production (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jul/19/climatechange.climatechange). Darklight raises the question of 'tube meat' production efficiency, which is something I know nothing about, but it'd be interesting to compare its waste by-products to those expelled by the meat industry today (you'd also have to look at the other negative effects of meat production like water usage, aquatic ecosystem pollution and other contamination etc etc etc). On the animal ethics side of things, tube meat sounds like a great alternative to the livestock industries. I still wouldn't eat it tho. It's soylent green or nothing for me!

G'day racketemensch

yes the destruction is sad, yes co2 production is huge so is deforestation for meat production

be careful what you wish for, biotechs could make money from all parts and excreta, eek

if population continues soylent green would be the only thing on the menu

the land/environmental footprint difference would be huge

soylent green lol

G'day Stillman

soylent green was murdered and deceased humans, bit of a difference ;-)

Probably it would be 'plumped' to make it taste more like 'real' meat. They could maybe grow fat cells in strategic places to make it resemble specific cuts?

G'day Belching

yes they will have full control over the meat

they can do antelope if they want

No doubt they could reconstitute it first into any shape or texture. The more I think of it the more it creeps me out. I eat meat I have slaughtered animals we have raised. I understand the large scale augment against commercial meat supply etc, But I think an animal raised in humane conditions, for the purpose for eating is going to taste so much better than fake meat. Eating should be a pleasure, something to be enjoyed after all. I don't want to eat spacefood stix ever lol.

G'day Stillman

not having to kill, its not fake meat, you get some meat from a cow then grow it bigger

I'd rather not, just the same as i prefer not to eat the months old fair from the stupidmarket. For me its about the energy or life of our food and giving thanks for the life that was given so that that we can eat. And that extends to all living things, regardless of what is on the plate, be it animal, plant or fungi. And yes i do prefer to kill my own when i can, not because i enjoy it but because it allows me to show proper respect.

G'day shortly

nice post

yes we would all like that, unfortunately the animals are dropping where ever we go and nature cant cope

^^^ what he said. For me, if following our genetic endowment and taking our natural place in ecosystems as an omnivore causes environmental damage, then the problem is not with the practice but rather with our population level. The world probably couldn't cope with 7 billion koalas either - but would we them lock them up in concrete enclosures, feed them artificial foods, and encourage them to keep breeding? No - it would be cruel, stupid and ultimately unsustainable. So why do we do this with humans?

G'day rtpi

agreed

I've done a *lot* of reading about the topic of nutrition and there is no basis for your claims despite what Sam Neill has told you. Mycoproteins are a way to a more sustainable and ethical future and I'd wager that they're tastier and better for you than the abominable frankenmeat.

G'day Xenodimensional

the basis of my claims: we are omnivores

and i dont know Sam Neil

mycoproteins not sure if i would eat it often and it sounds more abominable Frankensteinish than the meat does, i cant see it being as popular as meat either

[r2pi]

if population continues soylent green would be the only thing on the menu

the basis of my claims: we are omnivores

 

Spot on.

Eating is the most fundamental way in which animals interact with our ecosystems.

If we fundamentally alter that and we completely divorce human animals from ecosystems. This has already partially occurred with urbanisation and the chain of production. I, for one, don't wish to see it see it go further, much less have it forced upon me.

I think humans need free range just as much as every other animal. If there's too many of us to support that, fix overpopulation instead.

[Stillman]

Fix overpopulation thats a 5 billion dollar question? My thinking, its not the births that are the problem its the lack of deaths lol.

[whitewind]

Nah it's definitely the births. Lack of death would mean a mere tripling of the population (assuming the average age of death goes from 30 to 90) whereas the birth rate has been a bit exponential. I love all those projections that suggest that somehow, in a few decades time, the birth rate will begin to slow down and there will be no more increase. It's utter bollocks, and people still swallow it whole. There are only two ways our population will start to plateau - 1 is if there is a sensible policy, enforced worldwide, that forces people to stick to two children - try running that one past the Christians and the Muslims, for a start - or there will be something that causes a mass die-off - and I'm guessing that it's going to be catastrophic environmental degradation, including but not limited to climate change and global warming. Until then it's breed, baby, breed.

[Stillman]

or a good ol fashioned world war brought about by global economic down turn like the other two. lol

[pete34]

or a good ol fashioned world war brought about by global economic down turn like the other two. lol

 

be careful what you wish for, ww3 is on the cards

the problem now is mans technology far outweighs his wisdom

most of civilisation would cease in just a few hrs, no human in the northern hemisphere would survive

if you see Russia invade Iran the yanks will get upset and kabooooom, Russia needs oil too and usa is getting control of it, Russia is concerned usa will take Iran so they might pre-empt

Iran is the fuse

there is nothing new under the sun, we have been here man times

know this:

we have never made anything and not used it, nothing ever