Slashdot Mirror
Lab-Grown Steak
swight1701 writes "New Scientist has an article about several researches who are trying to perfect growing seafood, chicken and beef in the lab without the animal. NASA started the program by wanting to provide burgers for Mars astronauts, and researchers hope to look to McDonalds, et al as funding sources in the future. The biggest problems being nutrient delivery to thick meat and exercise for the sedentary slabs. Processed meats seem to be something that may be a reality soon, while your animal friendly filet mignon may take a little while."
Why not consider it as a REALLY good-tasting plant, of some sort?
Or one of the million things that modern science produces out of powders, waxes and who-knows-what and calls "food" ?
I mean, some people eat all kinds of things found wrapped in your local gas-station food mart.
Mind you, it's not that I totally disagree with you, but some would say.....we're already there
A sick is to eat KILLED animals?
If you go to Kansas, please visit Dodge City and feeding stations for cows near it. It's disgusting and torturing to see that cows and smell that...
It seems like more and more corporations are putting profit margins before people...
It seems like more and more, any attempt to make money becomes an *evil conspiracy*.
If you don't want to eat it, don't. Just because someone has decided this is a good business venture doesn't mean they have taken some action against you personally (or anyone else).
A modern day witchhunt.
This is just sick. I don't think I could even think about eating this. Anyone else feel the same way?
Nope. I'm no vegetarian but I don't see how this is any more or less sick than killing animals and eating their flesh.
This is not genetically engineered food. It's natural muscle tissue (i.e. meat) grown in vitro instead of in vivo. You can think of it as hydroponic meat.
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
...might be to *use* the muscle power a slab of steak represents, to perform work.
But obviously this is an important step towards developing Matrix pods. Full steam ahead, and pass the soylent yellow!
Blockquoting one segment of an article that supports your cause, then failing to reference the immediately following segment in the same article that refutes the original argument, does not add to your credibility. Allow me to help you out:
But Douglas McFarland, at South Dakota State University in Brookings, who collaborates with Mironov, disagrees. "Animal protein is a more balanced and complex protein than a plant protein," he argues. "The body would absorb and metabolise protein from a pill too rapidly. If you eat protein, then it takes more time to digest."
This is a perfect example of why groups like PETA are not taken seriously. Arguments should be based on ALL the evidence, not just those parts that are on "your side".
I'll bite, troll...
Religious dietary laws are not arbitrary mysticism. If you trace them back to their roots, you will invariably find the proscriptions make good sense for the immediate health of the eater (e.g. don't eat pig in a desert where firewood is scarce because you'll get trichynosis (sp?)) or the long term health of the society (e.g. don't eat the cow that gives you milk today because you'll starve tomorrow because the landscape and grain supply won't support cattle farming).
Of course, I assume that correlating any religous edict with such sensible arguments will be wasted on you, since you've already decided that anything that doesn't suit your immediate desire for self-gratification is just the silliness of some shrouded, treacherous priesthood....
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
Besides, if it is inhumane to Kill animals why is it humane to Kill plants?
People usually use this as a slippery slope, strawman sort of argument to discredit PETA and the like. The foundation, however, is perilous: If it's therefore okay to kill animals because it's okay to kills plants, well then I guess it's okay to eat little babies-I hear that China has a surplus. All meat eaters therefore must support the eating of little Chinese babies.
PETA, and organizations like it, strive to improve the world and the conditions of all living things in whatever way possible (which is more than can be said for most people who's life is nothing but self-centered greed), and the lowest hanging fruit obviously is to stop the suffering of high level mammals.
P.S. I'm not saying this preaching: I personally am a meat eater -- It was the way I was brought up and it is a tough habit to kick. However I have the reason and the perspective to appreciate the arguments of others rather than to simply accept whatever perspective justifies the way I live (which is basically the technique of 9/10ths of Slashdotters. Do you pirate? Down with IP laws!)
I'm suprised that the parent post has been labelled flame bait it is nothing of the kind. Logically there should be nothing wrong with eating this artificially grown meat the problem in that sense is purely cultural/instinctive because of it's unnatural origins.
The seperate issue of GM foods being potentially dangerous is a very valid point, but in this case I don't think they are talking about GM'ing (new verb!) the meat just growing it externally. The health risks of externally grown animal proteins have not been explored and there may be dangers there.
Allow me to suggest you try a couple things before bashing NASA for spending a few dollars on this:
1. Spend a year living between a large (cattle) feedlot and the waste ponds of a modern (huge) pig farm. (Having a surgeon seal up your nose is not allowed.)
2. Spend your own money to launch a freezer filled with 1000 burger patties to Mars, dump 500 patties there, then return with the rest. (I'll even throw in the patties FOR FREE when you pay for the rocket, launch facility, etc. up front.)
(Yes, "a few dollars". Look at NASA's budget a bit before bashing - basic R&D is NOT where the $$$ is going.)
It's easy to make up & spread cool- and credible-sounding stuff. Finding & checking hard facts is hard work.
This is a perfect example of why groups like PETA are not taken seriously. Arguments should be based on ALL the evidence, not just those parts that are on "your side".
First of all, why the attack on PETA? The OP didn't even mention them... do you just have a personal vendetta and feel the need to criticize them?
Second, of course PETA is going to present the evidence that is on "their side". They're an organization with a specific agenda. You may not agree with their agenda, but that doesn't mean their opinions are invalid.
On the other hand, the beef industry doesn't spend a whole lot of time telling you you should eat your veggies and whole-grain foods, even though plenty of research indicates that they should be the bulk of a healthy diet. And there's no reason to expect them to do so - their agenda is to sell beef. Where's your outcry that they shouldn't be taken seriously?
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
I have to wonder, why would NASA spend $ to research developing lab-grown meat when you could just turn veggie for a long-duration mission? Is it a weight/power/space issue? (Space as in the amount of space it would take in the ship to grow hydroponics?)
Now, I'm a true-blooded American Carnivore (TM) and eat just about anything you put in front of me. A vegan diet (within reason) is plenty sufficient and I'd certainly adopt one as a requirement to go on a long-term mission.
OTOH, I certainly can support any developments that would put a dent in the factory farms.
Ahh, but you can. In fact, I feel that there are two immediate counterpoints to this notion.
The first is that not all land is plantable. Very large parts of of Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, and New Mexico are unsuited to crop growing either because they're too arid, or too rocky, or too low in other nutrients. You may notice that these areas have a reputation for cattle ranching.
Second, cattle (and other animals) can be a natural part of the crop cycle on land that is arable. Its well known that you ought to leave your fields fallow every few years, even better is to graze some sort of fertilizer-producing animal on it. You'll feed some of your grain to these animals as well, but you're paid back both in meat and fertilizer for this use.
Now, to be fair, I'll admit that there are other parts of our meat producing system that cause problems. Feedlots are probably the best example. The amount of manure created by their dense populations pollutes the groundwater and causes other problems before it can be removed for use as a fertilizer. Some slaughterhouses are inhumane (and some are not).
I think if you're going to argue for something in terms of efficiency and global impact, organic farming makes the most sense.
Perhaps the lab approach will pollute less than the feedlots, and provide a cheaper alternative. That's going to be my hope, at least.
-Zipwow
I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
This whole "animal protein is more complete and balanced" line of reasoning is hogwash. A proper, varied diet that includes protein-rich vegetarian foods such as beans, rice, and cereals will provide more than enough protein, and all of the amino acids a human needs. The whole "vegetarians don't get protein" argument is completely bunk, although there is such a thing as a "vegetarian" with a poor diet (who may not receive the proper balance of amino acids) just as there are omnivores with poor diets.
The only nutrient a hard-core vegan can't get from vegetable matter is vitamin B12, which is only necessary in small doses and sticks around in body tissue for decades. B12 can be taken in supplement form or can be found in fortified "nutritional yeast flakes."
To me, the same is true of corn-grown beef or beef from animals who've been fed too much growth hormones. The meat has a strange taste or just feels like a sponge.
The best beef comes from the happiest animals, the ones who grew up roaming the lands and eating grass. The kind of beef grown in Alberta (Canada), Argentina and Brazil.
Having said that, I suspect that the artificial beef will just add another gradient to the taste and structure scale of beef. I doubt it'll be a lot different from real beef since it is real beef, only grown in a lab. If the researchers are serious about making the artificial beef "exercise" I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up tasting better than the beef from cows who are locked up in stables all their lifes.
My first reaction is: why? Why not just be a vegetarian? Hell, millions of Indians are, and they seem to be doing okay, building supercomputers and hand-held computing devices like gangbusters. We need less saturated fat, not an uberexpensive supply of it.
;)
I'm a card-carrying carnivore, but I'm not at all happy about the treatment of animals at farming facilities. I'd be happy to pay a little more for a chicken or turkey product that I knew had never suffered.
(Why not just become a vegetarian? Because I can't stand vegetarian food!
My knee-jerk reaction is to say "ewwww! I would never eat that!" Then I started to think it through.
We USians have not had to deal with outbreaks of BSE/CJD yet. Sooner or later it will probably happen. When it does, the dynamics of food consumption will change.
In my area, you can buy prime cuts of beef for approximately US$10/lb (that's $22/kg for our non-USian friends.) The market fluctuates considerably, based on seasons, market decisions, and store policies. The price is held fairly low because there is an excess of product.
But all the meat I buy comes from three or four sources, all mass commercial herds and corporate processors. Say half that source becomes unavailable, either because it has to be quarantined, or because it is actually infected and must be destroyed.
All of a sudden, there's no longer an excess of product. Beef becomes a commodity, and prices soar. Instead of $10/lb, it's $100/lb, if you can get it.
And imagine the hysteria and suspicion. We Americans are pretty good at that, especially after being whipped into a frenzy by the talking heads on the six o'clock news.
If a clean, lab-grown alternative product that seems vaguely the same is available, it will fly off the grocery store shelves.
"Why not just be a vegetarian?"
Because we are physiologically omnivores and need both animals as well as plants to stay healthy. Vegetarians in general and vegans in particular need to go through effort to find suitable replacements for the protiens they would be getting otherwise in order to maintain status quo. And even then, they usually end up eating more mass of food than a non-vegetarian in order just to keep up.
When you're on a manned space mission where a million things can go horribly wrong, why do you want to add more complexity for the crew to deal with? Let alone the extra mass needed for the food...
If you're a real vegetarian you'd be applauding these efforts. In the future we wouldn't need to kill animals for meat. They can roam free across the open plains and starve to death like other wild animals do.
Actually, this is to satisfy people like YOU who don't want to kill animals and feel that eating bloody flesh is somehow wrong because you're killing an animal. Face it, you don't think eating bloody flesh is gross because it's meat. You think it's wrong because you kill an animal to make it.
All you're doing right now is proving my opinion that most vegetarians choose their diet because they feel vegetarianism makes them superior and more classy people.
Lab-grown steak is a good thing. Period. No more slaughterhouses, no more massive feedlots, no more nutrient runoff, no more E. coli in the meat, no more need to graze cattle on large tracts of land, no more hunting of predators that prey on herds, etc, etc, etc. Oh, and you don't need to kill anything.
This isn't becoming "detached" from our food, this is altering the source of our food so we don't need to become detached. If you want "back to nature" then go out and live in the savannahs of Africa and live as a hunter gatherer, because by your definition farming and animal domestication are all "becoming detached" from our food.
And I HAVE killed my own meat. Doesn't phase me. Not everyone has the same aversion to sitting on the top of the food chain that you have.
If not all sentients are human, couldn't it be possible that not all humans are sentient either?