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."

Comments

Re:Gag.

[XNormal]

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.

Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal

[micromoog]

Even NASA can't argue (from the article) blah blah blah

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".

Re:Is it cosher? Is it lenten?

[aborchers]

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....

Re:Gag.

[ergo98]

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!)

Re:now see

[0x69]

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.)

Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal

[ShavenYak]

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?

(OT) Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal

[zipwow]

quakeslut wrote:

as a man of science (I assume) you can't argue that eating meat is more efficient than eating the plants yourself.

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

Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal

[lordaych]

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."

Re:Reminds me of the scene in "The Fly"

[Rik van Riel]

It tasted more like a burger than any other veggie burger I tried, but was perhaps a bit too close without being perfect. The end result was that it was more "disturbing" to eat because though it sorta tasted like meat, it had a weird "there is something not right here" kind of taste to it.

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.

Re:Expensive pant load!

[Guppy06]

"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...

Re:Flavor- Who gives a F-ck. This is sick

[Bicoid]

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.