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."
Just as farm-raised meat has a different taste quality than game meat, I wonder what the flavor of lab meat would be?
--If you code for the exceptions, the rules fall into place
Huhhhuhhuh... laaaab grooownnn buuurrrgggerr... araarrrrraarah slurp slurp
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
This is just sick. I don't think I could even think about eating this. Anyone else feel the same way?
Who know what the long term effects of eating genetically engineered food are? It seems like more and more corporations are putting profit margins before people...
Is this food being compliant to be cosher?
Can it be lenten and be eaten in Christian fasting?
I want to be able to meet my meat. Why can't they just breed cows that desire to be eaten. Then we could all have a nice meal at The Restaraunt at the End of the Universe.
Doesn't anyone remember in high school chemistry, they said never *ever* eat anything from the lab? I kinda feel like that situation applies here.
--gaz
"I turn away with fright and horror from the lamentable evil of functions which do not have derivatives."
Tastes like "Chicken Little"!
Anyone else remember "The Space Merchants?"
Seriously, I wonder if my jewish friends will be able to partake of the grown meat. I mean, it does not have cloven hooves or chew cud when it was grown in a vat.
Any Rabbi's out there want to give this a shot?
For people staying on Mars, wouldn't it be much easier and cheaper to bring some frozen embryos and grow them there? If they get a few males and females born from the test tubes then they could breed them. It would also prevent the negative response from much of the public.
Developers: We can use your help.
... where Jeff Goldblum sends the steak through the transporter. He has Geena Davis take a taste of the "molecularly re-engineered" steak vs the "real" steak. She has an immediate negative reaction and her complaint is that is tastes like something that is trying to be a steak (not her exact words, but the gist of the whole scene). This is how I imagine this meat being.
:)
This is also similar to some of those vegetarian "meats" available. One hamburger product I tried reminded me a lot of that scene. 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.
Of course they'll realize (too late of course) that given the right combinations of other foods/chemicals that the meat will continue to grow while in the gut. This will at first be disturbing as burger gluttons everywhere start exploding, but then people will realize that you only have to eat one burger, and given a good protein shake, you can "replenish" it any time you want
IF nothing else it may force more peope to think about where their food comes from and how it is processed.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
This is not the sig line you are looking for... -- Old Jedi Sig Line Trick
As I recall the Kzinti of Known Space (Larry Niven's books and many short stories by various authors) feed their troops on warships by growing cancers in large vats. Kzin need good, raw meat. Eventually they desire truly fresh meat of course...look out!
Any and all traces of hunger that I had are now completely gone thanks to this. And I have this sudden desire to kill all of the meat that I eat from now on, just so I can verify its' source...
"See, we plan ahead! That way, we never have to do anything now."
...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!
Quick, somebody go get the rabbi! This stuff CAN'T POSSIBLY be kosher! Well, maybe. But it's going to take an awful lot of pilpul, I mean, Talmudic discussion, to determine, what kind of food, exactly, this stuff is in terms of the usual criteria. I mean, does it have a cloven hoof? It's got NO HOOF AT ALL! Does it chew it's cud? NO! That can't be good, bubbehelle, nu? Just give me an old-fashioned steer and let me slit his throat, OK, you meshuggenah shagitz scientists!
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".
Sedentary meat delivered to be eaten by sedentary Americans.
If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
Well, I eat quarn, make from mushrooms, no animals in sight.
Is there really an ethical market for cow free beef?
(BTW I'm not a veg or a vegan, my family has a long history of heart desease, steak isn't in my diet)
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
The least you could do was cite your source.
NASA started the program by wanting to provide burgers for Mars astronauts
This is a perfect example of what's wrong with NASA. They had two options:
1. Go to the store and pick up some ready-made beef patties at $2.50/lb.
2. At a cost of $97 bazillion in taxpayer money, invent cowless beef in a laboratory.
And they went with option 2. Is there any wonder they're running short on cash and haven't done anything useful in a decade and a half?
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
Hold on there a second... I have a suggestion. I think instead NASA should provide Mars astronaughts with 1) a way to get to Mars and 2) a way to get back and maybe 3) some things to do while they are there.
After NASA does that, then they can work on the fake burger thing... ;)
"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking
I can't beileve that all the people that eat meat are in horror, and the 1 person (the vegan) who you think would get outraged is all thrilled.
What a world...
On further note, I am not going vegan. I don't think I've ever listened to anything written in all caps.
http://use.perl.org
talk about your soylent greens.
i'll need a dna parentage workup on every hamburger i meet (sic):
40% cargill wannabeef
30% amgen chickenoid prozac delivery fewd
20% roche fishy fish
10% raelian elohim eat the flesh of thy prophet
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Nope, Ground BASF.
You know, because they don't make the things we eat, they make the things we eat better!
"They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
I seem to remember a short science fiction story where congress debated if new product of this type should be allowed on the market. The problem was that the new product was not beef but long pig (human).
Of course Douglas McFarland (at Souh Dakota State University in Brookings) would disagree. And I'm sure that his all of his research project funding has nothing to do with it.
Listen: of course there will always be two sides to the story (and thank you for reminding me), but as a man of science (I assume) you can't argue that eating meat is more efficient than eating the plants yourself. And this inefficient use of resources on a global scale does indeed have an effect.
There are so many great meat substitutes that are healthy for you and for the animals. Remember that your "burger" had a life and (in general) that life was rather horrible: jam-packed feed lots, pumped with antibiotics and hormones, force fed foods, disgusting sanitary conditions, etc.
You vote with your money (in our capitalist society) so at the very least vote for humane treatment of animals. If you really want meat, buy from local farms (if possible) or buy free-range meat.
If slaughterhouses had glass walls many of you would join me for a veggie-burger.
Your comment brings to mind the only cause that I currently support, i.e., the "Adopt a Vegitarian" movement.
Thanks to you I will have chicken wings, raw clams and a burger for lunch. Topped off with a good long workout before the Peach Bowl kickoff. Will save the veal for tomorrow.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
So Slig anyone?
Just ask your friendly Bene Tleilax dealer for details
Hmm..I know people who say "I don't eat anything that had a face."
Now they'll have to say "I don't eat anything that has face-building information in its genes."
Operator, give me the number for 911!
Not being a big meat eater (I try for diverse protein and fat sources), I still see a huge advantage here - growing meat in a sterile environment.
Worries about the effects of eating BSE-tainted meat, salmonella, trichinosis, ad nauseum. Lab-grown/machine grown meat could certainly provide a safer source of meat than current methods.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
I imagine that PETA will be thrilled,.. but what about vegetarians? Many vegetarians become vegetarian because of their ethics toward the treatment and killing of animals. Many vegetarians stay vegetarian because of the health benefits of having a meatless diet. I'd imagine that the meat that is generated with this new process would be incredibly lean and healthy. So. Would any vegetarians out there consider eating this type of meat? Since this meat is grown in a lab.. could it technically be considered a meat, or would it be a vegetable?
And to expand on this subject a little.. if scienctist in the future were able to "grow" leather, furs, ivory, et al, would vegans then be liberated to wear such articles?
Muscle stimula aren't allowed everwhere. In the EU most countries do not allow certain types or none at all. In fact, the decision of the EU to block meat from the US because of that resulted in a small crisis.
;-)
Further more, humans are omnivorous. Nothing wrong with that. Why turn vegan when you can choose to eat meat which comes from an "animal friendly" environment that satisfies your ethical problem with animal treatment.
Your choice to be vegan is of course entirely yours just like my choice to be omnivorous is mine. I won't hold it against you
I'm sure human meat is even better for consumption. Why don't we grow human steaks, then?
Grossed out? Good.
If you open yourself to the foo, You and foo become one.
Of course you glossed over the part where another scientist suggests that the proteins may be digested too rapidly when using pills etc. IANAD though!
;)
This is of course talking from the standpoint of space travelers, who currently have to choose carrying meat or pills. Earthbound vegetarians do have the option of getting all their essential amino acids from plant sources, but the variety of plants needed would most likely be far too cumbersome to carry on a long space voyage.
Heh, I'll stop eating animals when other animals stop eating animals!
Do you base all aspects of your behavior on what other animals do? You must have an interesting life.
Carnivores do what they have to do, they don't have the option of being vegetarians because they have evolved a requirement for animal proteins. It's likely that humans naturally have a need for animal proteins also, to some extent. However, with our knowledge of nutrition and modern technology, we now have the ability to choose vegetarianism without endangering our health.
Note that I said "choose", your own diet is a personal matter.
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
I realize that most /.ers can't even remember what they had for dinner last night but I think we've been through this one before. I know it must have been hard for the editors to find since it had such a dramatically different title..."Lab-Grown Meat. Chunks...."
Anyway, while this is interesting from a tech POV it seems like a dramatic waste of resources for its intended target. Wouldn't growing and processing soy and soy-based products be much less resource intensive?
BFL
(former vegetarian...mmmmm...steak)
There's one thing computing teaches you, and that's that there's no point to remembering everything.
--Doug Copland
Is anyone else having Cheers flashbacks of Norm talking about the "Baff" and "Loobster" served at his favorite eaterty?
(shudder)
Carpe Scrotum - The only way to deal with your competition.
New Dawn Biotech solved this problem. They have meat that grows on trees, and they are about to take it to market. This is the same company that created Chick'N, and is working on F'sH.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
Mmmmmmmm .... labby ....
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.
My second reaction is that astronauts should be eating no meat, anyway. Those of you who remember how the diaper smell went from interestingly aromatic to puke-inducing as soon as the baby started to eat meat will want your space station comrades to stick with the rice and lentils and a side of naan.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
I don't eat anything that never had a mother. Take that PETA :b
More junk food! Sad thing is it's inevitable. Little Soylent Green slabs of stuff grown in factories from reprocessed organic waste repurposed from dead pets, cow brains, post-corporal digestive residude, failed clones, and... well, why the heck not, dead bodies.
Everyfood we've invented in the last 2,000 years is junk food: white starch, white sugar, white fat, white beer. White meat is the obvious next step.
'Xcuse me but I'm going to stick to my diet of edible roots and leaves, nuts, whole grains, seafood, goat, milk, and cheese. Luckily alcohol was invented more than 5,000 years ago, so it makes it onto my "good" list.
Cheers! And happy Hogmanay to all of you.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
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.
I'm sure human meat is even better for consumption.
I doubt it. Generally speaking, vegetarians make much better food than carnivores.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
GO VEGAN
Why, thank you for the pep talk.
Best Windows Freeware
zombie nation my friend ;)
Alternative interpretation: Once the original (kosher slaughtered) seed meat is provided, no other animals are harmed. The subsequent meat, since it is not derived from harming an animal, might be categorized in the same way as milk is.
If viable, this latter interpretation would in theory allow for kosher cheeseburgers as long as the meat was grown not raised (you wouldn't be mixing).
Except, you're not allowed to do something that appears to violate the law. Unless it was instantly obvious to a passerby that the new type of cheeseburger was not made with real meat, it would not be legal. Or in theory if a person was in a restaurant marked as kosher that ONLY served grown meat cheeseburgers, so no doubt would be placed on the eaters actions.
For those too young to know, SPAM stand for Scientifically Produced Animal Matter. And this is a perfect example of it.
Which is better, that life or no life at all?
This is starting to sound similar to a discussion on abortion...
Murphy was an optimist.
Actually, the trick is to do it without comitting cannibalism.
See the last paragraph where it's briefly discussed that one may possibly be able to grow a steak out of a self biopsy.
Still grossed out? I'm not.
Rod Taylor
But the pelts are useless.
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
Google link for VEGF
I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing. -- Thomas Jefferson
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."
By the way, I don't have any first-hand gustatory experience with any of the above.
I think this technology would be good for Taco Bell, Pancho's, any school cafeteria, airlines, and any Mexican food buffet where the "meat" is "meat". Grown meat would be better than whatever is they're serving.
"This isn't a study in computer science, its a study in human behavior"
The end of veal? No way! I likes my veal to come from real baby cows. I wont take no test-tube veal substitute! I say, let's exploit those dairy bull calves! They don't produce no milk, and we don't need all those guys growin' up and sexin' all the lady cows. Not as long as I have by electric stun-gun and trusty cattle throat-slitting knife will I give up veal. You'll have to pry it from my cold dead fork, covered in velvety mozzarella and rich tomato sauce!
"animal friendly filet mignon," the post says. That could not be more off-the-mark.
Consider this:
If you produce "animal friendly" meat without using animals, you no longer have the need to kill the animal. While you could consider that "friendly" to the animal facing the shotgun slug between the eyes, to the species of animal as a whole, it's quite unfriendly.
If you can raise the meat instead of the animal, you don't have the expensive of raising the animal, feeding the animal, keeping the animal healthy, providing shelter for the animal, and so on. In short: You don't need the animal.
But, see, the animals are domesticated, and have been for thousands of years. They depend on us for everything. If we don't provide for them, they will die off.
Perhaps they could make the switch from domesticated to wild/feral again over the course of a generate, but, at least in most developed countries, there wouldn't be the room to have these big critters roaming free. Shortage of proper habitat would doom them.
Folks, I hate to break this to you, but if we didn't eat cows and chickens and pigs (oh my!) -- they'd all be extinct or on the verge of extinction right now. And that's pretty gosh-darned animal-unfriendly, don't ya think?
Please note: I'm not an environmentalist or animal rights advocate. Not at all. I'm just trying to paint the larger picture that most animal rights folks would not think about. For me, personally, if I could buy a Chia Steak at the local WalMart, and eat steak every night so long as I kept the thing watered, well, shit, sign me up!
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
"A NASA-funded team..." These are the same idiots who will complain that their budget is shrinking.
Advice: on VPS providers
"It's LAAAABalicious!"
"Have a slab o' the lab!"
Any others?
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Growing meat like this could potentially save a lot of water, energy, space and lives. I doubt it would be difficult to modify to modify the meat to make it more nutritious. The lack of fat might be a big issue as much of the taste of meat comes from the fat in it.
This could also mean disease free meat. One day people might be able to order a steak uber-rare and not worry about vomiting, death, or even worse... explosive diarrhea.
I myself am a vegetarian due to my having a conscience and a brain that just won't forget those videos I saw when I was younger. Well, that and I feel that us humans aren't really all that great of a species.... I mean, what species is stupid enough to pass on the genes we hate. We make glasses, fix deformities, cure baldness, c-section babies... while that's great for the individuals, and I'm not knocking any of them (I myself am not a very geneticly desirable specimen.) It passes on the genes that make those techniques required and thereby making the species weaker as a whole... Gah, getting way off topic again.
-Derick
But I'm waiting for our obstructionist friends like PETA to start moaning about it.
It'll take them a while though. First, they'll have to find some mealy-mouthed excuse to get upset about it and that'll take a while since it seems to be a win/win situation all around.
Once they get THAT going then they'll have to work themselves up into a state of self-righteous fury to convince themselves they are doing the Right Thing and therefore It's Ok To Do Something Nasty. The SS did this too. So did Pol Pot.
Finally, they'll have to slather a lot of bullshit over the whole thing to hide their true agenda, which is to destroy Western Civilization.
At least they put nude girls into cages. Anyone who does that can't be ALL bad....
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
I'm glad to see that science has found a way to end the wholesale exploitation and cruel treatment of plants. Of course, this simply moves our cruel need to eat something to animals or at least animal tissue. Perhaps the time has come for man to stop eating all togather so that no other species, plant, animal or fungi will face the cruel and futile life of an agricultural product!
$G
-- $G
If the seed meat is derived from a properly kosher slaughtered cow, then it shouldn't count as "flesh stripped from a living animal". Unless they counted the nutrient pool meat as a living animal, which would seem to be a difficult position to support.
Back it up. Show me how a kosher diet is irrelevant today. Detail a strategy for feeding the world's population with cows.
I am only hateful toward people who make sweeping, ignorant claims about religions they don't understand. I have no more respect for unfounded attacks on religion than on science.
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
Though perhaps they could use it as some sort of power source?
I'm pretty sure you can't eat the flesh of another Christian. I'm not sure about atheists...
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
This is great news for 3/4 of the United States population (and slightly lower fraction of the European population), who are genetically ill-adapted to post-neolithic-revolution dietary patterns high in starch. Starch (the cheapest source of calories) is at dangerously high levels in their diet ("The Zone", by Barry Sears, p. 31). For males this can suppress testosterone levels as well as having a variety of other side effects. For those "Paleolithic" males this author's advice is "Eat less starch and more protein until you feel better." Some minimum level of moderate exercise (at least 20 minutes walking at a moderately fast pace at least every other or third day) is also crucial.
Seastead this.
SUVs are safer in (multiple-vehicle) collisions, but not in braking or handling... and their single-vehicle accidents are deadlier than automobiles, IIRC.
This is a common misconception...
I heard the author of High and Mighty, Keith Bradsher, interviewed by Michael Medved. I had originally thought he simply set out to demonize SUVs by any method possible, so I started listening skeptically - but I was convinced of his argument by the end of his interview (though Medved wasn't). He didn't come across as a boo-hoo uses-too-much-gas-so-it's-hurting-mudder-erf kind of guy - he made his points rather well, without the appeals to emotion I [almost] expected.
His main point was that he wanted people to be fully aware of the risks involved with SUVs... not to eliminate SUVs altogether. He gave explicit license to people that need them for off-roading, or carrying large loads.
He was more of an advocate for defensive-driving safety - he owned a "maneuverable" Audi with excellent braking and handling, and that was his general approach to car safety.
Overall... he raised some points that I don't usually hear considered when people want to buy an SUV.
0x0D 0x0A
"One researcher recalls a student, a vegan, who asked if she could just biopsy herself, grow up a steak and eat it. If you want to eat truly victimless meat, perhaps it is time to put yourself on the menu"
it's not the argument anyway.
Vegetarian / Vegan is irrational. It denies the reality that we, as humans, have evolved as meat eaters. There is no way to argue against that and it's stupid to even try.
The consumption of meat has given us big brains. With those big brains we have been able to find ways to survive which reduce the need to torture and kill other animals.
Any other route for life celebrates barbarism.
We can, and will, break free of the killing and live in the company of, not as the enemies of, our fellow creatures.
If you disagree then you are in the company of the Rawandan butchers or Pol Pot where the life of others is valueless and can be traded for power.
I've been vegan for 12 years. Many, many people have attacked me verbally [and physically] and yet not one convincing argument as to why I should pull the trigger has been suggested. Feel free to try and be the first.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
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.
I've been a big believer of the Chicken Brick concept... You go into the market and pick up a brick of artificial chicken meat prepackaged in a plastic container. (Think Tofu boxes.)
I don't think it's gross. Actually, since it won't be genetically engineered, but rather comes from real chicken, the meat should be fairly safe as long as the growth-fluid supply is clean and disease free. If it can be done in a sterile production line, hell, it'll make for safe chicken.
And, with chicken being in standard sized bricks, it'll be easier to transport from the manufacturing floor to the market shelf...
Restaurant: what do you want sir?
Me: Myself, medium rare please
There's a whole "synthetic meat" industry already, based on mostly on soybeans. The stuff is awful (the main market is prisons), but available.
The point is, though -- and you seem to agree -- is that the only reason these critters are around today in the numbers that they are is that they meet human needs.
I'm not forgetting about the other uses -- there really wouldn't be any or many, at least not enough to maintain the species at it's current numbers. We can already make cheese from artificial sources. Even if we keep cows around for dairy products and leather (well, you don't really keep cows around for leather, do you?) The species numbers would decline to levels far below what they are today, due mostly to the fact that we eat so many of them. (Cow nummy.)
And cows don't make really good pets, and we tend to use horses for riding and moving stuff. At least jockeys and the Amish do.
again, the only reason we raise and breed these animals is that they meet human needs.
Well, if those need can be met via other means, the number of animals necessary to meet the remaining needs declines, and there won't be nearly as many of them around. If we meet enough needs with such so-called "Animal Friendly" methods, well, we end up not needing the animal, and we discard it -- so those means end up ultimately harming the animal more than helping it.
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
Perhaps down the road, we could use this technology to supply all meat for human being on Earth.
It would allow us to grow more grain for people, perhaps free up land that was used for cattle grains, feedlots or ranges.
Perhaps it would also help curtail bovine methane emissions.
What they are doing is just growing muscle tissue. Could this be applied to other types of tissue, skin for example?
Yeah. They've been experimenting with growning human skin in labs for burn victims for a while now. Works fairly well. Also, they've succeeded in the first lab grown organ, a bladder.
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
I've read the article, but didn't pick up any information about what is 'fed' to the growing meat. Is it merely other animal products?
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.
I wonder if artificial meat will be just as heart-stoppingly unhealthy at the real stuff.
Sorry pal but Cows and Pigs aren't domesticated, neither are Fish.
I grew up in ranch country I know what I'm talking about. You can't domesticate something as dumb as a Cow, all the do is walk around and eat grass, literally. Animals don't need shelter, they don't need us.
That was a funny post tho.
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?
I'd assume that artificial meat would allay some of the concerns of many vegetarians who are such because of humanitarian reasons. Personally, I like meat. A lot. Considering we've basically created animals soley for the purpose of being cattle, it's hard to be that concerned.
It's been a long time.
That's a very interesting idea I never thought of. It leads me to another:
If you decided you wanted to transition to a more animal-friendly society, you'd have to have some horrendous "readjustment" period where we killed off all the old animals (or reduced them to their minimum useful numbers) and we'd then just maintain that smaller population.
In other words, killing many animals upfront to save hypothetical animals down the road.
That's an interesting choice to make!
Wait a minute...!
SOYLENT GREEN IS MADE OF AKIRA!!!
My first reaction is: why? Why not just be a vegetarian?
Becuase you'll miss out on pork chops, prime rib, butter, clarified butter, foie gras, duck, cream, bacon, proscuitto, and all sorts of other things that are delicious.
Hell, millions of Indians are, and they seem to be doing okay, building supercomputers and hand-held computing devices like gangbusters.
They're also missing out on a good deal of cuisine. "They seem to be doing okay" could hardly be more nebulous.
We need less saturated fat, not an uberexpensive supply of it.
Saturated fat isn't as bad as people make it out to be. Furthermore, carbohydrates (permitted in the allegedly-healthy vegetarian lifestyle) are much worse than people make them out to be.
My second reaction is that astronauts should be eating no meat, anyway.
Of course you have that reaction! You probably believe that everyone should be vegetarians, much like Christians believe that everyone should be Christians. A friend on mine attended a vegetarian rally, and he overheard a vegetarian say in his malice-laden voice, "Things would be better if all the meat-eaters just died!"
Those of you who remember how the diaper smell went from interestingly aromatic to puke-inducing as soon as the baby started to eat meat will want your space station comrades to stick with the rice and lentils and a side of naan.
I've never known any feces from any baby that smelled "interestingly aromatic," though I have gotten used to the smell of my 2-year-old's poop. Vegetarians, like Christians, often distort or invent facts (such as, "rabbits eat a lot of carrots") to support their philisophical beliefs. I'm reminded of the phrase, "You use facts like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not for illumination."
I really like Southern Indian cooking, though. Food doesn't have to have meat to be yummy.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
It is an interesting fact that the people who are most vociferously opposed to the killing of animals are people who've had very little exposure to the reality of it.
One would think it would be the reverse.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Well, I'm pretty sure anything that comes out of a meat-lab would taste better than the crap I got at Arby's last time I ate there. :P
:)
Unless, of course, they've been making lab-grown meats the whole time, and that's why Arby's is so cheap.
Even though I know this steak is not real, the matrix tells my brain that it is juicy and good.
;)
Or something like that
Or, you'd be able to grow for two days and eat it on the third.
That said, after being vegetarian for a while, I'm a lot pickier about whatever meat I do eat, mostly fish and poultry. I tried going back to some of the thing I liked before (like sausage), but I find it rather gross in retrospect.
That said, most of my objection to meat is that it is an unsustainable practice. Unfortunately, "organic" meat is even worse this way. I have been a supporter of lab-grown meat alternatives for a long time, for this reason.
Hardware, software, and blinking lights!
But like much other space research, what happens up there could one day become commonplace down here too - just look what happened to Velcro.
Actually, Velcro was patented in 1952 by two Swiss men, George de Mestral and his weaver friend. Nothing to do with the space program. Geez. Just because MIB says Velcro comes from outer space doesn't mean it really DOES. :)
Any sufficiently simple magic can be passed off as mere advanced technology.
That's not meat. That's giblets. Mmmm, giblets!
How ya like dat?
Hmmmm. Can't wait to get home and grill up a nice fortified nutritional yeast flake.
There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
...no more need to graze cattle on large tracts of land...
It makes me wonder, if people stop eating meat, what will happen to all those cattle? Should we just set them all free? Keep them as pets? Set up massive zoos for them?
Really now, I think if the vegans have their way the cattle population will be decimated to the point of near extinction. How cruel.
In Soviet Russia, little earthenware alfalfa sprouts grow cows!
No, in fact it's quite logical: those who have a large exposure to it, usually had this exposure very young:
they see their parents killing animals that they eat later, so they are used to it and probably don't think very much about wether it's right or wrong to kill animals..
It's the same thing about religion: if a child is raised in a religious society, with a religious education and in a religious family he has 99% chances of becoming a religious believer , whereas if a child raised in a 'laissez faire' family and society without religious education has 99% chance of becoming atheist or agnostisc..
On further note, I am not going vegan. I don't think I've ever listened to anything written in all caps.
Yup. Maybe it's old-fashioned American bull-headedness, or maybe it's old-fashioned Taurian bull-headedness, but I'm rarely able to respond with an open mind when someone I don't know tells me what I "should" do.
I don't eat veal and cut down my milk intake. Mostly for cookies and cereal, which is not often.
;)
Depending on what kind of cereal you're eating, soy milk might be acceptable on it. The more flavorful (or sugary) the cereal, the less you notice the difference. My weakness is cheese. I've tasted passable soy substitutes for cheap cheese food slices, but not for real cheeses.
I can't and will never give up steak and sushi.
Just curious, do you like your steak raw like your fish?
There are vegetarian burgers which I find to be a good substitute for the real thing. No, they don't taste exactly the same - but if someone ate the veggie burgers for their whole life and then switched to meat, they'd say the meat ones taste 'funny' and 'not quite right'.
Unfortunately there's nothing to replace a steak, or a good fish (but grill mine for a few minutes please).
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
There doesn't need to be a conflict between the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the People for Eating Tasty Animals: the better the animal is treated, the better the meat tastes.
I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility. I stopped eating red meat about 6 years ago without much difficulty.
My history teacher way back in high school was a Quaker, and while not vegetarian, he went out of his way to get his food only from farms that he'd visited. That way he could guarantee they were cruelty-free. I think I'd be more apt to go this route.
(I know, "cruelty" is a debatable term in this discussion, but I don't personally consider the killing of animals for consumption by other animals to be cruel. I do consider imposing inhumane conditions on animals, and allowing them to suffer, to be cruel.)
lab grown tube steak?
With current nutritional knowledge, meat is simply irrelevant for a health diet; in fact, the current increasing levels of obesity in American society show that eating meat is contributory to very poor health.
Leave the goddam animals alone, whether they're of the real _or_ of the test tube variety.
t_t_b
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
I would like to say that this article just halved the chances that I ever eat meat again in my life.
yuck
Lentils will help make you fart more, and that will cause problems with maintaining breathable air on a long space mission, but the smell thing won't be as much of a problem since lentils don't make your farts stinky. A burger is much worse for doing that.
I think your have some definitions wrong. "Kosher" refers to the practice in Judiaism of not eating pork, not eating shell fish, and not mixing meat and dairy. As far as I know, it is not related to the Hindu practice of not eating and giving special status to cows.
I was raised Jewish. The rationale I've gotten is that at the time, pork and shell fish were more likely to kill you. Not mixing meat and dairy was more abstract, something about not cooking a kid in its mother's milk.
The pork and shell fish restrictions are irrelevant. We have the technology to cook them properly. Not mixing meat and dairy is a moral argument, and can't be made irrelevant, only decided by an individual that they don't care.
But as someone else pointed out, Jews don't keep kosher because it had practical reasons in the past. Jews who keep kosher do so because it is part of Jewish law. Same with Hindus.
For the record, I am a vegetarian, so I don't eat any meat at all.
If people were meant to be vegetarians, we would have teeth like horses: all flat. If people were meant to be carnivores, we'd have teeth like aligators: all pointy. Instead, we have a mix of pointy and flat teeth that allow us to tear meat as well as grind vegetables. Not only that, we also have many other systems in our bodies that allow us to digest both meat and vegetables. Simply put, we are evolved as omnivores and a small cadre of fad diet advocates aren't going to change the evolutionary course of an entire species in a few generations.
If it really bothers you that much that we eat meat, you have to create long-term conditions that prevent meat-eaters from reproducing and allow vegetarians to survive to reproductive age and proliferate. Government and/or social efforts like taxation and propoganda won't do it. The only thing that probably can is a massive die-off of human "prey species" like cows, pigs, and chickens. Then the entire human species would have to adopt to eating veggies, or other prey species (capibara and snake anyone?). If you really want to ensure vegitarian humanity, figure out a way to make all the animals poisonous. In the short-run, a lot of people will die of malnurishment, but the small segment of humanity that is vegetarian tolerant will survive and propogate. The animals may then continue to evolve, perhaps eventually becoming non-poisonous to humans at which point it will be a moot point because the humans will no longer eat animals.
Sometimes animals naturally evolve toxicity (and even evolve mimicry of the appearance of toxicity) to avoid becoming prey. So, it's also possible that human prey animals will become toxic on their own. You might even argue that cows have done this already, since too much red meat can cause a coronary.
Anyhow, you need about a million years and a lot of luck to make vegetarianism truly healthy, and then you are fighting a continuing battle to push evolution in your desired direction, which is what we are doing with genetic engineering. Of course, species that do genetic engineering may flunk Darwinian survival (perhaps they have in many far flung galaxies of which we are ignorant).
Bon Apetit.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Your analogy to religions is flawed, though, because with respect to religion the relationship between upbringing and faith isn't nearly as strong as you state it. There is a correlation, but the animal thing seems to be much stronger, and more one-way.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I suppose that texture and other qualities would not be exactly the same as real meat - and that in time, techniques will be perfected to reproduce those qualities, but they will not be generally used because they'll increase the cost of the meat - so you and I poor people will be eating the schlock lab-grown stuff, and the uber-rich will be eating either high-quality lab stuff, or the real deal.
I'm also guessing that since it will inevitably become a mass-production process, that it will "become" unprofitable to actually raise real cows - at least on a large scale, (again, only for the uber-wealthy) - so that real, actual cows will probably become extinct, or the gene pool will become restricted. Someday, there may very well be NO cows, and even no people who remember what a real cow tastes like. Sort of reminds one of that discussion in the Matrix.
As far as reducing "cruelty" - I find vegetarianism EXTREMELY cruel by comparison. When you're eating green salad, some of those plants are actually still alive, still photosynthesizing, etc. THAT'S cruel. Not only that - staying fed only on vegetables, you're typically killing far more individual organisms, hundreds of beans have to die - compared to one cow, for a meat-eater. The one cow would feed you for weeks. So carnivores don't have the market cornered on cruelty, as far as I'm concerned. If a cow feels pain and suffers and knows when it's alive or dead - why can't a lentil?
Fact is - you can't prove that any other living creature has a conscious mind - including other humans. It's Chalmers' "hard problem".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
There's a Slashdot poll for you:
If you were used as steak, what would you be?
One day, this may not be a joke
"change your preference"?
If you prefer to eat one thing, and then change to eathing another (for some reason, like having some wacko convince you that cows are too cute to die), that's not a preference.
I prefer to eat meat. If it's available. That's my preference. I may, at some point, due to external factors, decide to no longer eat any meat. (most likely due to the Vegan Gestapo coming by my house and putting a gun to my head and threatening to arrest me for war crimes and being an evil human oppressing animals). But that will not ever change my "preference".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
HERE!
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
Plus, those nutyeast flakes are yummy. Combine it with soymilk, garlic, a dab of mustard, pour it over a mushroom/tempeh/peppers mix and you have an awesome breakfast scramble. Nutyeast is a vegetarian's dream condiment.
skkkoooonnnggggkkk ptui
Maybe it's not so much that "we are supposed to be omnivores" as it is that "we are supposed to have a choice." People often use this argument to suggest that No One Should Be Vegetarian, which is stupid (although I admit it doesn't seem that you are making that argument).
skkkoooonnnggggkkk ptui
well if you had to classify brain into a food group . .
you have a solid point on bones tho, except for the marrow.
Well, I love cats but I'll let that go because "roof rabbit" is possibly the funniest thing I've heard this week!
That's fascinating about how dietary rules are used to deliniate tribal membership. Politics at it's finest! It would betray an interesting sophistication in so-called primitive cultures if, as you suggest, such a meta-layer of intertribal culture existed to prevent resource allocation conflicts.
However, people are not starving in India because they are not eating the cows. They are starving because of poverty and poor food distribution. More people would starve if the poor killed the cows that give them milk products. It takes substantially more resources to raise cattle for meat than to subsist on a lacto-vegetarian diet.
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
Assuming it were possible ... for the moment, since it's not really biologically possible for a lot of reasons...
You'd also need to feed the dividing meat cells with something. Not to mention the unfortunate consequences if the growth outpaced digestion.
Remember the nursery rhyme? ~"There was an old lady who swallowed a fly..."~
DNA just wants to be free...
I'm not sure where I misspoke or was misunderstood. I've been yammering on most of the afternoon on this topic so I'm sure I've bungled a few things. I understand that Mosaic and Hindu law are different and unrelated. I claimed that they both served practical purposes to their respective cultures, and that both can be viewed as valid for entirely modern reasons also. Ergo, I'd have to disagree that they are irrelevant.
:-)
If I follow the Kosher diet, then I am assured that I am getting clean meat (stricter than USDA standards) from an animal that was treated well and humanely slaughtered. The pork and shellfish thing is obviated by our improved cooking technology, but a non-issue if you don't eat either no matter how it's cooked. Plus, both are fatty meats implicated in vascular/heart disease, so there's another advantage to following The Law. It's sort of like the debate about condoms and abstinence. One reduces the likelihood of an STD, the other eliminates it.
I can't dispute you on the meat and milk thing, but another reply addressed that really well, demonstrating that political as well as personal and tribal survival concerns go into the rules.
While we're sharing personal histories, I've been a vegetarian, ovo-lacto, omnivore, et al at one time or another, and have never advocated abstinence.
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
For the most part I agree. If I wanted to nitpick, though, I would say that seems to apply only when someone is calling you to a major change of style. I often find it productive to follow a suggestion that I "should" consider or possibly try something. For example, if someone says I should consider being vegan, I think it would be a good thing. I might even be inclined to try emulating a vegan for a day or a week. Of course, when someone tells me to drop my life and become vegan now and forever, they get mah horns.
funny munging
It was on the moon. Growing meat came first, then milk came second, IIRC.
[ And dammit, this is slashdot, someone will catch the reference. ]
Oh, the vast majority of them will just be killed off. Humans and their livestock have lived in a symbotic relationship for thousands of years.
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
What if genetic cow clones cook you!
Are you from SOVIET RUSSIA?
funny munging
I agree ALMOST completely. Execept on one point, WE are animals, if you consider the human animal sentient then animals are sentient. Remember we are nothing more than another animal that happens to be somewhat intelligent and manually capable.
Actually, at the end of the article it mentions the idea of taking a biopsy of yourself, and growing a You-Burger(tm).
Sounds like a useful sideline for famous celebrities. Brad Pitt Beefcake Burgers, Britney steak...
However, the food that *is* served is still actually synthesised meat. A new such product, Ambrosia Plus, has recently been released by a competitor, and has caused the testifying executive's company to lose significant amounts of market share. Normally, they are quickly able to duplicate such a new product, but they were unable for some time to determine what type of meat it is...
The story ends with the executive saying "I have a second archaic term which I need to introduce to you all. I'll spell it out: C-A-N-N..."
I wouldn't be surprised if there are even earlier examples of the idea.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
The best meat cmes from Kobe, bar NONE. They massage thier cors with sake every morning and feed them beer. Go to Kobe, eat a $200 steak, you'll understand.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
"as a man of science (I assume) you can't argue that eating meat is more efficient than eating the plants yourself. "
You imply that meat is just an inefficient way to ingest plants. While meat does come from plants, this fact does not imply that meat is less efficient. Meat has many properties in higher densities than the plants. I could say "Why eat plants when it's just an inefficent way to eat shit (fertilizer)"
As for a horrible life, look at prey animals in a jungle. Their lives are "horrible" but that is their lot in life. Unless you're on top of the food chain, your life is probably going to end in some gruesome "inhumane" way. But hey, they're not human, so why should they be treated in a "humane" manner? Don't get me wrong. Anybody who tortures life is a highly troubled soul. All life is sacred. Though all elements in a rabbit can be found in earth and water, just try to make a rabbit. But all life is not on par with mankind. If I and a dog were about to be hit by a car, I hope you wouldn't spend too long trying to figure out which one of us you would save, should you only be able to save one.
It is good to love and respect life of all kinds. But don't get carried away. You must kill to survive. Say that to yourself. Say it. "I must kill if I am to survive. If I am to live, other life must perish for me." Every day, you kill or cause death in order to survive. All life is sacred, from the lowliest plant to man himself. If you kill a plant, who are you to say that it is okay to kill that life, but not okay to kill a cow? It is all life, and nowhere have I read that it is okay to kill plants just because they're not cute or fuzzy or moo like cute little cows. They are still sacred life. You are not better or right just because you survive by killing a different form of life than the rest of us.
Wisdom greater than yours or mine says "To everything, there is a season, and a time for every purpose. A time to be born, a time to die. A time to plant, a time to reap. A time to kill, a time to heal."
Generally, the so-called "anti-animal rights" posts are actually funny, unlike the righteous indignation of all the PETA people.
It's true that compassion and arrogance generally don't mix very often. However, most of us meat eaters see a lot more arrogance than compassion from the PETA people. It's just like religious fundamentalism. It's a lot easier to feel superior about yourself and screech at and talk down to people who don't follow your worldview than it is to demonstrate your compassion.
I've never seen such a bunch of smug and insensitve jackasses as the PETA people themselves. The Rudy Giuliani "Got Prostate Cancer?" motherboard and this site (which used to actually claim that Jesus was a vegetarian and had a picture of Jesus with an orange for a halo) really show how far PETA is willing to go towards making asses of themselves in the public eye. I think Veganism is a great movement; I just can't stand the people.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Fortified soy milk for me.
Don't get too dependent on it. There are potential health risks involved in soy milk as well. I love how many sites tout the "healing magic" of soy isoflavones without mentioning one thing about thyroid problems from them. Personally, after reading this, I've just decided that all food is dangerous, and I'm going to die happy and not worry about what I eat.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").