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."
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?
... 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
This is not the sig line you are looking for... -- Old Jedi Sig Line Trick
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.
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'
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!
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
That's exactly my point. They make these recommendations based on logical leaps. There is not a single clinical study that demonstrates a link between increased red meat consumption and increased heart disease. In fact, the common risk factors such as high LDL and triglycerides, don't appear to be increased by red meat consumption where the HDL or so-called "good cholesterol" is increased when eating red meat. In a cruel twist of fate, a low fat diet often substitutes carbohydrates for the fat to replace the lost flavor. These excess carbohydrates increase triglyceride levels, thus increasing heart disease risk.
Free Mac Mini. Yes, I'm
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!
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."
By the way, I don't have any first-hand gustatory experience with any of the above.
Though perhaps they could use it as some sort of power source?
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?