Slashdot Mirror


Space Meat Coming to your Kitchen

jdray writes "Australia's GizMag is running an article about the industrialization of a NASA-tested concept for artificially creating meat. The article mentions meat makers as home appliances. Carne-Matic aside, this sounds like a mixed blessing, and brings about visions of some sterile, Spandex-jumpsuit future where food production is controlled by some central authority, and real, hoof-grown meat is a rare delicacy. Remember, Soylent Green is people!" You can read a curiously familiar Slashdot story from a month ago too.

127 of 854 comments (clear)

  1. I think they already did this... by bladernr · · Score: 5, Funny

    its called SPAM

    --
    Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds
    1. Re:I think they already did this... by oriole1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not to mention that McDonald's has been using this technology for years. Mmmmm..... "All-beef" patty, "Special" sauce, lettuce (aka crunchy water), cheese?, pickles, onions, sesame seed bun....

    2. Re:I think they already did this... by kent,+knower+of+all · · Score: 3, Funny


      Interesting parallel. Both claim to be offerring some kind of meat, but neither one really claims to offer food. :~}

    3. Re:I think they already did this... by sdpuppy · · Score: 4, Funny
      >"steaks are carved off the sides of the big cube of meat"

      Uh...Isn't that how they make Gyros?

      (There goes my lunch plan for today...)

    4. Re:I think they already did this... by bcattwoo · · Score: 2, Funny
      Not to mention that McDonald's has been using this technology for years. Mmmmm..... "All-beef" patty, "Special" sauce, lettuce (aka crunchy water), cheese?, pickles, onions, sesame seed bun....

      Just a couple nitpicks. I believe the correct spelling for a couple of those items are: "all-beaf" patties, cheeze, and sesamee seed buns. They also provide sope for the employess to wash their hands with after using the bathroom and hare nets for the foud preparers.

    5. Re:I think they already did this... by glassjaw+rocks · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, as much as I hate McDonalds food (for christ sake, they can't even do ketchup right), they do, however, use real beef.

      --
      -gjr
    6. Re:I think they already did this... by ahoehn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Beaf is awesome. I'm a vegetarian, and Beaf is just about the best way to make roll your own gluten without spending a few hours in preperation. I wish McDonalds put Beaf in their burgers.

      Beaf is most fun when you pronounce it "Bee-Aff", as in, "Hey, Horace, pass me the bee-aff!".

      Also, from the perspective of someone who's a vegetarian because he doesn't want to kill animals, I suppose I'd prefer somewhat creepily grown meat to meat from dead animals.

      To reiterate, I love Beaf.

      --
      Mod my comments down. It'll be fun.
    7. Re:I think they already did this... by drsmithy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'm willing to bet your grandchildren will think just the opposite. ("You murdered, slaughtered, and ate a living animal? ewww!")

      I want to know why it's ethical to kill plants, but not ethical to kill animals.

    8. Re:I think they already did this... by Jeremi · · Score: 2, Informative
      I want to know why it's ethical to kill plants, but not ethical to kill animals.


      The argument is that animals have thoughts and feelings, whereas plants don't. Therefore by killing an animal you are causing pain (both to it and to the other animals acquainted with it), whereas a plant, being mindless, cannot feel any pain.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    9. Re:I think they already did this... by tylernt · · Score: 2

      But what about the experiments that show that plants are healthier when you play them classical music? Maybe plants have feelings too?

      "Anyway, I'm a level 5 Vegan. I don't eat anything that casts a shadow." --obSimpsonsQuote

      --
      DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
  2. You Insensitive Clod!... by Suburbanpride · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm a vegetarian

    --
    sorry 'bout the mess...
    1. Re:You Insensitive Clod!... by mikeophile · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You might say this in jest, but I'd be interested in hearing what ethical vegetarians think about eating cruelty-free meat.

    2. Re:You Insensitive Clod!... by oriole1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      "cruelty-free"???

      What about the folks who have to eat this stuff?

    3. Re:You Insensitive Clod!... by P-Nuts · · Score: 3, Interesting
      You might say this in jest, but I'd be interested in hearing what ethical vegetarians think about eating cruelty-free meat.
      As the artificial meat is technically an animal-derived product - you start with a real animal's muscle cell and replicate it - it would probably be ethically okay for vegetarians, but not for vegans. NB: IANAV
    4. Re:You Insensitive Clod!... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Interesting
      You might say this in jest, but I'd be interested in hearing what ethical vegetarians think about eating cruelty-free meat.

      I for one would not eat this. It skeeves me out like you wouldn't believe. Tank-grown, faux-critter isn't on the list of things I'm likely to try.

      And, for many of us vegetarians, it's a combination of the ethics of meat combined with the fact that meat-heavy diets are held up as unhealthy overall.

      I think you'll find that for vegetarians, this stuff is a non-starter -- it's still meat. The fact that it's a lab experiment is even creepier.
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:You Insensitive Clod!... by clem · · Score: 2, Interesting

      On the other hand if it were "guaranteed" that with that one animal you could (and would) clone all the "meat" you want and no animals would be eaten after that point (i.e. all now-meat-eaters would become artificial-meat-eaters), then they would be pragmatic enough to support that.

      Suppose the vegan himself was the tissue donor. Could he cannibalize his own derived tissue without any ethical quandry?

      --
      Your courageous and selfless spelling corrections have made me a better person.
    6. Re:You Insensitive Clod!... by falzer · · Score: 5, Funny

      > As for truly artificial m**t, there wouldn't be any cruelty to animals in the production, but there must have been cruelty to animals in the initial discovery process {i.e. working out what it was supposed to taste like in the first place} which would be enough to put some people off.

      What if a human volunteered his inital cells to grow meat in a vat? No cruelty. You can't get more ethical than that, and you would still get to eat Matt.

    7. Re:You Insensitive Clod!... by slavemowgli · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, there are vegetarians and there are vegetarians. Some eat meat because they don't want to condone (perceived) cruelty towards animals; others don't eat it because they think it's unhealthy (or at least less healthy than other food), or for religious reasons, or simply because they don't like the taste.

      Whether any given vegetarian will or will not eat this stuff (or even consider doing so) very much depends on why exactly they became a vegetarian in the first place.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    8. Re:You Insensitive Clod!... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd be interested in hearing what ethical vegetarians think about eating cruelty-free meat.

      Your labels need refining. There are "ethical vegetarians" who don't eat meat because they are concerned about the unethical treatment of the animals. Most of these people have no problem eating meat raised on a traditional farm and slaughtered humanely or wild game killed in an ethical fashion. I don't see why they would have any problem eating this type of meat.

      There are people who have an ethical problem with the killing of animals that trust them, or the killing of animals who trust their slaughterers on their behalf. These people are usually willing to eat wild game, or animals raised in a way in which the animals are not taught to trust the farmers. I imagine they would have no problem eating this meat.

      There are people who have an ethical problem with the killing of higher life forms as defined at some arbitrary point. (For example some will eat fish, but no mammals.) These people most likely would not have a problem with this type of meat, although depending upon its origins some might.

      There are some people who object to the killing of any living animal. Some or those people will likely not have a problem with this meat and some will (since it does originate from an animal) but most will probably be fine with it.

      Finally there are people who believe meat is evil. These people will likely refuse to eat this meat.

      On a slightly different note, I read a study last week that said 1 in 5 high schoolers thought beef came from pigs. I don't imagine this will do anything to alleviate this educational problem.

    9. Re:You Insensitive Clod!... by flacco · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I think you'll find that for vegetarians, this stuff is a non-starter -- it's still meat. The fact that it's a lab experiment is even creepier.

      ethical vegetarians don't eat meat because of the horrible animal suffering that's involved. i think a lot of them might give it a try if the cruelty (hell, sentience even) were taken out of the equation.

      --
      pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
    10. Re:You Insensitive Clod!... by Walkiry · · Score: 3, Funny

      > You might say this in jest, but I'd be interested in hearing what ethical vegetarians think about eating cruelty-free meat.

      http://angryflower.com/vegeta.gif

      --
      ---- Take the Space Quiz!
    11. Re:You Insensitive Clod!... by MynockGuano · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think we have just witnessed the greatest Slashdot comment in history.

    12. Re:You Insensitive Clod!... by mattsucks · · Score: 3, Funny
      What if a human volunteered his inital cells to grow meat in a vat? No cruelty. You can't get more ethical than that, and you would still get to eat Matt.
      I wouldn't recommend it.
    13. Re:You Insensitive Clod!... by module0000 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why don't we just kill & eat the vegans? I likes mine raw.

      --
      Trackball users will be first against the wall.
    14. Re:You Insensitive Clod!... by iphayd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The pleasure to the cow of yanking on its teat is irrelevant. It is the living conditions that the cows are kept in that is the problem. Concrete lots next to rank manure pits, feed troughs that will have colonies of maggots in the bottom of them by mid June, the use of electric shock to heard the cattle through the loop. These are all things that go on with the milking of cattle.

    15. Re:You Insensitive Clod!... by maxpublic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Most of these folks live in a Disney world. I doubt they've ever spent any real time working on a farm, much less gone hunting. They anthropomorphize animals because they don't know any better and don't want to know any better. Whatever illusions they harbor are more precious to them than actual facts.

      As an example, I worked for a few years at a wildlife rehab center. We had a very high turnover rate for volunteers because many of these folks had never had any actual experience with an animal other than a pet. They seemed to think that they and the animals would somehow live in happy harmony, with the animals recognizing (in some mysterious, unexplained fashion) the generosity and kindness of their would-be benefactors, and rewarding them accordingly with warm fuzzies.

      The reality of the situation was considerably different. Even after training, the idiots who thought this sort of thing would deliberately go and do something stupid, apparently on the assumption that since *they* were somehow different/more moral/of a purer intellect than the rest of us, the things we had told them about the behavior of the animals wouldn't apply to them. They racked up an impressive number of interesting injuries while trying to 'bond' with our furry and feathered patients.

      Of course, this didn't change their opinion of their own exalted nature. They simply blamed us for the actions of the animals (I never did quite figure out *how* we were to blame) and quit. The idea that they were wrong, that the animals did indeed fear and hate them just like they feared and hated everyone else, was something they simply couldn't accept. To the animals they were nothing more than a predator who could eat them at any moment; how they could expect anything different was beyond me. Perhaps they thought their 'auras' would make the animals all friendly and happy? I don't know.

      We used to take bets on who would last and who wouldn't. The people with realistic expectations (mainly folks who grew up on farms) lasted longest; the ones who had some sort of "environmental" agenda were often no-shows after two or three shifts, at most (as long as it took them to acquire their first injury from trying to be 'one' with nature). I thought it amusing that the people most vociferous about 'saving the Earth' and 'helping the animals' were the most miffed that the animals couldn't give a shit about their motivations, and treated them just like they did any other human being.

      Can't say this experience endeared me to these people. I saw first-hand, repeatedly, that these folks didn't have the first fucking clue, and lived in a la-la land that didn't bear even a remote resemblance to actual reality. It certainly didn't do much to give them any credibility in my eyes.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
  3. Official "DUPE" Thread by RobertB-DC · · Score: 2, Informative

    For the benefit of my fellow Slashdotters, here is a place to whine about dupe articles. To wit:

    Large Scale Production of Artificial Meat
    Posted by timothy on Wed Jul 06, '05 02:27 PM
    from the vat-meat-cometh dept.
    http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/0 6/1737228&tid=191&tid=14

    Fraser Cain writes "Scientists at the University of Maryland think that large quantities of artificial meat (link: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/artificial _meat_grown.html) could be produced to supply the world with animal-free meat products, like chickenless nuggets. This is based on experiments for NASA (link: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/03/22/fish .food/index.html), that created small amounts of fish protein cultured from single cells. According to the researchers, larger quantities could be grown in thin sheets and then stacked up to create thickness. Of course, they need to figure out a way to exercise it to make it taste like regular meat."

    --
    Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
    1. Re:Official "DUPE" Thread by utopianfiat · · Score: 2, Funny

      If they admit that it's a dupe right in the article, does that make it a dupe?

      If slashdot dupes an article in the middle of a forest, and nobody's around to yell "DUPE!", is it new news?

      --
      +5, Truth
  4. GizMag by SpaceAdmiral · · Score: 5, Funny

    I guess Giz Mag doesn't mean what I thought it did.

  5. Whats with the Spin by imsabbel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    of the summary? If it tastes the same, i would have zero problems with artificial meat.
    I dont actually enjoy having animals slaughtered just for fun.

    --
    HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    1. Re:Whats with the Spin by NitsujTPU · · Score: 4, Funny

      That does bring to mind odd thoughts of vegans eating vat-grown hamburgers while watching humans kill each other on CNN.

    2. Re:Whats with the Spin by Datamonstar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What goldspider said.
      We could get a long perfectly well seeing in black & white, or a gross shade of brown, like dogs do. But we in fact, see colors because it's... better.
      Same with taste. Why does everything have taste? More importantly, why does everything edible taste good and (most) everything harmful taste bad? We don't even have to have taste to get sustenance. But we do because it's... better.
      And there are more efficient ways to eat than meat, but enjoyment isn't always the result of effeciency. And what is the point of life if it isn't as enjoyable as possible?

      --
      The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
  6. First step toward replication food? by tamuct01 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I wonder if this will be one of the first steps toward protein resequencers and eventually food replicators. Star Trek, here I come!

  7. Looks like meat by ralph_the_wonder_lla · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Looks like meat, tastes like meat, I'll bet there isn't any meat in here. Doubleplusgood!" - 1984

    --

    Kiss ass while you bitch so you can get rich but the boss gets richer off you. --Dead Kennedys
  8. w00t! by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In the future, I see no more grissle or stringy bits of fat etc. Cheapest meat will taste like the best eye fillet you can buy, and nothing had to die.

    1. Re:w00t! by njfuzzy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, just like artificial sweeteners taste like the finest quality cane sugar or honey. Truly an age of marvels we live in.

      --
      My Photography - http://ian-x.com
      The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
    2. Re:w00t! by Xugumad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's because they're something which is meant to be like sugar, but are explicitely not sugar. Unless I'm missing something here, this should be like real meat, except without any of the complexity of having to be an animal. I think the biggest risk is that it will lack variety...

    3. Re:w00t! by dAzED1 · · Score: 2

      artificial sweeteners are not chemically and otherwise identical to sugar...else, they'd just be sugar.

      If there was a company selling lab-grown sugar, I bet you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between it and the stuff grown outside a lab.

      See, this "artificial meat" is grown having the same sort of tissues, and being (for all intents and purposes) meat, just without the inefficient cow having to be killed after a lifetime of producing greenhouse gases.

    4. Re:w00t! by dpilot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Even if it were possible, it would never happen. You've neglected the emerging field of "Meat-oid IP". Big Companies and their lawyers will patent or copyright or whatever the best cuts of meat, and charge all the market will bear for them. In order to avoid the IP of the big companies, small companies will add extra elements like pseudo-gristle, imitation blood vessels, and ersatz stringy fat, all so they can make "cheap" meat that's more complex and more expensive to make than the "expensive" meat.

      Take a look at the nano-forge in Joe Haldeman's "The Forever Peace" for what happens to such promises.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    5. Re:w00t! by jonadab · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > just like artificial sweeteners taste like the finest quality cane sugar

      One supposes the artificial meat would have to be rather better than that, before people would give up the real stuff.

      It is worth noting that it's possible (indeed, not that hard) to make real sugars (including sucrose, i.e., table sugar) chemically in a lab, and in that case they taste just as good as the white granular stuff you buy at the store today. (Artificial "brown sugar" might be rather harder to arrange, and making artificial honey taste right is probably impossible, at least with today's technology. OTOH, I would have thought artificial meat would be really hard to do as well, and they're apparently already starting to research a means of doing it.)

      The thing that makes artificial sweeteners taste bad is that they're designed to be chemically different from sugar, in order to not raise your blood sugar as much (for diabetics), not have as many Calories, and so forth. One supposes the artificial meat would not be designed, intentionally, to be so different from real meat, because that would defeat the purpose. Unless the purpose is to make low-fat meat, or low-protein meat, or PKU-safe meat... I suppose if they get the regular kind mastered, those would be obvious variations on the concept.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  9. Centrallized food production is futuristic? by plehmuffin · · Score: 2, Insightful
    this sounds like a mixed blessing, and brings about visions of some sterile, Spandex-jumpsuit future where food production is controlled by some central authority

    That's what we have now

  10. Society of people scared of acne... by garcia · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Carne-Matic aside, this sounds like a mixed blessing, and brings about visions of some sterile, Spandex-jumpsuit future where food production is controlled by some central authority, and real, hoof-grown meat is a rare delicacy.

    It's truly sickening to me the lengths that people go these days to ruin their eating experiences. Too many restaurants refuse to cook meat anything under "medium" - hell I'll sign a waiver to eat a burger medium rare! Too many people crinkle their nose unless you cook their meat to shoe leather and someone even asked me if I should be rushed to the hospital because my steak was "too pink".

    All the fears in the world about animal borne disease (avian flu, mad cow disease, etc) have spawned even more "illness psychos" who are obsessed with the latest in 99.9% bacteria free soaps, hand lotions, and air filters. We are breeding a population of individuals that are more susceptible to illness than ever before!

    Eat that fucking natural meat and cook it rare. When you are making some hamburger, wad up a ball, add some pepper and salt and eat it. I've done it since I was a kid and never had any ill effects.

    I am beginning to enjoy food less and less (especially out here in the Midwest where they have no tastebuds) and bullshit like this will only make it worse. Sadly, people will love it... See, no bacteria - especially when I cook it till it's charcoal.

    Blah.

    1. Re:Society of people scared of acne... by grasshoppa · · Score: 5, Funny

      Damn dude, that's fucking nasty. Seriously.

      Why not just walk up to a cow and take a bite out of their shoulder? It amounts to the same thing.

      Man invented fire for a reason.

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    2. Re:Society of people scared of acne... by Ced_Ex · · Score: 5, Funny

      Man invented fire for a reason.

      On that note, man invented water because he was thirsty.

      Makes sense?

      --
      Live forever, or die trying.
    3. Re:Society of people scared of acne... by Washizu · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Too many restaurants refuse to cook meat anything under "medium""

      Any place will cook your steak rare. It's safe to eat rare steaks because there isn't any bacteria inside the meat. It's on the outside, and that gets cooked.

      Ground beef isn't safe to eat rare because bacteria is all over it and must be cooked off.

      --
      OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.
    4. Re:Society of people scared of acne... by greenplato · · Score: 2, Informative

      Our tastes have dictate that we cook meat; texture, flavor and temperature are enhanced by many of our tried and trued cooking methods. We have come to like cooked foods better, but not because raw (or rare) meats will kill you. The current problem that the grandparent post complains about doesn't have to do with cooking the meat, but cooking the bacteria on the meat and the parasites in the meat. Meats are now overcooked (to the tastes of some) to make sure that we are not being served bacteria.

      Where do these hazards come from? Some have always been there, like trichinosis in pigs. Some are new, like the increasing amount of E. coli on our beef. Why are we getting more bacteria on our beef? Modern slaughterhouses run their line speeds at rates that are too fast for the meat packers to assure that they aren't cutting into the intestines of the cows. Every time they do so, more bacteria enters our beef supply

      Why not just walk up to a cow and take a bite out of their shoulder? It amounts to the same thing.

      Actually, it's worse than that. Eating uncooked hamburger is the same as walking up to a cow and taking a big bite out of its rectum. Yes you get some meat, but you also get some "organ meat" and a whole raft of E. coli. Yum!

    5. Re:Society of people scared of acne... by Pxtl · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, burgers are different from steaks. Steaks can be cooked medium, because diseases tend to reside on the outside of the meat. Burgers, on the other hand, have had the outsides jumbled into the interior. Plus, because of longer shipping distances due to factory farming, meat is often less fresh than it used to be. As such, diseases have more time to fester.

      So really, making a medium-rare burger is a lot more risk than you may think. Personally, I think if you want something like that, I'd go for a steak.

    6. Re:Society of people scared of acne... by Kuscheltier · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's safe to eat rare steaks because there isn't any bacteria inside the meat. It's on the outside, and that gets cooked.

      Sorry but this just isn't true.

      Meat can surely contain bacteria or the likes. Especially wild animals are likely to be infected or be inhabitet by parasites. Though, i guess that most of the meat being sold is probably more likely to be harmless.

    7. Re:Society of people scared of acne... by bentcd · · Score: 2, Informative

      It is unlikely that man would adopt cooking just for the (alledged) taste benefits. More likely, we started cooking meat because cooked meat can be chewn and swallowed in mere minutes whileas raw meat is hell on your jaw muscles and takes forever to chew. It was a drastic economization of eating and so caught on quite rapidly.
      Any health benefits are probably just happy side effects as they would have been very difficult for primitive man to recognize given the poor knowledge of statistics and lack of health records at the time.

      --
      sigs are hazardous to your health
  11. Soylent Green is people! by N8F8 · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...is brought to you by Soylent red and Soylent yellow, high energy vegetable concentrates, and new, delicious, Soylent green. The miracle food of high-energy plankton gathered from the oceans of the world.

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    1. Re:Soylent Green is people! by andreMA · · Score: 5, Funny
      Ah yes.

      Soylent Green. It's who's for dinner.

  12. Where meat is everywhere, it is nowhere? by KingPrad · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "The article mentions meat makers as home appliances. Carne-Matic aside, this sounds like a mixed blessing, and brings about visions of some sterile, Spandex-jumpsuit future where food production is controlled by some central authority, and real, hoof-grown meat is a rare delicacy."

    Yeah, because I know all my home appliances are controlled by the government. I get a Toaster Use Coupon every Tuesday in the mail so I can use the toaster 3 times a week between the hours of 4-6 PM. Thank god for the central authority.

    I don't see what the problem is. If the meat tastes like meat and has roughly the same protein and calorie content but costs much less then this can only be a good thing, right? Maybe we won't need to raise millions of cows just for meat production and we can change some of the food crop over to something more useful like grains.

    I just don't understand how being able to synthesize food in every home in America means there would suddenly be a shortage of non-synthesized food, strictly controlled by the government.

    --
    Stop the Slashdot Effect! Don't read the articles!
    1. Re:Where meat is everywhere, it is nowhere? by dustmite · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't see what the problem is. If the meat tastes like meat and has roughly the same protein and calorie content but costs much less then this can only be a good thing, right?

      Because it won't taste like meat. It'll taste "something like meat, but not quite as good". Like soya-based 'meat' products. It'll taste just a little more mediocre, more bland, and more 'homogenised' than the real thing. You may not care, but many people already think modern packaged foods (and society in general) has become too bland, mediocre and homogenous, and this is just another step towards the ultimate bland, generic society. (Maybe. Maybe not. Probably.) Of course, the first generation to grow up on the stuff will just think that's normal.

      I just don't understand how being able to synthesize food in every home in America means there would suddenly be a shortage of non-synthesized food

      Because industrial agriculture requires economies of scale to work effectively. If the majority of people mostly eat synthesized food, modern large-scale agriculture will collapse. (Of course, it's debatable as to whether or not this is good or bad in itself, because industrial agriculture is not sustainable anyway.)

  13. the good & the bad by Unsus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While this could help with hunger in third-world countries, I would imagine most other people would reject it as "Franklin' Nuggets". It'll be interesting to see PETA's stance, since those type of people tend to also be against artificially created food (and even genetic engineering).

  14. Slashdot submitter comments are made of STUPID! by SB9876 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Opposed to what, a sterile, buisness-suited present where food production is controlled by large corporations who are more concerned about the bottom line than the welfare of either the customers or the animals used to make the food?

    Decentralized 'meat' production where there's no suffering involved, the risk of dangerous bacterial contamination from slaughterhouse processing is gone, the consumer has moer direct control over what antibiotics and hormones, if any, go into their meat is such an Orwellian idea.

    Since when did it become required in /. that every submitter comment try and pass off a technological innovation as being Orwellian/reckless/sinister with some sort of boneheaded Luddite comment?

  15. 2 ways this could pan out imo by Zunni · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, I see two ways of this going

    1) Meat quality increasing and price decreasing (since anyone can "grow" their own) thereby leading to more healthy eating which would be the utopian way

    OR

    2) The demand for meat overtaking the quantity that can realistically be produced and thereby allowing a few people to grow/sell meat for a huge profit, thereby increasing the cost.

    What this all hinges on of course is if they make this technology available to the everyday person in their home.

  16. I'm curious by Minwee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Where exactly did you get the idea that the meat you were eating now was somehow natural?

    1. Re:I'm curious by Minwee · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The lion and the eagle don't pump their meat full of drugs before they eat it. My ancestors who ate meat before me didn't shoot their cattle up with recombinant bovine growth hormone. Historical records show that cattle were originally the size of sheep. Calling modern livestock "natural" is about as honest as saying that elements like carbon, nitrogen and hydrogen are products of nature, therefore sarin gas is "by defintion natural".

      Calling someone a troll because you can't comprehend what they are talking about doesn't make you intellectually superior to anything.

    2. Re:I'm curious by Jason+Ford · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not sure the parent is a troll as much as he is vague. The animal your meat came from was likely raised on a factory farm. The animal was probably injected with antibiotics to reduce the likelihood of infection resulting from the crowded conditions. The animal was also likely given hormones to encourage growth.

      I'm vegan, but I would argue that eating meat is natural (perhaps not ethical or healthy, but natural.) Eating factory farmed animals injected with chemicals is less natural.

      therefore we have the innate right to eat what can't outrun us.

      Oh, by the way, my friend asked me to tell you that your grandparents were delicious. Your grandfather runs pretty fast for an old guy, but not fast enough. ;)

      --
      I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens. --Isaac Bashevis Singer
    3. Re:I'm curious by Number6.2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm afraid not. Most deli meat comes from certain cuts of the Spamalope. Shoulder cuts ususally taste like ham, limb and joint cuts taste like capricola and bolognia, and the haunch tastes like...spam.

      The statement "This spam tastes like ass!" is therefore redundant.

      Spamalope are native to the Hudson Valley area in New York (the state), which is why the best deli meat comes from New York City. The Yiddish word for the Spamalope is Delicatessen.

      Once they covered the landscape from horizon to horizon, but their numbers have been drastically reduced. The only known free range spamalope are now controlled by a consortium of deli meat companies, particularly Hormel and Oscar Meyer.

      It is rumored you can still hear the lonesome mating cry of the Spamalope in the wilds of Yonkers and Sheboygan, but most people write it off as just another Urban Ledgend.

      Hope that clears things up.

      --
      What is he capable of? Satanic sacrifices, orgies involving catgirls, spitting on Easter and the Pentacost. The usual Secular Humanist atrocities. -- Jedidiah Grist.
      Generated by SlashdotRndSig via GreaseMonkey

      --
      "If god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him" --Voltaire
  17. why the distopia? by RayBender · · Score: 4, Informative
    this sounds like a mixed blessing, and brings about visions of some sterile, Spandex-jumpsuit future where food production is controlled by some central authority, and real, hoof-grown meat is a rare delicacy

    Jeez, lighten up. There are plenty of technologically-induced distopias to worry about. This one ranks near the bottom of the list. First of all, food is pretty much already controlled by a central authority (ADM anyone?). Besides, have you ever been inside an abattoir, or within 5 miles of an industrial hog farm? The idea of eating meat without killing cows (and mad cow disease!) seems pretty good to me.

    If you absolutely must freak about technology, worry about what happens when your health insurance company can do genetic screening on you. The go watch GATTACA.

    --
    Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
  18. Hooray by capillary+tube · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I approve of this, as the meats' being synthetic may remove certain taboos currently in the way of good eatins. I'll be first in line at my area's new Manburger stand.

  19. Wait... by Eric+S.+Smith · · Score: 2, Interesting
    where food production is controlled by some central authority

    Unless you grow it yourself, this is already effectively the case, isn't it? If you're not making a deliberate effort to the contrary, the bulk of the food you eat is likely to come from large operations and national chains.

  20. As a borderline vegan, by Nosf3ratu · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I'll say this:
    If the meat is wholly synthetic, and never came from a living animal, I think that most vegetarians would find it difficult to say no to it.

    However, haven spoken to my vegan wife about a similar issue just yesterday (cloned meat), if the fake meat originated from the cell of one real animal, it still goes against the basic constructs of veganism.

    It's not all about how the animal is treated, it's just that it is animal flesh.

    --
    The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori
    1. Re:As a borderline vegan, by MaxQuordlepleen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Great insight. As an unreconstructed carnivore, I've got some ignorant comments to make :)

      While the attitude you describe may hold true for pre-existing vegan and vegetarian folk, I wonder if we would see a sharp decline in the ranks of 'new converts'. Pure speculation of course, but if the ethical difficulty becomes basically theoretical rather than actual, I doubt that many people would feel compelled to change their eating habits.

    2. Re:As a borderline vegan, by Nosf3ratu · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I couldn't agree more.

      Much of the horrific videos (read: "Propaganda" for you meat-eating folk) put out by PETA is largely directed towards the visceral response.

      Personally, myself, again being an ovo-lacto-pesco vegetarian, (eating vegan food when prepared at home), I wouldn't have a problem eating this new synthetic meat.

      As for everyone who is saying "Ew, gross," well ... it's no less disgusting than bloody animal flesh from a tortured animal. They're just being huge pussies.

      --
      The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori
    3. Re:As a borderline vegan, by Travelsonic · · Score: 2, Informative
      Much of the horrific videos (read: "Propaganda" for you meat-eating folk)

      Not to start a war, but I think the reason it is called propaganda is becauase they purposely choose only the bloody footage, sometimes even manipulating footage (admitted to by Ingrid Newkirk of PETA once), and putting it in a way where it looks like that's all that happens there, yeah it's a propogatic method. They should do what real undercover people do - film, and show the footage uncut, unmanipulated, unedited, that way people will put more trust in the already trust-loosing PETA (especially after the latest campaign they started, which got judged as racist in New Haven, CT.

      --
      If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
    4. Re:As a borderline vegan, by Rei · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As a vegetarian (not vegan - sorry, friend vegans, but I think you're nuts to give up everything that you do :) ), I have to say that I find my reactions to this mixed.

      On one hand, I think this would be incredible technology. I became a vegetarian for moral reasons (my partner did for environmental reasons); almost any reason people become a vegetarian for (apart from, possibly, religious reasons), this addresses. Even further, developing this technology will help greatly with developing organ cloning, a potentially world-changing medical technology that is built on the same principles.

      So, I think this is an incredible development, and am so happy to hear about it.

      On the other hand, I don't think I could eat it. I've been vegetarian long enough that the thought of eating meat just makes me sick. It's no longer simply the moral issue that led me to be vegetarian in the first place.

      I guess the closest thing I could compare it to for your average person is: picture a world where eating butchered human flesh is common, and you were raised to eat it just like everyone else. You decide that you simply cannot do it any more; it is morally reprehensible to you. So, you stop eating human flesh. Then, way down the line, someone comes up with "guilt-free" synthetic human flesh.

      Could you eat it? Would you eat it?

      --
      Kneel Before Christ!
    5. Re:As a borderline vegan, by ceejayoz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Could you eat it? Would you eat it?

      Why not?

      If it tastes good, and it was grown in a lab to avoid any ethical problems, I don't see why not.

      I suspect beef would taste better than human, but I'd give it a try if offered.

    6. Re:As a borderline vegan, by indifferent+children · · Score: 2, Funny
      Could you eat it? Would you eat it?

      Sure, but only if you can guarantee that those free-range humans didn't eat McDonald's food every week and inject themselves with questionable pharmaceuticals. If you had some pen-raised humans (and not our prisons, they have high incidence of AIDS and hard drug use) then that would be OK.

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
  21. SPACE MEAT: Obligatory Invader Zim reference by millennial · · Score: 2, Insightful

    SPACE MEAT!
    Well, it all started in 1962... Utilizing advances in modern food synthesis, scientists at NASA began work on a germ hostile space meat to be used into long expeditions in deep space! Only recently has their hard work paid off. As even more advances in the field of space meat have been made and applied to what is now known as operation meat. Seeing this as a way to end their streak of being sued by angry costumers poisoned by their burgers, the Mac Meaties corporation decided to try this miraculous space meat. Not having access to that technology, we make ours out of napkins.

    --
    I am scientifically inaccurate.
  22. Religious Implications by Erwos · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A Muslim co-worker and I (I'm an Orthodox Jew, for reference) had a brief discussion of whether you could actually eat artificial pork. I'm _reasonably sure_ that under halakha, you could - meat is really defined as something that comes off an animal, and whatever this stuff is, if it doesn't come off an animal, it wouldn't have the halakhic status of meat. He also agreed that Shaaria would _probably_ not have an issue with it, either.

    I think the ideological implications are more interesting (fake bacon is one thing, but this...), but those aren't really of any concern on /., methinks.

    -Erwos

    --
    Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
    1. Re:Religious Implications by A_Known_Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      What if the "meat" had to be grown from an original source. A kind of donor pork chop per se.


      In that case, then this product originated from an animal from a technical sense.


      As a vegetarian, I've thought of this same scenario. For me, being a vegetarian stems from the ethical stance of not wanting to introduce unnecesary harm into the world through the killing of animals. Since, theoretically, one animal's death could result in the perputual production of meat without pain or harm down the line, I'm still a little torn about whether or not I'd actually eat this stuff.

  23. Prior Art by rlp · · Score: 4, Funny

    They've been serving this stuff in school lunch rooms across the nation for decades! Usually covered with cold greasy brown gravy.

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
  24. Manwich by kpansky · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Excellent. Maybe now we can use some of those stem cells to create man meat. It wouldn't even be cannabalism because stem cells aren't people. Yummy.

    --

    --Kevin
  25. yes the whole bass by uberjoe · · Score: 3, Funny

    Can I use my Super Bass-O-Matic 76?

    --

    The days of the digital watch are numbered.

  26. Re:What is wrong with people? by capillary+tube · · Score: 3, Funny

    God, yes. The last thing we need is the world's poor getting hold of a luxury like meat. I'm personally going to blow my brains out when the first malnourished Somalian takes a bite into that sinful essence of Satan.

  27. Erm by jb.hl.com · · Score: 2

    brings about visions of some sterile, Spandex-jumpsuit future where food production is controlled by some central authority, and real, hoof-grown meat is a rare delicacy. Remember, Soylent Green is people!

    And I thought Slashdot's unlimited, completely baseless paranoia had reached its pinnacle :\

    --
    By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
  28. i'll second that by subtropolis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There are several reasons why i'm vegetarian, and a couple of them have simply to do with how many animals are raised. Vat-meat surely avoids the cruelty of penned-up animals but the idea of meat which literally just sits there as it grows is really unappealing. If i were to eat meat, i'd prefer it to be free-range. It can only be healthier.

    --
    "Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
    1. Re:i'll second that by SlamMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You mean kind of like how vegetables?

      --
      Mod point free since 2001
    2. Re:i'll second that by frankthechicken · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why do you find it unappealing?

      Is it as unappealing as the idea of a few cells encased in dirt, bacteria and poo, multiplying, replecating, literally just sitting there as it grows?

      Just sounds to me as though we are now growing meat, as we would a vegetable.

    3. Re:i'll second that by ivan256 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If i were to eat meat, i'd prefer it to be free-range. It can only be healthier.

      Why do you make that assumption? You have no idea what a 'free-range' cow is eating, or what diseases it had. If anything I would say it could only be less helthy. You have the knid of mentality that drives the demand for 'organic' products, even while in many cases it's impossible to know what 'organic' means; worse, even when we do know what 'organic' means we have no good idea of what is in any particular batch of 'natural' fertilizers or feeds and have little understanding of how the complex chemical mixtures in such things interact with our body when compared to the chemically simple 'artificial' fertilizers.

      Whenever I heaar people talk about this stuff I always remember a section from Neal Stephenson's book 'Zodiac.' The (environmentalist/chemist) main character's drug of choice is nitrous inhaled out of a plastic garbage bag. His reasoning is that he doesn't want to put drugs in his body that he can't draw a molecular model of. (It's been a few years since I read it - It's explained much better in the book). Anyway, it seems like a good philosophy to me. A lot of things that are 'organic' scare the crap out of me.

    4. Re:i'll second that by SerpentMage · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Do you eat tofu, or soya? Ever see how that stuff is made? Well, I think tofu and vat grown meat probably have quite a bit in common!

      I also find it puzzling that somehow a cow ranging the field eating where they took a dump a while ago is "healthier" than a biologically steril vat growing meat!

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    5. Re:i'll second that by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I know what it means when I eat an animal that has been force fed, or injected with lots of hormones and steroids... I'm not a vegitarian, goes against my internal instincts. I don't want the animals I eat to be mistreated or to live horrible lives in the name of my getting a convenient meal. If we can do things better we should. Are you a scared rancher or owner in the stock of a pesticide or pharmaceutical company that manufacturers products for ranchers? Do you work for a company that makes its living off of the ranching industry. I have a buddy who has family that raise chickens, they use hormones and steroids. Their children of course get to eat lots of fresh chicken and really like the kidneys and livers, I'm not making this up. All of his children are the larget kids in each of their respective grades. Frankly I don't want to ingest hormones or steroids meant for a chicken or cow.

    6. Re:i'll second that by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Remember, cow muscle evolved to move the cow around, not to feed people.

      Not true. Mankind has been selectively breeding cattle for thousands of years. In that time we have literally bred them to be tasty. I remember seeing a while back a bit on CNN about cattler farmers using Ultrasound to measure the fat content and muscle mass of steer so they can tell who to stud before having to breed them, raise the offspring, then slaughter the offspring to get the information.

      You also suffer from the falicy that any biomass is intended to be food. With the exception of milk and fruit, everything we eat was a creature or plant that had other ideas.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    7. Re:i'll second that by bentcd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      . . . the idea of meat which literally just sits there as it grows is really unappealing.
      This is just a cultural meme that can easily change over the course of a generation. What different cultures think of as appetizing or revolting is so variable such a small transition as from hoof-meat to vat-meat is likely to be relatively painless. Of course, the flip side of the coin is that two generations from now, people might think in disgust of their grandparents who ate _actual_ _animals_ *yuck* :-)
      Should make BSE a thing of the past too.

      --
      sigs are hazardous to your health
    8. Re:i'll second that by MemeRot · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are many health issues related to farm raised meat. Here's one: 80% of antibiotics used in America are used on livestock. Do you really want to be consuming low levels of antibiotics on a constant basis? These are a definite contributor to anti-biotic resistant strains.

      As far as organic vegetables, it's largely about the environmental impact, i.e. you don't get the huge nitrogen fertilizer run-off into the water supply. Also, you know that you're not eating genetically modified food. The genetically modified foods out today are pretty primitive and offer no benefits to those who eat them. The big example is the Roundup Ready varieties of plants. These have been modified for one purpose - to allow the plants to withstand huge amounts of pesticide sprayed on the crops. Do you think pesticides wash off? They can be found inside the plant up to several months after the application, since the plants just soaking up liquids.

      Future gm crops get pretty weird, like putting fish 'antifreeze' genes in tomatoes to let them grow longer into the season. Good idea? Who knows? Will these genes spread into the weeds around the cropland, allowing them to become more noxious? Again, who knows? I do know the roundup ready genes have spread in the wild: Monsanto actually sued a GM-free farmer when his neighbor's GM crop contaminated his GM-free crop (http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=1289).

    9. Re:i'll second that by rcastro0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why do you make that assumption? You have no idea what a 'free-range' cow is eating, or what diseases it had.

      Well, at least I know it is not eating the remains of other cows. Can you guess how mad cow disease spreads among cows ? Non-free-range cows are often being fed with protein that comes from... cow meat and bone meal ! Like in those trashy zombie movies, non-free-range cows do eat cow brains. I dont care what type of grass they find to eat out in the range, but I certainly dont imagine they will start eating each others brains...

      For more info:
      Brazil's Vegetarian Cows Don't Go Mad
      http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0107-04.ht m

      --
      Quem a paca cara compra, paca cara pagará.
  29. Skewed statistics by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 5, Funny
    Eat that fucking natural meat and cook it rare. When you are making some hamburger, wad up a ball, add some pepper and salt and eat it. I've done it since I was a kid and never had any ill effects.

    100% of the people I've talked to who have played Russian roulette have never had any ill effects either.

    1. Re:Skewed statistics by greenplato · · Score: 4, Informative

      First, fresh meat is unlikely to contain food-bourne illnesses if handled properly; after all the animal was alive and not dying of salmonilla not too long ago.

      Not true. You can count on pork to contain trichinella. Also, you can count on the outside of chicken to be contaminated with salmonella, and E. coli will surely be found on the outside of steak and on the inside of ground beef. This is a fact of life now because of the methods used by meatpackers. If you buy your meat from anyone but a skilled independent butcher (a vanishing trade), not from your grocery store or not slaughtered or processed in a meatpacking plant, your meat will be dangerous to you uncooked.

      Second, most food-bourne illnesses that you get from raw food are non-lethal unless you are unhealthy for other reasons.

      Non-lethal cramping, diarrhea, are vomiting are fine with me! Where do I sign up?

    2. Re:Skewed statistics by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, most commercially available pork nowadays is not infected with Trichinella.

      While the layout on it is pretty gaudy, here's a fact sheet from the meatman:
      http://www.askthemeatman.com/pork_Trichinosis.htm

      From the site:
      Pork (deer and bear are also targets) used to get infected with Trichinae via their diet of uncooked meats, either foraged or scraps. Now the US requires that even garbage must be cooked before using as feed for commercial hog stock.

      There's always the question of whether the regulations are being followed, however -- recent articles have been published re: BSE-prevention regulations not being followed.

      and
      "Interestingly enough, trichinae is not found worldwide. Southeast Asia and Europe have no problems with the parasite, allowing the consumption of raw pork without the risk of health problems."

      Too bad that there's another swine infection problem coming along in Asia:
      http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/08/03/china.pigdise ase.ap/index.html

      Also, please not the qualifier in the parent:"If handled properly."

      The only way to guarantee that your meat is handled properly is to do it yourself.

      Umm... let me rephrase that... Is to raise, butcher, and process the meat yourself, after a thorough education in the correct methods.

      And to take that one step further, if you are ethically unable to butcher your own meat, you really shouldn't be eating it at all... or you're just deceiving yourself.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    3. Re:Skewed statistics by Communomancer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, not entirely true, either. While it's true that raw chicken is quite likely to make you sick with salmonella, and I'm not aware of what the E. coli statistics are for steaks, you most certainly cannot "count on pork to contain trichinella".

      Source: The USDA
      http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/trichinae/docs/fact_s heet.htm

      Today, the trichinae issue is a question of perception versus reality. Dramatic declines in prevalence in pigs and the extremely low numbers of cases in humans are largely unrecognized by domestic consumers who still raise questions about "worms in pork".

      And if you live in Canada, you're in even more luck, since most parts of Canada have been certified by the OIE as trichinae-free.

      --
      "UNIX" is never having to say you're sorry.
  30. Substantial Environmental Benefits by doconnor · · Score: 3, Informative

    There are substantial environment benefits to making meat and other foods in the lab. Farming causes more environment distruction then any other industry. While some industries pollute the land, the damage can be reduced with better technology.

    Farming converts vast tracts onto a monoculture completely replacing the natural environment. North America used to have vast amounts of grasslands and millions of Bison. Now the whole area is covered with farms and people are only dimly aware that there was ever anything else there before.

    Most species are made extinct by habitat distruction and most habitat distruction is mostly caused by farming.

    1. Re:Substantial Environmental Benefits by plasmacutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Environmental reconstruction is not the biggest problem with farming.. it's the pollution from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO's), which are virtually unregulated and dump all the feces from hundreds of thousands of animals into lagoons 30 feet deep and 3 square football fields in area... I believe Al Franken summarizes it well in his chapter "vast lagoons of pig feces".

      Of course.. we need to keep a substantial number of livestock animals alive in case of problems later on concrerning this meat synthesis..

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    2. Re:Substantial Environmental Benefits by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are substantial environment benefits to making meat and other foods in the lab.

            You're just swapping one set of problems for another. If you are growing food in the lab, you now have to deal with contamination, you have to use aseptic procedures, disposable equipment, chemical sterlization agents etc. Unless what you really want to sell is a huge E. Coli or S. aureus or fungal colony...but anyone can do THAT...who wants to eat it tho? Ewww.

            The mere fact that humans exist contaminates the environment, no matter what we do. Our bodies are highly organized at the expense of our environment. It's the law of entropy, really - the creation of order has to be balanced somewhere in a universe whose nature tends to disorder over time.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  31. Spandex jumpsuit future by elgatozorbas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why exactly is this terrifying?

  32. Geez. by eigerface · · Score: 3, Informative
    You can read a curiously familiar Slashdot story from a month ago too.

    I thought that was your sig.

  33. Re:Error, please redirect research funds elsewhere by vidarh · · Score: 2, Insightful
    People are buying Quorn in reasonable quantities, and it doesn't even taste that good, though it's ok. If people are willing to buy fungus grown in vats as a meat replacement I think they'll be relatively tolerant to something that is actually closer to real meat.

    I'm sure the market will grow slowly initially, but people had objections to microwaved food and irradiated spices originally too.

    The tipping point will likely be when this can be made reasonably cheaper than "real" meat, combined with campaigns aiming for the "veggie sympathisers" that will figure that they can now take the step away from dead animals without giving up meat. Ensure it's grown very lean, so you can market it as a healthier alternative as well.

    If it gets cheap enough it's bound to be a success eventually.

  34. All beef patties. by uberdave · · Score: 2, Informative

    Of course they're All Beef Patties. They come from the All Beef company after all.

  35. My opinion (as one of 'those' folk) by Marc2k · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Most vegans (including myself) aren't against eating animal-derived products simply because they're derived from animals (though as a coping mechanism, you do eventually see things like a plain glass of milk or a block of cheese as pretty gross..which, if you think about it, they really are), but because of how they're derived. Good for instances include milk and eggs; in both cases, when you're mass-producing either product, it's practically inefficient to keep around very many males around, as only a few are necessary for the continuation of product, and extra animals hanging around consume a large amount of resources. I mean, milking a cow isn't intrinsically wrong, though it is weird when you think about it, but continually inseminating in animal in order to continually retrieve a product (or in this case, a raw good..either way, though) from it is pretty messed up from my POV.
    Back to those male cows though: you've got a lot of them, but you can't just kill them, that would be resource consuming in and of itself, so what do you do? You sell them off for veal. They, more often than not, have their hooves nailed to the tiny cages they'll spend the rest of their lives in, before being slaughtered for a delicacy. If I chose not to eat meat, but consumed a lot of dairy, I'd be directly funding one of the most inhumane (again, POV) parts of the industry I was personally boycotting. Male egg chicks are at least disposed of quickly, but usually not disposed of, generally just discarded, i.e. in a dumpster or elsewhere.

    So yeah, those are my main reasons for not partaking in animal products. It'd require some deep thought, but initially I'd say that yes, it is possible that I'd consume products that were derived from an animal, so long as it was humane, sterile, and non-harmful to the animal. This seems, again initally, like a pretty non-invasive procedure, and there will probably always be host animals around, hopefully ones living happy lives.

    *Note: I'm not in anyway trying to proselytize here; I'm not telling you what to do, think, eat, or say. The above information is accurate, as far as I'm concerned.

    --
    --- What
    1. Re:My opinion (as one of 'those' folk) by ValuJet · · Score: 3, Funny

      Stop, you're making me hungry.

    2. Re:My opinion (as one of 'those' folk) by Proteus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It'd require some deep thought, but initially I'd say that yes, it is possible that I'd consume products that were derived from an animal, so long as it was humane, sterile, and non-harmful to the animal.

      I hear many ethical vegans say this, but it has always piqued my curiosity: why not choose to eat free-range, locally-raised, certified organic animal products? For example, I buy my milk from the local co-op, which acquires it from a local free-range organic farm: the cows are milked because they have given birth to calves which will be raised for breeding stock (males) or replacement producers (female). When their cows are unable to safely produce offspring, they are sold for the beef.

      Would something like that cause you trouble?

      I ask because I share many of the concerns that vegans express about the production of things like milk, eggs, and beef -- but my answer is to vote with my wallet and buy from producers that practice responsible and sustainable farming. As a bonus, the food usually tastes better, too, because there is a greater focus on quality as opposed to quantity.

      you do eventually see things like a plain glass of milk or a block of cheese as pretty gross..which, if you think about it, they really are

      You must be easily grossed out. I made cheese for a living, and still love the product (tasty). Though, I learned two things: Velveeta is not cheese, it is a cheese food product and thoroughly disgusting; and soaking cheese in italian dressings is not only bad marketing, but creates a horrific smell when it goes bad. ;-)

      --
      We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
    3. Re:My opinion (as one of 'those' folk) by kilodelta · · Score: 2, Informative

      Part of living in modern society is accepting the fact that we'd rather not see how our food is processed.

      For example - I'm surprised you didn't metion hot dogs. The process is pretty disgusting but they taste pretty good so its a wash as to the disgust factor.

      Same is true of sausage. It is basically the bits of animal that you normally wouldn't use. Of course they grind it up and throw some fennel and other spices in.

      But does that stop me from eating those items on occasion? Hell no.

      I'm beyond the squeamish part of life. Once you realize that life is dirty, slimy and disgusting you'll find its much easier to get along in this world.

    4. Re:My opinion (as one of 'those' folk) by Marc2k · · Score: 3, Interesting

      but my answer is to vote with my wallet

      I do too, and that's really my answer to your question. Milk and eggs come about as a biproduct of reproduction, and there are a heck of a lot of people, so any useful amount of milk and/or eggs has to come from a lot of reproduction going on (lots of gettin' busy). Thus, as you've mentioned, the only way to for that to be in any way sustainable is to slaughter the animals for meat. Since I started out as a vegetarian, and didn't want to support the meat industry monetarily, it was the next logical progression to become vegan. It's not something I pressure on people, though I advocate it, it's just that personally, when I was just veg, I felt like a hypocrite a lot of the time, because I was funding the meat industry semi-directly by supporting an industry that can only be sustained transitively by the meat industry.

      Also with regard to milk/cheese grossness, notice that I said it was a coping mechanism. If I were to stop being vegan today, I'd probably find both of them tasty and delicious, but since I'm choosing willfully not to consume either, it's easiest if I think about where it comes from, rather than keep thinking about what I may be missing out on.

      --
      --- What
    5. Re:My opinion (as one of 'those' folk) by gobbo · · Score: 3, Interesting
      why not choose to eat free-range, locally-raised, certified organic animal products? For example, I buy my milk from the local co-op, which acquires it from a local free-range organic farm: the cows are milked because they have given birth to calves which will be raised for breeding stock (males) or replacement producers (female). When their cows are unable to safely produce offspring, they are sold for the beef.

      I once organised a forum led by an activist vegan nutritionist and a free-range organic rancher. I was hoping for some controversy and heated discussion (ah, the perversions of media), but what I got was an underlying agreement: for many vegans, it is the structure of the food system they object to, especially its depravities. The vegan actually supported the rancher in his venture, and suggested that given his carefully 'humane' techniques as the dominant method of production, only the spiritually-motivated vegans would remain.

      Vegans have developed an ideology (like any other movement) that blinds some of its purveyors. I have a friend who's devoted to it, she rescues livestock and keeps them on her property as 'farm pets' so they can live out their life as fertility producers (pigshit is good plant food). Still, it's a bit much, what are we going to do, free the cows? They can't be naturalized, just extincted by attrition according to that logic.

      I myself grew up on my grandparents' subsistence farm, and saw how old-fashioned animal husbandry is not too far from hunting-gathering in its relationship (respect) for the livestock. They had names and a 'good' domesticated life... except for the veal (hey, we're italian). I was once vegetarian due to the dissociation between slaughter and table, but now tell people that "I eat meat, but prefer to know its name first." My advice? strive for less than 10% meat in your diet, buy local from smaller family farms, make sure you know about the steps in the food chain that lead to your table... including the death of the animal.

      You must be easily grossed out.

      Others maybe, but I'm not, I like milking goats/sheep/cows and killing my own food. However, do you actually know what the pus/blood/urine/hormone/pollutant/antibiotic levels are in industrial milk? No, if you want to drink in comfort, don't ask.

    6. Re:My opinion (as one of 'those' folk) by bradbeattie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People are made out of meat. Are they meant to be eaten?

    7. Re:My opinion (as one of 'those' folk) by blincoln · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just out of curiosity, do you manage to avoid jello, make-up of any kind (for you or your spouse), shoes, fabrics, etc.?

      I guess I can understand "doing the best you can," but it sometimes seems as though one can't be completely unhypocritically vegan and still live in the world.

      I was vegan for three years. It's not at all hard to avoid animal products anymore.

      Pangea has replacements for just about every kind of food, including Jello.

      There are many makeup companies that make products without animal ingredients or testing. Not all of them are little speciality brands either - MAC is acceptable to vegans, and they're in every halfway-decent department store.

      Vegetarian Shoes has all-vegan footwear, and if you like buckles and tall boots like me, Pennangalan Dreams can get most of their styles in synthetic material.

      The only fabrics I'm aware of that are animal-based are wool and silk. I have a suit from Pangea made from synthetics that looks better and is more comfortable than anything I've worn made of wool.

      I gave it up in the end because I wasn't getting something I needed in my diet, but I still avoid unnecessary animal products.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    8. Re:My opinion (as one of 'those' folk) by VeganHippy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You sort of answered your own question in the first paragraph: 'When their cows are unable to safely produce offspring, they are sold for the beef.' That is the reason that most vegans wouldn't eat organic/locally produced animal parts. Any industry, be it on a mass scale or not require control, use/abuse and eventually death of another animal for the benefit of those wanting to make a profit. That in and of itself is enough for vegans not to want to participate. I have less issue with someone who has a few chickens in their backyard that drop eggs that they eat and don't breed more as needed (Breeding layer hens inevitably ends up bad for males). What most vegans stand against first and foremost, are the industries (small and large) whose business revolves around killing and keeping on doing it. There is no need for people in "developed" countries (And even a lot of undeveloped ones) to eat animal products (In fact it's healthier not to) - and therefore, why would we want to kill? It's obviously for something so trivial as taste and personal greed, and that's what I find pretty sad about people. That they could easily save the lives of hundreds of animals that they'd eat over their lifetime by going vegan, but because they can't be arsed, they won't. And then, later on in life, 20% or so of them will die of stroke, heartattack etc and somehow be surprised. Vegan food isn't tasteless and boring, the stereotype of a bean eating hippy who does yoga and wears sandals has been smashed for many years, just that people like to keep putting us in that bag. If they don't then maybe they have to realise that there are "alternatives" to the animals they want to eat, that maybe they could make a change, and be healthier and save lives. Maybe they don't because they somehow think it'd make them a bit of a pussy.

  36. Re:Wonderful by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ship mass quantities of synthetic meat to the 3rd-world countries (thus solving part of world hunger and getting them to shut up

          Ship it to the 3rd world and it will end up rotting in a warehouse while the people starve. The problem with the 3rd world is not a lack of being able to produce, it's a political one. The government's job in those countries is pretty much to rob the population blind, not help develop the country's infrastructure. I should know, I've lived there for 20 years.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  37. flavor by Luyseyal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The nice thing about lab meat is you can have such a wide variety of styles and flavors built in from the factory floor. You can have beer massaged Kobe beef at a fraction of the price. You can have built in italian, bbq, greek, etc. seasoning. All this and more for a fraction of the cost.

    Hell, I eat meat and I still prefer good veggie burgers to meat ones due to the lack of flavor in the vast majority of meat burgers and the amount of time it takes to make one. I can spend 20 minutes making the perfect Mexican-flavor-esqe burger or I can microwave an equally tasty Morning Star Fajita Burger in 1 minute.

    YMMV,
    -l

    --
    Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
  38. Now the name make sense by mapmaker · · Score: 2, Funny

    SPAceMeat

  39. I couldn't disagree more by The+Wicked+Priest · · Score: 2, Insightful

    with Jdray. "Sterile", or humane? And home appliances would of course be much less centralized than the current system. But more importantly, artificial meat could be one key to a sustainable future.

    A lot of people have moral qualms about killing animals for food, and their numbers are growing. I think this growth may, ironically, be correlated with increasing urbanization: as fewer people are involved in the process of raising -- and butchering -- farm animals, there's less desensitization to it. Urbanites experience animals most often as pets, rather than as servants or foodstock. Of course, most of these people still eat meat -- but even that is a less visceral experience than it used to be, with undifferentiated meat prodcuts like hamburger and chicken "nuggets" making up a large portion of what's consumed. So, although it's become easier for the average person to avoid confronting the realities of the slaughterhouse, it makes more of an impact when they finally do.

    I think these changes are all to the good. I'm not (yet) a vegetarian myself, but I gotta admit, I'm sympathetic. And if artificial meat makes the switch easier, I think that's wonderful.

    There's an even deeper problem with (natural) meat, though -- one which I even believe could, in combination with the spread of vegetarianism, lead to its complete abandonment within the next century. The problem is the cost. Not simply the monetary cost, which is an imperfect reflection of the true cost; but the fact that meat is incredibly inefficient. You can feed grain to cattle, and then feed the cattle to people; or you can feed grain directly to people. Skipping the cattle step lets you feed several times as many people. The price of meat already reflects this, to some extent, and it's only going to go up. But one of the largely uncounted costs is deforestation, as more and more land is cleared to create grazing grounds for larger and larger herds. This is a major factor in the destruction of the Amazon rainforest, with very far-reaching consequences. We haven't paid much of that cost, yet -- but one way or another, we will. The sooner we can replace those herds with artificial meat, the less the blow will be.

    --
    Share and Enjoy: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  40. splenda by linzeal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Splenda comes damn close and this is coming from a former pastry chef. I just wish you could bake a creme brulee with it.

  41. What about efficiency... by CalexAtNoon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If nutrients only go to grow muscle cell the efficiency can go from 10 to 20 parts of food to 1 part of meat to only 2 or 5.

    That is a very large saving of resources, it might be something to consider in the future.

  42. Not necessarily death... by name_already_taken · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Since, theoretically, one animal's death could result in the perputual production of meat without pain or harm down the line, I'm still a little torn about whether or not I'd actually eat this stuff.

    They could just take a tissue sample by a biopsy. Then the "donor pork chop" wouldn't actually have to die.

    Or would that still be too much harm?

    --
    Putting moderation advice in your .sig lowers your karma!
  43. What? No Invader Zim references? by rdewalt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sure, if it looks like meat, tastes like meat, and if my body doesn't know the difference, I'll give it a shot.

    However, having grown up on a dairy and beef farm, there is nothing more satisfying than a good slab of heated cow flesh.

    I'm an omnivore, have always been. I hate plants as well as animals.

    There was a militant vegan in my office. Ignoring her leather shoes and so on, she used to scoff me for my lunch. Smirkingly and smarmingly eating a banana like she was -superior- to me. "You know. Cows are superior to Bananas." "Impossible!" "Sure. After I'm done eating -MY- lunch, -I- can wear the peel."

    Unlike her, I've -seen- cows in person. I grew up on a farm. I -know- just how mind numbingly stupid cows are. I mean, they're nearly as dumb as your average member of $political_party. I mean, the cow's -ONLY- saving grace, is that they are tasty. (Mind you, I'm not of the faith that considers cows to be sacred.)

    I eat steak, chicken, fish, you name it. If its the flesh of a formerly living creature, there's a good chance I'd consider it food. Make it as rare as safe. I want to -taste- the meat. Steak Sauce? Sure, but -only- if I really, really f'ed up the cooking. She? Strictly Vegan, has been most of her life.

    I take practically no sick leave from work. If I'm out sick, people are surprised, and wonder about me when I return. Her? She was out sick constantly. Anyone so much as wrote 'Germs' on a post-it, and she had a three day cold.

    I'd like to think that -maybe- my diet contributed to a more formidable immune system.

  44. Re:I'd eat it by Travelsonic · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I'm a vegetarian simply because I don't want to kill animals..

    If you really wanted to not kill animals, you wouldn't live in a house, or even eat for that mater, since that all kills animals. It is possible to live a lifestyle where the number of animals are killed for your lifestyle are reduced, but physically impossible to live in a 0-kill world.


    --
    If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
  45. Additional Social Impact by randomErr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I haven't seen anyone talk about this yet, but this will open up a much bigger can of worms then most people think. Examples:

    * Monkey Meat - People will no longer have the taboo associated with eat Chimm Chimm.
    * Cannibals - Someone with phrack one of these units and take a human muscle sample (your own, a friend, a famous person, ect.) so they can indulge in eating human flesh.
    * Faked Identities - take someone's DNA, grow it, and use it in an examine.
    * Faked Deaths - take your own DNA, grow it, and put it into a house fire.

    --
    You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
    1. Re:Additional Social Impact by coastin · · Score: 3, Funny

      But on the bright side, if you are lonely you could go next door to borrow a cup of meat.

      --
      I lost my sig...
  46. Re:Scientists in adverts - bad idea by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 2, Informative

    bzzt.

    He didn't do it for a british telecom ad. It was a Pink Floyd song (actually about relationships) which BT then used as an advert.

  47. re: "if you think about it" by King_TJ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One thing I've come to realize is that if you think about it, every single thing we eat is "pretty gross".

    Those naturally grown veggies have had all manner of bugs crawling all over them, not to mention being rained on by water containing who knows what pollutants .... and that's not even to mention what may be in the soil itself that surrounds them. Then, if you didn't just pick them yourself and fix them immediately, they've been handled by who knows who, and spent quite a while sitting in less than "clean" environments before they reach you, the consumer.

    And that's about the *least gross* scenario I can think of for food. No point even getting into the whole thing of rat hairs and worm parts found in your canned food goods..... or the amount of chemical preservatives holding together everything from our bakery goods to desserts.

    Ultimately, everything about food is a "point of view" issue. One man's "disgusting ants" he'd *never eat* are another person's delicacy when covered in chocolate syrup.

    So with that in mind, I personally would be rather "put off" by the idea of eating synthetic meat. I just don't like the mental image of eating something that's not really what it purports to be. But I'm also sure I'd eventually get used to it, if it became popular enough and tasted just like the "real thing". Certainly, it would become a non-issue within one more generation, as kids grow up eating it.

  48. You are being Poisoned by eno2001 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Whether you believe it or not, you are being poisoned. It may or may not be intentional, and I don't care if it is or isn't. But the fact of the matter is that the food production chain in most western nations is destroying the health of the consumers. There are a high number of chemicals that have found their way into the food supply due to their inexpensive provision of preservative, aesthetic and texture properties. Many of these chemicals may be the underlying cause of various chronic illnesses that are becoming epidemics in the western world. But we will never know because to compound the problem we are also being overmedicated.

    One of the worst ingredients that has found it's way into too much of the food supply is white processed sugar. One can of soft drink can contain up to 14 tablespoons of sugar in it. Sugar also has some light preservative qualities and tends to make everything taste better. In small quantities, sugar is mildly harmful. But at the rate that we ingest sugar, it is downright dangerous. Don't believe me? Next time you are at the grocery, pick up most prepared foods and look at the ingredients. You'll find that sugar or high fructose corn syrup is in nearly everything. It's a bit frightening especially since I had a personal health issue that no doctor could solve until I cut food with sugar out of my diet. Compounded with the medications that doctors tried to give me to cure my sinus infections, I continued to get more and more ill rather than get better. But once I stopped taking the antibiotics and the prevacid and dumped white sugar, white rice, white flour, corn syrup and honey ouf of my diet, my various illnesses went away. It's been about three years now and my health is better than ever.

    So now I read this story about "space meat" and it makes me cringe. I can only imagine what kinds of horrible effects this artificial food stuff is going to have on some people. (remember even if one person gets sick because of a chemical reaction it's one person too many) I have this feeling that if this becomes standard "food" for anyone they will need a whole slew of drugs to combat various ill effects caused by this new toxin. I don't call that living, I call it chemical bondage. Why can't we just start to work on improving organic farming???

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
  49. Anybody read.... by magarj · · Score: 2, Informative

    Food of the Gods, by Arthur C. Clark.. Brings Soylent Green to a whole new level.

  50. They're Made Out of Meat by Ranger · · Score: 2, Informative

    where food production is controlled by some central authority, and real, hoof-grown meat is a rare delicacy.

    Since when is dog meat hoof-grown?

    Speaking of space meat, have you read Terry Bisson's excellent short story"They're Made Out of Meat"?

    "Remember, today is Soylent Yellow Day!"

    --
    "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
  51. Re:Error, please redirect research funds elsewhere by cr0sh · · Score: 2, Insightful
    By the way, am I the extreme minority of people that think the white meat chicken craze is insane?

    Probably, but I agree with you.

    What I found really humorous was when McD's went from having "dark meat" chicken nuggets to all "white meat" chicken nuggets. At the time of the "dark meat" variety, you could usually count on the "odd shaped" ones to be "dark" (and more tender and flavourful - for a McD nugget, I guess), and the round ones to be "white". Today, all nuggets are "white" - odd-shaped ones and round ones.

    Strangely enough, when they did this, the nuggets themselves started tasting like a combo of the "white" nuggets and the former "dark" nuggets, but they were all "white meat". Here is my theory on this:

    All the nuggets (past and present) are made from mechanically separated chicken meat in an industrial process (look it up if you are interested in how this kind of meat is made - you may not want to). Personally, what I think they are doing is taking this meat product, and in some FDA-approved process, the factory making the nuggets are bleaching the meat - so that all the meat is "white meat". Notice they never say "breast meat" or "white breast meat" - just "white meat" chicken nuggets.

    If I am right, that is just wrong (McD's sucks - as if it could be any other way)...

    --
    Reason is the Path to God - Anon
  52. Seriously though by commodoresloat · · Score: 3, Funny

    Nobody wants "cruelty free" meat. The cruelty is where all the flavor comes from!

  53. Sorry mate, no hard feelings, but... by Damek · · Score: 2, Funny

    There are plenty of technologically-induced distopias to worry about.

    Yeah, like the horrid age of computers where people can't spell... ;-)