Slashdot Mirror
Cloned Beef Coming Soon?
An anonymous reader writes "According to this article at Popular Science cloned beef may be coming soon. It talks about using meat within 48 hours of slaughter to allow cloning the best possible specimens, something that is not possible to determine while the animal is still alive. Apparently only 1 in 8000 animals is truly the best. Personally I'd love to see us progress to the point where it was possible to grow just the meat itself without the animal. That would end all the ethical issues with raising an animal for food, potential issues from mad cow disease, bird flu and whatever the next media induced panic is."
Personally I'd love to see us progress to the point where it was possible to grow just the meat itself without the animal.
They have that its called Tofu.... honestly I don't see how you could "grow" meat.
I was just talking about this the other day as I was enjoying a burrito. I love this idea so much, and yet there are those who find it somehow repulsive.
How can growing meat be seen as more repulsive than the murder assembly lines at slaughterhouses?
My more stable-minded vegetarian friends gladly welcome this - as their food choices are equally health and ethics based.
Don't go thinking that all vegitarians hate the taste of beef. That red meat has got some major building blocks in it - and meat is a very good source of the basic building blocks your body needs.
You can think of meat as "pre-fabricated" building materials for your body - since the animal who owned it before you has already done much of the work needed to convert the raw materials into useful proteins.
I love this idea, I would much rather make my own meat than take it from a nice, innocent bovine who happens to be using it at the moment.
And this actually brings up a somewhat...uh, weird question.
If meat is a great building-block food - and certain meats are better for certain things...then might we design the "perfect" meat for human consumption?...if so, and this is the disturbing part, might we actually splice our own DNA into the transgenic mix?
Could this be considered a form of cannibalism?
Ah the future, so fun to turn everything on it's head.
My Computer Music Tutorial Videos
Damn Interesting ran an article last year about NASA research into vat-grown meat for long space journeys. It points out that "meat developed in this way is essentially a cultured muscle tumor", and so isn't very appetizing:
Consider that the dangerous bacteria and viruses you're talking about, would only have a single organism to target, and we'd run the risk of a single lucky virus taking out the world's entire meat supply.
Unless of course, they are right, and there is no evolution- and every organism is the same as it was when the planet was summoned into existence over the course of a particularly shady six day run. In which case, we have nothing to fear, because new viruses are not mutating into existance, and we only need to protect this meat from the dangers that exist right now and just wait until all the mad-cow viruses go extinct.
I'm not sure I want to live in either world, so excuse me while I go take a chew on this helpless animal here.
From dictionary.com:
vegan (vgn, vjn) n. A vegetarian who eats plant products only, especially one who uses no products derived from animals, as fur or leather.
The dictionary definition doesn't distinguish them, why should we? We have a name for animal rights activists: animal rights activists. You calling someone who doesn't eat meat for diet reasons a "fakeatarian" is elitism, and purposfully insulting. Bad things!!! Just ask Germany. (a leap, I know, but I couldn't think of anything else).
Personally, I have always seen the dietary reasons as some of the best not to eat meat. Eating higher up the food pyramid means it takes more energy to feed you, which is inefficient and a little unfair considering that people starve in this world.
Note: I do eat meat, but that's because I am spoiled and like how it tastes.
I give bread to the poor, they call me a saint.
I ask why the poor have no bread, they call me a communist.
It's far more likely that textured vegetable protein, which has had millions of years of evolution behind it, will end up be more efficient to produce than grown steaks. Another issue is that the stuff inside steak that's "tasty", also happens to be bad for you if it's a significant portion of your diet. Saturated fats and high protein diets seem to cause long-term issues.
Now, I happen to be vegetarian, but certainly not for your standard ethical reasons. I'm all for animal experimentation, for example. I just find that our country's meat-heavy diet is expensive and inefficient. We're depleting our fresh water aquifers at a rapid rate, trying to grow feed for our cattle. American's waists are expanding, in part from our high-calorie meat diet.
And, to end on a lighter note, here's a funny little story called They're Made Out of Meat that's hysterical.
I was actually having that discussion a couple of weeks ago. The main questions that were asked:
1. Would you eat vat grown meat?
2. Would you eat vat grown human meat?
3. Would you eat your body's meat grown in a vat?
I find this topic funny altogether! Everyone always fusses about how the human species uses other "innocent" species for our own ends... such as survival. The interesting part is that, from an evolutionary viewpoint, we are not using cows or any other species any more than "they" are using us. After all, by feeding on chicken, for instance, we have created huge infrastructures that have allowed chicken to be, perhaps, more numerous that humans, turning them (again, from an evolutionary viewpoint) more successfull than the human species. Furthermore, we invest a great deal of resources to improve theses species, as oposed to what we do with our own (yes, shocking as it may be, medicine has spoiled natural selection for us). So, if you come to think of it, could it be that our livestock is actually using US?
Actually Cloning already occurs in cows though it isn't "Old Cell" cloning. It is embryo splitting and has been done for 20 years or more.
In agriculture the holy grail is this genetically perfect item that does only what you want it to do 100% efficiently and every time. There are several serious problems with achieving this. The first is that the production of a genetically identical crop base becomes a 100% threat of pathogens exploiting a weakenss and wiping out 100% of the crop in one fell swat. This is already becoming a serious threat. Then you get into the economic issues.
If you can grow the famous bug free 100% efficient crop (It really doesn't matter what it is) and have it match the market 100% then you have the goal of the farmers. At this point the farmer earns exactly nothing because there is no skill involved, and there is no cost differential to his competitors and such. This has happened to a great extent in Cotton, Corn, Wheat and Soy. With the advent of the perfect Cotton, production rose 5 times per acre and the price dropped by 2/3rds. The result was almost collapse of any profits in farming cotton and all the profits went to the seed companies.
As the "perfect chicken" invaded the chicken houses similar situations happend to the profits in raising chickens. The industry has reached a point of nearly zero profits. If this happens in cattle then the industry will be reduced to having literally no profits for the farmers. They will have achieved the magical world where they don't have to work hard to make the perfect crop and well they will have created themselves out of a job.
Those who don't like this economic reality had best start figuring out a new way to live because this is logically the holy grail of all the economic development types. It really doesn't matter what you do, they are trying to produce this situation. It strikes me of a situation where you are cured of what you suffered from and suffering from the cure.
Don't take this as negative to the proposals, just as a report of conditions. Have fun with what you do with this reality. We are going to see a lot more of it.
Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
Cultured cells can grow virus just as easily as in vivo cells. Even easier, since they don't have the benefit of a thymus or bone marrow. That's why we learned how to culture cells in the first place.
At least 160 people have died as a result of mad cow disease. It is a serious health risk
Sorry, but these two statements fundamentally disagree with each other. A non-communicable disease that has killed 160 people is simply not a serious health risk.
And of these people, how many more have died as a result of effects of obesity, of food poisoining from badly prepared food, choked to death on their food etc.? 160 people is a drop in the ocean. I'll keep eating my rare steaks as often as before, thank you.