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."
I want the chance to vote with my dollars.
I don't think we know enough about the process and long term issues to go nuts with this now. Test it. Test the hell out of it.
But let me choose whether or not to buy it.
My mom says I'm cool.
Even if we could "grow" perfect steaks without the rest of the animal, somehow the practice will be banned. Yes, I'm looking at you, animal-rights extremists and religious wackos.
According to this article at Popular Science cloned beef may be coming soon
That sounds like the plot of a b-horror-porn movie starring a resurrected John Holmes.
Push Button, Receive Bacon
I hope you would stay vegan for dietary not for ethical reasons. Grown beef would be just as ethical as grown plants that are GMO.
-The art of programming is the pursuit of absolute simplicity.
Yeah, right. Steaks made from clones. No potential for "media induced panic" there!
Personally I'd love to see us progress to the point where it was possible to grow just the meat itself without the animal.
Personally, I would love to see us progress to the point where cows are well fed, happy and healthy. The meat will taste better, we'll be healthier and there's less cruelty to the cows. I would never eat meat grown in a lab.
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
Begun, this clone BBQ has.
Unless you can exercise the meat that is "grown" it will be mostly tasteless.
Actually, it's exactly the opposite. It's fat that gives meat flavor, not lean "exercised" meat. In fact, Kobe Beef, which is widely recognized as tender and flavorful uses steers that are specifically fattenened up and never exercised.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Why not?
End of lesson. You may press the button.
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:
What about cloned sex workers?
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
...as far as I can see, nobody has posted the Bob the Angry Flower comic yet. AWESOMELY funny and somehow totally on topic at the same time :-)
Consciousness is a myth. Trust me.
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.
Ethical issues? We've been raising animals for food for thousands of years, it has been one of the keys to our dominance as a species. Don't believe everything PETA tells you.
Electrons are free; it is moving them that becomes expensive.
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.
The only truly ethical solution is to genetically engineer a cow that wants to be eaten. Preferably, the cow should be engineered to be sufficiently intelligent to go up to the diner and tell them how delicious it is, and ask them how they would like to eat it.
I am far more concerned about the long term effects on the genetic diversity of our live stock vs is it healthy to eat.
I'm not much for biology, but if you figured out the way that various stem cells are "programmed" to grow into certain structures, couldn't you do it that way? That wouldn't require removing all the genetic information from the genome besides the "meat" portions, it would just require falsifying the messages that assumedly must be sent to stem cells that tell them what structures to develop into.
Of course, I'm not sure that this would produce meat in the conventional sense that we think of it: a bunch of muscle cells in a jar wouldn't taste much like filet mignon, because they wouldn't be formed into those muscular structures, which are then exercised while the animal is alive, have a certain fat content, etc. In short, meat is more than just muscle tissue, it's a part of a particular animal. I have this feeling that the net result of trying to grow meat in jars would be closer to tofu than beef. Maybe it would be acceptable for foods that end up being processed beyond recognition anyway (hamburgers, sausage), but I doubt it would work for beef.
If anyone who's more schooled in biology wants to fill in my misunderstandings, I'd be interested.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
"We are seeing organic & "air-chilled", "premium" chicken breasts advertised on TV "
Don't be daft. In Amerika there are no breasts on TV.
Need Mercedes parts ?
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.
Let's take it to next logical step. Why not clone human flesh? I mean after all there'd be no ethical issues involved with it. They could take those new ethicly created stem cell lines to make human meat. And since breast milk is the best, why clone giant boobies to produce all of our dairy needs. No I see no ethical problems at all.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
I would love to see us progress to the point where cows are well fed, happy and healthy.
...
It would probably be more economic to just grow vat people with simple feeding requirements and a finger to push the factory button. That way the upper class could more efficiently use their vast resources to maintain their inefficient, old-fashioned naturally-grown selves
I've tasted steak, and I've tasted tofu, and they are not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.
honestly I don't see how you could "grow" meat.
I honestly don't see how they can pack a billion transistors onto a chip the size of my thumbnail, but somehow they do it anyway... fortunately human progress is not limited by the scope of any one individual's imagination.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Only if you venture out into the wild armed with nothing but a spear and a loincloth, hunt down the animal, and stuff yourself with its still-warm raw flesh at the site of the kill.
If, on the other hand, you rely on an army of strangers to grow captive animals in large, overcrowded, stinking buildings, feed them massive doses of antibiotics to keep the inevitable disease outbreaks in check, fatten them up with genetically engineered hormones and "interesting" feed materials (including, up until recently, the nastier parts of their deceased compatriots), butcher them on an assembly line, then wrap the results in petroleum-based film to be delivered to local grocery store for you to buy.... then no, that's not very natural at all.
I'm a meat eater myself -- but I don't kid myself about my diet being "natural" in any sense of the word.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
So few people understand this today!
Tender cuts are NOT tasty cuts. They're much easier to cook, and they're *tender* of course, easy to chew, and traditionally favoured for those reasons.
You want a tasty cut of meat, go get a brisket. Tough as hell, takes about two days to cook it right because you want to marinate it and slow-cook it to overcome the toughness so you can chew the sucker, but it's tasty beyond belief. Tenderloin can't compete at all, for taste, it's just a lot easier to prepare.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Yeah, if it's cooked rare and made of cow muscle.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
Personally I'd love to see us progress to the point where it was possible to grow just the meat itself without the animal.
Personally, I would love to see us progress to the point where cows are well fed, happy and healthy. The meat will taste better, we'll be healthier and there's less cruelty to the cows. I would never eat meat grown in a lab.
Why can't we just breed cows without brains, wouldn't that end all ethical issues.
I eat a lot of imitation tofu. I'm personally opposed to cruelty to soybeans. So I eat tofu substitutes made from chicken, beef, pork...
Lean steaks are also tasty. The 'dangers' of fat are vastly overrated, the body needs fats to function properly. You'll find that excessive carbohydrates will do you more harm than anything. And a lack of protein is more dangerous than too much. You can eat 200g of protein a day without ill effect, but eat less and you end up losing significant strength.
Americans are fat because of too many processed foods filled with starch and sugar. The general health of Americans would be better if they cut out the donuts, cokes cakes, breads etc. and replaced them with more natural foods like steak, chicken and lamb. You only have to look at the sagging arms of most Americans to see they're not eating too much protein!
Meat is not expensive or inefficient. There is enough land for everyone to have enough meat, no-one in America is starving. People probably eat less meat now than ever, so talk about depleting at rapid rates is sheer scaremongering.
Vegan advocates love to trot this out in their "fact-sheets", and it's always interesting to see which particular Pimental source they use. It's like they draw it out of a hat or something, because it's always a different citation (same author, same factoid, but worded ever-so-slightly differently). A long while back I tracked down the article it was from (at the time) here. (pdf) That one is from 1997, I believe. There is also a 2004 edition. (another darn pdf)
(from the latter article) [....] [....] [* The previous article put this at 150 to 200 mm per year, a range of 1.5-2 million liters/ha, but also noted that "production is low under such arid conditions"...which only means that fewer head/ha is supported, not that it is a less efficient use, since those "arid conditions" wouldn't support much of anything. Maybe nopalitos.]Now for the quote-mining:
As I recall from my childhood when my grandfather was raising cattle, he never irrigated. And even though he doesn't have cattle anymore, he still grows and cuts hay for his neighbors who do. No irrigation. But it would be rather disingenuous to point out how much water that actually uses vs. how much it would have required to produce a comparable amount of a given crop (assuming it could survive the heat and the depredations of the deer, hogs, rabbits, etc). The water requirement for the former is spread out over a larger area and can be met by limited rainfall with the proper selection of grasses, but for the latter it is not spread out and would most certainly require additional input. It's therefore a more efficient use of the land and water resources, and not at all "wasteful and irresponsible". Quite unlike "Vegsource".
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.
"The 'dangers' of fat are vastly overrated, the body needs fats to function properly"
Yes, we need very little fat though. Most people eat FAR more than needed, and we don't need any saturated fat, which is much worse for us, and is what you get from meat.
"You'll find that excessive carbohydrates will do you more harm than anything."
No, excessive calories from any source will make you fat. Excessive carbs that break down to glucose very quickly will spike your blood sugar, and its theorized that that may increase the risk of diabetes. The vast majority of the people in the world live almost entirely on carbs, and the human race has lived that way for thousands of years. Meat has been an added boost to our diet, only available in small quantities. Grains like rice have sustained people.
"You can eat 200g of protein a day without ill effect, but eat less and you end up losing significant strength."
No, you will need to increase your calcium intake if you do something stupid like this. Protein is broken down into amino acids for use. They are not stored however, and since even marathon runners and body builders do not need more than 70-80g of protein per day, the rest is broken down further from amino acids into, *gasp*, sugars. The process of breaking down proteins releases acids however, which your body neutralizes with calcium. So increased protein can lead to weak bones. This is why all the "eat more calcium" studies are done with calcium suppliments, not milk which has little to no benefit due to the protein.
"but eat less and you end up losing significant strength."
Protein does not magically make you strong. Your body only makes muscle if it wants to. It only wants to if you use what you have, or have a rare disease that makes your body go nuts and always build your muscle. Even still, nobody needs more than 70-80g a day. You only need to eat as much as your body needs to repair your existing tissues, and create any new tissue it wants to create.
"You only have to look at the sagging arms of most Americans to see they're not eating too much protein!"
Again, protein does not make you strong. Its simple one of the basic building blocks required to create tissues. Excercise makes you strong. And most americans already eat far more protein than they need, as the RDA is 50-55g for women, and 60-65g for men. That means 98% of americans would get enough protein eating that amount. At many restaurants, a single burger contains more protein than that.
"The general health of Americans would be better if they cut out the donuts, cokes cakes, breads etc. and replaced them with more natural foods like steak, chicken and lamb"
They already eat fucktons of meat. They need to cut out the shit you mentioned, cut back on their meat, quit deep frying all their meat (and potatoes), and start eating vegetables and fruits. Replacing high calorie foods like donuts with high calorie foods like steak is not going to make people lose weight.
"Meat is not expensive or inefficient. There is enough land for everyone to have enough meat, no-one in America is starving."
Yes, it is very expensive and inefficent. We would get 10 times more calories from the land we use for raising beef cattle if we used it for crops like corn, rice, wheat, legumes, etc. We are filthy rich compared to other countries, so we have the luxury of being greedy and wasteful while they starve.
Go read any basic intro to biochem and you will see how incredibly stupid your comment was.