Lab-Grown Meat Is In Your Future, and It May Be Healthier Than the Real Stuff (smh.com.au)

An anonymous reader shares an article on The Sydney Morning Herald:Scientists and businesses working full steam to produce lab-created meat claim it will be healthier than conventional meat and more environmentally friendly. But how much can they improve on old-school pork or beef? In August 2013, a team of Dutch scientists showed off their lab-grown burger (cost: $435,000) and even provided a taste test. Two months ago, the American company Memphis Meats fried the first-ever lab meatball (cost: $23,700 per pound). Those who have tasted these items say they barely differ from the real deal. The Dutch and the Americans claim that within a few years lab-produced meats will start appearing in supermarkets and restaurants. And these are not the only teams working on cultured meat (as they prefer to call it). Another company, Modern Meadow, promises that lab-grown "steak chips" -- something between a potato chip and beef jerky -- will hit the stores in the near future, too.

Comments

And better for the enviroment

[JoshuaZ]

If they can get this to work it will also be better for the environment in terms of energy use, CO2 and methane production. Right now, my wife and I are both not complete vegetarians but very rarely eat any form of meat. This is for ethical, environmental and financial reasons. In her case, she'd be probably pretty happy never eating meat, whereas I've got a strong craving for it generally that is a little annoying. I'm really looking forward to vat meat.

Re:And better for the enviroment

[Nidi62]

Right now, my wife and I are both not complete vegetarians but very rarely eat any form of meat. This is for...financial reasons.

Really? With a membership to a warehouse store like Sam's Club, I am currently getting 90/10 ground beef for under $3 per pound (80/20 is even cheaper) and can get frozen chicken breasts for around $2 per pound. At the local grocery store we can get fresh chicken breasts for a little over $2 per pound. Me and my wife go through a bag of chicken every 2 weeks and a 5 pound case of ground beef in 3-4 weeks. Unless you live in a place where meat is very scarce, you only eat filet or ribeye every night, or insist on grass fed free range low stress hand massaged beef the financial impact of meat vs no meat is very minimal.

Re:And better for the enviroment

[jedidiah]

Have you ever actually seen cows in your life?

Goats aren't even any part of the whole "feedlot system". Cows on the other hand are perfectly content to graze on what just grows out of the ground by itself. That's kind of their natural condition. That's how beef became prominent to begin with.

Even "feedlot cattle" are only finished on a feedlot.

They can also eat the stalks and cobs an any other part of plants that are entirely inedible to humans. They can eat what would otherwise be wasted by humans.

They really can live off of a "plant based diet".

Humans not so much...

Re:And better for the enviroment

[StikyPad]

I'm not a vegetarian, and I don't necessarily have any ethical qualms with killing and eating animals, but if I could eat meat without killing an animal most of the time and save energy in the process, I'm good with that.

Re:And better for the enviroment

[jedidiah]

Like anything else, you want to stay away from the overhyped nonsense. Since vegetarianism is a current fad, I would expect it to be unnecessarily expensive when compared to sensible omnivorism. Things like Kale aren't cheap. The produce sections of places like Whole Foods can drain your whole wallet.

Even if you are eating the low stress free range stuff, it's still likely cheaper than many of the other things that a prissy vegan would end up needing to buy.

A "plant based diet" is far more bothersome than they will admit to.

Re:And better for the enviroment

[jeremyp]

From TFA

a 2011 study calculated that growing meat in labs would cut down on the land required to produce steaks, sausages and bacon by 99 per cent and reduce the associated need for water by 90 per cent. What's more, it found that a pound of lab-created meat would produce much less polluting greenhouse-gas emissions than is produced by cows and pigs, even poultry.

Who to believe? An AC on Slashdot or a proper scientific study?

Re:And better for the enviroment

[Maxo-Texas]

While I agree with your basic point keep in mind it's more like:

a [untitled, unreferenced] 2011 study [probably funded by the industry] calculated [based on a bunch of wildly optimistic, untestable assumptions made in almost total ignorance and inexperience] that growing meat in labs would cut down on the land required to produce steaks, sausages and bacon by 99 per cent and reduce the associated need for water by 90 per cent. What's more, it found that a pound of lab-created meat would produce much less polluting greenhouse-gas emissions than is produced by cows and pigs, even poultry.

A more recent article 2014
http://modernfarmer.com/2014/0...

"One tissue-engineering researcher I spoke with scoffed at claims that cell culture techniques could deliver an edible hamburger for a reasonable cost, with a lower environmental footprint, than a cow.

âoeIf you ask anyone who has actually worked in a lab,â he says, âoewho has seen how cells are grown in a lab and how artificial tissue is made, the amount of energy and resources that go into it â" theyâ(TM)ll tell you, itâ(TM)s never going to happen.â

Post, the scientist whose cultured cells went into the celebrity burger, disagreed, but he acknowledged that there are still unanswered questions about the production process. The largest one is this: What will we feed animal tissue cells, cultured in a lab? ...

Of the researchers I spoke with, Post was the most optimistic, and even he admitted that it hasnâ(TM)t been done yet, and that âoewe canâ(TM)t be 100 percent sure that cells, in culture, can be more efficient than a cow. That is something that needs to be proven.â

For now, Post and others in the industry feed their burgers fetal bovine serum, which currently is produced from blood collected in slaughterhouses and processed in a lab. Footprint analysis hasnâ(TM)t been done on that method, but even the scientists involved say they donâ(TM)t think the numbers would look good â" and itâ(TM)s not a sustainable, animal-free solution in the long run."

Re: And better for the enviroment

[ljw1004]

Vegetarianism a current fad?

I'm not sure how to reconcile your claim with it being the dominant diet in the Indian subcontinent for millennia....

Re:And better for the enviroment

[HornWumpus]

I eat lots of meat to help end the legume holocaust.

Re:And better for the enviroment

[vel-ex-tech]

Huh? Kale not cheap? My apologies. I didn't get the memo. I'll stop looking at the prices in my supermarket and stop buying kale for my bacon salads immediately! Am I still allowed to use green leaf lettuce or is that "too expensive" now too? What about spinach? Am I only allowed to consume iceberg lettuce now? Must I stop putting eggs and cheese in with my bacon salad? If I eat salads and veggie burgers, am I no longer allowed to put bacon in them? What about bacon ranch dressing? Do I need to switch to a low-fat vinaigrette while I'm fucking at it?

Help me out. I always get fucking confused by the utterly fucking illogical nature of this fucking post-hipster backlash against "political correctness" as of late. I like my fucking garden burgers. I like my fucking cheap-ass 80/20 bacon cheeseburger. I like my fucking more expensive bison burger with organic cheese and organic bacon. If you haven't had a bison burger, you haven't lived. Yeah, you're going to have to pay a bit more for it so I guess it's just fucking off your menu! Fuck off you damn post-hipster twat.

You're not backlashing against "political correctness" any more. You're backlashing against all common fucking sense. It's like if we found out that Trump Steaks (tm) were made out of grass-fed free range cattle, you'd proclaim that all steaks made out of grass-fed free range cattle are too fucking expensive based solely on the price tag of a fucking Trump Steak (tm)! Fine, keep your fucking corn-fed antibiotic injected factory farmed steak! Have YOU ever seen cattle? Or are you just hoping to score some politically correct backlash points?

How do I know people like you are fucking idiots? Watch when somebody gets triggered by my saying that I like "garden burgers" and accuses me of being a vegan hipster. I'm not going to fucking even try to explain the different garden burgers on the market any more. Just like trans men, they don't fucking exist to you. All garden burgers are disgusting fucking imitation meat, and anybody transgendered is a hairy man in a dress swinging his dick around in the women's room. I hope somebody gets triggered by the word "transgendered" here too! Obviously! How could I have fucking missed how obvious that was! Oh, I don't know, because I was too fucking busy enjoying my black bean and salsa garden burger with some organic bacon that was on sale this week!

If you can't figure out where else to buy kale other than Whole Foods, go to fucking hell. You are a fucking retard, and nobody can help you.

I'll bet you support Lyin' Ted! Get him out of here! Get him out of here!

Re: And better for the enviroment

[angel'o'sphere]

Wow ... any link for that?

India is the second largest populated place of the world if you think about "nation" (Aka USA, China, India, Indonesia)

Tropical countries never had any "starvation" you are mixing that up with Africa.

Hint: basic food gets ripe every day, there are no seasons, you harvest every day what you want. There is no "planting season" ... waiting to ripe (oops disaster everything is gone) or now we have winter and all we could not harvest, or lost or could not prepare to last for the winter is gone. They have nothing like that.

Perhaps you should once visit a country like India, Vietnam or Thailand to get set back to reality?

No one is starving there. They are only poor in american eyes because they live in simple housings.

Countries like Bangladesh have better internet connectivity than the USA, mostly solar powered. Surprised?

In your situation I would suggest in fact India over other asian countries, they speak weird english, but basically everyone speaks english.

Re:And better for the enviroment

[scubamage]

If you live near ethnic Asian markets (common in any metro center), bulk tofu can be had at a price of about 6lbs for 4 dollars (96oz). So, let's look at the math... Assume you eat 4oz of protein at every meal (365 days x 3 meals a day x 4oz = 4380 oz in a year). If you were to eat nothing but tofu during the course of that year, you would need 46 6-lb packs of tofu to cover your protein intake, at a cost of $182 or $.17 per serving. If you were to buy the chicken breasts you were suggesting, $2 per pound, you would be looking at a spend of $548 (4380oz/16oz*$2=$547.5), or $.50 per serving. Eating only one "meat" to every 3 "vegetarian" weeks lands you in the middle - (39weeks*7 days* 3meals a day *$.17 per tofu serving ) + (13 weeks * 7 days * 3 meals a day * $.50 per chicken serving), or $275.73 total. About half what eating the low-cost meat option would cost. So, according to your math, your statement:

Unless you live in a place where meat is very scarce, you only eat filet or ribeye every night, or insist on grass fed free range low stress hand massaged beef the financial impact of meat vs no meat is very minimal.

is seemingly unfounded. Unless you consider a 50% reduction in cost to be minimal, which I do not. Interestingly, the cost of 39 weeks of tofu ($139.23) is nearly a wash with the cost of only 13 weeks of chicken ($136.50). If someone is culinarily inclined, there are even cheaper options. Indian foods, beans, whole grains, etc.

Re:And better for the enviroment

[AthanasiusKircher]

Unless you live in a place where meat is very scarce, you only eat filet or ribeye every night, or insist on grass fed free range low stress hand massaged beef the financial impact of meat vs no meat is very minimal.

I'm not a vegetarian, but I'm not sure you're familiar with what it takes to live on an extremely low budget. If you're looking for cheap protein sources, the amount of protein per dollar you get with dried beans or lentils is generally anywhere from 50% more to double the amount of protein per dollar you'd get from the cheapest chicken. For other meats, that disparity is generally quite a bit more.

And of course that's only protein. If you take into account calories per dollar, meat is incredibly expensive compared to legumes, not to mention bulk grains, flour, etc.

There's a very good reason the poor in the past generally lived on bread and other starches (often supplemented with legumes for protein) as their staples for calories -- they're incredibly cheap... much cheaper even that the cheapest factory farm meat you can buy in the U.S. today.

And if you're at all concerned about source of meat, welfare, sustainability, quality, etc., then the premium for "better" meat goes WAY up compared to the added cost for "better" legumes/grains.

(If you want to start a response by noting the high cost of vegetables, note that you should be eating vegetables for a balanced diet regardless of whether you're eating meat or not. The replacement for meat in a diet is other protein, not more vegetables. And vegetable protein sources are simply a LOT cheaper than animal protein sources overall.)

Re:And better for the enviroment

[Solandri]

it's not a peaceful, painless death. In many instances it could only be described as torture.

You're comparing to a nonexistent zero base state. 99% of animals left alone by humans die a painful, tortuous death - usually in the jaws of a predator. I've seen them swallowed alive and struggling inside the belly of a predator, cut in half, skinned alive, limbs gnawed off while still alive, attempting to flee with entrails hanging out, all without any human nearby. It is extraordinarily rare for a wild animal to die of old age. The methods humans have developed to slaughter livestock do not purport to be peaceful or painless, they just needed to be less painful than the death most wild animals would experience naturally to justify the killing as an improvement (from the animal's perspective) from a wild death.

I've killed (and continue to kill) my share of animals for meat. It is not the cold, emotionless process we've developed in slaughterhouses hidden from view of the supermarket shelves. You become intimately aware that this is a living thing struggling to survive, and you're ending its life so you can eat. You gain a tremendous respect for the creature that gave its life to become your dinner, and are less likely to do things like dump a half-eaten burger into the trash.

That's the question I raise to people (non-vegetarians) I meet who are offended that I "enjoy killing wild animals" for meat (fishing). The animals I catch spend their entire lives free in the sea to do as they wish, except for the last 5 minutes before I kill them and make a best effort to eat as much of the meat as I can. The animals they eat spend their entire lives penned up in captivity, basically as part of a meat assembly line, until they're slaughtered, and they probably throw away unused meat simply because it's inconvenient or doesn't taste good anymore. Yet somehow in their minds, I am the bad guy because I make the animal suffer more?
,br> If "cultivated meat" becomes affordable, I will probably eat it most of the time for convenience and to decrease my environmental impact. But I will still catch the occasional fish and eat it myself, to remind myself what the natural ecosystem is and to respect it, and not live completely isolated from it within the artificial biosphere that modern humans have created.

No GMO but FrankenBeef OK?

[Registered Coward v2]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out with the public, especially in areas such as the EU that have come out strongly against GMO foodstuffs. Will they accept completely synthetically produced food? I would imagine farmers would oppose this simply because it threatens their very existence; with some producing "real" food at expensive prices so that having a real steak becomes a luxury item.

Re:No GMO but FrankenBeef OK?

[houghi]

As a European I am against GMO, but not perhaps for the standard reasons people think.

I would first like the Copyright and Trademark issues dropped (not solved, dropped) before looking at the health issues.
And concerning the health issues: I do not trust companies with my and even more important humanities health. They have shown again and again that they can not be trusted with things like that. And the comparisons that are made are good for your small farmer, but not when you start looking at a world level. Monoculture is only one of the disadvantages.

The companies already are unwilling to be clear with food and health as we speak, so why should I trust them? Till now they do not deserve that trust and I do not see anything changing in that.

To me health of myself and my species is a tad more important than the new cars of some CEO.

So first give up the rights to food and then we will see about the health part as then the incentive to cheat the system and screw over the public are much, much lower.

Taste is subjetive.

[Nyder]

Pretty sure in the future we will probably be eating each other. Human will be the cheapest & readiest available meat to be found.

What is it made from?

[Mr D from 63]

The article says it would cut down land use for farm animals by 99%, but you can't make meat without some raw materials. Its hard for me to imagine they don't require some equivalent biological feed into the process, so that matter has to come from somewhere. Fish?

Re:What is it made from?

[ilsaloving]

How do you think current herbivores and vegans live and grow? There are a bajillion ways to get proteins and amino acids without grinding up existing meat.

The meat they're producing in the lab arn't just hot dogs ground up from animal leftovers. They are pieces of actual living tissue that is grown in chemical baths full of the exact nutrients needed for the tissue to grow.

Personally, I was hoping that they'd call it something more satisfyingly distopian, like "veat" (short for vat-meat). Cultured meat is too boring IMO.

If it tastes the same

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

If it tastes the same, I'd probably eat it.

But at $435,000 per burger, I might have to go for the combo-meal deal.

Actually healthier or too clean?

[yakumo.unr]

Will it really be healthier? or will it's lab grown nature actually be terrible for us in the long run, I'm thinking along the lines of the bacterial diversification we are finding we need in our gut to be truly healthy, or the way we're finding growing up in overly clean environments compromises our immune systems.
I think growing meat is a great step forward, but I'm not free of concern.

Pseudo-meat?

[erp_consultant]

No thanks. I'll stick with the real thing. I'm not eating anything that was born in a petri dish. How many times have we heard over the years that this or that man made thing (ex. margarine) is supposed to be better for you only to find out the opposite? Yeah....gimme a grass fed steak any day.

Re:Meat Efficiency (of animal percentage usage)

[Kierthos]

Really? We use the hooves of a cow?

Oh wait, hot dogs. My bad. You're right.

That's Where the Margin Is

[Kunedog]

Would you like to add fries and a soda to that for only $0.49 more?

No way; everyone knows that's where they rip you off and make most of their profit!

Not necessarily good for the planet, though

[BoRegardless]

Numbers of real world tests have shown the need for real world herbivores to inhabit valleys to keep the vegetation growing properly on the land. Introducing herds of sheep roaming a rather vegetation depleted land resulted in dramatic vegetation growth.

Of course, when you fence off, kill off and replace herbivores with chemical agents for plant growth, fungicides, herbicides, etc, then you don't need the herbivores.

Life is increasingly becoming 'artificial.'

Tastes like...

[evolutionary]

Chicken! Hmm...

Re:Cultured meat

[SeriousTube]

Culture isn't important. Ask Charlie the tuna. People don't want tuna with good taste, they want tuna that tastes good.