Slashdot Mirror
Behind the Hype of 'Lab-Grown' Meat (gizmodo.com)
In an exclusive report via Gizmodo, Ryan F. Mandelbaum discusses the hype surrounding "lab-grown" meat: Some folks have big plans for your future. They want you -- a burger-eatin', chicken-finger-dippin' American -- to buy their burgers and nuggets grown from stem cells. One day, meat eaters and vegans might even share their hypothetical burger. That burger will be delicious, environmentally friendly, and be indistinguishable from a regular burger. And they assure you the meat will be real meat, just not ground from slaughtered animals. That future is on the minds of a cadre of Silicon Valley startup founders and at least one nonprofit in the world of cultured meat. Some are sure it will heal the environmental woes caused by American agriculture while protecting the welfare of farm animals. But these future foods' promises are hypothetical, with many claims based on a futurist optimism in line with Silicon Valley's startup culture. Cultured meat is still in its research and development phase and must overcome massive hurdles before hitting market. A consumer-ready product does not yet exist and its progress is heavily shrouded by intellectual property claims and sensationalist press. Today, cultured meat is a lot of hype and no consumer product.
"Much of what happens in the world of cultured meat is done for the sake of PR," Ben Wurgaft, an MIT-based post-doctoral researcher writing a book on cultured meat, told Gizmodo. Wurgaft finds it hard to believe many predictions about cultured meat's future, including the promise of an FDA-approved consumer product within a year. The truth is that only a few successful prototypes have yet been shown to the public, including a NASA-funded goldfish-based protein in the early 2000s, and a steak grown from frog cells in 2003 for an art exhibit. More have come recently: Mark Post unveiled a $330,000 cultured burger in 2013, startup Memphis Meats has produced cultured meatballs and poultry last and this year, and Hampton Creek plans to have a product reveal dinner by the end of the year.
"Much of what happens in the world of cultured meat is done for the sake of PR," Ben Wurgaft, an MIT-based post-doctoral researcher writing a book on cultured meat, told Gizmodo. Wurgaft finds it hard to believe many predictions about cultured meat's future, including the promise of an FDA-approved consumer product within a year. The truth is that only a few successful prototypes have yet been shown to the public, including a NASA-funded goldfish-based protein in the early 2000s, and a steak grown from frog cells in 2003 for an art exhibit. More have come recently: Mark Post unveiled a $330,000 cultured burger in 2013, startup Memphis Meats has produced cultured meatballs and poultry last and this year, and Hampton Creek plans to have a product reveal dinner by the end of the year.
When have the initial versions of a product not been hard to produce, expensive and limited?
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers"
This was a one-sided hit piece if I ever saw one. What's with all the lobby-driven drivel increasingly being accepted to Slashdot?
Given all the people still wary of eating GMOs or anything 'artificial', there will be a large demand for animal meat even if this becomes cheaper. It'll be like HFCS vs. sugar, or vanillin vs vanilla.
Personally I'd try it out of curiosity, but I can't shake that quote from Judge Dredd: "Eat recycled food: good for the environment, ok for you." There's something depressingly dystopian/cyberpunk about eating fake meat, conceptually, that reminds me of how in "Do androids dream of electric sheep?" people only own electronic pets because there aren't the resources to support living ones.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
I'm not holding my breath for this one.
Why is Snark Required?
What kind of immune system does pasteurised milk have?
Though it does indeed present some problems (immuno-laxity is not a small issue, don't get me wrong), it's not the end of the world. Foods are already preserved to combat them being attacked, and a cucumber or potato has little more defence against bacterial infection than anything synthetic.
Basically, if you could grow this stuff in a sterile atmosphere, preserve it and package it, it's not going to be able to harbour anything nasty.
The fact that then you're basically eating "sterile" food is much more of an issue (i.e. you won't grow defences, and may be more likely to be "intolerant" or real food if you live entirely on this stuff), but basic food preservation combats what you're talking about.
The bigger issue really is - what's the cost of keeping it sterile and preserving it that way, after synthetically producing it? I'm guessing it adds yet-more-expense to an already expensive synthesised item.
I.e. eating meat is necessary to not become a vegan?
I congratulate you on your straw man, straw man.
(e.g. vegetarians aren't particularly sick).
Vegetarian != vegan.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Basically, if you could grow this stuff in a sterile atmosphere, preserve it and package it, it's not going to be able to harbour anything nasty.
So if everything goes perfectly, it's much safer? How reassuring. Anyway, your next line is "because it's vat grown they will be able to do much better inspections" and then the counter-argument to that is that many inspections which are now possible are not carried out, or not carried out correctly.
The bigger issue really is - what's the cost of keeping it sterile and preserving it that way, after synthetically producing it? I'm guessing it adds yet-more-expense to an already expensive synthesised item.
If you're growing the meat then it isn't sterile to begin with. It might be sanitary. Keeping it sanitary adds no more expense to vat-grown proteins than to real meat.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I'd say vat-grown meat is closer to being a reality than AI, cheap fusion or quantum pretty much anything, and this swipe reeks of the desperation of an industry that has just seen the terrible threat and is trying to spin against it already.
I really couldn't care. I'd eat synthetic meat, and I'd also eat a ton of real meat, it doesn't bother me either way.
So if you're growing a replacement heart valve, it's not sterile? I think you need look up what we mean when we say synthetic meat, in my case I'm talking about lab-grown from pure proteins. Not "oh, we made a bit of pig from the local farm get bigger in a little dish".
As such, lab-grown meat in that way is BY DEFINITION sterile ("free from bacteria or other living microorganisms") when it's grown, and can be kept so until packaged in a sterile container, and eaten while still sterile. Surely one of the advantages of synthetic meat is that you COULD keep it 100% sterile until the point of delivery, hence it would last almost forever.
Meat is on its way out.
I agree with the rest of your statement, but meat is not on its way out. What's on its way out is getting meat by having animals grow it on their bodies, killing and butchering them and then trying to find things to do with the parts people don't want to eat.
The planet is a lot more resistant than you think.
It needs something like freeza to actually kill it, and he will take several hours to do so, despise the 5 minute claim.
Not as such, genetic sequencing has thrown up a few scary surprises such as viruses embedded in the pig genome. Thanks to CRISPR that's been worked on for future human organ transplants but there may be more things to come.
You're vegetarians. Who cares what you do?
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
"They want you -- a burger-eatin', chicken-finger-dippin' American" Last time I checked I was Irish and try to eat healthily. But thanks for assuming everyone on the Internet is American.
Come on! You know that this new meat won't be called "meat". Surely enough, some great SJW, politically correct mind will come with a new name that everybody will be able to brag about when they are having some.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
It was hyped as it was a clear defined successes in the lab-grown meat research. Unlike other startups or researches, they completed the lab-grown meat research. If the research was never completed or no product was ever produced, then fine it was all PR. But they did create a lab-grown meat for consumption. One luck guy did ate the burger and it was extremely expensive to make.
It was fair PR based on actual event and hyped for the actual 'potential'.
Viruses are embedded everywhere, including the human genome. What's so scary about it?
Meat is more than just a combination of cells. Its the result of the how the animal from were it was cut lived and died.
You have different cuts of meat, based on the muscle of the animal were its cut from. Depending on the animal, how it was raised, and how it was killed, a piece of meat can have different texture and flavour that the same cut from a different animal, raised in different environments.
"life is a joke, and someone is laughing at me"
Well, I guess that technically since it's never "alive" then it does not need one (an immune system); the synmeat is grown in an artificial ecosystem, not a "body".
However, yes, more than most food factories the place would have to be impeccably clean / sterile for the meat not to get infected.
You do raise an interesting question in that I guess the "meat" has the potential to be infected with a lot of things that might not naturally occur in "normal" meat, since either (a) it would have killed the host or (b) the host would have killed it. Of course, the producers will claim that such new infections will be "impossible" due to their rigorous quality control techniques. Ahem.
Surely enough, some great SJW, politically correct mind will come with a new name that everybody will be able to brag about when they are having some.
"Spoo".
Meat is on its way out. The planet will NOT survive if humans keep wastefully cultivating animals for food
Yes, I agree that we must find alternative to feeding animals to produce food for us to eat.
BUT
Launching a start-up to sell vat-grown-burgers at the current state of research and development is like launching a start-up promising to put man on the moon by the end of the decade... back when mongols used their first gun-powder based rockets (and we know how well that one went~ ).
Currently vat-grown meat is still a lab experiment and has a long way of R&D to go until it can successfully be used as a viable commercial product with low ecological impact.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
and necessary for a well-balanced diet.
No it is not. You only need to get the amino acids your body can not not produce from "somewhere"
It does not matter if that somewhere is a plant or meat. And yes: there are enough plants that produce/contain those proteins.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Oh FFS; there's nothing wrong with eating meat, especially in moderation and from sustainable sources.
Over-population in many countries, (who are now moving towards a more meat-intensive diet), intensive & abusive agriculture, over-fishing etc. are the real villains.
From the fine article:
"But despite what you may have heard, the evidence as to whether cultured meat is better for the environment is inconclusive. “On the environmental studies, the work that’s been done is very preliminary,” Hampton Creek’s Fischer said. A 2011 study estimated that the product might produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions, but use about the same amount of energy as the European pork industry. One 2015 study found potential environmental benefits in China, but another 2015 estimate found it could use just as much energy as animal-based meats. The common theme is uncertainty."
So, the financial viability and environmental impact of all this seems most vague at this point.
Just about any other thing we now use. Seriously this is an anti-vision, anti-progress piece that could be applied to any technology before it became commonplace.
This has no place on a tech site where people are a bit more "progress friendly" .
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers"
On the other hand, back when he did said that, the total market of then-era computer was indeed probably around five.
There's more than half a century of R&D between him and the modern-day ubiquitous computer in everybody's pocket (smartphones).
Having a start-up promising within year to sell vat-grown-burgers at the current state of research and development...
Is like a start-up promising to put man on the moon by the end of the decade... back when mongols used their first gun-powder based rockets (and we know how well that one went~ ). It's a little bit precocious and over-optimistic.
Currently vat-grown meat is still a lab experiment and has a long way of R&D to go until it can successfully be used as a viable commercial product with low ecological impact.
Nobody is saying that it's impossible. It's just that we're currently at the "world market of five units" stage.
Spend a few more years in university research and maybe we can get closer to something that can actually be commercially successful on a large scale, cheap price and low ecological impact.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Absolute horse shit. Everyone loves meat, even vegetarians!
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
People will be growing their own meat in their kitchens within ten years, maybe five, with a machine about the size of a microwave oven, producing disease free meat, only the amount that the user wants, so no waste, and ANY meat you want - so you can eat the meat of any animal you like, (within reason). You will be able to grow meat with a specified amount of fat. Just as technology has allowed us to do things today that were impossible fifty years ago, this will be the same.
I admire your optimism, I'm extremely skeptical of your description and timeline.
Shortly after this is being eaten by 50% of the population, there will be a campaign to ban all animal farming, which will succeed, because nobody will be able to justify torturing and killing animals to obtain something that can be obtained without violence of any kind.
I've run out, any chance I can have some of what you're smoking?
And last of all, the maching you use to grow the meat in your kitchen will eventually be CHEAPER than any form of normal meat you can buy.
Just like vegetarian sausages are cheaper than 'proper' sausages in the supermarket today. Oh, wait...
Obviously from what I've written above it's scary if you get an implant from a pig and die as a result.
It was kind of unexpected until the sequencing was done. Pig organs were supposed to be the future once the anti-rejection treatment was sorted out.
Soylent Orange.
Are the proteins, fats, and carbohydrates synthesized one-by-one and blended into soup? Or are cells artificially stimulated to reproduce like regular cells to grow, reproduce, and create muscle meat (or organ meat, if that's your thing. Personally, I'll eat lamb liver or kidney once every 5 years, and enjoy it - but no more frequently than that).
Sterile, from merriam-webster:
"free from living organisms and especially pathogenic microorganisms".
I think your lab meat isn't sterile under the first part of that definition. It might be sanitary, as another poster said, but it ain't sterile.
And if it ain't sterile, consider this: a cell undergoing mitosis can have errors in DNA replication (I sound like Tyrell from Blade Runner). That means your lab-grown meat can yield a product that isn't 100% beef as we understand it. That's not really a problem at the moment because the beef in your t-bone steak probably has some faulty DNA in it.
But that's generally taken care of by the cattle's own systems - a foetus so faulty that it's not "beef" will be miscarried, and a foetus that's faulty but viable will probably end up on your dinner table some time in the future. What kind of expensive quality-control systems will guarantee your lab-grown beef is beef, and not near-beef, or mostly-beef? How will mildly-mutated meat - that hasn't been moderated by an actual cow - affect you when you consume it? Faulty DNA is dealt with by the animal that gestates it. Each cow moderates and deals with its own offspring - producing billions of tons of meat products, but each 250-1000 kilos is "checked" by its mother. What level of testing, moderating (and cancelling if necessary) will be performed once producers realise that vast vats of meat can be produced much more efficiently than ol' bessie can manage?
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
You only need to get the amino acids your body can not not produce from "somewhere"
You think that amino acids are the only thing in a well balanced diet ? How about taurine, creatine, heme iron, docosahexaenoic acid, cholecalciferol, carnosine and cobalamin, just to name a few things ? Which plants provide those ?
Of course meat consumption is natural, or have you managed to change the dietary habits of some of the planet's apex predators? Try telling that to a shark. Make no mistake, your animal brothers would have no hesitation eating you given the right circumstances, and they *won't* treat you to a humane kill - they'll rip you to pieces.
Why do we have some teeth adapted to tearing meat?
Why do we have a gut that's ideal for an omnivorous diet?
I could go on. We're omnivores.
And, meat tastes great (that's "good"), and it has concentrated nutrients - many calories/protein/micronutrients in a small volume. Many vegetables taste great, too, and some have high-ish concentrations of nutrients - I like meat *and* veg, and enjoy both.
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
That's because vegans don't get enough protein for their brains to work properly, innit.
I like to quote those nutrients at vocal anti-carnivores and watch them squirm. "Supplements" they say. Expensive supplements.
I even mentioned premarin to a vegan once and got a blank stare.
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
Meat animals are pretty well-rendered. Non-edible parts are sold for leather, fertiliser, fur/wool, animal feed (although potentially dangerous), decoration (horn buttons, bone handles), fat and bone for rendering, etc. They're too valuable to waste.
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
Really? If something like vat-grown meat ever takes off, every farm animal in the country will be dead within a few years. Because farmers don't raise cows and pigs and chickens because they enjoy their company, they raise them for income. Once the animals become unsellable, they're going to be exterminated.
Anyone who tells you otherwise is blowing smoke....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Just like vegetarian sausages are cheaper than 'proper' sausages in the supermarket today. Oh, wait...
Not sure if you are confused or what, but vegetarian sausages (Field Roast, Tofurky, etc) are cheaper than 'proper' sausages, unless you find something on sale. Go and check.
They give the meat umami.
I like meat *and* veg, and enjoy both.
Apparently, this is not permitted. In the current dietary climate, your choices are to be vegan or to be a 120% pure carnivore who washes down raw steak (torn by hand, no utensils allowed) with a warm glass of fresh blood.
. . . but only if it's blue. After all . .
Spoo. . . . the OTHER Blue Meat. . . .
So, lets assume that this lab-meat takes off and in short order we grow all the beef, lamb, pork, & chicken in a factory...
What do we do with all the cows, sheep, pigs, and chickens that we no longer have a need for?
Do they become endangered or extinct?
. . . refuses to call the "burger" safe for consumption.
To wit, the ingredient of soy leghemoglobin:
"arguments presented [by its creators] ... do not establish the safety of soy leghemolgobin for consumption.”
Interestingly enough, Impossible Foods asked the FDA to STOP the approval process on their cultured meat substitute.
It is fairly trivial to prove meat is not necessary for a healthy or nutritional diet (e.g. vegetarians aren't particularly sick).
No, that is not fairly easy to "prove".
Vitamin B12, for example, is only sourced from animals. Vegetarians who care about their health tend to buy supplements or fortified foods, closing their eyes to the source.
Similar for vitamin D, and to a lesser degree, vitamin A.
Then there's the risk of iron or amino acid deficiency; pick one. The problem here is that the plants high in amino acids like nuts and legumes also inhibit iron absorption. So to get enough of both, you need to flip back and forth between vegetarian foods that provide iron and provide proteins, but not at the same time.
Then there's the added risk of diabetes 2. When adjusted for overall lifestyle, vegetarians do eat a more carb rich diet. (The important here is "when adjusted for overall lifestyle" - overall, vegetarians have a lessened risk, but that's not due to the diet, but other lifestyle choices. But if you look at random people with the same calorie intake, alcohol intake and exercise level, the vegetarian is at higher risk.)
A quick google showed me:
- 50% of vegetarians and 80% of vegans have vitamin B12 deficiency
- Vegetarians face a 40% higher risk of colorectal cancer
- Vegetarians on average have a 5% lower bone-mineral density
So, good luck with your fairly trivial proof.
Unless vegans take the consequence of their choice by filing down their canines and premolars, I'm not sure they really believe in it.
Jonathan Swift had a modest proposal that could solve environmental problems, animal cruelty, and overpopulation... and provide tasty burgers, or other most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee, or a ragout.
meat is definitely NOT natural
The mind boggles.
As long as I am alive, the slaughter of animals will be performed.
I prefer real meat with antibiotics, hormones and steroids in it.
This was a one-sided hit piece if I ever saw one. What's with all the lobby-driven drivel increasingly being accepted to Slashdot?
The owners not seeing enough revenue flow, and trying to hike it up by trolling the audience, I think. Riling up the readers cause more posts, which is Slashdot's only real asset.
and create muscle meat (or organ meat, if that's your thing
Keep in mind that regular animal muscle depend on substances that are made in the organs. Maybe you can grow muscle cells without that, but then it could be deficient in nutrients.
When we start seeing the pushback from established industry players. Soon there will be discussions of "real" meat (meaning raised on a farm rather than in a laboratory). The minute this is price competitive, I can't imagine buying meat from an actual animal.
*cough*
https://soylentnews.org/
'scuse me.
trying to find things to do with the parts people don't want to eat.
We actually have a long list of useful purposes for virtually every animal part, so that may become an issue if all meat is lab grown.
For every animal they don't eat, I will eat two.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Actually, porcine retroviruses was never found to be infectious & harmful to humans. It was a worry among transplant surgeons, and lessened the enthusiasm for using pig organs, but there aren't many (any?) cases of harm from porcine retroviruses. Humans have their own retroviruses integrated into their genome, and we have mechanisms for turning them off (repressing their expression).
I personally kill and process the vast majority of the meat that I eat. I eat a lot of meat, actually. This year, I'll even harvest a moose and a deer. They will be delicious.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
It's all but given that cultured meat will someday be common. That meat will be high-quality without the bacterial/parasitic risks of animal meat, be more consistent and physically indistinguishable from animal meat, and taste great.
Eventually most countries will ban animal meat, though some will get it through the black market, insisting it's either "more natural than the synthetic crap," or as a perverse status symbol, like safari hunting for sport today.
A consumer-ready product does not yet exist and its progress is heavily shrouded by intellectual property claims...
I'm sure RMS disapproves of proprietary wetware as much as he disapproves of proprietary software. Let's start an Open Meat movement. LibreChicken, anyone? How about Moo-nix? OpenBSE?
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
It's only a matter of time. How about we just get rid of a whole bunch of humans? Through attrition? OK, fine.
I'd be interested in trying synthetic meat, too, but sterility would be very difficult to accomplish while also making something edible. Cell culture can be tricky and many things that you use to keep your cell cultures clean would not work for food. It might be easier perhaps to make a synthetic fermented meat to begin with so you would have some microbes in there to keep the spoilage organisms in check.
pheat
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
It seems to me they are going after the wrong market. The first lab-grown (excuse me, "cultured") meat should be sushi-grade Ahi tuna. Tuna is expensive, over-fished, potentially mercury-laden, and it already looks like it came out of a vat. And people already eat imitation-crab in their California rolls anyway.
I know a handful of vegans who would. But No True Vegan would for sure
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
The AC's link addresses your questions. I can't speak to the accuracy of the claims there, but your questions are answered. e.g. many species such as chimpanzees which are almost completely vegan still have huge canines. Also claims we do not have an omnivore's gut, based on PH, intestine length, enzyme distribution. Interesting to take a look at, at least.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Of course, chimps are not 100% vegan, as they will eat meat when they can catch it. Which is rare (no pun intended). And of course termites and skin parasites picked off other troop members.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
That applies to any food.
Perhaps it is you who buys into cultish propaganda.
Perhaps most interestingly, chimpanzees will readily kill and consume several smaller primate species when they're able to catch them. -PCP
Steal elections. Foreign influence.
Do you really believe that sh!t? What I see is a soft coup being attempted.
There wasn't any foreign influence in the US election. Not anymore than when the USSR funded anti-nuke protesters in the 1970s and 1980s (Yes the info came out with the fall of the USSR).
If you're concerned about the elections you should be promoting the use of driver's licenses (give free licenses to people who can't afford them) and keep the ballot machines off line. THEN the chance of "hacking" the election approaches zero.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
That's only due to a lack of demand...
The parent's link does address your criticisms. Not in a terribly convincing way, but you're not contradicting its claims here.
Let's go along with non-dairy spreads being the worst thing you can put on your toast. Now consider that non-dairy spreads are between zero and very little of what vegans eat. How is that argument so convincing to you? A health conscious vegan has lots of other breakfast options.
"protecting the welfare of farm animals" -- there won't be any farm animals. Some will call it "ironic" that cows went extinct after we stopped killing them. Do you think there will be wild cows roaming free? Chickens too?
"will be delicious, environmentally friendly, and be indistinguishable" -- someone seems to have forgotten the only important adjective: what about nutritious?
Every time we "take control" over a process, especially a consumer process, we've made things MUCH worse for the environment. Humans used to kill animals to make clothing. They'd go out into the forest, kill 25 animals, and make a fur coat. But good news everybody! Now we can make synthetic coats from nylon and plastics and never need to kill an animal to do it! Let's just cut down six acres of forest, build a factory, ship raw materials from china by ship polluting the oceans, run our factory 24/7, polluting the air and the ground-water, we've already destroyed the forest so ain't no 25 animals a'gonna be killed here, and we can produce coats that degrade within three years so we can sell more!
Habitat loss from clothing factories has been far worse than my soon-to-be 80-year old racoon fur coat made by one hunter and one furrier and 25 racoons.
The point is that we value things that we use, and we save things that we value. Cheetahs are endangered because most of us don't value them. So there are movements to save the cheetah, and no one cares. Chickens are arguably the most successful species on this planet. I eat close to a hundred each and every year -- plus another 100 of just the wings, plus another three-hundred eggs, five-hundred if you include chocolate cake and grand marnier soufflés.
I know that it takes a while for a cow to eat enough grass to make the meat nutritious for me to eat. I know that the cow converts the nutrients within the grass (which I cannot digest) into beef that I can digest -- so I'm getting the nutrients from the grass, which itself absorbed the minerals in the soil.
I don't know where lab-grown meat gets its nutrients. Let's see if I can guess. The lab sprinkles magic pixie dust onto the stem cells. Obviously. A powder called nutrient-42b. It's basically a protein-powder I'm sure. Now I wonder where the protein-powder comes from? Let me guess, it's produced in a factory. So, we'll start by clear-cutting this forest over here, then we'll build a factory. I'll bet the factory grows plants from which to produce the powder too. So it'll be a factory, and grass, and no cows. We'll have successfully replaced cows with factories.
Doesn't sound cheaper. Doesn't sound better for the cows either.
Anyone else hearing a Amanda Marshall singing "Save-The-Cows"?
So, vegans, riddle-me-this. How come the cow deserves your protection but the carrot does not? I'm sure the carrot species would prefer to not be slaughtered also.
What an honorable avowal. There is truly nothing more courageous than murdering defenseless animals. That level of respect and sportsmanship is to be revered.
Why would you assume I stated it for honor. I stated it for truth. I will continue to slaughter animals and eat their flesh without guilt so long as I am alive.
Come on! You know that this new meat won't be called "meat"
And not just at the behest of the SJWs, but as a branding. Farmers will insist on being able to use the word for their "natural, ranch-raised" product as distinguished from the lab-grown product. This will be the great ag way of butter vs. margarine all over again.
Most people compare vegan faux-meats with bottom-of-the-barrel processed meats instead of the "quality" stuff.
#DeleteFacebook
There's different types of vegans. I, for one, don't care what meat tastes like because I'm vegan for ethical reasons.
#DeleteFacebook
Oh, the planet will continue to spin, and have life on its surface even. And a lot of people will continue to live high off the hog. But more people will be priced out of the market for meat; others will be priced out of the market for food.
Nature has a time-proven solution to a organism population that outgrows available resources: starve it until it fits.
Human society has proved more adaptable than Malthusian predictions thus far. Malthusians didn't predict the ability to of people to develop fertilizer technology and high-yield crops. But there are thermodynamic and other physical limits to how much food you can grow on an acre; only so much sunshine to extract energy from and so many minerals you can extract from the soil.
So if we are going to continue to grow our population, and grow our standard of living for the bulk of that population, we'll have to adapt. And that adaptation will take many forms: new technology (our favorite! it's like changing without having to change), developing greater efficiency, changing our diet (some of us by choice, others by force), and letting the most vulnerable fraction of the human population die.
And we'll do all of them, but my guess is we'll rely most on new tech and letting people die prematurely, simply because both of these share the advantage that they don't require making hard decisions.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Pink slime
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Meat is on its way out. The planet will NOT survive if humans keep wastefully cultivating animals for food and letting their leaders steal the rightful elections belonging to others because of foreign interference.
Once this new 'meat' is perfected & mass produced, can we convert not just humans, but ALL animals to it - carnivorous & herbivorous - so that lions don't kill & eat gnus, zebras, gazelles, tigers don't hunt & kill deer, foxes don't eat hens & so on? Also, since plants too are living beings, make sure that deer, goats, cows, et al get w/ the program as well! So that onions & tomatoes don't risk getting plucked & slaughtered.
What's on its way out is getting meat by having animals grow it on their bodies, killing and butchering them and then trying to find things to do with the parts people don't want to eat.
What? Even vegans participate in this activity, they just think they don't. When growing just about any kind of crop, you invariably have to kill many pests, among them being wild boars, deer, raccoons, rats, mice, possums, insects by the millions, and many more. All are sentient by the way, including plants.
Besides, there's also practically no such thing as food that doesn't use some kind of animal byproduct, especially if you eat organic food where there aren't any practical alternatives. Whether its use cow poo, worm poo, guano, bone meal, blood meal, or any number of other animal products used in agriculture, an animal is involved somewhere.
Animal husbandry doesn't need to be either cruel or bad for the environment though. For the most part, it's just cows that are environmentally unsound, but even then, this can partially be avoided by having them graze for food instead of being given animal feed. This guy goes into great detail:
https://www.theguardian.com/co...
If vegans had enough creatine in their diet, maybe they would be smart enough to realize all of this, but alas, they're in a vicious cycle. (Yes, creatine does make you smarter and improve your memory, in addition to the already well known benefit of allowing you to gain lean (healthy) body mass.)
As for me personally, hunting and fishing are very fun things to do. I really doubt you'd be able to convince me and everybody who participates in these things that they need to stop just to satisfy some moral code that amounts to a religion that they do not and will not ever believe in (I certainly don't.)
Cow, chicken, pork, exotic meat, veggie-protein, lab-grown meat, all compete with each other for my wallet:
If they taste good, cook easily, look okay, and provide nutrition, and there aren't any reasons to boycott the particular product, then I'll go with the cheapest.
Right now, exotic meat and lab-grown meat are way too expensive for me, and most veggie-burgers I've tried are either too expensive or they don't have the taste, texture, or other qualities I'm looking for.
However, if someone wants to give me a meat-like veggie burger, exotic-meat-steak, or lab-grown meat that is "close enough" to cow, chicken, or pork, I wouldn't turn them down. Heck, I'd even pay for it - but not more than whatever other meat is cheapest at the supermarket that week.
Nobody loves horse shit...or cow shit...and lots of people are appalled by the thought of eating dead animals.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Any vegan who converted to that from being not just vegetarian, but non vegetarian as well, would. Particularly if the switch was made for ethical reasons i.e. not killing animals. It would be a lot easier to eat this knowing that no animals were harmed in the process
If it's being synthetically grown, does it need to include all the fat? Reason meats are alleged to not be good is the excess fat, which is usually removed. In this case, since everything is being built from scratch, rather than nature building up something naturally, wouldn't the producers simply not produce that, as well as any carcinogens or cholesterol?
The b12 in vitamin supplements comes from bacteria, which are arguably animals.
Also, those bacteria are grown in a culture medium. Made from animal byproducts.
Vegans really shouldn't take those supplements and just let themselves die of b12 deficiency.
Also they should probably eat their own poop, like gorillas do, to maximize the nutritional value they extract from their food.
Oh and gorillas? Vegan diet? Well actually they don't remove all the insects from the plants they eat, which gives them a really good vitamin and protein supplement.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
But meat is definitely NOT natural
if meat isn't natural then it doesn't come from animals so surely its ok to eat it?
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
One day, meat eaters and vegans might even share their hypothetical burger.
I don't know about those pesky vegans, but as a vegetarian, my main reason these days to not eat a beef hamburger is that those minced meat patties taste horrible.
But hey, some like it and its eco-friendly, so all the best to this industry.
You don't eat meat because you don't like burger patties?
That makes no sense at all. I might as well not eat vegetables at all because I don't like broccoli.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Slig seems appropriate
Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
The defenseless do usually taste better
Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
Why do we have some teeth adapted to tearing meat?
Well, we can tell that a certain dumbass hasn't done any thinking, much less actual research: the answer, Oh-So-Not-Very-Bright One, is that we possess those teeth for the same reason that closed-related, fruit-eating primates have them. Dumbass.
Only if his power levels are at 9000
Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
don't like meat? Nothing wrong with that
This statement is incredibly false
Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
Meat is much better for you than /.
Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
Wrong. Vegans are delicious! They do smell terrible tho
Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
Eh, the magic cow plant. Simples.
Just a bit of clarity:
Vitamin B12 isn't sourced from animals, it's sourced from microbes (often the microbes with B12 that end up in meat are from feces from the slaughterhouse). The USADA, Health Canada and many other major health institutions recommend EVERYONE over 50 take a B12 supplement, not just vegans. Likely the age will drop, it's probably a good idea everyone take B12.
Vitamin D isn't in most meat (mainly just organ meat), and it's added to cow's milk and other dairy products as a supplement. (Interestingly, the iodine in dairy is also remnants of the machinery cleaning process, and normally contains very little.)
What are you even talking about? Amino acid deficiency - who's ever used that term? You mean protein? How do high protein foods inhibit iron absorption? I've never heard of that and nutrition has been a pretty serious part of my reading for over 20 years. It's well known that vegans and vegetarians have no problem getting enough protein if eating enough calories, and please don't bother with the 'protein combining' myth which was dispelled about as fast as it was conceived in the 70's.
EVERYONE knows that eating carbs doesn't cause Type 2 diabetes. Once you have it, eating carbs can be a concern, but it's not the cause - animal protein is highly correlated. If you were correct, people who go vegan (or vegetarian) would have higher rates of diabetes, which they don't. Or high-carb consuming athletes like endurance cyclists or marathon runners. As a matter of fact, vegan diets are increasingly known to REVERSE Type 2 diabetes, and people typically reduce or even eliminates the need for insulin injections. This almost never happens with people consuming animal products, and almost inevitably move in the opposite direction with the condition worsening. It's really unfortunately this myth persists, as a lot of people suffer needlessly because of this.
You know what's really good for you: fiber. ~97% of the US doesn't eat recommended amount of fiber. Sounds a lot more concerning an issue to me than the handful of people not getting enough 'amino acids', but it's not as 'sexy'.
A quick Google search showed me:
"Almost 40% of the U.S. population is deficient in vitamin B12 according to a recent study from Tufts University in Boston and a vast majority of them are completely unaware. They found 39 percent with plasma B12 levels in the "low normal" range - below 258 picomoles per liter (pmol/L)."
So 79% of meat eaters are deficient or low in B12. Commonly we'll find it isn't the amount of B12 consumed, but that most people have absorption issues. Regardless, it's a well known fact that deficiency rates are similar among vegans, vegetarians, and meat eaters. At least most vegans are paying attention to their nutritional needs and try to rectify it. Just about every vegan organization will tell you to take B12, who ever hears that from any meat-eating entity? (Other than to ignorantly harass vegans?)
Have you checked your B12 levels? After over 27yrs being vegan, I can tell you my levels are high. Same with iron. Cholesterol scores are of zero concern. On paper, I'm doing quite fine.
Good luck with your canines - do you seriously think they would play ANY role in your killing and eating an animal? Seriously? Go ahead and try eating your next steak 'as nature intended' like every other meat-eater on the planet: raw and uncut. We'll see who has the protein deficiency before long. I'm sure your 'claws' will be helpful as well, and that high-acid saliva you have will help kill off the harmful or deadly microbes in the raw meat. Because you're just like every other carnivore, right? Oh yeah, and it will taste delicious and leave you wanting more.
Why do people think they suddenly know about nutrition when a vegan walks in the room?? Wind your head in.. I welcome questions, but nonsense stated as fact is intolerable.
The parent claimed: you need meat
Obviously I answered to the misconceptions of proteins in meat.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Gorillas may be a better example. They do have MASSIVE canines and aren't known for eating meat.
If you want to know which plants produce "How about taurine, creatine, heme iron, docosahexaenoic acid, cholecalciferol, carnosine and cobalamin, just to name a few things ?" google for it? ... iron is in most plants, wow that was easy. The rest I don't know and don't care for: as I'm a meat/fish eater.
And creatine btw. is produced by your body
Point is: you don't need meat. Probably a billion of people live without it (many hindu and buddhists are vegetarians)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
What are you even talking about? Amino acid deficiency - who's ever used that term? You mean protein?
The proteins are generally broken down into amino acids before absorbing, thus the proteins are in the food, but the deficiency is on amino acids.
How do high protein foods inhibit iron absorption? I've never heard of that
Nuts and legumes (beans, soy) are high in phytic acid, which reduces the absorption rate of iron and zink.
If you were correct, people who go vegan (or vegetarian) would have higher rates of diabetes, which they don't.
As I already said, that's because there's a correlation between being a veg*an and other lifestyle choices like more exercise and lower alcohol consumption. Corrected for that, a veg*an who exercises as little and drinks as much as the average individual gets diabetes more often.
Even if cultured, we will finally be sure our hot dogs are made of real dog meat.
Good grief..
Taurine is a "conditional amino acid", and can be formed simply by consuming other amino acids, just like every other plant-eater.
Creatine isn't essential in any shape, and most is formed within the body, but can be found in foods like cranberries if you really want to eat it. (Or in tubs at the grocery store. The amount in meat isn't very useful either.)
Non-heme iron is absorbed as well, and heme iron isn't considered 'essential' by any means. (And only ~60% of the iron in flesh is heme iron.)
DHA isn't considered an essential nutrient, and in normal people is formed from actual essential fatty acids (your Omega 3's, 6's and 9's, which are all easily found in plants). But if you want to eat it, it comes from the same place as fish get it: algae. (Fish don't magically create it, they eat smaller fish who ate smaller fish who ate algae.)
Cholecalciferol (Vit D3) supplements are now made from lichen, mushrooms and other non-animal sources, and ergocalciferol (Vit D2) works just fine, and is also from non-animal sources. Or just get off your computer and spend some time outside in the sun.
Like nearly all the above, there is no nutritional requirement for carnosine, and is formed in the body by eating plants.
B12 isn't 'provided by meat', it's provided by microbes. Do a Google search, you'll find 79% of the US population is deficient or low in B12. USADA, Health Canada and other major health orgs recommend EVERYONE over the age of 50 take a B12 supplement (and I bet you the age will drop). So meat isn't a reliable source either (and you won't want it either considering how much of the B12 in meat comes from fecal matter.) I'll stick to my weekly supplement, thanks.
Here's an interesting stat: ~97% of the US population is deficient in fiber. Which meats provide that? A surprising number of Americans are deficient in Vitamin C - which meats do you find that in?
Good job throwing around a bunch of fancy terms, but you're not being at all reasonable.
My vegetarian SO and their vegan sibling are both in love with the Impossible Burger and the Beyond Burger. Those aren't cultured meat, but they are designed to resemble real burgers as much as possible.
So unsurprisingly in real life people are vegetarian or vegan for many different reasons. Some of them will enjoy cultured meat, some won't touch it but will still enjoy well made "fake" meat, some will stick to things like veggie burgers and tofurkey, and some will avoid anything that even vaguely resembles meat.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Absolute horse shit. Everyone loves meat, even vegetarians!
The real surprising part of all this is that meat eaters can also like vegetarian dishes.
If you give them a chance, and put some tasty good ones on the fucking menus.
No sig today...
You think we don't want meat just because we are full after a meal? When we are full after a meal we don't want vegan dishes either, so I'm not even sure what your point is.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
The Japanese solved that issue. They eat animals that are still alive.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
It's chronic amino acid deficiencies that create the progressive cognitive deficit that strict vegetarians inevitably suffer from. Seriously. I know vegans and some who have recanted and gone back to eating meat. They think clearer, make more sense, and their personalities change, becoming more effectual in pretty much all areas of their lives.
I like meat *and* veg, and enjoy both.
Apparently, this is not permitted. In the current dietary climate, your choices are to be vegan or to be a 120% pure carnivore who washes down raw steak (torn by hand, no utensils allowed) with a warm glass of fresh blood.
While saying "Bleh bleh bleh."
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Somehow I doubt that this 'nu-meat' or whatever you want to call it is going to have an overall lower carbon footprint than, say, raising free-range chickens.
Yeah upvote this and disappear the posts from the vegan idiots (sorry for the redundancy).
Only I can judge you.
Yeah, and just like with that argument, ultimately the abomination that will be lab-meat (leat?) will be found to be incredibly unhealthy and not compatible with the digestive tract or biology of any animal (humans included).
Only I can judge you.
I'll join you in that my omnivorous friend. I'll also encourage my friends (both of them) to do the same. Plus my kids...
Only I can judge you.
I usually don't murder my own. I do find them delicious though. Right now I'm plowing through all the meat in a pig's head. I didn't realize how much there would be. It will probably end up feeding me for a month.
Only I can judge you.
I'm convinced but sadly, I'm part of the choir. If vegans and/or vegetarians could listen to reason, the world would be a much better place. They could then focus their anger on what should be their true targets, industrial agriculture and CAFOs, the whole industrial "food" chain in fact.
Only I can judge you.
So, let's just say that a better than meat lab grown alternative is created. What happens to all the millions of domesticated animals now no longer of any value. I guess we euthanize them and wipe out whole species?
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
I will gladly eat a vegetarian dish, as long as it's on the side of my steak and eggs. It doesn't even have to be tasty as the meat will take care of that.
Only I can judge you.
"burger will be delicious, environmentally friendly, and be indistinguishable from a regular burger."
And the burger will be brought to you by Big Corp...
Industrial production of food will mean not local and not small business and not family farms.
Animal agriculture is tightly interwoven with vegetable, fruit and grain production on a sustainable basis. By separating them and becoming dependent on industrial systems you make the entire system more centralized and fragile as well as less sustainable.
That's very bad.
I love sites that prevent you from right clicking (Firefox now at least lets you shift+right click to get around it, but how is a normal user to know?).
I also loves sites that prevent you from pasting into password fields.
Or that open up popup windows with toolbars disabled and no ability to resize or dock it to your main window as a tab.
What the FUCK would a browser let a site dictate the viewport or the user's ability to input data or the user's ability to fucking open a context menu?!
Good for them, then.
Margarine is ass and is terrible for you. Butter is great and is pretty good for you.
You forgot to check the "Post Anonymous" you fucktard coward piece of shit.
Only I can judge you.
I have some sharp pointy teeth designed for grabbing and tearing flesh. Meat also tastes good. I'm supposed to eat meat.
Chimps are not vegan, lol. They even eat eachother's babies.
Uh, where's the consumer product? Where can an average consumer go to buy lab-grown "meat"?
If there is no such consumer product widely available, then "Today, cultured meat is a lot of hype and no consumer product." is true, and your claim ("Bullshit.") is bullshit.
Vegans have significantly lower rates of diabetes in all of the recent large-scale, long-term studies (even after adjustments for lifestyle, income, ethnicity, gender, location, etc). Type 2 diabetes is caused by a buildup of excess fat, primarily in muscle cells, which inhibit the regulation of insulin. A high-fiber, low-fat, low-refined sugar diet is the best solution. This is why you see such high rates of diabetes among atkins (AKA low-carb, keto, etc) diet practitioners.
The Koreans have solved it too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Of course meat consumption is natural, or have you managed to change the dietary habits of some of the planet's apex predators?
Murder and rape are natural. Science and engineering are unnatural.
I believe we can aspire to something better than raw, brutish nature.
We have no specific biological adaptations to eating meat. Our teeth are those of herbivores, and our digestive system is that of a frugivore. Based on dental calculus analysis and corprolite data, our ancestors ate shit-loads of plants.
Meat obviously isn't the solution, when 39% of all Americans are B12 deficient. Americans have nearly the highest per-capita consumption of animal products in world. Everyone should supplement B12.
We evolved to get all of the B12 we needed from fresh water but with the advent of water treatment, we lost that source. 1.2ml of water from certain ponds is enough to meet our daily requirements, and 1 liter from almost any fresh water source more than exceeds our needs. Don't drink pond water unless you enjoy dysentery though—vegans need to supplement B12, as do meat eaters.
Nearly all mammals have canine teeth, and the largest belong to a true herbivore, the Hippo.
B12 isn't 'provided by meat', it's provided by microbes
Yes, that's well known, but irrelevant. There's B12 in meat. There's no B12 in plants. The protein in a steak is also provided by microbes.
And I'm aware that most of the things I mentioned can be made in the body. For instance, you can make your own D3 by sitting in the sun. But at northern latitudes, there isn't enough sun in the winter months, so you can risk a D3 shortage. Eating meat helps provide deficiencies.
Another example is amino acid lysine, which is mostly found in connective tissue. It's not on the list of essential amino acids, but without dietary intake, you may not have enough of it, because our rate of synthesis is too low.
But if you want to eat it, it comes from the same place as fish get it: algae
And how many vegans eat algae ? My point is not that it's impossible to find substitutes. The point is that meat provides an easy access to a whole bunch of nutrients that would take a serious effort to collect in a plant based diet. People following a lazy vegan diet risk serious deficiencies.
Vitamin C - which meats do you find that in?
I'm not advocating a meat-only diet.
It takes 10-20lbs of feed to make 1lb of meat according to the industry's own numbers, and about the same for a gallon of milk. It's horribly inefficient, and shows that by not eating meat you gain a 10-20x more efficient food source (10-20lbs of corn or soy), and cause 10-20x less "by-kill" during crop production. So vegans still cause immensely less harm overall if that is your concern.
Vegans are at the front line in the fight against Big-Ag and their CAFOs.
Population rate is decreasing fast. Yes. The population is still increasing but we're quickly getting to a point where population level will drop in absolute numbers. By quickly I mean by the end of this century we will probably see a decrease in absolute numbers. We've gone from fertility rates of over 5 in 1970 to under 2.5 today. 2.1 Is the magic number to see a drop in population. We will probably see a 2.1 fertility rate in by 2050.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Inevitably suffer from? That would suggest that it's a serious and widespread problem, and thus there would be studies proving it. But there aren't. In fact, vegans have the lowest rates of dementia and stroke ever observed. Look at the latest large-scale, long-term nutrition studies. This is why every large health organization is now supporting 100% plant-based diets as being nutritionally adequate for all stages of life.
Do you think I make this stuff up out of wholecloth? There was a study done that I read about that says this. I don't have a link, go find it yourself if you don't believe me, I can't be bothered. Also it all fits in with my experience knowing people who are and were Vegan.
Oh and by the way nothing that involves a tiny minority (a FRACTION OF A PERCENT) of the total population can ever be considered a 'widespread problem' or 'serious', in this case it's more like 'nutcases that are screwing themselves up with an insane meme diet that has nothing whatsoever to do with health reasons'.
You body produces 100% of the creatine you require. Your body makes Taurine too. It's synthesized from any complete protein, such as soy. Heme iron is simply one form of iron, and is not essential for survival. You get all the iron you need from a good plant-based diet. Docosahexaenoic acid (AKA DHA Omega 3), really? Flax seeds. Carnosine is produced from beta-Alanine, which has plenty of vegan sources although there is little science to suggest that it does you any good. Why worry about carnosine? Cobalmin (AKA B12)--well, meat eating obviously isn't a solution when 39% of all Americans are B12 deficient. Americans have nearly the highest per-capita consumption of animal products in world. Everyone should be supplementing B12.
There is no magical ingredient in animal products that you need to survive, which is why all of the major health organization of the world are now supporting plant-based diets as nutritionally adequate for all stages of human development.
In 2002, researchers who working on the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI)—a series of government studies of more than 160,000 healthy postmenopausal women—abruptly halted a trial involving 16,000 women who were taking Premarin when it was found that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) raises the risk of stroke in women by 41 percent, the risk of heart attack by 29 percent, and the risk of breast cancer by 26 percent. Doctors now largely agree that most women should avoid HRT and recommend that those who must use it in order to relieve severe symptoms associated with menopause limit the duration of the treatment, use the lowest effective dose, and use plant-derived estrogen, which uses soy or yam extracts instead of horse urine.
Not the psycho-biatches I see at the Farmer's Market. They are there yelling at and protesting, and cussing at the Grass-fed beef farmers. Stupid fucking vegans should be at Vons/Ralphs/Stater Bros/Costco yelling about the CAFO meat. Not at the place where the meat of compassionately raised animals is sold. So, I don't buy your bullshit lie.
Only I can judge you.
There actually is B12 in some plants and plant-based food, and if sanitation were eliminated, it'd be 'on' plants even more-so, but I'll stick with a supplement. Have you even had a B12 test? You might need a supplement too. ;)
As already mentioned, there is no appreciable amount of D3 in a steak. Please, if only for your own health, educate yourself. If you're relying on steak for Vitamin D, you're going to make yourself sick.
Lysine is plentiful in legumes as well. You apparently have access to Google, can you please try and use it before posting this easily refuted nonsense?
Few people are eating particular foods for DHA (which again is unnecessary to eat for most people to consume), but if they did, fish oil is a common supplement, and just as reliable is algal oil, without risk of heavy metals, etc... Why expose yourself to bio-accumulation?
"People following a lazy diet risk serious deficiencies." - I fixed that sentence for you. ANYONE eating poorly risks serious deficiencies. There is nothing inherently dangerous about a vegan diet.
The Seventh Day Adventists (vegans and vegetarians) have the longest lifespans of any group ever observed scientifically. So I wouldn't write off plant based diets. They also have some of the lowest rates of diabetes, heart disease, stroke, dementia, hypertension, etc. Among them, the vegans cohort do significantly better than any of the vegetarian groups (lacto-vegetarian, lacto-ovo-vegetarian, etc).
Everyone who lacks B12 (the amino acid you're referring to) will suffer such consequences. 39% of the US population is B12 deficient (in the country with nearly the highest meat/dairy consumption per capita in the world), so eating animal products obviously isn't the answer. This isn't an argument against plant-based diets, it's an argument for B12 fortification in foods.
Whether you believe something or not doesn't change the fact. Vegans fight Big-Ag like no other group. Look at the work PETA has done fighting them. Honestly, if they were picketing Costco (they do), you seem like you'd still be angry.
Edit: ...war of butter vs margarine.
I don't generally follow PETA, I'm talking about blowhard vegans I see during my weekly shopping. I'm totally against CAFOs but am not sure I could join a group composed of mindless cretins like vegans are. What I see does not negate whatever assertions you make about vegan antagonizing of compassionate farmers/ranchers. But, go back to ArmoredDragon's post and deal with that, dude. If you know other vegans tell them to not make asses of themselves and stop protesting compassionately raised animal meat, there are much bigger fish to fry. Those vegans make all of y'all look like mindless morons. Which, based on ArmoredDragon's post, may be true. Think about that possibility before posting back.
Only I can judge you.
two words: virtue signaling.
Who is raging again? You're just angry that animal rights activists don't stop at confronting the corporations. They confront all animal abusers. There is no humanely raised meat. If you believe that, I have some great land in Florida for sale.
Well, here in Brooklyn I know several people boasting about vegan. It really seems as if they think being vegan makes them a better person and certainly better than thee (if you're not vegan).
I couldn't give a rat's a$$ about what you eat - but the moralizing and the proselytizing does bother me.
Conversation with vegan:
You: "Do you want to meet at Bar X?"
Vegan: "Oh, Do they still serve BBQ there? < Insert "educational" remark about meat here > I won't go there if they do."
You: "See ya." (And another person is lost to the vegan cult.)
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Well, i'd wager that the fact we can go into a ketogenic state in absence of carbohydrate is an adaptation specific to eating meat.
Puzzle me this though, if human beings were anywhere but the equator during the last ice age, how did they survive on a plant based diet?
well the thing is.. animals do tend to eat each other. Yes we have fancy things like clothes and cars, but at the root of it, we're still made of the same stuff as a cow, pig, or horse.
Humans are still animals, while animals are not human. Why would eating them be an ethical concern for us?
Factory farming, sure, i can see that being an ethical concern. It's incredibly wasteful in terms of water usage, results runoff that contains antibiotic waste, hormones (though curiously birth control pills also cause a bit of this... wonder what the overlap between people against factory farming and against hormonal contraceptive use would be) But these lab grown meat contraptions get around that (as do local small-scale farms)
As far as the health issues; bear in mind people have been eating meat since there were people there to eat it. Heart disease and diabetes are largely new (at least at current levels of prevalence) -- but clearly, the vegan/vegetarians are right, it *must* be the meat in our diets.
But yes, it's not mandatory, strictly speaking.
But it's impossible that people who are already on the way to diabetes are the ones most likely to go on a low-carb diet right?
Take a disease caused by over-production of insulin, which has absolutely nothing to do with sugar intake, right? Yes, it clearly makes way more sense to implicate fat, a substance has fuck-all to do with insulin production. Got it!
I see that my third sentence made no fucking sense.
What I wrote:
What I see does not negate whatever assertions you make about vegan antagonizing of compassionate farmers/ranchers.
What I meant:
Your assertions about vegans and their battle against CAFOs does not remove what I have witnessed which is vegans antagonizing compassionate farmers/ranchers.
That's better but still not great. Sorry about the shitty sentence. I was in a rush.
Only I can judge you.
You think I'm raging? You should see the idiot vegan lady at my Farmer's Market. _Everyone_ thinks/knows she's mental. But to you she's a normal well-adapted vegan, doing her duty.
And that is exactly the problem with vegans. You idiots live in a black and white world, no shades of gray/grey. Guess what, the world isn't binary. But do continue to live in your echo chamber. I have not problem with animal rights activists. I have a problem with the maladapted, mentally ill class of people commonly referred to as vegans.
Protip: your religion will continue to be marginalized due to the complete lack of logic, reason, and science that backs it.
Only I can judge you.
Or from Marmite which is a yeast extract.
From Wikipedia: "Vitamin B12 is not naturally found in yeast extract, but is added to Marmite during manufacture."
Ketosis can be induced using any high-fat diet, including 100% plant-based. It is extremely dangerous to human health though, and does not support an argument for evolution via meat. There actually are a lot of whole food plant-based keto people out there.
Evolutionary theory is the heart of what paleoanthropologists study, and there is no consensus among them about meat eating "making us human". Although some do make that claim, perpetuating the outdated logic of the "Man the Hunter/Man the Killer" theories of the '40s and '50s. Contrasting this, some modern scientists believe that the consumption of tubers was actually the energy source that led to increasing encephalization (brain enlargement) and gut reduction. Others argue it to be starches more broadly, and many effectively claim that any energy-dense food source would do the trick. The goal was simply reaching reproductive age after all, not avoiding cancer or reaching ripe old age in a healthy state.
This is why you can survive on poor diets. You simply need to reach the age of reproductive viability.
Vegans are at the front line in the fight against Big-Ag and their CAFOs.
Except they're fighting the wrong battle. Their message is "no more meat period" instead of "better livestock welfare", so nobody listens to them.
Insulin is over-produced because excess fat in the cells blocks them from absorbing it and the kidneys attempt to compensate. This is health 101. Yes, add sugar to a high-fat diet and you only make matters worse, but removing the fat is the first step that nutritionists take, along with increasing fiber intake (which lowers body fat, among other things) because of T2 diabetes' pathogenesis.
What non-seasonal, non-tropical plants have high enough fat content, with low enough carb content to maintain ketosis? Because yep, you could eat nothing but macadamia nuts and avocado -- but those wouldn't exactly be available in colder climates year round before modern times.
My point was (as i'm sure you surmised) you have populations of people who basically had to subsist on nothing but meat, and the occasional vegetable when in season (like tubers, as you pointed out). They thrived, and spread all across the northern hemisphere. Could they have done without ketosis?
(And no, it's not 'dangerous' to human health, it's not the same thing as ketoacidosis.)
They're lying.
So you support animal right, that's good enough for me. That seems ethical, moral, and logical.
Animal rights activists do argue for better living conditions for farm animals. Their lobying efforts have led to significantly expanded cage sizes for chickens and pigs for example, among many other improvements to the processes of animal production.
Serious question, Why? The ecological impacts of meat are well known, and while eating meat certainly won't kill you, all of a sudden increasing your consumption by 1 steer/year for every vegan seems excessive and likely health impacting.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
[citation needed]
We need the one that makes the blood and the one that makes the fat. You need a little blood and about 20% fat to make a hamburger taste good on the barbecue grill. Otherwise it is dry. .. Come to think about it. If we could make fat, we could make fuel!
Omega oil, fish oil, glucosomine, taurine, and alpha lipoic acid. To name a few more..
Also a vegan. I would not eat it. If it could be made cheaply enough, it might be good for pet food.
If other people would eat it, that would be better than what we have now.
I am perfectly happy with current vegan foods.
Cite your source?
Again - who in the US or Canada or any developed country, that's eating enough calories, is suffering from a protein or amino acid deficiency? You're citing a non-existent problem. You may as well claim that vegans are also more likely to be abducted by aliens.
Phytic acid is actually a good thing for us, but if you did your research you'd know that a small amount of cooking, or inclusion of foods with Vitamin C (like nearly any fruit or vegetable) counteracts much of the impact of it, and you're actually ahead of the game nutritionally. Not sure who's eating raw legumes and beans, but they deserve to get sick. (Sprouting also breaks down the phytic acid.)
"Corrected for that, a veg*an who exercises as little and drinks as much as the average individual gets diabetes more often."
Would love to see your source for that.. I suspect the opposite is true if you actually do some research. Like this: "We hypothesized that more exclusively vegetarian diets, e.g., vegan, lacto-ovo, or pesco-vegetarian, are associated with lower prevalence of obesity and type 2 diabetes compared with semi- or nonvegetarian diets." (And yes, adjustments were made for "for age, sex, ethnicity, education, income, physical activity, television watching, sleep habits, alcohol use, and BMI".)
[citation needed]
Here are a few to start from. You can follow their references cited sections to thousands of related studies.
Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease, and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California Seventh-day Adventists
Fraser 2009 Am J Clin Nutr September 1999 vol. 70 no. 3 532s-538s
Dietary Relationships With Fatal Colorectal Cancer Among Seventh-Day Adventists
Roland L. Phillips, M.D., Dr. P.H. David A. Snowdon, Ph.D., M.P.H. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Volume 74, Issue 2, 1 February 1985, Pages 307–317
Coronary heart disease mortality among Seventh-Day Adventists with differing dietary habits: a preliminary report
Roland L. Phillips, Frank R. Lemon, W. Lawrence Beeson, and Jan W. Kuzma. Am J Clin Nutr October 1978 vol. 31 no. 10 S191-S198
Diet and Lung Cancer in California Seventh-day Adventists
Gary E. Fraser W. Lowrence Beeson Ronald L. Phillips. American Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 133, Issue 7, 1 April 1991, Pages 683–693.
Association Between Reported Diet And All-Cause Mortality: Twenty-One-Year Follow-Up On 27, 530 Adult Seventh-Day Adventists
HAROLD A. Kahn Roland L. Phillips David A. Snowdon Warren Choi. American Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 119, Issue 5, 1 May 1984, Pages 775–787.
Dietary and hormonal interrelationships among vegetarian Seventh-Day Adventists and nonvegetarian men.
B J Howie and T D Shultz. Am J Clin Nutr July 1985 vol. 42 no. 1 127-134
Animal product consumption and mortality because of all causes combined, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and cancer in Seventh-day Adventists.
Snowdon. Am J Clin Nutr September 1988 vol. 48 no. 3 739-748.
Mortality Among California Seventh-Day Adventists for Selected Cancer Sites
Roland L. Phillips, M.D., Dr. P.H. Lawrence Garfinkel, M.A. J. W. Kuzma, Ph.D. W. Lawrence Beeson, M.S.P.H. Terry Lotz, M.S.P.H. Burton Brin, M.P.H. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Volume 65, Issue 5, 1 November 1980, Pages 1097–1107.
Diet and Serum Cholesterol Levels A Comparison between Vegetarians and Nonvegetarians in a Seventh-day Adventist Group
RAYMOND O. WEST, M.D., M.P.H. and OLIVE B. HAYES, M.P.H.. Am J Clin Nutr August 1968 vol. 21 no. 8 853-862.
Cohort study of diet, lifestyle, and prostate cancer in adventist men
Mills, P. K., Beeson, W. L., Phillips, R. L. and Fraser, G. E. (1989), Cohort study of diet, lifestyle, and prostate cancer in adventist men. Cancer, 64: 598–604.
Gorillas may be a better example. They do have MASSIVE canines and aren't known for eating meat.
As I recall, since Gorilla canine teeth have a large sexual dimorphism (difference between male and female) the are likely used as part of dominance rituals among male Gorillas competing for mates (for deterrence, defense, attack, etc). However since humans have very limited dimorphic differentiation in canine size, they probably serve a different purpose or are simply vestigial.
In any case, there is a case to be made that humans are built to be omnivores. The basic argument is advanced by the Expensive Tissue Hypothesis (ETH) which argues that eating meat led to smaller stomachs and in conjunction with smaller muscle mass allowed for larger brains (relative to our prehistoric predecessors).
Of course we can argue about "why" till the cows come home, since "why" is really an unknown quantity that is basically all speculation.
We have no specific biological adaptations to eating meat. Our teeth are those of herbivores, and our digestive system is that of a frugivore. Based on dental calculus analysis and corprolite data, our ancestors ate shit-loads of plants.
But we do have at least one specific biological adaptation that is a result of eating meat. Our intestinal system and muscle mass as evolved to much smaller than equivalent animals that are pure herbivores.
http://time.com/4252373/meat-e...
http://news.harvard.edu/gazett...
Some folks think that these adaptations allowed us the luxury of evolving larger brains...
Actually, our intestinal tract is that of a frugivore and shares no traits with mammals adapted to eating meat. The articles you linked are not scientific, and the Harvard article reads like a student paper in human evolution.
Evolutionary theory is the heart of what paleoanthropologists study, and there is no consensus among them about meat eating "making us human". Although some do make that claim, perpetuating the outdated logic of the "Man the Hunter/Man the Killer" theories of the '40s and '50s. Contrasting this, some modern scientists believe that the consumption of tubers was actually the energy source that led to increasing encephalization (brain enlargement) and gut reduction. Others argue it to be starches more broadly, and many effectively claim that any energy-dense food source would do the trick. The goal was simply reaching reproductive age after all, not avoiding cancer or reaching ripe old age in a healthy state.
The starch and tuber hypotheses used to get shot down because the earliest controlled use of fire didn't seem to emerge until relatively recently (200,000-400,000 years ago), and root starches require cooking in order to fulfill the kind of calorie counts that would have been necessary. With older and older dates emerging for human's control of fire (possibly as early as 1.7 million years ago), there is a growing belief that the development of cooking with heat in general was the key contributor to encephalization.
Anyone claiming that there is a scientific consensus on these matters simply isn't reading enough paleoanthropological literature. Every single dietary claim has been argued ferociously for decades. There are a few simple facts that no one seriously working in the field would argue however:
The human digestive system is that of a frugivore and has no specific biological gut adaptations that would be expected of a species that "evolved to eat meat". The same is true of our hominin ancestors. And based on dental calculus analysis and corprolite data, our ancestors ate shit-loads of plants.
That is exactly what I described above. Twice.
Have some coffee or whatever you need to wake up.
Don't forget about the other problems they have.
* digestive problems
* degenerating vision(common, but not endemic)
* horrible body odor(common, but not endemic)
* schizophrenia
* seizures
Literally every single vegan I have ever met has seizures fairly often.
No, you spouted the same lies that were told to you.
Sure, you can survive without meat, but you will never be healthy without it.
Why don't you read a book about it instead of making yourself look like an idiot?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Lobby driven drivel is permeating the entire media sphere. Why would /. be exempted form it? The best thing to do is check out. I will come back in a year or two and see how things have progressed. Right now, I'm in the Patagonian rain forest and loving it...
Dear Microlimp: I give you 2 valid product keys for win7 and you reject both of them. Piss off you wankers!!!
Wat? So nearly all mammals are meat-eaters? Especially hippos? ;)
Animal rights activists do argue for better living conditions for farm animals.
Depends on which ones. Most vegans I've heard from want the practice banned entirely. PETA feels the same way, including banning any captivity of animals period, including pets and service animals.
It is fairly trivial to prove meat is not necessary for a healthy or nutritional diet (e.g. vegetarians aren't particularly sick).
No, that is not fairly easy to "prove". Vitamin B12, for example, is only sourced from animals. Vegetarians who care about their health tend to buy supplements or fortified foods, closing their eyes to the source. Similar for vitamin D, and to a lesser degree, vitamin A. Then there's the risk of iron or amino acid deficiency; pick one. The problem here is that the plants high in amino acids like nuts and legumes also inhibit iron absorption. So to get enough of both, you need to flip back and forth between vegetarian foods that provide iron and provide proteins, but not at the same time. Then there's the added risk of diabetes 2. When adjusted for overall lifestyle, vegetarians do eat a more carb rich diet. (The important here is "when adjusted for overall lifestyle" - overall, vegetarians have a lessened risk, but that's not due to the diet, but other lifestyle choices. But if you look at random people with the same calorie intake, alcohol intake and exercise level, the vegetarian is at higher risk.)
A quick google showed me:
- 50% of vegetarians and 80% of vegans have vitamin B12 deficiency - Vegetarians face a 40% higher risk of colorectal cancer - Vegetarians on average have a 5% lower bone-mineral density
So, good luck with your fairly trivial proof.
Unless vegans take the consequence of their choice by filing down their canines and premolars, I'm not sure they really believe in it.
the issue is complicated and vegetarians and vegans face higher risk of several dietary diseases despite the bullshit studies suggesting it is healthier diet. FWIW I have been vegan or vegetarian for over 20 years (and continue to be so) so if I had any bias I'd be saying the opposite, with my background and genuine tolerance though I can't lie to myself like that and who the fuck am I to judge others. There is only one reason I can't argue with (ethics, my own reason too) but even then it is 1:personal and not something to be imposed on others and you shouldn't even mention it unless someone offers to make you food and asks if you have a preference. In cases where someone says "you want a burger" I just reply "nah I'm cool I'm gonna eat later" as they don't need a lecture from some smug twat because they tried being considerate. 2: a LOT of shit still gets killed in food production ; billions of insects, fish, probably birds and so on. even the environmental effects off organic runoff, silage screws biodiversity in watercourses for instance. So to claim it is killing free is a bit rich IMHO
I cannot stand ideology of the modern vegan/vegetarian dickheads forcing their choices on everyone and being blind to the negatives of their own choices. I tend to piss off a lot of vegetarians or vegans or aggressive pro meat folks (NOT regular diet folks but the ones who are the kneejerk reactionaries to the vegan ideologs) because I only trust peer review sources, side with conventional medical knowledge and have biochemistry background and wont joing in the echo chamber antics. Sure comparing someone who eats very poor diet with trash meat in it to an educated vegetarian may look healthy, yet vice versa for comparing an educated (dietary speaking) lean prime meat cuts and good nutritionally balanced person to a vegetarian who lives on overly processed high carb junk food. I'd hazard a guess from it is HARDER to balance macro ratios and also micronutrient needs on a vegan or vegetarian diet, eg most vegan diets of those I know are oft high in antinutrient factors (such as phytic acid) which means even if they do get the micronutrient sources they are NOT bioavailable.
The b12 in vitamin supplements comes from bacteria, which are arguably animals. Also, those bacteria are grown in a culture medium. Made from animal byproducts.
Vegans really shouldn't take those supplements and just let themselves die of b12 deficiency.
Also they should probably eat their own poop, like gorillas do, to maximize the nutritional value they extract from their food.
Oh and gorillas? Vegan diet? Well actually they don't remove all the insects from the plants they eat, which gives them a really good vitamin and protein supplement.
bacteria/prokaryotes are NOT animals by any stretch just as plants are not animals! That is highschool level knowledge at the very most I thought? I know a microbiologist who goes full postal when people come out with that gem and he'd likely strangle you saying that. Amusing thing with the suppliments is some sources are not readily bioavailable anyway even in people with high enough IF levels. Also in the ones that are for some people suppliments don't always work anyway with b12 deficiencies as it can be a lack of intrinsic factor so cannot get it from foods in those cases (PA).
With that (pernicous anaemia) only hydroxycobalamin injections or similar form will provide it. It isn't directly caused by veganism/vegetarianism but I suspect there is either a link or perhaps just harder to avoid deficiency on such diets in mild cases of moderately low IF where you can get some from diet but not as efficiently. I say that from lifelong vegan/vegetarian PoV btw who has known a LOT who ended up with deficiencies in B12 and 2 or 3 have medically diagnosed pernicious anaemia which is impossible to be cured with diet. There is speculation eating low Bvit diets for long time can possibly act as a trigger in the body dropping IF levels over time, it is just theory at the moment and not all medical practioners etc agree and when I was still involved in the discipline there was little info on it then and not heard much more since so I don't believe nor disbelieve it myself; until there is evidence I can trust I'll remain on the fence but fwiw anecdotally it fits for me.
the issue is complicated and vegetarians and vegans face higher risk of several dietary diseases despite the bullshit studies suggesting it is healthier diet.
I believe the risks are greater on both sides of the middle; both vegans and carnivorous diets reduce the chances. But people survive on either - perhaps not as long or well on average unless adapted, but it's doable.
Sure comparing someone who eats very poor diet with trash meat in it to an educated vegetarian may look healthy
Lifestyle choices that often go hand in hand with a choice to change a diet have a huge impact, and some choices have a significant enough correlation to skew results, like alcohol consumption and obesity. Unless comparing individuals with the same BMI and drinking patterns (and other factors), the results are going to be rather worthless.
bacteria/prokaryotes are NOT animals by any stretch just as plants are not animals!
I was being sarcastic.
The b12 producing bacteria being grown in a nutrient medium derived from animal byproducts stands. Vegans couldn't exist without abattoirs. Its completely fake.
Vegans couldn't exist without a 1st world globalised industrial infrastructure. Try being vegan in a 3rd world country without being super rich. Its purely a phenomenon of the modern industrial first world.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Everyday cultured meat could be produced much more efficiently than through corporate farms. The actual product will probably be healthier since it won't be necessary to feed animals an unnatural diet because it's cheaper. Moral vegans will all but disappear but vegetarianism will continue.
Animals will still be slaughtered but only for those willing to pay the premium. Those animals will be raised by high standard small farmers and corporate animal farms will by and large disappear. You will be able to look up the pedigree and health reports on your real steak but will cost like $100. Most striking will be a resurgence of people raising chickens in cities. The oceans will get some time to heal once 90% of the fish eaten is cultured fish meat. Most of the real fish will come from fish farms to limit exposure to sea pollution. All this will happen over the next 70 years.