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?
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.
A dog only shits on my rug, not my entire life.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
There'll be artisanal hand raised meat at handsome prices.
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.
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.
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.)