Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

World's Second Largest Meat Processor Invests In Lab-Grown Meat Startup (foxbusiness.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the clean-meat dept.

Tyson Foods, the world's second largest processor and marketer of chicken, beef, and pork, announced it has invested in Silicon Valley startup Memphis Meats, a company that makes lab-grown meat using animal cells. The investment amount was not disclosed, but it follows a slew of other high-profile backers including Cargill Inc., Bill Gates and Richard Branson. Fox Business reports: Last December, Tyson made a similar investment in another meatless startup called Beyond Meat, investing a roughly 5% stake in the company that produces plant-based meat alternatives. Tyson CEO Tom Hayes told FOX Business in March of last year that he sees plant-based protein as a big part of the company's future. "If you take a look at the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) stats, protein consumption is growing around the world -- and it continues to grow. It's not just hot in the U.S.; it's hot everywhere, people want protein, so whether it's animal-based protein or plant-based protein, they have an appetite for it. Plant-based protein is growing almost, at this point, a little faster than animal-based, so I think the migration may continue in that direction," Hayes told FOX Business. Memphis Meats, which debuted its first animal-free meatball in 2016, followed by the world's first chicken strip in 2017, said customers should expect to see these products on store shelves by 2021 or 2022.

60 of 111 comments (clear)

  1. Meat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Without slaughter stress hormones, antibiotic abuse/resistance, animal suffering, etc.? Sign me up.

    1. Re:Meat by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Without slaughter stress hormones, antibiotic abuse/resistance, animal suffering, etc.? Sign me up.

      It's also got what plants crave!

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Meat by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      It's also got what plants crave!

      Nitrogen fertilizer?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re: Meat by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Antibiotic resistance doesn't come from raising livestock, it comes from hospitals. They also don't abuse antibiotics either, rather they only use them when the animal is sick or was likely exposed to infection. Antibiotics for big animals are expensive (you need lots of it) so contrary to popular vegan urban myth, they're not used indiscriminately. The purpose behind antibiotics is to be humane, otherwise you let the animal suffer out the infection. Doing otherwise is abuse, which it seems that the movement to end antibiotics seems to want. Not that it makes a difference anyways, the antibiotics have to be out of the animal's system in order to be legally slaughtered and sold, as per FDA rules.

    4. Re: Meat by wes33 · · Score: 1

      Antibiotic resistance doesn't come from raising livestock,

      I don't think so; from "Agriculture and food animals as a source of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria":

      "The use and misuse of antibiotics in farm animal settings as growth promoters or as nonspecific means of infection prevention and treatment has boosted antibiotic consumption and resistance among bacteria in the animal habitat. This reservoir of resistance can be transmitted directly or indirectly to humans through food consumption and direct or indirect contact. " (doi: 10.2147/IDR.S55778)

      Please give your opposing citations.

    5. Re: Meat by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      I was discussing this the other day with some people, and someone mentioned that animals aren't given antibiotics because of infections. Instead, some farmers a few decades ago discovered that giving animals antibiotics made them grow bigger, so now antibiotics are used as a substitute for and/or in addition to growth hormones.

      Note: I haven't researched this at all myself, I'm just throwing it into the discussion in case others are interested.

  2. Have we seen Peak Meat? by rmdingler · · Score: 2

    With the resources necessary to raise a pound of beef (1799 gal water) and pork (576 gal water), I suppose the world may indeed hold a future in which only the ultra rich can afford the pleasure of meat on the hoof.

    How lucky are we, that we got to live during the time of Peak Meat, and know the savory explosion of juices biting into a medium rare, perfectly prepared, prime ribeye.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Have we seen Peak Meat? by iggymanz · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I heard some planets have this thing called Water Cycle, such that water falling on the ground is no different than water falling into a reservoir and then being pissed onto the ground by animals. who knew?

    2. Re:Have we seen Peak Meat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do you also claim that aluminum recycling is pointless, as physically there is no difference between the aluminum atoms in used cans versus bauxite in the ground?

      It is about location and concentration. Some places need to process/transport water to a location, because there is not enough "water falling on the ground" in the right places to keep the reservoirs full. Using that water for agriculture means either expending energy to reprocess it, transport more from further away, or simply not using it for something else since there is a finite amount of falling water & fresh water annual storage at most locations. Owens valley in California was a lot greener and had orchards when I was very young, but not anymore when that water was sent to LA. Even the Pacific NW has water restrictions in the summer despite the winter deluges due to limited storage in the right places.

    3. Re:Have we seen Peak Meat? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I suppose the world may indeed hold a future in which only the ultra rich can afford the pleasure of meat on the hoof.

      Globally, the rich eat more meat, but in America meat consumption is negatively correlated with income. Higher income Americans eat less.

      The type of meat varies widely around the world. Americans eat as much chicken as they do pork and beef combined. In the EU and in China, pork is number one. South America eats the most beef.

    4. Re:Have we seen Peak Meat? by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      I heard some planets have this thing called Water Cycle, such that water falling on the ground is no different than water falling into a reservoir and then being pissed onto the ground by animals. who knew?

      Are you pissing on my leg and telling me it's raining?

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    5. Re:Have we seen Peak Meat? by rmdingler · · Score: 2

      Chicken meat, per pound, is reportedly about one-tenth the water expenditure of of beef; not a bad outcome but there are production anomalies that seem to account for the eat mor chickn phenomenon.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    6. Re:Have we seen Peak Meat? by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 4, Informative

      Moving water around takes energy, which mostly comes from fossil fuels. . . . Purifying water and disposing of waste water also takes a lot of energy.

      The shock-and-awe water consumption numbers like the ones OP threw out are mostly water to grow the grass/grain the animals eat. Nearly all of that comes straight from the sky or from local wells, with no purification or disposal required.

    7. Re:Have we seen Peak Meat? by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      That's super if it falls onto land and is trapped in reservoirs. If it melts into the ocean from ice or flows into the ocean do to torrential rain, it's not so good. The water cycle doesn't care if you need to drink it.

    8. Re:Have we seen Peak Meat? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      From your own link, the average farm in America spends $17,000 annually on energy for pumping water.

    9. Re:Have we seen Peak Meat? by gravewax · · Score: 1

      those numbers for meat production are very very dated. Beef is actually around 500 gallons a pound

    10. Re:Have we seen Peak Meat? by morethanapapercert · · Score: 1
      Chicken used to be the most expensive of farm raised meats. That's why the political slogan "a chicken in every pot" is a promise of prosperity. Aggressive breeding tactics and modern nutrition have produced chickens that gain weight to market value MUCH faster than historically was the case. I read somewhere chickens now grow four times bigger than pre-WWII and in less time. Modern agricultural science made chicken cheap.

      I expect that cultured meat has the same potential to bring down the cost of meat. However, while I can't recall what it's called right now, there is an effect known in economics that making a product more efficient actually ends up using even more energy because more efficiency means cheaper cost to the consumer and that in turn drives more consumer use. Given the high status of meat, I expect cheap cultured meat may well wind up using even more resources than the current meat industry.

      --
      I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
    11. Re:Have we seen Peak Meat? by careysub · · Score: 1

      Nearly all of that comes straight from the sky or from local wells...

      About that "free" water from local wells. The main beef raising states are (in order): Texas, Nebraska and Kansas. These three states get a large part of their agricultural water from the Ogalala Aquifer, which is (was) filled with fossil water hundreds of thousands of years old with a zero recharge rate under present conditions.

      Texas was the first such state to hit "peak water" and that was almost 20 years ago. Its water extraction rate is now declining, a trend that will never be reversed. It is literally running out of water in the high plains. Kansas hit peak water in 2010. Its available water is also dropping annually.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    12. Re: Have we seen Peak Meat? by careysub · · Score: 2

      We hit peak oil in 2009 exactly as Hubbert predicted. And yes, the world underwent some very important readjustments as a result.

      Hubbert analyzed oil extraction histories from oil fields, and regions, around the world and devised a model that is both descriptive and predictive of how oil production (and resources production in general) changes over time with intensive extraction efforts. Though initially applied to oil, it is general in nature. Hubbert modelling correctly predicted peak oil arriving in the U.S. in 1970.

      So how is that U.S. oil production has climbed back up to nearly (but not quite) the same peak as before, 45 years later? Because what is now being produced is not the same resource that Hubbert modeled. Hubbert was talking about conventional oil, from conventional oil fields. What is now being produced in the U.S. is "oil" not oil. When the world hit peak oil in 2009 (an event blunted by the Great Recession) oil prices sky-rocketed and commodities that were not conventional oil (natural gas condensates, tar sands, shale oil) started being reformed, or produced and pushed into the supply line to replace it. These are substitute commodities, made possible by the high price brought about by the lack of sufficient conventional oil - which is what Hubbert predicted. Oil prices hit their all time peak just before the Great Recession hit, and then climbed back nearly as high as soon as recovery commenced. Only the combination of alternative "oil" production, and Saudi deliberate over-production, brought the price back down to a lower stable, but still historically high, level.

      Farmers pumping the Ogallala Aquifer dry are welcome to try to come up with a (much higher priced) substitute water that still allows them to raise cows profitably.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    13. Re:Have we seen Peak Meat? by careysub · · Score: 2

      I expect that cultured meat has the same potential to bring down the cost of meat.

      Thanks to the cyanobacteria that provide the food, it looks like cultured meat has a very good environmental footprint, the only rival is poultry.

      But that does not mean it will be cheap. There is a lot more expensive high tech involved in this that raising cows. I'm not seeing any predictions right now that it will even reach the price of real beef.

      However, while I can't recall what it's called right now, there is an effect known in economics that making a product more efficient actually ends up using even more energy because more efficiency means cheaper cost to the consumer and that in turn drives more consumer use.

      Jevons "Paradox". I put that in quotes because it has been hard to find good demonstrations of its existence, and no a priori reason to believe it is any sort of "law". Lower prices (from efficiency gains) will increase use, but the prediction that it will always, or usually, or even often, exceed efficiency gains is not well founded, nor well documented. It glaringly fails with domestic refrigerators for example (a five fold improvement in energy efficiency did not lead to a six fold increase in the number of refrigerators).

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    14. Re:Have we seen Peak Meat? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I heard some planets have this thing called Water Cycle, such that water falling on the ground is no different than water falling into a reservoir and then being pissed onto the ground by animals. who knew?

      And now you've also heard of a thing called fossil water :)

      Water drawn from the Great Plains aquifer for example is only part of the water cycle in the very broadest sense, and it is in practice being drained much faster than its being replinished.

      More generally, yes, farming does not remove water from the world. However, a lot of water is either unusable (salty) or not quite where you want it. For example, coastal Norway gets tons of rain, far more than coastal California, but being full of fjords (and blue parrots), and being rather cold and dark half the year it's not very productive for farming.

      So yes, the water will cycle, but not necessarily where you want it to. If you are using more water than an area can support, you're either depleting something, like an aquifer or a river (which hurts people downstream badly), or you need a ton of energy to get the usable water.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    15. Re:Have we seen Peak Meat? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      But that does not mean it will be cheap. There is a lot more expensive high tech involved in this that raising cows. I'm not seeing any predictions right now that it will even reach the price of real beef.

      Not now, certainly, and probably not for a few decades. But eventually?

      Jevons "Paradox". I put that in quotes because it has been hard to find good demonstrations of its existence, and no a priori reason to believe it is any sort of "law". Lower prices (from efficiency gains) will increase use, but the prediction that it will always, or usually, or even often, exceed efficiency gains is not well founded, nor well documented. It glaringly fails with domestic refrigerators for example (a five fold improvement in energy efficiency did not lead to a six fold increase in the number of refrigerators)

      Two things: one, markets are not perfectly elastic. Secondly, humans are not rational and are much less worried about on going costs than up front ones. The efficiency gain doesn't make the upfront cost cheaper.

      I mean if only markets were infinitely elastic and humans were perfectly rational entities interested only in pursuit of profit then economics would work!

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    16. Re: Have we seen Peak Meat? by Jesus+H+Rolle · · Score: 1

      I expect that cultured meat has the same potential to bring down the cost of meat. However, while I can't recall what it's called right now, there is an effect known in economics that making a product more efficient actually ends up using even more energy because more efficiency means cheaper cost to the consumer and that in turn drives more consumer use.

      Jevon's paradox is what you're after: utilizing a resource more efficiently can lead to higher demand of that resource. Of course, a person can only eat so much.

    17. Re:Have we seen Peak Meat? by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 3, Informative

      From your own link, the average farm in America spends $17,000 annually on energy for pumping water.

      Actually, my link says the average farm in America that irrigates spent $17,238 in 2012 (though if you divide the $2.7 billion total pumping costs against the 229,237 farms that irrigate, that comes out to $11,778 by my calculator -- close enough for government work, I suppose).

      There are just over 900 million acres of farmland in the U.S. That means the ~55 million acres that irrigate are ~6% of total farmland . The other 94% use only water from the sky.

      Another way to look at it is that $2.7 billion total irrigation costs across 900 million total acres comes out to $3 per acre . Taking corn as an example, the national average yield of 175 bushels per acre at an exceptionally conservative spot price of $3/bushel (it was about twice that in the same time frame as the above irrigation numbers, and is still higher today) means your $3/acre irrigation expenses are just over one half of one percent of your $525/acre revenue.

      Irrigation in the U.S. is minuscule any way you slice it. The only way to make it look even remotely scary is to throw out misleading numbers in a vacuum.

    18. Re:Have we seen Peak Meat? by Kiuas · · Score: 1

      The shock-and-awe water consumption numbers like the ones OP threw out are mostly water to grow the grass/grain the animals eat. Nearly all of that comes straight from the sky or from local wells [usda.gov], with no purification or disposal required.

      Yes, but the problem is that groundwater reserves are not infinite. Due to heavy demand by agriculture, you're currently using them faster than they're being refilled. Quoting the link ('Groundwater Depletion in the United States (1900–2008)' by U.S department of the interior):

      Conclusions

      This study assessed long-term groundwater depletion in 40 separate aquifer systems or subareas, and one land use category. The cumulative volume of groundwater depletion in the United States during the 20th century is large—totaling about 800 cubic kilometers (km3) and increasing by an additional 25 percent during 2001–2008 (to a total volume of approximately 1,000 km3). Cumulative total groundwater depletion in the United States accelerated in the late 1940s and continued at an almost steady linear rate through the end of the century. In addition to widely recognized environmental consequences, groundwater depletion also adversely impacts the long-term sustainability of groundwater supplies to help meet the Nation’s water needs. Groundwater depletion also is a small contributor to global sea-level rise, but sufficiently large that it needs to be recognized as a contributing factor and accounted for when explaining long-term global sea-level rise. In general, unconfined aquifers exhibit greater volumetric depletion than do confined aquifers, although the latter tend to have greater water-level declines. Depletion in confined aquifers is derived primarily from leakage and storage depletion in adjacent low-permeability confining units. Depletion is also greater in the semiarid to arid western States than in the humid eastern States because of the greater potential for recharge to offset or balance withdrawals in humid areas. A variety of methods were used to estimate long-term depletion in this study. The most reliable depend on direct measurements of water-level changes in the aquifer systems. In a few cases, independent methods were available to facilitate cross-checking of the accuracy of the estimates. These generally supported the reliability of the estimates.

      If nothing is done to make water use sustainable, then getting fresh water is going to get a lot more energy intensive and costly when the aquifers start running dry.

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    19. Re:Have we seen Peak Meat? by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      See my above more detailed post -- only about 6% of U.S. farmland is irrigated. Even if all the scary stories about groundwater are true, you're probably looking at only a percentage point or two of crops that would be affected.

    20. Re:Have we seen Peak Meat? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Why would lab grown meat be inferior? It should be much better. It can be kept sterile so no need to pump it full of antibiotics or wash it in chlorine. It should be possible to tailor it to your tastes, precisely controlling the fat content, the texture, the size and shape...

      Besides which, most meat consumed in the West is just minced up. Burgers, fillets, crap like that. Most people already can't afford to eat prime meat on a regular basis.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    21. Re:Have we seen Peak Meat? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile we have been swimming in "peak oil" for decades since the "peak oil" nuts arrived.

    22. Re: Have we seen Peak Meat? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      More BS from "peak oil" nuts. We never hit "peak oil". Why are you talking about US production only? The US doesn't produce most of the world's oil. You "peak nuts" never learn. Oil is oil. Your re-definition of "peak oil" to mean "conventional oil fields" is more silliness so you can keep bleating about "peak oil" while you prep your bunker.

    23. Re:Have we seen Peak Meat? by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      Why would lab grown meat be inferior? It should be much better. It can be kept sterile so no need to pump it full of antibiotics or wash it in chlorine. It should be possible to tailor it to your tastes, precisely controlling the fat content, the texture, the size and shape...

      Getting rid of the antibiotics in meat production should already be a done deal, but I suppose you'll have to figure out a way to disincentivize it for ranchers and feed lots.

      Don't get me wrong... I hope you're onto something there. I suspect that even if lab grown meat is the equal of the delicious variety grown in nature, there will still be a Veblen market for the authentic stuff.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    24. Re:Have we seen Peak Meat? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      With the resources necessary to raise a pound of beef (1799 gal water) and pork (576 gal water), I suppose the world may indeed hold a future in which only the ultra rich can afford the pleasure of meat on the hoof.

      This is a giveaway that you probably live in the American West. Here in the northeast, 1799 gallons of water means almost nothing.

      That being said, I can hardly wit until we perfect vat grown meat. The carnivore in me understands that killing other beings is just part of the natural cycle of predator/prey relationships, but not having to kill animals would be great.

      The final nail in the old school meat business ill happen when they perfect synthetic bacon.

      Then we'll be discussing whether cows should go extinct. I don't see chickens going away. We'll probably use them just for eggs.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    25. Re:Have we seen Peak Meat? by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Society is too big for cows to go away completely. Even if the vast majority of meat comes from synthetic sources, there will always be some market for the real thing.

    26. Re:Have we seen Peak Meat? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Society is too big for cows to go away completely. Even if the vast majority of meat comes from synthetic sources, there will always be some market for the real thing.

      Yes - you are correct. There are third world countries that still rely heavily on cows, and goats, that wouldn't be getting the technology until very late if ever. I didn't take that into account.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    27. Re:Have we seen Peak Meat? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      Making farmland and large cities in deserts certainly depletes groundwater.

      Aquifers are a great place to store floodwater for hard times. So the studies of that have started.

      Desalinating water is a perfect solar application too.

      I just don't see reason to worry about "running out of water", it's just an engineering problem.

    28. Re:Have we seen Peak Meat? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Aquifers are a great place to store floodwater for hard times. So the studies of that have started.

      they are to an extent. One of the biggest sources is the Great Plains aquifer, which for a large area is covered with a layer of impermeable rock and in a semi arid region. To replenish that aquifer, you'd have to draw water from far off.

      Desalinating water is a perfect solar application too.

      Indeed yes, though it is power hungry, and would likely require an awful lot of it. Doable, but expensive and would probably require a substantial bump in sloar cell production capacity worldwide to be practical. It would also bump the price of water up above that of electricity relative to energy input.

      I just don't see reason to worry about "running out of water", it's just an engineering problem.

      Engineering is the art of compromise. The way of choosing is usually money, even after assigning monetary value to some non monetary things. IOW, it's possible but might be far more expensive than anyone is willing or able to afford.

      The difference between actually runing out of water and water merely being so expensive that you can no longer afford it is not a big one in practice.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    29. Re:Have we seen Peak Meat? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      That's chicken little screaming nonsense.

      the United States will always be able to afford to "make" fresh water from saltwater or to store floodwaters as California and other western states will. It won't be expensive either, the most basic kind of civil engineering done or the simplest solar energy use imaginable.

  3. Animal 57. by msauve · · Score: 1

    Google it.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  4. Most Meat Is Junk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    When you think what you get out of a cow, most of it is junk. You get a lot of rump, some sirloin and very little fillet. It's largely the same with a chicken, where only the breast is quality meat. Lab grown meat has the potential to deliver fillet quality meat at reasonable prices, without the gristle or other undesirable content. You could also tailor the fat content for either a better taste or for people who want to lose weight.

    I'm all up for an increase in affordable quality meat, because fillet is too expensive and cheaper cuts of beef aren't that nice.

    1. Re:Most Meat Is Junk by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      Only chicken breast is quality? You need to look at the insane number of wings sold, and the large number of people who prefer dark meat. That comment was just stupid.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    2. Re:Most Meat Is Junk by gravewax · · Score: 1

      what the fuck are you on? rump and sirloin are some of the best cuts when cooked correctly, fillet while tender doesn't usually have the flavour. a chicken the best cut is the thigh not the breast.

  5. Another of my ideas stolen from slasdot by backslashdot · · Score: 1

    https://m.slashdot.org/story/6...

    See my comment from 2005.

  6. Soylent Green by Templer421 · · Score: 1

    It's made from Employees!

  7. Blockchain grown meat? by slazzy · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Still waiting for a blockchain grown meat company to invest in.

    --
    Website Just Down For Me? Find out
    1. Re:Blockchain grown meat? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Each meal is tracked from free range farm to the plate? The food has a blockchain and only qualified people had access to the process.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re: Blockchain grown meat? by Griffone · · Score: 1

      Kinda sucks to pay $30 processing fee per meal...

      And the week wait time is a killer.

      --
      I used to have a cool sig.
  8. Re:World's Second Largest Meat Processor Invests I by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile, the world's largest meat processor, BeauHD, invests in shitty Slashdot posts.

    I think this may actually be the funniest thing I've ever read on /., and my hat is off to you sir.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  9. Re: Moscow Donald's Prison Adventure! by Griffone · · Score: 1

    So... what you're saying is you're NEW around here then??

    Remember the Good Ole Days? When it was all about the Hot Grits!?

    Where has the time gone?! All the good trolls must've grown up...

    --
    I used to have a cool sig.
  10. Follow this model by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

    It's based on veggies, but it could work just as well for meat: Link

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  11. Animal cruelty and not being a vegan asshole by sg_oneill · · Score: 2

    I've always felt uncomfortable about meat, and animal suffering. In the past we where able to console ourself that animals are not conscious, dont have feelings, etc, but as science progresses we're realising that this isn't the case.

    BUT, I absolutely detest vegans and vegetarians who insist on forcing their shitty diet on us using moral blackmail and abusive insinuation that meat eaters are murderers , etc. And anyway, I really like meat.

    So this might be the way forward. Tasty tasty cowflesh, without the dead cow.

    Im sure the vegan holier than though folks will still think up some reason to hate it. Fuck em

    --
    Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    1. Re:Animal cruelty and not being a vegan asshole by JCWDenton · · Score: 1

      Don't confuse moral blackmail with owning the moral high ground. Eliminating suffering is a perfectly good argument to try and convince someone to go vegan. Just like we would reduce suffering by no longer choosing to have children for our selfish reasons of personal happiness, content at accepting all the possible suffering one's kid might go through. Both arguments seem to get the recipient especially irate.

    2. Re:Animal cruelty and not being a vegan asshole by PoopJuggler · · Score: 2

      So despite your moral apprehension to killing animals, you're going to kill animals just to spite those who stand against it.

    3. Re:Animal cruelty and not being a vegan asshole by The+Mysterious+Dr.+X · · Score: 1

      There's mounting evidence to indicate that plants have their own slow-motion version of pain, memory, and communication. So going vegan to prevent animal suffering is kind of like the Chick-fil-A cows who say to eat more chicken, except it's the plants who become the target.

      Still, it's probably a lot easier for most people to accept that animals have feelings than to feel bad for eating plants. I get that. I just wanted to point out that not everybody wins.

      Of course, there's also the point that the plants wouldn't be grown at all if not to be eaten. But that same argument could be made for most of the animals in question, too.

      This is kind of like the problem of robots replacing factory workers. Sure, the animals don't have to be eaten anymore, but now what will happen to them?

    4. Re:Animal cruelty and not being a vegan asshole by Khashishi · · Score: 2

      I'm a vegan, and I think this is great news. Not everybody is going to go vegan, so giving people an alternative is a net benefit to the world.

    5. Re:Animal cruelty and not being a vegan asshole by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Most vegans I know (I know a lot) hate Tyson foods, but do support Memphis Meats.

    6. Re:Animal cruelty and not being a vegan asshole by erapert · · Score: 1

      ...as science progresses we're realising that this isn't the case.

      1. Define "conciousness".
      2. [citation needed]

      BUT, I absolutely detest vegans and vegetarians who insist on forcing their shitty diet on us using moral blackmail and abusive insinuation that meat eaters are murderers , etc. And anyway, I really like meat.

      Agreed. Bottom line: animals eat each other. Veganism and vegetarianism are nothing but human virtue signalling.

      So this might be the way forward. Tasty tasty cowflesh, without the dead cow.

      Until some fool decides to re-define it as still being immoral because it's still a kind of cow (and, no, this is different from fetuses). From a sane perspective the advantage here is efficiency. It's price per pound of meat that will determine whether this succeeds or fails.

      Im sure the vegan holier than though folks will still think up some reason to hate it. Fuck em

      Agreed. They'll think up a reason to hate it because for them it's about moral posturing not about actually doing good in the world or preventing suffering. Proof: vegans do not advocate the extermination of natural predators-- even if they did then that itself is hypocritical.

  12. Re:World's Second Largest Meat Processor Invests I by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    Huh?

    I know people dislike a lot of BeauHD's posts, but WTF? Why this one?

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  13. Side business that y'all have forgot ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Right now to get beef you need to raise a bovine, and slaughter it

    To get mutton, you need to raise a lamb before slaughtering it

    Same with chicken meat, and fish

    If meat can be grown in lab, they can grow not only beef, chicken meat, mutton, fish, they can also grow all sort of exotic meat - Panda Meat, for example - and sell 'em to people who would like to sink their teeth in

    Plus, they need not kill any Panda

  14. Re:ethical by The+Mysterious+Dr.+X · · Score: 1

    Thus it was that the cow became an endangered species.

  15. Or is technology suppression the real objective? by shanen · · Score: 1

    The story caught my attention for the large number comments, but most of them are apparently anonymous trollage. (My settings can't see AC. Happily.) The only aspect I could imagine that might have made the story legitimately interesting would be the potential conflict of interest:

    Why would a profitable meat company want to destroy its own business?

    Perhaps the real goal is to stop the changes, or at least slow them down, by buying up the competing technology--and then sitting on it as long as possible. These days that's become one of the main uses of patents, though it started a long time ago. Do I need to review the history of FM radio?

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  16. Re:World's Second Largest Meat Processor Invests I by sexconker · · Score: 1

    Because of the opportunity the headline provided. I don't think BeauHD's posts are any worse than the msmash's or whoever else's. They're all shit. Slashdot is a zombie.