Emergence of Lab-Grown Meat Poses New Questions for Religious Leaders (wsj.com)

Lab-grown meat is becoming closer to a reality. But this new technology poses new questions for people who typically avoid meat for religious or ethical reasons. An anonymous reader shares a report: Lab-grown meat has sparked a debate among rabbis in Israel about whether cell-cultured is the same as conventional meat and should fall under the same guidelines for keeping kosher. "There is a disagreement about it and there is a conversation. Also, definitely, there are new questions about lab-meat," says Rabbi Yuval Cherlow, an expert on kosher tradition and bioethics. WSJ has posted a video in which you can hear more from Rabbi Cherlow.

Comments

Someone Somewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone somewhere will start a religious campaign or social media protest over it in one way or another.

Re:Someone Somewhere

[cayenne8]

For me at least....the most IMPORTANT thing I would insist upon is that whenever artificial meat is sold, whether in a grocery store OR in a restaurant...I want by law to have it CLEARLY labeled as such.....so I can readily avoid this shit.

If others want it, more power to them, but I want it clearly labeled so I can make that choice.

We should all be able to easily know what our food is and where it comes from so we can better make our individual decisions on what we and our families ingest.

Re:Someone Somewhere

[srmalloy]

Well, if you want to get really technical, since meat grown in a lab neither chews its cud nor has cloven hooves, all lab-grown meat will, by definition, be trayf. It may be thrashed out that the lab-grown meat, because it is essentially nothing more than a remotely-grown part of the donor animal, inherits the status of the donor animal -- so lab-grown pig tissue is still trayf, because it's still from an unclean animal -- but I don't expect that pork will be determined to be parv just because it's no longer connected to the animal the original tissue came from.

Re:Someone Somewhere

[Calydor]

Not sure why you think you should have any control or knowledge about your GRAPHICS CARD if your purchase it. If you want to control what you PUT IN YOUR COMPUTER, you should BUILD it yourself. Otherwise you are being sold PLASTIC AND PRECIOUS METALS and nothing more. Nobody is making you buy it.

How does that logic sound? Look forward to getting a refurbished Voodoo II card next time you 'upgrade'.

Re:Someone Somewhere

[Opportunist]

Hmm... personally, I'd think that artificial meat would be less contaminated with antibiotics and growth hormones, but to each their own.

Re:Someone Somewhere

[Applehu Akbar]

I would like artificial meat to be labeled as such because I would count the low environmental impact as being an advantage. I’m sure that initially it would be a ground beef replacement, and as such I would prefer it and seek it out in burger-type meals.

It will take time before lab meat gets the mouthfeel and taste of fine steak, but here again it being lab grown is a factor that I would count as a positive in comparingwhichb steak I would buy.

Re:Someone Somewhere

[Applehu Akbar]

Ethically, lab meat is going to enjoy a big advantage. Vegetarians may start eating it because no killing is involved. But because religion is perennially behind the times on adapting to new things, a ‘revelation’ may be required for it to become accepted into dietary law.

The same is going to hold for vegans, who are basically the religious wing of the vegetarian movement.

Re:Someone Somewhere

[jellomizer]

Yea! I read enough Science Fiction to know anything man made with science is going to backfire and cause a dystopia type of future.

Your statement is full of contradictions. I am fine with clear labeling, but because it is artificial you automatically place it on the avoid list, because you want to make a decision if it is healthy or not. Not based on science or research, but from a culture that is portrayed via science fiction that all things artificial is bad.

Now if we can meet our protein requirements, with a food that meets our nutritional needs, while being easy, cheap and more environmental to create without having to raise and slaughter animals, all the better.

Now our natural food, is filled with a bunch of toxins both natural (as every life form that exists, seem to have evolved some protection from being too healthy to predators) and artificial (pollution, medication, unsanitary living environment) that is going to kill us anyways. A clean lab grown meat, may be much better for us, and not be abomination food of the future, that we have been warn about. The main reason why it was warned about wasn't based on science, but needing something that will cause conflict in a story to make it interesting.

Re: Someone Somewhere

[houghi]

Labeled, yes, avoiding it, no. I do eat things because I like them, not oit of principle. If it tastes goos, I eat ot. If it does not, I don't. Just like any other food.

Re:Someone Somewhere

[Evtim]

Don't bother with his choice, it is his to make. We should have clear labels on our food, period.

Westerners are becoming dangerously collectivists. The name of the game today is "If I don't want it, you also can't have it" Stop this shit!

Re:Someone Somewhere

[Can'tNot]

It is critical that genetically modified food be labeled, so that we can make informed decisions about whether we might be eating something that's been tainted by creepy science that I don't understand.

It's necessary that the asbestos content of packaged foods be marked clearly, in large print, so that we can avoid it. How am I supposed to know how much asbestos is in my food if it isn't labeled?

Foods that aren't made out of 100% whole grains absolutely need to have flashing lights and warning sirens to ensure that I know that these grains don't meet my minimum standard for wholeness.

What? Arbitrary distinctions without any basis or rational? I know exactly what should and should not be in food! I've been eating for almost my whole life!

Re: Someone Somewhere

[ezelkow1]

I love lamp

Re:Someone Somewhere

[DontBeAMoran]

We should all be able to easily know what our food is and where it comes from so we can better make our individual decisions on what we and our families ingest.

You mean like all the fucking companies who keep adding animal products and byproducts into the food they sell? As an example, I'm vegan and lactose intolerant and I have to avoid most vinegar chips because those idiots put lactose in them. I mean, I know I have to avoid cheese-flavoured chips, but vinegar? What a bunch of morans.

Re:Someone Somewhere

[ranton]

I don't understand the purpose of your analogy. Is it to agree with him? Do you think you have the ability to determine where each part of your video card was built and through what process it was built? Do you think you know each line of proprietary code which allows it to function?

People buy video cards based on reviews and company reputation (or perhaps just shiny ads). Cultured meat would be no different. If Tyson chicken started selling cultured meat without labeling it, and its quality wasn't as good as normal chicken, people would simply start buying chicken from other brands. They would be able to fool people for a while, just like NVidia could if they started selling subpar video cards to save money, but soon the brand would take a significant hit.

Re: Someone Somewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Crap. Beef is the worst meat there is. Even goat is better. Lamp is better, veal is even better and pork is best ... now someone go make some artificial pork

Lamp is wonderful when you want a light meal.

Re:Someone Somewhere

[Dragonslicer]

Well, if you want to get really technical, since meat grown in a lab neither chews its cud nor has cloven hooves, all lab-grown meat will, by definition, be trayf. It may be thrashed out that the lab-grown meat, because it is essentially nothing more than a remotely-grown part of the donor animal, inherits the status of the donor animal -- so lab-grown pig tissue is still trayf, because it's still from an unclean animal -- but I don't expect that pork will be determined to be parv just because it's no longer connected to the animal the original tissue came from.

There's pretty much no chance that it would be unconditionally considered trayf. Like you said, it will almost certainly inherit the status of the animal that the initial cells were taken from. There is a chance that some more liberal rabbis will consider the initial cells to be such a small part of the animal that it loses all connection to the original animal, so lab-grown beef or chicken would be pareve (lab-grown pork would most likely still be trayf); there would be minority opinions on other things that could be cited as precedent. Of course, if the initial cells are created artificially and don't come from an animal at all, the majority would most likely consider it pareve.

Re: Someone Somewhere

[magusxxx]

The best lamp I ever had was when I visited Fragile, Italy.

Re:Someone Somewhere

[scourfish]

If there is enough of a market demand for "non-lab grown meat" then the suppliers of that can voluntarily label their product as such.

Re:Someone Somewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Meh I'm sure it it matters their God will turn up to clarify the issue.
I mean it'd be incredibly petty to make people guess your intentions based on information a couple thousand years old so he probably wouldn't do that to his chosen people, and their god definitely exists right?

Re: Someone Somewhere

[PopeRatzo]

I like how you took the joke in a seasonal direction, while still keeping it light. Well done (which is how I like my lamp, with a nice mint sauce)

Re:Someone Somewhere

[Cryacin]

Don't worry. That extra tentacle is a feature, not a bug. Here's a link to japanese hentai cartoons that prove my point! (link redacted)

Re: Someone Somewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

I love lamp

Every time I eat it, I just light up.

Re: Someone Somewhere

[Cryacin]

I'm less of a fan of the PHP stack.

Re:Someone Somewhere

[Strider-]

But because religion is perennially behind the times on adapting to new things, a ‘revelation’ may be required for it to become accepted into dietary law.

Uh, this is the whole point of the article. The rabbinical school is she's of the curve here, debating things long before it hits mainstream. They are consulting both the secular experts and those well versed in religious doctrine. It will be interesting to see what becomes of it.

Re:Someone Somewhere

[PopeRatzo]

I am fine with clear labeling, but because it is artificial you automatically place it on the avoid list, because you want to make a decision if it is healthy or not.

The consumer is paying the bill, so they can base their decision on any damn thing they choose.

Put a label on it.

Re:Someone Somewhere

[Calydor]

No, my point is that when you buy a graphics card, or a pair of pants, or pretty much ANYTHING, you want some amount of control and knowledge on what it is you're buying. The AC suggested you should just shop blindly and be thankful for what you get, or do a Back To Nature skit where you make everything yourself from scratch.

Re:Someone Somewhere

[aicrules]

But it's not an animal to start with so none of your follow-up criteria even apply. Fruit has "meat" but it's fruit, not animal. Yes, the kosher rules of how the food is handled and prepared apply, but it is not an animal that must be sub-classified by its physical characteristics. Not as clear cut as you make it sound.

Re:Someone Somewhere

[Applehu Akbar]

Ironically, these same people who think that lab grown meat is a great thing are against GMOs. By definition, lab grown meat is a GMO. Non-GMO meat will not grow to size from a "culture".

I’m against mandatory labeling of GMOs because GMO is not an ingredient. It would make as much sense as labeling for the day or the week a product is packed. Any manufacturer can put “No GMO on a product to please the Luddite market segment.

Lab meat, on the other hand, is a fundamentally different product from animal meat. It’s not going to look or taste the same, especially at first.

Re:Someone Somewhere

[Jason Levine]

I could see it inheriting the status of the animal it comes from. Right now, the biggest issue with making cheese kosher is the rennet. This is traditionally made from the lining of a calf's stomach. The problem with this, for kashrut purposes, is that you now have rennet derived from a meat-based source mixing with dairy - and mixing milk and meat is a big kosher no-no. (Many cheese makers have gotten around this by using vegetarian friendly rennets like microbial rennet.) So I could see a lab grown steak being considered as the same as the version that comes from an actual cow. There's still the issue of "kosher slaughter" (there are rules on how to kill the animal), but those might be somewhat waived as the "animal" is just a bunch of cells in a lab/processing facility, not an actual animal.

Re:Someone Somewhere

[BlazeMiskulin]

US Federal law prohibits the use of (added) hormones in most meat animals. The use of antibiotics (for treating illness) must be followed by sufficient time to clear the system before slaughter. The EU has similar legislation in place, and just passed even stricter legislation, set to take effect in 2020.

The meat you're buying right now is "hormone and antibiotic free"[1].

[1] All meat contains naturally-occurring hormones to some degree

Re:Someone Somewhere

[thegarbz]

it would be a ground beef replacement, and as such I would prefer it

Why do you instinctively give up on quality just because something is ground?

Ever had a spaghetti bolognese made from minced wagyu? I'm guessing not or you probably wouldn't have made that comment. Even for burgers I buy high quality beef and then mince it, and people don't understand why my burgers taste fantastic despite being the bare essentials (i.e. no fancy toppings).

Re: Someone Somewhere

[nitehawk214]

Also the meta-meta pun of keeping lamp "light".

Re:Someone Somewhere

[mspohr]

I don't think that's a good assumption. God knows what chemicals, hormones, antibiotics, etc. they put into lab grown meat in order to get it to grow.

Re:Someone Somewhere

[es330td]

Henry Ford II used to rave to his staff about the burgers in the company cafeteria. An employee wondered what made them so great so he went to the chef and asked. The chef's response was to drop a filet mignon into the meat grinder. Nothing more need to be said.

Re:Someone Somewhere

[skam240]

Does it?

Re:Someone Somewhere

[DaveV1.0]

Do you even know what a prion is? Prions are not naturally occurring in meat, they are an infectious agent.

Re:Someone Somewhere

[phantomfive]

Ever had a spaghetti bolognese made from minced wagyu?

I think the sauce would cover the flavor of the wagyu and then ruin it. All wagyu needs is a dash of salt and it's the perfect meal.

Re:Someone Somewhere

[HiThere]

Just wait until they genetically modify pigs to "chew the cud".

Re:Someone Somewhere

[Applehu Akbar]

What hormones and "chemicals" need to be added to lab meat? It's pure meat.

Re:Someone Somewhere

[Applehu Akbar]

The reason that currently available alpha-test lab meat looks like "ground" beef is that getting to the structure and mouthfeel of steaks, chops, etc. requires further development. Meat will have to be grown on a scaffolding that properly emulates cartilage and bone.

Re:Someone Somewhere

[Applehu Akbar]

No, the whole point is that although lab meat is an ethical no-brainer, religious faiths may have objections based on their internal laws. If it never had hooves, does G-d still consider it meat?

Re:Someone Somewhere

[mspohr]

If you'll read the Wikipedia article on lab grown meat, it requires lots of additives. Unlike plants which convert CO2 in air plus trace elements nitrogen and potassium, etc. to food, lab meat requires a "growth medium" and a collage "scaffold".
Cultured meat production requires a preservative, such as sodium benzoate, to protect the growing meat from yeast and fungus. Collagen powder, xanthan gum, mannitol and cochineal could be used in different ways during the process.[66]
They currently use "fetal bovine serum" (don't ask) as a growth medium.

One skeptic is Margaret Mellon of the Union of Concerned Scientists, who speculates that the energy and fossil fuel requirements of large-scale cultured meat production may be more environmentally destructive than producing food off the land.[28]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Someone Somewhere

[Can'tNot]

cayenne8 gave an opinion. It's not provable or disprovable.

Also... you understand that reductio ad absurdum is not a logical fallacy, right? I bring this up because the phrase is usually, "Nice [logical fallacy]." and is meant to point out a flaw in the parent's reasoning. Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly fine rhetorical argument.

Re: Someone Somewhere

[Miamicanes]

I'm pretty sure "Salt & Vinegar" flavor comes from anhydrous aluminum acetate... basically, aluminum combined with acetic acid to make an ionic crystalline salt not unlike sodium chloride.

It's also handy as an aqueous solution ("Burrow Solution") for preventing swimmer's ear (by making the ear canal too acidic for fungi to grow).

I'm guessing, but I think it might be sold in grocery stores as the stuff you'd use to make homemade pickles (or to "pickle" food in general).

Lactic acid is probably used to tweak its physical properties without negatively affecting the taste.

Interesting trivia: "white vinegar" is literally watered-down acetic acid, but it's illegal (in the US, Europe, and most places) to literally add water to acetic acid & sell it as "vinegar" -- they have to be able to prove it came from a "food" process (like fermentation) rather than being chemically synthesized and diluted.

Re:Someone Somewhere

[ranton]

We should have clear labels on our food, period.

You cannot possibly label food with every possible piece of information someone may or may not care about. Should all non-organic food be labelled non-organic? Should you label the state it was grown in? Should you label the month the animal's mother was born in? If you don't draw the line somewhere, anyone with a good PR campaign could mandate anything be present on labeling.

Treating anything that is different than the norm as something which automatically requires new labeling requirements is not something I agree with. Food companies are certainly free to add labeling such as "non-cultured" if they think consumers would care enough to purchase more of their product. You can easily find foods labeled non-GMO or gluten free or hormone free or free range if you care enough about those things. The same would be true for traditionally grown meat once cultured meat becomes common.

Re:Someone Somewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

The objection to antibiotic use in meat production has nothing to do with them being present in what we consume; it's that the heavy usage of antibiotics in production promotes the growth of resistant strains of bacteria.

Re: Someone Somewhere

[desdinova 216]

it's a major award

Re: Someone Somewhere

[desdinova 216]

I think I got a major award from there.

Re: Someone Somewhere

[desdinova 216]

at least no one got overly pedantic over this

Re:Someone Somewhere

[grep -v '.*' *]

Should you label the month the animal's ... was born in?

OMG, this hamburger contents was born in at the end of February? That makes it a Pisces -- it's not a hamburger, it's a fishburger! Pisces and I don't get along well -- get that sushi away from me!

Re:Someone Somewhere

[Applehu Akbar]

Thanks for the reference. Whenever the Union of Concerned Scientists outgasses an opinion on something, I know to believe the opposite.

Re: Someone Somewhere

[c6gunner]

You can want whatever you want. That doesn't mean that anyone has to provide you with it. If you want to know the name, birth date, and social media rating of the kid in China who packaged your graphics card, you totally have the right to want that. And we have the right to laugh at you. And the manufacturer has the right to tell you to piss off.

Re:Someone Somewhere

[mykie242]

I want by law to have it CLEARLY labeled as such

Have you ever known of an instance of something vegan NOT clearly announcing itself as such?

Re: Someone Somewhere

[c6gunner]

Except it doesn't really, since the majority of antibiotics used in farm animals are different than those used in humans. Some antibiotics are used in both, but they tend to be the ones to which many bacteria have already developed resistance, such as penicillin. Certainly nobody is giving cutting-edge clinical antibiotics to farm animals.

In addition to that, the diseases which infect livestock tend not to have much overlap with diseases which infect humans, so it doesn't much matter if they develop resistence. For the remaining subset which DO affect both livestock and humans ... well, I would think that eliminating them from our food supply would be a GOOD thing. How do you propose we do that without antibiotics?

The "antibiotic resistance" argument is an old hippie trope, but it isn't really much of an issue in reality. Certainly, if we are worried about antibiotic resistance, overuse of antibiotics in human populations is a far bigger concern than therapeutic use in farm animals.

Re: Someone Somewhere

[c6gunner]

The consumer is paying the bill, so they can base their decision on any damn thing they choose.

Put a label on it.

The producer is selling the product so they can base their label decisions on any damn thing they choose.

Put a sock in it.

Re:Someone Somewhere

[dhammabum]

Uh, GMO: Genetically Modified Organism. Meat is not an organism. There is no genetic manipulation required in tissue culture. Does that help?

Re:Someone Somewhere

[sarren1901]

Many products do in fact have a stamped on "born on" date. It's not as forthcoming as the "sell by date" but it does exist. Offhand I know some beers will have a "born on date".

Re: Someone Somewhere

[Calydor]

But I'm really just asking to know whether the graphics card is made from plastic and gold or if it's made from whatever tin cans they had lying around. Just as the OP wants to know what kind of meat he's buying and how it was made. We already have something like that in classifying whether meat is free range, whether eggs are from caged hens and so on.

Why are you so opposed to declarations on goods? Do you want to run a scam operation?

Re: Someone Somewhere

[PopeRatzo]

The producer is selling the product so they can base their label decisions on any damn thing they choose.

The producer doesn't exist without consumers, consumers pay for absolutely everything that the producer has, from the money in the CEO's pocket to the intellectual property to the concrete under the processing house to the trucks the producers use to ship to the grocery stores, and even the fucking label and consumers want the label.

So put the fucking label on it. This is not negotiable and it's not going away. Laws requiring labels are coming because companies don't want to put them on voluntarily. So much of this could have been avoided if they'd just done the right thing in the first place. So now we have to do it the hard way.

Re: Someone Somewhere

[c6gunner]

The producer doesn't exist without consumers

The consumers don't exist without producers.

and consumers want the label

No I don't.

Laws requiring labels are coming because companies don't want to put them on voluntarily. So much of this could have been avoided if they'd just done the right thing in the first place. So now we have to do it the hard way.

"If people don't want to do things my way, I'll MAKE them do it, the hard way!"

Spoken like a true fascist. Sure you don't want to put some labels on Jews too, just in case?

Re: Someone Somewhere

[c6gunner]

We already have something like that in classifying whether meat is free range, whether eggs are from caged hens and so on.

All voluntary, feel good labels, largely implemented to justify charging a premium. It's the equivalent of putting "asbestos free!" on the packaging of your graphics card.

Why are you so opposed to declarations on goods? Do you want to run a scam operation?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

Re: Someone Somewhere

[PopeRatzo]

The consumers don't exist without producers.

Come on, you know that's not true. Demand always precedes supply.

I think you're just trying to be cute to make a point. Demand will be met, if not by one producer, then by another. Either way, all the money in the system comes from the people paying the bill...the consumer. The customer is always right, and the customer says, put a fucking label on it.

Re: Someone Somewhere

[c6gunner]

Come on, you know that's not true. Demand always precedes supply.

You think there were people looking to buy shit before there were people making shit?

That's an interesting hypothesis.

I think you're just trying to be cute to make a point. Demand will be met, if not by one producer, then by another.

Consumption will be met, if not by one consumer, then by another.

Either way, all the money in the system comes from the people paying the bill...the consumer.

If you believe this, you don't understand what money is.

The customer is always right

That's a silly little Americanism which nobody actually belies. If the customer is enough of a fuckhead, he will be told to fuck off. It's also completely irrelevant in this case because the entire reason you're asking for the label is so you can avoid the product. By definition you are not the customer; you're a disingenuous bully looking to force others to implement a scheme which helps you further demonize their product.

and the customer says, put a fucking label on it.

No, I don't.

Re: Someone Somewhere

[c6gunner]

So we shiuld let animals die from non-resistant bacteria in order to prevent them dying from resistant bacteria.

I like your logic. Very "To save the village we had to burn the village".

Re:Someone Somewhere

[thegarbz]

Wagyu needs a dash of salt and it's the perfect meal if you're making a perfect steak.
When making a perfect bolognese a bit of salt on beef doesn't cover it. The goal is not to make spaghetti taste like steak.

Re:Someone Somewhere

[thegarbz]

No you missed my point. Why do you think that lab grown meat would taste better than nicely ground beef? You mentioned mouthfeel and I agree with your comment about it initially being ground, but you also said the word "taste" as if it was a throwaway comment rather than a defining factor.

Re:Someone Somewhere

[Applehu Akbar]

I didn't say it would taste better, but that the taste would be similar enough to make it a desirable substitute, and eventually at a competitive price. It would then be more desirable because of its smaller environmental footprint.

Re:Someone Somewhere

[thegarbz]

Well IF that is the case then you'd be right. However that's a very big IF and my comment was mainly aimed at being able to beat supermarket ground beef (normally the cheapest shit thrown in a blender), but they are a long way from even matching proper beef in the taste department.

Re: Someone Somewhere

[Dragonslicer]

From what I understand, many/most Orthodox & Hasidic Rabbinical authorities take the position that even 100% artificially-flavored soy that tastes like bacon is taboo, just "because".

Some, maybe, but certainly not most. There are a few brands of bacon-flavored (really just salt and smoke) snacks, such as Late July corn chips and Cheez-Its, that are hechshered.

By the same token, Reform & Conservative Jews have no qualms about eating pork, since the original prohibition was based on valid health concerns that are now largely moot (though they might still avoid it on holidays for the sake of tradition, and Conservative Jews might feel at least a tiny bit awkward & guilty about eating it openly if they're with anyone likely to criticize them for it).

Reform Judaism holds that observance of Jewish law is not obligatory, so you would be correct there. Conservative Judaism, however, absolutely not. As with any other religion (and really even regular civil/criminal law), different people obey the law to different levels, so there are some people who would identify as Conservative Jews who do eat pork or shellfish. As far as any kind of official position of the Conservative movement or any Conservative rabbi, though, eating pork is still prohibited.

Re: Someone Somewhere

[cayenne8]

Like these coal rollers for example. Look up cayenne8's comment history, you'll quickly see he is very much this kind of person.

Interesting.

Not quite sure what a "coal roller" is, I've not heard that term before.

I'm pretty neutral on coal, never really given it much thought, so, I'm guessing I'm not one......

Re:Someone Somewhere

[ilsaloving]

I would have agreed with you, but then you said

.so I can readily avoid this shit.

It's one thing to label things due to, say potential allergic reactions, etc. It's another thing to label things to validate knee-jerk hysteria.

I for one welcome lab-grown overl... meat. It's infinitely better controlled, which means:
-overwhelmingly lower risk of foreign bodies like bacteria, prions, etc.
-dramatically reduced need for animals, which unfortunately hurts meat farmers but is ultimately far more sustainable. For example, it reduces global deforestation because there's less incentive to burn down forests to create grazing lands.
-significantly easier to regulate, maintain and verify quality, etc.
-dramatic cut to greenhouse gas production (ie: cow farts).

And that's just off the top of my head.

Re: Someone Somewhere

[cayenne8]

Short version: A "coal roller" is a person who modifies their truck (it always seems to be a truck, never a sedan) to run fuel-rich, producing extra smoke.

Ok, not me...I've never owned a truck, only 2 seater sports cars all my life.

Re:Someone Somewhere

[Agent0013]

But more contaminated with chemicals needed to get the stuff to grow artificially. Similar to fake sugar being unhealthy, I bet fake meat will be found to have side effects from the growing process. It is a vat of chemicals after all. Not what I want to eat, that is for sure.

Re:Someone Somewhere

[Agent0013]

Yea! I read enough Science Fiction to know anything man made with science is going to backfire and cause a dystopia type of future.

Your statement is full of contradictions. I am fine with clear labeling, but because it is artificial you automatically place it on the avoid list, because you want to make a decision if it is healthy or not. Not based on science or research, but from a culture that is portrayed via science fiction that all things artificial is bad.

It is not based on science fiction. It is based on the history of foods that industry tries to get people to eat. Fake sugar that ends up making you eat more calories and slowly poisons you to death, fake fat that causes anal leakage among who know what other side effects, false science telling us that fat makes us fat, like thinking that eating chicken will make you a chicken. And then there are the mono-culture problems, look at the banana that disappeared and worries about our other food crops. Don't think for a minute they would allow diversity in their meat vat, it would be more profitable and efficient to keep it all cloned and identical.

A few others for reference. Zyblon B, an insecticide mainly used as a fumigant in grain stores that was responsible for the deaths of an estimated 1.2 million people. Agent Orange, a chemical that would speed the growth of soybeans and allow them to be grown in areas with a short season. Non-food, but technology to save us examples are also easy to find like tetraethyl lead added to gasoline to prevent “knocking” thus causing worldwide health issues and deaths from lead poisoning. Freon as a safe refrigerant to replace the highly toxic refrigerants such as ammonia in common use.

And also remember, the companies that make things will fight for many years to insist their products are safe. Cigarettes are safe and healthy, even doctors smoke them.

Re:Someone Somewhere

[phantomfive]

Yeah, wagyu doesn't taste good if you cook it like a steak. Gordon Ramsay tries that, it doesn't work too well.

Re:Someone Somewhere

[Opportunist]

Our body is a vat of chemicals. Realize what the word "chemical" actually means and then you'll find out that pretty much everything you encounter in your daily life is one.

Re:Someone Somewhere

[Agent0013]

Our body is a vat of chemicals. Realize what the word "chemical" actually means and then you'll find out that pretty much everything you encounter in your daily life is one.

Ok, sure everything is a chemical. Did you actually help with any understanding or clarification with that statement? How about unwanted chemicals. Animals have natural growth hormones. That does not mean we want extra, artificial ones added. Perhaps you like artificial things in your food. Do you eat plastic. It is based on oil, which is derived from old plant matter, so it must be healthy. Do you eat pure BPA also. How about Radicola, with real radium in the drink. It was supposed to be a healthy energy drink. That was until people started dying and needing to be buried in lead lined cases.

Re:Someone Somewhere

[thegarbz]

Are you being sarcastic? Because if you are you're horrendously missing the point.

Re:Someone Somewhere

[phantomfive]

Entirely serious. It is a different type of meat and cannot be cooked the way you would cook Angus.

Re:Someone Somewhere

[Opportunist]

Yes, I do think I helped with understanding and clarification. Because the "chemical == evil" bit is simply bullshit. At least clarify WHAT chemicals you do not want in your food, which you now finally did.

Now there's that new weasel word in there, "artificial". You are aware that pretty much all food today is "artificial", yes? Bread does not grow on trees. Neither does peanut butter. And since there is no sausage animal, I guess it's safe to say that these things have to be manufactured, too. Yes, guess what, from food, but still "artificial".

Re:Someone Somewhere

[thegarbz]

Okay I thought you were making some reference to the bolognese part of my post.

Re: Someone Somewhere

[phantomfive]

If I get a chance, I will try spaghetti bolognese with wagyu because it is a little hard for me to imagine

Waste of time

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not discuss real problems instead of spending time discussing how the invisible master in the sky may think about artificial meat?

Re:Waste of time

[Pinky's Brain]

They never do, why start now?

Re:Waste of time

[Opportunist]

Because we have to start somewhere. This is essentially grownups acting like little Timmy, claiming that his invisible friend Bob said that broccoli is bad.

Re:Waste of time

[CeasedCaring]

I'm with Bob on broccoli...

Re:Waste of time

[jenningsthecat]

Why not discuss real problems instead of spending time discussing how the invisible master in the sky may think about artificial meat?

More to the point, why did editors and moderators feel this qualifies as "news for nerds" or "stuff that matters"? Oh yeah, that's no longer on Slashdot's banner. Still, why would people who are nominally scientifically minded and technologically sophisticated care about kashruth, halal, and the like?

Then again, given the extent to which science and technology have been impeded through the ages by superstition and religious dogma, perhaps this discussion DOES belong here. Then again, (again), perhaps it's good to have some countervailing force in society to check the (sometimes heedless and dangerous) headlong rush of scientific and technological advancement.

Slashdot - the place where I can argue with myself in public and not be bothered by the police or the psychiatrists...

Re:Waste of time

[Anonymous Coward]

There is always one group of ignorant folk who believe that their invisible magic man is better than the others invisible magic man, even though that magic man happens to be the one and the same magic man.

Re:Waste of time

[Opportunist]

So you're with Timmy.

Re: Waste of time

[houghi]

So vi or rmacs?

Re:Waste of time

[PseudoThink]

I came here to post a similar thing. I don't mind seeing this stuff in the news, because I think it's relevant, because a large section of the world's population is religious. That said, I would still appreciate if the news headlines did less to normalize religions, since I think that is part of why it's so common.

I suggest a new headline: "Emergence of Lab-Grown Meat Reveals Additional Contradictions In Delusional Thinking".

Of course, no media outlet will, since religious people are a large part of the market. Alienating them would affect profits, and we can't have that. #sarcasm

Re:Waste of time

[Anonymous Coward]

"The difference between atheists and theists is that atheists are cocky about not knowing the unknowable."

FTFY.

Atheists are cocky about not knowing the answer, and being smart enough to know that they can't just hallucinate up an invisible sky fairy and shove him down everybody else's throat with words like "truth".

Re:Waste of time

[BlazeMiskulin]

Because deciding if "lab-grown pig" is the same as "real pig" is the start of the ethical discussion which we are likely to get to later: Is a "lab-grown person" the same as a "real person"?

If we are to have serious discussions about the ethics and morals of scientific discovery and pushing the limits of what we can do with it, it seems entirely reasonable to bring in the "experts" on ethics and morals. All the ethical issues that are being discussed with regards to modern technology and law are old-hat in religious circles.

Scientists (and geeks) are asking "when does AI become real sapience?" Religion has been asking the same question for millennia, but couching it in different jargon: "Who has a soul?" The debate over whether or not Judas was allowed into Heaven isn't about Judas; it's a debate about finding the line between forced action and personal choice (Judas was just fulfilling God's plan--but then he committed suicide, which is a mortal sin. Is he guiltless because God's plan drove him to do it?)

A good scientist looks at all sources of information--all tools--and uses anything relevant. Religious scholars are a great source of information and insight into almost every ethical issue facing science. Engaging religious leaders and listening to their arguments doesn't mean that science has to follow their advice. Dismissing them all as "useless" or "stupid" is irresponsible and negligent.

And... FWIW: I'm somewhere between "agnostic" and "atheist". I don't believe in God, but--like a good scientist--I'm aware you can't prove a negative; and if He were to knock on my door, I'd invite him in for a glass of scotch.

Re:Waste of time

[skam240]

"More to the point, why did editors and moderators feel this qualifies as "news for nerds" or "stuff that matters"?"

Huh? This totally news for nerds. It's literally exploring how emerging technology is affecting the world we live in. Much of the best science fiction is this.

Re:Waste of time

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I don't think you understood.

Check your reading comprehension skills, carefully reread my post and go educate yourself on the definition of what atheist means.

It is a belief. No atheist ever presented it as fact, but we are god damned cocky.

Re:Waste of time

[Areyoukiddingme]

I dearly love when athiests pretend atheiesm is not a religion.

Atheism is a religion the way not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Re: Waste of time

[c6gunner]

I dearly love when athiests pretend atheiesm is not a religion.

Atheism is a religion the way celibacy is a sexual position.

Re: Waste of time

[mapkinase]

I do not discuss it openly because pearls before swine.

Re:Waste of time

[JThundley]

How dare you mock their religion! The Torah/Bible/Koraan has all the answers! Except when it's inconvenient or it doesn't of course.

Cheeseburger?

[bobstreo]

Lab grown meat with lab grown cheese. Is it kosher? Does it need to be inspected like other sources of meat?

And if meat isn't murder, will PETA support it?

Re:Cheeseburger?

[jellomizer]

PETA doesn't support anything. Especially after they realize how many pests from bugs - rodents - birds. Will get killed in the process of effectively growing vegan food.

Re:Cheeseburger?

[magusxxx]

PETA will support it if they get 5% of the revenue.

3% and they'll just keep their mouth shut.

Re:Cheeseburger?

[spazmonkey]

PETA has had a nasty schism over it that may well turn into a full civil war. The members that primarily care about ethical treatment of animals welcome it. They are apparently a minority, however. Most seem VERY strongly opposed. The arguments I heard were that without cruelty being involved in the process, it weakens the arguments for the elimination of meat from society. Yes, that means much of PETA is not actually interested in animal suffering other than as another tool to eventually legislate mandatory veganism. Nutty as that sounds, that is where they see society going, and eliminating cruelty to animals removes what they see as a powerful tool for their agenda to bring society to more 'enlightened' age where meat consumption is a criminal act.

Re:Cheeseburger?

[Jason Levine]

As someone who cares about animals being treated ethically and humanely, I hate PETA. Their extremist actions paint everyone who cares about animals in a bad light. If lab grown meat tears PETA to bits, I'll welcome lab grown meat for multiple reasons.

Re:Cheeseburger?

[DigiShaman]

PETA = People Eating Tasty Animals.

How is 'cultured meat' any different from a tofu from an ethics point of view? Oh well, at least they've redeemed themselves with this most awesome commercial.

Re:Cheeseburger?

[mspohr]

In 2008, PETA offered a $1 million prize to the first company to bring lab-grown chicken meat to consumers by 2012.[28]

What disagreement could there be?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is lab-grown meat slaughtered pursuant to Biblically-prescribed methods? No.

Is lab-grown meat cleaned of its blood pursuant to Biblically-prescribed methods? No.

Lab-grown meat is not Kosher. END OF STORY.

Re: What disagreement could there be?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the question is more is it meat at all under the Kosher requirements.

It isn't slaughtered, it is harvested from cell cultures.

There is no blood to drain.

Does that make it outside of the rules entirely?

Re: What disagreement could there be?

[Lab Rat Jason]

Technically it's yogurt.

Re: What disagreement could there be?

[Opportunist]

Then you should be fine, provided you don't eat any meat with it.

Re:What disagreement could there be?

[michiganbob]

This is the mindset that has taken over conversation on the internet. "My thoughts on the matter are correct, therefore there can be no discussion. Furthermore, anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot!"

Maybe someone else has a differing view. Maybe they even have some good points. Of course, you'll never know because you don't want a discussion. You just want to be right.

Re: What disagreement could there be?

[DontBeAMoran]

Technically, chocolate is salad.

Re: What disagreement could there be?

[magusxxx]

A better analogy would be it's like sheep wool.

The animal is not harmed and is still around to make more.

Re:What disagreement could there be?

[aicrules]

Is lab-grown meat even an animal? NO, so none of your questions apply.

Re:What disagreement could there be?

[alexo]

Is lab-grown meat slaughtered pursuant to Biblically-prescribed methods?

The bible does not prescribe any methods for slaughtering meat, it prescribes methods for slaughtering animals.

Is lab-grown meat cleaned of its blood pursuant to Biblically-prescribed methods?

It could be. There is nothing that prevents it to be washed and salted prior to preparation (other than ruining the taste but that's a completely different subject).
Not to mention that lab-grown meat may not have any blood in it to begin with.

Lab-grown meat is not Kosher. END OF STORY.

Spoken like a true opinionated ignoramus. You would make Dunning and Kruger proud.

Re:What disagreement could there be?

[alexo]

Thanks for being willing to listen to my opinions on why pedophilia is good for children.

Listening to your opinions can enhance our understanding of the pedophile mind, which can lead to better approaches to prevention and treatment.

About the ethics

[fyngyrz]

But this new technology poses new questions for people who typically avoid meat for religious or ethical reasons.

As far as ethics goes, I see growing a cell culture for food as entirely ethically positive. I see killing an animal for food as ethically dubious on its very best day. I have zero problem with cultured meat; no ethical dithering arises there at all. Make it practical, reasonably edible, and bring it on. The follow-on economic consequences, such as fewer farms where animals are packed like sardines in order to maximize production, look to me to be broadly positive. That the operators of such enterprises will suffer when they fail seems to me to be entirely appropriate.

As to the other, I'm not religious. I have no idea how this will play out in that area.

Re:About the ethics

[jred]

I'm really curious about the ethical aspects. Ethically I don't believe in animal farming, but I don't have a problem with natural harvesting. I'm not hardcore about it, though. Does it make a difference if the source of the cloned cells was killed? Then all of it's clones would be a byproduct of the dead animal.

Re:About the ethics

[jenningsthecat]

Those are pretty much my sentiments on the matter. I would add that cultured meat will probably result in a huge reduction in greenhouse gases. Not only because there won't be huge herds of cattle farting methane, but also because transporting lab-grown meat will probably be much more fuel-efficient. Not to mention the decrease in deforestation rates when cattle farms are no longer required.

I'm also guessing that vat-grown meat won't be a vector for prion diseases. Escherichia coli and salmonella outbreaks will probably be drastically reduced. And there might be a chance to eat 'fortified' meat, making my veg-deficient diet less of a liability. So yes, by all means, bring on the artificial meat. I see a lot of benefits in it, and very few drawbacks.

Re:About the ethics

[magusxxx]

Cutting your finger and putting it in your mouth is second nature. No one is thinking you're a cannibal for doing it.

Re:About the ethics

[Oligonicella]

I see killing an animal for food as ethically dubious on its very best day.

You're out in the wilds, scrub brush, and starving. You have nothing to eat. You see an animal you can overcome to kill and eat. Describe how this is ethically dubious.

Re:About the ethics

[jbmartin6]

It's unclear how ethics enters into the discussion, TFA never mentions ethics. It seems the submitter just gratuitously added the word.

Re:About the ethics

[fyngyrz]

You see an animal you can overcome to kill and eat. Describe how this is ethically dubious.

They have a life.

I have a life.

The presumption that I have the right to take theirs to prolong mine is where the dubious line is. Simple enough.

Love it when this happens

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole paradigm shifts and leaders scramble for answers they won't regret down the line.

When can I get long pig?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the other other whitemeat. And I want to eat what I be.

Re:When can I get long pig?

[Applehu Akbar]

It's the other other whitemeat. And I want to eat what I be.

This may actually become a thing. Before long, celebrity long pig will appear in specialty stores (“Cultured from one of Vin Diesel’s deltoid cells”).

Re:When can I get long pig?

[jenningsthecat]

It's the other other whitemeat. And I want to eat what I be.

I suspect you're trolling, but you raise an interesting point. First, what you're talking about might well be the core of a 'slippery slope' argument that religious leaders could make against lab-grown meat. Second, human cannibalism is about as much of a taboo as pedophilia; I foresee the kind of response to lab-grown 'long pig' that we've already had toward small sex dolls made to look like children. But as with the sex dolls, you just know that at some point somebody will culture human muscle tissue for human consumption, and there will be a market for it.

Re: When can I get long pig?

[c6gunner]

Too bad that the Shroud of Turin is a fake; if it were real you might be able to get some DNA and put together a real body-and-blood-of-christ production line. Would certainly liven up the Sunday Mass.

Re: When can I get long pig?

[c6gunner]

Second, human cannibalism is about as much of a taboo as pedophilia; I foresee the kind of response to lab-grown 'long pig' that we've already had toward small sex dolls made to look like children

The argument against the sex dolls primarily hinges on the idea that they would normalise adult-child sex and therefore lead to more children being abused. I disagree with that assessment but it is at least superficially plausible.

I can't see any similar argument being made against lab-grown human meat. What's the concern? Would anyone seriously think that the availability of such meat would actually lead to more people killing and cannibalising their neighbours? That seems completely absurd.

Lab-grown closer to reality

[110010001000]

Lab-grown meat will be commercially available and consumed as soon as self driving cars arrive and start driving without "safety" drivers. About the same time the Mars colony starts and the first commercial Hyperloop opens.

Re:Lab-grown closer to reality

[alvinrod]

I think we need to get the fusion reactors up and running first to power all of that other stuff. Should probably be about 10 years for that I reckon.

Who knows?

[King_TJ]

My wife is Jewish (while I'm agnostic -- former Roman Catholic).

One thing I've come to realize about Judaism is, they have a lot of rabbis and "fervently religious" who seem to believe a big part of the faith involves a lot of poring over scriptures and making philosophical declarations about what they do or don't mean for fellow Jews.

IMO, some of it borders on the ridiculous, with all the rituals they put themselves through to make sure they're not violating them.... But I suppose that's easy for me to say as an "outsider"? (I'm also convinced that part of the attraction to Judaism is the feeling that they're part of a closer-knit community BECAUSE they have so many strange customs. You know how HAM radio geeks seem to take a strange pride in knowing all sorts of esoteric stuff about radio waves and antenna design? Yeah ... kinda like that.)

But frankly, the different factions of Jews (Conservative, Orthodox, Reform, etc.) appear to me to have come about because there were various levels of commitment people were willing to give to all of these rules, too. People still felt an identity as a Jew but didn't always agree on how much ritual they had to go through as part of it .....

So I'm sure this debate on "lab grown meat" will rage on and on for them, with no conclusive answer that all Jews accept.

Re:Who knows?

[alvinrod]

Just settle it empirically. Feed a few Jews some lab grown bacon and see whether or not Jehovah smites them. Why risk interpreting scripture incorrectly if you can easily test it.

Re:Who knows?

[Shadow of Eternity]

"All"? No, but there will wind up a clear decision that the overwhelming majority accept once the major halahic (jewish law) authorities finish hashing out their disagreements. It's possible this will wind up with different customs similar to how jews from the middle east, north africa, and iberia eat beans and rice during passover while jews from eastern europe don't.

Re:Who knows?

[Megol]

Agnostic is how you spell atheist in the USA. Atheists are all dirty immoral beasts, agnostics are redeemable people that will surely turn religious sooner or later.

Re:Who knows?

[Can'tNot]

Having been raised in a predominantly Christian area, something I didn't understand for the longest time was that when Jews go to ridiculous extremes to follow their rules, that's the point. It's not that they don't know it's ridiculous, it's that the more ridiculous it is the more it shows your dedication when you do it anyway.

It's analogous to a Christian test of faith: Christians get into god's good graces through belief rather than works, so when something arises which exposes that belief as... poorly considered, then they demonstrate their devotion by persevering anyway.

Re:Who knows?

[Dragonslicer]

But frankly, the different factions of Jews (Conservative, Orthodox, Reform, etc.) appear to me to have come about because there were various levels of commitment people were willing to give to all of these rules, too. People still felt an identity as a Jew but didn't always agree on how much ritual they had to go through as part of it .....

Sort of. The Reform movement was the first one to identify itself as such, in the 1800's. It placed ethical behavior above ritual observance, which is a theme that goes back 2500 years; they cited Isaiah 58 in particular.

The Conservative movement was a reaction to the Reform movement. Basically, the Conservative movement acknowledged the need for greater emphasis on ethical behavior that the Reform movement was advocating for, but didn't reject the obligation to follow Jewish law like the Reform movement did. Like Orthodoxy, the Conservative movement follows the specifics of Jewish law, but it has a committee of rabbis that are more willing to change the current law (often based on minority opinions from decisions that were made 1500 years ago) than Orthodox rabbis generally are.

Re:Who knows?

[magusxxx]

To me, an agnostic is someone who believes in a higher power which doesn't have a specific dogma attached to it.

Common sense morality should define the rules. Not a group of people interpreting someone else's interpretation.

Re:Who knows?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know how HAM radio geeks seem to take a strange pride in knowing all sorts of esoteric stuff about radio waves and antenna design?

You realize how wrong it is to compare Jews to HAMs?

Re: Who knows?

[PPH]

Somewhere back in time, some Jews decided people needed to be taught how to protect themselves from bad food.

This is most probably how it started. The wise men observed people dying from following certain practices. They may not have understood the underlying causes, so they made up some rules. The (largely ignorant) population ask why they should follow the rules. So the wise men (priests) make up some crap about all powerful and all knowing beings that will kick your ass if you deviate from the rules. Much like telling a four-year-old not to cross the street "Because I said so."

But then, as others have noted, religious ritual serves to identify and separate different groups. And that has significant political value in terms of maintaining the absolute authority of ruling classes. So we get funny hats, dreadlocks, or blue and red bandanas, tattoos, etc.

Re:Who knows?

[Jason Levine]

One thing you've got to realize about Judaism is that it's massively decentralized. If you wanted a ruling on lab grown meat in Catholicism, it would be easy. The pope (or some bishop under the Pope) gives it the thumbs up and Catholics everywhere grab lab grown steaks in their local supermarkets. With Judaism, though, it's more like thousands of rabbis, each with different opinions and different numbers of people following their rulings. The Conservative and Reform movements are somewhat organized. If their main group says lab grown meat is fine, most of those rabbis will follow this ruling. The Orthodox isn't really a single group, though. There will undoubtedly be Orthodox rabbis that rule for lab grown meat while others rule against it. The debate will go back and forth for years without one clear answer.

To give a different example, look at kitniyot. On Passover, Jews avoid (among other things) leavened bread. Anything that could leaven is also forbidden to the point that many people even use different pots/plates/utensils during Passover. A long time ago, things like corn, rice, and beans were stored in sacks that once held flour. To avoid any cross-contamination, these items - called kitniyot - were banned for Jews from Europe. (Jews from Spain and Africa had a tradition of eating these and still do today.) The reason for this ban has long since disappeared. It would be trivial to buy corn/rice/beans that have never touched flour. However, the kitniyot ban continues due to social momentum more than anything. Some rabbis have said it's okay to eat kitniyot. Others have said to stay away from it. There's no one ruling so, in general, the default ban remains in place.

There are many times when having a decentralized religious system is advantageous, but it also can have its downsides.

Re:Who knows?

[skam240]

For starters, when it comes to God and what not, please believe what ever you want.

With that said, words have fixed meanings and your "personal deffinition" of agnostic is wrong. Here is a correct one https://www.merriam-webster.co... .

Agnostic - a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable

Re:Who knows?

[Oligonicella]

Is that horse you're riding 19 or 22 hands high?

Re:Who knows?

[DigiShaman]

A Muslim that can't find halal food will settle for kosher. That said, this might be the first time a Muslim eats bacon as it didn't actually come from a pig per se. Finally, at least they won't have to shamefully eat Bacobits in the dark; they can have the real thing!

Re:Who knows?

[Anonymous Coward]

An agnostic is someone with the position that it is impossible to know whether or not there is a higher power. The etymology of the word means "not knowing."

I have several agnostic friends and none of them believe in a higher power, but are careful to say the current scientific evidence is not sufficient enough to confidently rule it out.

I think the term you're looking for is spiritual.

Re:Who knows?

[scamper_22]

As a secular Muslim who grew up pretty orthodox, it's the same thing. Lots of day to day details. Have to sit down to pee. I got some good beats for standing and peeing. Which foot to enter the washroom with. What to say before each and every activity...

There's a million different sects and everyone kind of follows their own leader who makes whatever ruling they see fit.

There is definite pride is following more rules.

I'm not here to say these are bad. In some ways, it is very practical. It kind of forces the community to support itself. I know we've always bought halal meat from our own community butcher. And even now as it gets into regular stores, there's still a Muslim supplier/authenticators.

I suspect the same is true of Judaism as you keep that same community and supply chain strong.

Even very secular Muslims will often stick to halal meat when at home.

I definitely suspect some major sects to claim this lab meat is not-halal. There is a prayer that must be done on the 'animals' in addition to the slaughtering method.

Others will be okay with it.

Re:Who knows?

[Chris Mattern]

To me, an agnostic is someone who believes in a higher power which doesn't have a specific dogma attached to it.

The proper term for that is "theist". An agnostic is someone who makes no judgment as to whether there is a God or not, because he feels there's no convincing evidence one way or the other.

Re: Who knows?

[c6gunner]

I have several agnostic friends and none of them believe in a higher power, but are careful to say the current scientific evidence is not sufficient enough to confidently rule it out.

That's a pretty stupid caveat. Scientific evidence can never "confidently rule out" the existence of pretty much anything which you want to believe. Doesn't matter if it's god, fairies, unicorns, big foot, magic, or n-rays. All that scientific evidence lets us say is "we looked in these places, and we didn't see it".

The problem with your friends is that they're completely reversing the burden of proof and then pretending that a claim made with no evidence needs science to disprove it. That's not how rational people think.

Why is there even a debate about this?

[pablo_max]

Seriously, if lab grown "meat" is able to replace the majority of animal meat in terms of safety, taste and nutritional needs, then what's the fucking issue?
No...we better keep cutting huge swaths of forest to graze cattle so I feel a little better about what I'm eating. Better to keep risking those Chicken and Pork viruses which pass to humans because Jesus told you in the bible that you cannot eat lab grown meat... Hint, it doesn't say that.

Re:Why is there even a debate about this?

[Anonymous Coward]

because Jesus told you in the bible that you cannot eat lab grown meat... Hint, it doesn't say that.

And that's not what the summary or article are saying either. It's about kosher guidelines.

Also FYI, most Jews don't care what Jesus had to say anyway.

Re:Why is there even a debate about this?

[Applehu Akbar]

For these reasons, the major religions will come around on the issue, one by one. Here it may take a papal encyclical, there it may take a nitpicking reinterpretation of ancient dietary law or issuance of a new hadith by a popular imam.

Only one religion will remain proudly wedded to natural cattle flesh: the GMO-hating Greens. That one will change one funeral at a time.

Re:Why is there even a debate about this?

[budsetr]

Ah but you are wrong; from the Super Revised Version: Ezekiel 4:16 Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, behold, I will break the staff of bread in Jerusalem: and they shall eat bread by weight, and with care; and they shall drink water by measure, and with astonishment, also eat nothing from a lab or GMO stuff either And I spoke to the Lord, What dost thou mean by lab and GMO? And the Lord said unto me, Wait for it...

Re:Why is there even a debate about this?

[thegarbz]

Seriously, if lab grown "meat" is able to replace the majority of animal meat in terms of safety, taste and nutritional needs, then what's the fucking issue?

Easy answer, it doesn't. That's why there's an issue. If you can only pick a subset of the the things you list then a debate will ensue as to what to eat.

Re:Why is there even a debate about this?

[Chris Mattern]

Jesus told you in the bible that you cannot eat lab grown meat...

Uh, you know that Jesus never laid down any dietary laws, right? In fact, he abrogated a number of more restrictive Judaic religious laws, which later Christians interpreted as including the dietary ones laid down by Moses et al., which is why (most) Christians don't keep kosher.

Religion....

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see how an ancient religion founded in ignorance could conclude that a specific food was risky and set up the rules regarding what to avoid, but to pass this latest development through a screen of modern day magic believers is silly.

There's really no issue here. Just one more demo of how the ancients could not anticipate all the developments of the future, except the one that relates to people believing in magic.

As a former vegan/vegetarian, I'm happy to see alternatives to factory farming of sentient animals for food. Small farms are different because there is chance for animals to at least live out a normal lifespan in relative peace and comfort before having one bad day. Other meat eaters may object to some esoteric urge for the 'real thing', but cultured meat is actually the same, just without pain or cruelty. It's pretty self-evident. The fact that any religion is even debating it is a good indicator of how useless they are in modern times. Humanity needs to grow up.

We might all need to eat lab grown meat ...

[Alain Williams]

Eating real beef, pork, etc, is not climate friendly - producing such meat releases a lot of greenhouse gasses. If lab grown meat releases fewer greenhouse gasses then this could be one small way of not exceeding the 1.5 degree rise. This also depends on lab grown meat getting cheap enough - which it is not today.

Would I eat lab grown meat ? Maybe: I have not tasted any - yet.

Re: We might all need to eat lab grown meat ...

[Pinky's Brain]

I volunteer to push the button to release the anti-fertility virus.

Lack of divine foresight

[apoc.famine]

It's only going to get worse. If we ever discover life off the earth, there's going to have to be a ridiculous amount theological retrofitting and reinterpretation that goes on. At some point, when your tool doesn't work anymore, most sane people start looking for another tool, rather than continuing to bash away ineffectively with their current one while making excuses.

If your god didn't have the foresight to see this shit coming and provide some guidance, perhaps it's time to let go. In the last several hundred years, we've come up with a number of more modern, functional systems of understanding and ethics. We're well past the dusty myths of goat herders, as stories like these clearly illustrate. Time to let go, and catch up with modern times.

It will be better for everyone.

Re:Lack of divine foresight

[Shadow of Eternity]

Speak for yourself, Judaism has accepted the possibility of alien life for millenia.

Re:Lack of divine foresight

[Dragonslicer]

Really? I'd love to see sources for that. And no, I'm not being sarcastic; I really would be interested in seeing the discussion of that.

Re:Lack of divine foresight

[SqueakyMouse]

Speak for yourself, Judaism has accepted the possibility of alien life for millenia.

And did the rabbis conclude it is ok for us to eat the aliens or not?

Re:Lack of divine foresight

[aicrules]

Do they have cloven hooves and chew their own cud?

Re:Lack of divine foresight

[spazmonkey]

At some point, when your tool doesn't work anymore, most sane people start looking for another tool, rather than continuing to bash away ineffectively with their current one while making excuses.

That is a completely rational argument, but as such one that fails to grasp the basic underlying value of religion to the religious. Some people simply cannot handle the uncertainty and lack of defined purpose inherent in the random, infinite universe that the scientific worldview brings. It is the very continuity of religion that holds the value to them. The specific beliefs matter little, it is simply the need for some form of stable anchor of certainty and universal unchanging truth that brings value. If any fundamental tenets had to change, it would lose all value as a security blanket and be transitory like the rest of the cold scary universe. Hence why they work so hard to reconcile religion and observable reality in such byzantine and often absurd ways. Rigidity is required to preserve any value religion has.

Re:Lack of divine foresight

[ljw1004]

If we ever discover life off the earth, there's going to have to be a ridiculous amount theological retrofitting and reinterpretation that goes on.

Given that the Vatican has its own observatory and hosts astronomy scientific researchers, you can be pretty sure that the Catholic Church has already worked through the implications of extraterrestrial life:
https://www.vofoundation.org/f...

Re:Lack of divine foresight

[apoc.famine]

Some people simply cannot handle the uncertainty and lack of defined purpose inherent in the random, infinite universe that the scientific worldview brings.

Bullshit. Most don't even want to try. As time goes on, it turns out that a very, very large percent of people can happily handle cold, hard reality. Look at all of the developed nations in the world. Religiosity is plummeting.

Trying to "reconcile religion and observable reality in byzantine and absurd ways" is very clearly a stupid thing to be doing. What baffles me is that as time goes on, it gets obviously more and more stupid. This is one great example.

As I noted, we've got better alternatives now. Humanity has advanced in the last couple thousand years. If you can't handle the cold, hard reality that science has revealed, you can wrap yourself in a nice warm secular humanist blanket, a philosophical worldview that can actually be reached by facts and reason. And as science continues its march forward, you'll have the psychological tools and philosophical viewpoint to deal with the new things that we find out about the universe and create for ourselves.

Re:Lack of divine foresight

[alexo]

You athiests claim to be the opposite of thiests, but you have one giant thing in common: you're both absolutely sure of the unknowable.

Lumping all atheists in one basket is silly, especially since there is so much disagreement over what "atheism" even means.

Many of us use the word in its original literal meaning. The Latin prefix "a" means "absence" or "lack of", so an "atheist" would translate to: a person "without god", or "lacking religion", and as you know the absence of belief is not the same as a belief in absence.

Contrary to what you imply, we recognize the lack of conclusive evidence and make a choice based on practical considerations like the scientific method and Occam's razor. We are also quite ready to admit that we do not know the answers to some questions but are quite capable leading productive and fulfilling lives without worrying about it too much.

And if you do come with an answer, we will be open to accept it if it can be empirically verified to be better then the others. Once you present a reproducibly testable and falsifiable proof of a higher power, quite a number of atheists will be willing to change their stance and accept it, although it may not be the same higher power that you believe in. I think the FSM is a reasonably strong candidate.

Re:Lack of divine foresight

[alexo]

OK, first, I apologize for implying that all atheists are cocky. Here on slashdot, you can probably see how I got that impression.

Slashdot is not a representative of the broad population, and I would respectfully submit that your impressions are based on just a tiny vocal minority of users. Most people that I came in contact with, believers and unbelievers alike, keep their beliefs (or lack thereof) to themselves unless asked.

The term "atheist" is universally used to describe a person who claims that god does not exist

No it isn't.

Quoting Wikipedia:
Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

Claiming that the narrowest definition is "universal" is at best incorrect.

not a person who answers "I don't know" or refuses to answer the question. Those people are universally known as agnostics, not atheists,

Gnosis refers to knowledge, not belief. The terms are orthogonal, in the sense that both theists and atheists can be gnostic or agnostic. I suggest reading the Wikipedia article I linked to above, it is quite an interesting summary and will help you understand people that categorize themselves as atheists while not falling under your chosen definition of the word.

But let me show you that it also works without allowing a "null" answer. You just need to ask two seperate questions.

Take the question, "Do you believe that god exists?". A true theist would have to answer "yes". A true atheist would have to answer "no".

What would a True Scotsman(TM) answer?

What does an agnostic answer? "I don't know", of course.

Wrong.

An agnostic may answer either "yes" or "no". They will answer "I don't know" when asked "does god exist?" which is an entirely different question.

If you can pose the question "Do you believe that god exists?" as a boolean, then I can negate the question and pose it as a boolean too: "Do you believe that god does not exist?"

Belief is not a boolean proposition and therefore your question is invalid.
A valid question would be "how strongly do you believe that god exists?" If you go outside and ask a hundred random people that question, I doubt you'll get many similar answers.

Re:Lack of divine foresight

[youngone]

I have had several conversations with religious people about why they're religious over the years, and usually they have very poor, ill defined, or poorly thought out reasons for believing in whatever god they believe in.
My Mother-in-law for instance was a Christian who believed in heaven because:

"I couldn't possibly live in a world where I would never see my parents again"

The general level of ignorance about their actual belief system sometimes amazes me.
Catholics, for example, are encouraged to not read the Bible. I suppose they might learn something.
Jews and Muslims not eating shellfish or pork makes not much sense to me either. We have refrigeration now what's the problem?
From what I read, most of the West is becoming much less religious. That does not surprise me really. Once you accept the rules about what hat you wear, or how you cut your beard are stupid, then maybe the whole nonsense falls down.

Re:Lack of divine foresight

[jbmartin6]

The term is "gentiliens"

Re:Lack of divine foresight

[jbmartin6]

the thiests aren't cocky about it.

Your ignorance of human history reveals you must be one of the aliens in question.

Re:Lack of divine foresight

[Master Moose]

Catholics, for example, are encouraged to not read the Bible. I suppose they might learn something.

Sorry, I found someone wrong on the internet - and had to comment :)

http://www.catholiclane.com/ig...

https://zenit.org/articles/pop...

If one were interested, they could look up St Jerome for whom the quote is attributed.. interesting fellow

Re:Lack of divine foresight

[Shadow of Eternity]

Or fins and scales.

Re:Lack of divine foresight

[alexo]

Antitheist?

Re:Lack of divine foresight

[youngone]

Thanks for the link, and I accept that I was incorrect, it is not actually Catholic doctrine to avoid reading the Bible.
Having said that, both of my boys were told during Catholic religious education that talking to a priest was the way to understand the Bible, and is preferable to reading it.
Maybe that's just a Marist thing.

What say Hindus?

[Anonymous Coward]

Moo.

Not a problem unless you can buy it

[sjbe]

Lab-grown meat is becoming closer to a reality. But this new technology poses new questions for people who typically avoid meat for religious or ethical reasons.

No it doesn't because you cannot actually buy it. It doesn't present any questions until people can obtain it for consumption and actually are considering doing so. Honestly I doubt it's going to become a real issue because if the "ick" factor and FUD that will surround it unless it is just astonishingly delicious.

Lab-grown meat has sparked a debate among rabbis in Israel about whether cell-cultured is the same as conventional meat and should fall under the same guidelines for keeping kosher.

Why exactly should the rest of us give a shit about the irrational restrictions a bunch of religious crazies put on themselves regarding food? (Yes I think that if you let a rabbi or priest tell you what to eat you are crazy) Unless they are trying to interfere with what I eat I don't really care about this at all any more than I care about whether or not someone goes to Weight Watchers. Their problem, not mine.

What a waste of energy

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

If only "religious leaders" - or anybody spending more than 10 seconds per year reflecting on religious issues - spent their time and efforts trying to solve the real problems of this world...

Re:What a waste of energy

[thegarbz]

If we get rid of all people who spend more than 10 seconds per year reflecting on religious issues we would have actually solved many of the problems of this world.

Re:What a waste of energy

[x0]

If we get rid of all people who spend more than 10 seconds per year reflecting on religious issues we would have actually solved many of the problems of this world.

Get rid of all people who... where have I heard that before?

What a fucked up statement.

m

Re:What a waste of energy

[thegarbz]

What a fucked up statement.

Yes. Fucked up. Yes. Morally reprehensible. ... Wrong? Imagine no religious skydaddies causing people to judge others, attack others, decide what medical care others should receive.

Although you haven't heard that statement before. The previous cases where you have heard similar statements were in *favour* of one religion. I'm in favour of abolishing them all.

Meat?

[burtosis]

This is like thinking maintaining a few applications on a single workstation is the same as all of IT management tasks across a large multinational corporation. Current artificial meat isn't much more than some cultured cell goo, whereas an actual piece of meat is comprised of connective tissues, blood vessels, nerves, vastly more differentiated cells, and real macroscopic structure. We aren't there yet, but it has a promising future if you can look beyond the hype. im actually looking forward to artificial meat technology because it would be nice to walk down to the hospital and pick up some new fingers and a lower back.

Re:Meat?

[burtosis]

Does a hot dog classify as meat? Does a 'meat' patty served up by the double arches brand count as meat? Recreating all of the natural structures of meat-off-the-bone isn't necessary for producing a base ingredient. People who want the experience of eating steak will likely just want to eat a real steak.

The lack of organs available for transplant should provide enough incentive for research on cloning human parts.

Just because it's mostly assholes dosent mean it dosent have veins, tendons, cartilage, skin, and all diversity of real meat. It may not be from a cow, or pig, but yes it's meat. A slime made from a handful of cell types is similar to meat, but not meat and currently requires a lot of work to massage it into a product people would recognize as meat. There really isn't much reason why we can't grow actual steaks close to natural - it's not likely to require much more than superior knowledge and technology to today as after some engineering it should grow itself automatically. Its not about wanting to its more about how are you going to feed 40 billion humans with meat and not use solar, wind and fusion power and vat grow meat in large three dimensional farms? There isn't room to traditionally and sustainably grow what we already do.

That's another myth

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a myth that there were rational reasons for food restrictions.
Someone somewhere is allergic to something.
Undercooked animal is always hazardous bUT goat is OK but not pork? Irrational.

Lab-grown meat?

[DontBeAMoran]

You need to look Beyond Meat.
It's already here now, today. Go to A&W to try it out.

Re:Lab-grown meat?

[SCVonSteroids]

I've tried this burger, since my partner does not eat land-based meats. I can confirm, it's really good.

Medival beliefs and fairy tales

[Artem S. Tashkinov]

Scientific Knowledge and Progress Pose New Questions for Religious Leaders

FTFY.

Seriously, what is this shit doing on /.?

No problems for ethical reasons

[houghi]

People who do nott eat whatever for ethical reasons, can take the decission themselves, like they always have.

Religion will be skomething else. Will it be Haram, kosher or seen as a vegetable. It will be interesting what theycome upwith.
It will have no influence on what I do, yet interestingnontheless.

Ridiculous

[sjbe]

IMO, some of it borders on the ridiculous...

"Borders"? No it IS objectively ridiculous. You don't need the qualifier. There is no utility in most of it at all. It's just following whatever irrational thing their cult leader told them to do.

Nope, there isn't

[Plumpaquatsch]

They have G*D's word forbid "boiling a (kid) goat in its mother's milk" - and keep separate dinnerware related to all milk and meat just to be safe. Why should they risk the wrath of YHWH just because of vat grown meat?

Re:Nope, there isn't

[Pinky's Brain]

Some jews risk pushing a switch on saturday.

Re:Eat Meat or

[gachunt]

Perfect timing... I just watched this episode this morning.

Extinct Meats

[Zorro]

So now we can get Moa, Mastadon and T-Rex!

Why less contaminated?

[Roger W Moore]

I'd think that artificial meat would be less contaminated with antibiotics and growth hormones

Why? They have to get it to grow somehow and I don't see why, if growth hormones are legal in your country, they would not also help grow artificial meat just as much as natural meat. You might be right with the antibiotics since presumably the meat can be grown under sterile conditions but, equally, there will be no immune system to fight infections so if sterile conditions are hard to maintain for some reason I could easily see some company bathing the meat in antibiotics or worse since anti-bacterial chemicals that might kill an animal could be used e.g. the US already chlorinates its "natural-grown" chicken.

There will always be a company willing to cut corners to reduce costs and increase profits. Apart from the above lab-grown meat will offer all sorts of potential for exposure to new chemicals in the food chain with only minimal testing on the long-term effects to human health simply because this is extremely hard to do and will never be as good as the real-life test of selling it to millions of consumers. Lab-grown meat may well be the way of the future for a lot of reasons but, personally, I would hold off buying it for a few years until the long-term and large-scale health effects have been well tested by the early adopters/guinea pigs.

Re:Why less contaminated?

[dinfinity]

The fact of the matter is that cultured meat will always be produced in a much more controlled environment than naturally grown meat. Growing animals, keeping them alive and reasonably healthy, dealing with their shit, slicing them up, and packaging the results is much more involved than 3D-printing some cells or growing them in bioreactors.

Also, people regularly get food poisoning to the point of death ( https://www.foodsafetynews.com... ), so the current situation is clearly far from ideal, even with the huge amounts of antibiotics used in natural meat production.

Finally, culturing meat is pretty high-tech stuff and especially in the beginning it will be an expensive product aimed at wealthy well-informed early adopters, and will be subject to much higher levels of regulation than the existing meat products. If anything, the level of cutting corners will increase as the market matures and the race to produce the cheapest cultured meat takes off.

Re:Why less contaminated?

[Agent0013]

Growing animals, keeping them alive and reasonably healthy, dealing with their shit, slicing them up, and packaging the results is much more involved than 3D-printing some cells or growing them in bioreactors.

It almost sounds as if you think cell don't produce waste. It a biological system, like a chicken, the waste is excreted from the animal. With a vat of cells, the waste just sits there, since there is no kidneys to remove it. But it must be better, because of technology!!! You go ahead and eat the meat piss, I will eat the natural stuff with the piss pushed out of the meat. Thanks, no thanks!

Re:Why less contaminated?

[dinfinity]

I didn't say 'waste'. I said 'shit'. I meant actual shit and vats of cells or 3D-printed steaks do not produce that.

In fact, actual shit contains colonies of bacteria and their waste products. Those are very often responsible for the contamination of food and thus to food borne illnesses. Enjoy your botulism!

Re: Why less contaminated?

[Agent0013]

I'll enjoy the botulism while you can enjoy the fetal bovine blood. And either way there will be bacteria. If you think you can keep it out you are living in an imaginary world. âBetter living through chemicals!â

Re: Why less contaminated?

[dinfinity]

Fetal bovine serum is on its way out:
https://www.wired.co.uk/articl...

If you think you can keep it out you are living in an imaginary world. âBetter living through chemicals!â

That's the spirit! Give up before you've even started! Better living through inaction and Luddism!

Re: Why less contaminated?

[Agent0013]

No, that isn't it. Thinking it is healthy to live in a sterile world has been wrong. Have you paid any attention to the stuff learned lately about the importance of the gut bacteria and the germ hypothesis. Many autoimmune deseases are related to lack of exposure to germs. And somehow that won't apply to this situation. Even the soil has been loosing it's potency due to modern farming. We need the complex interaction of many lifeforms.

Re: Why less contaminated?

[dinfinity]

Nice straw men. Good day.

Re:Of Course It Should

[jabuzz]

Right but I took the DNA sequence of a pig as it was written down, then synthesised the the DNA, assembled into a man made donor cell, and grew me some bacon that is not physically derived from any living pig. Is it Kosher and/or Halal ?

Noting that this is clear cut for a vegetarian or vegan. They can have no ethical issues at all. Well they will because it removes part of their identity, but hey you get nut jobs on the fringes of veganism that worry about plants feelings if you cut them down, because they clearly need a science education.

But hey

https://www.weforum.org/agenda...

Centralization varies in Christianity too

[tepples]

One thing you've got to realize about Judaism is that it's massively decentralized. If you wanted a ruling on lab grown meat in Catholicism, it would be easy. The pope (or some bishop under the Pope) gives it the thumbs up and Catholics everywhere grab lab grown steaks in their local supermarkets. With Judaism, though, it's more like thousands of rabbis

There are parts of Christianity that are decentralized as well. Roman Catholics (as you mention) and Jehovah's Witnesses are lot more centralized than, say, Baptists.

Re:Eat Meat or

[maxbuzz]

Cool cool
Mkay

Islamic perspective

[mapkinase]

Is very simple: it's not meat. It's food with taste and texture of meat.

If you did not use non halal animal products in it, alcohol or otherwise harmful substances, it's as halal as potatoes.

Islam is a very simple religion and you do not have to be a scholar to be able to act on such simple matter.

BJP Beef Ban in India

[slash.jit]

Would be interesting to see what the BJP would have to say about eating Lab grown beef since this won't need killing cow!

Would brahmins start eating lab grown meat officially!

re: agnostic

[King_TJ]

I don't think you understand the difference between atheist and agnostic, to make that comment.....

Atheists, especially in recent times, are treating their belief in NO higher power as a religion of its own. Many actively try to "preach" it to others, to save them from their various religions.

I have a problem with all of that, because I think it's entirely possible that there either is or WAS a "higher power" of some sort involved in the creation of the universe as we know it. I don't have any way to prove that there isn't a god of some sort out there, so it's irresponsible of me to tell everyone else who thinks so that they're wrong.

I don't, however, like any of the organized religions because I don't find any of them compelling. So many of them were either created out of thin air or were spun off of other, older ones. Many hold beliefs that completely contradict others, too -- so at least some of them have to be wrong. (If you believe in, say, reincarnation? That conflicts with pretty much every Christian religion that tells you your soul transcends your body at death and goes to a "heaven", a "hell" or a "purgatory". You either get more chances on this Earth in new bodies/forms or you don't.)

Hence, agnostic.