Would you eat in vitro meat even if were proven to be 100% safe?

[gravenewworld]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/11/us-science-meat-f-idUSTRE7AA30020111111


It is only a matter of time until this starts popping up in our food supply.


My opinion:


Absolutely in no way what so ever would I ever eat this or want the government to allow it in our food even if it were safe. It would only be a matter of time before the food industry lobbied billions of dollars to ban real agriculture because in vitro meat would be theoretically better for the environment and would hopefully solve a lot of the world's hunger problems. That would then pave the way for a golden road for them to control almost the entire supply of food.


It also wasn't long ago when the food industry, doctors, and the government was telling everyone that margarine was just as good as butter, but now all of the sudden many are saying it is worse for your health than the real thing.

Maybe people should realize they aren't as smart as they think and don't know more than mother nature. In vitro meat? No thanks, I'll stick to 3000 years of human experience working in agriculture over tissue engineered 'meats'.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Absolutely in no way what so ever would I ever eat this or want the government to allow it in our food even if it were safe.

If it tastes good, sure!

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The premise in this thread's title would seem to negate any negative answer.

Also if you are so paranoid that your food is not good for you because of government or big industry intervention then you probably shouldn't eat anything unless you grow it yourself.

I for one would welcome in vitro meats, providing they pass the relevant safety tests then the benefits are huge. By the same token would you not accept a medicine developed by tissue engineering?

 

[nucleargirl]

They might be able to make it even tastier than real meat. no more massaging cows on beer! if its safe and has all the nutrients, then why not?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Not me. At $345,000 for a hamburger, I would go broke in a couple of years.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

haven't all those 3000 years of agriculture led to this development?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I'll stick to 3000 years of human experience working in agriculture over tissue engineered 'meats'.

haven't all those 3000 years of agriculture led to this development?

It's actually two to three times older than that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_agriculture#Neolithic_era

 

[Moonbear]

There's a LOT more to agriculture than meat, so I don't know how in vitro meat would result in all of agriculture being replaced.

If it tasted as good or better than real meat, was nutritionally equivalent or better, no worse for the environment than traditional farming of animals, reasonably priced, and adequately safety tested, sure, I'd eat it.

 

[gravenewworld]

Also if you are so paranoid that your food is not good for you because of government or big industry intervention then you probably shouldn't eat anything unless you grow it yourself.

Or just go to my local farmer's market...

I for one would welcome in vitro meats, providing they pass the relevant safety tests then the benefits are huge. By the same token would you not accept a medicine developed by tissue engineering?

Apples to oranges. I'm pretty sure many vegetarians that refuse to eat meat would still use medications that gained approval through using tons of animal testing too. America's small family run farms that produce food more sustainably have been decimated and put out of business by big agra, so the answer now is more big agra? I should have a choice as to what type of food I can put on my plate (such as NOT consuming synthetic foods), but I don't have a choice if I were ever to need a new tissue engineered heart or eye.

 

[gravenewworld]

haven't all those 3000 years of agriculture led to this development?

No. Commericial Ag is very new in the grand scheme of human existence. Commercial Ag are the huge polluters, not small farms that raise plants and animals like they are supposed to be raised. Livestock like cows need large amounts of antibiotics because science and commercial ag fatten cows up on factory farms with high corn diets---food cows never evolved to eat. E coli O157 didn't evolve to the widespread pathogen it is today until commercial ag started taking over cattle production and feeding cows antibiotics.

 

[gravenewworld]

They might be able to make it even tastier than real meat. no more massaging cows on beer! if its safe and has all the nutrients, then why not?

So tell me how one could exactly replicate the entire lifespan of an animal in this reductionist fairy tale land that in vitro meat scientists live in. How an animal lives its entire life has a significant impact on the flavor and texture of a meat. Pigs in Spain are fed a diet entirely of acorns and roots to produce Jamon Iberico which tastes light years different than Italian proscuitto. Everyone knows the 'gamey' flavor and texture meats that come from wild animals have vs. meat from the grocery store. Tell me exactly how science could ever recapitulate the different lifespans of every type of breed of animal we eat and not only that, copy the flavor of different breeds of animals within the same species. Good luck.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

No. Commericial Ag is very new in the grand scheme of human existence. Commercial Ag are the huge polluters, not small farms that raise plants and animals like they are supposed to be raised. Livestock like cows need large amounts of antibiotics because science and commercial ag fatten cows up on factory farms with high corn diets---food cows never evolved to eat. E coli O157 didn't evolve to the pathogen it is today until commercial ag started taking over cattle production and feeding cows antibiotics.

I disagree with the idea that plants and animals are "supposed" to be raised in a certain way. If you're talking about the way things evolved, then wouldn't it also be right to say that plants and animals did not evolve so that we could domesticate them?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Flavor shouldn't be a problem. They even make tofu taste like meat.

 

[gravenewworld]

Flavor shouldn't be a problem. They even make tofu taste like meat.

I know this is a joke. Show me the tofu that can beat or match an Argintinean or waygu steak in terms of flavor.

 

[Moonbear]

So tell me how one could exactly replicate the entire lifespan of an animal in this reductionist fairy tale land that in vitro meat scientists live in. How an animal lives its entire life has a significant impact on the flavor and texture of a meat. Pigs in Spain are fed a diet entirely of acorns and roots to produce Jamon Iberico which tastes light years different than Italian proscuitto. Everyone knows the 'gamey' flavor and texture meats that come from wild animals have vs. meat from the grocery store. Tell me exactly how science could ever recapitulate the different lifespans of every type of breed of animal we eat and not only that, copy the flavor of different breeds of animals within the same species. Good luck.

Um, this was your hypothetical scenario. Don't blame others if it's unrealistic.

You're misguided on the reasons for family farms closing down too. They've been disappearing for a while now. The kids in those families just don't want to stay on the farms. They leave to get an education and get other better paying jobs that don't require working their fingers to the bone 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Larger farms can afford to hire help so the owners can take vacation days. As the family farms closed, the land got sold off to developers. It's no longer available farm land. The so-called factory farms filled the gaps, producing as much food as the combined family farms lost on less land. If you want to go back to small family farms, you're going to have to convince a lot of people to sell their houses in the suburbs, tear up the roads, and rip out the lines for public utilities that have replaced those farms.

 

[russ_watters]

Or just go to my local farmer's market...

Good luck! My uncle used to sell my grandpa's GM, pesticide protected, irrigated food at his local farmer's market!

 

[Evo]

I would rather eat in vitro meat than an animal that was slaughtered. I'm looking forward to when they're available.

 

[Moonbear]

Good luck! My uncle used to sell my grandpa's GM, pesticide protected, irrigated food at his local farmer's market!

Happens all the time. The other misconception is that local food at the farmers market is fresher than the grocery store. Sometimes it is, but the farmer might have harvested two weeks before the market day. Or, we have some ranches that sell beef and lamb at our market. It's all frozen and they pack it in a freezer run by portable generator to keep it. I thought I'd check out the cuts from one, especially the lamb that's hard to get at the grocery store. It was so old, it looked freezer burnt, so I declined after looking at it. Other people were buying without even asking to look at it. I guess it's a good way to clean the freezer.

 

[Q_Goest]

The promise is to reduce the pain and suffering of animals. That can't be bad.

 

[Pythagorean]

I like them live and squirming, blood dripping from my mouth, heart still beating.

At least, that's how we did it in the village. Kind of messy, really. Especially terrible idea when there's no running water nearby. Damn, I've been domesticated...

 

[KingNothing]

If you assume its 100% safe, then what's the problem?

 

[Pythagorean]

If you assume its 100% safe, then what's the problem?

that you grow submissive and dormant from not hunting your prey on foot! Safety IS the problem!

 

[Ryan_m_b]

So tell me how one could exactly replicate the entire lifespan of an animal in this reductionist fairy tale land that in vitro meat scientists live in. How an animal lives its entire life has a significant impact on the flavor and texture of a meat. Pigs in Spain are fed a diet entirely of acorns and roots to produce Jamon Iberico which tastes light years different than Italian proscuitto. Everyone knows the 'gamey' flavor and texture meats that come from wild animals have vs. meat from the grocery store. Tell me exactly how science could ever recapitulate the different lifespans of every type of breed of animal we eat and not only that, copy the flavor of different breeds of animals within the same species. Good luck.

Considering that the worlds first in vitro burger is meant to be produced this year it is hardly fair that you are asking how we could use the technology to make meat capable of passing the pepsi challenge.

There are huge technological hurdles to be overcome in growing in vitro tissue constructs from ensuring correct cell behaviour to stimulating angiogenesis. This is a huge field and it will take many years yet to mature, for you to demand that someone tells you "how one could exactly" when the science does not exist is a bit of a fallacious argument. You are basically saying "you can't tell me exactly how future scientists will be able to produce this meat therefore it will not be better than conventional meat." There has been consideration for this, in muscle tissue constructs mechanical stimulation in a bioreactor "exercises" the tissue, culturing in hypoxic environments encourages proper growth and angiogenesis and appropriate factors on tissue scaffolds allow precise manipulation on cell behaviour and tissue morphology.

A huge benefit that the in vitro meat market would give us is crossover technologies to medicine. The global regenerative medicine market is 1-2 orders of magnitude smaller than the US beef market alone. Taking a chunk of that larger market and developing techniques and technologies that can be used in medicine is not a bad thing in my opinion.

 

[wukunlin]

it really depends on how good it tastes

 

[gravenewworld]

The promise is to reduce the pain and suffering of animals. That can't be bad.

Zebras suffer too when lions eat them in the wild. Should we feed lions synthetic meats so zebras and anteloupes etc. don't suffer? Why is it so inhumane for humans to kill animals for food when all other carnivores in the animal kingdom do?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Zebras suffer too when lions eat them in the wild. Should we feed lions synthetic meats so zebras and anteloupes etc. don't suffer? Why is it so inhumane for humans to kill animals for food when all other carnivores in the animal kingdom do?

I'm going to call naturalistic fallacy on this one. Animals also kill to ensure only they have sex, commit infanticide of rival's children and fling excrement at each other. Does that mean that we should too? Inflicting pain when you can avoid it is not a moral thing. This way of thinking extends throughout our species and societies and it isn't void to apply it to how we treat animals.

 

[gravenewworld]

Considering that the worlds first in vitro burger is meant to be produced this year it is hardly fair that you are asking how we could use the technology to make meat capable of passing the pepsi challenge.

There are huge technological hurdles to be overcome in growing in vitro tissue constructs from ensuring correct cell behaviour to stimulating angiogenesis. This is a huge field and it will take many years yet to mature, for you to demand that someone tells you "how one could exactly" when the science does not exist is a bit of a fallacious argument. You are basically saying "you can't tell me exactly how future scientists will be able to produce this meat therefore it will not be better than conventional meat." There has been consideration for this, in muscle tissue constructs mechanical stimulation in a bioreactor "exercises" the tissue, culturing in hypoxic environments encourages proper growth and angiogenesis and appropriate factors on tissue scaffolds allow precise manipulation on cell behaviour and tissue morphology.

A huge benefit that the in vitro meat market would give us is crossover technologies to medicine. The global regenerative medicine market is 1-2 orders of magnitude smaller than the US beef market alone. Taking a chunk of that larger market and developing techniques and technologies that can be used in medicine is not a bad thing in my opinion.

The problem is that it is reductionist theory at its finest. Time and time and time again science has failed considering how much money we dump into such project, simply because whole organisms are not equal to the sum of their parts. It wasn't long ago in 2006 when Pfizer said they were going to revolutionize the world with Torcetrapib, the LDL cholesterol reducing drug that had a molecular mechanism of action that was completely known from start to finish. Guess what, Pfizer ended up losing $1billion on the project because their drug started to kill more people in Phase III trials, even though they supposedly had a clear understanding from start to finish on how the drug was supposed to work.

Even if you have a bioreactor that can simulate mechanical forces and growth factors etc, you still are only growing tissue. The problem is that tissues form organs and organs make systems that all interact with each other. At the point when we are growing tissues but need to input growth factors, incorporate the tissue into an organ, and incorporate that organ into a system, and incorporate that system with all of the other ones in order to get a fully functional tissue or organ that is a complete replica of the real thing, we might as well start cloning humans to harvest their organs and tissue. It would be a hell of a lot easier. We've raised the last 3 generations on the reductionist approach to science and consistently have produced failure after failure or mediocre result after mediocre result.

Pork is not just pork, beef is not just beef, and chicken is not just chicken. How an animal lives, what it eats, how old it is before it is slaughtered, what type of breed it is, and even how it is butchered, cured, and kept before purchase all have major impacts on how the meat tastes.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Even if you have a bioreactor that can simulate mechanical forces and growth factors etc, you still are only growing tissue. The problem is that tissues form organs and organs make systems that all interact with each other. At the point when we are growing tissues but need to input growth factors, incorporate the tissue into an organ, and incorporate that organ into a system, and incorporate that system with all of the other ones in order to get a fully functional tissue or organ that is a complete replica of the real thing, we might as well start cloning humans to harvest their organs and tissue. It would be a hell of a lot easier. We've raised the last 3 generations on the reductionist approach to science and consistently have produced failure after failure or mediocre result after mediocre result

Familiarise yourself with the field of regenerative medicine, specifically tissue engineering, then get back to me on the capability of growing healthy tissues in vitro. Furthermore the fact that something cannot be done yet is no indication that it cannot be done especially in the face of a burgeoning scientific discipline.

 

[gravenewworld]

I'm going to call naturalistic fallacy on this one. Animals also kill to ensure only they have sex, commit infanticide of rival's children and fling excrement at each other. Does that mean that we should too? Inflicting pain when you can avoid it is not a moral thing. This way of thinking extends throughout our species and societies and it isn't void to apply it to how we treat animals.

So if that is naturalistic fallacy then what is this? Moralistic fallacy?

 

[Jack21222]

First world problem: I won't eat my lab-grown meat because it doesn't taste as succulent as meat directly from the animal.

 

[gravenewworld]

Familiarise yourself with the field of regenerative medicine, specifically tissue engineering, then get back to me on the capability of growing healthy tissues in vitro. Furthermore the fact that something cannot be done yet is no indication that it cannot be done especially in the face of a burgeoning scientific discipline.

Except that healthy tissues that are used for medical purposes don't have to include the variable of taste, which is quite a significant difference. That's why it is an apples to oranges comparison. Tastes of meats are a function of what an animal eats everyday, how it is raised or lives, and how it is slaughtered and prepared before purchase.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

So if that is naturalistic fallacy then what is this? Moralistic fallacy?

You made a naturalistic fallacy by conflating what animals do with how humans should behave. If you feel I have made a fallacy then explain yourself. My point was that human morality is deeply based in the infliction of pain and pleasure and that we extend this to animals as well. Few people are comfortable with unnecessary animal suffering, for this reason in vitro meat offers a potential solution to getting meat without inflicting pain (other methods could include ethical, free range farming but it is hard to supply enough people with enough food this way).

Personally I would welcome current intensive agriculture and factory farming methods being replaced with in vitro production as much as possible. We would still need to keep animals around for tissue samples, explants and until we develop something better fetal serum for tissue culture.

Except that healthy tissues that are used for medical purposes don't have to include the variable of taste, which is quite a significant difference. That's why it is an apples to oranges comparison. Tastes of meats are a function of what an animal eats everyday, how it is raised or lives, and how it is slaughtered and prepared before purchase.

And what basis do you have to claim that this couldn't be replicated in a bioreactor? You don't need the environmental stimulus to effect cell behaviour if you know how the metabolic processes influenced by environmental stimulus and can induce them artificially.

 

[russ_watters]

Time and time and time again science has failed considering how much money we dump into such project, simply because whole organisms are not equal to the sum of their parts. It wasn't long ago in 2006 when Pfizer said they were going to revolutionize the world with Torcetrapib, the LDL cholesterol reducing drug that had a molecular mechanism of action that was completely known from start to finish. Guess what, Pfizer ended up losing $1billion on the project because their drug started to kill more people in Phase III trials, even though they supposedly had a clear understanding from start to finish on how the drug was supposed to work.

Why do you care what Pfizer spends their money on? Are you a shareholder? I really don't get where all this is coming from. Is this all just anti-corporatism? Or are you a carnivophile (see: audiophile) steak purist/enthusiast?

 

[nonequilibrium]

I'm really happy with this development. It seems unequivocally good.

 

[Monique]

I wouldn't, I like my diet without meat.