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

[feathermoon]

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?

Because we do it on a scale that is unheard of in the history of this planet. Or, if you want to be more honest, because it isn't the animals death that is 'inhumane', its the life we force it to live up until that point.

Clearly we shouldn't feed lions an alternative food source, then their prey could become overpopulated and harm the ecosystem in other ways. Your argument is nonobjective and flawed, mainly because you started from an anthropocentric viewpoint.

 

[Pythagorean]

The entire act of hunting in 'Merica now is finding a comfortable tree stand to sit in and wait. Hardly a masculine activity. Where are you from?

Alaska. I track my kills. Moose are about the only thing you sit and wait for... it's really boring. And there's nothing to do with masculinity, that's derived from sexuality. Hunting is for cheap food (i.e. survival).

I honestly can't see hunting as a battle of wits and cunning anymore. Join the armed forces if you want to shoot things and be able to say it took bravery or skill.

Naw, that would be pathetic to prove masculinity by shooting people... besides it's a strawman. Cunning, wits, bravery, skill... nobody brought that up but you : )

You want to be brave? Speak out against homophobia in a red state.

 

[Jasongreat]

Because we do it on a scale that is unheard of in the history of this planet. Or, if you want to be more honest, because it isn't the animals death that is 'inhumane', its the life we force it to live up until that point.

I don't understand your point, there are more humans on the planet now than at anytime in history, isn't it a given that we would kill more animals for food, than at any other time in history? The in-humane life where we supply their food, doctor them when sick, provide for their protection from predators, then give them the honor of fullfilling there niche in life?

The problem I have with the OP is the assumption of 100% safe, there is nothing in the world that is 100% safe, even too much water can hurt us. I would never eat test tube meat, unless it was the only meat available.

 

[feathermoon]

Alaska. I track my kills. Moose are about the only thing you sit and wait for... it's really boring. And there's nothing to do with masculinity, that's derived from sexuality. Hunting is for cheap food (i.e. survival).



Naw, that would be pathetic to prove masculinity by shooting people... besides it's a strawman. Cunning, wits, bravery, skill... nobody brought that up but you : )

You want to be brave? Speak out against homophobia in a red state.

I was comparing modern hunting to the sort-of cliche hunter-gatherer society where men hunt as a rite of passage. Nothing wrong with cheap food!

 

[Pythagorean]

I was comparing modern hunting to the sort-of cliche hunter-gatherer society where men hunt as a rite of passage. Nothing wrong with cheap food!

especially on a grad student salary :/

 

[feathermoon]

I don't understand your point, there are more humans on the planet now than at anytime in history, isn't it a given that we would kill more animals for food, than at any other time in history?

I can be against the number of humans on the planet, and the scope of agriculture it takes to sustain them, can't I? It basically turns dense thriving ecosystems into uniform tracts of land. Ethically, everything has equal value, so human encroachment on wild lands destroys more than it creates. A deep ecologic discussion on humanities impacts is sort of off topic though.

The in-humane life where we supply their food, doctor them when sick, provide for their protection from predators, then give them the honor of fullfilling there niche in life?

I was specifically referring to factory farming conditions, where an animal might be born, grow up, and be slaughtered in the same building, or might live its entire life in a cage smaller than it is.

 

[Pengwuino]

This thread makes me hungry.

 

[feathermoon]

I wonder what penguin meat tastes like! :]

 

[russ_watters]

Nothing can be "proven safe", so let's get away from that idea right away.

The problem I have with the OP is the assumption of 100% safe, there is nothing in the world that is 100% safe, even too much water can hurt us. I would never eat test tube meat, unless it was the only meat available.

It is an assumption used for the sake of discussion and a perfectly reasonable one even if slightly oversimplified so not technically completely scientifically accurate. If we could modify it slightly to be "as safe as or safer than butchered meat", that would make it better and I think that's what the OP was going for.

However, even that is probably too weak as I see potential for this to be significantly safer than natural meat due to the multitude of dangers inherent in the production of natural meat. The two of you, however, seem to be implying the opposite, which is a logically inferior position to the OP's minor oversimplification, not to mention pointless in the context of the OP.

 

[edward]

This thread makes me hungry.

This new meat product will drive away that hunger

http://naturalsociety.com/japanese-scientist-creates-meat-using-human-feces/

 

[Monique]

It's funny to see that so many people will switch to eating the meat. In discussions about vegetarianism always the first arguments against a meatless diet it is that eating meat is "natural" and that it is required for vitamin B12. Apparently people are open to other options if they think they're still eating meat.

 

[turbo]

I love meat. Real meat, not substitutes. Bacon, pork chops, beef roasts, poultry... Even better if I can shoot fresh game or catch wild trout. Growing up French-Canadian (Metis) and poor meant that wild game and fish were a big portion of our diet, along with wild-harvested berries, fruits, fiddleheads, etc. Canning and freezing and butchering our own game was a matter of survival.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

It's funny to see that so many people will switch to eating the meat. In discussions about vegetarianism always the first arguments against a meatless diet it is that eating meat is "natural" and that it is required for vitamin B12. Apparently people are open to other options if they think they're still eating meat.

isn't this meat essentially the exact same thing as "regular" meat? It should have the same nutrients. The only difference is that it was grown in a petri dish or whatever.

 

[nonequilibrium]

It's funny to see that so many people will switch to eating the meat. In discussions about vegetarianism always the first arguments against a meatless diet it is that eating meat is "natural" and that it is required for vitamin B12. Apparently people are open to other options if they think they're still eating meat.

And apparently vegetarians are never happy no matter what :p

 

[Monique]

isn't this meat essentially the exact same thing as "regular" meat? It should have the same nutrients. The only difference is that it was grown in a petri dish or whatever.

Certainly not, there is no organ system that would normally provide nutrients. Every essential nutrient needs to be synthetically provided in the form of supplements. The in vitro meat will lack for instance iron since there is no blood and vitamin B12 because there are no bacteria.

Of course a person can get those essential nutrients from other sources besides meat, but I won't start that discussion again.

 

[Pythagorean]

so for ethical vegetarians, is it ethically ok to eat shrimp?

 

[Monique]

We were talking about in vitro meat.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

We were talking about in vitro meat.

Quite, let's not turn this into a vegetarian vs meat eater discussion.

 

[Pythagorean]

Quite, let's not turn this into a vegetarian vs meat eater discussion.

Let's not mischaracterize people's positions either, ok?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Let's not mischaracterize people's positions either, ok?

Which I didn't do. I was warning the thread against going down that path, not suggesting that it had. If the conversation does go off track like this it will be locked.

 

[Pythagorean]

It's kind of strange how in GD, it's ok for conversations to drift off track, but then sometimes not.

I didn't mean to offend the in group, my apologies...

 

[russ_watters]

Certainly not, there is no organ system that would normally provide nutrients. Every essential nutrient needs to be synthetically provided in the form of supplements. The in vitro meat will lack for instance iron since there is no blood and vitamin B12 because there are no bacteria.

Of course a person can get those essential nutrients from other sources besides meat, but I won't start that discussion again.

I would not a priori assume any such boundaries in the features of this in vitro meat and I would be willing to bet others in this thread were operating on the assumption of similar nutritional content, particularly since such issues were mentioned in the article linked by the OP as among the issues still needing to be worked on.

Clearly, if it did have significantly different nutritional content from regular meat, that would be problematic for providing a viable replacement for "real" meat (not that that would stop us from eating it for dessert if it tasted like creme brulee). But whether they succeed or faill, the question: 'if in vitro meat is not a viable replacement for natural meat, would you still eat it as a replacement for natural meat?' is a pretty silly question to ask, isn't it? Be reasonable: you can't make someone reject their position with a trollish beg-the-question/goalpost moving fallacy (not that you're the first to try that in this thread). I think we understand our own opinions better than that.

 

[Monique]

russ_watters, I didn't try anything. Clearly you didn't get my point:

Sure you can add all the essential nutrients to the in vitro meat, just like you could with any other food product (vitamin D to milk, fluoride to water). There are other viable replacements for meat as well, which are mostly being disregarded because we are "supposed" to eat meat.

As said, I don't see this in vitro meat as a viable replacement for my non-meat diet (my opinion). That's my answer to the OP

 

[turbo]

As said, I don't see this in vitro meat as a viable replacement for my non-meat diet (my opinion). That's my answer to the OP

I couldn't bring myself to eat bio-engineered meat, any more than I could bring myself to eat other meat-substitutes. For some reason, when my neighbor (a good friend) swore off alcohol, he also gave up meat, eggs, dairy, etc, and eats a lot of soy substitutes. He is pretty strong, but he's at least 100# overweight, so the no-meat, no-booze diet of the last 10 years or so hasn't helped in that regard.

My wife actually enjoys Silk (Soy-milk). I'm not a big fan of milk now, but the thought of drinking a soy faux-milk with sweetening and flavorings repulses me. I'd have the same attitude toward in-vitro meats. There is a neighbor about a mile down this road that raises buffaloes (yep! the big-guys not the hybrid beefaloes) and I'm considering buying 1/4 of an animal this season. That would pack one of the freezers.

 

[russ_watters]

Sure you can add all the essential nutrients to the in vitro meat, just like you could with any other food product (vitamin D to milk, fluoride to water). There are other viable replacements for meat as well, which are mostly being disregarded because we are "supposed" to eat meat.

As said, I don't see this in vitro meat as a viable replacement for my non-meat diet (my opinion). That's my answer to the OP

That's still goalpost shifting, Monique. Being a vegitarian often may be exclusionary, but being a meat eater is not. Being a meat eater does not mean one can't still eat a veggi burger if they want. The positions are not symmetrical an you can't constrain the meat eating position to be like the vegitarian one.

The "supposed to eat meat" line strikes me as a charicature of a meat eater's position based on the fallacy that the position is exclusionary.

 

[Monique]

If the in vitro meat is only meant for once in a while and not exclusionary, why would you even care about whether it is nutritionally equivalent to meat?

Do you remember that you said this:

Clearly, if it did have significantly different nutritional content from regular meat, that would be problematic for providing a viable replacement for "real" meat (not that that would stop us from eating it for dessert if it tasted like creme brulee). But whether they succeed or faill, the question: 'if in vitro meat is not a viable replacement for natural meat, would you still eat it as a replacement for natural meat?' is a pretty silly question to ask, isn't it? Be reasonable: you can't make someone reject their position with a trollish beg-the-question/goalpost moving fallacy (not that you're the first to try that in this thread).

Now who is shifting the goalpost?

 

[russ_watters]

You need to read it again because you must have missed something. There are a host of different reasons why one might eat this stuff and being a viable replacement is absolutely not required and that doesn't create a logical dilema for meat eaters.

 

[daveb]

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.

Plus, we're omnivores, not carnivores.

 

[daveb]

The reason I asked is that it would seem to me that if someone was a vegitarian for environmental or ethics reasons, this would be free from such considerations, so I wonder if such a person would eat this.

Speaking as a vegan who is such for (primarily) environmental reasons, and (secondarily) for health and ethical reasons, given the caveat that it is 100% healthy, I can't logically claim I would not eat it, other than perhaps by that time my tastes have changed. For example, I used to hate avocado, yet for some odd reason, after I switched to veganism, I found that I liked them. The reverse might (though not likely) happen, that I've developed a taste revulsion to meat.

 

[dwaring28720]

while reading the thread and the information i found the idea promising, obviously the cost at the moment is unrealistic but with the population growth the way it is, its definitely the way the future needs to be heading, my partner after having to hear me read every post on here said that she couldn't do without a kebab every now and then but with the prospect of a potentially healthy kebab she likes the idea too.

Whats the opinions of vegetarians on this, as it technically opens up the prospect of them eating meat as its not inhumane as an animal is not being slaughtered.

Good line of research anyway

 

[Moonbear]

Certainly not, there is no organ system that would normally provide nutrients. Every essential nutrient needs to be synthetically provided in the form of supplements. The in vitro meat will lack for instance iron since there is no blood and vitamin B12 because there are no bacteria.

That's actually a good point about what would be considered in vitro meat. Meat comes from the muscles of animals, but that's not the only thing in it. It contains blood, fat deposits, connective tissues, etc. If it's just muscle cells grown in vitro, it would likely be pretty awful and nutritionally deficient. When I think of in vitro meat, I think of something that accurately replicates everything in actual meat. But, then, that's why I had a list of conditions before I'd eat it...or at least before I'd consider it an actual substitute for meat in my diet.

 

[physics girl phd]

If it tastes good, sure!

I concur.

 

[feathermoon]

I couldn't bring myself to eat bio-engineered meat, any more than I could bring myself to eat other meat-substitutes. For some reason, when my neighbor (a good friend) swore off alcohol, he also gave up meat, eggs, dairy, etc, and eats a lot of soy substitutes. He is pretty strong, but he's at least 100# overweight, so the no-meat, no-booze diet of the last 10 years or so hasn't helped in that regard.

I don't see from your statement why his diet would be a factor in his being overweight. Does he not exercise? Does he eat more carbs than he would if he ate meat? From what you mentioned he should lose some weight, thus I assume you haven't explained the situation entirely.

Anyway, it sounds like just an aversion to trying new things. What if someone snuck it into your food (assuming like everyone else previously that it was safe) and you didn't notice the difference? Would you feel averse if the same was done with a veggie burger?

Not that I'm saying you should WANT to try either, but soy and flavoring agents are added into seemingly everything these days, so avoiding them when they're packaged as meat substitutes is an interesting concept.

 

[feathermoon]

That's actually a good point about what would be considered in vitro meat. Meat comes from the muscles of animals, but that's not the only thing in it. It contains blood, fat deposits, connective tissues, etc. If it's just muscle cells grown in vitro, it would likely be pretty awful and nutritionally deficient. When I think of in vitro meat, I think of something that accurately replicates everything in actual meat. But, then, that's why I had a list of conditions before I'd eat it...or at least before I'd consider it an actual substitute for meat in my diet.

Frankly, to most people it will only be important that it contain the amino acids to taste like meat.

 

[Monique]

Not that I'm saying you should WANT to try either, but soy and flavoring agents are added into seemingly everything these days, so avoiding them when they're packaged as meat substitutes is an interesting concept.

And soy milk is a natural product and a staple in Japanese and Chinese cuisine. One should like it for what it is, not for what one would like it to be. If you buy a Mercedes, don't expect it to drive like a BMW.

 

[Loren Booda]

How about in vitro vegetables?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

How about in vitro vegetables?

That's easy; all you need is a glass plant pot, soil and seeds. Voilà!

 

[netgypsy]

I LOVE this forum. Finally a group of people who enjoy a discussion about most anything.

In vitro veggies would grow just the part you eat, no stems, no root unless you eat the roots, and so on and I vote for this because I feel horribly guilty uprooting a carrot or yanking beans from the stalk.

I feel guilty every time I eat meet because the raising of, shipping of and slaughter of animals is not humane. I watched my grandmother slit the throat of a live chicken and it ran around and bled out in front of us. Not pretty. So I'm all for in vitro meat. What we eat now is really a crap shoot compared to European meats. They trace the animal from conception to consumption. If you get sick they know exactly what animal, what farm, what parents and what diet. You get sick on a fast food burger in the US and it probably came from 50 different place.

Yes I also know several fat vegetarians and they live on desserts. And they had a B12 deficiency too. (NOT fun - we had a family member who greatly reduced meat consumption due to a health problem and who didn't absorb well anyway and he lost all the feeling in his hands and feet from low B12 and folic acid. It did come back though)

No I don't like fake meat either although the chefs on "the Chew" tasted several and were unable to tell which was the real thing so I guess the ones out now are better than the ones I tried a number of years ago.

But in vitro meat is not fake and nothing is 100% safe - we all die sometime for some reason whether it be bad burger or bad driving. Bring it on. Glad they can finally do it.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I LOVE this forum. Finally a group of people who enjoy a discussion about most anything.

In vitro veggies would grow just the part you eat, no stems, no root unless you eat the roots, and so on and I vote for this because I feel horribly guilty uprooting a carrot or yanking beans from the stalk.

Plants and animals are very different. The methods used in in vitro tissue production aren't transferable to plants. Furthermore it isn't needed, if we really wanted to grow plants with just the parts we want to eat, higher nutrition, controlled environment etc we could just grow hydroponic GM crops.

Glad they can finally do it.

Unfortunately we're not there yet. The first "burger" is scheduled for this year and will cost over £250,000. There is a long way to go after that to get close to mass production and the obstacles we're facing are non-trivial.

 

[netgypsy]

I'm aware that the technique to grow "just the interior" of an orange is not the same as that used to grow muscle. That doesn't mean it isn't possible.

By being there yet I meant the technology is there but obviously has to be first tweaked, then mass produced to get the price down. And probably subsidized for a while. But it's very exciting.

Reminds me of some book I read a million years ago where artificial wombs were available so women didn't have to go through pregnancy. Wonder how long that will take?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I'm aware that the technique to grow "just the interior" of an orange is not the same as that used to grow muscle. That doesn't mean it isn't possible.

I'm not saying it isn't possible to grow plants in a bioreactor but there really is no need. It would be more expensive and inefficient than simple hydroponics or even grown from the Earth.

By being there yet I meant the technology is there but obviously has to be first tweaked, then mass produced to get the price down. And probably subsidized for a while. But it's very exciting.

It isn't just a question of being "tweaked", this is a massive new area of science to develop. One of the biggest challenges I see is developing techniques for growth medium that don't rely on factors derived from animals such as fetal bovine serum (a very important factor in cell culture). And that's on top of the obvious huge problems of controlling cell behaviour to such an accurate extent and growing large tissues without support organs and systems e.g. growing tissues with blood vessels to get over the limit imposed by oxygen diffusion.

Reminds me of some book I read a million years ago where artificial wombs were available so women didn't have to go through pregnancy. Wonder how long that will take?

We're nowhere near lol. Not only would we have to grow a full uterus in a bioreactor (and today we're only managing simple tissues) but we would have to replicate the bodily functions of a pregnant female e.g. hormones and other endocrines, cell transfer (see maternal microchimerism), supply of blood and other factors etc etc etc. On top of that we've got the huge ethical problems to overcome; who is ever going to give consent to grow the first human in a tank? Who is going to run the risk of being the person or group to allow a potential creation of life that may result in birth defects or other disorders?

Like I said before in vitro tissue synthesis is an emerging field but it is not on the verge of a keystone-event breakthrough. It is going to take a long time and incremental progress and the hurdles we face are non-trivial. It's an exciting field don't get me wrong (indeed regenerative medicine is the field that I just finished a masters in and intent to pursue) but we shouldn't get too ahead of ourselves.

 

[netgypsy]

That's what they said about computers too. I remember those first calculators. Sooo amazing back then. And look at what they can do now and what they're on the brink of being able to do. Matrix revisited hahaha

 

[lisab]

I'm aware that the technique to grow "just the interior" of an orange is not the same as that used to grow muscle. That doesn't mean it isn't possible.

*wonders when they will start making bread with no crust*

 

[netgypsy]

What if we wrapped the dough in bacon ( of course invitro bacon) before cooking it? Would that prevent a crust from forming? Have to try that. Gotta get some bread flour. The problem is to have a covering that will stretch as the bread rises. Hmmm - maybe wrap the dough in a pizza crust. It's super stretchy. Gotta try that to. THE NEXT GREAT INVENTION - CRUSTLESS BREAD. Another idea - make one of those foil covers like they have for popcorn you make on the stove. Those are so funny.

 

[Evo]

What if we wrapped the dough in bacon before cooking it? Would that prevent a crust from forming? Have to try that. Gotta get some bread flour. The problem is to have a covering that will stretch as the bread rises. Hmmm - maybe wrap the dough in a pizza crust. It's super stretchy. Gotta try that to. THE NEXT GREAT INVENTION - CRUSTLESS BREAD

Oooh, bacon wrapped bread.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Move to Japan. The Japanese don't like crust on their bread so the market trims it off before selling it. They also sell the trimmings very cheap. I would buy bags of them whenever I got the chance. I made sandwiches with the heels and bread pudding with the crusts.