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

[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.

 

[russ_watters]

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

Could you elaborate? Is that for health reasons, animal ethics reasons, political reasons, etc?

 

[Monique]

I'd say all of the above, but does it matter for this discussion? I don't think so really. The question would be: what is the incentive to start including it again? If I were a meat eater I would most likely switch to the in vitro meat. I'd have to read-up on the production process to familiarize myself with the pros and cons. Are there any publications on it?

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[Monique]

I do see the benefits of lack of viruses (?), antibiotics (?), captive animals (?) to name something.

However, are really no animals harmed in the process of producing in vitro meat? Cell culture in a regular lab requires fetal bovine serum, that's why I ask questions to the production process. The same for viruses and antibiotics, cell cultures that you find in regular labs do contain viruses and are often treated with antibiotics.

 

[Q_Goest]

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?

The point isn't that society should eliminate animal suffering. The point is that some people wish to eliminate animal suffering, and for those people, in vitro meat might be an option. Some of the feedback already posted supports this desire.

 

[Evo]

The point isn't that society should eliminate animal suffering. The point is that some people wish to eliminate animal suffering, and for those people, in vitro meat might be an option. Some of the feedback already posted supports this desire.

I would definitely buy in vitro created meat rather than an animal slaughtered. Even if the taste and texture wasn't quite the same, I wouldn't mind.

 

[Q_Goest]

I'm with you on that one Evo.

 

[Pythagorean]

my personal taste is:

wild animals you killed yourself > captive slaughtered animals > engineered meat
wild vegetables you killed yourself > organic captive crops > engineered captive crops (when engineered for farmer's yield and convenience, not nutritional benefit)

 

[ThomasT]

Sure. Synthetic meats, veggies, fruits, and especially, yummy desserts. I'm all for it.

 

[Evo]

Sure. Synthetic meats, veggies, fruits, and especially, yummy desserts. I'm all for it.

It's real meat, not synthetic.

 

[ThomasT]

It's real meat, not synthetic.

Well that's even better. Sign me up.

 

[turbo]

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

 

[feathermoon]

At what point would this be unsafe, I have to ask. Or rather, more unsafe than standard down on the farm meat? What chemicals are needed to coax muscle cells to multiply?

I would jump at the chance. As a vegetarian who can't even remember the taste of meat, I can honestly say I'm not really tempted to try meat again, even if it wasn't for the various ethical dilemmas meat consumption poses to me. But, if this came around, I'd try it just to give money to the makers.

If I was a meat eater, I'd definitely switch to this if it was safe.

As to the OP, who the hell says you won't be able to get real meat even if this supplanted every traditional farm? You think these animals would just disappear once we don't need them for meat? Are we going to get milk and leather from a petri dish too?

Gooooooosh. I've considered buying a goat to eat the grass in my yard and give me milk, and I'm a vegetarian.

 

[feathermoon]

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.

By that, I have to wonder how many amazing new flavors could be created.

I believe a big issue right now is getting the petri dish meat to be anything other than a gelatin consistency. If they figure out a good way to exercise this petri dish meat, just imagine how many textures and consistencies will be possible. You'll go to a restaurant, after deciding how well done you'd like, decide how tough or tender as well. Science!

 

[feathermoon]

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

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?

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.

 

[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/