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

[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/

 

[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.