Vat grown meat

Doc Ruby

I just came cross this article and I was wondering what the members of this forum think about it, would you eat meat if no animals were harmed in its making?

(Reuters) - Scientists are cooking up new ways of satisfying the world's ever-growing hunger for meat.

"Cultured meat" -- burgers or sausages grown in laboratory Petri dishes rather than made from slaughtered livestock -- could be the answer that feeds the world, saves the environment and spares the lives of millions of animals, they say.

Granted, it may take a while to catch on. And it won't be cheap.

The first lab-grown hamburger will cost around 250,000 euros ($345,000) to produce, according to Mark Post, a vascular biologist at the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands, who hopes to unveil such a delicacy soon.

Experts say the meat's potential for saving animals' lives, land, water, energy and the planet itself could be enormous.

"The first one will be a proof of concept, just to show it's possible," Post told Reuters in a telephone interview from his Maastricht lab. "I believe I can do this in the coming year."

Seems to me that would satisfy even the most conscientious vegan.

JennaJameson

Using stem cells harvested from leftover animal material from slaughterhouses, Post nurtures them with a feed concocted of sugars, amino acids, lipids, minerals and all other nutrients they need to grow in the right way.

So I dunno if it's vegan exactly, seeing as it's grown from the stem cells of animals, but that's at such a microscopic level that perhaps people won't be bothered by it.

It's a great idea though.

Shenshen

As I became vegetarian because I didn't want animals to suffer on my account.
So I'd be very happy if there was meat that was grown as described in the article, once it becomes affordable that is.

But I guess that people who are vegetarian because they can't stand the taste of meat won't be all that impressed with this really.

InquiringMind

Quote from Wired.co.uk
"The muscle strips are created from stem cells harvested from leftover material from slaughterhouses (so it's impossible to describe it as cruelty-free, yet)"

I an not a vegetarian but I would still prefer to eat meat that is "cruelty-free". Were not there yet but at least it's a start

Doc Ruby

As I understand it an infinite amount of meat can be grown from a single batch, so there's no reason why baselines need be from slaughterhouses, like the first experiments, although a living animal does need to come into it somewhere along the road. The cells might even be collected without harming the animal, as they do with adult human stem cells.

These are only the first trial runs, so I'd give it 5 years before being commercially available, and within say 100, we would no longer need to farm live animals at all.

Tar.Aldarion

I read of this ages ago, in time the technology would improve immensely but we are not there yet. I am not sure if I could still see a world with the sheer amount of billions of animals being bred in it for eating in the distant future.

strandroad

I wouldn't eat it myself (I am not used to meat anymore) but it's a comforting thought that cruelty could be eliminated or largely limited in this way.

Doc Ruby

mhge wrote: »

I wouldn't eat it myself

Haha, funny you should mention that, but with this technology you could literally eat yourself!

Ew, sorry if I put anyone off.

Absurdum

no thanks

Slaphead07

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Seems to me that would satisfy even the most conscientious vegan.

It's probably best not to try and predict what somebody else's judgement would be. As a vegetarian I wouldn't consider it edible. If the source is an animal, either living or dead, then I'm not eating it.

fillefatale

No, because its still encouraging a market for meat, and it seems like it wouldn't be attainable (Even after improvements) for those on lower income brackets - and further removing the product from its source and serving to educate people about what they're really eating.

Personally no, I would not eat it.

Doc Ruby

fillefatale wrote: »

No, because its still encouraging a market for meat, and it seems like it wouldn't be attainable (Even after improvements) for those on lower income brackets - and further removing the product from its source and serving to educate people about what they're really eating.

I don't get it, why would it be a problem to have a market for meat when no animals are harmed in its production? I'd imagine costs will drop once the industrial scale is reached, there's no reason why a steak need be more expensive than a slice of bread when you're vat growing it. Again, I don't understand what you mean by educating people about what they eat, surely it will not only be clearly labelled but considerably healthier meat than stuff that's gone through butchering and processing?

I mean PETA has stumped up a $1 million prize for the first group to get vat grown meat to market.

Tar.Aldarion

Yes I too think it's a fantastic idea and can't wait to try some if we ever get to! :P
If made cheap enough it would just replace the farming of animals, so I don't see wy that is a bad thing?

fillefatale

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I don't get it, why would it be a problem to have a market for meat when no animals are harmed in its production? I'd imagine costs will drop once the industrial scale is reached, there's no reason why a steak need be more expensive than a slice of bread when you're vat growing it. Again, I don't understand what you mean by educating people about what they eat, surely it will not only be clearly labelled but considerably healthier meat than stuff that's gone through butchering and processing?

I mean PETA has stumped up a $1 million prize for the first group to get vat grown meat to market.

The point of the matter is that it is still meat. At some point along the line animal matter was used in its production. Morally, I don't believe that further isolating the final product from its original source (that being its associations with animal slaughter) is progressive at all. Thats what I meant about educating people about what they're eating, understanding that its a meat product and not something that magically appeared in a tin, without caring about where it came from. That is just one of my many issues with ignorant consumerism.

Please respect my views. Even seeing that PETA is involved has made me dubious about the whole thing.

Tar.Aldarion

I am unsure why an animal would have to be harmed in the process? Humans aren't.

Doc Ruby

fillefatale wrote: »

The point of the matter is that it is still meat. At some point along the line animal matter was used in its production. Morally, I don't believe that further isolating the final product from its original source (that being its associations with animal slaughter) is progressive at all. Thats what I meant about educating people about what they're eating, understanding that its a meat product and not something that magically appeared in a tin, without caring about where it came from. That is just one of my many issues with ignorant consumerism.

But there doesn't need to be any slaughter or even animal discomfort at all with this process. You could quite literally have a side of long pig grown from your own cells and eat it for dinner if you wanted. Rather this puts a final end to animal slaughter for any reason, which of course means livestock will most likely end up in zoos, being unable to fend for themselves after millennia of domestication.

fillefatale wrote: »

Please respect my views. Even seeing that PETA is involved has made me dubious about the whole thing.

I respect and admire those who stand up for their own beliefs, absolutely, its the specifics of the objections I'm curious about.

Absurdum

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I respect and admire those who stand up for their own beliefs, absolutely, its the specifics of the objections I'm curious about.

some people are assuming that vegetarians/vegans long for meat, a lot of us simply don't like the taste/texture of it

it's all a bit frankenstein imo

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

if this does become commonplace it wont save the lives of animals at all, who the hell will keep cows or sheep alive and fed if they can just grow the meat in a vat. All this will do is drive farm animals to extinction in the west, or wherever this method of meat producing takes hold.

Absurdum

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

All this will do is drive farm animals to extinction in the west, or wherever this method of meat producing takes hold.

just like horses became extinct after the motor car was invented, right?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

do you think cow racing is going to be the next big thing?

Doc Ruby

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

if this does become commonplace it wont save the lives of animals at all, who the hell will keep cows or sheep alive and fed if they can just grow the meat in a vat. All this will do is drive farm animals to extinction in the west, or wherever this method of meat producing takes hold.

I'm guessing the massive herds will just be sterilised and left to die out naturally except for a few specimens. I mean they can't fend for themselves, except maybe goats, so allowing them to run loose would be savage.

Keep in mind that this result would be the exact same if everyone decided to become a vegetarian tomorrow.

Mr Vengeance

So, a bit like Quorn then? Which hasn't exactly taken off amongst the "mainstream".

For me I'm not interested in this as I'm long over my desire to eat flesh. One could argue that road-kill is cruelty free meat, but I don't see many vegetarians or vegans interested in that.

If it does decrease the daily suffering of millions of animals across the world I'm all on for it, but count me out trying any of it. No doubt it will be unhealthy too.

Tescosolvakia

Animals will still be farmed for their hides, skins, milks and furs.

I think consumers will see this as unnatural, viewing meat eating a slaughtered animal to be "natural".

I'm not sure this will take off in such a way that would reduce animal consumption. I wouldnt be keen to try it as I don't desire or long for the taste of meat but my partner and friend said it would be something they would consider.

I agree with Absurdum, it's all a bit Frankenstein!

Shenshen

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

do you think cow racing is going to be the next big thing?

Possibly, but my money's on cow patty bingo...

Doc Ruby

Tescosolvakia wrote: »

Animals will still be farmed for their hides, skins, milks and furs.

I think consumers will see this as unnatural, viewing meat eating a slaughtered animal to be "natural".

I'd say once you take away the main food supply excuse, the rest of it will come tumbling down, the reasons to farm actual animals will dwindle to nothing. A lot of people subconsciously rationalise things by thinking, well if its good enough for cattle/chickens its good enough for mink. Besides, if they can synthesise meat, they can probably do the same for other components as well. Science, hell yeah!

There's a high squick factor, agreed but a lot lower than butchering, to my mind. The consequences of this stuff getting to an industrial level of production, and it will, are really fascinating when you think about it. The effects on many economies will be severe, for developing countries and for places like Ireland with high dairy exports. We'd be as well to start considering what we're going to replace it with now before it takes off.

And thats away from the more tangible questions like just what are we to do with the vast acreage of grazing land here and everywhere else? When we can produce enough meat of any description to feed a country in manufacturing plants on the outskirts of each urban area, farmland of many sorts becomes useless.

My vote goes to "return it to primal wilderness" of course! Let the trees rise again.

blatantrereg

They're only able to produce bad-tasting sausages and burgers and nuggets.
I dont see the real difference between this and Quorn really. It won't effect anything, except maybe some people who eat Quorn will try it.

I doubt I'd bother with it personally, though it wouldn't be for ethical reasons.

Slaphead07

blatantrereg wrote: »

I dont see the real difference between this and Quorn really. It won't effect anything, except maybe some people who eat Quorn will try it.

I eat quite a lot of quorn products but I wouldn't even consider eating this meat. To me it's still meat, so not like quorn at all.

blatantrereg

Slaphead07 wrote: »

I eat quite a lot of quorn products but I wouldn't even consider eating this meat. To me it's still meat, so not like quorn at all.

It's different because it's not meat yeah. But it's like quorn in the sense that it's an alternative to normal meat.

Vat grown meat would just be another alternative to meat from animals. That's my point really: There are already meat alternatives, yet people still eat meat from animals. That's why I dont think it would change anything.

gypsy_rose

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Haha, funny you should mention that, but with this technology you could literally eat yourself!

Ew, sorry if I put anyone off.

hahahahaah :P

would you? if the situation arised?

Mellor

blatantrereg wrote: »

It's different because it's not meat yeah. But it's like quorn in the sense that it's an alternative to normal meat.

Vat grown meat would just be another alternative to meat from animals. That's my point really: There are already meat alternatives, yet people still eat meat from animals. That's why I dont think it would change anything.

But quorn isn't thaqt similar to meat.
In theory, this stuff should be identical to meat on a cellular level

blatantrereg

Mellor wrote: »

But quorn isn't thaqt similar to meat.
In theory, this stuff should be identical to meat on a cellular level

Quorn is similar to this stuff in the sense that they are both alternatives to normal meat.
The article says that this stuff can only be made into bad tasting sausages/burgers/nuggets etc, and that they aren't near being able to make anything like a traditional cut.
My point is that Quorn is an existing meat substitute: I dont see advantages of this over Quorn. So it won't have any great impact on people's diets, except some people who eat meat substitutes will try it.