I call for a worldwide ban on the consumption of frogs legs.

Worztron

I have always been appalled by the practive of slaughtering frogs for their legs. The killing methods are barbaric (akin to cutting off sharks fins and dumping them back into the ocean).

I call for a worldwide ban on the consumption of frogs legs.

kildare.17hmr

How are they slaughtered?

kippy

Is this a wind up?

kylith

Why do you think we should ban a cheap source of protein that many of the world's poorest people rely on? If your worried about declining frog populations surely it would be better to petition for people to be better educated in husbandry?

Worztron

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

How are they slaughtered?

They have their legs chopped off and suffer a slow torturous death.

kildare.17hmr

So why not patition to slaughter them in a different way??

al28283

I don't think boards could implement a worldwide ban on anything

Andy-Pandy

Do you speak french? You'll need it.

Whispered

In my opinion you wont ever be able to ban any type of meat. I think you'd get much much further petitioning for more humane conditions and deaths. By calling for an all out ban you'd be dismissed, but asking for something more reasonable you might get people to listen to you.

paddyandy

I worked in the high end of catering years ago and they had the practice of boiling alive Crabs and Lobsters starting with cold water heating up and i remember watching the creatures struggling in the pots with elastic bands on their claws . It has to be done that way to destroy the natural poison in them .That's High Class Haute Cuisine for you .I'm out of it a long time .The excessive frippery and nonsense disgusted me .

star-pants

OP it might be an idea to post links (with warnings perhaps) to show how frogs are killed for consumption as many (myself included) probably don't know the process.

As Whispered quite rightly said, people will probably be listened to if they are putting in a reasonable request, outright bans would be easily dismissed.

timesnap

Does not really matter if the OP is a wind up or not.
assuming humankind continues to exist, i feel certain that we will be viewed as arrogant barbarians by future generations for how we treat other creatures, long after we found other sources of protein.

kippy

timesnap wrote: »

Does not really matter if the OP is a wind up or not.
assuming humankind continues to exist, i feel certain that we will be viewed as arrogant barbarians by future generations for how we treat other creatures, long after we found other sources of protein.

"We" will be long since gone, even if human kind still exists and a thread on boards.ie isn't going to change the world, as much as some delusional posters would like it to.

We are ultimately animals and predominately carnivores at that - we eat other animals, just as other animals eat each other.

kildare.17hmr

timesnap wrote: »

Does not really matter if the OP is a wind up or not.
assuming humankind continues to exist, i feel certain that we will be viewed as arrogant barbarians by future generations for how we treat other creatures, long after we found other sources of protein.

Is that how you view us?

bizmark

timesnap wrote: »

Does not really matter if the OP is a wind up or not.
assuming humankind continues to exist, i feel certain that we will be viewed as arrogant barbarians by future generations for how we treat other creatures, long after we found other sources of protein.

I feel certain no one in the future will give a single damn about what happened to a frog or cow or fox or anything else like that at the present moment

timesnap

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

Is that how you view us?

No i eat meat,but as i said future generations will view us as barbarians for eating meat once we had found other sources of protein.
we are supposed to be evolving are we not?
we are carnivores? i wish i knew that before i got addicted to let-us.

kildare.17hmr

We are omnivores. Doubt we will find anything that tastes as good as a big fillet steak!

Whispered

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

We are omnivores. Doubt we will find anything that tastes as good as a big fillet steak!

For some people taste is not the most important thing. I just couldn't enjoy a steak, I couldn't get the idea of a cow out of my head. Right or wrong, tasty or not, it's just not worth it to me.

K.C

LOL

Traonach

http://blogs.thatpetplace.com/thatreptileblog/2011/11/21/frog-leg-trade-kills-billions-of-frogs-annually-and-threatens-species%E2%80%99-survival/
Here's a link showing the damage the trade is doing.

timesnap

Traonach wrote: »

http://blogs.thatpetplace.com/thatreptileblog/2011/11/21/frog-leg-trade-kills-billions-of-frogs-annually-and-threatens-species%E2%80%99-survival/
Here's a link showing the damage the trade is doing.

You did not expect to get thanked for trying to expose how cruel we are to other creatures did you Traonach?
that is not why people use the 'thanks' option.;)

Odysseus

Worztron wrote: »

They have their legs chopped off and suffer a slow torturous death.

I keep a bearded dragon as a pet. I have spent lots of time in hostile enviroments like the Sahara, I have done the MdS for example. Anyway I have an interest in surviving in hostile environments, I have shared her food at times, they are a great source of protein.

I have done this so that I know I could eat them if I really have too. Would you like to see that banned too?

When I spent time in Muslim refugge camps in the Sahara I often cut the goats jugular, I would rather have done it a different and quicker way IMO, ut it is their custom.

I do not wish to offend people, but really when I see topic like this; it just seems a waste of space. Do the above examples make me a bad person, personally I think not as I really do come across bad people everyday during the course of my work.

It's late, I'm tired as I said I do not wish to offend anybody, but siuch posts just seem out of touch to me.

Odysseus

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

We are omnivores. Doubt we will find anything that tastes as good as a big fillet steak!

I had a whole leg of a young goat once, I have eaten it many times. However, I always thought my fav food was a nice fillet, but the way that leg of goat was cooked, it would be my top meal if I could get it cooked that way for me again.

blatantrereg

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

We are omnivores. Doubt we will find anything that tastes as good as a big fillet steak!

We're herbivores who adapted to tolerate meat in a limited manner so we could survive when our natural food supply was scarce.
Our phsyiognomy is almost 100% in common with herbivores. We share no characteristics with carnivores at all.
The only anomoly is that we generally need vitamin B12 from animal sources. Not from meat or fish necessarily - eggs and milk would be better.
There is no logical reason to eat meat in the modern world aprt from indulgence. There are plenty of compelling reasons not to.

timesnap

Odysseus as a mod of psychology surely you can see the contradiction in your two last posts,you say you do not wish to offend people then say how much you enjoyed meat-eating when it will surely offend vegatarions or vegans.

eating of other creatures as a necessity is one thing,being proud of it is another story.

Cavehill Red

blatantrereg wrote: »

We're herbivores who adapted to tolerate meat in a limited manner so we could survive when our natural food supply was scarce.
Our phsyiognomy is almost 100% in common with herbivores. We share no characteristics with carnivores at all.
The only anomoly is that we generally need vitamin B12 from animal sources. Not from meat or fish necessarily - eggs and milk would be better.
There is no logical reason to eat meat in the modern world aprt from indulgence. There are plenty of compelling reasons not to.

This is bad science from veggie activists. We're omnivores. Sorry, but we are. The 'cavemen were veggies' theory has been repeatedly debunked, primarily by the existence of gnawed animal bones cracked open to get at the marrow in almost every single prehistoric settlement ever found.

blatantrereg

Cavehill Red wrote: »

This is bad science from veggie activists. We're omnivores. Sorry, but we are. The 'cavemen were veggies' theory has been repeatedly debunked, primarily by the existence of gnawed animal bones cracked open to get at the marrow in almost every single prehistoric settlement ever found.

Dogs do that the whole time - crack open bones to get at marrow. Never heard of humans doing it. Dogs were key in the development of human society.

The fact that our physignomy is more herbivoral than anything else is bad science? The fact that primates which share up to 99.99% of our genetics are almost entirely herbivoral is bad science?
So obviously it is natural to eat foods that would make us seriously ill in the immediate term if we didnt cook them? (cooking itself being a natural thing to do)...Foods that still do make us seriously ill in the long term whether cooked or not...?
Let's agree to disagree on that one...

timesnap

Cavehill Red wrote: »

This is bad science from veggie activists. We're omnivores. Sorry, but we are. The 'cavemen were veggies' theory has been repeatedly debunked, primarily by the existence of gnawed animal bones cracked open to get at the marrow in almost every single prehistoric settlement ever found.

You must must be both a speed -reader and speed typist to have read and replied to that article in such a short time.
facts are meat is the slowest thing our bowel can process and pass out of our system.

Odysseus

timesnap wrote: »

Odysseus as a mod of psychology surely you can see the contradiction in your two last posts,you say you do not wish to offend people then say how much you enjoyed meat-eating when it will surely offend vegatarions or vegans.

eating of other creatures as a necessity is one thing,being proud of it is another story.

No every poster here avoids eating meat, I did not wish to offend those who though that the way I preped the food on those occassions find it a sensitive a topic. Nothing to do with the fact that I eat meat.

There is nothing wrong with enjoying a meal. The case I spoke of the person who cooked it put a lot of work into it, it was a special meal with a special thought associated with it.

Lots of veggies I know would not be offended, I tried it myself for about 4 years a long time ago, not because I thought eating meal was wrong.

Cavehill Red

blatantrereg wrote: »

Dogs do that the whole time - crack open bones to get at marrow. Never heard of humans doing it. Dogs were key in the development of human society.

Bone marrow remains a delicacy in many cuisines. And in Cro-Magnon times, it was top of the desired food list for both our ancestors and the neanderthals. Every prehistoric settlement is littered with cracked bones. Not, I hasten to add, cracked by a dogs jaw, but carefully cracked straight along the long side to maximise the amount of marrow accessible.

blatantrereg wrote: »

The fact that our physignomy is more herbivoral than anything else is bad science?

More herbivoral than what? Than extracting energy from the air via osmosis? We eat to gain energy. Most of what we could access to eat was vegetal, a small valuable proportion was meat. Hence we are omnivorous. We have a short, simple digestive system designed for digesting meat. Herbivores like cows require multiple stomachs. Our intestines run to about 8 times the length of our torsos (mouth to anus). That compares to 3.5 times or so for pure meat eaters like the big cats, and 12-20 times as long for herbivores like horses and cows. Conclusion? We're in the middle. We're omnivores.

blatantrereg wrote: »

The fact that primates which share up to 99.99% of our genetics are almost entirely herbivoral is bad science?

Yes, this is terrible science on a number of levels. Plenty of chimp colonies are meat eaters, and they are our closest relatives. Furthermore, that 99.99% needs to be seen in the context that we share 99% of our genes with mice.

blatantrereg wrote: »

So obviously it is natural to eat foods that would make us seriously ill in the immediate term if we didnt cook them? (cooking itself being a natural thing to do)...Foods that still do make us seriously ill in the long term whether cooked or not...?
Let's agree to disagree on that one...

We cook to eradicate the danger of infection from food poisoning, because we're smart and sentient and we learn stuff. If lions were sentient, they'd cook too. As for seriously ill? I don't think so. Food poisoning is unpleasant but very rarely fatal, just the same way as it is for carnivorous predators in the animal kingdom. A dose of the ****s or a day vomiting is debilitating, but doesn't qualify as seriously ill, I'm afraid.

You've been drinking the veggie kool-aid. It's selective reasoning and bad science. The reality is that we are omnivores, like our closest relatives, and have been for many thousands of years. That doesn't mean you personally have to eat meat. But it doesn't mean I shouldn't either.

timesnap

Odysseus wrote: »

No every poster here avoids eating meat, I did not wish to offend those who though that the way I preped the food on those occassions find it a sensitive a topic. Nothing to do with the fact that I eat meat.

There is nothing wrong with enjoying a meal. The case I spoke of the person who cooked it put a lot of work into it, it was a special meal with a special thought associated with it.

Lots of veggies I know would not be offended, I tried it myself for about 4 years a long time ago, not because I thought eating meal was wrong.

Fair enough,as i said i eat meat but there seems to be much more evidence that it is either, learned behaviour, or at one time was a necessity,
i love a good feed too but i know i can get my protein from soya or lentils if i wish.
just not as pleasing on the eye as a big juicy steak etc.:)

timesnap

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Food poisoning is unpleasant but very rarely fatal, just the same way as it is for carnivorous predators in the animal kingdom. A dose of the ****s or a day vomiting is debilitating, but doesn't qualify as seriously ill, I'm afraid.

Why not try eating raw animals for even a week like cats and dogs do and come back and tell us how it worked out for you?:)

Cavehill Red

timesnap wrote: »

Why not try eating raw animals for even a week like cats and dogs do and come back and tell us how it worked out for you?:)

I've eaten raw meat many, many times. Venison carpaccio, steak tartare, sushi, etc. Never had a problem yet. If you know where your food is coming from, then you can eat safely.

It's this all-or-nothing ideology of some vegetarians I object to - that, and their disingenuous bad science. It's clear that we have developed to eat some meat in our diet. It's a valuable source of protein and minerals. We didn't develop to eat burgers three times a day. I think vegetarianism is akin to a religion or a belief system. That's fine by me whatever you choose to believe, but I'll be guided by the science, and eating meat moderately two or three times a week is perfectly in keeping with an optimal diet. I think vegetarians might get closer to their aims of lowering meat consumption if that's what they suggested to those of us who do eat meat - to eat less of it, in keeping with our actual digestive systems.

blatantrereg

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Bone marrow remains a delicacy in many cuisines. And in Cro-Magnon times, it was top of the desired food list for both our ancestors and the neanderthals. Every prehistoric settlement is littered with cracked bones. Not, I hasten to add, cracked by a dogs jaw, but carefully cracked straight along the long side to maximise the amount of marrow accessible.



More herbivoral than what? Than extracting energy from the air via osmosis? We eat to gain energy. Most of what we could access to eat was vegetal, a small valuable proportion was meat. Hence we are omnivorous. We have a short, simple digestive system designed for digesting meat. Herbivores like cows require multiple stomachs. Our intestines run to about 8 times the length of our torsos (mouth to anus). That compares to 3.5 times or so for pure meat eaters like the big cats, and 12-20 times as long for herbivores like horses and cows. Conclusion? We're in the middle. We're omnivores.


Yes, this is terrible science on a number of levels. Plenty of chimp colonies are meat eaters, and they are our closest relatives. Furthermore, that 99.99% needs to be seen in the context that we share 99% of our genes with mice.



We cook to eradicate the danger of infection from food poisoning, because we're smart and sentient and we learn stuff. If lions were sentient, they'd cook too. As for seriously ill? I don't think so. Food poisoning is unpleasant but very rarely fatal, just the same way as it is for carnivorous predators in the animal kingdom. A dose of the ****s or a day vomiting is debilitating, but doesn't qualify as seriously ill, I'm afraid.

You've been drinking the veggie kool-aid. It's selective reasoning and bad science. The reality is that we are omnivores, like our closest relatives, and have been for many thousands of years. That doesn't mean you personally have to eat meat. But it doesn't mean I shouldn't either.

A lot of what you say here is contradcited by the article I've already linked. As already pointed out - you obviously are replying without reading.

We dont share 99% of genes with mice. We share about 75%. A lot mroe of our genes have analogues, whcih is a completely different thing. [Funny that you would argue this at the same time as suggesting I'm cherry picking facts.] Chimps have up to 99.99% the same genes as humans - with the type reaching that remarkably high figure being pygmy chimps, which mainly eat fruit. Chimps hunting and eating meat is weird behaviour, that is at odds with all other primates except for humans. It was only observed pretty recently, and is not really explained by nutritional needs. It is tied to the development of more aggressive and violent chimp societies also, and might be more to do with status than with food. Something like: "Would you like to share my food? I killed it myself. [evil chimp laugh] I think I should be the boss here dont you?" Maybe the development of meat eating in human society was more akin to that than to do with survival too...
Here is a pretty long article about it if you're interested

http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~stanford/chimphunt.html

The prehistoric people you refer to ate a lot of reindeer, which tend to live in cold climates, and woolly mammoths, which sound pretty well adapted for the same. This would suggest they did so when it was cold - which would support my suggestion that it grew out of a need when normal foodstuffs were scarce.

All your other points are bluntly contradicted by the article I already linked, if you bothered to read it. Lions dont need to cook because they are carnivores for example. Their stomach contains much stronger acid than herbivorous stomachs which kills the dangerous bacteria etc. Saying we dont have the same digestive system as a cow is irritating in the esxtreme, not just because it indicates you arent actually reading what I am saying before you seek to argue. Not all herbivores have multi-chambered stoamchs.

Food poisoning is rarely fatal? It can make you extremely sick to the point where you might wish it was tbh. Hardly an indicator of a healthy food if it makes you extremely sick I'd have thought, but it's grand if you survive the ordeal yeah?

Anyway you've clearly doemnstrated that you arent actually reading what I'm saying so pursuing an argument with you would be aggravating and pointless.

edit:

I've eaten raw meat many, many times. Venison carpaccio, steak tartare, sushi, etc. Never had a problem yet. If you know where your food is coming from, then you can eat safely.

It's this all-or-nothing ideology of some vegetarians I object to - that, and their disingenuous bad science. It's clear that we have developed to eat some meat in our diet.

More selective editing. Beef and so on is safe to eat raw from the PoV of avoiding posioning. The reason the outside is normallty cooked before consumption is not because of properties of the meat itself, but because it is likely to have been splattered with sh!t when the animal ws slaughtered. mmm yummy huh? Other meat such as poultry is guaranteed to make you extremely sick if you consume even a tiny amount of it raw. Pork and lamb is also very dangerous.

Not sure where anybody said we didn't adapt to gave some meat in our diet. I said we're herbivores who adapted to tolerate some meat. It's not ideal as a foodstuff. Vegetarians have amuch much lower incidence of dying young than meat eaters and avoid all sorts of health problems. But it is an option.

You've some cheek saying disingenuous bad science after saying mice share 99% of genes with humans and not even reading most of what you argued against.

edit 2:

Prehistoric humans may have gnawed on each other's bones, researchers now suggest.

Hector Mildew

According to this, http://www.newscientist.com/mobile/article/dn4122-meat-eating-is-an-old-human-habit.html , humans and our ancestors have been eating meat for 2.5 million years.

Saying that, I avoid eating meat from animals which have been treated badly.

timesnap

Hector Mildew wrote: »

According to this, http://www.newscientist.com/mobile/article/dn4122-meat-eating-is-an-old-human-habit.html , humans and our ancestors have been eating meat for 2.5 million years.

Saying that, I avoid eating meat from animals which have been treated badly.

With respect Hector Mildrew i do not see how your link contradicts blatantrereg points and links.
we are all just trying to get to the best known facts arn't we?
it is difficult to click on links that lead to lengthy articles and actually read them i know,i am as guilty as anybody else of trying to get the jist of an article but missing some of its more subtle points.

seems to me the links when fully read amount to more or less the same conclusions?

wetdogsmell

theres some very interesting posts on this thread, i love when people make up their own facts, (humans are herbivores, ha ha) does the op realy think all the people in the world that eat frog legs care about your opinion? i think i'll start a petition to stop all wars, i think it might work

Worztron

Whispered wrote: »

In my opinion you wont ever be able to ban any type of meat. I think you'd get much much further petitioning for more humane conditions and deaths. By calling for an all out ban you'd be dismissed, but asking for something more reasonable you might get people to listen to you.

Okay, maybe I should have asked for a mass boycott instead of a worldwide ban in the title.

Worztron

Still relevant.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/677593.stm

Worztron

timesnap wrote: »

Does not really matter if the OP is a wind up or not.
assuming humankind continues to exist, i feel certain that we will be viewed as arrogant barbarians by future generations for how we treat other creatures, long after we found other sources of protein.

Ignore kippy, this is not a wind up.

There are many quality sources of protein cheaply available - beans being the most obvious.

al28283

Worztron wrote: »

Okay, maybe I should gave asked for a mass boycott instead of a worldwide ban in the title.

Why? It still won't happen.

kylith

All I'm really seeing is a case for the regulation of producing frogs legs. I think that, as I said earlier, there is no reason at all to deprive some of the poorest people in the world of a cheap and accessable form of protein.

From a quick google I can see that it's recommended to give the frogs a sharp knock on the head to kill them. This makes much more logical sense to me; it's rather difficult to cut the legs off of something that's struggling.

Others have said there are other forms of protein than animal available, however many of the people who rely on foods such as frogs and snails have no access to these other forms of protein, and if the rest of us just flat out don't want to use them then that's our business.

Humans are, as evidenced by our truncated guts and our canine teeth, omnivores, like our chimpanzee relatives. Studies have shown that an adult human could not obtain their calorific needs eating a 'natural', raw, herbivorous diet without spending about 18 hours a day doing nothing but eating. Eating meat that has given us our large, calorie hogging, brain.

Evac101

timesnap wrote: »

No i eat meat,but as i said future generations will view us as barbarians for eating meat once we had found other sources of protein.
we are supposed to be evolving are we not?
we are carnivores? i wish i knew that before i got addicted to let-us.

Just as an observation, why do so many people equate evolving with developing along the moral/social lines which they approve of? Evolution isn't (generally) a guided process, it's organic and, by my limited understanding, necessarily a chaotic process(mutate - succeed/fail, next mutation). If you're speaking about the development of societies morals then, pretty please, refer to is as societies evolution and don't imply that you're referring to our biological evolution On that subject I would guess that there were very few/no accurate predictions of what our society would resemble today from even 100 years ago, I find it fairly unlikely that any of us can even guess what our society will resemble in 200 years or 500 years time and I wonder at the faith someone has in their own vision of the future where they feel they can accurately judge how those humans will feel about us. Perhaps we'll simply develop meat that wants to be eaten?1

Perhaps our evolution will involve us moving to a purely 'critter free' diet, perhaps it will involve us moving to an entirely 'critter based' diet - what our bodies develop to consume and what our societies mores are don't necessarily need to compliment each our, though obviously they can affect each other to a certain extent. Until we start mucking around with the human genome much more then we current are capable/morally allow, our biological evolution will continue to be ungoverned by our view of what we should be.

All of this bearing in mind the caveat that if no animal protein was available that eventually our bodies would adapt to that. This would come under the 'forced evolution' though and would take centuries at the very least to force through. Yes, there are protein sources other then meat, but what will do versus what the body evolved for are two separate things.

Or maybe I'm just full of it *shrug*

1 Credit to Mr Adams where credit is due

pawrick

Can't see how asking for a ban in a country which doesn't really eat them is going to affect anything. I have tried them, thought they tasted ok, I'm a meat eater but usually wouldn't eat meat most weeks for no particular reason.

I'd be far more concerned with genetically modified soya and wheat crops compared to a ban on eating frogs. Have GM crops been tested enough to avoid risks to health and wildlife and are the checks in place to avoid cross contamination with non modified crops? There is also the issue surrounding poor regions which become reliant on purchasing seeds from companies associated with such crops resulting in local varieties becoming extinct which may be better suited to the land and the resultant increase in use of artificial fertiliser plus farmers being tied to a company for new seeds.

Discodog

Within 50 years real meat will be the price of caviare. Most of us will be eating meat that is artificially grown. Small pieces of meat are already being grown in labs & the first "hamburger" is on it's way - with an enormous price tag

The scientists working on this are convinced that it will be the norm because, with mass production, it will be cheaper than "real meat" & more environmentally friendly. It also involves no animals so existing veggies could eat it. Because of the huge demand from the new rich in China & India meat prices are set to rocket. Traditionally their diets have featured little meat but tastes are changing.

kildare.17hmr

Discodog wrote: »

Within 50 years real meat will be the price of caviare. Most of us will be eating meat that is artificially grown.

Not me anyway!

Hector Mildew

timesnap wrote: »

With respect Hector Mildrew i do not see how your link contradicts blatantrereg points and links.
we are all just trying to get to the best known facts arn't we?
it is difficult to click on links that lead to lengthy articles and actually read them i know,i am as guilty as anybody else of trying to get the jist of an article but missing some of its more subtle points.

seems to me the links when fully read amount to more or less the same conclusions?

With respect timesnap, I read both articles and I don't agree that they share the same conclusions..

The vegsource article linked by blatantrereg (http://www.vegsource.com/news/2009/11/the-comparative-anatomy-of-eating.html) states that herbivores evolved from carnivores (via omnivores). It compares anatomies and concludes that we are herbivores who eat meat.

The article I linked suggests the opposite, based on differences between teeth, that the first humans evolved to eat meat from their vegetarian ancestors.

I thought that was interesting, but even more interesting is why we evolved they way we did. One theory is that that meat eating enabled the development of our large brain.. http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2008/04/eating-meat-led-to-smaller-stomachs-bigger-brains/

Interesting also that the vegsource article makes lots of comparisons between the jaws, teeth, and head muscles of carnivores and ours. However it does not recognise our ability to use our hands, and therefore tools, to help us hunt and prepare meat - negating the need for the wider jaws and sharper teeth of carnivores.

Back on topic, I don't believe that it's acceptable to treat animals, intended as food or otherwise, in a cruel manner. We have evolved far beyond that.. I think

wetdogsmell

Discodog wrote: »

Within 50 years real meat will be the price of caviare. Most of us will be eating meat that is artificially grown. Small pieces of meat are already being grown in labs & the first "hamburger" is on it's way - with an enormous price tag

this will never happen, meat is too cheap to produce, plus theres plenty of free wild meat just strolling around the place

Whispered

Discodog wrote: »

It also involves no animals so existing veggies could eat it.

It depends on their reasons for being veggie - many don't eat meat replacement products because they dislike anything resembling meat, never mind lab grown flesh.

Others, would happily eat it once the animal suffering and death part was taken out.

Put 10 veggies in a room and you'll probably get 10 different reasons for their diet choice.

Discodog

wetdogsmell wrote: »

this will never happen, meat is too cheap to produce, plus theres plenty of free wild meat just strolling around the place

The whole reason for the research into cloning meat is that meat is very expensive to produce. The land & feed cost is huge plus the world is running out of land. The "free" meat will either be protected or it will become extinct. It won't be an endless supply.

Given some of the standards in world farming & the increasing reliance of genetics & drugs, cloned meat may be much healthier.

wetdogsmell

Discodog wrote: »

The whole reason for the research into cloning meat is that meat is very expensive to produce. The land & feed cost is huge plus the world is running out of land. The "free" meat will either be protected or it will become extinct. It won't be an endless supply.

Given some of the standards in world farming & the increasing reliance of genetics & drugs, cloned meat may be much healthier.

i'd imagine that cloning meat cost alot more than growing it naturaly, if anything people are getting more into growing their own meat, and eating free range food, plus were not running out of land in this country,
to repeat myself THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN