Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Pause Switch to Standard View Meat Grown in Lab, No Animals Required
Show More
Loading...
Flag Ebon February 20, 2012 10:48 AM EST
"Dutch scientists have used stem cells to create strips of muscle tissue with the aim of producing the first lab-grown hamburger later this year.

The aim of the research is to develop a more efficient way of producing meat than rearing animals.


At a major science meeting in Canada, Prof Mark Post said synthetic meat could reduce the environmental footprint of meat by up to 60%."


Rest at the link: www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-1...

Flag TemplarS February 20, 2012 11:03 AM EST

Wouldn't sausage be a better place to start?  Who know what goes into a sausage anyway?

Flag Ed2 February 20, 2012 11:17 AM EST

Feb 20, 2012 -- 10:48AM, Ebon wrote:

"Dutch scientists have used stem cells to create strips of muscle tissue with the aim of producing the first lab-grown hamburger later this year.


The aim of the research is to develop a more efficient way of producing meat than rearing animals.


At a major science meeting in Canada, Prof Mark Post said synthetic meat could reduce the environmental footprint of meat by up to 60%."


Rest at the link: www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-1...




I hope that they didn't use stem cells from cattle because eating too much beef is a known health risk:


www.webmd.com/food-recipes/news/20050111...


Although, hopefully they can do this with fish and chicken stem cells. Smile

Flag Ed2 February 20, 2012 11:34 AM EST

Feb 20, 2012 -- 10:48AM, Ebon wrote:

"Dutch scientists have used stem cells to create strips of muscle tissue with the aim of producing the first lab-grown hamburger later this year.


The aim of the research is to develop a more efficient way of producing meat than rearing animals.




Well, I'm also glad to hear about the benefits to animals because as it has been widely publicized, conditions are deplorable for many, if not most animals that are used to mass produce meat for human beings. ...I mean, really deplorable.


Plus, in many third world countries, the rain forest is being stripped for cattle pasture:


Forests, particularly the rain forests of Central America and the Amazon, are being burned and cleared to make way for cattle pasture. Since 1960, more than 25 percent of the Central American forests have been lost to beef production -- most of it for export to the United States and Europe. It has been estimated that for every quarter-pound fast-food hamburger made from Central American beef, 55 square feet of tropical forest -- including 165 pounds of unique species of plants and animals -- is destroyed. Today, the world's 1.3 billion cattle are stripping vegetation and compacting and eroding soil, thus creating deserts out of grasslands. More than 60 percent of the world's rangelands have been damaged by overgrazing during the past half century.


www.animalliberationfront.com/Practical/...


 

Flag arielg February 20, 2012 1:43 PM EST

This is dumb.  The main  argument for eating meat is the need for proteins. They could just develop some way of making protein and forget about the meat.

Flag solfeggio February 20, 2012 2:46 PM EST

Ariel makes an excellent point, with which I agree. 


One of the most commonly heard questions that vegetarians hear is 'Where do you get your protein?'  This implies that the general public assumes that protein can only be obtained from flesh, which is simply not true.


The fact that people who do not eat flesh somehow manage to not just survive, but to be in general healthier than the general population shows that, obviously, protein can be easily obtained from other sources.


www.happycow.net/vegetarian_protein.html


However, this sort of thinking will not be accepted by the general public, who remain convinced that they must have meat to survive, so the idea of making meat in a lab is the next best thing.


And, since it is true that our fellow 'food' animals are treated abominably, it would be to their benefit if lab meat became popular.


Who knows?  If people really do become seriously concerned about the terrible cost to the environment by the animal agriculture industry, maybe lab meat will become more popular.


 


 

Flag rangerken February 20, 2012 2:56 PM EST

My favorite meat is a rack of lamb. Next comes a porterhouse steak. I prefer dark meat when eating turkey. I thoroughly enjoy lobster, and a swordfish steak is great. Pork sausage or bacon with eggs is mandatory. And so forth.


I have no intention of stopping either.


BUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! When and if some in vitro or tanked or artificial method is developed that can produce the 'meats' I enjoy, and plan on continuing to enjoy, I will immediatey and cheerfully start using them.


That means something that looks like, cooks like, and tastes EXACTLY like, for example, a slice of bone in ribeye steak. If we're talking about something like designer tofu, forget about it.


I do wonder whether or not I'd stop hunting deer and wild boar and pheasant, etc, since I enjoy eating them also...plus I like to hunt.


Ken

Flag Ed2 February 20, 2012 5:30 PM EST

Feb 20, 2012 -- 1:43PM, arielg wrote:


This is dumb.  The main  argument for eating meat is the need for proteins. They could just develop some way of making protein and forget about the meat.




Feb 20, 2012 -- 2:46PM, solfeggio wrote:


Ariel makes an excellent point, with which I agree. 


One of the most commonly heard questions that vegetarians hear is 'Where do you get your protein?'  This implies that the general public assumes that protein can only be obtained from flesh, which is simply not true.


The fact that people who do not eat flesh somehow manage to not just survive, but to be in general healthier than the general population shows that, obviously, protein can be easily obtained from other sources.


www.happycow.net/vegetarian_protein.html


However, this sort of thinking will not be accepted by the general public, who remain convinced that they must have meat to survive, so the idea of making meat in a lab is the next best thing.


And, since it is true that our fellow 'food' animals are treated abominably, it would be to their benefit if lab meat became popular.


Who knows?  If people really do become seriously concerned about the terrible cost to the environment by the animal agriculture industry, maybe lab meat will become more popular.




So then, I guess this idea really isn't dumb after all. Smile

Flag Ed2 February 20, 2012 5:49 PM EST

Feb 20, 2012 -- 2:56PM, rangerken wrote:


My favorite meat is a rack of lamb. Next comes a porterhouse steak. I prefer dark meat when eating turkey. I thoroughly enjoy lobster, and a swordfish steak is great. Pork sausage or bacon with eggs is mandatory. And so forth.


I have no intention of stopping either.


BUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! When and if some in vitro or tanked or artificial method is developed that can produce the 'meats' I enjoy, and plan on continuing to enjoy, I will immediatey and cheerfully start using them.


That means something that looks like, cooks like, and tastes EXACTLY like, for example, a slice of bone in ribeye steak. If we're talking about something like designer tofu, forget about it.




Well, Ken, I guess you've heard about how scientist can now grow human body parts from either stem cells or from cells of the part of the body that they are trying to reproduce. And they use molds to create the shape of those body parts:


Atala says every organ in our body contains special stem cells that are unique to each body part. The key to regeneration, he says, is to isolate and then multiply those cells until there are enough to cover a mold of that particular body part.

Atala showed Safer a bladder that was growing in the lab. "And you can see here that we actually create the three dimensional mold first. This is actually coated with cells and it's done one layer at a time. It's very much like baking a layer cake."


www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/11/60min...



So in theory, it sounds as if one day scientists would be able to get some of the stem cells from the parts of animals where a rack of lamb or a porterhouse steak comes from...put those cells in a three dimensional mold and what a while...and voila! You have your cuts of meat where you can get a rack of lamb from or a porterhouse steak.


Sounds pretty cool to me. Smile

Flag mytmouse57 February 20, 2012 6:36 PM EST

Good news for cows...

Flag Abner1 February 20, 2012 6:52 PM EST

Mytmouse wrote:


> Good news for cows...


Depends on how you look at it.  If this gets to the point of being economically viable, or even cheaper than meat from animals ... a lot of food animals will go near-extinct.  There would still be a few for those people who want to eat the traditionally made meat, of course, but the overall result would be far fewer of those animals.


Less animal suffering because there are less animals.  That's an interesting conundrum.

Flag mainecaptain February 20, 2012 8:52 PM EST

I would rather have animals go extinct, then have them suffer the way they do to provide meat. They are not here to for  us.


We just exploit the fact that non human animals can not fight back against such a destructive animals as the human animal.

Flag farragut February 20, 2012 9:21 PM EST

Well, as the technology advances, we could have them produce the equivalent of human meat, and we could become legitimate cannibals.

Flag solfeggio February 20, 2012 10:14 PM EST

Good point, Mainecaptain.  If you stop to think about it, of course other sentient beings are not here for human benefit.  Everything evolved to fit a suitable ecological niche, and that has nothing to do with human desires.


And, like you, I'd much rather cows (or pigs or sheep or even chickens) went extinct than that they continued to be so cruelly exploited.  However, I don't think that would happen, because there would always be people with pet pigs or chickens, or some family farm somewhere with Bossie the beloved family cow, living out her retirement in the pasture.


In any case, domesticated animals are not 'natural' in any sense to begin with. 


 

Flag solfeggio February 20, 2012 10:19 PM EST

farragut -


I like that idea of humans eating human flesh made in the petrie dish.  Don't they do something like that in the movie Soylent Green?  And didn't ancient cultures used to eat their slain enemies?  


But, even if the flesh was grown in a petrie dish, wouldn't the scientists have to look out for prion diseases?


Problems, problems. 

Flag Erey February 20, 2012 11:23 PM EST

Mentaly this whole idea of lab grown meat will take some getting used to. I am not sure if I am ready.


stem cells are fascinating

Flag rabello February 21, 2012 2:23 AM EST

Article doesn't say if they're using embryonic stem cells or adult stem cells.  Embryonic are, of course, harder to get, at least on the donor cow.


The most interesting parts in the article, for me are these:



They are off-white and resemble strips of calamari in appearance. These strips will be mixed with blood and artificially grown fat to produce a hamburger by the autumn.




Yuck



So what is the synthetic burger likely to taste like?


"In the beginning it will taste bland," says Prof Post. "I think we will need to work on the flavour separately by trying to figure out which components of the meat actually produce the taste and analyse what the composition of the strip is and whether we can change that."




Yuck, again



David Steele, who is president of Earthsave Canada, said that the same benefits could be achieved if people ate less meat.


it is pretty clear to me that plant-based alternatives... have substantial environmental and probably animal welfare advantages over synthetic meat," he said.


Dr Steele, who is also a molecular biologist, said he was also concerned that unhealthily high levels of antibiotics and antifungal chemicals would be needed to stop the synthetic meat from rotting.




Wisdom


 

Flag CharikIeia February 21, 2012 10:01 AM EST

Feb 20, 2012 -- 2:46PM, solfeggio wrote:


Ariel makes an excellent point, with which I agree.



It is an uninformed point, I am afraid.


The whole point of synthetic meat is the efficient, simple production of edible protein. If done properly, it will be more cost efficient and will have less environmental impact than growing plants.


Of course, it has side effects on veganism as a valid social movement.

Flag mytmouse57 February 21, 2012 10:06 AM EST

Feb 20, 2012 -- 6:52PM, Abner1 wrote:


Mytmouse wrote:


> Good news for cows...


Depends on how you look at it.  If this gets to the point of being economically viable, or even cheaper than meat from animals ... a lot of food animals will go near-extinct.  There would still be a few for those people who want to eat the traditionally made meat, of course, but the overall result would be far fewer of those animals.


Less animal suffering because there are less animals.  That's an interesting conundrum.




I don't think the cows care much either way. Having spent considerable time around them, I've not gotten the impression that they're particularly contemplative. 


Much of the culture and a good bit of the economy out here where I live is built around ranching -- so it could carry weighty implicatons in that regard. 


Either way, I'll stick to hunting deer as my primary source of meat. I was raised on venison, and like it better than beef anyway. 





Flag Ebon February 21, 2012 12:11 PM EST

Feb 20, 2012 -- 11:17AM, Ed2 wrote:

Although, hopefully they can do this with fish and chicken stem cells.



The principle is the same so I'm sure that fish, chicken and so on are only a few years away.


Feb 20, 2012 -- 11:34AM, Ed2 wrote:

Well, I'm also glad to hear about the benefits to animals because as it has been widely publicized, conditions are deplorable for many, if not most animals that are used to mass produce meat for human beings. ...I mean, really deplorable.



This is why there's a lot of people here (including myself) who choose to pay a little extra to ensure our meat is free-range (unlike the US, our laws do define what free-range means).


Feb 20, 2012 -- 2:56PM, rangerken wrote:

That means something that looks like, cooks like, and tastes EXACTLY like, for example, a slice of bone in ribeye steak. If we're talking about something like designer tofu, forget about it.



Nope, it's real meat, just artificially grown. Getting the flavour right will take a little while but it's really just a matter of balancing the chemicals which produce flavour properly.


Feb 20, 2012 -- 9:21PM, farragut wrote:

Well, as the technology advances, we could have them produce the equivalent of human meat, and we could become legitimate cannibals.



Read Transmetropolitan. It's set in a far future America where exactly that has happened.


Feb 21, 2012 -- 10:01AM, CharikIeia wrote:

Of course, it has side effects on veganism as a valid social movement.



Probably true but I shared it because I'm a science geek :)



I think that, as the global population grows and the pressure on resources continues to expand, vat-grown meat will eventually become more popular and even cheaper (adjusted for inflation, naturally) than "real" meat. Eventually, natural meat will only be consumed by the very rich and for the snob factor. The rest of us will be eating cheap, vat-grown meat that has the same flavour but much less environmental impact and, of course, zero animal suffering.

Flag TemplarS February 21, 2012 12:45 PM EST

Feb 21, 2012 -- 12:11PM, Ebon wrote:


Feb 20, 2012 -- 2:56PM, rangerken wrote:

That means something that looks like, cooks like, and tastes EXACTLY like, for example, a slice of bone in ribeye steak. If we're talking about something like designer tofu, forget about it.



Nope, it's real meat, just artificially grown. Getting the flavour right will take a little while but it's really just a matter of balancing the chemicals which produce flavour properly.





That is the tricky part.  For some animals (don't know about cows, but it is true for fish) what the animal eats has an impact on flavor.  Of course there are chemicals present which cause this; but which ones? And how, in an animal,  do they react on the way from the food source, through digestion and the bloodstream,  and incorporation into the body of the food animal?  And how do you incorporate this in whatever brew is used to "feed" the synthetic meat?


These are issues in farm-raised fish vs. naturally caught fish.  One imagines they will be more difficult when the animal is not even "eating" in the same way.

Flag Ebon February 21, 2012 12:47 PM EST

Feb 21, 2012 -- 12:45PM, TemplarS wrote:

That is the tricky part.  For some animals (don't know about cows, but it is true for fish) what the animal eats has an impact on flavor.  Of course there are chemicals present which cause this; but which ones? And how, in an animal,  do they react on the way from the food source, through digestion and the bloodstream,  and incorporation into the body of the food animal?  And how do you incorporate this in whatever brew is used to "feed" the synthetic meat?


These are issues in farm-raised fish vs. naturally caught fish.  One imagines they will be more difficult when the animal is not even "eating" in the same way.



All true but I have faith in human ingenuity. I think it'll take a while but, in time, all of these issues will be solved.

Flag CharikIeia February 21, 2012 1:00 PM EST

Feb 21, 2012 -- 12:45PM, TemplarS wrote:


For some animals (don't know about cows, but it is true for fish) what the animal eats has an impact on flavor.



As I understand, that is why rabbits are fed herbs like marjoram or thyme for a few days before slaughter. It's hearsay for me, no idea if there is truth in it.

Flag TemplarS February 21, 2012 1:39 PM EST

Given enough time and money- which one thinks would be forthcoming here- I suppose smart people coule figure it out.  But it seems a daunting job.  After all, there is not just one flavor molecule.  You'd think cows would be simple, unlike wild salmon which can eat any number of other fish.  Cows eat grass, you would think, how difficult can that be? But they have stomachs full of microbes which help digest the stuff; one would think the chemistry of that might be very complex, what microbes are present, what are their metabolic pathways and the like.  Rather like the chemistires in making beer or wine; which aren't simple at all. 

Flag arielg February 21, 2012 2:57 PM EST

This is just one more step in the attempt to avoid dealing with the psychological aspects of eating meat.


 Eating meat implies killing the animal, seeing the life go out of them, feeling the blood pouring from the animal, witnesing the pain. It is all an integral part of eating it.


 But all that is avoided by buying the steack neatly packaged in the market, never experiencing the process. Just like sending soldiers to do the killing, because one doesn't want to feel responsibility for what they do.


 Now we are going to "grow" meat. We are going to get the so called advantages of eating meat, but avoid the whole proces behind it. It will be just a clumsy imitation, but those who are so hung up in the taste of meat will be able to feel a little less guilty. It would be much easier to just avoid the whole thing altogether and start changing eating habits.

Flag CharikIeia February 21, 2012 3:18 PM EST

Feb 21, 2012 -- 2:57PM, arielg wrote:


Eating meat implies killing the animal, seeing the life go out of them, feeling the blood pouring from the animal, witnesing the pain. It is all an integral part of eating it.


...


 Now we are going to "grow" meat. We are going to get the so called advantages of eating meat, but avoid the whole proces behind it. It will be just a clumsy imitation, but those who are so hung up in the taste of meat will be able to feel a little less guilty.



Could you elaborate where the guilt IS, when the meat is a fully synthetic product?


Why would the causal chain that you so visually sketch in the first quoted paragraph be valid any more?

Flag Erey February 21, 2012 3:25 PM EST

Feb 21, 2012 -- 2:57PM, arielg wrote:


This is just one more step in the attempt to avoid dealing with the psychological aspects of eating meat.


 Eating meat implies killing the animal, seeing the life go out of them, feeling the blood pouring from the animal, witnesing the pain. It is all an integral part of eating it.


 But all that is avoided by buying the steack neatly packaged in the market, never experiencing the process. Just like sending soldiers to do the killing, because one doesn't want to feel responsibility for what they do.


 Now we are going to "grow" meat. We are going to get the so called advantages of eating meat, but avoid the whole proces behind it. It will be just a clumsy imitation, but those who are so hung up in the taste of meat will be able to feel a little less guilty. It would be much easier to just avoid the whole thing altogether and start changing eating habits.





The rage now is butcher shops, the "old school" rage that is.  They are popping up in trendy foodie spaces.  This idea of being aware of the animal that meat comes from, and these butcher shops tend to feature humanely raised, etc.  There was this article several months ago about this guy who had been a vegan for many years.  One day he lost it with bacon, just had to have some bacon.  Now he has a butcher shop featuring the humanely raised, etc.  He does all his butchering right in the full view of the public, in front of the window so to speak. 


I ate on Friday evening at this foodie place that had a few paragraphs on the back of the menu about the horrors of feed lot livestock and how horrible it is that we are so remote.  Odd little sermon on the back of a menu where the restaurant is famous for it's pork belly.  They also had a insert to the menu detailing where all the meat came from, which farm and where it is located. It was all in various rural areas around the city.



I think we are shifting away from a sex obsessed culture into a food obsessed culture.  I guess we have to be obsessed with something?

Flag Ebon February 21, 2012 3:33 PM EST

Feb 21, 2012 -- 3:25PM, Erey wrote:

The rage now is butcher shops, the "old school" rage that is.  They are popping up in trendy foodie spaces.  This idea of being aware of the animal that meat comes from, and these butcher shops tend to feature humanely raised, etc.  There was this article several months ago about this guy who had been a vegan for many years.  One day he lost it with bacon, just had to have some bacon.  Now he has a butcher shop featuring the humanely raised, etc.  He does all his butchering right in the full view of the public, in front of the window so to speak.



Old-fashioned butcher shops never died out here. I've been an advocate of supporting them for some time. It means you know exactly where your meat has come from. Free-range, organic or humanely-raised, whatever you call it, reduces the animal's suffering and, as any chef will tell you, tastes better.


I think we are shifting away from a sex obsessed culture into a food obsessed culture.  I guess we have to be obsessed with something?



Human nature, I'm afraid.

Flag Ebon February 21, 2012 3:35 PM EST

Feb 21, 2012 -- 3:18PM, CharikIeia wrote:

Could you elaborate where the guilt IS, when the meat is a fully synthetic product?


Why would the causal chain that you so visually sketch in the first quoted paragraph be valid any more?



For some people, it's not about the suffering of animals but just an excuse to feel morally superior to others.

Flag Erey February 21, 2012 3:46 PM EST

Feb 21, 2012 -- 3:35PM, Ebon wrote:


Feb 21, 2012 -- 3:18PM, CharikIeia wrote:

Could you elaborate where the guilt IS, when the meat is a fully synthetic product?


Why would the causal chain that you so visually sketch in the first quoted paragraph be valid any more?



For some people, it's not about the suffering of animals but just an excuse to feel morally superior to others.




There is this vauge but increasingly better defined food hiearchy.  And this conversation people are increasingly having on where they are on the scale (I am pretty low). 


Sometimes it is moral, sometimes it is a control issue.  Kind of like small children that have trained the adults around them to go to all these lengths to get them to eat, adults too will exert control over others with food. 


People need to rediscover the idea of grace and gratitude over the chance to sit down and break bread and eat with others.  The idea that the people you are dining with are more important than the pseudo morality behind the food. 

Flag Erey February 21, 2012 3:46 PM EST

Feb 21, 2012 -- 3:35PM, Ebon wrote:

Feb 21, 2012 -- 3:18PM, CharikIeia wrote:

Could you elaborate where the guilt IS, when the meat is a fully synthetic product?

Why would the causal chain that you so visually sketch in the first quoted paragraph be valid any more?


For some people, it's not about the suffering of animals but just an excuse to feel morally superior to others.



There is this vauge but increasingly better defined food hiearchy.  And this conversation people are increasingly having on where they are on the scale (I am pretty low). 

Sometimes it is moral, sometimes it is a control issue.  Kind of like small children that have trained the adults around them to go to all these lengths to get them to eat, adults too will exert control over others with food. 

People need to rediscover the idea of grace and gratitude over the chance to sit down and break bread and eat with others.  The idea that the people you are dining with are more important than the pseudo morality behind the food. 

Flag solfeggio February 21, 2012 4:13 PM EST

I cannot in all honestly agree with Erey that sitting down and breaking bread with other people (in a formal meal setting) is all that important in the great scheme of things.  Yes, it's nice to sit down and have something to eat but, since it has long been established that four or five small meals a day are preferable to three sit-downs, that sitting down meal would be more of a snack than anything else, and a brief snack at that.


People would get more out of sitting down and playing a board game or watching a movie on TV, during which they would converse for a much longer period of time than if they were eating a big meal of meat and two veggies.


In other words, people learn to eat to live rather than to live to eat.


People who have chosen not to eat the flesh of other animals do it for one of two reasons.  (Or, they may even do it for both reasons).  Either they are genuinely concerned about the terrible sufferings of those animals in the factory farm environment, or they are genuinely concerned with the effects the eating of other animals will have on their health.


Mainly, I think, in general, most people stop ingesting animal flesh for health reasons.


Either way, committed vegetarians/vegans do NOT do so in order to feel morally superior to anybody.  And anyone who says that they do is sadly misinformed about the vegetarian lifestyle and has obviously not actually followed this lifestyle him/herself.


If the scientists think they can duplicate animal flesh in a test tube, so to speak, and make it taste and smell just like prime ribs or roast chicken, then they should go for it.  Anything that will alleviate the sufferings of our fellow animals should at least be tried.


 

Flag TemplarS February 21, 2012 4:33 PM EST

Sitting down and eating together is one of the great cultural traditions of our race. 


It does not, however, make any difference what you eat.  It is the responsibility of the host (or the one preparing the meal, in a family setting) to see to the dietary needs of his or her guests.  I am not talking about parents making kids eat their veggies; I am talking about being sensitive to the feelings of the people at the table.  My daughter is a vegetarian, the rest of our family is not, and we accomodate her when we sit together.  If we have meat, she will have fish or pasta. This is no big deal.   We don't make her starve; and she does not make herself out to be morally superior on the basis of what she chooses to eat.  We enjoy each other's company; it is a really nice experience.  I don't see what the fuss is about.


 


 

Flag IreneAdler February 21, 2012 6:03 PM EST

Feb 21, 2012 -- 1:39PM, TemplarS wrote:


Given enough time and money- which one thinks would be forthcoming here- I suppose smart people coule figure it out.  But it seems a daunting job.  After all, there is not just one flavor molecule.  You'd think cows would be simple, unlike wild salmon which can eat any number of other fish.  Cows eat grass, you would think, how difficult can that be? But they have stomachs full of microbes which help digest the stuff; one would think the chemistry of that might be very complex, what microbes are present, what are their metabolic pathways and the like.  Rather like the chemistires in making beer or wine; which aren't simple at all. 








Have I got news for you! There are flavor additives available and in use now to make this bland protein taste just like a freshly grilled burger. Oodles of fast foods and processed foods employ these flavor additives to make the concoction taste palatable.



So taste problem solved. They just have to get the proper mouth feel for the petri meat and lower the cost and artificial hamburger is ready to serve.  Pass the mustard please!



From a chapter in Fast Food Nation:



www.rense.com/general7/whyy.htm



Link is a verrrrry long article.  My apologies.


 


Some excerpts:



“Open your refrigerator, your freezer, your kitchen cupboards, and look at the labels on your food. You'll find "natural flavor" or "artificial flavor" in just about every list of ingredients. The similarities between these two broad categories are far more significant than the differences. Both are man-made additives that give most processed food most of its taste. People usually buy a food item the first time because of its packaging or appearance. Taste usually determines whether they buy it again. About 90 percent of the money that Americans now spend on food goes to buy processed food. The canning, freezing, and dehydrating techniques used in processing destroy most of food's flavor -- and so a vast industry has arisen in the United States to make processed food palatable. Without this flavor industry today's fast food would not exist. The names of the leading American fast-food chains and their best-selling menu items have become embedded in our popular culture and famous worldwide. But few people can name the companies that manufacture fast food's taste.



“Complex aromas, such as those of coffee and roasted meat, are composed of volatile gases from nearly a thousand different chemicals. The smell of a strawberry arises from the interaction of about 350 chemicals that are present in minute amounts. The quality that people seek most of all in a food -- flavor -- is usually present in a quantity too infinitesimal to be measured in traditional culinary terms such as ounces or teaspoons. The chemical that provides the dominant flavor of bell pepper can be tasted in amounts as low as 0.02 parts per billion; one drop is sufficient to add flavor to five average-size swimming pools. The flavor additive usually comes next to last in a processed food's list of ingredients and often costs less than its packaging.



“The federal Food and Drug Administration does not require companies to disclose the ingredients of their color or flavor additives so long as all the chemicals in them are considered by the agency to be GRAS ("generally recognized as safe"). This enables companies to maintain the secrecy of their formulas. It also hides the fact that flavor compounds often contain more ingredients than the foods to which they give taste. The phrase "artificial strawberry flavor" gives little hint of the chemical wizardry and manufacturing skill that can make a highly processed food taste like strawberries.


“A typical artificial strawberry flavor, like the kind found in a Burger King strawberry milk shake, contains the following ingredients: amyl acetate, amyl butyrate, amyl valerate, anethol, anisyl formate, benzyl acetate, benzyl isobutyrate, butyric acid, cinnamyl isobutyrate, cinnamyl valerate, cognac essential oil, diacetyl, dipropyl ketone, ethyl acetate, ethyl amyl ketone, ethyl butyrate, ethyl cinnamate, ethyl heptanoate, ethyl heptylate, ethyl lactate, ethyl methylphenylglycidate, ethyl nitrate, ethyl propionate, ethyl valerate, heliotropin, hydroxyphenyl-2-butanone (10 percent solution in alcohol), a-ionone, isobutyl anthranilate, isobutyl butyrate, lemon essential oil, maltol, 4-methylacetophenone, methyl anthranilate, methyl benzoate, methyl cinnamate, methyl heptine carbonate, methyl naphthyl ketone, methyl salicylate, mint essential oil, neroli essential oil, nerolin, neryl isobutyrate, orris butter, phenethyl alcohol, rose, rum ether, g-undecalactone, vanillin, and solvent.



Although flavors usually arise from a mixture of many different volatile chemicals, often a single compound supplies the dominant aroma. Smelled alone, that chemical provides an unmistakable sense of the food. Ethyl-2-methyl butyrate, for example, smells just like an apple. Many of today's highly processed foods offer a blank palette: whatever chemicals are added to them will give them specific tastes. Adding methyl-2-pyridyl ketone makes something taste like popcorn. Adding ethyl-3-hydroxy butanoate makes it taste like marshmallow. The possibilities are now almost limitless. Without affecting appearance or nutritional value, processed foods could be made with aroma chemicals such as hexanal (the smell of freshly cut grass) or 3-methyl butanoic acid (the smell of body odor).



The McDonald's Corporation most likely drew on these advances when it eliminated beef tallow from its French fries. The company will not reveal the exact origin of the natural flavor added to its fries. In response to inquiries from Vegetarian Journal, however, McDonald's did acknowledge that its fries derive some of their characteristic flavor from "an animal source." Beef is the probable source, although other meats cannot be ruled out. In France, for example, fries are sometimes cooked in duck fat or horse tallow.



Irene






 

Flag arielg February 21, 2012 6:07 PM EST

Feb 21, 2012 -- 3:18PM, CharikIeia wrote:


Feb 21, 2012 -- 2:57PM, arielg wrote:


Eating meat implies killing the animal, seeing the life go out of them, feeling the blood pouring from the animal, witnesing the pain. It is all an integral part of eating it.


...


 Now we are going to "grow" meat. We are going to get the so called advantages of eating meat, but avoid the whole proces behind it. It will be just a clumsy imitation, but those who are so hung up in the taste of meat will be able to feel a little less guilty.



Could you elaborate where the guilt IS, when the meat is a fully synthetic product?


Why would the causal chain that you so visually sketch in the first quoted paragraph be valid any more?




The guilt is in the present  dishonest  way of consuming the meat.  In  wanting  the flavor  or  the proteins, but not wanting  to accept everything that comes with  it.  That is why the attempt   to  "grow" the meat, so as to  avoid all the umpleasant  aspects. If there was nothing wrong with the consumption of meat, we would accept  all that  is involved in getting it ,  just like in getting  an apple.


With the manufactured meat, the guilt will be greaty reduced, although something   will  linger in the memory. 


My objection to it is the same objection I have to any imitation.   If  there is something wrong with chocolate, or coffee, or  sugar, let's just not eat it. Period.  Imitations are cheap and many times are just as harmful or more than the real product.  There is a certain harmony in the elments of  natural products that imitations will never achieve.


So, if there are problems with meat that  some people do not want to face, just stop eating the stuff.




Flag arielg February 21, 2012 6:11 PM EST

Irene:


Very instructive post.

Flag IreneAdler February 21, 2012 6:25 PM EST

Feb 21, 2012 -- 6:11PM, arielg wrote:


Irene:


Very instructive post.





It does give one pause.


 


Irene.

Flag Ebon February 21, 2012 6:29 PM EST

Feb 21, 2012 -- 6:03PM, IreneAdler wrote:

So taste problem solved. They just have to get the proper mouth feel for the petri meat and lower the cost and artificial hamburger is ready to serve.  Pass the mustard please!



The cost will come down as the techniques are refined and perfected. As these methods become more widespread, the cost always comes down. I can remember when a 64mb flash drive would cost upwards of fifty quid. These days, I picked up a 16gb flash drive the other week for under a tenner. Getting the proper feel for the thing should be relatively easy. I eat Quorn pieces quite a lot and they've perfected a form that has the same feel and density of chicken. And since this is meat, it just has to be prepared in the same way as regular burgers.


Thinking about it, artificial meat also promises a bonanza of new ideas for the chef. Right now, certain kinds of meat are prohibitively expensive but since the same process can be used to produce any kind of artificial meat, the price issue goes away. You want to try ostrich burgers? No problem. Tempted by the idea of roast swan? Easily delivered. I haven't eaten lobster in years because I think the way they are killed for cooking is inhumane but I'd be happy to chow down on vat-grown lobster. It removes the whole issue of animal suffering from the equation and reduces the choice of whether to be vegetarian/vegan to simple personal preference as the morality of vat-grown meat is a complete non-issue.

Flag mytmouse57 February 21, 2012 6:36 PM EST

Feb 21, 2012 -- 3:46PM, Erey wrote:


Feb 21, 2012 -- 3:35PM, Ebon wrote:


Feb 21, 2012 -- 3:18PM, CharikIeia wrote:

Could you elaborate where the guilt IS, when the meat is a fully synthetic product?


Why would the causal chain that you so visually sketch in the first quoted paragraph be valid any more?



For some people, it's not about the suffering of animals but just an excuse to feel morally superior to others.




There is this vauge but increasingly better defined food hiearchy.  And this conversation people are increasingly having on where they are on the scale (I am pretty low). 


Sometimes it is moral, sometimes it is a control issue.  Kind of like small children that have trained the adults around them to go to all these lengths to get them to eat, adults too will exert control over others with food. 


People need to rediscover the idea of grace and gratitude over the chance to sit down and break bread and eat with others.  The idea that the people you are dining with are more important than the pseudo morality behind the food. 




Things have been killing and eating other things since the world began. There's no "morals" about it, and animals certianly don't give a shit. (Although, some of them eat that too.)


I kill and eat deer, as well as feeding my family and even tossing some bones to my dogs.


Flag Erey February 21, 2012 7:13 PM EST

You can make tofu taste like meat.  I make tacos with meatless vegetable protien crumbles and it tastes like ground beef tacos.  However that meatless stuff is incredibly gass inducing.  It really makes me not want to eat it because I pay for it latter.

Flag Ed2 February 21, 2012 7:36 PM EST

Feb 20, 2012 -- 6:52PM, Abner1 wrote:


Mytmouse wrote:


> Good news for cows...


Depends on how you look at it.  If this gets to the point of being economically viable, or even cheaper than meat from animals ... a lot of food animals will go near-extinct.  There would still be a few for those people who want to eat the traditionally made meat, of course, but the overall result would be far fewer of those animals.


Less animal suffering because there are less animals.  That's an interesting conundrum.




No, Abner. I don't think that you are looking at this correctly.


Animals don't become extinct because humans being leave them alone....animals either become extinct because human beings over-hunt them because of one or more of an animal's body parts that they want to exploit....or because of natural causes.


But if humans beings started to leave most meat-producing animals alone, their population would shrink because of less breeding because of less demand for these animals, but that doesn't mean that the remaining population of these animals would go extinct.

Flag arielg February 21, 2012 7:44 PM EST

Things have been killing and eating other things since the world began. There's no "morals" about it, and animals certianly don't give a shit. (Although, some of them eat that too.)



Animals don't need morals.  They go by instincts.  Morals are for people who have a conscience. 

Flag Ed2 February 21, 2012 7:49 PM EST

Feb 20, 2012 -- 8:52PM, mainecaptain wrote:


I would rather have animals go extinct, then have them suffer the way they do to provide meat. They are not here to for  us.


We just exploit the fact that non human animals can not fight back against such a destructive animals as the human animal.




Mainecaptain, I agree with you in not wanting animals to suffer the way that they do, but what makes you say that the animals are not here for us? 


Feb 20, 2012 -- 10:14PM, solfeggio wrote:


Good point, Mainecaptain.  If you stop to think about it, of course other sentient beings are not here for human benefit.  Everything evolved to fit a suitable ecological niche, and that has nothing to do with human desires.



Once again, I'm curious as to why you and Mainecaptain are saying that animals are not here for human benefit.


Feb 20, 2012 -- 10:14PM, solfeggio wrote:


And, like you, I'd much rather cows (or pigs or sheep or even chickens) went extinct than that they continued to be so cruelly exploited.  However, I don't think that would happen, because there would always be people with pet pigs or chickens, or some family farm somewhere with Bossie the beloved family cow, living out her retirement in the pasture.


In any case, domesticated animals are not 'natural' in any sense to begin with. 




Solfeggio, I don't mean this with any disrespect, but isn't that a picture of a kitty cat in your avatar? And I'm guessing that he or she is your pet. Wink 

Flag Ebon February 21, 2012 7:50 PM EST

Feb 21, 2012 -- 7:36PM, Ed2 wrote:

Animals don't become extinct because humans being leave them alone....animals either become extinct because human beings over-hunt them because of one or more of an animal's body parts that they want to exploit....or because of natural causes.



Animals do sometimes go extinct without human intervention. Usually, it's because of failure to adapt to a changing environment.

Flag Ed2 February 21, 2012 7:57 PM EST

Feb 21, 2012 -- 7:50PM, Ebon wrote:


Feb 21, 2012 -- 7:36PM, Ed2 wrote:

Animals don't become extinct because humans being leave them alone....animals either become extinct because human beings over-hunt them because of one or more of an animal's body parts that they want to exploit....or because of natural causes.



Animals do sometimes go extinct without human intervention. Usually, it's because of failure to adapt to a changing environment.




But, Ebon, if that changing environment was because of nature, then the extinction would be because of natural causes. However though, if a changing environment is a man-made phenomenon, then in that case it would be because of lack of human intervention. Or at least that's how I look at it.

Flag Ed2 February 21, 2012 8:09 PM EST

Feb 21, 2012 -- 2:23AM, rabello wrote:


Article doesn't say if they're using embryonic stem cells or adult stem cells.  Embryonic are, of course, harder to get, at least on the donor cow.


The most interesting parts in the article, for me are these:



They are off-white and resemble strips of calamari in appearance. These strips will be mixed with blood and artificially grown fat to produce a hamburger by the autumn.




Yuck



I haven't read the article that Ebon provided yet, but that leaves out the Jews and Jehovah's Witnesses.


Feb 21, 2012 -- 2:23AM, rabello wrote:


David Steele, who is president of Earthsave Canada, said that the same benefits could be achieved if people ate less meat.


it is pretty clear to me that plant-based alternatives... have substantial environmental and probably animal welfare advantages over synthetic meat," he said.


Dr Steele, who is also a molecular biologist, said he was also concerned that unhealthily high levels of antibiotics and antifungal chemicals would be needed to stop the synthetic meat from rotting.




Wisdom




Oh, no! Not antibiotics and antifungal chemicals again. Frown

Flag solfeggio February 21, 2012 8:47 PM EST

Ed2 -


What makes you think that other sentient beings ARE here for human benefit?  My take on all of this is that everything exists for its own sake.


The cat in my avatar was our beloved Beatrix, adopted from the RSPCA seventeen years ago as a kitten, who lived a highly satisfactory life with our family until her death a few months ago.  She was but one of many cats we have rescued over the years.


We are members of our local Cats Protection Society and the RSPCA, and in connection with them we take in stray and homeless cats and try to rehome them. 


The cats don't exist for our benefit, although the original domesticated cats surely did, as the ancient Egyptians used them to keep rodents out of their grain stores.


Our cats that live with us are our friends.  We don't own them.  If cats had not been domesticated, there would not be cats around to rescue today.  We feel that they have as much right to live out their lives as any other animal on this planet.

Flag rabello February 22, 2012 12:06 AM EST

Feb 21, 2012 -- 6:07PM, arielg wrote:


Feb 21, 2012 -- 3:18PM, CharikIeia wrote:


Feb 21, 2012 -- 2:57PM, arielg wrote:


Eating meat implies killing the animal, seeing the life go out of them, feeling the blood pouring from the animal, witnesing the pain. It is all an integral part of eating it.


...


 Now we are going to "grow" meat. We are going to get the so called advantages of eating meat, but avoid the whole proces behind it. It will be just a clumsy imitation, but those who are so hung up in the taste of meat will be able to feel a little less guilty.



Could you elaborate where the guilt IS, when the meat is a fully synthetic product?


Why would the causal chain that you so visually sketch in the first quoted paragraph be valid any more?




The guilt is in the present  dishonest  way of consuming the meat.  In  wanting  the flavor  or  the proteins, but not wanting  to accept everything that comes with  it.  That is why the attempt   to  "grow" the meat, so as to  avoid all the umpleasant  aspects. If there was nothing wrong with the consumption of meat, we would accept  all that  is involved in getting it ,  just like in getting  an apple.


With the manufactured meat, the guilt will be greaty reduced, although something   will  linger in the memory. 


My objection to it is the same objection I have to any imitation.   If  there is something wrong with chocolate, or coffee, or  sugar, let's just not eat it. Period.  Imitations are cheap and many times are just as harmful or more than the real product.  There is a certain harmony in the elments of  natural products that imitations will never achieve.


So, if there are problems with meat that  some people do not want to face, just stop eating the stuff.








Brave new world, arielg!    Testtube Hamburgers won't make people think of killing an animal but, depending on they type of stem cell they take from a living cow, Testtube Hamburgers will make people think of "harvesting" living cells. 


If it's embryonic stem cells they'll have to load the maiden cow with hormones to stimulate the follicles, and then use their straws and tubes to suck out eggs ready to be smitten.  That can't be painless for the guinea pig cow.  So maybe Testtube Hamburgers will make people think of sucking blood.  Who knows?

Flag Erey February 22, 2012 12:07 AM EST

Cows and chickens and dogs and even cats are here for humans.  rodents are here for other carnivors.  mosquitos are here for bats and starlings, fish are here for sharks.


Animals are here for us and we are here for each other. 


If a animal becomes extinct because of too many predators or inadequate protection that is of natural causes. 

Flag rabello February 22, 2012 12:39 AM EST

Feb 22, 2012 -- 12:07AM, Erey wrote:


Cows and chickens and dogs and even cats are here for humans.  rodents are here for other carnivors.  mosquitos are here for bats and starlings, fish are here for sharks.




On what do you base that belief?


Feb 22, 2012 -- 12:07AM, Erey wrote:


Animals are here for us and we are here for each other. 




You appear to be talking about who gets to eat whom, so are you advocating human cannibalism when you say "we are here for each other"


Feb 22, 2012 -- 12:07AM, Erey wrote:


If a animal becomes extinct because of too many predators or inadequate protection that is of natural causes. 




Do you think the destruction of habitat in clear-cut forests for gargantuan cattle ranches is a "natural" cause of extinction?  Or worldwide poaching of protected and unprotected species?   Did you hear about the 300+ elephants (already endangered) killed within the past month, alone, in a nature preserve in Kenya?  If elephants do, indeed, go extinct, would you say that's natural?  It's happening to siberian tigers, to mountain gorillas, even chimpanzees.  Would you say the loss of any or all those species is "natural" because animals are "here for us"?

Flag Erey February 22, 2012 1:18 AM EST

Rabello,


I am not your typical misanthrop that we see here.  I support people and advocate for people.  It just so happens that people will thrive best in a world that can better support them.  I don't expect people to en-mass off themselves so elephants can live.  How about we just kill all the people that live in teh elephant territory? Make sure the elephants are taken care of - that is one way to do it. 


Humans appear to be the primary species of the planet.  We shape the world and bend it to our will.  It is not a matter of do we have the right to do this, we just do.  It is not a question of if we should allow ourselves to do this, we just do it.  We always have since the begining of human civilization.  Even the plains indians who we see as more noble and in touch with nature used to set huge scorching fires  alter the landscape  If you are more comfortable opperating out of the idea that there is no God then the idea is we came out of the natural world.  We are what the natural world created, a species to dominate the planet.  Damn the natural world then.  This seems to be what the natural world created.   


All the other species, regardless of their intelligence or lack thereof can't even fathom the idea of taking responsibility for the world, they can't fathom the idea of sacrificing for another species.  They would not know where to begin.



There appear to be animals that are easy prey for humans, they are here for us to eat.  You don't have to eat them if you don't want to do so but here they are.  There appear ato be animals that take to domestication very easily and humans are able to raise them for food.  YOu don't have to eat them if you don't want to do so but here they are.  These kinds of animals don't typically survive very well out in the wild.   The animals appear to be here for us. 


Don't be stupid and extrapolate that out to mean I think they are here for us to tease and torture.  But they are here for people to eat.  You can however choose not to eat them if you choose. 




Flag Erey February 22, 2012 1:31 AM EST

Back to the whole being gracious while dining with other people.  A few years ago I read an article written by the man who had been the editor of the Vegetarian Times for over 20 years.  Clearly he had been a vegetarian and he and his wife ran a vegetarian household that included several children. 



One day his wife had a sudden accident, broke some bones and had to be bed ridden.  People, mostly neighboors wanted to help.  They brought dinners.  The thing is they brought alot of meat dishes.  At first he did not know what to do, he was not supposed to eat meat.  Then he realized that this had been prepared for him and his family and he should focus on the gratitude for the food given to him.  He said grace and ate his food. 

Flag rabello February 22, 2012 1:54 AM EST

Feb 22, 2012 -- 1:18AM, Erey wrote:


But they are here for people to eat. 




No they aren't.


What makes you think so?


If it weren't for the plants and animals on this earth, human beings wouldn't have evolved to be what they are.  


Feb 22, 2012 -- 1:18AM, Erey wrote:


I don't expect people to en-mass off themselves so elephants can live.  How about we just kill all the people that live in teh elephant territory? Make sure the elephants are taken care of - that is one way to do it. 




???


The elephants were killed by poachers, who kill them for their ivory tusks, and it was on a animal preserve, not a habitat where it was human lives vs elephant lives.


Your previous post made it sound like you are unconcerned about the extinction of species because of human behavior.  This post of your's which is clearly off the mark when it comes to these killed elephants reinforces that appearance.  It's not a queston of human lives vs siberian tigers, or human lives vs mountain gorillas, either, or any other of the huge number of endangered species on god's used-to-be-green-and-good earth.




Flag rabello February 22, 2012 1:58 AM EST

Feb 22, 2012 -- 1:31AM, Erey wrote:


Back to the whole being gracious while dining with other people.  A few years ago I read an article written by the man who had been the editor of the Vegetarian Times for over 20 years.  Clearly he had been a vegetarian and he and his wife ran a vegetarian household that included several children. 



One day his wife had a sudden accident, broke some bones and had to be bed ridden.  People, mostly neighboors wanted to help.  They brought dinners.  The thing is they brought alot of meat dishes.  At first he did not know what to do, he was not supposed to eat meat.  Then he realized that this had been prepared for him and his family and he should focus on the gratitude for the food given to him.  He said grace and ate his food. 




I wonder if it made him sick, until his system adjusted to digesting meat.  Did he say?  Probably not, that would ruin his moralizing.

Flag TemplarS February 22, 2012 9:40 AM EST

Feb 22, 2012 -- 1:31AM, Erey wrote:


Back to the whole being gracious while dining with other people.  A few years ago I read an article written by the man who had been the editor of the Vegetarian Times for over 20 years.  Clearly he had been a vegetarian and he and his wife ran a vegetarian household that included several children. 



One day his wife had a sudden accident, broke some bones and had to be bed ridden.  People, mostly neighboors wanted to help.  They brought dinners.  The thing is they brought alot of meat dishes.  At first he did not know what to do, he was not supposed to eat meat.  Then he realized that this had been prepared for him and his family and he should focus on the gratitude for the food given to him.  He said grace and ate his food. 




People can be excused for doing things out of ignorance.


But otherwise it is common courtesy to accommodate people's preferences. I would hope that most people, if they had Jewish or Muslim guests, would not serve pork or ham; or, meat to Catholic guests on Good Friday.   I see no reason why such courtesy should not be extended to vegetarians. This is common sense.  BTW, being a gracious host also extends to not interrogating the person about why they choose to be a vegetarian.  Likewise, of course, being a gracious guest means not sitting at the table lecturing others about the evils of eating meat. It is a two way street.  But it is not difficult.

Flag mainecaptain February 22, 2012 1:04 PM EST

I've gotten quite used to the right wing knee jerk responses certain people make time after time.


Ever notice someone will make a knee jerk response about animals being here for humans to use. Or not caring about human caused extinction of whole populations of. Habitat etc.. But these same people, hate people too. The animals for human use really only applies to themselves. They don't give a sh_t about other human beings. Any more then they do the animals suffering, or the planet being used into dust.



This same type of person (generically) will oppose all sorts of things that actually help humanity, the planet and a host of other things as long as their selfishness is being satisfied.

Flag mytmouse57 February 22, 2012 1:52 PM EST

Feb 21, 2012 -- 7:44PM, arielg wrote:


Things have been killing and eating other things since the world began. There's no "morals" about it, and animals certianly don't give a shit. (Although, some of them eat that too.)



Animals don't need morals.  They go by instincts.  Morals are for people who have a conscience. 




Bully for consciene. 


Hence a sound egological land ethic... via the philosophy of Aldo Leopold (who was a hunter), a regard for animal welfare, the practice of ethical hunting within reasonable limits and only for what I plan to eat or feed to my family and pets. 


No irrational "animal rights" philosophy needed. Nature finds no wrong in one organic entity killing and eating another.


Hey, maybe someday a cougar will kill and eat me.  Yummy for him!  Laughing 

Flag solfeggio February 22, 2012 4:45 PM EST

It always comes down to that same tired old belief shared by the human animal, which is that humans believe themselves to be the 'superior' species on this planet.  People think that we as a species are actually central to the existence of the universe.  And, if that is true, then it must follow that the other species that share our world are, in varying degrees, inferior and can be used as we please.


Are humans truly the superior species?  Not necessarily.  We have complex brains, and we can talk, but that doesn't make us superior.  We think we are self-aware, but so are many other species.  And there is the fact that all other species on this planet have unique talents of their own and can accomplish things that humans cannot.


In other words, all species have inherent value.


It's true that, generally speaking, we're a smart species.  But that same intelligence of which we're so proud has worked to our disadvantage in helping us dream up ways in which we can ruin our world and liquidate ourselves.


Darwin wrote that humans differ from other animals only in degree, not in kind.


If we succeed in making our planet uninhabitable, which could just possibly happen, given our living habits, causing ourselves and other species to die out, what's so intelligent about that?


As the noted biologist Stephen Jay Gould once observed: For species superiority, bacteria win hands down.  And Gould sumed things up perfectly when he wrote that humans are nothing more than a tiny little twig representing one species in the enormous tree of life.

Flag mytmouse57 February 22, 2012 6:28 PM EST

Solf, I disagree with that point of view. 


But so what? Some things, folks might not ever agree on.


Meat grown in labs would result in less cattle on the land (ecologically sound) and certainly, with fewer cows being raised just to be killed for meat. 

Flag arielg February 22, 2012 6:53 PM EST

Feb 22, 2012 -- 1:52PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Feb 21, 2012 -- 7:44PM, arielg wrote:


Things have been killing and eating other things since the world began. There's no "morals" about it, and animals certianly don't give a shit. (Although, some of them eat that too.)



Animals don't need morals.  They go by instincts.  Morals are for people who have a conscience. 




Bully for consciene. 


Hence a sound egological land ethic... via the philosophy of Aldo Leopold (who was a hunter), a regard for animal welfare, the practice of ethical hunting within reasonable limits and only for what I plan to eat or feed to my family and pets. 


Sure, if there is a need...  But in today's world there is no such need.  Hunting today is just a left over from another period in the evolution of humans, when the survival instinct was needed. 


 Today is like the coxis bone,  that was  useful when we had a tail.


The   ethics  of Aldo Leopold  are ways  to rationalize the explotation of the planet for the benefit of humans. It is a way to justify manipulation, based on the mindset that humans are the stewards of the earth and were given the right to manipulate the environment for their benefit. 


It is a more thoughtful way than the mindlessness of some, but still sees the planet as an inert lump of stuff that has no meaning except to serve humans.  The classical materialistic approach.  It doesn't see the planet as a living organism deserving of respect.


No irrational "animal rights" philosophy needed. Nature finds no wrong in one organic entity killing and eating another.


Nature would find no wrong if you wanted to kill and eat your daughter either.  That is apt to our morals.


Hey, maybe someday a cougar will kill and eat me.  Yummy for him!   



Laughing

Flag CharikIeia February 22, 2012 6:54 PM EST

Feb 22, 2012 -- 4:45PM, solfeggio wrote:


It always comes down to that same tired old belief shared by the human animal, which is that humans believe themselves to be the 'superior' species on this planet.  People think that we as a species are actually central to the existence of the universe.



Uh?? Hello?


How does the topic of synthetic meat production "come down to" this???

Flag Ed2 February 22, 2012 7:38 PM EST

Feb 21, 2012 -- 8:47PM, solfeggio wrote:


Ed2 -


What makes you think that other sentient beings ARE here for human benefit?  My take on all of this is that everything exists for its own sake.


The cat in my avatar was our beloved Beatrix, adopted from the RSPCA seventeen years ago as a kitten, who lived a highly satisfactory life with our family until her death a few months ago.  She was but one of many cats we have rescued over the years.


We are members of our local Cats Protection Society and the RSPCA, and in connection with them we take in stray and homeless cats and try to rehome them. 


The cats don't exist for our benefit, although the original domesticated cats surely did, as the ancient Egyptians used them to keep rodents out of their grain stores.


Our cats that live with us are our friends.  We don't own them.  If cats had not been domesticated, there would not be cats around to rescue today.  We feel that they have as much right to live out their lives as any other animal on this planet.




I don't know. Perhaps it's some old remnant of Bible dogma that still may be inside my mind. Smile

Flag mytmouse57 February 22, 2012 9:05 PM EST

Feb 22, 2012 -- 6:53PM, arielg wrote:


Feb 22, 2012 -- 1:52PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Feb 21, 2012 -- 7:44PM, arielg wrote:


Things have been killing and eating other things since the world began. There's no "morals" about it, and animals certianly don't give a shit. (Although, some of them eat that too.)



Animals don't need morals.  They go by instincts.  Morals are for people who have a conscience. 




Bully for consciene. 


Hence a sound egological land ethic... via the philosophy of Aldo Leopold (who was a hunter), a regard for animal welfare, the practice of ethical hunting within reasonable limits and only for what I plan to eat or feed to my family and pets. 


Sure, if there is a need...  But in today's world there is no such need.  Hunting today is just a left over from another period in the evolution of humans, when the survival instinct was needed. 


 Today is like the coxis bone,  that was  useful when we had a tail.


The   ethics  of Aldo Leopold  are ways  to rationalize the explotation of the planet for the benefit of humans. It is a way to justify manipulation, based on the mindset that humans are the stewards of the earth and were given the right to manipulate the environment for their benefit. 


It is a more thoughtful way than the mindlessness of some, but still sees the planet as an inert lump of stuff that has no meaning except to serve humans.  The classical materialistic approach.  It doesn't see the planet as a living organism deserving of respect.


No irrational "animal rights" philosophy needed. Nature finds no wrong in one organic entity killing and eating another.


Nature would find no wrong if you wanted to kill and eat your daughter either.  That is apt to our morals.


Hey, maybe someday a cougar will kill and eat me.  Yummy for him!   



Laughing





I'm glad you're passionate about your views. But they are extreme.


Tell you what -- you do what you think is right, and I'll do what I think is best, right and ethical.


Venison is on the table at my place tonight. :)

Flag arielg February 22, 2012 11:22 PM EST

I can still cook a mean BBQ.

Flag Erey February 23, 2012 10:04 AM EST

Feb 22, 2012 -- 9:40AM, TemplarS wrote:


Feb 22, 2012 -- 1:31AM, Erey wrote:


Back to the whole being gracious while dining with other people.  A few years ago I read an article written by the man who had been the editor of the Vegetarian Times for over 20 years.  Clearly he had been a vegetarian and he and his wife ran a vegetarian household that included several children. 



One day his wife had a sudden accident, broke some bones and had to be bed ridden.  People, mostly neighboors wanted to help.  They brought dinners.  The thing is they brought alot of meat dishes.  At first he did not know what to do, he was not supposed to eat meat.  Then he realized that this had been prepared for him and his family and he should focus on the gratitude for the food given to him.  He said grace and ate his food. 




People can be excused for doing things out of ignorance.


But otherwise it is common courtesy to accommodate people's preferences. I would hope that most people, if they had Jewish or Muslim guests, would not serve pork or ham; or, meat to Catholic guests on Good Friday.   I see no reason why such courtesy should not be extended to vegetarians. This is common sense.  BTW, being a gracious host also extends to not interrogating the person about why they choose to be a vegetarian.  Likewise, of course, being a gracious guest means not sitting at the table lecturing others about the evils of eating meat. It is a two way street.  But it is not difficult.





The way it was worded the neighboors were unaware that there were diet preferences.  I guess that shows how unassuming this family was they did not make a huge deal out of being vegetarian.    But it is true, you are supposed to know your friends birthdays and if they are of a different religion, now also you are supposed to know what food tribe they belong.  Remember thsi was a close to 20 years ago.  Times change

Flag mytmouse57 February 23, 2012 2:50 PM EST

I don't think animals were "put here" for us to eat -- in such a direct sense as God saying, "here ya go -- eat these damn things."


I think it's just an extenstion of the natural order of things to exploit a useful resourse. Every living thing does it. There's no wrong in it. 

Flag MMarcoe February 23, 2012 3:46 PM EST

Feb 20, 2012 -- 10:48AM, Ebon wrote:

"Dutch scientists have used stem cells to create strips of muscle tissue with the aim of producing the first lab-grown hamburger later this year.


The aim of the research is to develop a more efficient way of producing meat than rearing animals.


At a major science meeting in Canada, Prof Mark Post said synthetic meat could reduce the environmental footprint of meat by up to 60%."


Rest at the link: www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-1...





I've been a vegetarian for 20 years largely for ethical reasons. I look forward to this new development. I would probably start eating this form of meat. However, I doubt that it would taste like the real thing because the real thing has other factors going for it, such as the oils and fats.


 

Flag solfeggio February 23, 2012 4:29 PM EST

Mytmouse makes a good point when he says that if scientists could make a synthetic cow flesh that would taste like the real thing, this would not only be a good thing for cows, but it would benefit the planet in an ecological sense.  We all know how much damage the herds of cattle do to the earth with the methane they produce.


Arielg says, in effect, that by raising all those enormous herds of cattle we are looking to rationalise our overuse of our planet's resources, and that we ignore the fact that this earth is a living entity worthy of respect.  In other words, we think our human needs take precedence over all other concerns, no matter how urgent.


This is an important point as well and is in general in agreement with mytmouse's statement.


MMarcoe's says that, although he's been an ethical vegetarian for some years, if artificial 'meat' could be produced he might give it a try.  Now, I can understand that, but I'm wondering if anybody who has not eaten animal flesh for a long time could get any pleasure out of eating such a product.


The reason I say this is that, since I haven't eaten any meat in thirty years, I've found that just walking past the mall food court, and smelling the spare ribs or roast beef cooking makes me nauseous.  I have to get away as quickly as I can.


And this is interesting because, in earlier years, I did enjoy eating meat.  Obviously, our bodies can change, and these changes can be so subtle that we don't even notice them for some time.


 


 

Flag Erey February 23, 2012 7:02 PM EST

speaking of ethics


theconversation.edu.au/ordering-the-vege...



These guys are saying when it comes to free-range cattle and eating that beef it is more humane than eating a purely vegetarian diet.  That more animals are killed in the harvest of plants than the cattle themselves. 


Interesting I thought



Flag solfeggio February 23, 2012 10:26 PM EST

Oh, Erey, we have heard over and over and over again that empty argument that more animals are killed harvesting crops than are killed to make beef. 


Your link was all about Austrailian agriculture, and they make the absurd argument that killing kangaroos is more humane than harvesting grain.  They don't cite any real studies, so we don't know where they got their information.


Killing insects or small mammals when harvesting corn or grains is just not the same as putting cattle, pigs, horses, sheep, and chickens through the horrors of the factory farm system.  And, although only a few studies have been done, some research has shown that far fewer rodents or insects are actually killed when harvesting crops than previously thought. 


findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FDE/is_...


Various estimates put the number of animals that are killed every year in the meat, dairy and egg industries at something like 56 billion.  And, in the vast majority of cases, we are not talking about anything remotely resembling 'humane' slaughter - if there even is such a thing.


www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-foo...


www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-foo...


www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-foo...


Even at that, meateaters would cause the deaths of insects and small mammals when crops are harvested, because such a large proportion of those crops goes to feed the cows and pigs and sheep that people are going to eat.  Even if you ate nothing but meat, you'd still be causing the deaths of many small mammals and insects.


Vegetarianism and veganism are not about being perfect, but about limiting the numbers of animals killed, and if, by being a committed vegan, I can at least cause less suffering and death, then that is at least something.


www.animalvisuals.org/projects/data/1mc


The most animal suffering and death can be prevented by following a vegan diet.


 


 

Flag rabello February 23, 2012 11:56 PM EST

Feb 23, 2012 -- 3:46PM, MMarcoe wrote:


I've been a vegetarian for 20 years largely for ethical reasons. I look forward to this new development. I would probably start eating this form of meat. However, I doubt that it would taste like the real thing because the real thing has other factors going for it, such as the oils and fats.





They say they're going to add synthetic fat to the synthetic meat!! Sounds gross to me. 


Plus, I do not want to be one to put female cows through the tortures of claiming her artificially-matured eggs from her, if they're going to use embryonic stem cells -- not just for a "synthetic" piece of meat, laden with "synthetic" fat.  

Flag Ebon February 24, 2012 12:40 AM EST

Surely the use of stem cell lines means that the harvesting has already been done.

Flag rabello February 24, 2012 1:13 AM EST

Feb 24, 2012 -- 12:40AM, Ebon wrote:


Surely the use of stem cell lines means that the harvesting has already been done.




Cultured cell lines have a finite life span.  One of the articles about this topic mention that the researchers foresee a small herd of "donor animals" to supply the needed biological material.  And it's true, they wouldn't need a herd with large numbers of donor.


What I'm hoping is that they will use adult stem cells, which may require a biopsy


$330,000 Artificial Hamburger Slated for October


(note: I realize that some will balk at this article as it is published by treehugger dot com, which is actually a Discovery Channel publication)



 

Flag Erey February 24, 2012 9:40 AM EST

Feb 23, 2012 -- 10:26PM, solfeggio wrote:


Oh, Erey, we have heard over and over and over again that empty argument that more animals are killed harvesting crops than are killed to make beef. 


Your link was all about Austrailian agriculture, and they make the absurd argument that killing kangaroos is more humane than harvesting grain.  They don't cite any real studies, so we don't know where they got their information.


Killing insects or small mammals when harvesting corn or grains is just not the same as putting cattle, pigs, horses, sheep, and chickens through the horrors of the factory farm system.  And, although only a few studies have been done, some research has shown that far fewer rodents or insects are actually killed when harvesting crops than previously thought. 


findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FDE/is_...


Various estimates put the number of animals that are killed every year in the meat, dairy and egg industries at something like 56 billion.  And, in the vast majority of cases, we are not talking about anything remotely resembling 'humane' slaughter - if there even is such a thing.


www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-foo...


www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-foo...


www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-foo...


Even at that, meateaters would cause the deaths of insects and small mammals when crops are harvested, because such a large proportion of those crops goes to feed the cows and pigs and sheep that people are going to eat.  Even if you ate nothing but meat, you'd still be causing the deaths of many small mammals and insects.


Vegetarianism and veganism are not about being perfect, but about limiting the numbers of animals killed, and if, by being a committed vegan, I can at least cause less suffering and death, then that is at least something.


www.animalvisuals.org/projects/data/1mc


The most animal suffering and death can be prevented by following a vegan diet.


 


 





Solf,


Clearly you are too afraid to read the article.  Lots of studies, lots of examples.


they did most certainly discover that a you are killing animals with a vegan diet.


What is more you are causing them to die a slow, painful, excrutiatingly SLOW death.  Vs.  slaughter techniques that are mostly very fast and very pain free.


You are causing them to die of poison (Imagine poison!!!) The horrible pain from poison.  You are causing the babies to die of starvation because the care-giving parent can't get back to the nest to tend to them.  To say nothing of the animals that are killed out right to protect the crops. 



YOur life is causing pain and suffering to other "lesser" creatures.  You can eat all the beans and tofu you want but there is blood all over you.  Not to mention the horrible deaths you are causing to support your love of cats


Flag BDboy February 24, 2012 10:29 AM EST

Feb 23, 2012 -- 7:02PM, Erey wrote:


speaking of ethics


theconversation.edu.au/ordering-the-vege...



These guys are saying when it comes to free-range cattle and eating that beef it is more humane than eating a purely vegetarian diet.  That more animals are killed in the harvest of plants than the cattle themselves. 


Interesting I thought






 


>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree. At the same time eating beef in moderation should be our goal. When we overdo something that should come "Naturally" to us, trouble starts.


Just think how much meat people used to have 100 or 200 years ago. Contrast that with how much we consume today!!




 

Flag mindis1 February 26, 2012 2:47 PM EST

Feb 24, 2012 -- 9:40AM, Erey wrote:


Feb 23, 2012 -- 10:26PM, solfeggio wrote:


Oh, Erey, we have heard over and over and over again that empty argument that more animals are killed harvesting crops than are killed to make beef. 


Your link was all about Austrailian agriculture, and they make the absurd argument that killing kangaroos is more humane than harvesting grain.  They don't cite any real studies, so we don't know where they got their information.


Killing insects or small mammals when harvesting corn or grains is just not the same as putting cattle, pigs, horses, sheep, and chickens through the horrors of the factory farm system.  And, although only a few studies have been done, some research has shown that far fewer rodents or insects are actually killed when harvesting crops than previously thought. 


findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FDE/is_...


Various estimates put the number of animals that are killed every year in the meat, dairy and egg industries at something like 56 billion.  And, in the vast majority of cases, we are not talking about anything remotely resembling 'humane' slaughter - if there even is such a thing.


www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-foo...


www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-foo...


www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-foo...


Even at that, meateaters would cause the deaths of insects and small mammals when crops are harvested, because such a large proportion of those crops goes to feed the cows and pigs and sheep that people are going to eat.  Even if you ate nothing but meat, you'd still be causing the deaths of many small mammals and insects.


Vegetarianism and veganism are not about being perfect, but about limiting the numbers of animals killed, and if, by being a committed vegan, I can at least cause less suffering and death, then that is at least something.


www.animalvisuals.org/projects/data/1mc


The most animal suffering and death can be prevented by following a vegan diet.


 


 





Solf,


Clearly you are too afraid to read the article.  Lots of studies, lots of examples.



Apparently, Erey, it is you who didn’t read the article. Solfeggio’s comments are on the mark.  


It is a stupid blog article. Link to the studies that you’re claiming the article’s conclusions are based upon.


The claim that “in Australia, producing wheat and other grains results in: at least 25 times more sentient animals being killed per kilogram of useable protein” is based on this:


Ploughing and harvesting kill small mammals, snakes, lizards and other animals in vast numbers. In addition, millions of mice are poisoned in grain storage facilities every year.


However, the largest and best-researched loss of sentient life is the poisoning of mice during plagues.


Each area of grain production in Australia has a mouse plague on average every four years, with 500-1000 mice per hectare. Poisoning kills at least 80% of the mice.


So, Australia has a “mouse plague” every four years (there is no mention of any cause of this “plague”), and because millions of these mice are killed by poisoning in grain storage facilities, the author concludes that “in Australia, producing wheat and other grains results in at least 25 times more sentient animals [are] killed per kilogram of useable protein”.


It’s stupid!

Flag mytmouse57 February 28, 2012 11:58 AM EST

Well, maybe they should eat the mice instead. Tongue Out

Flag Erey February 28, 2012 12:47 PM EST

Mindis, everything gets poisioned in crop growth - everything.  Mice, bugs, larger creatures that live on the periphery of the fields.  Many farmers who are depending on a sucessfull crop for their livelyhood actively kill animals that threaten the crop.  In parts of Africa they will kill babbons and other primates that threaten the crops.  They don't love killing the primates but they really need the crop to be sucessfull.    Then the harvesting of the crop, with the big machines maiming or  decapitating the animals that are in the foliage. 



Would you eat free-range beef before you kill a baboon for the crop you raise?  Assuming your livelyhood depends on it.



Flag mindis1 February 29, 2012 12:43 PM EST

Feb 28, 2012 -- 12:47PM, Erey wrote:


Mindis, everything gets poisioned in crop growth - everything.  



What a goofy and demonstrably false claim.


The stupid blog article does not provide an iota of evidence nor a logical argument that humans eating animals reduces the millions of mice that Australians choose to poison. There is no logical argument that leads to the conclusion that humans eating animals reduces the millions of mice that Australians choose to poison. It’s a stupid blog article written by an idiot.

Flag mainecaptain March 1, 2012 12:50 PM EST

I have been thinking about this topic. And realised something. Most people think their meat is grown in a lab anyway. It really would make no difference to the average meat buyer/eater.


How many people connect the burger they are eating to the cow that was cruelly slaughtered so they could have their burger? No one. How many think of the pig that was slaughtered to have their sausage no one.


And if you eat meat while thinking about the cruel and abusive way that animals are treated, you are a monster.


So grown meat in a lab would be perfect for the average meat eater. No abuse, clear conscience, and you still get to eat all the meat you want. Good idea all the way round. And the average buyer would never know the difference, or care.

Flag CharikIeia March 1, 2012 7:07 PM EST

Mar 1, 2012 -- 12:50PM, mainecaptain wrote:


... if you eat meat while thinking about the cruel and abusive way that animals are treated, you are a monster ...



I disagree.


Those of us who are both sensitive and strong are not 'monsters'.


Concern and professional aid deserve in the first place those who - for touchy-feely reasons - will not face the reality of their existence, but prefer to avert their eyes, and start singing their own song so loudly that reality won't disturb them any more.


And of those, there are plenty of folks on either side of this battle.

Flag Lisse March 1, 2012 7:20 PM EST


I welcome this development.
I have been able to quit with most meat (not for health but rather for humane reasons); unfortunately there are a couple of them I just can't seem to stop eating.  

Flag Merope March 10, 2012 11:57 PM EST

This thread was moved from the Hot Topics Zone.

Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook