Post Reply
Page 4 of 9  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Meat Grown in Lab, No Animals Required
2 years ago  ::  Feb 21, 2012 - 3:46PM #31
Erey
Posts: 18,368

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. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Feb 21, 2012 - 4:13PM #32
solfeggio
Posts: 8,895

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.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Feb 21, 2012 - 4:33PM #33
TemplarS
Posts: 6,562

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.


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Feb 21, 2012 - 6:03PM #34
IreneAdler
Posts: 2,849

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






 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Feb 21, 2012 - 6:07PM #35
arielg
Posts: 9,114

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.




Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Feb 21, 2012 - 6:11PM #36
arielg
Posts: 9,114

Irene:


Very instructive post.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Feb 21, 2012 - 6:25PM #37
IreneAdler
Posts: 2,849

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


Irene:


Very instructive post.





It does give one pause.


 


Irene.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Feb 21, 2012 - 6:29PM #38
Ebon
Posts: 10,097

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.

He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31

Fiat justitia, ruat caelum

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Feb 21, 2012 - 6:36PM #39
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

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.


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Feb 21, 2012 - 7:13PM #40
Erey
Posts: 18,368

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.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 4 of 9  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook