How In-Vitro Meat will Change Our Lives(hplusmagazine.com)
hplusmagazine.com
How In-Vitro Meat will Change Our Lives
http://hplusmagazine.com/articles/bio/eight-ways-vitro-meat-will-change-our-lives
9 comments
I think that commenter has it right: that "traditionally grown" meat will always have a place in society. However, right now, a significant amount of meat is ground up into hamburgers and sold in McDonalds; that seems like a waste to me. Maybe taking that mass market out we can get back to sustainable farming.
Cutting out ground beef consumption entirely wouldn't reduce the number of cows produced. A given cow produces so many T-bone steaks, so many barbecue ribs, and some quantity of ground and stew meat from tougher cuts. The demand is driven by the good, expensive meat; ground beef is cheap because it's the byproduct. If it wasn't cheap, we wouldn't want as much as was produced.
It's the "In-vitro kits" that really get me thinking. I wonder if they will be as magnanimous as the author suspects or if they will simply be another tool of third world oppression. Like with how GMO crops sometimes have a built in dependency on a nutrition product sold by the same company, or how they can be made infirtile so the farmer cannot reseed the same crop. It all seems like another rift in the Socio-technological Divide, to me!
On a side note, what would in-vitro mean for Halal/Kosher meat? Anyone care to speculate?
On a side note, what would in-vitro mean for Halal/Kosher meat? Anyone care to speculate?
> another tool of third world oppression. Like with how GMO crops sometimes have a built in dependency on a nutrition product sold by the same company, or how they can be made infirtile so the farmer cannot reseed the same crop.
That's not oppression.
Those folks are perfectly free to continue to do as they've done for centuries or to buy something else if they feel that the benefits are not worth the costs.
There's nothing wrong with charging more. Customers are always free to buy something else.
That's not oppression.
Those folks are perfectly free to continue to do as they've done for centuries or to buy something else if they feel that the benefits are not worth the costs.
There's nothing wrong with charging more. Customers are always free to buy something else.
That is an incredibly naive viewpoint given how agribusiness behaves.
Their modified crops cross pollinate with standard strains and "become" the modified strains. Then they sue the farmers for not paying the license fees. They threaten to not supply farmers with GMO seed if they use normal seed for their other crops.
Similarly they attempt to patent strains that have existed for centuries in order to become sole providers. See the Basmati / Texmati rice case for just one example http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/index.php?option=com_cont...
They have made every effort to remove other options from the farmers and are creating monopolies through questionable business practices and IP abuse.
It's a dirty business all around and it's a clear indication that the patent system is broken. Commodities are cheap, because they are commodities. Simply because anyone can jump on in and have a go at producing them. That's the free market at work, cheap and lots of it.
Contrast commodities with the protected patented good. Expensive and a limited supply typically, since you can only get it from the IP owner or a licensee. Why innovate if you don't have to and if you do, make sure it's patentable and stretch it out.
If patents were fair and equitable all around then people would not be trying so hard to turn commodities back into patented goods.
It's not tenable and it is the cause of our current economic malaise. It's a high tech world and the path to economic growth is blocked because as soon as you computerize or mechanize, you run into a wall of intellectual property that you can't get around without gobs of money for lawyers.
The software startup world was the wide open frontier ten years ago, a place where you could make money with just an idea, but it's gradually getting the life choked out of it by IP law.
Sorry, I did not initially mean for this to become a patent rant, but it is connected to everything I have been thinking about for the last year or so and it's really pissing me off how far it's tentacles go.
Their modified crops cross pollinate with standard strains and "become" the modified strains. Then they sue the farmers for not paying the license fees. They threaten to not supply farmers with GMO seed if they use normal seed for their other crops.
Similarly they attempt to patent strains that have existed for centuries in order to become sole providers. See the Basmati / Texmati rice case for just one example http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/index.php?option=com_cont...
They have made every effort to remove other options from the farmers and are creating monopolies through questionable business practices and IP abuse.
It's a dirty business all around and it's a clear indication that the patent system is broken. Commodities are cheap, because they are commodities. Simply because anyone can jump on in and have a go at producing them. That's the free market at work, cheap and lots of it.
Contrast commodities with the protected patented good. Expensive and a limited supply typically, since you can only get it from the IP owner or a licensee. Why innovate if you don't have to and if you do, make sure it's patentable and stretch it out.
If patents were fair and equitable all around then people would not be trying so hard to turn commodities back into patented goods.
It's not tenable and it is the cause of our current economic malaise. It's a high tech world and the path to economic growth is blocked because as soon as you computerize or mechanize, you run into a wall of intellectual property that you can't get around without gobs of money for lawyers.
The software startup world was the wide open frontier ten years ago, a place where you could make money with just an idea, but it's gradually getting the life choked out of it by IP law.
Sorry, I did not initially mean for this to become a patent rant, but it is connected to everything I have been thinking about for the last year or so and it's really pissing me off how far it's tentacles go.
> Similarly they attempt to patent strains that have existed for centuries in order to become sole providers.
Oh really?
Since you didn't understand the article that you cited, I'll quote it "It should be perfectly clear that what RiceTec patented was not the genome of basmati rice or a genetically developed variety (RiceTec makes the point that all its products are natural). It was simply a hybrid of basmati obtained from cross-breeding with an US long rice variety."
RiceTec has a patent for its hybrid. That patent does not cover anything else, such as pre-existing strains of Basmati.
The whole argument that what RiceTec has done is somehow wrong is "By including basmati name into the patent definition, RiceTec could claim wide-ranging rights over a traditional name, for which it did not acknowledge the origin or the originality, let alone the copyright."
That's factually incorrect. Patents don't grant any protection for names. Copyright and trademarks do.
I've got a patent for a method of branch prediction. No one thinks that said patent gave me any rights over the term "branch prediction" (or even "programmable branch prediction", a term which was arguably novel when I filed the patent.)
Oh really?
Since you didn't understand the article that you cited, I'll quote it "It should be perfectly clear that what RiceTec patented was not the genome of basmati rice or a genetically developed variety (RiceTec makes the point that all its products are natural). It was simply a hybrid of basmati obtained from cross-breeding with an US long rice variety."
RiceTec has a patent for its hybrid. That patent does not cover anything else, such as pre-existing strains of Basmati.
The whole argument that what RiceTec has done is somehow wrong is "By including basmati name into the patent definition, RiceTec could claim wide-ranging rights over a traditional name, for which it did not acknowledge the origin or the originality, let alone the copyright."
That's factually incorrect. Patents don't grant any protection for names. Copyright and trademarks do.
I've got a patent for a method of branch prediction. No one thinks that said patent gave me any rights over the term "branch prediction" (or even "programmable branch prediction", a term which was arguably novel when I filed the patent.)
Some guy on Yahoo Answers gave an answer for Kosher: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090519173621AA...
In short, no, it wouldn't be kosher, but meat grown from modified genes could be kosher.
In short, no, it wouldn't be kosher, but meat grown from modified genes could be kosher.
This scares me to death.
There is no way that humanity has figured out all the complexity that billions of years of evolution has created when it comes to animals eating each other.
Corporations are now coming up with new types of 'food' that they can sell for much more profit than the things our species have been surviving on for thousands of years. Take margarine for example - no cows to raise and milk, therefore a much bigger profit margin than butter. They also tell us it's much healthier too. But then studies like this come along http://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/05/us/study-links-heart-disea... , and the whole french paradox, which indicate the opposite may be true.
"When In-Vitro Meat (IVM) is cheaper than meat-on-the-hoof-or-claw, no one will buy the undercut opponent." I seriously doubt it. Even though a grass fed, dry aged steak is quite expensive, many people splurge because they are delicious. Has the author heard of the organic movement growing 20% a year over the past decade? People buying more expensive food because it's healthier and tastes better, that defies logic.
The article claims that this IVM is also healthier for the planet, but it neglects to mention where all the raw ingredients for the IVM will come from. Mother nature already created the perfect way to stay healthy - plants get energy from the sun to grow, animals eat plants, and excrete fertilizer to grow new plants. This happened for millions of years before humans came along. Unfortunately, our farms are no longer run using this perfect natural solution (another issue entirely), but I don't see how IVM would solve this.
My favorite quote from the article: "We won't even choke to death because IVM contains no malicious bones or gristle." It's amazing our species has survived so long with so many malicious bones and evil gristle after us. Malicious bones - I cant stop picturing zombies, haha.
There is no way that humanity has figured out all the complexity that billions of years of evolution has created when it comes to animals eating each other.
Corporations are now coming up with new types of 'food' that they can sell for much more profit than the things our species have been surviving on for thousands of years. Take margarine for example - no cows to raise and milk, therefore a much bigger profit margin than butter. They also tell us it's much healthier too. But then studies like this come along http://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/05/us/study-links-heart-disea... , and the whole french paradox, which indicate the opposite may be true.
"When In-Vitro Meat (IVM) is cheaper than meat-on-the-hoof-or-claw, no one will buy the undercut opponent." I seriously doubt it. Even though a grass fed, dry aged steak is quite expensive, many people splurge because they are delicious. Has the author heard of the organic movement growing 20% a year over the past decade? People buying more expensive food because it's healthier and tastes better, that defies logic.
The article claims that this IVM is also healthier for the planet, but it neglects to mention where all the raw ingredients for the IVM will come from. Mother nature already created the perfect way to stay healthy - plants get energy from the sun to grow, animals eat plants, and excrete fertilizer to grow new plants. This happened for millions of years before humans came along. Unfortunately, our farms are no longer run using this perfect natural solution (another issue entirely), but I don't see how IVM would solve this.
My favorite quote from the article: "We won't even choke to death because IVM contains no malicious bones or gristle." It's amazing our species has survived so long with so many malicious bones and evil gristle after us. Malicious bones - I cant stop picturing zombies, haha.
Meh. Human beings haven't been eating domesticated cattle for all that long, either. I mean, geologically speaking. If you're going to put some faith in evolution, put it in our ability to adapt to available food sources. If we were as brittle as needing to consciously micromanage nutrient input, I doubt we'd have made it nearly this far.
Anyway, I don't see any particular reason to expect 'natural' food to be more healthy. Most of nature, given its druthers, would like to kill you.
Anyway, I don't see any particular reason to expect 'natural' food to be more healthy. Most of nature, given its druthers, would like to kill you.
>If you're going to put some faith in evolution, put it in our ability to adapt to available food sources. If we were as brittle as needing to consciously micromanage nutrient input, I doubt we'd have made it nearly this far.
It depends on your definition of "need." You can obviously live to be old enough to reproduce on extra value meals from McDonald's - people do - but that doesn't mean its good for you.
>Anyway, I don't see any particular reason to expect 'natural' food to be more healthy. Most of nature, given its druthers, would like to kill you.
Because we're adapted to it and we're messing with systems that are not well understood. Some of this is obvious and well-known - for example, the link between sugar consumption and diabetes.
It depends on your definition of "need." You can obviously live to be old enough to reproduce on extra value meals from McDonald's - people do - but that doesn't mean its good for you.
>Anyway, I don't see any particular reason to expect 'natural' food to be more healthy. Most of nature, given its druthers, would like to kill you.
Because we're adapted to it and we're messing with systems that are not well understood. Some of this is obvious and well-known - for example, the link between sugar consumption and diabetes.
> Because we're adapted to it and we're messing with systems that are not well understood.
Well, at least we try to understand them. Nature doesn't even do that. Bananas--in any form--are new; a 10,000 year old irreproducible hybrid. Corn and cattle have undergone extreme selection and no small amount of random variation in that time. Nature produces viruses and parasites and mutations on proteins and poisons, none of which have us in mind. And it does it much, much faster than human evolution is going to be able to adapt to changing available food sources. Our generations are long, and little things like cancer at the end of life just don't hurt our offspring that much.
In a contest between engineered food -- whether cloned or GM -- and food that's just been genetically drifting for a few thousand years, I'll take the engineered food every time. Sure, the engineers are working with systems far beyond their ken. I get that. But nature wouldn't be shy about doing even relatively obviously dangerous things. Engineers might make sweeter apples and we discover many years down the road that some protein interaction upsets some delicate balance if you eat them with too many fish and it causes your teeth to turn blue. But nature might decide to make an apple all cyanide and not just the seeds.
Humans are pretty robust and adaptable. We can handle the random, arbitrary garbage nature throws at us. We wouldn't be here if we couldn't. So I'm sure the mistakes of a few engineers who trying very hard not to hurt us won't amount to much of anything.
Well, at least we try to understand them. Nature doesn't even do that. Bananas--in any form--are new; a 10,000 year old irreproducible hybrid. Corn and cattle have undergone extreme selection and no small amount of random variation in that time. Nature produces viruses and parasites and mutations on proteins and poisons, none of which have us in mind. And it does it much, much faster than human evolution is going to be able to adapt to changing available food sources. Our generations are long, and little things like cancer at the end of life just don't hurt our offspring that much.
In a contest between engineered food -- whether cloned or GM -- and food that's just been genetically drifting for a few thousand years, I'll take the engineered food every time. Sure, the engineers are working with systems far beyond their ken. I get that. But nature wouldn't be shy about doing even relatively obviously dangerous things. Engineers might make sweeter apples and we discover many years down the road that some protein interaction upsets some delicate balance if you eat them with too many fish and it causes your teeth to turn blue. But nature might decide to make an apple all cyanide and not just the seeds.
Humans are pretty robust and adaptable. We can handle the random, arbitrary garbage nature throws at us. We wouldn't be here if we couldn't. So I'm sure the mistakes of a few engineers who trying very hard not to hurt us won't amount to much of anything.
That's actually a really good point, our bodies have some fairly advanced defenses, but still I'd play it safe and avoid this stuff like the plague until a solid amount of time has gone by.
In the old court days they used to have a person that would taste the food (I don't know the English word for such a person, sorry) and if that person wouldn't keel over within half an hour of tasting the food the food would be considered safe.
I fully intend to use that part of humanity that doesn't care about issues like this for exactly that purpose, but I'll set the time quite a bit longer than half an hour.
(silly old timers, never heard of slow acting or cumulative poisons...)
In the old court days they used to have a person that would taste the food (I don't know the English word for such a person, sorry) and if that person wouldn't keel over within half an hour of tasting the food the food would be considered safe.
I fully intend to use that part of humanity that doesn't care about issues like this for exactly that purpose, but I'll set the time quite a bit longer than half an hour.
(silly old timers, never heard of slow acting or cumulative poisons...)
[...] they used to have a person that would taste the food [...]
"The surnames of the Maltese Islands: an etymological dictionary" by Mario Cassar (http://bit.ly/assayer) confirms what I'd read elsewhere, it's called an "assayer". "food taster" is most commonly used though.
"The surnames of the Maltese Islands: an etymological dictionary" by Mario Cassar (http://bit.ly/assayer) confirms what I'd read elsewhere, it's called an "assayer". "food taster" is most commonly used though.
real grass fed cows will still be raised and sold, but expect it to get a lot more expensive in the future.
It might get less expensive, as there will be more room for pasture and a low cost competitor.
I really don't think that's how supply and demand works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand
He's right "it might" if my marginal cost is lower and I'm making a living I don't have to price gouge. There are other motivators than profit.
The meat we have now is rather unhealthy and unnatural. Cows are built to eat grass and chickens are built to eat mostly bugs. Instead we stuff them all with corn and soy. This makes the omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acid ratios very wrong. This imbalance is strongly implicated in many human diseases, heart disease in particular. The only truly healthy meat is grass fed.
I'm very skeptical, but it seems at least possible to me that test tube meat could be formulated to better approximate "natural" grass fed meat than the mass produced feedlot stuff we have now. They could fix the fatty acid ratios by "feeding" the meat with algae secretions. The only way to find out will be with experimentation.
Of course this brings us back to the question of what our food market would look like if all grain subsidies were removed. It's quite likely the vast corn fields would be converted to pasture and healthy meat would get cheap. And it's quite likely that proper pastured meat production is more efficient than all the test tube processes.
I'm very skeptical, but it seems at least possible to me that test tube meat could be formulated to better approximate "natural" grass fed meat than the mass produced feedlot stuff we have now. They could fix the fatty acid ratios by "feeding" the meat with algae secretions. The only way to find out will be with experimentation.
Of course this brings us back to the question of what our food market would look like if all grain subsidies were removed. It's quite likely the vast corn fields would be converted to pasture and healthy meat would get cheap. And it's quite likely that proper pastured meat production is more efficient than all the test tube processes.
chickens are built to eat mostly bugs
Not to be too nitpicky, but chickens are omnivores. They will happily eat worms, leaves, bugs, grass, flowers, seeds, flies, small frogs, other chickens, and I've seen them try to attack small snakes.
And trust me when I say they don't have to be forced to eat corn. Next to worms, it's probably their favorite food.
Not to be too nitpicky, but chickens are omnivores. They will happily eat worms, leaves, bugs, grass, flowers, seeds, flies, small frogs, other chickens, and I've seen them try to attack small snakes.
And trust me when I say they don't have to be forced to eat corn. Next to worms, it's probably their favorite food.
This sounds like one of those "In The Year 2000" articles from Popular Science in the '50s. It is hyperbolic beyond credulity, probably missing some extremely important aspects of the central tenet of the story, and too light on cited facts to take seriously.
I do think there will be major changes in the way meat for the majority of meat eaters is produced in the future, but it won't be in three years, or even ten. The changes have to happen because meat production is simply too resource intensive for an ever-growing population to keep on eating more and more of the stuff without ever increasing environmental impact. But, they will come extremely slowly, because peoples habits change extremely slowly. People will choose "real" meat for a long time after cheaper in-vitro meats are available.
If I ate meat, I would be somewhat suspicious of the new stuff, just as I'm suspicious of most modern, and not so modern, lab-created food additives. As with most artificial sweeteners, HFCS, hydrogenated fats, etc., I'm suspicious of them as beacons for general poor quality when I see them on a label. I know if the manufacturer chose the cheapest options for the sweeteners and fats, they probably chose the cheapest garbage for the rest of the ingredients, too. Much like soy in burgers indicated to people in the '70s and '80s that it was a poor quality, cheap, food, in-vitro meats will probably go through a phase of being thought second rate. And, of course, a few years on, we now know that soy in some forms actually can be detrimental to health, particularly in men.
It will take a pretty brilliant marketing coup to overcome that kind of resistance. Splenda and Nutri-Sweet both had very effective marketing that seems to have countered any feelings of badness about them. Though what Nutri-Sweet replaced (Saccharine) had such a bad reputation at the time that anything probably would have been a shoe-in. It's not coincidence that Splenda began to hit big just as questions about the safety of Nutri-Sweet/Aspartame started to get mainstream attention. I'm not sure people will be convinced about the unhealthiness of meat, since artificial meats aren't exactly mainstream today, despite many of them being quite tasty (certainly tastier than diet sodas) and reasonably healthful. This makes me think the desire for healthier substitutes for meat isn't very high, and the awareness of most folks of the environmental impact is even lower.
I do think there will be major changes in the way meat for the majority of meat eaters is produced in the future, but it won't be in three years, or even ten. The changes have to happen because meat production is simply too resource intensive for an ever-growing population to keep on eating more and more of the stuff without ever increasing environmental impact. But, they will come extremely slowly, because peoples habits change extremely slowly. People will choose "real" meat for a long time after cheaper in-vitro meats are available.
If I ate meat, I would be somewhat suspicious of the new stuff, just as I'm suspicious of most modern, and not so modern, lab-created food additives. As with most artificial sweeteners, HFCS, hydrogenated fats, etc., I'm suspicious of them as beacons for general poor quality when I see them on a label. I know if the manufacturer chose the cheapest options for the sweeteners and fats, they probably chose the cheapest garbage for the rest of the ingredients, too. Much like soy in burgers indicated to people in the '70s and '80s that it was a poor quality, cheap, food, in-vitro meats will probably go through a phase of being thought second rate. And, of course, a few years on, we now know that soy in some forms actually can be detrimental to health, particularly in men.
It will take a pretty brilliant marketing coup to overcome that kind of resistance. Splenda and Nutri-Sweet both had very effective marketing that seems to have countered any feelings of badness about them. Though what Nutri-Sweet replaced (Saccharine) had such a bad reputation at the time that anything probably would have been a shoe-in. It's not coincidence that Splenda began to hit big just as questions about the safety of Nutri-Sweet/Aspartame started to get mainstream attention. I'm not sure people will be convinced about the unhealthiness of meat, since artificial meats aren't exactly mainstream today, despite many of them being quite tasty (certainly tastier than diet sodas) and reasonably healthful. This makes me think the desire for healthier substitutes for meat isn't very high, and the awareness of most folks of the environmental impact is even lower.
No one will buy ranch raised meat when In-Vitro meat is so cheap? This guy has no business sense.
I raise chickens as a hobby. I don't even try to market or sell my product, yet I have people asking me if they can buy eggs (no, I just give them away if they ask) because they're willing to pay more for fresh eggs from chickens living in natural surroundings than the "battery farmed" ones in supermarkets.
Premium products will always command premium prices.
I raise chickens as a hobby. I don't even try to market or sell my product, yet I have people asking me if they can buy eggs (no, I just give them away if they ask) because they're willing to pay more for fresh eggs from chickens living in natural surroundings than the "battery farmed" ones in supermarkets.
Premium products will always command premium prices.
Assuming I believe in this taking over the world, can anyone point to some startups or larger public companies I should be following?
I think this article doesn't actually address the obvious question of the stigma of actually eating in-vitro meat.
It does. It suggests that Europe will take it up before USA, for cultural reasons. It might also be popular in the developing world.
Our food is already processed within an inch of it's life (then a good three yards past it). Tour Spam will be grown in a vat, rather than fed hormones and ground in a factory. Big deal.
You think PETA is unethical? Just wait for the smear campaigns that will crop up when MegaCorp can actually make some money off scaring people out of living meat.
Our food is already processed within an inch of it's life (then a good three yards past it). Tour Spam will be grown in a vat, rather than fed hormones and ground in a factory. Big deal.
You think PETA is unethical? Just wait for the smear campaigns that will crop up when MegaCorp can actually make some money off scaring people out of living meat.
It suggests that Europe will take it up before USA, for cultural reasons.
This mystifies me. All you have to say is "genetically modified" and Europe flips its proverbial wig. Aren't savvy English cattle farmers going to say "Oh-my-Gaia this is Frankenfood! It is unnatural! It is cloned! It probably has DNA in it! Phone your representative, this should be banned!"
(The reference to savvy farmers is an oblique reference to the fact that the difference between GMO soybeans/corn/etc and non-GMO soybeans/corn/etc is that a preference or requirement for non-GMO product shuts American-grown stuff out of the market. What a handy coincidence.)
This mystifies me. All you have to say is "genetically modified" and Europe flips its proverbial wig. Aren't savvy English cattle farmers going to say "Oh-my-Gaia this is Frankenfood! It is unnatural! It is cloned! It probably has DNA in it! Phone your representative, this should be banned!"
(The reference to savvy farmers is an oblique reference to the fact that the difference between GMO soybeans/corn/etc and non-GMO soybeans/corn/etc is that a preference or requirement for non-GMO product shuts American-grown stuff out of the market. What a handy coincidence.)
It suggests that Europe will take it up before USA, for cultural reasons.
I'm european, and I seriously doubt that. I'd say that the US would pick it up before Europe. In Europe, we are much more wary about "unnatural" way of growing things, you just have to see with GMO ...
I'm european, and I seriously doubt that. I'd say that the US would pick it up before Europe. In Europe, we are much more wary about "unnatural" way of growing things, you just have to see with GMO ...
Postulate two sets of people. Set A consists of those who regularly eat meat, deeply care about the origin of that meat, but care very little about the environmental impact of raising meat and are dismissive of any cruelty or health concerns. Set B consists of folks who are vegetarian or who avoid red meat because of health, environmental, and/or cruelty considerations.
I suspect almost all of set B would eat vat meat and that set B is larger than set A.
I suspect almost all of set B would eat vat meat and that set B is larger than set A.
I'm in Set B, and would hesitate before eating Vat-meat. I didn't become a vegetarian in order to pretend to eat meat.
And if it's on your fork, how do you tell if it's vat meat or not?
Especially the in-vitro human meat. It'll probably cause mad-human disease or zombies.
What stigma? When it's been gussied up with sauce and a fancy abstract plate, the average diner won't even taste the difference - or notice the fine text on the bottom of the menu, next to the Ethical Meats stamp.
Do you know what's in the average hot dog? Hamburger? Package of frozen chicken strips? The fact is that while people do eat a lot of steak, chicken wings, and bacon a lot of meat is merely an ingredient.
I hope that food labeling will take care of that, and that any synthetics will be required to carry clear labeling.
I encourage you to read "The Merchants War" by Fredrick Pohl
Which is a sequel to 'the space merchants'.
And I really wonder why that got you modded down, it's perfectly on-topic.
And I really wonder why that got you modded down, it's perfectly on-topic.
It was modded down, probably because if you haven't read this book (which I haven't), the suggestion is unsupported and means little - why should I read it?
The space merchants and the merchants war deal with a society that has 'overshot' in commerce, basically there are only two brands left. And one of the central themes is 'chicken little', a vat grown pile of blubbering cancerous chicken meat that gets 'sliced' off at the edges.
This means now vegans can eat meat ?
That would depend on why one was a vegan. Some do it for health, some for various philosophical reasons.
For myself (vegetarian for philosophical reasons), if no plausibly sentient being was harmed to create this stuff, I'd likely have no ethical reasons against eating it.
For myself (vegetarian for philosophical reasons), if no plausibly sentient being was harmed to create this stuff, I'd likely have no ethical reasons against eating it.
> Some do it for health, some for various philosophical reasons.
I'd also add 'Yuck Factor' to that list. I'm not sure how IVM would effect this.
I'd also add 'Yuck Factor' to that list. I'm not sure how IVM would effect this.
Some current fake meat has a notable Yuck Factor. :)
Vegans could even eat long pig... Norwegians and Japanese could eat whale. :-)
Anyone else thinking of "Transmetropolitan"?
Anyone else thinking of "Transmetropolitan"?
This article reads like it was written by someone with an axe to grind against traditional meat.
One of the commenters put it well:
"In Vitro meat will do to pasture grown meat what margarine did to butter. Despite nearly 50 years of food science, still the most economical way of getting the wonderfully rich flavor of butter is to milk it out of cows.
In vitro meat will be fine for industralized meat products that just want the approximate taste & texture of meat but anybody wanting a fine steak is still going to get it from good old fashioned cows."