Bill Gates and Richard Branson Back Startup That Grows 'Clean Meat' (bloomberg.com) 243
A large global agricultural company has joined Bill Gates and Richard Branson to invest in a nascent technology to make meat from self-producing animal cells. "Memphis Meats, which produces beef, chicken and duck directly from animal cells without raising and slaughtering livestock or poultry, raised $17 million from investors including Cargill, Gates and billionaire Richard Branson, according to a statement Tuesday on the San Francisco-based startup's website," reports Bloomberg. From the report: This is the latest move by an agricultural giant to respond to consumers, especially Millennials, who are rapidly leaving their mark on the U.S. food world. That's happening through surging demand for organic products, increasing focus on food that's considered sustainable and greater attention on animal treatment. Big poultry and livestock processors have started to take up alternatives to traditional meat. To date, Memphis Meats has raised $22 million, signaling a commitment to the "clean-meat movement," the company said.
"clean" "meat" (Score:2, Insightful)
Can we please have some labelling laws so this thing can't be legally called "meat"?
There's enough problems with processed food already. Here we have a processed thing that did not even start from being food.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
But millennials and stuff don't you know.... they hate big-cow and big-chicken and big-pig and want clean organic vat meat. So you just stop it with your "labels" and your anti-vat meat anxiety because Bloomberg says that millennials have decided what they will and won't tolerate you eating.
Vat-to-table, pal.
Re: (Score:3)
But millennials and stuff don't you know.... they hate big-cow and big-chicken and big-pig and want clean organic vat meat. So you just stop it with your "labels" and your anti-vat meat anxiety because Bloomberg says that millennials have decided what they will and won't tolerate you eating.
Yeah yeah look traditionalists, when you harvest and skin all of the meat you eat, killing it with tools you made yourself, cooking it over an open firem and wear it's skins while you gather nuts and berries, then come back and act all paleolithic on us.
Moronic, let me FTFY (Score:2)
Yeah yeah look eco-authoritarian, when you harvest and clean all of the fruits and vegetables you eat, planting it and harvesting it with tools you made yourself, cooking and canning it over an open fire and wear it's skins while you gather nuts and berries, then come back and act all vegan on us.
That garbage works both ways. I did have the decency to fix your spelling error with "fire" too.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah yeah look eco-authoritarian, when you harvest and clean all of the fruits and vegetables you eat, planting it and harvesting it with tools you made yourself, cooking and canning it over an open fire and wear it's skins while you gather nuts and berries, then come back and act all vegan on us.
That garbage works both ways. I did have the decency to fix your spelling error with "fire" too.
Eco-authoritarian?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: "clean" "meat" (Score:2)
I qualify for a lot of that, actually. I don't make my own tools. There are more efficient means.
Given that I personally clean the vast majority if my meat, I'm pretty sure it is clean meat. This year, I even got my moose permit. It will be tasty.
Re:"clean" "meat" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I would imagine that they'll label it in some way just because I can't imagine vegetarians or vegans objecting to eating it. Otherwise if it's molecularly the same, who cares if it came from a factory where it was grown artificially or if some critter carried it around before having it shorn off.
I certainly agree, but we have a world full of anti-vaxxers, anti anything but unmanipulated original veggies, anti-science, and flat earthers.
I'm a dedicated omnivore (because it is the natural state of humans) but would be very happy to eat synthetic meat.
Imagine, we could eat rare animals, or hybrid meat. Some donations would be all that is needed. We wouldn't have to be worried about maltreatment of food animals, or alomst killing off an entire species of food. I'm pretty certain that the meat even
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine, we could eat rare animals, or hybrid meat.
For the adventurous, I can see it going farther than that: "long pig" and from specific celebrities. Fans will pay a premium for Mark Wahlberg filet mignon.
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting that I had an "ew" reaction to that, even though logically, there is nothing physiologically/chemically "bad" about eating lab grown meat based on human DNA. (assuming basic food safety issues are taken care of.)
I wonder where that comes from, evolutionary/instinct-wise.
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly agree, but we have a world full of anti-vaxxers, anti anything but unmanipulated original veggies, anti-science, and flat earthers.
Sadly true, but I feel we should be giving them the attention they deserve. None at all.
We already have this don't we? (Score:2)
Spam
Re: (Score:3)
... I can't imagine vegetarians or vegans objecting to eating it.
I think it is merely a popular misconception, that vegetarians et al avoid meat simply because they object to the slaughter of animals and feel they have eat vegetables as a sort of penance. Maybe there are some of that kind - otherwise there wouldn't be a market for all those horrible meat-imitations. Personally, though, I tend to eat vegetables because I like them more than meat - the taste, the texture, the fact that I don't feel as if I had eaten a bowl of cement after eating etc. - and I think I have
Re: (Score:2)
I find meat tastes about the same no matter how it is prepared [...] but vegetables are so varied - if you know how to cook them and especially when to stop cooking.
Same is true for meat. Of course, if "burned to perfection" is the only way you know how to grill your meat, it will all taste like a piece of leather pasted in whatever marinade you use.
Re: (Score:3)
I would imagine that they'll label it in some way just because I can't imagine vegetarians or vegans objecting to eating it.
You must be new to this planet. Of course some of them, maybe even most of them, are going to object to this. People who are vegetarian for religious reasons (ie. Hindus, Buddhists, etc.) may not object to it. The main religious objection is that meat comes from killing a creature with a soul and you incur a karmic debt by participating in the killing it took to get you the animal flesh. This doesn't mean you can't find people with religious beliefs that oppose eating animal flesh that will do so anyway
Re: (Score:2)
I can't imagine you'll be paying anything less than a $5/pound premium on the lab grown stuff. If I had to be on anything about this, it's that it isn't going to be cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
"I would imagine that they'll label it in some way just because I can't imagine vegetarians or vegans objecting to eating it."
Vegetarian here (almost vegan but very difficult to get rid of all dairy although I'm trying) and I won't eat this. I don't object to it on principle since it doesn't require an animal to die, but I won't eat it because meat just isn't something I want to eat regardless of source. If you've not eaten meat for any length of time, going back is hard because it actually doesn't taste th
Re: (Score:2)
I would imagine that they'll label it in some way just because I can't imagine vegetarians or vegans objecting to eating it.
You don't know many vegetarians or vegans do you? To rephrase a joke - how do you know if someone is a vegan. Don't worry, if they are they will tell you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't the meat be grown in a sterile environment?
Re: (Score:2)
Growing meat cells, has a real problem with pathogens and corporate greed. A whole food like algae is safer in corporate hands, it tends to die real fast or look after itself in relatively clean environments. Grow meat, vulnerable meat without, an immune system and that means a whole host of chemicals to keep it alive, pretty much a whole range of antibiotics, to keep the meat from being infected, anti-biotics they will in turn be fed to us, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org], basically "opposing life", so side affects with loads of corporate PR and lawyer denials are the expected results. Poor people meat, rather than the highest quality food and poor people meat because of the necessary chemicals to keep the franken meat alive and corporate greed driven stupidity always looking for short cuts, this quarters profits and people will last eating it for at least a year.
Note also, algae based and everyone with the right basic equipment can grow it (fish tank in the kitchen, feed the fish and they produce fertiliser), fake meat and only corporate industrial facilities can grow it. Total corporate control over food, obey or starve, another part of the corporate take over. Corporate cash less society, obey or be denied access to anything else. Corporate government, obey or die. The investors, basically the whose who of control freaks, only they know, only their insane levels of greed makes them smart, the billions of the rest of us know fuck all, as far as their egos are concerned (we are just not insanely greedy like them).
An algae steak, grown in clean salt water with reduced chemical input apart from chemicals the algae uses to grow far preferable to fake meat soaking in anti-biotics, hmm, I can just taste those anti-biotic side affects,"opposing life", so tasty (I'll bet none of those "opposing life" chemicals will cause cancer when you eat it every day, just ask the companies lawyers growing or the investors who never eat it).
Holy fuck. Do you think it's remotely possible that some people would like to eat meat but aren't comfortable with the concept of an animal dying to provide it?
I don't care either way, but holy shit way to miss the point.
Re: (Score:2)
Growing meat cells, has a real problem with pathogens and corporate greed. A whole food like algae is safer in corporate hands, it tends to die real fast or look after itself in relatively clean environments. Grow meat, vulnerable meat without, an immune system and that means a whole host of chemicals to keep it alive, pretty much a whole range of antibiotics, to keep the meat from being infected, anti-biotics they will in turn be fed to us, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org], basically "opposing life", so side affects with loads of corporate PR and lawyer denials are the expected results. Poor people meat, rather than the highest quality food and poor people meat because of the necessary chemicals to keep the franken meat alive and corporate greed driven stupidity always looking for short cuts, this quarters profits and people will last eating it for at least a year.
Note also, algae based and everyone with the right basic equipment can grow it (fish tank in the kitchen, feed the fish and they produce fertiliser), fake meat and only corporate industrial facilities can grow it. Total corporate control over food, obey or starve, another part of the corporate take over. Corporate cash less society, obey or be denied access to anything else. Corporate government, obey or die. The investors, basically the whose who of control freaks, only they know, only their insane levels of greed makes them smart, the billions of the rest of us know fuck all, as far as their egos are concerned (we are just not insanely greedy like them).
An algae steak, grown in clean salt water with reduced chemical input apart from chemicals the algae uses to grow far preferable to fake meat soaking in anti-biotics, hmm, I can just taste those anti-biotic side affects,"opposing life", so tasty (I'll bet none of those "opposing life" chemicals will cause cancer when you eat it every day, just ask the companies lawyers growing or the investors who never eat it).
How ironic your assumptions about future designs describe all of the fucking problems you're already eating today...
Re:"clean" "meat" (Score:5, Insightful)
This has a lot of a religious sermon: Lots of postulation, little in terms of evidence. Or at least any kind of hint resembling something akin to a shred of an inkling that any of this is based in reality and that we should believe any of it on anything other than "I told you so".
You can grow this stuff in a controlled environment. No antibiotics needed because when there are no bacteria there is no need to use something to kill them.
To the rest of the drivel, well, "chemistry baaaad" sums it up pretty nicely. Why do I have the feeling I'm dealing with a homeopathetic anti-vaxer?
Re: (Score:2)
Only if it's grown naturally and without pesticides. Which makes sense, ergot has no chance to grow with modern fungicides...
Re: (Score:2)
Growing meat cells, has a real problem with pathogens and corporate greed.
Okay.
A whole food like algae is safer in corporate hands,
Whole algae is not food for humans. Nobody can stomach it. The most anyone can manage is a few capsulesful, nobody can manage to eat much of it without hiding it in a smoothie.
it tends to die real fast or look after itself in relatively clean environments.
Algae is floating in the air at all times. If you leave some water uncovered, algae will come and colonize it. Two different buckets with water with different characteristics will get two different kinds of algae, but they'll both get algae.
Grow meat, vulnerable meat without, an immune system and that means a whole host of chemicals to keep it alive, pretty much a whole range of antibiotics, to keep the meat from being infected,
I don't think they will even need antibiotics. I think the real problem is that if they ha
Re: (Score:2)
DNA replication errors generally kill the cell. Synthetic meat doesn't have a problem with cancer, because it basically *is* cancer - the entire goal is to get muscle cells replicating more or less indefinitely and immortally.
Re: (Score:2)
Synthetic meat doesn't have a problem with cancer, because it basically *is* cancer - the entire goal is to get muscle cells replicating more or less indefinitely and immortally.
Except cancer cells often produce toxics and other unwanted byproducts, which brings us back to the potential to do harm.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm vegan and still wouldn't eat this, and I don't know any others that would either.
I'm sorry. Not sorry that you won't eat this, just sorry that you're vegan.
I've met lots of vegans. I've never personally seen a vegan man with decent muscle mass. I've never personally seen a vegan woman with pleasing curves and supple breasts. I don't imagine I will either. You require artificial supplements just to stay something resembling healthy.
We're omnivores, from our dentition to our digestive tract to our prehistoric diet and everything. Back in the day, meat was a smaller fraction of our d
Re: (Score:2)
I'm opposed to a vegan diet/lifestyle because it's idiotic, unhealthy, unappetizing, unnatural and literally deranged. If _you_ can live off vegetation the way a rabbit, cow, or elephant can you'd be a strange animal indeed. Compare your entire alimentary canal to any obligate herbivore and _prove_ that humans are naturally meant to live off vegetation alone. That is my challenge to all of the vegans out there. I know they can't so they'll attempt diversionary tactics. If you can prove it, do so, if yo
Re: (Score:2)
But you won't have the claim of animal cruelty anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Now I'm curious: Why?
So far I thought one of the key reasons why vegans try to talk us out of eating our our tuna pizza is animal cruelty. That meat never saw an animal, so what's the reason now?
Re: (Score:2)
Vat meat isn't organic. From my experience organic and vegan tend to frequently go hand in hand with the people that advocate it.
Re: (Score:2)
Vat meat isn't organic. From my experience organic and vegan tend to frequently go hand in hand with the people that advocate it.
Organic gardening/farming as it was envisioned by its creators (those who are credited for naming it) involves cyclical systems in which soil health and community health are linked, explicitly including returning human waste to the fields. Composting crap safely is trivial; add some of your household compost to the toilet every time you crap and in a year, you'll have the highest-quality soil possible coming out the other end of the system.
There are [at least] two primary kinds of vegan aside from the virtu
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately it's pretty hard to feed the global population with this method. Arable land isn't available in unlimited quantity and "organic" agriculture cannot compete in terms of pure output with industrial crops production.
It's nice that you can grow in your own garden what you need, but I hope you have a solution for the millions of New York or Mexico City.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately it's pretty hard to feed the global population with this method.
At the moment, it takes a lot more hand labor. So what? There's a lot of unemployed people. You can produce more food per acre by planting crops in guilds instead of monocultures, and feeding the soil. We're on the cusp of being able to automate that kind of farming with advances in robotics, so if we can just avoid destroying the biosphere in the mean time, that'd be great.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm vegan and I would consider eating it. It depends on how efficient the process is and if it requires periodic infusion of new stem cells from living animals.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm vegetarian and I would...
Re: (Score:2)
This notion held by carnists that all vegans crave meat or overpriced fake meat products is bogus.
"Carnist"? Lame. In any case, I'm one, and I think I've just disproven your statement because I don't think all vegans crave meat or overpriced fake meat products.
I bet some do, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah. That's only those vegans that don't really want to be vegans but "must" be for some odd reason. These are also the ones that rant and rave without end in an attempt to get everyone else to suffer with them, for shared pain is easier to endure. The others, the ones that just don't want to eat meat and be done with it, are actually cool. And as far as I can tell the majority.
But as always, it's the loudmouthed majority that gives the whole bunch a bad name.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, vegan is about not exploiting animals, the term was coined in 1944 with the definition:
"Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose."
Source: the Vegan Society. [vegansociety.com]
Far as I've seen, they haven't addressed the lab-grown meat issue; if it's grown in bovine serum (as is often the case so far), then it wouldn't be considered vegan. If they somehow manage to eliminate
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No, because it will be chemically indistinguishable from the meat you get from slaughtering an animal. This isn't some soy based substitute, it is actual meat.
You can have "not actual cow" on the labelling if you like, but it's still meat.
Re: (Score:2)
No, because it will be chemically indistinguishable from the meat you get from slaughtering an animal.
So lemme give you a small sack of sand, with a few grains of gold and many other trace metals, and toss in a lump of partially rusted iron -- while I get a computer. They are chemically indistinguishable from each other, you see.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus. It's embarrassing that you think that's a good analogy.
It's a better analogy than you clearly recognize. Those components have to go through a process which literally filters out the undesirable parts, and there is testing at every step of the way. Nature also has something analogous to a test procedure; if the process goes wrong, there are numerous points at which it will abend. Neither process is foolproof; the point the GP was trying to make (with an admittedly ridiculous example) is that not all arrangements of the same constituents are satisfactory. The po
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Can we please have some labelling laws so this thing can't be legally called "meat"?
Good luck with that. With process cheese not containing cheese, marshmallows not containing any marshmallow, "beer" being rice brews, and perhaps worst of all, "real mayonnaise" neither being real nor mayonnaise, I am fairly certain that this will be called meat.
Which is why you go to a butcher when you want meat.
Re: (Score:3)
Good luck with that. With process cheese not containing cheese,
Negative, there are specific standards that process chees has to adhere to specific composition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] . From the page: These products tend to be classified as cheese food, "cheese spread", or "cheese product", depending on the amount of cheese, moisture, and milkfat present in the final product.
marshmallows not containing any marshmallow,
"Pâte de guimauve", the French confection that was originally made from the Marsh Mallow plant, was changed to a gelatin/sugar/starch mixture a long long time ago. And the fact that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The sad part is that anyone thinks 'natural' is an adjective of much relevance. Our natural state is eking out a miserable, parasite-ridden existence for three or four decades. Everything better than that comes to us from artificiality.
Natives of the west coast and the northwestern USA regularly lived to be over a hundred years old, in societies which lasted over ten thousand years that we know of so far. (The estimates keep creeping upwards, last I heard they were looking at fourteen thousand.) And they weren't even parasite-ridden, because they didn't practice animal husbandry. They didn't have to, because they did practice land management. They ignited yearly controlled burns to keep the understory clear, and they had clear agreements
Re: (Score:2)
Here in Lake county, CA, homesteaders were paid a dollar a tree to plant black walnuts, in a campaign designed to displace oaks. The walnuts have literally never been a notable economic benefit to the region, as pears and grapes have been, but they are a benefit if your strategy is to permanently destroy a way of life. You can live on acorns alone, but you can't live on walnuts.
Was driving out the oaks just because acorns could support subsistence, or was there some other reason to replace them?
Re: (Score:2)
Was driving out the oaks just because acorns could support subsistence, or was there some other reason to replace them?
The alleged reason was that they would be economically beneficial, but there was no evidence even at the time that this was true. The only people who ever made any money worth mentioning grafted other species onto black walnut stumps, and even that was never much. This region used to be known for cattle, and then it was known for pears, and then it was known for the night life (briefly) and now it's known for hicks in sticks, and being part of the increasingly-misnamed emerald triangle.
Re: (Score:2)
And i'm suspecting that this synthetic meat can be processed organically.
While I accept that definitions vary the first one I can across for "organic food" was:
Organic food is the product of a farming system which avoids the use of man-made fertilisers, pesticides; growth regulators and livestock feed additives. Irradiation and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or products produced from or by GMOs are generally prohibited by organic legislation.
I'm sure you don't think that vat grown meat can be produced without man-made growth regulators, but I'm not sure what th
Re: (Score:2)
Oh hell, which type of "real Mayonnaise" are you talking about? There are so many types made in so many countries and the recipe has changed over time just like everything else, and some of the changes are pretty helpful, like those to avoid botulism poisoning.
At a minimum, I would require from a "real mayonnaise":
- It should have olive oil as the main component, and raw egg yolks as the main flavor component, and either vinegar or lemon juice as an emulsifier. Water is not an ingredient for mayonnaise.
- It should be a semi-solid, not a thick sauce. If you shape it, it should stay that shape.
- It should yellow with air exposure. That's a feature. It does not have a shelf life of months, it has a shelf life of hours. How it looks is how you avoid botulism an
Re: (Score:2)
You're wrong about cheese, but it reminds me of my favorite product name: "Pasteurized processed cheese food substitute". Somehow that's still more appetizing than "Potted meat food product". It's bad enough that you have to state that something is food, but it's even worse when you have to explicitly drive home the point that it was intended for both resale and consumption, and not simply as some sort of national emergency rations. No, honest, you should pay for this.
Re: (Score:2)
Can we please have some labelling laws so this thing can't be legally called "meat"?
There's enough problems with processed food already. Here we have a processed thing that did not even start from being food.
Oh - we have a person here who already knows this is bad. Seriously, it's awesome to have a person who doesn't need to know anything but knows everything.
Re: (Score:2)
You eat it, we'll wait a few hundred years to see how evolution treats your kids. You never know, they could have the IQ of Socrates and be amazingly athletic. Then again, they could have the IQ and athleticism of a turnip. Why do we have to be your guinea pig?
Science says lots of things are good, and it's not always true. Perhaps try cracking some books and reading history on the subject.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll happily eat it, because I'm not a fucking pseudoscientist like you. How evolution treats your kids? What?
Start by explaining why eating the exact same compounds, in the exact same ratios, mysteriously causes illnesses and consequences for the evolution of your progeny. Go ahead. Whatever you do, don't use 'science', because it was wrong about something, or other.
It's called science! (Score:2)
We KNOW from this thing called SCIENCE that diet impacts the development of humans. In fact we can see that today because we have people and countries in extreme poverty who have crap diets. We know from evolutionary biology that diet has played a role in our evolution, and have plenty of SCIENCE to back the impact.
I never claimed that this lab meat would cause mysterious illness, you pulled that statement out of your ass because you believe in a religion and rational thought is scary to you.
I said I woul
Re: (Score:2)
We KNOW from this thing called SCIENCE that diet impacts the development of humans.
We who delve into science also know that there is a tremendous and pervasive amount of bullshit spread as science. Your silly atgument that this synthetic meat substange is too reisky because it might have a genetic effect on intellignec of progeny is right up theer with the Anti-vaxxers bullshit.
Enought saying, let's talk the science using the real science, not the 5000 years form now, people's peens might fall off stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll happily eat it, because I'm not a fucking pseudoscientist like you. How evolution treats your kids? What?
That's the move the argument into an undefineable future. It borders on faith, where "I know, I cannot articulate that I know, but I'm going to accues you of jeapordizing your children because I can't be proven wrong - or right.
Start by explaining why eating the exact same compounds, in the exact same ratios, mysteriously causes illnesses and consequences for the evolution of your progeny. Go ahead. Whatever you do, don't use 'science', because it was wrong about something, or other.
Cold fusion didn't work, so synthetic meat can't either. Fusion is always 20 years away, so all food additives are bad for you and will make your children stupid.
I'll be he starts yapping about micronutrients and moment now.
The stuff is meat. It's grown as an analogue of regu
Re: (Score:2)
You eat it, we'll wait a few hundred years to see how evolution treats your kids. You never know, they could have the IQ of Socrates and be amazingly athletic. Then again, they could have the IQ and athleticism of a turnip. Why do we have to be your guinea pig?
Science says lots of things are good, and it's not always true. Perhaps try cracking some books and reading history on the subject.
I see. Are foods in use today not subject to the same issues? Food is food, and just because it is someon's definition of natural does not grant some ill defined health benefit. positive or negative.
People are whacked about food in many respects. While they go bat chit crazy about Genetically modified food, and in a ridiculous display of bafflegab, attempt to say that genetic modification is in no way equivalent to say, a evil scientist making a cauliflower that contains a lot of vitaman A is bad, whi
Re: (Score:2)
Can we please have some labelling laws so this thing can't be legally called "meat"?
Why? In what way is it "not meat"? Anyway, you can avoid buying it by looking at ... the price tag. This stuff is going to sell for at least twice the price of dead-animal-meat.
My daughter is a vegan, and she said there is no way she will eat this stuff. According to her, it is still meat.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not too big a concern. Chances are that it will fail due to tasting like despair.
Re: (Score:2)
Can we please have some labelling laws so this thing can't be legally called "meat"?
There's enough problems with processed food already. Here we have a processed thing that did not even start from being food.
We do, this is why Quorn advertises itself as a "protein" product. Other doubleplus good terms are "meat-free" and "meat-replacement", "meat-like" will probably be along shortly.
You must be thinking of other bollocks terms like "natural" and "organic" which dont have legal definitions. However these labels are just there to swindle extra money out of idiots who believe in "toxins" by getting them to pay extra for the same product, responsible capitalism in other words (like the cafe who gives me 50p off
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, there's no such things as pesticide
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Processed food is great. Processing have improved the quality of food products in western countries (and by extension to most of the world) in many ways. If you don't like some kind of processing (and there are many examples I personally think are shit) then list them instead of using a catchphrase used by idiots.
The same thing applies to the reverse: natural food isn't always better, many foods require significant processing to produce something edible by humans. Heating, using chemicals, extensive water s
Start at the animal level! (Score:5, Funny)
I think Mr. Herbert had it right. We should start the engineering at the animal level and shoot for a creating a mindless animal that grows continuously without movement. Just shovel garbage in one end and slice meat off the other.
The slig is an awesome idea!
Re: (Score:2)
We should start the engineering at the animal level
We have been doing that for 10,000 years. Look at a Holstein. Then look at a Auroch. Do you notice any difference?
Better to breed an intelligent animal (Score:2)
That wants to be eaten. Whose instincts have been carefully honed to feel that being eaten and enjoyed is the best thing that could happen to it. And make it articulate enough to express its desires. HHGTTG.
Re: (Score:2)
At least sligs ate waste, chair dogs were even more disturbing sounding. Basically a shaggy dog designed to be a living recliner.
Re: (Score:2)
Also thought of another movie called space truckers. Where they were hauling pigs shaped like squares that fit perfectly in the cages.
Re: (Score:2)
I think Mr. Herbert had it right. We should start the engineering at the animal level and shoot for a creating a mindless animal that grows continuously without movement. Just shovel garbage in one end and slice meat off the other.
The slig is an awesome idea!
I think Mr Adams is more correct.
The meat should want to die, knowing that filling others with it's tasty body is the culmination of its life's work. It'll make meat much cheaper at the supermarket as you don't need to build slaughtering facilities, just give the beast a shotgun and send it out back. I'm sure it'll be very humane about it. An emo roast would cut itself, I don't see the downside.
You gotta be kidding me (Score:5, Funny)
"Microsoft meat" sounds about as appetizing as cockroach pie.
Does it include an EULA? It might really end the user.
Wot? (Score:2)
No growth hormones, antibiotics, pesticides, no Listeria, E-Coli, not washed with chlorine?
Disgusting!
Re: (Score:2)
It all started when my company replaced a certain amount of medical benefits with that stupid Virgin Pulse, track your steps taken each day crap.
Get a small dog and put it on the collar.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think dogs qualify as clean meat.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it involves shooting a metal bolt into an animal's head, slitting its throat then trying to remove its skin, guts, head and feet without getting any of its bacteria-laden shit on the meat. A dirty business altogether.
In that case, better not contemplate eggs and mushrooms.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think eggs and mushrooms contribute the same level of greenhouse gases as cows and pigs.
The "dirty" part of dirty meat is in its environmental footprint. I will eat the new clean meat overlords as long as they taste like chicken or pork chops.
Re: (Score:3)
I will eat the new clean meat overlords as long as they taste like chicken or pork chops.
One of the enjoyable things about pork chops is how the taste and texture differs across the chop, with the most succulent meat being next to the fat rind and along the bone. I think that's a target that will be hard to reach for vat grown meat.
Similar with chicken - unless associating chicken with nuggets, crispy skin and meat that varies depending on where it is is part of the experience.
I can see it more as a substitute for ground meat and pink slime.
My main concern is that the vat doesn't have a workin
Re: (Score:2)
There is no evidence it will clean up the environment until we see what the energy balance, carbon foot print, and waste products are.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no evidence it will clean up the environment until we see what the energy balance, carbon foot print, and waste products are.
At the very least, it won't belch methane.
Re: (Score:2)
It will belch CO2 and other noxious compounds as chemicals and raw materials are manufactured and delivered to food labs. Keep looking for the free lunch, I'm sure it's out there.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm concerned and I'd like to read a study that has not been sponsored by the industry hawking the product.
Ha ha ha. This bridge can reach not only Terabithia but up to Mars' orbit. Just count studies that say male genital mutilation has no or bad effect on STD transmission (most of them) vs ones that claim it is a miracle cure for AIDS (the ridiculously bad Orange Farms study, a few that have a conclusion that contradicts their own data, and that's it) -- then compare with what you read in press or even on Wikipedia. Or, see "not sponsored by the industry, honest" studies of tobacco and sugar a few decades a
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to read a study that has not been sponsored by the industry hawking the product. I want an objective study.
I can't promise you an objective study, but if this ever actually takes off, there will be lots of "studies" from the existing meat industry about how horrible this is. This is currently in the experimental stage. The actual meat industry sells more meat in a day than the total money so far spent on every vat meat experiment combined. The actual meat industry will likely try to introduce FUD and likely won't have much problem getting people afraid of it as many people already are.
Re: (Score:2)
Nature never intends anything, because intent requires an intelligence behind it, and nature itself is not an intelligent being.
That said, don't anthropomorphize nature. It hates that.
Re: Trade one ill for another (Score:2)
She hates that! It's a 'she' you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of the study to turn shit into butter where they claimed a 50% success. It spreads perfectly, but the taste is still off.
Re: (Score:2)
>this "clean meat" is just meat for the hygiene-obssessed elite.
Perhaps for some. For others it's the ability to put meat on the table with a small fraction of the environmental impact and none of the necessary cruelty involved in raising an animal for food.
Re: (Score:2)
For others it's the ability to put meat on the table with a small fraction of the environmental impact and none of the necessary cruelty involved in raising an animal for food.
There's less cruelty necessarily involved in raising an animal for food than there is in your morning commute. There is such a thing as free range meat (though to be fair, it's more than meat at the time at which it's ranging) and there are slaughterhouses designed to calm animals and keep them ignorant of their fate. They live a short and unremarkable life, then die quickly and painlessly. Of course, there's more animals suffering than have to, but it's not a necessity. Animals running around turning nativ
Re: (Score:2)
>There's less cruelty necessarily involved in raising an animal for food than there is in your morning commute.
It's a matter of whether the blood's on our hands or Nature's. And the most efficient methods are not pleasant.
>I'm having a hard time imagining making meat in factories having zero or positive environmental impact.
They would require far less water and land than raising animals. After all, you aren't supporting a brain, mobility, or reproductive systems. You're only growing the meat.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a matter of whether the blood's on our hands or Nature's. And the most efficient methods are not pleasant.
Not pleasant to watch, maybe. Not horribly unpleasant to experience; a few seconds of confusion, and then death. Certainly much better than most of the ways we execute humans.
After all, you aren't supporting a brain, mobility, or reproductive systems. You're only growing the meat.
Most of that stuff is just made out of meat, you know... Our brains use a lot of resources, a cow's... not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
You have made it clear you aren't as short on opinion as you are on knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
You have made it clear you aren't as short on opinion as you are on knowledge.
You have made it clear that you're a whiner.
Re: (Score:2)
They would require far less water and land than raising animals. After all, you aren't supporting a brain, mobility, or reproductive systems. You're only growing the meat.
Meat that has been finely butchered also has much of the fat already trimmed from it. If the meat that is being produced is already in a trimmed state for best flavor, then there is less food waste. This could include inedible waste, such as bone.
However, Drinkypoo (as ironic as the name seems to me right now) may be considering the waste produced from the metabolism of the animal cells being cultivated. Invariably, food goes in, shit comes out. How this theoretical waste is processed, recyled or dispose
Re: (Score:3)
No burgers. I only eat veal because of the cruel way cattle are butchered. Veal calves are left to die of loneliness, the way nature intended.
Re: (Score:3)
Geeez, Americans spend that much on hamburgers every hour.
Ahh, yes, body shaming from the "tolerant" Leftist.
Where is the "body shaming"? The first post seemed to be pretty close to factual. One source suggests that the annual consumption of hamburgers in the US is around 50 billion burgers [google.com]. If we say that on average a burger costs $2 (assuming more are consumed at inexpensive places than not), that is $100B per year on hamburgers in this country. Divide by 365 days and we're looking at ~$273M per day, divide by 24 and we're around $11.4M per hour - assuming that the average burger is $2. If the average is c
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, yes, body shaming from the "tolerant" Leftist.
I don't think the left has been promoting tolerance in the general sense of tolerating different opinions for at least a decade and more like two. Bill Clinton was probably the last of the tolerant left. Now they are more the Maoist left complete with goon squads.