Large Scale Production of Artificial Meat 201
Fraser Cain writes "Scientists at the University of Maryland think that large quantities of artificial meat could be produced to supply the world with animal-free meat products, like chickenless nuggets. This is based on experiments for NASA, that created small amounts of fish protein cultured from single cells. According to the researchers, larger quantities could be grown in thin sheets and then stacked up to create thickness. Of course, they need to figure out a way to exercise it to make it taste like regular meat."
Chickenless Nuggets?! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Chickenless Nuggets?! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Chickenless Nuggets?! (Score:2)
Re:Chickenless Nuggets?! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Chickenless Nuggets?! (Score:2)
When i see advertisements like "the best part of the chicken" advertising those nuggets, i always get automatically reminded that they are made from the industrial byproducts of food processing, which essentially contains some waste from chickens aswell. That's the only connection with chickens. It's a way to sell waste to people.
Re:Chickenless Nuggets?! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Chickenless Nuggets?! (Score:2)
Re:Chickenless Nuggets?! (Score:2)
Oh boy oh boy (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh boy oh boy (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Oh boy oh boy (Score:2)
I've been a veggie for about ten years, and have tried most of these products at one time or another. Last night I had an excellent BLT for dinner, made using a bacon substitute called "Smart Bacon".
To be honest, I think that even if I were eating meat, I'd prefer this stuff because it's healthier and still tastes fine.
And there are so many burger substitutes out there that I don't miss eating cow at all.
May I be the first to say... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:May I be the first to say... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Long Pork (Score:2)
-
Just not the same. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Just not the same. (Score:2)
Thanks for that quote. Gave me my daily Slashdot chuckle.
Re:Just not the same. (Score:3, Interesting)
A little more seriously...if no animal had to die for the meat, what will this mean for voluntary (PETA-style) vegetarianism or veganism? What will it mean for religious vegetarianism?
Re:Just not the same. (Score:5, Insightful)
Religious? Probably nothing - it's still actually meat, just carved from one giant contiually cloned, ever-living, non-sentient beast.
PETA? They should embrace this, since the artificial meat will be non-sentient. I'm sure they'll have a problem with it though.. protesters tend to wrap up their identity in the fact that they're a protester. If you fix the problem they care about, they'll find something else to protest about, because otherwise they have to stop protesting.
There are people that genuinely care about an issue, and aren't protesting as a lifestyle, and to those people - rock on. But many in protest organizations basically protest for a living.
Re:Just not the same. (Score:3, Interesting)
In reality these type of people really don't care about the issue they're protesting. They care about changing people's lifestyles. They pick what to protest so that success is most likely to change people's lifestyle to what they think it should b
Re:Just not the same. (Score:2)
Yeah and I'd like a pony. Why don't you go arrange that too?
Re:Just not the same. (Score:3, Funny)
Sounds like those canned trolls my D&D group used to use for emergency rations. Open the can, let it regenerate, and cut off a chunk.
Re:Just not the same. (Score:3, Interesting)
What about vegetarianism in the spirit of ahimsa (do no harm) - not eating animals because you would be supporting killing them? Since it's not a living and sentient being, you're not harming it in any way.
IANAB (I am not a Buddhist), though. Are there any here who'd like to respond?
Re:Just not the same. (Score:2)
That's PETA-style vegetarianism, as far as I know, so I don't see why you couldn't eat the artificial meat.
Specific religious things like "no pork" or "only fish on Fridays" probably won't allow you to eat artificial meat any more than you could eat regular.
Re:Just not the same. (Score:2)
I don't care that you have to kill animals to eat meat, it isn't about that for me.
For me, it's about stupid humans. Cases in point:
1. It's stupid to feed a herbivorous animal meat or meat products, even if it makes them grow faster. They're still giving calves cow blood, they're still feeding cows meat. That's idiotic - no wonder we have prion diseases.
2. Your average pig farm produces more industrial waste than your average power plant. The far
Re:Just not the same. (Score:2)
First, kosher meat is not "blessed". The animal must be killed in a certain way, and only certain parts of the animal must be used, and the blood must be extracted. There are no magic words involved.
I am certainly not knowledgable enough about jewish law to say anything with any authority, but it's slashdot, so I'll just jump in anyway. If the cells for cloning were taken from a living animal, that could consistute "flesh stripped from a living animal" - which is definitly not kos
Re:Just not the same. (Score:2)
That would depend on the religion and the reason for the vegetarianism.
If it is "health" rule it might still be in effect.
If it don't harm a life. Then it may or may not be in effect depending if the meat is considered to be alive enough or not. Some religions have a thing about touching much less eating any dead animal products.
Re:Just not the same. (Score:2)
I don't think I would eat this cultured fish cell.
> This could save you having to slaughter animals for food.
Er, but I *don't* slaughter animals for food already.
> With a single cell, you could theoretically produce the world's annual meat supply.
You could even do that if the world meat demand went to zero.
>
>
The True Test (Score:2)
I know that eating fake meat will be better for the world, but people won't bite (Pun Intended) if it doesn't taste comperable to real meat.
Re:The True Test (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The True Test (Score:2)
Re:The True Test (Score:5, Funny)
Hot dogs sell pretty well, actually.
Re:The True Test (Score:2)
Wait...
The animals aren't alive either way. What makes this 'better' again?
Re:The True Test (Score:3, Insightful)
I think them not living through that by not living, would be better. But that's just an opinion.
Re:The True Test (Score:2)
You're going to kill and eat them. What difference does the rest of it make? It's not like giving them a cushy lifestyle is going to justify the ends... Hell, the ends don't even need to be justified.
Re:The True Test (Score:2)
And I'm not saying the ends need to be justified either. I'm just saying that the animals we eat are not treated very well.
Re:The True Test (Score:2)
All of the cows that i've encountered are dumb as doorknobs. They are probably smarter than sheep, but that's not saying much.
Re:The True Test (Score:2)
Re:The True Test (Score:2)
Less cow poop in the environment, less dying screaming animals (Ever been to a slaughter house?), No debeaking the chickens and forcing hormones down their throat, less cows wallowing in their own shit.
Animals do experience pain & misery... I doubt that brocolli feel the same way.
I'm curious how they will provide nutrients for the fake meat -- considering that most (subsidized) grain grown in the US is used to feed the (subsidized) cattle, I'm curious if we can get goo
McDonalds' hamburgers don't taste like meat... (Score:2)
I grew up in cow country, I was friends with ranchers and ate plenty of beef growing up. McDonalds hamburgers taste nothing like beef...
not too important.. yet. (Score:2)
Re:not too important.. yet. (Score:2)
I've been a vegetarian for six years not because I care about the animals and not because I think it's more healthy not to eat it and not because I don't like meat. I've done it because it's incredibly hard on the environment, and I just choose not to participate in that.
It would be
Re:not too important.. yet. (Score:2)
Re:not too important.. yet. (Score:2)
maybe they should just call it... (Score:2)
And here's the theme song: (Score:2, Funny)
It's not real!
Taste'll give you zeal!
Has a good feel!
It can be steak!
But yet it's fake!
It's quick to bake!
No animals at stake!
Virtual veal!
It's a good deal!
Has lots of appeal!
Make it your meal!
Get Your Wendy Burger Here (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Get Your Wendy Burger Here (Score:2)
Everything old is new again. (Score:2)
Why replace meat? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why replace meat? (Score:4, Insightful)
Uh... because meat generally tastes good? There are a lot of recipes that require it, or at least a reasonable facsimile? Barbecuing things is fun, and soy/wheat mock burgers and hotdogs work a lot better for that than a chunk of tofu?
Re:Why replace meat? (Score:2)
I agree, and I eat meat, but it feels disingenous to me for those trying to eliminate animal meat to try and imitate it.
Re:Why replace meat? (Score:2)
The only way to eliminate something people like is to perfectly replace it (or make it better) -- for example, the "butter" at movie theaters, or the "cheese" on nachos.
Re:Why replace meat? (Score:2)
That I can understand, but it's the vegetarians (on moral grounds) I've met who are constantly seeking meat look- and taste-alikes. THAT's what I don't understand.
It's like someone who hates cigarettes (and the people who smoke them) seeking out chewing gum that tastes like a cigarette.
Re:Why replace meat? (Score:2)
i don't eat meat primarily because i don't like how it tastes (i never did) but the conditions that livestock are raised under would be as good a reason for me. i eat some fish a couple times a year 'cause i like it but i'm concerned about overfishing and i've got issues with farm raised (antibiotic filled, local ecosystem destroying) fish.
i don't like fake meat that tastes like meat. but i love tofu "ribs", covered in delicious sauc
Re:Why replace meat? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think that's a good comparison because they probably don't think sugar is evil.
I think the cigarette comparison works because people think cigarettes are evil. Remember when they tried to come out with the "safe" cigarette that didn't actually burn tobacco? Remember how people railed against it because it was emulating what they perceived as "evil"? Why do things that emulate "evil" meat get a pass? That's
Re:Why replace meat? (Score:2)
Not at all. I pointed out in the first comment you responded to that I'm asking about people who don't eat meat on moral grounds. My subsequent comments are still only about those people, not vegetarians in general. I'm a landetarian because I don't like seafood.
The eating of animals is not what's bothering them; the keeping of animals for that purpose is.
This is slightly tangent, but that's difficult to pinpoint too. How many animals per acre
Re:Why replace meat? (Score:2)
Interesting you say that, because that's where I started this whole thread: The folks who are "moral" vegetarians and yet seek simulated meat are *deep* into the gray, IMHO.
I guess [...] that where to draw the line is up to each individual,
Fortunately! For now! In the U.S.
but one fairly easy line is to not eat meat period.
Yes. Or simulated meat. Just like
Re:Why replace meat? (Score:2)
Re:Why replace meat? (Score:2)
The folks who are "moral" vegetarians and yet seek simulated meat are *deep* into the gray, IMHO
I suppose I might be seen as a "moral" vegetarian, and yet I seek out meat substitutes... And the gray area discussion is very relevant - at the end of the day, I said "f%#@ it, I'll draw the line here: don't eat anything that had aheartbeat/mother/etc." Less hassles with the gray area and also most people with half a brain can understand it (the others say things like "So you're a vegetarian. Would you like
Re:Why replace meat? (Score:2)
Re:Why replace meat? (Score:2)
Most people who drop meat from their diet get so used to eating everything else that they stop checking everything that goes in their mouth scanning for cooked starch or meat.
It's sad, but your body becomes so accustomed to eating soggy, fatty, starchy, meaty foods that even when you know you should be eating broccoli & tomatoes, you just can't make yourself put down the sausa
Maybe more economical. (Score:3, Insightful)
At least it would take less energy and be more environmental friendly or don't stink up the local area...
Ever drove by a pig farm? They have a ton by the coast in North Carolina and they don't call em pigs for nothing.
Re:Maybe more economical. (Score:2)
If that were the case, I'd think the first uses of this technology would be in impoverished countries. But somehow I don't think that's going to happen. Cheaper? Maybe in a certain sense, but not the sense that really matters to starving people.
Re:Maybe more economical. (Score:2)
It may be more economical, although modern industrial pig-farming is well-known for "using everything but the squeal". Very little of the pig goes to waste, although a good deal of it goes into non-food products.
I hereby volunteer ... (Score:3, Funny)
That way, millions of people across the earth could finally eat my butt for real, instead of my just screaming for them to do it from street corners.
Cloning for food is good (Score:2, Interesting)
Cruelty free, vegan-friendly. It could be engineered for the perfect protein, fat and mineral content while maintaining perfect flavor.
Imagine a sea of perfectly marbled, gristle-free beef filets.... droooool....
Schools and prisons (Score:5, Funny)
If it's cheap, nutritious, and gross, expect to see it in prisons.
Re:Schools and prisons (Score:2)
Re:Schools and prisons (Score:2)
In one, you can be shot.
Efficiency? (Score:2)
Re:Efficiency? (Score:2)
Anything that improves the efficiency of our food chain is good news. Of course, if this is *more* energy-intensive than just raising a cow, it's silly.
Re:Efficiency? (Score:2)
Personally, I'm inclined to say that I'd
Re:Efficiency? (Score:3, Insightful)
Mmmm... beer.
Guiltfree veal? (Score:2)
Dildos ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Getting them erect might be a problem.
Christ, I think I've just grossed myself out.
Re:Dildos ? (Score:2, Insightful)
McDonald's.... (Score:2)
Johnny Carson: McDonald's on their 2nd horse (Score:2)
He came back the next day to say "McDonald's is threatening to sue me if I don't take back what I said. OK, McDonald's is NOT on their second horse . . ."
Speaking of cruelty (Score:2)
The idea is to reduce suffering. Right?
If we cannot eliminate it completely overnight, we have to aim for say fewer people dying of starvation. Right?
Now in many poor countries, people are like bacteria cultures. Add food, they'll increase in numbers. Reduce food, they'll starve in big numbers= starvation.
Eventually the population reaches an equiliberium like it is now in Pakistan. People simply cannot afford to have more kids.
Re:Speaking of cruelty (Score:2)
Now in many poor countries, people are like bacteria cultures. Add food, they'll increase in numbers. Reduce food, they'll starve in big numbers= starvation.
Do you have the slightest bit of evidence to support what would otherwise look like a fairly nasty bit of xenophobia?
Re:Speaking of cruelty (Score:2)
So wheres the xenophobia?
I've personally seen the mindset whereby the person wants to further his genes as much as possible, indeed in rural areas Muslim mullahs preach producing as many 'muslims' as is economically possible (read: food available). You cant blame me for being antimuslim either because I am one.
Like I said the two ways are education + womens sufferage. In combination that creates families which try to have few children and raise them the best the
Re:Speaking of cruelty (Score:2)
The Space Merchants. (Score:2)
Really strange image of 'Chicken Little', an enormous everliving vat grown chicken tissue that the radical conservationists hold their meetings inside.
It's only natural... (Score:2, Insightful)
Honestly people, it's barbaric to eat animals.
Eating meat is natural for people, and a number of other animals as well. There is nothing barbaric about eating the foods that your body is meant to. Now if you were saying the modern treatment of livestock is often barbaric, I'd be inclined to agree, but these are two different matters entirely.
Natural and Barbaric (Score:2, Insightful)
But I think I'll stick to the toilet. Sometimes justifying acts on the basis of nature clashes with doing the right thing.
Re:We have no right to enslave animals! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:We have right to enslave animals! (Score:3, Informative)
What makes a cow's life more important than the life of a frog, or a snake, or a little mouse?
If saving life was the most important aspect of y
I'll bite (pun intended) (Score:2)
B12 deficiency only occurs in vegan diets. Vegetarians get more than enough Vitamin B12 through dairy and eggs. I agree though, anyone making dramatic changes to their diet should be well informed before doing so.
I congratulate you on caring for yo
Re:I'll bite (pun intended) (Score:2)
We are omnivores. Eating plants and animals is how we evolved and will always fit into our physical systems best.
The problem is the way you produce meat for the entire world population. It requires tremendous resources and factory farms to do it on that scale.
Rudy
Re:We have right to enslave animals! (Score:2)
More of which is used to feed animals than humans.
Pathetic. Try again. If you're sick of hearing the rhetoric, try not spreading it around.
Hu-mans and el-e-phants are tasty. (Score:2)
Mod parent "uninformative" (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you realize how many more resources -- land and fresh water -- are consumed in producing meat than in producing vegetable crops? Livestock are either fed other livestock or vegetable crops. There is no possible way to use fewer resources to produce a pound of animal protein vs a pound of soy protein.
That ethical reason is what motivates me in limiting my meat intake to fish and chicken and limiting my intake of those as much as I can. The most resources are used in producing
Re:Mod parent "uninformative" (Score:2)
Re:We have no right to enslave animals! (Score:3, Informative)
And if you ever wanted a reason to quit: http://www.peta.org/ [peta.org]
Please see http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/topics.do?topic=peta [sho.com]
Peta are a bunch of lying fanatics.
Re:What happens if the world goes veggie? (Score:2)
But I'm not a "veggie" as it sounds like I got a B-12 deficiency when I tried it
Re:artificial meat (Score:2)
Cheapness is not the only quality (Score:2)
Think quality. Think choice.
Suppose that instead of someone else growing steak in a lab for you, and you having to guess whether this mystery meat was truly lab grown or not, that instead you are able to buy a tiny quantity of seed culture for 100 different things (e.g. the 100 finest varieties of steak, or the 100 finest kinds of gourmet coffee beans, the tastiest spice plant leaves, etc...) and suppose you can choose to grow these things yourself in your own grower, process them yourself, etc.
Suddenl
Re:Real Meat (Score:2)
We evolved in a niche where being eaten by lions, crocodiles and other animals was the norm.
Tell that to the Masai! Ever since the invention of the pointy stick, humans - or rather, groups of humans appropriately trained/experiences - have been top of the food chain.
Why agriculture started is still very much a subject for debate, although (no joking) it is suspicious that grain collection/cultivation and beer making crop up at the same time in the historical record. Of course, once you start agricult
Re:Real Meat (Score:2)
IMO, massive agriculture began because cities became the way of life as opposed to tribes and small groups of people.
Well, the archeology suggests it was the other way around; farming begat larger populations, and things like surpluses that meant not everyone had to directly work for food; hence specialisation and eventually cities. This was a long lime before fully industrialised pig farming .
You seem to be using a criteria for sustainability in which absolutely everyone has to be a smallholding farme
Re: (Score:2)