Test-Tube Burgers Coming Soon 276
ananyo writes "A burger made entirely from lab-grown meat is expected to be unveiled by October this year. But costing in excess of $250,000, it's not going to be flying off supermarket shelves quite yet. The lab meat is produced using adult stem cells, which are then grown on scaffolds in cell-culture media. Because such lab-assembled muscle is weak, it has to be 'bulked up' by exposing to electric shocks. The researchers, based in the Netherlands, had already grown goldfish fillets in 2002, then fried them in breadcrumbs before giving them to an 'odor and sight' panel to assess whether they seemed edible." While I'm not overly enthusiastic about this Dutch attempt at growing burgers, it is a huge step-up from the Japanese effort.
Can I get a cut of veal instead? (Score:4, Funny)
Made from embryonic stem cells rather than adult, of course.
Soylent Green! (Score:3)
Kinds of surprised no one has posted that. But then, I bet the vast majority of you people weren't even alive what that came out.
Using this technique (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt that the pork restriction would be lifted for artificial pork.
It's still, biologically, pork. While a silly rule, that's how they believe, and that it is artificial won't change it.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, maybe. Isn't the prohibition against eating animals with cloven hoofs? Or something like that? This would never have had hooves.
Re: (Score:2)
It's still the same species, though. Not saying that you couldn't talk yourself into it using 'logic', like anything pertaining to religion.
Re:Using this technique (Score:5, Interesting)
Jewish rabbis get a prohibition on cheeseburgers from this lone (half-)verse:
Exodus 34:26b: Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk.
From here, they have entire separate milk and meat dishes and can't have even chicken with cheese.
If you even applied logic to the verses themselves, there are already a great number of things that Jewish people could eat, but don't because a rabbi put a fence around the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. One is still using cells of a pig to create pig meat. Just because it's not extracted from an entire pig does it mean it's no longer classified as pig flesh.
Until you genetically engineer it sufficiently far away. Imagine an aquaculture catfish that is literally fileted into something indistinguishable from pig bacon but is technically born of a fish. Or a tuna that tastes just like the finest beef tenderloin.
For that matter, I'd settle for a soybean that when processed tastes and cooks more like real meat instead of weird fake soy-meat.
Re: (Score:3)
So you mean they'd just make a mutated catfish, tuna or soybean?
I was thinking more along the lines of taking "carnivorous" pig cells and letting them process the raw material into delicious bacon.
Much like when you drink beer, you tell yourself you're drinking processed barley, not yeast. Pickles, you're eating processed cucumbers, not acetobacteria.
In a similar line of thought, you're not eating sliced up catfish, you're eating catfish that was processed into bacon-like filets or whatever by being dunked for a few hours into baconic cells.
I suppose if the fish itself
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Using this technique (Score:4, Interesting)
I say make it an option and let people decide.
Personally, I'm all for it, but I recognize there is always a risk when something is untested. The same can be said for any drug. You can't tell what the effects will be in 30 years until, well, people have been using it for 30 years. You can make soem very good guesses (which is what will happen with the synthetic meat) but you won't really _know_ until a generation actually lives off it.
There's gonna be people who won't trust this stuff (and probably never will), and that's fine.
Re: (Score:3)
Or perhaps even more to the point, is that meat (and all food) is part of a living thing and contains the nutrients needed to keep that thing alive, which in turn keep us alive when we eat it. When you grow it in the lab, you're simplifying the whole complex metabolism of a living thing into some process fluid that grows some cells in the lab, and the contents food becomes little more than bulked up proteins. How much B12 does it have? How much iron? Omega3s?
The trouble with synthetic meat, as I see it,
Re: (Score:2)
take those ingredients as a multivitamin and eat some fried tofu.
Except you can't have a medium rare tofu steak.
Personally I eat as a pleasurable activity. The fact that it's necessary to sustain me is secondary. If they could come up with a food substitute that was purely for sensation / making you feel full, and we all just took pills to actually get nutritional content.. I'd be all for it.
Re:Using this technique (Score:4, Informative)
If they could come up with a food substitute that was purely for sensation / making you feel full, and we all just took pills to actually get nutritional content.. I'd be all for it.
I dunno, they did something similar to that with chewing gum in the early 1970s that was supposed to approximate a three course meal. If I remember correctly, it ended up badly with the blueberry pie dessert course.
I think they made a hard-hitting movie dramatisation of it...
meh... (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know why but this concept gives me the creeps because we don't really understand all there is to know about genetics
No genetics involved here.
It's plain vanilla stem cells, which are grown on a media and produce muscle tissue.
It's exactly the same process which occurs naturally in a growing animal.
By creating meat in a lab, there is no way to be sure that it is exactly the same as nature intended it to be. In fact, our bodies may very well process it differently or it could be very detrimental to our health
From a dietary point of view, the only point in eating meat is to get proteins. There are some amino acid which are present in meat while being rare in most plants (that's why you can't improvise a vegan regime but need to follow a specific regime with enough specific plants which give you the otherwise rare and missing amino acids).
Everything else you get it from plants: including all the really important vitamins, and so one. Except some B vitamins which are absent in plants but present in yeast (beer!!!) and in animal products (milk).
So wherever you hamburger was vat grown, or grown on a real animal doesn't change much: You'll get what you need (protein) from both, and anything else you need comes actually from your side dish (vegetables).
If you want to be concsious about what you eat, you don't need to insist on animal meat. You need to eat more fruits and vegetables.
From a "food processing point of view", it doesn't mean much. Cooking food destroys (denaturates) most proteins anyway, so by the time it goes out of the grill, it won't be much different between vat grown and animal grown.
From a biological point of view, this is not simply proteins produced in a vat, this is real muscle tissue produced by actual stem cell, just like in a growing body. Under the microscope you won't see much difference.
Re:Using this technique (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know why but this concept gives me the creeps because we don't really understand all there is to know about genetics.
And this is different in what why when compared to meat from Cattle or Pigs, or Lettuce, or tomatoes? We really don't know all there is to know about ANYTHING, and we never will. Yet I bet you eat these things with impunity.
Interestingly enough, Tomatoes are one of the first bio-engineered foods [wikipedia.org]. Originally no bigger than a berry, it had already been engineered by indigenous farmers in South America to be about the size of a large grape when the Spanish arrived. Only after it was spread to Europe was it widely cultivated, crossbred, and selected until it reached its current size. Every once in a while someone decides to make tea out of tomato leaves. Bad Idea. [wikipedia.org] And we don't know All there is to Know about tomatoes yet, but we eat them by the ton.
This "We don't know all there is to know" is just another version of the rallying cry There are some things science can't explain! [meidell.dk] which is thrown out by the "back to the earth" crowd any time anything challenging is presented.
I haven't decided if this an example of the Fallacy of False Dilemma, or the Fallacy of the Appeal to Ignorance, but its pretty annoying in any case.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would there be a hailstorm? The way "nature intended" things to be can be interpreted just as easily as referring to the path through which evolution has taken nature, since evolution is by and large an automatic process.
It's sad that people are so religiously anti-religion that you even said that, that it's even possible to interpret the words "as nature intended" as a claim of a deity's existence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a tumor, really, it's not (Score:2)
Meat (Score:2)
You can pry my dead cow burger from my greasy and certainly not cold dead hands.
Or... Just Eat Less Meat (Score:4, Informative)
In the West we could all do with eating a bit further down the food chain really - Red meat is known to linked to bowel cancers.
Mind you, I'm Scottish, so can't really preach about good diet really :)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You guys have haggis. What kind of cancer does eating bowels give you?
Re: (Score:3)
What do you think goes into any other kind of sausage? Or burgers for that matter?
Hint - it's not prime steak, that's for sure...
Re: (Score:2)
1. Doesn't conflate red meat and processed meats
2. Doesn't use cooking methods that char the hell out of the meat, generating HCAs?
I'm all for eating well, but I remain skeptical that healthy animals produce unhealthful meat.
Re: (Score:2)
And the incidence of colon/rectal cancers from red meat just happens to coincide with the rise of antibiotics and hormones used in cattle to produce bigger animals and to pre-treat diseases. It has nothing to do with the red meat itself, it has to do with what is allowed to happen to the meat before it gets to your dinner table. In that sense, you have to blame your government for allowing it and then blame them when you come down with cancer.
The incidence of colorectal cancers might just happen to coincide with a number of things - jet aircraft, iPhones, WalMart, Republican Presidents and Television. That doesn't mean much.
The data for these things is pretty weak - they're all observational studies with numerous biases. They certainly cannot be used to determine causality. Most of the red meat / cancer data comes from comparing crappy data from primitive vegetarian societies (who tend not to get screened for much of anything) with western so
It's not a cookie, mother (Score:2)
Because such lab-assembled muscle is weak
It's veal!
Re: (Score:2)
it's going to be covered in ketchup anyway (Score:4, Informative)
so who cares how it tastes?
Growing meat... (Score:4, Interesting)
... at industrial scale that is both cost effective and as good/or better then the real thing remains to be seen.
Re: (Score:2)
Growing in-vitro meat is essentially the same business as manufacturing advanced bio-pharmaceuticals -- you have the same issues of running a bioreactor with strict sterility requirements, complex growing media, and other expensive criteria.
Even if technological developments were able to drive the cost of doing mammalian cell culture to a fraction of its current price, you would still be an absolute fool to use your capacity to produce a low-priced commodity, compared with the high-margin drug products that
adult stem cells (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It's soylent green.
Just a thought (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps if part of training the muscle involved teaching it to hump its way up onto a bun, then pull a slice of tomato and some lettuce over itself as a kind of blanket...
Re: (Score:2)
I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today (Score:2)
I'll gladly give you fiat currency Tuesday for a fake-meat burger today.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming this technology pans out, why would you call it fake? Just like a lab-grown emerald, it is chemically identical to the natural source without all the damage to the landscape, infection(inclusion) exposure, or unnecessary cost. (sure it costs a lot now, it's an experiment. In a couple decades time, it'll clock in at a ten, maybe a hundredth of the cost of 'real-but-otherwise-inferior' meat off the killed organism.)
Because it won't be the same. They're not making a T-bone steak, they're making protein mush. It may well look and taste like something you get a McDonald's but it will be a far cry from 'real meat'.
And Guppy's [slashdot.org] comment is also relevant - it's unlikely to be cheaper than cows on a hoof.
Adult stem cells (Score:2)
It might have been best to clarify what species of adult the stem cells are harvested from, since in most news stories, "adult stem cells" typically has a connotation of adult human stem cells!
Re: (Score:2)
meet the meat, hufu, Mrs 'Awkins, et al (Score:2)
At this point, we only know of one example, and only in some extraordinarily self-aware examples.
Re: (Score:3)
Glad (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, they are getting better! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The Japanese version made out of sewage, was, in fact a hoax [thestranger.com].
Oh oh: (Score:2)
"it has to be 'bulked up' by exposing to electric shocks"
I don't care if it is in a test tube, PETA's gonna go apeshit over this.
$250K (Score:3, Funny)
Not in my buns! (Score:4, Interesting)
On a continent that goes apeshit [bbc.co.uk] over Genetically Modified and other Bioengineered Crops, it seems unlikely this will gain any traction in the commercial market place, at least not in the EU [wikipedia.org]. On the other hand, the EU may take the stance that since this work was pioneered in the EU, it can't possibly be bad.
Now on Mars, or long space voyages this might have some appeal, especially Mars, where there is a possibility of finding water, thereby eliminating one of the heaviest component of any food product. Although unless making and transporting the necessary equipment and media takes up less room and less weight than a freezer full of hamburger this seems unlikely there as well. Chances are the growth media can be shipped dry as well, and reconstituted with distilled water from any source.
Even if the cost per pound could be brought in line with animal sources, it seems unlikely to be a rational method of food production here on earth, simply because significant portions of the meat supply would be put at risk by a simple power failure, or contaminant in the growth media.
The rest of this story will no doubt be filled with hand wringing posts over the amount of CO2 that cattle produce (something never attributed to Wildebeest herds), and how this will save the earth. The whole concept creates an intellectual conundrum for the Peta crowd. They would love to get animals off the farm, and this method presents a way forward, but having to embrace those huge corporations, and bio-engineering is probably more than they could stomach.
Re: (Score:3)
Been there, done that.
I like mine rare, thank you.
Seriously, grow up.
Same story, every year. (Score:3)
Reporters grab this story from the file every year or so. As long as it has the "ick factor", they'll continue to run it. It seems to have first appeared in 2001. Here's one from about six years ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/magazine/11ideas_section2-9.html [nytimes.com]
Blobbi tastes like "despair". (Score:5, Funny)
When the company food taster is asked for his opinion on the beef, he stares off sadly and says, "it tastes like despair".
Worst. Nerds. Ever. (Score:2)
Manbeef! (Score:2)
There once was a website called manbeef.com that claimed to be a source of fresh human meat for human consumption. (It was elaborate and looked real, but there was no contact information about how to actually procure the stuff, so it was a hoax.) However is there any particular reason why human stem cells shouldn't be used and human meat produced for human consumption? I think it'd be interesting. The argument goes that no poor animal has to suffer and die to satisfy our taste buds anymore, surely the s
Sadly (Score:2)
Life. Better. (Score:3)
Veridian Dynamics is working on it [youtube.com].
Re:Excited (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Excited (Score:5, Interesting)
Mostly my opinion.
I don't have a problem with animals being killed for food per se. I have more of a problem with the way some of these farms are run / animals are treated. Also farming uses a lot of land, a lot of resources, and generates a tonne of pollution (all of which the lab solution might do as well of course).
Ultimately if a lab solution can replace the need to kill animals, I'm all for it (assuming as you said, it's just as good or better). If for no other reason than no longer having to listen to the animal rights people. I'm sure they will be replaced by an equally annoying anti-synthetic food group in time, but at least it would be a change in the whitenoise.
Re:Excited (Score:5, Funny)
Have you seen the inside of some labs these days? Disgusting. Doritos everywhere. Chemicals piled up on racks. Blue LEDs.
You'd want to eat something that came out of that environment?
Not me. I'll go for stuff raised in manure any time.
Re: (Score:3)
Would it be any less land wasting, polluting and resource consuming if we paved all the land and dropped a city on it? Or maybe a data center like Facebook that consumes as much power as the rest of the county it's situated in?
Strawman. Those aren't the only possibilities. One could simply use the land to cultivate food for direct human consumption.
Farms covered in green crops and grass suck up a hell of a lot of that CO2 that you city people are spewing into the air, not to mention filling the air with oxygen for you to breath
The problem is not the green crops and grass, but the animals.
Firstly, there's this:
Globally, ruminant livestock produce about 80 million metric tons of methane annually, accounting for about 28% of global methane emissions from human-related activities.
And secondly, the whole process of growing vegetables, feeding it to cattle and then eating the cattle is much less efficient than taking the animals out of the equation.
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing wrong with killing animals for food....
My mind has been changed on the ethics of that and it was Peter Singer who convinced me of the fact. It's an argument rooted not only in minimizing harm to sentient creatures (and avoiding speciesism), but also on the arguably more distasteful issue another poster mentioned, that of how animals are treated in farms.
Singer's article here [guardian.co.uk] provides the latter argument, but I can't recall sources for his former argument. Perhaps here. [wikipedia.org]
I am looking forward to the wide availability of lab-grown meat. It'll
Re:Excited (Score:5, Funny)
As they say, the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.
That (according to TFA) can be fixed with electric shocks.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing wrong with killing animals for food.
I disagree. I've always felt at least a little uncomfortable with the idea of eating animals. I've made several attempts to give up eating meat but this time I think I've succeeded and I've been vegetarian for the last month. It's been bugging me for a while, the way animals are treated in industrial-scale farms and the horror of slaughterhouses. Maybe it's since I started keeping pets that I've become more conscious of the fact that "lower forms of life" have their own quirks, personalities, preference
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad, I give it 10-20 years from the moment this stuff hits the shelves until the first leftist country bans real meat.
Really? With all the anti-GMO propaganda and fear I figure it's more likely the synthetic stuff will be much more likely to be banned. The anti-meat folks are a pretty small minority compared to the OMG-evil-science crowd
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Excited (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, they need to come up with some kind of lab grown Dorito-esq chip that’s actually healthy for you and doesn’t taste like crap.
Beef Jerky. Reasonably low fat and low carb and mostly paleo diet. "Cow Chip" might actually sell as an extreme marketing term.
Also if you have some "health food" type store nearby there are veggie chips that taste fantastic kind of like a potato chip already dunked in salsa. That would probably count.
Finally I've gotten addicted to these freeze dried apple chips.
Grind up a multi-vitamin and dust it onto the chips and you're pretty much all good.
Re: (Score:2)
Beef Jerky. Reasonably low fat and low carb and mostly paleo diet. "Cow Chip" might actually sell as an extreme marketing term.
I once made a meatloaf in a Pyrex pie plate. When I served it I discovered why meatloaf is traditionally formed into a rectangle, when my son said "Mmm, cow pie!"
Re: (Score:2)
Where I'm from, cow chips mean something very different.
Yes exactly, which is why I suggested it as an extreme marketing term. You can sell an extreme bag of spicy cow chips in a commercial during a professional wrestling TV show, in between the "vocational video game classes" ads and energy drink ads. A bag of "extreme cow chips" is not gonna sell if advertised on dancing with the stars.
Re:Excited (Score:5, Interesting)
The real question I have is how are they going to reproduce everything that's in the meat. I mean, the core stuff, fine. But there are a myriad of different stuff in meat, including bacteria of all kinds, microbes, all types of things. Sometimes we get ill because of it, but for the most part we ingest it just fine.
What will happen when nothing of that sort goes into our body anymore? Will we take "dirt pills"? I know people have been making Tannin pills to prevent from having to drink wine ...
This will be a sad day IMO.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it would be a complete lie to say this stuff won't have an impact on human health. This stuff is not going to be identical to real meat, probably not even close, and our bodies are going to react differently to it.
Whether the effect is going to be good, bad, or mostly irrelevant is what will matter. I imagine it'll probably mostly be the last one. Our bodies will adjust to the new stuff.. probably some minor changes.. but in general I don't think it's gonna be major.
I (along with many others I'm sur
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
But there are a myriad of different stuff in meat, including bacteria of all kinds, microbes, all types of things.
Absolutely true at McDonalds, or taco bell. Ideally, however, the interior of raw meat is pretty darn near sterile.
Think about it, the interior of your bicep right now is either sterile, or red, inflamed, and in intense pain, correct? The interior of meat is actually much more sterile than the interior of vegetable matter, which is kind of interesting, especially organic vegetables which were bathed in fecal matter as a fertilizer.
Now the exterior of factory slaughtered meat is in fact generally filthy be
Re: (Score:2)
I know people have been making Tannin pills to prevent from having to drink wine ...
No one has to drink wine, some people choose to take dietary supplements because they think it will make them healthier. As for meat being replaced by "meat" - there will be no surprises due to loss of nutrients, there have been perfectly healthy vegetarians for millenia. There will, however, certainly be people making "meat nutrient replacement pills" for the same crowd who buys the Tannin pills. Some people and their money are easily parted.
Meat is cooked (Score:2)
The purpose of cooking, in addition of making the food more palatable and more digestible, is also to sterilise it.
So you won't find much bacteria on your burger once it leave the grill (or the over).
Also, this is not only a mix of proteins, this is real muscle tissues obtained by growing muscle out of stem cells, exactly as in real life. The only thing which it might lack is blood (as in the body, it's produced elsewhere), but even that could be fixed (stem cells or bone marrow cells grown in a bone-marrow
Re:Excited (Score:4, Informative)
Oh but they will be replaced by an anti-synthetics group.
At least it will be a different ringing in the ears.
Re: (Score:3)
Help stop the slaughter of baby Naugas.
(no more naugahide)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh but they will be replaced by an anti-synthetics group.
At least it will be a different ringing in the ears.
Not to worry. PETA will always be a PITA.
Now it's Sea Kittens [peta.org]. (Otherwise known as fish).
You can't make this stuff up! Or at least I can't.
Re:Question for the other Catholics (Score:5, Interesting)
Does this qualify as meat during Lent? Or should I just stick to my Filet-O-Fishes (or is it Filets-O-Fish) for Friday?
Since the whole point of abstaining from meat during Lent is "mortification of the flesh", you could probably go either way.
Re:Question for the other Catholics (Score:5, Interesting)
Now here's another interesting philosophical question. I eat a vegan diet for health reasons, mostly to do with the quality of food and how it goes from "animal" to "edible".
Is test-tube meat something that I would eat? What about an ethical vegan? (They don't want animals to suffer.)
Re:Question for the other Catholics (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Question for the other Catholics (Score:5, Insightful)
No or little suffering unless your headshot is just a little bit off. That happened to me my first time out hunting. While I'd hypothetically go hunting again, I felt like a major asshole when my friend said "You shot the front of its head off" and it was bouncing up and down off the ground in what must have been horrific pain until my friend got close enough to blow the rest of its brains out.
Re: (Score:3)
d it was bouncing up and down off the ground in what must have been horrific pain until my friend got close enough to blow the rest of its brains out.
Still a much kinder dead than most wild animals get. e.g. slow starvation, disease, or having your guts ripped out by a predator.
The only animals than can expect a quick dignified death are our pets. Certainly not us.
Re:Question for the other Catholics (Score:5, Interesting)
So it depends on where you want to draw the line. If you don't mind taking, say, 1/1000th of the life of a cow to eat a burger every week for the rest of your life, then it is fine either way. If you don't want any part of a dead animal on your hands, then you will have to go with the more expensive extraction method.
Of course, if you don't want ANY part in any animal death, you should know that pretty much everything you use has animal parts in it somewhere. Hell, tires are black because of carbon black sourced from charred animal carcasses.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Right and if you can't avoid the inhumane treatment of animals in one microcosm of your life, you better just start clubbing baby seals to death because shades of gray are for people more sophisticated than us.
Re: (Score:3)
PETA has come out in favor of this research and said it is a great thing. They're interested in the animals and suffering, not muscle tissue in the abstract.
Petakills stupidity (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Question for the other Catholics (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Question for the other Catholics (Score:5, Interesting)
Religion is a spiritual crutch for people who can't handle God.
Re:Question for the other Catholics (Score:4, Insightful)
Does this qualify as meat during Lent? Or should I just stick to my Filet-O-Fishes (or is it Filets-O-Fish) for Friday?
They ret-con these things, but if it's 'flesh' in the religious eyes then you can't eat it on Fridays.
Except for beaver, because it spends most of its time in the water (no, really). So, have your Fillets 'O Beaver and be content in your righteousness. Or, read 1 Timothy 4 - your call.
Re:Question for the other Catholics (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Check the bible. Surely as the authoritative source on everything, it has something to say about eating synthetic meat?
I'm kidding, as someone who was raised a Catholic I know that that particular church doesn't emphasise the Bible as much as Protestant denominations, and places more emphasis on tradition since the church is supposed to be the inheritor of St Peter.
Re:Question for the other Catholics (Score:5, Funny)
Ask me again when Obama forces us all to eat hamburgers made out of test-tube babies.
Clearly, as President-to-be Santorum has said, Satan is attacking America:
I am comforted by a presidential candidate who talks about Satan's evil plan to destroy America, using "sensuality". So when Satan/Obama comes do destroy America, he will force us to eat hamburgers made of test-tube babies at Hooters! We need a president like Rick Santorum. That's why I encourage all of you to visit spreadingsantorum.com where you can donate to the cause.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree absolutely. I support Rick Santorum without apology.
The great Santorum recently had this to say in an interview:
We clearly need a preside
Re: (Score:3)
You're as sharp as a whip. Can't get anything over on you, Attila. Your mama didn't raise no fools. No sir.
You saw right through my carefully-crafted ruse to make you think I was a supporter of Rick Santorum, when really it's his namesake I support because I use it in my Satanic rituals. Yes, I throw santorum into the eyes of all the god-fearing teaba
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What do horse salami rocks taste like? Are they hard? Do they melt in your mouth, or do you need to nibble at them?
Re: (Score:2)
I find some horse steaks to be far better than beef.
I was almost believing you until that point. The more you work a muscle, and the older it gets, the stringier and tougher it becomes. I bet horse would make an awesome slow cooked bbq, but as a steak it would make "cube steaks" (which I personally find inedible) seem like tenderloin. Keep this in mind for the post-zombie apocalypse cannibalism era, old muscular ex-military weightlifter dude like me is almost the definition of not good eats.
Re: (Score:2)