This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Would you eat "in vitro" meat?
Dutch biologist Mark Post says he can make a lab grown hamburger available by the end of the year.
What would be the impacts world wide of have lab grown meat?
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Deborah Hoad
I see lab-grown meat as a complete waste of resources and scientific talent. If you love the taste of meat, but don't want to kill animals to eat, it's time to either get over your love of meat, or investigate meat-flavoured substitutes. I really don't think that anyone needs meat so badly that we have to resort to frankenfood burger options.
Jonathan Maier
a. Even more cheaply create a supply of meat that they can fully control and can generate huge revenue.
b. Take over meat packers' market share by highlighting the more humane nature of their product.
Deborah Hoad
Deborah Hoad
henk doorlag
You talk about the benefits of a vegan diet and automatically assume meat is antithesis to that. Why?
Why assume a more scientific approach to meat production will not solve the problems you see and bring meat on par with your vision of veggies?
What is the difference between a lab (greenhouse) grown tomato and a lab grown hamburger?
Deborah Hoad
I think the better choice is to simply reduce our consumption of meat and focus our time and resources on more beneficial R&D projects, where the resource investment will produce a better outcome than lab burgers.
And for the record, I am not opposed to eating animals at all. I am strongly in favour of moving towards a more vegetarian diet, where the AMOUNT of meat people consume is greatly reduced. Not only would this reduce the use of resources like land and water, but it is mass production that has encouraged the development of the most morally reprehensible animal husbandry and slaughter practices. Small scale farming facilitates humane treatment of animals.
Sure, lab meat might satisfy those morally opposed to killing animals for their meat at all, but I just think we don't need it. Just eat less meat. If you're morally opposed to killing animals for food, eat no meat. If you believe it's wrong to use animal products, become a vegan. But we don't need lab meat. IMO there are so many higher priorities.
Alex Harris
I don't think there's anything simple about that fact, it would require society itself to radically change. Most people are happy to just eat what they know they like, and if they like, they'll continue to eat lots of it.
Lab meat may be a way of reducing the environmental impact of the enormous meat consumption in the short term. If hamburgers can be grown on demand in a lab then we won't have loads of cows farting their global warming into the atmosphere and there obviously won't be as much waste.
I don't claim to know the exact difference between the environmental impact of loads of scientists science-ing up some beef and loads of cows being generally cow-ish, but it seems that the sheer amount of farming required to produce as much meat as is being consumed is using far too many resources, which is a point I agree with you on.
I think lab meat may be a short term solution to the problem of epic resource consumption, but the long term solution would obviously be a reduction in the amount of meat eaten.
henk doorlag
It's not about having our animal flesh and eat it too (to me), it's about generating basic nutrients for people without access to the carefully balanced and genetically selected veggies required to survive on a meatless diet. It's about efficiency of production.
Yes, the better choice is to reduce consumption (of just about everything, including meat). Unfortunately, you fall into the trap of thinking it's a choice of "either/or". Either we do research which benefits (what you think is important) or we squander resources. Research is always additive. Research is never wasted, as long as it adds to knowledge.
Even if we choose not to eat meat anymore, your lab burger project may one day allow us to grow replacement kidneys and livers (both delicious when well prepared!) that can safe lives (before they're cooked)
Deborah Hoad
henk: maybe the research will prove useful for some other reason, though frankenburgers aren't quite the same as clone kidneys (but I take your point). In fact it's probably true to say that the idea of lab-grown meat probably wouldn't even exist if weren't for that kind of cloning technology, so I think the research chain probably goes the other way.
Guys, we just disagree. I see it as a waste of time and resources and you don't. That's fine.
Elmer Jason Cruz
Even if it is relatively unhealthy, are we really going to impose a blanket diet on everyone? why stop there? let's ban smoking too!
If they like eating meat, and producing meat costs us both economically and environmentally, then it wouldn't be a waste to look for more efficient ways to produce the meat in demand.
Also, as the world's population continues to grow, we need to make it more efficient to produce protein. We can't rely on legumes and eggs, even if the world suddenly forgoes their appetite for meat.
Deborah Hoad
Arnab Dutta
Deborah "I see lab-grown meat as a complete waste of resources and scientific talent. " Why?
I love the taste of meat,and i don't have any problem killing chicken . But still its a nice invention . It may produce cost effective meat some time or may need less resources to produce meat.. Isn't that good.
"If our goal is to feed people, encouraging vegetarianism, or at least more vegetarian diets, is the way to go. "
I know PETA has created some awareness of vegetarianism. But I think its never possible. as Asia and La America economy gets stronger they will be more affectionate to non veg. Meat consumption will increase day by day . And i think synthetic meat can be a solution.
Deborah Hoad
The way we eat has changed a lot over time. There's no reasont hat more meat HAS to become the norm, in any society. Encouraging and promoting a more vegetarian diet through education could prevent the need for lab-grown meat to be developed at all.
Arnab Dutta
The 8 or 9 neuclear power country spen so much on military budget that can feed whole asia or africa.
So I think rather than trying to make people vegan trying to produce cost and resource effetive synthetic meat will be more feasibl.
Deborah Hoad
It's not synthetic meat. It's actually animal flesh. It's just never been part of a whole animal.
George Kong 30+
If we're to be honest with ourselves, you guys would have an easier time shifting mountains with shovels than changing current planetary food consumption habits through... what really amounts to chastisement. If vegetarian alternatives became superior to meat options in a number of factors including taste and cost, you'd have a much easier time convincing people.
Falling short of that, vat grown meat is definitely a worthwhile avenue of exploration. We should be concerned about the ways in which it could be exploited... but vigilance should just be that - rather than outright fear mongering or outright emotional rejection of a product of which many details are still 'undefined'.
Deborah Hoad
And people already love vegetarian food. They just usually eat it with meat next to it. :)
George Kong 30+
Try walking into a restaraunt and telling people you'll be replacing their meat with extra servings of veggies.
Try the opposite. I think you'll start to come to a realization as to the sort of entrenched social/cultural/emotional attachment we have to the taste of meat.
Deborah Hoad
The details - very expensive, and at the moment, pretty unappetising.
George Kong 30+
Of course, I wouldn't doubt for a moment that they'll release it at high prices to see if the market can bear it - marketing it as new ethical meat. I'm sure it'll do well with just moralistic vegetarians to begin with!
Deborah Hoad
George Kong 30+
If they don't, then how would they know how feasible it is without doing the R&D to figure that out?
It's only a waste if the product or idea is redundant or unfeasible in the first place - but the idea of vat grown meat is appealing to many of us. And rationally assessing it, there's plenty of logical and rational reasons for us to move in this direction - less energy/calories per gram of meat, more ethical, better quality control (in theory), able to genetically engineer relevant nutrition into the product (more omega-3 fats for example).
Of course, it's always worth bearing in mind the current condition of the research so that we don't get too ahead of ourselves - but if we're been honest here, that's not exactly what you're doing Deborah. By your own admission no less - you're proffering it up as a relevant example (if that isn't evidence, I don't know what is) of why it's 'a waste of research and development resources.'
Deborah Hoad
The reason I think it's a waste of R&D is, using your terms, I think the product is, though perhaps feasible, also redundant. We don't need a lab to produce meat. But we might need it to produce meat in sufficient quantities to meet growing demand. IF WE WANT TO MEET DEMAND. I think the better answer is to work at reducing demand. The way to do this is to not only educate people as to the environmental and resource impact of the meat industry, but also to make much stricter laws relating to the humane treatment of animals. The reason demand can be as high as it is, is because meat is so cheap (especially meat supplied for fast food). But it can only be that cheap while appalling standards remain. (Yes, I watched Food, Inc recently. :)) Changing the standards will make meat more expensive, which will drive down demand. And if our concern here is the animals (as people want lab-grown meat to avoid killing animals) those standards are a great first step anyway.
George Kong 30+
It is unfortunate that it takes our food industries so much energy and resources to produce the 'natural' meat that we consume so readily. On the other hand, protein and meat in general has great value as a source of nutrition; both macro and micro. Indeed, a protein heavy diet is generally more in line with our body function than the current carb and grain heavy diet that modern culture focuses on (largely due to pragmatic factors such as cost).
In that sense, I would reject the notion that we should seek to reduce the demand of meat products. While we can certainly espouse a more balanced diet with increased vegetable load, replacing protein calories from animal sources with carbs and solely plant sourced proteins is not just ineffective, but potentially hazardous for population health and nutrition.
At this point in time, in-vitro meat of course has a much higher cost and probably doesn't pass the taste test for many - but that's why R&D is required. The promise of a cheaper, more ethical meat source is of too great a promise to ignore.
Ideally, in the not too distant future, in-vitro meat is a viable protein alternative to traditionally grown animal meat; one thing that can be done to make it sooner is to have the externality costs of the animal meat better represented - it'll bring the in-vitro meat to parity with traditional animal meat quicker.
Another thing that can be done is for us to explore additional protein sources, including bugs and insects.
Deborah Hoad
Yep, true. Society is capable of change - also true.
George Kong 30+
Some changes are easier than others.
And some changes still, are practically impossible.
I would focus my energies on making changes that are easy and possible over focusing on tasks that are nigh on impossible.
Deborah Hoad
We disagree on that.
"Indeed, a protein heavy diet is generally more in line with our body function than the current carb and grain heavy diet that modern culture focuses on"
Incorrect. While we are omnivores, our digestive system is more similar to those of herbivores than carnivores. And all the unhealthy fats are animal fats.
"I would reject the notion that we should seek to reduce the demand of meat products...replacing protein calories from animal sources with carbs and solely plant sourced proteins is not just ineffective, but potentially hazardous for population health and nutrition."
'Reducing the demand for meat' and 'replacing animal protein with carbs and solely plant sourced proteins' are not the same the same thing, and I never advocated for erasing meat from our diets. I have consistently argued for people consuming the amount of meat we actually need to get all of the nutrients meat is good at providing, which is a piece of meat the size of the pad of the hand (the fleshy part next to the thumb on the palm) about three times a week. In my experience that is about 500g of meat per week. I think we should reduce demand by encouraging people to enjoy only the amount of meat they actually need, by education and by increasing the cost of meat to decrease demand.
"The promise of a cheaper, more ethical meat source is of too great a promise to ignore."
Again, we disagree on that. I don't believe it will ever be cheaper than the $1-$5 burgers McDonalds sells, which is a massive component of meat over-consumption in Western societies. Also, as I've already stated, I don't agree that humane animal husbandry and slaughter is unethical.
And in-vitro meat production is, apparently, possible, but it can hardly be considered easy. I'd also argue that getting people to embrace any product clearly identifiable as lab meat will also not be easy.
Deborah Hoad
In fact, you've said that swapping to lab meat is the change that is 'easy and possible'. I don't think that would be any easier than convincing people to eat less meat, especially if the cost of lab meat never becomes genuinely cheap, and certainly not if the texture and taste of lab meat never really approximates the meat people enjoy the most, which is not just burgers, but also quite different and delicious things like steak and roast chicken and pork crackling.
Also, the lab meat is grown from stem cells from leftover bits at slaughter houses, so animals did die to produce the meat he is currently cultivating.. Will that be self-perpetuating after it begins, or will the process require fresh stem cells from time to time? If the latter, then people who eshew meat-eating on the grounds that killing animals for food is wrong should be cautious about seeing in-vitro meat as an ethical alternative.
George Kong 30+
Deborah Hoad
Sojung Yun