Meat in labs

[fpeppett]

Paper Says Edible Meat Can be Grown in a Lab on Industrial Scale

Microscopic image of turkey muscle cells grown in cultureExperiments for NASA space missions have shown that small amounts of edible meat can be created in a lab. But the technology that could grow chicken nuggets without the chicken, on a large scale, may not be just a science fiction fantasy.

In a paper in the June 29 issue of Tissue Engineering, a team of scientists, including University of Maryland doctoral student Jason Matheny, propose two new techniques of tissue engineering that may one day lead to affordable production of in vitro - lab grown -- meat for human consumption. It is the first peer-reviewed discussion of the prospects for industrial production of cultured meat.

"There would be a lot of benefits from cultured meat," says Matheny, who studies agricultural economics and public health. "For one thing, you could control the nutrients. For example, most meats are high in the fatty acid Omega 6, which can cause high cholesterol and other health problems. With in vitro meat, you could replace that with Omega 3, which is a healthy fat.

"Cultured meat could also reduce the pollution that results from raising livestock, and you wouldn't need the drugs that are used on animals raised for meat."

Prime Without the Rib

The idea of culturing meat is to create an edible product that tastes like cuts of beef, poultry, pork, lamb or fish and has the nutrients and texture of meat.

Scientists know that a single muscle cell from a cow or chicken can be isolated and divided into thousands of new muscle cells. Experiments with fish tissue have created small amounts of in vitro meat in NASA experiments researching potential food products for long-term space travel, where storage is a problem.

"But that was a single experiment and was geared toward a special situation - space travel," says Matheny. "We need a different approach for large scale production."

Matheny's team developed ideas for two techniques that have potential for large scale meat production. One is to grow the cells in large flat sheets on thin membranes. The sheets of meat would be grown and stretched, then removed from the membranes and stacked on top of one another to increase thickness.

The other method would be to grow the muscle cells on small three-dimensional beads that stretch with small changes in temperature. The mature cells could then be harvested and turned into a processed meat, like nuggets or hamburgers.

Treadmill Meat

To grow meat on a large scale, cells from several different kinds of tissue, including muscle and fat, would be needed to give the meat the texture to appeal to the human palate.

"The challenge is getting the texture right," says Matheny. "We have to figure out how to 'exercise' the muscle cells. For the right texture, you have to stretch the tissue, like a live animal would."

Where's the Beef?

And, the authors agree, it might take work to convince consumers to eat cultured muscle meat, a product not yet associated with being produced artificially.

"On the other hand, cultured meat could appeal to people concerned about food safety, the environment, and animal welfare, and people who want to tailor food to their individual tastes," says Matheny. The paper even suggests that meat makers may one day sit next to bread makers on the kitchen counter.

"The benefits could be enormous," Matheny says. "The demand for meat is increasing world wide -- China 's meat demand is doubling every ten years. Poultry consumption in India has doubled in the last five years.

"With a single cell, you could theoretically produce the world's annual meat supply. And you could do it in a way that's better for the environment and human health. In the long term, this is a very feasible idea."

Matheny saw so many advantages in the idea that he joined several other scientists in starting a nonprofit, New Harvest, to advance the technology. One of these scientists, Henk Haagsman, Professor of Meat Science at Utrecht University, received a grant from the Dutch government to produce cultured meat, as part of a national initiative to reduce the environmental impact of food production.

Other authors of the paper are Pieter Edelman of Wageningen University , Netherlands ; Douglas McFarland, South Dakota State University ; and Vladimir Mironov, Medical University of South Carolina.

http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu/scitech/releas...?ArticleID=1098 (http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu/scitech/release.cfm?ArticleID=1098)



Personally I don't know what to think about this idea, I mean something produced in a lab can surely have side effects? I know they are probably a long way off anything like this but the article interested me.

[Delirium]

This is not that far off, this could happen within the next 15 years. I'm all about this for environmental, health, and medical reasons. All large scale animal production has huge environmental costs (especially sheep, cow, and pig) As it stated in the article this is also a great way for people to eat better to. And we also would stop idioticly using out most valuable antibiotics on animals (idiots).

I wonder what the vegitarian/vegan members think of this, would you eat meat produced in this way? (perhaps a poll?)

[Arca]

Sounds great :o I don't see why vegeterians wouldn't eat it this way, because there is no animal being harmed.... right?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It sounds like this will turn out to be a faster, more effecient, more compact way of producing meat than farming it. Let's hope it goes well.

[poster_child]

I'm a vegetarian and I don't think I would eat this. I'm not really comfortable with eating "food" grown in a lab. I don't really see animals as food, (unless of course there is no other alternative). I would much rather stick with meat alternatives.

[FalceMartello]

I'm a vegetarian and I would definitly eat this "meat".

[BuyOurEverything]

I'm with Noxion, this sounds like a great way to cut down on the undesirable aspects of meat production. All power to them. And maybe it will even make the vegans shut up and move on to more important things.


I'm not really comfortable with eating "food" grown in a lab

Question 1: Why not?
Question 2: So then, do you not eat any processed food or anything with chemicals or additives in it?


I don't really see animals as food

Perhaps that's because you're intellectually deficient.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm a vegetarian and I don't think I would eat this.

Understandable if you avoid meat for dietary reasons. Otherwise, why not?


I'm not really comfortable with eating "food" grown in a lab.

Again, why not? A lab is a far more controllable environment than a farm.


I don't really see animals as food, (unless of course there is no other alternative).

If you can eat it and it nourishes you, it is food. Even hotdogs bought off street vendors are food, strange as that may sound.


I would much rather stick with meat alternatives.

Like tofu or Quorn? Those are made in very lab-like conditions (And are still delicious)

[poster_child]

Perhaps that's because you're intellectually deficient.

Thanks for that. Actually, the way I see it, animals are animals, and aren't ours to eat. But that's just me.

Plus, I don't like the taste or the smell.

Also, I just don't know why I wouldn't eat something grown in a lab. I guess it's just a stigma or something.. it just turns me right off. I'm not into that whole bio-technonlogy thing. The day will soon come no doubt, that all the food we eat is grown in labs because we wrecked all the farm land. Then I guess there will be nothing to argue about.

[diamond_rabbit]

i have mixed feelings about this new meat. in so far as they enslave animals in the process of creating this new meat, i am against it. i don't think it is okay to take the meat from the original animal. however, in the grand scheme of human abuse towards other animals, in the longterm, this seems like a much better option than current ongoing farming practices. so, i am not ok with the original process of the meat production, but will i be ok with consuming the meat 30 years after its creation? i don't know, to be honest. but i do agree that this sounds like a better alternative than continued breeding, enslavement, and murder of animals for countless generations.

[LSD]

in so far as they enslave animals

continued breeding, enslavement, and murder of animals

I know it's tangential, but this just bugs me.

Can we please lose the "animals are enslaved" routine? Humans can be enslaved, members of society can be enslaved; chickens cannot.

[BuyOurEverything]

Plus, I don't like the taste or the smell.


Well that doesn't mean it's not food now does it?


Also, I just don't know why I wouldn't eat something grown in a lab. I guess it's just a stigma or something

The vast majority of food we consume is created or processed in labs. There is no valid reason for not eating something simply because it was made in a lab.


i don't think it is okay to take the meat from the original animal.

A single cell?

[JC1]

Great development.

Not only becuase of the implication's in health, economic's, and science in general, but becuase this completly crushes the moral underpinning's of the vegetarian religion.

I mean, they'll be a few hanger-oner's in the veg head scene like poster child, and there will be a few veg head's who remain becuase they simply dont like meat's taste, but its ok.

[diamond_rabbit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 04:13 PM
Great development.

Not only becuase of the implication's in health, economic's, and science in general, but becuase this completly crushes the moral underpinning's of the vegetarian religion.

I mean, they'll be a few hanger-oner's in the veg head scene like poster child, and there will be a few veg head's who remain becuase they simply dont like meat's taste, but its ok.
sorry for the side note--

but the animal rights movement is no more a religion than communism is.

the animal rights movement is a political movement that names the oppression of animals and fights against it. yes, it is based on principles and ethics. but so are all anti-capitalist movements.


it's not like vegans and vegetarians are opposing the oppression of animals, because we fear some great cow in the sky who will send us to a factory farm in our after lives if we do not worship her.

there are far too many leftists on this site who are opposed to looking out for the well-being of non-humans. we are all part of the planet earth ecosystem... you screw over one part of the ecosystem and we all suffer for it.

and what is wrong with naming the 'enslavement' of animals?

enslave: to control and keep someone forcefully in a bad situation, or to make a slave of someone.

humans have enslaved animals by domesticating them, breeding them, and using them for our own benefit.

and speaking of religion, the justification of the oppression of animals usually stems from the judeo-christian assertion that animals were put on this earth for human use... as if animals and plants don't have other reasons for being.

HUMANS ARE NOT THE CENTRE OF THE UNIVERSE: THEY JUST CONSTRUCT THE WORLD AS IF THEY ARE.

[LSD]

the animal rights movement is a political movement

Yes it is, it just happens to be a wrong-headed one.


there are far too many leftists on this site who are opposed to looking out for the well-being of non-humans.

I have nothing against caring for animals. I happen to love animals. What I oppose is the blatant antihumanist attitudes unfortunately dominating the "animal rights movement"; especially the obviously ludicrous concept that animals have "human rights".

If you want to lobby for improved slaugtering techniques or outlawing puppy mills, fine. But if you want to lobby for "total animal liberation", fuck off.


and what is wrong with naming the 'enslavement' of animals?


A nonmember of society cannot be enslaved. In order to be enslaved one must first have natural rights which are taken away. A table-lamp cannot be enslaved because it has no rights to be deprived. Since all rights derive from society, nonmembers of society, have no rights and hence cannot be enslaved.

A plant cannot be enslaved, a virus cannot be enslaved, a chipmunk cannot be enslaved.


HUMANS ARE NOT THE CENTRE OF THE UNIVERSE

No, but we are the centre of human society!

[diamond_rabbit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 07:32 AM



there are far too many leftists on this site who are opposed to looking out for the well-being of non-humans.

I have nothing against caring for animals. I happen to love animals. What I oppose is the blatant antihumanist attitudes unfortunately dominating the "animal rights movement"; especially the obviously ludicrous concept that animals have "human rights".

If you want to lobby for improved slaugtering techniques or outlawing puppy mills, fine. But if you want to lobby for "total animal liberation", fuck off.


and what is wrong with naming the 'enslavement' of animals?


A nonmember of society cannot be enslaved. In order to be enslaved one must first have natural rights which are taken away. A table-lamp cannot be enslaved because it has no rights to be deprived. Since all rights derive from society, nonmembers of society, have no rights and hence cannot be enslaved.

A plant cannot be enslaved, a virus cannot be enslaved, a chipmunk cannot be enslaved.


HUMANS ARE NOT THE CENTRE OF THE UNIVERSE

No, but we are the centre of human society!
i agree that in the animal rights movement, there are people who lack a more integrated analysis of oppression and who do not care about human rights to the extent that they should. this frustrates me, too, because human rights and animal rights are both very important and not mutually exclusive in my view.

in my view, the ultimate goals of the animal liberation movement should be as follows:
1-humans stop acting as if animals exist only for their own use. getting rid of the human sense of entitlement in general and developing different attitudes towards animals that recognize them as contributing members of the planet earth who are inherently worthy of fair treatment.
2- end the domestication, breeding and slaughtering of animals in conditions where the animals have not chance of survival because of human made conditions (this is what i refer to as animal slavery).


this member/nonmember of society dichotomy you have created is very problematic. it reminds me of the dehumanization that occurs between nations. it's that whole attitude of "looking out for my own kind". it ignores the bigger picture of oppression and suffering. we are all creatures of the planet earth. why should our rights be based on membership to a human made society? why can't all living creatures have the right to be respected for their own inherent value on the planet earth and the contributions they make?

[LSD]

humans stop acting as if animals exist only for their own use.

Well, claiming that animals exist "for" any purpose, be it ours or another, is idealist fantasy at face. Animals exist for the same reason that we do, because they evolved that way.

Insofar as our "use" of other animals, however, there is no limiting "authority" being our own needs. Human society has a fundamental obligation to meet the needs and wants of society, very often that requires the use of animals.

But make no mistake. That does not mean that animals must be mistreated or abused. Human society must first and foremot care for itself, but beyond this, if possible, it should minimize external suffering. That means that, for example, while meat should be produced, current slaughtering techniques should be reformed.


getting rid of the human sense of entitlement in general

But we are entitled! Entitled to anything that we can get.

Again, there is no "greater force" than us. There is no "nature" or "earth spirit" that we must answer to. There are many things that are objectively harmful to us, but beyond this, we must free to do whatever we will.


end the domestication, breeding and slaughtering of animals in conditions where the animals have not chance of survival because of human made conditions


I agree with this entirely.

Present conditions with regards to animal treatment are abhorent, largely as a result of the nature of capitalism. When short-term profit is your sole concern, you are willing to be as abusive and cruel as nesccesary.

Yet another reason why capitalism must be abolished.


this member/nonmember of society dichotomy you have created is very problematic. it reminds me of the dehumanization that occurs between nations

Except the lines drawn between nations are arbitrary, this one is not.

Human society is the cumulative whole of every human everywhere. We all exist in one society which we have, for various reasons, subdivided into classes and nations and "races".

There divisions are artificial, but the existance of an overriding human society is clear.

The fact that we are able to have this conversation demonstrates that, as does the fact that peoples in Malaysia and Nunuvut are both capable of understanding morality and family and geography.

Human society is the only moral society on earth, that is the only society capable of comprehending principles of morality. As such, membership solely requires an ability to participate in society as an independent rational moral agent. All humans can do this, no animals can.


we are all creatures of the planet earth. why should our rights be based on membership to a human made society?

Because rights only exist in human society.

There are no external "rights", they are an invention of human society for the bennefit of human society. It is not only inadvisable, it is actually functionaly impossible to ascribed human rights to nonmembers of society on any large scale.

Reasonably speaking, there is no way to give all, say, horses, human rights because they have no way of comprehending the idea. They are not only incapable of protecting their own rights, or complaining if they are abridged, they are incapable or respecting the rights of others, or of compensating for violations.

Horses exist within "horse society", such as it is, and are subject to the rules thereof. They cannot participate in human society, however, and so cannot be covered by its private protetcions.


why can't all living creatures have the right to be respected for their own inherent value on the planet earth and the contributions they make?

There is no "right" to respect. Respect is a personal judgment, and you cannot force an indidual to feel. You can only compel action or inaction, and exactly what action/inaction you are propsing be compelled is unclear.

Again, should animals be protected insofar as it such protection is not significantly detrimental to human society? Yes.

Should they be affored "rights"? No.

[poster_child]

But we are entitled! Entitled to anything that we can get.

That sounds like a capitalist argument.


we are the centre of human society

Who cares? There are more important things than human society... like the long term survival of the planet.



the blatant antihumanist attitudes unfortunately dominating the "animal rights movement"

What are animal rights anti-humanist? They do not oppose eachother.


But if you want to lobby for "total animal liberation", fuck off.

No one is lobbying for that here.

PS-

religion: Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

NOT-

animal rights: The rights to humane treatment claimed on behalf of animals, especially the right not to be exploited for human purposes.

[LSD]

That sounds like a capitalist argument.

Not at all.

Capitalism is wrong because it creates unequal power dynamics and elevates one class above all others, forcing the majority to work for the minority. This violated the fundamental purpose of society, namely to bennefit its members.

Society as a whole, however, does have an obligation to improve itself and the living standards of its members. That means that it must be constantly improving and expanding.

What I meant by "entitled", is that we have every right to go as far as we can go and get whatever we can get as a society. Now obviously there are limitations placed by the nature of the univserse and there are things that we cannot do because it would hurt us, but beyond this, there are no restrictions on externalistic societal action.

There is no "God" or "nature spirit" to whom we owe allegiance.


Who cares? There are more important things than human society

"important" is a subjective assement. I'm not sure for whom you're speaking, but I was speaking in terms of human society. And from the perpective of a functioning society, nothing is more important than its own survival.


like the long term survival of the planet.

And why is that important?

What makes the survival of the earth important from the perspective of human society? Why, the survival of humanity, of course!

Again, the wellbeing of human society must be the priority of human society, that's how society works.


What are animal rights anti-humanist? They do not oppose eachother.

Well, it depends on what one means by "animal rights".

If one means improved conditions and ending unnescessary suffering in the SPCA/humane-society sense, then you're right. But if one means "total animal liberation" in the PeTA/ALF sense, then it is very much anti-humanist.

Those who oppose the use of animal research and medical testing put millions of human lives in danger. Those who, like PeTA, propose that animal life is more deserving of rescue than human life are not only antihumanist, they're proud of it!

And, of course, those who actively kill humans for their "cause", like the ALF, are about as anti-humanist as one can get.


No one is lobbying for that here.

No? Then what do you advocate?


animal rights: The rights to humane treatment claimed on behalf of animals

That's a bit vague, but I think I agree with the general idea.


especially the right not to be exploited for human purposes.

Firstly, animals don't have "rights", secondly animals cannot be "exploited".

That said, I agree that animals should not be abused or made to suffer any more than is required for the satisfaction of human needs and reasonable significant wants.

People should not be permitted to mutilate squirrls for fun or beat up dogs, but they should be able to eat meat, perform needed experiments, make leather, etc...

Anything else is anti-humanist.

[poster_child]

What makes the survival of the earth important from the perspective of human society?

the wellbeing and survival of human society is a function of the survival of earth!!! Without aerable land, where will we grow our food? Without unpolluted water, what will we drink? Without the polar ice caps, how will the Inuit people maintain their way of life? In the near future, they will melt, engulfing islands, such as manhattan and vancouver. These are just a few examples.

It's important to look at the world as an ecosystem, relient on all organisms. Humans are just a part of this.


There is no "God" or "nature spirit" to whom we owe allegiance.


I could not agree more. However, we do have our own conscience that we cannot ignore. If you were to say that seeing animals unnecessarily suffering didn't pull on your conscience, I wouldn't believe you.
It's all in what you believe is unnecessary. You believe unnecessary is to to mutilate squirrls for fun or beat up dogs, I take it further than that. I believe slaughtering animals for food is unnecessary. I believe that making leather from animals is unnecessary, since we can use many other alternatives.


But if one means "total animal liberation" in the PeTA/ALF sense, then it is very much anti-humanist.

No one is advocating that. You are the only one talking about this. You seem to equate vegitarians and PETA/ALF's most hardcore activists.


Then what do you advocate?

I advocate the end of using animals as a comodity. Animals are not ours to wear, eat, test or force to do tricks, or buy and sell for these purposes.


If we actually took care of the earth and respected nature, we wouldn't have to be growing food in labs.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Too bad, I like leather and pork. Just try to stop me.

[LSD]

the wellbeing and survival of human society is a function of the survival of earth!!!

um... that was a wasted response.

If you'd care to look, you'd see that my question was rhetorical and that I provided the exact same answer you did.

The survival of the earth is important because it is nescessary for the survival of humanity, but it has no intrinsic "importance" beyond this ...relative to human society, of course.


If you were to say that seeing animals unnecessarily suffering didn't pull on your conscience, I wouldn't believe you.

And I would say nothing of the sort.


It's all in what you believe is unnecessary.

No it's in what can be objectively and rationaly determined to satisfy significant human needs and wants.

There is no room for "belief" here.

Meat is nescessary because it is a highly enjoyable and health food which brings pleasure and nutrition to billions (more if it were not for capitalism). Meat is a reasonable desire given out biological ancestry and its psychophysiological effects, and you have not given a single reason otherwise.


You believe unnecessary is to to mutilate squirrls for fun or beat up dogs

I do, as it provides absolutely no socially redeeming value, is psychologically distressing, and inflicts undue suffering with no reward.

It's a balancing test, but it isn't an even one. The intersts of nonhuman life forms are weighted much less than the interests of humanity. In this example, however, the bennefit to humanity is so low (in fact, nonexistant I would posit) that the interest of the nonhuman life prevails.

It's really quite simple.


I believe slaughtering animals for food is unnecessary. I believe that making leather from animals is unnecessary

Then you'll need to provide logical justification.


I advocate the end of using animals as a comodity.

Well, I advocate the end of commities, period.

But that doesn't mean I'm going to stop eating meat!


Animals are not ours to wear, eat

No one claimed that animals are "ours". I reject private property in any form, be it in reference to animals or tractors.

The question here is does human society have the right to use animals, the social configuration of such usage notwithstanding.

So far, you have, with absolutely no justification, contended that society does not have this right. That for some unstated reason, we should afford rights to non-human organisms ...but only some of them.

That is, you don't think that grass should have these "rights", but cows should.

Frankly, this is a hypocritical and untennable position. You are drawing arbitrary lines between organisms with absolutely no rationale.

Human rights extend to human beings, no further. We should offer limited protections to non-human organisms but only insofar as it does not significantly disadvantage human society.


test

Uh oh. :unsure:

Well, now we really are in ALF-land. "not ours to test", eh? I guess this means you want an end to animal testing and a return to the dark ages of medicine.

I know you probably don't have time, but if you can spare a second, you might want to inform every diabetic that you know that you want them to die.

You might also want to inform any cancer patients you come across that they shouldn't undergo chemotherapy or take pain relievers.

Not a "hardcore activist" my ass. :angry:


If we actually took care of the earth and respected nature, we wouldn't have to be growing food in labs.

We would in your "utopia".

Since you advocate the outlawing of meat, exactly where do you imagine people will be getting their steaks from?

[OkaCrisis]

My beef (if you will) with meat 'grown' in labs is that I don't think it is the solution to factory farming and the capitalist production of meat.

People would rather eat real meat from real animals who were raised and farmed humanely, with minimal (ideally no) negative effects on the enviroment. This would be possible with a return to smaller-scale family farm style establishments that would grow a variety of crops and would raise a variety of animals, on a rotational basis to ensure the sustainance of the integrity of the land.

Clearly this is solution is opposed to the dominance of monocrop agricultural practices that result in cruelty to animals and that are damaging to the environment, but are certainly good for trade in capitalist markets.

I just don't think that growing 'meat' artifically in a lab is the answer. Why not consider alternatives that are much more simple, and closer to nature, that provide health and well-being for the family, the animals, the community, and the society, as well as the environment?

Why resort to Frankenfood? I'd rather not.

[Dark Exodus]

There is no such thing as closer to nature. You cannot name anything that is not of nature.


People would rather eat real meat from real animals who were raised and farmed humanely

Why?

This 'Frankenfood' would probably be better than ordinary meat.
As Noxion said earlier, meat grown in labs will be subject to much more controllable conditions, apart from anything this would eliminate things like BSE. Perhaps its time to shed this stigma in the name of logic?

[OkaCrisis]

Originally posted by Dark [email protected] 12 2005, 07:09 PM
There is no such thing as closer to nature. You cannot name anything that is not of nature.


People would rather eat real meat from real animals who were raised and farmed humanely

Why?

This 'Frankenfood' would probably be better than ordinary meat.
As Noxion said earlier, meat grown in labs will be subject to much more controllable conditions, apart from anything this would eliminate things like BSE. Perhaps its time to shed this stigma in the name of logic?
Fair enough. Still, I think that growing meat in labs is unnessesary and that there are other ways to farm meat sustainably. If this is considered, then what is the point of developing the technology? Especially when that scientific effort could go to so many other useful things, like growing kidney, hearts, bone marrows, and livers, and not just going towards Vegie-friendly, guilt-free bacon.

I do not believe that technological advancements are inherently good for mankind. I don't believe that they are inherently bad either, but should be approached with caution, at the very least.