So they scrape cells taken from an animal, such as a cow or chicken, and then multiply that into cuts of meat in bioreactors. I guess we are just to assume that the animals which they remove these cell's from are safe to eat. Sure....But then the whole concept is to reduce the harmful greenhouse gases and deforestation as a result of meat production.
I choose to not subscribe to this way of thinking and will choose to continue to purchase meat locally or process it myself. The argument has been made that this may allow certain countries or those living in poverty to have food and I think if this is the only alternative then fine I would not want to turn my back on someone in need.
What's wrong with reducing environmental impact? Not sure you meant it to sound like you're opposed to that but it kind of does. Also, I imagine there's a segment of folk (not sure how big) who would be more comfortable with meat that didn't result in the death of animals, esp factory farmed animals.
As for "I guess we are just to assume that the animals which they remove these cell's from are safe to eat." - that's close to paranoia. You assume that the meat you eat now came from an animal that is safe to eat, no? Few of us raise our own cattle or pigs so we can't KNOW that the animal was healthy and safe to eat from first hand inspection.
When you say things like "I guess we are just to assume that the animals which they remove these cell's from are safe to eat." that does come across a bit paranoid, David. If you don't mean it that way, write more clearly. Same for the environment comment - the juxtaposition was yours. That's why i asked about it.
If you view discussion as provocation... that's you.
Scotch: Current favorite- The Arran (anything by them), Glenmorangie 12yr Lasanta, sherry cask finished. The Balvenie Double Wood, also like Oban 18yr, and The Glenlivet Nadurra (Oloroso sherry cask finished) among others. Neat please.
About meReal name: Aaron
Location: Farwell, Michigan - near Clare (dead center of lower peninsula).
Occupation:
Healthcare- Licensed & Registered Respiratory Therapist (RRT) at MyMichigan Health, a University of Michigan Health System.
I don't know a ton about this . . . but maybe some here do.
For lack of a better term, the "crowd" that seems to be most likely to support lab-grown meat overlaps with the crowd that pushes for non-GMO products.
Can those two positions be reconciled? To me, it seems impossible, but I don't know. Is there some way to claim that lab-grown meat is NOT genetically modified?
But seriously, a lot of the most GMO averse people are also the most tech focused people. It’s like techie who are concerned about the wifi messing with them.
Just some observations.
1. The O in GMO stands for organism “which is an individual form of life, such as a bacterium, protist, fungus, plant, or animal, composed of a single cell or a complex of cells in which organelles or organs work together to carry out the various processes of life.” An individual chicken cell would not meet that definition.
2. The lab process begins with stem cells which already contain all the genetic code to develop into the final cell type. There is no engineered manipulation of the cell’s genome, so it is not considered genetically modified. (GM)
3. Outside influences can direct a stem cell to take the path to the final cell type, but again it is the cell itself determining its final type. In the case of these chicken cells the nutritional bath they are grown in prods them on their final path without manipulation of the genome.
That is really interesting. My perception of what makes something a GMO was certainly wrong. I wonder if many people in the public know what you explained.
I think a good portion of the non-GMO people will not know that, and they are adverse to GMO products simply because they view them to be non-natural or manipulative of nature/biology, without really having a full understanding. If so, it would seem that they would also be against "lab grown" meat for the same basic reason.
I’ve tried some and have enjoyed it. I’ll also try new kinds as they come out. I don’t reach for alternative meats as my first choice but do buy them to try them. I feel it’s a cultural change. The perception of where and how the food is produced will change as the cost, quality, availability, and impacts are evaluated.
we were astonished (and pleased!) to go to the supermarket and hear an ad for REAL Meat. It's good for you!
The plant-based stuff is suffering from quality issues. During a spurt of interest a couple of years ago, people bought a package out of curiosity. After one try, they were not going back because the flavor and texture did not come anywhere close to the hype.
The cell-based product is different. It can potentially be “real” since it comes from animal cells. This review article on the status of cell-based meat in the journal Animal Frontiers is a good discussion of what is (and isn’t) possible today and the significant hurdles that remain before this comes anywhere close to mainstream. https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfac092
The main concern I have with all of the time and money poured into the development of alternative meat products is the ethical challenge of promoting this as the morally right and socially just option when it is and will continue to be to be waaaaay out of reach for the majority of the population. The authors of the Animal Frontiers article concluded “Despite the billions of dollars being invested in “cellular agriculture”, there are significant technical, ethical, regulatory, and commercial challenges to getting these products widely available in the market. In addition, the widespread adoption of such technologies can exacerbate global inequity between affluent and poor individuals and between high- and low-income countries.”
Comment