Future: Vegetarian or artificial meat?

[seraosha]

So I was reading Forbes online, and came across this article about farming, animal husbandry, industrial output and the whole environmental impact as the world keeps adding meat to their collective diet..
Here (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/1130/thought-leaders-mcdonalds-global-warming-drop-that-burger.html)

But I also remember reading an article about "test tube meat" or protein cultures being grown in vats to create artificial meat...which is much much less damaging to the environment...
Here (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/invitro_meat)

Some of the things that come to my mind is that populations feeding on artificial meat might balloon up in numbers...if it takes less land, less resources, and eventually becomes cheaper, then sure...more folks will be eating it. Likewise if the current resources given over to the production of farm animals was used for plants and vegetables, the increase of population might also be a result.

I'd eat artificial meat if it looked, tastes and had the same texture as real meat, and I can see the adding more vegetables to my and my families diet...we already have meatless meals just as healthy as anything else we eat (not just for Lent), although my wife is dragging her feet. Well that's what I get for marrying a farm girl.

What do you guys think? Willing to change what and how you eat to help the environment? Prepared to go vegan, if it's deemed a necessity? Artificial meat seem too scary to contemplate, or what?

[budgie]

I truly hope it's neither man.

[seraosha]

I truly hope it's neither man.

Oh come on man...just pretend the topic was Bush, or Cheney...even Palin...you have GOT to have more to say than that.

[SBL]

Looks like meat. Tastes like meat. Tisn't meat at all.


Doubleplus good.

[Soldat_Américain]

Chickens in the back yard.

[Imp]

Vegetarian: Latin for lousy hunter.

[The Dane]

Recycled food ...

[tercio67]

If meat becomes unavailable I guess vegetarians will do.

[Migs]

I dont care what it is ill eat it nom nom nom

[vryhpyammoadded]

I kinda look at 3D printing of meat cultures much like future organ replacement technologies. I most certainly won’t hesitate to accept a newly printed liver, kidney or heart clone in a life or death situation when the technology is perfected which assumes that I would eat 3D printed meat just the same. Same technology so no big deal.

Hell, meat printed out in a factory would be safer than natural meat in my opinion allowing for tighter controls on some serious pathogens like mad cow, parasites and whatnot. And, I’ll admit it; I do hate the occasional slaughtering of an animal, its one messy affair.

The thought of owning one of those bio printers is exciting to me as it closes one more dependency door on a product I can’t live without, i.e. meat. I’ve already got the veggie production covered. I’m so sick of merchants, government, etc… jacking me up, putting the squeeze on my wallet. Too bad it probably won’t be available in my time though.

I wonder if in the future they will make these things dial –O-meat so we can choose salmon, Kobe beef or maybe quail. Ummmm…

"Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and Ok for you" Judge Dread movie

[JKD]

I'd have no problem in vitro meat. It'll be meat it just won't have come from an animal. And it won't have all the hormones and assorted junk that's fed to livestock.

I hope they find something to do with all that ranch land other covering it over with more urban sprawl.

[LineDoggie]

"Tube meat"?????

Think I'll pass on that thank you.....

[wildcat]

soylent green FTW.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=85616&stc=1&d=1260209732

[LineDoggie]

"I cant believe it's not Meat"

[Fade]

"Tube meat"?????

Think I'll pass on that thank you.....I could go for it in wafers maybe. Green ones.

Edit: snap, wildcat beat me to it.

[BlackFlag]

"Tube meat"?????

Think I'll pass on that thank you.....

Hot Dogs/Bratwurst aren't half bad...

[TheSteve]

Meat created entirely in a laboratory . . . no thank you. Meat produced from factory farms is horrible enough, now they just can take the farm part out? Disgusting. I'd never consume that garbage.

It's not a matter of being a vegetarian or not, its a matter of eating real food or not.

[INAT]

Considering that 99% of us do not know what we are eating anyway it does not matter .

[LineDoggie]

Hot Dogs/Bratwurst aren't half bad...
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h222/linedoggie/hotdogs.jpg

[Difool]

Cockroaches! They eat your garbage, don't need much space and suply you with unsaturated fatty acids. And they taste whatever you want them to depending on the spices.
Or better: decrease the growth of population in the fast growing poor countries! This has got the additional effect of environmental protection (water, shrinking rain forest, growing deserts, CO2, ...).

[Difool]

Double post. Sorry!

[Black_Eagle]

Jon Stewart talked about this artificial meat, it's not even going to be sausage grade meat for probably another 5 years (sausage is basically every part of the animal that is not used for other meats ground into a mush and placed in an edible wrapping) , it has the consistency of soggy pork.
http://rackjite.com/archives/4237-Jon-Stewart,-Artificial-Meat-has-the-consistancy-of-soggy-pork!.html

[IronFinn]

Artificial meat is ok but weggies are for bunnies.

[Mikhael]

I remember reading an article in popular mechanics from the 50's that at the beginning of XXI people will be eating "sawdust" to end world hunger p-)

You dont have to be a genius to conclude that in the future poor will be eating ****ty food and wealthy the best eco-friendly meat and veggies they can get.

[BloodyTalon]

Guys, we have the answer already.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghXf1qjEkWY

[szr]

I'd eat vat steaks and tube chicken.


I love animals, but I also love eating animals. Would be a triumph if science and industry could overcome this moral dilemma.

[Sashko]

Between the two, definately vegetarian.


But i certainly do hope that current experiments with genetically modified foods don't get us there. Without steak, I'd lose my passion for food altogether.

[Eye]

Or better: decrease the growth of population in the fast growing poor countries!
Why not liquidate population of developed countries - the same outcome...

[Clockwinder]

"The Telegraph reports that scientists have created the first artificial meat (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6680989/Meat-grown-in-laboratory-in-world-first.html) by extracting cells from the muscle of a live pig and putting them in a broth of other animal products where the cells then multiplied to create muscle tissue. Described as soggy pork, researchers believe that it can be turned into something like steak if they can find a way to 'exercise' the muscle and while no one has yet tasted the artificial meat, researchers believe the breakthrough could lead to sausages and other processed products being made from laboratory meat in as little as five years' time. '"What we have at the moment is rather like wasted muscle tissue. We need to find ways of improving it by training it and stretching it, but we will get there," says Mark Post, professor of physiology at Eindhoven University. "You could take the meat from one animal and create the volume of meat previously provided by a million animals (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article6936352.ece)." Animal rights group Peta has welcomed the laboratory-grown meat, announcing that "as far as we're concerned, if meat is no longer a piece of a dead animal there's no ethical objection while the Vegetarian Society remained skeptical. "The big question is how could you guarantee you were eating artificial flesh rather than flesh from an animal that had been slaughtered. It would be very difficult to label and identify in a way that people would trust."" My question is this;

Considering what allegedly goes into sausages anyway, just how bad is this stuff, if it's still 5 years away from being good enough for sausages?

[Difool]

Why not liquidate population of developed countries - the same outcome...

We're that much developed that we react with shrinking own population. :) And hunger is not so common in our regions anymore, is it?

[Eye]

And hunger is not so common in our regions anymore, is it?
Yes, it's true, but AFAIK making people happy against them has never worked.

[Sashko]

Why not liquidate population of developed countries - the same outcome...



Who will work then? Africa ?rofl

[Sdetton]

I kinda look at 3D printing of meat cultures much like future organ replacement technologies. I most certainly won’t hesitate to accept a newly printed liver, kidney or heart clone in a life or death situation when the technology is perfected which assumes that I would eat 3D printed meat just the same. Same technology so no big deal.

Hell, meat printed out in a factory would be safer than natural meat in my opinion allowing for tighter controls on some serious pathogens like mad cow, parasites and whatnot. And, I’ll admit it; I do hate the occasional slaughtering of an animal, its one messy affair.

The thought of owning one of those bio printers is exciting to me as it closes one more dependency door on a product I can’t live without, i.e. meat. I’ve already got the veggie production covered. I’m so sick of merchants, government, etc… jacking me up, putting the squeeze on my wallet. Too bad it probably won’t be available in my time though.

I wonder if in the future they will make these things dial –O-meat so we can choose salmon, Kobe beef or maybe quail. Ummmm…

"Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and Ok for you" Judge Dread movie

Absolutely agree, 100%. Something being "natural" and grown in the old ways doesn't mean it's automatically better. Many people I've come across hold the view that natural=always good, which is a huge misconception these days bordering on faith and paranoia. As long as this meat can be proven safe, nutritious, and economical in scientifically backed studies, I see no cause for concern.

[Sashko]

Absolutely agree, 100%. Something being "natural" and grown in the old ways doesn't mean it's automatically better. Many people I've come across hold the view that natural=always good, which is a huge misconception these days bordering on faith and paranoia. As long as this meat can be proven safe, nutritious, and economical in scientifically backed studies, I see no cause for concern.



Riiiiight :roll:

I've eaten a pig that I watched grow up and I've eaten genetically modified "stuff" (i can't call it pork) sold in supermarkets - difference is phenomenal. Same applies to eggs, milk, veggies and any other traditionally farm products. Last time i had milk that tasted like actual milk was around 11 years ago in Russian middle-of-nowhere village, and it came from a real cow.

Genetically modifying foods will bite us in the ass sometime in the very near future. Not enough research was done in the area on adverse effects of such products, and I personally don't like being a Guinea Pig.

[Clockwinder]

The "world" has to eat! That doesn't mean they necessarily need to eat healthy. It's a personal choice and responsibility (for those with a choice). If humankind is to survive sustainable food sources are required. Soylent Green comes to mind.
Unless they figure a way to put 1400 calories in a pill grown from algae, we're fvcked anyway. Genetically modified food has been around since wheat changed from being a grassy weed to a 'crop'.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/06/07/article-0-018002D800000578-910_468x486.jpg

Fvck off! I'm full!

[gaijinsamurai]

Riiiiight :roll:

I've eaten a pig that I watched grow up and I've eaten genetically modified "stuff" (i can't call it pork) sold in supermarkets - difference is phenomenal. Same applies to eggs, milk, veggies and any other traditionally farm products. Last time i had milk that tasted like actual milk was around 11 years ago in Russian middle-of-nowhere village, and it came from a real cow.

Genetically modifying foods will bite us in the ass sometime in the very near future. Not enough research was done in the area on adverse effects of such products, and I personally don't like being a Guinea Pig.

Agreed, Sashko.

The best meat I've ever eaten (besides Kobe beef!) was from what came from our ranch, either livestock or hunted, when I was a kid, and turkey that I had in Poland (ironic, that turkeys are originally from the western hemisphere). Doesn't even compare to the store-bought, processed, and packaged stuff.

[Fat Lazy American]

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/165/soylentgreencharltonhes.jpg

You've got to tell them!

[budgie]

Oh come on man...just pretend the topic was Bush, or Cheney...even Palin...you have GOT to have more to say than that.

Now Now....Really all I have to say is it will never catch on. Humans are omnivores leaning toward carnivores. We love meat. We love it so much vegetarians even have to find substitutes that they claim taste similar. Vegans are pasty, frail, acne-scarred, baggy-eyed and temperamental because they are protein-deficient. Our bodies are built for meat; I get tired without regular real meat fixes; tofu and other substitutes just don't stack up depite being 'healthier'. The whole idea is pretty gross. It'll never catch on.

[Chiptox]

Genetically modifying foods will bite us in the ass sometime in the very near future. Not enough research was done in the area on adverse effects of such products, and I personally don't like being a Guinea Pig.
Like health effects? That's silly. The FDA and EPA test all GM food crops extensively before they are allowed to be used.

Increasing yields and resistances to diseases is the only way we can continue to feed our growing population with the same land. We are going to need every tool to help us in the fight. Selective breeding, hybridization, and genetic modification (which is just a fast-forwarding of the previous two processes).

Another, but just as important factor, is transportation. Getting that grain to market is far greater problem than growing it. It simply isn't economical or sensible to grow a bunch of food then ship it around the world. I guess that's why the west (and the US in particular) have so much meat available. It's better for us to feed our massive surplus of grain to livestock to be consumed locally than to ship it across the ocean at a loss.

[brainplay]

As a supplement sure, I can see it happening. Cheap meals like fast food, McDonalds, or the $0.50 hotdogs or cheap sandwich meat you give to your kids...or dog. And of course the most obvious. MRE's.

Replacing open range meat? Not a chance.

[Dling]

Now Now....Really all I have to say is it will never catch on. Humans are omnivores leaning toward carnivores. We love meat. We love it so much vegetarians even have to find substitutes that they claim taste similar. Vegans are pasty, frail, acne-scarred, baggy-eyed and temperamental because they are protein-deficient. Our bodies are built for meat; I get tired without regular real meat fixes; tofu and other substitutes just don't stack up depite being 'healthier'. The whole idea is pretty gross. It'll never catch on.

Amen.

Theres no way it'll ever happen. And if somehow it does, thank god I'm trying to take up hunting.

[Sdetton]

Riiiiight :roll:

I've eaten a pig that I watched grow up and I've eaten genetically modified "stuff" (i can't call it pork) sold in supermarkets - difference is phenomenal. Same applies to eggs, milk, veggies and any other traditionally farm products. Last time i had milk that tasted like actual milk was around 11 years ago in Russian middle-of-nowhere village, and it came from a real cow.

Genetically modifying foods will bite us in the ass sometime in the very near future. Not enough research was done in the area on adverse effects of such products, and I personally don't like being a Guinea Pig.

Here we go again, someone claiming how "natural" food is better on taste alone with nothing else to go on. Until you got more than taste to discount whatever I said, you don't really invalidate my point.

If taste was an indicator of nutritional value and safety, then I guess all those people stuffing themselves on junk foods, 1000 calorie burgers and pure fried red meat diet are the healthiest people around? :roll:

[MichaelF]

If it's tube grown.....pass me the Panda Steaks.

[MichaelF]

Also: If we can clone and culture steaks....what about mass producing Tricia Helfer?

[vryhpyammoadded]

Also: If we can clone and culture steaks....what about mass producing Tricia Helfer?
Oh come now, you know where that’s going… Next thing you know there’ll be knock offs of Grace Park, Dean Stockwell, etc and then the nukes will go off and…

[Fallap]

"Tube meat"?????

Think I'll pass on that thank you.....

Havent you been to Sweden? p-)

[MichaelF]

Oh come now, you know where that’s going… Next thing you know there’ll be knock offs of Grace Park

Let's just say that, if I were Tricia Helfer and Grace Park...I'd have lawyers on retainer to aggressively protect my likeness, especially in the future....

[TheSteve]

Here we go again, someone claiming how "natural" food is better on taste alone with nothing else to go on. Until you got more than taste to discount whatever I said, you don't really invalidate my point.

If taste was an indicator of nutritional value and safety, then I guess all those people stuffing themselves on junk foods, 1000 calorie burgers and pure fried red meat diet are the healthiest people around? :roll:
Since the 1950s the USDA has tracked nutrient content in 43 crops, vitamin C Declined by 20 percent, iron by 15 percent, riboflavin by 38 percent, and calcium by 16 percent. Modern industrialized food is made for quantity, not quality, and we pay the price. You'd have to eat 3 today apples to get the same amount of iron as you would have gotten from an apple in 1940. Actual organic foods have a higher nutrient content, you can eat less and get more out of the food.

Genetically modified foods are modified for one purpose: to increase yields, not nutritional quality. So yeah, there is mounts of research that shows its more than taste that makes "natural" (This title is often used incorrectly too) foods better than industrialized foods. But real organic food does taste better, at least for me.

Check out "The Omnivores Dilemma" by Michael Pollan, which can be found just about any bookstore for real cheap, or a library.

Source: http://www.organic-center.org/reportfiles/Yield_Nutrient_Density_Final.pdf

Source: In Defense of food, by Michael Pollan. Pg. 118

[Sdetton]

snip - look at post above

First of all, thanks for being the first person to actually use some form of evidence rather than the usual subjective fluff. I tried to look up the research you mentioned, and came up with this:

http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/23/6/669#R1

This study was not done by the USDA, but of scientists using USDA data. Officially, this is what the USDA has to say about "natural" foods:


Q. Does organically-grown food contain more or better nutrients - vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients - than conventionally grown food?

Answer: Unclear at this point in time

Issues and references:

1. U.S. organic standards and certification do not address food quality. They denote method of production and handling only and were implemented to provide a credible marketing claim for organic producers, processors and retailers.

2. Valid scientific research comparing organic and conventional foods is scant and what has been done focuses on very specific foods and conditions. Across studies done so far, however, some general trends have been noted: on average, organic foods contain slightly higher levels of trace minerals, vitamin C, and antioxidant phytonutrients than conventionally grown crops.
...

5. Measuring the nutrient content of food is only partly indicative of the "healthfulness" or nutritive value of foods. Assessing the effects of eating organic and conventional foods requires complicated, long-term dietary surveys involving human subjects.

6. Studies have found higher levels of some phytonutrients in organically grown foods. Research has linked consumption of some phytonutrients to health benefits, but when and how these substances affect human health is still unclear. Research on phytonutrients is still in its early stages.

There are several possibilities for the causes and these include changes to the choice of varieties of fruit and vegetables being used, changes to the soil environment and changes to agricultural practice or mere anomalies of sampling and measurement. The consequences for human nutrition are also still not clear and could be small and restricted to a few individuals or the tip of an iceberg of far-reaching health problems."

http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/faq/BuyOrganicFoodsB.shtml

As to whether or not pound for pound, food grown in the US (this is a US focused study) in the 50s in general compared to both today's "organic" and conventionally grown food is more nutritious, there may be a case for that. Here's how the study you mentioned went about measuring the values it came up with:


Methods: We compare USDA nutrient content data published in 1950 and 1999 for 13 nutrients and water in 43 garden crops, mostly vegetables. After adjusting for differences in moisture content, we calculate ratios of nutrient contents, R (1999/1950), for each food and nutrient. To evaluate the foods as a group, we calculate median and geometric mean R-values for the 13 nutrients and water. To evaluate R-values for individual foods and nutrients, with hypothetical confidence intervals, we use USDA’s standard errors (SEs) of the 1999 values, from which we generate 2 estimates for the SEs of the 1950 values.I can see many confounders here. 1950s data on food nutritional content is generally more inaccurate than today's data, which may account for the modest reduction in nutritional value they get here. They do have a point however that over time farming selects the breeds for growth, increased dry weight, and resilience rather than nutritional content. Whether this is a natural consequence of generations of "natural" farming (selecting seeds of the "fittest" but not necessarily most nutritious crop and replanting as done by "organic farmers") is not indicated, but a big possibility here. So I don't really see how you can say this decrease in quality is proven to be linked to modern GM foods, rather than a natural degradation from over-farming.

And not all GM foods are grown for increased yield, another misconception. The "golden rice" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice) is one example which contains far more vitamin A than natural rice. Sometimes higher quantities of cheaper GM derived food can provide more nutrients even assuming their nutritional content has something on the order of 20% less nutrients (which is not the case all the time, and definitely not with golden rice) due to the fact that you are able to consume more:



Genetically modified foods may offer great benefits, both directly as with nutritionally superior "Golden Rice" (Ye, 2000), and indirectly through improved diets, but regulators do not formally consider such benefits in their decision making (European Executive Council, 2000; FDA, 1992).http://www.agbioforum.org/v5n2/v5n2a04-lutter.htm#R29

On top of that, a recent systematic review that follows found no difference between nutritional content in organic (or "natural") vs conventional:



Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review

Conclusions: On the basis of a systematic review of studies of satisfactory quality, there is no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs. The small differences in nutrient content detected are biologically plausible and mostly relate to differences in production methods.http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/90/3/680

Here's another study that contradicts the one you mentioned in your post:


There is currently no evidence to support or refute claims that organic food is safer and thus, healthier, than conventional food, or vice versa.

It must be emphasized that the current food supply is much safer and healthier than it was in the past, and agricultural technological achievements have greatly contributed to reduced malnutrition and improved health (Institute of Food Technologistss (IFT), 2002; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1999; Trewavas, 1999). ... http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a737811935&fulltext=713240928

Now that we got that out of the way, lets go back to the tube grown meat. If the meat is shown to be every bit as safe, nutritious, and cheap, there really shouldn't be a reason to worry as I've said before. This is even safer than GM crops, because what you are doing is growing cells in a laboratory under tightly controlled conditions, instead of just letting it out in the wild like many GM crops.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Hell, meat printed out in a factory would be safer than natural meat in my opinion allowing for tighter controls on some serious pathogens like mad cow, parasites and whatnot. And, I’ll admit it; I do hate the occasional slaughtering of an animal, its one messy affair.New processes new hazards or maybe a new vector for the old hazards, I used to work for a company that made Quorn products and yes you do have a whole new set of food safety issues to examine along with the usual suspects. I think we have been conditioned these days to accept that animal slaughter is somehow unpleasant and wrong. Preparing small game is no more messier than baking a cake.

[seraosha]

I think we have been conditioned these days to accept that animal slaughter is somehow unpleasant and wrong. Preparing small game is no more messier than baking a cake.

Not in the least...I have often assisted in the slaughter of pigs for the creation of sausage and boudin. We are omnivores, so odds are good something is going to die so we can eat it. But what if you can create/grow your own USDA quality (or higher) steak in your own home, with something no more complicated than a microwave oven? Start some pork chops growing in the morning, and enjoy them for dinner.

It's not the killing of animals, it's the resources used to raise those animals to kill that need to be addressed, imo.

[3rdMillhouse]

If it looks like meat and tastes like meat, then it's meat to me.

[Sakop]

If it looks like meat and tastes like meat, then it's meat to me.
you weren’t on that airplane that crashed in the Andes mountains?

[3rdMillhouse]

you weren’t on that airplane that crashed in the Andes mountains?

Maybe. p-)

[Sakop]

Maybe. p-)
did it taste like chicken?

[Soldat_Américain]

Not in the least...I have often assisted in the slaughter of pigs for the creation of sausage and boudin. We are omnivores, so odds are good something is going to die so we can eat it. But what if you can create/grow your own USDA quality (or higher) steak in your own home, with something no more complicated than a microwave oven? Start some pork chops growing in the morning, and enjoy them for dinner.

It's not the killing of animals, it's the resources used to raise those animals to kill that need to be addressed, imo.
Replicators dude, Star Trek tech ftw.