Growing Meat in a Lab?

CR83 - 4-23-2008 at 05:29 PM

Whoa, this is interesting:

http://www.slate.com/id/2189676>1=38001

Tastes Like Chicken
Growing meat without growing animals.
By William Saletan
Posted Tuesday, April 22, 2008, at 8:41 AM ET

Read Daniel Engber's "Science" column on the fake-meat prize.

Two years ago, I proposed a compromise between carnivores and vegetarians: We couldn't change our craving for meat, but we could change the way we sated it. The solution was to grow meat in labs, the way we grow therapeutic tissue from stem cells.

Looks like I might get my wish.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has just offered a $1 million prize to anyone who develops a commercially viable "in vitro chicken-meat product." The catch is that the product can't contain or entail the use of "animal-derived products, except for starter cells obtained in the initial development stages."

The idea is simple: Instead of growing a chicken embryo into a bird and cutting meat from it, you skip the bird part and grow the meat directly from the embryo.

If you don't believe this can be done, read up on the blood vessels, livers, bladders, and hearts we've already grown in labs. Check out this month's International In Vitro Meat Symposium. Scan the latest updates on "cultured meat" R&D.

It's no freakier or more far-fetched than what you've been hearing from politicians about stem cells and what they can do for people. Scientists aren't even allowed to try a stem-cell experiment in people till it works in animals. That's all PETA is asking for: "animal stem cells that would be placed in a medium to grow and reproduce."

To put it crudely, if you can grow a hunk of flesh for transplant, you can grow it for food.

If this idea repels you as a carnivore, imagine how it feels to a vegetarian. PETA co-founder Ingrid Newkirk tells the New York Times that the prize offer caused "a near civil war in our office" and that "we will have members leave us over this." Newkirk observes, "In any social cause community, there are people who strive for purity."

She's right. I've seen civil wars like this one in other communities. In the case of the abortion-rights movement, I wrote a book about it. Pragmatists thought they could broaden the movement's appeal by changing its language and arguments. Purists worried that these changes would narrow the movement's agenda. Both sides were right. This is an important lesson in politics: Message, constituency, and agenda are related. The broader your message, the broader your constituency, and the narrower your agenda. You have to choose your trade-offs.

Three years ago, when I left politics to cover science, I took that lesson with me. Science, too, is political. But in science, the driving force that reframes issues, revises agendas, and realigns coalitions isn't the transformation of spin. It's the transformation of reality.

That force is now shaking up PETA and will soon confront the rest of us. Reality is changing. Eating meat and eating animals used to be the same thing. Now they're coming apart. Should we promote lab-grown meat so people can eat flesh without eating animals? Or is PETA's promotion of meat the final surrender to a mentality of predation?

Purists see it as a moral surrender. "It's our job to introduce the philosophy and hammer it home that animals are not ours to eat," a dissident PETA official tells the Times. Purists also point out that carnivores suffer more obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and other diseases. Getting your meat from stem cells might not change that.

Pragmatists point to all the issues lab meat would resolve. No more cages. No more body-inflating drugs. No more slaughter. Less environmental harm. "We don't mind taking uncomfortable positions if it means that fewer animals suffer," Newkirk concludes.

The lab-meat movement, for its part, isn't sure it wants to get in bed with the animal-rights lobby. It sees a more broadly appealing rationale for its products: "controlled conditions" that facilitate the production of safer, healthier meat.

In principle, I'm a big fan of lab meat. But you have to understand what a colossal concession this is for the animal-rights movement. Lab meat "would mimic flesh," says PETA's press release. Mimic? Lab meat is flesh. That's the whole point. The contest rules explicitly demand a "product that has a taste and texture indistinguishable from real chicken flesh." In fact, the product has to satisfy "a panel of 10 meat-eating individuals sourced from a professional focus group services provider." It won't walk or quack like a duck, so technically, it's not a duck. But if it tastes like duck, chews like duck, and comes from duck, it's duck.

When I wrote my plea for lab meat two years ago, a reader cracked, "If God wanted us to be vegetarians, why did He make animals out of meat?" Here's the punch line: Animals were only the first incarnation of meat. Get ready for the second.

JawnDiablo - 4-23-2008 at 06:10 PM

i like my meat being plain old dead animal.
plain and simple

upyerbum - 4-23-2008 at 08:32 PM

Too far.

tireironsaint - 4-23-2008 at 09:34 PM

Being a vegetarian, but not one who is really into the politics of it, I find this pretty interesting. It seems to me that this is a possible way to have truly "cruelty free" meat, however, I do wonder how creating something like this will affect those who consume it in the long run. We're already seeing a big backlash about genetically modified foods and more and more info keeps coming out about ways that stuff is no good for us, it seems likely to me that this would end up going down the same path.

I imagine that a lot of people will get upset about this for the same reasons that they get upset about cloning and stem cell research, in part because of the whole "playing god" issue. Personally, I think that scientific avenues which could benefit us should be explored and that the controversy is mainly one of superstition and plays into the idea of "original sin" and knowing things that are reserved for "god". Being non-religious, I think that way of thinking is a pile of shit.

BDx13 - 4-23-2008 at 10:55 PM

i'll eat that lab.

CR83 - 4-24-2008 at 04:54 PM

I would eat lab grown meat.

upyerbum - 4-24-2008 at 05:10 PM

Wouldn't touch it. Just like Saint said, they have no idea the long term physiological ramifications this could have. No idea whatsoever. Bring on the Jakob-Kreutsfeld.

Siczine.com - 4-24-2008 at 05:13 PM

God is supposed to have given us free will and by not using it for the better of man should be a 'sin'. Religious opposes science so much because religion always used the dark corners of our planet to justify our 'faith' but now science is shedding light on these dark corners and they can't stand it.

I am not a vegatarian but the one thing I agree with vegetarians about is that all the land that we clear through deforestation for the grazing of animals is having a huge impact on our environment and it will only worsen when the Earth's population balloons up to an estimated 11 billion by 2050. Though this whole 'growing meat in a lab' seems odd, I feel it would be a viable alternative or option to the way meat is produced (slaughtered). But it's hard for people to get behind it because it seems 'weird' and goes against convention. In order for the human race to live sustainably on this planet we need to defy 'convention' or we can just fade into oblivion.

upyerbum - 4-24-2008 at 05:25 PM

I'm not against the science involved, what I'm against is this getting rushed to the shelves, and in 20 years finding out that everyone is fucked. Technology is moving faster than our ability to understand it. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

Siczine.com - 4-24-2008 at 05:34 PM

"Technology is moving faster than our ability to understand it. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should."

Agree 100% but who's to say scientist wouldn't be able to in 20 years? It can't be that much worse than all the hormones that they pump into our meat and diary products now.

upyerbum - 4-24-2008 at 06:08 PM

I'm not real excited about that shit either. I think it really boils down to trust, I don't trust them. If they can make a buck they will, and fuck us over to do it. The baby bottle/plastic issue is a perfect example, bisphenol A is a compound used in baby bottles, toys, pacifiers, everything a kid might stick in their mouth. Canada just banned it. Manufacturer's have 60 days to prove it is safe or the ban remains in place and BPA will be officially labelled a toxin. Its been on the shelves for years, and infants exposed to it are at a much higher risk for prostrate and breast cancer later in life, there's an awful lot of cancer going around these days, don't ya think?

Siczine.com - 4-24-2008 at 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by upyerbum
I'm not real excited about that shit either. I think it really boils down to trust, I don't trust them. If they can make a buck they will, and fuck us over to do it. The baby bottle/plastic issue is a perfect example, bisphenol A is a compound used in baby bottles, toys, pacifiers, everything a kid might stick in their mouth. Canada just banned it. Manufacturer's have 60 days to prove it is safe or the ban remains in place and BPA will be officially labelled a toxin. Its been on the shelves for years, and infants exposed to it are at a much higher risk for prostrate and breast cancer later in life, there's an awful lot of cancer going around these days, don't ya think?

Absolutely it's hard to trust big business, and the government as well but all I'm saying is if they could do this and do it safely I would be behind it.

And hell yes there's a lot of disease going around. I am one of those crazy theorist that believe diseases such as AIDS are used for population control and that there are treatments out there for many 'uncurable' diseases but the pharmaceutical companies can't make a killing off cures.

upyerbum - 4-24-2008 at 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Siczine.com
if they could do this and do it safely I would be behind it.

Absolutely. I think we're totally on the same page. I expect there will be a cure for a lot of diseases in the next 15 years as the work force dwindles.

Siczine.com - 4-24-2008 at 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by upyerbum

Quote:

Originally posted by Siczine.com
if they could do this and do it safely I would be behind it.

Absolutely. I think we're totally on the same page. I expect there will be a cure for a lot of diseases in the next 15 years as the work force dwindles.

Yes, especially in the 'developed countries' because the replacement rate in many areas is dropping. America is considered ideal with a replacement rate of 2.1 for every set of parents and yet we still need immigraints to fill out our workforce. Germany is at 1.78 and is desperately trying to get people to have more kids because they are already having problems with a lack of workforce.

DaveMoral - 4-25-2008 at 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tireironsaint
Being a vegetarian, but not one who is really into the politics of it, I find this pretty interesting. It seems to me that this is a possible way to have truly "cruelty free" meat, however, I do wonder how creating something like this will affect those who consume it in the long run. We're already seeing a big backlash about genetically modified foods and more and more info keeps coming out about ways that stuff is no good for us, it seems likely to me that this would end up going down the same path.

I imagine that a lot of people will get upset about this for the same reasons that they get upset about cloning and stem cell research, in part because of the whole "playing god" issue. Personally, I think that scientific avenues which could benefit us should be explored and that the controversy is mainly one of superstition and plays into the idea of "original sin" and knowing things that are reserved for "god". Being non-religious, I think that way of thinking is a pile of shit.

I'm sort of on the fence with this one.

I mean, environmentall and in terms of the cruelty factor, I see this as very interesting. On the other hand, I'm really wary of bio-tech. After all, Jello and Sepultura said it best "Bio-tech is Godzilla." Furthermore, it's going to cut down on the resources used for animal agriculture a great deal. I mean, we are talking about a world where food prices are skyrocketing from a combination of certain foodstuffs being used for biofuels in part, and the vast majority are being used inefficiently to produce meat. I mean, the amount of grains that goes into one pound of beef and the resources it consumes. High carbon footprint, etc etc. This could lead to a far more sustainable society... in conjunction with other steps of course.

Fact is, people need to consume less meat... but that's going to take a dramatic paradigm shift in the way people think. And how many of youse flesh-eaters are about to do any dramatic changes in your way of life for the sake of planet?

BTW, deforestation isn't so much for grazing, as I understand it, but to grow more grains and corns. This is only going to get worse as people start misbelieving that biofuels like corn-based ethanol are the solutions to global climate change. They're not, it's just taking airborne carbon into plants, then turning those plants into fuel and putting the carbon right back in the air. The impact of that won't be significant unless biofuel users are vegetarian. I've been listening to NPR all week and I learned more about stuff I already had some clues about.

This whole thing poses significant ethical questions for vegans, vegetarians and meat-eaters. I mean, there's the whole bio-tech thing... plus the idea of it being wrong to exploit animals yet taking cells from animals to grow skeletal flesh in test tubes but it's not actually from the physical body of an animal and a living, breathing, consious being never had to live and die for it to get to your plate. Really fucks with your head. 'Specially if you're vegan or veg.