Test-Tube Burgers - The Question of Artificial Meat

[Duellist]

Many of you will be aware of the news that scientists are exploring a burger developed in a lab using stem-cells. For those who don't, they're making a burger this year some time out of meat grown in a petri dish.

Read about it in the BBC - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16972761

It's a curious idea, based on the idea that the projected market for meat will outstrip the planet's ability to produce meat, let alone the farming industry's. It is apparently possible to reduce the carbon footprint of a burger by 60% and this method does not require arable land, which reduces the damage to already overtaxed ecosystems.

It sounds a little odd, but there's method to the madness once you fight past the instinctive gag-reflex. Of course, the BBC then took it one step further and suggested that the new burgers, if created without any bovine deaths, may be technically vegetarian. Not vegan, but suddenly ethically on-par with milk.

The link is here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17113214

So... I know the initial response would be negative, but is there something to be gained from this? I doubt I will see many vegetarians eating beef, no matter its source, but what about meat-eaters? Could the general public be enticed if the marketing was done right? Could it be the new 'organic' for the meat industry? If McDonalds sold a special 'Ethical Mac' then I could almost see Joe Public managing to forget it came from a lab in much the way that they currently cope with the fact that their burger is just a burnt chunk of dead cow.

As a druid, I am not sure... Ethically, I approve of the idea. Reducing the carbon footprint and removing the death of animals from the cycle is good. Scientifically, I approve of the efficiency. I don't know, there's something in me that feels a little odd about meat which is not meat.

Since we have meat substitutes and other foods which provide the same nutrients, I think it might not catch on with vegetarians. Many vegetarians find soy, tofu and quorn a little too much like pandering to meat-eaters, so something so... clinical? I'm not sure...

Meat eaters will prefer dead cow, especially if it is cheaper, and vegetarians are already well catered-for, so I think its time will not come until we see a meat-crisis. By that time, I think it'll be too late for humanity.

[DJ Droood]

You beat me to posting this...interesting...very Star Trek....without knowing all the details, on the surface it seems less morally abhorrent and health-threatening than the current meat production regime...sound pretty "orally" abhorrent, though..I might try it out of curiousity, but I can't see stomaching such a thing as a cornerstone of my diet.

I find the veg "meat analogues" to be mostly a psychological tool to help meat-eaters transitioning to veg, or to serve to non-vegs in a meal to make them feel comfortable. Some of them I've tried are "interesting"...Buddhist countries seem to export a wide range of imitation "lamb" and the like....the only ones I buy with any frequency are the "ground soy" for tacos and sauces...superior to ground beef in taste and texture, imo...and various veg burgers and hotdogs...some are better than others, but not as good as the real deal...I would buy those if I was having a BBQ or something...as a veg, I would consider test-tube sausage/hotdogs/burgers/bacon...I think those foods are so hightly processed that this sort of thing could be well adapted to it. Giving up sausage was the hardest thing for me...I can see this stuff replicating the sausage "experience"...one article I read said that blood was one of the ingredients in this stuff...where does that come from? I

[Lily]

one thing seared/grilled/roasted meat gets is flavor - from the lovely peptides created by the maillard reaction happening on the surface, something most veg protein sources don't really get - and we are probably genetically programmed to go for that taste - promises a hefty dose of protein.

so I'd try the test tube burger .... yeah, sausages, etc., why not.
but they would probably never achieve the texture of a really good steak.

[FoxPhantom]

I'm unsure about this myself, but it does sound interesting if it can reduce the carbon foot prints. It does sound very good of an idea to make something artificial, yet I wonder if it would help. Since having it lab grown can be different, and hopefully help the outcome on animals used for meat.

@ DJ Drood: I was also wondering about blood as part of the ingredient.

[fionay]

Well its obviously not vegetarian because it's still made using animal products, so I wouldn't ever eat it as a meat substitute. In terms of being better for the environment by reducing carbon footprint etc then yes, in theory this sounds great. it depends whether there are any hidden environmental costs, but on the surface sounds good. Less animals being slaughtered and less of the damage to the environment associated with that great. Decrease in the need for arable land, leading to wild places being left wild, great. But would I ever eat it, even if I wasn't veggie...no!, because its just too weird

[DaRC]

And what happens to the landscapes that rely on ethical meat production?
Here in Sussex the S.Downs bio-diversity is reliant upon livestock grazing the land.
There have been attempts to convert the land to full agriculture but all that leads to is wind-erosion and/or an over-reliance on fertilisers. For centuries (possibly millenia) the old chalk grassland was maintained by a mix of corn production and livestock - until the industrialisation 'advances' of the mid 20th century.

The local Wildlife Trusts and the National Trust have recently realised that the whole ecological cycle relies upon herds of cattle and flocks of sheep grazing the land. They have now re-introduced the rare breeds that were bred to live on this land, reduced targets and the amount of pesticides. This way of responsible management of the landscape has helped re-generate the wild flowers and insects upon the land.

A test-tube burger seems to me another unwarranted technological response to avoid facing the real problems for the planet.

[DJ Droood]

A test-tube burger seems to me another unwarranted technological response to avoid facing the real problems for the planet.

I dunno...sometimes unwarranted technological responses can produce interesting results...I present to you, Sir, the Popsicle, sandwich, potato chip, ice cream cone and chocolate chip cookie. (are they solving the problems facing the planet? debatable....)

http://www.factmonster.com/spot/acciden ... ions1.html

[DaRC]

Oh most esteemed Droood I would suggest that all of those were accidents or innovations rather than technological advances...

sandwich - one immoral (the Earl of Sandwich) man's laziness
potato chip - an accident whilst slicing
ice cream cone - a physical technique
chocolate chip cookie - necessity is the mother of invention

[Til]

And what happens to the landscapes that rely on ethical meat production?
Here in Sussex the S.Downs bio-diversity is reliant upon livestock grazing the land.

Well, what happened before meat was produced there? What was biodiversity reliant on? Must have been something!

A test-tube burger seems to me another unwarranted technological response to avoid facing the real problems for the planet.

I think it is facing the real problems for the planet. Hunger, environmental damage, animal cruelty (factory farming, which is by far the most prevalent form of meat production), etc. I would however agree that it's going the wrong way about it. Seems to me a lot like having your cake (or burger, whatever), and eating it! Personally I think this sort of thing is likely to replace one problem with another.

[andromeda]

The real problem is the amount of land dedicated to grow GMO products specially rape seed for bio-fuel http://www.currentconcerns.ch/index.php?id=1026

[kytty]

I think you are all possibly looking at this from the wrong angle.
Its not about enviro friendliness
Its not about sustainable farming
It certainly not about the starving popluation.

THINK
McDonalds.

McDonald's (bless) announced they were removing this http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/mc ... 09662.html from their burgers.

They'll now need a replacement.
Come on you know it make sense

Sceptical as ever
kytty

[Til]

No, it doesn't make sense. They've removed a chemical from their burgers, and now they're going to replace it (imminently) with lab grown meat? The first burger made of lab grown meat will cost at least £200,000, so I really do think it's cheap enough for them to mass produce and put in their 99p burgers. Between now and the product becoming affordable to produce on a large scale, they're going to need to replace the chemical burgers with something else. Wouldn't it be easier to replace it with more meat? It's a simple solution, and they're often the best!

Anyway, even if McDonalds DID use it, it's still and environmental and ethical improvement. There are still other companies which would be able to produce and sell meat in such a way, too. It's really too early to tell how this sort of technology will affect the meat industry and the wider world.

[DJ Droood]

What will happen is this 'almost meat' will become cheap to mass produce and will replace the bulk of the meat in low-end diets...but fear not farmers...'on the hoof' will always be the prefered cut for the well-to-do...you will get top dollar...

[Mountainheart]

What will happen is this 'almost meat' will become cheap to mass produce and will replace the bulk of the meat in low-end diets...but fear not farmers...'on the hoof' will always be the prefered cut for the well-to-do...you will get top dollar...

If the issue was really about feeding the global population then a solution already exists: Fusarium venenatum (Quorn)? The 'test tube meat' is a way of companies like McDonalds taking those unpredictable and expensive farmers out of the production cycle. Meat grown in factories would eventually be cheaper, more controllable from a quality assurance point of view and more profitable.

It's another case of big business wrapping itself in an ethical flag. IMO

[Duellist]

And.... here come the tinfoil hats...

I doubt this research has much to do with 'big business' right now. It's just an application of cloning. If anything, it is an attempt by liberals in the scientific community to get the restrictions on stem-cell research reduced by showing practical applications that won't be compared in the mainstream US media to raping the Baby Jesus.

Most science is done without any real ulterior motive or even thought for possible (ab)uses. Scientists like to know stuff, to see if things they know are possible in theory can be done in reality. Do you think Oppenheimer came to work each day wondering 'how can I kill people better today?' or even really thought through his research until it was too late?

A bunch of geeks in a lab wanted to see if they could grow a burger in a test-tube. Lots of other people might have idea for how it can be applied in the real world, but there's no conspiracy of fast-food chains trying to end our way of life and control us through science...

[Mountainheart]

And.... here come the tinfoil hats...

LOL. Big business has no influence on research? If you say so. Take a look at the main sponsors behind the University's work: http://www.maastrichtuniversity.nl/web/ ... ipFund.htm Can't see many of these major businesses not wanting something back in terms of influence, access or future patent purchases. Big business and University research are hand-in-glove.

[Duellist]

I was referring to the 'taking those unpredictable and expensive farmers out of the production cycle' line, because (while I think it was a joke) it's going a step too far down a rather shaky line of reasoning.

Patents, exclusivity and PR are great reasons for funding research. I just wanted to nip the paranoid NWO megacorporation stuff in the bud before I end up being responsible for starting a thread that ends with someone accusing every dissenting opinion of being the fifth Illuminatus Primus.

[Mountainheart]

I was referring to the 'taking those unpredictable and expensive farmers out of the production cycle' line, because (while I think it was a joke) it's going a step too far down a rather shaky line of reasoning.

Patents, exclusivity and PR are great reasons for funding research. I just wanted to nip the paranoid NWO megacorporation stuff in the bud before I end up being responsible for starting a thread that ends with someone accusing every dissenting opinion of being the fifth Illuminatus Primus.

It wasn't a joke I'm an agricultural scientist by training. The most expensive and unreliable part of the food production cycle is the farm: Animals are inconsistent in quality and productivity; and are expensive to look after well when alive and to manage after they are dead . If you can grow meat to an acceptable standard in the lab, it won't be many years until this is translated to the factory: it is much more financially attractive to produce it under controlled, predictable conditions.

[DaRC]

DaRC wrote:And what happens to the landscapes that rely on ethical meat production?
Here in Sussex the S.Downs bio-diversity is reliant upon livestock grazing the land.

Well, what happened before meat was produced there? What was biodiversity reliant on? Must have been something!

Ermm it is likely that this landscape was created as part of the neolithic. Prior to that, during the mesolithic, the biodiversity was probably smaller as it was mostly forest but even then man was influencing and managing the landscape.
Before that it bio diversity was almost non-existant due to the ice age.

[Duellist]

It wasn't a joke I'm an agricultural scientist by training.

Oh... In that case, I respect your professional opinion, but I hope you are wrong...