In Praise of Lab-Grown Meat

[HuckleB]

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/in-praise-of-lab-grown-meat/

"...

Lab grown meat involves taking muscle stem cells from animals, like pigs, chickens, or cows, and then growing them, well, in a lab. They can be grown in a large vat of nutrients.

What you end up with is not fully formed muscle, as if it were taken from an animal, but simply a mass of muscle cells. Animal muscles also contain fat, vessels, and connective tissue, which help give it its texture. For taste the fat marbling is probably the most important.

...

In any case, lab-grown meat solves some of these problems. There is no issue of the ethical treatment of animals. There is still an issue of where the nutrients come from to grow the cells, so the ultimate environmental impact will depend on this, but it seems we will have many more options for feeding cells in a vat than feeding live animals.

I am intrigued by the new possibilities raised by lab-grown meat. Once we get beyond the basics of creating tasty and properly textured meat, we can start exploring other possibilities, like genetically tweaking the stem cells to produce a healthier profile of fat.

..."

------------------------------------------------------


I suspect Novella might be a bit optimistic on the time frame, and it does seem like this will start out as something few will be able to afford, but it has definite possibilities.

[KamaAina]

1. I wonder what my friend the abolitionist vegan thinks of this.

[HuckleB]

2. This piece is a couple years old, but it explores that issue a bit.

https://aeon.co/essays/is-there-any-reason-vegetarians-can-t-eat-lab-grown-meat

In this world, it will certainly be "debated" ad nauseum, with or without reason, with or without good will.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

4. no, thank you

Factory farmed meat is far less tasty and nutritious than grass fed, how awful and bland would this stuff be?

[HuckleB]

5. It might be the best stuff you've ever had.

And it might be good for the environment.

We shall see where the research leads, but it has some great possibilities.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

6. impossible

Not to mention the texture will be like overworked hamburger.

[HuckleB]

7. LOL! Well, the rest of us can enjoy it.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

8. you go right ahead

May i suggest a little gmo nuclear waste on the side? I recall how fondly you have spoken of them in the past. Maybe it will give it some flavor...

[HuckleB]

10. Aww. That's so cute.

But, yes, I will eat my tasty, truly environmentally friendly food, free of baseless fear.

[Humanist_Activist]

13. What is "gmo nuclear waste"? Do you just mash words together ignorantly to make yourself...

try to sound intelligent? Because you fail, badly.

[HuckleB]

15. To be fair...

... it might be a quote from Vandana Shiva.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

20. i've read Huckleb's posts for years now

He gets my meaning.

[HuckleB]

25. Ah, a confessional post.

[Humanist_Activist]

27. I'm sorry, if its some type of inside joke between you, whatever...

considering that in the past week, I've had anti-GMO people states some very basic things that are just wrong about biology, I may be a little sensitive to it.

I'm talking stating that air has a genetic code, or that "pork genes" are a thing, or whatever. I have difficulty taking any of them seriously when they fail middle school biology.

[HuckleB]

29. It's not a joke.

Not even close.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

30. i dont do woo either.

Huckleb is pro-nuclear, pro- monsanto, etc.... been defending them here for years.

[HuckleB]

32. And the ludicrous personal attacks just repeat themselves.

You know full well I don't defend any corporation, and yet you attack with this ludicrousness.



And you have participated in the March Against Monsanto silliness. That is the epitome of woo. Just look at all the nonsense they push. If it's a quack remedy, they are on it!

[Viva_La_Revolution]

36. that's not meant to be a personal attack

Just my opinion. I apologize.

[HuckleB]

37. Thank you.

I think.

[Humanist_Activist]

39. Yes, and? I'm more skeptical of nuclear, but that's mostly related to...

what to do with the waste, as far as pro-Monsanto, you have to be more specific. If you are talking about defending their actions during the PCB issue, that would be bad, they were in the wrong. If Agent Orange, that's the government's fault, Monsanto, along with other companies, actually tried to "warn" the government of the dangers of using it on populations, but the government was already aware of these risks, and didn't tell these companies, causing a lot of sickness among their own workers. They were also threatened with government takeover if they didn't continue to manufacture it. So they did.

Was it bad, yes, but something to blame the military for, not Monsanto, they neither instigated the use nor created the formula for Agent Orange, so at best, its a wash in who to blame.

If you want to talk about glyphosate and cancer, well despite the now rather heavily criticized report from the WHO, where even the scientists who wrote the studies the report cited in its "probably carcinogenic" rating said that they were misattributed and never concluded that. It was cherry picked, never looked at the other side, and hence is useless at making a determination.

Gyphosate is actually one of the safer herbicides used, and the big concern is what will replace it, because weeds are developing resistance and that is a concern. So the criticism of Monsanto developing "Roundup ready" crops is also overblown as a result. Its use has been widespread for 20+ years now, I would think we would see a huge spike in cancer rates or something related to its use and/or consumption.

Same thing for GMOs in general, the ones available on the market are safe, at least as safe as non-GMO crops. Studies showing otherwise were debunked years ago.

[HuckleB]

52. I'm not even sure where the nuclear piece came from...

... I'm not real comfortable with it, quite frankly, though the more I learn, the more I suspect we might have to find safe ways to utilize it. I may have responded to some of the more outlandish stuff that shows up here, now and then, but I don't remember.

[Humanist_Activist]

55. Yeah, same here, I mean, its a hell of a lot safer and more environmentally friendly than coal...

no question, and as a replacement for it, I have no problem with that.

But other alternatives, such as solar and wind, as long as they are practical, would be preferable.

[HuckleB]

59. Yeah, and those are improving. Just have to solve the storage problem.

[closeupready]

35. You post anonymously on a message board, and DU is supposed

to take YOU seriously?

Physician, heal thyself.

[Humanist_Activist]

41. I never said, that, I did say that your credibility is directly based on what you post...

as should be expected.

I actually implore you to learn about the subject you are criticizing, here, watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3EED4C1D684D3ADF

Its a fun series covering the basics of biology, it will clear up some misconceptions you have. It cleared up some misconceptions I had.

[closeupready]

45. You are the one who called into question others' credibility.

You have never established your own bona fides as an expert in microbiology or genetic engineering or even surf science.

This is a message board. People come here and post messages. You have no right to censor what anyone else posts, and I find it offensive that you seek to shout down people with whose speech you disagree.

Have a great day.

[Humanist_Activist]

48. I'm not saying you should be censored, but you need to argue based on knowledge...

not ignorance.

I'm not an expert, but then again, I haven't said anything to question my basic education in biology, if I have, then correct me, I'm open to being corrected.

This isn't a matter of opinion, you need to be educated as to why statements such as "Pork genes in tomato products" are wrong. For one, its too general, I'm sure a few strands of pork DNA survived cooking when I made my BLT, and I'm sure some of it mixed with my tomato, that doesn't mean anything though. If you mean DNA derived from a Pig that was then inserted in the genome of the tomato for a reason(you didn't specify what), then please explain what is wrong with that, also what gene sequence it was, what proteins it produces and whether said gene sequence is unique to pigs or not.

The thing is, thanks to both Evolution and horizontal gene transfer, we share all sorts of gene sequences with every other form of life on the planet, and even some non-life, from viruses to chimpanzees, and its, roughly, on a sliding scale as to what percentage of our total genome is identical. Pigs are closely related to us, being mammals, hence why they are used as human analogs quite a bit. Indeed, that gene sequence, chances are, is identical to one in the human body, may even produce the same proteins and have similar effects. So, what would be the problem with it being in a tomato?

[Orrex]

44. Wait... Does this mean that we can't have vat-grown GMO nuclear waste-burgers?

I want my money back!

[Bonx]

23. It's the animal's sad face that gives it flavor.

I'm ready for lab meat.

[LanternWaste]

38. And Spam might be as good as a rib-eye...

And Spam might be as good as a rib-eye...

[HuckleB]

47. Yawn.

I love it when people compare things that are not comparable.

[Humanist_Activist]

51. Spam is ground up pork shoulder, different cut, different meat....

and different species altogether.

What a waste of a post you made.

[cleanhippie]

11. Less tasty? Perhaps. But less nutritious?

Taste is subjective, but nutritional value is objective. Have you any empirical eves ends to back that up?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

16. just science..

For instance, if you grow a tomato (or a cow) in a greenhouse (factory farm) it will have less mineral content and taste than one grown in good healthy soil under sunshine. Works the same with livestock, grass fed is far superior to factory farmed because they have a better diet. Since i have no info on the medium they are 'feeding' this 'meat' i cant say how much more deficient it would be.

[Humanist_Activist]

43. If they fortify the soil with nutrients, and the aero/hydroponics, I don't see why it would...

automatically be less nutritiously than conventionally grown vegetables. Obviously, if you expose their roots to less nutrients, they won't absorb them, but that's where the deficiency would lie.

[cleanhippie]

50. Can you show me the studies that show a higher nutritional value?

I'm interested to see that.

[snooper2]

18. if taste is subjective how come everybody wants to eat...

THIS!

[Humanist_Activist]

22. I'm neutral on lobster tail, kinda disgusting to me actually...

I mind shrimp less, but I don't seek out either. Catfish though, that's the best.

[HuckleB]

26. I prefer crab myself, but many people can't eat shellfish.

[Enrique]

68. lobster was once considered disgusting

unfit for anyone except prisoners.

[Humanist_Activist]

12. Where is the evidence that its less nutritious?

In addition, I'm not sure how much beef being fed grass effects taste, it may be subjective, after all, I've had some pretty tasteless burgers that were advertised as locally sourced and grass fed, and some pretty tasty meat that was not advertised as either.

As someone who is interested in continuing my meat intake, I would rather we did so in a way to reduce the suffering of animals. I'm a conflicted carnivore.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

17. same here... how you cook it makes a big difference too

I can afford good meat only once or twice a month.. No seasoning but salt and cook as little as possible... I save the spices for the bland everyday kind of meat. Plus i don't eat out because i spent enough time in the industry to know 90% is frozen processed stuff i can make better myself, and alot of the fish and meat is not what they say it is.

[Humanist_Activist]

21. I looked it up, looks like the differences are marginal at best...

most cows in the United States are grass-fed on pastures at least for the beginning part of their lives, the differences show up later, when they start feeding grain to them and concentrate them. This leads to those cows being mostly grass-fed(a term not well regulated, by the way), to have slightly less fat overall and slightly more Omega-3 and some vitamins than grain fed beef.

From what I can tell, and from the reports, the differences aren't enough to justify the increased cost.

https://authoritynutrition.com/grass-fed-vs-grain-fed-beef/

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/03/29/grass.grain.beef.cookinglight/

Basically it may be a matter of personal taste, with less marbling in grass-fed beef, it will be, overall, less flavorful.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

24. like the term 'organic'

You have to be careful cause the industry uses them differently than we do. I grew up on a cattle ranch so i know how they are finished off. I also know that cattle grass-fed on the plains do not have the same taste as grass fed in true pasture. The grain is to fatten them up just before butchering.
True grass raised meat is far superior in taste to me.

[Humanist_Activist]

31. I hate the term organic, considering what I researched lately, particularly...

from the government's own sources, its overpriced, mostly conventionally farmed produce and meat that uses more toxic materials that are either biologically produced or on an approved list of synthetics(Fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides). For example, a real concern about beef and any meat production is the over reliance on antibiotics to keep them free of disease, this can help create issues with superbugs and introducing such antibiotics to the human food chain, and the organic industry is allowed to use antibiotics as they feel is necessary, just like conventionally grown meat.

But you know what type of meat wouldn't need any antibiotics? Lab-grown meat, for that alone, I would say go all in. Not to mention they would be able to precisely determine the growth medium, and hence the nutrients the meat is given. They would be able to, for example, recreate the nutrient intake of grass fed cattle precisely, or grain fed as well, whatever is decided. They will also, so is the hope, be able to produce it at a fraction of the cost of raising cattle, pigs, sheep, chickens, turkeys, etc. So no animals need to die, the meat would, by default, be healthier, and it could even be made more nutritious and tastier, and a lot cheaper.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

34. it will be great for the masses

Im pretty sure the 1% won't be eating it.

[Humanist_Activist]

42. Why not? That makes no sense.

Granted a lot of them have more money than sense, and so buy into the whole "organic" craze that's been going on lately, but other than that, I see no reason why they wouldn't.

[0rganism]

9. kind of inevitable

the demand for meat products will outlive the capacity of the planet to provide it in a ranched setting, and this is a solution that scales much better to population and demand. probably won't taste much like the real thing at first, but drop in the right additives, artificial flavors, and texturing agents, and within a generation or two no one will notice. really, this is a gold mine waiting to happen.

[Hortensis]

14. Sure. How will they "exercise" this muscle tissue,

is what I keep wondering. Chemical stimulation? Electrical? Reminds me of an old silent movie where a machine uses a rather obscene-looking girdle to replace a broken part.

That aside, if it tastes fairly good and has fairly good texture, I'll be delighted. And I'll be among the first to try whatever comes on the market.

[Act_of_Reparation]

63. That's a tough question.

You can't do it electrically without motor neurons.

[Hortensis]

64. Hmm. Still, couldn't they just mix a can

of motor-neuron DNA powder into the vat?

[Act_of_Reparation]

65. If only.

It's difficult enough to grow muscle from muscle stem cells, but to mix muscle stem cells, fat stem cells, and neuron stem cells into a cauldron and make hanger steak? That's gonna be a long haul.

[Hortensis]

70. Oh, but worth it! Love hanger steak.

Keep the flavor but slightly less tough connective tissue, please.

Sounds like we may be growing "ground meat" a lot sooner first. It could be most of us will end up seduced into acceptance by the benefits and repelled by what we wouldn't want back if we could have it -- especially when we don't need to kill to "harvest" stem cells.

[csziggy]

19. Lab-grown beef taste test: ‘Almost’ like a burger

By Marta Zaraska August 5, 2013

LONDON — It looked like a burger. It smelled like a burger. It tasted, well, almost like a burger.

The first lab-grown beef hamburger was cooked and eaten in London on Monday. “We proved it’s possible,” said scientist Mark Post, who created the cultured minced meat in his lab at Maastricht University in the Netherlands. He said his hope is to come up with a new and environmentally friendly way to feed the world.

The scene in Riverside Studios in West London, where the event took place, looked like something you might see on a TV cooking show: There was a fake kitchen counter, a tiny sink, a single burner and, of course, a chef — Richard McGeown, who has worked with such culinary stars as Gordon Ramsay.

The five-ounce burger patty — which cost more than $330,000 to produce and was paid for by Google co-founder Sergey Brin — arrived under a silver dome and was promptly put onto a pan to sizzle with a dab of butter and a splash of sunflower oil. The smells that drifted off toward the audience (a few invited journalists and scientists) were subtle but unmistakably meaty.

More: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/lab-grown-beef-taste-test-almost-like-a-burger/2013/08/05/921a5996-fdf4-11e2-96a8-d3b921c0924a_story.html

I'd eat it if the price was reasonable. There are a lot of recipes I used to make when ground beef was cheap that I no longer make. If I'm going to eat beef at the price it is now and knowing the environmental costs, I want it to be something special. But if I was just using it as a way to boost protein, something like this lab grown meat would be just fine.

In the article, one of the test tasters made a comment, "The surface was surprisingly crunchy." Obviously that person does not understand that the surface is created by how the product is cooked. For some of the recipes I used to put ground beef in, browning the meat before putting it in a casserole was important - otherwise the end result was mushy. I'm sure the same is true of the lab grown meat.

[HuckleB]

28. Yeah, and that was three years ago. It's likely better now.

The price has certainly come down since then.

[csziggy]

62. I'm sure you are right - cheaper and better with the additional time

For research and development. I bet they can even get it to be red without adding beet juice.

[brooklynite]

33. Does the $330,000 price come with fries?

[csziggy]

61. I'm not sure it came with a bun, lettuce or pickles! n/t

[Warpy]

40. Right, it will start with the film star crowd and the jet set hangers-on

who want to be all anti cruelty and vegan but have no clue how to go about it and would miss their meat too much.

The texture problem won't be a serious one if some of the non meat products out there already are any indication. Quorn has done a fantastic fake chicken for years and even meat cravers find Boca Burgers satisfying. I do think the product will first be used in processed foods as a substitute for ground or slurried "meat" of dubious origin, like the stuff they put into McNuggets.

My prediction is cruelty free nuggets and burgers in platinum packaging for the conspicuous consumption bunch, to be followed by mass production for the rest of us.

[trotsky]

46. Like it or not, meat is a food source packed with nutrients that a lot of people love.

Yet raising livestock for slaughter is one of our most energy-intensive and environmentally harmful activities. Vegans trying to shame everyone into giving up meat hasn't worked, so why not find a better way to produce it? One that takes away all the negative aspects?

I don't understand people who think we can't do this, or that the final product will never be as good as the "real thing." (Even though it *IS* the real thing, real muscle/fat/etc. cells.)

[Humanist_Activist]

49. True, not to mention that it would eliminate the externalities and health risks of currently...

produced meat.

Less risk of e coli contamination from improperly slaughtered and cut up meat, no risk of using factory farms anymore, because they become breeding grounds for antibiotic resistant bacteria. No risk of low grade antibiotics entering the human food chain, causing the same breeding grounds in our population, etc.

[trotsky]

58. All very good points. n/t

[longship]

53. But maybe then vegans can learn the awesomeness of bacon.

Just kidding.

But seriously. What would be a vegan's response to meat not produced by harming any animal?

As I am an omnivore, I cannot answer that question.

[HockeyMom]

54. Some of us simply don't like the TASTE of meat

I am not a Vegan or Vegetarian. Only way I can eat meat is to disguise the taste of it with a lot of seasonings and sauces. Been like this since childhood in the 50's. What is the obsession with BACON? I can take or leave it, unless it is cooked in with something else.

[Humanist_Activist]

56. Bacon is delicious, but that's a subjective response, you don't like it, and that's fine...

people have different tastes, some of it can even be objectively measured, which is fascinating from a neurological standpoint.

A classic example would be why some people can't stand cilantro, to many, it tastes like soap.

[longship]

57. Bacon is awesome. But it apparently is not your deal.

No worries. Myself, I cannot wait for guilt free meat.

In the meantime I will eat the guilty type of meat.

[HuckleB]

60. I suspect there will be many debates among vegan/vegetarian communities.

[aikoaiko]

66. I'll eat it if I can afford it and it tastes good.

[HuckleB]

67. That's where I'm at, too.

[ebayfool]

69. Gulp ...