Test-Tube Burgers????

[JK47]

You are my hero!

Me too! Hoorah!!!!!!! I'm grateful you spoke up!

Thanks guys. Sorry I get heated over this topic. I will try not to be the cause of getting locked though.

What they served isn't, of course, ready for prime time but represents a huge achievement and step toward sustainable meat production.

Would I eat version 1.0? Nope. That's really not the point!

For many reasons, I really hope that this is an area of continued public-private funding going forward.

As an aside, at least this is 100% meat - about 64% more than the "beef" used by Taco Bell: http://jezebel.com/5742413/this-is-what-really-hides-in-taco-bells-beef

Matt

Matt,

While I agree this is a huge step forward in something with good intentions, I do not see the end game in the same light. If there is one thing we should all know is that if there is money behind something, there is money in front of it. The idea of being able to control the main protein source of foods is something worth untold amounts of money (insert GMO's here) and something our country simply cannot resist from a corporation standpoint. If there is money at stake the advancements will move forward and the end game will be profit, not sustaining anything.

Like MN_Rebel said we have plenty of ferrel creatures we can cook up and ship off to starving countries if needs be but there is no money in that.. So it is not be pursued even though it would be helping our own ecosystems and doing something we already do (providing food aid elsewhere in the world). I too see the local small businesses and farmers suffering in the end.

This is every reason why my house has converted to organic and local foods if at all possible.. Even this is not 100% healthy but it is better than what my most hated corporation (our very own FDA) approves for my family to consume.

 

[MN_Rebel]

That's why I rarely buy any beef from the stores since I usually kept one steer each year before sell the rest of calves to the salebarn. Nothing beats a home raised beef that is free of "stuff". To be fair, most people on welfare are obesity that probably buy more junk foods and fast foods (real beef is too expensive for them). Not mentioned that there are lot of people that will sell you a freezer beef that is home raised on their farm.

I don't buy that the world is in crisis that the food supply is low. The government just choose to not help out and put more restrictions and regulations on the foods. That's why horse slaughter are illegal in United States and we are not allowed to donate deer, wild waterfowl and feral hogs to the society due to the "diseases" the wild animals have. Even most carps are used as fertilizers or just dump out in the fields instead of become a food fish to the poor countries. Heck invasive lionfish and snakeheads are not allowed to be harvested by commercial fishermen.

At last some people in Africa donated the elephant meat to poor/tribal people during culling process on overpopulated elephants and in Japan some people found a way to deal with the giant jellyfish invasion by eat them.

 

[petspoiler]

That's why I rarely buy any beef from the stores since I usually kept one steer each year before sell the rest of calves to the salebarn. Nothing beats a home raised beef that is free of "stuff". To be fair, most people on welfare are obesity that probably buy more junk foods and fast foods (real beef is too expensive for them). Not mentioned that there are lot of people that will sell you a freezer beef that is home raised on their farm.

I don't buy that the world is in crisis that the food supply is low. The government just choose to not help out and put more restrictions and regulations on the foods. That's why horse slaughter are illegal in United States and we are not allowed to donate deer, wild waterfowl and feral hogs to the society due to the "diseases" the wild animals have. Even most carps are used as fertilizers or just dump out in the fields instead of become a food fish to the poor countries. Heck invasive lionfish and snakeheads are not allowed to be harvested by commercial fishermen.

..

quoted for Truth.

 

[dogofwar]

Like it or not, corporations already control much of our food supply - meat, corn, soybeans, etc. Processed food is also a huge part of our food chain. I don't consider pink-slime-composed "chicken" nuggets any more or less natural than this stuff. Nor Taco Bell "beef" or the other stuff that composes the bulk of the American diet.

I'm also a big advocate of eating locally and I'm not a vegetarian. But I do care about the environment.

The big difference between test-tube beef and that which is farmed is the impact on the environment. Livestock accounts for 18% of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions, more than the entire transportation sector (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772&Cr=global&Cr1=environment#.UgVv1dLMCSo).

Meat is simply a huge, huge contributor to climate change, and it’s only going to get bigger as the billions of people in emerging economies begin demanding the meat-heavy diets they associate with wealth.

So would the availability of (a better version) of test-tube meat preclude the availability of the traditional stuff on the market? Nope. Could it shift market share from farmed beef and other meats? Absolutely, especially if it becomes cost effective and a version that is tastier... I say let consumers decide.

Our government (i.e. taxpayers) massively subsidize our agriculture industry, producers and processors large and small.

While this supports jobs, I don't see what the emergence and growth of a private test-tube meat industry couldn't both reduce the need for me to support farmers and agri-business with my tax dollars and reduce the negative impacts on the environment...

Matt

Thanks guys. Sorry I get heated over this topic. I will try not to be the cause of getting locked though.



Matt,

While I agree this is a huge step forward in something with good intentions, I do not see the end game in the same light. If there is one thing we should all know is that if there is money behind something, there is money in front of it. The idea of being able to control the main protein source of foods is something worth untold amounts of money (insert GMO's here) and something our country simply cannot resist from a corporation standpoint. If there is money at stake the advancements will move forward and the end game will be profit, not sustaining anything.

Like MN_Rebel said we have plenty of ferrel creatures we can cook up and ship off to starving countries if needs be but there is no money in that.. So it is not be pursued even though it would be helping our own ecosystems and doing something we already do (providing food aid elsewhere in the world). I too see the local small businesses and farmers suffering in the end.

This is every reason why my house has converted to organic and local foods if at all possible.. Even this is not 100% healthy but it is better than what my most hated corporation (our very own FDA) approves for my family to consume.

 

[MN_Rebel]

If I remembered correctly, it was the crops that destroyed most environments and required more acres than the animals. Somehow I don't buy that it was meat that was solely responsible for the greenhouse effect if you look at the urban areas and the factories.

Funny thing is that the vegetarians said that they would eat the test-tube burgers but won't touch any GM vegetables/fruits. Hypocrites!

To dogofwar: No offense Matt but it seems that you are cherry picking on the "facts" on the subject and you are losing the debate.

 

[dogofwar]

Who made either of those claims (that meat was solely responsible for the greenhouse effect or that vegetarians (collectively) have decided that test-tube meat is good to eat?

I think you're making things up...

Matt

If I remembered correctly, it was the crops that destroyed most environments and required more acres than the animals. Somehow I don't buy that it was meat that was solely responsible for the greenhouse effect if you look at the urban areas and the factories.

Funny thing is that the vegetarians said that they would eat the test-tube burgers but won't touch any GM vegetables/fruits. Hypocrites!

 

[MN_Rebel]

Who made either of those claims (that meat was solely responsible for the greenhouse effect or that vegetarians (collectively) have decided that test-tube meat is good to eat?

I think you're making things up...

Matt

Matt, I hate to say this to you but it seems that you are getting your facts from the computer then cherry picking out the facts to support your arguments. And I just called you out on your knowledge on the cattle industry few posts ago. Really? Meat is hugely responsible for the greenhouse effect? And nobody said about the urban areas, gas from the vehicles or the smoke from the factories which can be responsible for the greenhouse effect as well? You don't think the croplands cannot destroying the environment, do you?

 

[dogofwar]

From the report that I linked above:

Cattle-rearing generates more global warming greenhouse gases, as measured in CO2 equivalent, than transportation, and smarter production methods, including improved animal diets to reduce enteric fermentation and consequent methane emissions, are urgently needed, according to a new United Nations report released today.

“Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems,” senior UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) official Henning Steinfeld said. “Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.”

Cattle-rearing is also a major source of land and water degradation, according to the FAO report, Livestock’s Long Shadow–Environmental Issues and Options, of which Mr. Steinfeld is the senior author.

“The environmental costs per unit of livestock production must be cut by one half, just to avoid the level of damage worsening beyond its present level,” it warns.

When emissions from land use and land use change are included, the livestock sector accounts for 9 per cent of CO2 deriving from human-related activities, but produces a much larger share of even more harmful greenhouse gases. It generates 65 per cent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure.

And it accounts for respectively 37 per cent of all human-induced methane (23 times as warming as CO2), which is largely produced by the digestive system of ruminants, and 64 per cent of ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain.

With increased prosperity, people are consuming more meat and dairy products every year, the report notes. Global meat production is projected to more than double from 229 million tonnes in 1999/2001 to 465 million tonnes in 2050, while milk output is set to climb from 580 to 1043 million tonnes.

The global livestock sector is growing faster than any other agricultural sub-sector.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772&Cr=global&Cr1=environment#.UgV5ZdLMCSp

Of course, Coal-fired power plants are also a HUGE source of pollution... and I'm all for promoting cleaner sources of energy!

Matt

Matt, I hate to say this to you but it seems that you are getting your facts from the computer then cherry picking out the facts to support your arguments. And I just called you out on your knowledge on the cattle industry few posts ago. Really? Meat is hugely responsible for the greenhouse effect? And nobody said about the urban areas, gas from the vehicles or the smoke from the factories which can be responsible for the greenhouse effect as well? You don't think the croplands cannot destroying the environment, do you?

 

[aclockworkorange]

There you go, eat test tube meat and drive hybrids and save the world!


Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app

 

[MN_Rebel]

But I don't see you make an argument about the croplands which also is huge responsible for habitat destruction and they are also responsible for the extinction of rare species. http://www.organicauthority.com/blo...d-destroys-80-percent-of-species-study-finds/

http://worldinfo.org/2012/01/food-for-thought-soybean-endangers-brazil-amazon-rainforest/

http://prezi.com/vooulnu_1pld/cropland-expansion-destroying-tropical-rainforests/

I could keep cherry picking out these just like you do as I said before.

As I said before, why would they create a test-tube beef if we have high supply of food (beef or not) available to us? Should we trust these people that create this product in the lab next to chemicals, bio-hazards, etc? Most of us won't touch a GM vegetable or a GM salmon and I really seriously doubt that this test tube beef will make to United States due to the regulations.