In Vitro
PETA has announced a $1 Million Reward for the first scientist to produce and market in vitro meat.
“In vitro meat production would use animal stem cells that would be placed in a medium to grow and reproduce. The result would mimic flesh and could be cooked and eaten.”
Would you eat it?
PETA’s argument for in vitro meat is that it would stop animal suffering, and lessen the affect that harvesting animals has on our environment. They also added as a disclaimer – “Of course, humans don’t need to eat meat at all… But as many people continue to refuse to kick their meat addictions, PETA is willing to help them gain access to flesh that doesn’t cause suffering and death.”
I think this is a very interesting idea. But besides all the political BS that it incurs, I wonder, would carnivorous humans go for this? If it cost the same, and tasted the same, looked the same…
Would you eat it?
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Today’s Idiom: to go up in smoke – to come to no practical result
My plan to exercise 3 days a week went up in smoke when I kept getting home late from work. But I’m going to figure out a way to work exercise into my schedule. I have to.
Themocracy
Uh….EW! No, I wouldn’t eat it. But I’m not a big fan of meat anyway. But still. EW!
Exercise – you gotta do it in the morning. You sound like me, by the evening I have too much brain power dedicated to WHY I can’t possibly work out now. 😉
I have to work out in the morning, or it will not happen at all. However, I’m lucky to have a super flexible schedule at work, so getting in later in the morning is ok.
i read that article and even though i am a meat eater i don’t know about all of that… the whole idea is still unsettling… i’d have to give that some serious thought!!!
yeah, i’ve been trying to make myself walk after work and that’s not going so well… i may have to start walking in the mornings but that means getting up earlier and i’m not so much a morning person… i have to start doing something though!!!
🙂
PETA’s concept to offer a $1 million reward is ridiculous. Chances are someone would have to spend $1 billion trying to create the substitute for a menial reward. Then, even if it did come to fruition, who will purchase it? People are leery of genetically modified corn and all that does is change a single gene to keep insects from eating the crop – and that makes it unnatural. How many people will crave chicken produced in a petri dish?
I’m not much of a PETA supporter. So, ummm, I’m not sure I really support their efforts. However, I’m pretty sure imitation meat is called SPAM and I’m not sure I’ll ever eat that.
ugh. I’d rather turn vegetarian again than eat fake meat.
There was an episode of Eureka last year in which a character cloned chicken thighs and breasts for food without killing the original chicken. There were problems, of course, but I thought it was a cool idea.
‘In vitro” meat doesn’t sound appetizing with that name, but I’d consider it after reading a lot of research on it.
Kyra – I used to love to get up early and work out. But now I get up at 5:30 already and feel exhausted all day. I wish I could come in to work later.
Jenn – Maybe someday I’ll have a job like that… 😉
CourtneyInControl – Unsettling is probably a good work to describe it.
Andrew – I kind of wondered if $1 Million would be enough. And I doubt people would eat it.
Nilsa S. – I never tried SPAM but I’ve heard about how awful it is.
*lynne* – Hmm, maybe it will come to that? Just kidding!
As an omnivore with carnivorous tendencies with a paucity of nice things to say of PETA, I think that:
* as long as at least a couple years of rigorous longitudinal study are performed on a reasonably-large and representative sample of people or animals consuming artificially-produced meat were performed and show no significantly-different (or, especially, significantly-worse) health effects compared to regular meat, and
* assuming the taste is similar, and
* the price is not *too* much higher (after allowing for some period of for production costs to be recouped and the commoditization of the artificial meat to set-in through increasingly-broad consumption and the economies-of-scale that come with the larger producers that would arise to meet the rising market demand)
…sure, I’d eat it. Assuming all things could actually be, and are, equal – then absolutely I’d make the switch.
I’m happy to see PETA offering such a prize and (for once) taking such a reasonable stance: after all, their stated (and understandable, and agreeable IMO) concern is for the welfare of living animals. Removing the need for a living animal in the first place undercuts the animal-rights argument entirely, and likewise undercuts the carnivorous argument that we can’t replace a serving of dead meat on our plate.
Of course, there are still other perfectly-reasonable fine health-related reasons not to eat meat (reasons that I’m just too lazy to follow and have too much of an acquired taste for meat to give up)…
My main concern about artificial foods in general (whether test-tube meat or genetically-modified plants) is for their long-term health effects. I suspect those are nearly impossible to test, and by the time they’re discovered, they’re easily-dismissed through the fog of time and lost memories/insufficient or incomplete data and/or the people or organizations responsible are no longer available to face the blame (and so, under that expectation, have no incentive to care about the long-term effects when creating and selling the product).
Yet, there are some things mankind simply has to experiment with (quite a few people throughout history had to figure out that the things we eat are safe and enjoyable! So too must we, if our preferences are going to continue to change)… :-/
Something about the description is just not sitting well with me. This one will have to stew a while (heee-heee-hee) while I think a bit more…
Spam is not fake meat. It’s just made from the scraps of “nicer” cuts. It tastes pretty much like most canned hams, and is a very popular food in Hawaii. Really.
In vitro meat wouldn’t be “fake meat” any more than in vitro conceptions result in fake humans. It would be “alternately grown” meat. But how would it taste? The quality and flavor of meat/poultry is a result of how that creature *lived* – what it ate, how active it was, etc. A hunk of meat grown in a container in a sterile environment sounds pretty yucky to me. And think of all the chemicals! Creepy.
BIG P.S.!!!
The plants sold as “lucky bamboo” are NOT true bamboo. They are dracaena sanderiana, and are TOXIC to pets. Please keep it away from Data!
E – Perfectly said. I think it is great that they are taking this step, but I realize, like you, that they are a long way off from getting it right. And even if they do, not everyone will be as open about it as you. EVEN though, like you said, people in history have had to go through this before.
Lumpy – I think this will have to sit awhile with A LOT of people 🙂
SJ – When I wrote the Spam comment I was thinking about how everyone liked it in Aruba! I have no idea what it is like, but like I said, it seems to have a bad rep! But isn;t it about the same as a hot dog? You bring up such a good point about “fake humans” vs. “fake meat”! I bet the meat would have to have a lot of chemicals, in attempt to emulate “living,” like you said… you know, our society might go to this someday, but probably not for a long time. And thanks for the heads up! I worry each time I get a plant if it is okay for my fur baby 🙂