Scientists in the Netherlands succeeded in ‘growing’ meat from stam cells that in the foreseeable future will be approved for consumption … no more animal farms and abattoirs, just sterile meat growing plants …
yeh, this is a pretty good idea, but its gonna taste like shit because the problem is that, the reason meat generally tastes good is the oils and fats present in them, at the moment thats the biggest challenge for them.
How is it good news for vegetarians? I’m veggie in significant part because I think meat tastes disgusting, in additon to my moral issues. Growing it in a plant wouldn’t change that part for me. For the animals, I guess it is a good thing, but it adds significantly to the industrialization and artificialization of our food production system. Historically speaking, neither has been a good thing for the healthfulness of food or the populations that consume it.
I like eating meat but would much prefer it if animals were not killed to produce it! So I guess this is a good idea at least in theory.
That’s you … but many vegetarians just don’t eat meat because animals are killed for it … and the way they are growing it is on a base of sugar, fungi(yeasts) and water … some of the same ingredients used in in making wine, beer, bread … plus it can be produced in a sterile environment … tastes the same, it’s healthier, less fat, no salmonella and other bad bugs etc …
One drawback, they can’t grow a steak or chop yet, it will look like ground meat … so basically being used in burgers and meat sauces … which is a good thing and good news for animals …
This will be great for the environment if they can do it in large quantities. Right now there are a few places where companies clear cut for room for cattle. And the methane cows produce. Yuck.
[quote=“SuchAFob”]This will be great for the environment if they can do it in large quantities. Right now there are a few places where companies clear cut for room for cattle. And the methane cows produce. Yuck.[/quote]Apparently each cow/bull doesn’t produce 90 cars’ worth of greenhouse gases per year, as previously thought. It’s more like 10 cars’ worth. Still quite a lot though, and as you say there are other environmental consequences due to all the land that cattle need.
If they could produce enough meat for the fastfood and TV-dinners it would be already a significant reduction in animal suffering, land and don’t forget labour abuse …
And it isn’t like people who eat fast food or tv dinners care much about flavor or quality.
Veggers are such a compassionate, understanding and accepting group… :hungry:
I gues that meat would be litle healthy.
Something inside me just scream that annything made in a laberatory will damage the body.
It’s your choice … kill the meat and eat or grow the meat and eat it …
Lot’s of food is ‘made’ in a laboratory … cooking is chemistry …
BP -
A Guy named, I think, Alton Brown, has or had a cooking show on TV in the USA that was based on cooking as chemistry.
Pretty interesting show.
If you don’t need pigs for food, then what will be the point in keeping them ?
They will go extinct won’t they, after all why would people keep pigs if they didn’t need to eat them ?
Well apart from the odd pet craze.
Domestic animals exist only because we needed them.
If we don’t need them them there will be no use for them. Well may be a few as pets. But this is a bad day for pigs.
On Dec. 10 of last year, the environment editor of U.K.'s Independent Online posted a report from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), asserting that “the world’s top destroyer of the environment is not the car, or the plane, or even George Bush: It is the cow.”
On Dec. 10 of last year, the environment editor of U.K.'s Independent Online posted a report from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), asserting that “the world’s top destroyer of the environment is not the car, or the plane, or even George Bush: It is the cow.”[/quote]Interesting. I wonder whether they posted that before or after the research that produced the results I mentioned.
On Dec. 10 of last year, the environment editor of U.K.'s Independent Online posted a report from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), asserting that “the world’s top destroyer of the environment is not the car, or the plane, or even George Bush: It is the cow.”[/quote]Interesting. I wonder whether they posted that before or after the research that produced the results I mentioned.[/quote]
I think they are talking about slash and burn in the amazon.
Mc Donalds were critized for that as i remember. Clearing large tracts of the amazon for catttle farms.
There will still be animals needed as they can’t grow steaks and chops or prime ribs yet …
But that is still a much smaller amount.
And (responding to someone else) I don’t see how it would be a problem for the domesticated animals to become much much much fewer. They aren’t really natural animals anyways. They are the product of 100s of years of domestication. A cow is no longer the animal it was supposed to be. Nor is a pig. Or even a dog, for that case.
But that is still a much smaller amount.
And (responding to someone else) I don’t see how it would be a problem for the domesticated animals to become much much much fewer. They aren’t really natural animals anyways. They are the product of 100s of years of domestication. A cow is no longer the animal it was supposed to be. Nor is a pig. Or even a dog, for that case.[/quote]
PETA by any chance ?