Lab grown meat approved for use in the UK

digitalscream

DefaultM said:

Snap said:

WYNIR0 said:

Assuming that the requisite safety tests are completed I'd be perfectly happy to eat lab grown meat. Ethically and ecologically I see it as a very good thing indeed.

One question I have yet to get a clear answer to. Can Vegetarians and Vegans eat Lab grown meat?

For me, I don't think I would eat it. I'd have to think more about it and read up on it, but after so long not eating flesh, the idea of eating it again turns me over a bit. On the odd occasion where I've accidentally eaten meat, it has a very pungent taste, and made me feel spewy. 

I’ve been thinking about this as well and I don’t really know what the point would be.
I’ve eaten more than my fair share of real meat, I’ve decided I don’t want to anymore and I’ve moved on. I can’t really imagine there are people out there that have chosen not to eat it anymore but have been pining for a 100% realistic alternative? 

It seems more of a thing for people who want to continue eating meat but are thinking of the environment.

Well, it really depends on the reason for going vegetarian in the first place.

For those like my wife, who simply don't like meat, this isn't going to move the needle.

For people who don't eat meat solely on ethical grounds, this might allow them to eat meat with a clear conscience. It could be particularly helpful for people who regularly have an iron deficiency (maybe once a month, without putting too fine a point on it...).

For people somewhere in the middle...who knows?

The question is...how is somebody going to be able to tell at the point of eating, say at a restaurant?

DefaultM

How are they getting the animal cells? I think for people not eating on ethical grounds it’s going to be a struggle to convince them the animals aren’t being exploited. Definitely if it’s coming from an animal that is then killed for food later.

Sporky

Mattharrier said:

Sporky said:

fretmeister said:

It's why asbestos litigation (and others things) has a an effective cut off date: can't sue if it was old enough (sometime in the 1950s, Can't remember the exact date) as nobody on earth knew there was a problem with it.

The ancient Egyptians knew that asbestos workers often died younger with breathing problems. 

Do you have a source for that?

Doh! 

It was the ancient Greeks, not the Egyptians. My apologies. The Romans also knew of a link between asbestos work and lung disease. 

Fer example:

https://www.historyhit.com/inextinguishable-the-history-of-asbestos/

WezV

DefaultM said:

How are they getting the animal cells? I think for people not eating on ethical grounds it’s going to be a struggle to convince them the animals aren’t being exploited. Definitely if it’s coming from an animal that is then killed for food later.

We have a situation where a large number of animals are exploited on a daily basis.  We can potentially end that ongoing exploitation of a large number, by exploiting a small number of animals in a different way now.

I think the ethics of this part are pretty clear.

But I guess the choice for vegetarians and vegans would be whether this product still requires the ongoing exploitation of a small number of animals, or whether the exploitation is an input to a process that has helped ensure no ongoing exploitation.

digitalscream

DefaultM said:

How are they getting the animal cells? I think for people not eating on ethical grounds it’s going to be a struggle to convince them the animals aren’t being exploited. Definitely if it’s coming from an animal that is then killed for food later.

In a world where the animals are reared for genetic health in order to supply the new growing-meat-factories, there's a inbuilt incentive to ensure that the animals are genetically diverse and live long, healthy lives...and they'll become more individually-valuable as a result. I doubt very much that they'd ever be killed for food later at all, and it will be in the farmers' own financial interests to have a non-lethal method of extracting the template cells. I'd imagine that it'll be a case of grabbing stem cells - and there are a number of ways of doing that these days. I believe there's even one which involves passing blood through a stem cell filter as it's extracted from one part of the body and returned in another; it doesn't necessarily need to be a painful procedure like bone marrow extraction.

It depends on the nature of the ethical objections, I guess. If someone's of the "we should never have anything to do with anything that's ever come from an animal" persuasion, they'll still have a problem with it. Otherwise, if it's just "I don't want animals to be killed so I can enjoy a burger", this will solve the problem.

DefaultM

That would be great but I just can’t see it catching on to that level.

Sometimes I imagine that the universe is just in a shoe box in someone’s cupboard.
They open the lid and think “right, I’ve got this all working together perfectly and I’m a bit bored now. I wonder what would happen if I put a species on this planet that’s clever enough to understand how it’s all working together, but they’re a bit selfish and greedy”.
A week later they open the shoe box and they go “haha wooooah they’re chopping down the trees even though they know that they help them breathe and that they need to be able to breathe to carry on living”.

Then a bit later “ah they’re all dead. That’s funny. Better put it back together again without them”.

Mattharrier

Sporky said:

Mattharrier said:

Sporky said:

fretmeister said:

It's why asbestos litigation (and others things) has a an effective cut off date: can't sue if it was old enough (sometime in the 1950s, Can't remember the exact date) as nobody on earth knew there was a problem with it.

The ancient Egyptians knew that asbestos workers often died younger with breathing problems. 

Do you have a source for that?

Doh! 

It was the ancient Greeks, not the Egyptians. My apologies. The Romans also knew of a link between asbestos work and lung disease. 

Fer example:

https://www.historyhit.com/inextinguishable-the-history-of-asbestos/

Thanks, that is interesting. Not quite the same as knowing what we now know, but clearly some people recognised something was going on.

ICBM

Mattharrier said:

Thanks, that is interesting. Not quite the same as knowing what we now know, but clearly some people recognised something was going on.

I was reading something a while ago about lime kiln workers during WWI. An entire lime works had to shut down in about 1915 because all the workers had joined up en masse to fight… on the grounds that they thought it would improve their life expectancy. They may not have known why it was killing them, but they certainly knew it was.

Kurtis

I'm still trying to get my head round what lab grown meat actually is.

Is it just a lump of protein? Similar to "fake" meat/meat substitute? 
It's not going to look like a nice tbone anyway. 
Is it about the texture/feel? 

What about all the other trace elements you get in real meat? Vitamins, minerals etc.
Fat?

Suppose it should have less (no) heavy metals or other nasties though.
Although it could be open to contamination. It doesn't have an immune system like an animal! 



Also, seems it's not really* sustainable, or environmentally friendly, anyway. At the moment.


*no where near. 

ICBM

Kurtis said:

I'm still trying to get my head round what lab grown meat actually is.

Is it just a lump of protein? Similar to "fake" meat/meat substitute?

No - it's artificially grown muscle tissue.

https://www.newscientist.com/definition/lab-grown-meat/#:~:text=Lab-grown muscle tissue is,form fibres of muscle tissue.

Kurtis said:

It's not going to look like a nice tbone anyway. 

Not quite, it will be much more uniform - but similar to some parts of one.

Kurtis said:

What about all the other trace elements you get in real meat? Vitamins, minerals etc.
Fat?

Not there, unless added. That's definitely an issue, although probably solvable.

Kurtis said:

Suppose it should have less (no) heavy metals or other nasties though.

That's one of the big advantages.

Kurtis said:

Also, seems it's not really* sustainable, or environmentally friendly, anyway. At the moment.

*no where near. 

Why not, and in what way? Inherently, or in comparison to livestock farming?

Livestock farming, especially for beef, is one of the most environmentally damaging activities humans do, so it would have to be *exceptionally* bad to be worse than that.

I'm not an expert by the way - I just know what the basic process is.

And yes, I would eat it if it tastes good and has no known health issues. I may not give up eating 'real' meat as well though.

EricTheWeary

Kurtis said:

I'm still trying to get my head round what lab grown meat actually is.

Is it just a lump of protein? Similar to "fake" meat/meat substitute? 
It's not going to look like a nice tbone anyway. 
Is it about the texture/feel? 

What about all the other trace elements you get in real meat? Vitamins, minerals etc.
Fat?

Suppose it should have less (no) heavy metals or other nasties though.
Although it could be open to contamination. It doesn't have an immune system like an animal! 



Also, seems it's not really* sustainable, or environmentally friendly, anyway. At the moment.


*no where near. 

At the moment (cause I read the article) it’s slurry. So you could use it as an ingredient in pet food (the current intention) or sausages or burgers something like that. Mouth feel would probably be something like porridge I guess but it isn’t really intended to be eaten in it’s basic state. I’m not sure what it even tastes of. 

Kittyfrisk

The problem is that the original article is referring to lab grown meat destined for pet food. 
Discussion here has reasonably been more broadly relating to 'in vitro' meat replacements suitable for human consumption.
Not the same thing at all by a very long way, unless individuals are happy lumping it all together for convenience?

WezV

Kittyfrisk said:

The problem is that the original article is referring to lab grown meat destined for pet food. 
Discussion here has reasonably been more broadly relating to 'in vitro' meat replacements suitable for human consumption.
Not the same thing at all by a very long way, unless individuals are happy lumping it all together for convenience?

I think it is mainly discussion around where this goes, not where it is at now.

At the moment they can make lab grown slurry.  I doubt many of us will eat that, but what does the future hold.

Just look at how far other meat substitutes have come in the last 30 years yo try and imagine what this slurry will be soon

BillDL

Eating insects is the way forward.  I like a bit of crunch to my food.  Of course, insects could easily be used to bulk out the lab-grown slurry.

Adey

Yum!

Kittyfrisk

WezV said:

Kittyfrisk said:

The problem is that the original article is referring to lab grown meat destined for pet food. 
Discussion here has reasonably been more broadly relating to 'in vitro' meat replacements suitable for human consumption.
Not the same thing at all by a very long way, unless individuals are happy lumping it all together for convenience?

I think it is mainly discussion around where this goes, not where it is at now.

At the moment they can make lab grown slurry.  I doubt many of us will eat that, but what does the future hold.

Just look at how far other meat substitutes have come in the last 30 years yo try and imagine what this slurry will be soon

At present they can already produce far more sophisticated products.
https://www.3dbiotissues.com/
https://gfi.org/science/the-science-of-cultivated-meat/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lab-grown-meat-approved-for-sale-what-you-need-to-know/

The continued use of pejorative terms like 'slurry' really doesn't help the discussion 

Kurtis

BillDL said:

Eating insects is the way forward.  I like a bit of crunch to my food.  Of course, insects could easily be used to bulk out the lab-grown slurry.

Indeed. 

Kurtis

ICBM said:

Kurtis said:

I'm still trying to get my head round what lab grown meat actually is.

Is it just a lump of protein? Similar to "fake" meat/meat substitute?

No - it's artificially grown muscle tissue.

https://www.newscientist.com/definition/lab-grown-meat/#:~:text=Lab-grown muscle tissue is,form fibres of muscle tissue.

Kurtis said:

It's not going to look like a nice tbone anyway. 

Not quite, it will be much more uniform - but similar to some parts of one.

Kurtis said:

What about all the other trace elements you get in real meat? Vitamins, minerals etc.
Fat?

Not there, unless added. That's definitely an issue, although probably solvable.

Kurtis said:

Suppose it should have less (no) heavy metals or other nasties though.

That's one of the big advantages.

Kurtis said:

Also, seems it's not really* sustainable, or environmentally friendly, anyway. At the moment.

*no where near. 

Why not, and in what way? Inherently, or in comparison to livestock farming?

Livestock farming, especially for beef, is one of the most environmentally damaging activities humans do, so it would have to be *exceptionally* bad to be worse than that.

I'm not an expert by the way - I just know what the basic process is.

And yes, I would eat it if it tastes good and has no known health issues. I may not give up eating 'real' meat as well though.

I don't know the details but have, quickly, read that atm the carbon footprint is worse than the way meat is currently made. 

Apparently the "special sauce" they use to grow it in is overly expensive too. 

Kurtis

You say it isn't just a lump of protein, but is that not what it is basically, a source of protein? That's essentially what meat is. Except good real meat has lots of other  beneficial properties. 

If you add other nutrients it just seems a bit like deconstructing meat then trying to put it all together again.



I wouldn't not eat it especially, but I don't eat a lot of meat anyway and I wouldn't go out my way to eat more of this. I'd probably just give up at that point 

ICBM

Kurtis said:

I don't know the details but have, quickly, read that atm the carbon footprint is worse than the way meat is currently made.

It's not just the carbon footprint of farming itself, it's the destruction of rainforest, temperate forest and savannah to make room for cattle ranching - that has far more serious long-term consequences. We *must* move away from this model of meat production if we're going to have any hope of tackling deforestation - especially in South America - and the potential tipping point that it may cause.

Kurtis said:

If you add other nutrients it just seems a bit like deconstructing meat then trying to put it all together again.

Yes, but if it gives the right result without actually having the animals I don't see why that matters.