Lab grown meat approved for use in the UK

RaymondLin

stickyfiddle said:

As for Huel, I think it's horrible and don't want to go down that road personally, but that's because I like cooking and I like eating food, and I like the social element that comes from cooking for and eating with friends. But I'm not going to suggest it's not a viable choice for folks who don't feel the same way about food as I do.

I don't object to the existence of those drinks, I do strongly object the use of their slogan and advertising.  It is simply false.  20 years ago we thought fat was bad....are they are completely sure what they have now is complete...the arrogance of that just irks me.

I bet they will never back track and apologise to say their produce was not complete when they next bit of food science or medical research is revealed about our body and what it needs. 

fretmeister

stickyfiddle said:

As for Huel, I think it's horrible and don't want to go down that road personally, but that's because I like cooking and I like eating food, and I like the social element that comes from cooking for and eating with friends. But I'm not going to suggest it's not a viable choice for folks who don't feel the same way about food as I do.

I like food, I like to cook, I also like Huel (Black edition, Chocolate).

My father in law was pre-diabetic and was advised by his diabetes doctor to swap 2 meals for Huel and go really hard at trying to reverse the condition before it really took hold. He did. 2 Huels and a monster salad every day and at least an hour walking. It does help that he has amazing willpower.

He's no longer pre-diabetic.
He's still sticking with the same diet apart from Sundays as he likes a roast.
His blood work is now in great shape and he says he's feeling far younger than his years. He looks it too.

fretmeister

RaymondLin said:

stickyfiddle said:

As for Huel, I think it's horrible and don't want to go down that road personally, but that's because I like cooking and I like eating food, and I like the social element that comes from cooking for and eating with friends. But I'm not going to suggest it's not a viable choice for folks who don't feel the same way about food as I do.

I don't object to the existence of those drinks, I do strongly object the use of their slogan and advertising.  It is simply false.  20 years ago we thought fat was bad....are they are completely sure what they have now is complete...the arrogance of that just irks me.

I bet they will never back track and apologise to say their produce was not complete when they next bit of food science or medical research is revealed about our body and what it needs. 

So report them to the ASA and make them prove it.

They will however only be able to prove their claims based on current knowledge.

Nobody can be expected to predict what might be discovered in another 50 years and it would be more than a little unfair to demand an apology for something like that.

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.

Petepassion

RaymondLin said:

The key word is’IF’.

To these group of people, it's not IF, it's already there.

There is no ambiguity in their statement.  It is nutritionally complete  and everything your body needs.

Obviously I'm only talking from my own perspective and not 'Huel' and whatever they may claim.

I remember hearing Richard Dawkins boldly stating something along the lines of "the science world will understand everything within about twenty years"...even intelligent people can be incredibly arrogant...and naïve.

GoFish

fretmeister said:

RaymondLin said:

stickyfiddle said:

As for Huel, I think it's horrible and don't want to go down that road personally, but that's because I like cooking and I like eating food, and I like the social element that comes from cooking for and eating with friends. But I'm not going to suggest it's not a viable choice for folks who don't feel the same way about food as I do.

I don't object to the existence of those drinks, I do strongly object the use of their slogan and advertising.  It is simply false.  20 years ago we thought fat was bad....are they are completely sure what they have now is complete...the arrogance of that just irks me.

I bet they will never back track and apologise to say their produce was not complete when they next bit of food science or medical research is revealed about our body and what it needs. 

So report them to the ASA and make them prove it.

They will however only be able to prove their claims based on current knowledge.

Nobody can be expected to predict what might be discovered in another 50 years and it would be more than a little unfair to demand an apology for something like that.

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.

Yes, but there's a difference between new knowledge and extravagant claims. No one was out there claiming that asbestos would prolong life or anything. Though they were prescribing ciggies for kids and claiming 7 up was better than breastmilk for newborns. It was a wild time out there, in the past.

Which brings me on to my main point, these are not scientific claims - they are empty marketing lingo. "Complete" "Natural", "Lab"  "Health" don't mean what common sense might indicate. Load of our language has been corrupted like this.

As far as scienfitic unerstanding of nutrition goes, we have a long road yet to travel. BUT - We could survive just fine on milk + a handul of vitamins, if we were lactose tolerant.

TheMarlin

Petepassion said:

manicguitarist said:

Petepassion said:

manicguitarist said:

If you can't see how 100% processed food made in a factory is worse for you than 100% natural food - then I don't have a lot to add to this thread.

But for how long is this sustainable? And at what the price?

Well, it has been sustainable since time began. Despite what we're told - we are not a special generation.

The planet stays the same size throughout time, but the human race doesn’t, therefore not everything remains sustainable 

You give every human on the planet a piece of land big enough to grow all the food they would need, and still not fill Texas.  The planet will be fine. 

Petepassion

TheMarlin said:

Petepassion said:

manicguitarist said:

Petepassion said:

manicguitarist said:

If you can't see how 100% processed food made in a factory is worse for you than 100% natural food - then I don't have a lot to add to this thread.

But for how long is this sustainable? And at what the price?

Well, it has been sustainable since time began. Despite what we're told - we are not a special generation.

The planet stays the same size throughout time, but the human race doesn’t, therefore not everything remains sustainable 

You give every human on the planet a piece of land big enough to grow all the food they would need, and still not fill Texas.  The planet will be fine. 

If my calculations are correct(and they may very well not be lol), If you crammed the world population into Texas don't believe 85 square cm's is really enough space for livestock, fruit and veg...plus living accommodation.

fretmeister

TheMarlin said:

Petepassion said:

manicguitarist said:

Petepassion said:

manicguitarist said:

If you can't see how 100% processed food made in a factory is worse for you than 100% natural food - then I don't have a lot to add to this thread.

But for how long is this sustainable? And at what the price?

Well, it has been sustainable since time began. Despite what we're told - we are not a special generation.

The planet stays the same size throughout time, but the human race doesn’t, therefore not everything remains sustainable 

You give every human on the planet a piece of land big enough to grow all the food they would need, and still not fill Texas.  The planet will be fine. 

World Population Density 1950-2024 | MacroTrends

Current global population density is 60.31 people per square Kilometre. That would give each person 0.0165 Square Km. 

lustycourtier

TheMarlin said:

Petepassion said:

manicguitarist said:

Petepassion said:

manicguitarist said:

If you can't see how 100% processed food made in a factory is worse for you than 100% natural food - then I don't have a lot to add to this thread.

But for how long is this sustainable? And at what the price?

Well, it has been sustainable since time began. Despite what we're told - we are not a special generation.

The planet stays the same size throughout time, but the human race doesn’t, therefore not everything remains sustainable 

You give every human on the planet a piece of land big enough to grow all the food they would need, and still not fill Texas.  The planet will be fine. 

Utter nonsense. Do people just make up things like this and people believe it?

fretmeister

lustycourtier said:

TheMarlin said:

Petepassion said:

manicguitarist said:

Petepassion said:

manicguitarist said:

If you can't see how 100% processed food made in a factory is worse for you than 100% natural food - then I don't have a lot to add to this thread.

But for how long is this sustainable? And at what the price?

Well, it has been sustainable since time began. Despite what we're told - we are not a special generation.

The planet stays the same size throughout time, but the human race doesn’t, therefore not everything remains sustainable 

You give every human on the planet a piece of land big enough to grow all the food they would need, and still not fill Texas.  The planet will be fine. 

Utter nonsense. Do people just make up things like this and people believe it?

Yup. Took me under 20 seconds to check the pop density.

It's quite amazing how people just repeat that sort of claim without thinking about it - even when it is something very easily verifiable with a calculator.

The "Texas Fact" is even more silly than it first appears.

Texas has a total area of about 268,581 square miles (that includes lakes but I'll leave that as it is) - about 432,241 Square KM.

Today's estimate for population is 8,122,544,580

So 432,241 divided by the number of people on earth gives 0.0000532149741676 Square KM each.

Then convert that to something understandable...

That is 5.3 Square Centimetres each.

Not meters - centimetres.

EDIT - Irony of Ironies. I got my sums wrong slightly as explained by @crunchman below.

Ah well - happy to learn something.

Petepassion

^^^^^^Crikey, I was way off 

monquixote

Petepassion said:

RaymondLin said:

I remember hearing Richard Dawkins boldly stating something along the lines of "the science world will understand everything within about twenty years"...even intelligent people can be incredibly arrogant...and naïve.

Do you have a citation.
I'm fairly sure this is not true. 

No sane scientist would ever say this, it's basically anti the scientific principle. 

TheMarlin

Ok, fair enough, i made a mistake. 

Bit, if even if we spread people out a bit more, more land etc etc, still plenty of room left over in USA with every man woman and child on the planet placed there. 

Not that I’d want to live in the USA, the place is a cluster f*@k. 

monquixote

TheMarlin said:

Petepassion said:

manicguitarist said:

Petepassion said:

manicguitarist said:

If you can't see how 100% processed food made in a factory is worse for you than 100% natural food - then I don't have a lot to add to this thread.

But for how long is this sustainable? And at what the price?

Well, it has been sustainable since time began. Despite what we're told - we are not a special generation.

The planet stays the same size throughout time, but the human race doesn’t, therefore not everything remains sustainable 

You give every human on the planet a piece of land big enough to grow all the food they would need, and still not fill Texas.  The planet will be fine. 

That's about 0.16 of a acre per person assuming the whole thing was one solid block of farm land with no roads or other services etc.

I think that's well off. 

fretmeister

Petepassion said:

^^^^^^Crikey, I was way off 

I only did the sum because I thought yours was going to be close and I got curious.

It might be wrong, but it's a lot less wrong than Mr Marlin's maths.

Petepassion

monquixote said:

Petepassion said:

RaymondLin said:

I remember hearing Richard Dawkins boldly stating something along the lines of "the science world will understand everything within about twenty years"...even intelligent people can be incredibly arrogant...and naïve.

Do you have a citation.
I'm fairly sure this is not true. 

No sane scientist would ever say this, it's basically anti the scientific principle. 

I know, it sounds ridiculous, hence why it stuck with me. Unfortunately it was a clip on Youtube where he was in conversation with someone. I'll see if I can find it, but unlikely.

merlin

Has anyone thought of Soylent Green?

crunchman

fretmeister said:

lustycourtier said:

The "Texas Fact" is even more silly than it first appears.

Texas has a total area of about 268,581 square miles (that includes lakes but I'll leave that as it is) - about 432,241 Square KM.

Today's estimate for population is 8,122,544,580

So 432,241 divided by the number of people on earth gives 0.0000532149741676 Square KM each.

Then convert that to something understandable...

That is 5.3 Square Centimetres each.

Not meters - centimetres.

You got your sums wrong.

To convert km2 to m2 you don't just multiply by 1000, you multiply by 1000 squared i.e. 1,000,000.

 0.0000532149741676 Square KM converts to 53.2 square metres.

Confirm it here if you don't believe me

https://www.inchcalculator.com/convert/square-kilometer-to-square-meter/

53.2 m2 still isn't much, but it's a lot bigger than 5.3 cm2.

fretmeister

crunchman said:

fretmeister said:

lustycourtier said:

The "Texas Fact" is even more silly than it first appears.

Texas has a total area of about 268,581 square miles (that includes lakes but I'll leave that as it is) - about 432,241 Square KM.

Today's estimate for population is 8,122,544,580

So 432,241 divided by the number of people on earth gives 0.0000532149741676 Square KM each.

Then convert that to something understandable...

That is 5.3 Square Centimetres each.

Not meters - centimetres.

You got your sums wrong.

To convert km2 to m2 you don't just multiply by 1000, you multiply by 1000 squared i.e. 1,000,000.

 0.0000532149741676 Square KM converts to 53.2 square metres.

Confirm it here if you don't believe me

https://www.inchcalculator.com/convert/square-kilometer-to-square-meter/

53.2 m2 still isn't much, but it's a lot bigger than 5.3 cm2.

Balls!

I've edited my post to direct it at this one.

Thank you.

EDIT: apologies to @TheMarlin for taking the piss.

I'm still unconvinced that the land mass per person is enough once shelter etc is taken into account.

fretmeister

merlin said:

Has anyone thought of Soylent Green?

You may jest but...

Soylent Let us take a few things off your plate.