141–150 of 152 posts
That they and their families will never eat. This is just like when the British Parliament approved GMOs in the UK and on the same day officially forbid GMO foods from being served in the Parliament restaurant. BTW I know the guy who was the head of the team who invented the GMO technology. He and his family and relatives only eat the cleanest, best quality ORGANIC food they can find.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Clean food" generally means minimally processed--you are eating food that is as close to its natural form as possible, such this[0]. So, meat created in a laboratory is about as far aware from this sort of "clean eating" as possible. [0] https://the30clean.com/what-is-30-clean/
That quoted website just sounds like pseudo-BS-science, especially since the very first thing they mention is removing gluten from diet. That particular horse has been beaten to death and then a bit more. Our bodies don't give two shits whether the food we eat was grown outside in a natural environment or in a lab - as long as it's chemically the same then there can't be any difference to how we absorb it. Edit: Ok,…
For those that are curious, as an early investor and advocate for clean meat, I wrote about my experience eating Memphis Meats' products and why their solution is so much better than convention meat production: https://medium.com/@sethbannon/i-just-ate-meat-for-the-first...
It is impressive that despite not eating meat for 20 years you feel you are in a good position to talk about the realism of the meat product you have invested in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A couple of points: 1. The percentages you cite aren’t useful on their own, as one also needs to know how often each kind of food is consumed. Only then would we know the relative risk of eating each kind of food. 2. Most food plants are grown outdoors (often near livestock) and many aren’t cooked before eating. Cultured meat is grown in sterile environments and is typically cooked. These differences mean that it wil…
So, I should accept your millions of sick people generality supported with a CDC link as a useful information. Why wouldn't you accept the cold hard numbers given by the same organization ? > Cultured meat is grown in sterile environments and is typically cooked. These differences mean that it will almost certainly have a lower disease risk than any natural food. Maybe, or maybe we'll discover in 10 years that eating…
We can know it's safe without a long track record of use because of biology, chemistry, and physics. Cultured meat is the same muscle cells with the same DNA. If it caused cancer but animal meat didn't, that would tell us something new about biology, chemistry, and/or physics.
Your fear-mongering postulates unknown mechanisms of action that science would almost certainly have discovered by now. That's not just unscientific, it's anti-scientific. It's on the same level as, "What if cell phones cause cancer?" or "What if vaping is worse than smoking?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assumed "clean" referred to the fact that lab-grown tissue would have a much lower risk of disease. Animals have digestive tracts full of bacteria, and farms aren't exactly pristine. Every year in the US, meat-borne pathogens kill thousands and sicken millions.[1] 1. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/5/5/99-0502_article
> I assumed "clean" referred to the fact that lab-grown tissue would have a much lower risk of disease. Animals have digestive tracts full of bacteria, and farms aren't exactly pristine. Every year in the US, meat-borne pathogens kill thousands and sicken millions. OK, let's check the numbers. According to the CDC https://www.cdc.gov/foodborneburden/attribution/attribution-... from 1998 - 2008 from the total of foodb…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely -- some dairy producing states like Wisconsin have forced makers of soy and almond milk to stop calling them "milk" so I'm almost positive that meat producing states would do the same.
I'm always annoyed (admittedly only slightly) when they are referred to as milk. Nothing wrong with soy milk, but milk it is not.
That they and their families will never eat. This is just like when the British Parliament approved GMOs in the UK and on the same day officially forbid GMO foods from being served in the Parliament restaurant. BTW I know the guy who was the head of the team who invented the GMO technology. He and his family and relatives only eat the cleanest, best quality ORGANIC food they can find.
Organic food? As opposed to what? Aluminium food?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does confuse me, as a term. Pretty much every bit of meat that I eat was harvested and processed by myself or my neighbor. Given that we are going to be the folks eating it, it's pretty clean. I clean my fish, deer, moose, beef critter, fowl, etc... I clean them very well. (They are delicious.)
> Pretty much every bit of meat that I eat was harvested and processed by myself or my neighbor You do understand that you are the very definition of an outlier, right? So it would OK if the term only confused you, since you are supposed to be confused, given that you do these things differently than 99.99% of the population. But I think the term is confusing in general, not just to people who "kill and clean their o…
It's great but if it really works, isn't there a concern about the existence of our beloved domestic animals? All domestic cattle nowadays descends from the Auroch, which is extinct. The Auroch disappeared because we did not need it as it was. It was hunted down as tend to be all large animals that can not be domesticated. If we don't need cows, pigs, sheep and whatnot, isn't there a risk they will fade away? When we…
So, in short, no, I don't think they'd go away or become extinct, not in the slightest. Declining numbers of them over time? Probably but extinct? No way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure costs will go down. But as far as price goes that's my point, it doesn't feel like they want it to go down. It keeps being priced and pitched as a premium organic healthy food and not something everyone can afford.
I don't really understand this concern; this is a common strategy for introducing new products. When smartphones came out they were a premium product. Over time they became more accessible as the market grew beyond just the first adopters. They're arguably commoditized now, if we're thinking about super cheap Android phones. Tesla is another example. And economics should force price down, if the costs of manufactured…
I don't mean to be petty but it's not "economics" that drives prices down but rather competition. The thing about smartphones is while they all had dramatically different surface behavior, underneath they all shared very similar technological cores (Qualcomm processors, iOS/Android/Windows OS, etc...) and were able to utilize those same innovations.
Artificial meat on the other hand doesn't seem to be like that. Every product is unique and requires significant investment in R&D to make a reality.
They have been selling it for a long time now, it's not like this stuff is brand new. My only point was that we have not seen the effects you are describing happening yet which is worrisome. It feels like they are happy with product positioning at the moment.