161–170 of 493 posts
My questions are will vegans or vegetarians eat this? Why or why not? Also what about people that hold cows sacred? Will they be able to eat this? Why or why not?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s correct. The challenge is that ensuring purity of ingredients during production is tricky at scale. A small mistake could ruin a large batch of food, lowering total yields and raising costs. Ideally the production process would include something analogous to the immune system to make it more robust. For certain contaminants simple outcompetition by probiotics might suffice.
The alternative, natural meat, is even trickier to keep sterile at scale. This is why it is advised to cook meat fully. The presence of bacteria on natural animal meat is common.
It will be animal cells differentiated into muscle tissues on collagen scaffolds initially. The technology comes from attempts to grow functional organs (ie, liver) that are biocompatible in the body serum proper. If there aren't health effects from transplantation within the animal type you can probably eat the animal tissues just fine. It's the same thing. It's meat. It's just without the animal suffering. And hope…
For context, the life of an average herbivore in the wild consists of living with no shelter in harsh weather while having to fear every sound. And it typically ends by being ripped to pieces by a predator and eaten alive while the brain still has some residual oxygen and awareness. The typical farmed animal experience where you are sheltered, vaccinated against common illnesses, provided food and slaughtered after b…
Hard pass. Let's see some long-term (10 years) test data first (e.g., how does it effect things like muscle growth/retention, fat growth/loss, cell function, cancer promotion/prevention etc). I'd put this stuff on the same level as any mass-produced junk (HFCS, seed oils, etc) that has already been proven to be harmful to humans long-term as a cautious default.
But keep cooking your steak in a pan filled of PTFE
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or consuming terrifying amounts of energy and resources, when you can put a cow in a field until it's big enough to eat.
97%[0] of cows are finished on feedlots, i.e. get a substantial amount of calories from corn and other feed. Other animals like pigs are exclusively fed feed. Animal factory farming already consumes a terrifying amount of resources, using up a lot of the plant agriculture that we do. [0] https://littlecreekmontana.shop/blogs/ranch-blog/food-for-th...
That's why we don't eat grass. Because it doesn't feed us. But it feeds cows.
If someone cloned some mammoth or giant sloth cells and grew them, I'd be interested in tasting what my prehistoric ancestors got to eat.
I'm not sure muscles that haven't been "used" will taste the same as flesh that is grown and hasn't been out walking around. The texture is sure to be different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For context, the life of an average herbivore in the wild consists of living with no shelter in harsh weather while having to fear every sound. And it typically ends by being ripped to pieces by a predator and eaten alive while the brain still has some residual oxygen and awareness. The typical farmed animal experience where you are sheltered, vaccinated against common illnesses, provided food and slaughtered after b…
I eat meat, but I think it's fair to say bringing living/feeling/thinking things into existence for the express purpose of being killed and consumed is grim. This feels particularly true if the circumstances they're raised in are horrific, which seems to be pretty common in factory farms. In any case, nature might be crueler to living things than we are, but I still think becoming less cruel is worth the effort.
Wouldn't the logical conclusion than be to eat less and higher quality meat? I mean I have worked on Biodynamic farms with livestock and I can assure you they live incredibly well, and are often eating as good if not better than the the regimen of the cows used for Wagyu, and sometimes even better than some of us farmers depending on the pat of the season.
> In any case, nature might be crueler to living things than we are, but I still think becoming less cruel is worth the effort.
I still think that if the key issue is the poor practice and animal welfare than the only acceptable solution is to eat less and higher quality meat from local and sustainable farms.
This synthetic meat is peak tech-bro, no one who is relying on eating fake hamburger meat on a daily basis is in a position to be taken serious when most Asian diets are mainly vegetarian and have fed populations in the billions for millennia (eg India, China, Japan). The arrogance to believe that the amount of inputs for these fake meats isn't a slight of hand because all the oils, and stabilizers at scale seems on it's face entirely absurd to a more environmentally friendly solution: pasture raised and grass fed cattle replenish the soil and serve as a natural re-vitalization for the soil between crop rotations.
I worked at a highly renown Vegetarian and Vegan place in Boulder, and even tried being both but abandoned it because of how depressed it made me feel wile working a manual labour job and working out/hiking, and I can assure that 80% of the time all were were doing was re-making vegetarian substitutes to meat based dishes rather than focus on the in-season vegetables a menu that reflected that which is what I had done for most of my career in kitchens that served meat and offered veterinarian options.
Ultimately, I think this a reflection of both hyper based capitalism, tons of Vc money cashing in on the immense amount of ignorance regarding food education with clever marketing. At the end Ag can be modeled and scaled in suh a way where it is carbon net-negative if the same amount of capital, time, and incentives were applied to it.
Hard pass. Let's see some long-term (10 years) test data first (e.g., how does it effect things like muscle growth/retention, fat growth/loss, cell function, cancer promotion/prevention etc). I'd put this stuff on the same level as any mass-produced junk (HFCS, seed oils, etc) that has already been proven to be harmful to humans long-term as a cautious default.
Seed oils being unhealthy is quackery. https://www.the-nutrivore.com/post/a-comprehensive-rebuttal-... They improve health outcomes when put to the test, especially when replacing saturated fat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The alternative, natural meat, is even trickier to keep sterile at scale. This is why it is advised to cook meat fully. The presence of bacteria on natural animal meat is common.
This is a misleading statement. We don’t even try to keep slaughtered meat sterile during production; the animal’s immune system makes that unnecessary.
Chickens' immune systems are quite fallible, and they do not keep the chicken in a sterile state. Chickens are full of dangerous bacteria despite having an immune system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's meat. It's just without the animal suffering Are you sure about the no suffering part. Currently this meat is grown using a growth medium most often extracted from a pregnant mare using a technique called bloodletting which is often extremely painful for the animal. EDIT: I think I’m actually wrong about the pregnant mare. Animal suffering through bloodletting from pregnant mares was a recent scandal where I’m…
> from a pregnant mare I’m quite skeptical about this. How do they obtain and culture chicken cells from a horse?