Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lab-Grown Meat Is Safe to Eat, FDA Says

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 493 posts

Re: Lab-Grown Meat Is Safe to Eat, FDA Says

#201

Post by delecti »

sfusato wrote: post #139

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?

The initial product is chicken meat, not cow, so sacredness of cows isn't super relevant yet. But once we get there, I assume that the feelings on the subject of abortion for those people would be relevant. If you view an embryo as a person, then you might view petri dish muscle as a cow.

As a vegetarian, I wouldn't incorporate this into my grocery shopping, but absolutely would give it a shot at restaurants. Being vegetarian while eating out tends to be more inconvenient, especially if I'm with other people and don't get to provide much input into where we're going.

Re: Lab-Grown Meat Is Safe to Eat, FDA Says

#202

Post by SapporoChris »

Alcor wrote: post #171
matrix_overload wrote: post #58

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’m not going to try to argue about which experience is worse because that’s difficult to quantify and I don’t actually think it achieves a lot. If we can agree that ignoring nature, factory farmed animals don’t lead what we would call a fulfilling life, how can we justify bringing trillions of them into existence if we have alternatives? We don‘t have to go too deep into utilitarian rhetoric here, maybe it is better…

I think we need a definition for a fulfilling life. I think we also need to consider if it is an important criteria.

Re: Lab-Grown Meat Is Safe to Eat, FDA Says

#203

Post by algoatecorn »

hollerith wrote: post #108
algoatecorn wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blind taste-testing overwhelmingly favors feedlot-finished beef.

People used to eating grain-fed beef prefer grain-fed beef, yes.

Go out and find an isolated tribe who only eats occasional wild game. Serve them grain-finished beef and grass-fed beef. Do you actually believe they will choose grass-fed over grain-fed?

Re: Lab-Grown Meat Is Safe to Eat, FDA Says

#204

Post by formerly_proven »

prometheus76 wrote: post #67
ncallaway wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(This isn’t a sarcastic or Socratic question, just genuine curiosity) Is there some aspect of the immune system that remains active and providing protection to an animal, or parts of an animal after it’s slaughtered?

Not being exposed to air, for one. That's why it's safe to eat a rare steak (where the surfaces exposed to air are cooked to kill bacteria) and why it's not safe to eat rare hamburger (where all the meat has been exposed to air through grinding the meat).

> and why it's not safe to eat rare hamburger (where all the meat has been exposed to air through grinding the meat).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mett

Re: Lab-Grown Meat Is Safe to Eat, FDA Says

#205

Post by gadders »

mmiyer wrote: post #49
Gordonjcp wrote: post #13

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...

Finished, yeah, but most of their time they're on land that can't be farmed.

Pigs used to be fed swill but mad cows disease and foot and mouth put paid to that.

Re: Lab-Grown Meat Is Safe to Eat, FDA Says

#206

Post by adolph »

As far as I can tell, FDA did not say "Lab-Grown Meat is Safe to Eat." Actual statement:

The FDA’s approach to regulating products derived from cultured animal cells involves a thorough pre-market consultation process. While this is not considered an approval process, it concludes when all questions relevant to the consultation are resolved. A transition from the FDA to USDA-FSIS oversight will take place during the cell harvest stage. USDA-FSIS will oversee the post-harvest processing and labeling of human food products derived from the cells of livestock and poultry. This closely coordinated regulatory approach will ensure that cell-cultured products derived from the cell lines of livestock and poultry meet federal regulations and are accurately labeled.

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-spur...

https://www.fda.gov/food/domestic-interagency-agreements-foo...

Re: Lab-Grown Meat Is Safe to Eat, FDA Says

#207

Post by coldpie »

worik wrote: post #181

The article says: > Some hope that lab-grown meat could reduce the carbon footprint of the food industry. Some hope. What are the facts? I am sceptical that a lab process can be more efficient than a biological process. And being less efficient would it not use more energy, resources, and release more carbon? The energy for biological processes is often largely solar, for lab processes often largely from fossil fuels…

I also don't have any data, but my gut feeling is the opposite. There's a lot of waste[1] in growing a whole animal (skin, bones, organs, unused muscles, etc), not to mention the time and space required. It seems to me that growing only the "good parts" would be far more efficient, but you feel the opposite. It's impossible to know who's right. I wonder what the efficiency will be like in the future, I think that's the make-or-break factor here.

[1] Waste purely from the perspective of growing human food. I understand many parts of the animal are actually used for other purposes.

Re: Lab-Grown Meat Is Safe to Eat, FDA Says

#208

Post by hollerith »

algoatecorn wrote: post #203
hollerith wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People used to eating grain-fed beef prefer grain-fed beef, yes.

Go out and find an isolated tribe who only eats occasional wild game. Serve them grain-finished beef and grass-fed beef. Do you actually believe they will choose grass-fed over grain-fed?

I prefer meat that has been fed only grass and never buy grain-fed meat. (I eat mostly lamb, not beef.) I prefer the taste and believe it is better for my health; in particular, the omega 6 fatty acids in grains and in grain-fed meat promotes chronic inflammation. (I don't buy grains either.)

Re: Lab-Grown Meat Is Safe to Eat, FDA Says

#209

Post by rglover »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #130
rglover wrote: post #73

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.

I'll give it a read but a quick look at this fella and his "thing" and he's clearly on a crusade: https://www.the-nutrivore.com/blog.

Not outright dismissing this (I will read it because I'd like to be better informed and wrap my head around his stance) but that his main offering is debate training and not targeted health guidance/planning, it seems highly suspect.

Re: Lab-Grown Meat Is Safe to Eat, FDA Says

#210

Post by ospzfmbbzr »

mandmandam wrote: post #125
kikokikokiko wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"And hopefully it'll eventually be cheaper than growing animals too." Just as simply planting a tree and letting the sun provide the energy for it's growth will always beat those "synthetic trees" people like to hype from time to time, I can expect to never see a synthetic process that is more cost effective to create "meat" than simply letting nature do it's thing. Down here in Brazil you basically give the animals…

Soon it will only be cheaper if you're completely discounting the price paid to the ecosystem. In fact with a full accounting I'd wager it's already cheaper. How many unique species that evolved over tens of millions of years have been lost forever, in the last 50 years alone, due to clear-cutting in Brazil? How much clean water and topsoil has been polluted and washed away? How much carbon has been released? How muc…

> I really don't know how one can be so flippant about this.

Easy -- think for yourself!

Easier to get rid of all the useless eaters. Are you sure that doesn't include you?

Post reply on HN