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

221–230 of 493 posts

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

#221

Post by markstos »

kikokikokiko wrote: post #95
superkuh wrote: post #33

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…

"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…

There down in Brazil, rainforest are being cut down at alarming rate in service to animal agriculture. It will be easier to preserve the Brazilian rainforests if there was some other way to grow meat that didn't involve huge grazing pastures for animals.

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

#222

Post by artursapek »

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.

Wew lad

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

#223

Post by laylomo2 »

matrix_overload wrote: post #58
superkuh wrote: post #33

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…

I personally look forward to the day where our technology is advanced enough that wild animals no longer have to live in constant fear of being ripped to shreds. IMO, no one, not even wild animals, should have to live in fear of that.

Also, by extension, predators shouldn’t have to face starvation, and prey should have their population controlled in a humane way.

These are problems that can’t be solved today, or likely any time soon. But I don’t buy the argument that “just because it happens in nature, it’s right”. I think Mother Nature provides effective solutions to these problems, but I also believe they aren’t the optimal solutions. We can and should do better.

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

#224

Post by darkwizard42 »

kikokikokiko wrote: post #143
d23 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Evidence? Do you have any background in the field? It's easy as a layperson to imagine that not having to support the l…

For evidence, my extended family down here raises cattle to this day. It's hard to beat doing hardly anything other than let the beasts eat grass for a couple of years. Try to beat that for a cost of goods.

Eating grass, producing waste, requiring space, labor, and disposal of concentrated waste (too much cow dung goes beyond fertilization) is energy intensive, which is what the parent comment was bringing up.

Cost goes beyond the labor (which is what I am taking your comment to focus on)

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

#225

Post by grishka »

kikokikokiko wrote: post #95
superkuh wrote: post #33

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…

"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…

The problem with growing whole animal for meat, suffering aside, is that it's extremely inefficient. Most of the energy an animal consumes is used to sustain its organism — which, for the purpose of food, is a waste.

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

#226

Post by aendruk »

kube-system wrote: post #169
aendruk wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We don't keep natural meat sterile during production because it would kill the chicken, which results in zero output of chicken. 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.

That’s not wrong. This thread began with a loose definition of “sterile” that you demonstrated understanding of above. The rest of us did OP the courtesy of not nitpicking it.

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

#227

Post by black6 »

criddell wrote: post #86
aliqot wrote: post #68

I just want to eat actual cow meat that doesn't require a financing plan. I don't care about all this not-meat. They are not equal, in my eyes.

I just want to eat actual cow meat that doesn't involve any suffering.

Producers go through not insignificant effort to reduce and eliminate the stress of slaughter on meat animals. Suffering results in stress which results in poor quality meat (tasteless and tough), and millions of dollars worth of meat is tossed out annually due to pre-slaughter stress.

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

#228

Post by serverholic »

I'm a little worried about nutrition. I'm sure lab grown meat has plenty of protein but what about all the other micro-nutrients?

I'm talking about the spectrum of compounds that inevitably find their way into the muscle tissue from real animals digesting real food.

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

#229

Post by tomtheelder »

photochemsyn wrote: post #107

Two forms of meat, the worst first: (1) Industrial factory farmed meat, fed with crops like alfalfa/soy/corn, where the animals are injected with prophylactic antibiotics (because cramped conditions cause disease outbreaks, also a growth enhancer) and growth hormones, and/or genetically modified to promote gigantism (both applications tending to increase disease susceptibility, so more antibiotics). The meat is then…

I suspect the pitch would be that in a possible future with sufficient scale, and improvements to process and efficiency, that you would be able to replace the category 1 meat entirely with lab grown meat, allowing folks to maintain their meat consumption at low cost without the horrors of massive scale meat production.

I've got no idea if that's plausible or not.

Either way I'd vastly prefer that we regulate (and stop subsidizing) animal farming to the point that all meat basically falls into category 2.

Post reply on HN