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

411–420 of 493 posts

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

#411

Post by rglover »

rglover wrote: post #209
hombre_fatal wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For context, why I added "seed oils" in there. Once I saw the difference between Canola Oil (what I used the most up until I learned) production [1] and Olive Oil production [2], I never went back. For those interested, I also use tallow and coconut oil.

I found/find it deeply disturbing that they say stuff like Canola is "healthy" when the production process sounds/looks like something you'd expect to describe the pit under a Valvoline.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cfk2IXlZdbI

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aieNV3V4b_s

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

#412

Post by CaptainNegative »

wtetzner wrote: post #396
chrisco255 wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The limit on fresh water is a local problem. Maybe that's an issue in California during dry years, but not in North Carolina or Iowa, which are subject to completely different rainfall patterns.

And one of the problems in California is how much water almonds use.

Yup, drupes and nuts account for about 10% of California's water usage, behind only domestic animal agriculture (~30%) and feed exported for foreign animal agriculture (~15%).

None of these belong in the desert, if anywhere.

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

#414

Post by BobbyJo »

EricE wrote: post #270
BobbyJo wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we go off thermodynamics there is a lot of energy being wasted in producing the meat, even if that energy isn't expended by those tending the cattle. To say nothing of the animal suffering involved, we currently expend ~10x the calories we get from the beef producing it (IIRC). If we could get even to 5x that'd be a huge environmental win. Edit: Looking it up, beef sits at 25x, and chicken 9x. So, a lot of room fo…

Ok, switch from cattle to bison then. Lab growing isn't going to be economically feasible for a long time yet.

Are bison more thermodynamically efficient than cows?

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

#415

Post by cloverich »

flenserboy wrote: post #392
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…

"Meat", at best. Yes, muscle cells in a matrix. The problem will be getting the rest of the structure to be there, and to grow properly, such as connective tissues and fats, and to get the same amounts of minerals and other nutrients into the "meat" as an animal does. Meat, as a food, is much more than a clump of muscle cells. Then there are the costs to do this properly (packaging the correct nutrients in bioavailab…

> The problem will be getting the rest of the structure to be there

I would guess if they can handle real actual meat, they can handle fat and nutrients which would seemingly be the easy part. If not would it be any different than today's vegetarians which just take supplements?

> letting a cow loose in a pasture to do what it does.

Are most cows pasture raised? I think most are raised on feed farms; I think antibiotics and hormones play a role in at least some, but perhaps most? They also emit C02 which we'll eventually have to pay for. And more generally animal farming is a (the?) primary source of new diseases already. I wouldn't expect "lab" grown meat to do any worse there, but perhaps better. Still, it is something new and new always carries some risk. But

> The 20th century was marked by morally-unmoored technocrats allowed to run wild; why is the 21st century doubling down on this?

It was also marked by dramatic increases in quality and quantity of life.

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

#416

Post by LtWorf »

sokoloff wrote: post #286
JasserInicide wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if the USDA recommends this, what's the reasoning behind allowing restaurants to sell rare steaks?

They recommend 145°F, which is medium-well. Experiential outcomes suggest pretty strongly to me that forcing all steak to be cooked medium-well or greater is wildly overly conservative.

> Experiential outcomes suggest pretty strongly to me that forcing all steak to be cooked medium-well or greater is wildly overly conservative.

Do you mean you grew coltures of bacteria from various levels of cooking and compared? Was this work peer reviewed?

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

#417

Post by Enginerrrd »

NegativeLatency wrote: post #90
chollida1 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain the significance of your statement? Surely the meat we all eat is dead along with the immune system and then cooked.

IDK what they're talking about but I could imagine a pathogen that evolved on real animals having a field day at a meat farm without an immune system to fight back it would be reliant on the human operators cleanliness and other procedures. Granted it might be much harder to have the initial infection happen in the first place since it's just a chunk of meat in a lab (no animal to walk around and get injured or other…

That's not that much different from existing industrial environments like brewing, or making mayonnaise or other things. I don't think that's much of a hurdle to have to overcome.

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

#418

Post by stefantalpalaru »

flenserboy wrote: post #392
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…

"Meat", at best. Yes, muscle cells in a matrix. The problem will be getting the rest of the structure to be there, and to grow properly, such as connective tissues and fats, and to get the same amounts of minerals and other nutrients into the "meat" as an animal does. Meat, as a food, is much more than a clump of muscle cells. Then there are the costs to do this properly (packaging the correct nutrients in bioavailab…

No post body was provided.

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

#419

Post by virtualritz »

BoorishBears wrote: post #407
virtualritz wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As the world gets richer, people eat more meat. Living in central Berlin (Mitte), one of the most expensive parts of the city, it feels the opposite is happening. Everything here is vegan or vegetarian at least. Even a steak place next door to where I live has vegan plates. On that note: it made me sad that all the dramatic changes you listed omitted the suffering of animals.

That's because you're likely part of the disconnected 1%, even if you're nowhere near that relative to others in your country. People think of robber barons twirling the mustaches when they picture the 1%, but for global topics, the 1% even includes people who are considered "poor" by western standards. And, like the robber barons twirling mustaches people picture for their local 1%, you can't extrapolate any good da…

I think you misread my comment. It was meant exactly as written. "It feels". It is factually not so and I didn't contest the OPs assertion.

However, many things that are now common where adapted by the broad populace because they wanted to copy/be as fancy as the 1%.

On of the most prominent examples is probably the British accent. ;)

Post reply on HN