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

Italy moves to ban lab-grown meat to protect food heritage

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 474 posts

Re: Italy moves to ban lab-grown meat to protect food heritage

#141

Post by dubcanada »

quenix wrote: post #100
9dev wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don’t you intend to? Care to explain your rationale?

It's gross. That's it. Why should I, or anyone else, have to explain personal food choices to you? If finding insect-eating to be repulsive is embedded in a culture, who are you to question it or demand change/an explanation?

Do you eat meat? Not trying to say anything, but I don't think there is a difference between eating a cow and eating a grasshopper.

Now if you are 100% vegan, I can accept that

Re: Italy moves to ban lab-grown meat to protect food heritage

#142

Post by xen2xen1 »

soco wrote: post #82
lm28469 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to be "far right" or "nationalistic" to not want to destroy your economy

Yeah "think of the economy" gets to be a very common argument nowadays, almost like "think of the children". I remember it used for refusing any covid restrictions, or used against climate protection measures... I wonder, was it used also to justify keeping slavery?

If you don't think slavery and economics had a lot to do with the American Civil War, think again.

Re: Italy moves to ban lab-grown meat to protect food heritage

#144

Post by krapht »

blululu wrote: post #137
deergomoo wrote: post #13

This seems no different than the ridiculous laws proposed in some US states recently that would ban EV sales to protect the oil and gas industries. I’m sorry that people could one day lose jobs over this, but if lab-grown meat is proven to be a safe and cost/energy/carbon efficient alternative to raising and killing animals, then it would be insane to not pursue that.

This is very different. Oil is a modern innovation with a lot of fundamental problems. Animal meat is as old as time and the problems are more about modern scale and consumption and production patterns (mild regulatory changes would suffice). It is a bit of an open question as to whether or not chemical engineers can beat a chicken in a chicken making contest, but should the results come back unequivocally in favor o…

Chickens make hardly any sense right now, as they are quite efficient at turning feed into meat.

The big wins are in expensive cuts of meat from large, popular animals... i.e. beef and tuna.

Re: Italy moves to ban lab-grown meat to protect food heritage

#145

Post by pfdietz »

the_af wrote: post #133
pfdietz wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GMO banning is another example of protectionism masquerading as something else. The demonization of Monsanto is diagnostic of the derangement/dishonesty.

Being against Monsanto != being against GMOs.

It's a tactic of enormous dishonesty used by opponents of GMOs.

Re: Italy moves to ban lab-grown meat to protect food heritage

#146

Post by unixgoddess »

lm28469 wrote: post #119
unixgoddess wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

are you in eastern europe? for most western europe, europe means western europe unfortunately

Eastern Europe is actually the opposite, lower tourism than the west and higher industry: less offshoring + western countries relocated some industries to the east to benefits from lower wages https://preview.redd.it/fmpg5f0i9bc31.png?auto=webp&s=96ce53...

that's my point, they have much higher farming and industry than service, so it's not surprising that OP has tons of farms around

Re: Italy moves to ban lab-grown meat to protect food heritage

#147

Post by hdhrufjdi »

wsc981 wrote: post #118
vman81 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As with all poisons, it's a question of concentration. Greed and nationalism are bad, in the same way that eating a kg of table salt is bad. That doesn't mean that salt in and of itself is bad.

Nationalism isn’t necessarily bad, it also has many good features [0]. Maybe that’s your point, but the first sentence doesn’t make it clear. ——— [0]: https://archive.ph/O27qG

I think he made it very clear as the lack of salt will make you suffer

Re: Italy moves to ban lab-grown meat to protect food heritage

#148

Post by dubcanada »

9dev wrote: post #63
nemo44x wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not Italian but think it’s a step in the right direction, but overreaches. I think they should make it law that synthetic meat can’t be called “meat” and that insect ‘flour’ can’t be called “flour”. And should have to be prefaced with “unnatural food product” or similar on all sides of packaging.

This whole insect flour debate is so braindead. We have billions of people to feed. Dried and shredded insects provide a great protein yield, can be produced incredibly efficient, and aren’t as destructive to the planet as lifestock. Many cultures have been consuming insects for ages. There is nothing unsafe, unnatural, or otherwise „bad“ about using insects for food - other than an embarrassing, unreflective revulsi…

I think there is an argument to be made about validity in names. Calling something flour that is actually not at all flour, stretches the meaning of the word. I can no longer go to the grocery store and assume my flour contains grains.

I think things should be packaged properly and with proper descriptions. The same as I don't want to go to the store and buy Parmesan cheese only to find it's actually chemically altered tofu. That's not what I bought nor what I wanted.

If I wanted tofu cheese I would go buy tofu cheese.

We've become accustomed to accepting labels at face value, so I believe there is a requirement to continue that practice.

Flour comprised of mostly insects should say that, just like whole wheat flour is separated from pizza flour, as they contain different grain milling and grains.

But we should teach us that there is absolutely nothing wrong with eating insects, it's not gross. We just think it is because of cultural reasons. And those can be changed over time.

Re: Italy moves to ban lab-grown meat to protect food heritage

#149

Post by krapht »

nashashmi wrote: post #130
deergomoo wrote: post #13

This seems no different than the ridiculous laws proposed in some US states recently that would ban EV sales to protect the oil and gas industries. I’m sorry that people could one day lose jobs over this, but if lab-grown meat is proven to be a safe and cost/energy/carbon efficient alternative to raising and killing animals, then it would be insane to not pursue that.

Man plans. God laughs. I'm calling Bs on the whole cow industry being bad for the planet because of their bodily functions. Any cows, any animals, any living creatures are never going to be bad for the planet. There is more resource consumption and harm in transferring the livestock as meat and farming livestock than there is in the methane gas. And lab grown meat is not going to change that.

> Any cows, any animals, any living creatures are never going to be bad for the planet.

Trivial counterexample: humanity

I think you have a definition of good/bad w/r/t the planet different from the mainstream.

Re: Italy moves to ban lab-grown meat to protect food heritage

#150

Post by blululu »

illiarian wrote: post #116
pella wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but if lab-grown meat is proven to be a safe We need to fully understand its safety, nutritional content, and long-term health effects. Our understanding of the full biochemical spectrum of our diets is still limited. Therefore, it's important to ensure that lab-grown meat adequately replicates the complex array of nutrients and other beneficial compounds found in conventionally produced meat. Long-term effects: Si…

> We need to fully understand its safety, nutritional content, and long-term health effects. This is the same "reasoning" that ultimately led to ban on most GMO foods like actual long-term tasty tomatos. For some reason we demand significantly stricter controls over anything "lab-grown" than on anything "natural". Note: I'm not calling for lax controls. I'm callling for controls that are not more stringent than those…

This is a pretty sensible policy. Things that are ‘natural’ typically have a much longer period of human and animal use. The amount of data that is latent in their extensive history offers much more certainty about their long term safety than a few short term studies. The real concern with GMOs is not about something like a genetic collapse but the fact that the technology is only really capable of enabling the use of more exotic pesticides and herbicides in food stocks. While I’m all for running science experiments and killing aphids, an unrestrained embrace of the chemical industry nearly cost us the bald eagle. Given that there is currently a massive food surplus and I pay taxes to prop up the at industry, I really don’t see the need to engage in a widespread experiment on pesticide use when targeted smaller scale studies would suffice.
Post reply on HN