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

221–230 of 474 posts

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

#221

Post by golemotron »

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…

> For some reason we demand significantly stricter controls over anything "lab-grown" than on anything "natural".

The reason is simple. We haven't co-evolved with lab-grown food for several billion years, or had transmitted cultural experience with it for tens of thousands of years. The recent discovery that artificial sweeteners have unforeseen health effects (hyper-clotting / glucose intolerance) should point out the necessity of caution.

The human organism has been in a very complex dance with its environment for millennia. We have no idea what subtle chemical traces it is grown to depend upon. We pay for our arrogance and never seem to learn.

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

#223

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

stametseater wrote: post #171
dangwhy wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> populist vote-grabbing sorry but how is this different from just democracy ? we have democracy here in USA that allows NIMBY homeowners opposing any new development. Is that also just 'populist vote-grabbbing'

Democracy is termed "populist" when it enacts something counter to a deeply unpopular progressive agenda, such as replacing Italian food with bugs and lab-grown abominations.

To me it seems to be when it's irrational reactionary overreach. If it's deeply unpopular why is it so threatening and why does it need to be banned before it even becomes a real thing? Won't the market quickly show that "bugs and lab-grown abominations" can't stand?

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

#224

Post by jacquesm »

lm28469 wrote: post #115
jacquesm wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> now mostly stuck with services, tourism and tech > hard to believe for a lot of people on HN You generalize a lot. The EU does far more than services, tourism and tech and you can't really know what a lot of people on HN find hard to believe, especially if you then throw up a strawman about their professed beliefs.

But then again services represents 73% of European jobs according to Wikipedia HN crowd is by large pro tech and "progress" with little to no concern about ethics, culture and other issues, reading this thread is a prime example of it actually

Sure, but 'jobs' are not everything, they are just one measure and if you look at what is listed under 'services' then you'll find that a lot of those services are actually in support of the other 27% of the jobs.

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

#225

Post by jacquesm »

illiarian wrote: post #126
jacquesm wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is fine. The canonical example: Parma ham has to be from Parma, and that makes good sense to me. It gets more muddy with cheese, lots of cheese named 'Gouda' isn't Gouda, traditionally Gouda (and Alkmaar) were the big cheese trading markets and the stamp 'Gouda' originally meant traded in Gouda, not produced in Gouda (which doesn't really make Cheese). But Edammer cheese really is made in Edam (or Volendam!). A…

Those name protections also tend to protect established players and regions even if they ultimately may produce utter garbage. I come from a small wine-producing country of Moldova. It produces or produced anything from wine to classical champagne to port to cognacs to... Now it's only wine that can be called wine (thankfully it's been around for longer than most civilizations). And for the rest they had to come up w…

Take it as an opportunity: better to be the 'real Divin' than to be the 'fake Cognac'.

Then it can be judged on its merits and if it is as good as you say it is then selling it shouldn't be a problem.

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

#226

Post by thrwy_918 »

dubcanada wrote: post #148
9dev wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 alter…

> 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.

This seems like a fictional problem. Who is trying to pass off insect "flour" as wheat flour? What possible motivation would a company have for doing so? Cricket "flour" costs like 10x as much as wheat flour

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

#227

Post by illiarian »

pella wrote: post #213
illiarian wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am scared of living in a society that doesn't find it obvious that things perfected by nature over millions of years are scientifically speaking, safer than things made by some "scientists" in a lab. This is the "natural corn" you consume vs. the actual natural corn: https://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/670657 Same goes for all "natural things" you eat.

https://necsi.edu/the-precautionary-principle "Our analysis makes clear that the PP is essential for a limited set of contexts and can be used to justify only a limited set of actions. We discuss the implications for nuclear energy and GMOs. GMOs represent a public risk of global harm, while harm from nuclear energy is comparatively limited and better characterized. PP should be used to prescribe severe limits on GMO…

I wonder what their answer would be to Green Revolution in the 60s...

Also, I can't get past random graphs with random numbers with zero explanation of the axes.

There are valid concerns expressed, but they are buried underneath an avalanche of demagoguery.

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

#228

Post by Longlius »

tomp wrote: post #219
illiarian wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

"Natural" basically means local optimisation, whereas "artificial" means global optimisation. Note also that most companies aren't optimising for nutrition or satiety, but instead for low cost and high addictiveness. It's the same reason we worry about (artificial) nuclear weapons - despite "natural" reactors also existing.

What does a natural nuclear reactor have to do with a nuclear weapon? There's almost no connection between the two.

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

#229

Post by lormayna »

I am Italian, so I can provide a bit of context to better understand this decision.

The right-wing government won the election with few key promises: reject the immigrants coming by the sea with a naval block, a sort of victimhood against UE that want to "fight" Italian habits (like forcing us to eat worms instead of pasta), and penalize Italian companies (like force Italy to liberalize sectors like taxi licenses or bathhouse concessions). Right now, the situation with illegal immigration is out of control and we are approaching a new record in the arrives with many tragic wrecks; moreover UE is menacing Italy to get back the funds from NextGenerationUE because the government is not able to spend them on the right way and time.

So, as a populistic politician, what is the best solution to divert public opinion and keep consensus high? Talking about an attack on our traditions and our food.

It's just internal propaganda, nothing more by someone that would like to live in the 80s

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

#230

Post by giraffe_lady »

Eumenes wrote: post #216
stametseater wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democracy is termed "populist" when it enacts something counter to a deeply unpopular progressive agenda, such as replacing Italian food with bugs and lab-grown abominations.

Exactly this ... or you forgot their favorite F word, Fascism

I wouldn't say favorite but it's definitely been a useful one recently.
Post reply on HN