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

321–330 of 474 posts

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

#321

Post by the_doctah »

kubb wrote: post #12

BBC journos have a specific editorial style, and no doubt it influenced this headline, but this isn't to "protect food heritage". Food and drink accounts for a quarter of Italy's GDP. It's about money. Italy has a far-right government, which is extremely open to lobbying from that sector, and "heritage" is aligned with their nationalistic stance. Try to look a bit deeper.

> Italy has a far-right government, which is extremely open to lobbying from that sector

Ah yeah the left never takes lobby money. If you want to make a point, try not to make your bias so clear.

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

#322

Post by cocacola1 »

xen2xen1 wrote: post #142
soco wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Pretty sure that OP was being sarcastic.

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

#323

Post by zpeti »

9dev wrote: post #265
zpeti wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you please explain this to the lions of the sahara? They relish the suffering of other species for the joy of things that taste nice.

So you're on the intellectual level of a lion, or what? In contrary to lions, you have the brain to think about this, the alternatives to choose from, the digestive tract to handle plant-based food, and the moral capability to understand why killing living beings is bad.

Bad? Apart from your own moral opinion, how is killing bad?

Why is killing a plant better than an animal? Because their chemistry includes some sort of pain hormone? So do some plants.

This is not an argument either of us can win, because it’s a morality question to which there can be many answers.

I simply don’t see how eating only plants is more moral. For all we know free grazing animals that we eat are way more happy and stress free during their lives than in the wild. Just like humans spent most of their last 50k years on the verge of starvation and barely surviving. Our current state of abundance is about 60-70 years old (20 for third world)

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

#324

Post by timeon »

pibechorro wrote: post #248
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.

There are many factors. First is trust, I trust an organism even if pumped full of hormones more than a lab cell culture. Then there is the issue of dependency, raising livestock nad hunting is low tech with no supply chains breaking down. Quality is also a factor, i will believe it when I see it that lab grown meat is nothing more than glorified ground meat. There is a lot to the unique properties of meat (fibers, f…

> I am not for any top down laws banning things, but

But that is what is this topic about. So if something is not "equal swap" then we can consider ban?

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

#325

Post by dangwhy »

timeon wrote: post #312
dangwhy wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> riling up your voter base But where did you get that this happened in italy . I didn't see that in the bbc article.

You went from: > sorry but how is this different from just democracy to: > But where did you get that this happened Which seems like example of moving the goal-post.

how is it moving goal posts. gp's response as i understood is that this has something to do with 'riling up' which makes it 'populism' ( vs democracy) . I am asking where they got there was any 'riling up' involved in this case.

I guess i don't really understand 'riling up' means.

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

#326

Post by kelipso »

sickitaboy wrote: post #222

FYI.. italy banned PRODUCTION of lab-grown meat.. but not IMPORTATION. We have a similar law for banning GMO, we cannot produce them but we purchase them from nations outside italy. pretty silly uh?

Might be because it'll cause issues with EU or WTO trade rules.

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

#327

Post by bovermyer »

pfdietz wrote: post #138
bovermyer wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not in favor of banning GMOs, incidentally. The part of the-company-formerly-known-as-Monsanto I take issue with is their predatory practices, like suing farmers for inadvertently cross-pollinating their crops from Monsanto-copyrighted seeds from a neighboring farmer's fields.

You're being a useful fool here, repeating that outright lie, which has been well debunked even here on HN. The scoundrels committing this blood libel against Monsanto and GMOs count on people like you to propagate their poison.

"Blood libel?" What in the actual f**?

Well, if you're going to be antisemitic, then we're done here. Maybe consider getting some help.

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

#328

Post by modo_mario »

illiarian wrote: post #183
pella wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb: """ 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. Statistically, the "large n" of nature makes it > scientific. """ https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1172495876717273088

> 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.

What was it with those studies about many vegetables containing less of various nutrients than they used to and how often that related to their size, look, amount of inputs needed, resistance to various ailments and removal of various inconveniences, etc Can we assume incentives are aligned properly to avoid more such effects? I'd assume the opposite.

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

#329

Post by stcroixx »

ben_w wrote: post #291
xdennis wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not an abomination to eat natural food. Any carnivore/omnivore would eat a cow if it could. The fact that you perceive something natural as an abomination is a symptom of a society that's too successful and needs to invent problems where there are none.

> It's not an abomination to eat natural food. Any carnivore/omnivore would eat a cow if it could. If the cow could speak, I believe their opinion would be otherwise. Humans don't generally appreciate it when lions, tigers, and bears beat them to the top of the food chain. Perfectly natural, that hypocrisy; as natural as your face being eaten by leopards. > The fact that you perceive something natural as an abominati…

Most loving things don't want to die, whether it's to be a meal for something else or any other reason. I don't see how that refutes what looks like the natural drive, at least based on how many have been doing it for how long, of predators to eat meat.

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

#330

Post by xdennis »

__void wrote: post #232
nemo44x wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m referring to lab grown meat as unnatural. Insects are just plain gross to me. Although they are natural. But shouldn’t be called “flour”. It’s not.

> But shouldn’t be called “flour”. It’s not. the definition of flour is "ground substances," see also bone flour, fossilized flour, stone flour...

You know very well that the purpose of calling it "insect flour" is to mislead and to normalize it.

Nobody cares about "stone flour" etc because it not sold as flour on a shelf next to real flour. It's not intended to mislead.

Post reply on HN