Live data from Hacker News

Sergey Brin invests in synthetic beef

theguardian.com

211–220 of 272 posts

Re: Sergey Brin invests in synthetic beef

#211
post #96
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>An independent study found that lab-grown beef uses 45% less energy than the average global representative figure for farming cattle. It also produces 96% fewer greenhouse gas emissions and requires 99% less land. I'd really like to know how something that is 200,000 times more expensive could currently have less of an environmental impact. I just don't see how you move that much money and don't make an impact.

It is currently far more expensive. Currently. Look at the prize to synthesise DNA, which has crashed like there is no tomorrow. If these prizes follow that then in a decade or two this will be cheaper than real meat.

Yes, currently I believe the cost is due to a single professor making it in a lab with lab assistants, ordering small amounts of materials, preparing in small batches.

Potentially, it could be as simple as making soy protein or Smarties (that's an American candy btw) https://www.google.com/search?q=smarties&client=firefox-a&hs...

Re: Sergey Brin invests in synthetic beef

#212
He doesn't seem to understand that everything on this planet has its purpose and that of animals is, that it is to be consumed by us. I do not condone the current ways of killing animals en masse but certainly artificial meat isn't the answer either? We are dealing with a lot of unnatural food these days and no matter what the motivations are, it is hurting humanity.

Re: Sergey Brin invests in synthetic beef

#213
post #8

We have a lot of entrepreneurs here. Why don't we start with an easier lab-grown animal product than something we ingest? How about lab-grown fur coats (EDIT from evilduck's comment: or lab-grown leather for clothing, furniture, shoes, etc)? Who wouldn't want to wear a "mink" coat created with no animal pain? Develop the technology on something we don't have to eat, along with the associated health risks and sensitiv…

Because it would be orders of magnitude more difficult. Muscle tissue is relatively homogeneous and has a far simpler structure than skin and hair folicles. Minced meat has had most of the complex macro-structure destroyed by the process of mincing, so it's easier still to imitate than whole pieces of meat. There is also a very limited market for these products, as there are many satisfactory substitutes to leather a…

It may be more difficult but we have synthetic meet it's just far to expencive to be practical. So the fact that the end product would presumably be with a lot more per lb could be a significant factor.

PS: I suspect you could sell a few thousand 100k coats a year under the 'Animal Free' idea. Which pays for a fair amount of R&D.

Re: Sergey Brin invests in synthetic beef

#214

He doesn't seem to understand that everything on this planet has its purpose and that of animals is, that it is to be consumed by us. I do not condone the current ways of killing animals en masse but certainly artificial meat isn't the answer either? We are dealing with a lot of unnatural food these days and no matter what the motivations are, it is hurting humanity.

You have got to be trolling. You just said that the purpose of animals are to be eaten. Okay, maybe some animals and maybe our society condones meat-eating. But you cannot possibly allow this as absolute reality. Some very productive, peaceful, societies (pre-Modern China) were almost completely vegetarian. Vegatarianism is a possibility.

Now, regarding artificial meat. It's weird. But people will not hangs their habits right now. It is possible, but it won't happen right now. Maybe the best startup or business idea that could ever exist is helping people to change. But the thing is, it is hard to change. And as many teachers and successful people say, you can only lead people to a door, you can't make them open it.

But with this artificial meat. So we can't make people change. We can't fight highly unethical current practice by charging the same or lower than them. We maybe can change legislation, but that is also very hard because these industries are very powerful.

So we can't change what people eat, can't convince them based on price, and can't change the way animals are treated.

But we can change the way the product is produced that we are already eating en-masse. And it might be weird. But who knows, it's a gamble. But artificial meat could work.

Re: Sergey Brin invests in synthetic beef

#215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think that petrochemicals would be involved in growing synthetic meat? They could use all kinds of natural feedstocks (starches).

I am assuming those are cheaper/more efficient. After all, our grain production relies heavily on petrochemical inputs. Historically speaking, one of the reasons[1] domestication of large herbivores for meat production makes sense is because those can be fed with agriculture byproducts not suitable for human consumption. In industrial terms, it is a sort of "rejects reprocessing" that partially recovers an investment…

I'm not sure it would be more efficient. Starches from corn or potatoes is pretty cheap, and if this synthetic meat can use it more efficiently (I wouldn't be surprised at at least an order of magnitude or two) compared to an animal in the wild, that's relatively little feedstock per pound of meat compared to what we pay now.

And using the same kind of biotech we use to break down cellulose to make cellulosic ethanol, we might be able to create feedstock for this meat from agricultural waste or fast-growing grasses.

Re: Sergey Brin invests in synthetic beef

#216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? That's the same as labeling food made with GMOs. If there's no provable difference between the two, putting it on the label is just spreading FUD about the product.

No, putting it on the label is giving the consumer the choice, as well as the ability to follow their food back to its source if they so choose. In a consumer friendly food economy (in other words, the EU, or at least Germany), almost everything is labeled sufficiently to follow it back to the factory or farm that produced it. That, to me, is a very good thing. The idea that the government and corporations should dec…

Sure, I agree with you. The problem is, if "regular" meat does not need to say what type of cow it's from, what antibiotics were used, what the cow was fed, the living conditions at the farm, the location of the farm, etc, then why make lab grown meat have this label? It will only serve to differentiate the lab grown meat. Unless there's some provable difference between meat A and meat B, they should be subject to the same labeling requirements. To label otherwise pushes the uncertainty onto the consumer.

This is similar to rBST in cows (note that I am only comparing the provable human health impact as a comparison between these two products). I'm quoting from Wikipedia here (you can follow their references to make your own opinion): "The Food and Drug Administration[33], World Health Organization, the American Dietetic Association, and National Institutes of Health have independently stated that dairy products and meat from BST-treated cows are safe for human consumption." [1]. Yet even though the major health agencies around the world agree that there's no provable difference to human health when consuming milk A vs milk B, but I've yet to see milk in my supermarket that does not have the label "from cows not treated with rBST". The impact of that label was so significant that the FDA had to push to get them to add an additional disclaimer, "FDA states: No significant difference in milk from cows treated with artificial growth hormones".

You might argue that people go with rBST-free milk because of the health implications to the cows, but I would need to see some statistics to believe that. If people were that concerned over the cow's health, they would not buy factory-farmed hamburger meat in the same supermarket. I would wager that people are concerned for human health due to the contents of the milk. Not labeling milk as rBST-free or labeling meat as lab-grown has the same effect: it makes people question how healthy it is to consume. Unless those fears are based in reality, all you're doing is causing FUD in the consumer's mind. Unless all meat of the same health impact is labeled the same, you're going to be putting lab-grown meat at a significant disadvantage when, by the time it comes to market, it could be much better for cows than factory-farmed meat.

In short, more labeling on the production of meat is a good thing. But lab-grown meat should not be the line in the sand. It should be labeled on all meat or on no meat (if lab-grown meat is proven to have no significant difference from farmed meat).

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin#Hormones

Re: Sergey Brin invests in synthetic beef

#217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you recommend letting people starve to death.

I recommend people respect our planet, animals, and each other, and live responsibly and sustainably with what we have been given and has proven to already work. I also recommend thinking critically, logically, and avoiding false dichotomies.

There are 7 billion people alive today. If we can't produce enough food for them all, people will starve. There's nothing false about that dichotomy, only your evasion.

Re: Sergey Brin invests in synthetic beef

#218

He doesn't seem to understand that everything on this planet has its purpose and that of animals is, that it is to be consumed by us. I do not condone the current ways of killing animals en masse but certainly artificial meat isn't the answer either? We are dealing with a lot of unnatural food these days and no matter what the motivations are, it is hurting humanity.

This is the oddest thing I've ever read on this website.

Re: Sergey Brin invests in synthetic beef

#219
post #97

I can't wait to see the cognitive dissonance from the "natural" people. On one hand, it could quite possibly replace factory farming and eliminate a huge amount of waste, pollution, and animal cruelty. On the other hand, it's GMO. I love seeing True Believers in Movementarianism squirm. I'm equal opportunity here. I like pointing out the philosophical inconsistencies of dogmatic positivism to your typical Reddit /r/a…

"On one hand, it could quite possibly replace factory farming and eliminate a huge amount of waste, pollution, and animal cruelty."

don't get it confused. the animals that are factory farmed don't count. they'll never catch a break. if we stop raising them for food we'll just exterminate them.

Re: Sergey Brin invests in synthetic beef

#220
post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a reason why there are practically no vegan power athletes. I was vegan for nearly ten years and I regret it immensely as I now see how badly it set me back. That said, you're right, with a properly-designed diet you can be healthy and happy. I don't believe you can ever be athletically optimal, however (aside from perhaps pure cardio sports).

Mac Danzig seems to counter your argument that's it isn't possible. http://www.ufc.com/fighter/Mac-Danzig http://www.mikemahler.com/online-library/articles/mma-traini...

Not really. First, mma isn't a power sport. Second, notice the protein supplementation. Clearly the diet alone isn't cutting it.
Post reply on HN