With the obvious of the below article pointed out, possible solutions to world hunger, less pollution, less torture for the animal, can this all really be possible? I am not sure. I am also one who does believe that an animal created and which lives by the natural processes evolution designed, are probably far better for us to ingest than otherwise. either way, the majority of the article is below. its an interesting discussion to be had. we must consider our expectations from food, what will 'tube' meat be like nutritionally? we all know that there are minute changes in our biology through environmental and psychological exposures, so how could this be any different? and do you care?
"If this sounds like something from a scifi movie, think again. Dozens of laboratories around the world are pursuing the elusive feat of producing lab-grown meat, as Michael Specter explored in his somewhat recent New Yorker article "Test-Tube Burgers."
In 1999, Willem van Eelen, a Dutch entrepreneur, finally managed to get U.S. and international patents for the "industrial production of meat using cell culture methods." After much effort, van Eeelen also convinced the Dutch government to fund research in cell-cultured meats; scientists are beginning to take the idea seriously.
When we say we eat meat, we mostly mean eating muscular tissue of various animals. (Writing these lines makes me realize even more strongly why I'm a vegetarian.) In-vitro meat can be produced in a petri dish, at least in principle, by placing a few cells in a nutrient solution and coax them into proliferating.
"If people are unwilling to stop eating animals by the billions, then what a joy to be able to give them animal flesh that comes without the horror of the slaughterhouse, the transport truck, the mutilations, pain and suffering of factory farming," mused Ingrid Newkirk, the co-founder and president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
Apart from the obvious ethical advantages (although cattle and chicken and pig farmers may violently disagree), there are clear environmental advantages as well: animal farming consumes enormous amounts of natural resources, from water to energy, not to speak of the deforestation that comes with the package. Also, anyone who has reservations about lab-grown meat should visit a slaughterhouse and then a laboratory, and compare the two.
So, the whole thing seems like a no-brainer, from many points of view. Assuming that lab-grown meat is a viable future enterprise, will people eat it? Note that this is very different from cloned meat, as it doesn't necessarily involve any form of genetic manipulation. Still, there are lessons to learn from the negative public reactions to genetically-modified food.
To a large extent, the issue revolves around the public perception of scientific practices and their credibility. Will people believe what scientists working for the lab-grown meat industry say? As we have seen with the whole global warming issue, the days when scientists were equated with national heroes are long gone. Things get further embroiled when scientists work for the private industry: think of the difference in opinion between what most cancer experts say about the many evils of smoking from those who work for the cigarette companies. Given that the world consumes about 285 million tons of meat every year, the potential market, even if only a fraction of the public will buy lab-grown meat, is huge. Some scientists trying to create viable lab-grown meat may truly be trying to solve world hunger; others may simply be trying to make money.
Hopefully, scientists working for the government and those in academia (and not financed by the lab-grown industry) will join efforts to issue some kind of official public guideline. There may be efficiently-timed campaigns from scientific organizations and the government to restore people's credibility in the scientific endeavor. If people, including politicians, won't listen to our distinguished members of the National Academy of Sciences, who will they listen to when it comes to scientific issues? Meanwhile, it may not be a bad idea to reconsider your eating habits. After all, who needs meat anyway?"
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2011/08/31/140058416/lab-grown-meat-would-you-eat-it?sc=fb&cc=fp
"If this sounds like something from a scifi movie, think again. Dozens of laboratories around the world are pursuing the elusive feat of producing lab-grown meat, as Michael Specter explored in his somewhat recent New Yorker article "Test-Tube Burgers."
In 1999, Willem van Eelen, a Dutch entrepreneur, finally managed to get U.S. and international patents for the "industrial production of meat using cell culture methods." After much effort, van Eeelen also convinced the Dutch government to fund research in cell-cultured meats; scientists are beginning to take the idea seriously.
When we say we eat meat, we mostly mean eating muscular tissue of various animals. (Writing these lines makes me realize even more strongly why I'm a vegetarian.) In-vitro meat can be produced in a petri dish, at least in principle, by placing a few cells in a nutrient solution and coax them into proliferating.
"If people are unwilling to stop eating animals by the billions, then what a joy to be able to give them animal flesh that comes without the horror of the slaughterhouse, the transport truck, the mutilations, pain and suffering of factory farming," mused Ingrid Newkirk, the co-founder and president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
Apart from the obvious ethical advantages (although cattle and chicken and pig farmers may violently disagree), there are clear environmental advantages as well: animal farming consumes enormous amounts of natural resources, from water to energy, not to speak of the deforestation that comes with the package. Also, anyone who has reservations about lab-grown meat should visit a slaughterhouse and then a laboratory, and compare the two.
So, the whole thing seems like a no-brainer, from many points of view. Assuming that lab-grown meat is a viable future enterprise, will people eat it? Note that this is very different from cloned meat, as it doesn't necessarily involve any form of genetic manipulation. Still, there are lessons to learn from the negative public reactions to genetically-modified food.
To a large extent, the issue revolves around the public perception of scientific practices and their credibility. Will people believe what scientists working for the lab-grown meat industry say? As we have seen with the whole global warming issue, the days when scientists were equated with national heroes are long gone. Things get further embroiled when scientists work for the private industry: think of the difference in opinion between what most cancer experts say about the many evils of smoking from those who work for the cigarette companies. Given that the world consumes about 285 million tons of meat every year, the potential market, even if only a fraction of the public will buy lab-grown meat, is huge. Some scientists trying to create viable lab-grown meat may truly be trying to solve world hunger; others may simply be trying to make money.
Hopefully, scientists working for the government and those in academia (and not financed by the lab-grown industry) will join efforts to issue some kind of official public guideline. There may be efficiently-timed campaigns from scientific organizations and the government to restore people's credibility in the scientific endeavor. If people, including politicians, won't listen to our distinguished members of the National Academy of Sciences, who will they listen to when it comes to scientific issues? Meanwhile, it may not be a bad idea to reconsider your eating habits. After all, who needs meat anyway?"
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2011/08/31/140058416/lab-grown-meat-would-you-eat-it?sc=fb&cc=fp
