Ready to eat cultured animal cell lines?

'chicken bites' from cultured meat have recently been given approval for commercial sale by the Singapore Food Agency.
Other types of tissue engineered animal muscle and fat etc are being developed with the possibility of far less enviromental impact compared to farming and fishing, as well no cruelty to real animals.
But I think that with a healthy diet possible with a very small proportion of animal products (or maybe none at all) it is a solution looking for a problem.
What do shipmates think?
«1

Comments

  • Are you saying that the mass production of meat isn't a problem?
  • I think Merry Vole is saying that a much simpler solution to the problems of mass production of meat is for everyone to eat less meat, rather than replace (part of) that mass production with another industrial process.
  • Yes but I think that is unlikely to happen. In fact quite the reverse, with meat consumption soaring in e.g. China.

    So I think this is a good idea although I feel a bit weird about it. I would certainly be prepared to give it a go.
  • Merry VoleMerry Vole Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Are you saying that the mass production of meat isn't a problem?

    You're right, the mass production of meat, with hormones, antibiotics etc, is a huge problem. And so is fishing the sea to extinction and 'farming' fish and prawns etc.
    But isn't it driven by marketing-driven consumption and life-style aspirations that don't respect the environment?
  • Yes but I think that is unlikely to happen. In fact quite the reverse, with meat consumption soaring in e.g. China.

    So I think this is a good idea although I feel a bit weird about it. I would certainly be prepared to give it a go.

    Yes, it seems unreal to me to say, eat less meat. A meat substitute sounds more realistic.
  • Merry Vole wrote: »
    Are you saying that the mass production of meat isn't a problem?

    You're right, the mass production of meat, with hormones, antibiotics etc, is a huge problem. And so is fishing the sea to extinction and 'farming' fish and prawns etc.
    But isn't it driven by marketing-driven consumption and life-style aspirations that don't respect the environment?

    Partly. But it's also driven by the fact that hundreds of millions of people who were previously extremely poor and barely able ever to afford meat are now able to afford it more often. This is a "life-style aspiration" if you like, but I don't think it's fair to call it "marketing-driven".
  • Meat substitutes like soya also impact the environment negatively.

    Big business and the ‘markets’ exploit, whatever the trend is, meat or no meat.

    But purely on animal welfare grounds I would happily eat cell grown meat.
  • Yes but I think that is unlikely to happen. In fact quite the reverse, with meat consumption soaring in e.g. China.

    So I think this is a good idea although I feel a bit weird about it. I would certainly be prepared to give it a go.
    Why would you feel a bit weird about reducing your meat consumption? If that is what you'd feel a bit weird about? Over the last few years I've significantly reduced my red meat consumption, replacing beef and lamb with chicken and pork, and my overall meat consumption with a couple of main meals a week meat-free. It's not that difficult, and I've had fun learning new recipes and playing with different ingredients.

    In terms of protein replacement insects are an underused resource. I've had locusts before, and they were yummy.
  • I mean I would feel weird about eating lab-grown meat, because of its novelty and "ick" factor, but that lab-grown meat is nevertheless a good idea. Reducing meat consumption is also a good idea but that is not what I meant.
  • I eat quite a lot of meat, bought from our local butcher, generally from animals who have been reared within a ten mile radius.

    I tend to eat vegetarian food if I'm eating out and don't know where the meat has come from. By the same token I wouldn't eat cultured meat.
  • jay_emmjay_emm Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    It does feel weird (invertebrates are also a totally illogical uncanny valley).

    On the other hand Lab grown fungi pretending to be meat, I am definitely comfortable with (despite not being comfortable with fungi). There's a decent range that is almost 'good enough':

    To me there are indistinguishable imitations of sausage rolls and nuggets (which probably says something about the real ones), (as well as the ones that are deliberately different)*.
    Mince and chicken-replacement-pieces aren't quite as good but are a lot more convenient.
    Sausage, burgers and steaks have a long way to go.

    *Also I suspect by going full Vegan, by my metrics they potentially lose slightly on the ethical style than something 99% but easier oils.
  • Vat-grown meat has a long and distinguished history in science fiction.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    I've been thinking of Chicken Little from The Space Merchants.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Why would you feel a bit weird about reducing your meat consumption? If that is what you'd feel a bit weird about? Over the last few years I've significantly reduced my red meat consumption, replacing beef and lamb with chicken and pork, and my overall meat consumption with a couple of main meals a week meat-free. It's not that difficult, and I've had fun learning new recipes and playing with different ingredients.

    In terms of protein replacement insects are an underused resource. I've had locusts before, and they were yummy.
    I don't quite see what ethical difference there is between eating cows or sheep and eating pigs or chicken. If they could form their opinions and express them, I'd query whether the pigs or hens would see any difference.

    Some meats and some cuts may be better or worse for one, but query what colour the meat is really has to do with that. Before it's cooked pork isn't even 'not-red'. It's just a bit pinker than beef or lamb. And what's good or bad for one's metabolism isn't an ethical question in the way vegetarians and vegans proclaim the moral superiority of their respective stances.

    Although I've eaten some excellent chicken over the years, a lot of what one can buy is dry and bland. This may be the wrong time of the year to say this, but so, I'm afraid, is a lot of roast turkey, though I do quite like some turkey steaks. So, as far as I'm concerned, unless factory cultured chicken has got more to it than mass produced actual hens, I don't think I'll bother. I'd prefer a well made veggie burger.

    I've not tried locusts, but flying ants (termites that is) fried fresh were very tasty. However, they only fly once a year, and we don't have them here.

  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Cows at least use up a lot of resources, although unless we give up using cow's milk, there will always be some meat from the male calves (though dairy breeds aren't meat breeds).
    I don't know whether pigs and chickens use fewer resources though. I would actually have guessed that they use more per unit mass.
  • If one's ethical concern is to do with the impact on the planet then there is an advantage to pigs and chickens over sheep and especially cows, in that pigs and chickens convert plant food to meat much more efficiently.

    From an animal welfare point of view I'd say pigs are probably worst, because they're more likely to be intensively reared than cows or sheep and they're more intelligent than chickens (ISTM).
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    If one's ethical concern is to do with the impact on the planet then there is an advantage to pigs and chickens over sheep and especially cows, in that pigs and chickens convert plant food to meat much more efficiently.
    That is what I thought but then I thought that surely ruminants like sheep and cows must be more efficient. Do we know why pigs are more efficient than sheep?

  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Cows at least use up a lot of resources, although unless we give up using cow's milk, there will always be some meat from the male calves (though dairy breeds aren't meat breeds).
    I don't know whether pigs and chickens use fewer resources though. I would actually have guessed that they use more per unit mass.

    Chicken is very efficient, resource wise. Unfortunately its efficiency is inversely linked to its welfare.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Chicken is very efficient, resource wise. Unfortunately its efficiency is inversely linked to its welfare.
    Isn't that likely to be a principle of general relevance? After is anyone going to damage the welfare of their animals just for it's own sake rather than because cutting corners gets more meat cheaper or faster.

  • Sometimes the humane thing is also economically best (e.g. a farmer getting prompt vetinerary care for their cows). Sometimes bad animal welfare is due to ignorance or bad management rather than cold economic calculation.
  • Ruminants digest grass, which is inedible to most other animals, so sheep and cows left to eat grass get food that's largely free to the farmer (although many farmers fertilise their pastures to increase grass yield, cut grass for silage etc) ... so from that point quite efficient. But, the process produces a lot of methane (though far more if the diet is more artificial, such as lots of corn and other feeds that beef up protein and milk production), and the land may be used to produce crops of greater nutritional value than grazing (though, grazing may be the best use for some marginal lands). Pigs and chickens don't eat grass and so need to be fed other foods, so there's inefficiency there but also much lower carbon emissions. My choice to reduce red meat consumption relates to environmental impact rather than animal welfare, I try to source the meat I eat with an eye on welfare. Since my chicken and pork consumption hasn't increased maybe my description of eating these in favour of beef, and cutting out chicken and pork for more meat-free dishes could be better described as replacing red meat with meat free.
  • Enoch wrote: »
    Chicken is very efficient, resource wise. Unfortunately its efficiency is inversely linked to its welfare.
    Isn't that likely to be a principle of general relevance? After is anyone going to damage the welfare of their animals just for it's own sake rather than because cutting corners gets more meat cheaper or faster.

    Resource use and economic cost don't always match up.
  • James Rebanks, farmer and author, is passionate about farming for conservation - the link is to a Penguin Books interview about his latest book but includes an outline on how he is improving his farm. He rears sheep, beef and pigs as part of that ecological farming method.

    Beef is not necessarily worse than sheep or pigs for the environment, it depends on how it is farmed. Brazilian beef is many times more environmentally costly compared with English - tweet of comparison. What is attracting the publicity and information about beef is that reared on the ashes of the Amazon rainforest and/or other intensive farming. Blanket beef bans are black and white assessments ignoring the nuances that actually exist.

    Unless you're very careful about the provenance of your chicken the welfare is likely to be horrific - link to Guardian story. And they will be reared on soya and other dubious produce.

    And @Boogie is right, much soya is grown in Brazil, to feed beef and chickens, most soya is implicated in the same destruction, almond milk is mostly grown in California and is part of that environmental disaster. Oat milk is supposed to be least damaging (but no good for gluten intolerants). There is a brand of UK Soya milk that guarantees its soya is grown on its own French farms.

    I don't like meat much, prefer vegetables, and am quite happy eating fungi, pulses and nuts so wouldn't bother with synthetic meat any more than I do now.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    I'm not there on reducing meat consumption from farmed animals. I know the arguments, but I have an emotional commitment to eating farmed animals and the process of farming and slaughtering them.

    I like going to my local butcher and choosing the meats, parceling them up at home and freezing them. I like getting lambs necks for my dogs, and I like seeing the carcasses cut up before me, seeing the butcher operate the mincer for my mince and the saw to cut up the bones for my dogs. I like that he gets his pig carcasses in on a Thursday, so that Friday is the best day for pork, and that he gets his chickens on a Wednesday. I like that you can't expect any chicken to be in his shop on a Tuesday. I like that he is married to one of our local vets, and that I couldn't get a better sausage than his in Europe.

    I expect farmers and abattoirs to treat animals humanely, and my Government to regulate and enforce what that means. I appreciate it when animal rights activists expose bad practices or breaches of the law.

    I have a problem with the live export trade, but I know that live export to Muslim countries is an important trade for the country and for farmers in the north. The way animals are exported needs to change. The way we handle our animals is our responsibility, including the conditions on ships to which we deliver the animals up. Animal rights activists have exposed very bad practices in some Indonesian abattoirs that are licenced to slaughter Australian animals. They are breaching their license conditions when they do so. We do attempt to have some control over how Australian animals are slaughtered overseas, in Indonesia and Saudi Arabia at least. But I also know that people with schizophrenia and other mental illnesses are chained to posts in some Indonesian asylums. There is only so much we can do.
  • From what I understand, cows eating grass don't produce so much methane. It's cows eating corn (maize) that produce methane, because their gut is not fitted to properly digest corn, so a lot of the sugars are turned to methane inside the cow. But they can eat grass all day long and get less gassy than a human eating cabbage.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    From what I understand, cows eating grass don't produce so much methane. It's cows eating corn (maize) that produce methane, because their gut is not fitted to properly digest corn, so a lot of the sugars are turned to methane inside the cow. But they can eat grass all day long and get less gassy than a human eating cabbage.

    They're still pretty gassy from grass, but there seem to be herb mixes that can be introduced into pasture that reduce levels even further.
  • Not all grazing ground is suitable for crops as it’s too hilly or rocky. Large parts of Wales, for example.
  • Or Highland Scotland. When I arrived where I am now, I asked when the harvest would be done, as I had learned in the rural Borders not to hold Harvest Thanksgiving till the harvest was actually in, even if that was November. The farmers on the Kirk Session looked at me strangely and said "Harvest? It's all beasts here." Our harvest is the lambing, so we could hold harvest thanksgiving in May. (Though we don't.)
  • Beef is not necessarily worse than sheep or pigs for the environment, it depends on how it is farmed. Brazilian beef is many times more environmentally costly compared with English - tweet of comparison. What is attracting the publicity and information about beef is that reared on the ashes of the Amazon rainforest and/or other intensive farming. Blanket beef bans are black and white assessments ignoring the nuances that actually exist.
    Part of the problems with the comparisons is what gets put into the equation. "Reared on the ashes of the Amazon rainforest" can only really be held on one side of the equation if we likewise add "raised on the ashes of British woodland" on the other - it's just that European farmers slashed and burned their way through our forests thousands of years ago, and it took a bit longer to strip practically all our forests with stone and bronze axes than is possible with chainsaws. While we continue to maintain our pastures with as much grass as we can manage for cows to graze we can't plant that land with trees to work towards reversing the environmental damage of our ancestors.

    Yes, the comparisons that eating beef from European farms does less damage to the environment than beef from Brazil (because we've already grown accustomed to the environmental damage done by our ancestors). And, therefore if we eat the same amount of beef and reduce production in Europe there'll be an increase in contemporary environmental harm. But, that's assuming we eat the same amount of beef ... if we significantly cut the amount of beef so that Brazilian ranchers don't need as much land (ending further deforestation, even better allowing reforestation or at the least plantations for whatever commercial trees suitable for those locations that allow local people to have export goods) and European farmers can plant more trees as well.
  • Cathscats wrote: »
    Or Highland Scotland. When I arrived where I am now, I asked when the harvest would be done, as I had learned in the rural Borders not to hold Harvest Thanksgiving till the harvest was actually in, even if that was November. The farmers on the Kirk Session looked at me strangely and said "Harvest? It's all beasts here." Our harvest is the lambing, so we could hold harvest thanksgiving in May. (Though we don't.)

    There's silage to harvest here, and the "harvest" for beasts is the sales (about 3-4 times a year). We had, however, pencilled in a "thanksgiving for lambing" for late April this year before covid intervened.
  • @Alan Cresswell - the work James Rebanks is doing in the Lake District is replanting trees, rewiggling burns, adding bog and hedgerows - generally trying to turn back 100 years of intensive farming (since WW1). He is showing that beef farming works environmentally in that situation.

    Turning back the millennia to return Britain to fully wooded is a tad more ambitious and almost certainly impossible without reducing the population to the same levels - I cannot see anyone sane aiming to achieve that. (However, the Woodland Trust and other organisations are campaigning to plant more trees.)
  • Yes, beef farming can be a lot more environmentally friendly. But, probably not in such high numbers as the pseudo-industrial levels of most modern farms where the aim seems to be to accommodate as many cattle as possible per hectare, feed them supplements to gain bulk as quickly as possible so that the maximum number of burgers can be made. Which is why the argument is about significantly cutting down on beef consumption, a small amount could be sustainably managed but if everyone in the world was to eat a burger a week we'd not be able to do that without massive environmental and animal welfare costs.
  • FirenzeFirenze Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Interesting piece about lab-grown meat: foundational to the production of the 'chicken' she sampled was material derived from foetal calves. So hens may not have died, but cows did.

    I agree with the conclusion of the article, that it would be better to fund farmers than bio tech.
  • I find it interesting that all the animal welfare considerations raised by the anti-meat lobby never seem to include the question of what will happen to all those cattle/chickens/pigs/etc once they become completely worthless to their farmers.
  • Most of those animals won't be born. It's not as though we're going to switch between two binary states overnight leaving animals in the field without buyers. As we cut meat consumption and meat becomes a more premium product farmers will make more per animal, and animal welfare will reward the investment at market. Simply scaling down and not looking for breeds that have more offspring etc will reduce the number of animals on farms without those already there being worthless.
  • We'll eat the ones that are left, then we won't make any more. (Or allow them to breed, same diff)
  • The lifespan of a farm chicken (c. 1 year), or even a cow (c. 10 years), is rather short compared to the timescale over which meat production might wind down (c. 100 years at least). So it's not as though farmers will suddenly have a whole raft of livestock "all dressed up with nowhere to go".
  • Why would it take 100 years?
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Why would it take 100 years?

    Because, even if you convince most meat eaters, there will be holdouts who swear that no matter what you do you can't replicate Iberico Chorizo Belotta or Wagyu beef through cell cultures. Heck, they might even be right. The only way you'll see an end to raising animals for meat is prohibition. I'm pretty sure there would be a religious backlash too. Fundie Christians would claim that eating meat from dead animals is a divine command (they already claim that being vegetarian is un-Christian), some conservative Muslim scholars will declare it Haram to eat cultured meat, and some Orthodox Rabbis will say it's not Kosher.
  • And actually, rearing some of those specialist meats in an ecological way would not be that disastrous to the climate. It's the mass factory farming of inferior meat with huge inputs of antibiotics and foods imported around the planet that aren't so great.

    If we were prepared to eat meat once in a blue moon and savour every scrap, eating oink to tail, respecting the lives killed in our quest to eat more protein than we need, we'd not be destroying the planet the way we are.
  • For the most part you could replace burgers, sausages, mince and so forth with artificial versions without anyone really noticing. That would be enough to save the planet, and anyone who wants to eat real meat wouldn’t be affected.
  • My worry would be that the large Battery farms can initially compete on price. So it's the small farms that get eliminated, rather than the Batteries getting more Pastoral.
  • I suppose that is true. The customers for lab-grown meat are initially more likely to be those who would otherwise be buying organic chickens.
  • I suppose that is true. The customers for lab-grown meat are initially more likely to be those who would otherwise be buying organic chickens.

    I’d have thought it’s more likely to be the big fast food and supermarket chains who will buy it to replace the more expensive real meat in their bargain basement processed-to-hell-and-back-anyway offerings.
  • I think @Marvin the Martian has it -- companies that sell frozen heat-and-eat meals are going to be the first customers. You couldn't tell their crap from real meat anyway.
  • The problem is that it will be a long time before lab-grown 'meat' will be as cheap as the finest organic reared meat. It's going to be the expensive option, a novelty until the technology takes a few quantum leaps in scaling up - and even then would need the costs of rearing animals to also increase to become competitive on price alone. So, it will be those who have objections to eating meat on ethical grounds (animal welfare, environmental impact) but want meat-like in their diets. I also agree that the first products will be substitute mince or sausage, mainly because the process for producing the stuff might manage the taste and nutritional content - but the texture of a steak or chop will be much harder to achieve.
  • I also agree that the first products will be substitute mince or sausage, mainly because the process for producing the stuff might manage the taste and nutritional content - but the texture of a steak or chop will be much harder to achieve.

    Yes. As someone for whom texture is more important than flavour when it comes to food, that’s going to be a big issue for me.
  • caroline444caroline444 Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Firenze wrote: »
    Interesting piece about lab-grown meat: foundational to the production of the 'chicken' she sampled was material derived from foetal calves. So hens may not have died, but cows did.

    I agree with the conclusion of the article, that it would be better to fund farmers than bio tech.

    I was very interested to read that article. Whilst I find the idea of eating 'lab meat' a bit off putting, I would hope very much to overcome my squeamishness as time went on. I was more concerned to hear that the process involved foetal bovine serum - which I think is obtained by slaughtering a pregnant cow - but then an update at the end of the article it suggested that it was no longer going to be necessary. I would be delighted if this lab meat could be produced on a large scale, and ultimately produced cheaply. Even if my generation can't quite stomach this stuff comfortably, I would hope that our grandchildren and great-grandchildren could take it for granted as a staple protein food. I think anything that takes the pressure off our intensively farmed animals and too much meat-eating is to be welcomed.

    If this was accompanied by the high quality rearing of animals for food, where meat would be used more as a special treat, I would be comfortable with that too. For me the real bugbear is factory farming.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    @caroline444 said -
    If this was accompanied by the high quality rearing of animals for food, where meat would be used more as a special treat, I would be comfortable with that too. For me the real bugbear is factory farming.

    Yes, same here. I will only eat meat which has had a ‘happy life and humane death’.

    Another article on the subject - https://tinyurl.com/y35qww4z

    I’d happily eat the meat but the burger bun looks horrible!
  • Because, even if you convince most meat eaters, there will be holdouts who swear that no matter what you do you can't replicate Iberico Chorizo Belotta or Wagyu beef through cell cultures.

    You don't have to.

    Well, not if you're arguing from an environmental standpoint. If you're taking an ethical-vegan "bacon is people" viewpoint, you care about every last pig and cow. If you're taking an environmental or general animal-welfare position, you don't.

    But as others have pointed out, making growing meat in a tank as cheap as growing meat in animals is going to be a bit of a challenge.


Sign In or Register to comment.