Meat made in a lab?

[xrodolfox]

This is why, as long as we are clear with our message and goal of reducing animal suffering, I think it would not be an ethical or political problem for a vegan to consume meat produced in a lab. Your actions against animal consumptions would NOT be inconsistent, since lab-produced meat would not be animal consumption.

No, my actions would not be inconsistent, but the message could be.

Unless ALL animal farming was done away with, there would be a world with two parallel "meats"; one produced in a lab, and another otherwise idential product produced with a once live animal. I can easily see how a message about not needing animal products to thrive and thus being able to only relate to animals in a non commodifying manner could be confused as long as the two parallel "meat" products co-existed.

It's similar to the reasoning why I won't wear leather or wool, even if it is second hand and the suffering has already happened. Or why I won't eat dumspstered animal products.

I just don't need them, and the reason TO consume them is mostly for pleasure. While the need for that social/political consistency is not terribly important (I do think it's fine to wear fake leather or fur), it is enough to override whatever small pleasure I might gain from being less consistent with my abstinence from "ethical" meat (I can't believe I typed that last line).

Well, this is my fantasy, so you have to play by my rules . Suppose this meat was made from the genes of an animal that lived a happy life in one of the farms of rescued animals and died a natural death. Its genes were not used against its will, since a dead animal has no will. What would be the problem with that?

I think I related to this above.

Without the social or political context, I think it may be fine to eat that "meat". Unless heavily subsidized, I don't see how it would be economically or ecologically sustainable (as growing cell tissues still have to get rid of metabolic waste and consume huge ammounts of plant protein), but disregarding that barrier, as long as two parallel system existed in a social context, I think it would be best to avoid consumption of "ethical" meat.

Now... on a deserted island, with no social context to think about, it's fine. If I *had* to consume meat to survive, then eating the one produced in the lab would be the only choice as well. Luckily, I don't think you were reducing your question to such narrow terms.

I have the same policy in my house about NIKE products. Nike is just as bad as Addidas or anyone else, but I won't buy Nike because of the fact that they are so associated socially with sweatshops and Union-busting, that I don't want to muddle my effectiveness of my political messag by wearing Nike products. That's also why if I'm Union organizing, I also make sure to drive a US-made car, even if other non-US made cars are made by unions as well. It's all about the political context when we can afford to make those choices.

[Blue moon]

I'm just wondering (I'm very bored today)...

I wonder if your average meat eater would even know whether they're eating this stuff or part of a real cow? I mean, when they go to Tesco & pick up their lump of cellophane wrapped stuff. For all we know, it's already happening!

Conspiracy theories, anyone?

[emzy1985]

This wouldn't really impact me or veganism to be honest. Firstly veganism is about minimising ALL cruelty to animals. So what about eggs, silk, wool, honey, milk and leather? Being vegan isn't just about meat consumption.

I think 99% of vegans would tell you that if it reduces animal suffering then fair do's but but there is no way on hell it will be going in my stomach. It will still have the same health implications as "real" meat. Screw them! Vegan forever babay!!!

[Klytemnest]

I agree. From what I understand, the consumption of animal protein is linked to cancer. So, I probably would not eat it either. Besides, after over a year of being a vegan, the thought of eating meat no longer appeals to me. It is almost repulsive to me now. But in terms of ethics, I see no reason why such meat should not be produced and consumed, especially if it contributes to the minimizing of animal cruelty.

[AКЌİĻØҚΪÞÕҜ]

Mmmm...Labmeat (Is shot). Well I guess we can see how it goes, it might work, it might not, I remember my semi-carnivorous friend said she wouldn't eat it since its unnatural or would taste bad or something...Well I dunno, this thing could help, like some people have said.

[Tin-Tin]

why are they even doing this in the first place?

surely if you care about health then you wouldnt eat it anyway
andif you care about AR then you would probably already be vegan surely?

idno
this seems a tad bit pointless if you ask me

although if it stops animal cruelty then am all for it
but i cant help but feel its just going to help cover up certain aspect of AR even more :S

[Mahk]

Peta is backing this "in vitro" meat (chicken) concept with a $1 million (*Dr. Evil accent*) dollar reward to the first company to get it on the market by 2012 (within their set guidelines):

http://www.peta.org/feat_in_vitro_contest.asp

I don't think it's such a bad idea. I may avoid the stuff personally (seeing chicken meat repulses me) but if millions of real chickens are spared their lives and this thing is environmentally responsible then I say it sounds like a good idea.

edit: Thinking more about it I think it is doomed to failure because it won't sell. If I'm repulsed by raw meat then zillions of all of us and veg*ans in general also won't buy it. All that leaves are meat eaters who have no qualms about killing real animals in the first place and what would their incentive be to switch to a more expensive "scary laboratory" artificial prepared version of meat?

[DiaShel]

I think it's great. People are going to eat meat anyway so let them do it without harming animals. If you can't turn the world vegan I think this is the next best thing. Sadly, I think people will still demand "real meat".
I wouldn't because part (not all) of the reason I became vegan is for health. I like our food better already.

[Risker]

This would put all the animal farmers out of a job, we can't have that, farmers having to get new jobs like everyone else does when their company is no longer profitable.

I can just imagine the campaigns there would be, from people trying to encourage everyone to eat real meat and support the farmers (like the government doesn't support them enough).

[emzy1985]

That's very true Risker and nodoubt campaign groups like the country side alliance would get involved too.

It would never take off here for that reason......

[kit]

Hi everyone,

I'm not sure if this has been posted already - I had a look and couldn't find it but, obviously, point me in the right direction if it has. I wondered who had seen this piece of news, where a lab in the Netherlands claims to have created meat without it being from an animal despite the original tissue coming from a pig.

For me, you know, eating synthetic meat is weird because it still recreates the experience... and also lab-created food? No thanks.

But I'd like to know other opinions on this news.

Ta!

[rulska]

Interesting. If it works as advertised, I probably don't have a moral problem with it, but I also wouldn't like to eat something that comes from a lab - and this would apply to plant foods as well.

Actually, I think most omnis wouldn't be very keen on it for the same reason. If anything comes out of it, the majority of the production is likely to end up in pet food or some ultra cheap products like sausages or nuggets. But I can't see many people putting a lab-culture steak on the table any time soon... unless we gradually get used to the idea.

[glovesforfoxes]

Part of the reason I am vegan is that I see animal produce as unnecessary; in fact, it is a great crux. Vegan food is already really good.

[Zero]

This idea has been around for a while and Peta even offered $1,000,000 to anyone who could create this

I can't imagine this practice replacing animal agriculture, it will most likely end up being the process for cheaper meats and those with more money will eat "traditional" farmed meats.

[boatsteem1]

I've not decided on it for myself, but I think that as long as it is more sustainable than eating animals and as long as it does not involve keeping or killing animals then why not?

I certainly wouldn't eat it myself, but for the vast majority of the world's population I think it would be great. Since we're already consuming more than three earths worth of resources I think that any such thing that reduces our ecological burden is a good thing.

What I don't like is that they will be using advanced genetics to reproduce this thing. I'm generally against genetic engineering. Though if they are going to use it (I think it's impossible to stop genetic engineering at this point) then this might be the thing to use it for.

[Zero]

I don't think it is a good idea that the likes of us vegans endorse such an idea. It reinforces the idea that eating meat is "necessary" for human beings. Plus a certain amount of real tissue must be used to grow the rest, therefore animals still have to be used in order for the process to work...

[boatsteem1]

I don't think it is a good idea that the likes of us vegans endorse such an idea. It reinforces the idea that eating meat is "necessary" for human beings. Plus a certain amount of real tissue must be used to grow the rest, therefore animals still have to be used in order for the process to work...

Then again, realistically, how likely is it that 100 % of the world's population will go vegetarian?

Also any cell should do the trick with today's technology. The cell (I presume they want to produce muscle tissue) can come from the remains of a wild animal, or maybe even from a hair, since this too contains all the necessary DNA (they will just need to make it produce muscle tissue). It's possible that they may need stem cells, though. But realistically, even those can be easily found in dead wild animals. Once they have a couple of stem cells then they shouldn't need to have more since they will reproduce themselves. I think that they already have the cells they require, though.

[glovesforfoxes]

Then again, realistically, how likely is it that 100 % of the world's population will go vegetarian?

If an entire culture can..

[Zero]

Then again, realistically, how likely is it that 100 % of the world's population will go vegetarian?

Also any cell should do the trick with today's technology. The cell (I presume they want to produce muscle tissue) can come from the remains of a wild animal, or maybe even from a hair, since this too contains all the necessary DNA (they will just need to make it produce muscle tissue). It's possible that they may need stem cells, though. But realistically, even those can be easily found in dead wild animals. Once they have a couple of stem cells then they shouldn't need to have more since they will reproduce themselves. I think that they already have the cells they require, though.

I never said that whole world was going to go vegetarian (or vegan), at least not anytime soon.

Realistically, how likely is it that a business would rely on finding wild animals to get the cells to grow it's product?

Yes this is probably better, but what I am saying is that it we shouldn't endorse it like it's the solution, it isn't the means to the ends we are looking for if are serious about animal rights.

Whether there is 1,000,000 animals enslaved or 10 it's still unethical.

Just my thoughs

[Buddha Belly]

I don't know much about this so sorry if silly qustion.


Bear with me,if the cells are originally from a dead animals cells, are all the cells derived from this and further down the created 'generations' are created from lab made cells surely it is an animal product? Obviously the first generation is, but how long is it until it should no longer be classed as animal derived?

Is it possible to create a cell for 'meat' production from non-animal sources.

[leedsveg]

Is it possible to create a cell for 'meat' production from non-animal sources.

Yes, use one of your cells, ok not 'created', but never mind. It would be freely donated, non-animal source, not been 'contaminated' by 'animal ingestion' for some years etc...Although I can imagine VF purists would want to source someone who has been vegan from birth.

lv

[Buddha Belly]

Double post hours apart thanks to phone.


Thanks LV that is true. It is still animal derived

[Korn]

Single cells/molecules/atoms from animal products float around everywhere. I don't know if this technology really qualifies for being called 'cloning', and I don't want to consume cloned animal products anyway, but the source cell issue could be addressed by starting the cloning of an animal product based on an animal that died of natural causes.

On another note: Isn't this the exactly same topic that's being discussed here:
Cultured (in vitro) meat?

And, more importantly, where do I put the question mark if I ask a question followed up by a colon?

[leedsveg]

Thanks LV that is true. It is still animal derived

No BB, not animal derived. 'Human-(animal)' derived which technically would be ok for vegans otherwise we could end up saying that (human) babies shouldn't be drinking their mothers milk, if they 'want' to retain their veganness!

Must admit it's all a bit fanciful until the first Birds Eye 'Triple B's (Buddha Belly Burgers) hit the shops.

lv

[leedsveg]

On another note: Isn't this the exactly same topic that's being discussed here:
Cultured (in vitro) meat?

And, more importantly, where do I put the question mark if I ask a question followed up by a colon?

Hi Korn

I think the original topic died out a few days ago to be replaced by the 'cloned' topic which is more or less the same as the original. Some of the posters nurturing the original topic may have fallen by the wayside, though.

I would say that the question mark should be retained at the end of the questioning sentence immediately in front of the colon. Otherwise if you have a long comment after the colon, it would seem odd to put the question mark right at the end of that.

leedsveg

[Zero]

On another note: Isn't this the exactly same topic that's being discussed here:
Cultured (in vitro) meat?

And, more importantly, where do I put the question mark if I ask a question followed up by a colon?

It's something of a gramatical gray area because hyper links are a fairly new thing and English hasn't caught up. You could say "...in the link below?" and not use a colon at all.

However I think what you did above is perfectly acceptable

[Mahk]

On another note: Isn't this the exactly same topic that's being discussed here:
Cultured (in vitro) meat?

And, more importantly, where do I put the question mark if I ask a question followed up by a colon?

I aint no Inglish expurt, but I like:

On another note: Isn't this the exactly same topic that's being discussed here:[Cultured (in vitro) meat]?
---

I don't know how they do it but the starter cells could be entirly free of "animal death":

- stem cells taken from an umbilical cord after a live birth, yes ideally from a feral or wild cow from our vegan perspective, but that subtlety may be lost on most non-vegans.

- a biopsy sample from a live cow (again ideally feral or wild) just like when a person sticks you with a needle and draws blood. Is there a little pain involved? Yeah, but if you asked the cow, "May I please stab you with this very tiny dagger to extract a few cells you'll never miss, which will hurt just a little bit and for a very short period of time, in order to save the lives of millions if not billions of your species' future offspring and keep them from being enslaved their entire lives and suffering a slow miserable death?

Any peculiar cow that would answer, "No" is a selfish bastard. That is to say the act would be consensual, at least if we spoke cow, or if cows spoke English.
---

Anyone here who eats seedless grapes, raisins, or navel oranges is eating cloned organisms.

[leedsveg]

Hi Mahk

I don't know how they do it but the starter cells could be entirly free of "animal death":

- stem cells taken from an umbilical cord after a live birth, yes ideally from a feral or wild cow from our vegan perspective, but that subtlety may be lost on most non-vegans.

It's difficult to imagine that the scientists doing the developmental work will be either vegan or if not, particularly bothered about vegan sensitivities.

- a biopsy sample from a live cow (again ideally feral or wild) just like when a person sticks you with a needle and draws blood. Is there a little pain involved? Yeah, but if you asked the cow, "May I please stab you with this very tiny dagger to extract a few cells you'll never miss, which will hurt just a little bit and for a very short period of time, in order to save the lives of millions if not billions of your species' future offspring and keep them from being enslaved their entire lives and suffering a slow miserable death?

Any peculiar cow that would answer, "No" is a selfish bastard. That is to say the act would be consensual, at least if we spoke cow, or if cows spoke English.

If I was this talking cow, I would say ' If humankind was genuinely bothered about the lives and deaths of cows, you would have stopped eating us (and using us in other ways) a long time ago. If you're now going to clone cells and eat the resulting creatures, begin with yourselves. You've abused cows long enough and it stops NOW! You don't seem to realise it but cows have 'bovine rights', just as you have 'human rights'. We wouldn't think it right to kill and eat you, or to take and use your blood without permission, so by what right do you do this to us? The selfish (speciesist, murderous) bastards are the human race, not us.'

leedsveg

[Mahk]

If I was this talking cow, I would say ' If humankind was genuinely bothered about the lives and deaths of cows, you would have stopped eating us (and using us in other ways) a long time ago. If you're now going to clone cells and eat the resulting creatures....

I wouldn't exactly call a giant petri dish with an amorphous blob of muscle cells containing no nerve cells nor an attached brain to interpret the signals "they" sent, "a creature".
---
I don't mean to brag, but I actually speak a little cow myself:

MOOOOO!

[leedsveg]

HI Mahk

I wouldn't exactly call a giant petri dish with an amorphous blob of muscle cells containing no nerve cells nor an attached brain to interpret the signals "they" sent, "a creature".

Then you disagree with one of the definitions of 'creature' in my Collins dictionary which is
: something that has been created, whether animate or inanimate.

If instead, we call the 'something' in the petri dish an 'xyz', does it really alter the meaning of what I was trying to say? To be honest, why try and split hairs?

I don't mean to brag, but I actually speak a little cow myself:

MOOOOO!

Very impressive! No doubt before the thread ends, you'll be articulating a complete load of bullocks.

Sorreeee Mahk, just couldn't resist!

Good wishes

leedsveg

[glovesforfoxes]

Then you disagree with one of the definitions of 'creature' in my Collins dictionary which is
: something that has been created, whether animate or inanimate.

Of course he does. Using that definition in this context is ridiculous.

[leedsveg]

[/I]Of course he does. Using that definition in this context is ridiculous.

Hi gff

Perhaps it's best to let Mahk speak for himself.

lv

[Mahk]

LV, I greatly enjoyed your creature (i.e. "your web post" you created).

As glovesforfoxes surmised, in this context of arguing if lab meat is "ethical", "an animal", or has any "animal rights", referring to it as a "creature" is pretty ridiculous and misleading, IMHO. A creature to most people is a living organism. An organism is a self-sustaining living being, often made of a series or interdependent organ systems, capable of perception of stimuli, response to stimuli, reproduction, growth, simple self-repair and development, as well as homeostasis as a stable, individual unit of said being.

Lab meat has none of these things except growth, through cell division, and that's only with a constant, artificial, external, man made system providing oxygen, water, food, etc. Because of this lab meat doesn't even qualify as being equivalent to microscopic single cell organisms such as amoeba, paramecium, and fungus/mold, and vegans kill such beings every day.

[leedsveg]

LV, I greatly enjoyed your creature (i.e. "your web post" you created).

As glovesforfoxes surmised, in this context of arguing if lab meat is "ethical", "an animal", or has any "animal rights", referring to it as a "creature" is pretty ridiculous and misleading, IMHO. A creature to most people is a living organism. An organism is a self-sustaining living being, often made of a series or interdependent organ systems, capable of perception of stimuli, response to stimuli, reproduction, growth, simple self-repair and development, as well as homeostasis as a stable, individual unit of said being.

Lab meat has none of these things except growth, through cell division, and that's only with a constant, artificial, external, man made system providing oxygen, water, food, etc. Because of this lab meat doesn't even qualify as being equivalent to microscopic single cell organisms such as amoeba, paramecium, and fungus/mold, and vegans kill such beings every day.

Hi Mahk

Instead of a 'creature', let's call this 'biopsy sample from a live cow' as you eloquenly described it, 'Blobby'' or even 'bsfalc'. Perhaps there is somewhere a technical term for it and perhaps you could supply it, Mahk*. However what seemed important to me, and what I was commenting on was the fact of it being a biopsy sample from a live cow, rather than the name for it. I was not ascribing to it any rights, animal or otherwise and neither was your posting that I was commenting on so I'm not really sure why you comment 'in this context of arguing etc'. You're the one that brought this new line in not me!

leedsveg

*this could help stop future VF postings on in vitro meat, going off at a similar tangent

[Mahk]

However what seemed important to me, and what I was commenting on was the fact of it being a biopsy sample from a live cow, rather than the name for it. I was not ascribing to it any rights, animal or otherwise and neither was your posting that I was commenting on so I'm not really sure why you comment 'in this context of arguing etc'.

Because some in the context of this thread (well actually the other lab meat one I believe, which may soon be merged to this one) have gone so far as to proclaim that the process is "immoral" or "unethical". The title of this very thread we are in also has an anger/mad emoticon attached implying a hatred of the whole idea, although you'd have to ask the original poster for details. Elevating an amorphous blob of identical, non self-sustaining cells in an over sized petri dish to the status of being a "living creature", which to any common reader would mean living being or organism, which it most certainly is not, is an inaccurate statement which if actually true would arguably condone rights. That's a key element to this discussion in my opinion.

[leedsveg]

Because some in the context of this thread (well actually the other lab meat one I believe, which may soon be merged to this one) have gone so far as to proclaim that the process is "immoral" or "unethical". The title of this very thread we are in also has an anger/mad emoticon attached implying a hatred of the whole idea, although you'd have to ask the original poster for details. Elevating an amorphous blob of identical, non self-sustaining cells in an over sized petri dish to the status of being a "living creature", which to any common reader would mean living being or organism, which it most certainly is not, is an inaccurate statement which if actually true would arguably condone rights. That's a key element to this discussion in my opinion.

(bold added by lv)

Hi Mahk

As I see it, and with respect, you latched on to one word that I used in my comment, namely 'creature', just so that you could carry on arguing with other posters in another thread about the morality/rights of this 'blob'. I explained that I used the word 'creature' purely in the sense of 'something that has been created', in my posting 13 hours ago so you, and everyone else, cannot now be in any doubt as to what I meant. You're totally ignoring the thrust of my original comments to pursue your own hobby-horse so I may as well leave this thread.

regards

lv

[glovesforfoxes]

So, you take issue with this development because it uses a cow originally, lv?

[Mahk]

As I see it, and with respect, you latched on to one word that I used in my comment, namely 'creature', just so that you could carry on arguing with other posters in another thread about the morality/rights of this 'blob'. I explained that I used the word 'creature' purely in the sense of 'something that has been created'

In American English, "creature" is never used to describe non living beings or organisms so it had a completely different meaning as I read it, being an American, which I found offensive. Pardon me for not knowing that this usage is common where you are.

[leedsveg]

So, you take issue with this development because it uses a cow originally, lv?

Sorry to be so dense, gff but you'll have to explain as I have no idea what you're talking about.

lv

[leedsveg]

In American English, "creature" is never used to describe non living beings or organisms so it had a completely different meaning as I read it, being an American, which I found offensive. Pardon me for not knowing that this usage is common where you are.

Hi Mahk

Apology accepted.

lv

[Sarabi]

http://animalrights.about.com/od/ani...ratoryMeat.htm

it is clear that the product could not be called vegan if the tissue culture was grown in animal products.

Amen.

[Mahk]

^From that link: "To mass-produce laboratory-grown meat on an ongoing basis, scientists would need a constant supply of live pigs, cows, chickens and other animals from which to take cells."

False. Clone cells are replications of other existing clone cells. Once you get the ball rolling no further animals are needed at all. At least in theory.


"The animals may even be slaughtered to produce enough live muscle cells."

False. The starter cells need not be muscle cells from live or dead animals, at least in theory. Stem cells taken from the placenta/umbilical cord and afterbirth of a newly born animal, say a cow, for instance, contain the genetic material one needs to make either an entire cow or any subset of a cow, like a flank.

it is clear that the product could not be called vegan if the tissue culture was grown in animal products.

Hypothetically they could use ground up school children for all we know but something tells me that the scientists doing this would be smart enough to realize that using animal matter to produce animal matter is a rather silly, pointless, inefficient waste of time with a poor yield because the conversion is not 100% efficient; not by a long shot. If it takes 4 dead cows to make three synthetic lab cows (or that amount of beef, that is) the process is a futile, ridiculous act of stupidity.
---

edit to add: This is taken from the FAQ page of New Harvest which is one of the companies working on this:

"Must animals be killed in the production of cultured meat?"
No. It is possible to take a muscle biopsy from a live farm animal and culture the isolated cells. While some growth media contain animal ingredients, a growing number of media are animal-free.

What is the source of nutrients used in cultured meat production?
In biomedical research, most cell cultures have used media made from animal blood. But researchers have now developed media from a variety of other sources, including plants and microorganisms.

What is cultured meat?
Cultured meat is meat produced in vitro, in a cell culture, rather than from an animal. The production of cultured meat begins by taking a number of cells from a farm animal and proliferating them in a nutrient-rich medium. Cells are capable of multiplying so many times in culture that, in theory, a single cell could be used to produce enough meat to feed the global population for a year. [emphasis mine]

[Daffodil]

i would not eat this..... what are they trying to do to us...... i prefer nature to produce my food.

[Mahk]

^ It's not meant for you. It's meant for the 6 billion people who kill and eat animals daily.

[leedsveg]

^ It's not meant for you. It's meant for the 6 billion people who kill and eat animals daily.

I suspect that if and when faux-meat goes on sale, it will be presented as 'suitable for everybody'. Surely this is what the tenor of your postings seems to be pointing towards ie distancing from animals as much as possible?

Many of the billions do not actually kill the animals they eat. They let other people do it for them.

lv

[Mahk]

I suspect that if and when faux-meat goes on sale, it will be presented as 'suitable for everybody'.

You have ESP/ precognition? I don't. I have a crystal ball for predicting the future but unfortunately it is in the shop currently (getting repaired).

Surely this is what the tenor of your postings seems to be pointing towards ie distancing from animals as much as possible?

I assume this is a rhetorical question you don't require a response to. If I am misreading it and you do have a query, please rephrase it again but using a different construction so my sleepy brain might better understand. I didn't get a good nights rest so I may be a little "daft" as I think you'd call it on your side of the pond.

The only things I am "pointing towards" are the facts as I believe them to be based on my research, complete with linked documentation.

Many of the billions do not actually kill the animals they eat. They let other people do it for them.

True. The majority of those 6 billion people pay to have the killing done for them. But since they called for the killing to be done for them, they are analogous to hiring an assassin to murder a foe. The law still considers that murder. If those 6 billion people stopped doing this because a cheaper solution came along (eventually, not initially) that also prevented the deaths of billions of animals yearly, I'd see that as a good thing.

PeTA's one million dollar reward, if some company pulls this off, is based on the fact that roughly one million chickens are killed every hour, every day, every year, for the US alone. I guess they'd like to see that stop. I know I would.

[leedsveg]

Hi Mahk

As you say, you're tired so I'd better keep my response fairly short and simple.

No, I don't have ESP/precognition, which is why I started the sentence with 'I suspect...' rather than 'I know...' It just makes sense to me that the producers of the faux-meat would try to ensure (by using science, no doubt) that they have the biggest market possible, when it becomes available.

Yes, you're right, it was a hypothetical question. I'll let others read your postings about faux-meat to draw their own conclusions.

Yes we agree that billions of people do not actually kill the animals they eat, although I can of course accept that a purchaser of meat has some moral responsibility for the actual death of the animal. There is of course the old saying that 'if people had to kill the animals themselves, there would be a lot more vegetarians around'.

Anyway Mahk, I'll let you have the last word. This is your 24 April 2008 posting about faux-meat, no doubt produced when your crystal ball was still working :

edit: Thinking more about it I think it is doomed to failure because it won't sell. If I'm repulsed by raw meat then zillions of all of us and veg*ans in general also won't buy it. All that leaves are meat eaters who have no qualms about killing real animals in the first place and what would their incentive be to switch to a more expensive "scary laboratory" artificial prepared version of meat?

lv

[Mahk]

edit: Thinking more about it I think it is doomed to failure because it won't sell. If I'm repulsed by raw meat then zillions of all of us and veg*ans in general also won't buy it. All that leaves are meat eaters who have no qualms about killing real animals in the first place and what would their incentive be to switch to a more expensive "scary laboratory" artificial prepared version of meat?

[emphasis mine]
I too didn't use "I know" but instead "I think" because this entire thread is mostly conjecture about a future product that's not on the market...yet.

I've also changed my thoughts drastically on the matter since that post of almost 2 years ago. The makers of this stuff, IMHO, are targeting the 99% of the earths population which is not vegan; they hardly care how we vegans feel about their product because we are such a small niche market that doesn't eat meat for various reasons.

Meat consumption is expected to double by the year 2050 because many eastern markets (look at east Asia) are starting to ramp up their meat intake, so making the production cheaper, more eco-friendly, seems likely to me.

Considering that livestock production is the largest contributor to green house gas, more so than all forms of transportation combined, I'd think government sponsorship of these programs may occur. I also think inevitably the product will be cheaper to make than farm meat. Science gets better and better, more and more efficient. Is it expensive to fly to outer-space? Yes, only a handful of people have ever done it but in the year 2079 it may be as common place as flying to New York is today. 70 years ago or so flying to NY was impossibly expensive but times change.

[VeganD]

Hi, Mahk and all,

False. Clone cells are replications of other existing clone cells. Once you get the ball rolling no further animals are needed at all. At least in theory.

Actually, cell culture is completely different from cloning. In cloning, you are creating a whole organism that is a genetic duplicate of another organism. With mammals, this is usually accomplished by inserting the genetic material of an organism into an egg and implanting that egg into the uterus of female who will give birth to the clone of the donor organism.

However, with cell culture, you are taking part of a multicellular organism and growing cells in vitro - outside of a live body, without creating another whole organism and without involving a birth.

You are correct that cloning - birthing a new organism - resets the cell senescence clock, and a clone could be replicated indefinitely.

However, a cell culture typically has a life span, also known as cell senescence. This is why living beings are mortal. Cells in culture, as well as cells in a multi-cellular organism, have a limited number of doublings, or proliferations. We need a new organism - a new birth - to reset the clock. This is a long-known problem to biologists. Some articles and abstracts on this issue include:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2111818/
http://biomed.gerontologyjournals.or...full/58/9/B776
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=13595160

There are some immortal cell lines (see below) but right now, that is not what they are working with.

False. The starter cells need not be muscle cells from live or dead animals, at least in theory. Stem cells taken from the placenta/umbilical cord and afterbirth of a newly born animal, say a cow, for instance, contain the genetic material one needs to make either an entire cow or any subset of a cow, like a flank.

They could come from stem cells, but why would the industry use stem cells that must be grown into muscle cells when they could take muscle cells directly? Also, the article says that animals *may* be slaughtered in order to get enough live muscle cells to grow an industrial quantity of cells. The fact that stems cells could be used instead does not render the previous statement false.

Hypothetically they could use ground up school children for all we know but something tells me that the scientists doing this would be smart enough to realize that using animal matter to produce animal matter is a rather silly, pointless, inefficient waste of time with a poor yield because the conversion is not 100% efficient; not by a long shot. If it takes 4 dead cows to make three synthetic lab cows (or that amount of beef, that is) the process is a futile, ridiculous act of stupidity.

And when has stupidity or ridiculousness ever stopped the meat industry from doing something? The industry already uses 4.5 kg of fish to create 1 kg of fish meal, to be fed to fish on farms. That's not 1kg of fish who people eat - that's 1kg of food that gets fed to fish who people eat:
http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...663604,00.html

And I'm sure we're all aware that it takes 10-16 pounds of grain to create one pound of feedlot beef. Meat is ridiculous and wasteful, so this is nothing new.

Now, feeding cows to bovine cell cultures might seem pointless, but this could be another use for the cow innards, blood, fat, skin, hair, bones or other parts that are typically not sold directly for human consumption. The site you quoted specifically mentions blood.

Cells are capable of multiplying so many times in culture that, in theory, a single cell could be used to produce enough meat to feed the global population for a year. [emphasis mine] __________________

Yes, in theory some of these animal muscle cell lines could be immortalized, or their life spans could be extended to the point where a single cell could proliferate millions or billions of times. There are known immortal cell lines. Immortal muscle cell lines are not currently a reality, but the article addresses this issue, and why it would still be wasteful and why animals will still suffer and die for laboratory meat:
http://animalrights.about.com/od/ani...ratoryMeat.htm

[Mahk]

Yes, in theory some of these animal muscle cell lines could be immortalized, or their life spans could be extended to the point where a single cell could proliferate millions or billions of times. There are known immortal cell lines. Immortal muscle cell lines are not currently a reality, but the article addresses this issue, and why it would still be wasteful and why animals will still suffer and die for laboratory meat:
http://animalrights.about.com/od/ani...ratoryMeat.htm

Welcome to the forum.

I prefer to take my data directly from the companies which are actually working on this technology rather than the third party analysis of that animal rights attorney, Doris Lin, writing an undocumented and citation/reference free article, freelance, with the dubious title of "Guide", for a generic web information site: "about.com". Thanks for reposting Sarabi's link, though.

Her (the attorney's) pessimistic theory that it will be wasteful may very well be true initially, as is true with many new technologies such as the LCD monitor you are looking at right now, but for that to be true long term as well, is economically illogical to the producers. Hypothetically documenting, (not that anyone here has), that it will initially take 2 kilograms of animal matter to make just 1 kilogram of edible lab meat is completely immaterial. What matters is how efficient the process will be in the long run, say, by the year 2050 when the Earth's meat consumption will have doubled from what it is (roughly) today. Ideally it will be completely animal free and reliant on plant materials exclusivly by then, which are inedible to humans, so they don't rob Peter to pay Paul.

I never argued the development of lab meat would likely be completely animal free from start to finish (although I think it could be, hypothetically, using afterbirth umbilical stem cells for example), but if it eventually prevents the killing of billions of animals every year, some of us see that as being a good thing.