Test Tube Hamburger Meat

Back in April, PETA offered to donate $1 million to the first person that could effectively develop ground meat thru the process of in vitro. It would still be a cow product per say because it would have all the exact same characteristics of meat, however, no animals would have to be killed in the process.

Now, I'm a huge HUGE fan of soy but I have to wonder. What about the whole concept of a "species exceeding the carrying capacity of its ecological niche." (Wikpedia) In other words, if we didn't eat the beef, wouldn't there eventually be way too many cows? And what about the economical aspects of this. Taking that market away from farmers?? We're already suffering financial as a culture. And, although, other grades of meat, steaks, loins... and so forth are far from the in vitro process, isn't this the beginning?

I understand PETA, respect them, and at times, support them... but this may not be a good thing to have errupt.

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mad Max on January 2, 2009 at 10:58am: I've NEVER EVER understood the logic of meat flavoured, meat textured, meat look-a-like NON meat. To me it's a purely pointless thing. if you want something that looks, tastes and feels like meat, eat meat. It doesn't even make sense from a medical standpoint! Things like soymilk does, because it doesn't have lactose because some people are alergic to it, but meat free "meat" is just rediculous.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Shan The Man on January 2, 2009 at 11:01am: That's definitely a great point Max. I do, on occasion eat soy hot dogs or vegan cheeses on a sandwich. My reasoning behind it is that I can still consume a ton of proteins without the fats.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by VOID Munashii on January 2, 2009 at 11:59am: Since most cattle is raised by agricorps and not small farmers now, I don't know how much you will really be taking away from the farmers. I do not think there would eventually be too many cows as there would be less people breeding them, and no matter how perfect test tube meat may be there will always be people willing to pay extra for "the real thing", in the same way people now pay extra for words like "organic" or "free-range" regardless of how legitimate the usage of them may be.

There would certainly be an economic impact as the agricorps shifted from farm based cattle farming to lab based meat production resulting in the loss of many jobs to blue collar workers at the factory farms and slaughterhouses. In the long term there would be a growth, alrhough probably to a lesser extent than the loss, of new jobs in the laboratories, but those would likely be jobs for people with more education than your stereotypical slaughterhouse worker.

I don't have a problem with TTM, as it would likely be healthier in the long run than "the real thing", and the fact that a changeover would happen over a course of years as opposed to weeks or months would probably negate some of the issues I mentioned above. You would get a huge outcry from people who already fear "Frankenfoods" though.

I'm surprised that PETA doesn't consider cow abortions to be murder too.

As far as fake meats go; I've never tried one that fooled me into thinking it was real. It may have been good, but it was clearly not meat.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by SassySweetBren on January 2, 2009 at 12:45pm: I could not have put it better than Void.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Shan The Man on January 2, 2009 at 2:47pm: You bring up really good points Void. And you are right... people want the real thing generally. I was reading an article after I posted this that was indicating that, at least in the beginning of production, the "fake" ground meat would cost FAR more than the traditional meat. Then they went on to suggest that this may be a great outlet for vegans or vegitarians to go ahead and indulge themselves in what they've been missing... rather than supplementing with, often times, a textureless and salty reminiscence. However, I can't help but think, since, it *is* traditionally still from an animal, vegans would scowl on it as they do other animal byproducts.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Erin Fedak on January 2, 2009 at 3:18pm: As I understand the idea was not only to promote PETA's cause but to help bolster the food supply to combat the consequences of overpopulation. It takes, according to statistics, roughly one acre of land to feed one person for a year. 39%-50% of the world's land is cultivated for use as farmland, so at the least, approximately 13.2 billion acres. The world's population is 6.7 billion, so the world has roughly 2 acres of farmland for each person living on it.

Of course, these are statistic and so are prone to a margin of error, but the thing to take form it is that as our population inevitably continues to grow, our food supply is going to shrink. Coming up with alternatives such as this one that PETA has backed, or ways to use land more efficiently is important. It shouldn't be about how much we prefer the taste of ground beef to soy or an alternative, it's about protecting our quality of life for future generations.

That's my take on it, anyway.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Lessaj on January 2, 2009 at 3:36pm: I think it would be ok to offer as an alternative solution, BUT you CAN NOT get rid of the entire "original" market because of the economic consequences. Not to mention that beef is awesome. :)

And the fact of it is that we pretty much HAVE to eat animals to survive, else we lack those nutrients that meat provides (we do have supplements for that now, but real food >>>>> pills).

It's like having organic products. It's only a part of the original market because not everyone will want organic products, and not everyone can afford it. You can't just switch an entire market to something else, it won't work.; ▶ Reply to This