Startup Serves Up Chicken Produced From Cells in Lab(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Startup Serves Up Chicken Produced From Cells in Lab
https://www.wsj.com/articles/startup-to-serve-up-chicken-strips-cultivated-from-cells-in-lab-1489570202
157 comments
After not eating meat for over 20 years due to the environmental and ethical concerns over how it's conventionally been made, I was lucky enough to be at the tasting described in the WSJ article. I wrote about it here: https://medium.com/@sethbannon/i-just-ate-meat-for-the-first...
are you certain the meat was grown 100% animal free (outside of the stem cell line)? As far as I know, higher organism stem cell culture is still not possible without some amount of animal product in the growth medium. For Memphis Meat's burgers last year, for example, fetal bovine serum was used. As far as I looked, they don't make any outward claim of actually being animal-product free (they use cagey terms like "clean", which doesn't have a legal definition, or "from self-reproducing cells"). Fully animal-free meat is a laudable goal, but I wonder if a company that is being evasive about what their current product line is under the pressure of "demoing something, just anything" has the chops to solve the problem of removing all the animal derived products from the growth serum (this is NOT a trivial problem, and some very smart people are working on it because of its arguably less frivolous application towards safe in vitro organ growth for transplantation).
Moreover, an important question is how many replication cycles the animal stem cells use - unless they're hybridized with tumor cells, they will eventually run into the hayflick limit, at which point you'll have kill another animal to obtain more stem cells.
Moreover, an important question is how many replication cycles the animal stem cells use - unless they're hybridized with tumor cells, they will eventually run into the hayflick limit, at which point you'll have kill another animal to obtain more stem cells.
Why not simply buy lovingly raised animals (obviously more expensive) instead of quitting on meat. That way you'd signal to the market that there's more demand for that kind of meat. I mean if everyone was a vegetarian/vegan some pretty cool animals would probably be extinct soon.
OP mentioned ethical and environmental concerns. "lovingly raised meat" might address the former if your ethical concerns are about specific livestock conditions, but not if you think raising animals for human consumption is unethical, period. And it does nothing whatsoever to address the environmental concerns, which are considerable, and are a primary motivator for many people who reduce or eliminate meat (judging from the medium post, OP included).
"lovingly raised" to be slaughtered is an oxymoron.
Not necessarily.
Anyone who runs small farms or boutique cattle studs would disagree.
All animals will die at some stage. If their life up to that point was in a caring and respectful environment, and they are humanely killed, what's the problem?
We regularly sent our cattle to the abattoir, and it didn't stop them being happy cows that got hugs and shoulder scratches...
All animals will die at some stage. If their life up to that point was in a caring and respectful environment, and they are humanely killed, what's the problem?
We regularly sent our cattle to the abattoir, and it didn't stop them being happy cows that got hugs and shoulder scratches...
Animals killed for meat die as adolescents. This is dispicable.
Exactly. One can make an extreme example and ask how they would feel about someone lovingly slaughtering their husband/wife and children.
"lovingly raised" would mean you're buying the animal still alive?
I wish the tasting was done with simple preparations, so we can read about how it tastes compared to regular meat. After all, even pastured chicken tastes wildly better than conventional chicken.
> After all, even pastured chicken tastes wildly better than conventional chicken.
As a farmer who used to raise pastured chicken, I was always happy to convert people to what real chicken is supposed to taste like.
As a farmer who used to raise pastured chicken, I was always happy to convert people to what real chicken is supposed to taste like.
I love chicken. Finding a chicken I love is surprisingly hard.
...so my father lives in a village in the north-west of Scotland; the butcher there did locally sourced everything (you could buy venison that had come off the local hills; he did amazing venison burgers, made from scrap venison cut with pork). His chickens came from, I think, Black Isle? But they were fantastic. Stuff half a lemon up its backside, rub with olive oil and rosemary, roast, serve with potatoes and plain boiled carrots and peas... sadly, he retired, and the place closed.
I haven't had roast chicken for ages. Dammit, I'm hungry now.
...so my father lives in a village in the north-west of Scotland; the butcher there did locally sourced everything (you could buy venison that had come off the local hills; he did amazing venison burgers, made from scrap venison cut with pork). His chickens came from, I think, Black Isle? But they were fantastic. Stuff half a lemon up its backside, rub with olive oil and rosemary, roast, serve with potatoes and plain boiled carrots and peas... sadly, he retired, and the place closed.
I haven't had roast chicken for ages. Dammit, I'm hungry now.
Is the difference simply that the meat is meat from a well fed, exercised chicken vs. a force fed obese monstrosity?
Kind of like eating me vs. eating an Olympian.
Kind of like eating me vs. eating an Olympian.
I pastured Cornish Cross, which is the standard broiler barn chickens. They are genetically predisposed to pack on as much muscle in as short a time span as possible. By the time they're ~ 9 to 10 weeks old, they are waddling giants, and I'd definitely not characterize them as exercised. :)
That said, the difference that being able to forage green grass and insects in the short period they were out on pasture (usually 4-6 weeks, weather dependent) was so remarkable in terms of the flavour and the texture of the meat, that we're effectively ruined for eating any other non-pastured chickens. The fat was rich and velvety, the dark meat was meaty and deep in flavour; everything was just moist and juicy and delicious.
We didn't do many on a yearly basis (about 1000 +/-), and I was primarily using them for fertilizing pasture that I was grazing with our dairy herd. The fact that they were spectacular eating was just a side benefit.
If you're ever able to track one down, I'd highly recommend giving one a go.
That said, the difference that being able to forage green grass and insects in the short period they were out on pasture (usually 4-6 weeks, weather dependent) was so remarkable in terms of the flavour and the texture of the meat, that we're effectively ruined for eating any other non-pastured chickens. The fat was rich and velvety, the dark meat was meaty and deep in flavour; everything was just moist and juicy and delicious.
We didn't do many on a yearly basis (about 1000 +/-), and I was primarily using them for fertilizing pasture that I was grazing with our dairy herd. The fact that they were spectacular eating was just a side benefit.
If you're ever able to track one down, I'd highly recommend giving one a go.
And as a quick point out, the feed conversion ratio [1] on poultry is pretty stellar. Anywhere from 1.5-3.5:1 is normal for feed:body weight increase.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio
Cornish Cross in particular are fantastic at converting feed into weight gain. In 10 weeks, you can go from a fluffy little ping pong ball sized chick to an almost 10lb live-weight bird. It's often unwise to raise them past that age, because the rate of weight gain puts so much stress on their internals that they'll frequently keel over from a heart condition. By the 8 to 9 week stage, they're already so heavy that they can only take a handful of steps because having to plop down and have a rest for a bit.
I always thought good chicken tasted a bit like pork and peanut butter. It's a strange taste, but it makes store bought chicken always feel like it's missing something.
Also, seemed like the Chicken was fried. Everything tastes great when it is fried.
That's definitely cheating. Then again, all kinds of people fry their chicken. A success story there is still meaningful if you're just eating it occasionally and always fried. You could mix it up with the seasonings if not the cooking method.
Also, I'm not sure how many chicken nuggets are sold (some quick calcs say ~23 lbs of fast food chicken per capita per year). But even just being able to replace those would be a ethical boon.
Well, a lot of people eat chicken fried; if this would fix environmental & animal torture issues then it still seems like a good plan.
Anything can be made to taste great with oil, seasoning, salt and sugar. Animal products don't have a monopoly on taste.
I first read that as "pasteurized" - and was very confused ;)
Can you speak to the cost? The WSJ article says it currently costs $9,000 per pound to produce the "clean meat". Does that mean you ate something like a $900 chicken? (Assuming you had a small sample)
The costs are still too high for commercial viability but they're dropping rapidly. In 2013, the first cultured burger cost $330,000 to make. Just under a year ago, Memphis Meats was at $18,000/lb of clean beef produced. Now they're at $9,000/lb. This is before any sort of efficiencies from scale, and before many steps of the process have been anywhere near fully optimized. They expect their costs to reach 2 cents/g by 2021, which would be cost competitive.
2 cents per gram translates to $9.07 per pound of Memphis Meats' cost. Assuming they skip the distributors (unlikely) and sell straight to retailers, it will be easily double that at the retail level, $18.14 per pound. They are more likely to end up around the $25-30 per pound price point at retail once all is said and done.
That's starting to wander into dry-aged beef ribeye territory at a higher-end version of common grocery chains, and sale pricing numbers at Whole Foods Market. It predictably starts out as a luxury good, but as others have noted, cell culture-based processes have historically scaled pretty effectively. So probably 2-3 more decades after that with continuous refinements will bring it down to a price point that even the middle class will look at, so that's pretty exciting it is getting so close.
What is the regulatory outlook for these products? Will they be regulated as pharmaceutical (due to the bioreactor origin) or food, or is this an issue currently being negotiated and discussed with government? I imagine investors would strongly prefer a food regulatory treatment.
That's starting to wander into dry-aged beef ribeye territory at a higher-end version of common grocery chains, and sale pricing numbers at Whole Foods Market. It predictably starts out as a luxury good, but as others have noted, cell culture-based processes have historically scaled pretty effectively. So probably 2-3 more decades after that with continuous refinements will bring it down to a price point that even the middle class will look at, so that's pretty exciting it is getting so close.
What is the regulatory outlook for these products? Will they be regulated as pharmaceutical (due to the bioreactor origin) or food, or is this an issue currently being negotiated and discussed with government? I imagine investors would strongly prefer a food regulatory treatment.
You're absolutely right on the pricing and go to market strategy.
The regulatory frameworks are still up in the air. I know from having attending the 1st and 2nd Cultured Meat Symposiums in Maastricht that both the USDA and the FDA are looking at clean meat. While both agencies seem pretty open and friendly towards it, they unfortunately both think they should be the one to regulate it :-)
The regulatory frameworks are still up in the air. I know from having attending the 1st and 2nd Cultured Meat Symposiums in Maastricht that both the USDA and the FDA are looking at clean meat. While both agencies seem pretty open and friendly towards it, they unfortunately both think they should be the one to regulate it :-)
The FDA thinks it should be the one to regulate everything. There is a culture of sociopathy and fascism at the FDA.
You also have to factor in the fact that meat produced in this country is also heavily subsidized by the government.
> Just under a year ago, Memphis Meats was at $18,000/lb of clean beef produced. Now they're at $9,000/lb.
That's a relief, because anything over $9,200/lb. causes me to consider having chicken one extra day a week.
That's a relief, because anything over $9,200/lb. causes me to consider having chicken one extra day a week.
That's awesome! Any source on the 2c/g by 2021 goal?
Another startup, Impossible Foods, is selling burgers (with let-animals-live beef) for $15. Their technique seems to be slightly different, mixing lab-made heme with vegan ingredients.
https://www.impossiblefoods.com https://nishi.momofuku.com/nishi/menu/lunch/
https://www.impossiblefoods.com https://nishi.momofuku.com/nishi/menu/lunch/
Maybe it is a very personal tendency, but I don't think I could ever not have more chicken, especially if I had fried chicken after 20 years... I applaud your self-control.
on a related note, I was actually quite hopefull/impressed when the bad-press about a 50% soy subway chicken came out a few weeks ago. That's a huge win for sustainability! Of course it was too awesome to be true, turns out the test was faulty and it's actually less than 1% soy.
Though I'm a meat eater, I have a strong suspicion that the arrival of high-quality meat alternatives will cause a societal shift away from eating meat to the point where it would become rare. As it is, giving up meat is a huge decline in quality of life and its easy to rationalize meat consumption.
It needs to be actually comparable in quality and the price needs to come way down though first. It's easy to imagine a future where the _best_ meat is actually grown in this way and is nonetheless cheaper than more environmentally friendly than raising animals.
And of course, then it becomes possible to build meats that correspond to no actual animal
It needs to be actually comparable in quality and the price needs to come way down though first. It's easy to imagine a future where the _best_ meat is actually grown in this way and is nonetheless cheaper than more environmentally friendly than raising animals.
And of course, then it becomes possible to build meats that correspond to no actual animal
I gave up animal products and found a pretty good increase in quality of life.
It happened when other changes were occuring in my life, but I lost weight, hung out with other vegans, felt better overall.
It can really depend on when you live, but being vegan in most US metropolitan areas is pretty easy these days.
As for lab meats, they're great and I'm generally for them, but acting like we don't have viable other solutions is a bit silly. Lentils, beans, nuts, seeds, seitan, tofu, all great sources of protein.
It happened when other changes were occuring in my life, but I lost weight, hung out with other vegans, felt better overall.
It can really depend on when you live, but being vegan in most US metropolitan areas is pretty easy these days.
As for lab meats, they're great and I'm generally for them, but acting like we don't have viable other solutions is a bit silly. Lentils, beans, nuts, seeds, seitan, tofu, all great sources of protein.
> acting like we don't have viable other solutions is a bit silly. Lentils, beans, nuts, seeds, seitan, tofu, all great sources of protein.
Depends on what you mean by "viable". Food is a huge part of culture and while those items you listed do provide protein it's, in my opinion, no where near as enjoyable as various types of meat. In fact many of that, to me, is really gross and I've tried multiple versions of all of it.
Naturally to others meat may be gross. There isn't a one size fits all solution here. We've evolved taste for a reason and it's hard to ignore if you don't like the "other solutions".
So I would say I disagree with your statement when you call the other items "viable other solutions" :)
Depends on what you mean by "viable". Food is a huge part of culture and while those items you listed do provide protein it's, in my opinion, no where near as enjoyable as various types of meat. In fact many of that, to me, is really gross and I've tried multiple versions of all of it.
Naturally to others meat may be gross. There isn't a one size fits all solution here. We've evolved taste for a reason and it's hard to ignore if you don't like the "other solutions".
So I would say I disagree with your statement when you call the other items "viable other solutions" :)
I used to really like eating meat too. Also used to not like seitan or beans much, but now I love 'em. Tastes changed since I went vegan.
If your litmus test for "viable" is what currently makes you the happiest you'll be blocked off from not only helping the world but likely helping yourself too.
If your litmus test for "viable" is what currently makes you the happiest you'll be blocked off from not only helping the world but likely helping yourself too.
> If your litmus test for "viable" is what currently makes you the happiest you'll be blocked off from not only helping the world but likely helping yourself too.
I find that terribly narrow minded. It's not about "happiest". I've tried almost all of those before, several of them in multiple ways. I don't like the taste nor texture. So since I don't like the taste of what you like I am thusly being selfish and blocked from helping myself and the world?
This isn't how you win people over to your side. This is the type of thing that actually reinforces someone's opinion and makes it worse getting through to them.
Instead of trying to make yourself sound better than the person you want to convince of your position, you would be better off trying to find common ground and working from there.
"You catch more flies with honey than vinegar"
Best of luck.
I find that terribly narrow minded. It's not about "happiest". I've tried almost all of those before, several of them in multiple ways. I don't like the taste nor texture. So since I don't like the taste of what you like I am thusly being selfish and blocked from helping myself and the world?
This isn't how you win people over to your side. This is the type of thing that actually reinforces someone's opinion and makes it worse getting through to them.
Instead of trying to make yourself sound better than the person you want to convince of your position, you would be better off trying to find common ground and working from there.
"You catch more flies with honey than vinegar"
Best of luck.
Taste is acquired, it is not in your genes. Of course you will find foods and tastes that were present through your whole life better than new textures and tastes. It's normal.
Eventually one either gets used and enjoys the new foods or makes tasty meals in combination.
For me, getting drunk and then eating the disgusting thing in the morning made me love it. It's undescribable how delicious things are when one is dehydrated and when the disgusting taste of beer was the only thing in the mouth the night before.
Eventually one either gets used and enjoys the new foods or makes tasty meals in combination.
For me, getting drunk and then eating the disgusting thing in the morning made me love it. It's undescribable how delicious things are when one is dehydrated and when the disgusting taste of beer was the only thing in the mouth the night before.
So that's exactly the point. One might rationally understand the flaws with meat, but taste, however it may be acquired, is difficult to change. I absolutely love meat but not exclusively. I also eat a lot of pinto and black beans and cook chick peas. However, none of the current options come close to offering the taste, texture and variety that comes with meat. And there are so many varieties! Meat from pigs, cows, goat, sheep/lamb, chicken, duck, turkey... they all have a unique taste. They change flavor and texture considerably depending on cooking style. You can cook them in different ways...essentially, meat offers much variety not offered currently by vegetarian substitutes.
Same thing a person grown on vegetables and fruits might say. Thousands of choices, all different in textures and tastes and can be combined into extremely delicious meals.
The quality of life is subjective and taste can easily be acquired in a way that one can continue feeling satisfied with the foods they eat.
What you might need is a tastebud reset, which can easily be accomplished and after that you'll find anything extremely delicious.
You mentioned that you've just tried an ingredient and didn't like it which isn't even comparable to your dietary regime which was filled with meat during an extremely long period of time. To acquire taste takes effort or some out of the ordinary measures (a week or two of one ingredient diet to reset the taste buds, or that alchohol trick repetatively etc.).
The quality of life is subjective and taste can easily be acquired in a way that one can continue feeling satisfied with the foods they eat.
What you might need is a tastebud reset, which can easily be accomplished and after that you'll find anything extremely delicious.
You mentioned that you've just tried an ingredient and didn't like it which isn't even comparable to your dietary regime which was filled with meat during an extremely long period of time. To acquire taste takes effort or some out of the ordinary measures (a week or two of one ingredient diet to reset the taste buds, or that alchohol trick repetatively etc.).
I did not say, and would not, say I am better than you or the average person. I have no idea who you are. I'm sure not the next Mr. Rodgers or what have you, maybe you are. What I can say is making the change to vegan made me better than I was, and it took me being open and making a change.
Honestly though, this comes up a lot "catching more flies with honey" but I don't think these things should be spoken about obliquely, truth should be spoken plainly. I spoke true to my experience and knowledge as best I could and tried to be as polite as I could. Best of luck to you as well.
Honestly though, this comes up a lot "catching more flies with honey" but I don't think these things should be spoken about obliquely, truth should be spoken plainly. I spoke true to my experience and knowledge as best I could and tried to be as polite as I could. Best of luck to you as well.
This has also been my experience having gone vegan. Honestly, people make it out to be a big deal, but it isn't.
It's not just less enjoyable, plant protein is flat-out inferior. The amino acid profile of meat is better (eg leucine) and meat contains creatine, which is essential for explosive athletic performance and which is completely unavailable from plants. It's why powerlifters and practically every other strength and power athlete eats meat.
Like this world record breaking vegan power lifter? http://vegnews.com/articles/page.do?pageId=6137&catId=8
What about this vegan NFL player? https://redditblog.com/2016/06/24/300-pound-vegan-david-cart...
Bit more about myself since I think it's applicable: I'm no world class athlete, but I went vegetarian and started weight lifting a while back. Benched like 120 starting out. Now I'm vegan and can bench 200+ lbs, gained that muscle without eating animals.
Sure, there's some random ingredient that studies show only meat has and may help a little, but plenty of vegan athletes are starting to pop up and show there isn't some special thing in dead animals.
What about this vegan NFL player? https://redditblog.com/2016/06/24/300-pound-vegan-david-cart...
Bit more about myself since I think it's applicable: I'm no world class athlete, but I went vegetarian and started weight lifting a while back. Benched like 120 starting out. Now I'm vegan and can bench 200+ lbs, gained that muscle without eating animals.
Sure, there's some random ingredient that studies show only meat has and may help a little, but plenty of vegan athletes are starting to pop up and show there isn't some special thing in dead animals.
Let's not forget the record holder and only male American weightlifter to qualify for the last olympics: http://www.mensjournal.com/health-fitness/articles/why-ameri...
The common theme among vegan athletes is that recovery times improve substantially.
The common theme among vegan athletes is that recovery times improve substantially.
[deleted]
There have been a bunch of vegetarian Mr. Universes, and plenty of vegetarians and vegans peppered liberally across every other pro sport. I'm not going to argue with you about the exact impact of meat vs plant protein on your body, but there's plenty of evidence that this isn't remotely a barrier to top performance.
This is just demonstrably false. There are millions of people who don't eat meat and have no protein problems. There are also plenty of vegan vegetarian athletes and strongmen. Please learn about them.
"completely unavailable from plants"
True but highly misleading. Even a vegan will have some amount of creatine because this molecule is produced by the liver and kidney.
Also the effects of creatine aren't that well studied: http://www.webmd.com/men/creatine
I don't know why I joined this discussion. I am neither vegan nor an athlete.
True but highly misleading. Even a vegan will have some amount of creatine because this molecule is produced by the liver and kidney.
Also the effects of creatine aren't that well studied: http://www.webmd.com/men/creatine
I don't know why I joined this discussion. I am neither vegan nor an athlete.
> Lentils, beans, nuts, seeds, seitan, tofu, all great sources of protein.
This may be true, but all of those either: interfere with mineral absorption, decrease serum testosterone, or are not comparable in taste to animal protein.
You may have had an increase in quality of life, but this is not universally applicable to the entire population. Keto is the first thing that comes to mind that increases quality of life, that also focuses a lot on animal products.
Full disclosure, I am a vegetarian.
This may be true, but all of those either: interfere with mineral absorption, decrease serum testosterone, or are not comparable in taste to animal protein.
You may have had an increase in quality of life, but this is not universally applicable to the entire population. Keto is the first thing that comes to mind that increases quality of life, that also focuses a lot on animal products.
Full disclosure, I am a vegetarian.
Mineral absorption you say? https://saveourbones.com/osteoporosis-milk-myth/
Phytic acid is in those foods, not milk.
> hung out with other vegans
Thanks for also writing about the downsides! :)
Thanks for also writing about the downsides! :)
How is it a huge decline in quality of life?
Meat is the easiest form of high quality protein. Not everyone's digestive system is amenable to high quantities of non-meat protein sources or to high-carb diets.
How is it easiest? Perhaps most accessible how society is currently setup, but beans, tofu, etc are all good for you, plenty of vegan body builders rely on them.
This "high quality" protein myth is garbage.
This "high quality" protein myth is garbage.
This is what drives me crazy about vegans.
Sorry, it is easier to eat meat. The protein IS higher quality, easier to digest and more balanced. Eating nutritional yeast and balancing your legumes, tofu and other protein sources to get a proper assortment of B vitamins and amino acids IS harder.
Not saying it's not healthier, not saying is not more ethical, not saying anything except it IS easier. Stop lying.
Sorry, it is easier to eat meat. The protein IS higher quality, easier to digest and more balanced. Eating nutritional yeast and balancing your legumes, tofu and other protein sources to get a proper assortment of B vitamins and amino acids IS harder.
Not saying it's not healthier, not saying is not more ethical, not saying anything except it IS easier. Stop lying.
> This is what drives me crazy about vegans.
Do you think all vegans are the same? There is no need to make a huge generalization about a group that is so diverse.
> The protein IS higher quality, easier to digest and more balanced
I've never seen anyone claim that meat is easier to digest than plants. Do you have a source?
In terms of quality, you first need to define quality and that depends on your goals. Whole plant protein comes packed with fiber, while animal protein comes packed with cholesterol, IGF-1 and saturated fat. If your goal is to prevent heart disease and cancer through dietary means, plant protein is higher quality.
> Eating nutritional yeast and balancing your legumes, tofu and other protein sources to get a proper assortment of B vitamins and amino acids IS harder.
This statement makes it clear that you don't know much about vegan diets. This is usually a concern I hear from pre-vegans or people who have been vegan for 2 weeks.
> not saying anything except it IS easier. Stop lying. If I was ever worried about getting all 9 essential amino acids in a single meal (believe me, most vegans don't think about it), I would eat beans and rice, or lentils and potatoes, or edamame, or tempeh, or quinoa, or hummus and crackers, or a peanut butter sandwich, or tofu. For me, this is a lot easier (and cheaper) than preparing meat.
If you've been eating meat for 20 years, it will be easier for you to keep eating meat, no one is disputing that.
Now, eating out is definitely harder as a vegan, but like the parent said, it's because the way society is currently setup, not because meat is easier to produce.
Do you think all vegans are the same? There is no need to make a huge generalization about a group that is so diverse.
> The protein IS higher quality, easier to digest and more balanced
I've never seen anyone claim that meat is easier to digest than plants. Do you have a source?
In terms of quality, you first need to define quality and that depends on your goals. Whole plant protein comes packed with fiber, while animal protein comes packed with cholesterol, IGF-1 and saturated fat. If your goal is to prevent heart disease and cancer through dietary means, plant protein is higher quality.
> Eating nutritional yeast and balancing your legumes, tofu and other protein sources to get a proper assortment of B vitamins and amino acids IS harder.
This statement makes it clear that you don't know much about vegan diets. This is usually a concern I hear from pre-vegans or people who have been vegan for 2 weeks.
> not saying anything except it IS easier. Stop lying. If I was ever worried about getting all 9 essential amino acids in a single meal (believe me, most vegans don't think about it), I would eat beans and rice, or lentils and potatoes, or edamame, or tempeh, or quinoa, or hummus and crackers, or a peanut butter sandwich, or tofu. For me, this is a lot easier (and cheaper) than preparing meat.
If you've been eating meat for 20 years, it will be easier for you to keep eating meat, no one is disputing that.
Now, eating out is definitely harder as a vegan, but like the parent said, it's because the way society is currently setup, not because meat is easier to produce.
> Do you think all vegans are the same? There is no need to make a huge generalization about a group that is so diverse.
True, I should have qualified this. It's only a subset of vegans who frustrate me this way.
> I've never seen anyone claim that meat is easier to digest than plants. Do you have a source?
Really? Google "is meat easier to digest than vegetable protein". It literally has millions of results.
> In terms of quality, you first need to define quality and that depends on your goals. Whole plant protein comes packed with fiber, while animal protein comes packed with cholesterol, IGF-1 and saturated fat. If your goal is to prevent heart disease and cancer through dietary means, plant protein is higher quality.
Yeah, I get this argument. It's why I'm eating vegetarian or vegan at least a few times a week these days.
> This statement makes it clear that you don't know much about vegan diets. This is usually a concern I hear from pre-vegans or people who have been vegan for 2 weeks.
I'm going by discussions such the ones in my vegan cookbooks, similar to this one:
http://veganhealth.org/articles/protein
> If you've been eating meat for 20 years, it will be easier for you to keep eating meat, no one is disputing that.
That was the crux of my argument: it is NOT easy to be vegan, stop saying it is. It is arguably better. Healthier and more ethically sound. But my vegan days have much more time-consuming shopping, cooking and prep days.
True, I should have qualified this. It's only a subset of vegans who frustrate me this way.
> I've never seen anyone claim that meat is easier to digest than plants. Do you have a source?
Really? Google "is meat easier to digest than vegetable protein". It literally has millions of results.
> In terms of quality, you first need to define quality and that depends on your goals. Whole plant protein comes packed with fiber, while animal protein comes packed with cholesterol, IGF-1 and saturated fat. If your goal is to prevent heart disease and cancer through dietary means, plant protein is higher quality.
Yeah, I get this argument. It's why I'm eating vegetarian or vegan at least a few times a week these days.
> This statement makes it clear that you don't know much about vegan diets. This is usually a concern I hear from pre-vegans or people who have been vegan for 2 weeks.
I'm going by discussions such the ones in my vegan cookbooks, similar to this one:
http://veganhealth.org/articles/protein
> If you've been eating meat for 20 years, it will be easier for you to keep eating meat, no one is disputing that.
That was the crux of my argument: it is NOT easy to be vegan, stop saying it is. It is arguably better. Healthier and more ethically sound. But my vegan days have much more time-consuming shopping, cooking and prep days.
For me, the ethical considerations alone make it harder. It is hard work for me to do things I consider unethical on a regular basis and I'd much rather not have the cognitive load of blocking out information on a daily basis.
My personal experience was that going vegan was much easier than not, as soon as I became aware of what was going on (at around age 18). Once I realized that animals have relationships and emotional lives, it became clear to me that they weren't "food" for me.. in the same sense humans aren't food for me.
Additionally, in terms agriculture, it seems like it requires more work and inputs to create meat, so that is harder as well.
I've been vegan for over a decade and it honestly feels like it's only made my life better.
My personal experience was that going vegan was much easier than not, as soon as I became aware of what was going on (at around age 18). Once I realized that animals have relationships and emotional lives, it became clear to me that they weren't "food" for me.. in the same sense humans aren't food for me.
Additionally, in terms agriculture, it seems like it requires more work and inputs to create meat, so that is harder as well.
I've been vegan for over a decade and it honestly feels like it's only made my life better.
Yeah, I get that. Farming, especially modern methods, are pretty horrific.
I've been reducing meat in my diet and eat vegetarian a couple of days a week. I try to buy ethically raised meat for other days.
What I was reacting to is the idea that it is some how not an effort to be vegan, as if it isn't any more work than stopping off at MickyD's on the way home ...
I've been reducing meat in my diet and eat vegetarian a couple of days a week. I try to buy ethically raised meat for other days.
What I was reacting to is the idea that it is some how not an effort to be vegan, as if it isn't any more work than stopping off at MickyD's on the way home ...
I would say that for me it's not any more effort at all, anymore than preferring Pepsi to Coke might be more effort.
Also, yes to reducing intake. The idea you have to go totally vegan to make an impact probably hurts the cause.
My ultimte frisbee coach used to say he would offer to buy people vegetarian meals as an offset, so he could still eat meat.
I dealt with my concern over dating non-vegan women when I realized I'd probably save more animals by the fact they would most likely eat less meat at least sometimes by being with me.
Finally, I think some of the best work being done for animals is the work in startups making vegan meats and such.
Also, yes to reducing intake. The idea you have to go totally vegan to make an impact probably hurts the cause.
My ultimte frisbee coach used to say he would offer to buy people vegetarian meals as an offset, so he could still eat meat.
I dealt with my concern over dating non-vegan women when I realized I'd probably save more animals by the fact they would most likely eat less meat at least sometimes by being with me.
Finally, I think some of the best work being done for animals is the work in startups making vegan meats and such.
What drives you crazy about vegans? That your flawed, biased assumptions are challenged? Protein is in all whole foods. You don't need to eat soy, or legumes, to get your fill as a vegan. You just eat food. Like a regular person. Except you don't hurt animals in the process. Simple!
Weird. All my vegan and vegetarian cookbooks have lentils, beans, chickpeas or tofu. often mixed with nuts, in pretty much every dish. And suggest nutritional yeast as a good source of B vitamins, especially B12 (admittedly as an additive)
This is wrong? Are you claiming you can just eat cruciferous vegetables, for instance, and be fine?
This is wrong? Are you claiming you can just eat cruciferous vegetables, for instance, and be fine?
Well, humans require fewer than 5% of calories to be derived from protein, that's about 50-60g for males and slightly less for females. You could eat 2,500 calories of only fruit and still get enough protein. But not B12, that requires a supplement. The sources you mentioned are high in protein, but I would argue they aren't necessary for a functional vegan diet.
As somebody who runs and trains in karate, I need more like 80g per day. I'd be hard pressed to do that with only fruit.
Why do you need more than 80g per day? What's the basis of this estimate?
Running Room, Livestrong, MyFitnessPal, countless other sites, my running clinic leader, the sports nutritionist at my running clinic, my doctor (certified in sports medicine) all recommended between 80 and 100 grams.
You really don't know what you are talking about do you?
You really don't know what you are talking about do you?
A couple of for profit blogs and people without a nutrition education inform you. Sad. Check any reputable source, like WHO, you are eating too much protein, dude.
Chicken breast and many other meats have a much higher ratio of protein compared to carbs and fat than tofu, beans, etc.
This argument boggles my mind. Are we all body builders? Why do we need to eat like them? There's this protein craze going on that we all need to eat the densest sources of protein cause we all look like Arnold.
The amount of protein in seeds, tofu, seitan, nuts, legumes is plenty for almost anyone. And if you are power lifting even omnivore lifters take protein shakes after working out usually.
The amount of protein in seeds, tofu, seitan, nuts, legumes is plenty for almost anyone. And if you are power lifting even omnivore lifters take protein shakes after working out usually.
I'm a Type 2 Diabetic. I control my blood sugar with a low carb, high fat diet. I don't eat extreme amounts of protein, but I do need a form of it that doesn't come with a lot of added carbs, and I think eating whole foods is a lot healthier than eating proteins that have been isolated out of plant foods.
I eat meat and (non-starchy) vegetables. I don't eat like a bodybuilder, but neither is a plant-protein-based diet easy for me.
I eat meat and (non-starchy) vegetables. I don't eat like a bodybuilder, but neither is a plant-protein-based diet easy for me.
> Why do we need to eat like them?
You're shifting the argument. The point isn't that we need to eat like them, it's that we want to, and meat is delicious.
> The amount of protein in seeds, tofu, seitan, nuts, legumes is plenty for almost anyone.
By that logic, there'd be no point in manufacturing sports cars or macbook pros anymore, because normal cars and Chromebooks have enough power for "almost anyone".
You're shifting the argument. The point isn't that we need to eat like them, it's that we want to, and meat is delicious.
> The amount of protein in seeds, tofu, seitan, nuts, legumes is plenty for almost anyone.
By that logic, there'd be no point in manufacturing sports cars or macbook pros anymore, because normal cars and Chromebooks have enough power for "almost anyone".
> it's that we want to, and meat is delicious.
Matter of taste? I don't like it much, never did and I grew up in a family were we ate tons of meat and vegetarian was a dirty word. I like 'a bite' of very good beef, but I could never eat a whole steak; just bores the hell out of me and the taste annoys me after a few bites. Chicken I just don't see the point. Next to a programmer I am a cook (own a restaurant) and I find taste very important; always have. So I think 'meat is delicious' is an opinion of yourself (and often people who never tried much else; people who cook 'without meat' (for whatever reason) often cook very bland; then I can understand it; those meals give 'vegetarian' cooking a very bad name and meat 'automatically' would make those better tasting for a lot of people. I wouldn't eat a barely heated up mashed pumpkin without seasoning either); I prefer other things and sure, if there is a bit of meat in something then it can be nice under the right circumstances.
Matter of taste? I don't like it much, never did and I grew up in a family were we ate tons of meat and vegetarian was a dirty word. I like 'a bite' of very good beef, but I could never eat a whole steak; just bores the hell out of me and the taste annoys me after a few bites. Chicken I just don't see the point. Next to a programmer I am a cook (own a restaurant) and I find taste very important; always have. So I think 'meat is delicious' is an opinion of yourself (and often people who never tried much else; people who cook 'without meat' (for whatever reason) often cook very bland; then I can understand it; those meals give 'vegetarian' cooking a very bad name and meat 'automatically' would make those better tasting for a lot of people. I wouldn't eat a barely heated up mashed pumpkin without seasoning either); I prefer other things and sure, if there is a bit of meat in something then it can be nice under the right circumstances.
[deleted]
> How is it easiest?
Raw meat, eggs, and such are very easy to cook and make delicious.
Tofu is already highly processed, and beans require a length cooking time. By any definition of the word, animal protein is less time consuming to make more delicious than plant protein.
Raw meat, eggs, and such are very easy to cook and make delicious.
Tofu is already highly processed, and beans require a length cooking time. By any definition of the word, animal protein is less time consuming to make more delicious than plant protein.
You think "raw" meat is unprocessed? That's cute.
> You think "raw" meat is unprocessed?
Your reading comprehension needs work.
And compared to tofu, a cut of raw meat is far less processed.
Your reading comprehension needs work.
And compared to tofu, a cut of raw meat is far less processed.
That's false and, frankly, quite a naive assertion which is easily refuted.
> quite a naive assertion which is easily refuted.
Then refute it, instead of spouting baseless accusations. With meat, you cut the meat off the animal after skinning it.
With tofu, you dry the beans, soak them, add a chemical coagulant to the fluid, and then press it.
I don't know what sources you're reading, or what your definition of the word "processed" is, but neither are commonly accepted.
Then refute it, instead of spouting baseless accusations. With meat, you cut the meat off the animal after skinning it.
With tofu, you dry the beans, soak them, add a chemical coagulant to the fluid, and then press it.
I don't know what sources you're reading, or what your definition of the word "processed" is, but neither are commonly accepted.
You forgot the part where they add a ton of antibiotics to the meat, where it gets infected with pathogens and viruses, then has to be bleached, frozen, and cooked to dangerously high temperatures which produce known carninogens. That's about as processed as you can get.
At least for me, I have a high-sensitivity gut that sometimes verges into IBS territory, if I mistreat it. I can't tolerate beans or similar in any quantity, so I'm left with pretty much tofu as a non-meat protein source. And I have to eat fairly high-protein low-carb to avoid various minor autoimmune nuisances. So if I were to cut meat, dairy, and eggs - I would pretty much have to exist on tofu, and I'm dubious about that being a good idea.
I think my situation is hardly rare.
I think my situation is hardly rare.
All whole foods have protein. All plant foods have all essential amino acids. The eating meat for protein argument is extremely trite and disproved with ease.
Like changing 80% of all meals to something less desired?
"huge" is debatable, but certainly a valid standpoint. In any way: there are pros and cons and everyone should weigh them against each other: health, price, animal cruelty, taste etc.
My compromise e.g. is non strict (and hopefully non dogmatic) vegetarian with preferably organic diary products.
"huge" is debatable, but certainly a valid standpoint. In any way: there are pros and cons and everyone should weigh them against each other: health, price, animal cruelty, taste etc.
My compromise e.g. is non strict (and hopefully non dogmatic) vegetarian with preferably organic diary products.
If you work out, figuring out where your protein's gonna come from is a huge pain in the ass (especially if you want to avoid Soy).
Not really. Protein is plentiful in the plant world, and soy isn't the only supplemental source.
When you stop doing what you like/love, it's a huge decline in quality of life.
This argument only works if you assume that people who go vegan enjoys food less than they did before they went vegan. The reality is that most vegans report enjoying food much more. The reason for that is that they are forced to experiment with different flavors and get more creative, which expands their culinary horizons.
This is a faulty argument. People who join various religious sects say the same exact things.
Overlooking whether vegans or religious sects are good, bad or whatever, what really happens is probably that people find other vegan people, become part of a community and enjoy that.
It's the same cargo cult process that makes everyone want an Iphone. I dread the day when a high percentage or, god forbid, majority of people start looking down on those dirty meat-eaters because "won't anyone think of the animals?".
Overlooking whether vegans or religious sects are good, bad or whatever, what really happens is probably that people find other vegan people, become part of a community and enjoy that.
It's the same cargo cult process that makes everyone want an Iphone. I dread the day when a high percentage or, god forbid, majority of people start looking down on those dirty meat-eaters because "won't anyone think of the animals?".
So why are all the engineered meat startups targeting pretty common meats that are fairly low cost? Why not a something like tuna which is endangered and can sell at a really high cost per pound. Take the Tesla strategy and build for a high-end exotic market that can sustain a high-margin first then get into position for the wider, lower margin market.
One meat startup went into high-end leather: http://www.modernmeadow.com/
Another algae-to-make-food company went into high-end oils for cosmetics: http://www.solazyme.com/ (and some other industrial things, from what I see now)
Another algae-to-make-food company went into high-end oils for cosmetics: http://www.solazyme.com/ (and some other industrial things, from what I see now)
Any high end cut of meat (dry aged ribeye, tuna belly) is orders of magnitude harder to make realistic than low end meat.
With high end stuff, you're really catering to the connoisseur. And if you can tell the difference between a dry-aged ribeye and a wet-aged ribeye, think about making a lab grown substitute for that level of discernment.
In fact, I read somewhere that the reason California rolls were invented was because somebody noticed that avocados have roughly the same fat content and mouthfeel as tuna belly, and was swapped in.
With high end stuff, you're really catering to the connoisseur. And if you can tell the difference between a dry-aged ribeye and a wet-aged ribeye, think about making a lab grown substitute for that level of discernment.
In fact, I read somewhere that the reason California rolls were invented was because somebody noticed that avocados have roughly the same fat content and mouthfeel as tuna belly, and was swapped in.
It seems to me that the macroscopic tissue structure of tuna I see in sushi is simpler and more consistent that of a ribeye steak, but I'm no biologist.
The dry vs wet aged ribeye is a little off to me too, don't they have the input of a raw steak (engineered or natural) if you're going to put it into an aging process?
The dry vs wet aged ribeye is a little off to me too, don't they have the input of a raw steak (engineered or natural) if you're going to put it into an aging process?
> macroscopic tissue structure of tuna
I think the problem is to get the exact distribution of the fat through the tuna, but I'm not sure. I mean, you can just sort of slather on lard to regular tuna, but it's the texture and marbling that people are going for not just pure fat content.
>The dry vs wet aged ribeye is a little off to me too
Well, in this case, dry aging really allows the enzymes present in the meat to start breaking down the meat. When you're engineering a steak, I think you're just engineering mostly the macros and structure of the meat.
I think the problem is to get the exact distribution of the fat through the tuna, but I'm not sure. I mean, you can just sort of slather on lard to regular tuna, but it's the texture and marbling that people are going for not just pure fat content.
>The dry vs wet aged ribeye is a little off to me too
Well, in this case, dry aging really allows the enzymes present in the meat to start breaking down the meat. When you're engineering a steak, I think you're just engineering mostly the macros and structure of the meat.
I agree, screw common meat. Let's get interesting and take the bottom out of things like poaching by doing rare game meats, or creating entirely new engineered meats that are tastier and healthier than nature.
I do worry though on the impact this will ultimately have on the farming industry and jobs. It is a slightly subtler form of job automation.
I do worry though on the impact this will ultimately have on the farming industry and jobs. It is a slightly subtler form of job automation.
Why worry? The meat industry is completely disgusting, and raising animals for slaughter is morally bad. The sooner we can disrupt this industry and stop killing animals, the better. I have zero remorse for the farmers that will be impacted.
I just had a fantastic dinner with a perfectly fried beef tenderloin steak. It was delicious. If this could be made cheaper, faster, better, and without having to kill a cow every time, that's an absolute win for everyone.
I just had a fantastic dinner with a perfectly fried beef tenderloin steak. It was delicious. If this could be made cheaper, faster, better, and without having to kill a cow every time, that's an absolute win for everyone.
While I generally agree with you about a lot of the industry practices and conditions, that isn't really the fault of the minimum wage farmers and factory workers who are just thankful for any job.
My point was more around the fact that, much like trucking, farming employs a large number of people in the US who generally are on the lower income side. If you take these jobs away, we have a larger national issue of what to do with a massive number of unemployed people with no means to support themselves. It isn't an easy problem to solve, and it is far from being a black and white issue.
My point was more around the fact that, much like trucking, farming employs a large number of people in the US who generally are on the lower income side. If you take these jobs away, we have a larger national issue of what to do with a massive number of unemployed people with no means to support themselves. It isn't an easy problem to solve, and it is far from being a black and white issue.
I get that, and it's the biggest challenge we'll face in our times.
But I really can't feel bad about it, in the same way I don't feel bad about the coal industry going belly-up, or the rest of the fossil fuel industry. I'm sorry, but it has to change. It is not sustainable.
But I really can't feel bad about it, in the same way I don't feel bad about the coal industry going belly-up, or the rest of the fossil fuel industry. I'm sorry, but it has to change. It is not sustainable.
Wait.. what?
"The meat industry is completely disgusting, and raising animals for slaughter is morally bad."
but yet >
"I just had a fantastic dinner with a perfectly fried beef tenderloin steak."
"The meat industry is completely disgusting, and raising animals for slaughter is morally bad."
but yet >
"I just had a fantastic dinner with a perfectly fried beef tenderloin steak."
If I define morality such that I always make good moral decisions, then it's not morality, it's subjective post-rationalization mish-mash.
For morality to be true and relevant, we have to be able to consciously make bad moral choices.
For morality to be true and relevant, we have to be able to consciously make bad moral choices.
That's an interesting take on it.
What is it like to consciously make decisions you feel are morally bad?
What is it like to consciously make decisions you feel are morally bad?
I think it's like doing any other thing that you shouldn't be doing. Eating this donut will make you fat. Buying that car will increase carbon dioxide emissions. Not helping that random stranger is egoistic.
We make these decisions all the time, every day. I at least try to be honest about what I'm doing. :-)
We make these decisions all the time, every day. I at least try to be honest about what I'm doing. :-)
Mmmmm. Sounds delicious... I-I mean... Sounds morally reprehensible.
or why not human? yum.
For those that can't get past the paywall...
https://m.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Fa...
https://m.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Fa...
There's also Beyond Meat, which is textured vegetable protein run through a complicated extruder with hot and cold sections. This gives it most of the appearance and physical properties of real meat, at least at the burger level. That's much simpler to make than growing meat from cells.
Beyond Meat ought to be a low-price product, but it isn't.
Beyond Meat ought to be a low-price product, but it isn't.
NPR's "How I Built This" podcast had an interesting interview with the founder on how they got started and the challenges they've faced/face. [1]
[1] https://play.google.com/music/m/Dj4goozcgwvlcixxhx2pekacws4?...
[1] https://play.google.com/music/m/Dj4goozcgwvlcixxhx2pekacws4?...
It's also not very convincing as a meat substitute, IMO. There's something about the texture that's off. This is regarding their chicken strips - maybe their burgers are better.
At $9,000 per pound of meat, this is not going to be replacing real meat from animals anytime soon. Chickens are already highly efficient when it comes to converting feed into edible meat. I'm skeptical that cell culture will ever be able to come close to the same level of efficiency.
Cell cultures need to be sterile, the sugars, growth factors, and other nutrients used need to be highly refined. These are not requirements that are likely to change in the foreseeable future.
Cell cultures need to be sterile, the sugars, growth factors, and other nutrients used need to be highly refined. These are not requirements that are likely to change in the foreseeable future.
You're absolutely right that conventional chicken is the hardest nut to crack when it comes to achieving price parity (beef and pork are easier), but I'm much more optimistic than you.
In 2013, the first cultured burger cost $330,000 to make. Just under a year ago, Memphis Meats was at $18,000/lb of clean beef produced. Now they're at $9,000/lb. This is before any sort of efficiencies from scale, and before many steps of the process have been anywhere near fully optimized. They expect their costs to reach 2 cents/g by 2021, which would be cost competitive.
And while chickens are somewhat efficient, they're not as efficient as culturing techniques ought to be at scale. Memphis Meats' process will require 3 calories of input to produce 1 calorie of beef. That's just better than chicken, and massively better than beef or pork.
In 2013, the first cultured burger cost $330,000 to make. Just under a year ago, Memphis Meats was at $18,000/lb of clean beef produced. Now they're at $9,000/lb. This is before any sort of efficiencies from scale, and before many steps of the process have been anywhere near fully optimized. They expect their costs to reach 2 cents/g by 2021, which would be cost competitive.
And while chickens are somewhat efficient, they're not as efficient as culturing techniques ought to be at scale. Memphis Meats' process will require 3 calories of input to produce 1 calorie of beef. That's just better than chicken, and massively better than beef or pork.
A couple comments who knows absolutely nothing about how this works:
* They don't need to reach price parity to be financially successful. I'm sure there are people out there (former vegans/vegetarians or those considering veganism/vegetarianism) who would pay a marked up price. People already pay marked up proces for things like grass-fed beef and uncured meats.
* Is there any evidence that these price decreases hold at scale? There's a world of difference in being able to provide a market niche with artificial chicken at low cost and being able to produce enough chicken for the whole market at those marginal costs.
* They don't need to reach price parity to be financially successful. I'm sure there are people out there (former vegans/vegetarians or those considering veganism/vegetarianism) who would pay a marked up price. People already pay marked up proces for things like grass-fed beef and uncured meats.
* Is there any evidence that these price decreases hold at scale? There's a world of difference in being able to provide a market niche with artificial chicken at low cost and being able to produce enough chicken for the whole market at those marginal costs.
> this is not going to be replacing real meat from animals anytime soon
Put your prediction on PredictionBook? It's a great way to keep track of your predictions, and learn to be calibrated (e.g. to have about 80% of your predictions-of-80%-likelihood be correct, which doesn't come naturally to people).
http://predictionbook.com/
Put your prediction on PredictionBook? It's a great way to keep track of your predictions, and learn to be calibrated (e.g. to have about 80% of your predictions-of-80%-likelihood be correct, which doesn't come naturally to people).
http://predictionbook.com/
In case this advertisement sounds familiar: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13788836
Huh, that actually looks pretty cool. Are there any stats on e.x. how often someone's "80% correct" predictions are actually true?
I don't know if you can view your stats in comparison with the average user, but once you have some predictions that have ended up right/wrong, you get a nice little graph showing your calibration. For example: http://predictionbook.com/users/gwern
Assuming I'm reading it right, the perfectly calibrated guesser would trend towards a straight line going from 50 on the left to 100 on the right.
They also have a way-too-addictive game where you can practice calibrating your confidence on a bunch of trivia questions: http://predictionbook.com/credence_games/try
Assuming I'm reading it right, the perfectly calibrated guesser would trend towards a straight line going from 50 on the left to 100 on the right.
They also have a way-too-addictive game where you can practice calibrating your confidence on a bunch of trivia questions: http://predictionbook.com/credence_games/try
Cell culturing has a history of the requisite procedures being brought to scale when necessary (insulin production for one classic example). I'm not arguing that the scale is the same. Obviously, comparing a highly evolved animal literally designed for producing meat vs. the natural insulin production of a pig is completely different. But, the evidence says the procedures scale well, given enough time.
Would this somehow be different?
Would this somehow be different?
Is chicken really designed for producing meat? Speaking in exclusively in terms of resource consumption, it seems like a lot of resources would be wasted by the bird on a lot of necessary, but wasteful (from the point of producing meat) activities (e.g. moving?).
I am not a biologist, so I am genuinely curious...
I am not a biologist, so I am genuinely curious...
It's less a biological question, and more a question of the laws regarding meat production where you live. IIRC, in the US (just some states I believe), chickens for example don't need to have space to move at all, except maybe a few inches. We quite literally turn them into machines for producing meat, at scale.
Further, the breeds of chickens used for meat are usually for meat, eggs for eggs, etc - at least at the industrial scale.
Further, the breeds of chickens used for meat are usually for meat, eggs for eggs, etc - at least at the industrial scale.
I read it to mean efficient as compared to other ways of producing protein rich food, not efficient in the strict sense with regard to conservation of energy.
Sure, no one is suggesting it's ready for market. I don't think the effort is entirely futile, though. While it's true that chickens are more efficient than pretty much any other kind of livestock (except possibly insects), they still have to produce feathers and bones (and guano - we do use most of that one way or another, but not having to dispose of it wouldn't be a bad thing). Still, it seems like vat-grown beef or lamb makes more sense, since they are much more resource-intensive than chicken to start with.
That said, as a long-time vegetarian I would still guess that animal protein is likely to stay more resource-intensive than plant protein. But it could still be an improvement over our current situation, especially in terms of our treatment of animals, and use of water and feed.
That said, as a long-time vegetarian I would still guess that animal protein is likely to stay more resource-intensive than plant protein. But it could still be an improvement over our current situation, especially in terms of our treatment of animals, and use of water and feed.
You don't need to match the scale, since people will pay a premium to not kill a chicken (or treat a chicken inhumanely). But you still would have to get pretty close - maybe double or triple the cost.
> skeptical that cell culture will ever be able to come close to the same level of efficiency
"Ever"? Really?
I could see it for the next 5 years or so, but beyond that all bets are off.
"Ever"? Really?
I could see it for the next 5 years or so, but beyond that all bets are off.
this is like saying the engineering sample for a brand new cpu is never going to replace normal cpus because it cost $1bn
Mass production of economical, safe, "vat-grown" meats can't come soon enough.
Wonder what would happen to the tons of soybeans/corn currently raised as animal feed in that case though...
Is that a problem or a good thing. We currently suffer from deforistation due to agriculture. If those feilds could be reforested that would be a good thing. Of course pure capitalism doesn't allow for that, but with a little government intervention (aka, buy up the unneeded feilds) or economic decay (feilds become abandoned due to their lack of value ;) ) then reforestation could occure.
Or there could be solar panels put there, or the corn could end up producing the input to the vat. Or hemp could be grown there which could be used as a construction material, or ...
Or there could be solar panels put there, or the corn could end up producing the input to the vat. Or hemp could be grown there which could be used as a construction material, or ...
Processed into feedstock for the meat-vats. Roughly the same workflow as before, just streamlined.
Even bioreactors that produce pharmaceutical products are running on carbon-based energy derived from agricultural output -- glucose gotta come from somewhere. Fixed nitrogen, amines, gotta come from somewhere.
Even bioreactors that produce pharmaceutical products are running on carbon-based energy derived from agricultural output -- glucose gotta come from somewhere. Fixed nitrogen, amines, gotta come from somewhere.
It could perhaps be a) put to other uses or b) no longer grown in such large quantities and replaced by some other less harmful plan (speaking about corn in particular which is heavily subsidized and terrible for the soil it grows in).
One of the points missed here in the discussion thread is that over and above ethical/moral animal wellbeing concerns we need this as quickly as possible because antibiotic use in livestock is one of main contributors to antibiotic resistance.
I've fantasized about the Musk-esque projects I would take on if/when I have some money, and this is near the top of the list. Cultured animal products, without the cruelty or inefficiency of raising conscious, normal animals, has the potential to push humanity forward economically, morally, and healthfully (couldn't hurt to provide more nutritious options).
I wish that there was more of a focus on milk, because milk production is arguably the most cruel of them all, and it also seems to be more feasible, considering it's a homogeneous liquid solution. Granted, synthetic milk is getting some attention, too: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/genetic-engineering-synthetic-milk-...
I wish that there was more of a focus on milk, because milk production is arguably the most cruel of them all, and it also seems to be more feasible, considering it's a homogeneous liquid solution. Granted, synthetic milk is getting some attention, too: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/genetic-engineering-synthetic-milk-...
Given all the discussion about vegans here, I dread the day when a high percentage or, god forbid, majority of the population start looking down on those dirty, pesky, meat-eaters that ruin the environment and "won't anyone please think of the poor animals?".
Honestly artificial meat sounds like a repulsive idea an i'd never consider eating it regularly, maybe just taste as a curiosity.
I like my steaks rare, I like the taste of the juice that's left by the blood in the steak. I like to see the red in the meat.
Some vegans reading this will think I'm a horrible person. Others will think themselves better people than me because they are not enslaved by meat. Honestly, I find this much more repulsive than the way animals are treated in farms.
Honestly artificial meat sounds like a repulsive idea an i'd never consider eating it regularly, maybe just taste as a curiosity.
I like my steaks rare, I like the taste of the juice that's left by the blood in the steak. I like to see the red in the meat.
Some vegans reading this will think I'm a horrible person. Others will think themselves better people than me because they are not enslaved by meat. Honestly, I find this much more repulsive than the way animals are treated in farms.
To me it sound an over-engineered solution to a simple problem.
We need less meat from better raised animals. We need to understand that animals are an essential part of a balanced agricultural system. We do not need more food-industry.
We need less meat from better raised animals. We need to understand that animals are an essential part of a balanced agricultural system. We do not need more food-industry.
we've reached peak meat, it's impossible to feed the whole population meat past 10bn due to there not enough land, and if only grass fed meat/etc is consumed there is only enough land for 1bn.
why is there no brand of tofu marinated with actual chicken. there's no inbetween eating meat and not eating, there should be a "% meat" brand.
You know what's a cheaper, better way to make chicken meat? A chicken....
This is a solution in need of problem
This is a solution in need of problem
So the selling point is that consumers can be lab rats right now?
More frankenfood. When will we learn ?
Learn what, exactly?
When will we learn plant based foods are superior, is what you should be asking.