Coming soon: chicken meat without slaughter(israel21c.org)
israel21c.org
Coming soon: chicken meat without slaughter
http://www.israel21c.org/coming-soon-chicken-meat-without-slaughter/
100 comments
I suspect this stuff cannot be commercially viable, otherwise someone would have done it by now. Though, I'm a vegetarian of 22 years and have never heard of either of these things. It sounds cool, and I'll probably seek some out now, but it's certainly not well-known. I've used portobello mushrooms, and several kinds of Asian mushrooms, for substitution in various dishes, but never considered them indistinguishable (or even all that similar) to meat.
But, given the incredible and fascinating (and delicious) variety of mushrooms and fungi, I am more than willing to believe there are lots of food options that haven't been explored.
But, given the incredible and fascinating (and delicious) variety of mushrooms and fungi, I am more than willing to believe there are lots of food options that haven't been explored.
> I'll probably seek some out now
Join your local mycology group in spring. Every city has one, and you can either Google for yours or look them up on the NAMA website. A lot of their websites look like the group may be defunct, but they are mostly still active -- it's just that the average age in these groups is going to be like 60, so the sites just don't get updated often. (Though most of the younger folks in these groups tend to be software developers, go figure.)
Anyway they'll have at least one walk every weekend, and if you go on half of them then you'll know how to safely identify and cook with most of the basic edibles by fall. You'll probably learn a bunch of edible plants as well, especially during the slow season between when the morels finish and when the summer mushrooms start coming up.
There definitely are a lot of things that aren't commercially viable. But probably even more that just haven't been commercialized. E.g. there are tons of foods that are eaten in Asia, Africa, and South America that aren't commonly consumed in the U.S., and sometimes that has to be with growing conditions, but more often than not it's just a marketing thing.
Regardless, what I'd say is that you're not a real foodie unless you own a couple dozen field guides, because at least for the foreseeable future that's the only way you're ever going to get to try a lot of the best foods available in your area.
Join your local mycology group in spring. Every city has one, and you can either Google for yours or look them up on the NAMA website. A lot of their websites look like the group may be defunct, but they are mostly still active -- it's just that the average age in these groups is going to be like 60, so the sites just don't get updated often. (Though most of the younger folks in these groups tend to be software developers, go figure.)
Anyway they'll have at least one walk every weekend, and if you go on half of them then you'll know how to safely identify and cook with most of the basic edibles by fall. You'll probably learn a bunch of edible plants as well, especially during the slow season between when the morels finish and when the summer mushrooms start coming up.
There definitely are a lot of things that aren't commercially viable. But probably even more that just haven't been commercialized. E.g. there are tons of foods that are eaten in Asia, Africa, and South America that aren't commonly consumed in the U.S., and sometimes that has to be with growing conditions, but more often than not it's just a marketing thing.
Regardless, what I'd say is that you're not a real foodie unless you own a couple dozen field guides, because at least for the foreseeable future that's the only way you're ever going to get to try a lot of the best foods available in your area.
Cultivating mushrooms at commercial levels have been, and still is, incredibly difficult. Many of the most desirable mushrooms are still so poorly understood that cultivation involves "get things mostly right, spread spores, wait, try again, and maybe you get lucky".
E.g. chantarelle mushrooms are an example that is tricky [1] and where commercial cultivation is just in its very early infancy despite being an extremely attractive goal for people to cultivate because of its price.
I've not tried the ones mentioned, but I've picked maybe a couple dozen different types and their taste and texture varies so wildly that I'd not be surprised at all if some of them get close. I've tried smaller puffball varieties, and they're in any case nice.
They're also "easy" ones to learn as there's very few poisonous varieties and I believe only a few similar mushrooms you might mistake for puffballs (but if you want to pick them - or any type of mushrooms - check local advice on what to look for; a common problem with picking mushrooms given the sheer variety, is if you pick somewhere new and don't realise there are poisonous varieties you're unfamiliar with that look similar to the ones you're picking - always familiarise yourself not just with what the mushrooms you want to pick look like, but also specifically how they differ from similar poisonous ones in the area)
[1] http://www.gardenguides.com/127093-grow-chanterelle-mushroom...
E.g. chantarelle mushrooms are an example that is tricky [1] and where commercial cultivation is just in its very early infancy despite being an extremely attractive goal for people to cultivate because of its price.
I've not tried the ones mentioned, but I've picked maybe a couple dozen different types and their taste and texture varies so wildly that I'd not be surprised at all if some of them get close. I've tried smaller puffball varieties, and they're in any case nice.
They're also "easy" ones to learn as there's very few poisonous varieties and I believe only a few similar mushrooms you might mistake for puffballs (but if you want to pick them - or any type of mushrooms - check local advice on what to look for; a common problem with picking mushrooms given the sheer variety, is if you pick somewhere new and don't realise there are poisonous varieties you're unfamiliar with that look similar to the ones you're picking - always familiarise yourself not just with what the mushrooms you want to pick look like, but also specifically how they differ from similar poisonous ones in the area)
[1] http://www.gardenguides.com/127093-grow-chanterelle-mushroom...
As a cousin of mushrooms (still in the fungi family), doesn't Quorn's mycoprotein products qualify as a class that's achieved commercial success?
In Europe it's common to prepare Macrolepiota procera like schnitzel.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Br...
The texture is a bit different, but the difference is quite small.
I suppose the nutritional value of mushrooms is quite diminished in comparison to meat though.
I suppose the nutritional value of mushrooms is quite diminished in comparison to meat though.
Interesting, I'd like to try that. The macrolepiotas in the U.S. are a pain because there is a toxic look alike but with green spores, so if you want to eat them then you actually need to spore print each one. I haven't tried them yet for this reason, but maybe this summer.
Wow. I looked it up, those look very much like the edible m.procera commonly eaten and fried in Europe.
I gather mushrooms have a much harder time colonizing new areas than say, insects. Hopefully.
I gather mushrooms have a much harder time colonizing new areas than say, insects. Hopefully.
>The texture is a bit different, but the difference is quite small.
Hmm. Boletus mushrooms are much more meat-like. Also sometimes prepared as schnitzels. However, the rarity and popularity of mushroom picking makes it uncommon to have so many to eat them like that..
Hmm. Boletus mushrooms are much more meat-like. Also sometimes prepared as schnitzels. However, the rarity and popularity of mushroom picking makes it uncommon to have so many to eat them like that..
Ok, I looked it up.
Calvatia Gigantea tasting like chicken?
I've eaten some we found in the wild. Not bad, but it's definitely not meat.
Most people* pick and eat mushrooms where I live, but I've yet to hear anyone say any mushroom tastes like meat.
*Except the doctors and nurses working metabolic intensive care.. :). Some people don't know how to recognize a Death-cap mushroom..
Calvatia Gigantea tasting like chicken?
I've eaten some we found in the wild. Not bad, but it's definitely not meat.
Most people* pick and eat mushrooms where I live, but I've yet to hear anyone say any mushroom tastes like meat.
*Except the doctors and nurses working metabolic intensive care.. :). Some people don't know how to recognize a Death-cap mushroom..
Fungi are a special case with special problems, not necessarily worst or better for health. Much of them, and I'm talking of edible species here, extend its micelia for a big surface underground and absorb and accumulate high concentrations of metals from the entire place.
Even if you could culture a strictly seasonal product like Calvatia regularly all around the year, is not guaranteed that you could eat it every week without to slowly poisoning yourself with nickel, lead or arsenic. Chicken meat, even with its own problems, seems much safer at long term.
Even if you could culture a strictly seasonal product like Calvatia regularly all around the year, is not guaranteed that you could eat it every week without to slowly poisoning yourself with nickel, lead or arsenic. Chicken meat, even with its own problems, seems much safer at long term.
Yeah you would definitely need to test both the soil and the mushrooms. The last time I checked the only paper I found on Calvatea hyper-accumulating heavy metals was the old one that looked at samples a couple hundred yards from highways in Connecticut, so I think right now we probably just don't have enough data.
Substitute for meat, in texture and experience, or as an actual nutritionally-comparable food source?
Texture and experience.
Even if it was price-competitive, what's the point?
Do people really need to eat that much? And they'd have to get their calories elsewhere anyway.
Do people really need to eat that much? And they'd have to get their calories elsewhere anyway.
They're not devoid of nutrition, just not equivalent to meat. And most people in the developed world where most meat is consumed don't have a problem with getting enough calories, but getting too much.
Do you make this yourself? Or are there products on the market? Sounds interesting.
All made myself. For the jerky I use this recipe:
http://the3foragers.blogspot.com/2013/10/hen-of-woods-recipe...
Except for that I substitute the regular maple syrup for smoked maple syrup from here: http://www.sugarbobsfinestkind.com/
It's super easy, you just need a food dehydrator. For the chicken of the woods I usually just cook it with barbecue sauce and then throw it on pizza.
And with the giant puffballs I think the best way is to slice them half an inch think, first cook them down a little in a pan and then bread and fry them and treat them like chicken parm. There are some recipes here: http://www.mssf.org/cookbook/puffballs.html
For each mushroom the basic thing to know is whether it's a mushroom that takes dairy or oil. Most of them only taste good if cooked in either butter or olive oil, but not both. Also, using veggie salt instead of regular salt tends to be key for whatever reason.
http://the3foragers.blogspot.com/2013/10/hen-of-woods-recipe...
Except for that I substitute the regular maple syrup for smoked maple syrup from here: http://www.sugarbobsfinestkind.com/
It's super easy, you just need a food dehydrator. For the chicken of the woods I usually just cook it with barbecue sauce and then throw it on pizza.
And with the giant puffballs I think the best way is to slice them half an inch think, first cook them down a little in a pan and then bread and fry them and treat them like chicken parm. There are some recipes here: http://www.mssf.org/cookbook/puffballs.html
For each mushroom the basic thing to know is whether it's a mushroom that takes dairy or oil. Most of them only taste good if cooked in either butter or olive oil, but not both. Also, using veggie salt instead of regular salt tends to be key for whatever reason.
Your comment on mushrooms working in either butter or oil is really interesting. Is there some way to know other than throwing some in each and seeing what happens?
Ask people or look up recipes. But as a rule of thumb, most species traditionally eaten in the U.S. are going to be better with dairy, and most traditionally eaten in Asia will be better with oil.
Related question since this is an Israeli foundation. What do jews and muslims think about the kosher / halal-ness of eating cultured pork if there was such a thing?
I.e. do they consider the animal itself dirty, or its inherent genetic structure?
I.e. do they consider the animal itself dirty, or its inherent genetic structure?
I’m sure there’s no consensus at all. Rabbis have spent millennia debating and reinterpreting their scripture.
I once heard that it’s possible to make kosher pork — the literal proscription against pork is that Jews are not to eat from animals who have a cloven hoof. But if you take a baby pig, suspend it from a harness, feed it to maturation but never let it walk on the ground, its hooves will remain uncloven and thus it’s fair game.
You will find many, many (probably most) rabbis who disagree with this particular conclusion, but the point is that the whole culture has a fascinating legacy of picking apart the rules that would make any lawyer proud.
I once heard that it’s possible to make kosher pork — the literal proscription against pork is that Jews are not to eat from animals who have a cloven hoof. But if you take a baby pig, suspend it from a harness, feed it to maturation but never let it walk on the ground, its hooves will remain uncloven and thus it’s fair game.
You will find many, many (probably most) rabbis who disagree with this particular conclusion, but the point is that the whole culture has a fascinating legacy of picking apart the rules that would make any lawyer proud.
Pork or pig is actually one of the few animals that are specifically mentioned in the bible as "unclean" and should not be consumed.
While most observant Jews don't have issues with eating say Turkey Bacon or any other substitute some Jewish communities don't eat those either due to a different commandment (actually the one that today is interpreted as not mixing dairy and meat, but it has more to do with accepting customs of other cultures than that).
BTW there are probably more "Leviticans" in the US than Muslims, and for sure more than observant Jews so you don't even have to go that far to find new markets for cultured pork.
While most observant Jews don't have issues with eating say Turkey Bacon or any other substitute some Jewish communities don't eat those either due to a different commandment (actually the one that today is interpreted as not mixing dairy and meat, but it has more to do with accepting customs of other cultures than that).
BTW there are probably more "Leviticans" in the US than Muslims, and for sure more than observant Jews so you don't even have to go that far to find new markets for cultured pork.
> But if you take a baby pig, suspend it from a harness, feed it to maturation but never let it walk on the ground, its hooves will remain uncloven and thus it’s fair game.
What???????
You got it backwards! Pig is not kosher because it doesn't chew it's cud.
To be kosher you NEED split hooves.
> but the point is that the whole culture has a fascinating legacy of picking apart the rules that would make any lawyer proud.
That part's quite true. The more intense and involved the study the better, so do not think of this as "loopholes" but rather as study to the smallest detail.
What???????
You got it backwards! Pig is not kosher because it doesn't chew it's cud.
To be kosher you NEED split hooves.
> but the point is that the whole culture has a fascinating legacy of picking apart the rules that would make any lawyer proud.
That part's quite true. The more intense and involved the study the better, so do not think of this as "loopholes" but rather as study to the smallest detail.
huh! well yeah it was a pretty daffy story, thank you for correcting me.
For example the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbath_mode of some appliances.
There was also a fascinating description by Assaf Nativ in PoC||GTFO 0x03, Section 7, of how to hack Nokia feature phones and make "kosher phones", for which there is apparently a sizable market.
It's still not kosher/halal if its made from the cells of a treyf animal. Both religions already have a concept of how pork-derived things aren't religiously acceptable, and pork-derived cultured meat would obviously be an example of that. (Note that the meat they're making here really is chicken; its just a chicken cloned in such a way that only the breast grows.)
That said, kosher/hallal beef "bacon" does a brisk business in NYC, so who knows.
That said, kosher/hallal beef "bacon" does a brisk business in NYC, so who knows.
It will never be halal as it's not butchered so it cannot be guaranteed Halal.
As far as Kosher goes it's not that far but there are quite a few loopholes that could be used to classify this as not-meat, or find some way to make it Kosher.
Kosher unlike Halal has different "levels" based on which organization actually gave it the certification usually, as far as I know Kosher most Kosher meat in the US are not butchered exactly according to Jewish tradition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shechita so there might be already a precedence to allow it.
You probably won't see the hardcore-est Orthodox Jewry eating eat, but It will be quite viable for most observant Jews.
> as far as I know Kosher most Kosher meat in the US are not butchered exactly according to Jewish tradition
That's not true. Meat certified by all reputable Kosher agencies in the US is slaughtered according to Jewish tradition. That's part of why it's so expensive.
That's not true. Meat certified by all reputable Kosher agencies in the US is slaughtered according to Jewish tradition. That's part of why it's so expensive.
Not exactly, believe it or not it takes a sampled approach for most things.
Even Glatt Kosher might not have inspection for every animal slaughtered.
Many modern slaughtering techniques are compatible with Jewish slaughter requirements, the added costs are because the animals have to be inspected for certain defects/conditions before and after the slaughter.
You are not going to inverse and inflate the lungs of every cow to check them for lesions even for Kosher beef.
Beyond that it's just the question of how the meat is processed after slaughter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shechita#Bedikah
If it can't be butchered is it really an animal for the purposes of these religions, or a new & novel organism that happens to use the genetic material from some animal?
I.e. isn't there a case to be made that these things should be treated more like mushrooms than chickens or pigs?
I.e. isn't there a case to be made that these things should be treated more like mushrooms than chickens or pigs?
Don't know, not a religious expert.
Gelatin might be a good example according to most Jewish communities Gelatin that is made from animal bones isn't meat but Parve as long as the bones have been processed to remove all marrow and blood prior to being used to make the gelatin.
Some very strict communities however do not consider it to be parve and it cannot be used for dairy products for that Gelatin from fish bones or non-animal sources will be used.
However both communities will not consider the Gelatin to be Kosher if pig bones are used because that will trump any other statue as pigs are specifically listed in the bible as forbidden (you won't see Jews using pig leather for example either).
The only allowed use of pigs according to Jewish religious mandates is for medical purposes e.g. temporary organ donations, using pigs as living dialysis machines and formerly pig insulin (not sure if it's still used anywhere) because saving one's live trumps everything.
ITYM it does a brisket business in NYC.
> I.e. do they consider the animal itself dirty, or its inherent genetic structure?
Dirty? That's a really really really bad translation for not-kosher. It has nothing whatsoever to do with cleanliness.
Anyway for the purposes of this meat neither of those two options cover the topic.
The animal itself is what is kosher or not kosher. It has physical signs and those decide if it's kosher or not.
There is a second issue that something derived from something non-kosher is also not kosher.
So CO2 (for seltzer) from beer is not kosher for passover, but CO2 from combustion is, despite both being identical.
But, there is a concept of nullified, i.e. diluted. If someone non-kosher is unintentionally diluted in something kosher at a 1/60 level it becomes nullified and ignored. (So CO2 from the atmosphere is fine for passover even if it originally was from beer.)
Except, if that diluted item is considered "primary", i.e. it's something that even at a 1/60th level becomes important in the final product.
So here we have a single cell from an animal - it certainly is less than 1/60th of the final product, but since it is primary to that product, which could not exist without it, that single cell can not be diluted.
i.e. you have to start with a kosher cell.
A much more complicated question is if it's considered meat with regard to mixing meat and dairy. But the question is academic only since it would be rabbinically considered like meat because it looks like meat and you should not create a misleading situation.
And from the length of this reply you can start to understand why Judaism is such an academic and logically oriented religion with such an enormous quantity of scholarly books. You start with God-given unprovable axioms and generate everything else with logic, one item building upon the next, all ultimately sourced from the Torah (but you need some serious knowledge to be able to trace each law). It's also how Judaism has survived so long - using this method you can extend the law to cover novel situations.
Dirty? That's a really really really bad translation for not-kosher. It has nothing whatsoever to do with cleanliness.
Anyway for the purposes of this meat neither of those two options cover the topic.
The animal itself is what is kosher or not kosher. It has physical signs and those decide if it's kosher or not.
There is a second issue that something derived from something non-kosher is also not kosher.
So CO2 (for seltzer) from beer is not kosher for passover, but CO2 from combustion is, despite both being identical.
But, there is a concept of nullified, i.e. diluted. If someone non-kosher is unintentionally diluted in something kosher at a 1/60 level it becomes nullified and ignored. (So CO2 from the atmosphere is fine for passover even if it originally was from beer.)
Except, if that diluted item is considered "primary", i.e. it's something that even at a 1/60th level becomes important in the final product.
So here we have a single cell from an animal - it certainly is less than 1/60th of the final product, but since it is primary to that product, which could not exist without it, that single cell can not be diluted.
i.e. you have to start with a kosher cell.
A much more complicated question is if it's considered meat with regard to mixing meat and dairy. But the question is academic only since it would be rabbinically considered like meat because it looks like meat and you should not create a misleading situation.
And from the length of this reply you can start to understand why Judaism is such an academic and logically oriented religion with such an enormous quantity of scholarly books. You start with God-given unprovable axioms and generate everything else with logic, one item building upon the next, all ultimately sourced from the Torah (but you need some serious knowledge to be able to trace each law). It's also how Judaism has survived so long - using this method you can extend the law to cover novel situations.
"logically oriented religion"...
o...k....
o...k....
Slaughter has never been the negative side of raising animals. It is in fact, the slaughtering of an animal that teaches us to respect it, to honor its life given, and ensure that we provide as humane a life and death as possible.
Distancing ourselves from the hard work of growing, raising, and killing our own food creates an enormous gap in cultural awareness about where our life energy comes from. This is clearly seen with the impact of industrial farming.
Widening the gap IMO is the wrong direction to go. Of course, we will go there because we are human and we can. But I fear for the consequences as we distance ourselves further and further from the natural world.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Distancing ourselves from the hard work of growing, raising, and killing our own food creates an enormous gap in cultural awareness about where our life energy comes from. This is clearly seen with the impact of industrial farming.
Widening the gap IMO is the wrong direction to go. Of course, we will go there because we are human and we can. But I fear for the consequences as we distance ourselves further and further from the natural world.
Garbage in, garbage out.
I'm pretty sure most people would disagree with you. People who choose vegetarianism for conscientious reasons don't do it because we've distanced ourselves from our sources of meat, they do it because we slaughter and torture an unthinkably large number of living beings in order to get a chicken bacon sandwich.
Some people lament what you're talking about, and they do it equally for raising livestock as well as growing and harvesting our own fruits and vegetables. That growing distance between us and our food production is certainly an issue, but it's the infinitely lesser one compared to the violence of meat consumption.
Given that humans crave the types of food they crave, I don't see lab-grown meat as anything but a pure win for science, humanity, and all living beings. In my mind, it's an achievement on par with fire, the wheel, electricity, antibiotics/sterilization, and the internet.
Some people lament what you're talking about, and they do it equally for raising livestock as well as growing and harvesting our own fruits and vegetables. That growing distance between us and our food production is certainly an issue, but it's the infinitely lesser one compared to the violence of meat consumption.
Given that humans crave the types of food they crave, I don't see lab-grown meat as anything but a pure win for science, humanity, and all living beings. In my mind, it's an achievement on par with fire, the wheel, electricity, antibiotics/sterilization, and the internet.
I certainly understand this POV, as I once held it, until living and working on an off-grid farm.
My point is that the abhorrence towards animal slaughter has more to do with the industrialized process, and the poor treatment of animals because of mass market demands, then the fact that animals are killed. Animals can be raised and killed in a humane way, and doing so teaches us about the natural cycle of life, a reminder of our mortality.
We can certainly choose to abstain from that cycle. But as you say, humans crave the foods they crave. I will venture a guess and say that lab-grown meat will not satisfy that craving. Like GMO tomatoes, it may appear all the same, but beneath the shiny appearance of a solution will be a vacuous gap in substance. We can erode our "food pyramid" with cheap, artificial solutions, or we can do the real work of (1) creating sustainable, humane food systems, and (2) educating people about healthy diets and thus curbing the global craving for flesh.
Lastly, what will happen to all the chickens, pigs, cows, etc of the world? Like horses, they will become domestic novelties. People like me will raise them and give them a good life, while their world population shrinks to negligence, until eventually, they are forgotten to extinction, but for the symbolic names of their imitation meat. "Chicken" will be a brand, an algorithm that only slightly differs from the "Steak" algorithm.
My point is that the abhorrence towards animal slaughter has more to do with the industrialized process, and the poor treatment of animals because of mass market demands, then the fact that animals are killed. Animals can be raised and killed in a humane way, and doing so teaches us about the natural cycle of life, a reminder of our mortality.
We can certainly choose to abstain from that cycle. But as you say, humans crave the foods they crave. I will venture a guess and say that lab-grown meat will not satisfy that craving. Like GMO tomatoes, it may appear all the same, but beneath the shiny appearance of a solution will be a vacuous gap in substance. We can erode our "food pyramid" with cheap, artificial solutions, or we can do the real work of (1) creating sustainable, humane food systems, and (2) educating people about healthy diets and thus curbing the global craving for flesh.
Lastly, what will happen to all the chickens, pigs, cows, etc of the world? Like horses, they will become domestic novelties. People like me will raise them and give them a good life, while their world population shrinks to negligence, until eventually, they are forgotten to extinction, but for the symbolic names of their imitation meat. "Chicken" will be a brand, an algorithm that only slightly differs from the "Steak" algorithm.
they do it because they think that we slaughter and torture an unthinkably large number of living beings in order to get a chicken bacon sandwich.
And this is a point of view that other people do not share, or that is not a problem for most people, and that often lead to the search for twisted, ilogical and even surrealist shorcuts to circunvent the problem.
... soy and lattices are living beings also (as the hundred of thousands of species of plants, fungi and insects that lived in the meadows that are now sterile soy plant highways and that we poisoned in order to get a tofu sandwich).
And this is a point of view that other people do not share, or that is not a problem for most people, and that often lead to the search for twisted, ilogical and even surrealist shorcuts to circunvent the problem.
... soy and lattices are living beings also (as the hundred of thousands of species of plants, fungi and insects that lived in the meadows that are now sterile soy plant highways and that we poisoned in order to get a tofu sandwich).
As someone who feels he should be vegetarian but is ultimately not into vegetables enough to actually do it, I'm all for this. Put it supermarkets and it'll be the only meat I'll buy.
Eat at a good vegetarian restaurant, you'd be surprised with the amount of tasty non-salad dishes that can be made without meat. Where I used to eat there were fantastic lasagnas, various kinds of pasta with various sauces, and some classical "meat-centered" dishes with seasoned "soy beef" to emulate meat -- which of course comes nowhere near real beef, but isn't all that bad. Lots of salad too, of course. If you're lactose intolerant then you'd probably have to cook your own dishes using lactose-free dairy products. If you're vegan than I wouldn’t know what to recommend.
Most reasonably large cities have at least a couple of really good vegetarian restaurants, and some have a couple of really good vegan restaurants. Asian restaurants are historically the strongest on this front, but, I've seen an upsurge in the past decade in much broader options (I've been vegetarian, occasional vegan, for 22 years).
But, almost any Asian restaurant has tofu options on the menu that are probably vegan and are probably delicious. I'm back to traveling full-time (I did it for four years in a motorhome, and have hit the road again in a travel trailer), in very remote locations, and small towns almost never have vegan or vegetarian restaurants. So, I go for Chinese, when I want to go out. There's nearly always at least a couple of delicious options on the menu. Honestly, I would choose tofu over meat in almost any Asian dish. It's just a nicer texture when prepared well and picks up the flavor of the dish.
But, almost any Asian restaurant has tofu options on the menu that are probably vegan and are probably delicious. I'm back to traveling full-time (I did it for four years in a motorhome, and have hit the road again in a travel trailer), in very remote locations, and small towns almost never have vegan or vegetarian restaurants. So, I go for Chinese, when I want to go out. There's nearly always at least a couple of delicious options on the menu. Honestly, I would choose tofu over meat in almost any Asian dish. It's just a nicer texture when prepared well and picks up the flavor of the dish.
The "almost any Asian restaurant" really depends on where you are. Especially Chinese, because of the massive regional adaptations of Chinese food (e.g. the same "Chinese" dishes in California, London, Oslo or Beijing can look and taste like entirely different dishes - I still find the constant presence of oranges in a lot of "California Chinese" food hilarious, for example).
I live London, and while I have no interest in vegetarian food, the few times I've been out with vegetarians to Chinese restaurants in London for example, it's been an exercise in frustration to the point that I won't do it again, because many places you'll ask if disk x is vegetarian, get told it is, order it and find out that it's full of shrimp or covered in fish powder, or cooked in animal fats, and when you bring it up with them they're confused and appear to not understand that this means the dish isn't vegetarian... I've been to Chinese restaurants where finding any vegetarian dishes other than plain boiled rice has been almost impossible.
(as for tofu.... I'd rather starve; I can stomach it in small quantities in addition to something else, but I can't handle it as a meat replacement)
I live London, and while I have no interest in vegetarian food, the few times I've been out with vegetarians to Chinese restaurants in London for example, it's been an exercise in frustration to the point that I won't do it again, because many places you'll ask if disk x is vegetarian, get told it is, order it and find out that it's full of shrimp or covered in fish powder, or cooked in animal fats, and when you bring it up with them they're confused and appear to not understand that this means the dish isn't vegetarian... I've been to Chinese restaurants where finding any vegetarian dishes other than plain boiled rice has been almost impossible.
(as for tofu.... I'd rather starve; I can stomach it in small quantities in addition to something else, but I can't handle it as a meat replacement)
Yes, I've heard this is true in some non-US locations. In the US, you generally only need to worry about eggs and fish sauce, or beef/chicken broth in soups, and I've rarely (maybe never) had trouble getting a vegetarian or vegan meal in a Chinese restaurant anywhere in the US, Canada, or Mexico. I do often ask for clarification about whether a dish has fish sauce or eggs, and if I can get it prepared without, but I've never had a dish appear with shrimp that didn't advertise it had shrimp; given the price of seafood in the US, restaurants like to brag when a dish has seafood in it. I also never order soups at unfamiliar restaurants unless they are explicitly labeled as vegetarian or vegan.
Thai and Vietnamese restaurants are more likely to have fish sauce in almost everything, though they're usually happy to make a vegetarian version. Korean restaurants seem tricky, as there's almost never anything vegan on the menu, but bibimbop can be ordered without meat or egg, even if they don't offer a tofu version. But, none are as consistently easy to order from as Chinese.
I've been told that when traveling abroad, in some regions in Asia (including some parts of India), saying, "I'm Buddhist" will help the wait staff and chef understand what you mean when you say "vegetarian". I don't know exactly where or whether this is entirely accurate, since millions of Chinese are Buddhist and not vegetarian. I've never used this one weird trick for getting an actual vegetarian meal, but I've heard it from a few older vegetarians who have traveled a lot.
Thai and Vietnamese restaurants are more likely to have fish sauce in almost everything, though they're usually happy to make a vegetarian version. Korean restaurants seem tricky, as there's almost never anything vegan on the menu, but bibimbop can be ordered without meat or egg, even if they don't offer a tofu version. But, none are as consistently easy to order from as Chinese.
I've been told that when traveling abroad, in some regions in Asia (including some parts of India), saying, "I'm Buddhist" will help the wait staff and chef understand what you mean when you say "vegetarian". I don't know exactly where or whether this is entirely accurate, since millions of Chinese are Buddhist and not vegetarian. I've never used this one weird trick for getting an actual vegetarian meal, but I've heard it from a few older vegetarians who have traveled a lot.
I grew up subsisting on meat and pasta, hating vegetables. I've been a vegan for over ten years and fulfilled the whole time. There's a ton of amazing animal-free food out there that you should try either way. Once I started exploring beyond the boring American things my parents put in front of me, I was thrilled with the delicious variety I found.
You don't eat vegetables at all?
I'm not vegetarian but I don't eat 100% meat all the time. A former boss of mine ate only meat no vegetables at all, literally no vegetables no tomato on a burger not the little cup of coleslaw, nothing!
I find it strange how these days many people, not saying you are, eat mainly meat and very little vegetables. And then people who eat only vegetables and some )vegan) are even more extreme.
My mother in her 70s said when she was young her family ate vegetables all week and had a roast on Sunday which was common these days they'd be nearly vegetarians. Nearly every member of her family now has diabetes so I guess diet wasn't the cause.
It seems like society is evolving into two extremes which to me raises a lot of red flags. Meanwhile I eat a variety of vegetables and eat meat a few times per week mainly turkey or chicken very little red meat.
I'm not vegetarian but I don't eat 100% meat all the time. A former boss of mine ate only meat no vegetables at all, literally no vegetables no tomato on a burger not the little cup of coleslaw, nothing!
I find it strange how these days many people, not saying you are, eat mainly meat and very little vegetables. And then people who eat only vegetables and some )vegan) are even more extreme.
My mother in her 70s said when she was young her family ate vegetables all week and had a roast on Sunday which was common these days they'd be nearly vegetarians. Nearly every member of her family now has diabetes so I guess diet wasn't the cause.
It seems like society is evolving into two extremes which to me raises a lot of red flags. Meanwhile I eat a variety of vegetables and eat meat a few times per week mainly turkey or chicken very little red meat.
Not being crazy into vegetables is not the same as eating only meat... One can ear vegetables with a passing appreciation, but desire other foods too
This is what I meant. I eat vegetables but I'm hardly convinced that I'd find and enjoy adequate nutrition if I cut out meat.
Chicken Little comes home to roost.
http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=1002
http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=1002
I am not a cook / chef, so I don't know exactly how to translate my understanding to proper words here. A lot of people prefer fresh meat over frozen meat for the true flavor of the meat. The meat produced from a lamb running around all day vs from a lamb confined in a tiny space are very different. If you just want meat like cheap McDonald hamburgers, cultured meat is probably okay (assuming the scientists are able to add taste to cultured meat, last I read a few years back they said the meat taste like plastic [1]...). Also looking at the meat produced in the lab, the meat look gross...
[1]: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...
[1]: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...
That article was from 2013
I can't remember exactly, but I think it was Chamath Palihapitiya that funded a startup that does lab-grown meat.
The fascinating thing is that they realized it is so hard to differentiate the lab-grown meat from actual slaughtered meat. I'll be right back and find that article.
Edit: I can't find the article and I don't know who owns that startup. Most of the sources I find are from link where I am not sure if they are reliable:
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/05/15/impossible-burger-our-test-tu... http://www.techinsider.io/impossible-foods-cheeseburger-back...
I can't remember exactly, but I think it was Chamath Palihapitiya that funded a startup that does lab-grown meat.
The fascinating thing is that they realized it is so hard to differentiate the lab-grown meat from actual slaughtered meat. I'll be right back and find that article.
Edit: I can't find the article and I don't know who owns that startup. Most of the sources I find are from link where I am not sure if they are reliable:
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/05/15/impossible-burger-our-test-tu... http://www.techinsider.io/impossible-foods-cheeseburger-back...
Some of the most desirable traits of beef could actually be easier to reproduce in a controlled environment. I could imagine that once perfected, steaks produced in this way might be exceptionally tender.
Ah tender is the word. I am not sure, we have to see. My gut says there will still be some difference in tenderness and in the flavor of the meat.
I get that lab meat is largely considered a transcendent technological solution to the ethical dilemma of slaughtering livestock, but at the same time I can't help but think that this dooms chickens and cows to obsoletion and eventual extinction.
I think the demand for real chicken/beef will go down but there always will be people who buy "organic", "real", etc.
I'd love to see existing meat subsidies moved to either vegetables or lab-grown meat. That would certainly help to further shrink the market of people who need the "real" stuff.
Is that a bad thing? Weren't they basically bred into their current state simply because it makes them easy for us to consume?
Same is true for humanity.
Technology marching on is dooming us to becoming obsolete. Already there are people who are effectively unemployable. Once this is extended to the majority.. it won't be pretty. Life of leisure has driven even high-status people bonkers. Once it is a mass phenomenon, it's not going to be pretty.
Technology marching on is dooming us to becoming obsolete. Already there are people who are effectively unemployable. Once this is extended to the majority.. it won't be pretty. Life of leisure has driven even high-status people bonkers. Once it is a mass phenomenon, it's not going to be pretty.
What's wrong with that? Species shouldn't exist at the expense of the individuals it comprises.
Will the lab grown meats have the same nutritional value as meat from animals?
Lab grown meat is meat. It's chemically identical to what you get from an animal, but it's grown in a Petri dish instead of a cow. The nutritional value is exactly the same.
The "meat" you buy at the store is a hunk of muscle, fat, blood vessels, blood, nerves and connective tissue, and it's saturated in the myriad of vitamins, nutrients and other substances consumed or created by a living being.
The "meat" created by this reactor is just a pile of muscle fiber. They extract a single kind of stem cell from an animal, coax it into becoming a muscle fiber, and grow lots of those fibers. Just muscle, fed by only what's in the gel it's grown on, no fat, no vasculature, no connective tissue, and without any of the substances an animal produces in other types of cells.
It's not just missing a lot, either. It also has at least one thing added that "meat" doesn't necessarily: antibiotics. There's no immune system in a hunk of replicated muscle fiber, nor is this lab currently growing the tissue in a sterile environment, so it has to be treated with antibiotics.
If you were to print a nutrition label for a pound of meat from the grocery store, and a pound of what this lab grows, not much on those labels would match up. Even the protein content: muscle fiber forms protein through exercise, but this slab of cells in a dish has never walked to a trough. How are they working around that? Watch for their patent filings.
The "meat" created by this reactor is just a pile of muscle fiber. They extract a single kind of stem cell from an animal, coax it into becoming a muscle fiber, and grow lots of those fibers. Just muscle, fed by only what's in the gel it's grown on, no fat, no vasculature, no connective tissue, and without any of the substances an animal produces in other types of cells.
It's not just missing a lot, either. It also has at least one thing added that "meat" doesn't necessarily: antibiotics. There's no immune system in a hunk of replicated muscle fiber, nor is this lab currently growing the tissue in a sterile environment, so it has to be treated with antibiotics.
If you were to print a nutrition label for a pound of meat from the grocery store, and a pound of what this lab grows, not much on those labels would match up. Even the protein content: muscle fiber forms protein through exercise, but this slab of cells in a dish has never walked to a trough. How are they working around that? Watch for their patent filings.
> Even the protein content: muscle fiber forms protein through exercise, but this slab of cells in a dish has never walked to a trough.
Protein, in the form of muscle fibre is formed following exercise as a result of signalling triggered by the breakdown of muscle fibre. Exercise is only responsible as the trigger. There's no conceptual reason why we can't emulate that part of the process too.
The question is if we need it - our body needs to amino acids, and they at least have been shown to be present in similar quantities in in vitro grown muscle cells. So if this "meat" can be made to taste and feel sufficiently like "natural" meat, then there may be no point to simulating the growth of "real" meat (which would also e.g. require a simulated circulatory system).
Protein, in the form of muscle fibre is formed following exercise as a result of signalling triggered by the breakdown of muscle fibre. Exercise is only responsible as the trigger. There's no conceptual reason why we can't emulate that part of the process too.
The question is if we need it - our body needs to amino acids, and they at least have been shown to be present in similar quantities in in vitro grown muscle cells. So if this "meat" can be made to taste and feel sufficiently like "natural" meat, then there may be no point to simulating the growth of "real" meat (which would also e.g. require a simulated circulatory system).
You can stimulate muscles with electricity. So I don't think that will be an issue. However, I agree that the taste won't be the same. All natural meat does not taste the same, I don't see how something grown in a petri dish could taste like every other piece of beef when not every piece of beef tastes the same. It will certainly have its own taste to it. But I think in the end, it will taste better than what we can grow naturally because all of the variables are so controlled. Maybe it will taste like shit when it first comes out, but I'm sure they will engineer a way to make it taste better. They will be able to manipulate the nutritional information as well.
I doubt it'd be exactly the same, since the metabolic pathways that feed the cells are different.
This is great. Currently I cook a lot with seitan which is great for a meat substitute but boy do I miss juicy beef burgers sometimes.
In the long run, I think fake meat (both the in vitro stuff and the industrial stuff) has serious disadvantages over foods properly prepared from whole ingredients whose ultimate form happens to be vegan.
If that's true, I figure why not go straight for the endgame and help people get their hands on that stuff. Lots of space for innovation there.
If that's true, I figure why not go straight for the endgame and help people get their hands on that stuff. Lots of space for innovation there.
I'm interested in this from the animal rights perspective. I don't doubt that a breakthrough in this area would help us bring about a drastic decrease in animals slaughtered for consumption so I welcome it.
They don't mention how they get the fetal bovine serum used to grow the meat.
This announcement is a little early. They should wait till they actually start working on it.
Or maybe this is really actually a call for volunteers to work with them.
Or maybe this is really actually a call for volunteers to work with them.
There's so much to good meat: fats, amino acids, natural flavors, curing, etc. I suppose to the McNugget crowd, this will be awesome.
No offense, but you sound like someone complaining about e-books not smelling like real paper.
Fats, amino acids, natural flavors, curing — those are the next steps. This is a first step.
Fats, amino acids, natural flavors, curing — those are the next steps. This is a first step.
Good for all of us. It'll drive down the cost of meat and eliminate the need to dedicate tons of resources to raising livestock (if you read the article, it claims half of all land mass is dedicated to livestock and their food. it also claims that 1/3rd of our fresh water goes to that as well). If you don't see this as a win for everyone, you aren't thinking hard enough.
Antibiotics (and the antibiotic resistant bacteria we now enjoy because of the ocean of antibiotics used in meat farming), hormones, environmental destruction on a scale only matched by the fossil fuels industry, and increased risk of a number of cancers and other age-related diseases.
The vast majority of meat consumed is not "good meat", by your definition, and never will be. Consumption of good meat by all the meat eaters of the world is not ecologically or economically feasible. It is irresponsible to pretend that it is.
It's worth discussing what makes "good meat" good, but it's not useful to imagine a world where several billion people can eat organic grass-fed beef every day, because that way lies destruction for all of us.
The vast majority of meat consumed is not "good meat", by your definition, and never will be. Consumption of good meat by all the meat eaters of the world is not ecologically or economically feasible. It is irresponsible to pretend that it is.
It's worth discussing what makes "good meat" good, but it's not useful to imagine a world where several billion people can eat organic grass-fed beef every day, because that way lies destruction for all of us.
I didn't say any of that. You and another commentator are stuffing words into my mout...er comment.
A more relevant point would be along the lines: Why bother? I'm 99% vegan myself. Not because I care about animal suffering (which I do) or because I care about the impact on the planet and global warming (which I also care about), but because I LOVE non-meat foods. They are cheap, easy to acquire, and delicious.
This obsession with making fake meat seems like a terrible idea to begin with. It's like saying we all really want meat. We all don't because it's a terrible addiction and obsession.
A more relevant point would be along the lines: Why bother? I'm 99% vegan myself. Not because I care about animal suffering (which I do) or because I care about the impact on the planet and global warming (which I also care about), but because I LOVE non-meat foods. They are cheap, easy to acquire, and delicious.
This obsession with making fake meat seems like a terrible idea to begin with. It's like saying we all really want meat. We all don't because it's a terrible addiction and obsession.
I'm looking forward to trying the real-life implementation of "ChickieNobs" from Margaret Atwood's Oryx and Crake.
If artificial chicken meat is successful - it would dramatically reduce chickens population.
But what about the actual shape of the cut of meat? I doubt if I buy a cultured thigh of chicken I'd get it with the skin and bones, for some reason, although my biotechnical knowledge is lacking. These things are essential for cooking so a future where all out meat is literally just large slabs of flesh would be unenjoyable.
I am the descendant of a countlessly long line of meat eaters. I'll stick with the slaughter version, it has worked well thus far.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The way we eat meat today is very "broke" and certainly not sustainable over the long term.
The sustainability of meat is not a serious long term concern.
Worst case scenario is we enjoy it while we've got it, then miss it when we don't.
And precisely what is the sustainability of lab meat? What makes you think lab meat will be more efficient that raised meat?
Worst case scenario is we enjoy it while we've got it, then miss it when we don't.
And precisely what is the sustainability of lab meat? What makes you think lab meat will be more efficient that raised meat?
> And precisely what is the sustainability of lab meat? What makes you think lab meat will be more efficient that raised meat?
Yuval Noah Harari, on the second video (ca. 0:40) states the reasons why he thinks cultured meat will have a smaller ecological footprint. He says: "When you don't have to raise an entire cow in order to get a steak, when you don't have to raise an entire chicken to get a schnitzel, you just need this particular piece of meat, these particular cells, it reduces considerably the amount of water, the amount of fuel, the amount of nutrients that you have to invest in it, and also the amount of pollution that you are creating."
Yuval Noah Harari, on the second video (ca. 0:40) states the reasons why he thinks cultured meat will have a smaller ecological footprint. He says: "When you don't have to raise an entire cow in order to get a steak, when you don't have to raise an entire chicken to get a schnitzel, you just need this particular piece of meat, these particular cells, it reduces considerably the amount of water, the amount of fuel, the amount of nutrients that you have to invest in it, and also the amount of pollution that you are creating."
You're also the descendant of a long line of either oppressors or oppressed (white in America=long line of oppressors). You aren't using that to excuse stealing land from your Mexican neighbor, today, I would hope. So, why use that as a reason to continue the environmental and ethical disaster that is eating meat?
If you want to keep eating meat because you just don't care, say so. Don't excuse it with "the way my great granddaddy did it", because there are plenty of things about the way great granddaddy did it that are morally repugnant to us today. Unless you are also supporting slavery/segregation, returning to no legal interracial or LGBTQ marriage, a world without child labor laws, a world with no vote for women, etc. you really shouldn't use that excuse.
If you want to keep eating meat because you just don't care, say so. Don't excuse it with "the way my great granddaddy did it", because there are plenty of things about the way great granddaddy did it that are morally repugnant to us today. Unless you are also supporting slavery/segregation, returning to no legal interracial or LGBTQ marriage, a world without child labor laws, a world with no vote for women, etc. you really shouldn't use that excuse.
Who cares if one dude wants to eat slaughtered meat? That is completely irrelevant. If fast food places like McDonalds and frozen food companies like Stouffer's get on board, it's going to make a massive difference. Plus, it means that meat will be cheaper for those who have difficulty affording it now. I don't see a need to change anyone's mind on this. Being a much cheaper product, capitalism will take care of everything.
>"You aren't using that to excuse stealing land from your Mexican neighbor, today,"
I am satisfied with the land I have. But let's not kid ourselves, the only reason wars of conquest are uncommon today is because the cost typically exceeds the potential reward.
> "ethical disaster that is eating meat?"
I cannot derive sympathy for food from my value system. Unless you are prepared to impose your value system on me by force (in your value system, is that so different from wars of conquest?), that isn't going to change.
> "If you want to keep eating meat because you just don't care, say so."
Didn't I just?
> "Unless you are also supporting slavery/segregation, returning to no legal interracial or LGBTQ marriage, a world without child labor laws, a world with no vote for women, etc. you really shouldn't use that excuse."
Do you find that meat eaters usually back down when you compare them to racists and homophobes?
I don't. I've never seen somebody become a vegan in response to this line of rhetoric, which could just as well be applied to any tradition. I am sure you must have some traditions of your own; will you abandon them if I tell you that racism is also a tradition?
It's not effective persuasive rhetoric, so what is it? It's combative rhetoric which is meant to shame people into silence.
I am satisfied with the land I have. But let's not kid ourselves, the only reason wars of conquest are uncommon today is because the cost typically exceeds the potential reward.
> "ethical disaster that is eating meat?"
I cannot derive sympathy for food from my value system. Unless you are prepared to impose your value system on me by force (in your value system, is that so different from wars of conquest?), that isn't going to change.
> "If you want to keep eating meat because you just don't care, say so."
Didn't I just?
> "Unless you are also supporting slavery/segregation, returning to no legal interracial or LGBTQ marriage, a world without child labor laws, a world with no vote for women, etc. you really shouldn't use that excuse."
Do you find that meat eaters usually back down when you compare them to racists and homophobes?
I don't. I've never seen somebody become a vegan in response to this line of rhetoric, which could just as well be applied to any tradition. I am sure you must have some traditions of your own; will you abandon them if I tell you that racism is also a tradition?
It's not effective persuasive rhetoric, so what is it? It's combative rhetoric which is meant to shame people into silence.
> "Didn't I just?"
You made an appeal to tradition. I don't believe tradition is sufficient cause to not acknowledge something is damaging the environment on a massive scale. Fossil fuels are also a tradition (though a short lived one), but it doesn't make it "right".
> "I cannot drive sympathy for food from my value system."
Then how do you feel about climate change? Because that is part of this ethical equation, as well. Billions of people eating meat is comparable to billions of people driving cars and burning coal for electricity.
> "Do you find that meat eaters usually back down when you compare them to racists and homophobes?"
Actually, I usually find that I am shouted down or voted down whenever suggesting that eating meat is unethical. I don't expect meat eaters to back down, as they are in the huge majority and will never have trouble finding support among almost any group.
You made an appeal to tradition. I don't believe tradition is sufficient cause to not acknowledge something is damaging the environment on a massive scale. Fossil fuels are also a tradition (though a short lived one), but it doesn't make it "right".
> "I cannot drive sympathy for food from my value system."
Then how do you feel about climate change? Because that is part of this ethical equation, as well. Billions of people eating meat is comparable to billions of people driving cars and burning coal for electricity.
> "Do you find that meat eaters usually back down when you compare them to racists and homophobes?"
Actually, I usually find that I am shouted down or voted down whenever suggesting that eating meat is unethical. I don't expect meat eaters to back down, as they are in the huge majority and will never have trouble finding support among almost any group.
> You aren't using that to excuse stealing land from your Mexican neighbor, today, I would hope.
While I understand your statement, I read it more as he was continuing to eat meat for the health benefits, not moral ones. Of course you could then say "If all your ancestors smoked cigarettes would you too..."
While I understand your statement, I read it more as he was continuing to eat meat for the health benefits, not moral ones. Of course you could then say "If all your ancestors smoked cigarettes would you too..."
>the environmental and ethical disaster that is eating meat?
I'd say there is arguably no environmental disaster in meat production, and even if there is, the mere act of eating meat does not imply in it, it would depend on the amount of meat eaten per person and the production scale required to supply that. The ethics of it depends on who you're talking with. Your position is not "the righteous one", it might be "the right thing to do according to X school of thought", but never an absolute ethical truth.
I'd say there is arguably no environmental disaster in meat production, and even if there is, the mere act of eating meat does not imply in it, it would depend on the amount of meat eaten per person and the production scale required to supply that. The ethics of it depends on who you're talking with. Your position is not "the righteous one", it might be "the right thing to do according to X school of thought", but never an absolute ethical truth.
> I'd say there is arguably no environmental disaster in meat production
As you may know, human population is growing exponentially and has been doing so for a century. To meet the demand for meat, we have grown the poultry and cattle's population accordingly, increasing the energy, water and food spendings uphill (after all, they too need to be nourished). Especially in the US, to maintain low prices, those who set the customer price (such as McDonalds) have been forced to rationalise the whole chain of production, putting a lot of stress and liability on farmers.
However, the human population is still accelerating tremendously, and meat is still among the most costly food per kilogram we eat, not in terms of money spent by the customer, but in terms of energy wasted along the whole chain.
Fishing has a similar crisis; regulation became necessary to maintain fish population to a sustainable level, and avoid having fish locations simply disappear.
At a fundamental level, the reason life can thrive on earth is energy from the sun and the Earth converted to plants which are consumed by animals and fungi. Every step of consumption between plants and humans is wasted energy, given that the planet's energy is not limitless, and that we humans must tap that supply carefully if we ever hope to colonize another planet.
As you may know, human population is growing exponentially and has been doing so for a century. To meet the demand for meat, we have grown the poultry and cattle's population accordingly, increasing the energy, water and food spendings uphill (after all, they too need to be nourished). Especially in the US, to maintain low prices, those who set the customer price (such as McDonalds) have been forced to rationalise the whole chain of production, putting a lot of stress and liability on farmers.
However, the human population is still accelerating tremendously, and meat is still among the most costly food per kilogram we eat, not in terms of money spent by the customer, but in terms of energy wasted along the whole chain.
Fishing has a similar crisis; regulation became necessary to maintain fish population to a sustainable level, and avoid having fish locations simply disappear.
At a fundamental level, the reason life can thrive on earth is energy from the sun and the Earth converted to plants which are consumed by animals and fungi. Every step of consumption between plants and humans is wasted energy, given that the planet's energy is not limitless, and that we humans must tap that supply carefully if we ever hope to colonize another planet.
If we have a healthy, satisfying alternative - the ethical question of "Is it acceptable to kill or harm individuals unnecessarily?" has a very clear answer no matter who you're talking with.
"unnecessarily" -> it is already unnecessary to eat meat, thus unnecessary to kill animals. Anyone can live a perfectly healthy life being a vegetarian, it's even cheaper depending where you live. Thus, by your logic the question "is eating meat nowadays ethically wrong?" should have "a very clear answer no matter who you're talking with". Which obviously is not true.
You mention "healthy, satisfying alternative". You accept people eating meat nowadays because according to you it is more satisfying than eating the current alternatives (even though it's not necessary!), so you should always accept the eating of meat (or hunting of animals) as long as people want it over whatever alternative exists.
Furthermore, people will always think differently. What is ethically wrong to you is not to me and vice-versa.
You mention "healthy, satisfying alternative". You accept people eating meat nowadays because according to you it is more satisfying than eating the current alternatives (even though it's not necessary!), so you should always accept the eating of meat (or hunting of animals) as long as people want it over whatever alternative exists.
Furthermore, people will always think differently. What is ethically wrong to you is not to me and vice-versa.
Show me a person who genuinely believes killing others unnecessarily is acceptable and we've got much bigger problems than the ethics of meat. The problem isn't getting people to agree with moral axioms. It's getting people to be consistent with their application of them.
And yes - by my logic, it's unethical to eat meat. I don't accept it now either.
If you had Calvatia Gigantea grown in the right soil and properly prepared I doubt many people would be able to tell the difference between that and chicken. Same with Laetiporus sulphureus, but grown on logs.
Similarly I doubt many people would be able to tell the difference between beef jerky and jerky made from Grifola frondosa, even in a side-by-side comparison.