The Fake Meat Revolution(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
The Fake Meat Revolution
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/20/opinion/sunday/nicholas-kristof-the-fake-meat-revolution.html
70 comments
Wow, people are really missing the big picture. These are great developments towards reducing environmental damage, increase animal welfare and long term increase health (as we can much better tweak nutritional content of meat, when we construct it ourselves)
>as we can much better tweak nutritional content of meat, when we construct it ourselves
Hmm, I heard something vaguely familiar not so long ago... Have people already forgotten trans-fats?
To call meat, let alone nutrition, complex is an understatement that borders on comical. To think the first hundred iterations of artificial meat will be anything short of carcinogenic strikes me as an opinion ill-informed by history.
Hmm, I heard something vaguely familiar not so long ago... Have people already forgotten trans-fats?
To call meat, let alone nutrition, complex is an understatement that borders on comical. To think the first hundred iterations of artificial meat will be anything short of carcinogenic strikes me as an opinion ill-informed by history.
Those are two entirely different things. This type of fake meat is plant-based. Trans fats are highly uncommon in nature, and the hydrogenation process used to create them is completely different from what goes into making fake meats.
>and the hydrogenation process used to create them is completely different from what goes into making fake meats.
And this is completely missing the point, which is that the processes used to make fake meat are significantly different from those encountered in nature, and therefore likely to introduce side-effects.
And this is completely missing the point, which is that the processes used to make fake meat are significantly different from those encountered in nature, and therefore likely to introduce side-effects.
As somebody pointed out in a comment on another story, your CPU executed about a dozen instructions while the light from your monitor traveled to reach your eyes.
So I think we can make meat.
So I think we can make meat.
>Your CPU executed about a dozen instructions while the light from your monitor traveled to reach your eyes. So I think we can make meat.
Argument from non sequitur?
Argument from non sequitur?
Argument from "When there's a will, and a lot of money, there's a way."
So an argument on faith, then? That's not any better.
Of course we can, but could we manufacture pure solid hubris?
I think that's already pretty much nailed.
Oh, of course. Processing power and extensive computation solves everything, right?
[deleted]
>So I think we can make meat.
Show me the meat. (And show me that it's harmless).
Show me the meat. (And show me that it's harmless).
And show me that it's harmless
I'm afraid it doesn't work that way.
I'm afraid it doesn't work that way.
No kidding. That's precisely what I'm saying: we can't know it's safe. The best we can do is be conservative in managing the risk.
The manufacturing of artificial meat is necessarily a significant departure from cultivating it organically. The last time we tried to optimize our food in a non-trivial way, we created something unhealthy enough to be banned 20 years later.
This is all part of the empirical process, I understand, but I find it surprising that nobody wants to acknowledge how risky the proposition is.
The manufacturing of artificial meat is necessarily a significant departure from cultivating it organically. The last time we tried to optimize our food in a non-trivial way, we created something unhealthy enough to be banned 20 years later.
This is all part of the empirical process, I understand, but I find it surprising that nobody wants to acknowledge how risky the proposition is.
We don't "construct it ourselves" and nobody that does it is concerned with "reducing environmental damage", "increase animal welfare" or "long term health increase" (even if they pay lip service to these).
Mega-corporations do the construction (as opposed to interest-less impartial scientists), and they do it to maximize shareholder profit.
History the world over has shown that they'd sell radioactive heroin to kids if they could get away with it and it had nice margins.
Same way they sold us tobacco, trans fats, HFCS, all kinds of BS (but higher margin) low quality food ingredients, nutricionally attrocious and health-damaging snacks, tasteless and unhealthy food substitutes to increase their margins, etc.
Mega-corporations do the construction (as opposed to interest-less impartial scientists), and they do it to maximize shareholder profit.
History the world over has shown that they'd sell radioactive heroin to kids if they could get away with it and it had nice margins.
Same way they sold us tobacco, trans fats, HFCS, all kinds of BS (but higher margin) low quality food ingredients, nutricionally attrocious and health-damaging snacks, tasteless and unhealthy food substitutes to increase their margins, etc.
Interest-ed scientists are concerned with those things and are looking for (or founding) organizations to facilitate the research, be it megacorporations or academic funding/institutions or vc.
The history of the modern processed foods industry doesn't give much credibility to the idea that concerned scientists can or will make a difference "from the inside".
The profit margins and interests of mega-corps trump the objections or motives of any "concerned scientist" working there. Besides, it's the management's way or the highway, there are no irreplacable "star" scientists, so that their personal beliefs would made much of a difference.
For academic and third party instutitions yes, but those don't produce or dictate what we eat, and mega-corps can mix and match whatever is more profitable from their research, or ignore it entirely (well, unless regulated to do otherwise, and even so they'll use every loophole they can, if unhealthy cheapo stuff gives higher margins. It's not as the general public -- ignoring upper/middle class organic buyers and such -- is very discerning).
The profit margins and interests of mega-corps trump the objections or motives of any "concerned scientist" working there. Besides, it's the management's way or the highway, there are no irreplacable "star" scientists, so that their personal beliefs would made much of a difference.
For academic and third party instutitions yes, but those don't produce or dictate what we eat, and mega-corps can mix and match whatever is more profitable from their research, or ignore it entirely (well, unless regulated to do otherwise, and even so they'll use every loophole they can, if unhealthy cheapo stuff gives higher margins. It's not as the general public -- ignoring upper/middle class organic buyers and such -- is very discerning).
They're not "concerned scientists working from the inside" anymore when they're making a difference, hence your claim is perhaps valid on its face but misleading! After that they become "megacorporations chasing after advertising-led demand of fake meat" from the cynic's POV.
long term increase health (as we can much better tweak nutritional content of meat, when we construct it ourselves)
I'd be a bit concerned about this, with how the guidelines keep changing.
I'd be a bit concerned about this, with how the guidelines keep changing.
>increase animal welfare
More like, all domesticated meat animals will go extinct since they're not needed anymore and they can't survive in the wild.
More like, all domesticated meat animals will go extinct since they're not needed anymore and they can't survive in the wild.
> More like, all domesticated meat animals will go extinct since they're not needed anymore and they can't survive in the wild.
That's a gross oversimplification which neglects to acknowledge the fact modern, industrial-scale animal agriculture is the leading cause of species extinction, ocean dead zones, water pollution, and habitat destruction.
That's a gross oversimplification which neglects to acknowledge the fact modern, industrial-scale animal agriculture is the leading cause of species extinction, ocean dead zones, water pollution, and habitat destruction.
There are a number of preserves for farm animals, and many people have pigs, chickens, goats, and cows simply as pets. The number of these animals in existence will decrease, but they will still be around, just happy and healthier. We don't have to confine, torture and kill animals to prevent them from going extinct!
I do hope people realize that fake meat is plant food and thus requires nutritional supplements (or an -extremely- varied diet) or it will cause serious health issues.
Meat has no such requirement. While it may not be good for you in the long term, you can survive purely on meat for decades.
Meat has no such requirement. While it may not be good for you in the long term, you can survive purely on meat for decades.
People can survive on a vegan diet too, as long as they get the nutrients they need. It doesn't necessarily need to come from meat. It's much easier to add those requirements into fake meat as beyondmeat is doing already.
> you can survive purely on meat for decades.
You can, if you have genetic variation that allows you to process the food.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/science/inuit-study-add...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10239256
You can, if you have genetic variation that allows you to process the food.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/science/inuit-study-add...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10239256
Someone please tell India's ~40% of their population of 1.25 billion that they have serious health issues and need to change their diet or they might die.
And no, this is not a poverty issue. I work with some very successful expat Indian developers who are strict vegetarians.
And no, this is not a poverty issue. I work with some very successful expat Indian developers who are strict vegetarians.
Malnutrition is incredibly common in India.
http://wfp.org/content/malnutrition-widespread-indian-childr...
> Roughly 42 percent of all Indian children under age 5 suffer from malnutrition, a sobering reminder of the persistence of poverty and hunger in the world’s largest democracy,
http://wfp.org/content/malnutrition-widespread-indian-childr...
> Roughly 42 percent of all Indian children under age 5 suffer from malnutrition, a sobering reminder of the persistence of poverty and hunger in the world’s largest democracy,
Vegetarianism in India is partly driven by religious and cultural values. That article does not link vegetarianism with malnutrition.
My city has a flourishing expat Sikh community who are largely (though not exclusively) vegetarian, they are for the most part robust and successful individuals.
To categorize vegetarians as intrinsically at risk of health issues needs evidence before I'll buy it. And I say this as a meat eater.
My city has a flourishing expat Sikh community who are largely (though not exclusively) vegetarian, they are for the most part robust and successful individuals.
To categorize vegetarians as intrinsically at risk of health issues needs evidence before I'll buy it. And I say this as a meat eater.
Great point! According to research done on "Blue Zones," the healthiest community in the U.S. is a group of Seventh Day Adventists who are vegetarian. It would be so interesting to see what their diet has in common with vegetarians in Indian and Sikh communities.
Iron deficiency is prevalent in India
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/255701994_Prevalence...
B12 deficiency is prevalent in India
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19676146
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/255701994_Prevalence...
B12 deficiency is prevalent in India
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19676146
The only supplement required on a vegan diet is B12. Vegetarians don't even need that. The key is to eat a variety of plant-based foods, like our ancestors often did, rather than a lot of junk food. Doing that, studies show that plant-based diets are much more healthy. Protein is not an issue, since most Americans get way too much protein anyway, and there is tons of protein in veg, grains, and beans.
The fake meat stud is certainly interesting but I think we (Americans) could get pretty far, if not the whole way, by simply moderating meat consumption. For example, just tonight my group of 5 adults and 5 toddlers claimed they were satisfied with just 16oz of beef for all.
My sense is that meat does tend to be harder on the body and that vegetarians are healthier and live longer.
My sense is that meat does tend to be harder on the body and that vegetarians are healthier and live longer.
Are there decent studies that show that vegetarians are healthier and live longer? I've seen nothing but anecdotes. And my own anecdotal evidence is the opposite. But I'm comparing healthy vegetarians I know to healthy meat eaters I know. The vegs spend a lot of time and effort to get enough balance in their diets to remain healthy, but they still seem a little weaker and a bit puny compared to the healthy meat eaters. And a few people I know who are into ketogenic diets eat lots of meat while avoiding carb rich foods and they seem the strongest of the bunch. Everybody says their blood work is good, no cholesterol issues, etc.
Look up the "China study" for an incredibly detailed study on plant-based diets, or the research that's been done on the "Blue Zones." In addition there have been quite a number of studies on diet that show people who follow plant-based diets live longer and have fewer health problems. Being vegetarian doesn't require a lot of effort if you learn a little bit more than the average American about food. Eating fruit, veg, grains, and beans is not difficult and provides all the nutrients one could need - even more, considering how unhealthy the standard American diet (SAD) is. Look up vegan body builders - you will see that they are not puny at all!
The China Study has been debunked numerous times[0].
I'm currently on a high fat, medium protein, 0 carb diet. It isn't environmentally friendly, but the weight falls off and I feel great.
The Standard American Diet is High Carb, Medium Fat, with some tasteless white meat (turkey breasts) thrown in at random.
[0]http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html
I'm currently on a high fat, medium protein, 0 carb diet. It isn't environmentally friendly, but the weight falls off and I feel great.
The Standard American Diet is High Carb, Medium Fat, with some tasteless white meat (turkey breasts) thrown in at random.
[0]http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html
> and I feel great.
That's not a good way to assess a lifestyle that has long term consequences.
If a lifestyle increases your risk of bowel cancer that's going to happen this week, it'll happen after you get to fifty. UK screening for bowel cancer happens at 55.
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/Pages/red-meat.aspx
(90 g is 3oz.)
That's not a good way to assess a lifestyle that has long term consequences.
If a lifestyle increases your risk of bowel cancer that's going to happen this week, it'll happen after you get to fifty. UK screening for bowel cancer happens at 55.
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/Pages/red-meat.aspx
(90 g is 3oz.)
Neither is relying on government 'recommendations' based upon a fairly old working group recommendation (1990s) which itself was based around interpretation of other studies.
I'm all for following scientific research (especially if it includes actual scientific process) but the governmental guidelines are not (unfortunately) the most reliable.
We've already suffered through 'eggs increase cholesterol - don't eat too many' and 'saturated fat is evil - avoid it' which had been well proven to be largely false for most people.
I'm all for following scientific research (especially if it includes actual scientific process) but the governmental guidelines are not (unfortunately) the most reliable.
We've already suffered through 'eggs increase cholesterol - don't eat too many' and 'saturated fat is evil - avoid it' which had been well proven to be largely false for most people.
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/Pages/red-meat.aspx
So ... not a single link to a scientific study on that very long page?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20663065
Collectively, associations between red meat consumption and colorectal cancer are generally weak in magnitude, with most relative risks below 1.50 and not statistically significant, and there is a lack of a clear dose-response trend.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174014...
Meat contains a number of compounds of nutritional benefit and may not be carcinogenic as such but rather, when consumed in very high amounts, may result in an imbalanced diet and thereby increase the risk of developing CRC.
Products formed in cured or heated meats may further enhance such damage.
So, basically, do not eat so much meat that your diet is unbalanced, and avoid processed meats and you'll be fine.
So ... not a single link to a scientific study on that very long page?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20663065
Collectively, associations between red meat consumption and colorectal cancer are generally weak in magnitude, with most relative risks below 1.50 and not statistically significant, and there is a lack of a clear dose-response trend.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174014...
Meat contains a number of compounds of nutritional benefit and may not be carcinogenic as such but rather, when consumed in very high amounts, may result in an imbalanced diet and thereby increase the risk of developing CRC.
Products formed in cured or heated meats may further enhance such damage.
So, basically, do not eat so much meat that your diet is unbalanced, and avoid processed meats and you'll be fine.
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20663065
This work was partially funded by the Beef Checkoff, through the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA)
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174014...
D Weed has received consulting fees from the National Cattleman's Beef Association in the past.
So, basically, you have been mislead by industry lobbyists.
This work was partially funded by the Beef Checkoff, through the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA)
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174014...
D Weed has received consulting fees from the National Cattleman's Beef Association in the past.
So, basically, you have been mislead by industry lobbyists.
That's a ketogenic diet, right? I tried that about 6 months ago, but not to lose weight, in fact I really don't have any extra weight to lose. I just wanted to reduce my blood sugar and see if it improved mental clarity as some people have claimed. I ended up losing 5 kilos in two weeks, which is a lot since I wasn't overweight at all. I couldn't keep the weight on without the carbs. The bummer was I got the flu right around that time and was so sick I just didn't feel like eating. And since I had lost so much weight I had no reserves and just looked and felt like hell. I'm ok now, no worries, but I find it hard to eat enough fats and protein to maintain my weight without any carbs.
I know exactly what you mean. This no carb thing is a crazy fad! Many people don't seem to understand the difference between good carbs like many whole grains, and bad carbs like refined white flour. We shouldn't classify all carbs together in the same group!
> I'm currently on a high fat, medium protein, 0 carb diet. It isn't environmentally friendly, but the weight falls off and I feel great.
Your personal experience is not statistically significant. There is overwhelming scientific consensus that a plant-based, whole food, vegan diet is optimal for human health. Okinawan and Seventh-Day Adventist in California diets are two frequently cited examples.
Your personal experience is not statistically significant. There is overwhelming scientific consensus that a plant-based, whole food, vegan diet is optimal for human health. Okinawan and Seventh-Day Adventist in California diets are two frequently cited examples.
In addition there have been quite a number of studies on diet that show people who follow plant-based diets live longer and have fewer health problems
These studies have a huge flaw though: vegetarians in Western world very often do it for health reasons. Therefore, vegetarians also exercise, smoke and drink less and generally care more about their health compared to omnivores. So called "healthy user bias".
The benefits of vegetarianism disappear when you compare them to other health conscious groups, or when you look at societies where people are vegetarians for religious purposes.
or the research that's been done on the "Blue Zones."
And all Blue Zone diets included meat, by the way. Plus, of course, the research was purely observational.
Look up vegan body builders - you will see that they are not puny at all!
There are hardly any, so they are more an exception than the rule.
These studies have a huge flaw though: vegetarians in Western world very often do it for health reasons. Therefore, vegetarians also exercise, smoke and drink less and generally care more about their health compared to omnivores. So called "healthy user bias".
The benefits of vegetarianism disappear when you compare them to other health conscious groups, or when you look at societies where people are vegetarians for religious purposes.
or the research that's been done on the "Blue Zones."
And all Blue Zone diets included meat, by the way. Plus, of course, the research was purely observational.
Look up vegan body builders - you will see that they are not puny at all!
There are hardly any, so they are more an exception than the rule.
You are missing the point on what I said - the China study was about plant-based diets. And all of the Blue Zone diets do not include meat - I can think of the Seventh Day Adventists that were studied just as one example.
While you are correct that the exception doesn't prove the rule regarding vegan body builders, it doesn't work for saying plant-eaters are puny either! You can be healthy or unhealthy by being vegetarian. My point was that it is very possible to be strong and super-fit. There are actually quite a number of vegan bodybuilders and athletes.
While you are correct that the exception doesn't prove the rule regarding vegan body builders, it doesn't work for saying plant-eaters are puny either! You can be healthy or unhealthy by being vegetarian. My point was that it is very possible to be strong and super-fit. There are actually quite a number of vegan bodybuilders and athletes.
You are missing the point on what I said - the China study was about plant-based diets.
China study was widely critisized, and the author's own data does not support his conclusions. There was a link already in this discussion, here's one more
http://rawfoodsos.com/the-china-study/
And all of the Blue Zone diets do not include meat - I can think of the Seventh Day Adventists that were studied just as one example.
As I remember, only some of them are vegetarians, it is not a requirement.
My point was that it is very possible to be strong and super-fit. There are actually quite a number of vegan bodybuilders and athletes.
I suppose it's technically possible, just so much harder. Otherwise those elusive vegan bodybuilders would be a majority.
Just to make my point clear: I'm not saying vegetarianism is bad or unhealthy. I'm just against demonizing animal based foods for no reason.
China study was widely critisized, and the author's own data does not support his conclusions. There was a link already in this discussion, here's one more
http://rawfoodsos.com/the-china-study/
And all of the Blue Zone diets do not include meat - I can think of the Seventh Day Adventists that were studied just as one example.
As I remember, only some of them are vegetarians, it is not a requirement.
My point was that it is very possible to be strong and super-fit. There are actually quite a number of vegan bodybuilders and athletes.
I suppose it's technically possible, just so much harder. Otherwise those elusive vegan bodybuilders would be a majority.
Just to make my point clear: I'm not saying vegetarianism is bad or unhealthy. I'm just against demonizing animal based foods for no reason.
Pretty much every study shows it as a wash at worst. Just Google it.
Convincing people to moderate their meat consumption is hard though. I've started drinking soylent+protein powder, but I don't know how I would go about convincing my wife to accept the idea of a meal with beans, lentils, or chickpeas instead of meat. A technical solution to a social problem might be the right approach here.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/10/society-is-fixed-biolog...
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/10/society-is-fixed-biolog...
Soylent and powder is really not the way, if you ask me. What your parent said is to moderate the use of meat in the USA.
I live in China, and here we eat one or two different dishes with meat at each meal, often the meat is so fat that it is translucid. But then we just pick a few pieces and a whole 5 person dinner amounts to just 300 to 500 grams of meat. And we never eat it "plain and juicy", it is always cooked with veggies, mushrooms, etc.
It is very different from the extremes I heard about in the US: on one side you have those 1kg/pers steak houses, which are meat orgies that should only be allowed once or thrice in a life. On the other side all veggies variants, and soylent. Is there really no way to take food as a normal thing in the US? I.e. something you enjoy for quality and diversity, not something you either fear like spiders or devour like the beasts we are not supposed to be anymore.
I live in China, and here we eat one or two different dishes with meat at each meal, often the meat is so fat that it is translucid. But then we just pick a few pieces and a whole 5 person dinner amounts to just 300 to 500 grams of meat. And we never eat it "plain and juicy", it is always cooked with veggies, mushrooms, etc.
It is very different from the extremes I heard about in the US: on one side you have those 1kg/pers steak houses, which are meat orgies that should only be allowed once or thrice in a life. On the other side all veggies variants, and soylent. Is there really no way to take food as a normal thing in the US? I.e. something you enjoy for quality and diversity, not something you either fear like spiders or devour like the beasts we are not supposed to be anymore.
Oh my wife isn't like that and her meat consumption is totally reasonable. Our standard meal is basically what you describe: about 250g of beef with a bunch of veggies and maybe rice or bread. I've only been having soylent for breakfasts during the weekday, where I'm trying to get out the door and get to work quickly so I keep my post-workout momentum.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone consume 1kg+ of meat. Maybe at a Brazilian steakhouse, but that is a rare and expensive luxury I've only been to once for a friend's party that they called "the meat faucet".
I don't think I've ever seen anyone consume 1kg+ of meat. Maybe at a Brazilian steakhouse, but that is a rare and expensive luxury I've only been to once for a friend's party that they called "the meat faucet".
That's why I like the idea of a little meat. 4oz is usually enough to get the great meat taste. At In n Out, get the single. At Super Duper, get the 4oz burger. At steakhouses, get the smaller cuts. Mix minced veggies into burger patties. Even meatloaf doesn't need that much meat to be dee-lish. Etc. If you want more meat, stick with chicken and fish.
I think I'll pass on plants processed to look and taste like meat. What I'd really like to see is real meat that is grown without being attached to a conscious animal.
That's where we'll end up some day, but it probably will be a long while.
That chicken was still alive, the largest part of the chicken's brain remained intact. Not exactly not "attached to a conscious animal".
It says that the brain stem was still attached, and it controlled most reflex actions. I wouldn't consider that a 'conscious' animal, especially with the reduced sensory input.
The point is, you could lobotomize animals to make 'conscious' animals unconscious, basically turning it into a vegetable. Is that what you want though?
The point is, you could lobotomize animals to make 'conscious' animals unconscious, basically turning it into a vegetable. Is that what you want though?
I just noticed yesterday that my local grocery store was selling Beyond Chicken, and decided to try some. It does have some vaguely chicken-like properties, but it's still too dry and rubbery to fool anyone paying the slightest attention.
I'm really interested in trying it. I'm familiar with fake meat products like Smart Dogs and the fake chicken nuggets - put ketchup on those and you can't tell the difference. There also a soy-based taco "meat," I believe from Fantastic Worlds foods, that is incredible. I use my husband as a test since he eats meat and he prefers many of these products to the real thing.
I'd argue the health impact from the ketchup (basically refined sugar syrup) is bigger than that of real meat.
> it's still too dry and rubbery to fool anyone
"Dry and rubbery" is all the chicken I ever experienced until moving to the Bay Area and getting way more into food. At the top segment of the market sure, it's going to be many decades before people plow into a SynthSteak™ with the same verve that they would a dry-aged porterhouse. But I think you underestimate what many people are willing to put up with as their daily protein source.
"Dry and rubbery" is all the chicken I ever experienced until moving to the Bay Area and getting way more into food. At the top segment of the market sure, it's going to be many decades before people plow into a SynthSteak™ with the same verve that they would a dry-aged porterhouse. But I think you underestimate what many people are willing to put up with as their daily protein source.
> But I think you underestimate what many people are willing to put up with as their daily protein source.
As far as I'm concerned, it's not even about putting up with anything. Real meat is cheaper and tastes better.
That's two reasons to keep eating meat, and depending on your beliefs it's either one or zero reasons against.
As far as I'm concerned, it's not even about putting up with anything. Real meat is cheaper and tastes better.
That's two reasons to keep eating meat, and depending on your beliefs it's either one or zero reasons against.
This or mealworms. Test tube beef will be made from serum albumin from slaughtered cows.
This is fabulous news! Great for animals, good for the environment, good for world hunger, and good for people's health and well-being.
I'm not sure that growing veggie burger consumes much less water than its animal counterpart.
There is a chart in this article that shows how significantly lab-grown meat decreases water use compared to meat from cows, sheep, pigs, and chickens. And this is referring to a process that is in very early stages! http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/05/20/me...
I think the problem is the people who says my dream is the change the world.