PETA thinks the idea of test-tube meat looks like a million bucks. Literally. The outspoken animal-rights group is offering a cool one mil to the "first person to come up with a method to produce commercially viable quantities of in vitro meat at competitive prices by 2012." The idea caused "a near civil war in our office," says PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk, adding, "We will have members leave us over this." But in the end, she says, "We don't mind taking uncomfortable positions if it means that fewer animals suffer."
source: The New York Times
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Copenhagen talks ready for take off: 5, 4, 3…
Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets
Comments
View as Flat
javaearth Posted 12:56 am
22 Apr 2008
It would be more beneficial, educational and powerful to have vegan detergent/makeup/clothes etc.. (no animal products nor animal tested) and sell in the mainstream business market, versus showcasing big booby Pamela Anderson.
However, if they are doing this for real, than sure I am all for it. As our current foods are so far from being natural, -I think it would be better for people to eat lab meat than a real animal. - Sure local and organic is great, (I buy most of my foods), but really if a animal is sick, than it doe snot matter about the mileage nor the geography of the animal.
Permalink
wackatalpidae Posted 2:47 am
22 Apr 2008
extrapolation
slippery slope
unintended consequences
frankenfood
Permalink
javaearth Posted 3:51 am
22 Apr 2008
Did you have the same concerns of "slippery slope" when test tube babies were created, or how about the advancement of when med's occured, or what about life support machines, were at the hospitals throwning up your hands and protesting about those things?
Please do not get all "ethical" now, if you take med's than you have already been part of that slippery slope for many years now!
And whatever foods you are eating right now, is probably modified from its original source. Unless you grow every single thing yourself, you will never know exactly how "frankenfood" your food really is?
Permalink
wackatalpidae Posted 3:56 am
22 Apr 2008
we don't eat eagles because it is just not right
if test tube beef is okay
then is all meat fair game?
exotic test tube steak okay?
Permalink
javaearth Posted 5:22 am
22 Apr 2008
So if test tube dog occurs, most american will not eat it, but the most people in china will "wolf" it down without a second thought!
Many people get sick form eating animals today, and thats their choice, so if they want eat test tube meat, - go for it!
I just want the cruelty towards animals (including humans to stop).
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 6:11 am
22 Apr 2008
So if domestic animal food can be replaced with test tube animal food, GREAT! It would relieve our battered planet of one of the many harms that humans cause by eliminating animal husbandry.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 6:16 am
22 Apr 2008
The ecological point of eating meat is that "meat animals" convert otherwise inedible bits of the landscape into edible bits. Even with otherwise vegetarian staples like apples the use of geese and pigs sharing the orchard improve the productivity and health of that little corner of the biome.
Grain, hay or silage production may not always be the best use of any particular chunk of the landscape even if meat calories are the goal. We need to investigate what all the options are.
Lab grown meat is interesting but ultimately silly.
Permalink
kmp Posted 6:30 am
22 Apr 2008
I tend to be suspicious of these things. Granted it would be a boon if fewer animals could suffer and/or die in order to feed meat-eating humans. PETA tend to applaud any time a new in vitro methodology is proposed, or accepted, in drug safety testing, but in vitro methodology can be very tricky. Some cells are notoriously fickle, and require 'fresh' cells (il.e. a recently dead animal) while others can operate well on frozen cells which can be stored for quite a long time. Some of the in vitro tests used in drug safety testing that PETA applauds don't actually use fewer animal numbers, and the results are generally less conclusive, often necessitating a follow-up animal study, which then just increases animal use.
There is also the carbon-impact of large labs churning out test-tube meat, although I suppose the methane from cows may 'offset' any carbon impacts if fewer animals are truly used. Might it not be better to simply raised pastured animals, humanely, that can turn grass, sunlight & water into protein?
Permalink
gohuskies Posted 7:07 am
22 Apr 2008
Permalink
wackatalpidae Posted 7:31 am
22 Apr 2008
but test tube dog or chimp may be good!
i'd try it
no cruelty involved
i'd also try test tube california condor drumsticks
what would you try?
from a vat, we may get slabs of humming bird muscle or cat roasts
the imagination runs wild wild wild
everything would literally be on the table
Permalink
wackatalpidae Posted 8:13 am
22 Apr 2008
grow it up in a vat
and you could serve yourself for dinner!
amaze and shock and creep out your friends
it will be the latest trend for the wealthy
a few pounds of meat, millions of dollars
the look on their faces when you tell them what it is, priceless
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 8:14 am
22 Apr 2008
Now if we could only GMO a bison so that dozens of ostrich wings grew out of it's hide attached with that lizard connection. You'd get the usefulness of the bison's super-efficient digestive system with plenty of renewable meat. Just snap a few off when they're full grown and send the beastie back out into the field.
Buffalo wings. Yum.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 4:30 am
23 Apr 2008
What would be far better would be for humans to consume a lot less meat, and to limit that consumption to wild meat, like fish and venison. That would be much better for the environment AND the animals.
Permalink
kmp Posted 6:01 am
23 Apr 2008
Let's say a have a veggie garden in my suburban backyard. Let's say I also have some chickens.. I don't know, about a dozen of them. I let the chickens control bugs, manage weeds, keep me from having to cut the grass in the remnants of my traditional lawn, and eat my kitchen scraps and excess whey from my homemade mozzarella. In return, they provide me with eggs, fertilizer, and every now and then, a chicken dinner. You're saying that this is worse for the environment, and the animals, than me killing & eating a local deer? And, it's worse than test-tube beef?
I know that the above scenario represents an extremely low percentage of where your average American gets their meat. I know that conventional means of raising meat animals are destructive, inhumane and basically horrid. I know that humans need to eat much less meat (and fish, for that matter). What I'm saying is that there seem to be better options for PETA to encourage than test-tube hamburgers.
Permalink
advancednano Posted 1:15 pm
24 Apr 2008
It is not an expensive hamburger because the prize is for fried chicken substitute. Must pass a taste test with fried chicken recipe
Prize winner must be selling retail in 10 states to win with competitive price.
If one could do those things then the 1 million prize is chump change. KFC chain sells $12.2 billion of which most is fried chicken. (fries, sides and sodas too). 5-10 minutes for $1 million in fried chicken sales. Even single store average is $1 million in sales per year.
Chicken is one of the cheaper meats, which is why the industry is going for ground beef and pork first. Easier to sub out ground meat and they are more expensive per pound than chicken.
Permalink
gohuskies Posted 6:37 am
01 May 2008
Check this out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxtZHOE4ScY
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moa
Permalink