9 ms·

One potential problem: the heme that they're claiming gives it flavor comes from a genetically modified yeast. It's a GMO, and people who're vegan on principle

One potential problem: the heme that they're claiming gives it flavor comes from a genetically modified yeast. It's a GMO, and people who're vegan on principle often don't like that.

NickM 10y ago
> It's a GMO, and people who're vegan on principle often don't like that. That's okay! They're already vegan, so clearly they've already found a way to eat a meat-free diet that works for them. Carnivores are a much bigger market to chase than vegans. These new meat substitutes are targeted at converting more carnivores, not making existing vegans happier.
- tomjen3 10y ago
  As a carnivore, don't try to make a fake steak, if I wanted a steak I would by one. Instead try to create food so delicious that I want to eat it, even if it happens to be vegan. You won't convince me with ethical arguments, you won't convince me with guilt, you won't convince me with health (I am sitting with a glass of whiskey right now), but you might convince me with taste.
jonknee 10y ago
> It's a GMO, and people who're vegan on principle often don't like that. I don't think they care about people who are vegan on principle. They want to sell to meat eaters.
saynsedit 10y ago
What does being "vegan on principle" mean here? What specific principles are you talking about? Some vegans do it because killing animals is morally bankrupt. Some vegans do it because raising livestock is unsustainable. There is not enough land on earth for everyone to have a meat diet. Some vegans do it because it's healthier. In general you can expect to ingest less toxins by eating lower on the food chain. I'm not sure what vegan principles are violated by GMOs. I don't know of anyone who is actually against GMOs, the debate is around labeling them not banning them. Personally I don't understand why someone wouldn't want to eat pesticide/herbicide drenched food. It's how we're going to feed the third world.
- mjevans 10y ago
  I prefer (and am so far practicing my self) population control to bring the number of humans inhabiting Earth towards a /sustainable/ level with all living humans having the quality of life we'd like to see.
- jacalata 10y ago
  For the record, I know plenty of people who are actually against GMO's and want them labelled so that all consumers can boycott them and they get forced out of the market.
  - saynsedit 10y ago
    I don't think getting GMOs labeled is a plot to get all consumers to boycott them... It's so the subsection of the population that cares about ingesting GMOs can make an informed choice when buying food. That's like saying getting kosher food labeled was really a plot to get everyone to boycott all non-kosher food.
    - jacalata 10y ago
      That's not the plan by everyone who wants labelling, no. All I said is that I know people who do want/expect it to work that way. (I neither want it to or believe that it will).
      - saynsedit 10y ago
        For the record, I know plenty of people who actually believe climate change isn't real. Is that relevant to a discussion on environmental policy?
- bsder 10y ago
  > Some vegans do it because raising livestock is unsustainable. There is not enough land on earth for everyone to have a meat diet. I'm dubious about this statement. There is a lot of ocean, so seafood farming is probably quite capable of feeding humans meat. In addition, western societies currently overconsume meat. I suspect that if calorically balanced levels of consumption were observed, we probably have plenty of land. > Some vegans do it because it's healthier. In general you can expect to ingest less toxins by eating lower on the food chain. I see a lot of vegans eating far less healthy diets than those of carnivores. They up the oil and carb content quite significantly to make things taste better/create satiety. I find that vegetarians (and even those who just back off on meat) seem to eat healthier than vegans, in general.
ChristianBundy 10y ago
> It's a GMO, and people who're vegan on principle often don't like that. veganism != primitivism I understand that there's an overlap between "I don't eat that, I'm vegan" and "I don't eat that, it's not natural", but when I think of vegan principles I think of animal rights -- not fallacious appeals to nature.
ergothus 10y ago
That actually ties into an interesting problem: People who are vegetarian/vegan for ethical reasons and lab-grown meat. One idea is, instead of trying to make plant-based food taste like meat, just make meat that doesn't involve raising and killing animals. Efforts thus far have had only mild success (IIRC, it's been done at great cost, and it reportedly tasted terrible). Assuming these efforts succeed, where does that leave me? I have no objection to harming cells, but I'd be against the killing/harming of the various animals necessary to GET the initial stem cells to be able to grow that lab meat. But, if they perfect a method of growing "meat" that no longer involves that mistreatment, at what point is it morally acceptable to me to buy and eat that "meat"? I imagine it's similar to anyone in a field that benefits from ethically questionable research. Military smallpox testing, that one king that raised "feral" children to see what their tabula rasa state was, the Milgram experiments...I suppose this falls in the same, um, vein.
- kbenson 10y ago
  > Efforts thus far have had only mild success (IIRC, it's been done at great cost, and it reportedly tasted terrible). I have so much hope for this. I'm not vegetarian, but I wouldn't mind cutting out animal cruelty from my life as much as possible, as it is a place I recognize cognitive dissonance in myself. I'm really hoping they can get the cost down, and since it's controlled, can start experimenting on ways to improve taste (artificial stimulation, etc). I see no reason why we can't eventually grow meat that tastes multiples better. It's not like nature selected for pigs and cows to taste good (although we may have, over the last few hundreds or thousands of years). > Assuming these efforts succeed, where does that leave me? Hopefully, it means you'll eventually be eating the best burger you've ever tasted. :) > at what point is it morally acceptable to me to buy and eat that "meat"? I would assume immediately at the point there's a version that doesn't harm animals, if you're in it for ethical reasons. I'm not sure I understand the question, or the implications, because it doesn't seem controversial to me at all, given the predicates. > I imagine it's similar to anyone in a field that benefits from ethically questionable research. I'm not sure it's related at all. What animals are harmed to help us get better lab-grown meat? That said, questionable research it's a very interesting question in itself. I've been culturally indoctrinated to belief that it's bad, but rationally, if the resaerch leads to improved lives for people during the time we would not know that information until we found it otherwise, shouldn't we weigh that correctly? Would a study that resulted in the death of 1000 people but eliminated heart disease be worth it? Yes, but we can't know what any specific research will result in, so all we do is increase the risk of our gambles with the hope of a bigger payoff. That said, I think we need more nuanced rules regarding some studies and people that want in them. If someone is already terminally ill, but it shouldn't affect the study, I don't see the problem with a large payout to participate in a very dangerous study.
faboo 10y ago
I'm a vegetarian on principle, and have no problem eating GMO anything. OTOH, I've been vegetarian for 15 years and most meat flavors and textures have worn on me.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

One potential problem: the heme that they're claiming gives it flavor comes from a genetically modified yeast. It's a GMO, and people who're vegan on principle often don't like that.

NickM 10y ago

> It's a GMO, and people who're vegan on principle often don't like that. That's okay! They're already vegan, so clearly they've already found a way to eat a meat-free diet that works for them. Carnivores are a much bigger market to chase than vegans. These new meat substitutes are targeted at converting more carnivores, not making existing vegans happier.

tomjen3 10y ago
As a carnivore, don't try to make a fake steak, if I wanted a steak I would by one. Instead try to create food so delicious that I want to eat it, even if it happens to be vegan. You won't convince me with ethical arguments, you won't convince me with guilt, you won't convince me with health (I am sitting with a glass of whiskey right now), but you might convince me with taste.

jonknee 10y ago

> It's a GMO, and people who're vegan on principle often don't like that. I don't think they care about people who are vegan on principle. They want to sell to meat eaters.

saynsedit 10y ago

What does being "vegan on principle" mean here? What specific principles are you talking about? Some vegans do it because killing animals is morally bankrupt. Some vegans do it because raising livestock is unsustainable. There is not enough land on earth for everyone to have a meat diet. Some vegans do it because it's healthier. In general you can expect to ingest less toxins by eating lower on the food chain. I'm not sure what vegan principles are violated by GMOs. I don't know of anyone who is actually against GMOs, the debate is around labeling them not banning them. Personally I don't understand why someone wouldn't want to eat pesticide/herbicide drenched food. It's how we're going to feed the third world.

mjevans 10y ago
I prefer (and am so far practicing my self) population control to bring the number of humans inhabiting Earth towards a /sustainable/ level with all living humans having the quality of life we'd like to see.
jacalata 10y ago
For the record, I know plenty of people who are actually against GMO's and want them labelled so that all consumers can boycott them and they get forced out of the market.
- saynsedit 10y ago
  I don't think getting GMOs labeled is a plot to get all consumers to boycott them... It's so the subsection of the population that cares about ingesting GMOs can make an informed choice when buying food. That's like saying getting kosher food labeled was really a plot to get everyone to boycott all non-kosher food.
  - jacalata 10y ago
    That's not the plan by everyone who wants labelling, no. All I said is that I know people who do want/expect it to work that way. (I neither want it to or believe that it will).
    - saynsedit 10y ago
      For the record, I know plenty of people who actually believe climate change isn't real. Is that relevant to a discussion on environmental policy?
bsder 10y ago
> Some vegans do it because raising livestock is unsustainable. There is not enough land on earth for everyone to have a meat diet. I'm dubious about this statement. There is a lot of ocean, so seafood farming is probably quite capable of feeding humans meat. In addition, western societies currently overconsume meat. I suspect that if calorically balanced levels of consumption were observed, we probably have plenty of land. > Some vegans do it because it's healthier. In general you can expect to ingest less toxins by eating lower on the food chain. I see a lot of vegans eating far less healthy diets than those of carnivores. They up the oil and carb content quite significantly to make things taste better/create satiety. I find that vegetarians (and even those who just back off on meat) seem to eat healthier than vegans, in general.

ChristianBundy 10y ago

> It's a GMO, and people who're vegan on principle often don't like that. veganism != primitivism I understand that there's an overlap between "I don't eat that, I'm vegan" and "I don't eat that, it's not natural", but when I think of vegan principles I think of animal rights -- not fallacious appeals to nature.

ergothus 10y ago

That actually ties into an interesting problem: People who are vegetarian/vegan for ethical reasons and lab-grown meat. One idea is, instead of trying to make plant-based food taste like meat, just make meat that doesn't involve raising and killing animals. Efforts thus far have had only mild success (IIRC, it's been done at great cost, and it reportedly tasted terrible). Assuming these efforts succeed, where does that leave me? I have no objection to harming cells, but I'd be against the killing/harming of the various animals necessary to GET the initial stem cells to be able to grow that lab meat. But, if they perfect a method of growing "meat" that no longer involves that mistreatment, at what point is it morally acceptable to me to buy and eat that "meat"? I imagine it's similar to anyone in a field that benefits from ethically questionable research. Military smallpox testing, that one king that raised "feral" children to see what their tabula rasa state was, the Milgram experiments...I suppose this falls in the same, um, vein.

kbenson 10y ago
> Efforts thus far have had only mild success (IIRC, it's been done at great cost, and it reportedly tasted terrible). I have so much hope for this. I'm not vegetarian, but I wouldn't mind cutting out animal cruelty from my life as much as possible, as it is a place I recognize cognitive dissonance in myself. I'm really hoping they can get the cost down, and since it's controlled, can start experimenting on ways to improve taste (artificial stimulation, etc). I see no reason why we can't eventually grow meat that tastes multiples better. It's not like nature selected for pigs and cows to taste good (although we may have, over the last few hundreds or thousands of years). > Assuming these efforts succeed, where does that leave me? Hopefully, it means you'll eventually be eating the best burger you've ever tasted. :) > at what point is it morally acceptable to me to buy and eat that "meat"? I would assume immediately at the point there's a version that doesn't harm animals, if you're in it for ethical reasons. I'm not sure I understand the question, or the implications, because it doesn't seem controversial to me at all, given the predicates. > I imagine it's similar to anyone in a field that benefits from ethically questionable research. I'm not sure it's related at all. What animals are harmed to help us get better lab-grown meat? That said, questionable research it's a very interesting question in itself. I've been culturally indoctrinated to belief that it's bad, but rationally, if the resaerch leads to improved lives for people during the time we would not know that information until we found it otherwise, shouldn't we weigh that correctly? Would a study that resulted in the death of 1000 people but eliminated heart disease be worth it? Yes, but we can't know what any specific research will result in, so all we do is increase the risk of our gambles with the hope of a bigger payoff. That said, I think we need more nuanced rules regarding some studies and people that want in them. If someone is already terminally ill, but it shouldn't affect the study, I don't see the problem with a large payout to participate in a very dangerous study.

faboo 10y ago

I'm a vegetarian on principle, and have no problem eating GMO anything. OTOH, I've been vegetarian for 15 years and most meat flavors and textures have worn on me.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]