20 ms·
Artificial meat: UK scientists growing 'bacon' in labs
- mtgx 8y agoIs the nutrition profile anywhere close to real meat, though? And by nutrition I don't just mean "does it have enough protein".
- faaabio1618 8y agoDepends on how you "feed" the cells.
- _Schizotypy 8y agoSo then what DO you mean? Which nutrients are you concerned about?
- wickedsmile 8y agoI think stuff like Gultamate, B12, Iron, Zinc, Magnesium and amino acid profile
- sametmax 8y agoI assume D, B12, iron, etc
- Harvey-Specter 8y agoPresumably it's easier to include extra vitamins and minerals in artificial meat than it is for 'real' meat.
- _Schizotypy 8y agoBut is that even a good idea
- neysofu 8y agoWhy wouldn't it be? We already supplement most livestock with B12.
- _Schizotypy 8y agoIt has also been shown that too much B vitamins can cause kidney damage. There is no current consensus on what an appropriate diet consists of.
- jklinger410 8y agoI would not be surprised if we find that in 200 years each vitamin has a unique profile based on it's source and putting supplements in something fake does not make it the same as real. It probably won't matter, however. Biology adapts.
- Falling3 8y agoWe already know there are synergistic effects with certain nutrients. But what we're just as likely to find is that there are more beneficial combinations of nutrients than are found in nature. There's a strong possibility that (eventually) we'll be able to create better foods instead of worse ones.
- ravitation 8y agoOf which "real" bacon only has trace amounts (or none at all, depending on the vitamin/mineral).
- sametmax 8y agoGoogling tells me: - Vitamins B1, B2, B3, B5, B6 and B12 - 89% of the RDA for selenium - 53% of the RDA for phosphorus But let's be honest, you don't eat bacon for the vitamins.
- ravitation 8y agoYes, unfortunately the top result isn't very good... To start it uses 3.5 oz (100g) as its serving size, which is (according to its own nutritional source) about 13 slices of bacon... Not exactly a "typical" serving. On a per slice basis... Looking at its own source (https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/pork-products/7676/2 https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/pork-products/7676/2): B1 (Thiamin) - 0.0 mg (2%) B2 (Riboflavin) - 0.0 mg (1%) B3 (Niacin) - 0.9 mg (4%) B5 (Pantothenic Acid) - 0.1 mg (1%) B6 - 0.0 mg (1%) B12 - 0.1 mcg (2%) Selenium - 5 mcg (7%) Phosphorus - 42.6 mg (4%) So, yes, technically it does contain those vitamins... But, like I said, not exactly in large amounts...
- haisch 8y ago3.5 ounces is not 13 slices unless you're eating paper thin bacon. Most packages are 12-16 ounces for that many slices.
- ravitation 8y agoLiterally going directly off of the nutritional source they cited... Like I said in my comment. Also, you have to consider that bacon can lose up to something like 75% of its weight during cooking...
- _Schizotypy 8y agoYou don't eat 3.5oz of bacon in one sitting? Casual. (/s)
- boznz 8y agoAs long as its not got vitamin pig who cares
- jjtheblunt 8y agoprotein in the form of proper amino acids matters. a ton of protein in only a single amino acid is malnourishing.
- tomp 8y agoDo we want/need it to be? As long as it's "optimized" (for some definition of the word), that's good enough. Just like we optimize our salt, rice, eggs, ...
- stateofnounion 8y ago"In conclusion, substantial scientific progress is still required to determine whether clean meat from single myogenic cells will be environmentally friendly and commercially viable. In the meantime, progress on the development of more mature skeletal muscle tissue in vitro may find other medical applications29, including the repair of volumetric muscle loss." https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0043-0 https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0043-0
- queercode 8y agoAs a vegan, this is neat. There are tons of "vegan bacon" substitutes on the market, and most of them are pretty bad. It being as unhealthy as "real" bacon is concerning a bit - but, I'll be fine.
- amval 8y agoAnd how is real bacon unhealthy?
- reaperducer 8y agoAnd how is real bacon unhealthy? A friend of mine in Texas hit a wild boar in the road with his Honda. Almost totaled the car, and he ended up in the hospital. Also, bacon has fat in it or something.
- henryaj 8y agoHigh levels of salt, fat, nitrates. Is this a serious question?
- plopz 8y agoAre you saying those three things are unhealthy?
- amval 8y agoCompletely serious. I am not sure I am in the mood for another long post sourcing my claims, so feel free to question any of what I say: - The idea of limiting salt and fats in the diet comes from very misguided health recommendation based on bad science from the 70s motivated by commercial reasons. - Bacon actually has quite a healthy lipidic profile even with those recommendations (50% monounsaturated rich in Oleic acid, like olive oil; not that saturated fat is actually unhealthy...) - Same for nitrates; bacon doesn't even have that much, nitrates are not proven to be harmful and most of nitrites/nitrates are endogenous (70-90%) anyway...
- pedro596 8y agoIs this some kind of Brexit backup plan? Jokes apart, more on pork import/exports https://britishmeatindustry.org/industry/imports-exports/pigmeat/ https://britishmeatindustry.org/industry/imports-exports/pig...
- orblivion 8y agoAs fake meat gets better, I have to do more double-takes as a vegetarian at restaurants. Are they pulling one over on me? Once it's lab-grown I'm not sure what I'll do, unless it's a vegetarian restaurant.
- veryworried 8y agoYou should avoid fake meat in general as a vegetarian unless you can personally verify the source, or otherwise accept the risk that sometimes you will eat real meat. I went to a party once where a vegetarian was told a fake meat was used for some chili, but it really wasn't.
- Numberwang 8y agoBest chili ever?
- orblivion 8y agoSome establishments lie. I've had a cynical attitude in the past. But then, I've had enough places actually come back to me with a correction about their menu that they could have gotten away with not making, or checked on something that I didn't even think to check on, that I have faith that people aren't total scum out there. Parties though? If people disrespect me like that at a party, those are not people I ever want to party with. I'm only going to go so far to verify. I accept the risk, and at a certain point the blame is on them for lying to me.
- rhn_mk1 8y agoSeeing how there are many reasons to be vegetarian, there's bound to be some confusion as some people consider cultured meat vegetarian (due to it not infringing on animal welfare), and others not (due to others not eating meat for other reasons).
- greglindahl 8y agoThat confusion already exists, plenty of people who are vegetarians for animal welfare reasons also don't want to eat fake meat. People are complicated.
- makerofspoons 8y agoHow much energy and water does it take to grow the cells? Are there any environmental benefits here or are the benefits primarily ethical? The article mentions the potential for decreased emissions but I've yet to see hard numbers about how much waste these products produce.
- hopler 8y agoIt's probably less efficient than regular livestock now but will be more effecient later, since when you are optimizing for meat instead of meat plus legacy biological life form, you skip the energy that goes into bone, brain, etc.
- albertgoeswoof 8y agoIt has to be more efficient eventually, animals waste energy moving around, breathing, excreting, etc. This completely wipes that out.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago>or using a population of "immortalised" cells, that will keep on dividing. "Which means that you don't kill any animals; you have this immortal cell that can be used forever." Another term for "immortalised" is cancerous or pre-cancerous. I wonder if in 15-20 years, we will find out that exposure to these artificial meats can lead to cancer?
- mcculley 8y agoCan eating a tumor cause cancer? I would have thought the stomach would render it down into amino acids.
- matt4077 8y agoNo, of course not. Intact cells have a really hard time getting into the bloodstream. If they do (say, from handling it with an open wound) the immune system might complain about being bored by such an easy challenge. Cancers can theoretically be transmitted via transplants, but those derive from humans and are therefore much closer to the body's own cells. And even there, immunosuppressives are required to prevent rejection. There are some cancers that originate from viruses. HPV is the most prominent, and whatever is killing the Tasmanian Tiger. There's some speculation others may as well (the red meat -> colon cancer link comes to mind). But that's not really relevant for the topic at hand.
- hopler 8y agoIn vitro seems much more risky than in digestion. We don't get much of our cellular behavior directly from cellular structures in foods we consume.
- albertgoeswoof 8y agoIf this reaches mass scale, is this ethical? What about all the pig, chickens and cows that will never be born because they won’t be reared anymore? We’d have no use for them, we’d take over farmland with meat factories and wipe out 99% of the species. Is that more ethical than rearing & killing the animal instead?
- superpermutat0r 8y agoA lot of animals live in ridiculous conditions, but I guess we could ask if living in suffering is better than not existing.
- wUabkSG6L5Bfa5 8y agoYes.
- bobbylarrybobby 8y agoWhat virtue is there in being born?
- inertiatic 8y agoWhat sort of mental gymnastics do you have to go through to even arrive at this question?
- neysofu 8y agoI sincerely hope that this is satire. You can't possibly advocate for the rights of unborn animals while we keep torturing and killing billions of living ones each year.
- 7952 8y agoThat is no different to what might happen if the whole population became vegetarian. It is something people have to decide for themselves as a consumer and it will be influenced by other factors like pricing, health, culture etc. Of course small scale food production is something that a lot of people enjoy and find worthwhile. I have kept chickens and grow vegetables. If land became available it may be bought up by those kind of people. This could become much more common in a world of automation and basic income. The world is full of people who would love to spend their lives growing high quality food inefficiently.
- laythea 8y agoI would not eat any meat that has been grown by a human. Logic tells me fake meat is not the same as real meat. It must lack something real meat has. Otherwise, it would be real.
- dementik 8y agoI have hard time understanding your logic, could you elaborate?
- laythea 8y agoI am not sure why my opinion is being shot down. If I was cheering for fake meat, I wonder whether this would be the case. Is this a "touchy" subject? If my opinion offends, please be less sensitive. To say fake meat is identical to real meat is to say that humans understand everything about the process. We don't, but like to pretend we do. I admit, I also have this view because of an association with meat and live animals - hence, meat comes from life. It is special. If it is grown in a lab, it looses this. Although some will say fake meat still comes from life, I disagree. I think my opinion is historically aligned with mainstream.
- neysofu 8y agoThe way I understand it, you refuse to eat lab-grown meat simply because you dismiss it as "fake," thus lacking in something compared to livestock meat. Why, though? There is no intrinsic, special value in livestock meat -or any food, for that matter- besides taste and nutritional properties. The day these two attributes, together with cost and environment footprint, become on par or preferable to livestock meat's, all other considerations should fly out of the window.
- laythea 8y agoI think Garvey has it right. My use of 'fake' does not mean nutritionally vacant. It means "an animal did not die to provide it". It is also the same reason I believe it is wrong to waste meat.
- akrymski 8y agoIs nobody else seriously worried about the safety of lab grown food in general? It took us decades to realise that cigarettes are in fact harmful. Medicine takes years to get approved. Who really understands the long term impact of fake meat on human body? Why aren't regulators requiring long term trials of these products before allowing them to market? As a complete outsider looking in, this trend is very worrying. Am I missing something?
- 14 8y agoMy guess is they are slipping in under the guise of "on a molecular level we already know what all these things do in the human body and eating protein is safe" and they will argue on a molecular level yes that is just protein matter. I am undecided on the matter. I think responsible farming practices is the way to go.
- ceejayoz 8y agoI mean, it's not fake meat. It's meat. Same fundamental ingredients humans have been eating since they became a species (and long before).
- crazynick4 8y agoExcept it is fake meat.
- dymk 8y agoIt’s lab grown. Are plants grown in a lab fake plants? Bacteria cultured in a Petri dish fake bacteria?
- crazynick4 8y agoIf you only create a fruit without a full grown plant to have produced it, yes. If you want to prove that eating fake meat has no additional adverse side effects to real meat, there would need to be studies. Have there been studies? No, there haven't. You can't assert that the two are the same because of a lack of evidence if there has been no attempt to find evidence. Until you have controlled experiments where people are exclusively fed both (preferably for at least a year, IMHO) you can't just conclude that 'well they seem the same so they must be'.
- teamspirit 8y agoWhile I'm excited at the all the possibility that lab grown meats can provide - ethically produced meat, less environmental impact, "cleaner" food - my judgement will have to be reserved until after leave scale production begins. What the definition of "clean meat" is today may not be what I agree with tomorrow.
- Ygg2 8y agoIt does promise a huge change though. Ideally, you keep a few cows and bulls reproducing, making tastier stem cells for further replication. In essence, you could feed a huge population of humans using only a few individuals, although it would still be wise to keep those "stem" cows in case sickness or something else strikes them. That being said, I'm afraid at some point the economic incentives will just go onto making a bunch of embryos mature and harvesting them completely for stem cells.
- k_bx 8y agoIronically, artificial meat might be "more natural", since it wouldn't need as many antibiotics if cells would be selected from a healthy animal.
- rhn_mk1 8y agoWhat are your concerns? Are you aying that your values are subect to change, or am misunderstanding you?
- hanniabu 8y agoSubject to change as most details arise
- strainer 8y agoRegarding "ethically produced meat" - I have the sense that if we can arrange for livestock conditions better than their typical experience in nature, then animal experience is overall improved to some degree. If that is arranged then the more animals we can do that for, the more gross experience is improved over the natural level (which due to extant harshness is not all that hard to better) We should also for animal keepers own feelings and experience at work, regulate that animal suffering is reduced to a hard minimum. Its paradoxical that we can't try arrange this for actual wildlife which is often as much in conflict with its neighborhood as it is at peace, or the wild systems will break down, by removing pressures, saving young from predation etc.
- strainer 8y agoI don't want see meat mass produced in this manner. But if WOOL would be produced this way - that would be a lower risk way develop an industry and gain experience of what kind of diseases might result from such unusual factory conditions.
- rhn_mk1 8y agoIt's not wool, but the non-edible animal product that's being currently researched is leather: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/09/modern-meadow-lab-grown-leather/540285/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/09/modern-m...
- strainer 8y agoLeather is another option for initial development which doesn't involve people actually digesting large amounts of the novel produce. Perhaps there is a weaker business case for producing wool and various custom hair fibers, while synthetic alternatives have become so cheap and competitive for feel and performance. I hope the days are not too far off now, that use of non-biodegradable materials are taxed or otherwise limited enough to avoid them accumulating and potentially harming our environment, which has not included such materials over evolutionary epochs of natural development.
- wUabkSG6L5Bfa5 8y agoSign me up for all three. I would give a kidney for an excellent, guilt-free wool business suit.
- gameshot911 8y agoI'm a vegetarian for ethical reasons, but have always considered wool to be fair game. The sheep is shorn, and frolics off unharmed. What's the guilt aspect? Would like to reassess my position given whatever info you can share.
- strainer 8y ago
- naveen99 8y agoLooks like serum free cell culture medium exist: https://www.labome.com/method/Cell-Culture-Media-A-Review.html https://www.labome.com/method/Cell-Culture-Media-A-Review.ht...
- tmh79 8y agoI think lab grown meat will radically change how we as humans consume food and its going to taste way better than any animal grown meats we eat today. Animal breeding and husbandry right now is so crude, and there are so many inputs and outputs to optimize, and while meat taste is part of the equation, others factors are meat yield, byproducts, animal health itself (all factors that are important, but are often times in conflict with making the "tastiest" meats). Stage 1 is going to be recreating crude meats like ground beef or sausage, stage 2 will be recreating true single flesh meats like a chicken breast, or a steak, and stage 3 is going to be "designer" meats like a kobe beef recreation, and stage 4 will be "meat insanity", creating "meat like" foods that nature would never be able to produce but that taste incredible (steak balloons, cotton candy like fried chicken, foie gras & tuna marble). Imagine going to a sushi like restaurant where the food is all nigiri style small meat cuts but the meat is all this wild bespoke artificial meats that no animal could ever product, but are wildly tasty.
- eqtn 8y agowhen there are 1000s of companies out there that produces fake meet, I don't think it will be tasty or safe as regular meat and if later killing animals for meat gets banned, people won't have anything to compare it to.
- dahfizz 8y agoCan you elaborate or provide some rationalization? It seems like your argument is "if there are lots of companies making fake meat it will be bad" but that doesn't make much sense to me on the surface.
- intended 8y agoBecause technically meat paste is packaged and sold as burgers, depending on how you legally define burgers, meat, and paste. The world around you is rife with people pushing the quality of goods to the point the market will accept, and then moving the market to accept even worse. Because fundamentally, morals don’t exist in a market. They are imposed. And good / bad are subjective. People buy cheap protein. This will be cheap protein. And even if it is tasteless, texture less and nothing any human will call meat, it will sell as long as it’s opportunity cost is lower than the alternative.
- antisthenes 8y agoI've been seeing these types of articles at the very least since the start of this decade. Here's one from 8 years ago, and there is at least some overlap in the comments. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2951733 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2951733 Not that there isn't progress. There certainly is. You can now buy actual products (albeit quite overpriced, considering the average American can't really afford to spend 200% of their food budget on a whim). However, it's important to keep in mind how much meat people eat, especially in the States. I think the average consumption is somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 lb/year. Here's a graph from 2012 https://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2012/06/gr-meatcomsuptionpercapita-462.gif https://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2012/06/gr-meatcomsuptionp... Let's set a reasonable goal of 10% of that being converted to lab grown meat. We'd need 5 billion pounds (10% of 2012 level) of lab produced meat every year. How close are we to that amount of commercial production? How much more efficient is it in terms of fossil fuel use? 50%? 75%? It's a great initiative, but simply reducing the amount of meat we eat (imagine having 1 meat-free day/week) is likely to be more effective than this, at least in the near future.
- gdubs 8y agoMeat production is such a big contributor to climate change that I’m all for this kind of research. But, I also think more people will simply go some form of mostly vegetarian / vegan in the coming years (optimistically). I stopped eating meat about four years ago. Like cutting out anything, it was hard for a few weeks but no longer. I have no desire for meat anymore and fully enjoy my diet. I’m technically pescatarian, but only very occasionally because overfishing is a huge problem as well. I also have gained muscle, and leaned out at the same time. Lots of factors at play, like exercising more, stressing less, etc — but I mention it because a lot of people think that being vegetarian or vegan means giving up on fitness goals like getting more muscular. If there’s some aspect of you that wants to try cutting down on meat, give it a shot. Give it a few weeks, and go easy on yourself. Addressing climate change will likely involve making personal choices about how best to decrease your footprint. If you can switch to a vegetarian diet, you’ll be making a pretty substantial move towards that goal — and there’s the bonus of not contributing to the morally questionable system of industrial slaughterhouses.
- bamboozled 8y agoI think this is easier to do depending on where you live. For example, being a vegetarian in California is far more practical than in Korea or Vietnam. I say that because your environment depends on how difficult this transition will be, don’t put too much pressure on yourself.
- vichu 8y agoNitpick, but given how widespread Buddhism is in East Asia, I would not be surprised if it were also quite practical to be vegetarian in both Korea and Vietnam. I do agree that there are locations where being vegetarian would be more difficult - more rural, meatcentric towns in America come to mind for me.
- Const-me 8y agoIf you care about environment impact, even switching from beef to pork and especially chicken helps a lot. I haven't been in rural American towns but I think both should be available without any difficulties.
- KangLi 8y ago"First lab-grown burger, created by a team in the Netherlands at a cost of €250,000 - largely due to the time and labour needed to turn millions of tiny cells into meat". I understand there is a cost to research, but still, I'm speechless at the costs of this burger.
- cr0sh 8y ago> I'm speechless at the costs of this burger. What left me speechless is the fact that they cooked it "well done" (they damn near burnt it). Pound-for-pound way more expensive than Kobe, and they burn it. WTH were they thinking?
- zachguo 8y agoLab-grown meat, along with vertical farming, may also make space colonization easier, or at least make the experience more enjoyable.
- tomp 8y agoI think the main problem with space colonization is the whole nutrient cycle - using and/or recycling every part of food that is grown and consumed, including human excrements and other organic waste (skin, hair, blood, etc.). I don't think that terrestrial farming practice focus on that, no matter how technologically advanced or futursistic.
- Sol- 8y agoIs there a reason such research often works bottom-up, from cells to meat? Would it not also be possible to go about it top-down, starting from an existing animal species (pig, chicken, etc.) and modify it via breeding or genetic engineering such that what remains is mostly a walking muscle that can be used for meat production in a more ethical manner? In the end, true lab meat might be "cleaner" or the better solution. But in the meantime, reducing the cognitive abilities of such farm animals by breeding or gene-tech also seems like it could be an ethical alternative to reduce their suffering.
- worik 8y agoI prefer my food made by a plant not in a plant...
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- crazynick4 8y agoI'm surprised how many people in the comments automatically assume that fake meat will be safe to consume. Sure it appears identical but so does a clone of a sheep, and yet they live a fraction of the lifespan of the original animals. I think a little agnosticism, especially given the lack of research and testing on animals/humans would be welcome here.
- throwawaymanbot 8y agothe brexit is hitting them hard!!
- buttslasher69 8y agoDoes anyone have any clue as to what will happen to the millions of acres owned by ranchers across the world now becoming unprofitable? Seems like a firesale waiting to happen.