7 ms·
'No kill' meat, grown from animal cells, is now approved for sale in the U.S.
- WhereIsTheTruth 3y agoThe only advantage of this is optimizing the food supply chain The marketing around this type of product is very bad, they should not call it meat and they should stop trying to shame their potential customers for eating meat (from animals)
- saiya-jin 3y agoReal advantage is much less animal cruelty and much much less pollution, in case of cows literally fighting global warming big time. If it tastes like meat from previously live animals, it definitely can be called meat, albeit its good to clearly distinguish it from the other. I know from folks around me they wouldnt mind it as long the taste is OK, has some good safety checks for various nasty chemicals and price is reasonable.
- randomdata 3y ago> much less animal cruelty What reason is there to think that the animals the cells are harvested from will be treated with less cruelty? I would have assumed that they would be bound to exist in the same conditions.
- Veedrac 3y agoSourced cells can be (and are) immortalized. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortalised_cell_line https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortalised_cell_line This alone removes almost all of the downside suffering. Additionally, for those of a more more absolutist moral bent, when the animals are small in number, there isn't the same financial pressure to ruthlessly optimize cost at the expense of welfare; you can afford to raise the animal in non-torture conditions without it materially impacting competitive position.
- rhn_mk1 3y agoThat depends on the multiplication factor. You can get a unit of meat from one animal. You can get N units of meat out of cells of one animal. Even if the treatment doesn't change, the production of meat becomes N times less cruel after the switch.
- randomdata 3y agoDo you think this will compel people towards meat-only diets to avoid the billions of insects and other critters harmed in the production of plant-based food? Realistically, meat is N+M, where M is the cruelty towards animals in the production of food for animals. But M still remains if people keep eating plants.
- rhn_mk1 3y agoThe nutrients for the cell lines are still going to come from plants, so I don't see any reduction in the cruelty involved from the plant side, unless the new way allows using less of that.
- randomdata 3y agoDoes that suggest that it could actually lead to more total animal cruelty? I expect, for example, cattle grazing grasslands is less cruel to the aforementioned critters than a mechanical harvest. The latter is downright brutal to animals. Indeed, if you save a cattle beast, but harm 100 additional crickets, you would be much, much worse off with respect to animal cruelty.
- rhn_mk1 3y agoIf the majority of farm animals get their feed from grazing, then replacing them as sources of nutrients with mechanically harvested plants might come out even. As I understand it though, the vast majority of cattle are currently being fed mechanically harvested plants, so they can be cut out of the nutrient pathway without any need to increase suffering by the way of mechanical harvest.
- ricardobayes 3y agoI agree with this product 100%, although I fail to see how it could work unless normal meat is banned or taxed to be much more expensive. Why? It's very expensive to make, like synthetic fuel. But unlike fossil fuels, I have seen zero government initiative to ban or limit meat consumption so it's very unlikely for the economies of scale to work out, in my opinion.
- itairall 3y agoIt will really come down to the cost. I would be dishonest if I said I would pay a premium for meat as to not harm animals. If you can kill two birds with one stone(ok maybe not the best saying in this context)and under cut the price of meat currently and at the same time be less cruel to animals then I will make it a diet staple ASAP. I am sure it is anything but trivial though to undercut the price of chicken and turkey in the US.
- rafaelero 3y agoYou have to be very unimaginative to think this is the only advantage.
- WhereIsTheTruth 3y agoPlease enlighten me then!
- 31337Logic 3y agoThis is great news. Can't wait to try some!
- cute_boi 3y agogreat news.
- onetokeoverthe 3y ago[dead]
- voytec 3y agoAlready discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36420207 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36420207
- tracker1 3y agoInteresting. And not opposed to this at all, though I can't imagine it would be cost effective. Since most of what we eat (50-65%) is purely for energy. That said. We get a lot more from animal meat than just protein and fat, and even then it's a wide variety of amino and fatty acids along with fat soluble nutrients. I think that actual animal protein (even if just eggs and fish) will still be necessary for a lot of micro-nutrients and versions of nutrients that are more digestible than what is available from other sources. In a similar vein, I feel that natural fertilizer offers more to the soil than what chemical fertilizers bring to the table. Soil health has been a real and increasing problem over the past several decades.
- inhumantsar 3y agoIn what way is this not actual animal protein?
- tracker1 3y agoLab grown "meat" does not go through the life of an actual animal, and won't contain what a well raised animal will contain. Actual animals will consume food... for example, ruminant animals eat grass... this grass along with digestion process will bring nutrition that just feeding cells won't contain... Fat soluble vitamins as an example example. In the case of just fat soluble vitamins, a lot of the supplements are either a baseline nutrient the body can convert to the actual nutrient or another form of the nutrient likewise. However these supplements are often not as bioavailable or have malabsorption and don't actually cover nutritional needs. A lot of the systemic hormonal issues in society can be traced to a reduction in the consumption of animal fats and fats in general, which are essential to body function. That also doesn't cover the variety of fatty and amino acids in naturally grown muscle and fatty tissue in animals. You actually need a wide variety of these. And even then, the dietary guidelines are absolute minimums and not optimal values. They also don't contain guidance or understanding for all nutrients. It wasn't until just the past couple decades that a few essential nutrients were added for hospitalized feeding which accounted for serious brain/mental issues. We (humans) have a very poor understanding of actual nutrient requirements, even for those in very small amounts that can have huge impacts on overall health. edit: it can still be considered meat, or even animal meat... but if you look at the nutrition profile of farm raised vs wild caught salmon. Or grass fed grass finished beef vs grain fed. Or naturally fed chickens and their eggs vs commercial feed lots. There are vast differences in quality that can add up.
- meibo 3y agoAwesome. There is no better way to slow climate change, we need to stop the endless waste of energy that is modern industrialized livestock agriculture. I genuinely believe that this can be a cheaper and easier alternative to real meat, when the time comes.
- klyrs 3y ago> Though many of the details are proprietary, the basic formula to produce cultivated meat is clear. They began by extracting cells from animals using a needle biopsy. Food scientists no longer need to go back to the animal to extract cells every time, since there are lots of cells stored in a cell bank. The companies can select the cells they want to grow. Then, inside the stainless steel tanks, the cells are fed a mix of the same nutrients an animal would eat, a combination of fats, sugar, amino acids and vitamins, which allows the cells to proliferate and grow into meat. I do wonder how vegans will feel about this needle biopsy. And while they say there are lots of cells stored in the "cell bank," it does seem like it will need to be replenished with future needle biopsies or there will be genetic drift if they recycle cells from the vat (which might be fine or even desired). Does this mean we can eat whale and, I dunno, bald eagle? Edit: or, excellent point raised in a dead comment... human? Sounds ick to me too, but bear with me: is the height of ethical meat consumption to have personal meat-vats grown from your own donor cells?
- reaperman 3y agoSome vegans will be okay with it because the marginal animal suffering needed to produce each additional pound of meat is roughly zero. Some vegans will still not be okay with it because (pick any): - It's still more energy intensive than plant-based foods. - Meat, in general, doesn't meet their personal healthiness threshold. - It's an unnatural way to produce meat with unknown health risks. - ???
- ghoogl 3y agoall you need to ask a vegan is if they would eat human tissue grown flesh
- neuralRiot 3y agoAs a vegan I applaud every step towards the elimination of animal exploitation, this product might be a nice niche for transitioning but once you get accustomed to plant based whole foods you feel strange eating even “meat replacers” as for the environmental impact I don’t think it can get any worst than animal agriculture.
- whoomp12342 3y agodoes the meat poop?
- benzible 3y agoSee: https://thecounter.org/lab-grown-cultivated-meat-cost-at-scale/ https://thecounter.org/lab-grown-cultivated-meat-cost-at-sca... > Humbird likened the process of researching the report to encountering an impenetrable “Wall of No”—his term for the barriers in thermodynamics, cell metabolism, bioreactor design, ingredient costs, facility construction, and other factors that will need to be overcome before cultivated protein can be produced cheaply enough to displace traditional meat. > “And it’s a fractal no,” he told me. “You see the big no, but every big no is made up of a hundred little nos.” (I've posted this before but I think it bears repeating that this whole industry looks like a complete fantasy at best and a scam at worst)
- benzible 3y agoWhoever downvoted this - would love to know what specifically you take issue with from the linked article.