Would you eat test tube meat to save money?

[jeffrey]

Here is a question to ponder for the future. Would you be willing to eat Shmeat (test tube grown meat) if it saved your family money over regular meat? There are predictions that you will begin to see this test tube meat on store shelves in the next few years right next to the meat.

[akrogers]

Oh wow that is really interesting and definitely a reflection of our culture. I probably wouldn't eat it, but at the same time I am single with no kids and can feed myself on $40 a month so I'm not breaking the bank on food.

[Inkstain82]

I'd have to wait and see the studies. If scientists say it's safe, I trust them.

[Cassandra]

Probably not.

[akrogers]

Thanks! It really has given me a lot of motivation so far. On the note of the "schmeat" I would be interested to see for what amount of time the longitudinal studies were conducted, if any. Scientists can say something is safe today but until we know the effects of the test tube meat 5, 10, 20 years down the road, I don't know that I would be absolutely comfortable with it. I'll stick with real cows :-p

[gamecock43]

So- was test tube meat once alive? I'm not fully understanding this. If it is as healthy as meat is- but is 'dead meat' was never a living, thinking animal- then I might try it. I'm a vegetarian and wouldn't mind finding a way to get the benefits of meat without slaughtering animals to do it.

[cptacek]

totally not ever. And they better label the heck out of it so someone doesn't accidentally grab it, something goes wrong, and real meat gets the blame.

[jeffrey]

So- was test tube meat once alive? I'm not fully understanding this. If it is as healthy as meat is- but is 'dead meat' was never a living, thinking animal- then I might try it. I'm a vegetarian and wouldn't mind finding a way to get the benefits of meat without slaughtering animals to do it.

The cells that grow the shmeat come from a live animal, but the animal itself is never harmed -- they just take a few of the cells from a live animal. The cells are placed in a special solution of nutrients which mimics the qualities of blood which helps the cells to grow until they can then be secured to a spongy sheet which has been soaked with nutrient solution. The sheet is then stretched to increase cell size and protein content.

[gamecock43]

Then that's fine. No agonizing screams of pain and torture coming from the calf/lamb/duck/piglet- then I would try it. Though I have not had meat in over 15 years now I doubt I would like the taste or texture of it-real or not. But I know I SHOULD eat some meat to stay healthy- and this might be a real option for vegetarians.

[Broken Arrow]

If it turns out that it's safe, then yes, I would. If you think about it, a lot of the meat we currently eat are already enhanced through hormones and some kind of physical and genetic manipulation.

However, from what little I understand about the test tube meat process... it does give me pause.

Traditional methods of "growing meat" involves hard massages to the animals to break the muscle and promote muscle growth. Growth hormones help that process tremendously. That's when you're actively growing meat by the way, especially with preferred breeds of cattle.

From what I understand, you don't really "do that" when you are growing meat in a petri dish. Instead, the process is more akin to that of.... growing cancer cells. That's basically the holy grail in mass-producing shmeat. Ordinary cells just can't magically multiply endlessly. There is a limit as to how often cell mitosis can occur before the cell's DNA integrity mutates, breaks down, and is unable to divide any further.

The exception is cancer cells, presumably because it does not require full genetic integrity for mitosis. Perhaps that's convenient since we're also talking about replacing spam, not breeding healthy cattle. However, I don't know how to selectively go about it so that such mutations do not pose a health risk to consumers. For that matter, I don't know if finite mitosis is good enough to yield batches of shmeat that can be mass-produced in affordable quantities.

To qualify, I'm not a biologist in real life, nor do I even play one on TV. So, please take what I've said with a grain of salt. And as I've said before, if this is a process that can be done safely and cheaply, then I don't mind. But if it was available, would you eat cancer-like meat that is designed to defy mother nature? Perhaps it's a bit unfair to phrase the question that way, but that's exactly the kind of hurdle shmeat will be facing.

[davrobins]

Depends on whether it was safe or not to eat, also if it tastes good or not.

[cptacek]

Depends on whether it was safe or not to eat

Then why are people afraid to eat GMO corn, or drink milk from cows treated with rBGH, or irradiated meat? That has all been shown to be safe (and in fact, with the rBGH, the milk can't even be differentiated from other milk from non-rBGH treated cows), but people still won't accept it. I don't know how this can be seen to be any better.

[Inkstain82]

Then why are people afraid to eat GMO corn, or drink milk from cows treated with rBGH, or irradiated meat? That has all been shown to be safe (and in fact, with the rBGH, the milk can't even be differentiated from other milk from non-rBGH treated cows), but people still won't accept it. I don't know how this can be seen to be any better.

There are people who won't drink pasteurized milk. If you have no faith in science, not much anyone can do for you

[zakity]

I wouldn't eat it or feed it to my boys. I don't really trust the scientists whom are getting paid by the companies to find it "unsafe" if it will cause the company they work for to lose money.

[kork13]

There are people who won't drink pasteurized milk. If you have no faith in science, not much anyone can do for you

Really? Wow... except for pasteurization, I wouldn't have even known what milk was growing up -- that was the only way to keep it good long enough to ship it out to Guam...