http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6680989/Meat-grown-in-laboratory-in-world-first.html

Researchers in the Netherlands created what was described as soggy pork and are now investigating ways to improve the muscle tissue in the hope that people will one day want to eat it.

Meat has been grown in a laboratory, which one day could completely replace breeding live animals just to slaughter.

Question is, would you eat it?
When they improve on it, would you be able to tell the difference between real and fake meat?
Is eating this stuff morally right, because it doesn't involve causing a live animal to suffer?
Would vegetarians start eating it?
And would this cut down on carbon emissions, as there wouldn't need to be so many resources going into producing it?

Yuck...No, I'll stick with Quorn and veggies thanks.This sounds all too GM for my liking, speaking as a vegetarian, I wouldn't want to eat it!

McDonalds beat them to it years ago :gag:

Only kidding i love McDonalds ;)

Would rather eat animals to be honest. Preferably those hunted in the wild such as game etc.

If they can get it to the point where there is no discernable difference (which I would imagine is quite a feat), then I would choose lab grown meat over farmed meat in a second.

I think it would be a huge moral step in the right direction. Also, I imagine the cost of meat would shoot right down if they can mass produce using this technique.

Yuck...No, I'll stick with Quorn and veggies thanks.This sounds all too GM for my liking, speaking as a vegetarian, I wouldn't want to eat it!

We've been genetically modifying our foods for the last ten thousand years. Why complain now that we can approach it scientifically instead of by completely hit-and-miss methods?

We've been genetically modifying our foods for the last ten thousand years. Why complain now that we can approach it scientifically instead of by completely hit-and-miss methods?Not only that but GM foods have a tendency to be more environmentally friendly.

What about those that rely on the meat industry? Also the other businesses that are aligned too

Only way I could see this happening is the technology being franchised out creating a new kind of farmer.

As regards eating it...no problem if it came up to scratch.

I can remember chunks of soya being sold as meat. It must have been back in the late 1970's/early 80's.
They claimed that it tasted exactly the same as meat but was much cheaper. I bought some and it was like chewing rubber. It also smelt like burning rubber as it was cooking. Revolting stuff! I think I made some sort of a stew with it so plenty of vegetables etc. The most overwhelming smell and taste was of burning rubber though.
I can also remember soya mince being used in the schools. My mother in law was a cook at one of our infant/junior schools at the time.......late 70's/early 80's. They used this stuff to make cottage pies etc. She used to bring home any leftover "mince" in a coffee jar and feed it to the family. My husband was used to it but the first time I tried it (and I had no idea it wasn't real meat at that time).......I gagged! It was disgusting stuff and it tasted revolting. Dear ma in law often used to give us a jar of this foul stuff thinking she was doing us a favour. I used to dump it in the bin as soon as I got home.

I've a sneaky feeling that anything the scientists might create will never ever measure up to the "real deal". I'm not a big meat eater but I draw the line at artificially created substitutes. I think I would rather go without first.

There are some soya meat substitutes that taste quite nice these days. Sosmix and quorn chicken are two examples. Still - I prefer real meat.

Dragon of Ana

What about those that rely on the meat industry? Also the other businesses that are aligned too

It would have an effect on them obviously but that's not a reason not to do it. Everything changes eventually and we adapt to it.

Interesting. I would have thought that artificial muscle may have other applications than food.

I would be surprised if they could make this cost effective to produce compared to raising animals. I would also wait to see a nutritional comparison of the finished product with meat before buying it if it did come to market.

Deleted by me!

Sounds a bit like Soylent Green :gag:

Sounds a bit like Soylent Green :gag:

You beat me to it, I was thinking exactly the same thing when I saw the thread title...

"Today is Soylent Red day!"

If its meat Ill eat.

Steaks... if they artificially produce steaks... will there be blood...? Steaks and... well most meats are rubbish if there isnt blood with it. It flavours the meat as far as Im concerned and if there isnt at least some blood I wont eat it.

If they can get it to the point where there is no discernable difference (which I would imagine is quite a feat), then I would choose lab grown meat over farmed meat in a second.

I think it would be a huge moral step in the right direction. Also, I imagine the cost of meat would shoot right down if they can mass produce using this technique.

What do you consider moral about this? Go out anywhere into the countrside and you'll see farmers tending their land and working so hard for a living. You must love to see cows and sheep in the lovely pastures... none of this would exist if we could grow meat in a Petri dish and because the farmers would be put out of buisness the land would become barren. Tesco would open up genetic factories and rule the world. I never eat meat unless I know the animal has had a happy life and am well prepared to pay for it - I consider i'm supporting my local farmers and doing my bit to keep the countryside maintained. You can't do that in a lab

I never eat meat unless I know the animal has had a happy life and am well prepared to pay for it

Have you ever been in an abattoir when a cow is about to be killed? If you haven't, then I recommend it. I can assure you the animals are not happy when walking into the building. They know very well they are about to die, and it is not a pleasant experience.

In theory, labs could take up a lot less space than farms. The land could then be developed or reforested.

However, in practice I just can't see this being commercially competitive. Also, in most cell and tissue culture, foetal bovine serum is a major constituent of the standard growth media, so unless an alternative could be found for this application it would not be completely animal free.

I would first want to know just what the hell is in it and the process it goes through.

What do you consider moral about this? Go out anywhere into the countrside and you'll see farmers tending their land and working so hard for a living. You must love to see cows and sheep in the lovely pastures... none of this would exist if we could grow meat in a Petri dish and because the farmers would be put out of buisness the land would become barren. Tesco would open up genetic factories and rule the world. I never eat meat unless I know the animal has had a happy life and am well prepared to pay for it - I consider i'm supporting my local farmers and doing my bit to keep the countryside maintained. You can't do that in a lab

Was the land barren before we farmed it? Exact opposite in fact, it was far more biodiverse.

McDonalds beat them to it years ago :gag:

Only kidding i love McDonalds ;)

..and the inventors of the 'steakwich' were in before them :hihi:

Was the land barren before we farmed it? Exact opposite in fact, it was far more biodiverse.

It was forest. If forest is what you want then fine but Britain's countryside, the farms, pasture, moors etc are the product of human intervention. People seem to like this sort of countryside, think of The Lake District or The Peaks.

It was forest. If forest is what you want then fine but Britain's countryside, the farms, pasture, moors etc are the product of human intervention. People seem to like this sort of countryside, think of The Lake District or The Peaks.

But it isn't "natural" is the point

And redyam - they do not "know they are about to die" - that is absolute nonsense.

Hell, cows are not even self aware - they do not even have a concept of dying.

But it isn't "natural" is the point

And redyam - they do not "know they are about to die" - that is absolute nonsense.

Hell, cows are not even self aware - they do not even have a concept of dying.

Have you ever asked one?

Have you ever been in an abattoir when a cow is about to be killed? If you haven't, then I recommend it. I can assure you the animals are not happy when walking into the building. They know very well they are about to die, and it is not a pleasant experience.

Yeah I have been in abboitoirs on numerous occasions and I agree it's not a pretty sight. The thing is we eat meat and the animals would not have even existed if we didn't want to eat them. I think if you want to eat meat then you should get the basics right and see how the animal is prepared. There's a lot of difference between a cow in a field chewing grass and slices on a tray at the butchers. Thing is we're humans and designed to eat meat as are most other vertebrates. At least ..whilst we try to kill things in a humane way which may not be perfect .. it's a lot better than biting and clawing them to death

Was the land barren before we farmed it? Exact opposite in fact, it was far more biodiverse.

Was the petri dish barren before we farmed it ? .. a question that could hypothetically be asked in years to come. I think the thing is there are a lot more people about than before we started farming land and they need food (to answer your question) Of course the land wasnt barren before we started farming it ... it was full of coniferous and deciduous forests which were cut down to produce houses and warships . Biodiversity doesn't enter into it I think... sure - there are a lot of species becoming extinct but to be replaced by new ones ( where's the dinosaurs?) It's just evolution

And redyam - they do not "know they are about to die" - that is absolute nonsense.

Hell, cows are not even self aware - they do not even have a concept of dying.

Of course they know. Any animal will run away when they sense death. They get stressed, fearful. They can smell the blood and fear from previous cows that have been killed. they can hear the cry from others.

I enjoy my pork chops as much as anyone, but there is no point trying to make out that killing animals is a happy and joyful romp in the park.

Was the land barren before we farmed it? Exact opposite in fact, it was far more biodiverse.

It was but it wouldn't be. If we had no meat production those rolling pastures wouldnt revert to woods or even stay as they are, they would be concreted over and filled with chavs!

I think it's a bit extreme to think that all the millions of people who eat meat are suddenly going to switch to this fake stuff and leave all the farmers jobless!

I don't think people will ever stop eating real meat altogether but I think that it would certainly be useful for a niche market... eg families with an awkward teenage kid who insists on going veggie... or if you have vegetarian guests round to dinner when you are not veggie yourself...

Of course they know. Any animal will run away when they sense death. They get stressed, fearful. They can smell the blood and fear from previous cows that have been killed. they can hear the cry from others.

I enjoy my pork chops as much as anyone, but there is no point trying to make out that killing animals is a happy and joyful romp in the park.

Animals running away from something they fear doesn’t indicate they are aware of what's happening - otherwise, why would my dog be petrified by balloons? I'm reasonable sure that a balloon aint going to kill her but it doesn’t stop her cowering behind the TV the minute someone produces one.

Fear and the reaction to it is a hardwired instinct - pure and simple. Its little different to your leg kicking out when the doctor taps your knee.

Fear and the reaction to it is a hardwired instinct - pure and simple. Its little different to your leg kicking out when the doctor taps your knee.

How can you be sure of that? Surely you have no better reason to believe that than redyam does for believing that the cows know what's going on?

Right now they're both baseless assertions, I'd be interested if either of you could back them up with some evidence.

How can you be sure of that? Surely you have no better reason to believe that than redyam does for believing that the cows know what's going on?

Right now they're both baseless assertions, I'd be interested if either of you could back them up with some evidence.

Well, if you can't scientifically prove that animals are capable of understanding to that level what is going on around them, then scientifically at least, you have to assume that they arent capable of such understanding.

To think otherwise means you're straying dangerously close to anthropomorphism.

Of course they know. Any animal will run away when they sense death. They get stressed, fearful. They can smell the blood and fear from previous cows that have been killed. they can hear the cry from others.

I enjoy my pork chops as much as anyone, but there is no point trying to make out that killing animals is a happy and joyful romp in the park.

They may be "scared" and know that something is wrong - but they do not even know what death is, they do not even know that they themselves are alive

They categorically do not know they are about to die - every piece of scientific evidence will agree with me on this.

There are some animals who perhaps can know about death, such as elephants, because elephants are aware of themselves (as proven by the mirror test)

Well, if you can't scientifically prove that animals are capable of understanding to that level what is going on around them, then scientifically at least, you have to assume that they arent capable of such understanding.

To think otherwise means you're straying dangerously close to anthropomorphism.

scientifically you can believe what you wish unless there is proof to the contrary (which there isn't). Animals show fear about irrational things like humans. I think the safer assumption is that they are capable of understanding death.

scientifically you can believe what you wish unless there is proof to the contrary (which there isn't). Animals show fear about irrational things like humans. I think the safer assumption is that they are capable of understanding death.

I suppose we're at an impasse. As flamingjimmy said, it all comes down to differing assertions. I tend to agree more with auto98uk's point below - but I don’t have any categorical evidence for or against it.

There is the concept of limited intelligence when it comes to some animals especially cows. They have enough intelligence to learn which animals are friend or foe to ensure their survival but not enough to contemplate what existence is.

It has been shown that any fear an animal has of humans or other animals is usually learnt from past experience and is not inherited.

Although they say the artificial meat was like soggy pork I bet you it tastes like chicken!

scientifically you can believe what you wish unless there is proof to the contrary


No you can't. Science demands that you take the simplest available explanation which is consistent with the facts. Investing cows with self-awareness is not the simplest explanation, when not investing them with still explains the facts. To claim they have self-awareness is being unscientific.

No you can't. Science demands that you take the simplest available explanation which is consistent with the facts. Investing cows with self-awareness is not the simplest explanation, when not investing them with still explains the facts. To claim they have self-awareness is being unscientific.

that would be a scientific theory, there can be an opposing theory.

that would be a scientific theory.

No it wouldn't. That would be a basic underlying principle of science, which says you don't invoke complicated explanations unless the simple one has been shown to be invalid.

No it wouldn't. That would be a basic underlying principle of science, which says you don't invoke complicated explanations unless the simple one has been shown to be invalid.

except I don't think yours is a simpler theory, and there are often opposing theories in science even though one might be simpler than another.

A simple theory was that the earth was flat, another was that it was round.

except I don't think yours is a simpler theory


Science doesn't care what you think. Invoking self-awareness when the facts can be explained without doing so, is not being scientific.

Science doesn't care what you think. Invoking self-awareness when the facts can be explained without doing so, is not being scientific.

you are saying your theory is simpler, I don't think it is. Both of these theories are based on opinion unless you have actually researched your theory?

Just what is this "meat" made from? Chewing gum and duct tape? There could be anything going into this stuff. I'm doubtful it will taste anything like regular meat and probably will be a damn sight less healthy, one can only speculate about the chemicals that go into it.

I'll stick to the tried and tested normal meat, thanks.

"A simple theory was that the earth was flat, another was that it was round."

Its been know for thousands of years that the earth was round and I cant seem to remember any theory about it being flat.

Also the concept of limited intelligence and animals not being self aware is not based on opinions but one of research based on scientific study.

It was forest. If forest is what you want then fine but Britain's countryside, the farms, pasture, moors etc are the product of human intervention. People seem to like this sort of countryside, think of The Lake District or The Peaks.

Which to me are being ruined by all the fern growing and getting out of control. All because the moors aren't full of sheep and cows anymore.

Just what is this "meat" made from? Chewing gum and duct tape? There could be anything going into this stuff. I'm doubtful it will taste anything like regular meat and probably will be a damn sight less healthy, one can only speculate about the chemicals that go into it.

I'll stick to the tried and tested normal meat, thanks.

What was it Sarah Palin said in her autobiography? "If God hadn't intended us to eat animals why did he make them out of meat?" :hihi:

Just what is this "meat" made from? Chewing gum and duct tape? There could be anything going into this stuff. I'm doubtful it will taste anything like regular meat and probably will be a damn sight less healthy, one can only speculate about the chemicals that go into it.

I'll stick to the tried and tested normal meat, thanks.

pretty much I would have thought. If you think of what is in haribo type sweets, it will be that kind of thing. Polymers, sweeteners, flavourings:gag:

pretty much I would have thought. If you think of what is in haribo type sweets, it will be that kind of thing. Polymers, sweeteners, flavourings:gag:

So you didn't read the article before commenting on this thread then, fair enough.

It's actually meat, it's not pretend meat, they have made meat, that isn't a part of a living animal.

"A simple theory was that the earth was flat, another was that it was round."

Its been know for thousands of years that the earth was round and I cant seem to remember any theory about it being flat.

Also the concept of limited intelligence and animals not being self aware is not based on opinions but one of research based on scientific study.

Thats cos you weren't around longer than 1000s of years ago:D from wiki ancient babylon, china etc

I bet if I can be bothered I can find studies that answer each argument.

In science you have to make intelligent assumptions. The intelligent assumption to me in this case is that because they are like us they are likely to have similar feelings. So the burden of proof falls onto the "they don't" side. I have never read anything dissproves it therefore I will stick with my opinion

I remember stories about animals knowing their reflection in a mirror was actually them. I think it was a chimp. They put a sticker on his nose and when he saw it in the mirror he tried to get it off himself immediately and didn't go for the chimp in the mirror.

If you think I am saying they know a pension would be useful etc then I think we have different definitions of self awareness

So you didn't read the article before commenting on this thread then, fair enough.

It's actually meat, it's not pretend meat, they have made meat, that isn't a part of a living animal.

no I hadn't I had forgotton the point of the thread until that post. quick pass me the haribo its worse than I thought:gag: They harvested cells from what was presumably a living pig. I would have thought they then grew them to get more and whacked them in a broth made of animals anyway.

Its not actually meat then its synthetic meat, a bit like margerine vs butter. It will have taken no nutrients from the grass and will have not been tenderised through exercise. I bet to rectify this they will add flavourings and polymers!

I remember stories about animals knowing their reflection in a mirror was actually them. I think it was a chimp. They put a sticker on his nose and when he saw it in the mirror he tried to get it off himself immediately and didn't go for the chimp in the mirror.


Yes, it can be demonstrated that some animals possess some form of self awareness: the great apes, dolphins, and even elephants.

Not cows though.

We cannot assume that all animals have self awareness, else that would include single celled life and bacteria, which clearly aren't self aware. And neither can we say that no life apart from humans are self aware, because it can be demonstrated that some other mammals are self aware.

It has not been demonstrated that cows are self aware, and the simplest assumption is that they are not.

The general rule in the animal kingdom is not being self aware, especially with animals that have tiny brains like the cow. So that is the simpler assumption.

Cows aren't completely stupid... there were those ones that worked out how to roll on their backs over cattle grids and taught each other.

Has anyone ever mirror tested a cow?

Cows aren't completely stupid... there were those ones that worked out how to roll on their backs over cattle grids and taught each other.That's amazing! can you link me to more info?

Has anyone ever mirror tested a cow?I'm not sure but I once yelled 'beefburger' at one to see if it gave a reaction.

Hmm, dang memory. It was sheep!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3938591.stm

I take it back. On closer inspection, cows are probably none too bright. (Or at least I can't find them doing anything particularly interesting with Google.)

Edit: Wait... I found one! Go cows! http://ishare.rediff.com/video/news-politics/intelligent-cow-drinks-water-from-handpump/628163

Yes, it can be demonstrated that some animals possess some form of self awareness: the great apes, dolphins, and even elephants.

Not cows though.

We cannot assume that all animals have self awareness, else that would include single celled life and bacteria, which clearly aren't self aware. And neither can we say that no life apart from humans are self aware, because it can be demonstrated that some other mammals are self aware.

It has not been demonstrated that cows are self aware, and the simplest assumption is that they are not.

The general rule in the animal kingdom is not being self aware, especially with animals that have tiny brains like the cow. So that is the simpler assumption.

I think the simple assumption would be likening them to us before single celled life:hihi:

Hmm, dang memory. It was sheep!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3938591.stm

I take it back. On closer inspection, cows are probably none too bright. (Or at least I can't find them doing anything particularly interesting with Google.)

Edit: Wait... I found one! Go cows! http://ishare.rediff.com/video/news-politics/intelligent-cow-drinks-water-from-handpump/628163

I love cows, they are beautiful:D

They come up to my garden every day to watch my dog!

heres some interesting info
http://www.goveg.com/f-hiddenlivescows_knowhow.asp

I think we're getting intelligence confused with self awareness here though aren’t we? We can prove, to an extent at least, the intelligence of an animal, but It isn’t possible to prove that an animal has a level of self awareness.

Even the mirror test pre-supposes that an animal will attack another animal on sight, when we know this isn’t the case. Is it coincidence that the animals which seem to perform well in the mirror tests are also animals which live in complex social groups (Chimps, Elephants etc.)?

I think we're getting intelligence confused with self awareness here though aren’t we? We can prove, to an extent at least, the intelligence of an animal, but It isn’t possible to prove that an animal has a level of self awareness.

Even the mirror test pre-supposes that an animal will attack another animal on sight, when we know this isn’t the case. Is it coincidence that the animals which seem to perform well in the mirror tests are also animals which live in complex social groups (Chimps, Elephants etc.)?

It was this mirror test I was talking about. It isn't a test to see whether the chimps would attack. Ooh they did it with pigeons too!

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=L6IEOqytBPMC&pg=PA103&lpg=PA103&dq=mirror+dot+on+nose+animal&source=bl&ots=xXDc02Duqe&sig=EaVmRlq-tOJ2Lf_IH5P0RVwgQoY&hl=en&ei=tYQXS723DIu14Qbb3ZjeAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=mirror%20dot%20on%20nose%20animal&f=false

This also reminds me of that Torchwood episode where they found a huge animal that just kept on growing, and they harvested it for meat while it was still alive. Yuk!

And THAT reminds me of THIS (http://www.cracked.com/article_16951_6-most-sadistic-dishes-from-around-world.html).