Lab grown burger, would you eat it, if you could afford it?

1ZRed · 06-08-2013 01:42AM

johnr1 wrote: »

Please recheck your facts and stop peddling this lie.

Sorry what are the facts so? There's no vitamin A in Golden Rice? It's not helping to fight vitamin A defintincy in China which leads to vision problems?

Last time I checked it was doing all those things.

Should we all just stay in the dark ages forever because some peope are afraid of food not being grown in the tradishional way so therefore it's automatically bad and scary?

johnr1 · 06-08-2013 01:57AM

1ZRed wrote: »

Sorry what are the facts so? There's no vitamin A in Golden Rice? It's not helping to fight vitamin A defintincy in China which leads to vision problems?

Last time I checked it was doing all those things.

Should we all just stay in the dark ages forever because some peope are afraid of food not being grown in the tradishional way so therefore it's automatically bad and scary?

Last time you checked

I've no issue with these burgers, nor with gm food, nor even with golden rice.

You're right, it's NOT saving "millions of people's eysight in China" - at least not yet anyway.

As I asked you already,- recheck your "facts"

Hint: It was corrected recently in the thread about Monsanto leaving Euorope.

Sofiztikated · 06-08-2013 02:04AM

Would I try a lab grown burger? Why not. I wouldn't expect it to be particularly tasty, the same way mass produced, superfarmed chicken isn't particarly tasty.

If people are hungry, and grown meat can be produced on a large scale, transported and distrubuted cheaply, then why not.

However, the cynic in me thinks that it'll be unlikely to end up in Bumfúk, Africa, but rather Tesco Value Burgers for 99c for 4.

AlanS181824 · 06-08-2013 02:10AM

No, just no....please no.....

1ZRed · 06-08-2013 02:17AM

johnr1 wrote: »

Last time you checked

I've no issue with these burgers, nor with gm food, nor even with golden rice.

You're right, it's NOT saving "millions of people's eysight in China" - at least not yet anyway.

As I asked you already,- recheck your "facts"

Hint: It was corrected recently in the thread about Monsanto leaving Euorope.

Automatically equating GM food with Monsanto is a big mistake. They are but one company who are involved in genetically modified crops, but there are thousands of others who don't share their way of doing things.

Many people make their judgement on GMOs based on Monsanto, thinking genetic engineering of organisms are one in the same with them which only leads to yet more fearmongering and misinformation about the process.

Their pulling out of Europe has no baring on the value and significance of Golden Rice in China. It's in trials and it's the way forward in tackling the issue of vitamin A deficiency in China in an accessible and practical way.

Nothing has been corrected, care to link me to it?

Tweej · 06-08-2013 02:51AM

True, Gm crops have negative connotations, but what, I ask you, are the alternatives. Since we've started selective breeding, all those years ago, the nutrition has been bred out of food.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/opinion/sunday/breeding-the-nutrition-out-of-our-food.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Hence why we eat far too much food, there's no nutrition in it!

Gm crops, once we stop companies from installing the kill gene into crops, then we're well on our way.

The alternative, the modern approach to selective breeding? Bombard a crop with radiation. Shoot it with alpha, beta and gamma particles until it gets a mutation, a positive one, which they can breed into other crops.

I'd much rather know what they've implanted into it than take my chance with the lottery that nature is forced to provide with the radiation.

This meat synthesis, I think that there isn't a whole lot of alternatives. The amount of food it takes to feed farm animals, the amount of carbon emissions it contributes to (http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/articles/others/TakApr08.html 8.2%), the ever increasing world population, it's not a sustainable model.

If we can print, synthesize, whatever you want to call it, our food, healthily, sustain-ably, without any hiccups or problems, and it is able to fill our RDAs and still tastes good, then I'm all for it. This doesn't mean that real meat will be gone, but it does mean that we don't have to rely on it as much as we currently do.

http://www.reverseshot.com/files/images/issue26/2cents.jpg

Irish Guitarist · 06-08-2013 07:03AM

Sam Kade wrote: »

Why do vegetarians crave meat like alternatives? Are all vegetarians living a lie

Some vegetarians like the taste of meat but don't want to eat dead animals. Is that really such a difficult concept to grasp?

the_syco · 06-08-2013 08:28AM

Considering what currently goes into the McDonalds burgers (pink slime), I have no doubt the general public will eat it if it's put in front of them at fast food restaurants.

Tweej wrote: »

True, Gm crops have negative connotations, but what, I ask you, are the alternatives. Since we've started selective breeding, all those years ago, the nutrition has been bred out of food.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/opinion/sunday/breeding-the-nutrition-out-of-our-food.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Looked up the author "Jo Robinson", and found that she's not some journalist writing a subjective piece, but someone with a huge "eat wild food" bias, who has an agenda in getting people to buy her "eat wild" books. Maybe link to something with less of such bias?

Sam Kade · 06-08-2013 09:08AM

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

Some vegetarians like the taste of meat but don't want to eat dead animals. Is that really such a difficult concept to grasp?

Then why not just eat vegetables instead of trying to make them look like a form of meat.

Judgement Day · 06-08-2013 09:10AM

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

Some vegetarians like the taste of meat but don't want to eat dead animals. Is that really such a difficult concept to grasp?

Why is the fact that humans are animals such a difficult concept to accept i.e. we eat to survive. The fact that we are omnivores has helped our survival and nature is cruel - ask an Osprey eating a salmon if it would prefer a quorn burger.

Sam Kade · 06-08-2013 09:14AM

1ZRed wrote: »

I don't understand the fear of this and the unnatural debate at all. This is just growing muscle cells in a lab that you'll eat. There's nothing scary or worrying about it.

I'd sooner take an 'unnatural' burger made using 100% lab meat than carcass scrapings and synthetic fillers that make up the bulk of most cheap burgers you buy today.

The lab burger was not 100% beef and I highly doubt that if it ever gets to the supermarket shelf that it will be 100% beef.

Shenshen · 06-08-2013 09:41AM

Judgement Day wrote: »

Why is the fact that humans are animals such a difficult concept to accept i.e. we eat to survive. The fact that we are omnivores has helped our survival and nature is cruel - ask an Osprey eating a salmon if it would prefer a quorn burger.

So because we are animals, we should have no choice in what we eat and don't eat? Really?

And here's me thinking that being human is all about being actually able understand consequences of your actions, and make choices based on that understanding.

Shenshen · 06-08-2013 09:44AM

To answer the OP, I might give it a try.

I've been vegetarian for a good few years now (my husband "converted" me

), and to be honest I'm not really sure I would still actually like the taste of meat.

I fell off the wagon a few years back and had some meat, a burger in Burger King, and I couldn't finish it. I ended up removing the meat from the bun and just eating the bun with what little beg there was on it. Yet I do like a Linda McCartney burger. So I really don't know how my taste buds would react.

Red Nissan · 06-08-2013 09:48AM

It is one more step toward the replicator in Star Trek, far more advanced than I thought they were.

Nothing wrong with this, it may however need a lot of flavouring and that is where the trouble could start.

Zascar · 06-08-2013 10:59AM

Brilliant video on it here featuring Google's Sergey Brin http://www.theguardian.com/science/video/2013/aug/05/google-burger-sergey-brin-lab-grown-hamburger

Shows exactly why we should be going towards synthetically grown meat

AndonHandon · 06-08-2013 11:02AM

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Is that not one of Kim Yong Un's slogans

The sacrifice is the non-lab meat alternative. What will you do when cow-rearing is done on such a small scale that a bit of meat from it will cost more than a lab burger?

Sam Kade · 06-08-2013 11:37AM

Zascar wrote: »

Brilliant video on it here featuring Google's Sergey Brin http://www.theguardian.com/science/video/2013/aug/05/google-burger-sergey-brin-lab-grown-hamburger

Shows exactly why we should be going towards synthetically grown meat

How does it? That fella in the video believes meat comes from cows shows exactly his knowledge of beef production.

Conmaicne Mara · 06-08-2013 11:39AM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

it's very possible that this technology will develop into a viable challenger to real meat, even if it never actually equals it

Thanks for agreeing with me.

Jev/N wrote: »

That's a ridiculously broad statement and somewhat short-sighted

I'd prefer to say it's informed statement. Name a synthetic food that's higher quality than properly raised natural food?

AndonHandon wrote: »

The sacrifice is the non-lab meat alternative. What will you do when cow-rearing is done on such a small scale that a bit of meat from it will cost more than a lab burger?

I don't rear cows

There will always be significant demand for proper Irish meat.

steddyeddy · 06-08-2013 11:53AM

This is Citric acid: C6H8O7 and this is synthetic Citric acid:
C6H8O7. If the they do it right there should be no difference.

I Heart Internet · 06-08-2013 11:56AM

I think I'd eat it. Yeah, no big deal.

It could be the start of a revolution in how we feed the world.....could be...

paddy147 · 06-08-2013 12:19PM

"if you are hungry enough you will eat it"

But 220,000 quid just to make 1 burger.

And then to be told.....its needs more salt and pepear to make it taste nice.

Cant wait to see the price of the steak.:pac::pac::pac::D

Conmaicne Mara · 06-08-2013 12:21PM

paddy147 wrote: »

And then to be told.....its needs more salt and pepear to make it taste nice.

And that's after it was fried in half an inch of butter.

BeerWolf · 06-08-2013 12:24PM

'stem cell' burger... just doesn't sound very appealing

paddy147 · 06-08-2013 12:25PM

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

And that's after it was fried in half an inch of butter.

That female taster kinda reminds me of this episode of the simpsons...:pac::pac:

AtomicHorror · 06-08-2013 01:25PM

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Thanks for agreeing with me.

Very black and white kind of person, aren't you? I accept the possibility of some fragment of what you said, so therefore I agree with you. Do you raise Suffolks by any chance? You might need to branch out a bit.

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

I'd prefer to say it's informed statement. Name a synthetic food that's higher quality than properly raised natural food?

This is no more synthetic than beer or yogurt- just more difficult to make. A synthetic meat would be formed from raw molecular components, not grown from actual animal cells. The word you want is "cultured". This is not semantics, the distinction is really meaningful.

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

I don't rear cows There will always be significant demand for proper Irish meat.

Define "always"? The world has changed a lot in the last few centuries, but even more in the last few decades. Stating that anything will "always be" is irrational, stating it right as a the early signs of change emerge is baffling.

Conmaicne Mara · 06-08-2013 01:50PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Very black and white kind of person, aren't you? I accept the possibility of some fragment of what you said, so therefore I agree with you. Do you raise Suffolks by any chance? You might need to branch out a bit.

This is no more synthetic than beer or yogurt- just more difficult to make. A synthetic meat would be formed from raw molecular components, not grown from actual animal cells. The word you want is "cultured". This is not semantics, the distinction is really meaningful.

Define "always"? The world has changed a lot in the last few centuries, but even more in the last few decades. Stating that anything will "always be" is irrational, stating it right as a the early signs of change emerge is baffling.

You agreed with the point I've been making, that's fairly obvious. No, I wouldn't have suffolks on the place. Maybe NZ suffolks are different but any I've had experience with were too soft and wanted to lie down and die as soon as they'd get out of the ewe instead of getting up and suckling.

Beer and yoghurt are easy made. I wouldn't class either as synthetic, you don't need a lab to make them.

Dictionary.com can define always for you I'd say. Throughout history there have been many false dawns. After all, you have just agreed with me a few posts ago so I'm satisfied I've made my points adequately.

AtomicHorror · 06-08-2013 01:52PM

Bit more detail here:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23996-whats-the-beef-cultured-meat-remains-a-distant-dream.html?page=2#.UgDw_Ra9sTs

The feeling seems to be that this could be commercially viable in 10 years, though it might be longer. The researcher even mentions a point I raised earlier- this could become a craft/cottage industry as well as a large scale industrial process.

AtomicHorror · 06-08-2013 02:06PM

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

You agreed with the point I've been making, that's fairly obvious.

We agree that getting lab meat to match real meat is a huge undertaking and may not be possible. We don't agree about the significance of that view, which is much more important.

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Beer and yoghurt are easy made. I wouldn't class either as synthetic, you don't need a lab to make them.

It took many thousands of years for the methods involved to be developed, and they're still evolving today. It's short sighted to refer to them as easy, and irrelevant besides that. Easy or hard isn't the dividing line between cultured and synthetic.

So if it has to be made in a lab, it's synthetic? That's not what that word means.

The bio-reactors in the Guinness brewery are just larger versions of the desktop ones used in labs. If we only made Guinness on that small scale, it would not be called synthetic. The only reason a lab is needed to make stem cell meat right now is because the equipment has not been scaled up. If it was scaled up, would stem cell meat suddenly go from being "synthetic" to "cultured"? I reckon you would still call it by whatever name made it sound least appealing.

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Dictionary.com can define always for you I'd say.

I want to know what you mean by it, because the definitions on that site make you sound even more certain of something you can't possibly know.

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Throughout history there have been many false dawns. After all, you have just agreed with me a few posts ago so I'm satisfied I've made my points adequately.

For a guy who makes a point of calling people out for misrepresenting him, you sure pull a lot of that crap yourself.

Conmaicne Mara · 06-08-2013 02:15PM

You can take the dictionary.com meaning as mine.

Brewing and yoghurt making are easy, I can make both in my home. I don't need to pay over the odds to support a multinational.

The point you agreed with is stem cell meat won't ever match properly raised Irish meat for quality and flavour.

You're leaving skid marks on the forum now trying to backtrack, too late, it's above there somewhere in black and white

.

1ZRed · 06-08-2013 02:22PM

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

You can take the dictionary.com meaning as mine.

Brewing and yoghurt making are easy, I can make both in my home. I don't need to pay over the odds to support a multinational.

The point you agreed with is stem cell meat won't ever match properly raised Irish meat for quality and flavour.

You're leaving skid marks on the forum now trying to backtrack, too late, it's above there somewhere in black and white .

How do you possibly know it won't ever match the quality and flavour of Irish meat?

You're only making an assumption based on nothing. The technology is yet to evolve and we may come to a point where it matches Irish meat.

Right now it's the texture of the meat that they're trying to work out, but the technology is young and they could develop ways to get the meat to grow in a more natural way in order to get that texture found in non-synthetic meat now.

To be honest you only sound extremely closed minded and only want to believe what you want. There's a viable market for this because with a growing population which is hungry for meat we can't keep going clearing land for cattle and investing huge amounts of water and other resources into them. It's just not sustainable long-term.

Lab grown burger, would you eat it, if you could afford it?

Comments