Growing Meat Without Animals!?!

[Warped]

By Charles Q. Choi, Special to LiveScience

posted: 19 November 2009 08:03 am ET

Winston Churchill once predicted that it would be possible to grow chicken breasts and wings more efficiently without having to keep an actual chicken. And in fact scientists have since figured out how to grow tiny nuggets of lab meat and say it will one day be possible to produce steaks in vats, sans any livestock.

Pork chops or burgers cultivated in labs could eliminate contamination problems that regularly generate headlines these days, as well as address environmental concerns that come with industrial livestock farms.

However, such research opens up strange and perhaps even disturbing possibilities once considered only the realm of science fiction. After all, who knows what kind of meat people might want to grow to eat?

Advantages touted

Increasingly, bioengineers are growing nerve, heart and other tissues in labs. Recently, scientists even reported developing artificial penis tissue in rabbits. Although such research is meant to help treat patients, biomedical engineer Mark Post at Maastricht University in the Netherlands and his colleagues suggest it could also help feed the rising demand for meat worldwide.

The researchers noted that growing skeletal muscle in labs — the kind people typically think of as the meat they eat — could help tackle a number of problems:

* Avoiding animal suffering by reducing the farming and killing of livestock.
* Dramatically cutting down on food-borne ailments such as mad cow disease and salmonella or germs such as swine flu, by monitoring the growth of meat in labs.
* Livestock currently take up 70 percent of all agricultural land, corresponding to 30 percent of the world's land surface, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. Labs would presumably require much less space.
* Livestock generate 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, more than all of the vehicles on Earth, the FAO added. Since the animals themselves are mostly responsible for these gases, reducing livestock numbers could help alleviate global warming.

Need to scale up

Stem cells are considered the most promising source for such meat, retaining as they do the capacity to transform into the required tissues, and the scientists pointed to satellite cells, which are the natural muscle stem cells responsible for regeneration and repair in adults. Embryonic stem cells could also be used, but they are obviously plagued by ethical concerns, and they could grow into tissues besides the desired muscles.

To grow meat in labs from satellite cells, the researchers suggested current tissue-engineering techniques, where stem cells are often embedded in synthetic three-dimensional biodegradable matrixes that can present the chemical and physical environments that cells need to develop properly. Other key factors would involve electrically stimulating and mechanically stretching the muscles to exercise them, helping them mature properly, and perhaps growing other cells alongside the satellite cells to provide necessary molecular cues.

So far past scientists have grown only small nuggets of skeletal muscle, about half the size of a thumbnail. Such tidbits could be used in sauces or pizzas, Post and colleagues explained recently in the online edition of the journal Trends in Food Science & Technology, but creating a steak would demand larger-scale production.

Dark thoughts

The expectation is that if such meat is ever made, scientists will opt for beef, pork, chicken or fish. However, science fiction has long toyed with the darker possibilities that cloned meat presents.

In Warren Ellis and Darick Robertson's epic sci-fi satire "Transmetropolitan," supermarkets and fast food joints sell dolphin, manatee, whale, baby seal, monkey and reindeer, while the Long Pig franchise sells "cloned human meat at prices you like."

"In principle, we could harvest the meat progenitor cells from fresh human cadavers and grow meat from them," Post said. "Once taken out of its disease and animalistic, cannibalistic context — you are not killing fellow citizens for it, they are already dead — there is no reason why not."

Of course, there are many potential objections that people could have to growing beef, chicken or pork in the lab, much less more disturbing meats. Still, Post suggests that marketing could overcome such hurdles.

"If every package of naturally grown meat by law should have the text, 'Beware, animals have been killed for this product,' I can imagine a gradual cultural shift," Post said. "Of course, we still have a long way to go to make a product that is even remotely competitive with current products."

http://www.livescience.com/health/091119-lab-meat.html

wow this stuff is crazy weird. I'm gunna miss the good old days of biting into a fresh cow for dinner or stabbing a deer and letting its blood ooze through my teeth

 

[MuToiD_MaN]

That is pretty damn disturbing. Just a hunk of biological tissue growing in a lab, which someone takes, cooks, and EATS. An edible science experiment. And not the good kind.

Also:

SPAAAAACE MEAAAAT

 

[Tyguy]

There's no reason why this shouldn't be the source of all meat in the future.

THINK OF THE AMINALS!!!!

 

[Dog--]

Great now not only o we have the human overpopulation problem, we'll have animals too! ****!

 

[Tyguy]

Great now not only o we have the human overpopulation problem, we'll have animals too! ****!

i believe the whole idea is we will have less animals

 

[MJ12]

 

[Captain M4d]

I'm sure the sex toy industry is greatly intrigued by this news.

Edit: ZT, what's that from?

 

[MJ12]

I wonder what vegetarians and vegans think of this.

Edit: ZT, what's that from?

Transmetropolitan.

 

[Eejit]

That is pretty damn disturbing. Just a hunk of biological tissue growing in a lab, which someone takes, cooks, and EATS. An edible science experiment.

Why is that disturbing? It won't be a science experiment any more than being vaccinated is being injected with a science experiment or driving a vehicle with an internal combustion engine is sitting on an engineering experiment.

I expect this will happen eventually - but we're a long way off it being viable for large scale production even if overpriced, it'll take even longer before it's economically viable.
Cell culture medium is expensive.

 

[Captain M4d]

I wonder what vegetarians and vegans think of this.



Transmetropolitan.

Is that one graphic novel? Or a series? I'm kinda slow on getting to graphic novels, but I'm building a list of ones I want to read. We3 is next for me.

 

[MJ12]

10 volumes.

 

[Eejit]

I wonder what vegetarians and vegans think of this.

In favour of it in general.
I believe some Green Hippie group (FotE maybe) have a standing 1 million dollar reward for anyone who can create meat artifically on a useable scale.

 

[VirusType2]

Vegetarian here. I'm all for this, of course.

* Avoiding animal suffering by reducing the farming and killing of livestock.
* Dramatically cutting down on food-borne ailments such as mad cow disease and salmonella or germs such as swine flu, by monitoring the growth of meat in labs.
* Livestock currently take up 70 percent of all agricultural land, corresponding to 30 percent of the world's land surface, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. Labs would presumably require much less space.
* Livestock generate 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, more than all of the vehicles on Earth, the FAO added. Since the animals themselves are mostly responsible for these gases, reducing livestock numbers could help alleviate global warming.

 

[Captain M4d]

In favour of it in general.
I believe some Green Hippie group (FotE maybe) have a standing 1 million dollar reward for anyone who can create meat artifically on a useable scale.

I think it could effectively blur the lines between being a strict herbivore and an omnivore. Some people will be opposed to it, because it's not natural, though maybe not--the majority of affluent people buy food with tons of synthetic chemicals inside; most of what the market is eating is already highly unnatural.

I'm just wondering if synthetic meat grew popular enough to become a major staple in the grocery market, would another divide amongst people be created?

How many groups of food eaters would there be?

 

[Eejit]

All of what the market is eating is highly unnatural - with the exception of seafood. Everything else has been selectively bred for millennia for our purposes.

 

[VirusType2]

If this were to become mainstream, able to compete with live animal meat, then I can imagine lots of criticism for continuing to eat live animal meat. Consider people wearing real animal fur getting paint cans poured on them.

 

[Eejit]

Probably, though it ain't gonna happen any time soon.

 

[MJ12]

In favour of it in general.
I believe some Green Hippie group (FotE maybe) have a standing 1 million dollar reward for anyone who can create meat artifically on a useable scale.

Well there are a lot of Vegans and other groups who think eating "anything" genetically altered/manufactured is wrong, IE: Green Peace talking about how genetically modified tomatoes are bad, etc.

 

[Eejit]

True, a lot of them are idiots and hypocrites. Not all though.
For example a lot of people involved in slaughtering are veggies, such as the relevant vets or people working in abbatoirs. It's not because they're a tree-hugging hippie pothead.

 

[PvtRyan]

I said this in another thread, but I think we should learn to eat insects. It has many of the benefits, but it's actually viable right now.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

If only insects weren't just full of goo.
If every insect was like a little drumstick, that would be great.

 

[fishdbaz]

Wow, how fitting; I just read a facinating article on this subject earlier today.
http://hplusmagazine.com/articles/bio/eight-ways-vitro-meat-will-change-our-lives
There doesn't really seem to be any serious downside to IV meat from what I've read.
Does anyone here know of any?

 

[Raziaar]

Is it just me, or does anybody else remember this thing being posted and talked about years and years ago here?

If only insects weren't just full of goo.
If every insect was like a little drumstick, that would be great.

There's some FANTASTIC tasting insects out there apparently. Like these little grub things that burrow through trees in Australia. I saw Les Stroud from survivorman using a hook to pull them out after chopping open part of the tree, and then he roasted them.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

I wonder what vegetarians and vegans think of this.

I'm for it. Doesn't mean I'll eat it because it will still probably taste like it does; and I hate that taste.

 

[VirusType2]

There doesn't really seem to be any serious downside to IV meat from what I've read.
Does anyone here know of any?

The expense.

 

[fishdbaz]

The expense.

Wouldn't we be saving resources by not having to feed and breed 1.5 billion (or whatever the number is now) livestock? Not to mention the resources that we currently have to put into clearing land for them, housing them and cleaning up all of their waste.

Looking at that article that I mentioned again, it seems to me that the most negative impact will be felt by farmers and fishermen. I'm really dreading to what's going to go down in Canada's maritime regions once IV meat takes hold of the mass market. The maritimes have traditionally had a weaker economy than the rest of Canada and are dependant upon the fishing industry. Mind you, My knowledge of geography isn't exactly the greatest, so anyone correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Warped]

there are pros and cons to everything. growing meat needs energy no matter how you look at it. i'm sure this would drive up energy costs one way or another

 

[VirusType2]

Wouldn't we be saving resources by not having to feed and breed 1.5 billion (or whatever the number is now) livestock? Not to mention the resources that we currently have to put into clearing land for them, housing them and cleaning up all of their waste.

I know, but when I say expense, I'm talking million dollar investments.

A live chicken is about $10, requires very little living space, lays dozens of eggs, then is sold as meat, all for a very low cost diet to keep it alive. The skill required to keep it alive could be done by someone without any formal education whatsoever. The meat sells for almost the price of the chicken itself. There is basically no investment, no loss, and the profit is there right away.

Lab meat will be expensive - it will require extremely expensive equipment and I would assume that the staff will require a very high level of education.

Not only that, but I think people will be reluctant to invest in something untested like this.

Lab meat will be dead in the water for decades, if not a century, in my opinion. It's basically coal vs nuclear power all over again.

I do look forward to the Star Trek 'food materializer' era, though it may not be in my life-time.

One thing that could really help push this forward would be a lucrative use for all that extra land. I think there would be a need for a hefty cash crop (opium comes to mind) to get people to change their livelihood.

 

[fishdbaz]

there are pros and cons to everything. growing meat needs energy no matter how you look at it. i'm sure this would drive up energy costs one way or another

The thing is, we'd be feeding a hunk of cow meat as opposed to the whole cow, meaning a whole lot less resources are being wasted on superfluous bits. I do agree that energy costs will rise, but more as a result of growing demand upon the meat industry due to rising population than the energy requirements of manufacturing IV meat.
EDIT:

I know, but when I say expense, I'm talking million dollar investments.

A live chicken is about $10, requires very little living space, lays dozens of eggs, then is sold as meat, all for a very low cost diet to keep it alive. The skill required to keep it alive could be done by someone without any formal education whatsoever. The meat sells for almost the price of the chicken itself. There is basically no investment, no loss, and the profit is there right away.

Lab meat will be expensive - it will require extremely expensive equipment and I would assume that the staff will require a very high level of education.

Not only that, but I think people will be reluctant to invest in something untested like this.

Lab meat will be dead in the water for decades, if not a century, in my opinion. It's basically coal vs nuclear power all over again.

I do look forward to the Star Trek 'food materializer' era, though it may not be in my life-time.

One thing that could really help push this forward would be a lucrative use for all that extra land. I think there would be a need for a hefty cash crop (opium comes to mind) to get people to change their livelihood.

I was thinking of something more like the car industry, with an assembly line type setup with most of the work being done by machines. Of course, I suppose "I was thinking" isn't much of an argument. Really though, even if the work was all being done by scientists, wouldn't the cost eventually end up being lower than a traditional meat industry anyways? (especially considering what the cost of global warming could end up being.)

 

[VirusType2]

Right now, stem cell research is highly advanced. Just because they have proven it may be possible doesn't mean we'll see McDonald's Labs popping up any time soon, that's all I'm saying.

 

[Eejit]

The thing is, we'd be feeding a hunk of cow meat as opposed to the whole cow, meaning a whole lot less resources are being wasted on superfluous bits

Easily countered by the fact that what you're feeding the vat meat is going to be more expensive than grass and sileage and must be manufactured and shipped undery sterile conditions, not to mention being more energy intensive to produce.
Do you have any idea how much bacteria and fungi love cell culture media? You have to keep the stuff full of antibiotics and anti-fungals and even then you'll still get the occasional growth.