Where's The Beef ?!?

[dragon wench]

This is a bit old, it seems, but I just ran across it while surfing around another forum. It seemed worthwhile to share

http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0709-rhett_butler.html

Cultured meat grown in lab petri dish could help solve world food problems
University of Maryland Press Release
July 9, 2005


Experiments for NASA space missions have shown that small amounts of edible meat can be created in a lab. But the technology that could grow chicken nuggets without the chicken, on a large scale, may not be just a science fiction fantasy.

In a paper in the June 29 issue of Tissue Engineering, a team of scientists, including University of Maryland doctoral student Jason Matheny, propose two new techniques of tissue engineering that may one day lead to affordable production of in vitro - lab grown -- meat for human consumption. It is the first peer-reviewed discussion of the prospects for industrial production of cultured meat.

"There would be a lot of benefits from cultured meat," says Matheny, who studies agricultural economics and public health. "For one thing, you could control the nutrients. For example, most meats are high in the fatty acid Omega 6, which can cause high cholesterol and other health problems. With in vitro meat, you could replace that with Omega 3, which is a healthy fat.

"Cultured meat could also reduce the pollution that results from raising livestock, and you wouldn't need the drugs that are used on animals raised for meat."

Prime Without the Rib

The idea of culturing meat is to create an edible product that tastes like cuts of beef, poultry, pork, lamb or fish and has the nutrients and texture of meat.

Scientists know that a single muscle cell from a cow or chicken can be isolated and divided into thousands of new muscle cells. Experiments with fish tissue have created small amounts of in vitro meat in NASA experiments researching potential food products for long-term space travel, where storage is a problem.

"But that was a single experiment and was geared toward a special situation - space travel," says Matheny. "We need a different approach for large scale production."

Matheny's team developed ideas for two techniques that have potential for large scale meat production. One is to grow the cells in large flat sheets on thin membranes. The sheets of meat would be grown and stretched, then removed from the membranes and stacked on top of one another to increase thickness.

The other method would be to grow the muscle cells on small three-dimensional beads that stretch with small changes in temperature. The mature cells could then be harvested and turned into a processed meat, like nuggets or hamburgers.

Treadmill Meat

To grow meat on a large scale, cells from several different kinds of tissue, including muscle and fat, would be needed to give the meat the texture to appeal to the human palate.

"The challenge is getting the texture right," says Matheny. "We have to figure out how to 'exercise' the muscle cells. For the right texture, you have to stretch the tissue, like a live animal would."

Where's the Beef?

And, the authors agree, it might take work to convince consumers to eat cultured muscle meat, a product not yet associated with being produced artificially.

"On the other hand, cultured meat could appeal to people concerned about food safety, the environment, and animal welfare, and people who want to tailor food to their individual tastes," says Matheny. The paper even suggests that meat makers may one day sit next to bread makers on the kitchen counter.

"The benefits could be enormous," Matheny says. "The demand for meat is increasing world wide -- China 's meat demand is doubling every ten years. Poultry consumption in India has doubled in the last five years.

"With a single cell, you could theoretically produce the world's annual meat supply. And you could do it in a way that's better for the environment and human health. In the long term, this is a very feasible idea."

Matheny saw so many advantages in the idea that he joined several other scientists in starting a nonprofit, New Harvest, to advance the technology. One of these scientists, Henk Haagsman, Professor of Meat Science at Utrecht University, received a grant from the Dutch government to produce cultured meat, as part of a national initiative to reduce the environmental impact of food production.

Other authors of the paper are Pieter Edelman of Wageningen University , Netherlands ; Douglas McFarland, South Dakota State University ; and Vladimir Mironov, Medical University of South Carolina.

I don't know.. I think I'd rather stick with meat from animals that have been raised in a free range setting and fed organic foods.

[Fiona]

There is indeed a horrific science fiction story about this - the meat was called Chicken Little. I cannot remember the name of it unfortunately, But it has put me off this idea, however irrational that may be

Found it
http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=1002

[ik911]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dragon wench I think I'd rather stick with meat from animals that have been raised in a free range setting and fed organic foods.

Think KFC and think again. They're practically growing tissue, too. Difference is that their meat comes with one (useless) head and two (unused) paws and is grown outside of petridishes... Probably because petridishes are more expensive than cages.

If they can make nice cheap nuggets as described, it would save a lot of chicken-suffering.
@Vegetarians and animal activists: I'll kill an innocent animal if you turn this into a don't-eat-meat thread...

[Kipi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dragon wench And, the authors agree, it might take work to convince consumers to eat cultured muscle meat, a product not yet associated with being produced artificially. "On the other hand, cultured meat could appeal to people concerned about food safety...

Heh, that would be very hard in the world where even a food which genes has been even partially changed has very small popularity. Today people aren't so keen to buy such foods, due the fact that they can't be sure that it's healthy, so I do not expect any changes to that additude any time soon.
Also, how can we be sure that it's actually safe? Yes, I'm not so interested about eating genetically changed (or what ever the correct term of such food is) food, I if speaking truth I do not believe the popularity of totally lab-made food would be high even if there were techonolgy and knowledge to actually do it.

[Chimaera182]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dragon wench I don't know.. I think I'd rather stick with meat from animals that have been raised in a free range setting and fed organic foods.

It's probably no less tasty than "regular" meat. And it's supposedly better for you. What exactly is the problem? The "distatasteful" way in which the meat came into being? Phbt, hogwash.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kipi Heh, that would be very hard in the world where even a food which genes has been even partially changed has very small popularity. Today people aren't so keen to buy such foods, due the fact that they can't be sure that it's healthy, so I do not expect any changes to that additude any time soon. Also, how can we be sure that it's actually safe? Yes, I'm not so interested about eating genetically changed (or what ever the correct term of such food is) food, I if speaking truth I do not believe the popularity of totally lab-made food would be high even if there were techonolgy and knowledge to actually do it.

The first part's certainly true. People in starving nations have rejected genetically-engineered vegetables and fruits simply for that reason. They chose to starve instead, because people afraid of such change drove that fear into their minds, and intensified it. Small-minded people who claimed that "we don't know" what eating such food will do--using bizarre examples like how people who eat it might mutate--encouraged turning away life-saving food.

As for how healthy it might be, people have argued against many reforms over the years, even when it came to food. Even if it would clearly benefit them, they can argue against it just because it's different, and accuse it of being bad for them. Is it unhealthy for them? There's no evidence of that. And there may never be any evidence of that.

[Georgi]

I don't see why test-tube meat is needed to solve the world's food problems... I mean, it's not like meat is an essential part of anyone's diet, is it? (Except maybe Bloodstalker ) And this meat would be produced in the places where there is already plenty of food. Wouldn't it be less effort to, you know, farm more real food and make sure it gets to the places where it's needed?

[Chimaera182]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Georgi I don't see why test-tube meat is needed to solve the world's food problems... I mean, it's not like meat is an essential part of anyone's diet, is it? (Except maybe Bloodstalker ) And this meat would be produced in the places where there is already plenty of food. Wouldn't it be less effort to, you know, farm more real food and make sure it gets to the places where it's needed?

People have genetically engineered fruits and vegetables. Anyway, meat is a perfectly necessary part of a person's diet.

[Georgi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimaera182 People have genetically engineered fruits and vegetables.

Yes, and notice how I said "farm real food".

Quote:

Anyway, meat is a perfectly necessary part of a person's diet.

No, it's really not. Yes, you can eat it; yes, you can survive perfectly well and eat a perfectly balanced diet without it. People are not dying in developing countries because they haven't had a good steak recently.

[Chimaera182]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Georgi Yes, and notice how I said "farm real food". No, it's really not. Yes, you can eat it; yes, you can survive perfectly well and eat a perfectly balanced diet without it. People are not dying in developing countries because they haven't had a good steak recently.

I did notice. If it was easier to just grow "farm real food" like you suggest, don't you think it would have been done by now? That's all I'll even say to that.

And yes, it is. Why else is it that people who cut meat out of their diets need to take supplements or find other substitutes for what they would have otherwise gotten out of meat?

[Fiona]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimaera182 I did notice. If it was easier to just grow "farm real food" like you suggest, don't you think it would have been done by now? That's all I'll even say to that.

So far as I know it has been done. Lots and lots of food is deliberately destroyed to keep prices up. Governments pay farmers not to produce now. The problem is not food shortage. It is distribution and politics and stuff like that. None of that will change with a new source

Quote:

And yes, it is. Why else is it that people who cut meat out of their diets need to take supplements or find other substitutes for what they would have otherwise gotten out of meat?

I don't think that is true. Many people do not eat meat with no ill effects at all. It perhaps arguable that those of us who were brought up in meat eating cultures find it difficult to adapt and need supplements. But that is probably because cutting meat out is not enough in itself; the whole approach to cooking needs to change at the same time

[Darzog]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimaera182 If it was easier to just grow "farm real food" like you suggest, don't you think it would have been done by now? That's all I'll even say to that.

Well, I don't know a lot about this subject, and I hate to give people yet another reason to roll their eyes at the US, but in the US some farmers are paid by the government not to grow food. And the justification is that if they farmed all their land the food supply in the US would drive prices down which would then drive farmers out of business.

That money could easily be used to buy the food and transport it instead. But then you get into issues like how do you get the food through the government / warlords to the people in need, how do you get the people to trust the food they are getting, etc. It's still a complicated issue, but there are available resources intentionally not being used.

[Georgi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimaera182 I did notice. If it was easier to just grow "farm real food" like you suggest, don't you think it would have been done by now? That's all I'll even say to that.

Well, I second what Fiona says. There is plenty of real food, it's just not getting to where it needs to go. The idea of growing this meat, the effects of which nobody really knows, and pawning it off on poverty-stricken people while the western world continues to dine on real meat... frankly, they deserve better.

Quote:

And yes, it is. Why else is it that people who cut meat out of their diets need to take supplements or find other substitutes for what they would have otherwise gotten out of meat?

They don't need to take supplements. Many do not take supplements. Instead of meat, they may eat other forms of protein; but that's not something that you need to get from meat. Any form of protein is just as good, it's not just a poor man's meat.

Also, many meat-eaters also take supplements, so go figure.

[Lestat]

Uhm. People in developing countries aren't precisely dying because they didn't have a steak yesterday, but they do have problems of malnutrition (which leads to less resistance to diseases and higher mortality) and a balanced diet is harder to get without animal products, be it meat or dairy products, especially in developing countries. Vegetarianism, and certainly veganism, is a luxury lifestyle.

BTW, there are certain populations that survive solely on animal products (e.g. touareg: camel milk, mutton and they absolutely eat everything of the sheep including the stomach with half digested fodder, hence a fairly balanced diet).

[Darzog]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lestat ... and they absolutely eat everything of the sheep including the stomach with half digested fodder ...

I think you finally found something less appetizing than haggis.

I agree that meat is not a neccessity for a balanced diet, but I also agree with Lestat that it makes having a balanced diet easier.

[Georgi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lestat Uhm. People in developing countries aren't precisely dying because they didn't have a steak yesterday, but they do have problems of malnutrition (which leads to less resistance to diseases and higher mortality) and a balanced diet is harder to get without animal products, be it meat or dairy products, especially in developing countries. Vegetarianism, and certainly veganism, is a luxury lifestyle.

That's true, I was referring to meat specifically rather than dairy products and so forth... All I'm saying is meat isn't essential and there are probably other kinds of protein that could be more easily provided to these people.