Test tube meat and fish

I have heard about this before. I think it is incredibly disgusting. It makes me start to think just how bad off our world is that we're considering to do this? Is it because of the viruses in the world and even in cattle? Or is this really just an option for vegans/vegetarians? I think there are other reasons for moving toward this certain aspect. My bet is on the sickness even in cattle that has arisen over the years.

Wow. Now that is a concept. There is a guy in Japan, that recently created the first food made out of feces (a poopburger, to put it politely)-- and it's edible-- but it would be a marketing nightmare LOL. This raises a host of interesting questions. I agree with the nutritionist who said a small amount of meat in a diet IS healthy, and may even be necessary. For the million or so years we have been around, humans have been omnivorous; this is the way we are built. While vegetable proteins of various types can provide most of what we need, a full omnivore diet guarantees we get all of what we need to be healthy. Vegetarians refuse to eat meat or slaughter by products because of how the animals are raised, or because raising meat protein takes a great deal of resources. However, that argument isn't entirely sound, for two reasons: 1) If everyone would actively boycott meat agribusiness and pay the higher price for responsible sustainable farmed meat products, the agribusinesses would be forced to farm as small farmers do-- sustainably and responsibly, caring properly for the animals and minimizing environmental impact. Of course, people would also have to be willing to entirely give up leather, vellum, lambskin, fur coats, and a lot of other consumer products. A great many vegetarians do, but most ordinary people who will skip a few meals of meat won't give up everything else as well. 2) If EVERYONE would give up 1 or 2 meat enhanced meals a week, everyone could stay omnivorous, or be vegetarian as they wished, but the amount of meat farming would decrease dramatically over time. Giving up meat 2 days a week is very simple, and means that overall, about 29% less meat would be consumed. World wide, that would make a tremendous difference. 3) one has to consider the TYPE of meat. Beef cattle are the highest on the list when it comes to environmental impact of feed costs, pigs cost less to feed but their effluent is a serious concern. Chickens are cost effective, but only if raised in horrific conditions. Alpaca, as I well know, have a very small environmental footprint, as do all of their camelid cousins. Agribusiness, therefore, should be actively seeking methods to more efficiently and humanely raise the meat animals they do raise, or turn to animals that have a much lighter impact environmentally as well: camelids and rabbits, and deer. Encouraging meat eaters to give up the steak and focus on camel, alpaca, rabbit, deer, kangaroo and other low impact meats should be a major part of any campaign to decrease the environmental impact of livestock farming. Responsible harvesting, care and management of wild game is also a big component in this equation. I believe the gentleman that said vegetarians are morally obligated to eat this product has a rather cogent argument in his favor. Those who are vegetarian because they do not wish to be part of a system that exploits and abuses animals, by logic, should go out of their way to support any workable system that either discourages or makes it unnecessary to hurt or exploit animals. If this project reaches the point where the cells can be harvested from living animals without causing negative effect, and the animals so used are treated humanely, then the development of this protein source should be strongly supported and encouraged. Given this technology has advanced this far, it stands to reason that the meat produced could be engineered to be a very healthy protein source. If it were economically feasible, this would be far less of an environmental impact than actual livestock farming. It stands to reason that small herds of animals would be able to continuously feed large numbers of people, which would be a good thing for the environment as a whole. If those small herds were comprised of low impact animals as outlined above, the benefit would be even greater. Fiber producing animals that were also used to produce hides or leather when they are too old to live happy lives would provide a continuing source of leather and fiber products. I have to wonder whether anyone else feels that these types of experiments are a form of "playing God", on a small scale. Would this concept be a deterrent, or an asset?

I still prefer to stick to what was grown on land rather than in a test tube. Scientists may be exploring this as a means in case that the Earth finally gets tired of people polluting the air, water and land that it refuses to let anything grow. This is one of the reasons why I love living in my third world country. I can still grow vegetables in my small plot of land and not care about GMOs and pesticides.

Wow..that is interesting. I can't say that I am excited about "test tube" meat but it certainly would take the ethical stand point away for vegetarians. It would definitely take a while for me to wrap my mind around it though..if I ever did. It's weird.

Well, at least it wont feel as if we are murdering some animal.. However, as far as stem cells are concerned, I would rather they stick with making those organs. And robotics should try and develop robots who can do surgeries. We need those guyes as of yesterday. Do you know what surgeons charge for a simple eye operation? Since robots cant demand, I presume it would be much cheaper.

Um.....I don't think so. I don't eat much meat and I sure don't want a test tube burger. That kind of grossed me out. Very interesting, though. But no, uh-uh. Not gonna eat one.

I hope that one day they will find a way to make test tube meat a cost effective alternative to killing animals for meat.In theory it could have a really large and positive impact on the world.It could reduce starvation by the large amount of food it could produce and all the land that is used to grow food for animals that will be turned to meat could be used to feed people instead.At the moment there is enough land to grow enough food to feed all the people but a lot of it is used to feed livestock instead.

Hey thanks a ton for this piece of news. In fact i too have heard about this news somewhere before and was thinking if this becomes a reality then what would be the taste and nutrition content of the test tube meat and fish and how different would it be from the conventional meat and fish were the questions that always popped up in my mind. Now the scientists have to work hard so that they can produce a desirable test tube fish and meat for all of us in the future. What say?