Lab grown meat...erm really?

[kabbes]

And what was that drug that encoded fertilty problems genetically so that we are now seeing issues in the granddaughters of the original takers? That was a fun result of humans saying "can't see any problems yet"

 

[TruXta]

Well, quite. Hence my pessimism tuned by 20 years of looking at claims for asbestos, lead paint, thalidomide, benzene, silica, vibration white finger, toxic mould, noise induced hearing loss, dalton shield, byssinosis, myodil, RSI and all the rest that don't spring immediately to mind.

Wtf is vibration white finger?

 

[kabbes]

Wtf is vibration white finger?

About £0.5bn in insurance losses, if I remember my scale correctly.

But mor helpfully, this: Vibration white finger - Wikipedia

 

[Santino]

According to the link in op they're also trying to grow white meat, which isn't carcinogenic. Would you object to that too?

Would I object to a notionally safe product? Is that what you're asking?

 

[TruXta]

Would I object to a notionally safe product? Is that what you're asking?

Not really, I'm asking if apart from the possible health risks you have any objections.

 

[lazythursday]

I think this is a potentially fantastic idea, if safety concerns can be addressed. Better for the environment, better for animal welfare, potential removal of lots of other food safety issues like e-coli and parasites thanks to the fact that lab grown meat doesn't shit itself when you harvest it.

Assuming that energy costs involved aren't vast, this is true sustainability, not the deeply inefficient and carbon intensive small farms much beloved of middle class greens.

 

[Teaboy]

Wtf is vibration white finger?

Major thing in construction. Horrible and permanent injury caused by over exposure to vibrating tools.

 

[NoXion]

My spidey senses, by which I mean 20 years clearing up legacy problems in the insurance industry, are screaming the word CANCER at me.

Why would grown meat present any greater cancer risk than conventionally reared meat?

 

[Flavour]

Because proles like meat and who the fuck are you to tell them they can't?

You're the one who started talking about proles, not me. Anyway, everyone should eat less meat, not just proles. And growing it in labs with weird chemicals and corporations is no solution.

 

[Flavour]

I'm not actually sure what the ethical issue is here. Why shouldn't we grow it to satisfy demands? Yes it will be made by big corporations, but not necessarily at the expense of a small farmers.

You're dollar is your vote. You don't see a problem in further entrenched corporate control of the food system. I do.

 

[kabbes]

Why would grown meat present any greater cancer risk than conventionally reared meat?

It's flesh that has been artificially stimulated to grow. To my uneducated ear, that sounds pretty potentially carcinogenic to me.

 

[Flavour]

Why would grown meat present any greater cancer risk than conventionally reared meat?

Depends what you meant by conventionally raised. There's a world of difference between a corn fed factory farm cow and a pasture grazing cow that lives most of its life outdoors.

 

[NoXion]

It's flesh that has been artificially stimulated to grow. To my uneducated ear, that sounds pretty potentially carcinogenic to me.

DNA from stuff we eat gets digested. It doesn't get incorporated into our own genome. Not without getting broken down into other molecules first. That's also why the idea of getting cancer from GM foods is nonsense.

 

[Flavour]

I think this is a potentially fantastic idea, if safety concerns can be addressed. Better for the environment, better for animal welfare, potential removal of lots of other food safety issues like e-coli and parasites thanks to the fact that lab grown meat doesn't shit itself when you harvest it.

Assuming that energy costs involved aren't vast, this is true sustainability, not the deeply inefficient and carbon intensive small farms much beloved of middle class greens.

How about not eating meat? It's not a human right, you know. And if we have to engineer it in labs, living tissue just for us to consume, that's OK is it? To stick it to the "middle class greens"? It's a rubbish defense. You're working on the assumption that it's fine to eat as much meat as we do, barring environmental concerns (which are enormous.)

 

[NoXion]

I dunno, I'm not sure it'll be that simple. It depends how it is sold and regulated. I think the spectre of CJD and mad cows looms over this as well.

Why? CJD is contracted by consuming significant quantities of neural tissue, especially brains. Easy solution; don't grow brains.

 

[NoXion]

You're dollar is your vote. You don't see a problem in further entrenched corporate control of the food system. I do.

I thought we didn't need to eat meat? If it's not needed, how can it be used to control anyone?

Also, they already control food production. It's called capitalism.

 

[Flavour]

the idea of getting cancer from GM foods is nonsense.

But patenting of GM seeds isn't. Forcing farmers into a cycle of dependency on such seeds isn't.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

I think this is a potentially fantastic idea, if safety concerns can be addressed. Better for the environment, better for animal welfare, potential removal of lots of other food safety issues like e-coli and parasites thanks to the fact that lab grown meat doesn't shit itself when you harvest it.

Assuming that energy costs involved aren't vast, this is true sustainability, not the deeply inefficient and carbon intensive small farms much beloved of middle class greens.

Why are small farms carbon intensive?

 

[NoXion]

How about not eating meat? It's not a human right, you know. And if we have to engineer it in labs, living tissue just for us to consume, that's OK is it? To stick it to the "middle class greens"? It's a rubbish defense. You're working on the assumption that it's fine to eat as much meat as we do, barring environmental concerns (which are enormous.)

If we can grow meat with fewer problems than rearing it, then growing it is a no-brainer. Just like it would be for any other products that people like having but don't need. Like tea. If there was some new technique that reduced the environmental impact of growing tea, would you be opposed to that?

 

[Flavour]

I thought we didn't need to eat meat? If it's not needed, how can it be used to control anyone?

Also, they already control food production. It's called capitalism.

Food production has existed a lot longer than capitalism and further encroachments by capitalism into food production should be rejected.

 

[NoXion]

But patenting of GM seeds isn't. Forcing farmers into a cycle of dependency on such seeds isn't.

True enough, but that's a problem with patenting, not GM or growing meat.

 

[TruXta]

You're the one who started talking about proles, not me. Anyway, everyone should eat less meat, not just proles. And growing it in labs with weird chemicals and corporations is no solution.

You're thinking of a different poster. And your points are still nonsense.

 

[NoXion]

Food production has existed a lot longer than capitalism and further encroachments by capitalism into food production should be rejected.

Too late. Most people don't grow their own food, and that trend looks set to continue with increasing urbanisation. Which would still be happening even if grown meat turns out to be a bust.

Besides, if people still want to rear animals they will, even if the vegans get their way and try banning it.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

That was me, although I wasn't being derogatory using the word proles, more making a point. I certainly don't have a middle class income.

 

[kabbes]

DNA from stuff we eat gets digested. It doesn't get incorporated into our own genome. Not without getting broken down into other molecules first. That's also why the idea of getting cancer from GM foods is nonsense.

Glad you are so confident of the long-term safety of new types of food product. I'll add it to the similar list of reassurances people had for the big, long list of things I posted earlier.

 

[gentlegreen]

But patenting of GM seeds isn't. Forcing farmers into a cycle of dependency on such seeds isn't.

Seed / plant patenting has been around for a very long time (it's technically illegal for amateurs to sell rooted cuttings of many ornamental plants for example) and farmers choose to pay the premium to grow GM seed because it works - to the extent that a Canadian farmer was fined for deliberately making seeds.

 

[Flavour]

If we can grow meat with fewer problems than rearing it, then growing it is a no-brainer. Just like it would be for any other products that people like having but don't need. Like tea. If there was some new technique that reduced the environmental impact of growing tea, would you be opposed to that?

Depends on what this technique is doesn't it. In theory, yes. But what does it entail?

 

[gentlegreen]

DNA from stuff we eat gets digested. It doesn't get incorporated into our own genome. Not without getting broken down into other molecules first. That's also why the idea of getting cancer from GM foods is nonsense.

Indeed - gout is the result of the breaking down of two of the four DNA bases.

 

[NoXion]

Glad you are so confident of the long-term safety of new types of food product. I'll add it to the similar list of reassurances people had for the big, long list of things I posted earlier.

I prefer to base my judgement on the evidence, not fearful speculation. Should evidence come to light, then I will revise my judgement accordingly.

Any new technology is going to have risks associated with it. That doesn't mean that they cannot be satisfactorily reduced, unless one makes the unreasonable demand that all risks be completely eliminated.

We should work on known problems while keeping an eye out for previously unknown ones. But to reject new technologies based on unknown problems or unforseen consequences is ultimately a recipe for paralysis if followed to its logical conclusion.

 

[kabbes]

I prefer to base my judgement on the evidence, not fearful speculation. Should evidence come to light, then I will revise my judgement accordingly.

Aye, there's the rub. Give it 60 years, then, and we'll actually have that evidence one way or other. Hopefully. Because that's the latency period of some of these diseases. And that's if we start gathering evidence properly on exposures from day 1.

Your attitude is incredibly naive when it relates to public health. We can't afford to wait for the health disaster to happen and then sort it out. We have to preempt the dangers and proceed with caution.

Any new technology is going to have risks associated with it. That doesn't mean that they cannot be satisfactorily reduced, unless one makes the unreasonable demand that all risks be completely eliminated.

We should work on known problems while keeping an eye out for previously unknown ones. But to reject new technologies based on unknown problems or unforseen consequences is ultimately a recipe for paralysis if followed to its logical conclusion.

Christ, I hope they never put you in charge of a risk function. That's not how it works at all. Identify, categorise, quantify and mitigate. Don't just stick your fingers in your ears and chant la la la in the hope nothing happens.