Lab grown meat...erm really?

[TruXta]

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.

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.

I agree to an extent, but to some degree you have to accept that unknown risks might occur down the line. That's the price we pay.

 

[NoXion]

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.

Which means what, exactly? If there are risks we don't know about, then how do we "preempt" them without saying "well we can't do anything new since that would introduce unknown risks"?

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.

In what universe does "keeping an eye out" amount to sticking fingers in one's ears? That's a complete misrepresentation of my position.

 

[8ball]

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

Yeah, I can't see any feasible mechanism for any extra risk arising from the techniques used. There are no mysterious or unknown elements to the growth media that they're proposing that would introduce any risks we don't know about.

This is assuming no big changes to the tech, though (there are some significant things in the pipeline, some of them a bit more avant garde).
And it's assuming continued careful regulation...

It's a good point about how some unforeseen consequences can take a long time to become apparent.

 

[lazythursday]

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.)

I don't eat meat or dairy myself (small amount of fish) and I totally agree with you about current levels of meat consumption. Everyone should eat less. But this could be a game changer for animal welfare and the environment, much more so than some of the nonsense hippy small scale bollocks that is championed, falsely in my view, in the name of sustainability. I don't see what's wrong with eating living tissue that isn't sentient. What do you think plants are anyway?

 

[8ball]

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...

I find it usually consists of drawing up a document that looks plausible to auditors and regulators and appears to follow the steps above, then hoping the consequences of the clangers you have decided not to mention don't come to pass until you have left the company.

 

[lazythursday]

Why are small farms carbon intensive?

It seems counter intuitive but there's been lots of research into this and actually, horrible factory farms tend to produce a lot less carbon, due to their efficiency. In particular, hill farming of sheep is hugely carbon intensive. This Monbiot article outlines some of the research: Warning: your festive meal could be more damaging than a long-haul flight | George Monbiot

 

[kabbes]

Which means what, exactly? If there are risks we don't know about, then how do we "preempt" them without saying "well we can't do anything new since that would introduce unknown risks"?.

Well, for me it means I won't be eating this vat-grown meat in the foreseeable future. The risks might be unlikely, but if they manifest then they are catastrophic, and the benefits to it in the short-term at least are pretty much invisible from my perspective.

From a wider public health perspective, I would want to know exactly what the steps are and evidence that these have no concerns, would want to see a decent level of longitudinal studies that followed at least proven surrogates for health indicators and would want to see the operators having some long term stake in follow-up risk-tracking, with early warning indicators put in place. I'm certainly not going to take it on faith that profit-seeking start-ups are best placed to take responsibility for this kind of risk monitoring, or will be seeking evidence for the harm their product causes.

This is a whole new type of food product, and I don't see why we should take it at face value that it poses no long-term consequences. It's worth bearing in mind that we have barely scratched the surface of understanding our own biochemistry, so just saying that "we don't know of a mechanism that may cause harm" is really just identical to saying "we don't yet know of a mechanism that may cause harm".

 

[8ball]

This is a whole new type of food product, and I don't see why we should take it at face value that it poses no long-term consequences. It's worth bearing in mind that we have barely scratched the surface of understanding our own biochemistry, so just saying that "we don't know of a mechanism that may cause harm" is really just identical to saying "we don't yet know of a mechanism that may cause harm".

It's actually you that has invented a mechanism that may have caused harm, even admitting its based on nothing more than a feeling based on the fact that cells have been stimulated to grow.

We shouldn't assume it will cause no major issues, but all quantifications of risk will be based on the mechanisms of manufacture and resulting potential mechanisms of harm.

 

[kabbes]

It's actually you that has invented a mechanism that may have caused harm, even admitting its based on nothing more than a feeling based on the fact that cells have been stimulated to grow.

I've raised one possible mechanism, but my more general point is that this is something new and untested on humans, and we simply don't know if it has consequences.

We shouldn't assume it will cause no major issues, but all quantifications of risk will be based on the mechanisms of manufacture and resulting potential mechanisms of harm.

Right. Just as it was for all those other things that turned out to cause massive public health problems decades down the line. Don't think I'll be putting my eggs in that particular basket lightly.

Don't you think that the risk of thalidomide was based on the mechanisms of manufacture and resulting potential mechanisms of harm? Even asbestos use wasn't banned in this country until 2001, because white asbestos was still being judged to be okay based on the mechanisms of manufacture and resulting mechanisms of harm, as they were known at that time.

 

[DotCommunist]

I think it was douglas adams who wrote 'who could have known CFC's would make a hole in the ozone layer? It would take a brain the size of manchester'

but that all turned out sort of ok

 

[8ball]

Don't you think that the risk of thalidomide was based on the mechanisms of manufacture and resulting potential mechanisms of harm? Even asbestos use wasn't banned in this country until 2001, because white asbestos was still being judged to be okay based on the mechanisms of manufacture and resulting mechanisms of harm, as they were known at that time.

You're cherry-picking cases of technology which led to unforeseen consequences when there have been many, many technologies with no reasonably foreseen risks, as well as many with lots of foreseen potential risks, where nothing has come to pass.

Are you proposing all new kinds of tech not be used until we have a full lifetime of testing based on all perceived (and presumably unperceived) conceivable risks? Or are you just proposing this for technologies you 'feel a bit funny about'?

 

[Yossarian]

Risk or no risk, they're not going to be able to sell as much of this stuff as they seem to be expecting unless they can get some lab-grown bones in there.

 

[8ball]

Risk or no risk, they're not going to be able to sell as much of this stuff as they seem to be expecting unless they can get some lab-grown bones in there.

Well, the lab-grown lamb shank and t-bone steak, maybe.
Not sure what you mean otherwise.

 

[DotCommunist]

3d print some plastic ribs and glue the meat to them using very thick and sticky bbq suace

 

[kabbes]

You're cherry-picking cases of technology which led to unforeseen consequences when there have been many, many technologies with no reasonably foreseen risks, as well as many with lots of foreseen potential risks, where nothing has come to pass.

Are you proposing all new kinds of tech not be used until we have a full lifetime of testing based on all perceived (and presumably unperceived) conceivable risks? Or are you just proposing this for technologies you 'feel a bit funny about'?

I think the way that industry goes about risk assessing technology is appalling, frankly, and I can cherry-pick about one reasonably sized case every couple of years if you like. There is no systemic body responsible for ensuring proper studies or review of the evidence. Companies can start trials and then abandon them if they don't like the way they are going, just burying the results. They can do this over and over until they get the results they are looking for. Companies have all the funding, IP, decision making, you name it. Regulators, where they exist, are dependent on working on a shoestring and largely in the dark.

I'm hardly unique in pointing this out. Ben Goldacre makes a pretty good fist of it with respect to the pharmaceutical industry in Bad Medicine, for example.

 

[8ball]

I'm hardly unique in pointing this out. Ben Goldacre makes a pretty good fist of it with respect to the pharmaceutical industry in Bad Medicine, for example.

Bad Pharma.

<whistles innocently for no reason at mention of industry I might possibly be employed in...>

 

[UnderOpenSky]

It seems counter intuitive but there's been lots of research into this and actually, horrible factory farms tend to produce a lot less carbon, due to their efficiency. In particular, hill farming of sheep is hugely carbon intensive. This Monbiot article outlines some of the research: Warning: your festive meal could be more damaging than a long-haul flight | George Monbiot

Ah. Animal farming. Which makes sense, I was thinking about small scale organic veg production which I can't see generating much carbon.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

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.

As you're aware, there's a long history of products not being sufficiently tested before being released into the wild. The latest one of these that I've seen is Dicamba, produced by BASF, Monsanto, and Dupont. It's an herbicide that was supposed to be applied to soybeans. They've found that it can be applied to one field and days or weeks later drift to another, killing crops. It's resulted in a massive die-off of crops this year. Earlier this year it was being sold as the next greatest thing for farmers. Now its all going to tears and class action lawsuits:

Farmers deal with dicamba drift

 

[8ball]

Obviously any discussion of worries about this stuff has to take into account that capitalism exists.
Unless the argument is that we should put all new technologies on hold until capitalism is vanquished, on the basis the bastards can't be trusted, I'd sooner just discuss the particular attributes of the lab-grown meat if there is a special reason to be especially concerned (capitalism permitting, obv).

 

[Yossarian]

Well, the lab-grown lamb shank and t-bone steak, maybe.
Not sure what you mean otherwise.

Ribs, chicken wings, drumsticks, pork chops - much of what you'd find on the average BBQ has got bones in it, and people in a lot of places tend to prefer their chicken stews etc. with a few bones in, going to be a long time before people are willing to give that stuff up.

 

[8ball]

Ribs, chicken wings, drumsticks, pork chops - much of what you'd find on the average BBQ has got bones in it, and people in a lot of places tend to prefer their chicken stews etc. with a few bones in, going to be a long time before people are willing to give that stuff up.

Yeah, but I expect for quite some time this stuff is mostly going to be sold to food manufacturers, as bits of eg. "generic ham" that go into quiches etc. Rather than replacing complex animal structures which need a lot more to create them than the techniques are currently geared towards handling.

Tbf, if that becomes a thing, I think the solution might well turn out to be very like what DotCommunist has just said.

 

[lazythursday]

Ribs, chicken wings, drumsticks, pork chops - much of what you'd find on the average BBQ has got bones in it, and people in a lot of places tend to prefer their chicken stews etc. with a few bones in, going to be a long time before people are willing to give that stuff up.

Given the environmental consequences of meat production at some point they are going to have to, likely through a massive hike in costs as the carbon gets priced in. Might be decades away but seems inevitable especially as the global population grows and we just can't give any more land over to animal farming (already an enormous percentage of used land)

 

[Yossarian]

Yeah, but I expect for quite some time this stuff is mostly going to be sold to food manufacturers, as bits of eg. "generic ham" that go into quiches etc.

And for those uses, the absence of lab-grown anuses, spleens etc. is going to be a definite bonus.

 

[8ball]

And for those uses, the absence of lab-grown anuses, spleens etc. is going to be a definite bonus.

There's bound to be a small vocal group that complains loudly about the lack of arseholes and eyelashes in their sausages.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

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.

I don't see the DNA as the potential issue here. I'm wondering about what the inputs are for growing meat in a lab. I have concerns about the amount of chemicals that are going to be used. I wonder, for one, about the use of hormones to get the "meat" to grow. Meat has been implicated in hormone related cancer in humans.

I also have concerns about other inputs like water use. Meat takes a lot of water to produce. I suspect lab grown meat requires a lot as well. Perhaps less than meat on the hoof, but likely large amounts--larger amounts than would be used to grow plants.

And then, there's the problem of waste from the production process. What kind of waste is it going to produce, and what are we going to do with it?

I'm not saying I'm against lab grown meat. Only that we need to consider it carefully before committing to it.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

There's bound to be a small vocal group that complains loudly about the lack of arseholes and eyelashes in their sausages.

You are what you eat.

 

[TruXta]

You are what you eat.

Conversely, you eat what you are.

 

[NoXion]

Well, for me it means I won't be eating this vat-grown meat in the foreseeable future. The risks might be unlikely, but if they manifest then they are catastrophic, and the benefits to it in the short-term at least are pretty much invisible from my perspective.

How do you know that any risks that might manifest *will* be catastrophic?

From a wider public health perspective, I would want to know exactly what the steps are and evidence that these have no concerns, would want to see a decent level of longitudinal studies that followed at least proven surrogates for health indicators and would want to see the operators having some long term stake in follow-up risk-tracking, with early warning indicators put in place. I'm certainly not going to take it on faith that profit-seeking start-ups are best placed to take responsibility for this kind of risk monitoring, or will be seeking evidence for the harm their product causes.

Sounds reasonable enough. That's why regulations should be enforced, and improved if found wanting.

This is a whole new type of food product, and I don't see why we should take it at face value that it poses no long-term consequences. It's worth bearing in mind that we have barely scratched the surface of understanding our own biochemistry, so just saying that "we don't know of a mechanism that may cause harm" is really just identical to saying "we don't yet know of a mechanism that may cause harm".

It's only now that people have seriously thought about eating them, however tissue cultures have been grown in labs for decades now. So it's not as if there's complete ignorance of the differences between that and naturally growing flesh. That's something to start with.

There's a lot of shit we don't know, but that information is not really useful beyond being an approximation of our ignorance

 

[gentlegreen]

Bottom line is we should all be stuffing our faces with broccoli and it's downhill after that

No need to synthesise that in a vat

 

[bemused]

We shouldn't assume it will cause no major issues, but all quantifications of risk will be based on the mechanisms of manufacture and resulting potential mechanisms of harm.

Given we're more likely to use this stuff in medicine than as food first I'm not worried.