The world could get its first lab-grown burger this year, with scientists using stem cells to create strips of beef. But could vegetarians eat it?
Scientists in the Netherlands hoping to create a more efficient alternative to rearing animals have grown small pieces of beef muscle in a laboratory.
These strips will be mixed with blood and artificially grown fat to produce a hamburger by the autumn.
The stem cells in this particular experiment were harvested from by-products of slaughtered animals but in the future, scientists say, they could be taken from a live animal through biopsy.
One usually assumes the main motivation for vegetarianism - aside from those who practise for religious reasons - is about the welfare of animals. The typical vegetarian forswears meat because animals are killed to get it.
So if the meat does not come from dead animals would there be an ethical problem in eating it if it one day lands on supermarket shelves?
It's not as simple an equation as that, says Prof Andrew Linzey, director of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics. He says the burger as currently envisaged isn't an acceptable substitute for vegetarians, but is still a step forward.
"Synthetic meat could be a great moral advance. It won't be suitable for vegetarians because it still originates in meat by-products, but bearing in mind that millions of animals are slaughtered for food every day, it is a step forward to a less violent world."
According to the Vegetarian Society, a vegetarian does not eat "any meat, poultry, game, fish, shellfish or crustacea, or the by-products of slaughter".
The lab-grown meat created so far has been grown from stem cells taken from foetal calf serum. This is usually a by-product of slaughter, although stem cells could be harvested in smaller volumes without killing animals.
Prof Julian Savulescu, the director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Ethics, says it doesn't matter how the product is made and "the fact that the meat is made from animal by-products is morally irrelevant".
"People who are vegetarian for moral reasons - the environment, the treatment of animals - have a moral obligation to eat this meat.
"They need to do this because it will contribute to an ethical alternative to conventional meat."
For many vegetarians though, the issue is a complicated one.
"Some are waiting with bated breath, keen to experience the taste and texture of meat without actually harming an animal, while others find the whole idea utterly repulsive," says Su Taylor from the Vegetarian Society.
Beef stem cells are being grown to make the first laboratory burger
The UK Food Standards Agency's Public Attitudes to Food survey of 3,219 adults in 2009 found 3% of respondents were "completely vegetarian" and an additional 5% "partly vegetarian (don't eat some types of fish or meat)".
Just because the meat has been grown artificially doesn't mean it is vegetarian, says Vegetarians International Voices for Animals (Viva). But Viva insists vegetarianism and veganism aren't religions so individuals should make up their own minds.
"Certainly, with over 950 million land animals slaughtered in the UK each year," says Viva spokesman and campaign manager Justin Kerswell, "and the vast majority of them factory farmed in awful conditions, anything that saves animals from suffering is to be welcomed."
There's already been discussion about whether meat eaters could be persuaded to eat the artificial meat, but at the moment the price tag is likely to be prohibitive. The first lab-grown burger is likely to cost in the region of £200,000 to produce.
Savulescu says most people won't give up meat, but if there was a palatable alternative, conventional meat eaters might move to it.
"Moral vegetarians need to promote, use and consume this test tube meat," Savulescu said. "Then it will become cheaper."
Vegetarian Society definition
The research on artificial meat has been prompted by concerns that current methods of meat production are unsustainable in the long term.
But to Kerswell, the research seems unnecessary, particularly as many vegetarians believe a diet excluding meat is more healthy.
"Why grow it in a Petri dish or eat the meat from a slaughtered animal when plant sources of protein and meat replacements are ever more commonly available and are better for our health?"
Of course, there are plenty of nutritionists who speak of the value of eating some meat. Dr Elizabeth Weichselbaum, a nutrition scientist at the British Nutrition Foundation, says meat is an important source of a number of nutrients in our diet, including high quality protein, iron, zinc, selenium, vitamin D and some B vitamins.
"It can make an important contribution to a healthy and balanced diet. Meat and other protein sources, including eggs, beans and nuts, should be eaten in moderate amounts."
So could vegetarian chefs be persuaded? Denis Cotter, who runs a vegetarian restaurant in Cork, Ireland, says "after an instinctive shudder of revulsion" he can see the benefits of the burger, but it won't be making its way on to any of his menus.
"Personally, I don't like synthetic food, and avoid all that soy-based fake meat stuff aimed at vegetarians. So, no, I wouldn't be interested in using it, either as a restaurant product or on my plate at home. But I would back it as a better way to produce meat than burning down rainforests and gobbling up useful farmland."
I guess this is a glimpse of an inevitable future, and really if one stops to think about the origin and actual nature of much of the "meat" we consume now, allbeit perhaps in cheaper produce ( hopefully) one really can't be too squeamish over meat that has been grown in a vat or a petri dish.
Anything like this will go through a lot of testing before reaching the marketplace so I think it will be 'safe', though the quality may be questionable. But that's true of all McDonalds' "food".
I don't think many vegetarians will turn around because of this though. For a start you still need animals kept in captivity and many don't agree with the conditions of farming. There's also the chemical content, I avoid cheap meat because of hormones, but I'm quite a keen meat eater all the same. But I wouldn't eat lab produced meat is the chemical content was dubious (even if legal). Also quite a few are vegetarian as a matter of personal taste preference.
Howard A Treesong wrote:Anything like this will go through a lot of testing before reaching the marketplace so I think it will be 'safe', though the quality may be questionable. But that's true of all McDonalds' "food".
I don't think many vegetarians will turn around because of this though. For a start you still need animals kept in captivity and many don't agree with the conditions of farming. There's also the chemical content, I avoid cheap meat because of hormones, but I'm quite a keen meat eater all the same. But I wouldn't eat lab produced meat is the chemical content was dubious (even if legal). Also quite a few are vegetarian as a matter of personal taste preference.
This is the 21st century, our medications don't go through more than a bare minimum of testing, and even then the lawmakers who are supposed to regulate the industry are in the back pocket of corporate lobbyists. This stuff probably won't be thoroughly tested either. However, it will be made cheaply, and genuine farm-grown meat will become a luxury product, so us little people will have two choices, eat whatever we can grow ourselves or buy whatever the military industrial complex sees fit to sell us. That is gonna go for vegetables and grains too. People kibble.
Howard A Treesong wrote:Anything like this will go through a lot of testing before reaching the marketplace so I think it will be 'safe', though the quality may be questionable. But that's true of all McDonalds' "food".
I don't think many vegetarians will turn around because of this though. For a start you still need animals kept in captivity and many don't agree with the conditions of farming. There's also the chemical content, I avoid cheap meat because of hormones, but I'm quite a keen meat eater all the same. But I wouldn't eat lab produced meat is the chemical content was dubious (even if legal). Also quite a few are vegetarian as a matter of personal taste preference.
This is the 21st century, our medications don't go through more than a bare minimum of testing, and even then the lawmakers who are supposed to regulate the industry are in the back pocket of corporate lobbyists. This stuff probably won't be thoroughly tested either. However, it will be made cheaply, and genuine farm-grown meat will become a luxury product, so us little people will have two choices, eat whatever we can grow ourselves or buy whatever the military industrial complex sees fit to sell us. That is gonna go for vegetables and grains too. People kibble.
Howard A Treesong wrote:Anything like this will go through a lot of testing before reaching the marketplace so I think it will be 'safe', though the quality may be questionable. But that's true of all McDonalds' "food".
I don't think many vegetarians will turn around because of this though. For a start you still need animals kept in captivity and many don't agree with the conditions of farming. There's also the chemical content, I avoid cheap meat because of hormones, but I'm quite a keen meat eater all the same. But I wouldn't eat lab produced meat is the chemical content was dubious (even if legal). Also quite a few are vegetarian as a matter of personal taste preference.
This is the 21st century, our medications don't go through more than a bare minimum of testing, and even then the lawmakers who are supposed to regulate the industry are in the back pocket of corporate lobbyists. This stuff probably won't be thoroughly tested either. However, it will be made cheaply, and genuine farm-grown meat will become a luxury product, so us little people will have two choices, eat whatever we can grow ourselves or buy whatever the military industrial complex sees fit to sell us. That is gonna go for vegetables and grains too. People kibble.
I'll you literally because I'm not sure if it's satire... but food standards and medical testing are pretty stringent. Not to say there aren't issues with politics and some bad practice by pharmaceutical companies, but it's a lot more than the "bare minimum" of testing suggested. But I guess saying that means I've been brainwash by 'the man'.
If you read the article is says they want vegetarians to popularise it because it's far from 'cheap'. Genuine farm-grown meat is a bit of a luxury already, most meat is mass produced on an industrial level with pigs and chickens that are lucky to see a chink of daylight in their lifetimes.
I doubt it would taste that good. It more than likely have the same texture but be extremely bland
Like any meat that has been passed through a mincer to reduce it to a paste before having some colouring and MSG added? Can't be worse than what is already being sold. Who knows? It may be pretty good.
Howard A Treesong wrote:Anything like this will go through a lot of testing before reaching the marketplace so I think it will be 'safe', though the quality may be questionable. But that's true of all McDonalds' "food".
The ground beef in McDonald's is basically the highest quality stuff that the industry produces; it's no different than the raw material that you can buy in your local high-end grocery store.
What makes it terrible is its preparation. The pre-cooked, frozen microwaved patties handled by a minimum wage high school student is the denominator that devalues the raw material.
I'm with melissia, i don't have a problem with it as long as it's hormone free. i also hope it's safe to eat too.
The hormone issue is chicken; I honestly don't know of any commercial feedlot practice that requires or even uses artificial hormone treatments (are you thinking beta agonists?). Maybe at the calf level, but that's literally one month out of a 36 month lifecycle.
Also, they seem to be more worried about vegetarians than world hunger. Odd.
This stuff is going to cost quite a bit more to produce than normal, 'grown' meat. Only the upper-income, meat-adverse would be interested.
Monster Rain wrote:Flavor in meat, well, quality meat, comes from connective tissue.
They'll have to find a way to exercise the vat grown steaks to make them comparable to the real deal.
Ah... no, flavor in meat comes from fat. Intramuscular fat, also known as marbling. Fat=Flavor and also tenderness; that's why incredibly lean meat is tough, chewy, and flavorless.
Connective tissue is virtually inedible. Tendons, ligaments, basically horrible stuff that you don't actually want to eat and pay your food providers to trim out of your meat.
Monster Rain wrote:Flavor in meat, well, quality meat, comes from connective tissue.
They'll have to find a way to exercise the vat grown steaks to make them comparable to the real deal.
Ah... no, flavor in meat comes from fat. Intramuscular fat, also known as marbling. Fat=Flavor and also tenderness; that's why incredibly lean meat is tough, chewy, and flavorless.
Connective tissue is virtually inedible. Tendons, ligaments, basically horrible stuff that you don't actually want to eat and pay your food providers to trim out of your meat.
Ah... no.
I'm talking about collagen, the stuff that makes the tougher cuts (short ribs, oxtails, etc) taste better, but require longer cooking times and moist-heat cooking methods to break down. Intramuscular fat is obviously a factor in flavor, but not the only one.
Howard A Treesong wrote:Anything like this will go through a lot of testing before reaching the marketplace so I think it will be 'safe', though the quality may be questionable. But that's true of all McDonalds' "food".
I don't think many vegetarians will turn around because of this though. For a start you still need animals kept in captivity and many don't agree with the conditions of farming. There's also the chemical content, I avoid cheap meat because of hormones, but I'm quite a keen meat eater all the same. But I wouldn't eat lab produced meat is the chemical content was dubious (even if legal). Also quite a few are vegetarian as a matter of personal taste preference.
This is the 21st century, our medications don't go through more than a bare minimum of testing, and even then the lawmakers who are supposed to regulate the industry are in the back pocket of corporate lobbyists. This stuff probably won't be thoroughly tested either. However, it will be made cheaply, and genuine farm-grown meat will become a luxury product, so us little people will have two choices, eat whatever we can grow ourselves or buy whatever the military industrial complex sees fit to sell us. That is gonna go for vegetables and grains too. People kibble.
Ive gotta ask, because Id like to know, you DO realize your sound completely fething nuts right? Whats it feel like to be so fruity?
Guy, you're wrong. As an easy, common-sense litmus test, what do gummy bears, marshmallows, and jell-O taste like?
Meat? If collagen had innate meat-flavory goodness, then gelatin (which has non-animal sources but historically has been made from animal byproducts) would taste like beef. Or pork, or chicken.
Collagen is gelatin. Gelatin is virtually flavorless.
The tougher cuts of meat have lower concentrations of fat. That's why they're prone to becoming dry and tasteless. That's why beef brisket is served in some sort of acidic sauce, and why a USDA prime tenderloin hardly ever is.
A second common-sense test: Does bacon have flavor? Bacon, made from the pork belly, has no connective tissue.
Interesting, all the better to feed that larger population I keep hammering away about I am curious about the quality, perhaps we'll be able to get higher quality beef and steak for cheap. That would be very nice.
fething scientists. They'll try and get anyone to swallow any kind of gak just to keep looking like they're actually smarter than people with real common sense.
Me? If it don't Oink, Cackle or Moo I don't eat it. If your mom raised you with even an once of sense, you'll think the same.
warpcrafter wrote:This is the 21st century, our medications don't go through more than a bare minimum of testing, and even then the lawmakers who are supposed to regulate the industry are in the back pocket of corporate lobbyists. This stuff probably won't be thoroughly tested either. However, it will be made cheaply, and genuine farm-grown meat will become a luxury product, so us little people will have two choices, eat whatever we can grow ourselves or buy whatever the military industrial complex sees fit to sell us. That is gonna go for vegetables and grains too. People kibble.
Stop making things up. You sound ridiculous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:Flavor in meat, well, quality meat, comes from connective tissue.
They'll have to find a way to exercise the vat grown steaks to make them comparable to the real deal.
Or, given enough time, they'll just find a way to artificially generate connective tissue and whatever else.
Expect this stuff to taste like McDonalds' meat for a long time, and slowly works it way up as the technology improves.
Joey wrote:No matter how meat is produced it's still far less efficient than vegetation at providing calories/protein for inputted energy/water.
Ultimately meat is just a higher concentration of nutrients in a different package.
Meat and animal byproducts (like honey) are basically nature's equivalent of the Energy Bar. In terms of efficiency, it's far more efficient to let something go through the trouble of eating thousands of pounds of vegetables and converting that to meat and fat stores, and then eating that thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:Bacon flavor is mainly from curing and smoking BTW.
Which is absorbed into the... wait for it... fat. Adipose tissue is basically nature's warehouse for flavor. If connective tissue was the source of flavor, then we'd be dining on rawhide and tendons instead of making shoes and car seats with it.
I actually had a lecture on cell biomechanics today which featured this story - it is not new; as far back as 2003 (from what I remember) there was an American who set out to grow "artificial" tissue for the use in burgers.
The entertaining part is that the medium they are grown in is often serum harvested from cows.
Personally I don't think this technique will ever be a viable method of "growing" meat products. Far easier to make meat substitutes and/or reconstitute "meat" grown in other ways.
Ultimately the further away from "nature" you go in your food production, the easier it is for people to hold food over people's heads; to disrupt or threaten to disrupt complex artificial food chains and/or add in more "additives" than you might wish or expect.
Though I am a believer that many algae based food production methods could go a long way to providing high density, high volume food production.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:Or, given enough time, they'll just find a way to artificially generate connective tissue and whatever else.
The cells are actually grown on/in a collagen scaffold, which is essentially connective tissue. And cells also put down their own extracellular matrix, especially when grown under stress.
sourclams wrote:Which is absorbed into the... wait for it... fat. Adipose tissue is basically nature's warehouse for flavor. If connective tissue was the source of flavor, then we'd be dining on rawhide and tendons instead of making shoes and car seats with it.
Let's see...
The smoke actually mainly absorbed into the pellicle that develops in during the curing process, and the brine makes the meat itself salty (not the fat specifically) by entering the cells through osmosis.
You also don't seem to realize the difference between collagen (the connective tissue within the muscle itself) and elastin (the silverskin stuff that you really can't eat unless you cook the hell out of it with moist/combination coking methods or grind it up with the rest of the meat to add... wait for it... flavor.)
I like how you're being condescending even though you're extremely wrong. Oh internet...
sourclams wrote:I like how you're actually still arguing that skin, tendon, and ligaments are what "flavor" is made of.
I said it's a factor, which it is.
I also never mentioned skin. Putting words in my mouth isn't making you any more correct.
See the above post for more information on this. Before I act on the decision I just made to simply let you be wrong, you seem to be getting hung up on the USDA's grading system as your basis for your arguments, which only monitors marbling and tenderness, not flavor.
80% of skin content is collagen. Yet skin has no flavor WHY COME??
Why is intramuscular fat content (higher=better) and age (younger=better) the determinants of USDA grading? Why is a younger animal with more fat more flavorful and tender?
sourclam wrote:80% of skin content is collagen. Yet skin has no flavor WHY COME??
Truly, it's the worst part of the chicken. And who eats pork rinds?
sourclam wrote:Why is intramuscular fat content (higher=better) and age (younger=better) the determinants of USDA grading? Why is a younger animal with more fat more flavorful and tender?
Tenderness is irrelevant in this case, because I'm talking about tougher cuts of meat. Like short ribs and oxtails. Also, what part of the animal are we talking about? A filet mignon is more tender than a ribeye, but doesn't have as much flavor and is a bit less tender. This is because the muscle is worked more, and in general, the tougher the cut of meat the more flavorful it is. What makes meat tough? Collagen. Even after you trim away all of the elastin and everything else.
sourclams wrote:80% of skin content is collagen. Yet skin has no flavor WHY COME??
Why is intramuscular fat content (higher=better) and age (younger=better) the determinants of USDA grading? Why is a younger animal with more fat more flavorful and tender?
Actually younger meat tends to be more tender, but lacks developed and deep flavors. For any given animal, the younger specimen will tend to have a much more mild flavor. Compare say, Veal to Beef. or a "Broiler/Fryer" chicken to a "Stewing Hen".
This why tough cuts of meat can stand up to say, a rich stew with tons of aromatic vegetables and seasonings.. A lot of the flavor of many more tender cuts would just get lost in all the noise.
EDIT: Which isn't to say fat isn't flavorful, it most certainly it is. It's just inaccurate to say "Young/marbled meat = more flavor always".
Chongara wrote:fething scientists. They'll try and get anyone to swallow any kind of gak just to keep looking like they're actually smarter than people with real common sense.
Me? If it don't Oink, Cackle or Moo I don't eat it. If your mom raised you with even an once of sense, you'll think the same.
What about fish? They do neither, and are pretty tastey with some fries (Or chips to you weirdo Europeans ) But I agree. There was a thread a few months ago about that Japanese scientist that found a way to filter actual human poo, into an edible paste that tasted like meat. Good god I hope its not the pooh meat now
They also were unhealthy and often only expected to live a few months at most (and most of that was spent being transported to the arena so they could die the first day).
Luco wrote:Yes, it is, I took a class on it. I really don't want to dig through my notes, but I can if I absolutely have to.
Here, I'll do it for you,
Wikipedia wrote:Most meats contain a full complement of the amino acids required for the human diet. Fruits and vegetables, by contrast, sometimes lack several essential amino acids contained in meat. It is for this reason that people who abstain from eating all meat need to plan their diet more carefully to include vegetarian sources of all the necessary amino acids.
You took a class on it... along with every single American who has at least one recent (within the past ten years) college degree, I believe. It was something that Bush put in place before the 9/11/01 attacks if I'm not mistaken.
Meats are good for a balanced diet. They really shouldn't be avoided entirely, even if you should not focus your diet around them.
Well, B12 (and I think a few other very trace-nutrient-y things) are extremely hard to get from non-animals sources. In terms of things humans eat animals are pretty much the only naturally occurring source. If you're vegan I know you can supplement, and I'd be willing to be guess there is some kind of fermented thing somewhere that provides it, as iirc bacteria ultimately produce it just not in contexts where humans would usually be able to consume enough of it.
That said you don't strictly have to eat any meat. Milk & eggs are generally a pretty reasonable source of animal nutrients without anything having to get it's head chopped off.
Melissia wrote:You took a class on it... along with every single American who has at least one recent (within the past ten years) college degree, I believe. It was something that Bush put in place before the 9/11/01 attacks if I'm not mistaken.
Meats are good for a balanced diet. They really shouldn't be avoided entirely, even if you should not focus your diet around them.
I don't think so, it wasn't a requirement just the most interesting science of my choices and even then I was finished with the sciences already at the univ, just took a semester at a community college that wanted me to take another science. That's pretty strange if that is the case though.
Melissia wrote:You took a class on it... along with every single American who has at least one recent (within the past ten years) college degree, I believe. It was something that Bush put in place before the 9/11/01 attacks if I'm not mistaken.
Meats are good for a balanced diet. They really shouldn't be avoided entirely, even if you should not focus your diet around them.
Asmuch as i hate the guy im going to quote MIcheacl Pollen
"Eat food, Not too much, Mostly Plants"
Dont eat Nutrients, Eat Food.
corpsesarefun wrote:And a circulatory system to deliver the nutrients to the right places...
Though if you found a way to supply the needed nutrients and electrically stimulated it to induce muscle spasms you could exercise it.
I would hope that they would have some sort of a circulatory system in order to actually make these sorts of things, but I dunno, not actually seen pictures. It could just be a blob of some horrifying pink mass.
If it is an actual muscle they are growing, having a nervous system would not really be a problem, since muscles are made to contract given any electrical charge. They could just do it with electrode stimulation.
Luco wrote:Yes, it is, I took a class on it. I really don't want to dig through my notes, but I can if I absolutely have to.
Here, I'll do it for you,
Wikipedia wrote:Most meats contain a full complement of the amino acids required for the human diet. Fruits and vegetables, by contrast, sometimes lack several essential amino acids contained in meat. It is for this reason that people who abstain from eating all meat need to plan their diet more carefully to include vegetarian sources of all the necessary amino acids.
I am always confused when people do not associate nuts in with vegetarians. Am I missing something about the vegetarian movement and nuts?
Melissia wrote:You took a class on it... along with every single American who has at least one recent (within the past ten years) college degree, I believe.
I didn't, but that might be the result of going to a private school.
Melissia wrote:You took a class on it... along with every single American who has at least one recent (within the past ten years) college degree, I believe.
I didn't, but that might be the result of going to a private school.
I went to a cheap-o public university, I did take a nutrition class but it wasn't mandatory. It was one of many classes you could take for a more general requirement, but it didn't have to be anything health/food science related.
Melissia wrote:You took a class on it... along with every single American who has at least one recent (within the past ten years) college degree, I believe.
I didn't, but that might be the result of going to a private school.
I went to a cheap-o public university, I did take a nutrition class but it wasn't mandatory. It was one of many classes you could take for a more general requirement, but it didn't have to be anything health/food science related.
This is what a public school education gets you:
I keep trying to click on the "Join Us" button in your avatar, but I all keep getting is your profile.
Howard A Treesong wrote:Anything like this will go through a lot of testing before reaching the marketplace so I think it will be 'safe', though the quality may be questionable. But that's true of all McDonalds' "food".
I don't think many vegetarians will turn around because of this though. For a start you still need animals kept in captivity and many don't agree with the conditions of farming. There's also the chemical content, I avoid cheap meat because of hormones, but I'm quite a keen meat eater all the same. But I wouldn't eat lab produced meat is the chemical content was dubious (even if legal). Also quite a few are vegetarian as a matter of personal taste preference.
This is the 21st century, our medications don't go through more than a bare minimum of testing, and even then the lawmakers who are supposed to regulate the industry are in the back pocket of corporate lobbyists. This stuff probably won't be thoroughly tested either. However, it will be made cheaply, and genuine farm-grown meat will become a luxury product, so us little people will have two choices, eat whatever we can grow ourselves or buy whatever the military industrial complex sees fit to sell us. That is gonna go for vegetables and grains too. People kibble.
Ive gotta ask, because Id like to know, you DO realize your sound completely fething nuts right? Whats it feel like to be so fruity?
sebster wrote:
warpcrafter wrote:This is the 21st century, our medications don't go through more than a bare minimum of testing, and even then the lawmakers who are supposed to regulate the industry are in the back pocket of corporate lobbyists. This stuff probably won't be thoroughly tested either. However, it will be made cheaply, and genuine farm-grown meat will become a luxury product, so us little people will have two choices, eat whatever we can grow ourselves or buy whatever the military industrial complex sees fit to sell us. That is gonna go for vegetables and grains too. People kibble.
Stop making things up. You sound ridiculous.
People, people... I know it's just the fear talking, but really, try thinking for yourselves for one second and you'll know that I'm right. Unless of course, you'd rather be part of the problem instead of part of the solution.
Melissia wrote:You took a class on it... along with every single American who has at least one recent (within the past ten years) college degree, I believe.
I didn't, but that might be the result of going to a private school.
I went to a cheap-o public university, I did take a nutrition class but it wasn't mandatory. It was one of many classes you could take for a more general requirement, but it didn't have to be anything health/food science related.
This is what a public school education gets you:
I keep trying to click on the "Join Us" button in your avatar, but I all keep getting is your profile.
The button works, it just works a bit differently from what you'd normally expect. Instead of clicking it, you have to rub butter on the screen.
I just hope this doesnt go the way of GMO's In which the companies threaten anyone who does research that hurts their product.
And there better be a law that passes that says you have to label your lab grown meat as lab grown.
hotsauceman1 wrote:I just hope this doesnt go the way of GMO's In which the companies threaten anyone who does research that hurts their product.
And there better be a law that passes that says you have to label your lab grown meat as lab grown.
Im pretty sure they would. They have to with pretty much anything else food wise.
hotsauceman1 wrote:I just hope this doesnt go the way of GMO's In which the companies threaten anyone who does research that hurts their product.
And there better be a law that passes that says you have to label your lab grown meat as lab grown.
Im pretty sure they would. They have to with pretty much anything else food wise.
They dont wwith GMO's in america.
And before anyone else says anything about GMO"S ii want it on the record that i think they are OK, but not testing or letting us know right away that it is GMO is what i dont ike
warpcrafter wrote:
People, people... I know it's just the fear talking, but really, try thinking for yourselves for one second and you'll know that I'm right.
Think for yourselves! But always remember that if you don't believe the things that I believe, you aren't thinking for yourselves!
Bakerofish wrote:If they say that synthesized animal meat is okay for vegetarians to eat because it doesnt involve an actual animal...
does that make eating synthesized human meat not cannibalism?
Well, yeah.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
warpcrafter wrote:People, people... I know it's just the fear talking, but really, try thinking for yourselves for one second and you'll know that I'm right. Unless of course, you'd rather be part of the problem instead of part of the solution.
No, really, there's no fear. There's just an understanding that the real world is a complex, often frustrating place, where the exact causes of our problems and their solutions are not at all simple.
In contrast we have your comic book like world of evil conspiracies, all based on ideas that simply aren't true. We've talked about this in the past, and I've pointed out plainly and simply a whole host of ideas you've had that simply do not stack up with reality. And yet you keep on believing it.
Why bother posting here, honestly?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote:They dont wwith GMO's in america.
And before anyone else says anything about GMO"S ii want it on the record that i think they are OK, but not testing or letting us know right away that it is GMO is what i dont ike
Yeah, I think GMOs are an important part of the future, but that legislation needs to be considerably improved, and that Monsanto in particular are incredible dicks.
Luco wrote:There are nutrients you can ONLY get from eating meat.
That's not true.
Yes, it is, I took a class on it. I really don't want to dig through my notes, but I can if I absolutely have to.
Here, I'll do it for you,
Wikipedia wrote:Most meats contain a full complement of the amino acids required for the human diet. Fruits and vegetables, by contrast, sometimes lack several essential amino acids contained in meat. It is for this reason that people who abstain from eating all meat need to plan their diet more carefully to include vegetarian sources of all the necessary amino acids.
Where does that say there are nutrients which are exclusive to meat?
Are vegetarians missing out on other nutrients found only in meat?
Possibly. There are several benefits to eating meat that are limiting when adhering to a vegetarian diet. Perhaps the most concerning of all nutrients for a vegetarian triathlete is iron. Iron is an essential micronutrient that facilitates oxygen transport in the blood, which is the limiting physiological factor for aerobic performance. Insufficient amounts of iron in the blood and tissue will severely impair performance. Iron is present in two different forms: heme iron from animal tissue and non-heme iron from plant sources. Unfortunately for vegetarians, non-heme iron is much less bioavailable than heme iron. Therefore, although vegetarians and omnivores consume nearly equal amounts of total iron, the vegetarians absorb much less of it. As such, the RDA for iron for vegetarian triathletes is 80% higher than for omnivorous triathletes. Vegetarians should strive to consume oat bran, spinach, beans, or other iron-fortified foods on a regular basis.
What about vitamin B12 deficiency in vegetarians?
Vitamin B12 is only reliably found in meat, dairy and eggs. There was speculation that some fermented soy products and seaweeds contain B12, but research has proven otherwise. Although Vitamin B12 does not directly improve work performance, a deficiency in this vitamin can lead to macrocytic anemia, which will then impair aerobic performance. Triathletes who exclude all animal products from their diet require supplementation or careful diet planning to ensure they are obtaining the vitamin from fortified foods. Lacto-ovo vegetarians are less likely to develop Vitamin B12 deficiency assuming they regularly consume dairy products or eggs.
That doesn't say there are nutrients exclusive to meat either. It even says that vitamin B12 is in dairy and eggs.
All the part about iron is saying is that while iron is in both meat and plant products the heme iron in meat is absorbed much better than the non heme iron in plants.
Luco didn't qaulify his statement by saying meat and meat derived sources. He said: "There are nutrients you can ONLY get from eating meat." Which is waht i said was untrue.
If the statement is broadened to meat and meat derived products it's obviously true. Milk for example contains a number of unique nutrients.
Luco didn't qaulify his statement by saying meat and meat derived sources. He said: "There are nutrients you can ONLY get from eating meat." Which is waht i said was untrue.
If the statement is broadened to meat and meat derived products it's obviously true. Milk for example contains a number of unique nutrients.
I mean turning meat into a liquid. Then drinking it. Drinking and eating are two mutually exclusive activities and therefore would also refute his statement because you can also drink meat in order to obtain nutrients. not just eat it.
If the point you're trying to make is that his statement was implicit therefore you can attach the "meat derived products" definition to it then fair enough. I don't refute the statement.
However I would argue that his statement wasn't implicit and not covering both bases of eating and drinking can be excluded due to the fact that most people don't drink puréed meat. Although each to their own.
ifStatement wrote:In any case the idea that there are nutrients exclusive to meat is false. Dairy products and eggs are not meat under most people's definitions.
I always find it strange that vegetarians don't consider eggs "meat."
However I would argue that his statement wasn't implicit and not covering both bases of eating and drinking can be excluded due to the fact that most people don't drink puréed meat. Although each to their own.
You'd be surprised at what is inside baby food nowadays.
You know if you really want to go to town on the whole 'what you can and can't define as meat' thing, you could argue that vegetables are meat as much of the soil they are grown in is fertilised using cow gak. It would be a much more efficient way of derailing an argument into a futile debate over definition.
hotsauceman1 wrote:I just hope this doesnt go the way of GMO's In which the companies threaten anyone who does research that hurts their product.
And there better be a law that passes that says you have to label your lab grown meat as lab grown.
Im pretty sure they would. They have to with pretty much anything else food wise.
They dont wwith GMO's in america.
And before anyone else says anything about GMO"S ii want it on the record that i think they are OK, but not testing or letting us know right away that it is GMO is what i dont ike
ifStatement wrote:You know if you really want to go to town on the whole 'what you can and can't define as meat' thing, you could argue that vegetables are meat as much of the soil they are grown in is fertilised using cow gak. It would be a much more efficient way of derailing an argument into a futile debate over definition.
Arguably then, since cow gak is a byproduct of a meat based organism, you could state that. But then how do we assess which vegetables are meat based and non meat based? Do we look at the nutrients that feed the plant? I mean, we could even start classifying plants based upon soil and non-soil production.
But where do we start? Should we begin with the most generalized definitions of meat and non-meat, then begin classifying the non-meats into derivatives of meat and things considered meat because we use meat somewhere in the process of creating the food?
First, we need scientists. Not because they would be useful or anything, but more because they would make whatever we come up with, sound reasonable to a person like me. They say "Yes, a tomato IS indeed meat, because of X chromosome and Y nutrient" And a fella like me can just nod and say "Yup. sounds about right"
But then again, I think if we were to do that, then one could easily argue that vegetables arnt meat at all, and are a species of marine life. Because of all the water they receive. Then we would have to define water! Ohhhhh......the plot thickens!
ifStatement wrote:You know if you really want to go to town on the whole 'what you can and can't define as meat' thing, you could argue that vegetables are meat as much of the soil they are grown in is fertilised using cow gak. It would be a much more efficient way of derailing an argument into a futile debate over definition.
Arguably then, since cow gak is a byproduct of a meat based organism, you could state that. But then how do we assess which vegetables are meat based and non meat based? Do we look at the nutrients that feed the plant? I mean, we could even start classifying plants based upon soil and non-soil production.
But where do we start? Should we begin with the most generalized definitions of meat and non-meat, then begin classifying the non-meats into derivatives of meat and things considered meat because we use meat somewhere in the process of creating the food?
Oh you want to go there? Ok just be careful you don't go too far along the path of bs that you conclude that all meat is a plant because the animals feed off plant life to get their nutrients.
The sensible conclusion is trying to argue that eggs and dairy are meat is dumb.
I agree an egg is an animal of sorts, unlike cheese, milk, etc. Besides, by definition dairy is catagorised as milk and products formed with it.
dair·y/ˈde(ə)rē/
Noun:
A building, room, or establishment for the storage, processing, and distribution of milk and milk products.
Adjective:
Containing or made from milk.
n0t_u wrote:I agree an egg is an animal of sorts, unlike cheese, milk, etc. Besides, by definition dairy is catagorised as milk and products formed with it.
dair·y/ˈde(ə)rē/
Noun:
A building, room, or establishment for the storage, processing, and distribution of milk and milk products.
Adjective:
Containing or made from milk.
I may have said this before, but I've generally found that among vegetarians eggs are a sort of grey area.
Some will eat them, others won't. The thinking being that, much as with synthetic meat, the main issue is harm to the animal.
What kind, a chemist, or a biologist? Or perhaps a biochemist?
Be more specific. Science isn't just "SCIENCE!" *thrusts fist in to the air triumphantly* It's many different flavors of "SCIENCE!" *thrusts fist in to the air triumphantly*.
What kind, a chemist, or a biologist? Or perhaps a biochemist?
Be more specific. Science isn't just "SCIENCE!" *thrusts fist in to the air triumphantly* It's many different flavors of "SCIENCE!" *thrusts fist in to the air triumphantly*.
What kind, a chemist, or a biologist? Or perhaps a biochemist?
Be more specific. Science isn't just "SCIENCE!" *thrusts fist in to the air triumphantly* It's many different flavors of "SCIENCE!" *thrusts fist in to the air triumphantly*.
In a land of generalizing until your point is made to the masses......who cares what type of scientist, you just need A , scientist
What kind, a chemist, or a biologist? Or perhaps a biochemist?
Be more specific. Science isn't just "SCIENCE!" *thrusts fist in to the air triumphantly* It's many different flavors of "SCIENCE!" *thrusts fist in to the air triumphantly*.
In a land of generalizing until your point is made to the masses......who cares what type of scientist, you just need A , scientist
Ok, Time to get sociologists and psychologists in here to solve this.
I am curious about the quality, perhaps we'll be able to get higher quality beef and steak for cheap. That would be very nice.
