Test Tube Beef
Chris MacDonald asked me whether this piece in the Globe and Mail is really a bioethics story; "Will consumers have a beef with test-tube meat?"Maybe yes, but what I keep wondering is whether or not meat grown from the cellular level could possibly be worse than McNuggets. The piece is pretty vivid:
Scientists can grow frog and mouse meat in the lab, and are now working on pork, beef and chicken. Their goal is to develop an industrial version of the process in five years.
If they succeed, cultured or in vitro meat could be coming to a supermarket near you. Consumers could buy hamburger patties and chicken nuggets made from meat cultivated from muscle cells in a giant incubator rather than cut from a farm animal.
Home chefs could make meat in a countertop device the size of a coffee maker. Before bed, throw starter cells and a package of growth medium into the meat maker and wake up to harvest fresh sausage for breakfast.
The only question is whether or not animal rights activists will start to make anti-abortion claims regarding the rights of disorganized but living piles of chicken cells.
contribute a comment
Comments have been closed for this post.
comments
"Anti-abortion" groups don't make "claims regarding the rights of disorganized but living piles of cells." They champion the protection of fully-ordered complete organisms. There is a difference and you know that. Shame on you!
- by Rebecca Taylor on Mar 31, 2006 at 4:17 PM | link
Of course this is a bioethics issue. It's arguably one of *the* most important bioethics issues because the development of these technologies will have a direct impact on the millions upon millions of non-human animals that are raised and slaughtered on farms for human consumption.
Not only is the raising of livestock a massive ethics breakdown, it's environmentally crippling as well.
Consequently, animal rights activists in particular should be in favour of this 'test tube' meat, and I can't see any animal rights person in their right mind claiming that chunks of lab meat are worthy of moral consideration. I'll leave that sort of abstraction to the religious right, speciests, and anyone else in denial of non-human animal personhood.
- by George Dvorsky on Mar 31, 2006 at 6:42 PM | link
This is certainly a major bioethical issue, with powerful implications for the direction of molecular/genetic science, biocentrism, and food production.
I'm am very interested in the potential of this research, for the options it will offer in reducing resource demands in the production of meat.
However, I also find it hard to find that Animal Rights people will embrace this science. They are too skeptical of this form of technology (ie, GM crops). And they generally have a very deep rooted ideal of human/animal interaction which does not condone eating other animals, regardless of the source and method of creating this meat.
The currently meat-eating general public will also be hesitant to try "artificial" meat (one can already imagine the amount of propaganda that will dilute the facts). The irony being that if people were more aware of current meat production methods, they would probably jump at the option of alternative meat (or just stop eating it all together).
Lastly, I think the comment about whether this meat would even be better than McDonalds meat, is good question. Of course there is still much work to be done in refining this process. But kind of impact would the consumption of this type of meat have on human bodies (and what about other animals who would be fed it as well)?
One of my biggest issues with these forms of technology are not what they are doing, but the pace at which they are moved thru the developing and testing processes. I know the temptation in rushing these technologies to commercial viability (both for profits and to make them accessible to the public). But if there are longer term negative repercussions, arent we better to slow down the process and avoid making a bad situation worse?
- by ahzembiq on Apr 2, 2006 at 5:18 PM | link
Serious question...
What will we do with all the animals that are left?
Will we slaughter them and only keep the best ones for breeding, and then only breed as necessary?
Will this further alienate people from nature? Many kids today don't know that milk comes from cows and meat comes from animals. (Parents and schools where are you?) Will this further that disconnect?
And EWWWW.........I don't make my own bread or yogurt- why would I grow meat?
- by impatientpatient on Apr 3, 2006 at 2:55 AM | link
I'm way in favor of this development, for a lot of reasons. But animal personhood probably doesn't extend to cows, pigs, chickens, etc. And I don't think that marks me as someone "in denial."
- by Bob Koepp on Apr 3, 2006 at 2:33 PM | link
Wow here we go trying to do a better job than God. I think this is ridiculous to waste vaulable research time on this that could be used to find a cure for cancer, diabetes, heart disease. What's wrong with the meat we have. Nothing!!!!
- by Schref on Apr 6, 2006 at 1:32 AM | link
Foremost -God made cows, chickens, pigs etc to nourish our bodies. Look at how soft drinks and other chemically formulated foods are linked to cancer, obesity, etc.
Secondly- It was cool to make my own bread, homemade in my breadmachine. However, the thoughts of producing my own meat is FRIGHTENING!! I think the general public would have a hard time just getting over the concept, let alone embracing it.
Don't mess with my juicy prime rib or cheeseburger!
- by Karrah K on Apr 10, 2006 at 11:26 PM | link
The idea of "growing" my own meat on my kitchen counter is frightening! Why is this necessary? Now what will happen to our farmers if this ridiculous idea takes hold? What will happen to all of the livestock? Talk about the needless slaughtering of animals, in this case, it won't even be for a food source, the farmers won't be able to afford to feed them and keep them as pets.
- by Rebecca R. on Apr 11, 2006 at 1:02 PM | link
yea agree with you guys!
- by bed on Jun 10, 2006 at 4:47 PM | link