Today is the day! / What do you think about Cultured Beef? - Page 2 - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 Old 08-05-2013, 01:36 PM
 
ponyboy85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 942
Irizary you know that I am a staunch abolitionist but unlike others I simply cannot see this as a move in the wrong direction.

I would never encourage people to eat it or directly promote it. I will only ever promote veganism as the solution but if this took off and reduced animal suffering by the 99% that it would appear to I would certainly not oppose it.

As for the health side of it I am not a 'health vegan' so I'm not particularly bothered about that aspect of it, it is just one of the many bonuses of living a compassionate lifestyle.
ponyboy85 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#32 Old 08-05-2013, 02:23 PM
Super Moderator
 
silva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 8,954

I loved the dialogue between reporters on our local news!

 

Reporter 1- Elaine, you're a vegetarian, so you won't be having any right?

 

Elaine- uh, ,no, I won't. (goes on to explain how it's done...) How about you? Would this get you to stop eating animals?

 

1- NO! It creeps me out. It's like a frankenfood...

 

Elaine- I don't really get the controversy. We've basically been creating humans is a similar way and there doesn't seem to be any real issues with that.

 

1- Yes but we don't eat them...

 

Elaine- EXACTLY!


Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good
silva is offline  
#33 Old 08-05-2013, 02:43 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Irizary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by silva View Post

I loved the dialogue between reporters on our local news!...

 

I'd like to see them describe the process of how their animal products get to the table.  That should "creep them out" more.

 

And people might not eat test tube babies.  But they breed with them.


"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

 

Every animal you eat
was running for her life

Irizary is offline  
#34 Old 08-05-2013, 07:27 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Rinchen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Both here and not here
Posts: 677
While I'm happy it's better for the animals, I only hope that it's not worse for humans that consume it than conventionally raised meat.
Rinchen is offline  
#35 Old 08-05-2013, 08:04 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Irizary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rinchen View Post

While I'm happy it's better for the animals, I only hope that it's not worse for humans that consume it than conventionally raised meat.

 

With things like mad cow, e. coli (and farm run-off that contaminates vegetables), bird flu, over-use of antibiotics, etc. I'm surprised that people are so concerned that this is going to be some health disaster.  Meat production and consumption is already a health disaster, and this would alleviate a lot of those problems.


"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

 

Every animal you eat
was running for her life

Irizary is offline  
#36 Old 08-05-2013, 09:13 PM
Impeach the gangster
 
Capstan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rinchen View Post

While I'm happy it's better for the animals, I only hope that it's not worse for humans that consume it than conventionally raised meat.

 

They say it's failed the "taste test" by those who've tried it, who say it has the texture of meat, but lacks in flavor, because of the absence of fatty tissue. Now the developers are saying they can tweak the process so in future there will be more fat in it. That should be great for peoples' health, eh?


"There is more wisdom in the song of a bird, than in the speech of a philosopher...." -Oahspe
"The thing is, you cannot judge a race. Any man who judges by the group is a pea-wit. You take men one at a time." -Buster Kilrain, The Killer Angels -Michael Shaara
"Anyone who doesn't believe in miracles isn't a realist." -Billy Wilder
Capstan is offline  
#37 Old 08-05-2013, 09:19 PM
Riot Nrrrd
 
Dave in MPLS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: St Cloud MN
Posts: 3,180

A segment on this aired on All In tonight.

 

part 1: http://video.msnbc.msn.com/all-in-/52681217 (Curtis Stone, Amanda Cohen, some guy)

part 2: http://video.msnbc.msn.com/all-in-/52681203/ (Curtis Stone, Amanda Cohen, Bruce Friedrich!)


Dave in MPLS / DISCLAIMER: I am not an actual rooster.
"It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness"
National Suicide Prevention Lifeline 18002738255
Dave in MPLS is offline  
#38 Old 08-05-2013, 09:32 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Rinchen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Both here and not here
Posts: 677
smiley.gif

I understand that they even cooked it in butter but that didn't really impart much flavor to the meat.

My concerns though are twofold. One is the whether there will be any residual effect from the growth medium they place the stem cells in to stimulate growth. It uncomfortably reminds me of cancer cell proliferation. I'm curious to see if this stimulated rapid cell division leads to increased mutations and whether those mutations will produce dangerous byproducts.

Secondly it is my understanding that ground beef is more susceptible to bacterial infection than whole cuts of meat due to the increased surface area. As cultured meat is necessarily grown in small bits, what kind of antibacterial protections are necessary to insure the safety of the meat. And will those antibacterial protections contribute to the antibiotic resistant superbugs that medical science is already trying to combat?

I understand that cultured meat can solve a host of existing problems. My concerns are that they don't lead to a host of new ones.
Rinchen is offline  
#39 Old 08-05-2013, 10:44 PM
 
ponyboy85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 942
But like I said before on something like this the health and safety checks will be far far far more stringent than the meat people currently eat.
ponyboy85 is offline  
#40 Old 08-05-2013, 10:52 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Irizary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,749

It's hard for me to imagine how this could create a greater crisis than over 10 BILLION land animals in the US alone being tortured and killed on factory farms each year.  Humans have never in history endured the catastrophe that we're forcing these animals to endure, in numbers and amount of suffering..  I really think people who don't even know much about this wringing their hands about how gross or scary this product is are very narrowly focused on relative human trivialities.  There's a lot more reason for optimism than negativity.  This kind of reminds me of how people who are eating really crappy omnivore diets say that vegan diets are unhealthy because it's hard to get enough nutrients - when they themselves are eating a substandard diet.  The burden to be perfect falls on the thing that's unique.  The system we have now is completely unsustainable and causes diseases.  Mad cow, e. coli, trichinosis, bird flu, smallpox, overuse of antibiotics, deforestation, immense suffering...and people think this thing that might eliminate those problems is just too gross or scary?

 

Babies are grown in test tubes and come out fine.  They're not cancer-ridden mutants.  And I don't see why this would need some super special antibacterial protection that will wreck everyone's immunity - certainly not more than we're already dumping into farm animals.  

 

 

leedsveg likes this.

"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

 

Every animal you eat
was running for her life

Irizary is offline  
#41 Old 08-06-2013, 04:47 AM
Newbie
 
Britt314's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irizary View Post

It's hard for me to imagine how this could create a greater crisis than over 10 BILLION land animals in the US alone being tortured and killed on factory farms each year.  Humans have never in history endured the catastrophe that we're forcing these animals to endure, in numbers and amount of suffering..  I really think people who don't even know much about this wringing their hands about how gross or scary this product is are very narrowly focused on relative human trivialities.  There's a lot more reason for optimism than negativity.  This kind of reminds me of how people who are eating really crappy omnivore diets say that vegan diets are unhealthy because it's hard to get enough nutrients - when they themselves are eating a substandard diet.  The burden to be perfect falls on the thing that's unique.  The system we have now is completely unsustainable and causes diseases.  Mad cow, e. coli, trichinosis, bird flu, smallpox, overuse of antibiotics, deforestation, immense suffering...and people think this thing that might eliminate those problems is just too gross or scary?

 

Babies are grown in test tubes and come out fine.  They're not cancer-ridden mutants.  And I don't see why this would need some super special antibacterial protection that will wreck everyone's immunity - certainly not more than we're already dumping into farm animals.  

 

 


Exactly! Well put.


the truth resists simplicity- John Green

Britt314 is offline  
#42 Old 08-06-2013, 09:55 AM
 
ewcollins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 109

Please see http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/05/worlds-first-cruelty-free-hamburger where Peter Singer (author of Animal Liberation) says, " I haven't eaten meat for 40 years, but if in vitro meat becomes commercially available, I will be pleased to try it."

ewcollins is offline  
#43 Old 08-07-2013, 05:36 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Rinchen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Both here and not here
Posts: 677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irizary View Post

Babies are grown in test tubes and come out fine.  They're not cancer-ridden mutants.  And I don't see why this would need some super special antibacterial protection that will wreck everyone's immunity - certainly not more than we're already dumping into farm animals.

Babies aren't grown in test tubes. Fertilization occurs in the test tube and then the fertilized zygote is implanted into a human host. And they also are not subjected to a growth medium to stimulate growth, e.g. rapid cell division.

It is, I believe, a fact that cancer is much more likely to arise in rapidly dividing cells as genetic mutations occur when an error is made in copying the DNA in preparation for mitosis. When you are deliberately stimulating growth, i.e. stimulating rapid cell division, the potential for cancer to arise is significantly higher. Or at least that seems to be a logical conclusion to me. Is there any research on the safety on ingesting cancerous tissue?

Despite the amount of antibiotics that are already being given to farm animals, it doesn't change the fact that ground meats are still much more likely to carry bacterial infections. As cultured meat can, at this point, only be grown in small bits and those bits are then ground, the potential for bacterial infection is much greater because there is more surface area, where bacterial infection arises, from the start of the process to the finish.

You are, I believe, attempting to paint me as being negative on the process. I'm not. What I am is cautiously concerned that we're not exchanging one set of problems for another.
Rinchen is offline  
#44 Old 08-07-2013, 07:00 AM
 
ponyboy85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 942
Depends what you consider the problems to be. The problem for me is at the moment an innocent being was slaughtered for people to eat, with this process they were not (to some extent I know).
ponyboy85 is offline  
#45 Old 08-07-2013, 09:43 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Irizary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rinchen View Post

It is, I believe, a fact that cancer is much more likely to arise in rapidly dividing cells as genetic mutations occur when an error is made in copying the DNA in preparation for mitosis. When you are deliberately stimulating growth, i.e. stimulating rapid cell division, the potential for cancer to arise is significantly higher. Or at least that seems to be a logical conclusion to me. Is there any research on the safety on ingesting cancerous tissue?

Despite the amount of antibiotics that are already being given to farm animals, it doesn't change the fact that ground meats are still much more likely to carry bacterial infections. As cultured meat can, at this point, only be grown in small bits and those bits are then ground, the potential for bacterial infection is much greater because there is more surface area, where bacterial infection arises, from the start of the process to the finish.

You are, I believe, attempting to paint me as being negative on the process. I'm not. What I am is cautiously concerned that we're not exchanging one set of problems for another.

 

What actual evidence do you have that any of this is a problem?  That this particular thing might be growing cancer cells?  That even if it were that it would be a major problem or wouldn't be immediately noticeable?  What do you think the meat industry does with diseased flesh right now?  You realize that many farm animals have been bred and raised to grow unnaturally large and fast (turkeys, for example, can't even stand up as they age - they have been bred to have such large breasts, so quickly, that their bones can't support their weight and they crack when they try to walk).  Frankly, it doesn't exactly make sense to me that you can get cancer from ingesting cancer (and if you can, then I'm pretty sure a lot of meat eaters right now are ingesting cancer from diseased animals).  But I know humans have gotten a lot of other things from ingesting or being around farm animals - mad cow, e. coli, trichinosis, salmonella, bird flu, smallpox, to name just some.  

 

What evidence do you have that this meat will be prone to bacterial infections at all?  It's probably grown in a sterile environment, and most importantly it's not contaminated by the slaughter process that scatters pieces of fecal matter around the room.

 

I do think you are being negative and fear mongering, without evidence.  There are a lot of concerns with meat right now - health concerns, environmental concerns, animal concerns.  Theorizing (without knowing the whole process) all the ways that this will be bad seems to me to be blind to the unmitigated horror of the meat industry as it is right now.   

 

I'm not seeing anything authoritative on a Google search that indicates some problem with cancers with this, and I see things that say that antibiotics are not necessary.  I think you need to come up with some evidence to back up your theorizing.

Blobbenstein likes this.

"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

 

Every animal you eat
was running for her life

Irizary is offline  
#46 Old 08-07-2013, 10:43 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Rinchen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Both here and not here
Posts: 677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irizary View Post

What actual evidence do you have that any of this is a problem?  That this particular thing might be growing cancer cells?  That even if it were that it would be a major problem or wouldn't be immediately noticeable?  What do you think the meat industry does with diseased flesh right now?  You realize that many farm animals have been bred and raised to grow unnaturally large and fast (turkeys, for example, can't even stand up as they age - they have been bred to have such large breasts, so quickly, that their bones can't support their weight and they crack when they try to walk).  Frankly, it doesn't exactly make sense to me that you can get cancer from ingesting cancer (and if you can, then I'm pretty sure a lot of meat eaters right now are ingesting cancer from diseased animals).  But I know humans have gotten a lot of other things from ingesting or being around farm animals - mad cow, e. coli, trichinosis, salmonella, bird flu, smallpox, to name just some.  

What evidence do you have that this meat will be prone to bacterial infections at all?  It's probably grown in a sterile environment, and most importantly it's not contaminated by the slaughter process that scatters pieces of fecal matter around the room.

I do think you are being negative and fear mongering, without evidence.  There are a lot of concerns with meat right now - health concerns, environmental concerns, animal concerns.  Theorizing (without knowing the whole process) all the ways that this will be bad seems to me to be blind to the unmitigated horror of the meat industry as it is right now.   

I'm not seeing anything authoritative on a Google search that indicates some problem with cancers with this, and I see things that say that antibiotics are not necessary.  I think you need to come up with some evidence to back up your theorizing.

Irizary, you are jumping to conclusions about things I've never claimed. I have not once made claims these issues are in fact problems. What I have addressed are possible concerns about the safety of this new technology based on my understanding concerning cancers and contaminated meat. I have used phrases such as 'the potential for cancer to arise' or 'the potential for bacterial infection'. This is not the same thing as saying these are problems which require evidence to back up. As far as the basis for my concerns, I think I have already laid those out fairly clearly. They are concerns, not claims, I have about a new technology for which I would like to understand the risk factors before making it widely available.

What you call fear mongering I call cautiousness. I'm not blinded to the "unmitigated horror of the meat industry as it is right now." I understand the plight of farm animals and I understand the negative effects from consuming them. That does not, however, suggest to me that we should jump into a new technology headfirst without knowing exactly what we're getting into.

To restate my original comment, "I only hope that it's not worse for humans that consume it than conventionally raised meat."
Rinchen is offline  
#47 Old 08-07-2013, 11:22 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Pixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 5,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElaineV View Post


Will I feed it to my cats? Probably.

 

That is a good point. I wouldn't eat this meat as a vegan obviously but I would prefer this to feed my companion animals.

Pixie is offline  
#48 Old 08-07-2013, 11:24 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Irizary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rinchen View Post

I have used phrases such as 'the potential for cancer to arise' or 'the potential for bacterial infection'. This is not the same thing as saying these are problems which require evidence to back up. 

 

I've seen an article that says that antibiotics are not required - and that makes sense to me.  So I do think you need to provide some evidence other than your own theorizing about something you know hardly anything about, before raising a lot of fear for people who don't understand this stuff at all.  People will start spouting off about how they read something about "cancer" on some website, not understanding it at all, but just having that association with it.

 

I've seen people talk about how it must be gross and scary, and you're bringing up problems that I'm frankly not sure are any concern at all - and neither are you.

 

I think a big part of what will make this commercially viable is people not freaking out about it.  I'm not going to let your OMG cancer! antibiotics! fears sit without challenging them, because you have no clue at this point.  

 

And I personally think that mad cow is a pretty terrifying and under-diagnosed disease - and I really don't think any issue with meat grown in a lab is going to top that - antibiotic use in farm animals is creating super bugs, and there are so many other health, environmental, and welfare issues with animal husbandry that if anything you should be vigorously sounding the alarm for the current system and embracing the possibility of change rather than fear mongering.  Lab grown meat is going to be years before it's ever commercially viable - just let it play itself out.  I'm sure actual scientists will raise legitimate concerns if there are any. 

 

Raise your concerns if you want, but you should be challenged on evidence, because it's empty theorizing about something you know little about, without it.

Blobbenstein likes this.

"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

 

Every animal you eat
was running for her life

Irizary is offline  
#49 Old 08-07-2013, 12:47 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Rinchen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Both here and not here
Posts: 677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irizary View Post
I do think you need to provide some evidence other than your own theorizing about something you know hardly anything about, before raising a lot of fear for people who don't understand this stuff at all.  People will start spouting off about how they read something about "cancer" on some website, not understanding it at all, but just having that association with it.

People who think questions shouldn't be asked are people not to be trusted. Why should I not question what risks are involved in a technology that could potentially endanger me or my family? And I take no responsibility for anyone else and what they read and the conclusions they draw from that. To do so would only involve dumbing down dialogue to the lowest common denominator.

 

Originally Posted by Irizary View Post
Lab grown meat is going to be years before it's ever commercially viable - just let it play itself out.  I'm sure actual scientists will raise legitimate concerns if there are any. 

 

Raise your concerns if you want, but you should be challenged on evidence, because it's empty theorizing about something you know little about, without it.

I agree, let it play out so any and all testing can be done to see if its safe. As far as letting actual scientists raise legitimate concerns...

 

Quote:
"Dr Steele, who is also a molecular biologist, said he was also concerned that unhealthily high levels of antibiotics and antifungal chemicals would be needed to stop the synthetic meat from rotting." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16972761

This too

Quote:

To be fair though, I have yet to find an article regarding my concern that the process of culturing meat can produce cancerous cells.

 

ETA quote

Rinchen is offline  
#50 Old 08-07-2013, 01:13 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Irizary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,749

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rinchen View Post

People who think questions shouldn't be asked are people not to be trusted. Why should I not question what risks are involved in a technology that could potentially endanger me or my family? 

 

Ask all the questions you want - I'm just going to challenge you when you go through this reasoning process and talk about "logical conclusions" for your fears about something you know very little about.  I don't think your conclusions are all that logical, about cancer or antibiotics.  But people who know even less about science than we might, might think so.  I think the subtext for many people when talking about this is fear of change.  You and your family are already endangered by current animal husbandry practices (and even vegans get things like bird flu, are sickened by super bugs that have become antibiotic resistant, and have vegetables contaminated by farm manure run-off).

 

Now, neither of us may know all that much about the science of this.  I'll bet no one here really knows that much about it.  So if you're going to go out on a limb and theorize about some dread thing with a technology that has the potential to save billions of animals each year from suffering and death, I'm going to ask you to back it up with something, and I don't see a problem with that.  This has been really big in the press.  If you think it might cause cancer or some antibiotic nightmare, surely someone reputable will be speaking up about it, and I'll look at that.  This technology in fact goes up against very powerful ag businesses that won't want to see it succeed, and if there's some problem with it, you'll be hearing about it.  But associating negative consequences with this with no evidence or good scientific reasoning based on more thorough knowledge seems like needless hand wringing that ought best to be challenged.


"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

 

Every animal you eat
was running for her life

Irizary is offline  
#51 Old 08-07-2013, 01:58 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Rinchen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Both here and not here
Posts: 677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irizary View Post

Ask all the questions you want - I'm just going to challenge you when you go through this reasoning process and talk about "logical conclusions" for your fears about something you know very little about.  I don't think your conclusions are all that logical, about cancer or antibiotics. 

But associating negative consequences with this with no evidence or good scientific reasoning based on more thorough knowledge seems like needless hand wringing that ought best to be challenged.

I may not be an oncologist or microbiologist but I do teach anatomy and physiology at DeVry University so, if I were you, I wouldn't assume that I know "very little about" either how certain cancers arise or how bacteria can multiply and cause illnesses.

While you may not understand the logic behind my concerns, it is logic based on very real, very accepted scientific knowledge. And I also don't understand how you can say there is no evidence when I've already provided you with two sources; one a quote from a microbiologist and another from Scientific American.
Rinchen is offline  
#52 Old 08-07-2013, 02:13 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Irizary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rinchen View Post


I may not be an oncologist or microbiologist but I do teach anatomy and physiology at DeVry University so, if I were you, I wouldn't assume that I know "very little about" either how certain cancers arise or how bacteria can multiply and cause illnesses.

While you may not understand the logic behind my concerns, it is logic based on very real, very accepted scientific knowledge. And I also don't understand how you can say there is no evidence when I've already provided you with two sources; one a quote from a microbiologist and another from Scientific American.

 

You don't understand how I missed your quotes?  You edited them in afterwards and I didn't see them when I posted my response.  But I'm glad to see you're trying to back up what you're saying.  

 

However, I don't see a comparison with the levels of antibiotics needed for lab meat with the unhealthy levels of antibiotics that are being used now.  The lab meat shouldn't be held to a higher standard, but it might be.  The existing, grandfathered-in method can be worse than a newer method, but it's the newer one that is held up for scrutiny.  So I would need to see that rather than just "unhealthy levels of antibiotics!"  We're ALREADY using unhealthy levels of antibiotics.  Is this different? 

 

I don't think you know about this exact process, but if you read about it in the search to find something wrong with it you will learn more I guess, and can sound more authoritative.  To this point you haven't said things that convince me of your great knowledge, so your speculation to me is questionable, and as with anyone on the internet I have no idea of your real life accomplishments or what they're worth.  I have to just go by what's in front of me.


"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

 

Every animal you eat
was running for her life

Irizary is offline  
#53 Old 08-07-2013, 02:28 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Irizary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,749

Here - as I see it, this is something that promises to end the suffering and death of animals.  That wouldn't be in question, if it were financially viable and available commercially.  I see you, instead of looking at that certainty, wringing your hands over some potential negative consequences which, even if they were marginally worse than the system we have now, pale in comparison.  I don't get animal advocates shunning and having a primarily negative or worried reaction to this, given the certainty of what it would mean for animals.


"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

 

Every animal you eat
was running for her life

Irizary is offline  
#54 Old 08-07-2013, 05:06 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Rinchen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Both here and not here
Posts: 677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irizary View Post

You don't understand how I missed your quotes?  You edited them in afterwards and I didn't see them when I posted my response.  But I'm glad to see you're trying to back up what you're saying.  

However, I don't see a comparison with the levels of antibiotics needed for lab meat with the unhealthy levels of antibiotics that are being used now.  The lab meat shouldn't be held to a higher standard, but it might be.  The existing, grandfathered-in method can be worse than a newer method, but it's the newer one that is held up for scrutiny.  So I would need to see that rather than just "unhealthy levels of antibiotics!"  We're ALREADY using unhealthy levels of antibiotics.  Is this different? 

I don't think you know about this exact process, but if you read about it in the search to find something wrong with it you will learn more I guess, and can sound more authoritative.  To this point you haven't said things that convince me of your great knowledge, so your speculation to me is questionable, and as with anyone on the internet I have no idea of your real life accomplishments or what they're worth.  I have to just go by what's in front of me.

Actually I only edited to add the second quote. The first was in the original post.

Yes, we are using sub-therapeutic levels of antibiotics in the current farmed animal meat supply and, yes, they are believed to be at least partially responsible for the strains of drug resistant bacteria. However, bacteria live on surfaces, either external or exposed to the exterior. Those that manage to get past the epithelial layer are dealt with by the immune system. Cultured meat has no epithelial layer that bacteria need to penetrate nor does it have an immune system to fight off invading pathogens. Additionally, because only small ribbons can be grown, it is much much higher in surface area and therefore much much more susceptible to bacterial infection. So high levels of antibiotic are necessary to prevent the bacteria from infecting the meat. Most likely even more than what is fed to livestock on a gram by gram basis because livestock already have a functioning, if stressed, immune system. Cultured meat needs to be held to a higher standard because it is more at risk to be infected than farmed meat.

You are correct to say that I don't know about the exact process. But I have already referenced two, non-scholarly yet scientific, sources that back up what I previously alluded to about the antibiotics in regards to cultured meat. It is a small intellectual jump to see that if sub-therapeutic doses of antibiotic can be, at least, partly responsible for antibiotic resistant bacteria, then larger doses would, in theory, only make the problem that much worse.

You, on the other hand, have no basis which you have provided that would demonstrate that the high level of antibiotics provided to cultured meat would make things "marginally worse" than the sub-therapeutic levels provided now.

You're right in that it would be unquestionably good for the animals. My only concern is making sure its not devastating to humans as well. That is a zero sum game and a bad deal all around.

A link for the sub-therapeutic doses of antibiotics given to farmed livestock.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/safe/overview.html
Rinchen is offline  
#55 Old 08-07-2013, 05:17 PM
 
jpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 422

If eating cultured beef (i'm picturing a cow at the opera) lessens animal suffering and death, ok, but I'll stick with beans.

jpaul is offline  
#56 Old 08-07-2013, 05:22 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Irizary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rinchen View Post

You, on the other hand, have no basis which you have provided that would demonstrate that the high level of antibiotics provided to cultured meat would make things "marginally worse" than the sub-therapeutic levels provided now.

 

How do you know that the high level of antibiotics would be any higher than what is currently used for livestock?  I'm not making any claim about the antibiotics here except to say that as far as I know we don't even know if the relative amount of antibiotics that would be used is even higher than what is currently given. Do we?  Maybe it's less.  


"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

 

Every animal you eat
was running for her life

Irizary is offline  
#57 Old 08-07-2013, 05:32 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Rinchen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Both here and not here
Posts: 677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irizary View Post

How do you know that the high level of antibiotics would be any higher than what is currently used for livestock?  I'm not making any claim about the antibiotics here except to say that as far as I know we don't even know if the relative amount of antibiotics that would be used is even higher than what is currently given. Do we?  Maybe it's less.  

It's true that we don't know exactly the amounts given but using the word clues in the links I provided gives us an indication of the different levels. Farmed animals are given "sub-therapeutic doses" whereas cultured meat is given "unhealthily high doses" and "heavy antibiotic use"

Just based on the terminology to describe the levels, I think we can safely assume that the doses used to treat cultured meat are not less.
Rinchen is offline  
#58 Old 08-07-2013, 05:49 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Irizary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rinchen View Post


It's true that we don't know exactly the amounts given but using the word clues in the links I provided gives us an indication of the different levels. Farmed animals are given "sub-therapeutic doses" whereas cultured meat is given "unhealthily high doses" and "heavy antibiotic use"

Just based on the terminology to describe the levels, I think we can safely assume that the doses used to treat cultured meat are not less.

 

O.k., I will accept your reasoning and you could be correct.  But still, the same person isn't using the phrase "sub therapeutic doses" for farmed animals and the other phrases for lab meat, so what it is relatively isn't at all certain.  For all I know though, it could be safer to use the higher doses in a controlled environment than lower doses in industrial farms.  The chronic low doses that are used in farm animals - 80% of all antibiotics are used for farmed animals - may allow superbugs to develop more easily because the doses aren't enough to kill everything, and some "bugs" stay alive and begin to thrive.  Industrial farms and slaughterhouses aren't in any way sterile environments.  


"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

 

Every animal you eat
was running for her life

Irizary is offline  
#59 Old 08-07-2013, 06:14 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Rinchen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Both here and not here
Posts: 677
I can grant you that based on the different authors, relative wording is far from certain.

I also agree with you that the sub-therapeutic levels may actually encourage resistant bacteria to grow whereas higher levels may have the opposite effect, but only on the meat itself. It's a big unknown. Is there some kind of washing process? Are the superbugs already resistant to the lower levels resistant to the higher levels as well? I don't know but these are the concerns I have and the questions I would like answered before this is made widely available. As you said before, let it all play out. But I'm not prepared to endorse it just yet until I have some confidence that it is indeed safe.
Rinchen is offline  
#60 Old 08-07-2013, 08:29 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Irizary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,749

O.k. - here's a possible answer to the other question.  Not the greatest source and it comes from one of my least favorite people, because Dr. Oz is a vivisector who was so cruel his lab was fined and he was denied more grants*, but he is a cardiologist, and it was the first thing that came up for "can you get cancer from eating cancerous meat" so here it is:

 

Quote:
Q: Do chickens and cows get cancer? And if so, is it dangerous to eat cancerous meat? 
 
A: Just like us, chickens and cows can develop cancer. But cancer is largely a disease of the aging process, and animals raised for food are slaughtered while they're young. If, by some chance, a meat product does contain cancerous cells, cooking it will kill them. And even if your steak tartare came from a cancer-afflicted cow, there's no evidence to suggest you'd suffer any ill effects...

 

 
 
*Dr. Oz (he's the doctor who was on Oprah and now has his own tv show) and vivisection:

"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

 

Every animal you eat
was running for her life

Irizary is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off