VeggieBoards banner
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,875 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat

From wikipedia:

"In vitro meat, also known as laboratory-grown meat, is animal flesh that has never been part of a complete, living animal. As of May 2003, some scientists are experimentally growing in vitro meat in laboratories, but no meat has been produced yet for public consumption. Potentially, any animal could be a source of cells for in vitro meat, even humans."

Someone here brought up the point that until an animal doesn't have to die for someone to eat meat- it is and will always be, unethical. (Not quoted directly) My fiance brought this up and aked how I felt. I said I didn't have enough information to render any kind of specific opinion. It's interesting but I still don't know enough about it...

What do you think?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
590 Posts
if it has all the qualities of meat without being derived from a living being then it definitely does no harm. I dont see that being any different then buying mock meats, soy burgers, etc.

the only difference is that it's DNA matches that of the flesh of a living being.

I myself dont know whether or not i would eat it though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,875 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I know right? I really don't know if I could eat that...

I have issues with this:

"Animals are still used as tools in multiple steps. For example, current cell and tissue culture almost always use calf or fetal calf serum (or other animal sources, such as pituitary extracts) to provide the growth factors the cells need to signal them to divide. However, animals would not have to be killed in the process, which minimizes the ethical implications of eating meat."

It may "minimize the ethical implications" but I'm still curious about the # of lives used in cultivation and the animal suffering.

Who knows though... could help change some things- someday
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
318 Posts
I'm not sure which I think is more disgusting, to be quite honest. But then again, I find veg*an "meat substitutes" questionable as well. That may be why I ahve so much trouble with it. If you want to eat it, then eat it. Don't make up weird stuff as a substitute. (my opinion of course, and I understand if I am in a tiny minority).

I would question where the original piece of meat came from....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,320 Posts
As long as no animal is hurt/killed, I believe it is ethical. They are even doing this on people. Ingrid Newkirk, founder of PETA, says that after she dies, she wants her flesh to be grown in-vitro and barbequed for people to eat. However, I still think it is disgusting. I would not be able to eat in-vitro meat for health reasons and the fact that it is plain gross to eat animal flesh in general IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
190 Posts
I worry if this was to be taken up as a massive commercial venture like the flesh industry is today I suspect you will have selective breeding and animals being kept so that they can extract the cells. This scenario would (In my opinion) be unethical.

If it can eventually remove the animal from the process then I suspect that I will have a small amount of it in my diet. Still wouldn't eat too much for health reasons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,875 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I don't know if it can be done without "using" some animals. Though I do believe it would be harming much much less animals than the current ways. My other issue with it is the sheer unnaturalness (word?) of this. It's just too.... synthetic. But I would be so glad to see Omnis have the choice of "in vetro" vs. "slaughtered". I would hope poeple chose the synthetic. Maybe someday....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
516 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehappyhippo View Post

I worry if this was to be taken up as a massive commercial venture like the flesh industry is today I suspect you will have selective breeding and animals being kept so that they can extract the cells. This scenario would (In my opinion) be unethical.

If it can eventually remove the animal from the process then I suspect that I will have a small amount of it in my diet. Still wouldn't eat too much for health reasons.
I would agree with the top - but not so much the bottom.

One of the reasons that I am Vegan is because I see eating flesh - of any creature - wrong and unethical. No matter how you get the flesh, I will not eat it. I would not eat human flesh, so I will not eat animal flesh.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussyj View Post

One of the reasons that I am Vegan is because I see eating flesh - of any creature - wrong and unethical. No matter how you get the flesh, I will not eat it.


So what's your take on carnivorous animals? You've said before that you oppose anything that holds a double standard for humans and non-humans.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
236 Posts
Go to this site for a discussion of how unethical in-vitro meat is:

http://www.abolitionist-online.com/a...ube-meat.shtml

And I dunno about Aussyj, but I definitely see a difference between what a wild carnivorous animal does and what a human being chooses to do. For example, a lion eating a gazelle (which I avoid watching if possible) is upsetting to me, but I don't judge the lion as being immoral since the lion has to eat meat. Human beings not only don't have to eat meat, but are better off without meat in their diets. Big difference...that is not a double standard: human or non-human animals must have nutrition, though the type of nutrition that is healthy is not the same across animals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by carabdle View Post

Go to this site for a discussion of how unethical in-vitro meat is:

http://www.abolitionist-online.com/a...ube-meat.shtml
*yawn*

Seen it already. I personally thought it was ridiculous and stopped reading when it starting going on about Nazi human skin lamps. WTF?

Quote:
Originally Posted by carabdle View Post

Human beings not only don't have to eat meat, but are better off without meat in their diets. Big difference...that is not a double standard: human or non-human animals must have nutrition, though the type of nutrition that is healthy is not the same across animals.
But I'm talking about morals, not nutrition. After all, some AR activists insist that anything which harms animals is bad even if it's done for the greater good. Besides, while it's unhealthy to eat meat at everyone other meal, having the occasional bit of meat isn't bad for the human body and it does provide some needed nutrients, some of which are difficult to find elsewhere.

And while saying that people are healthier without meat is easy if you're a well-to-do westerner with access to a variety of food, but it's not quite so easy for people living in situations where it's a choice between eating meat and dying of malnutrition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by carabdle View Post

Go to this site for a discussion of how unethical in-vitro meat is:

http://www.abolitionist-online.com/a...ube-meat.shtml
*yawn*

Seen it already. I personally thought it was ridiculous and stopped reading when it starting going on about Nazi human skin lamps. WTF?

Quote:
Originally Posted by carabdle View Post

Human beings not only don't have to eat meat, but are better off without meat in their diets. Big difference...that is not a double standard: human or non-human animals must have nutrition, though the type of nutrition that is healthy is not the same across animals.
But I'm talking about morals, not nutrition. After all, some AR activists insist that anything which harms animals is wrong even if it's done for a good reason. Besides, while it's unhealthy to eat meat at everyone other meal, having the occasional bit of meat isn't bad for the human body and it does provide some needed nutrients, some of which are difficult to find elsewhere.

And while saying that people are healthier without meat is easy if you're a well-to-do westerner with access to a variety of food, but it's not quite so easy for people living in situations where it's a choice between eating meat and dying of malnutrition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
236 Posts
Some of those malnourished people are denied access to the vast abundance of plant foods that go to waste in rich Western countries, so it would be much more ethical to help them gain access to those reserves as opposed to having them eat meat. Does that mean I'd condemn them for eating meat right now? No, I try not to judge people in far worse circumstances than myself. However, it is largely the fault of rich Western countries (either directly or indirectly) that they don't have access to more healthy plant-based foods. Largely plant-based diets with some meat might not be as unhealthy, but that is largely due to the curative aspects of the plant-based part of the diet (phytochemicals, fiber, etc)--not the meat. There are very few nutrients not contained in some plant-based food (seaweed, certain yeasts, flax oil, etc), especially in affluent Western societies. As far as the health benefits of "moderate" meat-eating, that does not mesh with the research by T. Colin Campbell, Dr. McDougall, Dr. Ornish, etc. It mainly meshes with research done by (or at least financed by) the animal agriculture industry, which is far more biased than the site that you refuse to even read completely
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by carabdle View Post

Some of those malnourished people are denied access to the vast abundance of plant foods that go to waste in rich Western countries, so it would be much more ethical to help them gain access to those reserves as opposed to having them eat meat.
Oh, I agree. I'm just saying that the situation that they're in currently is an example of one where it would be pretty justifiable to eat meat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by carabdle View Post

As far as the health benefits of "moderate" meat-eating, that does not mesh with the research by T. Colin Campbell, Dr. McDougall, Dr. Ornish, etc. It mainly meshes with research done by (or at least financed by) the animal agriculture industry, which is far more biased than the site that you refuse to even read completely
Technically, the animal agriculture industry usually promotes a lot more meat and animal products than just moderate amounts (three glasses of milk a day?), and frankly I'd consider most animal rights activists to be just as biased a source. However, didn't the people studied by Cambpell still eat meat in small amounts?

I do agree with that the more neutral medical studies which indicate that diets with little or no meat, dairy, etc. are healthy and I don't consider them a biased source at all. Hell, they're one of the main reasons I became a vegetarian in the first place.

I'm just saying that AR groups an agenda just as much as the USDA does, and I don't consider them to be credible sources.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlindLemonPep'r View Post

I'm not sure which I think is more disgusting, to be quite honest. But then again, I find veg*an "meat substitutes" questionable as well. That may be why I ahve so much trouble with it. If you want to eat it, then eat it. Don't make up weird stuff as a substitute. (my opinion of course, and I understand if I am in a tiny minority).

I would question where the original piece of meat came from....
I agree
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
602 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreaded Candiru View Post

But I'm talking about morals, not nutrition. ...

And while saying that people are healthier without meat is easy if you're a well-to-do westerner with access to a variety of food, but it's not quite so easy for people living in situations where it's a choice between eating meat and dying of malnutrition.
well what kind of resources do you think it takes to grow invitro meat? are you familiar with the amount of resources it takes to grow meat on a whole animal? They are sure not going to grow test tube meat for impoverished people dying of malnutrition. this will be for the elite who want to pay for pure fresh meat not infected with parasites, mad cow, or other diseases.

just based on the amount of resources alone it takes to grow regular meat vs what it takes to subsist off of a vegan diet makes eating animal products unethical from an environmental standpoint...of course ethics are completely subjective. but i'd think there's a large crowd of people who'd agree that using 5000+ gallons of water, 16 lbs of grain, and 1.7 gallons of oil, to produce one pound of beef is unethical when you consider dwindling fresh water supplies, global warming, and pollution.

so no, imo the slab of meat in the tray doesn't really have any rights because it's not a being and it's definately not sentient, but there is an ethical consideration

(anticipating cite requests: i have no idea where those stats came from...i had them saved from about 2 years ago from who knows where, but if you're interested there's tons of information online about the obscene amount of resourced needed to grow regular meat - i'd imagine it's more efficient to grow it in trays, but who knows what all the required machinery would consume?)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
236 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreaded Candiru View Post

Technically, the animal agriculture industry usually promotes a lot more meat and animal products than just moderate amounts (three glasses of milk a day?), and frankly I'd consider most animal rights activists to be just as biased a source. However, didn't the people studied by Cambpell still eat meat in small amounts?
Right, they want us to eat tons of animal products. But by promoting use of animal products, they use various means and fund all sort of studies/pronouncements that convince people that they NEED those products in some form. Though I don't deny that the site I put up is strongly AR, the three researchers I mentioned don't seem to be...they are strongly pro-vegetarian eating, but largely for health reasons. As far as what Campbell found, my understanding is that he found that the most healthy people were strictly vegetarian (no animal products) and the more animal products they consumed, the less healthy they were. That also meshes with McDougall's experience as a doctor. (I'm pretty sure McDougall isn't AR because in one book I gave my mother, he was trying to prove how he isn't an "extremist" vegetarian and said that he even usually had turkey at Thanksgiving
)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Romac View Post

well what kind of resources do you think it takes to grow invitro meat? are you familiar with the amount of resources it takes to grow meat on a whole animal? They are sure not going to grow test tube meat for impoverished people dying of malnutrition. this will be for the elite who want to pay for pure fresh meat not infected with parasites, mad cow, or other diseases.
When the hell did I say anything about test tube meat being fed to people in malnourished countries? I don't think the thought even went through my head when I was typing it, let alone into my post.

The whole thing about people in malnourished countries was more in response to the claim that not eating meat is healthy, when this obviously doesn't apply to all situations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,067 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreaded Candiru View Post

*yawn*

Seen it already. I personally thought it was ridiculous and stopped reading when it starting going on about Nazi human skin lamps. WTF?
The comparison to Nazi human skin lamps made a lot of sense in the context in which it was made -- whether using products obtained from and clearly signifying an exploitative practice is wrong -- although I don't necessarily agree with the point the writer tried to make with it. But at any rate the text offered reasons for why in vitro meat is ethically problematic: the vivisection involved in studying it, the use of animals for the cells. I guess if you're fine with those forms of violence, you don't see a problem with in vitro meat, but I think it would be silly, in light of them, to say that you don't even understand the contrary view.

Quote:
But I'm talking about morals, not nutrition.
Yes. That's why the appearance of a double standard is eliminated not by saying that meat-eating is necessary for non-human health but by the simple observation that carnivorous animals aren't morally responsible for their actions whereas (adult) humans (usually) are.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top