Cloned Beef Coming Soon? 529
An anonymous reader writes "According to this article at Popular Science cloned beef may be coming soon. It talks about using meat within 48 hours of slaughter to allow cloning the best possible specimens, something that is not possible to determine while the animal is still alive. Apparently only 1 in 8000 animals is truly the best. Personally I'd love to see us progress to the point where it was possible to grow just the meat itself without the animal. That would end all the ethical issues with raising an animal for food, potential issues from mad cow disease, bird flu and whatever the next media induced panic is."
Just label it. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think we know enough about the process and long term issues to go nuts with this now. Test it. Test the hell out of it.
But let me choose whether or not to buy it.
Just you wait.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Tofu? (Score:3, Insightful)
That would require a lot of genetic engineering... I don't claim to be an expert on such things, but basically you'd have to eliminate the genes that grow everything but the meat. Then you'd have to give it sustenance somehow so it would grow.
Of course, it would still be "alive" before killing it but just as much as plants are.
Re:I for one.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Panic! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, right. Steaks made from clones. No potential for "media induced panic" there!
WHAT ethical issues... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Tofu? (Score:2, Insightful)
What about Diversity? (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Stem cells? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, I'm not sure that this would produce meat in the conventional sense that we think of it: a bunch of muscle cells in a jar wouldn't taste much like filet mignon, because they wouldn't be formed into those muscular structures, which are then exercised while the animal is alive, have a certain fat content, etc. In short, meat is more than just muscle tissue, it's a part of a particular animal. I have this feeling that the net result of trying to grow meat in jars would be closer to tofu than beef. Maybe it would be acceptable for foods that end up being processed beyond recognition anyway (hamburgers, sausage), but I doubt it would work for beef.
If anyone who's more schooled in biology wants to fill in my misunderstandings, I'd be interested.
Re:Tofu? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It doesn't cost much more (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't be daft. In Amerika there are no breasts on TV.
Re:Tofu? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've tasted steak, and I've tasted tofu, and they are not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.
honestly I don't see how you could "grow" meat.
I honestly don't see how they can pack a billion transistors onto a chip the size of my thumbnail, but somehow they do it anyway... fortunately human progress is not limited by the scope of any one individual's imagination.
Re:Tofu? (Score:5, Insightful)
Only if you venture out into the wild armed with nothing but a spear and a loincloth, hunt down the animal, and stuff yourself with its still-warm raw flesh at the site of the kill.
If, on the other hand, you rely on an army of strangers to grow captive animals in large, overcrowded, stinking buildings, feed them massive doses of antibiotics to keep the inevitable disease outbreaks in check, fatten them up with genetically engineered hormones and "interesting" feed materials (including, up until recently, the nastier parts of their deceased compatriots), butcher them on an assembly line, then wrap the results in petroleum-based film to be delivered to local grocery store for you to buy.... then no, that's not very natural at all.
I'm a meat eater myself -- but I don't kid myself about my diet being "natural" in any sense of the word.
At least 160 people have died (Score:2, Insightful)
The US 80 billion$ [usda.gov] beef industry is obviously concerned - but not about the health of beef consumers. They do massive damage control [sourcewatch.org] while continuing to duck inspections and responsibility.
The major media outlets have of course botched coverage by sensationalizing mad cow disease rather than educating the public in an objective manner. Fear brings in more viewers than facts. Mad cow disease is, unfortunatly, the real deal.
Re:WHAT ethical issues... (Score:2, Insightful)
A hardline stance could easily be that if selective breeding for desireable traits is OK, then so should cloning of desireable traits. However, ethics is a study of grey areas, not obdurate lines in the sand.
Additionally, any desireable traits (better taste, less prone to disease, etc) that are cloned may turn out to be pestersome in the long run. Small genetic pools are more prone to diseases that may arise unexpectedly. An airborne spore that enters a lab, for instance, could kill thousands of specimens instantly rather than only affecting a third.
Also, cloning that occurs over an extended period hasn't been evaluated in a long term study. I'd hate to have cloning emulate in-breeding, for instance.
FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Lean steaks are also tasty. The 'dangers' of fat are vastly overrated, the body needs fats to function properly. You'll find that excessive carbohydrates will do you more harm than anything. And a lack of protein is more dangerous than too much. You can eat 200g of protein a day without ill effect, but eat less and you end up losing significant strength.
Americans are fat because of too many processed foods filled with starch and sugar. The general health of Americans would be better if they cut out the donuts, cokes cakes, breads etc. and replaced them with more natural foods like steak, chicken and lamb. You only have to look at the sagging arms of most Americans to see they're not eating too much protein!
Meat is not expensive or inefficient. There is enough land for everyone to have enough meat, no-one in America is starving. People probably eat less meat now than ever, so talk about depleting at rapid rates is sheer scaremongering.
Re:WHAT ethical issues... (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's pretend it's 100 years ago and change a couple of words:
Ethical issues? We've been using slaves to work our land for thousands of years, it has been one of the keys to our dominance as a race. Don't believe everything Abraham Lincoln tells you.
Re:WHAT ethical issues... (Score:1, Insightful)
Resource usage? (Score:2, Insightful)
BTW, I say all this as a card carrying carnivore, it just seems worthwhile to be at least a little bit aware of the consequences.
Re:It doesn't cost much more (Score:3, Insightful)
And why is it that farmers use those expensive chemicals? Maybe they're idiots? Maybe they own so much stock in Monsanto that they think they can boost their dividends by buying more chemicals? No, it turns out that the chemicals give the farmers more beef per dollar spent (fewer dollars spent per unit of beef, if you prefer). That's why they buy the expensive chemicals. Organic beef does cost more to produce (maybe not double, maybe not more than 110%, but 'more').
Ethical issues? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't accept the idea that the cow would be happier never living. Never having been a cow, I can't really say. But to me, it seems ethically stronger to raise the cow as a creature (under reasonable conditions) rather than a meat culture.
(I don't think this is what the article is discussing anyway.)
Re:FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
Processed foods are very much a problem. That includes meat - people who eat large amounts of processed meat appear to have increased cancer risks. I would rather see people replacing them with fruits, vegetables, and grain, however. They cost less, it's better for the environment, and it's better for your health.
Land in America isn't a problem (though you're ignoring the rest of the world wanting beef), but other issues are. Fresh water is being used up [alertnet.org] faster than it's being stored. Beef requires a lot of grain, and grain requires fresh water. Plus remember that around 20% of our beef is imported [missouri.edu], around 3.2 billion pounds in 2002. That requires land and other resources in other countries as well (mostly Canada and Australia).
I'm not saying eating meat is inherently evil. There's lots of other sources of protein in the world that appear to be healthier and use less resources. I see meat being used as a seasoning for dishes, not the main meal at every sitting. Toss in some chicken for your salad, have some slices of turkey on your sandwich. Just don't go out for steak and burgers every meal.
Curse you, you insensitive scientists! (Score:3, Insightful)
Just to have you throw it all away...
With your cursed science...
But think of the contrast, this could have religious extremists and PETA on the SAME SIDE in an arguement
Re:Growing meat... (Score:2, Insightful)
Parent: - Modded: Informative
Come on mods. What are we doing here?
Re:Disaster Awaits (Score:3, Insightful)
And in response to this cotton, corn, chicken, and possibly soon beef, becomes ubiquitous and cheap for the consumer and a huge majority of the population has a noticable increase in quality of life at the same (inflation adjusted) cost.
Yes, it is very sad that the traditional (highly inefficient) family farm is going away to be replaced by giant corporate mega farms which pay low salaries for what is basically minimally skilled labor. However, the result that I had to find another occupation rather than staying on the farm my mother grew up on, meant that my labor is used more productively than my grandfather's was, and I would be able to have a much higher standard of living than he was ever able to acheive even if I only made the amount he made in his lifetime. In reality, I am now making much higher relative income and able to provide myself and my children with a much better quality of life than any of my ancestors ever dreamed of.
It is also very sad that buggy whip makers, coopers (barrel makers), blacksmiths, and the guys that put 8-track tapes together have all lost their jobs to more efficient operations. But I don't want to go to back to life in the 1860's just to provide low efficiency jobs to people.
Progress happens and the majority of people's lives get better and better in very real terms. If you are in an industry that is highly inefficient and modernization starts to come to it, whine all you want, but if you don't change you will get left behind.
Re:WHAT ethical issues... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Tofu? (Score:1, Insightful)
The problem I have with the meat industry right now is with what happens before the cow is killed. The quality of life it experiences in being prepared for consumption. Add the large growing demand for meat due to world growing population and you have a pretty sickening situation. Sure, "sickening" is just a feeling us humans experience so what does it matter? And who cares what those cows experience anyway, what matters is what's for dinner.
It's a question about civilization. Do we care what are actions do to other living creatures? Killing other people is ok, as we see in wars and the death penalty. But it's also illegal and not ok.
I guess humans being "higher" forms of life may consider natural in nature to not be natural for them though. To each his own.
Going with that argument, why don't we legalize murder and cannibalism (especially for eating human babies)? If we are allowed to eat animals, why can't we kill and eat humans? After all, some animals eat their own kind. It's natural, so why can't we do it? Why do we place a "higher" value on human life over animal life?
It all boils down to what you consider a civilized society. Some societies torture their prisoners, some don't. Our current definition of a civilization allows for killing animals. In some countries, we've evolved to give animals more rights than before and try to protect them from suffering, but have not gone far enough in my opinion.
I took the easy way out and went vegetarian, so I don't have to worry about whether or not my actions are causing suffering.