WHOA. Thoughts? (especially from veggies/vegans!)

[laurack]

modernmeadow.com/

[Deleted]

OK, so I am trying to keep an open mind because I am generally skeeved out when it comes to engineered body parts/meat, etc. My biggest concern is how the general public will ever know exactly what's in this and that it could easily be altered to deliver biotoxins and viruses, etc. I guess our existing food supply could do this, but what's to stop Tom Q. Firedguy from starting the Zombie Apocalypse? Just some of my brain ramblings really. I am all for sustainable things, I just worry about its effect on the body and contamination.

[laurack]

My first thought was ew, gross. However I'm not sure because eating meat (at least the kind of meat most people in the world eat, aka factory farmed etc.) is also kind of skeevy and gross IMO. Not that I don't eat such meat myself because I do.

So I'm looking forward to finding out more about it, though I remain somewhat skeptical/reserved for now.

I just think science is FREAKIN AMAZING.

[mala]

I think it's a great idea for leather (particularly as it can be applied to other animal skins, such as crocodile hide), but I don't think I'd really be into eating a man-made meat product.

[Deleted]

Feb 27, 2013 10:46:51 GMT -5 laurack said:

I just think science is FREAKIN AMAZING.

I absolutely agree with you and it brings up so many more questions. If we can engineer meat and leather, what else will be discovered in our lifetime? It also makes me sad because, you know, cancer and all....but we have engineered meat! (huh)

[mamasaurus]

The last time I looked into it (about a year ago), a lot of this stuff involves animal testing. The process was designed with animal testing; animal testing is still used to refine or perfect the "meat" and "leather." I don't know the numbers on how many animals will be spared if this replaces meat and leather entirely, but it sure isn't doing that right now and it may never get there. The bottom line to me right now is that I am opposed to it on the grounds of all this animal testing.

Also, as far as the meat goes, I still think a double bacon cheeseburger is bad for you, whether or not it was grown in a lab, raised in a pasture, or factory farmed, so I won't be eating those anytime soon regardless.

ETA: I do think if it's more sustainable, it isn't altogether a bad thing.

[helicase]

Feb 27, 2013 10:56:11 GMT -5 mamasaurus said:

The last time I looked into it (about a year ago), a lot of this stuff involves animal testing. The process was designed with animal testing; animal testing is still used to refine or perfect the "meat" and "leather." I don't know the numbers on how many animals will be spared if this replaces meat and leather entirely, but it sure isn't doing that right now and it may never get there. The bottom line to me right now is that I am opposed to it on the grounds of all this animal testing.

Also, as far as the meat goes, I still think a double bacon cheeseburger is bad for you, whether or not it was grown in a lab, raised in a pasture, or factory farmed, so I won't be eating those anytime soon regardless.

ETA: I do think if it's more sustainable, it isn't altogether a bad thing.

Are you opposed to all forms of animal testing?  Even for drugs/vaccines that are then used to save human lives?  Just curious about your viewpoint.

[laurack]

What about if some animal testing now would save many more animal lives later?

[mamasaurus]

Feb 27, 2013 11:16:53 GMT -5 helicase said:

Feb 27, 2013 10:56:11 GMT -5 mamasaurus said:

The last time I looked into it (about a year ago), a lot of this stuff involves animal testing. The process was designed with animal testing; animal testing is still used to refine or perfect the "meat" and "leather." I don't know the numbers on how many animals will be spared if this replaces meat and leather entirely, but it sure isn't doing that right now and it may never get there. The bottom line to me right now is that I am opposed to it on the grounds of all this animal testing.

Also, as far as the meat goes, I still think a double bacon cheeseburger is bad for you, whether or not it was grown in a lab, raised in a pasture, or factory farmed, so I won't be eating those anytime soon regardless.

ETA: I do think if it's more sustainable, it isn't altogether a bad thing.

Are you opposed to all forms of animal testing?  Even for drugs/vaccines that are then used to save human lives?  Just curious about your viewpoint.

I understand that right now there's no way around it for some things, but I think the vast majority of animal testing is not necessary and, in many cases, it's not even accurate. There are tons of experiments where the vaccine, drug, or chemical gets one result in mice and rabbits and a totally different one in humans.

I'd like to see more time spent finding ways to use tissue engineering to replace forms of animal testing--to me, that would be one case where animal testing really would spare more animal lives in the long run and would therefore be justified. 

laurack, this particular animal testing for lab-grown meat may end up sparing animals, or it may not. It sounds like the cost means it will never replace meat for most people, so I am inclined to say it's not worth it.

[katfco]

I'm on the fence about bioengineered stuff. It could be good, but I'm afraid all the effects of it might not be fully studied before it becomes available.

On the other hand, there is some work into using this for organ transplants. That would be awesome.

[helicase]

mamasaurus, thank you for that well thought out response.  I appreciate & respect your position.

I agree that there really is no way around animal testing at the moment and that things may get better if/when tissue engineering becomes more mainstream.  Unfortunately, no government agency would allow a drug with a positive tissue culture result to be used in humans without a positive result in another live organism first.  While mice, rats, rabbits, primates, etc. are not perfect models for humans, they are the best we have.    Additionally, proposed animal experiments (at government-funded institutions) must go through several rigorous review processes, examining the justification of animal use, number of animals used, access to veterinary care and provisions to minimize/eliminate discomfort, distress, pain and injury to animals.  So, at least in my experience, the use of animals for research must be very well justified and should, in the big picture, benefit human/other animal health and well being.

Just my two cents.

[mamasaurus]

Feb 27, 2013 11:54:34 GMT -5 helicase said:

mamasaurus, thank you for that well thought out response.  I appreciate & respect your position.

I agree that there really is no way around animal testing at the moment and that things may get better if/when tissue engineering becomes more mainstream.  Unfortunately, no government agency would allow a drug with a positive tissue culture result to be used in humans without a positive result in another live organism first.  While mice, rats, rabbits, primates, etc. are not perfect models for humans, they are the best we have.    Additionally, proposed animal experiments (at government-funded institutions) must go through several rigorous review processes, examining the justification of animal use, number of animals used, access to veterinary care and provisions to minimize/eliminate discomfort, distress, pain and injury to animals.  So, at least in my experience, the use of animals for research must be very well justified and should, in the big picture, benefit human/other animal health and well being.

Just my two cents.

I understand how this helps in theory, but in practice, things like the LD50 test are still occurring in everything from drugs to shampoo. (For the unaware, this is a test where they exceed the known lethal dose by fifty times as a control.) It seems insane to me that this is still considered necessary. There are many, many tests where known negative outcomes are repeated as controls. This is one of my main issues with animal testing--so much of is seems gratuitous and redundant; it isn't actually helping anybody.

ETA: I am not trying to attack you or anything here. Sorry if it comes off that way!

[helicase]

Feb 27, 2013 12:17:07 GMT -5 mamasaurus said:

Feb 27, 2013 11:54:34 GMT -5 helicase said:

mamasaurus, thank you for that well thought out response.  I appreciate & respect your position.

I agree that there really is no way around animal testing at the moment and that things may get better if/when tissue engineering becomes more mainstream.  Unfortunately, no government agency would allow a drug with a positive tissue culture result to be used in humans without a positive result in another live organism first.  While mice, rats, rabbits, primates, etc. are not perfect models for humans, they are the best we have.    Additionally, proposed animal experiments (at government-funded institutions) must go through several rigorous review processes, examining the justification of animal use, number of animals used, access to veterinary care and provisions to minimize/eliminate discomfort, distress, pain and injury to animals.  So, at least in my experience, the use of animals for research must be very well justified and should, in the big picture, benefit human/other animal health and well being.

Just my two cents.

I understand how this helps in theory, but in practice, things like the LD50 test are still occurring in everything from drugs to shampoo. (For the unaware, this is a test where they exceed the known lethal dose by fifty times as a control.) It seems insane to me that this is still considered necessary. There are many, many tests where known negative outcomes are repeated as controls. This is one of my main issues with animal testing--so much of is seems gratuitous and redundant; it isn't actually helping anybody.

ETA: I am not trying to attack you or anything here. Sorry if it comes off that way!

I totally get that you aren't attacking and vice versa.  This is just a civilized discussion. :Y:

A couple points:
The LD50 test is actually the median lethal dose or, in other words, the dose at which 50% of the organisms die. 

Negative controls are a necessity for any type of science, animal related or otherwise.  Scientists need to make sure that there is no effect when none should be present (i.e. to make sure the experiment worked as it was designed to).  For example, maybe the water that all the animals received was contaminated with an unknown substance that cured the disease (not the drug that the experimental animals were getting).  If the negative control lives, the researchers know that something was amiss with the experimental conditions.

[erniebufflo]

Genetically modified food creeps me out, but lab-grown meat is even creepier. I did watch a really cool NOVA about how soon they can grow organs in labs from our own DNA for people who need them. It was seriously amazing.

[erniebufflo]

(The animal testing argument is fascinating. We know the doc who basically develops all new ventilators for kids. His lab involves testing on pigs, and no one can know where it is. I hate thinking of the pigs, but I try to focus on the fact that ventilators literally save lives, including mine.)

[Deleted]

Feb 27, 2013 12:33:10 GMT -5 erniebufflo said:

Genetically modified food creeps me out, but lab-grown meat is even creepier. I did watch a really cool NOVA about how soon they can grow organs in labs from our own DNA for people who need them. It was seriously amazing.

Exactly this!

I've been trying to buy less and less GMO foods. Sadly it seems to make the grocery bill go higher but that's just part of it.