FWIS3

This is from NPR and it's about growing meat in a lab.

https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2018/ ... t=20180102

Thoughts?

Other than the foie gras (which is far from a typical meat product), there's not much in the article about what the 'clean' meat will look and taste like. Will a clean hamburger be distinguishable from a regular one? How about a steak or fried chicken? Without that, it's hard to judge how well it might catch on.

But I applaud the effort. If we can reduce the negative aspects of meat production, that will be a good thing.

I remember reading about this a few years ago when the first lab-grown hamburger was made and eaten. Everyone said it didn't taste like a proper burger as the fat content wasn't there. Early days yet!

My sister is gonna be sad though as she's been saying for awhile that a startup doing lab-grown foie gras would make huge amounts of money. I'm inclined to agree, and think lab grown meat is going to be huge once people figure it out, as so many ethical considerations are no longer an issue, but I'm sure the anti-GMO people won't be fans.

Edit: apparently my sister's thing is lab grown shark fin, not foie gras. Same idea.

It's going to be difficult to get the average person to accept the product. If it becomes commercially viable and cheaper than the current method of producing meat, eggs, dairy, and etc. the food industry will create a campaign to get people on board. The perfect example of that is margarine. Margarine had a LOT of opposition from the dairy industry. It succeeded anyway because it was commercially viable. It could be produced cheaper than butter. And there was money to be made. The "health benefits" were just part of the publicity campaign to get people to accept margarine over butter.

SciFiFisher wrote:It's going to be difficult to get the average person to accept the product. If it becomes commercially viable and cheaper than the current method of producing meat, eggs, dairy, and etc. the food industry will create a campaign to get people on board. The perfect example of that is margarine. Margarine had a LOT of opposition from the dairy industry. It succeeded anyway because it was commercially viable. It could be produced cheaper than butter. And there was money to be made. The "health benefits" were just part of the publicity campaign to get people to accept margarine over butter.

I dunno, margarine seems like an unfortunate example

Maybe a better one would be nylon instead of silk.

grapes wrote:

SciFiFisher wrote:It's going to be difficult to get the average person to accept the product. If it becomes commercially viable and cheaper than the current method of producing meat, eggs, dairy, and etc. the food industry will create a campaign to get people on board. The perfect example of that is margarine. Margarine had a LOT of opposition from the dairy industry. It succeeded anyway because it was commercially viable. It could be produced cheaper than butter. And there was money to be made. The "health benefits" were just part of the publicity campaign to get people to accept margarine over butter.

I dunno, margarine seems like an unfortunate example

Maybe a better one would be nylon instead of silk.

Well, there were those unexpected bad health outcomes with the transfats and the hydrogenated fatty acids. But, I was merely talking about getting the public to accept something that was inherently no more dangerous than the product it was replacing when used in moderation.

grapes wrote:

SciFiFisher wrote:It's going to be difficult to get the average person to accept the product. If it becomes commercially viable and cheaper than the current method of producing meat, eggs, dairy, and etc. the food industry will create a campaign to get people on board. The perfect example of that is margarine. Margarine had a LOT of opposition from the dairy industry. It succeeded anyway because it was commercially viable. It could be produced cheaper than butter. And there was money to be made. The "health benefits" were just part of the publicity campaign to get people to accept margarine over butter.

I dunno, margarine seems like an unfortunate example

Maybe a better one would be nylon instead of silk.

I know I'm late to this discussion.

I can't guess which way consumer acceptance will go... I could see it going either way.

On the one hand, I can see a lot of push-back as it being "unnatural". Look at the uproar about GMOs or "processed" foods, whatever the heck that means. I know when I grew "synthetic" gemstones, that those materials never got the same price as "natural" gemstones, even though they were indistinguishable as finished jewelry.

On the other hand, the animal rights people might really like the idea, as a way to get away from harming and killing animals. But they also could go the other way, saying it is making meat eating acceptable, and by making it acceptable, you are encouraging people to be more likely to eat meat (and thus animals). I've had friends whose rule was they didn't eat anything that "knew its mommy" (so fish were OK, but cows weren't) - I never asked them about orphan humans .

I have zero ability to guess how humans will react.

For me, it will live or die on its taste and texture. If the taste and/or texture are not good, it will fail. In terms of feeding the poor and the developing world, I don't know.