topher Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 No I wouldn't eat the Petrie Burger. 1) I'm sure the "meat" itself would most likely be GMO (genetically modified). Not to mention hormones, preservatives and other nasty synthetic additives.2) I probably wouldn't like the texture - I have a hard enough time eating some veggie burgers. Not to mention I already dislike some textures of real meat.3) I don't miss eating meat when there are so many awesome alternatives out there - thankfully I have Garden Cafe. Also, the "cell cultures" would still need to come from a living animal. Who knows how they would go about harvesting the cells/tissue from the animal & what about the treatment of the host? Even if lab meat becomes a viable competitor to farming, I doubt it would taste the same, thus driving up the price for "real" meat. It will probably be lauded as the savior for poorer countries, but the lack of nutritional value & food additives could end up being more harmful than eating actual meat itself. Look, some countries in Africa already reject GMO maize despite having major food shortages. Why? Because studies show GMO raises toxicity & alters hormones. (http://www.naturalnews.com/021784.html). I'm sure this type of meat would also fall into the same category. What's sad is that we're already eating GMO foods and don't realize it. I wish the government would stop playing with our food sorry for the long answer haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcina Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 No, Topher that was well said. Every word of it. People need to wise up and stop being so friggin lazy and stubborn and just give meat up, or at the very least decrease their consumption. It's alarming the garbage people put into their bodies and don't care until they are diagnosed with a life threatening illness.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blabbate Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 2. Displaying the desire to eat such a thing gives off the impression that we're "suffering" without meat and that we just can't wait to get back to eating it again. I'll take my meat alternatives any day, knowing that they're not cultured from something that originally WAS alive, even if it's so far removed from the original creature that it's difficult to make the connection. I wouldn't say "suffering," per se, but I do miss it. Meat is, in large part, delicious. That's why people eat it. Meat alternatives don't taste even close to the same, so I can understand why people would love to find a way to get back to it. I don't think that can happen, but I'm just saying I can definitely understand the urge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommybricks Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I saw that on TV. It is ing. Meat is ing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phillipeb Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 If the method was harmless for getting the cells to culture and no animals were harmed in it, i would give it a try. I started being a vegan because of factory farming and to remove that from the equation would remove a lot of issues for me. It is a spiritual ethos to not eat meat at this point, but if someone made me a meal with this meat in it i would give it the ol college try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubby2112 Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 Bringing this back up to see the current opinion. I think I would eat it at least on occasion. Since only muscle cells would be cloned, it would be virtually fat-free, besides whatever EFAs and whatnot they might put in it. I'm not sure about cholesterol. I don't miss the taste of meat or anything, but it might be nice to have more options when eating out. There is a chance I would include fish fairly consistently. Not really sure at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegimator Posted April 25, 2010 Share Posted April 25, 2010 I would definitely eat it if it's not cultured in an animal product soup (which is what they've been using up to this point). I doubt I'd eat it all that frequently, but if it was widely available at restaurants (especially if they don't have vegan options), it would come in handy. From what I understand, at least some of the researchers do intend to up the EFAs and cut omega 6s, saturated fat and cholesterol. I'm not inherently against GMOs (though I despise monsanto) like many vegans and I'm not at all concerned about eating "naturally," (which has no real definition as far as I can tell). One benefit that I don't think gets discussed enough with this is that the researchers claim it will be way more efficient than animal agriculture. I also don't think there will be much in the way of damage to topsoil, aquatic ecosystems (including fish death) and many of the other problems inherent in conventional agriculture (of plants and animals). Maybe that's not true, but if it is, it might even be more ethical to get a lot of your calories/nutrients from vat meat than from mono-cultured produce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubby2112 Posted April 25, 2010 Share Posted April 25, 2010 Yeah, if it is not produced in a plant-based soup, there will be no ecological or ethical advantage to it. I am sure there will be a switched to plant-based, at least for economic reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegan_bohemian Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 urgh no no no. I am healthy enough not eating meat, so why would i want to start eating it again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fallen_Horse Posted June 2, 2010 Share Posted June 2, 2010 I would definitely eat it if it's not cultured in an animal product soup (which is what they've been using up to this point). I doubt I'd eat it all that frequently, but if it was widely available at restaurants (especially if they don't have vegan options), it would come in handy. From what I understand, at least some of the researchers do intend to up the EFAs and cut omega 6s, saturated fat and cholesterol. I'm not inherently against GMOs (though I despise monsanto) like many vegans and I'm not at all concerned about eating "naturally," (which has no real definition as far as I can tell). One benefit that I don't think gets discussed enough with this is that the researchers claim it will be way more efficient than animal agriculture. I also don't think there will be much in the way of damage to topsoil, aquatic ecosystems (including fish death) and many of the other problems inherent in conventional agriculture (of plants and animals). Maybe that's not true, but if it is, it might even be more ethical to get a lot of your calories/nutrients from vat meat than from mono-cultured produce.Agree 100%. The only environmental drawbacks I could think of are the production of the chemicals/enzymes/etc. to grow the meat, and the fossil fuel energy to run the labs. Otherwise, let's eat up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VelvetVoices Posted June 2, 2010 Share Posted June 2, 2010 Maybe this will be something that fast food industry would be interested in, if this product could be produced cheap. If people already eat the crap they serve, don't see why they wouldn't mind healthier lab-meat. For me, no thanks, too gross Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb123 Posted June 2, 2010 Share Posted June 2, 2010 Absolutely not! I don't miss eating flesh and am far healthier avoiding animal proteins in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now