Would you eat synthetic meat?

[Uranyl Yellow]

6 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Around 5 years at a guess.

 

Cows 'wouldn't be tolerated to exist'  fvcking hell pal

Aye, possibly sounds a bit like a bovine version of the Nazi final solution, but have them wandering willy-nilly over road and garden and see how long it is before the patience for them thins a bit. I suppose cows produce milk so they might have some place in the bright new world; the female ones at least.

[potter3]

If it has the same taste and texture, and isn't more expensive then sure. Not sure they'll ever be able to replicate a good steak though.

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, Uranyl Yellow said:

Aye, possibly sounds a bit like a bovine version of the Nazi final solution, but have them wandering willy-nilly over road and garden and see how long it is before the patience for them thins a bit. I suppose cows produce milk so they might have some place in the bright new world; the female ones at least.

You've never been to India, have you?

[Uranyl Yellow]

3 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

You've never been to India, have you?

How far is it from Newport Pagnell?

[Guest]

Got to say i don't like the idea. I'd rather everybody just ate a lot less meat (i am carnivorous, yes). I kinda suspect this issue is like a whole lot of others (co2 emissions, continual population growth, deforestation, lack of recycling, food waste etc etc etc ad nauseum) where people will refuse to change their lives, despite the fact that everybody waiting for everybody else to move first will end up with the destruction of a liveable planet and a mass extinction event. In the case of meat, not moving away from real meat will mean further deforestation and degradation of the environment.i haven't yet gone meat free but i am eating less and less. Unfortunately nobody else gives a stuff. 

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, Uranyl Yellow said:

How far is it from Newport Pagnell?

 You'd need to make a couple of changeovers.

 

[Jon the Hat]

Why? Let the poor eat it.  I'll stick with my big house, 4x4 and real meat thanks

[Uranyl Yellow]

1 hour ago, Carl the Llama said:

 You'd need to make a couple of changeovers.

In that case I'll give it a miss. Besides, why would I want to go to India? Too many bloody cows wandering around willy-nilly.

[Izzy]

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

Got to say i don't like the idea. I'd rather everybody just ate a lot less meat (i am carnivorous, yes). I kinda suspect this issue is like a whole lot of others (co2 emissions, continual population growth, deforestation, lack of recycling, food waste etc etc etc ad nauseum) where people will refuse to change their lives, despite the fact that everybody waiting for everybody else to move first will end up with the destruction of a liveable planet and a mass extinction event. In the case of meat, not moving away from real meat will mean further deforestation and degradation of the environment.i haven't yet gone meat free but i am eating less and less. Unfortunately nobody else gives a stuff. 

You're absolutely right mate.

 

Nobody else gives a stuff 

[Guest the fox]

You think real, natural meat is bad for you? Don't eat it!

You feel that the animals are suffering? Don't eat it!

Its tofu all over again.

 

 

Would rather not eat meat than eat fake meat, we are already putting enough unnatural foods in our bodies as it is, I would like to keep eating something not manufactured in a lab. 

 

[Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo]

Will I be able to print out a t-bone steak? That's an interesting proposition

 

 

[Carl the Llama]

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

Got to say i don't like the idea. I'd rather everybody just ate a lot less meat (i am carnivorous, yes). I kinda suspect this issue is like a whole lot of others (co2 emissions, continual population growth, deforestation, lack of recycling, food waste etc etc etc ad nauseum) where people will refuse to change their lives, despite the fact that everybody waiting for everybody else to move first will end up with the destruction of a liveable planet and a mass extinction event. In the case of meat, not moving away from real meat will mean further deforestation and degradation of the environment.i haven't yet gone meat free but i am eating less and less. Unfortunately nobody else gives a stuff. 

Erm, how about you go fully meat-free before you get on that high horse?  I imagine the board vegetarians and vegans are reading that and thinking "what a plonker"!

 

I rarely buy meat nowadays simply because it's cheaper to buy quorn (longer lasting too) than well cared for meats.  Until very recently I had a no bacon rule and mostly ate chicken (the expensive free range stuff) as a treat but since outdoor bred bacon is now pretty prominent in my local supermarkets I've done a full 180 and now that's the only meat I eat because, while a bit more costly than standard bacon, it's considerably cheaper than free range chicken and lasts considerably longer without going in the freezer.  It goes really well with both main types of quorn (mince & pieces) as a way of giving your meals that meaty flavour and I honestly couldn't be happier with the food I'm cooking.  Also it's great being able to eat egg & bacon sarnies again.

 

Despite all that I would never dream of being a snob about it - I'll always eat whatever somebody else gives me without questioning where their meat comes from - and I'm proud to say I've recently converted one of my flatmates to quorn because instead of being in their face about it (which normally triggers defensiveness and entrenches people's habits more than anything) I only mentioned it when asked if I was a vegetarian and then explained what I've just told you up above.  It turns out everybody likes to save money, try explaining the cost-effectiveness of going without meat and maybe they will give a stuff.

 

 

7 minutes ago, the fox said:

You think real, natural meat is bad for you? Don't eat it!

You feel that the animals are suffering? Don't eat it!

Its tofu all over again.

 

 

Would rather not eat meat than eat fake meat, we are already putting enough unnatural foods in our bodies as it is, I would like to keep eating something not manufactured in a lab. 

 

Even if it was proven to have the same nutritional benefits and if it tasted the same?

[Guest Col city fan]

No, I don't think I would. God knows, there's too much artificial crap in contemporary westernised diets. To imagine eating 'meat' created in a test tube... Don't sit right.

I heard on the radio yesterday that many many British 40 somethings are so unfit they'd find it difficult to jog a mile. Which is appalling really. I think fast lifestyles and processed foods play a big part in this.

[David Guiza]

Absolutely, not regularly though as there's plenty of natural protein sources around anyway but the ethical convenience would be great. It's a brilliant idea but even if it tasted the exactly the same as meat, cost the same and or less than the real thing and had the same health benefits then many would still prefer the dead animal which is both a little sad and sick.  

 

If you really want to make a positive change to the environment then giving up meat a couple of days a week would have a far greater effect than pretty much anything else in your daily life. 

 

I assume all the meat eaters who turn their nose up at the manufactured nature of it exclusively eat organic fresh meat too. Remember reading that there's something like up to traces of 100 cows in a McDonalds burger, which is pretty darn natural. 

[Captain...]

I don't really understand the, "it's not natural" argument, "it's not proper meat", "it's manufactured and processed which is bad". This isn't a meat substitute, it is meat grown from meat proteins and animal cells it is the living creature that it is attached to that is artificial, not the meat structure.

 

It is still a theoretical question but if you blind taste "synthetic" and real meat and find them to be equal of taste, texture, smell etc all the nutritional value is the same and even the cost. The only difference is one was made in a lab the other by killing an animal, which would you choose?

[Sol thewall Bamba]

Yes, absolutely. Anyone with half a brain knows current levels of meat consumption is hideously unsustainable, so anything to curb the damage done by intensive farming is a important step imo.  

[davieG]

10 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Why? Let the poor eat it.  I'll stick with my big house, 4x4 and real meat thanks

Ha, I was just going to post that this is what will happen anyway.

[Captain...]

10 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Why? Let the poor eat it.  I'll stick with my big house, 4x4 and real meat thanks

 

7 minutes ago, davieG said:

Ha, I was just going to post that this is what will happen anyway.

What if they could create something with the taste and texture of Kobe beef, or the equivalent of a massive slab of Argentinian steak for a couple of quid?

[Jon the Hat]

22 minutes ago, Captain... said:

 

What if they could create something with the taste and texture of Kobe beef, or the equivalent of a massive slab of Argentinian steak for a couple of quid?

Perfect for the poor!

[Finnegan]

If it tastes good and isn't damaging my body anymore than a Bernard Matthews Turkey Twizler, I really don't give a shit. 

 

I've eaten horse, chicken's foot and sea urchin. I'm not ****ing picky. 

[Webbo]

1 hour ago, Captain... said:

I don't really understand the, "it's not natural" argument, "it's not proper meat", "it's manufactured and processed which is bad". This isn't a meat substitute, it is meat grown from meat proteins and animal cells it is the living creature that it is attached to that is artificial, not the meat structure.

 

It is still a theoretical question but if you blind taste "synthetic" and real meat and find them to be equal of taste, texture, smell etc all the nutritional value is the same and even the cost. The only difference is one was made in a lab the other by killing an animal, which would you choose?

Not saying this is a bad thing but artificial meat can't be the same as real meat because lab grown meat has never walked or ran to build up muscle, it won't have eaten grass or leaves off a tree. Its bound to be different, whether its better or worse who knows?

[Carl the Llama]

2 hours ago, David Guiza said:

Absolutely, not regularly though as there's plenty of natural protein sources around anyway but the ethical convenience would be great. It's a brilliant idea but even if it tasted the exactly the same as meat, cost the same and or less than the real thing and had the same health benefits then many would still prefer the dead animal which is both a little sad and sick.  

 

If you really want to make a positive change to the environment then giving up meat a couple of days a week would have a far greater effect than pretty much anything else in your daily life. 

 

I assume all the meat eaters who turn their nose up at the manufactured nature of it exclusively eat organic fresh meat too. Remember reading that there's something like up to traces of 100 cows in a McDonalds burger, which is pretty darn natural. 

This is just it.  Absolutely nothing natural about a creature spending its life in a tiny box a couple of metres from its own shit or, in the case of chickens, being constantly shat on by its neighbours above it.  If you want to make the natural argument then you preclude yourself from most meat readily available in your local supermarket (unless you shop exclusively at Waitrose or M&S in which case carry on).

[Finnegan]

14 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Not saying this is a bad thing but artificial meat can't be the same as real meat because lab grown meat has never walked or ran to build up muscle, it won't have eaten grass or leaves off a tree. Its bound to be different, whether its better or worse who knows?

 

To be fair, Webbo, that's complete speculation. We've got no clue what they can and can't replicate. 

 

We're talking about some genius scientists with probably an eye watering budget who can grow a lamb shank in a lab. 

 

We've no idea what they can do to encourage synthetic muscle growth or pump their meat full of the equivalent nutrients of a free range animal. 

[Captain...]

17 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Not saying this is a bad thing but artificial meat can't be the same as real meat because lab grown meat has never walked or ran to build up muscle, it won't have eaten grass or leaves off a tree. Its bound to be different, whether its better or worse who knows?

Some farmed animals never walk or run, nor eat leaves of the trees. I imagine they can simulate the creation of muscle and fat and will be using plant extracts/simulated plants to "feed" the "meat". What you won't get is the natural variation, but I imagine they will get to a point where they can recreate acorn fed Iberian pork or corn fed chicken or veal or fois gras to the point where most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference, or the only difference would be the lack of irregularities such as gristle or bits of bone etc.

[Webbo]

Just now, Finnegan said:

 

To be fair, Webbo, that's complete speculation. We've got no order what they can and can't replicate. 

 

We're talking about some genius scientists with probably an eye watering budget who can grow a lamb shank in a lab. 

 

We've no idea what they can do to encourage synthetic muscle growth or pump their meat full of the equivalent nutrients of a free range animal. 

I can guarantee it won't eat grass. It might have some chemicals added to it that replicate grass but it won't be the same.