If you have read my previous articles on HuffPost, you know that while I certainly support efforts to decrease harm to animals on farms, I don't believe that there is any meat that is truly humane. However, that's about to change, thanks to the ingenuity of science.
Just recently, Michael Specter's excellent review of humane meat for the New Yorker has created a renewed buzz about the potential for meat from animals who were not, in any conventional sense, actually animals. Innovators are currently experimenting with in vitro cultivation of meat from cells taken from animals, and some are saying that we could have chicken nuggets and burgers within five years.
I can understand how vegetarians might find the idea of dedicating resources to a new version of a product they don't consume unsettling: "We already have mock meats that are as good as meat, but that don't require the cruelty and waste of meat from animals," they argue. But I've been surprised to find that meat-eaters, also, are resistant. Think about it, though, because meat comes from living animals, it requires far more resources and causes far more pollution than would meat grown in a lab. And, of course, it comes from dead animals, and these are--mostly--animals who have been horribly abused and whose living and dying conditions were... well, let's just say not ideal. Anything that can be done to provide better food in a safer, more environmental, humane, just, and affordable manner ought to be appreciated by meat consumers.
Factory Farming: Not Natural
The farms that are responsible for almost all of the meat, dairy, and eggs produced in North America cram tens of thousands of animals into sheds that give them very little room for movement; they give the animals massive doses of drugs, which are focused both on growth promotion, and on keeping the animals alive in conditions that would otherwise kill vast numbers of them. And the amount of animal waste produced by the animals is far more than the land can absorb, so that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reports that factory farms are a top contributor to water pollution in the United States.
Factory farming also hurts local and downstream communities, because the air pollution and stench they create sicken neighbors in rural communities, force residents indoors, and decrease property values. These farms introduce contaminants, including nutrient overloads, toxins, bacteria, fungi, and viruses, chemicals, antibiotics, hormones, pesticides, and heavy metals, into groundwater, rivers, streams, and lakes.
Really, it makes sense for any of us who consider ourselves to be environmentally aware to be boycotting meat on that basis alone. But humane meat can be the solution: In a study published this month, researchers found that "cultured meat involves approximately 7-45 percent lower energy use.., 78-96 percent lower GHG emissions, 99 percent lower land use, and 82-96 percent lower water use" compared with conventionally produced meat in Europe. And they didn't even include transportation and refrigeration in the study.
Factory Farming: Frankenfood
Similarly, the cruelties of modern farming are shocking to anyone who investigates. For example, our country's industrial meat production system breeds for desired traits, often with unforeseen and unfortunate consequences. For example, chickens and turkeys bred for unnaturally large breast size and rapid growth experience skeletal disorders that can cripple them, and heart and circulatory disorders that can kill them. Dairy cattle bred for unnaturally high milk production often suffer from painful and debilitating lameness of their back legs.
Of course, conditions in sheds, transport to slaughter, and slaughter are also all areas of cruelty that would warrant cruelty to animals charges were these dogs or cats, instead of chickens, pigs, and other farmed animals.
So, in vitro meat eliminates ALL of these concerns: There are no animals in the conventional sense, so all of the cruelties associated with modern farms are totally and completely gone. That's why I call it "humane meat"--because the cruelty is gone.
Is this natural?
Conclusion
It's difficult to imagine how any approach to meat production could be worse than factory farming as it is currently practiced in this country. The truth is that a sizeable portion of the population is not ready to give up meat, and so it makes sense to support innovation that allows people to have their meat, but without the environmental and cruelty associated with it. And meat-eaters might realize that the scientific progress of humane meat would allow them to continue to eat meat, but without supporting the horrible environmental effects and cruelty to animals represented by modern meat production. As with everything, progress, not perfection!
Nil Zacharias: Humane Meat Is the Solution to What, Again?
[And] there will be animals of many other kinds, if people eat them? (asked Socrates)
Certainly. (replied Glaucon)
And living this way we shall have much greater need of physicians than before?
Much greater.
And the country which was enough to support the original inhabitants will be too small now and not enough?
Quite true.
Then a slice of our neighbor’s land will be wanted by us for pasture and tillage, and they will want a slice of ours, if, like ourselves, they exceed the limit of necessity, and give themselves up to the unlimited accumulation of wealth?
That, Socrates, will be inevitable.
And so we shall go to war, Glaucon. Shall we not?
Most certainly, he replied.
If food is stored energy then where is the energy in this food coming from and what about its production at the source? Just more of us eating more fossil energy?
People choose not to eat meat for very good reasons. I would have good reason not to choose meat at all if this experiment was my only choice.
"...industrial meat production system breeds for desired traits, often with unforeseen and unfortunate consequences." So, you're pushing the lab meat which has NO track record, yet, you have issues with breeding, which people have been doing for thousands of years with animals? Gee whiz, could it be that you have have a vegan agenda, regardless of truth, facts and other pesky details?
If you really eat all of the processed crap you push on your audience in order to get people vegan, you are going to have enormous health problems. I would say I worry about that, or otherwise care, but that isn't really the case. You obviously don't give one hoo ey about your audience's health, so why should we fret over yours?
However, some people actually do crave red meat. I can't say they're wrong.
I stopped eating red meat and chicken for 5 years and I was fine with no cravings at all. That happened after I was in a car and we accidentally diverted through a long road in the CA desert that featured a massive cow farm - as in, they were "growing cows" for meat slaughter.
The stench was a stench of d3ath - like nothing I've ever smelled before. Horrific.
These factory farms are gross. I challenge anyone to try and eat a hamburger after smelling one.
Now I do eat red meat -but rarely, and it is never my first choice. I'd much rather have fish and veggies. I don't think "engineered meat" is necessarily the answer for meat eaters either.
Whats wrong with people, this is our beloved animals time...Why won't they even try.....
My husband is a retired pilot and works hard cooking up some of your recipes! But he's really loving it!!!!! Thank you Kathy for all you do....
then we work on location, transportation and expansion. meat should be required to stay within a few hundred/a thousand miles of its source, no more imports or exports. this would cut down on carbon, etc from transportation. hell, you could walk some of it to the market.
expand our meat sources. people don't like this, but i have no qualms about what animal supplies my meat, provided that the meat tastes good. we have seafood, pork, beef, fowl regularly, why not raise deer and other game, camel or horse might be tasty, bear (delicious), bison, moose (provided its kosher), i would even suggest cat and dog as in other countries.
there are so many ways to get where we need to be as clean, humane, cost efficient, and plentiful are concerned. why are we so stuck on the old methods that continue to be shown insufficient? why are we suggesting laboratory meats that are unknown, not tested, etc? do we never learn from our mistakes of putting something out there for use/consumption without knowing the long term effects?
We need to overhaul the entire food system. This will include changing the sense of entitlement that leads people to believe they have a right to eat salad in January regardless of where they live.
some of the advancements in hydroponics would, i think, make the growth of 'localized' veggies easy enough to achieve. and im not talking about warehouses or fields of the stuff, im talking a big building, a skyscraper even. i imagine that a number of larger cities have buildings that would be sizable enough, that are abandoned. why not acquire these places and turn them into farming grounds. unemployed locals could even be trained to work the processes, creating jobs. less machines more human hands-on stuff. markets could be downstairs or the neighboring building. transport is minimized.
worried about water supply, recycle it. seems that recycled water would make a good source for the nutrients. install some solar paneling or windmills, or since we're dealing with water, rig up a water wheel system where the incoming liquid powers the place as its pumped through.
i am not a scientist, just a dreamer. i dont know the specifics, logistics, or whatevers, but i think humanity has the technology to make this a doable thing.
Never spent much time on a farm - factory or otherwise - have you?
Having to resort to hyperbole and misinformation doesn't say much for the validity of your argument.
Also, I don't really understand this overwhelming fear of the "unnatural". The vast, vast majority of human activity is by definition unnatural, and that is not necessarily a negative thing. For example, things like vaccines, antibiotics, and even pesticides are certainly "unnatural", but have advanced society and improved quality of life around the globe immeasurably since their invention. The benefits of these "unnatural" advances far, far outweigh the negatives, although they certainly exist.
I think it's rather irrational for people on here to fear this "meat" solely upon the basis of it not being "natural". After, all, arguing about lab-grown meat on an internet forum is certainly "unnatural", so such a fear seems to be indicative of some level of cognitive dissonance, unless the poster is Amish... which, obviously, cannot be the case. Skepticism here is completely necessary, and the safety and efficiency of such a process should be thoroughly vetted, but this knee-jerk fear to anything that could be considered "unnatural" does not make a ton of sense to me. Thoughts?
Herbivores get B12 from fecal consumption, not omnivores. Omnivores produce it themselves or gain it from tissue consumption.
It is true that some herbivores (lagomorphs and rodents) practice coprography which supplies them with an additional source of B12.
Obviously you're right about everything you say in regard to B12, but I'm afraid that lagomorphs and rodents practice coprophagy (eating excreted cecotropes), not coprography (writing obscene words or phrases in public toilets).
You know this is meant as a shared laugh, not a criticism. I last taught college English 22 years ago, but I guess the pedant in me is still kicking!
Peace and love - Mark
They also recieve a greater level of protection from predators than they could provide themselves in the wild, which means that they'll likely die of old age instead of becoming food for a fox or cyote. Their feces and eggshells fertilize my vegetables. I feed them vegetable scraps sometimes. We all form a symbiotic life-system. The reason I wanted to raise chickens myself was in order to remove myself from factory egg production. My eggs will never come from a factory again. I've removed my capital from that market forever.
Lab meat will never be consumed by me or my family. I'll continue to fish, hunt, trap, and source the remainder of meats from local, organic sources.
People who understand the governing dynamics of reality cannot believe death for food is wrong. Vegans believe that emotional distress (read: cruelty) is the ultimate sin, after non-old age related death. This perspective is unrealistic at best, and downright childish in it's worst expressions.
A lion that chases down and kills a gazelle isn't cruel. It's doing what's necessary. It's not necessary for me, as a human being, to kill animals for food.
I don't need to keep, confine, and/or kill animals to live a vibrant, healthy life. As a human being, I can choose whether or not I kill animals just because I like how they taste.
I agree that your chickens live much better lives than factory farmed chickens. However, the same rationale you use to justify keeping chickens (that they're safer and well-fed) was the exact same rationale used to justify keeping human slaves. It's an excuse to exploit ... and also quite dishonest. If any of us could choose to be a slave or not, of course nearly all of us would choose not, even if being free was more dangerous.
All of us cause some kind of death or destruction just by being alive. I'm sure I squash hundreds of bugs, and more, just by walking around or driving a car. But I don't deliberately "grow" an animal with the intention of killing it and eating its dead body. There's no need.
Chickens cannot be slaves by definition. The definition of slavery is a PERSON who is held as the property of another person. A chicken, by definition, is not a person. A chicken cannot be a slave anymore than a rock, tree, car, or computer can be a slave. The very notion is absurd.
http://www.eatwild.com/healthbenefits.htm