Written By Jill Ettinger
Eating meat grown in labs rather than from the carcass of a once living cow, pig or chicken is inching closer to reality every day as scientists have agreed to some key positions concerning issues surrounding cultured meat production.
Among some of the technological challenges, a panel of scientists recently concluded that a cell source has been secured, which could be grown into edible muscle-meat tissue without a living animal as a necessary component to a nutrient-rich food source. As well, the nutrients necessary for the in vitro growth, provided from sunlight and carbon dioxide, have also been identified as viable cofactors in lab-raising large-scale quantities of meat.
Animal rights organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have applauded -- and even offered to financially reward -- lab-grown meat as a means to reduce the egregious treatment commonplace in factory farms. More than ten billion animals in the U.S. live in unspeakable conditions, routinely exposed to illness, abuse and neglect, as well as to a number of antibiotics, growth hormones and genetically modified foods all linked to human health issues.
The progress also comes in the shadow of the second largest meat recall in history -- Cargill's more than 30 million pounds of tainted turkey that killed one person and left dozens more sick. Growing meat in a lab environment rather than in densely populated factory-farms where diseases spread rapidly (increasing the risk of foodborne pathogens such as e coli and salmonella) is another upside, earning more support for the technology.
Still, the science remains quite underfunded, despite the reliable technology and the benefits, including a decreased impact on the environment and resources. With livestock production currently using one third of all resources on the planet, widespread implementation of cultured meat could reduce that number significantly, according to Netherlands' Masstricht University professor Mark Post, who told FoodNavigator.com that, "The herds of livestock would diminish tremendously -- by a factor of one hundred thousand to a million."
Keep in touch with Jill on Twitter @jillettinger
Image: m.mate
As a rule, livestock is raised on land that can't support crops; roughly 67% of the land that is used for agriculture. Besides food, livestock also provides fertilizer. In my opinion, this is preferable to relying on fertilizers that are produced by the Haber-Bosch process. Talk about a using up resources. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/05/how-to-make-nit/
It's also my opinion that we should be more concerned about the environmental impact of crops. Very few regions can support crop production all year long and most of those regions that can are arid. For example, California produces some 70% of the fruits, nuts and vegetables consumed in North America. There will come a time when California's water will be depleted and the soil will be too salinized for this to continue. China, Saudi Arabia and India are now buying up land in Africa because they've been using marginal lands in their own country to grow crops and will soon deplete their top soils and aquifiers. Of course, the land in Africa is also marginal and will be depleted within the next 30, maybe 50 years.
--------------
Citation please? And which resources are being referred to? Lots of things are "resources" and not all resources are used in livestock production. This article seems to have a generous dose of anti-meat spin put on it. And it doesn't even support its most stunning, and perhaps dubious, claim.