# Meat cultures gets US approval as food



## Brian G Turner (Nov 17, 2018)

Authorities in the US have approved a system for regulating the sale of meat cultures - ie, meat grown from cells for consumption, instead of from slaughtered animals: US paves way to get 'lab meat' on plates

This has long been a staple of sci-fi, and in theory offers a lot of benefits - land currently turned over for the grazing and feeding of herds might be turned over to other uses, and therefore help improve feeding the world's growing population.

However, is it possible that instead of seeing animals grazing, those seems fields might end up filled with meat-culture vats?

Btw, this isn't an invitation to discuss vegetarianism or veganism, as much as consider how this new food source might impact and change the future. Specifically, is it really ever going to be viable? Or has Nature already found the most efficient and least expensive way of producing meat, for those who want to consume it?


----------



## -K2- (Nov 17, 2018)

Though I suspect rarely discussed, good or bad subjective, if/once it happens, you can expect a whole host of species to become extinct.  Their cost will become so excessive that only the most wealthy will be able to afford 'natural meats/fish/fowl,' and I suspect you'll even see wild species perish few seeing the need to devote funds to protecting them.

K2


----------



## Danny McG (Nov 17, 2018)

So we could end up eating human meat without having to kill people first.
That's gotta satisfy the animal rights brigade surely?

"What mate? You don't want us to eat the cute ickle lamb? Well then howzabout this plate of your leg? We've been growing it in a vat since you fell off your bike last year!"


----------



## WarriorMouse (Nov 17, 2018)

I'm not surprised by anything the US government does.
Did they not once declare that Ketchup was a vegatable in an effort to makeing school lunch programs less costly.


----------



## Biskit (Nov 18, 2018)

I suspect we now have to wait for someone to figure out the "hidden costs" behind the idea.  It sounds so simple, but what is the feed-stock that goes into the vat? Do we use things like oil to make the organic precursors, or feed in mulched plants etc.


----------



## Foxbat (Nov 18, 2018)

Given that meat production is a major contributor to greenhouse gasses, this might be a good thing (if people can get over the Frankenstein effect).

Here's a SF horror thought.... By culturing 'longpig' it may be possible now to be a cannibal without actually killing and eating somebody - Hell! you could even eat yourself if you wanted to (with no detrimental cost to your own body).


----------



## Edward M. Grant (Nov 18, 2018)

Foxbat said:


> Here's a SF horror thought.... By culturing 'longpig' it may be possible now to be a cannibal without actually killing and eating somebody - Hell! you could even eat yourself if you wanted to (with no detrimental cost to your own body).



Yeah, I was writing about vat-grown cannibal restaurants in 2006. I'm sure I wasn't the first.

Back more on topic, so long as it provides the appropriate nutrition when eaten, vat-grown meat seems like a great idea. Animals are an incredibly inefficient way to create meat, requiring vast amounts of feed and all the land necessary for growing that.

Besides which, it's pretty much essential for moving off this planet. There won't be fields full of cows on the Moon any time soon.


----------



## Parson (Nov 18, 2018)

Edward M. Grant said:


> Back more on topic, so long as it provides the appropriate nutrition when eaten, vat-grown meat seems like a great idea. Animals are an incredibly inefficient way to create meat, requiring vast amounts of feed and all the land necessary for growing that.



Nature very rarely finds an inefficient way of doing things. Witness how much less expensive it is to raise a pound of grazing buffalo than grain fed beef. 

I suspect that in any short range scenario vat grown will be outrageously expensive. It's only likely use will be in outer space where space for livestock will be next to impossible to arrange inexpensively.


----------



## Anthoney (Nov 18, 2018)

Maybe they could grow a beef/pork blend.  Berk or poef blended vat steak.  Mmm good.


----------



## Edward M. Grant (Nov 18, 2018)

Parson said:


> Nature very rarely finds an inefficient way of doing things.



Nature usually finds inefficient ways of doing things. Witness the human eye, which has the nerves in front of the retina, rather than behind. No human camera designer would put the wires in front of the CCD, because it would be insane.


----------



## chrispenycate (Nov 18, 2018)

The nutrient solution for the tissue cultures will have to come from somewhere, and I'd be astonished if it were much more efficient than using agriculture to produce 'feed' (which the animal's digestive system would transform somewhat inefficiently into meat). Certainly not as efficient in human terms as grazing sheep on vegetation that grows itself and uses sunlight that arrives free. 

Going the whole hog, genetically optimised algae tanks and a simulated mechanical/chemical/bacteriological transformation system checked continuously might, in time reach the same quantity to space and energy usage as our present evolved system (maybe even as good as eating arthropods) but that would require lots more experimentation, lots more time to achieve.


----------



## Ray Pullar (Nov 18, 2018)

The Chicken Little scene in The Space Merchants steps closer.


----------



## Wiglaf (Nov 19, 2018)

Wouldn't most of an increase in efficiency come from only growing muscle for say sirloin and not any brains, bones, skin, etc.  Plus, no energy would be required for physical activity; it's not like the ribeye is going to go for a stroll around the lab.


----------



## Heijan Xavier (Nov 21, 2018)

Will it be considered Kosher/ Halal/vegetarian?


----------



## aThenian (Nov 21, 2018)

Foxbat said:


> Given that meat production is a major contributor to greenhouse gasses, this might be a good thing



I do hope so. It's depressing that we may be heading towards catastrophic climate change in no small part due to an addiction to burgers.


----------



## Edward M. Grant (Nov 23, 2018)

chrispenycate said:


> Certainly not as efficient in human terms as grazing sheep on vegetation that grows itself and uses sunlight that arrives free.



I's only 'efficient' if you ignore the cost of the land and energy. You could be using that land and light for more useful things than growing grass. Even it it's merely letting the land revert to wilderness so it will support a larger variety of wildlife than just sheep.

And good luck doing that on the Moon. No grass, and no sunlight for two weeks a month unless you live near the poles.


----------



## Robert Zwilling (Nov 24, 2018)

Lots of possibilities. Farms are horizontal land users, mechanize the process and we could have vertical structures to create the food. A distillery of sorts. Artificially grow some kind of genetically designed raw product that would yield multiple products. It wouldn't have to be functional, just eat and grow in vats until harvest time. Like fur balls with a meat core. Get wearing apparel and a steak at the same time.

There will be all kinds of foods brewed in vats. A lot of people eat one kind of insect or another but ask anyone if they want to invest in brewing cricket protein and you will only hear crickets chirping. Ask if anyone wants to invest in synthetic red meat and the lines of investors will be endless. There are all kinds of foods that have protein components so it would be easy to substitute synthetic protein for natural protein. Waffles made from algae, what's the difference when synthetic flavors will be added to recreate the original product. 

With a population that will easily hit 9 billion people are going to be making food any way it can be made, and eating it. We already eat a lot of prepared foodstuffs that are artificially constructed to make them look and taste the way they do so it is an easy matter to change the ingredients going into manufactured food. It's all already coming out of barrels. All kinds of unnatural substances are used to shape the agricultural products while it is growing. We are just modifying the additives and the framework used to make the food.

I would think most synthetic stuff starts out costing more but goes down as the process is improved. So many synthetic products now, there's no reason food won't be added to the list. It will probably become the food of record for those who can't get enough now. Big markets to experiment on. It's not trendy yet. Seems like most new versions of things nowadays don't get made out of necessity but start out as costly trendy objects whose price starts high but comes down as more people buy into it. Start with the high profit zones where quality counts, then move out to the low profit zones where people won't be able to object to cheap substitutes.

The conversion of consuming raw substances and converting it to meat on the bone inside animals is highly efficient. The animals are eating stuff that is naturally growing, all part of a self sufficient system, but the animals aren't there to be mass killed everyday. Artificially expanding out parts of the natural process doesn't it mean it will remain an efficient process start to finish. 

All the meat eater populations are picking off parts of the populations they feed on in very defined ways that do not decimate the populations. If they do decimate the population, the populations will naturally shift to other sources or locations or develop new strategies. All the different animals are working in the natural environment to keep it robust and growing strong. When you replace the entire cycle with a few types of animals and grow them repeatedly in the same place time after time, the land gets tired, kind of like planting the same crop year after year.


----------



## Anthoney (Dec 15, 2018)

Just watched this.


----------



## Robert Zwilling (Dec 15, 2018)

They found a practical use for stem cells, you can eat them. Because it's all hand made for now, I'm sure they can lower the production costs substantially as time goes on. All they have to do is not go for big profits right out of the box, just sell it cheap, undermine the traditional beef industry, and then raise prices later on. The name of the cow, especially exotic high priced cows whose steaks cost a hundred bucks or more should be enough enticement to generate enough business to make it practical. Giving the product a fancy proper name instead of just calling it beef meat would turn the law around that says that only beef meat raised on an animal can be called meat. Plus you could advertise it as not being meat which would generate a new market of meat eating meatless vegetarians. I could also see the industrial medical stem cell market looking for a more controllable source of stem cells so the two industries could be mutually self supporting.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Mar 19, 2019)

And more about this today about developments in the UK:








						Artificial meat: UK scientists growing 'bacon' in labs
					

Researchers have grown animal cells on blades of grass - could a slaughter-free bacon supply be feasible?



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## awesomesauce (Mar 19, 2019)

-K2- said:


> Though I suspect rarely discussed, good or bad subjective, if/once it happens, you can expect a whole host of species to become extinct.  Their cost will become so excessive that only the most wealthy will be able to afford 'natural meats/fish/fowl,' and I suspect you'll even see wild species perish few seeing the need to devote funds to protecting them.



I'm not following your logic. Why would shifting our food sources away from farm raised animals suddenly cause us to no longer think it's important to protect wildlife?


----------



## awesomesauce (Mar 19, 2019)

Parson said:


> Nature very rarely finds an inefficient way of doing things. Witness how much less expensive it is to raise a pound of grazing buffalo than grain fed beef.



I don't think it's less expensive to produce an equal quantity of meat from grazing buffalo rather than grain fed cattle, and I would like to know how you reached that conclusion. If it _were_ less expensive, I'd expect the shelves to be full of buffalo while the beef would be in the expensive exotic meats section. And this is most definitely not the case.



Edward M. Grant said:


> Nature usually finds inefficient ways of doing things. Witness the human eye, which has the nerves in front of the retina, rather than behind. No human camera designer would put the wires in front of the CCD, because it would be insane.



Yeah, nature generally hits on something that works well enough for an organism not to die out. Eventually it may evolve a more efficient way of doing a thing and then those organisms have an advantage over less efficient organisms. But the statement "Nature very rarely finds an inefficient way of doing things" itself, in the context of the most efficient food supply for humans, doesn't make sense. In nature, the "objective" is to grow an organism capable of surviving and reproducing itself, not a tasty steak or a rasher of bacon for some other organism to eat. The domestic animals and plants we farm for food now, and the tools and techniques we use, aren't the result of nature. They're already the product of centuries of genetic manipulation and technological intervention by humans. 









						Genetic Manipulation: The First 50,000 Years
					

Genetically modified plants and animals are often feared as "Frankenfoods," but is there really anything dangerously new about manipulation of DNA? People have been creating extreme genetic mutants with plants and animals for tens of thousands of years.




					io9.gizmodo.com


----------



## awesomesauce (Mar 19, 2019)

Brian G Turner said:


> And more about this today about developments in the UK:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm_ so all for_ this.


----------



## Cathbad (Mar 19, 2019)

mmmmm bacon!!


----------



## -K2- (Mar 19, 2019)

awesomesauce said:


> I'm not following your logic. Why would shifting our food sources away from farm raised animals suddenly cause us to no longer think it's important to protect wildlife?



In the U.S., government lands, research, conservation and protection devoted to wildlife and the outdoors, is for the most part, paid for by a tax (demanded by hunters and fisherman) on hunting and fishing equipment... known as the Pittman–Robertson and Dingell–Johnson Acts, respectively.  Further, contributions by hunters and fisherman (federal and state applied), as well as license sales at state levels, also adds to that.

In other words, all of those VAST lands the U.S. has for ALL types of outdoors recreation, the vast personnel and resources from wildlife biologists down to outhouse cleaners, and the expensive efforts to protect, manage, maintain and propagate anything 'wild', plants and insects included... comes from hunters and fisherman.

Those acts were demanded 'by them, H&F,' when lands, waters, wildlife and natural resources were nearing extinction and habitats damaged beyond repair, because the 'average joe' just doesn't care about something if they aren't directly using it.  Naturally, that fight also extends to industry, mining, corporate farming, and energy exploration acquiring access rights to federal and state owned... hence-- citizenry owned lands and natural resources are fought for and protected by sportsman.  Though there are '_preservation_ groups,' they're typically much less effective (tending to be vastly overreaching) than outdoors '*conservation*' groups and individuals.  There is a vast difference between preservation and conservation.

In any case, once people's tastes or perhaps needs shift away from actual animal/poultry/fish products... *then* the call *will* go out as it even is today, for there to be an end of hunting and fishing as sporting activities.  Once sporting activities legally end, then the funding for protections and growth, including public lands accessible by all will 'end.'

Naturally, there will be those few less-ethical outdoorsman that will continue doing what they desire, however, now unchecked... Yet, they will not be the end of wildlife.

When the general population, just as they have routinely demonstrated many times in the past, is given the option of 'paying' to keep up with those programs, or let 'industry' bear the expense and benefit/use (no doubt with bogus claims of 'trickle down' residual reductions to citizen taxes that will never come)... it will by proven 'human nature' play out as it always has.

And the natural resources and wildlife of this nation will rapidly perish... as industry claws for pennies today having no concern for tomorrow.

K2


----------



## Robert Zwilling (Mar 19, 2019)

The connective material and fat that needs to be added increases the output by diluting the lean muscle product possibly decreasing the cost. If the price could be made low enough then it wouldn't matter if people who are eating whatever kind of meat they want to, want to eat it or not. There are a lot of people having trouble getting enough/any meat right now.

One place where the hunters aren't always helping is knocking off the best genetic specimens instead of the stragglers and weaker animals the way natural predators behave.


----------



## -K2- (Mar 19, 2019)

Robert Zwilling said:


> One place where the hunters aren't always helping is knocking off the best genetic specimens instead of the stragglers and weaker animals the way natural predators behave.



Though well off topic (so best discussed elsewhere), all I can do is suggest you investigate that a bit more.  Laws and sportsman's goals often counter that argument.  Yes, they celebrate trophy animals and fish, yet for the most part, their efforts are focused toward more noble ends.

K2


----------



## Parson (Mar 19, 2019)

awesomesauce said:


> I don't think it's less expensive to produce an equal quantity of meat from grazing buffalo rather than grain fed cattle, and I would like to know how you reached that conclusion. If it _were_ less expensive, I'd expect the shelves to be full of buffalo while the beef would be in the expensive exotic meats section. And this is most definitely not the case.



There are several issues to be considered. One: Buffalo are wild animals and can survive very nicely without human intervention, grain fed cattle need constant care and veterinary services ergo more expensive. Two: Buffalo need lots of space to roam to feed themselves so they do not work well in places where many humans have settled. Three: Buffalo are very difficult to corral to add to the difficulty in feeding them. Four: Some people (Many?) do not like the "gamey" taste of Buffalo and much prefer domesticated cattle as the source of their meat.  --- So not widely sourced for meat.


----------



## Danny McG (Mar 19, 2019)

Parson said:


> Buffalo need lots of space to roam


Is that the same space where deer and antelopes play?


----------



## Cathbad (Mar 19, 2019)

RANGE WAR!!!


----------



## -K2- (Mar 19, 2019)

Here, a short clip for you   






Hmm, the quality really degraded.  Oh well, maybe I'll just stick to posting stills 

K2


----------



## Parson (Mar 19, 2019)

-K2- said:


> Here, a short clip for you
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yikes! Those must be the fabled Yellowstone Buffalo who have learned to ignore people. I can assure you that the bull could do real damage to the car .... up to and including rolling it. Just because an "American Bison" is acting as calm as that doesn't mean that things couldn't change in a moment. I'll watch my buffalo at a safe distance. Thank you very much.


----------



## -K2- (Mar 19, 2019)

Parson said:


> Yikes! Those must be the fabled Yellowstone Buffalo who have learned to ignore people. I can assure you that the bull could do real damage to the car .... up to and including rolling it. Just because an "American Bison" is acting as calm as that doesn't mean that things couldn't change in a moment. I'll watch my buffalo at a safe distance. Thank you very much.



Actually, those are Custer S.P. South Dakota Bison.  There were roughly a hundred around us.  I'll spare you the balance of my self-destructive antics that day... I will ride one of them stinkin' bassids yet though! 

K2


----------



## Montero (Mar 20, 2019)

Just to highlight that certainly in the UK, there are wild bird species that rely on grass being neatly cropped by sheep, as they are looking for worms and leatherjackets and the like, and would struggle to find them in long grass. Whatever happens, I hope it is done with joined up thinking, with accurate data including ecological data on life cycles and decisions are not made in five minutes and based on simplistic sound bites. Once again, there is no one-size-fits all solution. If the fields that are currently cropped by sheep were converted to raising monocultures of vegetables, it might remove important habitats for birds and indeed other wildlife.

By the way, there is a fascinating book that came out last year "Wilding: The return of nature to a British farm" by Isabella Tree - where she and her husband were running a large estate, farming with the maximum modern efficiency, adopting the latest best practice - and year on year failing to make a profit. Part of this was that their land was middling, not top grade. The book is an account of where they started from and how they changed their farming practice - not least selling almost all of their modern farm machinery - which was a massive saving in fuel bills and capital investment, as well as a big reduction in greenhouse gas production. They were then farming much more with nature, not against it and saw a wonderful increase in wildlife without making any special provisions for the wildlife as well as starting to make a profit. More of this would be a good idea too.


----------



## Montero (Mar 21, 2019)

Regarding Bison - that clip - so bull following cow and making rumblings. If Bison are anything like cattle, perhaps the cow was smelling like she was coming on heat and the bull had other things on mind than teaching humans a lesson....


----------



## -K2- (Mar 21, 2019)

Montero said:


> Regarding Bison - that clip - so bull following cow and making rumblings. If Bison are anything like cattle, perhaps the cow was smelling like she was coming on heat and the bull had other things on mind than teaching humans a lesson....



Exactly the opposite (though not humans specifically).  During that season they want to fight.  Who, what, no matter.  BTW, their hair is very soft contrary to the classic well-used rug of a bear which is very coarse.  Our bear rugs are used for show, our buffalo hides for... reclining.

Just sayin' 

K2


----------



## Robert Zwilling (Jun 7, 2019)

The choice between meatless vs lab grown or clean meat alternatives seems to be a question answered by what is offered by the food services. I think if the products are offered as just another kind of food and not marketed as anti traditional meat, their usage would progress a lot faster. There are a lot more people eating both meat and meatless grain based products than people who are not eating any meat. There are also plenty of people who are restricted by the amount the meat cost, not by their beliefs. This survey while not perfect shows a big disconnect between American attitudes and India and China. If an eighth of the world's population is interested in alternatives to traditional meat the question of it's large scale production might be answered sooner than later. The plant based stuff isn't really cheaper, which is disappointing. Getting a foothold in the market would seem more important than making big profits at the start of something that isn't going away. The survey also didn't look at Africa or South America.
Meat Alternatives Survey for US, India, China
McDonalds marketing Vegan in Europe not in US


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 21, 2019)

The process of developing artificial meat is improving:








						Lab-grown meat: Researchers grow muscle cells on edible fibers
					

Lab-grown or cultured meat could revolutionize food production, providing a greener, more sustainable, more ethical alternative to large-scale meat production. But getting lab-grown meat from the petri dish to the dinner plate requires solving several major problems, including how to make large...




					phys.org
				




Along with the discussion on superfoods from cockroaches, I can see a future where synthetic foods become increasingly normalized and common.


----------



## Foxbat (Oct 21, 2019)

This all gets very confusing. Scientists keep telling us eating too much red meat is bad for you and could be carcinogenic and we should limit our intake.  Now they're tantalising us with the possibility of an almost limitless supply of the stuff.


----------



## thaddeus6th (Oct 21, 2019)

A while ago, I forget where, I read of some interesting religious disagreements over whether this sort of meat would be considered forbidden under Jewish/Islamic dietary restrictions.

It's an intriguing point to consider.


----------



## Parson (Oct 21, 2019)

thaddeus6th said:


> A while ago, I forget where, I read of some interesting religious disagreements over whether this sort of meat would be considered forbidden under Jewish/Islamic dietary restrictions.
> 
> It's an intriguing point to consider.



Ohhhh, that will create a controversy. My opinion will not get you a 10 cent cup of Joe, if you can find one, but .... I think in the end they would have to say it wasn't actual meat because it was never alive.


----------



## Robert Zwilling (Oct 22, 2019)

Food-safe gelatin fibers, edible scaffolds, its a form of 3-D printing. Are people going to want a preformed slice of meat or the real thing. A leg of machine grown meat with a bone with marrow center with veins of 3 different kinds of fat for enhanced taste. Or ribs, or wings


----------



## Foxbat (Oct 22, 2019)

thaddeus6th said:


> A while ago, I forget where, I read of some interesting religious disagreements over whether this sort of meat would be considered forbidden under Jewish/Islamic dietary restrictions.
> 
> It's an intriguing point to consider.


I recently saw something about this. Apparently Jewish and Kosher is not necessarily the same and, as I understand it, the difference is procedural under religious scrutiny/approval. If this is true, there may be a way of producing kosher food if it meets the religious requirements. Halal appears to be more about the cut of meat so it might be possible to grow permissable cuts. Of course, I'm only guessing/surmising


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 22, 2019)

If self-growing was available, you'd be able to eat your own cells. 

Celebs could even sell cell samples of themselves. OMG.


----------



## Robert Zwilling (Oct 22, 2019)

I think ways can be found to grow the meat in a way to fit any religious rules. They might have to substitute a few ingredients. All kinds of foods are going to be "artificially" produced. Industrialization and processed ingredients are welcome with few questions asked by anyone.


----------



## Parson (Oct 22, 2019)

Robert Zwilling said:


> I think ways can be found to grow the meat in a way to fit any religious rules. They might have to substitute a few ingredients. All kinds of foods are going to be "artificially" produced. Industrialization and processed ingredients are welcome with few questions asked by anyone.


More so a 20 years ago then now. Now we have ads saying how few and natural the ingredients are. 

(Grump: What is natural anyway? Metals are natural. Some acids are natural. Some .... well you get the idea. The word without a serious explanation is just this side of unintelligible.)


----------



## Venusian Broon (Oct 22, 2019)

Foxbat said:


> This all gets very confusing. Scientists keep telling us eating too much red meat is bad for you and could be carcinogenic and we should limit our intake.  Now they're tantalising us with the possibility of an almost limitless supply of the stuff.



I was watching a youtube medical doctor explain this...as there has been some recent work that suggest that eating red meat is actually, yep you guessed it, probably okay for you. Although the evidence, of course was not good quality, which is really the problem with most dieting research. It is extremely hard to make humans do scientific dieting.

With regards to the cancer risk, it appears that, it does increase cancer risk but it's an increase in a very large general population. This of course means that for you, as an individual, it does increase cancer risk but by a very small amount. Not enough to get really worried about. Pepper, the spice, is carcinogenic too, but I haven't heard the government tell us to reduce intake of that. 

So a small amount of red meat is, I feel okay - from a eating perspective. Have a purely red meat carnivore diet is another issue and very _probably _not a good idea. 

From another perspective, the global environmental outlook, that is another matter, we should probably cut out most animal meat anyway, and definitely red meat. But that's another issue. (I am assuming that culture grown protein should be better on this account, but you never know what unforseen effects might occur with this one.)

I think one of the big issues that is always brought up that has, actually, very little evidence for the government position, is the negative effects of salt. I could be wrong, but I keep stumbling over lots of people saying this is the case.


----------



## -K2- (Oct 22, 2019)

Yes, from an environmental aspect, cut out animal meat consumption... that's what these folks claim:







It must be good for the environment.  It says so in their add, so it must be true!

K2


----------



## Foxbat (Oct 23, 2019)

Venusian Broon said:


> I think one of the big issues that is always brought up that has, actually, very little evidence for the government position, is the negative effects of salt. I could be wrong, but I keep stumbling over lots of people saying this is the case.


I was diagnosed with high blood pressure a few years back and have to take daily medication to keep it in check. One of the things pointed out to me was salt consumption (I love salt). It forces the body to retain water and it is this water retention that is the cause of many cases of high blood pressure. I believe the medication I take (although I could be wrong) is a diuretic. Oddly enough, one of the side effects of my medication is a salty taste around the lips.


----------



## Robert Zwilling (Oct 23, 2019)

If food was only as simple as it seems to be.

There are food substances and substances added to the food. Not one size fits all. Not everyone can eat what everyone else is eating. But people insist on doing exactly that. Everyone sees the same ads, goes to the same stores, but everyone has different bodies. What is harmless for some people can cause damage to others. This has nothing to do with allergies, although they could be signs of something. Some people can drink or smoke all they want and never get cancer. Others can't. The same is true for food, unfortunately it can be very hard to see a direct correlation to what is happening compared to what you are eating. 

The taste is for the mind, one could say that it has very small if any medicinal value. Originally the taste might have alerted us to things that we needed, things that were harmless, and things that shouldn't be eaten. Food acts like a drug for the body. We only think of the nutritional aspects but there is a lot more going on than that. Which brings up moderation. Supposedly everything is okay in moderation. A 1 liter cup of soda is not moderation, that is addiction. Cinnamon has a very effective blood thinner compound in it. Not all cinnamon is created equal, some countries cinnamon is stronger than other countries.

When studies are conducted they have no way of knowing, beyond allergic reactions, if the food people are eating is good for them or not. Eventually this information will be available. It will probably be linked by genetics, until then the tests are nothing more than random excursions using random subjects who do not all react the same way to the foods being tested.

Food production is the same as food, in moderation it is probably okay. The natural herds roamed over great distances. Farmed herds are in the same place day after day.  Raising a small herd of cattle hardly dents the land, raising vast herds like clockwork can't be good for animals, people, or the land.

We need artificially created food, especially for places that can't grow enough of it. By starting out at the top of the food chain instead of the base, the early results will probably be erratic.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Oct 23, 2019)

Foxbat said:


> I was diagnosed with high blood pressure a few years back and have to take daily medication to keep it in check. One of the things pointed out to me was salt consumption (I love salt). It forces the body to retain water and it is this water retention that is the cause of many cases of high blood pressure. I believe the medication I take (although I could be wrong) is a diuretic. Oddly enough, one of the side effects of my medication is a salty taste around the lips.



This is a bit OT, but nevermind...

(Firstly I should point out that I'm a proper Doctor, not a medical one, so take this information with...a pinch of salt.   Best to remain with your GP's advice as ever!)

Yes I believe there is evidence it does raise blood pressure - this is a simple chemical idea that most high school students studying science will be getting taught as you have mentioned - however I believe that the bodies actual response to salt is much more nuanced and complicated than assuming we are a bag of salty water. Genetics for example. Some may be salt-sensitive and others will be able to remove excess salt from their bodies much more effciently*  So your personal salt intake will vary from a standard guideline. 

The more controversial thing is the link between heart disease and high blood pressure, i.e. one of the big reasons we are told to cut salt in the first place. Apparently there is very little actual evidence for having high blood pressure over the long term and heart disease. One assumes that GP's advice is very cautious in this case - probably better to say that it could cause heart disease, than to go 'well, it's not clear that it's the case'! 

There are other things that cause high blood pressure, prolonged stress for example. 

But I'm not saying would should deliberately aim for high blood pressure, there are other reasons that are demonstratably linked, increased likelyhood of strokes I believe**, just that the actual evidence is that it does provoke or be linked to certain conditions is not secure. 

Intake of sodium is of course vital for your well-being of course, and the problem with demonising salt dramatically is that I've heard of people that have 'given up' salt, who are probably on course for sodium deficiency! 

It's complicated. I personally do try to moderated or at least think about my salt intake and not cover all my food in a snow drift of sodium, but like you I definitely like the stuff.

----------------------------------------------

* Personally I believe exercise/activity is key here. Not only are you improving your heart health, circulation, strength with large amounts of activity which I think is the best way to cut high blood pressure - making your body more efficient in a myriad of ways that cuts the volume of blood your body actually needs etc... but you will be sweating more. Sweat contains salt and is probably our most efficient way of getting salt out of our bodies. One could also drink large amounts of water to flush salt out, but then you'd be peeing a lot, and if you are consuming very large amounts of salt then I guess your blood pressure would be spiking horribly!

** Although maybe this is just an increase in risk the same as the increase in cancer risk from red meat, I don't know!


----------



## -K2- (Oct 23, 2019)

Robert Zwilling said:


> The taste is for the mind, one could say that it has very small if any medicinal value. Originally the taste might have alerted us to things that we needed, things that were harmless, and things that shouldn't be eaten. Food acts like a drug for the body. We only think of the nutritional aspects but there is a lot more going on than that.



I'm not so sure I'd agree with that. As things stand (meaning, responses could be adapted to, taught, or evolve), taste affects many aspects of our physical/emotional/mental health, as well as you point out, alerts us to things we need and things that are dangerous (which would both adapt as well in time).

Starting out with 'things we need,' I routinely listen to and obey my cravings. Now I'm not saying everything that simply smells or looks good, but like when I have an undeniable urge for salt or sugar. That craving can come to me in a general sense of what I need, or even become specific as to a food item. Being mildly hypoglycemic and having naturally low blood pressure, I've noticed that when I obey those cravings, very soon after, I physically feel much better. IOW, my body knows what it needs and to what amount, however, whatever chemical compound that might be, my brain can only describe it to me through a strong urge for a particular food, designated by taste. I consciously recognize the taste, and then can act.

Naturally, as you point out, that also applies to dangerous items. We 'still' will be repulsed by something that is potentially dangerous, typically through smell, but also by taste and after-taste and our reflexive reactions to it.

Finally, regarding mental/emotional health, past altering body/brain chemistry like my craving analogy, certain tastes generate a sense of satisfaction, can be calming, relaxing, whatever.  One analogy being, have you ever seen someone ranting, and when they stick a bite of a surprisingly good tasting food into their mouths, they're so take aback that their entire demeanor changes like a switch has been thrown. Other times, people become giddy or elated. Still others they calm or relax to a point they seem sedated... not from a full meal, yet a single bite.

We only have five senses to perceive every aspect of the world around us. Not one of those senses is inconsequential--how they each convey our body and mind's needs/defenses to us, analyzing and determining otherwise imperceptible aspects, done through their own manner of messaging, relayed to us via a drive or urge we can consciously understand.

K2


----------



## REBerg (Oct 23, 2019)

I recently tried a Burger King Impossible Whopper. Had I not known it was plant-based, I would have thought it had once mooed.
The Burger King offering, though, came with a lot of add-ons, so I tried an unadorned  Beyond Meat burger at a local bar to get a real taste for the patty. Again, it could have fooled me into thinking it was beef.
I understand that the Impossible Whopper costs about a dollar more than the beef version, so there is no price advantage. I've read that the highly processed ingredients of the IW hold no nutritional value over beef. The real advantage of producing meatless burgers, according to the manufacturers, is reduced environmental impact.
While it would be commendable if, for the sake of the environment, hungry fast-food customers routinely picked the IW over the original, they would probably not make that choice if it meant their taste buds would suffer. That does not seem to be case.
The last time I went to Burger King because my daughter wanted to try an Impossible Whopper, it was sold out.


----------



## Danny McG (Oct 23, 2019)

REBerg said:


> Had I not known it was plant-based, I would have thought it had once mooed


That's what they need to develop, a fungi culture that screams in terror as the kitchen knife approaches...what fun to be had!


----------



## Robert Zwilling (Oct 23, 2019)

I think the link between high blood pressure and health problems can sometimes be as simple as exceeding the pressure that the gravity enhanced pump and circulation system is able to handle without physically breaking down or being damaged. It doesn't matte how the high blood pressure developed, once it exists, the possibility of physical damage becomes more likely. People like to think our bodies are invincible for ordinary situations, that our bodies are self regulating machines that automatically adapt/heal themselves as needed. Sometimes that's true and sometimes it isn't. You want to stay safer, keep the pressure below the high rated value, like the way any machine would be operated.


----------



## Parson (Oct 23, 2019)

One person I listened to on a pod cast said that "It is uncertain if the plant based 'Impossible Burger' is any more environmentally friendly due the immense amount of processing involved in getting it to taste like beef."

I would tend to believe that, but in this day and age I doubt just about every claim by everybody. ---- Sigh! We live in the age cons and skewed data.


----------



## Robert Zwilling (Jan 9, 2020)

Impossible Foods makes a big splash at 2020 Consumer Electronics Show.
First Food Company featured at CES. 
Synthetic food seems to be on the way to becoming a major non agricultural industrial food product. It is still being sold as a meat alternative instead of just another kind of food. That generates direct controversy and free publicity as the meat industry pushes back, even trying to have the word meat removed from the alternative meat market's advertising arsenal, maybe that's what the fake meat people want.

I wonder if they can add protein and fat the same way they add extra sugar and starch to food, to make the nutritional content, without the downsides, of fake meat similar enough to real meat to make them interchangeable.

Impossible Foods At CES 2020


----------

