Meat cultures gets US approval as food

[Parson]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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-]

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]

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]

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]

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-]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Robert Zwilling]

Cultivated meat, formerly known as lab grown meat, has gone way past science fiction fantasies. It's also gotten to the point where people are trying to outlaw it. Some are trying to make it a felony to sell cultivated meat to the public.

The cultivated meat industry was hoping to cash in on the perceived waning of enthusiasm for the vegetable based substitute meat products. The race is on to find cells that reproduce rapidly so that the meat can be churned out like sausage.

Italy and a few US states, Florida, Alabama and Iowa, have passed laws banning the sale of cultivated meat. France is working on legislation to ban cultivated meat.

The European Union has banned the cloning of farm animals that would be used for commercial purposes. The US has not banned cloning of farm animals for commercial purposes.

Cultivated meat can be grown in vats. It starts as a few cells which are fed nutrients from which grow into lumps of meat. Companies have been working on scaling up the operation to make it cheaper and easier to make.

There are two basic ways to grow the cells to a sizable, edible pile. One method is to create a structure for the meat cells to anchor to, those designs are subject to a great deal of imagination. Artificial cellulose has been tried to mimic a tissue environment. Chitin is a natural scaffolding material for cells to grow on but enzymes can break it down, requiring careful planning. Collagen is another natural tissue growth anchor, but controlled production of the collagen is a bit of a problem, one solution is to get it from tobacco plants.

The roots of mushrooms have been used to create meatless bacon that looks pretty much like a piece of well cooked bacon. One company is using a dietary fiber called Nata de Coco, derived from coconuts, to create nanocellulose sponges for their scaffolding.

Another method is the bioreactor which are closed cylinders that use mechanical, chemical, and energy sources to produce the meat. It might be capable of being portable or even installed in residential settings. When there is enough meat produced, it has been proposed that the meat could be formed into usable shapes by 3D printers.

Around 40 companies are working on cultivated meat, a few are producing it in commercial quantities. Some are working towards being stand alone companies while others will be absorbed by big corporations that are looking for ready made solutions.

Big name meat production companies such as JBS, Tyson and others are actively pursuing efforts to produce cultivated meat for large scale use. For them it's a source of meat that is not subject to the uncontrollable effects of climate change, a product they can produce themselves.

Cultivated chicken is for sale in Singapore, but only 3 percent grown chicken cells. The rest is protein and spices. Right now it is too expensive to sell pure cultivated meat to the average consumer.

US, China, Israel, Australia, Singapore, Canada, Hong Kong, Czech Republic, Turkey, Spain, India, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Japan, Netherlands, are actively pursuing cultivated meat programs with a goal of providing meat to everyone from the rich to those with not enough food to eat.

A parallel industry is using bacterial fermentation to produce livestock by products. This includes milk, honey, eggs, cheese, gelatin, chitin, dairy proteins, egg proteins, sweeteners, enzymes, vitamins, fats, and pigments. All of which is being used commercially, though some are in limited quantities.