Growing meat in a laboratory

March 21, 2002 5:41 AM

Growing meat in a laboratory may seem like a good idea. They evey suggest that it might stop us "having to slaughter animals for food." But, to do it, they have to soak the meat in the blood of unborn baby cows.... Somehow, that doesn't sound right.....
posted by dwivian (26 comments total)

"have to soak the meat in the blood of unborn baby cows"

Must be an "evil" scientist!

I think these researchers may be listening to a little bit too much Black Metal in the labs!
posted by punkrockrat at 5:44 AM on March 21, 2002

Source article from the New Scientist here.
posted by costas at 5:50 AM on March 21, 2002

i don't think that is a good idea. i mean, if they are able to make meat grow with another kind of nutrient enriched liquid, that would be fine. the problem is that the scientists have to use blood of unborn baby cows, that's bizrre!

the mad cow's disease proved that if you make bizarre things with nature, like feeding cattle with enriched food (containing cattle's encephalic matter), you are not going to get something good.
posted by trismegisto at 6:00 AM on March 21, 2002

Or they could use the blood of aborted babies... no animals harmed at all then!
But then you'd have the problem of people getting pregnant and aborting and selling little Cletus the Fetus to the nearest meat growing lab.
posted by Keen at 6:21 AM on March 21, 2002

Fetal calf serum (aka baby cow blood) is commonly used for tissue culture in all areas of biological research and is probably the first thing the scientists tried. This doesn't mean some entrepeneurial young spirit couldn't do a little basic research to find a replacement that works well for this application. Incidentally, if FCS is the only way to grow this meat then you'd have to kill a lot more cows/lb of meat than the way we do it now. Your steak would probably cost >$100/lb!!
posted by plaino at 6:35 AM on March 21, 2002

the mad cow's disease proved that if you make bizarre things with nature [...] you are not going to get something good

I'm not sure that's true, as stated. There are some pretty bizarre technologies which work OK. BSE certainly showed us that it's a possibility, though. I think the more enlightening meme here, is "trust scientific research only as much as you trust whoever funded it". The BSE episode is probably why we have a slightly more jaundiced view of genetic engineering technologies in Europe. You often don't find out about the downside in food science for ten or twenty years after you've done the damage, and even then there will be a lot of monied interests involved in trying to cover it up.
posted by walrus at 6:38 AM on March 21, 2002

I'm sticking with Soylent Green.
posted by NortonDC at 6:39 AM on March 21, 2002

Hey Norton! That was my very thought on this "matter".
posted by BentPenguin at 6:54 AM on March 21, 2002

I suspect they'll only use blood until they come up with a synthetic that works as well. As for the "making bizarre things with nature" comment, the BSE outbreak came about because they fed neural tissue (containing prions) to the cattle, it was a cost-cutting measure (and one that had been common practice for a long time before the outbreak, same as feeding eggs to chickens) not a science experiment or genetic engineering. I don't quite see how you equate the one with the other, to be honest.
posted by biscotti at 6:57 AM on March 21, 2002

Between the "blood of unborn calves" and "enlarged chunks" getting FDA approval, I almost thought this was satire.
posted by O9scar at 7:24 AM on March 21, 2002

biscotti: I'm referring to the cover-up science funded by the British government at the time. Genetic Engineering is another example (to many people) of a bizarre thing we're doing to nature. I equate it because it's another possible example of how we could do something for short term gains which may turn out to have been a bad idea in twenty years time. Not saying it will, mind.
posted by walrus at 7:28 AM on March 21, 2002

the equation is that poor science can lead to icky consequences. the point is not that the practise of feeding was a scientific experiment, but that, in retrospect, perhaps a little more scientific inquiry would have been prudent. This is the same argument put forth by many critics of genetically engineered crops: that precisely because it can often take an extended amount of time for problems to manifest, more and longer term studies need to be done.
posted by juv3nal at 7:28 AM on March 21, 2002

I'm no hard-nosed veggie, but this makes a good point of the whole absurdeness of it all. Stick to soy burgers - most of you wouldn't tell the difference anyway.
posted by betobeto at 7:56 AM on March 21, 2002

most of you wouldn't tell the difference anyway

Unless, of course, you have a functional sense of taste.
posted by Danelope at 11:04 AM on March 21, 2002

Unless, of course, you have a functional sense of taste.

...and worship same regardless of ethical considerations.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 11:58 AM on March 21, 2002

Ahh, yes. The omnipresent moral superiority of the anti-meat lobby. I feel compelled to report you to the ASPCA, fold_and_mutilate; you've been beating this dead horse for ages.
posted by Danelope at 2:29 PM on March 21, 2002

...and worship same regardless of ethical considerations.

No, I'm pretty sure that even if you don't worship your taste buds, you can still tell the difference between soy and meat.
posted by kindall at 2:32 PM on March 21, 2002

I'm pretty sure that even if you don't worship your taste buds, you can still tell the difference between soy and meat.

Yes, but "soy burgers" are a different matter -- well, for me, at least. I'm not (entirely) a vegetarian, but I like my burgers with cheese, lettuce, tomato, ketchup and mustard. Under all that the Boca Burger tastes pretty much the same as a beef patty.
posted by Shadowkeeper at 2:53 PM on March 21, 2002

I'm sorry, I can't eat anything made out of mouths. When you nibble at the Boca Burger, the Boca Burger also nibbles back into you.
posted by kindall at 3:25 PM on March 21, 2002

It's all lips and assholes, people.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 4:08 PM on March 21, 2002

I'm glad this sort of research is finally happening. Growing meat in vats can't be that much harder than cloning an entire animal, can it? And it's a much more efficient way of producing food than running water, sunlight, minerals and vegetable matter through a cow. (And not having to kill a cow is a nice bonus, too.)
posted by mstillwell at 5:47 PM on March 21, 2002

Quick note on foetal bovine serum: many (although not all) cultured cell lines can be adapted to grow without serum in completely-defined media, the components of which can be synthesised from simple carbon sources. It certainly seems possible that such media could replace FBS-enriched media in the "growing meat in vats" application. The catch is probably cost: those media are expensive at the moment.

Vegetarian MeFites: supposing, for the sake of argument, that the cost issue could be overcome, and meat could be grown in culture using no animal products at all -- would you eat that?
posted by sennoma at 9:28 PM on March 21, 2002

Ahh, yes. The omnipresent moral superiority of the anti-meat lobby. I feel compelled to report you to the ASPCA, fold_and_mutilate; you've been beating this dead horse for ages.

Ahh, yes, the omnipresent defensiveness of the ethically challenged. Quit supplying me with the dead, and I'll quit beating you with your dead horses, your dead cows, and your dead ethics.

No, I'm pretty sure that even if you don't worship your taste buds, you can still tell the difference between soy and meat.

And, as noted, that completely justifies it for some.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:16 AM on March 22, 2002

supposing, for the sake of argument, that the cost issue could be overcome, and meat could be grown in culture using no animal products at all -- would you eat that?

Now I don't eat meat, I just don't fancy it. It's terribly chewy and weighs heavy on the stomach. Also makes my skin feel greasy. I essentially became vegetarian for those reasons: that I tried it and it really agreed with me. So, no. But then I'm not vegetarian for moral reasons (although I concede that's a pleasant side effect).
posted by walrus at 12:51 AM on March 22, 2002

hey, cool. I thought of this a year and a half ago. Prior art! Prior art!

Just kidding.
posted by beth at 1:27 AM on March 22, 2002

supposing, for the sake of argument, that the cost issue could be overcome, and meat could be grown in culture using no animal products at all -- would you eat that?

Nope. Even the thought is gross. Fake dead flesh! ewww.
posted by kv at 3:22 AM on March 22, 2002