It's great to have... Steven Colbert on your side?

In March this year, Steven Colbert decided to turn his focus to cultured meat for his segment "World of Nahlej". Featuring the president of Peta and one scientist culturing meat himself, Colbert was able to get a big word out about the technology. Better yet, what was his conclusion? Shmeat is great!

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/221975/march-17-2009/world-of-nahlej---shmeat

Videos!

Check out these cool videos on in vitro meat production.

First, a general overview (with some great animation as well):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev_DHcu8ve0

Now, an artistic viewpoint:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmqHnBp8odg

Speaking of SymbioticA, check out their section on the University of Western Australia website.

http://www.symbiotica.uwa.edu.au/activities/workshops/tissue_engineering_and_art

Tissue engineering workshops? Sign me up!

Timelines and Costs

http://memagazine.asme.org/Web/Test_Tube_Steaks.cfm
Test Tube Steaks by Jeffrey Winters


Here's a slightly more detailed look at the $1,000,000 prize PETA put forth for feasible, edible, lab-engineered meat. As the New York Times article on the subject showed (see previous posts), it's not that much money and it's not about the money. The projects are being privately funded in the millions of dollars already, and the men who work on it, care more about the science. So what does that lead to?

This article from Me Magazine (Mechanical Engineering) talks briefly about other such rewards to spark competition. The competition that sent the first privately funded/built manned-craft into space is one example. One I might throw out there that's rather similar in idea is Bruce Willis's $1,000,000 for the Osama Bin Laden. It's not about the money, it's about sparking a flame to get the job done. What PETA is doing with this contest is getting this technology into the media, trying to make the idea less taboo, and attempting to expedite the meat.

The story here give a basis for timelines and some of the money involved.

Some numbers:
$200 billion/year to process 9 billion animals.
Cost of meat: $2.30/lb of factory engineered meat as a low estimate to $10000/pound.
Possible timeline to get it to industrial scale: $100,000,000 over 10 years, at least.

Just based off of what's been written, it doesn't seem like PETA will get the guilt free meat it wants by 2012. One thing they neglected to mention is that FDA testing on all of this will take a long time. Let's hope the wait is worth while.

Why Not Cheat Meat?

Because this is a very new, not well-published technology, not many opinions are out there about Engineered meat. Even more seldom are negative opinions it seems. Here is an article by Angie Mohr from Associated Content on why she is against the idea: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2352594/the_ethics_of_growing_testtube_meat_pg2_pg2.html?cat=5

The biggest fear it seems in the fear of the unknown. Yes, the meat can be modified and changed to be healthier and "better". But, it can also change for the worse. She argues that our bodies are developed to handle "natural" foods. Can this tube meat closely resemble real meat enough to satisfy our hunger and not kill us? Mohr doesn't believe so.

Taco Bell Goes a Little Too Green?

I thought people might appreciate this just for fun:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/taco_bells_new_green_menu_takes

I figured they already did this... Not quite the same genetically test-tube food that we've been talking about, but still funny. This does tie in a big issue that have been mentioned a lot in regards to GE Meat: The environment and how creating food in a laboratory can be good for it.

Yes, there can be truth in The Onion.

Cultured Meats Control Health Costs

P.D. EDELMAN, M.Sc., D.C. MCFARLAND, Ph.D.,.A. MIRONOV, Ph.D., M.D. and J.G. MATHENY, M.P.H. “In Vitro-Cultured Meat Production." 2005. http://www.hedweb.com/animimag/invitro-culturedmeat.pdf

This is in response to a University of Maryland study concerning the health benefits of cultured meat.

In my last post, I wrote about the possibility that governments and international organizations could enhance the future of cultured meats. This possibility is due to the prospect that Cultured Meats could slow Global Warming amidst international concerns about Climate Change.

This University of Maryland study shows another prospect for a close relationship between Governments and Cultured meats: health. In the United States, the health care debate in Congress is one of the most popular news stories of the year. With rising health care costs and the likelihood that the U.S. government will provide and/or subsidize health care for millions of Americans, health care costs, which have been rising steadily for years, are going to be a major concern.

One of the most popular proposals for controlling health care costs is allocating more resources towards preventative medicine. The idea being, that it costs less to prevent a disease than it costs to cure it. Preventative medicine could prove extremely effective in terms of cardiovascular diseases.

We learned in lecture that in the U.S., more than 1 in 3 adults live with at least 1 type of cardiovascular disease; that more than 72 million doctor visits are for treatment and management of these diseases and that almost 1 million heart attacks occur each year.

This study concludes that production of cultured meat would be able to control the ratio of saturated to polyunsaturated fats. While many cardiovascular diseases can be attributed to genetics, they also have a very strong link to dietary choices. If cultured meats became the primary source of meat in the United States, they could essentially serve the same purpose as preventative medicine. Without making any conscious changes in their diet, Americans would lower their intake of saturated fats considerably. While this would have no effect on health care costs in the short run, it could save billions of dollars over 50 years or so.

Of course, this is completely dependent upon cultured meats gaining extreme popularity in the United States. Given all that we have written about so far, concerning the ethical, environmental and now the health benefits of cultured meat, there is a decent possibility that cultured meat could gain this popularity. If it does gain this popularity, its health benefits and prospects for saving money in the health care sector could bring upon a much stronger relationship with government, a relationship that could enhance and perpetuate its success for generations to come.

Government, Climate Change and the Future of Cultured Meats

Fiona MacKay. “Looking For a Solution to Cows’ Climate Problems.” New York Times. 11/16/2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/business/global/17iht-rbofcows.html?pagewanted=1

This article was in the New York Times Business Section last week.

In my last post, I wrote about the influence that ethical concerns about the ‘backstory’ of meat production (whether or not the animal was killed ethically, what effect it had upon the environment, ect.) could have on the future of cultured meat. I have never taken an economics course, but according to the simple rules of supply and demand, it seemed to me that the cultured meat industry would only expand if enough people desired a different ‘backstory’

It now looks however, that there could be an entirely new sector which could directly expand the industry: government. The United States Congress is currently considering a major Climate Bill, and in December, the U.N. Climate Conference will meet in Copenhagen. Government attention to the climate could have major implications for the future of cultured meats given that recent studies which prove a strong relationship between livestock and the global warming.

One such study claims that methane, which is a byproduct of many livestock, contributes 23 times more warming than Carbon Dioxide. The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization claims that livestock contribute to 18% of the worlds Global Warming, and two experts from environmental agencies within the World Bank claim that number is closer to 51%. Given that meat and dairy consumption is expected to double by 2050, these are statistics that governments seeking to slow global warming cannot ignore.

Eventually, national governments and international organizations are going to have to do something about the methane emissions if they truly want to slow global warming. One obvious solution would be cultured meats. If a countries meat supply could be kept going without the use of livestock, there would be a tremendous environmental success.

Governments theoretically, could do a number of things to promote cultured meat. They could subsidize the cultured meat industry, they could put taxes on traditional meat or could even regulate the production of traditional meat through quotas.

The article sites a number of alternatives to cultured meat such as artificial meat made out of soy, seitan and mycoprotein. None of these alternatives however, could theoretically replace traditional meat, which leads me to believe that government seeking effective climate policies could turn to cultured meat. Of course there is no definitive way to predict if the cultured meat industry will be assisted directly or indirectly from government policy, but if I was in charge of the cultured meat industry, I would start hiring lobbyists immediately.

Changing our lives in 8 simple ways, or so they say

"Eight Ways In-Vitro meat Will Change Our Lives"

By Hank Hyena, H+ Magazine, 11/17/2009

http://hplusmagazine.com/articles/bio/eight-ways-vitro-meat-will-change-our-lives

The title of the publication says it all. H+. Humans are ante-ing up, and lab-grown food is only one of the many in-the-making revolutions. While this article's particular take on in-vitro meat is a little less than professional (see #4. Healthier Planet), it does bring up eight really noteworthy talking points for the future world of laboratory-engineered food. Let's start chatting about a few of these, shall we?

2. Urban Cowboys

While it all seems well and good for today's ranchers to get the heck out of the country, retrain as city boys, and leave their land to plummet in value for a new wave of national parks and fields, this dramatic change is far from sustainable in today's social climate. We've heard it all far too many times before, but we're in a job crunch, and we're also heading pretty close to overpopulation. While people such at Steven Johnson may disagree that we should stay in the country, the strain that this inflow of unskilled, unemployed workers would cause on today's cities would be remarkable. Until we've pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps and fixed this economy, creating new jobs and new infrastructures in the cities, it seems to me all too appealing to just stay in the country.

If we're looking at this from a health care perspective, the social strains on health that one meets in the city are far removed from country and suburban life- fighting for a place to live, food, and clean air? These problems can't be solved over night with new populations entering the cities.

Besides, I doubt the NYPD would really appreciate any shoot-outs breaking out from Madison and Fifth.

3. Healthier Humans

We've heard it, heck we've said it ourselves on this blog. With in vitro meat, we will be able to control every little thing that enters our body from our food. No hormones! No mercury! No dioxin! No! These are only in "primitive" meat. But it's happened before, and it's likely to happen again. Throughout history, as people eliminate microbes and bacteria from their systems, proposing greater health for all, a new problem seems to mysteriously pop up. We eliminated hook worms? Now we have allergies. We took control of bacteria with Purell? Now we have more superclones.

Sure, excess hormones and antibiotics probably aren't staving off the next predator, but what may be? Research has contextual limits, and we may not even know what will happen once meat becomes as "pure" as in-vitro meat proponents are claiming.

On another note regarding meat and its supposed purity: How are we going to get there? While in-vitro meat is grown in labs, it still has to be taken from a meat host. What will happen to meat-eaters if the few animals chosen to give cells to start these cultures aren't the perfect ones scientists are targeting? Will in-vitro meat production rely on just a few samples or several animals?

5. Economic Upheaval

This is something I don't think we've discussed before. Sure, we know that nations that depend on meat for their economic well-being will be in trouble if this in-vitro meat thing catches on, but what about other industries that rely on animal products like leather, wool, dairy, and eggs? Will these industries become less efficient if the animals they kill are not in demand for their meat? Will they be bigger targets for animal activists once the spotlight has been taken off the slaughterhouses?

6. Exotic & Kinky Cuisine

I'm not quite sure what to say. Please, read it. Leave a comment. We'll talk about this... later.

So. In vitro meat. It seems this new item on the menu will have much more to offer than we originally thought. Is this all talk and no walk? We'll have to see once the more technical issues are ironed out, but I for one am frighteningly excited to see what the actual repercussions of test tube meat will be.

For now, though, who's for it? Who's against it? One voice definitely seems to be more vocal in the reputable press. Take our poll (on the right) and tell us what you think!

In Vitro in the Long Run

Giles, Jim. 2009. “Eating Less Meat Could Cut Climate Costs.” New Scientist. Available from: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16573-eating-less-meat-could-cut-climate-costs.html

Wait. Did I read that wrong? $20 trillion? A $20 trillion burden could be eased off the battle against climate change? Yep.

This article really broadened the scope of in vitro meat production, taking the idea of culturing meat from animal tissue cells to a whole new level. While other articles we’ve explored do connect the dots between “meat cheats” and human and environmental health, $20 trillion sure made me sit up in my seat.

Basically, this article outlined the fact that meat production today costs about that much money; and while I highly doubt that’s an annual estimate, it’s still a large chunk of change. For some reason, I was stuck in thinking solely about the actual production of meat and the process of packaging the products and getting them ready for sale. However, the article talked a lot about the actual land being used to raise the livestock, land that, if given the chance to grow and thrive, could become a plentiful carbon sink instead of mucky grazing grounds. Farms could also reduce their methane emissions in general by reducing the size of their plot and the number of animals they house; methane, a noxious greenhouse gas, is released from the farm animals and their manure in large quantities every day. The article even digs deep enough to point out that the fertilizer used to grow the grain that feeds the cows that produce the meat is “energy intensive” to make. Whew.

Apparently, if our eating habits stay the way they are, and we don’t want droughts or sea level rising, we’d have to pay a cost of $40 trillion by 2050 to work against all the carbon we’re producing from eating meat. By reducing meat intake, greenhouse gas emission would be also be reduced, vegetation could be grown on the unused land to offset the carbon, and bioenergy crops could be grown as an alternative to fossil fuels. Another suggestion was the idea that the prices of meat could be raised to put more money towards the reduction of carbon emission and create a monetary incentive to turn away from eating meat entirely.

This is all well and good, but what does it have to do with in vitro meat? Why does any of this matter, if animals are just going to be used for their tissue anyway and will probably have to be farm-raised? It matters because a few animal tissue cells, as highlighted from our blog posts last week, can produce the world’s meat supply by using in vitro methods. While some may argue then that animals would in fact be more plentiful if not killed for their meat, it definitely means that farms do not have to be as big as they are currently and that stretches of farmland used for raising animals could grow wild with vegetation and work instead towards protecting the environment. Though the article was at times a stretch in connecting with in vitro meat, it showed the larger implications of a world in which our meat eating habits continue, and the immense costs of these habits. Trillions of dollars could be saved by turning to this fake meat, and carbon emissions could be cut way down, and not just from the use of expensive carbon-saving technologies. A change in behavior could ultimately lead to a change in our climate.

So, meat cheat anyone? Think about it.

Test-tube Meat, Vegetarianism, and Safety

http://www.animalrighter.org/Feature_Article.html

iMeat
How Lab-Grown Meat Could Revolutionize Vegetarianism and the World

Vegetarianism is at a cross-roads. Genetically engineered, not modified, but engineered food is on the horizon. According to this article by VegNews, test-tube meat could be on our plates by as soon as the year 2012. The time tables may not be that fast given that a test-tube steak is still science fiction, but it's a definite possibility. Here is where we can raise questions. What do we have to look forward to with engineering food?

The article, written in 2006, brings up a few interesting points about how we should think about this new "food". Since the piece caters to vegetarians, it discusses what the choices are behind this new technology. Is the meat okay to eat? It doesn't involve the slaughter of animals, it avoids the travel, and it can be created from a single cell. But it's still meat, and to get this to be socially acceptable is one of the challenges. The "yuck" factor is one issue raised in the article. Would people eat laboratory developed meat on the market? Or will the idea disgust us? (Is McDonald's meat less gross?)

Medically, this technology raises new issues. Safety for example. No longer would we worry about proliferating diseases among factory farm livestock like Mad Cow Disease. According to the article, there would also be less opportunity for bioterrorism within a laboratory setting. We would significantly cut down on pesticides, antibiotics, etc. getting into our air, land, and bloodstreams. However, how safe is the lab meat in the first place? What kind of chemical impact will this have on our food? Our environment? I think the most interesting impact will be on disease spread from animals to humans and if that will diminish.

Where does that leave us? These are only a few questions about this new technology. One question that was never posed is cost. We can feed the world with a single cell, but what would it cost, and can we afford it?

Cheers,

Jeam Team

How Successful Will Cultured Meats Be?

Alexis Madrigal. 1/15/08. "Beef Battle: Tissue Engineered Burgers vs. Humanely Raised Cattle." Wired Science.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/01/beef-battle-tis/



I found this article on a website for New Harvest, a group that works to finance research for “cultured meats.” The Article was published on January 15, 2008. Two fundamental questions lie at the heart of this article: why do we go to whole foods? And what does that mean for “cultured meat”?

Why do we go to Whole Foods?

Whole Foods is the leading retailer for the Organic Industry and has more than doubled its revenue over the past five years. One major appeal of Organic food is health. Consumers are searching for foods that are pesticide and hormone-free. Some simply believe that Organic foods taste better. Others are attracted to this idea of “natural” foods that they can imagine being grown in their great-grandmother’s vegetable garden.

There is another major reason that people shop at Whole Foods: the “backstory.” The “backstory” refers to how that food came to market; specifically, whether or not the animal was treated ethically and the effect that the meat production had on the environment. Some people just don’t want to eat a steak if the cow was killed in an industrial slaughterhouse. They don’t want to eat a chicken if they believe they are indirectly killing the world’s water-supply.
It is tough to say which of these reasons predominates, but the answer has major implications for the future of “cultured meat.”

What does this mean for the future of “cultured meat”?

Put VERY simply, “Cultured Meat” is made by taking cells from an animal, and growing them in a medium containing essential nutrients. Although it will be quite some time before we are eating cultured, chicken nuggets, sausages and hamburgers, the FDA did recently approve the sale of cloned meat, probing us to ask: how successful will this enterprise be?

“Cultured Meat” will be more expensive than other meats, and will likely require a niche consumer to be successful. It is unclear whether or not “cultured meat” will be any healthier than organic meat. Therefore, if people shop at whole foods for health reasons, they may not feel any need to stop buying the organic meat. If people shop at whole foods, to buy “natural” foods, they may be put off by meat that originated from a petri dish.

If however, most people shop at whole foods for the “backstory” then “cultured meat” would likely take over the meat aisle. The production of “Cultured Meat” is completely harmless to animals, and is significantly less detrimental to the environment than the production of meat from a slaughterhouse.

IF the “backstory” is truly important to many Americans, then “Cultured Meat” could become a major food source. If it did become a major food source, it would place the science of cloning on dinner tables across America. In my opinion, this would make Americans more comfortable with the idea of cloning. This increased conformability with cloning could have major implications towards the progress of cloning in many different areas of biotech. If commercial success drives people to view “cultured meat” as ‘humane,’ then people might be more open to other uses of cloning that could also be viewed as ‘humane,’ such as stem-cell research.

Keeping an Eye on Cheaters

"Genetically engineered meat may be served under FDA plan"

By Elizabeth Weise, USA Today, 9/19/2008

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/genetics/2008-09-18-genetically-engineered-animals-food_N.htm

At the end of last year, the FDA proposed regulations that would allow the commercial use of genetically engineered animals. These animals for human consumption, medicine, and companionship. For example, as USA Today noted, they would be regulating:

"• Salmon that grow more quickly and efficiently.

• Goats that produce drugs in their milk or blood.

• Chickens that produce drugs in the whites of eggs.

• Cows that cannot get the brain-wasting mad cow disease.

• Pigs with organs that can be transplanted into humans without rejection.

• Hypoallergenic dogs and cats."

Although the FDA does note that each animal and engineering mechanism must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, the conversation behind this news release has opened the doors for scientists, consumers, and advocates to start discussing their general needs and concerns.

One of the biggest concerns from consumers is that these regulations do not require manufacturers to necessarily label the animal products as GE (genetically-engineered). The lines definitely start to blur when questions regarding the different animal products are raised. For example, should milk that comes from cows engineered to produce certain proteins be labelled? Even if the proteins are taken up only by eating the meat?

Another interesting distinction is that these animals effectively become labelled as "drugs". Most of the engineering done on the animals is through rRNA. rRNA is the material that is engineered into animals to make their cells function in a certain way. As a drug is considered "an article (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals", rRNA, and therefore the animals with the rRNA in their bodies, are considered "drugs" in legal literature. Whether people take issue with this is still to be seen, but it definitely creates some new questions as well.

As of yet, FDA-backed research has not shown any dramatic difference between farm-raised meat and lab-engineered meat, but as long as the current developments are fairly preliminary, so is this research. As more regulations are discussed and more products reach the shelves, the public, not just the FDA, will have to decide what belongs in our homes and what should remain in science fiction.

Read the FDA statement mentioned here: http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm048106.htm

More from the FDA: http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/2008/ucm116836.htm

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm109066.htm (the latest update).

A Healthier Meat?

“I’ll Have My Burger Petri-Dish Bred, With Extra Omega-3: How researchers can make meat that’s better for you- and better for animals”

By Susan Kruglinski and Karen Wright, Discover Magazine, 9/22/2008

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/oct/22-i.ll-have-my-burger-petri-dish-bred/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=

People already seem to have a great deal of control over the meat they eat- the type of animal, which part of it, how it’s cut, prepared, the list goes on. As Discover Magazine noted in 2008, people will soon have another degree of control over their proteins- nutrient enhancement. Beyond discussing petri-dish-grown meat, this article also addresses the research currently being conducted to augment the Omega-3 content of the meats we’ll soon be eating.

A great deal of research is going on on both the genetic and organismal levels. Scott Kronberg, a researcher at the USDA Agricultural Research Service Lab in Mandan, North Dakota, for example, has been feeding sheep flaxseed that has been treated to prevent conversion of ALA into saturated fat. ALA, a beneficial fatty acid found in fish oil, could have dramatic effects on health that cannot be tapped into when converted to saturated fats. In genetics, Randall Prather, a livestock reproductive biologist at the University of Missouri-Columbia National Swine Resource and Research Center, has cloned a pig with a gene that converts less-beneficial fatty acids into EPAs, another beneficial fatty acid found in fish oil.

Both of these engineered alterations may prove to make biologically-grown meat healthier for humans. Omega-3s have been getting a great deal of press in recent years for their benefits in "the treatment and prevention of diseases from type 2 diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis to asthma, cancer, dementia, and, most conclusively, heart disease". Also, as the production of Omega-3s uses up material that would otherwise go to the production of saturated fats in animals, this adjustment seems to have the capability to really tip the scales on nutritional contents.

However, there are a great deal of questions that arise when people start to re-engineer natural processes. It's true that omega-3s have been pretty strongly proven to be beneficial for humans, but what other costs to the animals do we inflict when we alter these processes? Is there some other mechanism that may be affected that we have yet to think about? Also, no research has been done yet as to what happens when we consume these meats. Will these fatty acids be processed differently in our bodies? What about combining this engineering with others? The possible ramifications are numerous.

When you look at this information in light of the other possible benefits of engineering meat- decreasing contamination, increasing healthiness- it seems that our lives could only get better as we take more control over what we eat, but who knows what will happen once we start eating meat engineered to create other substances? Will doctors start prescribing engineered meat in light of mineral supplements? Our medications? How far could this go?

Early Meat Cheats

Schwartz, John. 2008. “PETA’s Latest Tactic: $1 Million for Fake Meat.” The New York Times. Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/us/21meat.html?_r=1&hp

This is an interesting article in that it brings up the animal rights issue, which is strongly linked to this new research at the moment. Basically, back in 2008, PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals) put up significant prize money ($1 million) to the first person to come up with a viable option for producing meat from animal tissue. However, despite the money being put forward and the challenge set, many of the PETA members were disgusted by this, claiming that eating road kill would be a more appealing option for them. Eating any part of an animal was still a major problem for them, even if it meant no animal was killed or even harmed in the process of creating this “non-meat.” Nevertheless, PETA went forward with this effort, knowing full well that it might cost them members.

It seems to me like this was –and still is - a very good compromise. Animal tissue would be used here to cultivate more tissue, “grown” into meat, and used as a replacement in many meat dishes. No animals would be harmed at all, yet the strong flavor and texture of meat would still be enjoyed. This gets into public health and environmental issues here as well, as mentioned in the article. Because meat can have harmful chemicals, drugs and hormones in it, it poses as a health risk to individuals. Meat cultured and produced in a clinically safe and sterile environment (in vitro) would lack these harmful substances. Additionally, a lot of pollution and waste products are created in the regular production of meat. In vitro production would cut down on this significantly.

Obviously, this was written a year and a half ago – lots of progress has been made in this field since. It is interesting to see, however, how PETA put up such a large sum of money to really get the incentive out there to find alternative ways of producing meat. In vitro meat is truly a revolutionary technology sparing the lives of animals, and yet some PETA members still resisted the idea. Personally, I feel as if this is a great compromise for animal rights activists and meat eaters alike – one that sacrifices neither meat composition nor actual animals. PETA states in this article that they are willing to “take uncomfortable positions” if it means that animal lives are spared. Though all animal tissue may not be spared in this case, it is still the next best thing. This challenge sets the stage for some fascinating innovations in this field, and the fact that was put forth originally by an animal rights organization (despite internal disagreement) says a lot about the practice of growing in vitro meat itself.


2005. “Scientists aim for lab-grown meat.” BBC NEWS. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4148164.stm

This article comes from the resources part of the website for New Harvest, the organization mentioned in the last article. In existence since 2004, they works towards finding innovative approaches to meat production without harming animals through research and collaboration, providing a forum for technological advances in this field. In a way, this article travels further back in time to give some more insight into the initial problems and hopes for this type of non-meat.

Written in 2005, this article also provides some great background into the world of in vitro meat production before it was a common thing. It explains how a single cell could produce the world’s meat demand, all in a clean laboratory environment. The text not only mentioned the health benefits to both people and the environment, but also the reduced harm in terms of animals. Not only would this prevent animals from being killed (an obvious positive), but it would also decrease the harsh treatment of farm animals in general in terms of overcrowding and underfeeding. Scientists also say texture would not be sacrificed, as they have developed ways to “stretch” the muscle cells across the plate to prevent the mixture from tasting like mush. This “meat cheat” provides a new dilemma for vegetarians however; some would be comfortable eating the non-meat due to lack of animal cruelty and healthy production methods, but since some are just intrinsically against eating any part of an animal, this would still pose as a problem. Many vegetarians reported having qualms with the lack of information provided about how the initial cells were taken from the animals, and therefore were still uncomfortable eating the food. In addition, this idea might be revolting to those that are against eating synthetic, processed or unnatural foods.

Though this did raise more legitimate ethical dilemmas, it clearly was not enough to stop the wave of science involving non-meat production. Again, this was back in 2005, and there have been four years of research and progress in this field. Currently, there is a strong movement, especially in the US, towards healthy, organic foods that were created using natural processes. This article brings up a good point: while this meat would probably be healthier and cleaner overall, it does not mean that health-food “junkies” are going to jump to buy this product. Rather, it seems like this type of meat might actually be worse because of the fact that it is not a natural product, but engineered in a lab. This could turn many people away. The current wave of healthy and fit individuals may actually rebel against “meat-cheats,” and this is something we will explore as our research continues.

Both of these articles work to lay the foundation for some of the failures and successes in this field, in addition to raising some key arguments against this method of meat production that are still being debated today.

Welcome to Meat Cheats!

Hello, Blogosphere!

We're Meat Cheats, the Jeametic Way.

Jeametics is easy. Rather than ATCG, we're JEAM- Jeremy, Eliot, Addie, and Marissa (etics is the fish we keep in the water cooler).

We aim to uncover the mysteries behind meat cheats- engineering food from scratch, and the mad science behind it all.

Join us! It'll be sure be a kick!

JEAM