Would you eat a 'test tube' burger?
|
|
|||||
|
20 votes
|
|
61% | ||
|
3 votes
|
|
9% | ||
|
3 votes
|
|
9% | ||
|
7 votes
|
|
21% | ||
Four months ago, Mark Post, a professor of physiology at Maastricht University in the Netherlands, drew broad attention when he annoucned that he was close to producing a hamburger without a cow at his laboratory at a cost of about $330,000.
Dr. Post is literally growing meat from a single stem cell. (The cell for the meat is from the muscle of a Belgian cow that grows especially large and strong.)
While it is a complicated process, Dr. Post, whose research specialty is tissue engineering, said the science has already been developed by the medical community and the challenge now is honing the manufacturing process. He calls his innovation “no-kill meat,” but I think it might more accurately, albeit less appetizingly, be called petri dish meat.
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/a-quixotic-solution...
I wouldn't have a problem if I were forced to eat it, but I wouldn't eat it out of choice.
Meat comes from animals; it shouldn't come from a laboratory.
Instead of trying to figure out ways to take the "nature" out of our food, we should be doing exactly the opposite. There's a natural non-harmful way of producing meat that is actually good for the environment. But we don't do that much anymore. No, we remove cows and pigs and the like from anything their ancestors would have recognized and put them in cages and ship in corn to feed them and then we ship their waste out. Cows and pigs weren't designed to eat corn, but that's what they've decided to feed them, for whatever reason.
Animals raised in the more natural way, are more nutrient dense, have a better life before they become food, and contribute to the general life cycle of the planet instead of being a resource drain. Natural farming practices greatly enhance the land that is used instead of depleting it like CAFOs and such.
We just don't need to go farther in the wrong direction.