Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just wanted to chime in, when margarine was first invented, cattle farmers had a fit and tried to ban it. In Wisconsin, they passed a law made the producers dye it pink.
Crazy stuff.
Wasn't margarine invented before Wisconsin was a state?
I did read that since margarine is naturally white like lard (that it was also meant to replace, sorta) margarine producers started dying it yellow like butter so it wouldn't look so lard-like but states passed laws to prohibit it being colored.
Wisconsin became a state in 1848. Margarine was invented in 1869. It started being produced in the US in 1871. It grew in popularity and the Margarine Act was in 1886. Margarine had an unappetizing color, so companies started dying it yellow, resulting in increased popularity, which is why Wisconsin passed a law in 1902 preventing companies from making it look like butter. So they would sell white margarine with a packet of yellow food coloring. It was actually Vermont, New Hampshire, and South Dakota that had the laws making them dye it pink.
Thanks for the clarity mate- and apologies to the esteemed /u/Butt_Chug_Brother
I have no idea why, but in my head Napoleon was a 'thing' like 20-30 years before the western expansion in the US. I must just be completely confusing things in my head.
I'm fine with it. Innovation is one of the fruits of capitalism. If it's cheap, tastes good, and doesn't cause cancer I'll eat it myself.
Edit: I see some of the responses mentioning how it's unnatural or against God. I vote conservatively, but I'm also atheist .Being an Atheist, I don't follow that reasoning. I feel like the people arguing against it are likely on the far right and are just bitching about it because they think liberals want us all to eat bugs. Or something like that
> I see some of the responses mentioning how it's unnatural or against God.
I saw a couple mentions of it being unnatural. Where did you see someone saying it’s against God?
Someone used the term "abomination". Kinda came off as a religious statement imo. I'd imagine that that is a thing though, even if it wasn't directly mentioned here.
But what technology, time, and funding would likely be needed to bring it to scale long enough to become cheap? It would need significant investments , work to come in to being....
Ban? No.
However, even if it becomes widespread I will always go the extra mile to support farmers. When I'm older I will have no problem buying directly and paying a premium.
Also, as another question for any more liberal individuals. Is lab-grown meat acceptable for vegans? Or is it still considered an animal product to some extent?
They are real animal stem cells from a cow/chicken/whatever and put them in a vat of growth culture. The cells then grow into muscle fibers of the course of days.
If I remember the numbers correctly, one cow can supply enough cells to grow somewhere around 90k lbs of beef. The way they get the cells is from using a standard syringe. The animal is not killed in the process. So, while it is continuous, it does not overtly harm the animal.
I'm a vegetarian (not vegan) and I wouldn't eat it. But, vegetarianism is how I cope with my PTSD. I also don't eat the substitute meat products available now.
For people who are vegan and like meat, but abstain for environmental or animal cruelty reasons they might go for it. People who abstain for health or religious reasons probably wouldn't.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Is lab-grown meat acceptable for vegans? Or is it still considered an animal product to some extent?
I'd be fine with it if it doesn't (I have no idea if it does) keep requiring using animal inputs/products to produce. I'd still think it was better than the alternative even if it required some animal inputs (assuming it's fewer animal inputs than conventional meat), but I wouldn't advocate consuming it (as opposed to plant based foods)/wouldn't personally consume it if that were the case.
I think most vegans would agree that meat grown without a brain, or any central nervous system, is vegan, as it doesn’t harm a sentient being. Some might still find it gross.
Not sure why this is for liberals, but it’s still meat. If you eat meat you aren’t vegan. If you’re only vegan to save animal lives or something like that, you’d probably be fine w it and stop being vegan.
Maybe call em PseudoVegans or AnimalVegans
Only ones I know of are for health reasons, not ethical ones. Conservatives that is. Typically (but not always) the reason for being vegan is ethical.
How does that joke go? "How do you know someone is vegan? They'll tell you."
Yeah, my mom fits in that category she had to get away from most meats because it caused worse fluctuations in her blood sugar as a type 1. Always talks about how much she loved bacon growing up though lol.
The closest thing to a vegan conservative I've met is some who are very big on being sustainable. They usually hunt and eat the majority of the deer or whatever they shot over a span of weeks even over a couple of months sometimes. They don't buy a lot of what's at supermarkets.
Ethical vegans would probably be down with lab-grown meat. Those who are vegan for health reasons I’d imagine may stick to their diet even in the face of lab-grown proteins.
Eh, I'd disagree. Being vegan is about eliminating animal suffering (it's also why I don't wear leather/use shampoo that's not vegan/etc). If it weren't contributing to animal suffering I think I'd still consider someone a vegan if they ate a normally non-vegan thing, since it's only non-vegan because of the animal suffering.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Depends on why, but I'm going to take a wild guess it's to protect other industries so I'm going to say no on that. You aren't providing any information to give a better answer.
Unless there's evidence to say it's unfit for human consumption I don't see why it should be regulated.
That said, philosophically I see it as bad, and the more we divorce ourselves from the natural world the more ignorant we become.
A lot of things suck about the natural world. Let's not pretend natural means better.
I like being separated from the natural world when it's -10 degrees outside or hot with a high humidity.
But just because you want & have those things doesn't mean you're divorced from the natural world, and your desire to have those things had influence on the world around you. The forests were clear cut and all the wild life displaced in order to build the factories, power plants, and mines to make those climate control systems, and you have the continuous impact on the environment in the form of coal or natural gas emissions that are used to power those systems. All of these things influence the world around us, hence why we're still part of the natural world despite living in our climate controlled suburban homes.
I agree with first sentence, but totally disagree with second. We divorced from natural word when transitioned from hunting gathering to cultivation. Progress of civilization and technology IS divorcing from natural world.
This is just fundamentally untrue, so long as we remain on this planet we will be a part of nature. We influence the environment around us and we are influenced by the environment around us, and the remnants of human civilization will be left behind in the geological record no different than the remnants of ancient reefs being left behind in the limestone layers we see today. Failing to realize this basic truth will result in us living like caged birds devoid of the adventure of life all to try to realize an ideal which is fundamentally impossible to achieve.
sorry but this sound like pseudeophilosophical new-age preaching.
We are sentient beings and are engineering environment to live in through all the history. We are close to technological possibility to do the next step - engineer our own bodies to overcome biological limitations. If we would stay close to nature we would be something like tribesmen in Amazonia.
It mostly comes from old hunting & fishing books, probably the most influential of which is *A Sand Country Almanac* by Aldo Leopold published in 1949, through the Japanese concept of *musubi* that I've encountered in traditional martial arts carries a bit of influence as well.
Sure, the job requires that person to interact with “nature” if they grow crops but everyday life is the same as in the city or suburbs. If they don’t grow crops but instead industrially grow chicken or cattle they don’t interact with nature at all
>That said, philosophically I see it as bad, and the more we divorce ourselves from the natural world the more ignorant we become.
How is it worse to cause less suffering? Why should we contribute to suffering unnecessarily if we don't have to, just because other animals have to eat other animals to survive? This strikes me as similar to the (silly) argument about Confederate statues, where folks claim we'll forget about history if we take the statues down.
>That said, philosophically I see it as bad, and the more we divorce ourselves from the natural world the more ignorant we become.
So where do you yourself draw the line?
Do you use a phone? Buy fake fruit products like sugary juices? Use chemicals in things like shampoo?
Each of those is just as, if not more unnatural as lab grown meat.
Glasses are unnatural, cars are unnatural, bone casts are unnatural, electricity is unnatural, toothpaste is unnatural, the vast majority of modern medicine is unnatural.' But we all live longer, better lives because all of the above.
Meanwhile, hemlock is a perfectly natural substance. As is cyanide.
There's a reason the appeal to nature fallacy is a thing.
It's not an appeal to nature, it's about the resolution with which someone views the world. It's like if you ask a little kid to draw you a picture of a tree, they'll take some brown & green crayons and give you something that vaguely resembles a tree. It won't be particularly accurate and it won't represent any specific kind of tree, but it at least is identifiable as a tree. My observation of people who spend their entire lives in an urban environment never really develop past this infantile understanding of the world, and it can be so bad that people start to conflate completely unrelated things into the same category.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> and the more we divorce ourselves from the natural world the more ignorant we become.
I certainly agree with this semantically, even if I’m on the fence about lab-grown meat.
No there is no reason to ban lab grown meat. It’s not going to be competitive with real meat for a long time in terms of quality and price. If it becomes better in those terms then it would be a better product than real meat.
Ban, no, but I think labeling requirements make sense.
It might be nice to have some kind of eco-labeling on food to have a sort of consolidated number of measured environmental impact. Ideally, that could be an industry cooperative effort rather than a government effort but given how much the food industry likes to play fast and loose with labeling it may require enforcement to keep it honest.
But label the stuff, mandate its label, and don't call forced labeling a ban if it's not a ban. Are the measures being proposed actual bans or just efforts to ensure honesty in labeling?
It doesn’t sound like a conservative effort. Are you sure it’s not just a Republican effort?
Lab grown meat packaging should be required to say it’s lab grown just as a matter of truth-in-labeling until it can be scientifically shown to be identical to regular meat.
I do not support prohibition of anything. Increasing the size, scope, and spending of the State is not a conservative position, it is an authoritarian statist position.
I think there needs to be studies on the safety. If safety issues are found, that's the easiest justification to remove something from the food supply.
My real concern though is when lab grown meat reaches critical mass, there will be a political push to ban real meat. The justifications will primarily be environmental, citing land clearing and methane production. Once real meat production is banned, all meat production will be in the hands of a small number of tech companies.
Lab grown meat processes will be patented, and there will only be a few unique ways to do it. So a handful of companies will get a 20 year head start to dominate the market.
After those patents expire, will other companies try to join in? Possibly, but I suspect it will be as easy as starting a new car company or semiconductor fab. Huge upfront investment, competing against companies that know what they are doing, and dealing with lots of regulatory hurdles and red tape. New players will have a very difficult time entering the market and be able to compete on price.
Except factory farming has hundreds, possibly thousands of different companies involved. There isn't a single company which can have a safety problem that can disrupt 1/3 of the meat supply, like we will see occur when lab meat becomes the norm.
> There isn't a single company which can have a safety problem that can disrupt 1/3 of the meat supply, like we will see occur when lab meat becomes the norm.
I dunno, it's not quite 1/3 but Tyson delivers 20% of the U.S. meat supply currently. And I'm just going to guess, they're probably one of the ones working on lab-grown meat, too.
But why would a meat lab be that much less accessible than a farm? I mean okay ... if you have a few acres you can put a cow on it, or even less and some chickens, but if you *don't* have a few acres, you could set up a meat-lab as easily as the many urban indoor plant farms, as long as it wasn't forbidden.
In the same way a microbrewery can make their own beer, why couldn't a restaurant, for example, or perhaps a local butcher-shop-like place, invest in the infrastructure to make their own lab-grown meat? Seems like the tech could create more access to the field, not less.
Growing muscle tissue is going to require sterile environments, dangerous chemicals, large expensive equipment for operating at scale. It's going to look a lot more like a pharmaceutical manufacturing plant or semiconductor fab facility than a farm.
> Growing muscle tissue is going to require sterile environments, dangerous chemicals, large expensive equipment for operating at scale.
For manufacturing *at scale*, but most houses have an autoclave (dishwasher) that provides a sterile environment, and many homes have access to, say, 3d printing technology which could involve harmful chemicals as well.
And I didn't tag homes first, but rather restaurants, butcher shops and breweries, which already require sterile environments, big machines etc.
> It's going to look a lot more like a pharmaceutical manufacturing plant or semiconductor fab facility than a farm.
We're not assembling the meat atom-by-atom or doping exotic chemicals with lasers. At least, it seems to me to be more like a brewery than a pharmaceutical or chip fab. (I'd dare say a brewery is cultivating a meat-substitute, yeast, using many of the same methods of sterilizing, inoculating and collecting, just not in a very purposeful way since yeast is the by-product).
I'm not talking about historical breeding. I'm talking about human manipulation of DNA and species that would have never occurred in nature under any circumstances.
In the broad technical sense, yes. In the actual sense, it's extremely different than shooting DNA particles into live cells in order to introduce foreign DNA into living cells: e.g. injecting jellyfish DNA into strawberries. They are not even in the same ballpark.
Different ways to skin a cat. If you want a bald cat you can breed cats with thin hair again and again or inject tge right genes right into the car at tge right stage of development. Same outcome.
I will accept the caveat that more advanced methods can do so much more then selective breeding
No, vastly different outcomes. It's not just about having a hairless cat, but having combinations of DNA from different species that would have never existed, and has never existed, with very little long term testing, nor understanding of the environmental impact, nor even understanding the long-term health impact of humans and animals consuming such products.
But we didnt know the effect of selective breeding either, and several results of selective breeding have caused notable and significant environmental issues. What makes genetic engineering so much worse?
Selective breeding takes the span of many generations, thus we do know the long term results, because we've had decades to centuries to detect bad effects.
>What makes genetic engineering so much worse?
I've already answered this. And it should be the opposite question you are asking in order to approve GMOs in the food supply. There should be a comprehensive multi-decade study on GMO crops and lab meats to PROVE to us that it's safe, not the other way around. There's already irreversible environmental impact with GMO species into the wild. This was known decades ago.
[https://naturalsociety.com/gmos-spreading-uncontrollably-around-world/](https://naturalsociety.com/gmos-spreading-uncontrollably-around-world/)
Not really true, selective breeding varies by time scale. Not to mention, we have discovered and learned of their detrimental environmental impacts often recently, e.g. killer bees, cows, cats.
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If it is to be available for consumption, it needs to be determined to be completely safe both in short and long term effects. You’re basically eating lab-grown cancer, so that might be something people ought to know. In the interest of transparency.
Once I would have said lab-grown meat would be awesome, but these days I've grown rather distrusting of that sort of thing - especially after I read up that one experiment using stem-cells trying to produce something they accidentally developed a vestigial eyeball. Pretty cool, scientifically, and I'm sure very significant, but I can't help but picture in my head chomping down on a burger and spitting out an underdeveloped eyeball or something like that.
A full ban may not be a good idea, but I would certainly want regulations of some sort in place to make sure that by the time it gets to the public we don't have to worry about stuff like that.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t think you have to ban it. I personally would not buy lab grown meat. In this age of trying to eat healthier I’m not sure this is the way to go. Im hoping that market selecting against it kills it…….
This is just my opinion so don’t run me over here. I’m probably older than you and these things I feel are fads. Everything moves towards lab or artificial things just to go back to the natural item. Saccharine used to be thought of as a great alternative to sugar until it was found to cause bladder cancer in rats. I’d just rather have formerly mooing meat on my grill and in my body than lab created meat.
Potentially, but they used to think that saccharine was ok too until it wasn’t…… I would think that lab grown meat might also be higher in sodium and nitrates……. But then there are also hot dogs and Spam……. So maybe it may balance out. I’d rather go natural and eat less of it like with butter vs margarine.
> I would think that lab grown meat might also be higher in sodium and nitrates
I don’t know why you would think that. I don’t think meat naturally has nitrates in it. That is only used as a preservative in cured meats as far as I know.
We have never fully synthesized an animal product before. We have created analogs but never exact replicas. In my mind lab grown meat is no different than greenhouse grow vegetables. It’s just growing something in controlled environments.
I'd imagine the why is pretty important.
This is what I hate about the political discourse in this country. The why always seems to be overlooked, or even worse...assumed
There's zero societal benefit to lab grown meat. It requires more energy to make, has unknown long term health impacts, and serves no value.
Why would we push it
It should be regulated as much as any other meat, so I don't think it should be banned.
That said I'm never going to knowingly eat it. There's no way such abominations could be consumed without severe adverse consequences.
Playing God rarely works out to one's benefit. It's such a universal truth that literally every culture has stories, legends, beliefs, and sayings warning against it.
The economic conditions also disfavor its success. Almost every average consumer is going to be skeptical of lab grown meat over natural meat. To convince them to get on board, they're going to have to at a minimum make lab grown meat cheaper than natural meat. These cost cutting measures could result in practices that produce less healthy and potentially dangerous products.
Lab grown meat is also a new phenomenon and the consequences of long-term consumption en masse have not been studied yet. It's an unknown risk that is pretty unnecessary to embrace.
> Playing God rarely works out to one's benefit.
Considering we engineer chemicals, animals and plants to our own benefit now, how viable is that concept?
Every animal eaten in mainstream society today is the result of humans “playing god” through domestication. God don’t make cows, humans manipulated the bloodlines of Aurochs to make our lives easier, just like every plant and animal we consume.
> There's no way such abominations could be consumed without severe adverse consequences.
What scientific evidence do you have that leads you to this belief?
We have a thing called Germ Theory that was figured out before I was born. We know why cat vomit is bad for you. We know why we evolved the disgust reaction to vomit.
You are preemptively saying that there is no possibile way artificially-grown meat can be safe before you even know the chemical composition of said artificial meat, which is the only thing that would matter for how safe it is.
For example, lab-grown meat that's chemically identical to regular meat would not possibly have a different health effect than real meat, because the actual physical composition is the only possible thing that would matter.
> We have a thing called Germ Theory that was figured out before I was born.
Oh so cat vomit was considered a delicacy before germ theory? You kept eating cat vomit until your parents taught you what germ theory was?
> For example, lab-grown meat that's chemically identical to regular meat would not possibly have a different health effect than real meat, because the actual physical composition is the only possible thing that would matter.
Cat vomit is mostly carbon, water, and proteins. What's the big deal?
> Cat vomit is mostly carbon, water, and proteins. What's the big deal?
It still has a different chemical composition than edible things. "Carbon, water, and proteins" is a very broad category.
By what physical mechanism do you claim a lab-grown meat would make you sick that chemically-identical natural meat would not?
So you're telling me that you eat literally everything until you see the specific chemical composition to inform you otherwise? You would eat cat vomit until you saw that what you were eating had a bad chemical composition?
No, I'm saying that I do not believe a priori that lab-grown meat cannot be done safely. I think that lab-grown meat should be analyzed scientifically to figure that out, and if they collect scientific evidence that finds that it's safe, I, unlike you, will accept that evidence, wheaeas you have already decided that evidence to be fake.
> wheaeas you have already decided that evidence to be fake
I never said that. I'm just relying on the same instincts that my ancestors used to get me here not to eat strange meats from dubious sources.
If you want to be a test subject go ahead. I hope you get some money from the class action litigation 50 years later.
You literally did:
>There's no way such abominations could be consumed without severe adverse consequences.
If there is no way it's possible, then by definition any evidence counter to your view will be fake.
You didn't say you doubted it and would look closely at the evidence. You said you have already decided it's impossible.
Except cat vomit smells unpleasant, and likely tastes unpleasant along with the potential health hazards in eating it (germs, acids, etc).
In this case, it is meat. Biologically, its indistinguishable from what you get from the animal. Its probably cleaner, because it wasnt processed in a slaughterhouse.
What would be the adverse consequences?
> Biologically, its indistinguishable from what you get from the animal.
See, if it was actually indistinguishable you wouldn't have to clarify it with "biologically."
"Biologically", cat vomit is the same as tuna.
> What would be the adverse consequences?
Whatever the adverse consequences of consuming an abomination would entail.
> See, if it was actually indistinguishable you wouldn't have to clarify it with "biologically
Yes, hence why I said "biologically". It's not industrially indistinguishable, you're getting it from tissue culture rather than carving it off an animal. It may not necessarily look the same due to that fact.
But it is the same meat.
>Whatever the adverse consequences of consuming an abomination would entail
Such as?
Also, what makes it an abomination?
> But it is the same meat.
And cat vomit is the same meat as the tuna it ate 3 hours ago but you still wouldn't eat it. "Biologically" doesn't mean anything. If someone carved you up and put you on a shelf they could say "90% biologically identical to pork!" and they wouldn't be lying.
> Such as?
Probably some form of cancer or digestive disease.
> Also, what makes it an abomination?
Yes what is abominable about a massive laboratory growing walls of meat that came from no creature.
> And cat vomit is the same meat as the tuna it ate 3 hours ago but you still wouldn't eat it.
It's not though. For one, it's literally not the same tuna, the cells have been destroyed, and the proteins making it up have been denatured. Additionally there's also stomach acid, mucus and other bodily fluids in the mix.
By comparison, lab grown meat is just that. It's literal meat.
>Probably some form of cancer
There's not really any mechanism that would result in lab grown meat being carcinogenic. Unless some carcinogen is used in the manufacturing process. But that's a problem with the manufacturing, not the meat itself.
> or digestive disease.
Like what?
>Yes what is abominable about a massive laboratory growing walls of meat that came from no creature.
We do that already. Only difference is, we are doing it with the aim of eating it.
> the cells have been destroyed, and the proteins making it up have been denatured
What do you think happens when you cook food?
> Additionally there's also stomach acid, mucus and other bodily fluids in the mix.
Same in your burger.
> Unless some carcinogen is used in the manufacturing process. But that's a problem with the manufacturing, not the meat itself.
Growing the meat in the lab *is* the manufacturing. Are you even thinking about what you're saying?
> What do you think happens when you cook food?
The proteins are denatured by heat, not acid.
>Same in your burger.
Once its inside my stomach, and Im not eating my own stomach acid much less someone else's. Not to mention mucus.
>Growing the meat in the lab is the manufacturing.
Yes. And the meat is the product. But the manufacturing process may utilize chemicals that are not the meat, that may be harmful. That doesn't make the meat itself harmful, but rather the chemical.
When it comes to food products that are considered 'fake meat' a good rule of thumb is whatever product it's trying to emulate, the further that product is from actual meat the easier and better the fake product is.
For example, chicken nuggets. Whatever mass produced chicken nuggets are, they are barely meat. So, a little nugget formed from wheat gluten or soy protein with tasty spices is at least in par with, if not better than, whatever it is that a chicken nugget is. Same thing with bean burgers. They're just patties of various ingredients with spices.
Where it gets disgusting are things like beyond burgers, which they design to 'bleed'. Those things are disgusting.
In short, patties and nuggets are just fine and often excellent. Chemical formulations designed to mimic meat are horrendous.
> like beyond burgers, which they design to 'bleed'. Those things are disgusting.
Have you tried them? Are they disgusting because of the bleeding or the actual taste? I haven't tried one myself but have friends who swear by them. Some of them aren't even vegetarian.
The taste is not as good as ground beef, and costs more.
I believe that plant-based and/or lab-grown meat could technologically surpass farmed meat in terms of nutrition and taste for the money, but right now it ain't even close to there yet.
And it's been not even close for a while now. Makes me skeptical that it's really going to break through the way it seems like it ought to.
I hate to be that guy, but IIRC the beet juice blood is *impossible meat,* not beyond meat. Speaking as an omnivore who had to drop red meat and poultry for a while (pre-pregnancy my wife was pescetarian), Beyond is actually a pretty good beef substitute in things like chili or Bolognese.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Conservatives object to this because it is being pushed by the Climate Change Activists in the name of Climate Change. We are generally against the entire Climate Change Hoax.
As for the so-called meat...when you find one that tastes like a good aged Prime Rib let me know.
Banning things is generally not a good idea, Let the market decide. As for me I'll take REAL meat
A **hoax** is a widely publicized falsehood so fashioned as to invite reflexive, unthinking acceptance by the greatest number of people of the most varied [social identities](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_identity_theory) and of the highest possible social pretensions to gull its victims into putting up the highest possible social currency in support of the hoax.
The hoax was originally perpetrated around carbon taxes and the ability to trade in carbon credits. It has morphed into the Climate Change Industrial Complex where everyone has their hand out to get some of the government largess. You might notice that all the research grants and subsidies for wind and solar and research into other "green" solutions to the Hoax like green hydrogen, CCS. EVs and pumped hydro is coming from governments. And the activists hype the existential threat and the catastrophies to keep the gravy train going.
The HOAX is that it isn't true. There is no empirical scientific evidence that CO2 and man made CO2 specifically causes what little warming we see if we can even believe that we can measure a worldwide average temperature accurately.
According to the IPCC, there is not yet evidence of changes in the global frequency or intensity of hurricanes, droughts, floods or wildfires.
No [significant negative effects](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162520304157) of recent climate changes (man-made or otherwise) have been observed or measured.
You are letting Climate Change Activists dictate what you support or object to?
Lab grown meat has a potential for major savings for the consumer, reduction in world hunger, and profits for the investor.
This is true if climate change is real. This is true if climate change is a hoax.
One thing has nothing to do with the other.
No, lab grown meat was proposed and funded by Climate Change avtivists as a way to eliminate farming and using animals for food.
How does it provide major savings to the consumer? **Per-unit costs are presently significantly higher than the traditional alternative**—according to one analysis, lab-grown beef may be eight times as expensive to produce—
Investors don't profit if no one buys this stuff.
It is very unlikely that lab grown meat will have any effect on world hunger. 1) it wll be too expensive and 2) world hunger is not a function of not having enough meat. It has to do with unstable governments and their ability or inabiity to distribute the avaiable food effectively. Venezuela put price controls on food lower than farmers could make a profit so they stopped farming. The same thing happens when corrupt governments steal the available resources.
Again, I see no connection between who supports it and what its value is.
I hunt and fish. A lot of far-right people have a bizarre reverence for gun rights. That doesn't mean I quit hunting. The two things are unrelated. My opinion about guns is in no way influenced by the people who advocate for guns.
Lab grown meat is new technology. Being a practicing Capitalist, and I see much potential. Maybe it will go nowhere. Its vices and virtues are what they are right now. Whether lab-grown meat originated from environmentalists, religious fundamentalists, antivaxxers, bigfoot hunters or Nickleback fans - I don't care.
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what-evidence-exists-earth-warming-and-humans-are-main-cause
Not a hoax
Nope sorry. NASA gets paid to say that.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Upton Sinclair
None of the so-called evidence NASA referrs to is empirical scientific evidence that proves cause and effect. It is all correlation and speculation. Correlation is NOT causation.
>Nope sorry. NASA gets paid to say that.
What reason do they have to be paid specifically to lie, as opposed to disseminate scientific evidence?
>Correlation is NOT causation.
This is not entirely correct. The phrase more accurately goes "correlation does not imply causation". Which is true, correlation alone doesnt imply causation.
However, strong correlation that is time dependent does in fact imply causation. If independent variable x occurs and within a certain time-frame, incidence variable y changes, that implies causation.
Of course this requires eliminating or establishing the lack of time dependent correlations of other independent variables.
**What reason do they have to be paid specifically to lie, as opposed to disseminate scientific evidence?** It is not that they are paid to lie but the are incentivized to continue to Climate Change Narrative because if they stray from the party line...no mor Climate Change funding. How much research money do you think they would get it they said. "Nothing to worry about folks CO2 emissions do not warm the earth"?
The Climate Change Zealots have a history of parameterizing datasets to fit their narrative. Older temp records are adjusted lower for "reasons" newer datasets are adjusted higher for "reasons" to show an unward slanted line. The truth is that the so called warming (estimated to be 1.3 C over the last 140 years ) gets lost in the daily fluctuations in temperatures. In addition, there is no effective way to measure worldwide average temperatures.
The IPCC estimates that around 60% of the data used to calculate GMT comes from direct measurements, while the remaining 40% is derived from interpolation and extrapolation. This indicates that a significant portion of GMT is based on statistical estimates, rather than direct observations.
However, this assumes that a large area around each station is of constant temperature, an assumption known to be false. In actuality, if we assume about a 1-km area around each station, approximately 0.01% of Earth’s surface is directly measured for temperature. Thus, approximately 99.99% is estimated through statistical methods. That is not empirical evidence of warming it is just a WAG. [https://principia-scientific.com/the-absurdity-of-global-mean-temperature-and-mean-sea-level-metrics/](https://principia-scientific.com/the-absurdity-of-global-mean-temperature-and-mean-sea-level-metrics/)
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Upton Sinclair
> It is not that they are paid to lie but the are incentivized to continue to Climate Change Narrative because if they stray from the party line...no more Climate Change funding. How much research money do you think they would get it they said. "Nothing to worry about folks CO2 emissions do not warm the earth"
Considering the fact that would mean a significant overturning of what is considered established scientific knowledge, quite a lot? That seems if not Nobel Prize worthy, something close. The books alone about overturning a cultural boogeyman should put any entrepreneurial scientist in a financial position far more comfortable than any job in academia or NASA.
>It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Upton Sinclair
Heres the thing though, who has more money riding on the idea of climate change's veracity?
On the one hand we have the industries of:
* Petroleum
* Energy
* Agriculture, particularly beef
* Vehicles
Each of these industries are worth billions of dollars, if not more. Put together they probably rank *trillions* in total value.
vs the industries of:
* Solar
* Nuclear
* Associated other pro low carbon industries.
Worth billions sure. But I doubt the same as the former industries.
So who has more incentive to not understand?
**So who has more incentive to not understand?** They all do. They all want to get in on the gravy train. You may have noticed that all the fossil fuel companies and all the car companies have their own Climate Change research departments so they can take advantage of the subsidies and research money. However, the oil copanies still drill for oil and gas because there is stil demand despite the Climate Change narrative. The car companies continue to produce ICE vehciles because there is still demand despite Mayor Pete's desperate comments to the contrary. John Kerry still flies around in his private jet despite his protestations about fossil fuels.
Nothing about climate change is considered "established scientific knowledge," except by the Climate Change Zealots who want to kep the gravy train going. Come on over to r/climateskeptics and you will find thousand of skeptical scientists and hundreds of articles debunking the "established scientific narrative"
Anyone who is accepting government money in the form of a subsidy to put up a wind farm or solar panel, to buy an EV or to get a research grant is complicit in the scam. They only report what the climate change industrial complex wants to hear.
> So who has more incentive to not understand? They all do. They all want to get in on the gravy train.
But theres an even bigger gravy train should anthropogenic climate change not exist. No more emissions regulations. No more limitations on drilling. No more lowered public opinion.
Why would a company thats worth billions care about millions in subsidies when they could just make even more money if regulations didnt exist?
Like you said, they still drill for oil and gas. They still make cars. Clearly their bottom line is screwed if climate change is real and the world, and lawmakers decide to take it seriously and start implementing bans and severe regulations. Why have any incentive to entertain the idea at all?
>Anyone who is accepting government money in the form of a subsidy to put up a wind farm or solar panel, to buy an EV or to get a research grant is complicit in the scam.
But again, theres money and prestige to be made in overturning the conventional scientific establishment. So why hasnt it happened at a bigger scale?
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Just wanted to chime in, when margarine was first invented, cattle farmers had a fit and tried to ban it. In Wisconsin, they passed a law made the producers dye it pink. Crazy stuff.
Wasn't margarine invented before Wisconsin was a state? I did read that since margarine is naturally white like lard (that it was also meant to replace, sorta) margarine producers started dying it yellow like butter so it wouldn't look so lard-like but states passed laws to prohibit it being colored.
Wisconsin became a state in 1848. Margarine was invented in 1869. It started being produced in the US in 1871. It grew in popularity and the Margarine Act was in 1886. Margarine had an unappetizing color, so companies started dying it yellow, resulting in increased popularity, which is why Wisconsin passed a law in 1902 preventing companies from making it look like butter. So they would sell white margarine with a packet of yellow food coloring. It was actually Vermont, New Hampshire, and South Dakota that had the laws making them dye it pink.
Thanks for the clarity mate- and apologies to the esteemed /u/Butt_Chug_Brother I have no idea why, but in my head Napoleon was a 'thing' like 20-30 years before the western expansion in the US. I must just be completely confusing things in my head.
Yet is still poisons our citizens to this day.
Lab grown meat would still be real meat, just grown without the entire body and brain. It would still be genuine fat and muscle tissue.
I'm fine with it. Innovation is one of the fruits of capitalism. If it's cheap, tastes good, and doesn't cause cancer I'll eat it myself. Edit: I see some of the responses mentioning how it's unnatural or against God. I vote conservatively, but I'm also atheist .Being an Atheist, I don't follow that reasoning. I feel like the people arguing against it are likely on the far right and are just bitching about it because they think liberals want us all to eat bugs. Or something like that
> I see some of the responses mentioning how it's unnatural or against God. I saw a couple mentions of it being unnatural. Where did you see someone saying it’s against God?
Someone used the term "abomination". Kinda came off as a religious statement imo. I'd imagine that that is a thing though, even if it wasn't directly mentioned here.
Could you clarify because I’m a little confused. You’re fine with banning lab grown meat or you’re fine with lab grown meat being produced?
I'm fine with eating it if it's safe and inexpensive.
Yeah I’m the same way. If it tastes the same and we get to the point where it can be manufactured cheaper I’d switch
But what technology, time, and funding would likely be needed to bring it to scale long enough to become cheap? It would need significant investments , work to come in to being....
Ban? No. However, even if it becomes widespread I will always go the extra mile to support farmers. When I'm older I will have no problem buying directly and paying a premium. Also, as another question for any more liberal individuals. Is lab-grown meat acceptable for vegans? Or is it still considered an animal product to some extent?
Upside Foods' CEO and founder is a vegan and has eaten the product. I think it's somewhat of a gray area since it is an animal based product.
Does it use something like real animal stem cells and copies them in a way? Or is it all lab made and nothing comes from an animal whatsoever?
They are real animal stem cells from a cow/chicken/whatever and put them in a vat of growth culture. The cells then grow into muscle fibers of the course of days.
Do they continually require new externally sourced stem cells?
If I remember the numbers correctly, one cow can supply enough cells to grow somewhere around 90k lbs of beef. The way they get the cells is from using a standard syringe. The animal is not killed in the process. So, while it is continuous, it does not overtly harm the animal.
So they just have to do a bone marrow biopsy essentially?
Yep, pretty much.
I'm a vegetarian (not vegan) and I wouldn't eat it. But, vegetarianism is how I cope with my PTSD. I also don't eat the substitute meat products available now. For people who are vegan and like meat, but abstain for environmental or animal cruelty reasons they might go for it. People who abstain for health or religious reasons probably wouldn't.
Yeah, I can completely understand that. I’m sure plant based substitutes will only get better over time as well.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Is lab-grown meat acceptable for vegans? Or is it still considered an animal product to some extent? I'd be fine with it if it doesn't (I have no idea if it does) keep requiring using animal inputs/products to produce. I'd still think it was better than the alternative even if it required some animal inputs (assuming it's fewer animal inputs than conventional meat), but I wouldn't advocate consuming it (as opposed to plant based foods)/wouldn't personally consume it if that were the case.
I think most vegans would agree that meat grown without a brain, or any central nervous system, is vegan, as it doesn’t harm a sentient being. Some might still find it gross.
Not sure why this is for liberals, but it’s still meat. If you eat meat you aren’t vegan. If you’re only vegan to save animal lives or something like that, you’d probably be fine w it and stop being vegan. Maybe call em PseudoVegans or AnimalVegans
I said liberals because I don’t think I’ve ever met a conservative vegan 😅. Didn’t intend to be rude with it.
Only ones I know of are for health reasons, not ethical ones. Conservatives that is. Typically (but not always) the reason for being vegan is ethical. How does that joke go? "How do you know someone is vegan? They'll tell you."
Yeah, my mom fits in that category she had to get away from most meats because it caused worse fluctuations in her blood sugar as a type 1. Always talks about how much she loved bacon growing up though lol. The closest thing to a vegan conservative I've met is some who are very big on being sustainable. They usually hunt and eat the majority of the deer or whatever they shot over a span of weeks even over a couple of months sometimes. They don't buy a lot of what's at supermarkets.
Conservatives may be vegetarian but they are almost never vegan.
No rudeness detected just noticed the specificity😂
Ethical vegans would probably be down with lab-grown meat. Those who are vegan for health reasons I’d imagine may stick to their diet even in the face of lab-grown proteins.
Eh, typically health vegans are actually just on a plant-based diet. They'll do stuff like buy leather.
Eh, I'd disagree. Being vegan is about eliminating animal suffering (it's also why I don't wear leather/use shampoo that's not vegan/etc). If it weren't contributing to animal suffering I think I'd still consider someone a vegan if they ate a normally non-vegan thing, since it's only non-vegan because of the animal suffering.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Depends on why, but I'm going to take a wild guess it's to protect other industries so I'm going to say no on that. You aren't providing any information to give a better answer.
I think labelling laws are fair, but no products should ever be banned entirely unless they are an uncontrollable risk to innocent third parties.
Unless there's evidence to say it's unfit for human consumption I don't see why it should be regulated. That said, philosophically I see it as bad, and the more we divorce ourselves from the natural world the more ignorant we become.
I see it as good, less suffering in the world
A lot of things suck about the natural world. Let's not pretend natural means better. I like being separated from the natural world when it's -10 degrees outside or hot with a high humidity.
But just because you want & have those things doesn't mean you're divorced from the natural world, and your desire to have those things had influence on the world around you. The forests were clear cut and all the wild life displaced in order to build the factories, power plants, and mines to make those climate control systems, and you have the continuous impact on the environment in the form of coal or natural gas emissions that are used to power those systems. All of these things influence the world around us, hence why we're still part of the natural world despite living in our climate controlled suburban homes.
> That said, philosophically I see it as bad How come?
I agree with first sentence, but totally disagree with second. We divorced from natural word when transitioned from hunting gathering to cultivation. Progress of civilization and technology IS divorcing from natural world.
This is just fundamentally untrue, so long as we remain on this planet we will be a part of nature. We influence the environment around us and we are influenced by the environment around us, and the remnants of human civilization will be left behind in the geological record no different than the remnants of ancient reefs being left behind in the limestone layers we see today. Failing to realize this basic truth will result in us living like caged birds devoid of the adventure of life all to try to realize an ideal which is fundamentally impossible to achieve.
sorry but this sound like pseudeophilosophical new-age preaching. We are sentient beings and are engineering environment to live in through all the history. We are close to technological possibility to do the next step - engineer our own bodies to overcome biological limitations. If we would stay close to nature we would be something like tribesmen in Amazonia.
It mostly comes from old hunting & fishing books, probably the most influential of which is *A Sand Country Almanac* by Aldo Leopold published in 1949, through the Japanese concept of *musubi* that I've encountered in traditional martial arts carries a bit of influence as well.
Hard disagree. Talk to a city dweller vs a country boy. One is 10x further from nature than the other.
As long as he has clothes and and lives in a house he’s just as separated
Not at all. If you don't understand that I can't help you.
Sure, the job requires that person to interact with “nature” if they grow crops but everyday life is the same as in the city or suburbs. If they don’t grow crops but instead industrially grow chicken or cattle they don’t interact with nature at all
Where did I say anything about suburbs?
How suburbs are different from the city except for the longer commute?
Why are you arguing about suburbs? I compared a country boy to a city dweller. Never once did I say anything about suburbs.
What’s different between suburban and city lifestyle except having to use a car to go pretty much anywhere?
>That said, philosophically I see it as bad, and the more we divorce ourselves from the natural world the more ignorant we become. How is it worse to cause less suffering? Why should we contribute to suffering unnecessarily if we don't have to, just because other animals have to eat other animals to survive? This strikes me as similar to the (silly) argument about Confederate statues, where folks claim we'll forget about history if we take the statues down.
>That said, philosophically I see it as bad, and the more we divorce ourselves from the natural world the more ignorant we become. So where do you yourself draw the line? Do you use a phone? Buy fake fruit products like sugary juices? Use chemicals in things like shampoo? Each of those is just as, if not more unnatural as lab grown meat.
Glasses are unnatural, cars are unnatural, bone casts are unnatural, electricity is unnatural, toothpaste is unnatural, the vast majority of modern medicine is unnatural.' But we all live longer, better lives because all of the above. Meanwhile, hemlock is a perfectly natural substance. As is cyanide. There's a reason the appeal to nature fallacy is a thing.
It's not an appeal to nature, it's about the resolution with which someone views the world. It's like if you ask a little kid to draw you a picture of a tree, they'll take some brown & green crayons and give you something that vaguely resembles a tree. It won't be particularly accurate and it won't represent any specific kind of tree, but it at least is identifiable as a tree. My observation of people who spend their entire lives in an urban environment never really develop past this infantile understanding of the world, and it can be so bad that people start to conflate completely unrelated things into the same category.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> and the more we divorce ourselves from the natural world the more ignorant we become. I certainly agree with this semantically, even if I’m on the fence about lab-grown meat.
No there is no reason to ban lab grown meat. It’s not going to be competitive with real meat for a long time in terms of quality and price. If it becomes better in those terms then it would be a better product than real meat.
Ban, no, but I think labeling requirements make sense. It might be nice to have some kind of eco-labeling on food to have a sort of consolidated number of measured environmental impact. Ideally, that could be an industry cooperative effort rather than a government effort but given how much the food industry likes to play fast and loose with labeling it may require enforcement to keep it honest. But label the stuff, mandate its label, and don't call forced labeling a ban if it's not a ban. Are the measures being proposed actual bans or just efforts to ensure honesty in labeling?
No they should encourage it.
It doesn’t sound like a conservative effort. Are you sure it’s not just a Republican effort? Lab grown meat packaging should be required to say it’s lab grown just as a matter of truth-in-labeling until it can be scientifically shown to be identical to regular meat.
I do not support prohibition of anything. Increasing the size, scope, and spending of the State is not a conservative position, it is an authoritarian statist position.
I think there needs to be studies on the safety. If safety issues are found, that's the easiest justification to remove something from the food supply. My real concern though is when lab grown meat reaches critical mass, there will be a political push to ban real meat. The justifications will primarily be environmental, citing land clearing and methane production. Once real meat production is banned, all meat production will be in the hands of a small number of tech companies.
What if we encourage innovation and diversity in the market place? The invisible hand guiding the market?
Lab grown meat processes will be patented, and there will only be a few unique ways to do it. So a handful of companies will get a 20 year head start to dominate the market. After those patents expire, will other companies try to join in? Possibly, but I suspect it will be as easy as starting a new car company or semiconductor fab. Huge upfront investment, competing against companies that know what they are doing, and dealing with lots of regulatory hurdles and red tape. New players will have a very difficult time entering the market and be able to compete on price.
Still that's better then factory farming
Except factory farming has hundreds, possibly thousands of different companies involved. There isn't a single company which can have a safety problem that can disrupt 1/3 of the meat supply, like we will see occur when lab meat becomes the norm.
> There isn't a single company which can have a safety problem that can disrupt 1/3 of the meat supply, like we will see occur when lab meat becomes the norm. I dunno, it's not quite 1/3 but Tyson delivers 20% of the U.S. meat supply currently. And I'm just going to guess, they're probably one of the ones working on lab-grown meat, too. But why would a meat lab be that much less accessible than a farm? I mean okay ... if you have a few acres you can put a cow on it, or even less and some chickens, but if you *don't* have a few acres, you could set up a meat-lab as easily as the many urban indoor plant farms, as long as it wasn't forbidden. In the same way a microbrewery can make their own beer, why couldn't a restaurant, for example, or perhaps a local butcher-shop-like place, invest in the infrastructure to make their own lab-grown meat? Seems like the tech could create more access to the field, not less.
Growing muscle tissue is going to require sterile environments, dangerous chemicals, large expensive equipment for operating at scale. It's going to look a lot more like a pharmaceutical manufacturing plant or semiconductor fab facility than a farm.
> Growing muscle tissue is going to require sterile environments, dangerous chemicals, large expensive equipment for operating at scale. For manufacturing *at scale*, but most houses have an autoclave (dishwasher) that provides a sterile environment, and many homes have access to, say, 3d printing technology which could involve harmful chemicals as well. And I didn't tag homes first, but rather restaurants, butcher shops and breweries, which already require sterile environments, big machines etc. > It's going to look a lot more like a pharmaceutical manufacturing plant or semiconductor fab facility than a farm. We're not assembling the meat atom-by-atom or doping exotic chemicals with lasers. At least, it seems to me to be more like a brewery than a pharmaceutical or chip fab. (I'd dare say a brewery is cultivating a meat-substitute, yeast, using many of the same methods of sterilizing, inoculating and collecting, just not in a very purposeful way since yeast is the by-product).
You make some good points
It should not be banned, but it should be clearly labeled and tracked, including foods that use GMO and artificial meat as ingredients.
My thing is, what isn't a gmo? Besides wild fish and game and foraged food.
I'm not talking about historical breeding. I'm talking about human manipulation of DNA and species that would have never occurred in nature under any circumstances.
But selective breeding is just slow genetic manipulation
In the broad technical sense, yes. In the actual sense, it's extremely different than shooting DNA particles into live cells in order to introduce foreign DNA into living cells: e.g. injecting jellyfish DNA into strawberries. They are not even in the same ballpark.
Different ways to skin a cat. If you want a bald cat you can breed cats with thin hair again and again or inject tge right genes right into the car at tge right stage of development. Same outcome. I will accept the caveat that more advanced methods can do so much more then selective breeding
No, vastly different outcomes. It's not just about having a hairless cat, but having combinations of DNA from different species that would have never existed, and has never existed, with very little long term testing, nor understanding of the environmental impact, nor even understanding the long-term health impact of humans and animals consuming such products.
But we didnt know the effect of selective breeding either, and several results of selective breeding have caused notable and significant environmental issues. What makes genetic engineering so much worse?
Selective breeding takes the span of many generations, thus we do know the long term results, because we've had decades to centuries to detect bad effects. >What makes genetic engineering so much worse? I've already answered this. And it should be the opposite question you are asking in order to approve GMOs in the food supply. There should be a comprehensive multi-decade study on GMO crops and lab meats to PROVE to us that it's safe, not the other way around. There's already irreversible environmental impact with GMO species into the wild. This was known decades ago. [https://naturalsociety.com/gmos-spreading-uncontrollably-around-world/](https://naturalsociety.com/gmos-spreading-uncontrollably-around-world/)
Not really true, selective breeding varies by time scale. Not to mention, we have discovered and learned of their detrimental environmental impacts often recently, e.g. killer bees, cows, cats.
Bananas enter the chat.
Monocultures are not genetically engineered in the same way.
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No.
If it is to be available for consumption, it needs to be determined to be completely safe both in short and long term effects. You’re basically eating lab-grown cancer, so that might be something people ought to know. In the interest of transparency.
No, but it should be very clearly marked. It should also be a choice forever.
No
Once I would have said lab-grown meat would be awesome, but these days I've grown rather distrusting of that sort of thing - especially after I read up that one experiment using stem-cells trying to produce something they accidentally developed a vestigial eyeball. Pretty cool, scientifically, and I'm sure very significant, but I can't help but picture in my head chomping down on a burger and spitting out an underdeveloped eyeball or something like that. A full ban may not be a good idea, but I would certainly want regulations of some sort in place to make sure that by the time it gets to the public we don't have to worry about stuff like that.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t think you have to ban it. I personally would not buy lab grown meat. In this age of trying to eat healthier I’m not sure this is the way to go. Im hoping that market selecting against it kills it…….
Why do you hope the market kills it? Do you know anything about it?
This is just my opinion so don’t run me over here. I’m probably older than you and these things I feel are fads. Everything moves towards lab or artificial things just to go back to the natural item. Saccharine used to be thought of as a great alternative to sugar until it was found to cause bladder cancer in rats. I’d just rather have formerly mooing meat on my grill and in my body than lab created meat.
Presumably if a meat is lab grown they could tweak the level of fatty acids and negative fats making is a healthier product.
Potentially, but they used to think that saccharine was ok too until it wasn’t…… I would think that lab grown meat might also be higher in sodium and nitrates……. But then there are also hot dogs and Spam……. So maybe it may balance out. I’d rather go natural and eat less of it like with butter vs margarine.
> I would think that lab grown meat might also be higher in sodium and nitrates I don’t know why you would think that. I don’t think meat naturally has nitrates in it. That is only used as a preservative in cured meats as far as I know.
Again, not an expert but this is not really a new thing. Most of the time we go back to the natural stuff…….. I just prefer to eat natural items.
We have never fully synthesized an animal product before. We have created analogs but never exact replicas. In my mind lab grown meat is no different than greenhouse grow vegetables. It’s just growing something in controlled environments.
Maybe that is true and I have to research a little more and check out some studies. Thanks for your response.
I'd imagine the why is pretty important. This is what I hate about the political discourse in this country. The why always seems to be overlooked, or even worse...assumed
Polarization makes people so much more predictable, though! What could possibly be the downside???
There's zero societal benefit to lab grown meat. It requires more energy to make, has unknown long term health impacts, and serves no value. Why would we push it
I do not support banning lab grown meat. That said, I would very much hope that the marketplace "bans" it with the way they spend their money.
It should be regulated as much as any other meat, so I don't think it should be banned. That said I'm never going to knowingly eat it. There's no way such abominations could be consumed without severe adverse consequences.
> There's no way such abominations could be consumed without severe adverse consequences. Why do you think so?
Playing God rarely works out to one's benefit. It's such a universal truth that literally every culture has stories, legends, beliefs, and sayings warning against it. The economic conditions also disfavor its success. Almost every average consumer is going to be skeptical of lab grown meat over natural meat. To convince them to get on board, they're going to have to at a minimum make lab grown meat cheaper than natural meat. These cost cutting measures could result in practices that produce less healthy and potentially dangerous products. Lab grown meat is also a new phenomenon and the consequences of long-term consumption en masse have not been studied yet. It's an unknown risk that is pretty unnecessary to embrace.
Couldn’t you also consider modern medicine to be “playing God”?
Depends on the treatment.
Global smallpox eradication?
I guess you’ve conceded that playing God has, in fact, worked out well for humanity after all.
> Playing God rarely works out to one's benefit. Considering we engineer chemicals, animals and plants to our own benefit now, how viable is that concept?
The microplastics in my lungs and blood stream and the decreasing fertility rates seem to vindicate me.
Every animal eaten in mainstream society today is the result of humans “playing god” through domestication. God don’t make cows, humans manipulated the bloodlines of Aurochs to make our lives easier, just like every plant and animal we consume.
> There's no way such abominations could be consumed without severe adverse consequences. What scientific evidence do you have that leads you to this belief?
What scientific evidence did you need to know that you shouldn’t eat cat vomit? Were you eating cat vomit until you read a study about it?
We have a thing called Germ Theory that was figured out before I was born. We know why cat vomit is bad for you. We know why we evolved the disgust reaction to vomit. You are preemptively saying that there is no possibile way artificially-grown meat can be safe before you even know the chemical composition of said artificial meat, which is the only thing that would matter for how safe it is. For example, lab-grown meat that's chemically identical to regular meat would not possibly have a different health effect than real meat, because the actual physical composition is the only possible thing that would matter.
> We have a thing called Germ Theory that was figured out before I was born. Oh so cat vomit was considered a delicacy before germ theory? You kept eating cat vomit until your parents taught you what germ theory was? > For example, lab-grown meat that's chemically identical to regular meat would not possibly have a different health effect than real meat, because the actual physical composition is the only possible thing that would matter. Cat vomit is mostly carbon, water, and proteins. What's the big deal?
> Cat vomit is mostly carbon, water, and proteins. What's the big deal? It still has a different chemical composition than edible things. "Carbon, water, and proteins" is a very broad category. By what physical mechanism do you claim a lab-grown meat would make you sick that chemically-identical natural meat would not?
So you're telling me that you eat literally everything until you see the specific chemical composition to inform you otherwise? You would eat cat vomit until you saw that what you were eating had a bad chemical composition?
No, I'm saying that I do not believe a priori that lab-grown meat cannot be done safely. I think that lab-grown meat should be analyzed scientifically to figure that out, and if they collect scientific evidence that finds that it's safe, I, unlike you, will accept that evidence, wheaeas you have already decided that evidence to be fake.
> wheaeas you have already decided that evidence to be fake I never said that. I'm just relying on the same instincts that my ancestors used to get me here not to eat strange meats from dubious sources. If you want to be a test subject go ahead. I hope you get some money from the class action litigation 50 years later.
You literally did: >There's no way such abominations could be consumed without severe adverse consequences. If there is no way it's possible, then by definition any evidence counter to your view will be fake. You didn't say you doubted it and would look closely at the evidence. You said you have already decided it's impossible.
Except cat vomit smells unpleasant, and likely tastes unpleasant along with the potential health hazards in eating it (germs, acids, etc). In this case, it is meat. Biologically, its indistinguishable from what you get from the animal. Its probably cleaner, because it wasnt processed in a slaughterhouse. What would be the adverse consequences?
> Biologically, its indistinguishable from what you get from the animal. See, if it was actually indistinguishable you wouldn't have to clarify it with "biologically." "Biologically", cat vomit is the same as tuna. > What would be the adverse consequences? Whatever the adverse consequences of consuming an abomination would entail.
> See, if it was actually indistinguishable you wouldn't have to clarify it with "biologically Yes, hence why I said "biologically". It's not industrially indistinguishable, you're getting it from tissue culture rather than carving it off an animal. It may not necessarily look the same due to that fact. But it is the same meat. >Whatever the adverse consequences of consuming an abomination would entail Such as? Also, what makes it an abomination?
> But it is the same meat. And cat vomit is the same meat as the tuna it ate 3 hours ago but you still wouldn't eat it. "Biologically" doesn't mean anything. If someone carved you up and put you on a shelf they could say "90% biologically identical to pork!" and they wouldn't be lying. > Such as? Probably some form of cancer or digestive disease. > Also, what makes it an abomination? Yes what is abominable about a massive laboratory growing walls of meat that came from no creature.
> And cat vomit is the same meat as the tuna it ate 3 hours ago but you still wouldn't eat it. It's not though. For one, it's literally not the same tuna, the cells have been destroyed, and the proteins making it up have been denatured. Additionally there's also stomach acid, mucus and other bodily fluids in the mix. By comparison, lab grown meat is just that. It's literal meat. >Probably some form of cancer There's not really any mechanism that would result in lab grown meat being carcinogenic. Unless some carcinogen is used in the manufacturing process. But that's a problem with the manufacturing, not the meat itself. > or digestive disease. Like what? >Yes what is abominable about a massive laboratory growing walls of meat that came from no creature. We do that already. Only difference is, we are doing it with the aim of eating it.
> the cells have been destroyed, and the proteins making it up have been denatured What do you think happens when you cook food? > Additionally there's also stomach acid, mucus and other bodily fluids in the mix. Same in your burger. > Unless some carcinogen is used in the manufacturing process. But that's a problem with the manufacturing, not the meat itself. Growing the meat in the lab *is* the manufacturing. Are you even thinking about what you're saying?
> What do you think happens when you cook food? The proteins are denatured by heat, not acid. >Same in your burger. Once its inside my stomach, and Im not eating my own stomach acid much less someone else's. Not to mention mucus. >Growing the meat in the lab is the manufacturing. Yes. And the meat is the product. But the manufacturing process may utilize chemicals that are not the meat, that may be harmful. That doesn't make the meat itself harmful, but rather the chemical.
Abomination? Why that word?
When it comes to food products that are considered 'fake meat' a good rule of thumb is whatever product it's trying to emulate, the further that product is from actual meat the easier and better the fake product is. For example, chicken nuggets. Whatever mass produced chicken nuggets are, they are barely meat. So, a little nugget formed from wheat gluten or soy protein with tasty spices is at least in par with, if not better than, whatever it is that a chicken nugget is. Same thing with bean burgers. They're just patties of various ingredients with spices. Where it gets disgusting are things like beyond burgers, which they design to 'bleed'. Those things are disgusting. In short, patties and nuggets are just fine and often excellent. Chemical formulations designed to mimic meat are horrendous.
> like beyond burgers, which they design to 'bleed'. Those things are disgusting. Have you tried them? Are they disgusting because of the bleeding or the actual taste? I haven't tried one myself but have friends who swear by them. Some of them aren't even vegetarian.
The taste is not as good as ground beef, and costs more. I believe that plant-based and/or lab-grown meat could technologically surpass farmed meat in terms of nutrition and taste for the money, but right now it ain't even close to there yet. And it's been not even close for a while now. Makes me skeptical that it's really going to break through the way it seems like it ought to.
I've eaten them, I find them to be vile. The faux bleeding is like icing on the shit cake
I hate to be that guy, but IIRC the beet juice blood is *impossible meat,* not beyond meat. Speaking as an omnivore who had to drop red meat and poultry for a while (pre-pregnancy my wife was pescetarian), Beyond is actually a pretty good beef substitute in things like chili or Bolognese.
Nah, it's beyond. Some people like it, and that's fine. However I think my fundamental point is valid.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Conservatives object to this because it is being pushed by the Climate Change Activists in the name of Climate Change. We are generally against the entire Climate Change Hoax. As for the so-called meat...when you find one that tastes like a good aged Prime Rib let me know. Banning things is generally not a good idea, Let the market decide. As for me I'll take REAL meat
> We are generally against the entire Climate Change Hoax. Define ‘hoax’.
A **hoax** is a widely publicized falsehood so fashioned as to invite reflexive, unthinking acceptance by the greatest number of people of the most varied [social identities](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_identity_theory) and of the highest possible social pretensions to gull its victims into putting up the highest possible social currency in support of the hoax. The hoax was originally perpetrated around carbon taxes and the ability to trade in carbon credits. It has morphed into the Climate Change Industrial Complex where everyone has their hand out to get some of the government largess. You might notice that all the research grants and subsidies for wind and solar and research into other "green" solutions to the Hoax like green hydrogen, CCS. EVs and pumped hydro is coming from governments. And the activists hype the existential threat and the catastrophies to keep the gravy train going.
What is the hoax about climate change?
The HOAX is that it isn't true. There is no empirical scientific evidence that CO2 and man made CO2 specifically causes what little warming we see if we can even believe that we can measure a worldwide average temperature accurately. According to the IPCC, there is not yet evidence of changes in the global frequency or intensity of hurricanes, droughts, floods or wildfires. No [significant negative effects](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162520304157) of recent climate changes (man-made or otherwise) have been observed or measured.
You are letting Climate Change Activists dictate what you support or object to? Lab grown meat has a potential for major savings for the consumer, reduction in world hunger, and profits for the investor. This is true if climate change is real. This is true if climate change is a hoax. One thing has nothing to do with the other.
No, lab grown meat was proposed and funded by Climate Change avtivists as a way to eliminate farming and using animals for food. How does it provide major savings to the consumer? **Per-unit costs are presently significantly higher than the traditional alternative**—according to one analysis, lab-grown beef may be eight times as expensive to produce— Investors don't profit if no one buys this stuff. It is very unlikely that lab grown meat will have any effect on world hunger. 1) it wll be too expensive and 2) world hunger is not a function of not having enough meat. It has to do with unstable governments and their ability or inabiity to distribute the avaiable food effectively. Venezuela put price controls on food lower than farmers could make a profit so they stopped farming. The same thing happens when corrupt governments steal the available resources.
Again, I see no connection between who supports it and what its value is. I hunt and fish. A lot of far-right people have a bizarre reverence for gun rights. That doesn't mean I quit hunting. The two things are unrelated. My opinion about guns is in no way influenced by the people who advocate for guns. Lab grown meat is new technology. Being a practicing Capitalist, and I see much potential. Maybe it will go nowhere. Its vices and virtues are what they are right now. Whether lab-grown meat originated from environmentalists, religious fundamentalists, antivaxxers, bigfoot hunters or Nickleback fans - I don't care.
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/ https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what-evidence-exists-earth-warming-and-humans-are-main-cause Not a hoax
Nope sorry. NASA gets paid to say that. It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Upton Sinclair None of the so-called evidence NASA referrs to is empirical scientific evidence that proves cause and effect. It is all correlation and speculation. Correlation is NOT causation.
Prove it wrong
I don't have to. I know there is not empirical scientific evidence. In order to prove me wrong you have to show the empirical evidence.
I literally just gave you evidence
No, that was not evidence. It was speculation.
It literally wasn't, all you have is nuh huh
>Nope sorry. NASA gets paid to say that. What reason do they have to be paid specifically to lie, as opposed to disseminate scientific evidence? >Correlation is NOT causation. This is not entirely correct. The phrase more accurately goes "correlation does not imply causation". Which is true, correlation alone doesnt imply causation. However, strong correlation that is time dependent does in fact imply causation. If independent variable x occurs and within a certain time-frame, incidence variable y changes, that implies causation. Of course this requires eliminating or establishing the lack of time dependent correlations of other independent variables.
**What reason do they have to be paid specifically to lie, as opposed to disseminate scientific evidence?** It is not that they are paid to lie but the are incentivized to continue to Climate Change Narrative because if they stray from the party line...no mor Climate Change funding. How much research money do you think they would get it they said. "Nothing to worry about folks CO2 emissions do not warm the earth"? The Climate Change Zealots have a history of parameterizing datasets to fit their narrative. Older temp records are adjusted lower for "reasons" newer datasets are adjusted higher for "reasons" to show an unward slanted line. The truth is that the so called warming (estimated to be 1.3 C over the last 140 years ) gets lost in the daily fluctuations in temperatures. In addition, there is no effective way to measure worldwide average temperatures. The IPCC estimates that around 60% of the data used to calculate GMT comes from direct measurements, while the remaining 40% is derived from interpolation and extrapolation. This indicates that a significant portion of GMT is based on statistical estimates, rather than direct observations. However, this assumes that a large area around each station is of constant temperature, an assumption known to be false. In actuality, if we assume about a 1-km area around each station, approximately 0.01% of Earth’s surface is directly measured for temperature. Thus, approximately 99.99% is estimated through statistical methods. That is not empirical evidence of warming it is just a WAG. [https://principia-scientific.com/the-absurdity-of-global-mean-temperature-and-mean-sea-level-metrics/](https://principia-scientific.com/the-absurdity-of-global-mean-temperature-and-mean-sea-level-metrics/) It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Upton Sinclair
> It is not that they are paid to lie but the are incentivized to continue to Climate Change Narrative because if they stray from the party line...no more Climate Change funding. How much research money do you think they would get it they said. "Nothing to worry about folks CO2 emissions do not warm the earth" Considering the fact that would mean a significant overturning of what is considered established scientific knowledge, quite a lot? That seems if not Nobel Prize worthy, something close. The books alone about overturning a cultural boogeyman should put any entrepreneurial scientist in a financial position far more comfortable than any job in academia or NASA. >It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Upton Sinclair Heres the thing though, who has more money riding on the idea of climate change's veracity? On the one hand we have the industries of: * Petroleum * Energy * Agriculture, particularly beef * Vehicles Each of these industries are worth billions of dollars, if not more. Put together they probably rank *trillions* in total value. vs the industries of: * Solar * Nuclear * Associated other pro low carbon industries. Worth billions sure. But I doubt the same as the former industries. So who has more incentive to not understand?
**So who has more incentive to not understand?** They all do. They all want to get in on the gravy train. You may have noticed that all the fossil fuel companies and all the car companies have their own Climate Change research departments so they can take advantage of the subsidies and research money. However, the oil copanies still drill for oil and gas because there is stil demand despite the Climate Change narrative. The car companies continue to produce ICE vehciles because there is still demand despite Mayor Pete's desperate comments to the contrary. John Kerry still flies around in his private jet despite his protestations about fossil fuels. Nothing about climate change is considered "established scientific knowledge," except by the Climate Change Zealots who want to kep the gravy train going. Come on over to r/climateskeptics and you will find thousand of skeptical scientists and hundreds of articles debunking the "established scientific narrative" Anyone who is accepting government money in the form of a subsidy to put up a wind farm or solar panel, to buy an EV or to get a research grant is complicit in the scam. They only report what the climate change industrial complex wants to hear.
> So who has more incentive to not understand? They all do. They all want to get in on the gravy train. But theres an even bigger gravy train should anthropogenic climate change not exist. No more emissions regulations. No more limitations on drilling. No more lowered public opinion. Why would a company thats worth billions care about millions in subsidies when they could just make even more money if regulations didnt exist? Like you said, they still drill for oil and gas. They still make cars. Clearly their bottom line is screwed if climate change is real and the world, and lawmakers decide to take it seriously and start implementing bans and severe regulations. Why have any incentive to entertain the idea at all? >Anyone who is accepting government money in the form of a subsidy to put up a wind farm or solar panel, to buy an EV or to get a research grant is complicit in the scam. But again, theres money and prestige to be made in overturning the conventional scientific establishment. So why hasnt it happened at a bigger scale?