What's behind the lab grown meat craze?

[LA]

I am really wondering what this lab grown meat story is about. This post is not offering answers. It looks like it's not about ensuring the food supply.

It truly seems that all of this is to promote another Bill Gates project or projects. He has stock in one or two companies that make fake meat. He says he still prefers real beef. Here are some snips:

Bill Gates: Eating synthetic beef could help prevent climate change | Daily Mail Online | Daily Mail Online

www.dailymail.co.uk

16 February 2021

Bill Gates wants to take your steak: Billionaire says the US and other wealthy countries 'should move to 100% synthetic beef' to prevent climate change - after buying up a record amount of farmland in 18 states

Bill Gates said on Monday that he thinks the US should abandon eating beef
Called on the country to switch to '100% synthetic beef' due to climate change
Beef cattle production employs 726,000 people across the country
Gates admitted in another interview that he sometimes eats real hamburgers
Last month Gates was revealed as the biggest private owner of farmland in US
The tech billionaire, 65, owns 242,000 acres of agricultural land in 18 states
[snip]
'I don’t think the poorest 80 countries will be eating synthetic meat. I do think all rich countries should move to 100% synthetic beef,' Gates the MIT Technology Review in an interview on Monday.
[snip]
The Microsoft founder, 65, was promoting his new book, How To Avoid A Climate Disaster, which presents a range of dramatic proposals that Gates says are needed to prevent global calamity.
--------------------------------------

 

[Giraffe]

'I don’t think the poorest 80 countries will be eating synthetic meat. I do think all rich countries should move to 100% synthetic beef,' Gates the MIT Technology Review in an interview on Monday.

This is nothing to do with lab-grown meat. Bill Gates is talking about stuff like 'Beyond Meat' (pea protein, sunflower oil and beetroot for the color). I assume that he has invested in a couple of those companies, too.

 

[LA]

It can be done better but still meat is best nutrition for men.

Yes I agree. My husband and I ate steak and broccoli today, it was great. It gave me a lot of energy so I am still awake (grin)

 

[tara]

what you think the limit should be?

I wonder that too. Probably depends a bit on how it's done.
Last year, combined production of beef, veal and lamb was less than 11kg per person. (Include pork and poultry and you get more like 38kg per person.)
Current consumption is unsustainable. It's a threat to biodiversity, climate stability, and food security for many, all of which are serious challenges.
I have often eaten more than a kg a month of ruminant meat. Not sure I want to continue with this, knowing more about the cost.

So you were answering to title and didn't bother to read the original post. Thank you so much for your in depth contribution.

I did read it.
I think my point was relevant.
I'm not promoting cellular/lab-grown 'meat'. Perhaps you misread me as saying I was?
Nor am I promoting Gates and his businesses.

I understand you think it is no alternative to meat. I was responding to your question, which related to other people too. I believe some of them a have a different viewpoint than you on this.

 

[sweetpeat]

Last year, combined production of beef, veal and lamb was less than 11kg per person. (Include pork and poultry and you get more like 38kg per person.)

This would work out roughly to 3.5oz per day (if my math is correct), but I noticed seafood was left out as a source of meat so that could vastly change the amount.

Also, I'm curious if this per person figure is based on the total world population or only on meat-eaters?

 

[Broken man]

Yes I agree. My husband and I ate steak and broccoli today, it was great. It gave me a lot of energy so I am still awake (grin)

What is the purpose of broccoli?

 

[Broken man]

I wonder that too. Probably depends a bit on how it's done.
Last year, combined production of beef, veal and lamb was less than 11kg per person. (Include pork and poultry and you get more like 38kg per person.)
Current consumption is unsustainable. It's a threat to biodiversity, climate stability, and food security for many, all of which are serious challenges.
I have often eaten more than a kg a month of ruminant meat. Not sure I want to continue with this, knowing more about the cost.


I did read it.
I think my point was relevant.
I'm not promoting cellular/lab-grown 'meat'. Perhaps you misread me as saying I was?
Nor am I promoting Gates and his businesses.

I understand you think it is no alternative to meat. I was responding to your question, which related to other people too. I believe some of them a have a different viewpoint than you on this.

I understand your point of consequences of producing alot of meat but the thing is that if you will reduce place for almonds and other vegan top selling things that are taking place and limit fast food companies like macdonalds that produce alot of food that is not used. It would be less damaging or even sustainable maybe. For example, only USA and Turkey are focused on beef which takes more time to grow and more energy to produce. Europe is eating more pork and poultry which is more efficient even the quality is not so good like beef.

 

[Giraffe]

I did read it.
I think my point was relevant.
I'm not promoting cellular/lab-grown 'meat'. Perhaps you misread me as saying I was?
Nor am I promoting Gates and his businesses.

I understand you think it is no alternative to meat. I was responding to your question, which related to other people too. I believe some of them a have a different viewpoint than you on this.

It is known that lab-grown meat in no alternative to meat. The production is neither sustainable nor can it be scaled up. I was asking in my original post why people invest money in that technology? What for?

 

[LucyL]

It is known that lab-grown meat in no alternative to meat. The production is neither sustainable nor can it be scaled up. I was asking in my original post why people invest money in that technology? What for?

So what you're saying is they are inventing a scarce resource that they will shame people into (not) using.

 

[Giraffe]

So what you're saying is they are inventing a scarce resource that they will shame people into (not) using.

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

 

[LucyL]

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Well, basically the plan is to convince people that meat is bad to eat, and so here is our alternative (lab grown meat). Only as you point out, it is unsustainable and production limited, so it will be an alternative available only to the elite, much like Big Pharma has coopted effective treatments to be crazy expensive and unattainable to most people. Big Meat in the future may be this lab stuff. The masses can eat beans and suffer. But you can't complain about the decimation of livestock,, "meat" is still available. (just not to you).

 

[meatbag]

There are too many people on the Earth for everyone to be eating beef and lamb every day. The land, water and atmosphere can't support it.
Beef is so cheap because the producers, consumers and middle-agents are not paying for the externalities, and in some places are being subsidised (grain subsidies for feeding industrial animal farming).
The externalities include the effect on the environment, including the atmosphere and climate, as well as water quality etc, deforestation, etc, depending on where and how it's grown.

I am not arguing for large scale cellular 'meats'.
There are limits to how much real meat one can eat without exceeding one's share on a finite planet.

Isn't the Earth still growing?

 

[meatbag]

 

[Giraffe]

Well, basically the plan is to convince people that meat is bad to eat, and so here is our alternative (lab grown meat). Only as you point out, it is unsustainable and production limited, so it will be an alternative available only to the elite, much like Big Pharma has coopted effective treatments to be crazy expensive and unattainable to most people. Big Meat in the future may be this lab stuff. The masses can eat beans and suffer. But you can't complain about the decimation of livestock,, "meat" is still available. (just not to you).

• I see that a vegan diet is pushed quite a bit. People are shamed for eating meat and drinking milk.
• Big players are trying to get control over the food supply (market), think about patented seeds for example or farmers (and not only lifestock farmers) pushed out of the business through laws that favor big players.
• A lot of taxpayer's money, but also private funding goes into research for cell-based meat.
• While this technology is not a viable alternative for meat (food-wise), there may be other applications. 3-D printed organs is the first one that come to my mind.

 

[meatbag]

The countries that implement this will just become even sicker and autistic and the countries that don't will just watch them crumble from the distance

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

Animal agriculture done right is beneficial for the planet. CO2 isn't a waste product, it's essential for life. The increase in atmospheric CO2 is beneficial, according to Ray. The main problem we're facing with regards to environment isn't global warming, it's environmental pollution/ destruction. The scarcity mindset of eating less good foods like meat and milk because the planet won't sustain it is bonks, and it's something Ray has debunked. The Earth can sustain around 10 billion people, if the resources are used coherently. The system we have now is based on wasting resources for profit. Ignoring this key aspect of the system while shouting "eat less meat for the planet" is completely unwarranted and out of touch with reality tbh.

As for the motive of lab grown meat, I don't know, but I suspect they want to eventually make people stop eating most animal products, and leaving only their overpriced lab meat as an option, which they will make a lot of money from. Instead of lots of small farmers providing meat and milk for a community, now it will be one small group of people owning the facilities and centralizing the source of meat. It will make people even more dependent on the system.

 

[tara]

It is known

There are opinions, based on its similarities and differences to the natural grown animal product. I personally am not busting to start eating cellular 'meats'.

The production is neither sustainable nor can it be scaled up.

Maybe. I read the post you made, but I haven't read more widely on it so far, so I don't know whether it is established either whether it can be more sustainable than current meat production methods (some of which are clearly not sustainable) or whether it can be scaled up to significant quantities.
Those look like technological questions that might take more development to figure out, if people choose to continue down that track.
(Note that I am not recommending it.)

Last year, combined production of beef, veal and lamb was less than 11kg per person. (Include pork and poultry and you get more like 38kg per person.)

Just to be clear, 11kg (and 38kg) per person per year.

This would work out roughly to 3.5oz per day (if my math is correct), but I noticed seafood was left out as a source of meat so that could vastly change the amount.

11000g/365 is close to 30 g or just over 1 oz per person per day, if my maths is correct.
You are right, fish was not included. A number of fisheries are also being overfished and risking collapse too. Loss of coral reefs etc could also further undermine fisheries.

Also, I'm curious if this per person figure is based on the total world population or only on meat-eaters?

World population. I think the estimates for vegetarians worldwide (including India) are of the order of half to one billion out of nearly 8 billion? So even if it were just the meat-eaters, it wouldn't increase all that much. Some populations are more selective about which animals they eat (eg some avoid pork, others avoid beef).

I was asking in my original post why people invest money in that technology? What for?

Presumably because they figure they may be able to find a market for such a product? To which my original response relates.

Europe is eating more pork and poultry which is more efficient even the quality is not so good like beef.

I agree that pork and poultry seem to use less resources. And finding ways to reduce waste could be worthwhile.
Amazon 'lungs of the world' rain forest continues to be felled to make way for cattle, too
On the other hand, some level of limited grazing may be helpful for restoring land in some areas.

Isn't the Earth still growing?

Not much, as far as I know, sorry. On the plus side, that means gravity won't get too much stronger and make old age harder. :)
It does seem that people sometimes forget that, though, and act as though indefinite continuous growth is a possible thing, and as though there can always be more.

Big players are trying to get control over the food supply (market), think about patented seeds for example or farmers (and not only lifestock farmers) pushed out of the market through laws that favor big players.

This is a serious concern. Some of the big players have been acquiring wide control for decades.
There are movements against patenting life, and for saving biodiversity.

• A lot of taxpayer's money, but also private funding goes into research for cell-based meat.

Do you know which countries?
In some places, there are heavy subsidies for grain, much of which effectively subsidises meat producers. Not having to pay for externalities is a kind of subsidy we all make towards them, too.

3-D printed organs is the first one that come to my mind.

Yes, I've come across that too. I wonder how it will go.

Last month Gates was revealed as the biggest private owner of farmland in US
The tech billionaire, 65, owns 242,000 acres of agricultural land in 18 states

I would be concerned about that.

Animal agriculture done right is beneficial for the planet.

I think this is probably right. Grazing is part of what has built the land and soils. However, the way it's looking to me so far, I suspect it may need to be less than it is now.

CO2 isn't a waste product, it's essential for life.

CO2 is essential to life, yes. There are limits to how high and low it can go (internal and atmospheric) and be compatible with maintaining stable systems (individual and planetary scale). This applies to many things. No doubt you've seen the controversy about dihydrogen monoxide. Deadly when out of range.

The increase in atmospheric CO2 is beneficial, according to Ray.

I've not see anything indicating that Peat has any relevant expertise in climate science. I don't see a reason to treat him as an authority on this matter. (I don't go to climate scientists for info about reproductive hormones or dietary PUFAs or human physiology in general, either.)
The physics shows that CO2 functions as a greenhouse gas. This is fortunate, else we couldn't live here. But too much of it can raise the temperature beyond where it will support the stable environment we've had since humans began. Observations show that with the rise of atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution, global average temperatures have increased by about 1.1 C. There are many effects of this already occurring. The WHO estimated a few years ago that approx 150 000 people were dying from the effects of climate change each year. The predictions have included changes in weather patterns in some places, and increases in severity of extreme weather events, such as droughts, storms, heat waves.

The Earth can sustain around 10 billion people, if the resources are used coherently.

That may be.

None the less, there are limits, and as long as the environment that sustains us all is currently being destroyed to feed cattle, there is currently an issue to address.

The path we are on now is not one that will sustain 10 billion cattle eaters. (Guess what, I'm not counting on Gates to do it by buying up lots of agricultural land, either. )
World wide, small farms generally have practices that yield more produce per land, and sustain soils and ecosystems better.

 

[Giraffe]

Ice Age Farmer mentioned this in one of his podcasts...

Bill Gates, Zuckerberg, Other Billionaires Invest in Environmentally-Friendly Artificial Breast Milk Cultured From Human Mammary

A new and better breast milk alternative has arrived, and it claims to be helpful for the environment as well. The U.S. firm, BIOMILQ, is artificially producing human breast milk from cultured human mammary epithelial cells to be commercially available to consumers.
The start-up company has received $3.5 million from an investment fund that is co-founded by Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Richard Branson, and Mark Zuckerberg. The fund was established to help prevent the ill effects of climate change brought about by carbon emissions.

And here is the link to the podcast: KFC 3D Prints "Chicken Nuggets," Bill Gates' "Breastmilk," & Transhumanist Future of Food

 

[MetabolicTrash]

There's nothing inherently surprising about this trend when the globalized fake-ification of everything we know of is and has been going on for some time now.

Not merely only fakeness, but the lie of attempting to copy something when that's likely not done optimally. 3-D printing is all the hype of making organ replacement, toys, replicas, parts, etc. Instead of getting anything from nature or more sensible approaches you just "create" everything you need out of 3 simple ingredients: sugar, spice, and everything nice (or so it seems). What can go wrong here? Print you a new heart, brain, lunch, genes, your sex doll, etc. Forget about real sources of said things -- just move everything toward mass-produced, emulated instances or copies of what you market as equivalency to an otherwise unattainable similarity, or lack thereof in retaining some essence of such (like believing meat wholly is only protein and nothing else so just swap meat for amino acids, which rings incorrect in my view).

Heart weak? Print a new one! Forget about altering health. Need a girlfriend/boyfriend? Print one! Forget about your social reclusiveness or other problems. Need some lunch? Print some eggs! They're more perfect than actual eggs (because they aren't actual eggs). It's just -- in my view -- a way to make a market for things that should not exactly need one, like service for something that should be obvious, innate or sensible, i.e., a personal trainer, diet coach, life coach, or whatever of that sort. In this case -- however -- it's not a service but a product mostly, like buy our 3-D apples that have tons more ascorbic acid (selling point as if that's inherently superior by itself).

Ultimately with 3-D printed food, lab-produced foods, etc. I would caution that what you're getting is likely far less optimal than what your diet might be anyways -- and there'll likely be nothing unique or especially beneficial to this stuff anyways vs. otherwise, just like most "life extension programs" or etc. don't usually provably extend life. Really "fake" is in a sense (or this sense) just the substitution of what's possibly real and better, or at least not as bad. I'm going to be hard-pressed believing a sex doll is a good equivalent to an actual human who is attracted to me as I'd question if a lab steak is the same as one from an actual animal's body/integrity.

 

[meatbag]

There are opinions, based on its similarities and differences to the natural grown animal product. I personally am not busting to start eating cellular 'meats'.


Maybe. I read the post you made, but I haven't read more widely on it so far, so I don't know whether it is established either whether it can be more sustainable than current meat production methods (some of which are clearly not sustainable) or whether it can be scaled up to significant quantities.
Those look like technological questions that might take more development to figure out, if people choose to continue down that track.
(Note that I am not recommending it.)


Just to be clear, 11kg (and 38kg) per person per year.



11000g/365 is close to 30 g or just over 1 oz per person per day, if my maths is correct.
You are right, fish was not included. A number of fisheries are also being overfished and risking collapse too. Loss of coral reefs etc could also further undermine fisheries.



World population. I think the estimates for vegetarians worldwide (including India) are of the order of half to one billion out of nearly 8 billion? So even if it were just the meat-eaters, it wouldn't increase all that much. Some populations are more selective about which animals they eat (eg some avoid pork, others avoid beef).


Presumably because they figure they may be able to find a market for such a product? To which my original response relates.


I agree that pork and poultry seem to use less resources. And finding ways to reduce waste could be worthwhile.
Amazon 'lungs of the world' rain forest continues to be felled to make way for cattle, too
On the other hand, some level of limited grazing may be helpful for restoring land in some areas.


Not much, as far as I know, sorry. On the plus side, that means gravity won't get too much stronger and make old age harder. :)
It does seem that people sometimes forget that, though, and act as though indefinite continuous growth is a possible thing, and as though there can always be more.


This is a serious concern. Some of the big players have been acquiring wide control for decades.
There are movements against patenting life, and for saving biodiversity.



Do you know which countries?
In some places, there are heavy subsidies for grain, much of which effectively subsidises meat producers. Not having to pay for externalities is a kind of subsidy we all make towards them, too.

Yes, I've come across that too. I wonder how it will go.


I would be concerned about that.

I think this is probably right. Grazing is part of what has built the land and soils. However, the way it's looking to me so far, I suspect it may need to be less than it is now.

CO2 is essential to life, yes. There are limits to how high and low it can go (internal and atmospheric) and be compatible with maintaining stable systems (individual and planetary scale). This applies to many things. No doubt you've seen the controversy about dihydrogen monoxide. Deadly when out of range.


I've not see anything indicating that Peat has any relevant expertise in climate science. I don't see a reason to treat him as an authority on this matter. (I don't go to climate scientists for info about reproductive hormones or dietary PUFAs or human physiology in general, either.)
The physics shows that CO2 functions as a greenhouse gas. This is fortunate, else we couldn't live here. But too much of it can raise the temperature beyond where it will support the stable environment we've had since humans began. Observations show that with the rise of atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution, global average temperatures have increased by about 1.1 C. There are many effects of this already occurring. The WHO estimated a few years ago that approx 150 000 people were dying from the effects of climate change each year. The predictions have included changes in weather patterns in some places, and increases in severity of extreme weather events, such as droughts, storms, heat waves.

That may be.

None the less, there are limits, and as long as the environment that sustains us all is currently being destroyed to feed cattle, there is currently an issue to address.

The path we are on now is not one that will sustain 10 billion cattle eaters. (Guess what, I'm not counting on Gates to do it by buying up lots of agricultural land, either. )
World wide, small farms generally have practices that yield more produce per land, and sustain soils and ecosystems better.

The Earth May Be Creating New Matter, Which Breaks The Standard Model

The "Global Warming" Is Actually A Cooling And Is Due To Solar EMF Changes