×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

$375,000 Lab-Grown Beef Burger To Debut On Monday

Soulskill posted about 9 months ago | from the order-yours-while-supplies-last dept.

Science 221

sciencehabit writes "If you take some scientists' word for it, the biggest agricultural revolution since the domestication of livestock is starting on Monday — in an arts center in London. At a carefully orchestrated media event, Dutch stem cell researcher Mark Post is planning to present the world's first test-tube hamburger. Its patty — financed by an anonymous billionaire — is made from meat that Post has laboriously grown from bovine stem cells in his lab at an estimated cost of $375,000, just to prove a point: that it is possible to produce meat without slaughtering animals."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

221 comments

It tastes like.... Despair? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44461135)

Cue the Better of Ted jokes...

Re:It tastes like.... Despair? (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 9 months ago | (#44461867)

For those who don't get the reference (which I was immediately pulling up as soon as I saw the topic title; sorry for the low quality):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezEMnzmDYZU [youtube.com]

Billionaire vegetarian/vegan...? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44461137)

...Paul McCartney?!

Beats meat (5, Funny)

bryanandaimee (2454338) | about 9 months ago | (#44461147)

Scientist says you can't beat meat. Now that's cultured!

Re:Beats meat (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44461221)

It'll taste bland. Cruelty is a flavor enhancer.

Re:Beats meat (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44461411)

That's why I prefer my baby seal freshly clubbed by another baby seal while the mother is forced to watch.

Re:Beats meat (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 9 months ago | (#44461379)

What an unfortunate title.

Re:Beats meat (2)

bryanandaimee (2454338) | about 9 months ago | (#44461549)

Yes, and I think it was missunderstood. I should have gone for something more obvious. How about

Scientist spends $375,000 beating meat in his lab. He says it's cultured.

or

Scientist spends $375,000 trying to beat meat in his lab.

I wonder about the taste (2)

Rato Ruter (1008363) | about 9 months ago | (#44461151)

Because part of it stems from the fat the animal grows; part from it's diet; I would even go as far as to say from the landscape the animal was grown in. Will this meat flavor depend on the culture medium it was grown?

Re:I wonder about the taste (2)

icebike (68054) | about 9 months ago | (#44461197)

Because part of it stems from the fat

Sell now all of the taste is from stems.

Re:I wonder about the taste (4, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 9 months ago | (#44461209)

Personally I'd be more worried about texture.

Re:I wonder about the taste (3, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | about 9 months ago | (#44461285)

Personally I'd be more worried about texture.

That's why it's a hamburger. The entire point of mechanically pre-chewing cheap meat is to destroy its tough, inedible texture. You can make a somewhat passable simulation of ground beef out of soy beans, for heavens' sake.

Re:I wonder about the taste (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44461389)

You can make a somewhat passable simulation of ground beef out of soy beans, for heavens' sake.

No. No you cannot.

Re:I wonder about the taste (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44461719)

You can make a somewhat passable simulation of ground beef out of soy beans, for heavens' sake.

No. No you cannot.

You never know until you've passed it.

Re:I wonder about the taste (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44461577)

implying inedible texture means "not tasty."

What your mouth does to make food more digestible has little bearing on whether it's enjoyable to eat.

Re:I wonder about the taste (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44461211)

Laboratory Meat now with Real Meat Flavour*

Re:I wonder about the taste (5, Insightful)

Valdrax (32670) | about 9 months ago | (#44461357)

Well, of course, I seriously doubt it will be as tasty or have nearly as good mouthfeel as a burger from a real cow, but this is a very important, early step in a long chain of necessary inventions to truly replace animals as a meat source.

However, if culture medium *does* matter, then that become yet another variable to tweak in producing the tastiest meat, and it's almost certain that we'll be able to improve on nature by, say, eliminating the taste of fear and stress in meat.

We'll also theoretically have the ability to grow sterile meat if we can use sterile inputs. Imagine meat that can stay vacuum sealed on the shelf with no refrigeration for months and still taste fresh!

Re:I wonder about the taste (4, Informative)

Animats (122034) | about 9 months ago | (#44461787)

Imagine meat that can stay vacuum sealed on the shelf with no refrigeration for months and still taste fresh!

That's available now. [omahasteaks.com] Irradiated meat is available, but not widely sold. There are some tricks to preserving taste, one being to vacuum-pack and freeze to -30C before irradiation.

Re:I wonder about the taste (1, Interesting)

Kaenneth (82978) | about 9 months ago | (#44461839)

But what if the stress or fear is what makes real meat taste so good?

Carnivores are evolved to eat freshly hunted and killed prey, not sickly weak prey unaware or uncaring that it's about to die.

Re:I wonder about the taste (1)

mdielmann (514750) | about 9 months ago | (#44461897)

But what if the stress or fear is what makes real meat taste so good?

Carnivores are evolved to eat freshly hunted and killed prey, not sickly weak prey unaware or uncaring that it's about to die.

Maybe surprise tastes better than stress or fear, and that's why many predators try to catch their prey unawares. A quick burst of "What the..." for that extra something special.

Re:I wonder about the taste (2)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 9 months ago | (#44461673)

Because part of it stems from the fat the animal grows; part from it's diet; I would even go as far as to say from the landscape the animal was grown in.

Will this meat flavor depend on the culture medium it was grown?

I seem to recall the guy did a TED talk a few months ago where he pointed out this fact -- growing muscle from stem cells has been doable for quite some time; the trick was (and is) to grow all the parts that make it tasty. He still hasn't (or at least hadn't back then) been able to reproduce marbled meat, but he's been able to grow the right proportions of meat, fat, and tissue cells to make a ground beef substitute. I presume he could do the quantities to order, for different tastes. I'd think the culture medium would also have an effect, as it would influence what extra minerals etc. were included.

Don't care. (0, Troll)

Seumas (6865) | about 9 months ago | (#44461159)

As a meat-eater who feels bad eating cows and pigs (I have seen how smart pigs can be) and doesn't eat some things like rabbit and duck simply because of the animal, I have to say that I don't see myself ever eating this. It will take a lot to ever convince me that something synthetic can taste the same as something that was alive and running around with blood pumping through its brains and a nervous system that spent time outdoors.

On the other hand, if they can also alter it so that it has 98% the taste of the real thing and, say, maybe 30% of the fat and calories . . . . then I might be swayed into accepting it.

I mean, as long as we've dispensed with any general health concerns overall.

Also, if I'm allowed to eat test-tube meat, why can't I eat a test-tube baby?

Re:Don't care. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44461245)

Because test-tube meat doesn't have a test-tube brain or nervous system

Re:Don't care. (0)

Seumas (6865) | about 9 months ago | (#44461265)

So would it be acceptable if I -- I mean, some anonymous philanthropist -- commissioned brainless test-tube babies?

Re:Don't care. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44461329)

baby shaped meat patties...hmmmm
personally i will take boob shape ones if i have a choice.

Re:Don't care. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44461413)

I'd personally be completely fine with that, but never underestimate the irrationality of people.

Re:Don't care. (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 9 months ago | (#44461535)

So would it be acceptable if I -- I mean, some anonymous philanthropist -- commissioned brainless test-tube babies?

We usually want to prevent it (or at least detect it in time for a relatively early termination, rather than a "Give birth to ghastly alien baby, watch it die" scenario, which is the alternative); but the fact that anencephaly occurs from time to time in humans suggests that there might actually be a (comparatively) accessible mechanism for inducing it artificially in an early-stage embryo.

I can't imagine anybody, ever, getting a signoff from the IRB do to it with humans; but it'd be interesting to know if doing this with animal fetuses might be more economically viable than doing 'pure' tissue cultures. Animals are, after all, pretty well adapted to growing tissue when provided with food, and anecephalic animals aren't exactly capable of suffering. I wonder how long you can keep one growing on life support...

Re:Don't care. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44461701)

No. You see, it's a full human being with a soul the instant the ingredients are mixed in the test tube.

Even if it doesn't have a brain, is condemned to a very short and utterly unaware life, lacks a heartbeat and will surely die outside of the test tube.

I know this because I learned bioethics from a Texas high school textbook.

Re:Don't care. (2)

Threni (635302) | about 9 months ago | (#44461251)

> It will take a lot to ever convince me that something synthetic can taste the same as something that
> was alive and running around with blood

No, it will take as long as it takes to bite it and taste it. You'll be able to make a snap judgement immediately.

Re:Don't care. (2)

Seumas (6865) | about 9 months ago | (#44461375)

I don't think that is the case, because I think there will remain in most people this knowledge that it "is not from a real cow" which will affect the taste. Maybe not objectively (as in, the Pepsi/Coke taste test), but in the same way that someone is certain they can discern the flavor of a $100/bottle wine and a $500/bottle of wine, until you give them a taste test where they can't tell the difference. This is why I think it would be something that current generations would have a hard time accepting, but future generations would simply take as matter of fact.

Re:Don't care. (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 9 months ago | (#44461781)

I don't think that is the case, because I think there will remain in most people this knowledge that it "is not from a real cow" which will affect the taste. Maybe not objectively (as in, the Pepsi/Coke taste test), but in the same way that someone is certain they can discern the flavor of a $100/bottle wine and a $500/bottle of wine, until you give them a taste test where they can't tell the difference. This is why I think it would be something that current generations would have a hard time accepting, but future generations would simply take as matter of fact.

I think you overestimate people; most people are only peripherally aware that a McDonald's hamburger contains elements that at one point belonged to a living bovine. We've actually got really good as a western culture at disassociating food picked up at a store/eaten at a restaurant with the living things it came from. In short, the future is already here.

Of course, what you ARE going to have is a major backlash from the farming conglomerates who will see their profits vanishing. Hopefully they'll attempt to re-establish the connection between living animals and meat on your plate -- that way we consumers win either way.

Re:Don't care. (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 9 months ago | (#44461259)

It will take a lot to ever convince me that something synthetic can taste the same as something that was alive and running around with blood pumping through its brains and a nervous system that spent time outdoors.

If they succeed won't it take... one bite? Maybe one double blinded bite if you don't trust yourself to be objective?

Re:Don't care. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44461287)

As a meat-eater who feels bad eating cows and pigs.

and

Also, if I'm allowed to eat test-tube meat, why can't I eat a test-tube baby?

Wow you are all over the place aren't you? Feel sorry for cows and pigs, but wanting to eat human flesh? Even if grown from a culture, there is something so very wrong with that on so many levels..

Re:Don't care. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44461307)

Just remember that God invented cows to make grass fit for human consumption!!!!

Re:Don't care. (1)

Seumas (6865) | about 9 months ago | (#44461365)

Hey, I asked why it would be acceptable/ethical to do one and not the other. I didn't say I wanted to actually do it.

Re:Don't care. (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | about 9 months ago | (#44461659)

Hey, I asked why it would be acceptable/ethical to do one and not the other. I didn't say I wanted to actually do it.

I donno but honestly I think you're on to something... Billionaires become Billionaires because they have no souls and are sociopaths. I bet they would pay huge amounts of money to eat babies. Sounds like a great startup idea to me!

Taste the future...

Re:Don't care. (1)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about 9 months ago | (#44461335)

Also, if I'm allowed to eat test-tube meat, why can't I eat a test-tube baby?

You can but then you have to wait 18-20 years and marry it.

Re:Don't care. (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 9 months ago | (#44461663)

A test tube baby wouldn't be very much meat. More interesting question is "will silly people ban the eating of lab-grown meat of human origin."

With IPSC [wikipedia.org] you could take a skin patch, wait a month or two, then get enough of meat derived from you to eat.

Hey, if you were a hot dog, and you were starving, would you eat yourself? Because I sure as hell will. I'll be so delicious.

And no, I won't be doing it just to quote that SNL sketch.

Re:Don't care. (1)

hort_wort (1401963) | about 9 months ago | (#44461669)

Also, if I'm allowed to eat test-tube meat, why can't I eat a test-tube baby?

A valid concern. Just my layman guess is that human tissue would provide maximum nutrition for a human to eat. How would you like to go to a lab to get a few of your tastiest cells sampled and cloned to be made into food tailored just for you? Mmm! I'm hungry now! Dinner time here. I'll have a me burger.

Re:Don't care. (1)

hebertrich (472331) | about 9 months ago | (#44461733)

it's just as disgusting as pink slime .. ill stay far far far away , Plain and simple : it's disgusting , did i mention it's disgusting ? Cause i really think it's totaly disgusting .

You are a fucking asshole. (2, Interesting)

gumpish (682245) | about 9 months ago | (#44461927)

Assuming the price comes down once the economy of scale kicks in, this would be a far less destructive staple than traditional meat.

You claim you have pangs of guilt for supporting the realities of the meat industry.

Yet you would reject the product unless it tastes nearly identical (and has additional nutritional advantages).

Basically you're saying, if it doesn't taste exactly like what I'm used to eating, I don't give a fuck how many billions of gallons of water are wasted raising cattle, I don't care how much pollution modern industrial farming produces, I don't care how many billions of animals will experience cramped, noisy conditions for their brief, unpleasant lives, I am going to continue to demand traditional meat.

Fuck you, you self-centered piece of shit.

Re:Don't care. (2)

judoguy (534886) | about 9 months ago | (#44461935)

Taste isn't everything. Even now I prefer organic grass fed beef to hormone and anti-biotic saturated corn fed factory cows.

There can be a huge range of processes building this beef in the future. If current processed food is a model, this stuff could turn out to suck big time. Not because of physical necessity but corporate/government decisions.

Not a proof at this time (0)

gweihir (88907) | about 9 months ago | (#44461163)

As so many other stunts, this one may just never become economically feasible. Unless and until it is, nothing has been proven whatsoever, except that stupid people with too much money can scale things that do not scale well up to levels nobody sane would ever try.

Re:Not a proof at this time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44461333)

As so many other stunts, this one may just never become economically feasible. Unless and until it is, nothing has been proven whatsoever

I think this is what is known as Proof of Concept, which says "it is possible." So something has certainly been proven.

Making it cheaper is certainly possible, although it may take decades or centuries rather than years.

Re:Not a proof at this time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44461421)

I agree.

On an unrelated note, what's with all these people who think we'll have electronic computers in the home? They'd have to build one (or more) rooms just to hold it, spend millions of dollars, and replace dozens of vacuum tubes every day. The electronic computer is nothing more than something stupid people with too much money build that can never scale well and nobody sane would ever own.

Re:Not a proof at this time (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 9 months ago | (#44461437)

The first electronic computers took up entire floors of office buildings, consumed insane amounts of power, required ridiculous amounts of maintenance per running hour for just a few thousand calculations per second. It wasn't really economically feasible to imagine anything but the largest governments or academic or commercial interests ever being able to afford one, and yet, 70 years later, one of its descendants sits in my pocket, with a processing and memory capacity millions of greater than those first behemoths.

ENIAC cost about $6 million USD in current monetary value to build, and my iPhone probably costs $100 to $200. The whole point is that the first try at anything is going to be atrociously expensive and likely inadequate in many ways and yet, all things begin somewhere.

Re:Not a proof at this time (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 9 months ago | (#44461513)

eniac was worth every dollar in practical utility value... dunno if the same can be said about this.

Re:Not a proof at this time (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 9 months ago | (#44461695)

The rewards that await anyone who could mass produce lab-grown meat would be pretty substantial. Proof of concept demonstrates that it can be done, now someone can work out how to do it cheap. Right now, it's a gimmick. In fifty years, well, I have a feeling that for a lot of folks in the industrialized world, this may be a major source of protein.

This was a better off Ted episode (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44461201)

Does it taste like despair?

$375,000... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44461203)

could have fed a lot of people regular cows. Or anything else for that matter.
Just sayin'.

Re:$375,000... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44461397)

This just in: research costs money!

Re:$375,000... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44461469)

Whoosh...

This just in: Some research doesn't need to be done and is a waste of money!

Re:$375,000... (2)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 9 months ago | (#44461861)

could have fed a lot of people regular cows. Or anything else for that matter.
Just sayin'.

How much does a regular cow really cost? [wikipedia.org]

At least with his $375,000 you've got most of the costs all in one place; this is almost exactly what it costs with the current no-scale inefficient techniques he used. Probably (but not necessarily, depending on the resources needed) be significantly cheaper than animal-grown meat when scaled up to the same volume and the inefficiencies in mass production limited.

Nice (5, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | about 9 months ago | (#44461227)

Good result.

Yes, it's expensive now. It's a prototype. Aluminum once cost more than gold.

Re:Nice (3, Interesting)

Seumas (6865) | about 9 months ago | (#44461297)

I like the concept of 100% taste-prep-whatever compatible meat being created without any harm to animals or the environment whatsoever. It's a net-benefit for society. Benefits animals, the land, and probably overall would help take a universal step-forward in our consciousness in a sort of "now we don't harm animals because we can avoid it" kind of way.

I just wonder how hard it will be to make that switch, even if the food pans out to be perfect. I mean, would "this was a real animal" honestly make a difference anymore? Would it be a delicacy? Would it signify class? Or would it be a thing that old people like us demand (real beef), but the next generation just takes for granted that you don't eat living animals, because test-tubes?

Re:Nice (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 9 months ago | (#44461531)

Better yet - the synthetic meat costs a fortune compared to the ordinary kind, and yet environmentalists insist on laws banning farms and butchers.

Hey, it's a net benefit to society, right? Meat is expensive, and people make wrong decisions when they don't have all the facts. It's better if informed, rational, educated people make these choices and the rest of us can benefit from their decisions.

Re:Nice (4, Interesting)

Threni (635302) | about 9 months ago | (#44461305)

Yes, the current cost is meaningless. I once had a £60,000 keyring. It was a prototype graphics chip - a one off, produced for testing. We had a few more made, each time with a few mods, before the button was pressed for mass production, at which point you could buy the whole graphics card for about £70 or so. That initial £60,000 it cost to tool up for each prototype was just a meaningless number - they were never going to be made individually so you have to factor it into the overall cost/profit formula later on. If synthetic meat catches on - and it's completely, totally obvious that it will (because at some point soon the choice will be synthetic meat or no meat at all) - the cost will rapidly undercut the cost of raising livestock.

Re:Nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44461353)

on a good day it still can, yayyy commodity manipulation.

Good luck selling it (4, Funny)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about 9 months ago | (#44461253)

Given the reaction to GM crops you think the EU will embrace the Frankenburger? Much like the monster it will be vilified, misunderstood and eventually driven out and destroyed.

Is it really food? (2)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 9 months ago | (#44461273)

It's just a $375,000 failed lab experiment until somebody dares eat it.

Re:Is it really food? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44461495)

"Failed" does not mean "I think it cost too much because I am short-sighted and aggressively unimaginative".

Re:Is it really food? (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 9 months ago | (#44461625)

"Failed", in this case, has nothing to do with cost. It is the question whether it's actually food if nobody dares to eats it.

Is this Veridian Dynamics? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44461317)

"It tastes familiar."
"Chicken? I'd settle for chicken."
"it tastes like.... despair."

"...without slaughtering animal(S)-plural, guys!" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44461319)

Yeah you only have to kill the source of the stem cells. So ridiculous! The article could have been spun to be about anything else under the sun, from efficiency to nutrition, and all we can do is kow-tow to the PETAveg crowd?

Has been done before... (4, Interesting)

TheSync (5291) | about 9 months ago | (#44461325)

Symbiotica did this before [tcaproject.org] in 2003 by growing tissue from skeletal muscle cells harvested from pre-natal sheep. And they ate the results.

There are two major hurdles with non-violent cultured meat for eating though:

1) Edible meat is a very complex tissue with muscles, fat, blood vessels, etc. and the precise relation of these cell types and their physical placement in the meat affects the taste and texture.

2) Most cell culturing media is not vegetarian - the nutrient baths are generally processed from living animals.

It sounds like this new effort is basically the same thing - culturing myoblasts and feeding them with fetal calf serum.

At the same time, I look forward to these challenges being overcome, and glad to see new funding!

Doesn't save animals (5, Informative)

nbauman (624611) | about 9 months ago | (#44461341)

FTA:

There are other problems: Cultured meat is now grown in medium with fetal calf serum, a supplement made from blood collected at slaughterhouses; scientists have yet to find an alternative that doesn't involve dead animals.

Pardon me... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44461351)

... but this is still "killing the animal". Those cells could have been carefully cultivated and grown into a sizeable bull-dick for me, personally, to graft to my loins. I could have given it life and it, in turn, could have definitely given life to me in return. And now somebody's just going to eat it? Well, fine, eat my dick. That doesn't make you a super hero.

Re:Pardon me... (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | about 9 months ago | (#44461727)

... but this is still "killing the animal". Those cells could have been carefully cultivated and grown into a sizeable bull-dick for me, personally, to graft to my loins. I could have given it life and it, in turn, could have definitely given life to me in return. And now somebody's just going to eat it? Well, fine, eat my dick. That doesn't make you a super hero.

Everything will be ok Misses Clinton...

Slashdot sociopaths... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44461367)

... in evidence, as always...

So you seriously believe that human beings are supposed to eat animals? What facts would it take for you to admit you're wrong? No amount of facts will change your mind, because you don't eat animals because you thought it through one day and decided it was a good idea, you eat animals because EVERYBODY ELSE does, and you would rather watch a million animals be tortured to death than stand out from the crowd, disagree with your 'friends' and family, etc.

The suffering of others means nothing to you, therefore you are sociopaths.

Human beings aren't supposed to eat animals because ALL human beings who kill animals are visibly neurotic, and sociopathic, and the more cruel their acts towards animals are, the more visibly psychopathic they are. If human beings were supposed to eat animals, then those of us who kill animals on a daily basis would be kind and loving people - but they are not.

A cat kills mice, rats and birds every day or week, yet is totally normal, kind and loving the rest of the time. A mother cat will ALWAYS care for her children, and never hurt them, even though she will be killing rats, rabbits, etc. every day, to stay alive. Show me the human mother who kills animals with her bare hands and teeth, and is also a kind, caring, non-neurotic mother, or who even kills animals in a slaughterhouse, and is a kind, caring mother. You won't find one. There aren't any.

I realise I'm wasting my breath because sociopaths are never going to admit they are wrong, which is part of the reason they are sociopaths...

Lab based meat is the greatest hope for ending suffering on earth that has ever existed - seeing as most people are too selfish and too good at denying reality to ever consider giving up their precious 'meat' - after all, they might 'feel bad' and that would be just awful for them, right? I mean, it would be just so much worse than the REAL physical torture and agonies that thousands of innocent animals will go through because they can't be bothered to spend five minutes thinking about the consequences of their dietary choices.

Re:Slashdot sociopaths... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44461475)

Why do you care about ending the suffering of cows? Are you a cow?

Re:Slashdot sociopaths... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44461569)

"Human beings aren't supposed to eat animals because ALL human beings who kill animals are visibly neurotic, and sociopathic"

I totally lost it here, 10/10 if serious, 6/10 if trolling

Re:Slashdot sociopaths... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44461573)

If you label the majority of people as having some mental problem, perhaps they're not the one with a mental problem...

If you cannot grasp the basics of life (such as for one organism to live, another has to die) perhaps you'd like to lock youself away.

Re:Slashdot sociopaths... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44461619)

So a female butcher is physically incapable of being a good mother?

Also, cats kill for pleasure CONSTANTLY. If cats killed humans instead of other animals, it would only take the domestic cats in the USA to kill 41% of the human population yearly.

What if the anonymous billionaire is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44461395)

What if the anonymous billionaire is Steve Jobs?

Re:What if the anonymous billionaire is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44461581)

What if the anonymous billionaire is Steve Jobs?

What if the stem cell culture is from Steve Jobs? Stop! Don't eat it! Soylent 375 is Jobs! You're eating jobs. It's canibalism... or it's bad for the economy... or something, but for the love of God, STOP IT!!!

what about the unborn cows??? (1)

sribe (304414) | about 9 months ago | (#44461451)

I mean, were those fetal stem cells or adult stem cells that they used?

But... but... meat is murder? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44461509)

Look, I admit I'm a heterotroph [wikipedia.org]. That means I eat things. There's no way around that. I'm not photosynthetic. I'm not chemoautotrophic [wikipedia.org]. It doesn't matter if it's plant or animal or fungus or various prokaryotes, I live thanks to the death of other living creatures. My heritage has been heterotrophic since sometime when the first eukaryotes started clumping together into multicellular creatures back almost a billion years ago, and some of them realized it was easier to raid other critters and burn it with oxygen than to grow their own. That choice was made a long, long time ago, long before I had enough differentiated nerve cells clumped together to enable me to make a conscious choice about it. Even if they're cultured cells sitting in a growth medium, I'm still responsible for their death. Even if I'm vegetarian, it's a formerly living plant that I'm eating. They die so I can live.

My main and almost only moral concern is that I don't eat other sentient creatures (obviously) and if I do eat reasonably intelligent creatures (e.g., pigs), that they are treated reasonably well during their lifetime until I decide to eat them. I'd sooner ensure a basic standard like that is strictly adhered to than waste $375k on a lab hamburger for the sake of the vain illusion that I'm not killing things to survive. I still am, even at that kind of cost and hassle.

Sacrificing the lives of many unborn calves... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44461595)

"an estimated cost of $375,000, just to prove a point: that it is possible to produce meat without slaughtering animals."

This is ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT, no pun intended. The growth factors required to supplement the liquid medium in which these cultured cells are grown comes from Foetal Bovine Serum (FBS), which sadly involves the slaughtering of many many more pregnant cows and their unborn calves than would be required to yield a single ground beef patty.

Without slaughtering animals? (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 9 months ago | (#44461609)

Where did they get the stem cells from? Where did they get the foetal bovine serum from?

Igor, bring me a Frankenburger (1)

Smokey Behr (2940937) | about 9 months ago | (#44461615)

Okay, you've grown meat in a test tube, but who's going to eat it? The whole point of real meat is the flavor that's imparted to it through its feed and husbandry. There's a reason why some people raise and slaughter their own cattle, or grind their own meat, or buy the frozen patties from the warehouse club store. This whole thing is like a Concept Car: Sure, it can be done; sure, it's as expensive as hell; sure, it can be eaten; but who in their right mind is going to eat it? I have a feeling this is going to be Post's "Blinky Moment", where the 3-eyed fish is cooked and served, but whether it's edible or not is a whole different story.

Re:Igor, bring me a Frankenburger (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44461745)

No, no, no, you're missing the point:

Its patty — financed by an anonymous billionaire — is made from meat that Post has laboriously grown from bovine stem cells in his lab at an estimated cost of $375,000, just to prove a point: that it is possible to produce meat without slaughtering animals.

This isn't really to make food. It's here so some douchebag vegan can prove a point and hysterically point to it later on a protest tour of a cattle farm. As far as this bean-eating asshole knows, meat is meat. An emaciated cow is the same meat as a well-fed and raised cow to this guy. He seriously doesn't understand that food can have taste, per se, just political or ecological statements.

Yummy Means Never Endangered (1)

olyar (591892) | about 9 months ago | (#44461699)

What these people never think about is the fact that these animals being edible is what keeps people breeding, raising and feeding them. Cows, pigs and chickens have never been endangered species because they are (or make) good food. I own 30 or so chickens that I buy food for, built a safe coop for, let out into a pasture every morning and close in each night. I do this because they make yummy eggs.

The bison is no longer endangered because people started raising them for meat. A hundred years ago, there were 800 or so. Now there are over 300,000.

If you couldn't use cows for milk or meat, who would spend the money on fencing, irrigation and hay to keep a herd around?

glad i live in cattle-country (1)

FudRucker (866063) | about 9 months ago | (#44461737)

where real cows are raised on dairy farms, and the over abundance of bull calfs are castrated for beef steers, for 375 thousand bucks i could buy a lot of pasture land and stock it with cattle and start my own beef ranch

They're in for a hell of a shock... (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 9 months ago | (#44461795)

when they bite into it. It will taste incredbly gross without adding the beef fat. It's the fat that's delicious.

Surprise!!!

Don't believe me? Go make a burger out of steak tartar, no flecks of white at all. Use a Teflon pan and no cheating with Pam, butter, or a slice of cheese.

Put it on a bun and bite into...the best burger ever?

Meat is nutritious, and moreso than any other food. People debate whether you get everything you need, but it's damn close. But you don't need it for flavor. Better to come up with sawdust and dump beef fat on it.

BTW, red meat raises cholesterol a ton independent of fat, because gut bacteria proliferate in red meat eaters that convert carnetine into stuff that is absorbed and turns into cholesterol.

tl;dr Red meat tastes like shit without fat and is bad for you even without fat.

Vegetarian... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44461835)

Make a philosophical vegetarian eat it. Just cause.

Is this going to be like... (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | about 9 months ago | (#44461859)

Is this going to be like Olestra - $200,000 roll of toiletpaper sold separately?! :p
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...