

Hacking Meat: Can technology make us eat fewer animals? - daegloe
http://gigaom.com/cleantech/hacking-meat-can-technology-make-us-eat-fewer-animals/

======
ComputerGuru
What is it with this modern obsession with not eating meat?

Meat is good. It's healthy, it's very sustainable, it's got an incredible
protein:volume ratio, and it's delicious.

~~~
HorizonXP
I'll bite.

Meat, and red meat in general, has got a bad rap because of various studies
linking it with poor health (i.e. cancer and cardiovascular issues).

Personally, I would argue against it. We know from anthropology studies that
humans only evolved to our current state because we started to eat larger
quantities of meat. Fact is, there is no better source of nutrition and
calories when you're looking at foods obtainable from the environment.

In the 20th century, we're in a different situation. Food and calories are
easy to come by, to the point that many Westerners are gluttonous and we eat
too much. We don't need to eat meat to obtain more calories, removing it as a
requirement from our diets.

Vegetarians will argue that their diets have less of an impact on the planet,
and that they're healthier overall. You can argue that point either way, but
anecdotally, I've met few vegetarians that are actually "healthy." Many do not
understand that if you remove meat as a source of protein, you need to
supplement it with another source. Vegetarian sources of protein are not very
protein-dense, so you need to eat a lot of food to get your daily requirement.
Moreover, you need to ensure that you're obtaining all of your essential amino
acids, which many plant-products don't provide. That's why Indians, a
predominantly vegetarian society, will eat rice with daal. Rice lacks lysine,
which daal contains. Together, they are a whole source of protein.

I've personally tried the vegetarian diet, and it's not for me. It's not for
everyone. I found that to hit my protein requirements, I had to eat a lot of
carbohydrates along with it, which meant a lot of calories.

Right now, I'm overweight, so I'm trying to hack my diet and lose weight in a
completely different way. I eat absolutely no carbohydrates. All I eat is lamb
(I'm Hindu, so no beef or pork), fish, and poultry. I also eat lots of green
vegetables, nuts, mushrooms, and cheeses. Oh, butter and heavy cream too. It's
called the ketogenic diet if you're interested.

I've never felt better. No intestinal issues or bloating. I'm losing weight
steadily. And I get to eat awesome, healthy meals that taste amazing. And I
would bet that my environmental impact isn't all that high. My grocery list is
very simple, sticking to the outer corridors of the store.

It's not for everyone. But it works for me. I would bet that most studies that
say red meat is bad, didn't control for carbohydrates. The biochemical
processes that occur in the body in reaction to carbohydrate intake is likely
what contributes to the issues surrounding red meat. Of course, few studies
have been done to confirm this because of a general disposition that high-fat
diets are bad.

In summary, people are against meat because they keep hearing that it's bad.
They don't seek out alternate opinions, and would rather be ignorant than
educate themselves.

~~~
bendmorris
I'm on keto too. But people do have valid, non-health reasons for avoiding
meat, including ethical and sustainability concerns. Keto is great for your
own personal health, but in some ways people who choose to incorporate large
amounts of meat into their diets (like you and I) are basically choosing these
personal benefits over the greater good for everyone else.

~~~
HorizonXP
Depends on how you look at it though. If you keep your view narrow (not meant
as an insult), you're right, our impact on the environment and economy via
agriculture is probably higher. Fact is, an animal requires more nutrients and
care to raise than a plant. That takes a lot of energy and resources.

If you expand your view, you can actually begin to argue that we might have a
reduced impact in comparison to others. There is anecdotal and limited
empirical evidence that suggests that people that strictly follow a low-carb
diet actually have better blood chemistry that those on a low-fat diet. Lower
LDL cholesterol and triglycerides, and higher HDL cholesterol levels usually
lead to a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease. Not to mention that it's
practically impossible to have diabetes. Those on a low-carb diet are usually
trying to lose weight, so that helps too, since maintaining a "normal" weight
has wider health implications.

My point is that being overweight likely has a larger impact than simply
eating meat. Being overweight, you're more likely to have higher healthcare
costs, eat more, and require more energy and resources to sustain. If you're
lighter, most of these negatives go away. Whether you achieve your lower
weight by low-carb or low-fat doesn't really matter. But there are plenty of
people that eat low-carb as an actual lifestyle, and their blood chemistry
generally indicates that they're healthier overall.

Anyway, to each their own. But this fallacy that meat-eaters are creating an
unethical and unsustainable environment is specious. You really need to look
at the big picture.

(I wish I had actual sources to cite.)

------
hdivider
Really cool. It's good to know that there are hackathons for this kind of
thing.

Ignoring, for the moment, all the overbearing ethical problems with factory
farms (those kinds of discussions are almost never constructive), I wonder if
a first principles calculation would reveal the sort of potential efficiency
gains to be made if you could make in-vitro meat work and scale properly. I
bet it's going to be far, far more energy-efficient to grow meat according to
demand with nutrient solutions derived from plants or bacteria, than to use
factory farms. And that's not even taking other critical resources like water
into account.

------
tossacct
The only value of the article is to briefly mention the existence of "in vitro
meat" and the concept of a scientific approach to flavor and taste. The
article also includes some namedrops that I don't think are significant, but
is otherwise completely worthless after you read the first sentence of this
comment. For actual information on these topics beyond a mentioning of their
existence, please visit wikipedia:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavor> Catchall for any sensory experience
involving food or eating.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taste> What happens with the taste buds of a
human.

------
tossacct
Some people in western culture choose not to eat animal products or meat, and
have historically referred to themselves as vegans or vegetarians,
respectively. Some of these people make the choice due to their ethical
concerns about the food producing animals involved in the process. In this
comment, they will be lumped into the group of "ethivegs". In my experience, a
fair percentage of ethivegs are either luddites and technophobes, and
vanishingly few of the technology embracing ethivegs are generally interested
in science. Absolutely no ethivegs that I have met has been aware of in vitro
meat research. Which is odd, since in vitro meat research meat has the ability
to almost completely remove ethical concerns for an animal from the production
of food.

Interestingly, PETA has heard of the technology and did a little advertising
stunt for the research. Anecdotally, none of my NPR listening or PETA
supporting acquaintances have ever heard of this stunt (which was on NPR) or
the concept of in vitro meat. Happily, every single ethiveg that I have
introduced to the concept of in vitro meat has felt very positive and excited
about it.

So in my experiences with ethivegs, the consequence of in vitro meat research
coming to fruition is this: eating meat will no longer require an animal to be
treated unethically. Interestingly, many ethivegs have lamented that currently
"unethical meat eaters" will no longer be punished with mad cow disease, high
prices, or nutrient imbalances. However, they are generally more concerned
with the ethical treatment of animals than they are with punishing humans who
currently eat meat.

I find this interesting because some groups are less interested in correcting
the sin, and more interested in punishing the sinner:
<http://i.imgur.com/Irgo2.gif>

~~~
dizzystar
Choosing food on ethical grounds is a load of crap. Here's a counter-example
discussing the slavery on California strawberry farms:

[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1995/11/in-
the-s...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1995/11/in-the-
strawberry-fields/305754/)

>>> Migrants are among the poorest workers in the United States. The average
migrant worker is a twenty-eight-year-old male, born in Mexico, who earns
about $5,000 a year for twenty-five weeks of farm work. His life expectancy is
forty-nine years. <<<

I'm hoping some things changed since 1995, but as someone used to to
construction in California and had to compete against dry-wallers earning
$3/hour, I am doubtful.

One would have to be very careful in choosing "ethical food," lest they have
tunnel vision in only protecting animals, and by their pure nature of
replacing lost calories with more vegetables, they encourage more human
slavery in the world, and yes... in America.

~~~
paupino_masano
I understand what you're trying to say, but it's hardly the same thing.
Getting paid vs being "caged" then killed is a very different argument.

~~~
dizzystar
This is an ethical bounds area. Although I am against murder of any human, I
also think that locking a 20-year-old in prison for 60 years is a far more
inhumane punishment than a hanging.

In my opinion, slavery is far worse than death. Could you imagine working
under a hot sun for 15 hour days only to wake up and do it all over again
everyday for the rest of your life? Supposedly, this stuff was banned
throughout the whole world but it is still ubiquitous. People and politicians
actively encourage it by looking the other way, not caring, or justifying the
use of slavery because of a pretty contract.

I do feel some pity for the animals dying for my own health, but in the same
token, if I was not dependent on the local super-market, I would end up
hunting it myself. For certain, America treats its animals far better than
other countries. I won't eat veil, shark fin, or foie gras. There is a huge
difference between inflicting outright suffering and growing an animal for the
purposes of slaughter.

------
brasmasus
> _...but we’re still years away from seeing viable, affordable artificial
> meat – and probably many more years from convincing the public to eat it._

What about Quorn's 'mycoprotein'? They've been making it for years, and people
have been eating it. There's some controversy, of course, but go into any
grocery store and it's there. Not half bad either imo.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorn>

~~~
kfitchard
(Disclaimer: I'm the article's author.) Quorn isn't an artificial meat. It's a
meat substitute or imitation meat. There are a lot of these on the market
right now like Beyond Meat. In-vitro meat actually seeks to grow animal muscle
cells. Think cloning steaks :)

~~~
stdbrouw
I think the OP was pointing out that it's not impossible to convince people to
eat stuff like this. If you can get people to eat fungus grown in large vats
(Quorn), then with the right marketing you can probably get them to eat
artificial meat.

------
dbecker
One of the big trends in current nutritional thinking is that we should eat
natural, whole foods... and processing foods, even when done to enhance
nutritional qualities, has been a major mis-step.

In-vitro meat and printing steaks on 3d printers sound like a steps in the
wrong direction.

~~~
stdbrouw
Why would a "natural" steak be intrinsically better than an "unnatural" steak?
And what does that have to do with current nutritional thinking?

~~~
dbecker
The most popular author claiming natural foods are better is Michael Pollan
(who is admittedly a writer rather than a scientist, but whose views appear to
be widely shared in the scientific community).

Googling will show as many links as you could possibly want, but you might
start with

[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t....](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

~~~
stdbrouw
My point was more basic: current nutritional thinking does not and cannot make
any claims about a food type which doesn't yet exist, and food is not good or
bad simply because it belongs to a certain category like "natural". (That
said, thanks for the link.)

~~~
dbecker
The claim is basically that humans are incapable of manufacturing healthy
food.

You may disagree with the premise, but the conclusion "food manufactured on a
3d printer will not be healthy" does follow logically from it.

------
Mz
Eww.

I have a different hack: Eat kosher or organic meat.

I do that because my body does not work right. Eating better quality food has
substantially reduced the amount of food I require on a daily basis. It seems
especially helpful with meat, probably because toxins concentrate in the fats
as you go up the food chain, so the negative impact of bad practices
multiplies.

------
eclipxe
Meh. Meat is delicious, I don't want to eat less.

