"Clean" food means something very different than "clean" energy.
If I'm looking for clean food, my standards are very different than someone looking for clean energy. I know folks who wouldn't think lab grown meat was very clean simply because it was created in a lab.
All that to say: you're not wrong, but clean means something very different to the food-conscious person shopping at their local co-op.
I'm confused, it's not clean because it was grown in a lab, or is there some other factor?
Our bodies don't give two shits whether the food we eat was grown outside in a natural environment or in a lab - as long as it's chemically the same then there can't be any difference to how we absorb it.
Edit: Ok, after going deeper onto this website it mentions doing juice cleanses and ridding yourself of "toxins". Stay as far away from this website as possible.
Furthermore margarine is associated with health risks that butter is not; clean is just disingenuous.
So I won't be surprised if the animal products industry lobbies for rules about what can be called meat (or if such rules already exist).
Of course such labeling concerns don't apply to an internet discussion, but they do indicate that people care about what's in a name.
A typical simple one is "animal flesh". Cells grown in a vat aren't flesh, they are a tissue culture.
Note that I'm not particularly animated by the issue, I just don't agree that it is as simple as "claiming that meat is not meat".
It seems to me that this isn't a necessarily property of meat but a contingent one caused by the fact that meat used to only be possible to produce from animal flesh.
You'd be surprised. We even have different names and preferences for different age stages of the animal, different varieties of the animal (regional etc), etc.
Calling something clean meat, based purely on arbitrary ethical grounds, implies that what other people eat and call meat is somehow unclean. It is a value judgement on the others.
OK, let's check the numbers.
According to the CDC https://www.cdc.gov/foodborneburden/attribution/attribution-... from 1998 - 2008 from the total of foodborn illnesses 46% were linked to plant based, 22% to meat and poultry, 20% to dairy and eggs and 6% to fish products. From the total number of deaths 23% were linked to plant based products, 29% to meat and poultry (19% to poultry).
You can see a more detailed graphic here https://www.cdc.gov/foodborneburden/attribution-image.html#f...
1. The percentages you cite aren’t useful on their own, as one also needs to know how often each kind of food is consumed. Only then would we know the relative risk of eating each kind of food.
2. Most food plants are grown outdoors (often near livestock) and many aren’t cooked before eating. Cultured meat is grown in sterile environments and is typically cooked. These differences mean that it will almost certainly have a lower disease risk than any natural food.
> Cultured meat is grown in sterile environments and is typically cooked. These differences mean that it will almost certainly have a lower disease risk than any natural food.
Maybe, or maybe we'll discover in 10 years that eating lab grown meat gives you some form of cancer. Until it is used on a large scale for a number of years (as in decades) we have no idea what the effect of consuming lab grown meat has on ones health.
We can know it's safe without a long track record of use because of biology, chemistry, and physics. Cultured meat is the same muscle cells with the same DNA. If it caused cancer but animal meat didn't, that would tell us something new about biology, chemistry, and/or physics.
Your fear-mongering postulates unknown mechanisms of action that science would almost certainly have discovered by now. That's not just unscientific, it's anti-scientific. It's on the same level as, "What if cell phones cause cancer?" or "What if vaping is worse than smoking?"
I clean my fish, deer, moose, beef critter, fowl, etc... I clean them very well. (They are delicious.)
You do understand that you are the very definition of an outlier, right?
So it would OK if the term only confused you, since you are supposed to be confused, given that you do these things differently than 99.99% of the population.
But I think the term is confusing in general, not just to people who "kill and clean their own meat".
The social media, apps, cloud, big data, and phone innovations have been neat but I'm looking forward to disruptions in non tech arenas. Space, electric and hydrogen fuel cell cars, so many fascinating things up and coming.
I would be curious to see what "technology" was a colloquialism for different periods in time. My suspicion is that it would refer to the most impactful and visible innovations of that time.
If and when the things you listed become wildly profitable, they'll become relevant for discussions about "careers in tech".
CRISPR is bio-tech.
Self driving cars are overwhelmingly regarded as tech in every possible corner of the media universe. Apple, Google, Tesla, nVidia are among the frequent discussion points on self-driving, and it all ties in to AI which is another obvious tech subject.
There's a reason all of those topics are regularly discussed on HN.
This is just like when the British Parliament approved GMOs in the UK and on the same day officially forbid GMO foods from being served in the Parliament restaurant.
BTW I know the guy who was the head of the team who invented the GMO technology. He and his family and relatives only eat the cleanest, best quality ORGANIC food they can find.
He states fair points, as far as I can see.
Full Ingredient List:
>Water, Textured Wheat Protein, Coconut Oil, Potato Protein, Natural Flavors, 2% or less of: Leghemoglobin (soy), Yeast Extract, Salt, Soy Protein Isolate, Konjac Gum, Xanthan Gum, Thiamin (Vitamin B1), Zinc, Niacin, Vitamin B6, Riboflavin (Vitamin B2), Vitamin B12.
I shouldn't even have to post about "Textured Wheat Protein" but it's essentially another denatured protein, one that is completely doused in glyphosate right before harvest. That's the main ingredient of these "burgers."
Check out the chart on page two...
These "vegan" foods are nowhere near healthy.
Then there's Soy Protein Isolate:
>But high-temperature processing has the unfortunate side effect of so denaturing the other proteins in soy that they are rendered largely ineffective.23 That's why animals on soy feed need lysine supplements for normal growth.
>Nitrites, which are potent carcinogens, are formed during spray-drying, and a toxin called lysinoalanine is formed during alkaline processing.24 Numerous artificial flavorings, particularly MSG, are added to soy protein isolate and textured vegetable protein products to mask their strong "beany" taste and to impart the flavor of meat.25
>In feeding experiments, the use of SPI increased requirements for vitamins E, K, D, and B12 and created deficiency symptoms of calcium, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, copper, iron, and zinc.26 Phytic acid remaining in these soy products greatly inhibits zinc and iron absorption; test animals fed SPI develop enlarged organs, particularly the pancreas and thyroid gland, and increased deposition of fatty acids in the liver.27
As for protein isolates:
> That's why animals on soy feed need lysine supplements for normal growth.
No wonder eating a mono diet requires supplements. How can we expect protein isolates from a legume to be a super-powerful all in one food?
>Nitrites, which are potent carcinogens, are formed during spray-drying.
Cool thing to leave out that nitrites are used as preservatives and colorings in meat and consuming them without the added phytonutrients (available only in plants) removes the blocking effect and cancerous nitrosamines form.
Just check out google scholar for nitrosamines and meat. It's all over the place, hundreds of studies.
So, Stephanie Seneff is just scaremongering without sufficient evidence. Just like any food/ingredient demonization.
> Phytic acid remaining in these soy products greatly inhibits zinc and iron absorption
"phytic acid cancer" on google scholar, good thing it blocks heme iron absorption, wouldn't like to over-absorb it and get cancer.
> test animals fed SPI develop enlarged organs, particularly the pancreas and thyroid gland, and increased deposition of fatty acids in the liver.
Just like feeding mice 20% calories from casein protein (in milk) gets them cancer, and you can turn it off and on by lowering/increasing the casein amount. should we now scaremonger and tell that milk should be avoided, maybe whey protein also because it's filled with casein?
Yeah, I'm pretty sure there are crazy people out there willing to eat just whey powder and soy protein isolate all day long. For the sane folks, it's probably safe.
You can list out all the negatives, leaving positives out and make a demonizing picture out of any food/ingredient.
If fake meats were as dangerous as the real thing, they'd be illegal to sell. Concerns about the safety of these new foods are pure status-quo bias.
It's not that processed foods are particularly safe, but that meat is unsafe in a way we're accustomed to. Again: every year, meat-borne pathogens kill 5,000 Americans and cause illnesses in 1% of the population. Fake meats simply don't cause those rates of illness or death. If they did, the FDA would not allow them to be sold.
Who is to say that eating an equivalent amount of this fake meat product wouldn't cause a far greater number of deaths and reduction in quality adjusted years? It will be much harder to tell, because the problems aren't as obvious/acute, and there are always a huge number of confounding variables when it comes to nutrition.
Unless the problems it causes are acute, the FDA isn't going to have a very good way of comparing the safety of these with normal meat.
Among other things, sodium nitrate (included in the above description of fake meat) is, by itself, known to be more carcinogenic than red meat itself. But you don't see the FDA ensuring new foods don't use it.
You have to worry about that with vegetables as well. Certainly here in Sweden the nr 1 source of food borne salmonella is spinach, arugula and similar leafy greens.
You can keep all of that aforementioned "meat" afaic.
 more on that for example here: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/acrylamide.html
It is extremely frustrating gow you spread confusion and conflate concepts that have nothing to do with each other, with the end result being that all you accomplish is to spread propaganda about efforts that will literally save the planet from environmentally destructive, excessive meat production.
Nonetheless, point taken.
How are you certain about 'doused in glyphosate'?
It should be noted that making meat substitutes out of wheat protein is nothing new, and it's accessible to the home cook, not something that has to be done in a lab. If you don't believe me, look up recipes for homemade seitan.
People do usually eat 'real food' when they eat meat products. That's the problem.
Danihan's criticism is wrong and projecting onto an imaginary strawman because he pretends that the only reason anyone could ever care about vat meat or fake meat is for the possible health benefits and accuses them of hypocrisy for endorsing processed foods in one case but not in hypothetical others - which is bizarre because that reason is literally not even in the laundry list of reasons in OP or other coverage (suggesting he didn't even read OP). Read through the article again, health is never mentioned, all the reasons are moral, environmental, or economic. I am perfectly willing to say that maybe vat meat or fake meat are not exactly as healthy as eating some tomatoes or something, but you know what, I really don't give a shit about minor issues or cherrypicked chemistry as I am far more concerned about whether it will soon be possible for me to continue eating tasty meat (possibly even for less cost) without killing hundreds of animals a year.
No way. Everyone knows the field of nutrition has been considered settled for decades.
It's really unfortunate all the meat "alternatives" take the organic/healthy but huge premium approach as this makes it very inaccessible to your standard consumer. Maybe for 6+ figure earning HNers it's not an issue but for the majority of the country it is.
It keeps being priced and pitched as a premium organic healthy food and not something everyone can afford.
Tesla is another example.
And economics should force price down, if the costs of manufactured protein decrease substantially.
I don't mean to be petty but it's not "economics" that drives prices down but rather competition. The thing about smartphones is while they all had dramatically different surface behavior, underneath they all shared very similar technological cores (Qualcomm processors, iOS/Android/Windows OS, etc...) and were able to utilize those same innovations.
Artificial meat on the other hand doesn't seem to be like that. Every product is unique and requires significant investment in R&D to make a reality.
They have been selling it for a long time now, it's not like this stuff is brand new. My only point was that we have not seen the effects you are describing happening yet which is worrisome. It feels like they are happy with product positioning at the moment.
At least in cooked form, the smell is more distinctly of beans, not cat food.
And I kind of don't see how Memphis Meat can possibly compete with Impossible Burger (or other companies that can produce meat-like products from vegetables + industrial processing).
Today Memphis Meat costs "several thousand" per pound and generates literal pounds of meat. It's a pre-alpha prototype.
Impossible Burger's ground beef costs "comparable to organic beef" and are scaling production to a million pounds of meat per month. They've shipped and are increasing velocity.
It's decent, but its nothing like real meat.
As a new tech it will cost a lot (like computers once did, now you can get one for $5), but the price will eventually go down.
Perhaps my generation won't enjoy fake meat like a real steak just because of the idea, but younger people won't mind.
Personally, I'll take anything that can stop killing all those animals to then throw away huge quantities (if unsold).
That being said, I do favor the Impossible Foods approach to this. My position is that non-animal products like Impossible Foods can incrementally replace low-to-mid end meat consumption while the high end will continue to be served by actual living animals.
Growing a vat of meat tissue just means you get a lot of cells to absorb nutrients and reproduce. It's likely multiple magnitudes easier.
I'm really skeptical of this. Feels like a "multiple PhDs later..." kind of problem. Is there are a reason why you think the research won't hit any roadblocks? And even if it succeeds, there could be insurmountable marketing issues.
In the meantime, it's bad for vegetarianism. Meat eaters saying "why bother changing my diet, when lab grown meat will be here soon?"
We need to eat more plants. We need to travel fewer miles. We need to dump less potable water into the sea. We need to throw away less packaging and stuff. We can't always wait for the perfect 1:1 replacement eco-technology. We also need to figure out how to change our culture.
People all over the world learned how to survive just fine without without eating a half pound of flesh per day. Why are we clinging to these practices?
It might be, but perhaps a bigger hit could be elsewhere: in licensing technology; support services; leasing lab equipment; consumable ingredients or something else entirely.
All domestic cattle nowadays descends from the Auroch, which is extinct. The Auroch disappeared because we did not need it as it was. It was hunted down as tend to be all large animals that can not be domesticated.
If we don't need cows, pigs, sheep and whatnot, isn't there a risk they will fade away?
When we invented cars, the domestic horse kept existing because it still has recreational use. Is there a recreational use for cows?
So, in short, no, I don't think they'd go away or become extinct, not in the slightest. Declining numbers of them over time? Probably but extinct? No way.
An open society is a society that accepts diversity and doesn't try to shame people into conforming to a single way of thinking.
Not really, you have a good chance to get sick (I'm talking about foodborn disease) no matter what you eat. According to the CDC from 1998 - 2008 the percent of deaths/illnesses is about 46% - 54% between eating plants vs animal products https://www.cdc.gov/foodborneburden/attribution-image.html#f...
It seems that this is less likely to receive such a treatment, since it's much closer to the actual thing in terms of composition, but beyond Meat might be given a harder time there, since their product is plant-based...
India could become a huge market for the plant protein meat.
Beyondmeat is one great example.