Hacking Meat: Can technology make us eat fewer animals?

http://gigaom.com/cleantech/hacking-meat-can-technology-make-us-eat-fewer-animals/

by daegloe • 14 years ago

28 49 14 years ago

hdivider• 14 years ago

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.

eclipxe• 14 years ago

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

ComputerGuru• 14 years ago

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.

ahelwer• 14 years ago

That's overly simplistic and you know it. There are pretty obvious ethical issues. Not that I really want to start a discussion on them, because if there's anything more played-out on the internet than the piracy debate it's the meat-eating debate.

That in addition to how inefficiently the nutritional value of giant animals is generated.

Disclaimer: I eat meat.

nathos• 14 years ago

Also, it it truly sustainable? The demand for low-cost animal protein has in part led to increased factory farming, antibiotic use, growth hormone use, etc.

(I'm also a meat eater, but I eat less beef than I once did, largely because of cost & health concerns)

blahedo• 14 years ago

Meat (or rather, animals) also consume a lot more resources to produce the same amount of available-nutrient output. I'm a meat-eater too, and I agree with your assessment, but it's a little disingenuous to pretend that vegetarians have no reasons for their actions.

(Also, IME there are as many reasons to be vegetarian as there are vegetarians---they all have a slightly different answer.)

Turing_Machine4• 14 years ago

"Meat (or rather, animals) also consume a lot more resources to produce the same amount of available-nutrient output."

Depends on how it's raised. Grain-fed meat, sure. Grass-fed meat, not so much. People can't digest grass.

bendmorris3• 14 years ago

Very sustainable?

"Food production requires application of fertilizers containing phosphorus, nitrogen and potassium on agricultural fields in order to sustain crop yields. However modern agriculture is dependent on phosphorus derived from phosphate rock, which is a non-renewable resource and current global reserves may be depleted in 50–100 years."

Raising animals to eat is a much less efficient use of non-renewable phosphate than eating plants ourselves.

Source: Dana Cordell, Jan-Olof Drangert, Stuart White. 2009. The story of phosphorus: Global food security and food for thought. Global Environmental Change, Volume 19, Issue 2, Pages 292-305.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378008...

Turing_Machine4• 14 years ago

The phosphate doesn't actually get used up. It winds up back in the ocean from whence it came (most phosphate rock is limestone formed from krill and the like).

There's no reason we couldn't use krill directly. It would be more expensive, but also 100% renewable.

stcredzero• 14 years ago

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

I had been doing the low carb thing recently, so I agree with most of this. Unfortunately, the relative scarcity of meat in our history has resulted in our wanting to eat too much of it for our health.

That said, imbalances in our global civilization's distribution of food is a much bigger problem than calories per acre. (I guess one could argue that realistically we need to produce an overabundance of food to compensate.)

diminish• 14 years ago

"Meat is the biggest thing you can steal from some creature, it kind of destroys her presence, and discontinues her future. meat-eating is killing for theft of the functional body.".

Every organism must collect their energy, aminoacid, vitamins themselves rather than stealing from their peers. I am against all eating including eating of vegetables, honey etc and critical of the current earth-based life.

when designing the post-humans we must exclude "eating" for body build-up and energy intake.

xiaoma• 14 years ago

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And some of your claims are extraordinary.

>What is it with this modern obsession with not eating meat?

It's not a "modern obsession". Varying degrees of vegetarianism have been part of human culture since ancient times. People, especially Americans, are eating far more meat than they did 50 or 100 years ago. There is a greater variation, but the mean is definitely rising.

>Meat is good. It's healthy

Meat consumption (particularly red meat and processed meat) has been linked to higher rates of cancer, cardio-vascular disease, and overall mortality in a dose dependent manner. Furthermore, some vegetarian populations are extremely long-lived compared to the their omnivorous peers.

>it's very sustainable

Meat eating is not sustainable at our current technological level. Mass production of animals to be slaughtered for our consumption accounts for the majority of human-caused methane production, causes the majority of anti-biotic resistant disease, requires many times the energy expenditure that growing plant-based foods do and is an enormous threat to bio-diversity.

If all the world ate as much meat as Americans, it would be a disaster in terms of public health and the environment both.

>* it's got an incredible protein:volume ratio,

Protein != intrinsically good.

>and it's delicious.

Taste is subjective, but a lot of people would agree with you.

duaneb• 14 years ago

There's a big difference between eating meat and eating meat like the modern american does. Eating meat every day and being vegetarian are far from the only options.

Yaggo• 14 years ago

I'm not even going to mention the horrendous ethical issues of meat production industry, but sustainable?

"[...] current production levels of meat contribute between 14 and 22 percent of the 36 billion tons of "CO2-equivalent" greenhouse gases the world produces every year."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-greenho...

HorizonXP3• 14 years ago

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.

bendmorris3• 14 years ago

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.

luser0012• 14 years ago

> (I'm Hindu, so no beef or pork)

Minor nit: I don't think Hindus are prohibited from eating pork. AFAIK.

> And I would bet that my environmental impact isn't all that high.

Ironically this page claims that lamb is the worst of all meats wrt CO2 footprint.

http://ewg.org/meateatersguide/eat-smart/

exodust2• 14 years ago

There's nothing in this article about "not eating meat". The whole point is that meat can be grown in the lab, so you can eat it all you like then.

Meat comes from animals who have pretty miserable lives up until death in the modern factory farm. and then the environmental stress from feeding and transporting livestock is huge. And the protein health benefits comes with some warnings not to eat too much meat! Raw meat is dangerous too, causes much sickness annually. Left over chicken, oops don't touch that.

Tastes great though, so let's grow the world's meat in big vats and the cow can have a well earned vacation. Fair?

davidp• 14 years ago

Well,

> "... the hackathon’s goal is to come up with technological answer to the problems of meat supply, processing, distribution, health and ultimately consumption. One of big problems the group will tackle is how — simply put — to get people to eat less meat."

That said, it's true that meat production (beef at least) is a very inefficient use of arable land, in terms of nutrition per acre.

Curse their tasty hides.

guygurari• 14 years ago

Others have already answered, but to address the health issue allow me to mention a credible source [1], written by one of the leading experts on the relation between nutrition and health. The word 'vegan' appears only a couple of times in this book, but what it advises approaches veganism, based on purely decades-long research.

The research shows that more than a little meat is not healthy (unless you have no better alternative), and there is no harm in not eating meat at all.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Eat-Drink-Be-Healthy-Harvard/dp/074326...

naner• 14 years ago

There are a lot of motivations for discovering ways to synthetically produce meat. Cheaper and easier to make, higher yield, better nutrition, better taste, consistent quality, etc. I don't think the ethical considerations are the driving force.

tossacct5• 14 years ago

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.

tossacct5• 14 years ago

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

jicksta22• 14 years ago

I'm a highly technical "ethiveg" vegan and every vegan I've met have not only heard of in vitro meat but strongly supports it.

tossacct5• 14 years ago

I am not an ethiveg. I ask literally every ethiveg I meet if they have heard of in vitro meat, because asking them is an incredibly easy thing to do, and if they spread awareness and generate support for the science then the world will be a measurably better place. I am impressed that you ask literally every ethiveg you meet if they have heard of in vitro. Keep up the good work, improving the world is the responsibility of all those who can help improve the world.

dizzystar2• 14 years ago

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...

>>> 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• 14 years ago

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.

rflrob• 14 years ago

How does that mean choosing food on ethical fronds is crap? Anyone can adjust their food buying preferences based on knowledge about what went into bringing that food to your table (anything from the factory farming, mistreatment of labor, or fossil fuels used in transportation cost being oft-cited factors). It's impractical to be 100% involved in every kernel of corn in your corn flakes, but just because you can't be perfect doesn't mean you shouldn't try.

adrianhoward• 14 years ago

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.

Possibly it's a US/UK thing - but that's pretty much 100% the opposite of my experience.

tossacct5• 14 years ago

It makes me very happy to hear that there are parts of the world where my anecdotal experiences are not representative of the real statistics.

Note, I expressed that among technologically inclined ethivegs there was universal acceptance of the idea among those that I introduced it to, meaning that their hearts and minds still work...they just aren't hackers or engineers that see a problem and then try to fix it using whatever technology possible, extant or not :D.

RE luddites: there is a vast number of luddite ethivegs that reject any technology that they didn't create themselves - including metal, medicines, making paper, and etc. It can be a brutal life and I imagine it is only possible in some areas of the world. They also acknowledge that they only survive due to law enforcement protecting them with armaments that they do not allow themselves to use. The real crazies do all that and then refuse to use domesticated animals! Fruitarianism, eat your heart out :D.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism

dbecker3• 14 years ago

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.

stdbrouw3• 14 years ago

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

dbecker3• 14 years ago

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....

brasmasus• 14 years ago

>...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• 14 years ago

(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 :)

stdbrouw3• 14 years ago

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.

Mz• 14 years ago

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.

Hacking Meat: Can technology make us eat fewer animals?

Related Stories