Lab grown meat? No thanks!

Yeah, none for me thanks! It's worse than Soylent Green.

https://dailyheadlines.net/the-truth-abo...08-7%2011a

Absolutely DISGUSTING.

I do not want lab grown meat, either. I like my meat straight from an animal.

The truth, however, is that the bodies of animals and humans, are incredibly complex chemical factories. The beef steak or chicken you consume is the result of dozens of chemical reactions that take place constantly with the body. The scientists in the labs are just trying to recreate these reactions in vitro rather than in vivo. Depending upon how these reactions take place, the resulting product can be either disgusting or better. than the original. It all depends upon the agenda of those doing the research. If the agenda is strictly to make a profit, then buyer beware.

While I certainly don't disagree with Brian's lack of desire to try lab grown meat, I do take issue with the very political article he referenced to make his point.  We have very few rules here at DFS but this is number 1: "No discussion of religion, politics, or weapons.  Period." (emphasis mine)

Here is an article that may be a bit more balanced but, ultimately, each person must make his own informed decision:

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-la...9786524119

Where I do agree with Brian is that I doubt that I'd be first in line to try it.  I have no idea whether it is good or bad and I'm not saying that I would never try it but I would need more convincing.

Or is it? 

Freddy, I posted it for the science and nothing else. I apologize if I didn't see things. I just pass right over the garbage that makes up our brave new world today.

I'll still pass on it. My trust level is rock bottom and was long before the meat that just keeps on growing endlessly.

Freddy, I posted it for the science and nothing else. I apologize if I didn't see things. I just pass right over the garbage that makes up our brave new world today.

I'll still pass on it. My trust level is rock bottom and was long before the meat that just keeps on growing endlessly.

This is exactly where I am going to need more convincing.  I'm not saying it's inherently wrong but I'm going to have to see and hear more before I'm convinced of its safety.  On the flip (positive) side for me is a "what if"; that is, what if this proves even safer than meat from the animal in that food contamination could be reduced or things like 'mad cow disease' could be eliminated but the lab grown meat tasted exactly like the original.  I'm guessing we're a long way from that so I can wait.  Also, what about bone-in meat.  For example I like short ribs with the bone in that cut of meat rather than the boneless variety.  It could just be me but I think the bone-in variety cooks better and tends to be more tender when cooked.  All of this is why I'm not 100% opposed but I'm still going to need convincing that this is the right direction to go for meat eaters.

Freddy, I posted it for the science and nothing else. ...

I didn't see any science on that page, only click-bait and moral panic.

I will reserve judgement about lab-grown meat until I actually try some. (Which may be quite a while yet.) It's not much different than using margarine as a butter substitute.

Freddy, I posted it for the science and nothing else. ...

I didn't see any science on that page, only click-bait and moral panic.

I will reserve judgement about lab-grown meat until I actually try some. (Which may be quite a while yet.) It's not much different than using margarine as a butter substitute.

That is exactly what I meant about depending upon the agenda of the scientists.

Margarine was first invented in France during the Franco-Prussian war when Napoleon was looking for a less expensive alternative to butter. They mixed beef tallow with milk to produce a butter substitute, but at least it was similar to butter. They should have saved the beef tallow for making shaving soap. In the USA, butter was rationed during WWII and  demand for margarine increased during this period.

In the early 20th century, the process of hydrogenating vegetable oils was developed to produce trans-fats. These fats are worse for our diet than the saturated fats found in butter. The original margarine was white, similar to lard rather than yellow like butter. Thus, the manufacturers started adding yellow dye to the margarine to make it appear more like butter. This new factory made substitute was marketed as "healthful, nutritious, and delicious" and less expensive than butter. Since their agenda was to sell as much of this product as possible at a profit, they did not investigate the potential health consequences of partially-hydrogenated vegetable oils  (PFOs). The harmful effects of trans fats were not discovered until 1990, more than 85 years after PFOs were introduced to the food chain. Furthermore, the yellow dye once used to color margarine has since proved to be carcinogenic and has been removed from the market. Margarine was a product introduced to maximize the profits of the big food companies, not to produce a product that was "healthful, nutritious, and delicious", even if it was marketed in that manner.

Freddy, I posted it for the science and nothing else. ...

I didn't see any science on that page, only click-bait and moral panic.

I will reserve judgement about lab-grown meat until I actually try some. (Which may be quite a while yet.) It's not much different than using margarine as a butter substitute.

John, unless it's a recipe or cooking technique I don't spoon feed anyone. My goal is always to give folks enough info so that they do the research themselves and make up their own mind. Why? Because we all have our own bodies and I just don't care what others do with theirs as long as they don't get blood on me or anything similar. Don't misunderstand, I'll do my best for others but after that it's up to them. The person doing the research would be adding the science. Hopefully more than, "Trust us, it's not cancer, we renamed it.". But I won't do the research for them.