Test Tube Meat — A Mockery of Nature

by Spence Cooper on 10/04/09 at 10:55 am

Two small test tubes in a test tube rack.
Image via Wikipedia

The idea of creating meat from a test tube by men in white lab coats didn’t start with PETA’s (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) publicity stunt of a $1 million Prize for the creation of “commercially viable” test-tube meat by 2012.

“The Dutch In Vitro Meat project,” writes Scientific American’s Brendan Borrell, “is the brainchild of businessman Willem van Eelen, now in his 80s, who nearly starved to death in a Japanese prison camp during World War II and came to believe that in vitromeat could solve world hunger. He later took classes in biology and consulted with researchers and companies over 25 years, culminating in a series of patents on in vitro meat production, which he filed in the late 1990s. In 2005 the Dutch government granted three universities and a Dutch meat processor owned by Smithfield Foods two million euros over four years to develop Eelen’s idea.”

The sad irony in PETA’s challenge is that despite PETA’s desire to eliminate the cruel wholesale slaughter of animals by creating meat in a test tube, the blood-like serum used as a medium to grow animal cells for test tube meat is made — “at least by American scientists — from calf fetuses”.

Beyond everyone’s natural gag reflex at glass tube-grown burgers, beyond all the scientific hype of reducing the environmental impact from growing livestock, feeding the world from only one cell, and reducing the carbon foot print, is man’s laughable arrogance in all this — arrogance epitomized by Vladimir Mironov, a cell biologist and anatomy professor at the Medical University for South Carolina. He said: “We want to create something better than natural meat.”

Better than natural? What’s better than natural — natural-like flavored meat? Talk about redefining reality. How do men convince themselves that what they create in test tubes is better than what took 3.5 billion years to evolve on its own — life.

The inevitable direction this lab created meat will take is clear: in time, test tube meat will replace real meat altogether, in the same way GM crops are slowly but surly replacing real crops. “As far as I know there is no genetically pure corn in the world because of pollen drift,” claims holistic farmer and author Joel Salatin. “Even if we could make [lab meat]…,” says, Joel, “how do we know that whatever we create is not going to become a technological master?”

We know who the technology master would be. We know based on the activities in the recent past — just take organic farming. The entire organic industry is under assault by mega corporate structures, and corrupt lawmakers alike.

Beyond the possible health risks, potential for corruption, and centralized corporate control of production associated with lab produced meat, something far more sinister looms: man’s continuing alienation from himself, nature, and the world around him.

Lou Bendrick with Grist writes: Josh Viertel, president of Slow Food USA, believes that problems in our food system have arisen because of a gap between people who grow food and people who eat food. “The problems with cruelty to animals are born of that gap. I see this…as a solution that just increases that gap. The root cause of the problem is that we’re too far away from the way our food is grown. We don’t have a connection to the people who grow it. We don’t understand the story behind it. This is a technology that’s just going to give more to companies and create a larger distance between us.”

There are, thank God, still influential people around that see the insanity in all this wacky scientific and corporate intervention in our food chain. Ex-hippies Ben and Jerry, the founders of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream, have launched a campaign to raise awareness of the government’s approval last year to allow meat and milk from cloned animals into the nation’s food supply. In case you didn’t know, the FDA has decided for us that meat and milk from cloned animals are safe for consumption. As part of their campaign, say Ben and Jerry, they’re calling for a system that will allow consumers to track animals cloned for food.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

  • Matt Bramanti
    "Better than natural? What’s better than natural — natural-like flavored meat? Talk about redefining reality. How do men convince themselves that what they create in test tubes is better than what took 3.5 billion years to evolve on its own — life."

    Because, in many cases, what we create artificially IS better than what nature provides. Earthquakes are natural. Fire hydrants are artificial. Which would you rather have on your street?

    I think you're focusing too narrowly on flavor. Will test-tube grown meat taste as good as a top-flight filet? Probably not. But what if we can lessen the resources used for low-grade meat for dog food and the like?

    "in time, test tube meat will replace real meat altogether, in the same way GM crops are slowly but surly replacing real crops. “As far as I know there is no genetically pure corn in the world because of pollen drift,” claims holistic farmer and author Joel Salatin."

    That's unlikely to happen. In GM corn farming, pollen can blow away and reproduce with non-GM crops in adjacent fields. It's difficult to see how DNA from test-tube meat could escape the tube, flee the lab and and mate with living cattle to create a hybrid.

    "Ex-hippies Ben and Jerry, the founders of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream, have launched a campaign to raise awareness of the government’s approval last year to allow meat and milk from cloned animals into the nation’s food supply."

    But before they did that, they sold their company to one of the multinational conglomerates you find so suspicious.
  • "Because, in many cases, what we create artificially IS better than what nature provides."

    No, what we create is DIFFERENT, not better than what nature provides. And this illustrates my point -- man's need to compare himself with nature in terms of which is better is absurd, ego driven, and actually quite poignant. Is a flower better than a cloud? Is Earth better than Mars? Are a planet's inhabitants better than the planet they inhabit?

    "Earthquakes are natural. Fire hydrants are artificial. Which would you rather have on your street?"

    See, this is what I mean about arrogance. In essence you're suggesting we replace earthquakes with fire hydrants to please man. Don't you see how preposterous it is to even entertain the idea. That just proves how out of touch man with his own surroundings. Earthquakes are a natural and necessary occurrence, a result of the tectonic shift of plates from pressure, a sudden release of energy triggered by the release of underground stress along fault lines. It's not Earth's job to adapt to man, man must adapt to Earth.

    "I think you're focusing too narrowly on flavor."

    My comment had nothing to do with "flavor". My comment was meant to ridicule man's burlesque-like side show -- his feeble attempt to imitate life.

    "It's difficult to see how DNA from test-tube meat could escape the tube, flee the lab and mate with living cattle to create a hybrid."

    Don't be (deliberately) naive. Hitler once said, "The victor will never be asked if he told the truth." With enough taste engineering, the consumer will never know "real" from in vitro meat and if you think, or expect the FDA to guarantee we know the difference, then you really are naive. Just look at their track record.

    "...they [B&J] sold their company to one of the multinational conglomerates."

    I know, disappointing. After "Yellow Brick Road" Elton John sold out too. He's still a great musician.

    Anyway, thanks for your comment, Matt.
  • Actually, a more apt question would be -- is a flower better than a ford, or football, or Andy Warhol art? LOL You get the idea.
  • Matt Bramanti
    No, what we create is DIFFERENT, not better than what nature provides.

    Why do you regard man as being outside nature? When a beaver builds a dam, it's "natural." Why is it unnatural when men do the same thing?

    See, this is what I mean about arrogance. In essence you’re suggesting we replace earthquakes with fire hydrants to please man. Don’t you see how preposterous it is to even entertain the idea.

    You're suggesting we fence in cows, slaughter them and eat them to please man. What's the difference?

    Don't get me wrong -- I'm no animal-rights activist. I enjoy beef, and I don't care how many cows die. I'm just pointing out that man routinely uses nature for his own ends, as do all other species.

    I don't see anything wrong with being better at it than other species.

    As for Hitler, he's not someone I look to for truth. Nor was he the victor, so I doubt the utility of that quotation.
  • I don't regard man as being outside nature, you do. “Because, in many cases," you said, "what we create artificially IS better than what nature provides.”

    "Natural" and "artificial" are diametric opposites.

    You'd be hard-pressed to find anything in my article (or in anything I've ever written) that suggests we fence in cows, slaughter them and eat them. As for Hitler, we learn from our enemies -- at least some us do.
  • Natural is not necessarily good:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

    Farming animals (particularly factory farming) is hardly 'natural' anyway.

    In vitro meat offers the possibility of a world without the slaughterhouse. Obviously the saftey of in vitro meat is important but theres no obvious reason that it couldn't be made as safely or more safely than the safest meat from the carcass.

    Your other arguments strike me as being trivial when set alongside the potential reduction in animal death/cruelty that in vitro meat would bring.
  • Spiik
    This is absolutely ridicules. Do you actually want to keep the slaughter houses open? Do you think of matter of taste will be relevant when discussing environmental problems?

    This is the kind of ignorant conservatism that keeps us from creating a better world.
blog comments powered by Disqus