Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Space Meat Coming to your Kitchen 854

jdray writes "Australia's GizMag is running an article about the industrialization of a NASA-tested concept for artificially creating meat. The article mentions meat makers as home appliances. Carne-Matic aside, this sounds like a mixed blessing, and brings about visions of some sterile, Spandex-jumpsuit future where food production is controlled by some central authority, and real, hoof-grown meat is a rare delicacy. Remember, Soylent Green is people!" You can read a curiously familiar Slashdot story from a month ago too.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Space Meat Coming to your Kitchen

Comments Filter:
  • by RobertB-DC ( 622190 ) * on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @10:15AM (#13338753) Homepage Journal
    For the benefit of my fellow Slashdotters, here is a place to whine about dupe articles. To wit:

    Large Scale Production of Artificial Meat
    Posted by timothy on Wed Jul 06, '05 02:27 PM
    from the vat-meat-cometh dept.
    http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/0 6/1737228&tid=191&tid=14 [slashdot.org]

    Fraser Cain writes "Scientists at the University of Maryland think that large quantities of artificial meat (link: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/artificial _meat_grown.html [universetoday.com]) could be produced to supply the world with animal-free meat products, like chickenless nuggets. This is based on experiments for NASA (link: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/03/22/fish .food/index.html [cnn.com]), that created small amounts of fish protein cultured from single cells. According to the researchers, larger quantities could be grown in thin sheets and then stacked up to create thickness. Of course, they need to figure out a way to exercise it to make it taste like regular meat."
  • why the distopia? (Score:5, Informative)

    by RayBender ( 525745 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @10:24AM (#13338854) Homepage
    this sounds like a mixed blessing, and brings about visions of some sterile, Spandex-jumpsuit future where food production is controlled by some central authority, and real, hoof-grown meat is a rare delicacy

    Jeez, lighten up. There are plenty of technologically-induced distopias to worry about. This one ranks near the bottom of the list. First of all, food is pretty much already controlled by a central authority (ADM anyone?). Besides, have you ever been inside an abattoir, or within 5 miles of an industrial hog farm? The idea of eating meat without killing cows (and mad cow disease!) seems pretty good to me.

    If you absolutely must freak about technology, worry about what happens when your health insurance company can do genetic screening on you. The go watch GATTACA.

  • by Washizu ( 220337 ) <bengarvey@co m c a s t . net> on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @10:43AM (#13339059) Homepage
    "Too many restaurants refuse to cook meat anything under "medium""

    Any place will cook your steak rare. It's safe to eat rare steaks because there isn't any bacteria inside the meat. It's on the outside, and that gets cooked.

    Ground beef isn't safe to eat rare because bacteria is all over it and must be cooked off.

  • by doconnor ( 134648 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @10:45AM (#13339078) Homepage
    There are substantial environment benefits to making meat and other foods in the lab. Farming causes more environment distruction then any other industry. While some industries pollute the land, the damage can be reduced with better technology.

    Farming converts vast tracts onto a monoculture completely replacing the natural environment. North America used to have vast amounts of grasslands and millions of Bison. Now the whole area is covered with farms and people are only dimly aware that there was ever anything else there before.

    Most species are made extinct by habitat distruction and most habitat distruction is mostly caused by farming.
  • Geez. (Score:3, Informative)

    by eigerface ( 526490 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @10:48AM (#13339115)
    You can read a curiously familiar Slashdot story from a month ago too.

    I thought that was your sig.

  • by greenplato ( 23083 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @11:00AM (#13339204)

    Our tastes have dictate that we cook meat; texture, flavor and temperature are enhanced by many of our tried and trued cooking methods. We have come to like cooked foods better, but not because raw (or rare) meats will kill you. The current problem that the grandparent post complains about doesn't have to do with cooking the meat, but cooking the bacteria on the meat and the parasites in the meat. Meats are now overcooked (to the tastes of some) to make sure that we are not being served bacteria.

    Where do these hazards come from? Some have always been there, like trichinosis [wikipedia.org] in pigs. Some are new, like the increasing amount of E. coli [ku.edu] on our beef. Why are we getting more bacteria on our beef? Modern slaughterhouses run their line speeds [washingtonpost.com] at rates that are too fast for the meat packers to assure that they aren't cutting into the intestines of the cows. Every time they do so, more bacteria enters our beef supply

    Why not just walk up to a cow and take a bite out of their shoulder? It amounts to the same thing.

    Actually, it's worse than that. Eating uncooked hamburger is the same as walking up to a cow and taking a big bite out of its rectum. Yes you get some meat, but you also get some "organ meat" and a whole raft of E. coli. Yum!

  • All beef patties. (Score:3, Informative)

    by uberdave ( 526529 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @11:00AM (#13339207) Homepage
    Of course they're All Beef Patties. They come from the All Beef company after all.
  • by Pxtl ( 151020 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @11:00AM (#13339209) Homepage
    Well, burgers are different from steaks. Steaks can be cooked medium, because diseases tend to reside on the outside of the meat. Burgers, on the other hand, have had the outsides jumbled into the interior. Plus, because of longer shipping distances due to factory farming, meat is often less fresh than it used to be. As such, diseases have more time to fester.

    So really, making a medium-rare burger is a lot more risk than you may think. Personally, I think if you want something like that, I'd go for a steak.
  • Re:Skewed statistics (Score:5, Informative)

    by greenplato ( 23083 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @11:20AM (#13339407)

    First, fresh meat is unlikely to contain food-bourne illnesses if handled properly; after all the animal was alive and not dying of salmonilla not too long ago.

    Not true. You can count on pork to contain trichinella. Also, you can count on the outside of chicken to be contaminated with salmonella, and E. coli will surely be found on the outside of steak and on the inside of ground beef. This is a fact of life now because of the methods used by meatpackers. If you buy your meat from anyone but a skilled independent butcher (a vanishing trade), not from your grocery store or not slaughtered or processed in a meatpacking plant, your meat will be dangerous to you uncooked.

    Second, most food-bourne illnesses that you get from raw food are non-lethal unless you are unhealthy for other reasons.

    Non-lethal cramping, diarrhea, are vomiting are fine with me! Where do I sign up?

  • by Kuscheltier ( 752042 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @11:25AM (#13339462)
    It's safe to eat rare steaks because there isn't any bacteria inside the meat. It's on the outside, and that gets cooked.

    Sorry but this just isn't true.

    Meat can surely contain bacteria or the likes. Especially wild animals are likely to be infected or be inhabitet by parasites. Though, i guess that most of the meat being sold is probably more likely to be harmless.
  • by Travelsonic ( 870859 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @11:45AM (#13339657) Journal
    Much of the horrific videos (read: "Propaganda" for you meat-eating folk)

    Not to start a war, but I think the reason it is called propaganda is becauase they purposely choose only the bloody footage, sometimes even manipulating footage (admitted to by Ingrid Newkirk of PETA once), and putting it in a way where it looks like that's all that happens there, yeah it's a propogatic method. They should do what real undercover people do - film, and show the footage uncut, unmanipulated, unedited, that way people will put more trust in the already trust-loosing PETA (especially after the latest campaign they started, which got judged as racist in New Haven, CT.

  • by bentcd ( 690786 ) <bcd@pvv.org> on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @11:56AM (#13339745) Homepage
    It is unlikely that man would adopt cooking just for the (alledged) taste benefits. More likely, we started cooking meat because cooked meat can be chewn and swallowed in mere minutes whileas raw meat is hell on your jaw muscles and takes forever to chew. It was a drastic economization of eating and so caught on quite rapidly.
    Any health benefits are probably just happy side effects as they would have been very difficult for primitive man to recognize given the poor knowledge of statistics and lack of health records at the time.
  • by Tony Hoyle ( 11698 ) <tmh@nodomain.org> on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @12:02PM (#13339807) Homepage
    bzzt.

    He didn't do it for a british telecom ad. It was a Pink Floyd song (actually about relationships) which BT then used as an advert.
  • Re:i'll second that (Score:3, Informative)

    by MemeRot ( 80975 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @12:09PM (#13339884) Homepage Journal
    There are many health issues related to farm raised meat. Here's one: 80% of antibiotics used in America are used on livestock. Do you really want to be consuming low levels of antibiotics on a constant basis? These are a definite contributor to anti-biotic resistant strains.

    As far as organic vegetables, it's largely about the environmental impact, i.e. you don't get the huge nitrogen fertilizer run-off into the water supply. Also, you know that you're not eating genetically modified food. The genetically modified foods out today are pretty primitive and offer no benefits to those who eat them. The big example is the Roundup Ready varieties of plants. These have been modified for one purpose - to allow the plants to withstand huge amounts of pesticide sprayed on the crops. Do you think pesticides wash off? They can be found inside the plant up to several months after the application, since the plants just soaking up liquids.

    Future gm crops get pretty weird, like putting fish 'antifreeze' genes in tomatoes to let them grow longer into the season. Good idea? Who knows? Will these genes spread into the weeds around the cropland, allowing them to become more noxious? Again, who knows? I do know the roundup ready genes have spread in the wild: Monsanto actually sued a GM-free farmer when his neighbor's GM crop contaminated his GM-free crop (http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=1289 [corpwatch.org]).
  • by MynockGuano ( 164259 ) <hyperactiveChipm ... AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @12:13PM (#13339948)
    I think we have just witnessed the greatest Slashdot comment in history.
  • by kilodelta ( 843627 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @12:22PM (#13340040) Homepage
    Part of living in modern society is accepting the fact that we'd rather not see how our food is processed.

    For example - I'm surprised you didn't metion hot dogs. The process is pretty disgusting but they taste pretty good so its a wash as to the disgust factor.

    Same is true of sausage. It is basically the bits of animal that you normally wouldn't use. Of course they grind it up and throw some fennel and other spices in.

    But does that stop me from eating those items on occasion? Hell no.

    I'm beyond the squeamish part of life. Once you realize that life is dirty, slimy and disgusting you'll find its much easier to get along in this world.
  • Anybody read.... (Score:2, Informative)

    by magarj ( 655710 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @12:30PM (#13340109)
    Food of the Gods, by Arthur C. Clark.. Brings Soylent Green to a whole new level.
  • by Ranger ( 1783 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @12:34PM (#13340154) Homepage
    where food production is controlled by some central authority, and real, hoof-grown meat is a rare delicacy.

    Since when is dog meat hoof-grown?

    Speaking of space meat, have you read Terry Bisson's excellent short story"They're Made Out of Meat"? [terrybisson.com]

    "Remember, today is Soylent Yellow Day!"
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @12:47PM (#13340297)
    For those who don't realise you're joking, it actually stands for "SPiced hAM" (at least, it replaced "Hormel Spiced Ham", the original name of the product.) There's some evidence there was once an official move to bacronym the name as "Shoulder of Pork And haM", but that doesn't make a lot of sense.

    More info is here [wikipedia.org], naturally.

  • by blincoln ( 592401 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @01:22PM (#13340676) Homepage Journal
    Just out of curiosity, do you manage to avoid jello, make-up of any kind (for you or your spouse), shoes, fabrics, etc.?

    I guess I can understand "doing the best you can," but it sometimes seems as though one can't be completely unhypocritically vegan and still live in the world.

    I was vegan for three years. It's not at all hard to avoid animal products anymore.

    Pangea [veganstore.com] has replacements for just about every kind of food, including Jello.

    There are many makeup companies that make products without animal ingredients or testing. Not all of them are little speciality brands either - MAC is acceptable to vegans, and they're in every halfway-decent department store.

    Vegetarian Shoes [vegetarian-shoes.co.uk] has all-vegan footwear, and if you like buckles and tall boots like me, Pennangalan Dreams [pennangalan.co.uk] can get most of their styles in synthetic material.

    The only fabrics I'm aware of that are animal-based are wool and silk. I have a suit from Pangea made from synthetics that looks better and is more comfortable than anything I've worn made of wool.

    I gave it up in the end because I wasn't getting something I needed in my diet, but I still avoid unnecessary animal products.
  • Re:Skewed statistics (Score:2, Informative)

    by Red Flayer ( 890720 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @01:35PM (#13340790) Journal
    Actually, most commercially available pork nowadays is not infected with Trichinella.

    While the layout on it is pretty gaudy, here's a fact sheet from the meatman:
    http://www.askthemeatman.com/pork_Trichinosis.htm [askthemeatman.com]

    From the site:
    Pork (deer and bear are also targets) used to get infected with Trichinae via their diet of uncooked meats, either foraged or scraps. Now the US requires that even garbage must be cooked before using as feed for commercial hog stock.

    There's always the question of whether the regulations are being followed, however -- recent articles have been published re: BSE-prevention regulations not being followed.

    and
    "Interestingly enough, trichinae is not found worldwide. Southeast Asia and Europe have no problems with the parasite, allowing the consumption of raw pork without the risk of health problems."

    Too bad that there's another swine infection problem coming along in Asia:
    http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/08/03/china.pigdise ase.ap/index.html [cnn.com]

    Also, please not the qualifier in the parent:"If handled properly."

    The only way to guarantee that your meat is handled properly is to do it yourself.

    Umm... let me rephrase that... Is to raise, butcher, and process the meat yourself, after a thorough education in the correct methods.

    And to take that one step further, if you are ethically unable to butcher your own meat, you really shouldn't be eating it at all... or you're just deceiving yourself.
  • Re:Skewed statistics (Score:3, Informative)

    by Communomancer ( 8024 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @02:57PM (#13341532)
    Actually, not entirely true, either. While it's true that raw chicken is quite likely to make you sick with salmonella, and I'm not aware of what the E. coli statistics are for steaks, you most certainly cannot "count on pork to contain trichinella".

    Source: The USDA
    http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/trichinae/docs/fact_s heet.htm [usda.gov]

    Today, the trichinae issue is a question of perception versus reality. Dramatic declines in prevalence in pigs and the extremely low numbers of cases in humans are largely unrecognized by domestic consumers who still raise questions about "worms in pork".

    And if you live in Canada, you're in even more luck, since most parts of Canada have been certified by the OIE as trichinae-free.
  • by Jeremi ( 14640 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @09:23PM (#13344305) Homepage
    I want to know why it's ethical to kill plants, but not ethical to kill animals.


    The argument is that animals have thoughts and feelings, whereas plants don't. Therefore by killing an animal you are causing pain (both to it and to the other animals acquainted with it), whereas a plant, being mindless, cannot feel any pain.

The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh

Working...