Across the Nation, Lawmakers Aim To Ban Lab-Grown Meat (insideclimatenews.org) 428
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Inside Climate News: Months in jail and thousands of dollars in fines and legal fees -- those are the consequences Alabamians and Arizonans could soon face for selling cell-cultured meat products that could cut into the profits of ranchers, farmers and meatpackers in each state. State legislators from Florida to Arizona are seeking to ban meat grown from animal cells in labs, citing a "war on our ranching" and a need to protect the agriculture industry from efforts to reduce the consumption of animal protein, thereby reducing the high volume of climate-warming methane emissions the sector emits. Agriculture accounts for about 11 percent of the country's greenhouse gas emissions, according to federal data, with livestock such as cattle making up a quarter of those emissions, predominantly from their burps, which release methane -- a potent greenhouse gas that's roughly 80 times more effective at warming the atmosphere than carbon dioxide over 20 years. Globally, agriculture accounts for about 37 percent of methane emissions.
For years, climate activists have been calling for more scrutiny and regulation of emissions from the agricultural sector and for nations to reduce their consumption of meat and dairy products due to their climate impacts. Last year, over 150 countries pledged to voluntarily cut emissions from food and agriculture at the United Nations' annual climate summit. But the industry has avoided increased regulation and pushed back against efforts to decrease the consumption of meat, with help from local and state governments across the U.S.
Bills in Alabama, Arizona, Florida and Tennessee are just the latest legislation passed in statehouses across the U.S. that have targeted cell-cultured meat, which is produced by taking a sample of an animal's muscle cells and growing them into edible products in a lab. Sixteen states -- Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Wyoming -- have passed laws addressing the use of the word "meat" in such products' packaging, according to the National Agricultural Law Center at the University of Arkansas, with some prohibiting cell-cultured, plant-based or insect-based food products from being labeled as meat.
For years, climate activists have been calling for more scrutiny and regulation of emissions from the agricultural sector and for nations to reduce their consumption of meat and dairy products due to their climate impacts. Last year, over 150 countries pledged to voluntarily cut emissions from food and agriculture at the United Nations' annual climate summit. But the industry has avoided increased regulation and pushed back against efforts to decrease the consumption of meat, with help from local and state governments across the U.S.
Bills in Alabama, Arizona, Florida and Tennessee are just the latest legislation passed in statehouses across the U.S. that have targeted cell-cultured meat, which is produced by taking a sample of an animal's muscle cells and growing them into edible products in a lab. Sixteen states -- Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Wyoming -- have passed laws addressing the use of the word "meat" in such products' packaging, according to the National Agricultural Law Center at the University of Arkansas, with some prohibiting cell-cultured, plant-based or insect-based food products from being labeled as meat.
Woohoo! (Score:2)
More for me!
Seriously - it's not here, yet. Well, a few pounds in a few places. But when the heck are they going to scale up?
Re:Woohoo! (Score:4, Insightful)
But when the heck are they going to scale up?
Vat-meat will scale up when they figure out how to make it affordable.
It is currently heck-a expensive.
Most vegans I know have no interest in vat-meat. They eat plant-based "meat" if they eat fake meat at all.
For current meateaters, they will only switch en mass if the vat-meat is cheaper.
Re: (Score:2)
For current meateaters, they will only switch en mass if the vat-meat is cheaper.
Do not forget the taste. Supermarket meat coming from real animals already is lacking in taste (compare it to farm meat), supermarket vat-meat... I really have doubts about its taste quality.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
For current meateaters, they will only switch en mass if the vat-meat is cheaper.
Do not forget the taste.
Despair? [youtube.com]
(From Better Off Ted [wikipedia.org], (S1E2) Heroes [fandom.com].)
Re:Woohoo! (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, I do and many many more do....not everyone eats out all the time.
I've posted numerous times how to save money and eat healthier by cooking your own food from scratch, and by shopping the outer perimeter of the grocery store thus avoiding the processes crap "food" in the center aisles.
For instance...yesterday I played with a new air fryer I bought...lunch was simple and quick. A boneless skinless salmon filet I got from Costco and portioned out, along with fresh asparagus I'd tossed in olive oil and creole seasonings (creole seasoning lightly on the fish too.
8 minutes in the air fryer....great lunch...simple and fast.
I did a NY strip steak reverse seared in oven then stovetop on carbon steel pan to put a crust on it....I did Brussels sprouts tossed in a balsamic vinaigrette and cooked in the air fryer.
Granted the proteins here were a bit of a splurge....just trying to illustrate than it is easy and quick to cook great food at home.
I would venture to guess most people out there still fix most of their meals at home...
Re:Woohoo! (Score:4, Informative)
That is NOT the case at all!
It is very easy to buy smartly and cook from scratch at home cheaper and healthier than eating out.
I do it every week...
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it very much is the case. Though even more sadly things are beginning to shift again... in the direction of restaurants doubling their prices.
A prime ribeye in a restaurant, aprox $15-25/plate. The cost of prime ribeye at your local butcher about $25-35/lb. What I pay? About $6/lb, but that is because I wait for christmas and new years when stores put ribeye roasts out as loss leaders and watching for other flash sales, I use the other loss leader items like hams to reach the minimum purchase and hit m
Re: (Score:3)
They must be getting pretty close if it's getting banned.
Re:Woohoo! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because politicians would never do something stupid like rush to ban something - purely to appease industry lobbyists or keep their constituents placated with culture wars - despite the lack of any real threat.
Oh, they would be. Can't say how successful they will be, as this time of year is always filled with left and right media hyperventilating about proposed legislation that has little to no chance of passing. Virtua signaling proposals from both sides are a time honored tradition.
I am more concerned about a variety of bills from the left I foresee coming to 'encourage' the masses. Similar to electric cars how about government subsidies for vat grown meat along with staged dates for mandatory percentages o
Re: (Score:3)
You think voters pick our own government? How naive. Politicians of all stripes have been picking their voters since the first congressional maps were drawn.
Re: (Score:2)
Either that or they want to ban it before they get close enough that people go "hmm... well, it tastes the same, costs the same but for this animals don't have to be raised and die, and that's better for the environment and less cruel..."
Remember, people are very animal-loving and eco-friendly when it doesn't cut into their comfort or wallet.
Streisand effect, of sorts (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want to sell sneakers, remember that Republicans buy sneakers too. So best not to try to attach a political valence to tour product.
Similarly, there'd probably be a lot more liberals who have a gun in the house if the NRA hadn't attached itself to the Republicans so tightly.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you want to sell sneakers, remember that Republicans buy sneakers too. So best not to try to attach a political valence to tour product.
Not sure why your post is rated a "0" (zero, when I replied to it) since it sounds like one of the most sensible and logical things I have read on /. lately.
Oh wait ... now I know why it has been downvoted ... because it sounds sensible and logical ... and this is /. where reality is suspended into perpetuity.
Re:Streisand effect, of sorts (Score:4, Informative)
Similarly, there'd probably be a lot more liberals who have a gun in the house if the NRA hadn't attached itself to the Republicans so tightly.
Lots of liberals own guns. They just don't make gun ownership their entire personality. Let's not forget the last time a minority attempted to arm itself to deter crimes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
republicans cancelled open carry as soon as black people started doing it, by Ronald Reagan no less.
Re:Streisand effect, of sorts (Score:4, Funny)
I own a can opener. Owning a can opener therefore is the core of my entire personality.
You will take my can opener away over my dead can of spaghettioes!
Re: (Score:3)
Why do you think liberals don't own guns? Just because we don't wield them as if we have to prove we have some right to them doesn't mean we don't have them.
We just don't turn them into some weird kind of fetish. It's merely a tool to us.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are more guns than people in this country, guns are everywhere, so who is running around brandishing guns?
I live in a constitutional carry state with -very- lax gun ownership laws. I've -never- seen a single gun outside a store or shooting range. Ever.
Re: (Score:3)
A note on changing times: at age 11 I lived in orange grove California. My 13 year old friend and I openly carried .22 rifles (his, I have never owned guns) to walk to the foothills and plink at cans and rabbits, sometimes pretending that they were Soviets. Fortunately my aim was too poor to hit a rabbit. I did, however, mow the lawn into an effigy of Khrushchev then finish the job by mowing off the head.
The local liquor store carried ammunition. I bought some as a birthday present, cleared with no more
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When we see the US congress stalling because Trump ordered it to stall. Yeah. it really seems that Every Republican is a Trump nutter..
Re: (Score:3)
Of course. Every Republican is a Trump nutter.. How easy it is to distill the other side to a simple slur.
You sound like a RINO. Sad.
Re: (Score:3)
Whoosh.
Re:Streisand effect, of sorts (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hard to argue against saying that Trump and the Republican Party are one and the same these days. He's the presumptive nominee, he just installed all his own people (including his daughter-in-law) at the RNC. There are hardly any elected officials that will say a word against him, and most of those are eyeing retirement. (In contrast to Biden, who has plenty of fellow party members speaking up.) In following polls, most self-described Republicans would vote for Trump even if he's a convicted felon come November. What's the GOP party platform? Whatever Trump wants on a given day. Who's going to be the Republican nominee for this or that office? Whoever most slavishly kisses his ass or parrots his positions.
There are plenty of people who call themselves Republicans and don't support Trump - Nikki Haley, for instance - but they are a shrinking minority, out of power, and have little control of what "Republican" means these days. They may identify as Republican, but most simply haven't come to grips with the fact that their party has left them.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course. Every Republican is a Trump nutter.. How easy it is to distill the other side to a simple slur. Do you feel like a big man now?
Well ... they are now. The fact that even republican politicians are quitting their own office should give you reason to think that anyone who isn't a Trump nutter has left the party by now. It is after all the party's singular policy: I am Trump your lord, you shall have no other concerns other than what I tell you.
Hmmm... proposed laws against competition. (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, throw the free market on top of the list of freedom-related virtues Americans claim to love but actively work against.
From the article:
“Lab-grown meat or whatever you want to call it—we’re not sure all of the long-term problems with that,” he said.
Except that we already know much of the long-term problems associated with the farming and meat industries, and they aren't good.
“And it does compete with our farming industry.”
Well, at least that's an honest objection. "Don't take my money." I respect that.
Re: (Score:2)
If the lab meat can't compete because it tastes bad, why expand government bureaucracy by banning it?
BTW, a lot of the meat currently being sold in supermarkets is injected with a significant percentage of salty water. They still get to market it as "meat".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're missing the point. Labeling is a secondary issue. The proposals are to make it illegal to sell.
Ban or a labeling issue? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ban or a labeling issue? (Score:5, Informative)
It's both. It's convoluted, but it seems some states have labeling rules, and some are proposing the complete bans.
Re: (Score:2)
A state can't just ban a product without a good reason. Then again, it's easy to invent stupid reasons that take courts a decade or more to clean up.
If it is just a labeling issue, then call it "maet" or "meet" or "beaf" or "prok" or "chickin" etc. Most consumers won't notice, if the packaging features a hunk or floozy.
Re: (Score:3)
A state can't just ban a product without a good reason. Then again, it's easy to invent stupid reasons that take courts a decade or more to clean up.
If it is just a labeling issue, then call it "maet" or "meet" or "beaf" or "prok" or "chickin" etc. Most consumers won't notice, if the packaging features a hunk or floozy.
Well to be fair it is Alabama we're talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
They can ban it by claiming it's unhealthy. All they have to do is inject a mouse with like 10 gallons of it and say "oh look it got Myocarditis!!"
Re: (Score:2)
A state can't just ban a product without a good reason.
The purpose of having a "reason" is to get something past legislators. That is all. The reason does not need to be good for something to be a law.
Re: (Score:3)
More to the point, the Rs think they have found a molehill they can jack up to a Campaign Issue of Mythic Proportions: See people, those naughty "woke" liberals are now coming for your MEAT...so FIGHT like hell to preserve your way of life...it is what Jesus would do.
Nothing promotes the Free market (Score:5, Insightful)
Like a republican.
Re:Nothing promotes the Free market (Score:4, Funny)
I was worried, because there were not enough government bureaucrats between me and my grocer. Fortunately, Republicans will fix the glitch!
Re: (Score:2)
or maybe in this case they're right to ban frankenmeat that tastes bad. That's right, honest people say it tastes bad.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
or maybe in this case they're right to ban frankenmeat that tastes bad. That's right, honest people say it tastes bad.
Or, you know, you could let people decide for themselves what they want to buy. If it tastes bad, they won't buy it. Or if they want to buy it anyway, why should government tell them not to?
I have no problem with requiring cultured meat to be labeled as such. Actually, it would be good if normal meat had better labeling, too, so when we buy it we can know if it was free-range, factory-farmed, hormone-boosted, or what. Letting people know exactly what they're buying is good. Telling them what they're allow
Re: (Score:2)
Or, you know, you could let people decide for themselves what they want to buy. If it tastes bad, they won't buy it. Or if they want to buy it anyway, why should government tell them not to?
This is, of course, not how elected governments work. The defining characteristic of politicians is an ability to get elected. To get elected, it helps to be visible (like creating news by drafting ineffective legislation). It also helps to present the proper tribal signifiers ("Vote for me! I'm on your side, ranchers and other reactionaries!").
World leaders actually managed to get together and do something about acid rain and the destruction of the ozone layer. Other than those examples, as far as I can te
Re: (Score:2)
Now do alcohol.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
>>It's unhealthy, we need to protect people from bad food...
So, we are outlawing:
All fast food
All ultra-processed foods
All pesticides sprayed on fruits and vegetables
HFCS and their ilk.
Am I understanding you properly?
Re: (Score:3)
Well I think fish tastes bad, so let's ban fish.
Re: (Score:2)
what a wildly hypocritical post.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes. The problem is these are the not republicans. Republicans would have integrity and honor and would have welcomed a free market. These people are the imposters that took over the republican party but have none of its values.
If belching was the concern.... (Score:3)
... wouldn't it be easier to just breed cows that belched less? Or altered their diets to cause less gas or an additive to reduce gas?
To me, that sounds a lot less difficult that culturing meat, especially marbled meat, or meat with ribs.
Cuz I love me sum ribs.
Re: (Score:2)
... wouldn't it be easier to just breed cows that belched less?
Even better, they're breeding gut bacteria that generate less methane for the cows to burp.
Or altered their diets to cause less gas or an additive to reduce gas?
Adding seaweed to the cattle feed seems to work.
To me, that sounds a lot less difficult than culturing meat
We can do both—cultured meat for those who want it and less belching for everyone else.
Re:If belching was the concern.... (Score:4, Informative)
Adding seaweed to the cattle feed seems to work.
The Guardian [theguardian.com]
University of New Hampshire [unh.edu]
US National Library of Medicine [nih.gov]
Still doesn't address other problems with meat and dairy: animal cruelty, poo disposal, groundwater contamination, bad smells, land usage, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They did that but then competing economies of scale happened: Why buy climate-friendly feed when the hay down the road is 20% cheaper?
The world's politicians worked on the whaling industry, leaded fuel, ozone depletion and acid rain. But everything produces CO2 or CH4 (methane), so everyone has something to lose and politicians aren't going anywhere near that fight.
As always, wait long enough and these problems solve themselves: The cows will die of heat-exhaustion, or climate change will bring a new
Re: (Score:2)
... wouldn't it be easier to just breed cows that belched less? Or altered their diets to cause less gas or an additive to reduce gas?
Sounds easy. Yet biologists have been working on that problem now for decades with only minor marginal improvements.
Farm Lobby (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that this is being driven by the farm lobby, who are afraid of the competition. The beef and chicken farmers could find themselves out of business.
More likely one day people will be forced to eat the gruel rather than the animals.
Why do (Score:2)
republicans hate the free market? If this stuff tastes bad then why would ranchers need to be propped up via the heavy hand of government?
Re:Why do (Score:4, Informative)
Modern republicans want to sic the government on everything. Imagine Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao were having a big gay orgy at a farm and a fat pig jumped in the bed with them. OK, now hold that mental image and imagine that through some weird genetic quirk a baby got made .. that's what the republican party is.
Re: (Score:3)
Modern Republicans have stopped being republicans. They are just imposters that claim to be conservatives but have none of their values. Honor, integrity, free market? No, they do not want those.
Banning Competition (Score:5, Insightful)
I could understand banning selling this stuff for deceptive labelling. Or banning it until any health concerns had been addressed. But banning it explicitly because it competes with the old way of doing business seems ridiculous and un-American. It's like banning cars, not because they're dangerous, but because they're going to put horses and buggies out of business.
And, this is state-based legislation; aren't they just begging to have the lab-grown meat producers go elsewhere?
Re:Banning Competition (Score:5, Interesting)
But banning it explicitly because it competes with the old way of doing business seems ridiculous and un-American.
It's very American. The movie industry tried that with VHS, for example. The music industry with mp3s and streaming. And with Trump and MAGA, it's now a theme.
Re: (Score:2)
But banning it explicitly because it competes with the old way of doing business seems ridiculous and un-American.
I'm sorry what? How is this un-American? America is a country internationally known for laws and policy passed in favour of corporate interests. It's virtually a meme at this point.
It's like banning cars, not because they're dangerous
Good example let's run with it. The car industry's influence has led to laws and city design practices which effectively killed off public transport. The car industry prevented the banning of tetraethyllead some 60 years after it was found to be dangerous to people.
Governments involved in defending industry against the interests
Re: (Score:3)
All my new cars for the last several decades use lead gasoline
Precisely no new car sold in the past 40 years require the use of leaded gasoline. If it did it would have horrible reliability just like the cars from back in the day. The removal of TEL was only one of the reason the soft parts of engines were replaced. Reliability is another. There were literally no downsides to the industry adapting the soft parts of an engine for unleaded so everyone did it.
If you're pouring lead into your car, that's on you. And all that lead exposure may explain why you keep saying s
Why not synthetic? (Score:2)
1. In order to live, we would no longer have to tell ourselves that our own suffering is more important than another sentient beings.
2. Did God ordain that the flesh of a murdered creature is somehow more healthy than synthetic? Of course not. Nowhere in the Bible, or Koran, or Bagavid Gita, or whatever book Buddha wrote does it say not to eat synthetic. With synthetic we can control the contents and ensure the essential molecules -- protein, minerals, vitamins, whatever, are there.
3. If we can make synthe
Re: (Score:3)
You're the idiot with the religious belief. You're claiming that we can't ever synthesize food. Any scientific basis for that? If there is any unhealthy stage in the current meat substitutes, we can remove whatever that unhealthy stuff is. Farming is labor intensive and occupies huge areas of land we could do better stuff with.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm... then don't eat it and instead eat real meat? What seems to be the problem?
They couldn't do this with milk? (Score:2)
They couldn't do this with milk?
Economics (Score:2)
Bit disappointing, though. While there are sectors and industries that are likely valuable enough to warrant domestic protection/incentives, is ranching really one of those?
Eat Mor Chikin (Score:2)
Eat Mor Chikin
That, or just relabel it Soylent-Meat
Good (Score:2)
It's not meat. Don't call it meat. Come up with a different name so that people who do not wish to put that crap in their bodies can avoid it.
Ban those lawmakers (Score:2)
It amuses me (Score:3)
The Republicans have no issue with unsafe food (chlorination chicken doesn't kill ecoli except on the surface, it merely stops ecoli being detected).
But the miniscule risk of an insignificant drop in profits amongst Republican voters... That calls for instant action.
Re:Let the market decide (Score:5, Informative)
when it comes to cattle burps and farts, that's carbon which is already part of the natural carbon cycle
This is misleading, because the issue with "burps and fats" is the methane content. Methane is 84 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas and it takes around 9 years to break down into CO2 in the atmosphere. Methane is rated as 28 times worse than CO2 for climate change. Carbon isn't all the same.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Methane is 84 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas and it takes around 9 years to break down into CO2 in the atmosphere.
Yes, I realize that - my point was that if we'd stop digging up fossilized carbon and adding it to the biosphere, this would no longer be an issue worth worrying about. In essence, what these climate activists are saying is that because some people aren't willing to give up their SUVs, we all should give up beef.
Personally, I say screw that. Buy an EV and keep meat on the menu.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You must have read a different summary. This is about certain states "outlawing" lab-grown meat because it has the potential to reduce the profits of the ranchers. This isn't about outlawing natural meat but it is about removing the option of folks that would prefer to eat lab
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is about certain states "outlawing" lab-grown meat because it has the potential to reduce the profits of the ranchers.
Yes, it's a preemptive strike being taken by certain red states because they're worried climate activists will keep crowing about the perceived negative ecological impacts of animal agriculture and eventually some politicians on the left might get the idea to take away their real meat. The same thing happened with gas stoves - IIRC some Washington bureaucrat hinted that they didn't particularly like them, so what does Ron DeSantis do in response? He went and made gas stoves a tax-exempt purchase in Florid
Re: (Score:2)
Ranching has an absolutely massive ecological impact.
Yes, animals are part of the natural life cycle of the planet... but not those animals, in those numbers, in that area, in lieu of what was there before. Deforestation for ranchland is a massive problem in south america. Water consumption for the production of animal feed is a persistent problem in north america. Even if the methane produced by those animals breaks down over time, the increase in the animal count pushes it higher for as long as the animal
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's got to the point where we need to look at sanctions on states like Florida, when they implement these dumb "fuck you" measures that contribute to climate change. Money is the only thing they really care about, more than being anti-woke or whatever this idiocy is.
Re:Let the market decide (Score:4, Informative)
Buy an EV and keep meat on the menu.
The problem isn't meat in general, but cattle and sheep.
Pigs, chickens, and fish don't emit significant amounts of methane.
Disclaimer: I don't eat beef, but I raise tilapia in my backyard.
Re:Let the market decide (Score:4, Insightful)
Again, the problem is Methane.
Cows eat carbon (and other stuff) that's stored in grass. Their digestion then converts that into Methane and farts it out. This Methane is much worse than the carbon that was part of the cycle.
This was not a problem in the past, because the world population of cows was probably a few million. Today, that population is almost a billion.
Most things in climate science are a question of scale. If the total human population were 9 million, i.e. the equivalent of Portugal or New Jersey, they could be burning coal and driving SUVs with no major impact on the climate.
Re: (Score:3)
Too many cows? The solution is obvious: pass the bbq sauce!
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I realize that - my point was that if we'd stop digging up fossilized carbon and adding it to the biosphere
Your point is pointless. You can't solve global warming with "one neat trick". For one, farming cows depends on fossil fuels (ammonia production as well as transportation). Every polluting industry needs to look at to addressing the problems they cause. EVERY ONE. We need to stop digging out fossil fuels, but we also need to address the damaging effects of farming.
Re: (Score:3)
Carbon isn't all the same.
Anyone who ever had a cube of sugar and a cube of coal knows that.
Re:Let the market decide (Score:4, Insightful)
And there is massively more cattle than there would ever have been "naturally" due to farming. Hence there is absolutely nothing "natural" about the amount of Methane put into the atmosphere. As usual, the deniers cannot even do basic numbers.
Re: What say you, History. (Score:4, Informative)
There 3.5 billion domesticated ruminants worldwide, compared to 75 million wild ruminants. There are about a billion cows.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Also, cows emit more methane than bison:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
The historical CH4 levels show that current levels are far higher than they were:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org] annual average for methane,in at least 800,000 years.
Either way, climate change is real and cows play a significant role. Anything that reduces the climate impact of meat production is a good things as far as I'm concerned.
Re:Let the market decide (Score:5, Insightful)
The livestock population has been hugely increased by ranching around the world over what would naturally occur. Those burps and farts add up because of the millions (perhaps even billions) of extra livestock that exist. That surely needs to be factored in as not being part of the "natural carbon cycle".
Re: (Score:2)
The livestock population has been hugely increased by ranching around the world over what would naturally occur.
No ranching would "naturally" occur.
Re: (Score:2)
In that sentencer, the thing that's hugely increasing is the livestock population, not ranching. It's an unuausla construction, but it doesn't make the mistake you think it does.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If people don't want lab-grown meat, they won't buy it. That being said, I also think this is an issue where "climate activists" are out of touch with reality, because when it comes to cattle burps and farts, that's carbon which is already part of the natural carbon cycle.
The laws cited here are protectionism for ranchers. But meanwhile, liberals won't eat lab-grown meat because it's "processed." This term has no precise meaning, and no harm has been established, but now it's being applied to everything that is not "colonialist."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Fake conservatives (true ones have honor and integrity, these do not) use "liberal" as a meme to shift blame away from themselves for everything.
Re:Let the market decide (Score:4, Insightful)
> Fake conservatives (true ones have honor and integrity, these do not) use "liberal" as a meme to shift blame away from themselves for everything.
Fake liberals (true ones have honor and integrity, these do not) use "conservative" as a meme to shift blame away from themselves for everything.
Weird how it's just as true when you flip it.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem can be summed up pretty nicely. Improper land management. aka agriculture, is at the heart of what caused the 1920's dust bowl. No one really thinks about that in these conversations, and how big of a problem improper agriculture causes.
Now what if I told you there is a mythical thing that undoes the damage of agriculture, restores nutrients to the land, reduces greenhouse gasses, and ultimately undoes the damage humans cause? Guess what, it involves the very thing our legislative body is con
Assumes market knows what is lab grown (Score:2)
If people don't want lab-grown meat, they won't buy it.
If they know a particular product is lab grown.
So banning the use of the word "meat" with respect to lab grown would be a fine move to avoid possible consumer confusion. Call the lab grown somethings else.
I also think this is an issue where "climate activists" are out of touch with reality, because when it comes to cattle burps and farts, that's carbon which is already part of the natural carbon cycle.
Maybe for organic grass fed cattle. Once fertilizers and pesticides are involved in the cattle feed then there is some petroleum use. But that can be said for all farming too.
Re: (Score:2)
If people don't want lab-grown meat, they won't buy it.
Unless the "real" meat becomes that expensive and people can afford only lab-grown meat.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They want Tinder and TikTok and will ban your healthy food to assuage their anxiety over their guilt
Cows have become a mass formation object for the lunatics.
I agree that the market should decide but we need radical transparency about what is in these products to decide.
My inbuilt sensors find Doritos and Pepsi to be hyoerpalatable foods and I know I can't trust that!
Raw data is required. No trade secrets on the ingredients or analysis front. Process is fine.
Probably.
Re: (Score:3)
If people don't want lab-grown meat, they won't buy it. That being said, I also think this is an issue where "climate activists" are out of touch with reality, because when it comes to cattle burps and farts, that's carbon which is already part of the natural carbon cycle.
What nonsense. Yes, for a few it is. But the number of cattle is massively higher than it would ever have been naturally. And hence that Methane _is_ a serious problem. As usual, you deniers cannot do numbers (for example, climate change would not be a problem if it was at natural speed, i.e. 10'000 - 100'000 years, but for the change we will get now is in 100 years), and hence are completely blind to what is actually happening. At the same time you are arrogantly looking down on those with some actual unde
Re: (Score:3)
because when it comes to cattle burps and farts, that's carbon which is already part of the natural carbon cycle.
That's like saying burning oil is part of the natural carbon cycle because it came from one dead dinosaurs. The production of methane by cattle is well and truly out of balance with any natural cycle were it not for human intervention. Grass doesn't magically create methane, in these quantities, that takes a cow. And the reason we have so many cows is we specifically breed them for our consumption.
A farm is not a natural process. It is a highly optimised, human cultivated industrial area, and everything whi
Re: (Score:2)
Windmills are typically used to mill grain, such as turning wheat into flour. Last I checked, windmills aren't usually made in China or Germany.
"Wind Turbines" is the accepted term for the units that convert Wind into electricity, and they're not "made in China and Germany mostly":
- Vestas is the presently the world's largest turbine manufacturer and is based in Denmark. It has manufacturing operations the same country.
- Siemens Gamesa (SGRE) is based in Spain and has most of its manufacturing operations th
Re: (Score:3)
Of course it can.
Doesn't even need a genius, every cow and chicken can do it!