Murderless Meat = $1 Million

We actually could use some professional consultation in this discussion. In the mean time...

My understanding of the problem of the grain/grass issue is that the cow digestive system really isn't designed for grain and can't digest it well, so the muscle can't get the same nutrients (even though it beefs up quicker). It isn't so much a chemistry issue as it is a compatibility issue. I am in favor of animals being fed what they should be eating. Including us.

Also, if we've been getting vitamins the wrong way for the last 40 years, I think that it is time for that to improve.

I don't really think we'd ever get stem cell-grown meat to be exactly like actual animal meat. And you're right, exposure to grass and grain and whatever would probably change cell chemistry (as would exposure to dung, disease, pesticides, water pollution and prions).

But in the case of stem-cell created chicken flesh, I don't know that we really need to. We just have to fill the major dietary niche. If the people eating it are missing out on higher levels of anti-oxidants and vitamins because what they're eating didn't eat plants, then they should go ahead and eat plants. Does anyone know what percentage of our daily nutritional intake of anti-oxidants is supplied by meat? I'm asking.

Here's why I don't have a problem with this idea at all. We're at the verge of taking human stem cells and turning them into bladders, livers and hearts. Everyone thinks this is a great idea. Grow your own organs! No more waiting on transplants! The idea is that those organs will be put in your body to keep you alive and to interact with your body chemistry.

Why, then, should I believe that we can create a functioning 4-chambered human heart, and not a chicken bicep that I could ingest? And not only that, but it could be delicious? That it could even...taste like chicken?

But again, most of this is conjecture. When they actually grow it up, they'll do a thorough comparison between the two and then we can argue about its relative merits. My feeling is that with growing population, world hunger, and the environmental concerns of livestock, the desire for "alternative food" may get to the point that alternative fuel is at today. Somebody is going to do this, and whoever does it will become very wealthy.

As I stated in this post a few months ago, I have my doubts about how much about nutrition there is to learn (I think their job security rests in these kind of matters). But that's beside the point.

I agree with you that the biology of organisms is very complex. Irreducible, no, complex and even nonlinear, yes. And I don't think that science has a complete understanding of those processes, because if we did then we could cure them when they go wrong.

But all we're talking about here is meat: a subset of tissue which serves a single purpose in a single part of the animal. The biotechnologist doesn't have to create a superfood, he just has to create material that's just as good as that found in a pig rump. And by the way, meat has never completely supplemented a diet. All the stem cell stuff would have to do is fill the same roll: protein, fats, and maybe some other stuff. We can make any proteins that we want, we can make fats, and as long as we don't put cyanide in there, I just don't see this being very hard.

I'll look up the folic acid thing later, I promise. I am curious about what you would predict would be in cells grown in a dish that wouldn't be in cells grown in a chicken, or if it's just the thought of something being "unnatural" that makes you uneasy.

I read a report on the study that you're referring to, and a few things jump out.

1. Some concerns deal with what's missing, not with what's being added. In a dish, we can add all the vitamins and fatty acids you can want. It might actually be healthier if so enriched, like what they sell at those juice places.

2. Any concerns about what's being added have to do with pollution or plants that are genetically modified (although what they think is getting in from GMFs is unclear). Again, in a dish, nothing gets added unless it's wanted.

And if I may, muscle and fat cells are exactly what meat is, and anything else is contained in and produced by those cells. The question is whether or not you can get the cells to act the way you would want them to in a biorector. Granted, that would need to be tested extensively and thoroughly, but once tested, I still don't see what the concern is.

Lastly, I wouldn't necessarily blame our national unhealthiness on industrialization of food. There are a number of factors to health, most important of which are the decisions by people to eat healthily or unhealthily. For example, unless a person has an innate genetic metabolic condition, no one becomes obese by accident, and it's never a surprise.

In summary, it's only a terrible idea if it's done wrong or irresponsibly. But until there's evidence that stem-cell created meat is any worse (or better) then high-quality whole animal meat, then there's not much to argue about. And that evidence won't come until someone actually tries to make it.

By the way, another good article on this topic was written in Slate(here)

It is imaginable. I just proved it by imagining it.

Meat is just cells, muscle and fat. We can grow that stuff all the time now. I'm not saying that we can up and grow a good rib-eye in a dish, but we can make material that's good enough for food processing (certainly good enough for hot dogs).

I'm interested in your comment that there's a "growing consensus" that grass-fed cattle is more nutritious. Compared to what? Spam? That's not what we're talking about here. I agree that the traditional food industry hasn't made a great imitation product...yet...but that's not to say that biotechnology can't step up to the plate.

If we can grow a human liver or heart, we can certainly grow a drumstick, right?

I'm very surprised that there is pessimism about the production of deathless meat by comments here. This is a phenomenal idea. Imagine if we drastically reduced the amount of animals needed to keep up with the food supply, at least in the US, while keeping taste quality. All kinds of problems would be solved. My only concern would be the economy of farming communities, but I doubt that the demand for whole-animal meat would go down. It would become a delicacy, and the price might go up.

Technical question: would pork grown by stem cells be considered kosher?

By the way, if you think any scientists are too good for a million bucks, you don't know scientists. That said, the expense of production would definitely outweigh the prize.