If it was really indistinguishable from normal meat then I would feel a little disappointed that they hadn't taken the opportunity to make it more consistently tender, remove gristly bits, not have inconvenient bones, and so on. If it was like meat but with the annoying misfeatures fixed then I'd pay a premium for that.
If they could produce it at a lower resource cost than ordinary meat but then charged more for it than ordinary meat, I would probably feel that was excessive profiteering! (And no doubt they'd use their patents to go after anyone who tried to set up in competition and actually pass the savings on to the customer.)
Surely resource cost and financial cost are not the same thing. I think the cost we're talking about here is, in specific, the cost to the ecosystem which meat-eating causes (though people disagree hugely about the magnitude of this). It's wholly possible there will be a point where the artificial meat is much better in terms of resource usage but must worse in terms of financial cost.
Depends entirely on the meat and the farming method... and the current reports are pretty varied -- amount of water is a factor of two out between reports which is larger than the difference reported for most types of meat (beef seeming to be the stand out exception).
The initial reports on meat production CO2 used some dodgy methodology but it does seem likely there's an effect.
If you converted those tables to calories not weight then things look quite different -- e.g. calories/litre of water then chicken and pork comes out better than soybeans which turn out to be pretty poor. Out of all of them milk turns out to be absolutely excellent as does potatoes and wheat.
So I guess if we took it all seriously we would not avoid meat per se, but would avoid (or minimise) beef and soybeans taking instead chicken, eggs, milk, wheat, pork...
I don't drive, never have. I'm doing a degree in mechanical and energy engineering *specifically* to end the fossil fuel industry. It's either pedal or natural power
If this takes off successfully, I think we're more likely to reach a situation where people pay a premium for meat that has required the killing of animals.
Oh, 20 years after it's taken off people will be shocked that anyone kills animals for food at all. Right now most people justify it to themselves with "But I grew up eating beef, and it tastes good, so killing cows is ok." Once that justification goes, I suspect people will flock to artificial food, and it will suddenly be very weird to _choose_ to kill animals when you have a choice not to.
I disagree. I find the idea of meat grown in a lab to be completely and totally horrifying.
Beyond that we'd end up having to kill animals pointlessly if we didn't eat them. If not for the love of venison and deer season certain parts of America would be so overrun with deer that you'd have to just kill them randomly so they wouldn't eat every single green thing around and/or constantly be jumping in front of cars and killing people.
Plus, how long do you think chickens would last in this day and age if they were not raised by farmers. (Yes, I know that factory chicken farms suck, but I do have an uncle who is a normal farmer and have seen how chickens act and they are so dumb and domesticated at this point that they would be eaten out of existence really fucking quickly outside of a farm environment.)
Plus, people like "organic" stuff. Meat from animals would just be marketed as "organic" and people would flock to it.
And, then there are the hard core carnivores. When I was living in New Brunswick there was a wild game restaurant in town and it was constantly packed. I ate some of the weirdest shit in the world there. Hell their Christmas Eve special one year was reindeer and even though I had a 9 p.m. reservation (fairly early in New Jersey) it was sold out by the time I got seated.
And I don't think most people justify it by "But I grew up eating beef" I think they justify it by saying "animals with our sets of teeth and digestive system were designed to kill and eat other animals. This is why I don't get mad if my cat eats a mouse."
I agree. A lot of crazy vegans* seem to assume all farm animals can just magically disappear with no consequences or be kept as pets when the whole world turns vegan with them.
*No offence intended to any sane vegans round here, I'm sure there are some.
It's a bizarre thing to question. Unless the world turned vegan overnight in some kind of veganpocalypse such a change would be pretty slow. Farmers breed animals and slaughter them to meet demand. The "left over farm animals" argument then starts to look crazy. At the moment, in Europe all this production is pretty tightly controlled (quotas, subsidies etc). It seems entirely reasonable that such controls would change as the demand changes. So, if you ask me, the real crazies are the people who think this would somehow be a major issue -- presumably they picture farmers trying to stop cows squeezing out calf after calf and these things piling up somewhere.
Depending on how quickly things changed, it's not that crazy - farm animals like cows would live a long time if we stopped killing them to eat but still looked after them to some extent depending on the breed etc.
But yes, I wasn't talking about a realistic situation where meat eating gradually declines (although at the moment, the reverse is true so it isn't actually very realistic in the near future) but rather the fantasy situation of almost overnight change.
Yes, cows would last a long time if we stopped killing them to eat immediately but as you say, unless it was a fantasy situation of "overnight change" that doesn't matter because as demand declines fewer will be born.
So the only kind of person who would think it's a problem is also the kind of person who thinks of the possibility of "overnight veganism" -- never met anyone who believes that is likely and I know a fair few vegans.
Well, you obviously know sane ones then. Unfortunately the only vegan I know drives me insane with her opinion that eating farm animals is evil and wrong but chopping down the rainforest to grow soya and palm oil so she doesn't have to live on local vegetables is just fine. Because apparently animals that die due to having their habitat destroyed don't count...
What happened to horses between 1900 and 1930? Basically, when horses were replaced by bicycles for the poor and cars for the well off? I always assumed it was a gradual thing & as your horses got older you'd realise it made more sense to buy a bike/car as appropriate and not replace them, but I guess there could have been a few years where horses were slaughtered and it just wasn't talked about because it's a bit gross.
Well, working horses were routinely slaughtered when they became too old to work anyway. Had a quick look around and according to online sources the average streetcar horse had a life expectancy of only two years anyway so I guess "natural" wastage would just take care of it. "In 1880, New York carted away nearly 15,000 dead equines from its streets, a rate of 41 per day."
I disagree. I find the idea of meat grown in a lab to be completely and totally horrifying.
That's just really temporary "future shock" though surely? I mean inherently, you surely don't have anything against other "manufactured" food. You may not particularly like "non malt" vinegar (insert your own choice of "chemically manufactured food stuff" here) but it's hardly "horrifying".
As for your point on chickens, that really would depend on the chickens... battery chickens are not a separate species after all. We used to have bantams and they're feistly little buggers, woe betide anyone who tried to collect their eggs. I've enough similar stories from people who grew up collecting eggs from chickens to think that regular chickens can be quite as characterful. I can imagine if some chickens had been raised as battery chickens they might be a bit listless for a while afterwards.
Given their tropical origins, most chickens wouldn't survive winters without human intervention no matter how smart they are. Although, google does turn up some examples of northern cities with feral chicken populations, so perhaps I'm wrong.
The deer thing could be handled (better) if we were to reintroduce their predators, especially on the eastern seaboard. But people freak the fuck out when you mention things like wolves and mountain lions in the area. Of course, they also freak the fuck out when you mention thinning the deer herd through bow hunts (DC suburbs, rifle hunting just not safe in most areas.) so I don't think any wildlife wins.
I don't think most people even bother with any justification for eating meat, because they don't much care whether animals get killed or not.
As this technology progresses, it will first become viable as a substitute for cheap processed meat. It'll be much longer before it is able to compete with fine cuts of proper meat. During that time, real meat will be increasingly prized by foodies as a mark of genuine quality - and even if we get to a stage where the artificial stuff is indistinguishable from even the best real meat, sheer snobbery will maintain the premium for real meat for a long time.
Yeah, we're ridiculously empathic, to the point where I can care about the opinions (and lives) of people who I have only ever encountered in the form of text on a screen!
Most people that are willing to pay a premium of any kind for anything don't eat third-rate battery chickens though. In order to persuade people to move in the first place you'd need to make something that tasted as good as nice chicken.
(My problem with Quorn chicken is the texture, which is altogether too soft.)
Plus people have been brainwashed into fearing FRANKENSTEIN FOODS by the anti-GM lobby, soI suspect the people who pay for organic free-range food harvested by fiar-trade virgins listening to Brain Eno aren't going to buy something made in lab.
Gah, this is nightmare poll for me, my answers would depend so much on what resources lab grown meat would require, what waste products it would produce etc and how that balances out with normal meat production in terms of energy and resource use and environmental impact of these things.
I genuinely have no moral objection to killing animals for food as long as it is done as humanely as possible and they have had a good life beforehand. I'd like to raise and eat my own animals if I ever have the opportunity to do so. As it is I only buy high welfare standard, outdoor reared British meat, and eat quite a lot of veggy food to balance the cost. As an ecologist, I'm also very aware that if we got rid of all livestock, our landscape would look very different.
I'd compare the resources and environmental impact with my current diet - veggie and try-to-be local; I don't eat e.g. tofu due to the impact of its production. If it was a *lot* better I'd consider artificial meat, but I also really hate the taste of most meat (as far as I recall at more than 20 years' remove).
I don't know about tofu production processes but growing soy is currently a leading cause of deforestation and natural habitat destruction in S America and there is evidence that it trashes soil quality by mining nutrients out of it too.
We've made tofu at home a couple of times: basically, you soak soybeans, blend them with water, bring it to the boil, simmer it for half an hour, add a coagulant (we used lemon juice), sift out the solid bits and then press them together. It's tedious work that we're glad to outsource.
I don't think the problem is the amount of energy eetc required for humans to eat meat; I think the problem is too many humans in the first place. CULL THE HUMANS!
Except specified offal (mostly brains, spinal cord, thymus, and long-pig chitterlings) for fear of an epidemic of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy. DO NOT EAT THE SPICY BRAINS. We don't need kuru/CJD making us all stupid and stagger-y. We have booze for that.
I would rather not go near a burger made from cells taken from me, actually - to put cells into culture they'll have to be immortalized and probably have chromosomal abnormalities and other ways of getting round the natural blocks on cell division, and I would like to avoid eating my own pre-cancerous cells just in case.
Sure, eventually. But I could easily see it being cheaper and more efficient to grow a cow than to perform no-animal-input cell cultures for a long, long time to come, even once it becomes possible as a lab stunt.
The efficiency argument for this particular strain of labmeat wasn't 'no cows', it was 'many fewer cows' - you still have some cows to produce the precursors, but there is the potential to produce much more than one cow's worth of meat from one cow's worth of labmeat precursors...
I would be willing to pay a premium for the artificial meat on the grounds that it had a lesser impact on the environment but I would expect that premium to be offset by some combination of lower prices for other commodities that are grown on the land or use the resources currently used for burger production and lower costs from environmetal damage.
I answered the way I did because you specified "grown in a lab". If you'd asked the real question, "manufactured in an industrial environment", not by scientists or technicians but by transient ill-paid untrained factory workers, you would have got a different set of answers.
I think the quality control of inputs implicit in vat growing makes me less nervous about the transient ill-paid factory worker issue rather than less.
I think stuff grown in a vat is going to have better quality control of the inputs than a factory where thousands of dead animals arrive from a muddy farm and are minced in stages more or less by hand in a big open shed.
If God wanted us to eat meat he'd have allowed us to evolve a brain sufficiently clever to discover fire and fire's ability to tenderise and sterilise meat products, smelt metals into useful meat cutting tools and capture animals which had a lot of meat on them and keep then near our homes.
The answer to the planet not supporting the current level of human population with us eating an optimal diet for our physiology is not for us to eat a poor-quality (i.e. grain/legume based) diet or artifical or highly-processed foods - it's to cut the damn population.
(same applies to overuse of other natural resources)
Of course, that is self-solving..... but it'd be a lot *nicer* if we managed that ourselves before the usual suspects of population control kick in.... (disease, war etc....)
The population problem is self-solving, with 42% of the planet already below replenishment levels of reproduction, and every sign that rising education levels cause the same effect everywhere they spread.
I think that the current rate of reduction is WAY too slow to avert some kind of real shit over resource scarcity in the next 50 yrs but have no numbers to back that up.
Although we eat a fairly artifical diet at the moment if you include in your defination of artificial any food crop that has been bred for yield or taste or nutrition.
They are, of course, already at work on growing human-meat in labs. A friend of mine got his master's in bioengineering on the topic. Of course, they don't call it "growing human-meat", they call it "producing organs which are a 100% genetic match, drastically reducing if not eliminating the risk of rejection after a transplant".
But hey, if they grew you two new livers, you could always ask for the second one fried with onions...
Yes, well, I wasn't quite organised enough to ask to keep my own placenta to stew it. Slightly regret that now but honestly it's just one more thing to think about when you're incredibly busy anyway.
I believe that nearly all the 'meat' on Pizza Hut pizzas is artifically textured soya in any case and people are completely up for that, mostly because they don't realise. So we're part way there. If they can create fake meat that tastes like (and has the complex nutritional values of) the best organic meat then I'd be entirely happy. I don't tend to buy Quorn because I find it hard to make it as tasty as the relatively cheap cuts of meat I buy.
From the Pizza Hut online ingredients list, it seems that most of the chunky meat (chicken, beef, etc) is composed of a mixture of the meat in question and soy protein. Seems a bit odd - I'd have thought it would be one or the other - but I'm sure they have their technical/financial reasons.
I am gratified to discover, though, that the pepperoni is still proper meat.
I only eat meat because I need to keep my carb intake to a minimum and maximise my protein intake and have a shedload of food intolerances that make that really difficult, and a large part of what makes meat-eating so abhorrent to me is the squick; veins, gristle, fat, etc. I spend an hour takng the objectionable parts out of my chicken before eating it *every time*, so if the meat could be grown without veins etc, I would definitely pay more to get that rather than normal meat. I still wouldn't enjoy it, because I dislike the taste and texture of meat, but it would save me a lot of time & energy, and reduce my disgust levels.
As a vegetarian, how would I *know* that the meat was lab-grown? I woudn't trust someone who said so. I wouldn't like the normalisation of vat-meat-eating among vegetarians, it would make it far to easy to also eat dead animal.
Some vegetarians find even Quorn is "disturbingly meaty" - I did at first. Eating something that tastes as much like real meat as possible is missing the point.
Eating something that tastes as much like real meat as possible is missing the point.
That rather suggests you're a vegetarian because you don't like the taste. What if you're a vegetarian who thinks that meat tastes good but you are willing to abstain for ethical principles.
No, I am primarily an ethical vegetarian, and I find the idea of pretending to eat meat somehow wrong. It really wasn't what I was aiming at. To use a crude analogy, if someone who had sex with chickens said to you "well, if you don't want to fuck an actual chicken, we can always get you a rubber chicken to pretend on", you'd think their reasoning was basically flawed, even if the rubber chicken felt good.
The other problem with fake meat – indistinguishable from dead animal – is how do you tell them apart? How do you know which you are being served?
Decaff coffee and caffienated coffee look and taste similair yet somehow people manage to serve both and caffiene intolerant people manage to order them.
I think the chicken example is flawed. If I said I greatly enjoyed the taste of eating meat but abstained for ethical reasons people may find this admirable. If I said I enjoyed the sensation of having sex with chickens but abstained for moral reasons then people would be unlikely to admire this. I do not think anyone but a lunatic would find someone reprehensible for enjoying the taste of meat.
I eat meat that is locally raised by farmers I know. The animals are born, live a happy life in the sun gamboling and playing, pooping in the fields. They have one bad day but got to live in the first place. And my farmer friends got a job working outdoors with their fields, with animals. And I get nutritious meat that tastes good.
I pay a premium to get sustainably raised meat, and get to live in a place that has both farmers and farm fields as a result.
Read Wendell Berry if you don't get my perspective. There's honor in this.
It's the artificial human meat that's the problem. If it's human, the bacteria, viruses, and other disease vectors care about whether it's artificial about as much as your digestive system does.
That seems to be about human cells contaminating other cell cultures though. That is, a particular strain of human cells which excels at growing in certain conditions.
We already know that it is perfectly safe to eat food grown in culture (or equivalent) because it's regularly done (mycoprotein for example -- people do have sensitive reactions to it but that is not connected to the fact it's cultured). Of course that does not mean this extends to "meat" or to "human meat".
I'm really not an expert here but the question arising was would artificial "human" meat be more of a health risk than artificial "animal" meat. The presumed risk being that "human" cultured meat would harbour pathogens which can infect humans better than "animal" cultured meat.
Taste is what matters. v1.0 will not taste as good. Plus, I suspect stuff others list as misfeatures (veins, gristle, etc) are precisely the things I like about meat, so there's multiple markets that need to be satisfied.
I realise that ticking both: "I would be willing to pay a premium for meat that required less resources than ordinary meat"
and
"I would not be willing to pay a premium for either of those"
is a bit contradictory. I'd be willing to pay a premium to begin with to offset the development costs, but would expect the cost to come down and eventually be at a discount to meat that requires more resource, cos that's just how things work.
I'm vegetarian for IBS-related reasons, which I suspect would not be avoided by lab-grown meat. The idea of lab-grown "human" meat squicks me irrationally, so I answered on that basis, but I don't actually think it would be morally wrong to eat it if the source could be guaranteed, nor would I want it banned or anything (but you know me well enough to guess that.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
...on a regular basis. while it was new and shiny, as a one off, sure.
no subject
If they could produce it at a lower resource cost than ordinary meat but then charged more for it than ordinary meat, I would probably feel that was excessive profiteering! (And no doubt they'd use their patents to go after anyone who tried to set up in competition and actually pass the savings on to the customer.)
no subject
no subject
the environmental cost of meat is bloody silly. The waste of fresh water alone would make your eyes bleed.
animal slaughter is unpleasant, but curiously not my main concern. I'd go synthetic just to make the process less intensive
no subject
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production
The initial reports on meat production CO2 used some dodgy methodology but it does seem likely there's an effect.
If you converted those tables to calories not weight then things look quite different -- e.g. calories/litre of water then chicken and pork comes out better than soybeans which turn out to be pretty poor. Out of all of them milk turns out to be absolutely excellent as does potatoes and wheat.
So I guess if we took it all seriously we would not avoid meat per se, but would avoid (or minimise) beef and soybeans taking instead chicken, eggs, milk, wheat, pork...
no subject
no subject
(If you don't have an SUV buy one.)
no subject
:)
no subject
no subject
no subject
Beyond that we'd end up having to kill animals pointlessly if we didn't eat them. If not for the love of venison and deer season certain parts of America would be so overrun with deer that you'd have to just kill them randomly so they wouldn't eat every single green thing around and/or constantly be jumping in front of cars and killing people.
Plus, how long do you think chickens would last in this day and age if they were not raised by farmers. (Yes, I know that factory chicken farms suck, but I do have an uncle who is a normal farmer and have seen how chickens act and they are so dumb and domesticated at this point that they would be eaten out of existence really fucking quickly outside of a farm environment.)
Plus, people like "organic" stuff. Meat from animals would just be marketed as "organic" and people would flock to it.
And, then there are the hard core carnivores. When I was living in New Brunswick there was a wild game restaurant in town and it was constantly packed. I ate some of the weirdest shit in the world there. Hell their Christmas Eve special one year was reindeer and even though I had a 9 p.m. reservation (fairly early in New Jersey) it was sold out by the time I got seated.
And I don't think most people justify it by "But I grew up eating beef" I think they justify it by saying "animals with our sets of teeth and digestive system were designed to kill and eat other animals. This is why I don't get mad if my cat eats a mouse."
no subject
no subject
no subject
*No offence intended to any sane vegans round here, I'm sure there are some.
no subject
no subject
But yes, I wasn't talking about a realistic situation where meat eating gradually declines (although at the moment, the reverse is true so it isn't actually very realistic in the near future) but rather the fantasy situation of almost overnight change.
no subject
So the only kind of person who would think it's a problem is also the kind of person who thinks of the possibility of "overnight veganism" -- never met anyone who believes that is likely and I know a fair few vegans.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
That's just really temporary "future shock" though surely? I mean inherently, you surely don't have anything against other "manufactured" food. You may not particularly like "non malt" vinegar (insert your own choice of "chemically manufactured food stuff" here) but it's hardly "horrifying".
As for your point on chickens, that really would depend on the chickens... battery chickens are not a separate species after all. We used to have bantams and they're feistly little buggers, woe betide anyone who tried to collect their eggs. I've enough similar stories from people who grew up collecting eggs from chickens to think that regular chickens can be quite as characterful. I can imagine if some chickens had been raised as battery chickens they might be a bit listless for a while afterwards.
As Andrew says, reindeer isn't much to miss... If you're desparate though you can buy it online pretty easily.
http://www.americanpridefoods.com/reindeer-burger-patties/
no subject
no subject
The deer thing could be handled (better) if we were to reintroduce their predators, especially on the eastern seaboard. But people freak the fuck out when you mention things like wolves and mountain lions in the area. Of course, they also freak the fuck out when you mention thinning the deer herd through bow hunts (DC suburbs, rifle hunting just not safe in most areas.) so I don't think any wildlife wins.
no subject
no subject
no subject
As this technology progresses, it will first become viable as a substitute for cheap processed meat. It'll be much longer before it is able to compete with fine cuts of proper meat. During that time, real meat will be increasingly prized by foodies as a mark of genuine quality - and even if we get to a stage where the artificial stuff is indistinguishable from even the best real meat, sheer snobbery will maintain the premium for real meat for a long time.
no subject
If we did, we'd be herbivores.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
(My problem with Quorn chicken is the texture, which is altogether too soft.)
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I genuinely have no moral objection to killing animals for food as long as it is done as humanely as possible and they have had a good life beforehand. I'd like to raise and eat my own animals if I ever have the opportunity to do so. As it is I only buy high welfare standard, outdoor reared British meat, and eat quite a lot of veggy food to balance the cost. As an ecologist, I'm also very aware that if we got rid of all livestock, our landscape would look very different.
no subject
no subject
no subject
I've been veggie for just over two years, and still crave meat pretty much every day. Mmmmm, delicious protein-rich animal flesh.
no subject
no subject
We've made tofu at home a couple of times: basically, you soak soybeans, blend them with water, bring it to the boil, simmer it for half an hour, add a coagulant (we used lemon juice), sift out the solid bits and then press them together. It's tedious work that we're glad to outsource.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Except specified offal (mostly brains, spinal cord, thymus, and long-pig chitterlings) for fear of an epidemic of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy. DO NOT EAT THE SPICY BRAINS. We don't need kuru/CJD making us all stupid and stagger-y. We have booze for that.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
If there's a muscle cell culture which doesn't use other meat products in the medium, I have yet to hear of it....
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I think stuff grown in a vat is going to have better quality control of the inputs than a factory where thousands of dead animals arrive from a muddy farm and are minced in stages more or less by hand in a big open shed.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
(same applies to overuse of other natural resources)
Of course, that is self-solving..... but it'd be a lot *nicer* if we managed that ourselves before the usual suspects of population control kick in.... (disease, war etc....)
no subject
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
But hey, if they grew you two new livers, you could always ask for the second one fried with onions...
no subject
Not that I like liver.
no subject
no subject
no subject
I believe that nearly all the 'meat' on Pizza Hut pizzas is artifically textured soya in any case and people are completely up for that, mostly because they don't realise. So we're part way there. If they can create fake meat that tastes like (and has the complex nutritional values of) the best organic meat then I'd be entirely happy. I don't tend to buy Quorn because I find it hard to make it as tasty as the relatively cheap cuts of meat I buy.
no subject
I've eaten Quorn Chicken, and found it ok, but a bit rubbery. I'd put up with it, but Julie likes her chicken :->
no subject
I am gratified to discover, though, that the pepperoni is still proper meat.
no subject
no subject
Some vegetarians find even Quorn is "disturbingly meaty" - I did at first. Eating something that tastes as much like real meat as possible is missing the point.
no subject
That rather suggests you're a vegetarian because you don't like the taste. What if you're a vegetarian who thinks that meat tastes good but you are willing to abstain for ethical principles.
no subject
The other problem with fake meat – indistinguishable from dead animal – is how do you tell them apart? How do you know which you are being served?
no subject
I think the chicken example is flawed. If I said I greatly enjoyed the taste of eating meat but abstained for ethical reasons people may find this admirable. If I said I enjoyed the sensation of having sex with chickens but abstained for moral reasons then people would be unlikely to admire this. I do not think anyone but a lunatic would find someone reprehensible for enjoying the taste of meat.
no subject
no subject
I pay a premium to get sustainably raised meat, and get to live in a place that has both farmers and farm fields as a result.
Read Wendell Berry if you don't get my perspective. There's honor in this.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
We already know that it is perfectly safe to eat food grown in culture (or equivalent) because it's regularly done (mycoprotein for example -- people do have sensitive reactions to it but that is not connected to the fact it's cultured). Of course that does not mean this extends to "meat" or to "human meat".
I'm really not an expert here but the question arising was would artificial "human" meat be more of a health risk than artificial "animal" meat. The presumed risk being that "human" cultured meat would harbour pathogens which can infect humans better than "animal" cultured meat.
no subject
no subject
no subject
"I would be willing to pay a premium for meat that required less resources than ordinary meat"
and
"I would not be willing to pay a premium for either of those"
is a bit contradictory. I'd be willing to pay a premium to begin with to offset the development costs, but would expect the cost to come down and eventually be at a discount to meat that requires more resource, cos that's just how things work.
no subject