The Nonsense Papers: Artificial Beef: The Answer for the Meat Consumption Concern of the Future?
By James W. Astrada
Meat is no doubt a craving of human beings for the longest time since our evolution from Herbivores or Omnivores. Many will argue that humans are supposed to eat animals, however, certain key factors conveniently show why we should not. Firstly, our digestive system is not built for eating meat as carnivores have. Secondly, our teeth structure is not as carnivores have (i.e. sharks, lions, etc.) which contain sharp or elongated teeth made for ripping flesh. Instead, they have a round feature as if to specifically eat fruits and plants. Lastly, our hands are not as carnivores hands which contain talons or claws for ripping flesh and for defensive purposes. Many will argue however as certain cultures believe and eat raw meat diets. Sushi for example is eaten regularly, however, many bacterial infections and diseases like meningitis can occur if not properly handled or washed.
It seems that a non meat diet is the better choice for humans as both vegetarians and vegans would agree. the majority of meat eaters would not agree as in many countries (especially underdeveloped countries view eating meat as a sign of economic prosperity). With an already alarming population growth since 2007 making the human population seven billion worldwide, the need for meat consumption will grow in next coming years as more people will crave this product that has been cultivated by corporations and factory farming. Many portions of land are being cleared to support the demand of meat consumption everywhere especially destroying rainforests to clear land for cattle farming and ranchers. Studies have shown that severe deforestation has occurred due to anthropogenic causes such as ranchers need for land and Costa Rica is one of the worse cases. In Central America during the 70s ad 80s, most land was used for cattle ranching to feed the U.S. consumer demand for hamburgers and hot dogs. Places like Honduras use 40% of their land just to provide meat for developed countries and their need for meat. The only long term problem seems to be that tropical rain forest land seems to be inefficient requiring more hectares of land per animal in long term use. If this continues, most central America countries once providing fruit as their main crops, will have to clear more land for the crop that sells: meat. Many environmental scientists have this asinine belief that in the next fifty years, we need to have enough food, clean water, and resources to feed over nine billion people worldwide. Research has proven that the planet Earth can only sustain five hundred million people in order to have plenty of fresh water and resources for everyone. Since we are way over the mark, science has been the answer to not slow down population growth, but to seek alternatives to increase beef production while “protecting” whatever arable land we have left. Even the argument for less energy consumption was used for the defense of this product. The promise of 35-60% less energy and the emission of 85-90% less greenhouses gasses, and 98% less land for animal meat were guaranteed.
Professor Mark Post from Maastricht University in the Netherlands has stepped forward to answer the call. He has successfully grown a small group of muscle cells about 2cm long with the consistency of real beef. The pieces themselves are not a pretty site to look at, as they have been described as off-white and resemble calamari. More than 3,000 strips will be needed to make a regular hamburger look-a-like. Scientists plan to mix this artificial creation with blood and artificially grown fat to produce a “hamburger” by this fall of 2012. There are many questions regarding the creation of this “Franken-beef” such as where will the blood come from? Is it animal blood or human blood? Is the fat going to be produced in the same procedure as the beef? The cost itself at first is going to be pretty high ranging from about 200,000 pounds (which roughly amounts to $345,000) a burger. If this method is to provide a food alternative for those who cannot afford it, this doesn’t look like an answer has been found. Of course Professor Post has promised a decrease in the price once production techniques improve, however, who knows when that would be. Also one would have to seek the answers for many important questions once consumption of the product enters our bodies. What are the effects of this artificially grown substance will have on our digestive system? How many chemical additives and antibiotics will be used to keep this creation fresh? How will their quantity effect the human body? The argument by these scientists in the good of lab grown meat use the examples of population rise in Africa and Asia and their need for beef as higher standards of living will increase in the coming years. Also conventional livestock producers cannot keep up the current demand and land for pasture. Professor Sean Smuckler from the University of B.C., assured that this could ease land usage for cattle ranching to help maintain sustainable land for agriculture instead of converting land that is on the brink of losing its resources. PETA also supports the project for the human treatment of animals but fail to see that the fat and blood could still be animal if not artificially produced. Also the process of these stem cells are harvested from leftover material from slaughterhouses. This still misses the mark as cruelty free as far as PETA guidelines are concerned. Although a good point is taken, we have to view the long term of these choices just for the sake of a “high standard of living” and demand for meat. We have no clue what this will do to the human body and how our neurological and endocrine system will handle this new product. As we have seen, artificial additives are not good for humans or animals in general. We also have to take into consideration that this product may interact with any medications we might be taking or how it might effect children as they go into developing their brains and other functions. I am all for the reduction in eating animals, however, simply introducing an unknown substance is risky and could cause more damage.
The taste according to Post, is not enticing whatsoever, and will need to be worked on. What would they use to flavor these artificial creations? MSG or another chemical additive? Studies have shown that MSG already has disastrous effects on children and human adults and is almost used in every food source we have under disguised names. The only argument seems to be for the good of the environment and animals without regards to the smaller details. The president of Earthsave Canada DavidSteele,doesn’tsupport this creation and even suggested that people just consume less meat as he stated the following:
“while I do think there are definite environmental and animal welfare advantages…over factory farming…it is clear to me that plant based alternatives have substantial environmental and probably animal welfare advantages over shanties meat..” (BBC news, 2012)
This organism seems alive and needs to prevent rotting and bacterial infections, and as we have already mentioned, antibiotics and additives would be needed to prevent this from happening. Post even stated that if they did not get “exercise,” they would waste away. The scientists provide a “stretch” within Velcro tabs in a Petri dish to provide resistance to develop strength. Although this is a breakthrough in science, as a whole, I don’t suggest this method be used for a substitute for food and should not be recommended for consumption until proper research has been done on the long term effects to the human body. Climate change, water shortages, and greater urbanization are a problem as environmental scientists point out, however this is not the answer.
With the rising demand for meat escalating from more countries developing at a faster rate, it seems that science is only interested in expanding consumers for corporations rather than solving the pressing issues now in the present. Environmental scientists wean most uninformed citizens to always look into future concerns for the “grandchildren” or for future civilizations that may or may not even transpire. They must focus on the present and the current situation instead of fifty year intervals and future possibilities. Science is supposed to present facts and try to solve problems for communities in need. At the present time, our human civilization is in dire need of problem solving now, not fifty years from now. We need to focus on the present and not allow further crimes by corporations only interested in profit to dominate our lives and those around us. Capital is the only mechanism that seems to have a voice and most people in the world do not have any. If the current system continues, I suggest no future is foreseeable where people or animals have a choice anymore as everything will be artificial in nature. Changes need to happen now and only many voices of consumers can do this as they are the building block of all corporate success. Without the people, corporations’ power would cease. Shouldn’t there be another way to solve these problems besides artificial means?
References
Duncan Greene. “First lab-grown hamburger will cost 200,000.” Wired UK, November 14, 2011.
Darren Halas. “Lab Grown Hamburger Ready by Fall.” Z6 Mag, February 21, 2012.
Pallab Ghosh. “Lab-grown meat is first step to artificial hamburger.” BBC News, Vancouver. (bbc.co.uk/news/science-environement-16972761).
“Humans are Herbivores or Omnivores not Carnivores!” (vegan-nutirtionista.com/humans-are-hebivores.html).
Humans threats to Rainforests.” (rainforests.mongabay.com/0812.htm).
“MSG side effects.” (www.healthy-holistic-living.com/msg-side-effects.html).
©James Astrada 2012.
Discover more from Robert JR Graham
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from Robert JR Graham
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.