Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday February 27 2018, @01:37AM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the it's-what's-for-dinner dept.

The U.S. Cattlemen's Association has asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture to develop an official definition for terms like "meat" and "beef", as plant-based alternatives to meats continue to grow in popularity and lab-grown/cultured meat may be coming soon:

Companies like Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat are combining plant-based ingredients and science, rather than animals, to create fake-meat burgers and other products that taste like the real thing.

Now U.S. Cattlemen's Association is looking to draw a line in the sand. The association launched what could be the first salvo in a long battle against plant-based foods. Earlier this month, the association filed a 15-page petition with the U.S. Department of Agriculture calling for an official definition for the term "beef," and more broadly, "meat."

"While at this time alternative protein sources are not a direct threat to the beef industry, we do see improper labeling of these products as misleading," said Lia Biondo, the association's policy and outreach director. "Our goal is to head off the problem before it becomes a larger issue."

[...] While these foods are commonly dubbed "fake meat," there's a little more to the meat-substitute market than that. The Good Food Institute, which advocates a sustainable food supply, breaks it down into two categories: clean meat and plant-based meat. Clean meat refers to "meat" grown in a lab from a small amount of animal stem cells. This kind of meat isn't on the market yet, but it's in development. Plant-based meat is anything that mimics traditional meat but is made mainly using plant ingredients.

Here's an idea: define "meat" for the Cattlemen's Association, then tax it with an exemption for "lab-grown meat".

Related: Lab-Grown Pork Closer to Reality
Lab-Grown Chicken (and Duck) Could be on the Menu in 4 Years
Inside the Strange Science of the Fake Meat that 'Bleeds'
Impossible Foods Just Raised $75 Million for Its Plant-based Burgers
Cargill, Bill Gates, Richard Branson Backed Memphis Meats Expects Meat From Cells in Stores by 2021
Meat Tax Proposed for Sake of Human and Environmental Health.


Original Submission

Related Stories

Lab-Grown Pork Closer to Reality 24 comments

Scientists from the University of Missouri, the University of Maryland and the Animal Bioscience and Biotechnology Laboratory, US Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service have published an article in Nature outlining a method for "generating skeletal muscle efficiently from porcine induced pluripotent stem cells (piPSC) in vitro thereby providing a versatile platform for applications ranging from regenerative biology to the ex vivo cultivation of meat". The research used a porcine stem cell line to generate muscular tissue instead of cells taken directly from a pig:

"What the paper describes is research designed to generate muscle from a newly established pig stem-cell line, rather that from primary cells taken directly from a pig," co-author Dr. Nicholas Genovese, a stem-cell biologist (and vegetarian), told Digital Trends. "This entailed understanding the biology of relatively uncharacterized and recently-derived porcine induced pluripotent stem cell lines. What conditions support cell growth, survival and differentiation? These are all questions I had to figure out in the lab before the cells could be turned into muscle."

Also at GlobalMeatNews.

Enhanced Development of Skeletal Myotubes from Porcine Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (open, DOI: 10.1038/srep41833) (DX)


Original Submission

Lab-Grown Chicken (and Duck) Could be on the Menu in 4 Years 16 comments

A company called Memphis Meats has announced that it has developed artificial/synthetic/lab-grown/cultured chicken and duck meat. The company's press release says it plans to sell cultured meat products to consumers as soon as 2021. Duck is identified as key to the mainland China market, which consumes more of it (over 6 billion pounds annually) than the rest of the world combined:

The quest for artificial meat inches forward—the company Memphis Meats announced today it has developed chicken and duck meat from cultured cells of each bird, producing "clean poultry." The firm provided few details, although participants at a tasting reportedly said the chicken tasted like, well, chicken. Below is a repost of a story originally published 23 August 2016 on some of the regulatory challenges and questions facing Memphis Meats and other companies pursuing artificial meats.

[...] So far, none of these synthetic foods has reached the marketplace. But a handful of startup companies in the United States and elsewhere are trying to scale up production. In the San Francisco Bay area in California, entrepreneurs at Memphis Meats hope to have their cell-cultured meatballs, hot dogs, and sausages on store shelves in about 5 years, and those at Perfect Day are targeting the end of 2017 to distribute cow-free dairy products. It's not clear, however, which government agencies would oversee this potential new food supply.

Historically, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulates meat, poultry, and eggs, whereas the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversees safety and security for food additives. FDA also approves so-called biologics, which include products made from human tissues, blood, and cells, and gene therapy techniques. But emerging biotechnologies may blur those lines of oversight, because some of the new foods don't fit neatly into existing regulatory definitions. "Cellular culture raises a lot of questions," says Isha Datar, CEO of New Harvest, a New York City–based nonprofit founded to support this nascent industry.

To help provide answers, the White House last year launched an initiative to review and overhaul how U.S. agencies regulate agricultural biotechnology [DOI: 10.1126/science.349.6244.131] [DX]. And the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in Washington, D.C., is working on a broader study of future biotechnology developments and regulation, with a report slated for release at the end of this year. In the meantime, industry leaders are thinking about how their potential lab-based foods might be handled by regulators. One approach, they tell ScienceInsider, is to show that their product is similar to an existing product that testing has already shown to pose no hazards. "Most food regulation is about aligning new products with something that's already recognized as safe," Datar notes.

Related: Producing Beef has the Greatest Impact on the Environment Compared to Other Animal Based Foods
Real Vegan Cheese: Coming From a Yeast to You
Would You Try Silicon Valley's Bloody Plant Burger(s)?
Lab-Grown Pork Closer to Reality

Right now, manufactured meat is as real as a flying car.
- Anonymous Coward, 2014


Original Submission

Impossible Foods Just Raised $75 Million for Its Plant-based Burgers 44 comments

Impossible Foods, the six-year-old, Redwood City, Ca.-based company known for its "juicy" meatless burgers, quietly announced $75 million in funding late last week, led by Temasek, with participation from Open Philanthropy, as well as earlier investors Bill Gates, Khosla Ventures and Horizon Ventures.

The company says it isn't providing further financial details but the round brings Impossible's funding to nearly $300 million, including earlier rounds that have included GV, Viking Global Investors and UBS.

Impossible's burgers are made with  soy leghemoglobin, a protein that carries heme, an iron-containing molecule that occurs naturally in every animal and plant.

The company has said it wants to replace a number of animal products with goods engineered from plants, but for now, it seems squarely focused on getting more of its burgers into the world. Part of that strategy involved opening a factory in Oakland, Ca., in May, where it expects to be producing 1 million pounds of ground "plant meat" each month.

Thought the race was on to have us eat insects.


Original Submission

Inside the Strange Science of the Fake Meat that 'Bleeds' 42 comments

From Wired:

WIRED wants to take you on the deepest dive yet into the science behind the Impossible Burger.

Biting into an Impossible Burger is to bite into a future in which humanity has to somehow feed an exploding population and not further imperil the planet with ever more livestock. Because livestock, and cows in particular, go through unfathomable amounts of food and water (up to 11,000 gallons a year per cow) and take up vast stretches of land. And their gastrointestinal methane emissions aren't doing the fight against global warming any favors either (cattle gas makes up 10 percent of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide).

This is the inside story of the engineering of the Impossible Burger, the fake meat on a mission to change the world with one part soy plant, one part genetically engineered yeast—and one part activism. As it happens, though, you can't raise hell in the food supply without first raising a few eyebrows.

Cargill, Bill Gates, Richard Branson Backed Memphis Meats Expects Meat From Cells in Stores by 2021 39 comments

Submitted via IRC for takyon

Cargill Inc., one of the largest global agricultural companies, has joined Bill Gates and other business giants to invest in a nascent technology to make meat from self-producing animal cells amid rising consumer demand for protein that's less reliant on feed, land and water.

Memphis Meats, which produces beef, chicken and duck directly from animal cells without raising and slaughtering livestock or poultry, raised $17 million from investors including Cargill, Gates and billionaire Richard Branson, according to a statement Tuesday on the San Francisco-based startup's website. The fundraising round was led by venture-capital firm DFJ, which has previously backed several social-minded retail startups.

They made the first ever chicken and duck meat that were produced without the animals.

The company expects to have a product in stores by 2021.

"They're the leader in clean meat. There's no one else that far along," says venture capitalist Steve Jurvetson, whose firm led Memphis Meats' recent $17 million Series A. Before he met Valeti in 2016, Jurvetson spent almost five years researching lab-grown meat and meat alternatives, believing the market was set to explode. "They're the only one that convinced me they can get to a price point and a scale that would make a difference in the industry," he says.

Cargill is the largest privately held corporation in the United States in terms of revenue ($109.7 billion in 2017).

Source: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/10/cargill-bill-gates-richard-branson-backed-memphis-meats-expects-meat-from-cells-in-stores-by-2021.html

Previously: Lab-Grown Chicken (and Duck) Could be on the Menu in 4 Years

Related: Lab-grown meat would 'cut emissions and save energy'
Producing Beef has the Greatest Impact on the Environment Compared to Other Animal Based Foods
Real Vegan Cheese: Coming From a Yeast to You
Would You Try Silicon Valley's Bloody Plant Burger(s)?
Lab-Grown Pork Closer to Reality


Original Submission

Meat Tax Proposed for Sake of Human and Environmental Health. 104 comments

Like tobacco, carbon emissions and sugar, we can expect the harm to human health and the environment caused by the production and consumption of meat to be mitigated by 'sin taxes'in the next five to ten years.

"Sin taxes" on meat to reduce its huge impact on climate change and human health look inevitable, according to analysts for investors managing more than $4tn of assets.

The global livestock industry causes 15% of all global greenhouse gas emissions and meat consumption is rising around the world, but dangerous climate change cannot be avoided unless this is radically curbed. Furthermore, many people already eat far too much meat, seriously damaging their health and incurring huge costs. Livestock also drive other problems, such as water pollution and antibiotic resistance.

A new analysis from the investor network Farm Animal Investment Risk and Return (Fairr) Initiative argues that meat is therefore now following the same path as tobacco, carbon emissions and sugar towards a sin tax, a levy on harmful products to cut consumption. Meat taxes have already been discussed in parliaments in Germany, Denmark and Sweden, the analysis points out, and China's government has cut its recommended maximum meat consumption by 45% in 2016.

Would you pay a "meat tax" or would you change your eating habits?


Original Submission

Mississippi Bans Calling Plant and Cultured-Meat Patties 'Burgers' 51 comments

A new law in Mississippi(1) makes it illegal to refer to plant and cell-culture based patties as 'burgers'.

The law would also prohibit the use of "burger" or "dog" in relation to vat-grown, cell-based food, which is made of meat. The statute reserves these appelations for foodstuffs derived from "slaughtered livestock."

The law has naturally been challenged by parties such as the Good Food Institute and the American Civil Liberties Union among others. In a nutshell

The contention on the meat industry side is:

Mike McCormick, president of the Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation: "This bill will protect our cattle farmers from having to compete with products not harvested from an animal."

The contention on the other side is:

"There's nothing misleading about the name of a veggie burger, or vegan hot dog, or seitan bacon," Almy, a lawyer on the Missouri case, told me. "The packages clearly disclose that this is plant-based food that has the taste or texture of this familiar food."

A typical American would likely fall somewhere between these two views.

I fully understand (and at times enjoy) 'veggie burgers', however I had to look up 'seitan bacon' (FYI - a traditional Japanese wheat based food that is meat-like) and would not have known what it was at a glance (does super-seitan bacon go to 9000 calories?)

So where do patrons of Soylent Words-Related-to-Current-Happenings fall on this one?

(1) - Note TFA bounces between Missouri and Mississippi actions. There are similar labeling laws in both states. SB 627 in Missouri and SB 2922 in Mississippi.

Related: U.S. Cattlemen's Association Wants an Official Definition of "Meat"
Regulation Coming to Lab-Grown Meat


Original Submission

Meat Industry PR Campaign Bashes Plant-Based Meat Alternatives 58 comments

Plant-based burgers are "ultra-processed" like dog food, meat-backed ads say

A public-relations firm backed by meat producers has unleashed a savage marketing campaign that claims plant-based meat alternatives are unhealthy, "ultra-processed imitations" similar to dog food.

The campaign rolled out in recent weeks from the industry-funded firm Center for Consumer Freedom, according to The New York Times. So far, it has included full-page ads and opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers, including The New York Times, USA Today, and The Wall Street Journal. All the marketing material raises health concerns about trendy meat alternatives, such as the Impossible Burger and Beyond Burger.

One ad posed the question "What's hiding in your plant-based meat?" Another directed readers to take the quiz "Veggie Burger or Dog Food?"

In an op-ed, the managing director of the Center for Consumer Freedom, Will Coggin, labeled meat alternatives as "ultra-processed" foods and noted that a recent study led by the researchers at the National Institutes of Health linked ultra-processed foods to weight gain.

The negative marketing campaign comes amid soaring popularity of meat alternatives, which threaten to slice into the meat market's sales and profits. In recent months, big players in the meat industry had tried a different—some might say hypocritical—tactic to compete with the new comers—that is, they released their own lines of meat alternatives. Now, the industry wants consumers to think such alternatives are unhealthy.

Older stories:


Original Submission

Missouri Regulates Use of the Word "Meat" by Food Producers 37 comments

Missouri has prohibited producers of meat alternatives, such as lab-grown/cultured meat and plant-based fake meats, from using the term "meat" to describe products not derived from harvested livestock or poultry:

On Tuesday, Missouri becomes the first state in the country to have a law on the books that prohibits food makers to use the word "meat" to refer to anything other than animal flesh. This takes aim at manufacturers of what has been dubbed fake or non-traditional meat. Clean meat -- also known as lab-grown meat -- is made of cultured animal tissue cells, while plant-based meat is generally from ingredients such as soy, tempeh and seitan.

The state law forbids "misrepresenting a product as meat that is not derived from harvested production livestock or poultry." Violators may be fined $1,000 and imprisoned for a year.

[...] The Missouri Cattlemen's Association, which worked to get the state law passed, has cited shopper confusion and protecting local ranchers as reasons for the legislation. "The big issue was marketing with integrity and...consumers knowing what they're getting," said Missouri Cattlemen's Association spokesman Mike Deering. "There's so much unknown about this."

Turtle Island Foods, which makes "Tofurky", has sued the state:

Meatless "Beyond Burgers" Come to Fast Food Restaurants 58 comments

Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984

Meatless 'Beyond Burgers' come to Carl's Jr. restaurants

The competition in lab-made veggie burgers is heating up. Beyond Meat has brought its burgers to more than 1,000 Carl's Jr. locations in the US, marking its Beyond's largest restaurant deal to date. Order a $6.29 Beyond Famous Star and you can eat a vegetarian (sorry vegans, there's American cheese) burg that tastes much like its conventional beef counterparts. You can also pay $2 to add a Beyond patty to other burgers on the menu. [...] You can already eat Impossible burgers of various sizes at White Castle, Hopdoddy, [and] Umami Burger

The veggie burgers won't be available at Hardee's (a nearly identical fast food chain operated by the same parent company). Sorry, "flexitarians".

Big Beef Prepares For Battle, As Interest Grows In Plant-Based And Lab-Grown Meats

The U.S. meat industry is gigantic, with roughly $200 billion a year in sales, and getting larger. But the industry faces emerging threats on two fronts: plant-based meat substitutes and actual meat grown in labs. Plant-based meat substitutes are a lot more, well, meaty than they used to be. They sear on the grill and even "bleed." They look, taste and feel in the mouth a lot like meat. Savannah Blevin, a server at Charlie Hooper's, an old-school bar and grill in Kansas City, Mo., says the vegetarian Impossible Burgers on the menu are popular with the meat-eating crowd. "I had a vegetarian actually turn it away, because it reminded them so much of meat, they sent it back," says Blevins. "It's delicious," she adds.

The industry that makes these products is taking off, growing 20 percent a year. "Business is booming," says Todd Boyman, co-founder of food company Hungry Planet. "We just can't keep up. We're actually having to expand our production facilities to keep up with the demand that's out there for this type of food."

[...] The meat industry is focused on shaping the regulatory environment for its new competitors, taking into account lessons learned from the rise of plant-based milks.

Previously: Would You Try Silicon Valley's Bloody Plant Burger(s)?
Impossible Foods Just Raised $75 Million for Its Plant-based Burgers
Inside the Strange Science of the Fake Meat that 'Bleeds'
FDA Approves Impossible Burger "Heme" Ingredient; Still Wants to Regulate "Cultured Meat"

Related: U.S. Cattlemen's Association Wants an Official Definition of "Meat"
Missouri Regulates Use of the Word "Meat" by Food Producers


Original Submission

FDA Approves Impossible Burger "Heme" Ingredient; Still Wants to Regulate "Cultured Meat" 14 comments

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved soy leghemoglobin as generally recognized as safe (GRAS) for human consumption:

Last August, documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request revealed that the FDA hadn't stomached the company's previous GRAS application. The agency concluded that soy leghemoglobin—a protein found in the roots of soybean plants that Impossible Foods harvests from genetically engineered yeast and uses to simulate the taste and bloodiness of meat—had not been adequately tested for safety.

In the application, Impossible Foods argued that the iron-containing protein is equivalent to hemoglobin, an oxygen-carrying protein in red blood cells and commonly consumed in meat. Thus, the protein was safe, the company concluded. It went as far as conducting studies in rats to back up the claim. But the FDA noted that soy leghemoglobin had never been used as an additive before, and the organization wanted data showing that the protein was safe and not an allergen specifically for humans.

[...] At the time, the decision was a searing blow to Impossible Foods, which up until then had fired up the appetites of investors and top chefs alike and savored glowing publicity. Since the company's founding in 2011, big names such as Bill Gates and Google Ventures served up more than $250 million in startup funds, and the impossible patty sizzled on the menus of such high-end restaurants as Momofuku Nishi in New York and Jardinière in San Francisco. The soy leghemoglobin was a big part of that hype, with the company touting it as its "secret sauce."

But the FDA's gut check didn't knock Impossible Foods off the market; it just left a bad taste. In fact, the company wasn't even required to submit its GRAS application to begin with due to the controversial way in which the FDA oversees food additives and GRAS designations. Under the 1938 Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the 1958 Food Additives Amendment, the FDA allows food companies and their hired consultants to internally test and determine a GRAS designation of a potential new additive all on their own. They can start using it without getting approval from the FDA or even notifying the agency. The FDA only steps in after the fact if problems arise.

Impossible Foods' FAQ says "the heme molecule in plant-based heme is atom-for-atom identical to the heme molecule found in meat". Heme is a component of soy leghemoglobin consisting of an iron atom bound in a porphyrin ring.

Meanwhile, the FDA and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) are continuing to fight over which agency will have jurisdiction over "cultured meat" (i.e. lab-grown animal cells for human consumption):

Judge Serves Up Sizzling Rebuke of Arkansas’ Anti-Veggie-Meat Labeling Law 75 comments

A federal judge on Tuesday roasted Arkansas' law banning makers of meatless meat products from using words such as "burger," "sausage," "roast," and "meat" in their labeling.
[...] Judge Kristine Baker, of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, granted a preliminary injunction that prevents the state from enforcing the law while the legal case is ongoing. In her order, Judge Baker made clear that the law appears to violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment—as Tofurky argued. She determined that the state will likely lose the case.
[...] "The State argues that Tofurky's labels for its plant-based products are inherently misleading because they use the names and descriptors of traditional meat items but do not actually include the product they invoke, including terms like 'chorizo,' 'hot dogs,' 'sausage,' and 'ham roast,'" Judge Baker noted. Such misleading or false labels would not be protected commercial speech under the First Amendment, the state claimed.

But Judge Baker essentially called that argument bologna.
[...] She went on to cite a ruling in a similar case that determined that "Under Plaintiffs' logic, a reasonable consumer might also believe that veggie bacon contains pork, that flourless chocolate cake contains flour, or that e-books are made out of paper."

"That assumption is unwarranted," she went on. "The labels in the record evidence include ample terminology to indicate the vegan or vegetarian nature of the products."
[...] Meat and dairy industry groups have been increasingly working to try to limit the use of terms like "milk" and "meat" in other states and contexts as meatless and diary-free products continue to grow in popularity. Missouri, Mississippi, Louisiana, and South Dakota have similar anti-veggie-meat labeling laws. In Wisconsin, lawmakers have considered banning non-dairy products from using the word "milk," such as beverages labeled almond milk.

The latter issue led former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb to quip last year that "You know, an almond doesn't lactate." He said that the Food and Drug Administration is working on a guidance for the use of the term.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/12/judge-serves-up-sizzling-rebuke-of-arkansas-anti-veggie-meat-labeling-law/
Previous Stories:
https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=19/12/04/1425220
https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=19/07/07/1443201
https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=18/02/26/2315236


Original Submission

Regulation Coming to Lab-Grown Meat 25 comments

Don't listen to Big Cattle — lab-grown meat should still be called "meat"

Lab-grown meat is on its way, and the government is trying to figure out how to regulate it. This week, the US House of Representatives [pdf] released a draft spending bill that proposes that the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulate lab-grown meat and figure out how it should be labeled — which is a contentious topic since Big Cattle doesn't want it to be called "meat." Regulation is important, and there's plenty more to learn, but the USDA shouldn't be the only one regulating. And when the product comes to market, yes, it should be called "meat."

Traditional meat, of course, comes from animals that are raised and slaughtered. Lab-grown meat (also called "in-vitro meat," "cultured meat," or "clean meat") is made from animal stem cells grown in a lab. But because the stem cells are typically fed with a serum derived from the blood of calf fetuses, the product uses animal products and isn't vegan. Still, the pitch for lab-grown meat is that it saves animals and also helps the environment because lab-grown meat doesn't take much land or energy to grow. Plus, lab-grown meat doesn't directly create methane emissions, while methane emissions from cows accounted for 16 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2015.

Because of the way that government agencies work, it hasn't even been clear who should regulate lab meat. The USDA traditionally regulates meat, while the US Food and Drug Administration regulates food safety and additives. The proposal that the USDA be in charge of regulation is in line with what the [pdf] National Cattlemen's Beef Association wanted, but some lab-meat advocates fear that USDA will be biased against them in favor of traditional meat. If the USDA will be regulating lab meat, it should at least collaborate with the FDA. There are no slaughterhouses for the USDA to inspect anyway, and the FDA has already been regulating food technology, like the genetically engineered salmon it approved. It makes the most sense for the two to work together.

Previously: U.S. Cattlemen's Association Wants an Official Definition of "Meat"

Related: Lab-Grown Chicken (and Duck) Could be on the Menu in 4 Years
Cargill, Bill Gates, Richard Branson Backed Memphis Meats Expects Meat From Cells in Stores by 2021
'Soylent' Dawkins? Atheist Mulls 'Taboo Against Cannibalism' Ending as Lab-Grown Meat Improves


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Aiwendil on Tuesday February 27 2018, @01:46AM (34 children)

    by Aiwendil (531) on Tuesday February 27 2018, @01:46AM (#644370) Journal

    Just label the labgrown as "cultivated meat" - like they did with pearls.

    For the plantbased stuff, I dunno "margimeat"? (think margarine) (would allow for margibeef, maristeak, margiham...)

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Tuesday February 27 2018, @01:48AM (9 children)

      by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Tuesday February 27 2018, @01:48AM (#644373) Journal

      "Plantae flesh"

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 3, Touché) by bob_super on Tuesday February 27 2018, @02:17AM (7 children)

        by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday February 27 2018, @02:17AM (#644395)

        It's not unded, since it was never alive so: "Construct meat"

        • (Score: 4, Funny) by requerdanos on Tuesday February 27 2018, @02:26AM (5 children)

          by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 27 2018, @02:26AM (#644399) Journal

          It's not unded, since it was never alive

          I know that defining "life" is not something that science has definitively settled... But plants were never alive?

          I am no scientific expert here. But my Grandmother was a professional florist, and my Dad was a horticulturist.

          In working with and for them during my formative years, I got the strong impressions that plants are alive during the time that they live and grow.

          • (Score: 4, Funny) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday February 27 2018, @02:37AM

            by PartTimeZombie (4827) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 27 2018, @02:37AM (#644405)

            There's no scientific consensus that life is important.

          • (Score: 3, Funny) by bob_super on Tuesday February 27 2018, @02:37AM (3 children)

            by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday February 27 2018, @02:37AM (#644406)

            I was referring to lab-grown stuff, soon to become industrial-vat-grown stuff.
            Fake meat made out of plants is already called vegetarian patties, soy burger... and I'm sure they will keep inventing fuzzy-sounding names to differentiate from the upcoming frankenmeats.

            • (Score: 4, Interesting) by requerdanos on Tuesday February 27 2018, @03:01AM (2 children)

              by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 27 2018, @03:01AM (#644424) Journal

              I was referring to lab-grown stuff, soon to become industrial-vat-grown stuff.

              oooohhhh! I apologize for my confusion.

              So if the lab-grown stuff was grown, was it not alive while it was growing? Definition of life thing again.

              If it were a bunch of bacteria growing, of course we'd say it it was alive.

              But it's a bunch of cow(/goat/chicken/whatever) cells, definitely not located within a cow(/goat/etc.)... Being cultured, that means growing, must be alive in some since, but definitely not a "live animal?" Just the fact that we use the word "grown" implies life to some degree. I don't have the answer(s).

              Fake meat... soy burger

              I was surprised when the soy people got away with establishing the term "Soy Milk". I guess the meat people don't want a similar thing to happen with "Soy Meat" or "Soymeat."

              Speaking of which, there are some "meat patties [flandersburgers.com]" available that contain fillers like soy [shoprite.com], that are called "beef" on the label. I wonder if those would survive a legal defining of the term "beef".

              • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @10:50AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @10:50AM (#644558)

                Grown implies increase in size, not life. You can grow crystals, planetoids grow by accretion, you can even grow an image size by adjusting lenses.

                • (Score: 3, Informative) by Immerman on Tuesday February 27 2018, @02:47PM

                  by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday February 27 2018, @02:47PM (#644624)

                  Yes, but cells don't grow that way - they only grow substantially when alive, through self-replication

        • (Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday February 27 2018, @04:46AM

          by Arik (4543) on Tuesday February 27 2018, @04:46AM (#644474) Journal
          It's quite alive.

          I tried to figure out what you think 'alive' means but my processors shut down in protest after only milliseconds.

          --
          If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @02:45PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @02:45PM (#644622)

        I think leafy meat is better:
        http://dontstarve.wikia.com/wiki/Leafy_Meat [wikia.com]

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by KiloByte on Tuesday February 27 2018, @02:05AM (17 children)

      by KiloByte (375) on Tuesday February 27 2018, @02:05AM (#644387)

      Cultured pearls or "artificial" diamonds are 100% real, and usually better than "natural" ones — same as fridge-made ice is cleaner than one carried from the mountains (ice delivery people bitched about it a century ago...).

      Imitation meat, both plant and current lab-grown, doesn't even resemble actual meat. That's why it's important to ban fraudulent advertising terms, which can be as weaselly as "clean" meat. And even with some significant breakthroughs in cultured "meat", it'd presumably contain so much drugs that I wouldn't want to be as much as in the same room as such a product.

      Antibiotic-laden meat is bad enough.

      --
      Ceterum censeo systemd esse delendam.
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by takyon on Tuesday February 27 2018, @02:40AM (16 children)

        by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Tuesday February 27 2018, @02:40AM (#644408) Journal

        it'd presumably contain so much drugs that I wouldn't want to be as much as in the same room as such a product.

        You have no evidence for this assertion.

        I would assert the opposite: substitute live animals eating and pooping in close quarters for relatively sterile laboratory-like conditions, and you have less need for antibiotics. Whatever chemicals you do use in the cultured meat environment could be very carefully tuned. You could also zap the meat with UV or gamma rays at multiple points throughout the process, something you can't really do with a cow. Finally, the amount of time to create a particular unit of meat could be a lot shorter than the life cycle of a cow, meaning less exposure to this and that.

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Tuesday February 27 2018, @03:31AM (10 children)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 27 2018, @03:31AM (#644444) Journal

          I would assert the opposite: substitute live animals eating and pooping in close quarters for relatively sterile laboratory-like conditions, and you have less need for antibiotics...

          Addendum necessary "... as long as you spend all the rest of your life in equally sterile laboratory-like conditions yourself".
          Under such conditions, your immune system will be totally out of whack with the "real-world", so either:
          - any microbe will kill you by the means of an immune system not prepare to answer quick enough, so you'll rot alive or bleed through your orifices to your death (or any biodoom horror you want to imagine).
          - you die by overreaction to an otherwise benign protein that you ingested (think anaphylactic shock to cow milk protein)

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Tuesday February 27 2018, @03:37AM (9 children)

            by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Tuesday February 27 2018, @03:37AM (#644445) Journal

            What? Are we arguing that the "cultured meat" is not prepared for the real world?

            --
            [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Tuesday February 27 2018, @03:58AM (8 children)

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 27 2018, @03:58AM (#644453) Journal

              I'm arguing that eating mainly (in extreme, exclusively) from "sterile laboratory-like conditions" has the potential to make one unable to eat from natural sources (or even survive in natural environ).

              Context is:

              it'd presumably contain so much drugs that I wouldn't want to be as much as in the same room as such a product.

              I would assert the opposite: substitute live animals eating and pooping in close quarters for relatively sterile laboratory-like conditions, and you have less need for antibiotics.

              Case at point: "needing less antibiotics" doesn't automatically equate with "better fit to the real world env" - you may finish with the need to always carry with you (at least) antihistamine medication in spite of "needing less antibiotics".

              --
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
              • (Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Tuesday February 27 2018, @04:57AM (5 children)

                by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Tuesday February 27 2018, @04:57AM (#644485) Journal

                Meat that people pick up from the grocery store (cue Phoenix666 rage) has already been treated and packaged in a way that reduces the amount of bacteria on it:

                http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995-04-19/entertainment/9505090003_1_american-meat-institute-foundation-coli-0157-h7 [chicagotribune.com]

                https://www.fda.gov/food/resourcesforyou/consumers/ucm261680.htm [fda.gov]

                https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/safe-food-handling/packaging-materials/meat-poultry-packaging-materials [usda.gov]

                https://uspackagingandwrapping.com/blog/A-Beginner-s-Guide-to-Meat-Packaging.html [uspackagingandwrapping.com]

                People buy billions of pounds of the stuff. And you know what they do after they buy it? They cook it, further killing bacteria. They do this before they eat it.

                So people are eating cooked meat with very few bacteria on it (unless it has been sitting around at room temperature after being cooked). What should they do next? Eat some dirt to make sure they are training their immune systems?

                Maybe there is an argument to be made that the current way people consume meat has health issues associated with it. But I don't see cultured meat making it any worse.

                --
                [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
                • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday February 27 2018, @06:37AM (4 children)

                  by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 27 2018, @06:37AM (#644516) Journal

                  But I don't see cultured meat making it any worse.

                  "Cultured meat" by itself, no.

                  A non-trivial proportion of "cultured meat" in the daily diet may make the things worse.
                  Look what happened with highly refined foods to date (prevalent obesity [wikipedia.org] and high incidence diabetes) - any reasons to believe adding some other type of "industrialized food" will make the matter better?

                  --
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
                  • (Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Tuesday February 27 2018, @11:31PM (3 children)

                    by Osamabobama (5842) on Tuesday February 27 2018, @11:31PM (#644868)

                    Cultured yogurt is recommended for better digestion. There's no reason 'cultured' should mean sterile; it could contain whatever is needed for proper nutrition.

                    --
                    Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
                    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday February 27 2018, @11:45PM (2 children)

                      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 27 2018, @11:45PM (#644875) Journal

                      Playing semantics, are you?
                      Wanna bet that "cultured meat" will be sterile?

                      --
                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
                      • (Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Wednesday February 28 2018, @12:17AM (1 child)

                        by Osamabobama (5842) on Wednesday February 28 2018, @12:17AM (#644888)

                        If it's grown with animal cells, then maybe so. But without a circulatory system and all the other baggage that comes with an animal, the construction methods of those cells is open for re-engineering. Maybe the question is settled, but I could imagine a number of processes that rely on bacteria.

                        But more to the point, I will concede that there won't be any known pathogens in the mix.

                        --
                        Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
                        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Wednesday February 28 2018, @02:06AM

                          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 28 2018, @02:06AM (#644928) Journal

                          Maybe the question is settled, but I could imagine a number of processes that rely on bacteria.

                          High growth rate (to be economically efficient and drive the price down) means pretty aggressive biological activity.
                          High biological activity is correlated with a high spoilage rate.
                          To stop spoilage:
                          1. grow the product to the point of highest appropriateness for human consumption - where the energy/nutritional value is maximum - then...
                          2. sterilize it - if it's fit for human consumption, the microbes (whatever they are: bacteria, molds, fungi, yeasts, etc) will love it too.

                          --
                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
              • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @06:30AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @06:30AM (#644514)

                has the potential to make one unable to eat from natural sources (or even survive in natural environ).

                As long as you actually live in the real world you're going to be exposed to viruses, bacteria and fungi anyway.

                Humans have been sterilizing and processing their food via cooking for thousands of years if not longer. It's more of which germs your body gets used to. As long as people don't suddenly change their diets and habits there doesn't seem to be a huge difference in surviving in the "real world" between those who eat their steaks and eggs overcooked and those who don't. Just if you go to some new place like Bombay you might need to be careful till your immune system figures stuff out.

                And even if it is an actual issue the sterile meat suppliers can supply the beneficial bacteria too. They could have better control of what bacteria you get in your meat and thus give you a better chance of getting the good bugs while a lower chance of Escherichia coli O157:H7. That way you can enjoy your medium rare steak and burgers with fewer concerns.

                • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday February 27 2018, @07:02AM

                  by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 27 2018, @07:02AM (#644521) Journal

                  As long as people don't suddenly change their diets and habits there doesn't seem to be a huge difference in surviving in the "real world" between those who eat their steaks and eggs overcooked and those who don't.

                  That's a strong presumption you put in there.
                  If you agree with a definition of "sudden" as "across 15-30 years" - look what happened [tripfitness.com] with the availability/affordability of highly refined food (and the increased price for the fresh products and decreased time available for family/personal life).

                  --
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
        • (Score: 4, Informative) by qzm on Tuesday February 27 2018, @04:33AM (2 children)

          by qzm (3260) on Tuesday February 27 2018, @04:33AM (#644467)

          You have not thought that through.
          As these vats will have no natural immune system, however they need to keep their developing cells alive, I and it is impossible to make a perfectly sterile system, then it is almost a given that things such as antibiotics will be required.
          If you are hoping for some kind of artisan organic vat meat then you are not thinking this through.
          This will be an industrial chemical and biological process.. With all the associated nasties and risks.

          • (Score: 1) by shrewdsheep on Tuesday February 27 2018, @12:58PM (1 child)

            by shrewdsheep (5215) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 27 2018, @12:58PM (#644595)

            It is possible to make a perfectly sterile system. Not that it would be required. Look at the pharmaceutical industry for starters.

            • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Reziac on Wednesday February 28 2018, @04:19AM

              by Reziac (2489) on Wednesday February 28 2018, @04:19AM (#644966) Homepage

              Yes, but pharmaceuticals are manufactured in lots of at most a few tons, using a lot of relatively-inert components (cellulose fillers, ring carbon compounds, etc) that aren't really food for anything likely to get into the process, while foodstuffs would need to be manufactured in lots of tens of thousands of tons, and the whole bloody thing is biologically attractive to microbes. Sterile workspace is reasonably easy to achieve in small units. It's a whole lot more difficult in large units. In the U.S. alone we eat somewhere around 20 BILLION pounds of meat per annum, and total around a ton of food apiece. That's one hell of a lot of vat space to try to keep sterile.

              Also, pharmaceutical manufacturing has a lot of fails and recalls before it hits retail; some that I'm aware of hit 50%.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Arik on Tuesday February 27 2018, @04:43AM (1 child)

          by Arik (4543) on Tuesday February 27 2018, @04:43AM (#644473) Journal
          "could be...could also...could be"

          Sure, give it a few decades and maybe they'll get to that point, but it's not where things are at now.

          And there's no drawback to accurate labeling. When artificial meat gets to the point that people like it on its merits we'll buy it on its merits.

          --
          If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by KiloByte on Tuesday February 27 2018, @07:24PM

            by KiloByte (375) on Tuesday February 27 2018, @07:24PM (#644745)

            When artificial meat gets to the point that people like it on its merits we'll buy it on its merits.

            You're forgetting about rabid leftist governments. Once artificial meat gets available, no matter how bad it is, you can count on laws banning actual meat (because "cruelty") popping up in all countries where the political pendulum is currently to the left. Meat farmers are no oil, coal or "defense" — so the pendulum swinging to the right won't undo the damage.

            --
            Ceterum censeo systemd esse delendam.
    • (Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @02:48AM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @02:48AM (#644415)

      Scientifically Produced Alternative Meat.

    • (Score: 2) by captain normal on Tuesday February 27 2018, @06:13AM (1 child)

      by captain normal (2205) on Tuesday February 27 2018, @06:13AM (#644508)

      How about Soylent Brown. Or, if that is too unappetizing, Soylent Pink that turns brownish when cooked.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @05:42PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @05:42PM (#644703)

        Ah yes, good ol' SPTTBWC.

  • (Score: 1) by Sulla on Tuesday February 27 2018, @01:49AM (4 children)

    by Sulla (5173) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 27 2018, @01:49AM (#644374) Journal

    I kind of expected that the beef industry already pushed a definition of beef, its not unprescidented. Burbon is defined as well as other foods, why not beef?

    As mentioned in a previous post, I would not be bothered at all eating arti-meat.

    --
    Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @01:54AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @01:54AM (#644379)

      You set a presidential precedent.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @02:19AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @02:19AM (#644397)

        More half-n-half, a kind of a Beef Bourguignon. For all intensive purposes. http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/ [lascribe.net]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @05:39PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @05:39PM (#644699)

      unprescidented

      unprecedented

      • (Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Tuesday February 27 2018, @11:36PM

        by Osamabobama (5842) on Tuesday February 27 2018, @11:36PM (#644870)

        Anonymous Coward can spell 'unprecedented', but can't spell 'bourbon'? Probably grown in a vat...

        --
        Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by stretch611 on Tuesday February 27 2018, @02:18AM (12 children)

    by stretch611 (6199) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 27 2018, @02:18AM (#644396)

    Sure, as long as any animals treated with antibiotics for weight gain do not qualify.
    As well as any animal fed with GMO food.

    --
    I think; therefore, I am vaccinated.
    • (Score: 3, Touché) by requerdanos on Tuesday February 27 2018, @02:30AM

      by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 27 2018, @02:30AM (#644401) Journal

      Sure, as long as any animals treated with antibiotics for weight gain [and animals fed with GMO food] do not qualify

      So... GMO animals that stay off the antibiotics are fine, then, as long as they don't eat Monsanto corn?

    • (Score: 3, Touché) by takyon on Tuesday February 27 2018, @02:43AM (9 children)

      by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Tuesday February 27 2018, @02:43AM (#644409) Journal

      As well as any animal fed with GMO food.

      And why would you think this matters?

      GMOs are just organisms. What's safer, GMO corn, or GMO-free, "organic", free-trade poison hemlock?

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @03:54AM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @03:54AM (#644449)

        back to comparing apples to daggers are we?

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Tuesday February 27 2018, @04:40AM (4 children)

          by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Tuesday February 27 2018, @04:40AM (#644470) Journal

          That's the point. We can't really say what the apples and the daggers are just by saying "GMOs are bad, mmkay". Except pretty small and well-understood edits are being made with GMOs.

          --
          [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @04:52AM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @04:52AM (#644479)

            > ,...well-understood edits ...

            Give me a break, we are so far from really understanding all the functionality built into a genome that it's not even funny. Edits done by shooting genes into cells are being done to give specific mutations, like immunity to Roundup, and very little testing is being done on any long term consequences.

            The business seems to be getting a bit more precise with CRISPR but it's still based on making money, not on making things really better overall. And business it is, given the legal department of Monsanto (et al) who have been reported to sue farmers next to test fields when the neighbor accidentally "stole" the new product after it blew over the property line.

            • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @05:30AM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @05:30AM (#644492)

              Where's your evidence that GMOs are harmful?

              • (Score: 2, Touché) by redneckmother on Tuesday February 27 2018, @03:20PM

                by redneckmother (3597) on Tuesday February 27 2018, @03:20PM (#644639)

                Monsanto and Bayer stock prices?

                --
                Mas cerveza por favor.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @04:41PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @04:41PM (#644663)

                > Where's your evidence that GMOs are harmful?

                No evidence needed at this early stage of GMO development. I claim that the proponents have to prove to me (the customer) that they have tested enough to prove that it's safe for *me*. This has to include very broad testing, people with different allergies, all the corner cases that differentiate one person from another. Historically, introducing new things into the food chain has been a very slow process and the "testing" was done in a fairly uncontrolled manner by countless of our ancestors (to the detriment of some of them!)

                I suggest that this is on the same order of the testing required to show that self-driving cars will approach the "competence" of an un-impaired, mature driver -- billions or trillions of miles.

      • (Score: 2) by legont on Tuesday February 27 2018, @04:24AM

        by legont (4179) on Tuesday February 27 2018, @04:24AM (#644461)

        Most GMO plans are designed to survive higher concentrations of poisons used to kill bugs or fertilize the soil; the poisons end up inside the eater. So yes, any close non GMO relative is most likely much safer to eat simply because it survived the treatment.

        --
        "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
      • (Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Tuesday February 27 2018, @11:39PM (1 child)

        by Osamabobama (5842) on Tuesday February 27 2018, @11:39PM (#644873)

        What do you call a food that is modified (not genetically) by passing it through the digestive system of an animal, then incorporated into that animal's biomass?

        --
        Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @07:54PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @07:54PM (#644756)

      this is what i came to post. now these whores care about the labeling? when they found out what caused mad cow, did they stop feeding cow to cow? no. the whores at the usda said "don't worry we have better separating machines to get that pesky brain, spinal and nerve tissue out of there". where do you think that position originated. these scum who want to "protect us" now, that's where.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by requerdanos on Tuesday February 27 2018, @02:20AM (6 children)

    by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 27 2018, @02:20AM (#644398) Journal

    Now U.S. Cattlemen's Association is looking to draw a line in the sand, [and launch] the first salvo in a long battle against plant-based foods.

    Okay, the reader is supposed to say. Those wicked cowboys are up to no good! What evil is afoot at their hands?

    the association [asked] the U.S. Department of Agriculture [for] an official definition for the term "beef," and more broadly, "meat."

    Um. That does not look like any sort of battle metaphor nor hostile act. They want "beef" and "meat" to be legally defined so that when I buy something called "beef" I know that it is as a minimum whatever that definition is. I kind of want that too. That way I know what I am buying and if I want a dead cow product, I can look for the word "beef" and if I want something else, I can look for "soylent green" or whatever.

    This seems like 100% of benefit to consumers, of 100% benefit to honest meat producers, of 100% benefit to honest lab-or-plant meatlike food producers.

    The only people who stand to lose out by something like that are the dishonest meat producers (can't call that byproduct patty "meat" anymore) and the dishonest fakemeat makers (can't call fake meat just "meat"), with consumers winning in either case.

    "While at this time alternative protein sources are not a direct threat to the beef industry, we do see improper labeling of these products as misleading," said Lia Biondo, the association's policy and outreach director.

    I see improper labeling as misleading, too, and I do not produce meat for a living (but I purchase it and cook it and eat it).

    "Our goal is to head off the problem before it becomes a larger issue" [said Bondo.]

    Well, you probably also have goals like "spread FUD about fakemeat" and "make people distrust fakemeat" and "hmm I wonder if this flu epidemic is related to fakemeat" and things like that.

    But the labeling thing is a laudable goal, and I appreciate your making that effort.

    • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Tuesday February 27 2018, @03:01AM (3 children)

      by Whoever (4524) on Tuesday February 27 2018, @03:01AM (#644423) Journal

      Let's have a definition of meat.

      Does "pink slime" aka "mechanically recovered meat" count?

      What about meat byproducts? What about animal products that contain very little muscle tissue: is that meat?

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by requerdanos on Tuesday February 27 2018, @03:25PM (2 children)

        by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 27 2018, @03:25PM (#644641) Journal

        Let's have a definition of meat.

        I would start with a working definition along the lines of "harvested edible flesh of a living animal" with edible referring to texture (no hoof/hair for example), not preference.

        Does "pink slime" aka "mechanically recovered meat" count?

        Absolutely yes. They may or may not be appetizing, desirable meat to everyone, but they are (at least under my definition here) meat. As an aside, I eat and enjoy both of these, the first in pre-formed hamburger patties [fatsecret.com] and the second in things like Vienna sausages [amazon.com].

        What about meat byproducts?

        If by meat byproducts you mean organs (gizzards, lungs, spleen, kidneys, brain, livers, stomach, intestinal walls) and random parts (connective tissue, blood, bones, excess fat), then yes, these plus choicer meats form a meat we call "sausage."

        What about animal products that contain very little muscle tissue: is that meat?

        Now we come down to a real challenge to my definition above... The blood, bones, brains, and intestinal walls, for example, are technically edible, but are they meat? I would say, sticking with the definition above, that yes, they are meat, again that you might put into sausage, but not generally regarded as yummy meats.

        According to this definition, yucky genuine animal parts are "meat" and choice lab-grown steaks are "not meat."

        Your probing questions suggest that perhaps there should be more than one class of "meat" in the definition. Maybe something along the lines of, for a suggestion, class 3, "harvested edible flesh of a living animal"==meat that may include any part of the animal; class 2 meat that can't contain any of a particularly yucky class of non-yummy things, and class 1 meat that has to be muscle-tissue derived?

        That way brains-and-bones soup would contain class 3 meat, sausages class 2, and burgers or prime rib class 1.

        And any class of meat != any class of lab-grown tasty zombie flesh. "Try TZF! You'll love it."

        A looming problem: Are, or are not, those stem cells and the lab-grown resultant steak, harvested animal products?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @04:45PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @04:45PM (#644665)

          Traditionally, there are meats, organ meats and animal products. The differences are relatively straightforward.

          • (Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Tuesday February 27 2018, @11:45PM

            by Osamabobama (5842) on Tuesday February 27 2018, @11:45PM (#644874)

            Traditionally (in some traditions), fish isn't meat. Each tradition is straightforward, but there are multiple standards. Which one will the USDA use? Probably a new one.

            Obligatory xkcd [xkcd.com]

            --
            Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Whoever on Tuesday February 27 2018, @03:04AM

      by Whoever (4524) on Tuesday February 27 2018, @03:04AM (#644431) Journal

      Before lab-grown meat becomes mainstream, they are using the distinction between meat from animals and plant-based products that simulate meat to create a definition of meat that won't include the real and long-term threat: lab grown meat.

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by deimtee on Tuesday February 27 2018, @11:18AM

      by deimtee (3272) on Tuesday February 27 2018, @11:18AM (#644563) Journal

      It's a bit like the arguments for and against labelling GMO foods.
      Those in favor were arguing that giving customers more information was a good thing. The choice was theirs to make, regardless of how rational you thought they weren't.
      Those against argued that consumers would make poor choices and that the labels would confuse the poor plebs.

      You can probably tell my opinion on GMO labelling. If I want to make a choice on how to spend my money based on something you consider irrational I don't give a flying fuck what you think. I, and everyone else, make less than perfectly rational choices all the time. It's no-one else's business if I choose to pay extra for non-GMO foods, and you paternalistic fucks who think it is can fuck off.

      (Actually, in most cases I don't give a shit about GMO's, it's the 'I know what's good for you better than you do' attitude that pisses me off. Label the fuckers and let the free market sort shit out. (To be clearer I think things like golden rice are brilliant. Things were they add a gene so that the plant can withstand higher doses of poison, and they then use that extra poison, not so much. After all, I don't have the extra genes to withstand that poison.))

      --
      No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
  • (Score: 1) by Revek on Tuesday February 27 2018, @02:52AM (2 children)

    by Revek (5022) on Tuesday February 27 2018, @02:52AM (#644418)

    And the new vat grown meat can be awesome meat.

    Careful what you wish for.

    --
    This page was generated by a Swarm of Roaming Elephants
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by qzm on Tuesday February 27 2018, @04:21AM (1 child)

      by qzm (3260) on Tuesday February 27 2018, @04:21AM (#644458)

      I wonder how the vegans would feel if manufacturers of vegan burger patties started putting in meat products because it was cheaper..
      That is what they are trying to stop here after all...
      I bet people would be a little less smart arse about redefining words then... Hmmmm?

      • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by requerdanos on Tuesday February 27 2018, @03:27PM

        by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 27 2018, @03:27PM (#644642) Journal

        I bet people would be a little less smart arse about redefining words then... Hmmmm?

        Despite our subscriber ID differential, I see from this statement that you must be new here. Welcome to Soylentnews.org!

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @03:03AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @03:03AM (#644429)

    When Claire finally got the hot beef injection will she now have to remember it as a non-beef experience?

  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @03:56AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @03:56AM (#644450)

    Hard to believe that I got here late, and no one has asked, "Where's the beef?"

  • (Score: 2, Touché) by Arik on Tuesday February 27 2018, @04:35AM (2 children)

    by Arik (4543) on Tuesday February 27 2018, @04:35AM (#644469) Journal
    "Here's an idea: define "meat" for the Cattlemen's Association, then tax it with an exemption for "lab-grown meat"."

    Wow, a snarky vegan jackass posted this? How interesting.

    The Cattleman's Association is just doing what they're supposed to do.

    More broadly, I don't have any problem with using 'meat' pretty broadly as long as it's clearly qualified. There are plenty of plants that produce meat naturally - all nuts contain meat for instance.

    But be specific. If anything just says it contains 'meat' without further qualification I am not going to touch it.
    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @06:01AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @06:01AM (#644502)

      I think most people agree on the need to clearly define meat. There is both snarky comments as well as discussions straying away from this central fact.

      First: Both vegans and Cattlemen's (as well as related associations for other farm/factory raised livestock) need 'meat' clearly defined. The former so it can be clear what is acceptable consumables for vegans (hint: While it's primarily advertised as 'meat haters' the real definition is people who do not eat animal products/byproducts. This means animal cell derived proteins would still not be kosher if the meat was synthetically produced. Furthermore depending on the plant derived synthmeat products, some of them might not qualify due to having products or byproducts incorporated in them which are not naturally found in plants, but only in animals. Vegetarians have more leeway on this since most can eat animal byproducts and the restrictions are only on certain animals flesh (IE fish is acceptable to some sects of vegetarians, while poultry, pork, and beef are not.)

      I agree with others that there will at minimum be three classifications needed: Farm grown animal meat. Laboratory grown animal meat. And plant derived meat substitutes containing no animal derived products. There are very likely other permutations which also need to be documented, long the long running real or imagined use of soybeans in McDonald's burgers, making a hybrid meat patty that would qualify as neither 'pure' meat, nor synthetic vegan/vegetarian meat product.

      Clear and difficult to game descriptions of food products are important to educated consumer selection of acceptable products. Whether pro-meat, or pro-vegetable, clearly defining where these boundaries lies is important for both sides to choose products that meat their required qualifications and pedigree.

      • (Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday February 27 2018, @07:50AM

        by Arik (4543) on Tuesday February 27 2018, @07:50AM (#644526) Journal
        "I think most people agree on the need to clearly define meat. There is both snarky comments as well as discussions straying away from this central fact."

        Off to a good start.

        "First: Both vegans and Cattlemen's (as well as related associations for other farm/factory raised livestock) need 'meat' clearly defined."

        ^^

        "The former so it can be clear what is acceptable consumables for vegans (hint: While it's primarily advertised as 'meat haters' the real definition is people who do not eat animal products/byproducts. This means animal cell derived proteins would still not be kosher"

        Oh, wait, did you just try to say כשר?

        Yeah that brings up another group of people who need for food products to be clearly labeled.

        And there are more than one more.

        Let's just generalize it, ok? People who care what they put in their body.

        We may not all have the same values but we ALL want accurate information before deciding if we will eat.

        The problem with too many of these proposals that I am hearing is they boil down to "Mandate the information I consider important is printed on the label BUT DO NOT print the information the uncultured poop-heads I don't like care to know."

        I understand there is only so much room on the label and I try to look for voluntary labels instead of relying on the required anyway, what bothers me most is the perception that we no longer even try to appear to be fair to each other.
        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by MostCynical on Tuesday February 27 2018, @04:56AM

    by MostCynical (2589) on Tuesday February 27 2018, @04:56AM (#644484) Journal

    some countries have legislation for this kind of thing.. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2012C00286 [legislation.gov.au]

    (or is that too much "big government"?)

    --
    Books are a poor substitute for female companionship, but they are easier to find. P Rothfuss “The Wise Man's Fear"
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @05:39AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @05:39AM (#644496)

    This is nothing new, in the world of food.

    We have label standards for all sorts of stuff. Check your box of cereal, check your jar of pickles, check the pack of hotdogs - it's all described on the label.

    Now what a lot of you might not be clear on is that the definitions that you can use on that label are already pretty darned pinned down.

    The same thing goes for wine, incidentally. The label standard is different, but they have to be pretty clear on things like how much ethanol is in there, and whether or not they used sulphites in the making, and so on.

    Thirty years ago, "beef" on a label was not a deeply ambiguous term. The ranchers can now see a future where it could be ambiguous. They're asking for an official, regulatory, recognised definition.

    Nothing wrong with that.

    Unless you prefer unverified labels on food.

  • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Ayn Anonymous on Tuesday February 27 2018, @07:48AM (5 children)

    by Ayn Anonymous (5012) on Tuesday February 27 2018, @07:48AM (#644525)

    People never see the bigger picture.
    Stupidity ?
    A board nailed on there forehead ?

    What is *real* meat ?
    *real* meat comes from an animal that eat exactly what evolution has it driven to eat.
    And it lives in an environment and lifestyle that is typical for its species.

    That means for example for cows:
    - Eating mostly perennial prairie grasses with many, many herbs some flower and some tree and bush leaves.
    - Walking a lot in a migratory lifestyle.
    We the hairless white apes HAD eaten this real meat since 1+ million years. It has greatly supported our evolutionary development.

    So, a bunch of Idiots who are not even able to COUNT the compounds in the food of a cow, let alone understand all the compounds.
    These Idiots not even understand the exact mechanisms of photosynthesis.

    Now these ignorant Idiots want grow something in a growing media consisting 3-5 compounds and think that would be enough to feed the hairless white apes that are used to real meat without negative long term consequences ?
    Keep believing that and eat that shit they call food.
    I renounce.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @08:16AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @08:16AM (#644528)
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Aiwendil on Tuesday February 27 2018, @11:09AM (1 child)

      by Aiwendil (531) on Tuesday February 27 2018, @11:09AM (#644560) Journal

      *real* meat comes from an animal that eat exactly what evolution has it driven to eat.
      And it lives in an environment and lifestyle that is typical for its species.

      So, you mean if we would round up at least half of all cattle on this planet and put them to pasture in marshlands then all cattle living on plains wouldn't be real meat, sweet :)

      The phrase "what evolution has it driven to eat" is kinda weird, either it means "whatever doesn't kill the animal prior to reproduction" or it means "if we feed it stuff that evolved after the animal did or at another place it isn't meat" (maize is a cultivar (about 10k yrs old) from americas, soy is native of east asia, potatoes is from americas, rye and oats are examples of vavilovian mimicry and are pretty recent as well).

      Which sense did you mean it in?

      Oh, also, we havn't been eating cows for that long either, cows (cattle) is the name of the domesticated subspecies, and that domestication happened about 10k years ago (in turkey it seems). (Oh, and domestication is pretty much the definition of violating the typical lifestyle and enviornment)

      These Idiots not even understand the exact mechanisms of photosynthesis.

      Go ahead.. Post me the exact mechanism of photosynthesis, I'm looking forward to brushing up on the CAM and C4 variants, also remember to not limit yourself to phototrophy since you since you specified the exact mechanism of photosynthesis.
      (Actually hope my snarkiness will backfire here, I really look forward to reading up on this subject)

      • (Score: 2) by Ayn Anonymous on Tuesday February 27 2018, @06:41PM

        by Ayn Anonymous (5012) on Tuesday February 27 2018, @06:41PM (#644717)

        You still not see my point.
        You probably can but won't because it would disturb your view of the world.
        > So, you mean if we would round up at least half of all cattle on this planet and put them to pasture in marshlands then all cattle living on plains wouldn't be real meat, sweet :)
        0.5 to 1 billion hairless white apes would be the appropriate number of us for this planet. It would be so easy to get to this number if people would not jut fuck without a brain.
        No problem to give the animals the space there used to.

        We are not even close to understand exactly how our biosphere works.
        We need to reduce the complexity to a super small isolated tiny little bit to be able to fuck with it.
        But hey there is no reason not to fuck with tiny little bits we think to understand of the whole thing.
        We once know DDT is harmless. And once know Asbestos is harmless.
        And cross kingdom gene splicing is harmless.....

    • (Score: 2) by requerdanos on Tuesday February 27 2018, @03:31PM

      by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 27 2018, @03:31PM (#644644) Journal

      Your post has a pretty high drivel content, but I modded it "interesting" because I am thinking about subscribing to your newsletter.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @05:11PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @05:11PM (#644676)

      Sorry I stopped at your user name, randians are known to have defective brains.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @09:36AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @09:36AM (#644544)

    -- Yours truly, small government lovin gun toting bible bashing meathead industy

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @02:51PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @02:51PM (#644627)

      I see you are against trademark law.

      That's fine, just take some of this advil* and rest.

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @09:42AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @09:42AM (#644546)

    It is a jewish khazar deception. They mix everything together and fake everything. They are deceivers and this fake meat is a deception.

    Good on the meat producers, we need to properly define the deception and the real thing. We can call the fake meat "deception meat" so more people will see it is a jewish propaganda thing.

  • (Score: 2) by darnkitten on Tuesday February 27 2018, @09:13PM

    by darnkitten (1912) on Tuesday February 27 2018, @09:13PM (#644807)

    We already have "process cheese," "cheese food," "cheese spread," "cheese product" and Velveeta (a pasteurized process vaguely-cheese-like substance), which seem to sell along-side of "real" cheese.

    From what I understand, the opponents of processed cheese pushed for the label, "embalmed cheese," but the above more-market-friendly terms won out. I expect something similar will happen with meat--and good on it! I'd prefer to know how much soy filler (or water) is in my burger, or how much hot dog or roof rabbit is in my frankfurter...

(1)