Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Lab Grown Meat... would you?
Replies
-
The_Hiking_Viking wrote: »I would absolutely not eat this lab grown meat or anything gmo if all possible. What people fail to understand is how these engineered foods can affect and irreparibly harm the genetics of you during your life and generations after you. For example GMO soy in rat studies has shown decreasing fertility each generation until the babies are eventually sterile. See articles on naturalnews.com. As the food supply continues to be polluted dna and epigenetic damage will be the result. Eating this stuff has far reaching inter-generational consequences. The best weapon is information, I reccomend you do your research.
Food has been genetically modified for generations and the planet is still over crowded, so I find that danger highly unlikely to be true.
naturalnews is a conspiracy theory website. Snopes could spin off an entirely new website just debunking everything naturalnews publishes.
On a positive note, I think once Bigfoot finally reveals himself, he'll be supportive of lab grown meat, as a self preservation tactic.
The Huffpost.com must be a "conspiracy" website also since the published an article about a study, jointly conducted by The Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the National Association for Gene Security.
Here is a excerpt: "Surov’s hamsters are just the latest animals to suffer from reproductive disorders after consuming GMOs. In 2005, Irina Ermakova, also with the Russian National Academy of Sciences, reported that more than half the babies from mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks. This was also five times higher than the 10% death rate of the non-GMO soy group. The babies in the GM group were also smaller (see photo) and could not reproduce."
I am always willing to look at any topic from both sides, that being said, please forward the research paper that disproves each assertion, with back up studies, in the original research mentioned in this article. Thanks.3 -
The_Hiking_Viking wrote: »The_Hiking_Viking wrote: »I would absolutely not eat this lab grown meat or anything gmo if all possible. What people fail to understand is how these engineered foods can affect and irreparibly harm the genetics of you during your life and generations after you. For example GMO soy in rat studies has shown decreasing fertility each generation until the babies are eventually sterile. See articles on naturalnews.com. As the food supply continues to be polluted dna and epigenetic damage will be the result. Eating this stuff has far reaching inter-generational consequences. The best weapon is information, I reccomend you do your research.
Food has been genetically modified for generations and the planet is still over crowded, so I find that danger highly unlikely to be true.
naturalnews is a conspiracy theory website. Snopes could spin off an entirely new website just debunking everything naturalnews publishes.
On a positive note, I think once Bigfoot finally reveals himself, he'll be supportive of lab grown meat, as a self preservation tactic.
The Huffpost.com must be a "conspiracy" website also since the published an article about a study, jointly conducted by The Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the National Association for Gene Security.
Here is a excerpt: "Surov’s hamsters are just the latest animals to suffer from reproductive disorders after consuming GMOs. In 2005, Irina Ermakova, also with the Russian National Academy of Sciences, reported that more than half the babies from mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks. This was also five times higher than the 10% death rate of the non-GMO soy group. The babies in the GM group were also smaller (see photo) and could not reproduce."
I am always willing to look at any topic from both sides, that being said, please forward the research paper that disproves each assertion, with back up studies, in the original research mentioned in this article. Thanks.
Actually Huffpost is a tabloid, kind of like the Daily Mail or National Enquirer. They do however often republish clickbait articles from conspiracy theory sites.
The study you are referencing is interestingly not available in English, and was undertaken by an org whose goal seems to be anti-GMO. All I could find in English is of all things a vegan blog, breaking down why the study isn't anything to pay attention to. I'm not sure which is more useful to know - that the "study" was conducted on 20 whole hamsters, or that the infertility results were far more likely caused by the continuous inbreeding of said hamsters.
http://veganskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/10/alexey-surov-and-gm-soy-recurrent-tale.html
An important part of researching a topic is vetting sources. I have no idea if this blogspot blog is giving accurate info, but it seems no less trustworthy than the original "study", and I don't have the time or interest to track down the Russian text and run it through a translator.4 -
If the taste and price is right sure. Even if it is slightly more expensive if it tastes good I'd consider it for ethical/environmental reasons. I imagine they have a lot of work though to get it to taste equivalent.
There is a reason they are making it into hamburger though. Hamburger is ground beef where the grinding disrupts the overall texture of the meat. Meat cultured in this particular technique would not have any texture so the closest thing they can try to mimic is another textureless meat which is hamburger. When you are talking lab grown meat you aren't going to be talking a steak because a steak is going to be a mix of fat and muscle tissue in a particular structure that creates a particular taste and texture they aren't going to be able to mimic with this method. One thing is with this method it would be 100% lean meat, no fat at all. That and the issue with texture is probably why the taste is a bit off.
Also there is a lot of detail missing with this video. The original stem cell is immortal and can be cultured indefinitely but when it differentiates into primary myoblasts then those cells are no longer immortal and cannot be cultured indefinitely. Unless they make an immortalized cell line which I don't think they'd really want to do. So the picture of a single myocyte being used to culture trillions is not accurate or is some sort of misrepresentation of what they are actually doing.
2 -
My mind immediately goes to, why grow/make/raise meat in a LAB? What kind of lab? What kind of meat? Define 'meat'. Is it pieces parts squished together?
Nope. Just too many unknowns for me.1 -
Gross!0
-
-
The_Hiking_Viking wrote: »I would absolutely not eat this lab grown meat or anything gmo if all possible. What people fail to understand is how these engineered foods can affect and irreparibly harm the genetics of you during your life and generations after you. For example GMO soy in rat studies has shown decreasing fertility each generation until the babies are eventually sterile. See articles on naturalnews.com. As the food supply continues to be polluted dna and epigenetic damage will be the result. Eating this stuff has far reaching inter-generational consequences. The best weapon is information, I reccomend you do your research.
Food has been genetically modified for generations and the planet is still over crowded, so I find that danger highly unlikely to be true.
naturalnews is a conspiracy theory website. Snopes could spin off an entirely new website just debunking everything naturalnews publishes.
On a positive note, I think once Bigfoot finally reveals himself, he'll be supportive of lab grown meat, as a self preservation tactic.stanmann571 wrote: »The_Hiking_Viking wrote: »I would absolutely not eat this lab grown meat or anything gmo if all possible. What people fail to understand is how these engineered foods can affect and irreparibly harm the genetics of you during your life and generations after you. For example GMO soy in rat studies has shown decreasing fertility each generation until the babies are eventually sterile. See articles on naturalnews.com. As the food supply continues to be polluted dna and epigenetic damage will be the result. Eating this stuff has far reaching inter-generational consequences. The best weapon is information, I reccomend you do your research.
Food has been genetically modified for generations and the planet is still over crowded, so I find that danger highly unlikely to be true.
naturalnews is a conspiracy theory website. Snopes could spin off an entirely new website just debunking everything naturalnews publishes.
On a positive note, I think once Bigfoot finally reveals himself, he'll be supportive of lab grown meat, as a self preservation tactic.
I'd suggest millennia, but that doesn't invalidate your point.
No, Commercial sale of genetically modified foods began in 1994, when Calgene first marketed its unsuccessful Flavr Savr delayed-ripening tomato. Please site your sources that GMO crops have been growing for "millennia"?5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »The_Hiking_Viking wrote: »I would absolutely not eat this lab grown meat or anything gmo if all possible. What people fail to understand is how these engineered foods can affect and irreparibly harm the genetics of you during your life and generations after you. For example GMO soy in rat studies has shown decreasing fertility each generation until the babies are eventually sterile. See articles on naturalnews.com. As the food supply continues to be polluted dna and epigenetic damage will be the result. Eating this stuff has far reaching inter-generational consequences. The best weapon is information, I reccomend you do your research.
What studies are you referring to here?
You realize that lab-grown meat wouldn't necessarily be genetically modified, right?
The study I am referring to is the following:
Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the National Association for Gene Security.
Excerpt: "Surov’s hamsters are just the latest animals to suffer from reproductive disorders after consuming GMOs. In 2005, Irina Ermakova, also with the Russian National Academy of Sciences, reported that more than half the babies from mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks. This was also five times higher than the 10% death rate of the non-GMO soy group. The babies in the GM group were also smaller (see photo) and could not reproduce."2 -
The_Hiking_Viking wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »The_Hiking_Viking wrote: »I would absolutely not eat this lab grown meat or anything gmo if all possible. What people fail to understand is how these engineered foods can affect and irreparibly harm the genetics of you during your life and generations after you. For example GMO soy in rat studies has shown decreasing fertility each generation until the babies are eventually sterile. See articles on naturalnews.com. As the food supply continues to be polluted dna and epigenetic damage will be the result. Eating this stuff has far reaching inter-generational consequences. The best weapon is information, I reccomend you do your research.
What studies are you referring to here?
You realize that lab-grown meat wouldn't necessarily be genetically modified, right?
The study I am referring to is the following:
Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the National Association for Gene Security.
Excerpt: "Surov’s hamsters are just the latest animals to suffer from reproductive disorders after consuming GMOs. In 2005, Irina Ermakova, also with the Russian National Academy of Sciences, reported that more than half the babies from mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks. This was also five times higher than the 10% death rate of the non-GMO soy group. The babies in the GM group were also smaller (see photo) and could not reproduce."
Obscure rat study vs 29 year study with billions of subjects
https://www.asas.org/taking-stock/taking-stock/2014/10/02/100-billion-animals-what-the-data-say-about-ge-feeds1 -
The_Hiking_Viking wrote: »The_Hiking_Viking wrote: »I would absolutely not eat this lab grown meat or anything gmo if all possible. What people fail to understand is how these engineered foods can affect and irreparibly harm the genetics of you during your life and generations after you. For example GMO soy in rat studies has shown decreasing fertility each generation until the babies are eventually sterile. See articles on naturalnews.com. As the food supply continues to be polluted dna and epigenetic damage will be the result. Eating this stuff has far reaching inter-generational consequences. The best weapon is information, I reccomend you do your research.
Food has been genetically modified for generations and the planet is still over crowded, so I find that danger highly unlikely to be true.
naturalnews is a conspiracy theory website. Snopes could spin off an entirely new website just debunking everything naturalnews publishes.
On a positive note, I think once Bigfoot finally reveals himself, he'll be supportive of lab grown meat, as a self preservation tactic.stanmann571 wrote: »The_Hiking_Viking wrote: »I would absolutely not eat this lab grown meat or anything gmo if all possible. What people fail to understand is how these engineered foods can affect and irreparibly harm the genetics of you during your life and generations after you. For example GMO soy in rat studies has shown decreasing fertility each generation until the babies are eventually sterile. See articles on naturalnews.com. As the food supply continues to be polluted dna and epigenetic damage will be the result. Eating this stuff has far reaching inter-generational consequences. The best weapon is information, I reccomend you do your research.
Food has been genetically modified for generations and the planet is still over crowded, so I find that danger highly unlikely to be true.
naturalnews is a conspiracy theory website. Snopes could spin off an entirely new website just debunking everything naturalnews publishes.
On a positive note, I think once Bigfoot finally reveals himself, he'll be supportive of lab grown meat, as a self preservation tactic.
I'd suggest millennia, but that doesn't invalidate your point.
No, Commercial sale of genetically modified foods began in 1994, when Calgene first marketed its unsuccessful Flavr Savr delayed-ripening tomato. Please site your sources that GMO crops have been growing for "millennia"?
Corn, Wheat, Oranges, Apples. All GMO... All over 1000 years ago. Those are just the obvious and easy to prove ones.
3 -
I'm pretty positive wheat is not genetically modified. It's been cross-bred significantly to withstand more and more Round-Up (which concerns me a lot more than if something is a GMO). Oats aren't genetically modified either. GMO apples is a very, very new thing (last couple years) -- to prevent them from browning. Cross-breeding strains is not the same as genetic modification. Genetic modification is manipulating the DNA.
Still, on this thread, I think we're talking about more similar to cloning cells than genetic manipulation.
2 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »I'm pretty positive wheat is not genetically modified. It's been cross-bred significantly to withstand more and more Round-Up (which concerns me a lot more than if something is a GMO). Oats aren't genetically modified either. GMO apples is a very, very new thing (last couple years) -- to prevent them from browning. Cross-breeding strains is not the same as genetic modification. Genetic modification is manipulating the DNA.
Still, on this thread, I think we're talking about more similar to cloning cells than genetic manipulation.
This is utterly incorrect.6 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »I'm pretty positive wheat is not genetically modified. It's been cross-bred significantly to withstand more and more Round-Up (which concerns me a lot more than if something is a GMO). Oats aren't genetically modified either. GMO apples is a very, very new thing (last couple years) -- to prevent them from browning. Cross-breeding strains is not the same as genetic modification. Genetic modification is manipulating the DNA.
Still, on this thread, I think we're talking about more similar to cloning cells than genetic manipulation.
Why are you afraid of Round Up?
http://www.crediblehulk.org/index.php/2015/06/02/about-those-more-caustic-herbicides-that-glyphosate-helped-replace-by-credible-hulk/1 -
How, then, do you think cross breeding works?MikePfirrman wrote: »Cross-breeding strains is not the same as genetic modification. Genetic modification is manipulating the DNA.
2 -
johnslater461 wrote: »
How, then, do you think cross breeding works?MikePfirrman wrote: »Cross-breeding strains is not the same as genetic modification. Genetic modification is manipulating the DNA.
The only meaningful difference between modern and classical genetic engineering/modification techniques is generation duration. Classical methods took dozens or hundreds of years to produce a desired change. Modern techniques do it over the course of seasons or half seasons.4 -
Exactlystanmann571 wrote: »johnslater461 wrote: »
How, then, do you think cross breeding works?MikePfirrman wrote: »Cross-breeding strains is not the same as genetic modification. Genetic modification is manipulating the DNA.
The only meaningful difference between modern and classical genetic engineering/modification techniques is generation duration. Classical methods took dozens or hundreds of years to produce a desired change. Modern techniques do it over the course of seasons or half seasons.
6 -
-
The_Hiking_Viking wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »The_Hiking_Viking wrote: »I would absolutely not eat this lab grown meat or anything gmo if all possible. What people fail to understand is how these engineered foods can affect and irreparibly harm the genetics of you during your life and generations after you. For example GMO soy in rat studies has shown decreasing fertility each generation until the babies are eventually sterile. See articles on naturalnews.com. As the food supply continues to be polluted dna and epigenetic damage will be the result. Eating this stuff has far reaching inter-generational consequences. The best weapon is information, I reccomend you do your research.
What studies are you referring to here?
You realize that lab-grown meat wouldn't necessarily be genetically modified, right?
The study I am referring to is the following:
Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the National Association for Gene Security.
Excerpt: "Surov’s hamsters are just the latest animals to suffer from reproductive disorders after consuming GMOs. In 2005, Irina Ermakova, also with the Russian National Academy of Sciences, reported that more than half the babies from mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks. This was also five times higher than the 10% death rate of the non-GMO soy group. The babies in the GM group were also smaller (see photo) and could not reproduce."
You're basing your claims on a single study?1 -
johnslater461 wrote: »
Exactlystanmann571 wrote: »johnslater461 wrote: »
How, then, do you think cross breeding works?MikePfirrman wrote: »Cross-breeding strains is not the same as genetic modification. Genetic modification is manipulating the DNA.
The only meaningful difference between modern and classical genetic engineering/modification techniques is generation duration. Classical methods took dozens or hundreds of years to produce a desired change. Modern techniques do it over the course of seasons or half seasons.
Honestly I hate this "argument" as it is purley semantic. I think we can all understand that when people say they have an issue with "genetically modified organisms" what they mean is they have concerns about the application of modern genetic engineering techniques and what ramifications that might have especially when applied to our food supply. I think having such concerns is reasonable, I think the fear about them and the belief there is evidence they cause harm is unjustified however. Genetic engineering is a tool that can be used in numerous applications to create a near infinite number of products, each product has to be evaluated for safety and efficacy on its own...you can't simply lump all products that were produced in part by genetic engineering as "bad" or "dangerous" anymore than you can lump all products made by a hammer as "bad". Sure, a particular product that utilized a hammer in its creation might have issues but that isn't an indictment of hammers.
I also think this has nothing to do with this topic because no genetic engineering was used in this. This is about the ability to culture and differentiate stem cells onto a matrix in a culture dish.3 -
What peer reviewed journal was this published in exactly? Oh, that's right, none. Why would that be? Oh, that's right, because it's not a legitimate research study. You see, real legitimate research gets published, garbage doesn't.The_Hiking_Viking wrote: »The_Hiking_Viking wrote: »I would absolutely not eat this lab grown meat or anything gmo if all possible. What people fail to understand is how these engineered foods can affect and irreparibly harm the genetics of you during your life and generations after you. For example GMO soy in rat studies has shown decreasing fertility each generation until the babies are eventually sterile. See articles on naturalnews.com. As the food supply continues to be polluted dna and epigenetic damage will be the result. Eating this stuff has far reaching inter-generational consequences. The best weapon is information, I reccomend you do your research.
Food has been genetically modified for generations and the planet is still over crowded, so I find that danger highly unlikely to be true.
naturalnews is a conspiracy theory website. Snopes could spin off an entirely new website just debunking everything naturalnews publishes.
On a positive note, I think once Bigfoot finally reveals himself, he'll be supportive of lab grown meat, as a self preservation tactic.
The Huffpost.com must be a "conspiracy" website also since the published an article about a study, jointly conducted by The Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the National Association for Gene Security.
Here is a excerpt: "Surov’s hamsters are just the latest animals to suffer from reproductive disorders after consuming GMOs. In 2005, Irina Ermakova, also with the Russian National Academy of Sciences, reported that more than half the babies from mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks. This was also five times higher than the 10% death rate of the non-GMO soy group. The babies in the GM group were also smaller (see photo) and could not reproduce."
This is hilarious. You dump some BS unpublished drivel and demand that we provide research to disprove each assertion?!? And with back up studies?!?! You clearly don't know how research works. And you clearly don't know how to tell good sources of scientific information from bad ones. Naturalnews is probably the single worst site for pseudoscience. It's a dung heap of bovine excrement. HuffPo is a few rungs up, but it's a very long ladder.please forward the research paper that disproves each assertion, with back up studies, in the original research mentioned in this article. Thanks.
3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »The_Hiking_Viking wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »The_Hiking_Viking wrote: »I would absolutely not eat this lab grown meat or anything gmo if all possible. What people fail to understand is how these engineered foods can affect and irreparibly harm the genetics of you during your life and generations after you. For example GMO soy in rat studies has shown decreasing fertility each generation until the babies are eventually sterile. See articles on naturalnews.com. As the food supply continues to be polluted dna and epigenetic damage will be the result. Eating this stuff has far reaching inter-generational consequences. The best weapon is information, I reccomend you do your research.
What studies are you referring to here?
You realize that lab-grown meat wouldn't necessarily be genetically modified, right?
The study I am referring to is the following:
Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the National Association for Gene Security.
Excerpt: "Surov’s hamsters are just the latest animals to suffer from reproductive disorders after consuming GMOs. In 2005, Irina Ermakova, also with the Russian National Academy of Sciences, reported that more than half the babies from mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks. This was also five times higher than the 10% death rate of the non-GMO soy group. The babies in the GM group were also smaller (see photo) and could not reproduce."
You're basing your claims on a single study?
A single unpublished study, and it's on hamsters.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »The_Hiking_Viking wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »The_Hiking_Viking wrote: »I would absolutely not eat this lab grown meat or anything gmo if all possible. What people fail to understand is how these engineered foods can affect and irreparibly harm the genetics of you during your life and generations after you. For example GMO soy in rat studies has shown decreasing fertility each generation until the babies are eventually sterile. See articles on naturalnews.com. As the food supply continues to be polluted dna and epigenetic damage will be the result. Eating this stuff has far reaching inter-generational consequences. The best weapon is information, I reccomend you do your research.
What studies are you referring to here?
You realize that lab-grown meat wouldn't necessarily be genetically modified, right?
The study I am referring to is the following:
Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the National Association for Gene Security.
Excerpt: "Surov’s hamsters are just the latest animals to suffer from reproductive disorders after consuming GMOs. In 2005, Irina Ermakova, also with the Russian National Academy of Sciences, reported that more than half the babies from mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks. This was also five times higher than the 10% death rate of the non-GMO soy group. The babies in the GM group were also smaller (see photo) and could not reproduce."
You're basing your claims on a single study?
A single unpublished study, and it's on hamsters.
And even then, it's irrelevant. The cells aren't being genetically modified. They're doing exactly what stem cells do while retaining their genetic structure.1 -
0
-
MikePfirrman wrote: »
I'm pretty sure everyone understands that. It is a semantic argument based on people misusing the term genetically modified when they actually mean genetically engineered. Any alteration to DNA is genetic modification and therefore cross-breeding does result in a genetically modified organism...thing is the term "genetically modified organism" actually refers to genetic engineering which is a specific and modern toolset which differs from techniques such as cross-breeding and mutagenesis. So yeah, its semantic...its one side rubbing in the face of the other side that the are using mistaken terminology.
The real question is what is the fundamental difference between changing DNA through breeding or mutagenesis and the techniques utilized by genetic engineering? Why is one "good" or at least neutral and one "bad" in an objective sense of what is actually being done?
I don't think anyone actually thinks that genetic engineers achieve their results through techniques akin to cross-breeding, the real question is why do some members of the public view those techniques as dangerous while cross-breading or mutagenesis is benign. The answer just seems to be some broad handwave to it occuring in a "lab" and that it accomplishes things that could not be accomplished with previous techniques in a timely manner....neither of which is actually a reason to assume its bad.
...and yeah off topic, but honestly I find that to be a much more interesting topic than lab grown meat anyways :-)1 -
@ Aaron - it is off topic yet it's also relevant. I, personally, don't have that much problem with genetically engineered food by itself. But I think that's the reason people have reactions against both the lab meat and also GMO's. It's not as "natural" to them and they don't fully understand it, so the adverse reaction. People understand pollen cross-pollinating. They understand animals being cut up for meat. When you start talking about manipulating genes and growing meat in a petri dish, it starts to cross the threshold of their idea of natural.
Perhaps they have a point, perhaps they don't. Way above my mind to determine that. You could say that if nature intended mutations to occur over millions of years and now we're making intentional mutations in minutes, what are the ramifications? That's why people have the same reaction to artificial meat. It's like, "OK, you go first...".0 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »@ Aaron - it is off topic yet it's also relevant. I, personally, don't have that much problem with genetically engineered food by itself. But I think that's the reason people have reactions against both the lab meat and also GMO's. It's not as "natural" to them and they don't fully understand it, so the adverse reaction. People understand pollen cross-pollinating. They understand animals being cut up for meat. When you start talking about manipulating genes and growing meat in a petri dish, it starts to cross the threshold of their idea of natural.
Perhaps they have a point, perhaps they don't. Way above my mind to determine that. You could say that if nature intended mutations to occur over millions of years and now we're making intentional mutations in minutes, what are the ramifications? That's why people have the same reaction to artificial meat. It's like, "OK, you go first...".
The problem is that they don't actually understand cross-pollinating. Just like most people don't understand electricity or Wireless communications. But they're familiar with it and it's comfortable magic that no longer frightens them.
What they understand is that someone they trust or an authority figure for someone they trust understands it enough to dumb it down so that they have been made to feel they understand it.4 -
stanmann571 wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »@ Aaron - it is off topic yet it's also relevant. I, personally, don't have that much problem with genetically engineered food by itself. But I think that's the reason people have reactions against both the lab meat and also GMO's. It's not as "natural" to them and they don't fully understand it, so the adverse reaction. People understand pollen cross-pollinating. They understand animals being cut up for meat. When you start talking about manipulating genes and growing meat in a petri dish, it starts to cross the threshold of their idea of natural.
Perhaps they have a point, perhaps they don't. Way above my mind to determine that. You could say that if nature intended mutations to occur over millions of years and now we're making intentional mutations in minutes, what are the ramifications? That's why people have the same reaction to artificial meat. It's like, "OK, you go first...".
The problem is that they don't actually understand cross-pollinating. Just like most people don't understand electricity or Wireless communications. But they're familiar with it and it's comfortable magic that no longer frightens them.
What they understand is that someone they trust or an authority figure for someone they trust understands it enough to dumb it down so that they have been made to feel they understand it.
One of my roommates in college was a Botany major that cross pollinated these really leafy dark green plants in a very dark, ventilated room with bright lights.
It was interesting to see up close! 2 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »@ Aaron - it is off topic yet it's also relevant. I, personally, don't have that much problem with genetically engineered food by itself. But I think that's the reason people have reactions against both the lab meat and also GMO's. It's not as "natural" to them and they don't fully understand it, so the adverse reaction. People understand pollen cross-pollinating. They understand animals being cut up for meat. When you start talking about manipulating genes and growing meat in a petri dish, it starts to cross the threshold of their idea of natural.
Perhaps they have a point, perhaps they don't. Way above my mind to determine that. You could say that if nature intended mutations to occur over millions of years and now we're making intentional mutations in minutes, what are the ramifications? That's why people have the same reaction to artificial meat. It's like, "OK, you go first...".
I'm okay with that sort of caution and "I'm not sure about this, I don't know enough to be convinced this is okay...I'm going to wait and see" attitude. The problem I have is with people who claim certainty or special knowledge that genetic engineering itself is dangerous or that genetically modified foods as a whole are dangerous or even specific products are dangerous when quite clearly they don't know the first thing about them or the processes involved.
It is a pet peeve of mine as a molecular biologist who regularly uses genetic engineering techniques and sees the good that they do to see them irrationally vilified by the public.. My earlier work as a granduate student involved engineering a protein that I published the work on that later got picked up by a company and developed into a cancer therapy that is currently in human clinical trials.
Another thing that annoys me about people's attitude towards genetic engineering is it is entirely focused on crop plants and specifically just a handful of products made by a single company. The applications of genetic engineering are so much broader and wide-spread than that. Most of our modern understanding of biochemistry as well as many many therapeutically developments have stemmed from those techniques. People act like it is this super new untested tech that is specific to Monsanto and crop plants while being completely ignorant of the fact that insulin is a product of genetic engineering techniques from the 70s and has saved millions of lives.
To me genetic engineering and its applications are exciting and extremely diverse and with great potential. Lab grown meat is sort of a "meh" for me....I don't care that much.3 -
@ Aaron - I can understand that. I'm actually connecting with guys like you right now, ironically, as part of my consulting business. It's an exciting time for Genetic Engineering in therapeutic medicine. To me, it's about time that we finally go to the root of illness as opposed to masking illnesses with pain meds (or surgery, which is advanced but I'm not certain always necessary). I'm certainly not a scientist but I do find it incredible the pace of advancements in that field (and all the money being thrown into new potential drugs).
Maybe I'm too stupid to understand, but I think I agree with you completely. I do think the more we learn about the human body, the less we find out we actually knew. When someone says this is that is the only way to look at things when it comes to health, I guess I'm not sure anyone's sure of what makes us healthy/ill any longer so I get tired of all the rigid thinking too. I do think we'll all have a lot clearer understanding in 10/15 years. I read articles posted by some of my VC contacts all the time (most I don't honestly understand all that well) but I read one this morning about not only protein therapy advancements but the ability to "switch off" a potentially harmful DNA's ability to do damage (I suppose that is genetically damaged or predisposed to be harmful).
I am very aware that genetic engineering can have huge benefits and important implications for us all.0 -
I agree the IDEA of eating out of a Petri dish really turns me off, but I am such a meat eater that I know if that's the meat that was available to me, I would definitely eat it. Looks great for people who are vegetarian because they don't want to hurt animals, but really like meat.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions