Genetic Fabrication - Meat in a Petri Dish?

It's been awhile, I know.

But don't worry. I've got ideas.

Since my last post, I've completed several classes and I must say, I can see how much I've learned and how much I've improved since day 1. Sure, not all of the lessons are as academic as I thought or hoped they would be, but many, many little lessons culminate into larger competencies.

Academia does enter the picture often, though. In my current class, Contemporary Cuisine (which, the instructor, Chef Eric Veldman Miller, said should be renamed "Play With Your Food"), the Chef started class with a discussion on the topic of what I refer to as "genetic fabrication", that is, the creation of meat from stem cells. He opened up the floor to student opinions, and the comments were quite diverse. Some thought it scientifically interesting but were worried about what the food would taste like. After all, an animal's diet influences the way it tastes. Then there were questions about how far such a practice could go; someone asked about growing humans in a petri dish and went so far as to mention cannibalism (I couldn't really hear the comment, but wow... but a leap!). There were questions of muscle development, to which the chef responded that electricity was run to the "meat" to stimulate the muscle in the absence of exercise. I even asked about fat development: if one grows meat in a petri dish, will there be fat development? It was postulated in class by almost everyone, including the Chef, that if muscles don't do any work, it starts to turn to fat (however, a quick Q&A here at Shape Magazine's website determines that, no, muscle cannot turn into fat. They're two different types of tissues. Thus, I would be skeptical about fat development from petri dish meat). Then there was the moral question of, "Just because we can, should we?" Someone even brought up how such practices would affect food costs in restaurants.

I then took a turn at offering my opinion. My initial reaction was that, scientifically speaking, it's pretty amazing and if meat could be produced this way, a lot of hungry people around the world could be fed. However, I would fear a loss of appreciation for where our food comes from and for the food itself. If we can produce meat without raising it, would we appreciate how it was raised, how it was cared for, what it ate, and would we respect the animal by using it in its entirety (something we don't do much here in the US, but certainly is done more in the Old World - the Eastern Hemisphere)? I fear not. I fear that we would take meat more for granted than we already do. Mass produced meat in a petri dish would mean more readily available meat and would only promote gluttony (ever see Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs?).

The Chef, who I find extremely smart and is as curious as me when it comes to finding out how things work, posed a question as Devil's advocate: wouldn't raising meat in a petri dish be more environmentally friendly? We wouldn't be using natural resources to raise and feed the animals, thus preserving more of Earth's bounty. My response was this: if we don't learn to raise our food - animal or vegetable - in an environmentally friendly and responsible manner, we don't teach ourselves to live harmoniously with the Earth. In learning to cultivate food in balance with what the Earth provides, we can teach ourselves how to sustain our land and live with it, not against it, which is how I think we're supposed to be living anyway.

My opinion above was based on in-class discussion. I just read this article at npr.org (previously linked). And now that I've read it, my thoughts on electrical stimulation have been confirmed: it would be costly. After all, electricity has to come from somewhere, and natural resources would therefore be used, correct?

Also in the article is mention of how environmentally friendly petri-dish meat would be. After all, 20% of greenhouse gas emissions come from livestock. Then, of course, there's the need for water, feed, and land. As global population increases, we'll need to raise more livestock and therefore need more resources because, dammit, people want their meat! And then there's animal treatment. Commercial farms are known for treating their animals poorly. Force-feeding, small living spaces, brutal deaths...

The notion of raising more livestock, to me, just supports gluttony. Yes, I love my meat. But should I eat it every day? No. Should we eat it every day? NO. The article also dismisses the slow-but-steady rise in interest in organic and humane farming, where the production is smaller, sure, but the quality of animal life is much better and, allegedly, the quality of resulting food is better. Proof? Go seek out a show called Cook It, Kill It, Eat It and you'll see the difference between commercial farming and humane, sustainable farming. Are natural resources being used? Yes, but not in a wasteful way provided the farm is sustainable.

And really, is lower production such a bad thing? Or wouldn't it help us to learn how to eat within our means. Actually, a more accurate statement would be to re-learn how to eat within our means. After all, that's where humanity came from. We ate what was available to us. Therefore, if less meat is available to us, perhaps we should vary our diets to include, oh, I don't know... vegetables? Fish? Hell, even insects (dead serious). I'm not saying we shouldn't export or import food. Sharing is caring, right? But in terms of production, there is more food available to us than just beef and pork, however wonderful they may be. Smaller, natural, humane, and sustainable meat production could teach us to once again be more judicious about what we eat, how much, and how often.