Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TorchOfHereclitus t1_itadcc4 wrote

Lmfao. Just eat real meat. It's superior in every aspect (especially nutritional value) than meat alternatives. Our bodies and systems are designed to eat meat and other animal products as well as vegetables. Only humans would do something ridiculous like this in a world of abundance.

−23

I-Ponder t1_itag636 wrote

Not really bro these are literally proteins being manipulated into a shape. Your statement is ignorant. They’re using real meat, it’s just not an animal being slaughtered but a protein being multiplied, to the same result,

But I suppose if you prefer suffering and that adds to your satisfaction, then maybe it’s not up to your standards.

18

Rebatu t1_itatz80 wrote

Hi, I'm a biotech major and a scientist. This meat is made by using large vats of cultured cells. Specifically, muscle fiber cells. To get the same nutritional value as real meat you would need to have each type of cell usually present in an animal muscle. Which is difficult to even know, let alone develop, grow (some cells are harder to grow than others) and structure into a muscle replacement.

I don't like OPs naturalistic bs. Proteins are the same if synthesized or cut out of the cow. But this slab of printed mush is not nutritionally equivalent to real meat. Proteins aren't the only thing you require from meat. It's in fact the least important thing on it. You can get protein from plants too, you can't get, however, several important vitamins, iron, carnitine and fatty acids that are simply not produced by muscle cells alone.

And if we do ever make such a real replicas it will be incredibly taxing for the environment.

The Amazon will have to burn down at twice the rate.

1

TorchOfHereclitus t1_itai1vk wrote

Not once did they mention real meat in their ingredients. Both red meat and white meat have nutritional value that cannot be matched through plant proteins, and the bio-availability for your body to process and use those plant proteins is inferior to animal protein. Not to mention soy isn't that healthy in frequent servings, especially if you're a male as it raises estrogen levels. I'm a nutritionist and my statements aren't ignorant "bro". Plant proteins can be beneficial, but the function of plants in our diet isn't to serve protein needs, but other needs like vitamins, fiber, potassium, etc. This is why its bio-availability is significantly less. You can manipulate proteins into any shape you want, and that's fine. It still doesn't compare to the nutritional value of meat like protein, fat, naturally occurring creatine, essential amino acids, etc.

But I suppose if you prefer sitting on some sort of moral superiority throne behind your keyboard calling bros ignorant, then maybe it's above your standard.

−11

I-Ponder t1_itai8bs wrote

They aren’t using plant proteins. They’re literally lab grown meat/animal proteins. Did you do no research? Proteins can be multiplied.

You need to read into the article instead of digesting a title.

11

SoylentRox t1_itamong wrote

Remember those biology classes they made you take when you trained to be a nutritionist?

I mean you do have a degree, right?

Well in those classes they probably taught you that cells grow together into organs. A chunk of 'steak' from a cow is part of a muscle organ.

So if you grew the same cells in a vat, probably in separate vats, one for each cell type - and assembled the cells into the same geometric shape as the organ - then the nutritional value will be the same.

Or slightly better - you can manipulate very easily the kind of fat the adipose cells make, right. Cows don't make enough omega-3 fatty acids but there is no reason your lab grown version has to work that way. Just edit the genes slightly so you get the fat ratio you want.

This would be better then. As a nutritionist you'd have to start putting people on a fish/lentils/lab grown beef diet.

5

TorchOfHereclitus t1_itanrmi wrote

That's an interesting theory. Not so certain that the nutritional value would be the same if it just had the same cells and same geometric shape, but I get where you're going with it. There's just something about an organ or tissues in the body that are grown and developed that we haven't nailed down yet in replicating it, but we'll get there eventually. I'm also deeply interested in genetic engineering, and hope to see the day where we could make superior meat artificially, among other leaps and bounds we could make.

−5

SoylentRox t1_itav3hc wrote

>that we haven't nailed down yet in replicating it, but we'll get there eventually

So that's not how this works. You can grind up the real muscle tissue and the fake muscle tissue and assay out how much of each amino acid and how much of each lipid type is in the sample.

At this point you can modify the genes for the lab grown cells until it has the nutritional profile you want. If it exactly matches the beef steak sample, it is nutritionally the same. It doesn't matter the path taken to grow it.

2

AsthmaBeyondBorders t1_itaeb03 wrote

> world of abundance

Proceeds to complain about Brazil burning the Amazon (hint: it is mostly for producing meat that is sold outside of Brazil).

13

Rebatu t1_itau7dx wrote

Artificial meat uses BSA to grow it.

Do you know the only way possible of obtaining this BSA? An unavoidable resource for growing meat.

They need to stab a baby calf in the heart to extract it. They use cows for their production, it's just further down the line.

−1

ThroawayBecauseIsuck t1_itauhqm wrote

How is that related? This video isn't lab grown meat, it is "beyond meat" on a printer.

0

Rebatu t1_itav7ne wrote

I didn't gather it was Beyond meat.

But plant based meat substitutes are notoriously lacking in vital nutrients that you usually get from animals. Unless Beyond is directly supplementing the B12, carnitine and iron

0

ThroawayBecauseIsuck t1_itavol2 wrote

Many industrialized foods are artificially enriched I don't see why vegetarian meat couldn't be. And even if it wasn't, purchasing B12 supplements and ingesting them is not more trouble than purchasing meat, cooking and ingesting it, unless you raise cows to eat in your property yourself.

And even if this was lab grown meat, the problem tou brought up with only means it isn't 100% better but the proportion isn't killing one calf to yield the same as one cow.

2

Rebatu t1_itawa8x wrote

The proportion is killing 100 calfs to make the equivalent of 1 cow in meat. What the hell are you talking about?

Have you ever grown cells?

1

ThroawayBecauseIsuck t1_itaxrkd wrote

I would be happy if you could link a source for the proportion because I am interested. Not that I don't believe you I just really want to know and I couldn't find it googling. I was under the impression cells can be cultivated and grown in a lab.

Notwithstanding there are already multiple startups claiming to be working on serum-free lab grown meat. Seems like this problem may be solved if we keep financing research on it.

2

Rebatu t1_itazi2u wrote

BSA has tried to be replaced for decades now. It's a problem in research since we invented cell culturing. Im skeptical that its here just because some large companies with stakes in the matter say it is. I'll believe it when I see it.

But even if there was such culturing you would still need albumin serum replacements. The only way you can do that without using animals is with bacterial cloning for making protein sequences.

My source is me, my experience in the lab and what cell culturing looks like. Its also purely logical.

If you have to have a manufacturing process where you have to build everything from scratch and another where you don't - which is more efficient?

If I have to spend energy, water, chemicals and manpower to create BSA replacements, vitamins, amino acids, soluble minerals, buffer solutions, extremely purified water, sugars and other constituents needed to grow cells, and then grow the cells through that inefficient process, all the while spending resources towards tending to the cells, changing their solutions, keeping them in sterile environments just to make a small amount of meat then this will inevitably be more expensive.

I don't know if it's a 100 to 1, less or more, but its not more efficient than conventional means. And it will never be. It can't logically. The more steps you have in a process the more loss you will have. And cell culturing has a lot of steps.

Using plant cells and supplementing with nutrients to make it as meat is better but also has the same downsides as producing cells, just for producing supplements for the meat.

1