Of course the first argument in
favor of growing meat is that it frees up massive tracts of range land. Then we have the argument against the
prospect of quality. Yet the fact that I
am now posting on the early advent of replacement parts for human beings tells
me that quality will be attained and so will inexpensive production.
I think that the land argument is
pretty irrelevant and the debate there should focus on optimization of land
usage. The natural world is quite able
to provide us with all the meat protein we want in a highly sustainable way. What is more important is that we need the
sustainable way in order to optimize the land itself. We eat the natural surpluses to prevent over
production and the resultant biome failure that this inspires.
We will still want to produce our
own inexpensive meat substitute as a simple method of converting plant
feedstocks into high quality edible food.
Recall the conversion ratios we
are starting to see in aquaculture.
Today half of all fish consumed is farmed. Think about that for a moment when you go to
the fish counter. Notice that there is
plenty of it and it is clearly cheaper than any wild counter part. Goodbye to the wild fishery. It will not take a generation to finish the
job since we now have a replacement for tuna.
I see no reason to suppose that
cultured meat will not accomplish the same revolution. Humanity wants a modern diet as soon as
possible and a cultured cutlet will always be welcome. It will also be eventually superior to the
non uniform supply of meat products we presently consume.
In a small laboratory on an upper floor of the basic science building
at the Medical University
of South Carolina
January 31, 2011
By Harriet McLeod
CHARLESTON, South Carolina (Reuters) - In a small laboratory on an
upper floor of the basic science building at the Medical University of South
Carolina, Vladimir Mironov, M.D., Ph.D., has been working for a decade to grow
meat.
A developmental biologist and tissue engineer, Dr. Mironov, 56, is one
of only a few scientists worldwide involved in bioengineering
"cultured" meat.
It's a product he believes could help solve future global food crises
resulting from shrinking amounts of land available for growing meat the
old-fashioned way ... on the hoof.
Growth of "in-vitro" or cultured meat is also under way in
the Netherlands , Mironov
told Reuters in an interview, but in the United States
The new National Institute of Food and Agriculture, part of the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration, won't fund it, the National Institutes of Health
won't fund it, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration funded it
only briefly, Mironov said.
"It's classic disruptive technology," Mironov said.
"Bringing any new technology on the market, average, costs $1 billion. We
don't even have $1 million."
Director of the Advanced Tissue Biofabrication Center in the Department
of Regenerative Medicine and Cell Biology at the medical university, Mironov
now primarily conducts research on tissue engineering, or growing, of human
organs.
"There's a yuck factor when people find out meat is grown in a
lab. They don't like to associate technology with food," said Nicholas
Genovese, 32, a visiting scholar in cancer cell
biology working under a People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals three-year
grant to run Dr. Mironov's meat-growing lab.
"But there are a lot of products that we eat today that are
considered natural that are produced in a similar manner," Genovese said.
"There's yogurt, which is cultured yeast. You have wine production
and beer production. These were not produced in laboratories. Society has
accepted these products."
If wine is produced in winery, beer in a brewery and bread in a bakery,
where are you going to grow cultured meat?
In a "carnery," if Mironov has his way. That is the name he
has given future production facilities.
He envisions football field-sized buildings filled with large
bioreactors, or bioreactors the size of a coffee machine in grocery stores, to
manufacture what he calls "charlem" -- "Charleston
"It will be functional, natural, designed food," Mironov
said. "How do you want it to taste? You want a little bit of fat, you want
pork, you want lamb? We design exactly what you want. We can design texture.
"I believe we can do it without genes. But there is no evidence
that if you add genes the quality of food will somehow suffer. Genetically
modified food is already normal practice and nobody dies."
Dr. Mironov has taken myoblasts -- embryonic cells that develop into
muscle tissue -- from turkey and bathed them in a nutrient bath of bovine serum
on a scaffold made of chitosan (a common polymer found in nature) to grow
animal skeletal muscle tissue. But how do you get that juicy, meaty quality?
Genovese said scientists want to add fat. And adding a vascular system
so that interior cells can receive oxygen will enable the growth of steak, say,
instead of just thin strips of muscle tissue.
Cultured meat could eventually become cheaper than what Genovese called
the heavily subsidized production of farm meat, he said, and if the public
accepts cultured meat, the future holds benefits.
"Thirty percent of the earth's land surface area is associated
with producing animal protein on farms," Genovese said.
"Animals require between 3 and 8 pounds of nutrient to make 1
pound of meat. It's fairly inefficient. Animals consume food and produce waste.
Cultured meat doesn't have a digestive system.
"Further out, if we have interplanetary exploration, people will
need to produce food in space and you can't take a cow with you.
"We have to look to these ideas in order to progress. Otherwise,
we stay static. I mean, 15 years ago who could have imagined the iPhone?"
No comments:
Post a Comment