Fetterman praises DeSantis for banning-lab grown meat, "would never serve that slob"

"I would never serve that slob to my kids"

Crazy how he is just applying common sense and yet this seems completely out of the ordinary for a liberal to say.

Frankenstein goes against the doctor who created him … and refuses to eat the bugs ?
Good for him !

Fetterman is an idiot. Two typical politician with no understanding of the science behind fake meat and won't take the time to study it.

Nothing wrong with fake meat. It's irrational to argue against that if it means less agriculture land and animal breeding required. Animals require many acres of open grazing land, grain (grown on open land to grow for them), tons of fresh water, housing, care, and give off greenhouse gas like methane (it's much worse than co2). These are not wild animals either like with fish - they are bred in massive number specifically for consumption.

Huge benefit to shifting to fake meat. Science has shown it's healthier with just as many calories while being much better for the environment (land, water, air, pollution). If it tastes the same, what's the issue?

[QUOTE=bladefd;14906955]Fetterman is an idiot. Two typical politician with no understanding of the science behind fake meat and won't take the time to study it.

Nothing wrong with fake meat. It's irrational to argue against that if it means less agriculture land and animal breeding required. Animals require many acres of open grazing land, grain (grown on open land to grow for them), tons of fresh water, housing, care, and give off greenhouse gas like methane (it's much worse than co2). These are not wild animals either like with fish - they are bred in massive number specifically for consumption.

Huge benefit to shifting to fake meat. Science has shown it's healthier with just as many calories while being much better for the environment (land, water, air, pollution). If it tastes the same, what's the issue?[/QUOTE]


:oldlol:

least expected bladed take ever


lab grown meat could never replicate the nutrients or taste of real meat.


Nature cant be cheated, dumbass!

These are simple rules of life.


And nature wont have natural inhabitants be detrimental to itself, that doesnt make any SENSE.

[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater;14907016]d-duhhh-uhhh-uhhh[/QUOTE]
:biggums:

[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater;14907016]:oldlol:

least expected bladed take ever

[B]
lab grown meat could never replicate the nutrients or taste of real meat.[/B]


Nature cant be cheated, dumbass!

These are simple rules of life.


And nature wont have natural inhabitants be detrimental to itself, that doesnt make any SENSE.[/QUOTE]

It does. Look it up. And try it. It's actually healthier and better than regular meat.

The only issue right now is it's more expensive. Give it time to grow as an industry, and price will come tumbling down in a few years.

Lab grown is the future. Next we'll have lab grown babies with perfect health and no genetic defect.

the biggest problem for lab grown meat is that there aren't any recipes for it, you really have to stop caring about dying in order to consume it.

once you stop caring about dying, you can never replenish your fluids.

i will stick with my wild game

[QUOTE=bladefd;14907155]It does. Look it up. And try it. It's actually healthier and better than regular meat.

The only issue right now is it's more expensive. Give it time to grow as an industry, and price will come tumbling down in a few years.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Lab-grown meat, which is cultured from animal cells, is often thought to be more environmentally friendly than beef because it’s predicted to need less land, water and greenhouse gases than raising cattle. But in a preprint, not yet peer-reviewed, researchers at the University of California, Davis, have found that lab-grown or “cultivated” meat’s environmental impact is likely to be “orders of magnitude” higher than retail beef based on current and near-term production methods.

Researchers conducted a life-cycle assessment of the energy needed and greenhouse gases emitted in all stages of production and compared that with beef. One of the current challenges with lab-grown meat is the use of highly refined or purified growth media, the ingredients needed to help animal cells multiply. Currently, this method is similar to the biotechnology used to make pharmaceuticals. This sets up a critical question for cultured meat production: Is it a pharmaceutical product or a food product?

“If companies are having to purify growth media to pharmaceutical levels, it uses more resources, which then increases global warming potential,” said lead author and doctoral graduate Derrick Risner, UC Davis Department of Food Science and Technology. “If this product continues to be produced using the “pharma” approach, it’s going to be worse for the environment and more expensive than conventional beef production.”

The scientists defined the global warming potential as the carbon dioxide equivalents emitted for each kilogram of meat produced. The study found that the global warming potential of lab-based meat using these purified media is four to 25 times greater than the average for retail beef.
A more climate friendly burger in the future?

One of the goals of the industry is to eventually create lab-grown meat using primarily food-grade ingredients or cultures without the use of expensive and energy-intensive pharmaceutical grade ingredients and processes.

Under that scenario, researchers found cultured meat is much more environmentally competitive, but with a wide range. Cultured meat’s global warming potential could be between 80% lower to 26% above that of conventional beef production, they calculate. While these results are more promising, the leap from “pharma to food” still represents a significant technical challenge for system scale-up.

“Our findings suggest that cultured meat is not inherently better for the environment than conventional beef. It’s not a panacea,” said corresponding author Edward Spang, an associate professor in the Department of Food Science and Technology. “It’s possible we could reduce its environmental impact in the future, but it will require significant technical advancement to simultaneously increase the performance and decrease the cost of the cell culture media.”

Even the most efficient beef production systems reviewed in the study outperform cultured meat across all scenarios (both food and pharma), suggesting that investments to advance more climate-friendly beef production may yield greater reductions in emissions more quickly than investments in cultured meat.

Developing the technology that would allow the leap from “pharma to food” is among the goals of the UC Davis Cultivated Meat Consortium, a cross-disciplinary group of scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs and educators researching cultivated meat. Other goals are to establish and evaluate cell lines that could be used to grow meat and find ways to create more structure in cultured meat.

Risner said even if lab-based meat doesn’t result in a more climate-friendly burger, there is still valuable science to be learned from the endeavor.

“It may not lead to environmentally friendly commodity meat, but it could lead to less expensive pharmaceuticals, for example,” said Risner. “My concern would just be scaling this up too quickly and doing something harmful for the environment.”

Other authors include Yoonbin Kim and Justin Siegel of UC Davis and Cuong Nguyen of the University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

The research was funded by the UC Davis Innovation Institute for Food and Health and the National Science Foundation Growing Convergence Research grant. [/QUOTE]

[url]https://www.ucdavis.edu/food/news/lab-grown-meat-carbon-footprint-worse-beef[/url]

It's a good idea but not scaling out any time soon.

[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater;14907016]:oldlol:

least expected bladed take ever


[B]lab grown meat could never replicate the nutrients or taste of real meat.
[/B]

Nature cant be cheated, dumbass!

These are simple rules of life.


And nature wont have natural inhabitants be detrimental to itself, that doesnt make any SENSE.[/QUOTE]

Sure it can. Maybe if the argument is that it can’t be [I]exactly[/I] the same, then sure.

I don’t really eat read meat all that much and have only had impossible meat a couple times but it tastes pretty similar. And nutrient-wise it certainly isn’t lacking.

We as humans manipulate nature all the time. Don’t post from your cellular phone while taking a shit and then drive in your oil-filled car to or from your home that exists because we’ve pillaged the environment it was previously in…only to have an issue with this of all things.

I don’t really care either way but be consistent at least.

[QUOTE=ShawkFactory;14907463]Sure it can. Maybe if the argument is that it can’t be [I]exactly[/I] the same, then sure.
[/QUOTE]

if a machine can help produce more food for humanity through nature, your argument becomes, let a machine be in a lab, consuming other machines, in order to provide food.

you want to say X * Y = Z, and X * X = Z, therefore X = Y only in reality, it's still X * Y = Z, X * X * Y = XZ(YZ)


again, where are the babies

If there is no known sickness or negative effect caused by eating it why should it be banned? DeSantis loves to pass useless legislation. Loves to violate personal freedoms whenever he finds it to be convenient.

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;14907493]If there is no known sickness or negative effect caused by eating it why should it be banned? [/QUOTE]

helplessness

[QUOTE=ShawkFactory;14907463]Sure it can. Maybe if the argument is that it can’t be [I]exactly[/I] the same, then sure.

I don’t really eat read meat all that much and have only had impossible meat a couple times but it tastes pretty similar. And nutrient-wise it certainly isn’t lacking.

We as humans manipulate nature all the time. [B]Don’t post from your cellular phone while taking a shit and then drive in your oil-filled car to or from your home that exists because we’ve pillaged the environment it was previously in[/B]…only to have an issue with this of all things.

I don’t really care either way but be consistent at least.[/QUOTE]


Where is a purpose or function of nature being manipulated in that, exactly? :lol

This gonna be good