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

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;14907493]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]

personal freedoms? :oldlol:



How exactly could meat be so tasty and delicious but not intended for us to be eaten?

God / Nature just so happened to want us a couple hundred thousand years down the line find the technology that would let us consume this the way it should be?

Very interesting stuff

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;14907493]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]


By the way if you hate personal freedoms being affected, you must have some strong opinion on Newsom, huh?

How much do you dislike that guy?

[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater;14907502]
God / Nature just so happened to want us a couple hundred thousand years down the line find the [B]technology[/B] that would let us consume this the way it should be?
[/QUOTE]

purified form of oxygen

[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater;14907501]Where is a purpose or function of nature being manipulated in that, exactly? :lol
[/QUOTE]

cooked

[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater;14907501]Where is a purpose or function of nature being manipulated in that, exactly? :lol

This gonna be good[/QUOTE]

In what?

[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater;14907016]
Nature cant be cheated, dumbass!
[/QUOTE]
Bullshit

We already cheat nature and live far beyond our natural expectancy and you already consume lab created chemicals and preservatives daily. Unless your entire diet is raw fish and organic veggies grown in your back yard.

Outside of food medicine cheats nature in every way possible and we will eventually defeat the aging process all together.

What's extra hilarious is that a farmed cow is not "nature" but the low-IQ don't grasp that.

Cows and pigs do not live in the wild. They were bred from other animals. Breeding and farming enormous populations of animals for mass consumption is not "nature".

I don't particularly care what lab-grown meat does to the environment. I want to know what it does to MY (and my family's) body. I want to know if it's going to have similar percentage of FAT (and correct ratio of omega 3 to 6 to 9) to real meat or whether some bureaucrat is gonna mandate that saturated fat and cholesterol is not good for us (similar to that stupid, recommended Food Pyramid). And I want decades of people eating this stuff with no ill effects before switching. Unfortunately, I don't have that amount of time.

And in the meantime, don't touch my real beef, bacon or butter. It should be a choice - if you wanna eat that stuff, go ahead. But don't hike up taxes/mandates of me (not) eating real meat.

[QUOTE=Bill Gates;14907517]What's extra hilarious is that a farmed cow is not "nature" but the low-IQ don't grasp that.

Cows and pigs do not live in the wild. They were bred from other animals. Breeding and farming enormous populations of animals for mass consumption is not "nature".[/QUOTE]

is solar energy nature, or is the use of solar energy the lack of understanding (cheat) of nature?

is evolution in itself not wild enough?


but here's the punchline, you went on the internet, and got rid of your paper mails, and now you don't even know what a map is.

[QUOTE=GimmeThat;14907523]is solar energy nature, or is the use of solar energy the lack of understanding (cheat) of nature?

is evolution in itself not wild enough?


but here's the punchline, you went on the internet, and got rid of your paper mails, and now you don't even know what a map is.[/QUOTE]

Almost nothing we do is natural. We aren't cavemen anymore. We left our natural setting centuries ago. We have conquered nature and we will continue to conquer nature even further.

[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater;14907502]personal freedoms? :oldlol:



How exactly could meat be so tasty and delicious but not intended for us to be eaten?

God / Nature just so happened to want us a couple hundred thousand years down the line find the technology that would let us consume this the way it should be?

Very interesting stuff[/QUOTE]
So get rid of your car if you have one, toss out your computer and/or phone, go live ass-naked in the woods and live off of leaves and berries since you want to limit everyone to what "God" and nature have made. The Lord was very upset when we ate that apple and started wearing clothes, we need you to rectify the situation.

Everyone else, I just got rid of the dumbest poster on the board. Thank me.

[QUOTE=Bill Gates;14907515]Bullshit

We already cheat nature and live far beyond our natural expectancy and you already consume lab created chemicals and preservatives daily. Unless your entire diet is raw fish and organic veggies grown in your back yard.

Outside of food medicine cheats nature in every way possible and we will eventually defeat the aging process all together.[/QUOTE]

Someone can correct me on this but afaik, even organic vegetables have been altered over centuries through selective breeding. Sure, they don't use gmos to raise them but that doesn't mean they have not be genetically altered through selective breeding over perhaps a century or at least multiple decades. Selective breeding is a form of altering what nature intended. We do it for animal meat too.

Fishes are the only thing that we don't. As long as they are acquired from the ocean in the wild and not bred in captivity on some fish farm. If they are from some fish farm then they probably used selective breeding too. And sea weeds I guess if from the wild and not a seaweed farm.

[QUOTE=GimmeThat;14907523]is solar energy nature, or is the use of solar energy the lack of understanding (cheat) of nature?

is evolution in itself not wild enough?


but here's the punchline, you went on the internet, and got rid of your paper mails, and now you don't even know what a map is.[/QUOTE]

What. Are. You. Talking. About.

(as it pertains to solar energy)

[QUOTE=Bill Gates;14907525]Almost nothing we do is natural. We aren't cavemen anymore. We left our natural setting centuries ago. [B]We have conquered nature[/B] and we will continue to conquer nature even further.[/QUOTE]

"We have conquered nature" - how arrogant. That's like people saying the Titanic couldn't sink. I don't care what man made thing is built/developed - it's nothing compared to NATURE. You do know that we humans are fallible and make mistakes.

[QUOTE=rmt;14907552]"We have conquered nature" - how arrogant. That's like people saying the Titanic couldn't sink. I don't care what man made thing is built/developed - it's nothing compared to NATURE. You do know that we humans are fallible and make mistakes.[/QUOTE]

Titanic? :wtf: I am saying we have departed from "nature". We are no longer part of the food chain, we have created our own food chain.

The arrogance lies with people like you who tell others they must live "natural" on their brand new I Phone that defies anything nature could produce for us. If you want to preach living natural then live out your life naked in the wilderness.

[QUOTE=Bill Gates;14907575]Titanic? :wtf: I am saying we have departed from "nature". We are no longer part of the food chain, we have created our own food chain.

The arrogance lies with people like you who tell others they must live "natural" on their brand new I Phone that defies anything nature could produce for us. If you want to preach living natural then live out your life naked in the wilderness.[/QUOTE]

Please point out exactly where in this thread I tell others they [B][U]MUST[/U][/B] live "natural." Maybe you missed:

[QUOTE=rmt;14907519][B][U]It should be a choice - if you wanna eat that stuff, go ahead.[/U][/B][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=rmt;14907586]Please point out exactly where in this thread I tell others they [B][U]MUST[/U][/B] live "natural." Maybe you missed:[/QUOTE]
Yes, it should be a choice. No one is being force fed. DeSantis is the one making laws telling people what they can't eat.

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;14907594]Yes, it should be a choice. No one is being force fed. DeSantis is the one making laws telling people what they can't eat.[/QUOTE]

Yes, and Democratic Senator Fetterman agrees with him:

For instance, on May 2, Democratic Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman came out in support of DeSantis’ ban. “Pains me deeply to agree with Crash-and-Burn Ron, but I co-sign this,” Fetterman said on social media.

He continued: “As a member of [B]@SenateAg[U]Dems[/U][/B] and as some dude who would never serve that slop to my kids, I stand with our American ranchers and farmers.”

Fetterman’s statement actually encapsulates two of the most common motivations politicians cite when it comes to entertaining the idea of banning lab-grown meat: the idea that its introduction to the mass-market would damage farmers’ livelihoods, and the perception that lab-grown meat is hyper-processed “slop” that shouldn’t be offered to their constituents.

[url]https://www.salon.com/2024/05/06/the-cultured-wars-why-lab-grown-meat-is-inspiring-bipartisan-hate/[/url]

I hate when one puts words in my mouth or thinks a policy is only one-sided.

Fetterman is wrong of course but he doesn't have the power to create a law banning it. The other states considering this ban are Alabama, Arizona and Tennessee. Two red states and one"purple" state that would be slightly red if Kari Lake wasn't so awful. I don't think this issue had made it to either party's platform yet but it's shaping up as something republicans are fighting.

[QUOTE=Bill Gates;14907525]Almost nothing we do is natural. We aren't cavemen anymore. We left our natural setting centuries ago. We have conquered nature and we will continue to conquer nature even further.[/QUOTE]

if you're so blind, how do you choose to breathe?

It appears OP has been [B]slaughtered[/B] itt.

[IMG]https://media.tenor.com/images/f7d607187cfa129ba95880d009f850f1/tenor.gif[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;14907610]Fetterman is wrong of course but [B]he doesn't have the power to create a law banning it[/B]. The other states considering this ban are Alabama, Arizona and Tennessee. Two red states and one"purple" state that would be slightly red if Kari Lake wasn't so awful. I don't think this issue had made it to either party's platform yet but it's shaping up as something republicans are fighting.[/QUOTE]

Why do you say he doesn't have the power to create a law banning it? He's a Senator - he can help pass a FEDERAL law banning it. We have no idea what the other people in Congress think about this.

[QUOTE=rmt;14907855]Why do you say he doesn't have the power to create a law banning it? He's a Senator - he can help pass a FEDERAL law banning it. We have no idea what the other people in Congress think about this.[/QUOTE]

if the source of your power continuously ban all other substitutes, where's the source of a power to create a law?

to be more specific, a lab-grown meat user is willing to support your cause in banning it due to environmental cause, however, they are asking for real farmed meat in order to support the effort of creating a law. So sure, you'd say you go for it, as long as the user turns in enough lab-grown meat eater to make the environment better.

you're still left with the task of cleaning up the environment of your informer for their previous environmental harm, because had the user been able to use real farmed meat from the get go, he wouldn't take the risk of getting caught for turning his people in, he'd just leave the game.

so again, you arrive at the conclusion that you stick to your guns and the source of your power, and tell them their best bet is to gather together for a game of russian roulette, because no one volunteers to clean up after others body and sh*t when they simply just won't listen.


it's madness to assume anyone would give up[I] first movers advantage[/I] in game theory.

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;14907594]Yes, it should be a choice. No one is being force fed. DeSantis is the one making laws telling people what they can't eat.[/QUOTE]

you are correct in that consent trumps fairness, but then you are left with the matter that, it is in fact grounds for termination.

[QUOTE=rmt;14907855]Why do you say he doesn't have the power to create a law banning it? He's a Senator - he can help pass a FEDERAL law banning it. We have no idea what the other people in Congress think about this.[/QUOTE]
A single Senator cannot pass a law. All he has been able to do so far is issue a statement in support. So far there is no movement to make this national law among senate Democrats. And there likely will not be because it doesn't jibe with their platform. Doesn't really fit into traditional conservative policy either but we still see a few Republican legislatures taking up this cause so it is what it is.