Civil Liberties, Health Care, Food Policies

Mad Science? Growing Meat Without Animals

November 19, 2009

Live Science - Winston Churchill once predicted that it would be possible to grow chicken breasts and wings more efficiently without having to keep an actual chicken. And in fact scientists have since figured out how to grow tiny nuggets of lab meat and say it will one day be possible to produce steaks in vats, sans any livestock.

Pork chops or burgers cultivated in labs could eliminate contamination problems that regularly generate headlines these days, as well as address environmental concerns that come with industrial livestock farms.

However, such research opens up strange and perhaps even disturbing possibilities once considered only the realm of science fiction. After all, who knows what kind of meat people might want to grow to eat?

Increasingly, bioengineers are growing nerve, heart and other tissues in labs. Recently, scientists even reported developing artificial penis tissue in rabbits. Although such research is meant to help treat patients, biomedical engineer Mark Post at Maastricht University in the Netherlands and his colleagues suggest it could also help feed the rising demand for meat worldwide.

The researchers noted that growing skeletal muscle in labs - the kind people typically think of as the meat they eat - could help tackle a number of problems:

• Avoiding animal suffering by reducing the farming and killing of livestock.


• Dramatically cutting down on food-borne ailments such as mad cow disease and salmonella or germs such as swine flu, by monitoring the growth of meat in labs.


• Livestock currently take up 70 percent of all agricultural land, corresponding to 30 percent of the world's land surface, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. Labs would presumably require much less space.


• Livestock generate 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, more than all of the vehicles on Earth, the FAO added. Since the animals themselves are mostly responsible for these gases, reducing livestock numbers could help alleviate global warming.

Stem cells are considered the most promising source for such meat, retaining as they do the capacity to transform into the required tissues, and the scientists pointed to satellite cells, which are the natural muscle stem cells responsible for regeneration and repair in adults. Embryonic stem cells could also be used, but they are obviously plagued by ethical concerns, and they could grow into tissues besides the desired muscles.

To grow meat in labs from satellite cells, the researchers suggested current tissue-engineering techniques, where stem cells are often embedded in synthetic three-dimensional biodegradable matrixes that can present the chemical and physical environments that cells need to develop properly. Other key factors would involve electrically stimulating and mechanically stretching the muscles to exercise them, helping them mature properly, and perhaps growing other cells alongside the satellite cells to provide necessary molecular cues.

So far past scientists have grown only small nuggets of skeletal muscle, about half the size of a thumbnail. Such tidbits could be used in sauces or pizzas, Post and colleagues explained recently in the online edition of the journal Trends in Food Science & Technology, but creating a steak would demand larger-scale production.

The expectation is that if such meat is ever made, scientists will opt for beef, pork, chicken or fish. However, science fiction has long toyed with the darker possibilities that cloned meat presents.

In Warren Ellis and Darick Robertson's epic sci-fi satire "Transmetropolitan," supermarkets and fast food joints sell dolphin, manatee, whale, baby seal, monkey and reindeer, while the Long Pig franchise sells "cloned human meat at prices you like."

"In principle, we could harvest the meat progenitor cells from fresh human cadavers and grow meat from them," Post said. "Once taken out of its disease and animalistic, cannibalistic context - you are not killing fellow citizens for it, they are already dead - there is no reason why not."

Of course, there are many potential objections that people could have to growing beef, chicken or pork in the lab, much less more disturbing meats. Still, Post suggests that marketing could overcome such hurdles.

"If every package of naturally grown meat by law should have the text, 'Beware, animals have been killed for this product,' I can imagine a gradual cultural shift," Post said. "Of course, we still have a long way to go to make a product that is even remotely competitive with current products."

The Banksters Get the Filet Mignon While the "Useless Eaters" Get the Genetically Engineered "Meat" that Looks Like Soggy Pork

November 29, 2009

Telegraph - The move towards artificially engineered foods has taken a step forward after scientists grew a form of meat in a laboratory for the first time.

Researchers in the Netherlands have created what was described as soggy pork and are now investigating ways to improve the muscle tissue in the hope that people will one day want to eat it.

No one has yet tasted the product, but it is believed the artificial meat could be on sale within five years.

Vegetarian groups welcomed the news, saying there was “no ethical objection” if meat was not a piece of a dead animal.

Mark Post, professor of physiology at Eindhoven University, said:

“What we have at the moment is rather like wasted muscle tissue. We need to find ways of improving it by training it and stretching it, but we will get there.

“This product will be good for the environment and will reduce animal suffering. If it feels and tastes like meat, people will buy it.

“You could take the meat from one animal and create the volume of meat previously provided by a million animals.”

The scientists extracted cells from the muscle of a live pig and then put them in a broth of other animal products. The cells then multiplied and created muscle tissue. They believe that it can be turned into something like steak if they can find a way to artificially “exercise” the muscle.

The project is backed by the Dutch government and a sausage maker and comes following the creation of artificial fish fillets from goldfish muscle cells.

Meat produced in a laboratory could reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with real animals.

Meat and dairy consumption is predicted to double by 2050 and methane from livestock is said to currently produce about 18 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gases.

It was supported by animal rights campaigners. A spokesman for Peta said:

“As far as we’re concerned, if meat is no longer a piece of a dead animal there’s no ethical objection.”

However the Vegetarian Society said:

“The big question is how could you guarantee you were eating artificial flesh rather than flesh from an animal that had been slaughtered.

“It would be very difficult to label and identify in a way that people would trust.”

The advent of meat grown for consumers could reduce the billions of tons of greenhouse gases emitted each year by farm animals and help meet the United Nation’s predictions that meat and dairy consumption will double by 2050.

However, the latest breakthrough is certain to cause concern amongst the anti-GM lobby... GM supporters say they are aware of risks associated with “engineered” food but believe it benefits the Third World.

Skeptics of GM Crops are 'Emotional,’ Government Food Watchdog Report Claims

Public opposition to genetically-modified food is based on “emotion” rather than “reason,” claims a Food Standards Agency report which will help shape future Government policy.

November 26, 2009

Telegraph - ...Previous plans to grow GM crops commercially on a large scale in Britain were scrapped after official trials showed that the method of growing could harm the environment. It followed a concerted campaign and a backlash by consumers who refused to eat so-called "Frankenstein foods."

But a recent Government-published report highlighted warnings from manufacturers that it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep GM products out of the food chain.

Hilary Benn, the Environment Secretary, also said in August that there needed to be a ''radical rethink'' of the way the UK produces and consumes food is needed, to cope with future world shortages.

Under the current rules, products made through GM technology must be labelled but meat and milk from animals which themselves may have eaten genetically-modified feed do not.

Although there is no blanket ban on growing GM crops in Britain, permission has to be sought on a case-by-case basis.

Opponents fear that the year-long consultation, run by the FSA, could lead to recommendations for changes. A committee of experts charged with overseeing the process met on Wednesday for the first time to discuss how it would be organised. Each member was presented with a copy of the study Exploring Attitudes to GM Food, carried out by the National Centre for Social Research, containing the findings of a focus group, involving a sample of only 30 people.

The study, which cost £73,000 sets out to “explore the circumstances in which people change their views.” Just over a third of participants told the researchers at the outset that they thought that the disadvantages of GM technology outweighed the benefits. The study found strong support for all products involving possible GM ingredients (even at the animal feed level) should be labelled while the system was dismissed as “inconsistent and confusing”.

But opponents were described in the report as having “varied and often contradictory” views.

“Research has found that perceived lack of knowledge about the subject area causes the majority of people in a survey situation to give an emotional or affective response to the idea of GM food rather than a reasoned or thought out position,” it says.

“It has been argued that this inclines people to view GM food more negatively.”

The attitudes of those who took a “cynical approach” to GM technology are also “clearly underpinned” by a general scepticism towards science. They were “prone to articulate their views towards scientific development using emotive language.”

By contrast, the report says:

“Pragmatic, as opposed to ideological, concerns played a primary role for participants who took the middle ground or felt more positively towards GM food.”

Peter Riley, campaigns director of GM Freeze, a coalition of groups calling for a halt to GM cultivation, said:

“I think it is extremely patronising to people, most people understand what is going on in the food chain.

“This language suggests that the terms of reference for this study were not necessarily to try to find out what people are thinking but to pigeonhole people.”

He added: “We are really concerned that this GM Dialogue is more to do with trying to persuade the public that the Government’s view is right and that the view of treating GM with caution is wrong.

“The steering group that has been charged with overseeing this process are going to have to be extremely diligent in their work to make sure that the process is open and fair and really captures what people genuinely feel about food production and GM in particular.”

Peter Melchett, policy director of the Soil Association, said:

"This Government-ordered exercise is a huge waste of public money designed to keep the GM industry quiet.”

Emma Hockridge, the group’s policy manager, added:

“The last time the public were consulted on GM, the message was a loud and clear no.

“This research clearly shows that people’s fears over the technology are still there, and for good reason.”

The Fight Over the Future of Food

November 10, 2009

Reuters - ...Mexico issued permits last month for the first time for farmers to grow genetically modified corn.

Considered by many the cradle of corn, Mexico is home to more than 10,000 varieties, used to make the classic tortilla, a staple of the Mexican diet. Corn was first planted in Mexico as many as 9,000 years ago and the grain was adapted by Spanish conquerors in the early 1500s and eventually spread to the rest of the world.

Mexico faces the same dilemmas over GM corn as do many developing countries -- balancing consumer fears with the need to grow more food.

"We see corn as our cultural heritage, our legacy. For us it's not just a question of food, but about conserving our traditions," said Celerino Tlacotempa, who works for an organization of native Nahuatl farmers in the southern mountains of Guerrero state.

"With genetically modified seeds we will lose our varieties of colored corn. There will be no more purple corn, black corn, white corn," Tlacotempa said. "Above all, we will be condemned to buy seeds from companies like Monsanto. It's not sustainable. It's a real risk for the wellbeing of these communities."

At the same time, other Mexican farmers in the north of the country have been cultivating GM seeds smuggled over the border from the United States for some time, attracted by the crops' greater resilience to drought and pests and higher yields.

Tomas Lumpkin, director of CIMMYT, the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center that Borlaug started in Mexico, said the country now imports about half of the corn it consumes. With climate change and other pressures, he said, it was vital to raise production using all tools available.

"It is a much more complex and difficult world than Borlaug faced, but we have much more powerful tools than he had, and we need to start testing those and deploying those," he said.

"GMOs are just another set of tools in the toolbox, but we need to be able to use those tools," Lumpkin said. "If we could deploy those varieties so that the farmer in the developing world has the same powerful seed as the farmer in Iowa, why should they be handicapped?"

World Must Use GM Crops, Says UK Science Academy

October 21, 2009

Reuters - The world needs genetically modified crops both to increase food yields and minimize the environmental impact of farming [editor's note: 'Are you serious?!'], Britain's top science academy said on Wednesday.

The Royal Society said in a report the world faced a "grand challenge" to feed another 2.3 billion people by 2050 and at the same time limit the environmental impact of the farm sector.

The world will have to increase food output by 70 percent and invest $83 billion annually in developing countries by mid-century, the U.N.'s Food and Agricultural Organization said earlier this month.

"The problem is such an acute one, doing that sustainably without eroding soil, overusing fertilizers is an enormous challenge," said the chair of the Royal Society report, Cambridge University's David Baulcombe.

"There isn't a lot more land to use," he told Reuters. "And from the point of expense and using fossil fuels, we want to use less fertilizer."

"The food supply problem is likely to come to a head 10, 20, 30 years from now," he said, adding this didn't leave much time given the research lead time to develop new crops.

The answer would be a range of approaches from hi-tech genetically modified crops to low-tech management approaches such as sowing grass around maize to divert pests, as well as preserving the diversity of natural, wild crop varieties.

Farming indirectly, including deforestation, accounts for a third of greenhouse gases, say scientists, underlining the problem of increasing production simply by clearing more land or using more fertilizers, the biggest source of a powerful greenhouse gas nitrous oxide.

Britain had to invest an extra 50 ($82.13 million) to 100 million pounds annually in research to boost innovation in a sector which had lost allure following food over-supply in Europe, the report said.

A combination of changing diets, growing population, demand for farmland for biofuels and high energy prices have stoked food prices and renewed interest in agriculture.

Wednesday's report invoked the successes of the Green Revolution of the 1960s, but aimed for a more sustainable approach. That revolution had more than doubled food output over 30 years but had also degraded soils in some cases.

The world must develop over the next 16 years through genetic modification and conventional breeding varieties of crops resistant to disease, drought, salinity, heat and toxic heavy metals, the report said.

Progress in DNA-sequencing had made more plant genes available for engineering, improving the predictability of results in a "second generation" GM approach.

"We're looking at a different base than 10 years ago," said Baulcombe.

A combination of the food crisis and the global economic downturn has pushed more than 1 billion people into hunger in 2009, U.N. agencies said last week, confirming a grim forecast released earlier this year.

The Pressure group Greenpeace said GM crops were a costly distraction from tackling hunger through fighting poverty and helping smallholders in developing countries sell their product.

"Poverty and hunger are the same thing," said Marco Contiero, Greenpeace's European GM policy director, who pointed out that the world already produced enough to feed itself, if that were shared fairly and there was less waste.