Meat of the future: Without animals!?

hell i could debate it, but being that you are obviously going to believe what science tells you and nothing more. i dont see where going any further would do anyone any good..

im of the mindset that science can only make there best guess/theory based on what little knowledge we actually have on the matter.i truly dont believe man is as smart as he thinks he is.i believe that only the creator itself truly knows if a plant has the ability to think and feel,therefore i choose to assume it does..

i guess in that respect we will have to just agree to disagree..

 

ok first off there are definatly mor than one topic being brought up here, first growing meat in invitro,(ie petri dish) does not neccisarily make it geneticly modified ! im not defending it ! and i wont eat it ! the question for me is is this "meat" geting all the nutrients, enzymes, protiens, ect.. obviusly this meat is not being produced with all the proccesses that occur in a living animal ! how is its food being produced? in a chemical factory? how do these artifically produced chemicals react with eachother in the proccess of "growing" this meat? ect.............ect.........ect............... have to eat somthing and split some wood! ill be back in a few to address GMOs, but chris i thought you were smarter than you seem in this post! look at what the research says about gm fish being released into the wild!! just to keep it within your disipline!!

 

i fail to see how anything that is not grown naturally can not be considered "genetically modified", by definition when one takes the genes of something and grow it in a petri dish, it is modifying the whole genetic process,i mean it aint like there growing the whole cow,,just a steak...it would seem to me that is genetically modifying it..

we aint even talking about cloning here,we are talking about altering genetics so that a piece of meat is grown without a body,that does not happen naturally,therefore the genetics must be modified,, correct??

 

point taken! i just came in for a break so im not going to get into this quite as deeply as i would like yet! im likeing the snow and im low on wood! i will be back after my chores are done! peace!
p.s. this is a subject ive tried to bring up before and it is of great concern to me!

 

ok! if we want to talk about gmos cool ive tryed to bring this up before! i think this might need to be disscussed in a nother thread? but in the meantime,... geneicaly modified organisims have fed the world since agrarian scociaty began!! that being said,(please leave my spelling alone),! it was done through a proccess calld breeding within speicies!!! ok for any one that doesnt understand, (speicies), the fundamental unit of classification,consitstsof populations of genetically similar,interbreeding or potentianlly breeding individuals that share the same gene pool!!!! ( in outher words i cant breed with A .....) but a citrus fruit can (potentialy breed with another citrus fruit!! ie a tangello thru mallipuation called GRAFTING!! in fact most all of our produce is a result of GMOs, the problem we have now is that there are pepole and corporations that want to put genes from one speicies into anouther that could not possibly happen in nature!!!!! so they try and down play what they are doing saying its been done for X yrs!! witch is simply not th case!!!!
so here enter rat!! i hope he keeps to the facts!!!! ( please dont dissapoint me!) because if you look at what is hapining whith the seed companys, they are all being bought by monsanto,sygenta, ect.......infinitum!!!!!!! so sorry folks but it is a move to control the worl food supply!! not to feed the world!!!! its a move to deny certain pepoles from FOOD!! by destroying the ability of pepole to save seed through intelectual property rights with the wepon being terminator tech!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! whitch if you think you can save your own seed ?? ya but if it has been croos pollinated with crops with terminator tech, sorry they wont grow!!!!! so enter slavasbad!!!!

 

I am not just talking about BT corn. That was only one study. I could have mentioned many more.

But you didn't. You mentioned a specific study which is refuted by dozens of others and the topic of this study was the effects of Bt corn on health of lab mice. Yes, you are just talking about Bt corn because that is the only study you cited.

The fact is, none of this has been tested to show the long-term effects of human consumption.

The same is true of EVERY relatively new product. It's impossible to have a 50 year data set on a product that has only existed a few decades. Besides, there is no compelling reason to think that the "long term effects" are significantly different from the short-term effects. Non-toxic is non-toxic.

GMOs tested on animals have shown abnormalities in blood chemistry, organ size, and immunity.

Once again, you are referring to a SINGLE study on Bt corn that is refuted by DOZENS of others.

But apparently you are content believing that Naziesque corporations like Monsanto want what's best for you.

Wow, yeah, I never said anything like that. Many of the big corporations have done quite a lot of good and quite a lot of bad for society.

And you talk about propaganda, yet you post an article about how the government agency, the EPA, says that GMOs are safe.

Yes, I posted a peer-reviewed article from a subsidiary journal of Nature that references EPA data heavily. The data collected from EPA testing is and can be propaganda only in your mind.


Wasn't it the EPA that also said the air was safe to breathe at ground zero in the days following 9/11, despite the fact the air had the alkalinity of drain cleaner?

Air doesn't have alkalinity...???

Who is really the Koolaid drinker here?

Everyone I hope--koolaid is great!

So please, stop posting government lies and provide some real facts showing that GMOs are safe as you claim. I will not read anything that's from the EPA (or any paid government shill). The EPA is engaged in mass genocide as far as I am concerned.

Did you even read the article posted? If you would have you would understand why these comments make little sense.

 

so just what are you folks going to do when all these GM crops cross pollinate with all the other crops on earth and cause them all to become sterile?

Probably the same thing we'll do when pigs start flying. If cross pollination between two plants produces sterile offspring, then by definition the offspring can't reproduce and spread.

How praytell could cross pollination between GM crops and non-GM crops of the same species possibly lead to sterility of all the crops on the planet? That isn't even a logical semantic argument.

you do know monsantos ultimate goal is to have all plant seeds on the market grow plants that you cannot save seeds and grow another crop?

Hmmm, so if all the crops on the planet are infertile, how would we get seeds to produce these new, infertile crops? If all members of a species are rendered infertile, the species is doomed to extinction as soon as the last member dies, since it can no longer reproduce. 1) How would a company do this and 2) why would they want to? That makes absolutely no sense.

so then who controls the food chain ?

If all the crops are sterile, no one does--there is no food chain without reproduction.

monsanto isnt buying up every major seed company(parks,burpee,jung,siminis,etc.) as well as patenting every seed they can on the market(over 11,000 to date) for nothing..

Agreed.

it cracks me up how people that are so against "evil corporations" can be sucked into the evilest of them alls propaganda..

Agreed...

 

Yes, I posted a peer-reviewed article from a subsidiary journal of Nature that references EPA data heavily. The data collected from EPA testing is and can be propaganda only in your mind.

you just lost all credibility in my mind whith this statement!!!!!!!!!!!! and here until recently i thouht you were intelligent????? so you think the EPA, works for the good of the pepole????

 

ok first off there are definatly mor than one topic being brought up here, first growing meat in invitro,(ie petri dish) does not neccisarily make it geneticly modified !

Precisely. Further, genetically modified does not imply anything more than genetically modified--the specific modifications are what are imporatant.

im not defending it ! and i wont eat it ! the question for me is is this "meat" geting all the nutrients, enzymes, protiens, ect.. obviusly this meat is not being produced with all the proccesses that occur in a living animal ! how is its food being produced? in a chemical factory? how do these artifically produced chemicals react with eachother in the proccess of "growing" this meat? ect.............ect.........ect............... have to eat somthing and split some wood!

Why would tissue grown in vitro have a different chemical composition as comapred to tissue grown in situ? Much of what we know about physiology and medicine (not to mention several other disciplines) works BECAUSE tissue in vitro behaves like tissue in situ if given the proper conditions.

ill be back in a few to address GMOs, but chris i thought you were smarter than you seem in this post! look at what the research says about gm fish being released into the wild!! just to keep it within your disipline!!

The problem I am speaking to is the gut reaction that there is something inherently bad, or dangerous, or unsafe about GMOs. This is utter and absolute rubbish. Nature has created has introduced genes from one genome into the genome of a different organism far more often than we have (again, folks should study up on virology a bit.) Opposing GMOs BECAUSE they are GMOs is irrational, at best.

When we get to the point of actually performing genetic modification we can start talking about the safety and risks of doing so. You mention the problem of GM salmon escaping into nature. This is serious, serious problem and must be corrected if we want to prevent the collapse of Atlantic salmon. The problem does not originate with the fact that genetic modification has been done. The problem is the GM salmon are escaping en masse and breeding with wild salmon. The genetic modifcations done are good if the goal is to grow salmon fast, but they aren't good if the goal is for salmon to have high survival and reproductive success in nature. Thus, the problem is that the wild populations are being swamped with genes that aren't adaptive in nature. Again, this is not about whether GMOs are inherently safe or desirable, this has to do with the ecological ramifications of salmon with these particular modifications escaping.

The question should never be, "Are GMOs good/bad/safe/unsafe." The questions need to be specific to the modification and organism. What's safe to eat may not be good for ecology and vice versa. What is safe to eat and harmless to the ecology in one place may not be harmless elsewhere. These are the questions that need to be answered. We don't need more knee-jerk reactions based on false impressions.

 

That sounds... gross...
Something will be wrong with it. It will give you cancer or something. That's just not natural.

 

Show me problems in the data that invalidate the results. Show me where the data are wrong.

In examining scientific data, I don't care if the scientists that did the work are at a university, if they work at the EPA, or anywhere else. I don't care if they are good, kind people or if they rape puppies in their spare time. The personal qualities of the messenger are entirely IRRELEVANT to the matter at hand. All that matters is the quality of the data (which is contingent upon the methodology).

Show me that the data are wrong and I'll throw them out. Show me that the data came from a source that you personally do not like and that you are questioning the data on these grounds and I will have to wonder about your objectivity. If the data are good, and these seem to be, then they are good, regardless of where they came from.

 

Not precisely. There is no reason that one needs to modify the genome of some tissue to get it to develop into a particular cell type or to grow. All of the genes to do this are already in every cell in the body of every organism. The correct genes simply need to be turned on.

For instance, all organisms originate as a single cell. That cell is not a muscle cell or a skin cell or a nervous cell or a bundle cell or any sort of differentiated cell. It is undifferentiated. All the genes to make every sort of cell and every sort of product that the organism can ever make are right there, and will be in every cell in a body. However, at any given time most of the genes in a cell are not being actively used. Our skin cells aren't using a lot of the genes our liver cells are and vice versa. Different genes get turned on in different cells, and it is by turning on different genes in different cells that the cells become differentiated into muscle, skin, liver, etc. in the first place.

In order to grow muscle cells in vitro the organism doesn't need new genes, it needs particular genes turned--the ones that tell the cell to become a muscle cell and to grow.

The modification here is ontogenetic (that is, modification of development), not genetic (modification of the genes present). The genes are staying the same--development is what changes.

 

Um, when there is toxic dust and particulites in that air, yes it can.

 

Yes, I posted a peer-reviewed article from a subsidiary journal of Nature that references EPA data heavily. The data collected from EPA testing is and can be propaganda only in your mind.

you just lost all credibility in my mind whith this statement!!!!!!!!!!!! and here until recently i thouht you were intelligent????? so you think the EPA, works for the good of the pepole????

 

Alkalinity is a measure of the base neutralizing capacity in aqueous solution. Air is not an aqueous solution...

Toxic dust and particulates in air have nothing to do with alkalinity. Alkalinity is a measure that cannot be applied to air by definition.

 

ok so i was trying to post while you guys were but iether my phone lines are fkd or my pc so im behind give me a min!!

 

you did not address my post! are you avoiding?

 

Which post???

 

Do you have any more lies you want to pull out of your ass, you fraud? Where does it say anything about it needing to be aqueous?? It can be any solution, not soley an "aqueous solution."

http://www.answers.com/alkalinity&r=67

 

p.s. And flmkpr, if you decide your opinion of my intelligence based on the extent to which I agree with you, this says a great deal about you, not me. I've known plenty of incredibly stupid people that agree with me on an issue and plenty of incredibly intelligent people that disagree with me.