The Rise of Frankenburger
I love animals, and we can talk about animal rights until the cows come home, but the fact remains that people want meat. Research is coming out that we don't need as much meat as we consume, but most people ignore that. So, how do we meet demand while being nice to animals? That's where "in vitro" meat comes in. It has the potential to solve the supply and demand problem while still being a more sustainable option than factory farming. But is it a realistic alternative? Sadly, in vitro meat may never catch on because of what it is, what it looks like, and how it tastes.
First, though, let's talk about the perks of in vitro meat. According to Kenneth Krause, the environmental benefits could be huge. Rather than cutting down rainforests and destroying natural habitats to make room for agricultural pastures, we would only need to keep a handful of livestock for cells. We would also be able to cut down on the use of feed and genetically altered corn. After all, as Rose Prince says, there's no need to feed something growing in a tube. Perhaps most important is the impact that in vitro meat will have on animals themselves. If we don't need to mass produce meat to get to grocery stores, then the abhorrent practices of factory farms won't be necessary. Animals will be able to be treated with respect and dignity, rather than crowded into pens with barely any room to move. Captain Planet would be proud.
There is already major skepticism from consumers, however. The very idea of eating something referred to as "Frankenburger" definitely curbs my appetite. Not only is the phrase off-putting, but the very look and taste of in vitro meat leaves much to be desired. Current prototypes of the test tube meat are pinkish-yellow. Aside from the unappetizing appearance of the meat is the flavorless taste. We're used to a rich taste in our meat, even when unseasoned.
Scientists say they can fix that, though. They are currently trying to fix the color by recreating situations that produce myoglobin, the thing that gives meat that juicy red look. In regards to taste, well, that's what artificial flavoring is for. Add some essence of meat to the Petri dish, and voila! Instant meaty flavor. And the missing nutrients that can't be recreated in a lab? Easily added during the growth process.
The problem with this? Consumers. How many people will be willing to eat something that they can't paint as natural and not tampered with? After all, the average American consumer loves to delude themselves about most aspects of their life, and with the "eat healthy, eat organic!" movement that's making its way around, we also love to pretend that our food is healthful. Even when it comes from a box. It doesn't matter that most foods are tampered with and lose whatever nutritional value they may once have contained the second they go into mass production. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt; it is an art form in the United States.
Where do we go from here? In vitro meat isn't simply an idea that may or may not come to pass. PETA is offering $1 million for synthetic chicken. The deadline for that is June 30, 2012. That's only a few months away. Bob Batz, a food journalist and member of the Association of Food Journalists, interviewed a group that is researching and growing beef earlier this year; they expect to have their financer eat it no later than October. It looks like there will be synthetic meat out and about before the end of the year.
Can in vitro meat be sold without grossing people out? I don’t know, but it looks like we'll be finding out. Personally, I would never touch it. With the information that is currently out, it doesn't look to be any healthier than real meat, and I made my peace with eating animals years ago. I fully embrace my food denial. Who knows, though? Maybe this is the new big thing. Be informed. Make a decision. That's all we can do for now.
First, though, let's talk about the perks of in vitro meat. According to Kenneth Krause, the environmental benefits could be huge. Rather than cutting down rainforests and destroying natural habitats to make room for agricultural pastures, we would only need to keep a handful of livestock for cells. We would also be able to cut down on the use of feed and genetically altered corn. After all, as Rose Prince says, there's no need to feed something growing in a tube. Perhaps most important is the impact that in vitro meat will have on animals themselves. If we don't need to mass produce meat to get to grocery stores, then the abhorrent practices of factory farms won't be necessary. Animals will be able to be treated with respect and dignity, rather than crowded into pens with barely any room to move. Captain Planet would be proud.
There is already major skepticism from consumers, however. The very idea of eating something referred to as "Frankenburger" definitely curbs my appetite. Not only is the phrase off-putting, but the very look and taste of in vitro meat leaves much to be desired. Current prototypes of the test tube meat are pinkish-yellow. Aside from the unappetizing appearance of the meat is the flavorless taste. We're used to a rich taste in our meat, even when unseasoned.
Scientists say they can fix that, though. They are currently trying to fix the color by recreating situations that produce myoglobin, the thing that gives meat that juicy red look. In regards to taste, well, that's what artificial flavoring is for. Add some essence of meat to the Petri dish, and voila! Instant meaty flavor. And the missing nutrients that can't be recreated in a lab? Easily added during the growth process.
The problem with this? Consumers. How many people will be willing to eat something that they can't paint as natural and not tampered with? After all, the average American consumer loves to delude themselves about most aspects of their life, and with the "eat healthy, eat organic!" movement that's making its way around, we also love to pretend that our food is healthful. Even when it comes from a box. It doesn't matter that most foods are tampered with and lose whatever nutritional value they may once have contained the second they go into mass production. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt; it is an art form in the United States.
Where do we go from here? In vitro meat isn't simply an idea that may or may not come to pass. PETA is offering $1 million for synthetic chicken. The deadline for that is June 30, 2012. That's only a few months away. Bob Batz, a food journalist and member of the Association of Food Journalists, interviewed a group that is researching and growing beef earlier this year; they expect to have their financer eat it no later than October. It looks like there will be synthetic meat out and about before the end of the year.
Can in vitro meat be sold without grossing people out? I don’t know, but it looks like we'll be finding out. Personally, I would never touch it. With the information that is currently out, it doesn't look to be any healthier than real meat, and I made my peace with eating animals years ago. I fully embrace my food denial. Who knows, though? Maybe this is the new big thing. Be informed. Make a decision. That's all we can do for now.