Could vegetarians eat a "test-tube" burger?

[Galen]

Eating meat is already something not appetizing for vegetarians, what more on something that is genetically engineered? It is against nature.

There are various reasons for someone becoming a vegetarian. It could be due to:
1. Religion -  a practice of no killing and be less attach to cravings
2. Health - most diseases comes from animals like mad cow, bird flu, H1N1 virus etc. Eating meat will expose us to more diseases.
3. Personal preference - it's a matter of choice
4. Allergy (medical condition) - something that can't be chosen
5. Against animal cruelty / killing of animals - save the planet

Even though a "test tube" burger does not involve killing of an animal per se, the way it is developed is from an animal.

We can get protein from other sources like vegetables, grains and fruits. Vegetarian do not need to eat meat to have protein. Also, if we are cutting away our attachment on meat, it does not make sense for us to start to eat meat again even though from a genetically engineered slab of meat.

Does technology really advances humanity? Or it makes us less humane?

[Aurore]

The intention seem good and pure but to me this is just another marketing gimmick to make money and hoping that existing vegetarians will support and promote it. Products were created by knowing the demands and needs, to resolve issues and opportunities for success. If they have done their research well, no doubt this may take off and be successful. Otherwise why bother?

So NO ... I am not agreeable to this, I am not agreeable to anything unnatural in the first place. Why do people like messing with the nature of things anyways? To me, making such statements are kind of blackmailing and psychoing vegetarians to think that they need to support and promote this if they truly care about animal cruelty. Honestly, if I were to promote this to others, I would rather promote giving up meat entirely by educating them that eating meat creates negative karma and intense suffering to animals. Health wise karmically and scientifically proven is also better when one stops consuming meat. Besides, the result of vegetarians eating any form of meat (this includes mock meat) has already been mocked and called hypocrites by meat eaters.

For those thinking of switching to vegetarian for cruelty reasons but can't give up the attachment to meat just yet, this could be a better option than to continue eating corpse. However, one will always be stuck and not be able to give up the attachment to the taste of meat forever.

[sonamdhargey]

These scientist may think that creating test tube meat and eating them is morally correct. I begged to differ as the whole reason for being vegetarian is not just based on no cruelty to animals only, but also includes other factors some maybe for healthier diet, some for religious purpose and environmental issues. The scientist said that stem cells needed to be harvested from dead and live animals and that is farming. They still need animals to harvest and that is already morally wrong. Imagine a cow had to be biopsy 10 times a day. Since the scientist can develop stem cell meat, why not they experiment on themselves, they can harvest the stem cell from their own and and produce test tube human meat. Then market it with a tag line "eat you own meat" That way no need to kill or harm other animals to extract stem cells. Is that morally wrong scientist? If the scientist think that's wrong than how come doing it on animals is morally correct?

[Klein]

There are many reasons why people become vegetarians. Some for spiritual reasons, health reasons and lifestyle reasons. So it is a personal choice amongst the vegetarian community whether or not he or she chooses to eat meat.

As for myself, I'm not eating meat because of spiritual reasons. I don't believe in killing to feed my stomach. It's a practice of being compassionate.  In Buddhism, it is ok to eat meat of a dead animal that died naturally. So logically, I can eat "test-tube" meat. Whether or not I still like the taste of meat, I really doubt it. Currently, even the smell of meat puts me off.

[Tenzin K]

Personally if we are vegetarian because of the moral reason of not to hurt animals for our desire why look for the replacement which is still coming from the animals. We should completely stop thinking or looking for any animal base substitute. I doesn’t make any different to me at all. Instead of spending time for such research and testing why don’t put the same effort and resource to look for more productive vegetable that able to give the same nutritious or better for our fellow vegetarian friends.

Stop looking at any alternative that will still reflect on the animals because just not changing our motivation from having them as our food.

Pls just treat the animals as our friends then our desire of food.

[kurava]

"Why grow it in a Petri dish or eat the meat from a slaughtered animal when plant sources of protein and meat replacements are ever more commonly available and are better for our health?"

This is one instance where I agree that sometimes scientists do their lab researches just for the sake of doing them.

It has already been researched and concluded that non meat diet contribute to good health. I started vegetarian diet 2 years ago; when I did my annual blood test, the result showed my good cholesterol count went up while the bad one came down. During these 2 years, I hardly had any regular exercises.

Besides benefits for health, on a spiritual note,keeping to a vegetarian diet also help train us on detachment from sense pleasures. If we sincerely wish to embark on this training, why fool ourselves with mock and synthetic meat?

[vajratruth]

I kept an open mind whilst reading the report until I came to this few paragraphs:

The lab-grown meat created so far has been grown from stem cells taken from foetal calf serum. This is usually a by-product of slaughter, although stem cells could be harvested in smaller volumes without killing animals.

Prof Julian Savulescu, the director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Ethics, says it doesn't matter how the product is made and "the fact that the meat is made from animal by-products is morally irrelevant".

"People who are vegetarian for moral reasons - the environment, the treatment of animals - have a moral obligation to eat this meat.

"They need to do this because it will contribute to an ethical alternative to conventional meat."

I am in particular, very suspicious of all activities that is only loyal to the bottom line i.e. profit. This venture, as odd as I find it says that the stem cells are "usually" procured as a by-product of slaughter. I don't like the caveat in using the word "usually" because it says to me that it is also not unusual for animals to be slaughtered to obtain the stem cells.

More disturbingly at some point I suspect it will be more cost effective to harvest foetal calfs from say cheaper cows to produce stem cells for "choice" meat. When this happens, the foetal calf from where the serum comes, will no longer be a by-product, but very much the primary product.

Also I cannot even remotely tune into Suvalescu's suggestion of vegetarians having a moral duty to eat artificially  produced meat. Such a desperate attempt to sell his idea. What a waste that people with intelligence and gift of the   brain do not use it for something far nobler such as inventing ways to break the vicious cycle of starvation in the truly poor nations.

Anyway, here is an article connected to the same subject matter of foetal calf serums, that everyone should know:

http://news.change.org/stories/pregnancy-at-slaughter-what-happens-to-the-calves-part-2

[Positive Change]

I believe stem cells are still very much "alive" and the whole purpose of being vegetarian is to not kill. Hence whether it is killing a whole animal or a part of the animal is still killing. Or am I being a little to extreme here?

Whatever the case is, I think playing creator God is kinda warped and if one uses the logic of creating food to feed the hungry, isnt it a lot better to plant vegetables and fruits?

The only good thing I feel that comes from stem cell research is the fact that doctors can now regenerate human skin from skin grafts from stem cells. That I believe is a wonderful breakthrough!

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2009/11November/Pages/Skin-grafts-from-stem-cells.aspx

[thor]

Wisdom Being has got it right. Why spend so much time and money on researching test tube meat when it could be better spent on other things! But, getting down to the question, I am of two minds when it comes to this test tube meat.

If it reduces the killing of animals, the test tube meat would be the lesser of two evils. At least, fewer animals are killed or harmed, compared to the conventional method. For this reason alone, I would back it.

However, on the flip side, extracting stem cells via biopsy causes its own form of suffering and distress to the animals. And, for those who are vegetarian for health or spiritual reasons, test tube meat does not help in any way.

Which brings me to another question - if test tube meat is acceptable, why dont moral vegetarians eat roadkill?

[Benny]

Why waste so much time , effort and resources in research and development in producing synthetic meat ? When all these should be focused on how to produce more staple diet (example: wheat , rice , soy , corn and etc )for the world at large to address the worlds hunger issues.

Alot of resources such land space are used instead to farm animals and feed them valuable nutrition that could directly feed us humans. Just to produce one kilogramme of meat we waste so much , now we are even gonna use up more resources to "create" synthetic meat ! What next ? When some weird chinaman says human meat taste good and that it can be produced synthetically , are we gonna grow some test tube human lump of meat ?

Can't imagine what will become of us when we humans achieve such technological advancement and sucess whilst lacking moral and spiritual wisdom.

[Big Uncle]

You know, I am only vegetarian because the animals suffer so much and I find it such a contradiction for eating meat and reciting Dorje Shugden's mantra with the same mouth. As long as no animals are harmed in the process of growing the stem cells, I don't see why I can't eat meat. I am not that attached to veggies and I am not really a health buff. But I am quite attached to delicious foods of all sorts.

It was already hard getting used to a vegetarian diet but i could go back to a meat-based diet in a big way! Hehe! I believe it will be very beneficial if people who are not used to a vegetarian diet get to enjoy their guilt-free meat. That would change the karma of so many people! I know whole meat industries will shrink and eventually collapse. That would be so good.

[negra orquida]

I kept an open mind whilst reading the report until I came to this few paragraphs:

The lab-grown meat created so far has been grown from stem cells taken from foetal calf serum. This is usually a by-product of slaughter, although stem cells could be harvested in smaller volumes without killing animals.

Prof Julian Savulescu, the director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Ethics, says it doesn't matter how the product is made and "the fact that the meat is made from animal by-products is morally irrelevant".

"People who are vegetarian for moral reasons - the environment, the treatment of animals - have a moral obligation to eat this meat.

"They need to do this because it will contribute to an ethical alternative to conventional meat."

I am in particular, very suspicious of all activities that is only loyal to the bottom line i.e. profit. This venture, as odd as I find it says that the stem cells are "usually" procured as a by-product of slaughter. I don't like the caveat in using the word "usually" because it says to me that it is also not unusual for animals to be slaughtered to obtain the stem cells.

More disturbingly at some point I suspect it will be more cost effective to harvest foetal calfs from say cheaper cows to produce stem cells for "choice" meat. When this happens, the foetal calf from where the serum comes, will no longer be a by-product, but very much the primary product.

Also I cannot even remotely tune into Suvalescu's suggestion of vegetarians having a moral duty to eat artificially  produced meat. Such a desperate attempt to sell his idea. What a waste that people with intelligence and gift of the   brain do not use it for something far nobler such as inventing ways to break the vicious cycle of starvation in the truly poor nations.

Anyway, here is an article connected to the same subject matter of foetal calf serums, that everyone should know:

http://news.change.org/stories/pregnancy-at-slaughter-what-happens-to-the-calves-part-2

Thanks Vajratruth for sharing this link.  I had no idea about cell culture and what it is used for and where it is derived from until now... it is terribly appalling news to me.  From very quick and shallow research, it seems that Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS) is a preferred source for cell cultures due to its high content of growth factors.

According to Wikipedia, "Mass culture of animal cell lines is fundamental to the manufacture of viral vaccines and other products of biotechnology" and "Vaccines for polio, measles, mumps, rubella, and chickenpox are currently made in cell cultures".

Oh dear! I've had some of the vaccines mentioned above when i was young... I wonder if the vaccines were derived via the harvesting of FBS in the manner described in the link at the time =(( It seems that humans are so dependent on animals to (among many others) protect us from diseases... Why must man find the most cruel way to get what we want/need from animals...

[hope rainbow]

Why do we always make things so complicated?
Why do we spend so much time, so much money, and so much creative skills to solve non-problems?
I won't eat that meat, not because it's un-ethical - it is not un-ethical, there is no killing involved! - but because its ridiculous. A solution to a non-problem...

[Vajraprotector]

I'd like to share a story I read from the Tipitaka:

"And how is physical food to be regarded?

Suppose a couple, husband & wife, taking meager provisions, were to travel through a desert. With them would be their only baby son, dear & appealing. Then the meager provisions of the couple going through the desert would be used up & depleted while there was still a stretch of the desert yet to be crossed. The thought would occur to them, 'Our meager provisions are used up & depleted while there is still a stretch of this desert yet to be crossed. What if we were to kill this only baby son of ours, dear & appealing, and make dried meat & jerky. That way — chewing on the flesh of our son — at least the two of us would make it through this desert. Otherwise, all three of us would perish.'

So they would kill their only baby son, loved & endearing, and make dried meat & jerky. Chewing on the flesh of their son, they would make it through the desert. While eating the flesh of their only son, they would beat their breasts, [crying,] 'Where have you gone, our only baby son? Where have you gone, our only baby son?'

Now what do you think, monks: Would that couple eat that food playfully or for intoxication, or for putting on bulk, or for beautification?"

"No, lord."

"Wouldn't they eat that food simply for the sake of making it through that desert?"

"Yes, lord."

"In the same way, I tell you, is the nutriment of physical food to be regarded. When physical food is comprehended, passion for the five strings of sensuality is comprehended. When passion for the five strings of sensuality is comprehended, there is no fetter bound by which a disciple of the noble ones would come back again to this world.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.063.than.html


It is great that we can have meat without having to kill due to advanced technology, but what we need to contemplate on is why such craving for meat when there is a variety of options that has no connection with getting food source by harming / killing another being. What's wrong with vegetables, grains, etc? Why must there be meat in our diet?

[Positive Change]

Wisdom Being has got it right. Why spend so much time and money on researching test tube meat when it could be better spent on other things! But, getting down to the question, I am of two minds when it comes to this test tube meat.

If it reduces the killing of animals, the test tube meat would be the lesser of two evils. At least, fewer animals are killed or harmed, compared to the conventional method. For this reason alone, I would back it.

However, on the flip side, extracting stem cells via biopsy causes its own form of suffering and distress to the animals. And, for those who are vegetarian for health or spiritual reasons, test tube meat does not help in any way.

Which brings me to another question - if test tube meat is acceptable, why dont moral vegetarians eat roadkill?

Hahaha... I love your last statement, Thor. It goes to the core of why we are vegetarians. What the motivation is. For me personally, not eating meat is on two folds. One, I cannot bear the thought of another being suffering for my own selfish wants and desires especially something as mundane as food. Yes, I find food mundane... we should really eat to live and not live to eat. I am pretty simple when it comes to nourishment of my body. I get all the nutrients for my body with a well balanced vegetarian diet. It is simple in this day and age. And two, I don't really fancy the taste of meat (nowadays) and for me having something tasting like meat is defeatist really. The whole point of not eating meat for me is that very taste! Here are some very interesting facts which points to why we really should be vegetarian:

How humans are not physically created/evolved to eat meat

Although some historians and anthropologists say that man is historically omnivorous, our anatomical equipment ­ teeth, jaws, and digestive system ­ favors a fleshless diet. The American Dietetic Association notes that “most of mankind for most of human history has lived on vegetarian or near-vegetarian diets.”

And much of the world still lives that way. Even on most industrialized countries, the love affair with meat is less than a hundred years old. It started with the refrigerator car and the twentieth-century consumer society. But even with the twentieth century, man’s body hasn’t adapted to eating meat. The prominent Swedish scientist Karl von Linne states, “Man’s structure, external and internal, compared with that of the other animals, shows that fruit and succulent vegetables constitute his natural food.”

Comparison between carnivores, herbivores and humans

When you look at the comparison between herbivores and humans, we compare much more closely to herbivores than meat eating animals. Humans are clearly not designed to digest and ingest meat.

Meat-eaters: have claws
Herbivores: no claws
Humans: no claws

Meat-eaters: have no skin pores and perspire through the tongue
Herbivores: perspire through skin pores
Humans: perspire through skin pores

Meat-eaters: have sharp front teeth for tearing, with no flat molar teeth for grinding
Herbivores: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding
Humans: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding

Meat-eaters: have intestinal tract that is only 3 times their body length so that rapidly decaying meat can pass through quickly
Herbivores: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.
Humans: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.

Meat-eaters: have strong hydrochloric acid in stomach to digest meat
Herbivores: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater
Humans: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater

Meat-eaters: salivary glands in mouth not needed to pre-digest grains and fruits.
Herbivores: well-developed salivary glands which are necessary to pre-digest grains and fruits
Humans: well-developed salivary glands, which are necessary to pre-digest, grains and fruits

Meat-eaters: have acid saliva with no enzyme ptyalin to pre-digest grains
Herbivores: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains
Humans: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains

Based on a chart by A.D. Andrews, Fit Food for Men, (Chicago: American Hygiene Society, 1970)

Clearly if humans were meant to eat meat we wouldn’t have so many crucial ingestive/digestive similarities with animals that are herbivores.

Why do people eat meat?

Many people ask me, “If we weren’t supposed to eat meat than why do we?”. It is because we are conditioned to eat meat. Also, the ADA (American Dietetic Association) tells us that “most of mankind for most of human history has lived on a vegetarian or Lacto-ovo vegetarian diet.

A popular statement that meat eaters say is; “In the wild, animals kill other animals for food. It’s nature.” First of all, we are not in the wild. Secondly, we can easily live without eating meat and killing, not to mention we’d be healthier. And finally, as I have already shown, we weren’t meant to eat meat. Meat and seafood putrefies within 4 hours after consumption and the remnants cling to the walls of the stomach and intestines for 3-4 days or longer than if a person is constipated. Furthermore, the reaction of saliva in humans is more alkaline, whereas in the case of flesh-eating or preying animals, it is clearly acidic. The alkaline saliva does not act properly on meat.

The final point I would like to make on how we as humans were not meant to eat meat is this. All omnivorous and carnivorous animals eat their meat raw. When a lion kills an herbivore for food, it tears right into the stomach area to eat the organs that are filled with blood (nutrients). While eating the stomach, liver, intestine, etc., the lion laps the blood in the process of eating the dead animals flesh. Even bears that are omnivores eat salmon raw. However, eating raw or bloody meat disgust us as humans. Therefore, we must cook it and season it to buffer the taste of flesh.

If a deer is burned in a forest fire, a carnivorous animal will NOT eat its flesh. Even circus lions have to be feed raw meat so that they will not starve to death. If humans were truly meant to eat meat, then we would eat all of our meat raw and bloody. The thought of eating such meat makes one’s stomach turn. This is my point on how we as humans are conditioned to believe that animal flesh is good for us and that we were meant to consume it for survival and health purposes. If we are true carnivores or omnivores, cooking our meat and seasoning it with salt, ketchup, or tabasco sauce would disguise and we as humans would refuse to eat our meat in this form.