PETA’s Bizarre “Meat” Challenge
Two weeks ago, The Jew & The Carrot reported on the latest news in techno-foods, meat made in a test tube. It seems that the thought of “cruelty free” hamburgers and chicken wings, which are currently long-from available to the public, got PETA in a hungry tizzy. The vegetarian advocacy group announced that it will reward 1 million dollars to:
“The first scientist to produce and bring to market in vitro meat - by June 30, 2012.”
April Fools, right guys? No? Oh…
To win PETA’s ridiculous challenge, “scientists” must: “Produce an in vitro chicken-meat product that has a taste and texture indistinguishable from real chicken flesh to non-meat-eaters and meat-eaters alike [and] Manufacture the approved product in large enough quantities to be sold commercially, and successfully sell it at a competitive price in at least 10 states.”
That PETA is not just in favor of but encouraging the creation of in-vitro meat indicates the organization’s shallow grasp on the interconnected web of food ethics. They have a point that producing in-vitro meat would stop animals from being brutally killed in factory farms. But at what costs?
In addition to all the unknowns about GMO’s impact on human health, the organization’s blanket statement that, “in vitro meat would dramatically reduce the devastating effects the meat industry has on the environment,” holds no weight. It simply (or stubbornly) fails to consider the potential environmental impacts that creating in-vitro meat would create. Sadly, PETA claims that contest entries will be judged based on how realistic the “meat” tastes, NOT on how ethically or sustainably it was produced.
I get it - PETA is against cruelty towards animals. But are they really so deluded to think that in-vitro meat is a viable answer? Their efforts would be much better spent supporting those farmers who are raising free range, humanely slaughtered animals for meat consumption, instead of wasting a million dollars towards the creation of some Fraken-food.
(hat tip to Jewschool’s Kol Ra’ash Gadol who asks the other all-important question about in-vitro meat, “but how would you schect it?”).
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Print This Post
Email This Post
11 Responses to “PETA’s Bizarre “Meat” Challenge”
-
bsci Says:
May 1st, 2008 at 11:02 amI’m just glad that PETA finally realized that animal research is fine if it can result in a greater good. I’m curious when they’re going to officially adopt this to the rest of their policies. Of course, this is just assumes there anything rational about PETA’s policies.
They don’t care about the environment. They don’t care about GMOs. They just care about nothing being done that hurts animals… unless of course it’s research done with the goal of creating artificial meat.
-
Leah Koenig Says:
May 1st, 2008 at 11:13 amThat’s just it bsci! I don’t get the impression that PETA has internalized the notion that the process of creating in-vitro meat will likely utilize a lot of animal testing. If they have figured that out, they certainly didn’t stipulate against it in their contest rules. sheesh.
-
Michael Croland Says:
May 1st, 2008 at 8:55 pmThe contest rules DO explicitly prohibit the use of animal testing. The only involvement of animals is the “starter cells obtained in the initial development stages.” See section 4(b) of the contest rules: http://www.peta.org/pdfs/In_Vi.....Rules.pdf.
I’m no expert on this science, but with all due respect, I don’t think the other commenters here are either. This would not involve animal experimentation — that’s the nature of in vitro research. I’d like to post a letter to the editor that appeared in The New York Times:
—
April 26, 2008
Letters
Will We Eat ‘Clean Meat’ Grown in a Petri Dish?To the Editor:
Re “PETA’s Latest Tactic: $1 Million for Fake Meat” (news article, April 21):
The commercial development of meat from animal tissue won’t result in “fake meat” any more than cloning sheep results in fake sheep.
Quite the contrary, lab-based techniques have the potential to yield far purer meat, uncontaminated with growth hormones, pesticides, E. coli bacteria or food additives. A more accurate name for the end result would therefore be “clean meat.”
In addition, clean meat has a key advantage not mentioned in your article: it’s much more climate-friendly than traditional meat.
More greenhouse gas emissions are generated by current methods of meat, dairy and livestock production than by driving cars, so we need to reduce meat consumption and develop alternative food production technologies just as urgently as we need to reduce driving and develop alternative fuel technologies.
Scott Plous
Middletown, Conn. -
Michael Croland Says:
May 1st, 2008 at 9:02 pmI’d also like to point out two things from the original New York Times article about this story (www.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/us/21meat.html?hp):
* One leading in vitro meat researcher noted that current interest IS dominated by concerns for the environment and public health (NOT animal welfare).
* Another said that “it would be extremely difficult to produce commercially viable quantities of in vitro meat before 2012,” the deadline for the contest.
In other words, any debate shouldn’t target an animal rights group that is trying to publicize the research. Both of the points I just mentioned (and others in the article) show that animal interests and the PETA contest really aren’t the driving force behind the development of in vitro meat anyway.
-
Michael Croland Says:
May 1st, 2008 at 9:07 pmSorry, it looks like at least one of my links didn’t go through.
Contest rules: http://tinyurl.com/46rlg6
NYT article: http://tinyurl.com/4r4cjeAnd while I’m posting a third comment (sorry it’s so split up), I might as well say: I agree that environmental and health concerns need to be seriously considered. But if in vitro meat did become commercially viable, it would spare countless animals from awful suffering. And that’s why it shouldn’t be dismissed outright just because it seems strange. I don’t think I’d eat it, but it could do a world of good to reduce tsa’ar ba’alei chayim.
-
Leah Koenig Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 8:22 amMea culpa - you’re absolutely right Michael - thank you for calling me on my mistake and for your comments.
However, I still think that in-vitro meat is a very myopic “green revolution” approach to a much bigger, more systemic problem. And it continues to bug me that PETA doesn’t support humane/pasture-raised meat production - the more “ancient wisdom” approach to sparing animals from awful suffering.
-
lauren ahkiam Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 1:34 pmbut leah, and i know you’re a vegetarian, humanely slaughtered meat is still animals being slaughtered so we can eat them. to offer it as a solution is still resulting in animal suffering and death, where in-vitro meat doesn’t (though certainly is sketchy for its unforseen health impacts). there is just not enough land to produce the current demand for meat in humane or sustainable methods. and to support certain kinds of meat-eating would be oppositional to what PETA stands for, i.e., preserving animal life.
of course i would rather people buy niman ranch pork than whatever’s cheapest, but really, they should eat much less/none.
-
Leah Koenig Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 9:43 pmHey Lauren! :)
You’re right - I personally think people should be eating less/no meat, but I guess I split ideologically from PETA b/c I think there is a distinction between an animal being killed in a respectful way for meat and an animal going through unnecessary suffering and downright savage treatement at the hands of a conventional slaughtering plant.
I also think that raising pastured animals can be demonstrably beneficial for the land (e.g. Joel Salatin) - though you’re right that there probably isn’t enough land to do it on a large enough scale to meet current meat consumption demands.
Anyway - I understand that PETA would probably never support humane slaughter b/c it still is killing an animal, but I personally believe that’s a myopic and possibly detrimental stance to take.
-
Rabbi Shmuel Says:
May 6th, 2008 at 1:53 pmLeah - you go girlfriend!! animals have a very real place on small farms (for draft work/manure/tillage and meat) but it probably could not be sustained in a larger model (but the Joel Salatins and Lynn Millers and Wendall Berry’s always envisiomned clusters of small farms - this centralized agri-business has to go!
the answer is probably in the middle - less meat consumed and more responsible, holistic meat production.
The great irony of today is that with fuel (trucking) and (feed (read corn, read petroleum) and the doubling of food prices, suddenly local iwhich relies on neither is poised to mbe a (financially) viable player since the true allure of industrial-ag was the lo price - food for thought
-
Leah Koenig Says:
May 6th, 2008 at 4:48 pmThanks Shmuel :) I think you’re right about the answer, and hope you’re right about local food becoming a more viable player!
