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

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.

of course i would rather people buy niman ranch pork than whatever’s cheapest, but really, they should eat much less/none.

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.

Contest rules: http://tinyurl.com/46rlg6
NYT article: http://tinyurl.com/4r4cje

And 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.

* 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.

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.

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.