Talk:Cultured meat/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wastage

IIRC back when BSE was first flaring up, the US government conducted a study on beef byproducts to see if we could stop farming cows if it came to it. They determined that only ~4oz of a cow is actually wasted; the parts that aren't used for food are still used for other things, like power line sheathing needs(or needed) a chemical usually extracted from cow tendons. I therefore suspect the article's claims for less wastage are false, but I can't seem to find the study to back it up. Anybody? Darekun (talk) 09:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The "wastage" argument would not just apply to cows, if there was such a study done by the US government, which I'm not finding after a search. There are many types of meat that could be replicated through in vitro meat, and there is also the food that is currently "wasted" to feed the cows and other animals which could be going to people. I would be interested in seeing the study if anyone can find it.--Gloriamarie (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The 'wasted' argument doesn't refer to the actual resultant animal product being unused-- wasted refers to livestock production as an inefficient source of food protein production. This is uncontroversial statement. Estimates vary, but about 7-14 pounds of plant protein are needed to create one pound of meat. See e.g., R. Goodland, Ecological Economics 23, 1997, 194-95; D. Pimentel and M. Pimentel, Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 78 (2003) (suppl), pp. 660S–663S (finding 10 pounds of plant protein needed for one pound of animal protein.) Scienceguy81 (talk) 04:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Debate format & quality control

I added some tags to the "Arguments for / against" sections. Any debate-style format is not appropriate for Wikipedia. I'm also concerned about a lot of unsourced speculation in the article. I propose deleting the entire "arguments against" section as well as the "space food" subsection for these reasons.

To be fair, the "arguments against" section does have a couple sources, but they are only there to refute hypothetical criticisms. First there needs to be notable sourcing of the criticisms. And that isn't likely to happen until in vitro meat is available to the public. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 02:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If we can find citations for the arguments against, it seems we could just combine the two sections, including the arguments for or against and then the counter-argument, if you're worried about having both types of arguments in the same section. The space food section is cited elsewhere in the article; it's how the first research into in vitro meat came about, so I don't see any reason to delete it. You can insert a citation needed tag anywhere you feel needs extra attention in citing rather than deleting, and that will help editors try to find sources if there are any.--Gloriamarie (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a "pro and con" "debate format" is inappropriate for this topic. In fact, I think that much of this article seems to be written to advance the idea of eating SOME animal-derived product rather than questioning the legitimacy of humans' consuming foreign animal proteins, a long-standing process which scientific vegetarians have long contested. Also, I think that more should made of the uncertainties about long-term use of something which humans have not previously eaten. Cloned meat may not be what either vegetarians or meat-eaters have eaten, so long-term post-market studies ought to be advocated if human safety is to be held out as a desirable social value for civilization. MaynardClark (talk)

Ice Ages, Draughts, Super Volcainic Eruptions, Global Warming, and Vat Grown Food

Never mind all the good arguments for why IVM is a good thing today, what about when yellowstone erupts and plunges the world into an ice age? What about when global climate change (regardless of the cause) is causing massive draughts in massive regional areas, making it impossible to sustain enough crops to feed everyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.58.85.60 (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Under those conditions would we be able to continue to produce whatever is needed to grow IVM in the first place? It doesn't come from thin air, as far as I know. Gary (talk) 01:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ray Kurzweil said in his book "The Singularity is Near" that nanobots will eliminate 200 years worth of pollution by the year 2025 from the land, air, and water. I assume from this that nanobots could also be used to patch up the ozone layer and eliminate acid rain forever. Traditional meat farming causes more greenhouse gases and pollution than all the cars and airplanes put in the world together so we might have to go to a vegetarian diet before in vitro meat becomes affordable to the working class. GVnayR (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Will in vitro meat cause meat prices to go down?

Will in vitro meat cause meat prices to go down once animals are not killed or maintained in order to create new meat products on the market? GVnayR (talk) 03:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a very complicated question. All else being equal, an increase in the total supply of meat would cause a decrease in the price. But, all things aren't equal. If current trends continue, the demand for meat will likely outstrip any possible supply of in vitro meat. In vitro meat won't first hit the shelves until 5-10 years. even by optimistic estimates. See P.D. Edelman et al., Commentary: In Vitro-Cultured Meat Production, 11 Tissue Engineering 659 (2005). Meat consumption has doubled in the last 15 years the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nation’s projects that annual meat consumption will likely increase by over 70% by 2030 and double by 2050, to 465 million tons annually. See U.N. Food and Agricultural Org., Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options, at xxi (2006). We might see changes in regulation of meat, including consumption taxes. Mandatory GHG emissions labeling would also decrease the demand for meat as well. All of this is to say that a reduction in the price of meat is likely neither a major issue in in vitro cultured meat production. Scienceguy81 (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

With all those animals killed for meat, it will only be a matter of time before the world's ecosystem is stripped of all resources. If at least five billion people in the world promise to eat a vegan diet until the in vitro meat came out in 2015-2020, maybe there would be a larger supply of in vitro meat than there are people. GVnayR (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

GVnayr - I'm not sure what you mean. Explain, please. Scienceguy81 (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Animals consume certain resources in the ground and in the food. When that is gone, then it cannot be renewed. If we stopped killing animals for food, we can save what is left of these resources, and use the animal's DNA to produce our food instead. GVnayR (talk) 03:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Broken reference

A broken reference <ref name="discovery 2008"/> was created in this edit of 8 August 2009 by Gloriamarie. Does anybody know what was supposed to be the content of this reference? Alternatively, if somebody has an another good reference, we could substitute it for the broken one. Debresser (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the reference was supposed to refer to, and since it was a double reference supported by another citation I just removed it.--Gloriamarie (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Loss of Livelihood for Local Meat Farmers

Currently the last sentence of the environmental section reads "Global warming and climate change could be controlled but at a lost of livelihood for local meat farmers; driving them further into poverty." Both somewhat argumentative assertions in that sentence are uncited. A Nov. 17th NY Times article mentions forthcoming research that finds that GHG emissions will be reduced by 90% as compared with traditional livestock production methods. Is there a citation to the second half of the sentence? There are a lot of solid reasons to oppose in vitro meat, but that statement is a 'hooey' argument, IMHO. First of all, local farmers produce only a fraction of the meat, agribusiness corps produce the rest. Second, there isn't any evidence it is going to put local farmers out of business considering the huge growing demand for meat. Third, even if it were true, it'd be a bit like arguing that in 1915 that cars are a bad idea because it puts horse drawn carriage operators out of business. Unless someone can find a citation, I'm inclined to remove the second half of the sentence. If there is valid support for this argument, perhaps it can be moved to the economic section rather than the environmental section. Scienceguy81 (talk) 05:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I cut that part of the sentence down to a mention of "potential" harm, but you're right that it is unsourced speculation. I would have no problem with removing the mention completely. Wikipedia:Be bold! MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I live in a rural farming community. Farmers Feed Cities likes to talk about how traditional meat farming techniques will never be replaced by in vitro meat laboratories and that farmers feed the cities; not the in vitro meat scientists. Farmers may be Luddites and don't want to believe that we can extract the meat from the DNA of animals instead of slaughtering them but they vote in the MPs and MPPs who help keep our economy running. GVnayR (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a source that speculates on likely economic impacts: [1] MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I've read the article. It will be interesting to see a world where the water and food crises are partly resolved thanks to in vitro meat. There will be fewer greenhouse emission so that means no more global warming, no more fish dying from water pollution, no more having to put on your sunglasses in January because of the high UV count, and no more killing animals for food. Animals should roam free in the world, not be exploited as livestock. GVnayR (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That's all great if you can source it. But please don't add speculation that is not soundly sourced. WP:CRYSTAL MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Rearranged!

So I did a bit of rearranging and rewording to make things less argument-oriented and what not. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 04:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Differences from conventional meat

I have made several corrections in the "Differences from conventional meat" section. I have been unable to find the "Recent research at Oxford University" that Jason Matheny cites in MacKay, Fiona (2009-11-16). "Looking for a Solution to Cows' Climate Problem". The New York Times.. If anyone can find it and post it, I would be delighted to have it included in the "Environmental" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Millifolium (talk • contribs) 21:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I hate to say it, Millifolium, but you're a Luddite. No offense but you really need to start seeing the big picture about the inventions of the future that could lower the amount of pollution and greenhouse gases we put in the environment. Killing animals for food is just as bad for the human population just as much as the animal population. GVnayR (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

So scientists can make conjectures about the pros and cons of meat, but if you can't find a study you delete it? Hmm... This lifecycle assessment research is being conducted by Hanna Tuomisto at the Oxford Institute. It is beeing edited and peer reviewed you can contact her if you'd like a copy of it when it is published. You can read about it here: http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1810235/stem_cell_technique_holds_promise_for_meat_production/ ~Science Guy 81 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scienceguy81 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits to in vitro meat

Below is the explanation behind the recent edits to this page. Please read and discuss on the talk page.

"In vitro meat may allow growers to produce normal meat in a healthier, safer way, while having a lower impact on the environment."

You could speculate that in vitro meat might do anything. It is true, anything is possible. However, an encyclopedia article is not a place for random speculation. Particularly not unreferenced speculation that is masquerading as fact. Perhaps you could include something like "PETA activists are hoping that in vitro meat may allow growers to produce normal meat in a healthier, safer way, while having a lower impact on the environment, which is why they have offered a $1 million reward for anyone who can successfully produce commercially viable in vitro meat"

"Many biologists assert that this technology is ready for commercial use and simply needs a company to back it"

Your reference does not indicate that many biologists think that the technology is ready for commercial use. It refers to one biologist who thinks that. This biologist, that article says, "is among a handful of scientists culturing meat from animal tissue". Among all of the other articles about in vitro meat that are cited in this Wikipedia article, there are a couple other scientists who are also quoted as saying that the technology is ready for commercial use. A few is a much better characterization of this than many.

"Production of cultured meat could even be much cheaper than conventionally produced meat, as costs such as animal raising and environmental protection negative externalities are eliminated"

In fact, the references you are citing say that in vitro meat is much more expensive than conventional meat, and the most optimistic estimate is that it might be possible to reduce cost of in vitro meat to only twice the cost of conventional meat. This estimate comes from a very pro-in vitro meat source, the In-Vitro Meat Consortium.

"It has been speculated that in vitro meat production could be cleaner and less prone to disease and bacteria contamination than meat garnered from livestock"

The passive voice (i.e. not saying who is doing the speculation) is misleading, and less informative than naming the person who is doing the speculation.

Changes to Environmental and Economic differences sections

You removed facts that were properly cited and highly relevant.

Changes to the Ethical considerations section

The wording of this section was convoluted, and some of the statements were incorrect. The new changes make it more concise and logically coherent, while still (I think) accurately representing the viewpoint of the animal rights activists who like the idea of in vitro meat. If the new wording does not accurately represent them, please enlighten me. It is completely true that in-vitro meat cannot feel pain, and this is a very valid point to make here. However, whether or not the production of in-vitro meat would cause pain or suffering for any animal is a completely different point, and is not discussed in this Wikipedia article or in any of the references cited in it. The production of in vitro meat definitely would cause pain or suffering for some animals. The giant factories required to produce the cultured meat, the massive fossil fuel requirements, the production of the necessary materials, etc., would definitely cause harm to some animals.

"In vitro meat could help people during an international food crisis"

There is no reference for this, and it is not apparent how this could possible be true. A $1 million steak is certainly not going to help anyone during a food crisis. For the same reason, the statement that "[in vitro meat could help] during prolonged ice ages or droughts" was also removed.

"A plant-based medium has been found to be less inexpensive than fetal bovine serum"

I don't see why you prefer the double negative. To be less inexpensive is to be more expensive. Also, that reference says "may soon be replaced by an inexpensive, plant-based substitute", it is not stating it as an absolute, which is why I corrected this statement to reflect that.

Millifolium (talk) 04:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

When Time Magazine reports something [2] (in its Health & Science section, not an op-ed or anything), then my understanding is that it is the "official position of Time Magazine". Referring to the source as "one journalist" is a deceptive way of representing the source as unreliable. And by the way, Time doesn't need to provide a citation since it is a reliable source itself. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Time reference was written in a way that implies more than what was actually written. The line from the article read "Creating the meat in a lab also decreases its exposure to bacteria and disease." I've rewritten the text in the article to better refllect this. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

More liberties taken... the line "No bones would be involved in this form of production, reducing the risk of choking", referenced to an article in The Australian. Unfortunately, the only reference to "choking" in that article was:

"The resulting flesh is then peeled off in a 'meat-sheet' that may be ground up to make minced meat for sausages, patties or nuggets. Those readers now choking on their morning fry-ups will be relieved to learn that it is not quite that easy."

I suspect there's a lot more to clean out. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool, looks good. You're right that the article is full of speculation, just not on that particular point. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Great edits, MakeBelieveMonster, and thank you for cleaning this article up. It really needs it. I only disagree with your edit to the health section. I don't think that the wording "one journalist has speculated" was at all deceptive, when it was completely true. Deborah Seigelbaum is simply one journalist. I would personally think that the speculation of a journalist has no place in an article like this, to include the speculation of someone with no background in either agricultural or laboratory production is deceptive. However, it is true that this has been speculated, and this article is almost entirely speculative, so perhaps it has value so long as it is clearly indicated that it is speculation, and who is doing the speculation. I do see your point, though, that although Seigelbaum is the one who proposed this opinion, Time Magazine has condoned it because it isn't an op-ed. However, I still disagree with referring to this as "reported". This strongly implies that the article is reporting an opinion that existed somewhere else, presumably from someone with more credibility on the subject. As far as we can tell, given that Seigelbaum doesn't cite any reference for this opinion, she is proposing the opinion herself, not reporting it. Therefore I still think that it should be "Time Magazine has speculated".

Time Magazine is a reliable source for news. If Time Magazine says that some scientist said something, or that some research showed something, that is reliable, we can trust that they are not lying to us. However, Time Magazine is not a peer-reviewed journal, and the journalists are not experts in the fields about which they write. Any novel fact that is simply presented by an article in Time Magazine with no reference as to where it came from must be treated as an opinion, unless some research can be found to back it up.

This is discussed at Science article in the popular press Millifolium (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The correction that Ckatz made to the wording is great (thanks!), but it still needs to be made obvious that this is an opinion, and who's opinion it is. I propose the following wording, I'll wait a bit for comments before I change it on the page:

"Time Magazine has speculated that the in-vitro process could also decreases exposure of the meat to bacteria and disease"

Perhaps "It was proposed in Time Magazine that the in-vitro process might decrease the exposure of the meat to bacteria and disease"" sounds better?Millifolium (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

My insistence over this point is because it is most likely entirely wrong. Animals have an immune system, and as a result their flesh has much less exposure to disease than a culture in a petri dish. Anyone who has worked in a lab knows how easy it is to get contamination in a culture. Besides, meat isn't contaminated while the animal is alive, this happens during processing. That same processing would have to happen regardless of whether the meat was produced conventionally or in a lab culture. I fully realize that this is simply my opinion, although it is an educated opinion, so I would never try to enter it in to the article. However, if someone else's opinion is going to be included that appears so contrary to reality, then it must be clearly stated that it is an opinion, and who's opinion it is.

Millifolium (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fair. You don't exactly "report" on the future... I put "suggested" that this "may" happen. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 04:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks for your work, there are obviously still numerous parts of this article that need to be fixed, but I'm quite happy with the progress from the recent bout of collaboration. Sorry about misrepresenting the Portfolio.com article in its opinion regarding the commercial viability of in-vitro meat. I'm kind of embarrassed about that, I was in too much of a hurry and didn't reread what I remembered it as saying, very bad form on my part. Thanks for catching that and fixing it. Millifolium (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I am opposed to the recent changes made by Millifolium to this page. I don't like how negatives aspects of in vitro meat production are stated as fact, while other possible benefits are started as mere possible benefits. I think that a better option is to state in the 'differences from conventional meat' that in vitro cultured meat is not a reality yet so all benefits and harms are indeterminate. That being said, there are certainly different levels of conjecture. For example, Millifolium deleted a reference by Jason Matheny to actual, completed research at Oxford University by Hanna Tuomisto concerning a lifecycle assessment of the environmental impacts of cultured meat. It just so happens that the peer reviewed research is in the process of being edited and peer reviewed. Nonetheless, Millifolium prominently placed a quote by the Union of Concerned Scientists that was completely based on conjecture. UCS have done no studies and they aren't familiar with the policy and scientific issues related to cultured meat production. (I know, I contacted them.) Now, it seems like I am biased here, because I am. I think that cultured meat is a great idea. Nonetheless, I think we should attempt to keep the Wikipedia page from looking like a battleground of competing statements. I will attempt to remain as objective as possible, and I would ask that others would do the same. Also, Millifolium, you seem to be stuck on the fact that the technology and quantities of scale aren't in place yet. But this is a burgeoning technology-- let's say this was a nanotechnology page- it would be certainly responsible to discuss the possibilities for good that nanotechnology plays and then also discuss some concerns. I'm not sure how helpful it would be to say, "Nanotechnology is really expensive now and no can afford it, etc." A quick look at technology (e.g. computers) reveals that prices can drop dramatically with quantities of scale and increased funding and use by consumers. Cheers, ScienceGuy81 Cheers, ScienceGuy81 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scienceguy81 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Below is an explanation of the most recent edits I have made to the article:
Millifolium (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Health

I removed "While proponents of in vitro meat predict that it will use considerably fewer antibiotics than cultured meat". It doesn't make sense (isn't in-vitro meat the same thing as cultured meat?), and the reference given does not say anything about antibiotic use.

Environmental

The research by Hanna Tuomisto is not published, and is currently in peer review. It does not qualify as a reliable source until it has undergone peer review, and it is not verifiable until it has been published. See Identifying reliable sources for more information on this. As with any scientific research, this paper might not pass peer review. And if it does pass peer review, it might require revisions that could change its conclusions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that documents published knowledge. It is not a place for original research or speculation. If her paper passes peer review, then it can be included in Wikipedia, but not until then. There is a good reason for this, as it might not pass peer review, and the version that passes might be different.

As there is no published research on the relative environmental impact of in-vitro meat, everything is just speculation. If speculation is to be included in Wikipedia, it should be clearly labeled as speculation, and the person doing the speculation should be identified.

Economic differences

This report does not say that in-vitro beef can be produced cheaper than conventional beef. In fact, it does not make any estimate as to the cost of producing in-vitro beef. It does give an estimate on the cost of the cheapest possible "meat-like product" (their words, not mine). Their estimate is that this "meat-like product" can be produced for Euro 3500/tonne, and both the report, and the article by James Temple, compare this cost to unsubsidized chicken, and say that it will be about twice the price.

Given that the report doesn't specifically claim that in-vitro meat will be cheaper than beef, to do so constitutes original research. This form of original research is explained in this Wikipedia essay on Original research.

I think that there is a good reason why the cost was only compared to chicken. There is great variation in the cost of any food. The cost estimate for the in-vitro meat was for how cheaply they could possibly produce it. Undoubtedly, if in-vitro meat was to become a successful food, there would be much fancier versions available. Ones that were made to taste good, or have the fat content of salmon, or any of the other "designer meats" that have been suggested. These would probably be much more expensive, as it would require extra time and energy. Similarly, chicken represents a cheap meat product - if one was to buy meat, and was only concerned about the cost, they could easily end up buying chicken. There are also much more expensive conventional meat products available, like lobster, abalone, foie gras, sweetbread, etc. It is probably true that the cheap in-vitro "meat-like product" would be cheaper than abalone, and that the designer in-vitro meat that tastes good and has the fatty acid profile of salmon would be way more expensive than chicken. Neither of these points are particularly relevant. Comparing the cheap in-vitro "meat-like product" to chicken seems to be a fair, and somewhat useful comparison.

The fact that in-vitro meat will probably be twice the price of conventional meat does not mean that noone will buy it. People buy many conventional meat products that are more than twice the price of cheaper conventional meat, and it seems reasonable to assume that some people would buy in-vitro meat for this cost. However, there has been repeated attempts on this article to either imply or directly claim that in-vitro meat will be cheaper than conventional meat, making in-vitro meat the economical choice over conventional meat. This is pure speculation, and is not supported by the research.

Initiatives

"Currently, there has been no government funding in the USA for the development of industrial scale in vitro meat production. However, a grant request has been submitted to the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Industrial stage development will require a start up company and at least $5 million in venture capital."

I added in the USA, because that is presumably what the editor intended, two paragraphs above in that section it says that the Dutch government awarded a 2 million Euro subsidy for the project. However, I have no idea if this paragraph is accurate, if someone could find a reference for this, that would be great.

Artificiality I removed this section as it had no citations for any of its predicate claims. (Only citation was to culinary benefits of bones, no cites to consumer preferences or anything related to artificiality.) 72.189.75.191 (talk) 06:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this section is poorly written, and could use some better citations. However, if editors in the past had proceeded with improving this article by simply deleting sections of this article that were improperly referenced, there wouldn't have any article left to edit. The editor(s) who wrote this felt that this section was worthy of being in the article, and it does seem to be relevant, and it isn't making any outrageous claims. In the spirit of collaborative writing, I think it would be more appropriate to improve this section instead of deleting it. I am returning this section to the article, if you would like to improve it, or add better references, that would be great. Millifolium (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletions from the article

There are a few claims in this article that are dubious, and not referenced. I am proposing that they be deleted.

In the Initiatives section: "One of the first places of businesses to accept this in vitro meat would be fast food restaurants. Since they do not disclose which farmer or rancher provided them with food, in vitro meat in fast food restaurant is often seen as an inevitable advancement."

This seems dubious, and has no reference. It just sounds like someone repeating the standard urban legend about fast food restaurants, that they grow their meat in a lab. The reality is that fast food restaurants usually use the cheapest meat possible, which, according to the In-vitro Meat Consortium, will not be in-vitro meat.

"Currently, there has been no government funding in the USA for the development of industrial scale in vitro meat production. However, a grant request has been submitted to the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Industrial stage development will require a start up company and at least $5 million in venture capital."

It seems unlikely that there is a reference for this. If there isn't, it should be deleted. Otherwise, it just seems like advertisement for someone's research project.

In the Potential Usage section: The statement "The original NASA research on in vitro meat was intended for use on long space voyages or stays" appears to be true. However, it seems to belong better in the History section, and it is already there, and and it is properly referenced in that section. The other two statements in this section are dubious, and have no reference: "it would be a sustainable food source alongside hydroponic or aeroponically grown vegetables. It may also be useful during the colonization of extreme environments where food is scarce, such as Antarctica."

It is unlikely that an expensive protein source that requires a highly specialized lab would be at all useful in either application. For space voyages, vegetable protein seems much more efficient, which is probably why NASA opted for that option instead.

Millifolium (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Since this section is about anticipated future applications it is unfair to suggest that the process would be prohibitive. In fact the long-range goal of the research in this field is to create an economically feasible production system. While the timeframe for such an accomplishment is unknown, it will eventually be resolved as long as research continues. Once such a system has been developed then reducing it to a semi-portable factory complex for small scale production would not be difficult. Also, your comment "For space voyages, vegetable protein seems much more efficient, which is probably why NASA opted for that option instead." while accurate at the current time is problematic because it discussed what NASA did in the past and this section is about the future. 66.97.213.202 (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

deletion by Ckatz

Editor Ckatz deleted this sentence

However others such as Mark Post, believe in vitro meat provides an "an opportunity to reverse the terribly damaging" environmental impact of global livestock industry, which according to the UN FAO uses 80% of the world's farm land and is responsible for nearly 20% of humanities greenhouse gas emissions

with the edit summary "This would need a proper, accessible reference" (The source is a magazine that won't give full text to non-subscribers.) My questions:

• Where is it written in Wikiped regulations that a print source not available online is not "proper"?
• Doesn't the [Environment] subsection (from before my addition, not all of which CKatz deleted) sound rather dismissive and POV:

  A few people have speculated that in-vitro meat might require fewer resources and produce less greenhouse gas and other waste than conventional meat production. This includes the patent holder for in-vitro meat,[14] the journalist Brendan I. Koerner,[22] and Hanna Tuomisto, a PhD student from Oxford University.[23] Margaret Mellon of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a science-based lobby group dedicated to environmental and social issues, speculates that the energy and fossil fuel requirements of large scale in-vitro meat production in a factory may make it more environmentally destructive than producing food off the land.[4][24]

A few people? However icky you may find test tube meat, global meat production uses enormous amounts of land, water, and anti-biotics.

--BoogaLouie (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Italics

Why the hell is every instance of "in vitro" italicized throughout the article, even in the title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.76.115 (talk) 03:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Because it's Latin. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

World population 8.9 billion?

Article says "when the world's population will reach 8.9 billion". There is no nation in the world with birthrates that would sustain that figure by 2050. In fact, with the current trend in global birth rates the population is set to head into serious decline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.113.22 (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal 1

The article at Shmeat seems to just be discussing a slang word for in vitro meat. Does this really warrent its own article? Should it not just be added into the article as a new section? Must remember that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

SciShow and refs

There's a recent SciShow episode on Lab-Grown Meat, which uses these links as reference. Possibly some of those links are new, and useful here. Just a note. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Scifi inspired dinner

An anon tried to add an image/link to this article, at the top of the page.

• http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/blogs/table-talk/chickienobs-or-soylent-green-anyone-20120416-1x33c.html

That article, links to this other article (main link dead? here's an archive)

• http://web.archive.org/web/20120419022552/http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/restaurants-and-bars/blessed-are-the-geeks-20120417-1x4hn.html

I'm not sure how much of that is useful here. Possibly it warrants a whole sentence/paragraph in the "In fiction" section? –Quiddity (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Etymology of Shmeat

The citation linked to for the combination of sheet and meat as where the term comes from merely links to other articles including urban dictionary, see cite 13 [^ "Shmeat (sheet + meat)". 2013-03-30. Retrieved 2013-05-24.]. It looks like a cheap site and it offers no references. An NPR article from 2008 suggests the sheet etymology at [3]. While a comedy show, the same doctor interviewed by NPR explained on the Colbert Report in 2009 that shmeat was a portmanteau of shit and meat. I personally think the shit and meat portmanteau is more accurate, but I guess we'll never know. Point being, I wasn't sure whether this needed to referenced as another possible explanation of shmeat's etymology along with the one provided or at least under the In Popular Culture section. 173.249.64.220 (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on In vitro meat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130819005637/http://www.wired.com:80/science/discoveries/news/2006/06/71201 to http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/06/71201

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Mention the work of Memphis Meats

The newly formed company Memphis Meats is doing good work in this area and deserves mention in this article. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)