Monday, April 21, 2008

PETA Contest for "In Vitro" Meat

Oh brother: PETA claims to be about ending all human use of animals, but its first priority is grabbing attention. The newest gimmick is a contest that will award $1 million to the scientist who first develops in vitro meat that can be sold to the public in place of steak or bacon. From the story:

The organization said it will announce plans today for a $1 million prize to the "first person to come up with a method to produce commercially viable quantities of in vitro meat at competitive prices by 2012."

The idea of getting the next Chicken McNugget out of a test tube is not new. For several years, scientists have worked to develop technologies to grow tissue cultures that could be consumed like meat without the expense of land or feed and the disease potential of real meat. An international symposium on the topic was held this month in Norway.

The tissue, once grown, could be shaped and given texture with the kinds of additives and structural agents that are now used to give products such as soy burgers a more meaty quality.

The chances of this happening in 4 years are pretty low, and so there is little worry that PETA will have to pony up the mil. Moreover, the chance that most meat eaters will switch to test tube grown protein is also pretty low--as is the likelihood that in vitro meat will be significantly cheaper than animal flesh. Besides, those who adhere to the maxim, "If it has a face don't eat it," are unlikely to switch back to meat from vegetarianism.

Then, there is this: Developing in vitro meat requires using animals instrumentally, which I thought was a violation of the PETA creed. Moreover, it does nothing to wean us off of our "addiction" to meat.

Interestingly, I asked Gary Francione his view on this, and it is strikingly similar to mine. He told me:

The likelihood of having commercially viable quantities of in-vitro meat by 2012 is very low. So PETA is not really putting anything at risk but is getting publicity. And the primary goal of PETA is to promote PETA--animal rights is only an incidental part of the equation. Moreover, as far as I am aware, PETA has not placed any restriction on the prize that would prohibit the use of animal-based growth mediums or vivisection as part of the research into the development of in-vitro meat. If that is the case, then you have a purported animal rights organization promoting animal exploitation through offering the prize in addition to the problem of PETA encouraging this sort of thing at all. But as PETA has in the past given awards to slaughterhouse designers and to those who produce and sell "happy" meat and and animal products, this most recent gimmick is nothing out of the ordinary for the organization.
PETA says that the goal of all of this for fewer animals to suffer. But that is a pipe dream. The PETA in vitro meat contest is really just a gimmick to garner publicity--PETA's addictive substance of choice.

Labels:

5 Comments:

At April 21, 2008 , Blogger Lydia McGrew said...

I can't even figure out what they are picturing. When you make in vitro creatures in the lab, you then transfer them to the womb of an animal (in the case of animals) or a human (in the case of humans), and everything goes on from there. The point is to get a mouse or a human being. It works because the being grows up from an embryonic sheep (or whatever) into a big sheep. If it weren't a living organism, this wouldn't work. Nobody makes non-organismal meat. What would that even mean? The only thing I can think of are cancer tumors. Hey, what an idea: Develop immortal cancer tumors in the lab and grow them as big as possible for people to eat. I'm sure that'll be a hot item in the cold case at the supermarket!

 
At April 21, 2008 , Blogger Jason said...

I think I understand what they are aiming to create. Basically grown meat that lacks a brain. More power to them if they can make it happen. The idea has been kicked around for a long time, it has a lot of pluses really.

I don't have a problem with eating animals, but if you could get the same product without needing to make the animal i wouldn't complain.

 
At April 22, 2008 , Blogger Lydia McGrew said...

You mean like a deliberately engineered sheep without a head that grows up to be big enough to make cuts of meat?

And that's an ethical use of animals, but taking care of real animals and eventually using them for food isn't? Wow.

 
At April 22, 2008 , Blogger padraig said...

So it's a bad idea to raise veal cattle in a small pen where they don't get much exercise, but growing and eating muscle tissue that's never left the culturing medium is a good idea?

Think I'll buy a rifle and go get some natural venison.

 
At October 12, 2008 , Blogger K said...

Sorry, just researching in vitro tissue, and came across this.

Honestly, yeah, PETA is probably just using this as a publicity gimmick. The prize money can in no way cover the costs of researching this, and it's highly unlikely that anything will happen anyway before 2012.

However, in vitro meat seems to have a lot of good points. Putting myoblasts into a muscle matrix and just growing a singular skeletal muscle, without any sort of nerve system, is way more humane than cutting beaks off of chickens and forcing animals to lay down in cages for the rest of their life. Muscles are stupid even for individual organs (can't do anything on their own) so I can't see how they're even remotely comparable to a whole animal.

There are other things to take into consideration regarding laboratory meat but overall, so far, I think the benefits greatly outway the cons.

...yeah, like anybody's going to read this. :)

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home