Monday, 04.21.08
Steak Without Cow
PHoto by flickr user SqueakyMarmot under a creative commons license
Hard to Swallow
September 2007
B.R. Myers pecks at the moral urgency of The Omnivore's Dilemma.
Zoologically Correct
October 2006
Bill Maher cheekily reviews animal-rights classics old and new.
Nasty, Brutish, and Short
April 2004
B.R. Myers heralds an animal-rights activist for the masses.
PETA's million-dollar prize is an occasion for irony -- delicious or repulsive, depending on one's perspective. About a decade ago, an urban legend claimed that the government had barred Kentucky Fried Chicken from calling its food "chicken," because it used genetically modified Frankenbirds, brainless and grown in jars, that bore no resemblance to chicken or poultry of any kind. That supposedly explained the rebranding of Kentucky Fried Chicken as "KFC" -- a government demand for truth in advertising. Needless to say, this idiotic myth contained not even a grain of truth. KFC continued to use real chickens, and to abuse them wantonly in the production process. PETA noticed and launched a campaign, "Kentucky Fried Cruelty," to draw attention to KFC's brutal methods. Now PETA's prize suggests the organization wishes the urban legend had been true from the start. One looks forward to clever PETA graphics featuring Colonel Sanders in a lab-coat, instead of bloodstained and sporting devil-horns.
If so, then good for PETA. The anti-cruelty movement has gained ground in part by assembling a broad coalition -- people who love cuddly animals, people who feel moral revulsion at torturing other creatures, and still others who avoid meat because it's gross and unhealthy. But that strategy will begin to hold the movement back as science revises how we think about animals, meat, and ethics. PETA members motivated by disgust at animal products will find themselves in tighter and more awkward ethical corners -- a drumstick grown in a jar feels no pain, but will bizarrely inspire the same disgust as one grown on a poor debeaked hen that lives its whole life in agony.
PETA operates sites like this to churn stomachs, but even now they are not entirely sincere. The philosophical patrons of animal liberation are rarely the types who endorse ethical systems on the basis of their gag reflex, or the "wisdom of repugnance." Indeed, Peter Singer boasts that he comes to his conclusions precisely because he ignores that reflex (or lack thereof) and thinks actions through to their conclusions. PETA's acceptance (subsidy, even) of meat-eating in these so-far hypothetical, futuristic circumstances signals a re-emphasis on what should be the core mission of the group, which is alleviating the needless suffering of animals in whatever way possible. The reflexively anti-science wing of the animal liberation cause is only setting the movement back, and PETA should continue jettisoning them. Even in vitro chicken could be finger-lickin' good.
Better than beastsAndrew C. Revkin weighs the advantages of artificial meat by interviewing researchers and proponents. |
Wild womanMichael Specter profiles Ingrid Newkirk -- auto racer, liver-lover, sumo-wrestling fan, and founder of PETA. |
Facile promisesTraci Hukill considers whether fake meat production will cause unforeseen environmental havoc. |
Animals, not objectsJeff Perz explains why three main techniques for creating in vitro meat are all immoral. |
(7)
I applaud PETA for taking yet another innovative step in the fight to end cruelty to animals. Through undercover investigations that reveal the torture done to animals to turn them into food, to lively street demonstrations featuring near-naked women sporting lettuce leaves, PETA has blazed trails for years. Supporting in vitro meat is brilliant. Rihgt now, we can all help by choosing delicious plant-based soy products instead of animal flesh.
boca burgers don't taste a thing like meat, although i would agree they taste something like "meat". and i only know this because i am an omnivore and purchased a 6-pack of these things out of respect for a friend of mine from out of town who stopped by for a visit not too long ago. and since there were several leftover from the cookout, and i hate to waste food, i would dip into the freezer from time to time and eat one until they were gone. i thought they tasted okay, but a) they don't taste remotely like cow, pig, chicken, or whatever and b) i'd never buy them for my own consumption. because if i wanted a burger, i'd have one, and if i wanted a tasty salad sprinkled with bean sprouts, i'd have that. the very idea of faux meat products is, all-in-all, sort of ridiculous.
I think this is an excellent idea, and I'm surprised it hasn't been brought up sooner. Lab-grown meat would not only eliminate the suffering from meat production, but it could also reduce the industry's environmental footprint. And I'm sure that lab-grown meat could be made healthier, and produced in ways that lessen the incidence of food-borne illnesses. Some extremists in the animal rights movement might oppose this, and the idea would need to be sold to people who would have a knee-jerk reaction to the thought of meat grown in a lab, but I say bring it on.
Sorry, lab grown meat is a ridiculous idea on so many levels. Faux meat is nothing but over-processed soy, and anybody who's actually educated about health and environmental issues related to soy alone, let alone highly processed soy, would realize that soy is no more an ethical choice than beef. The person who suggested that lab grown meat might be a more healthful option, with reduced food bourne illness . . . wow. All I can say is wow. Total cluelessness about the entire food production system.
Great PeTA-idea. For more backgroud-information, technology, ethics and success-criteria on in-vitro-meat (others call it cultured meat) visit FutureFood. There are still many obstacles to overcome. On this website other alternatives to animal meat are presented, too. An inspiration for the future!
"Sorry, lab grown meat is a ridiculous idea on so many levels. Faux meat is nothing but over-processed soy, and anybody who's actually educated about health and environmental issues related to soy alone, let alone highly processed soy, would realize that soy is no more an ethical choice than beef. The person who suggested that lab grown meat might be a more healthful option, with reduced food bourne illness . . . wow. All I can say is wow. Total cluelessness about the entire food production system."
riiight....like there was any need for beef in the first place. That's why people should do their best to grow their own food. Heck, there's so many alternatives. Why not go a grab on those?
Seriously. Even soy alone. No suffering.
But beef? OUCH!
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although The Current does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
-->
If in-vitro meat will spare animals from pain and suffering, than bring it on! Until then, people can still enjoy the taste of meat without harming animals, the environment, and their health. Boca burgers and faux chicken patties, Gimmie Lean meatless sausages, Morningstar Farms Burger Style Recipe Crumbles, steak and chik?n strips, and other vegetarian alternatives taste remarkably like meat without the cruelty, cholesterol, fat, food-borne bacteria, and other problems associated with animal products.
Posted by Katie Moore | April 22, 2008 12:44 PM