PETA Puts Meat Back on the Menu

If this actually happens the urban legend that KFC doesn't use the word 'chicken' anymore because they don't actually use 'real' chicken would kind of be true!

Sounds that we are coming to a world like Soylent Green.

My thoughts exactly.

When you call yourself Vegetarian you are not supposed to eat Meat whatever method it is produced. Humans are non carnivores animals they do not have cannie teeth and no digestive acids to consume meat. I know many of friends who are non vegis will not agree with me. But to-day most of the diseases are born out of animal meat. Also you dont know health of animal whose meat you are eating, it might have been inficlted by any of the diseases. Latest was "Mad Cow" problem and "Bird Flu". I am vegi from birth I dont even eat eggs, but at age 67 yrs I am not suffering from any problems. I can read without wearing glasses. I enjoy active life of working as free lancer for my clients.So long live Vegis.

"to avoid contributing to the suffering of sentient beings like cows, pigs, horses, and sheep"

A cow, pig, horse, sheep a sentient being. Do you even know what one looks like. By this statement you have never been around one. I have never seen one that showed any signs of being self aware.

I have been on farms. I have personally interacted with cows, horses, and pigs. I have played with calves who jumped with joy to see me, and licked my face like a pet dog would (these animals were particularly well-treated since they were raised only for milk, and treated with kindness). There exits much evidence that apes, monkeys, dogs, cats, porpoises, elephants, horses, cows, sheep, and even mice, (i.e., all mammals) have emotions. I would argue that to have emotions, a being must exhibit sentience (awareness of separate self). If you don't accept all of the animals on my list, would you at least agree that apes and pet dogs are sentient? If yes, then why would an ape or dog have this trait, but not a cow or horse? What criteria should we use to distinguish between sentient and non-sentient animals? I would argue that it depends on the structural complexity of the brain, and that all mammals have the necessary minimum complexity.

I will agree that the great apes have shown sentience but not the dog. The criteria is self awareness. When you look in a mirror do you see your self or another person?

Dogs can recognize themselves in the mirror. If that is the criteria for self-awareness, then several mammalian species have already passed the test. I think that my criteria -- the observable presence of emotions -- is a stricter test.

I have seen dogs growl at the mirror with the hair standing up on their back. Charging their own image. Fear is the emotion in which these dogs showed. A self aware being does not fear the image of their self in a mirror.

Friendly dogs would approach the mirror and go around to get a better sniff and become confused. They would shorty lose interest. Confusion is that an emotion?

Neither of these show that a dog is self aware when see their image in a mirror.

Emotions are all so a poor criteria to base self awareness on. When in disciplining a dog you perchance yell at them and they hang their heads low. They are not doing it because they are sad that they did something wrong. They are just reacting to the fact your up set. Heck I don't think they understand even if you rub their nose in it!

Dogs, as with other animals, absolutely display emotions. I am not aware of what definition you want to apply to the phrase "self-aware", but dogs can and do display emotion, are cognitive of the emotions of others, and posses intelligence.

I think your examples of the mirror are a little too simplistic. Generally, dogs that show aggression have other issues that are causing an imbalance in their life. The result of this imbalance is expressed in the form of aggression in some dogs or can manifest itself as other traits such as self mutilation or other destructive behavior.

I think that both examples of dog behavior you cited are dogs that are self aware, but how you define self-aware is a tricky question.

Lastly, as humans we project human traits on animals and expect animals to relate to us in this context. This is anything but true, particularly with dogs and can have horrible consequences when we treat dogs in this fashion.

You are right, rubbing a dog's nose in their own feces does not help a dog "get it" at all.

The mirror is just a tool that has been used for this type of research. To study the reaction of the subject in seeing their image in a mirror.

What they are looking for is reaction that would leave them to believe that the subject recognizes the image as them self. The subjects ability to distinguish that image from just another animal to them self is part of test to gauge self awareness.

You are right in the that the treatment of animals will effect how they would react. Fear should not be the reaction of seeing ones own image.

Fascinating. Do you have any links on this? I would like to learn more about this technique.

Thats some thing i will have to dig up. It has been a while since looking at these studies.

I have been away for a week, but will try to catch up on this thread.

Recognizing a reflection of one's own body in a mirror does not prove self-awareness. A machine could be easily designed to do this (but try to program a machine to feel emotions, good luck!). Recognition of one's own exterior proves nothing except that some brains (computers) are good at pattern recognition. And by the way, some dogs *do* recognize themselves in the mirror. Try this experiment: if you can get your dog to sit still in front of a mirror, sneak up on it from behind an attempt to strike it from behind with a foam rod (so that the dog sees only your reflection -- watch the dog flinch! I have never seen a dog growl at its own reflection (those that do have some kind of disfunction).

Having emotions does not make it less tasty. By your analysis, grass, moss, algiae and even single celled organisms have emotions. And also Bears have emotions....Go hug a grizzly....and we'll bury the peices he shits out.

Just cause you happen to be on top of the food chain doesn't give the rest of them more rights...and rice is a living organism, as is a mushroom, a fungus or the herpies living in your body...if you don't want to kill anything by digesting it....starve. Cause if anything other than a rock passes your lips, you are a hypocrit

You eat, you destroy life. when you with to die or kill your children by not feeding them, then you can talk.

Some times stupidity rears it's head just by it's existance...not knowing that it is what it protests/

Pass me that rare fetus in an orange sauce, and cook it properly....I don't care where the fetus comes from .... all that is social

This is svengali (away from my pc & can't remember my password).

Hi Tom,

What part of my "analysis" would imply that I think grass has emotions? Because I said cows, dogs, and other mammals have emotions? Actually I think, based on general my modest knowledge of neural networks, that emotions require a minimal level of neural complexity that plants seem to lack. So no, I would say that "grass, moss, algae and even single celled organisms" DO NOT have emotions.

I agree that plants are alive, and that I kill them when I eat them. For now, killing cannot be avoided if we want to eat. But I can still be selective about what life forms I kill. I prefer to rely mainly on a vegetarian diet because this seems to cause far less suffering to living beings than would a carnivore's diet. Now please explain how this makes me a "hypocrite". Strong words about me coming from someone who apparently misunderstood what I actually wrote. If you can't explain what you think makes me a hypocrite, then you should apologize. But judging from many of your previous posts, I expect that you will not understand, and neither will you show civility.

And regarding your last sentence: "You eat, you destroy life. when you with to die or kill your children by not feeding them, then you can talk." Would you please translate that into English so the rest of us can figure out what you're rambling about?

Actually emotions are a software issue not hardware, a neural network is biological hardware utilized to communicate information between the variety of single celled organisms that comprise the body of a multi celled organism. since we operate and function at a basic level much differently than a plant, it is understandable that we do not have the same hardware. However, the concept of pain and suffering, which are not emotions because this is a very ambiguous notion that actually requires a level of intellectual understanding, awareness and free time that animals probably do not have,is something that is identified in plants, as they respond to damages and stresses from areas that are not in direct contact with the areas that are damaged or stressed. Plants just do not accomplish many of the responses in exactly the same manner we do, they also do not walk or move around (there is no fight or flight response for a plant, they don't get that option). So i guess in reality you are inflicting pain and stress on a life form that is essential helpless to defend itself against your assaults, unlike a pig (pigs can be quite dangerous, and are quite willing to eat you, if they have the opportunity).

I remember reading about plant emotions back in the 60s. It seems some guy was fooling around with a lie detector and hooked it up to a plant on the table next to it. As he was wondering what would happen if he burned one of the leaves, the needles on the machine went crazy. Seems that plant was not only emotional but telepathic.

I guess it all depends on how you define emotions and telepathy. I believe they probably do have a more basis response to pain, much like many animals, but they don't have the same reactions to pain, since they can not flee or really fight. I believe for those people who use the emotions argument, it really isn't about an animals capacity for emotional response, but their interpretation of human responses corresponding to perceived body language in the animals, those big brown eyes like a baby's and long eye lashes, or the sounds. It is easier to kill something that is even more peaceful as long as it makes no sounds or doesn't have features that we derive body language responses from.

The MythBusters tested the old myth about plants telepathically detecting and reacting to the haring of nearby plants. At first they thought they had found a real reaction from the plants. But after improving the design of their experiments to control more of the experimental variables, the correlation between stimulus and response disappeared. They concluded that the myth is "Busted". I know the MythBusters sometimes cut corners, but on the other hand, can anyone cite a reference to reproducible results in favor of telepathic plants?

Oh yeah, let's see a special effects guy and a nerd work together (with a lil' help from other nerds) to prove or debunk "myths". And they proved this to be wrong? Not that I would have the slightest inkling on how to go about prove this sort of thing, I seriously that this group would either...

I am not sure there is sientifically valid reporducible studies that support the concept of telepathy in Humans, let alone plants or animals.

It makes no sense to assume that plants sense much pain (if any). Animals evolved pain in order instinctively retreat from physically harmful events (and the memory of pain events helps us to avoid it in the future). Since plants cannot move to retreat from pain, pain it serve no useful purpose for them (it terms of evolution and natural selection).

Regarding your comment about software, obviously both hardware and software are needed to execute an algorithm. My point was that simple life forms probably have very rudimentary emotion (if any at all) because of their very simple hardware and software.

Regarding the distinction between pain and emotions, obviously pain come in a variety of forms such as physical, emotional, and intellectual. What concerns me about eating cows and pigs is not the physical pain of the slaughter-house. I object more to the life-long emotional pain that these exploited cows and pigs endure in factory farms. I have no objection to hunters killing animals in the wild for food.

I don't understand some people's reactions to my simple message. Unless a person is an animal-rights extremists (and has to think twice about which to rescue first, a drowning human or a drowning dog), I don't see why anyone sees anything controversial about the idea that some species are more sentient than others, and therefore deserve more protection. Clearly most people feel much more regret about accidentally killing a dog than an insect.

I follow a mostly vegetarian diet, but I don't claim ethical purity, and I don't mean to preach. But when I eat animals once in a while, I eat fish and birds since these non-mammalian animals probably suffer much less emotionally than cows and pigs in factory farms. This seems reasonable to me, but a few people seem to have a negative knee-jerk response whenever anyone suggest eating less red meat. I suspect that they feel a bit annoyed for being reminded about what goes on in factory farming.

You may want to visit a chicken or turkey farm. Those make beef cattle livving arrangements look luxurious, shettlered from the cold when they want, provided with good free food and water to supplement their limited natural resources. Also, many birds have a much higher level of sentience then a cow or even a pig, by human testing standards (definitely parrots and crows). Birds actually could be in many way more evolved than humans. After all mammals evolved from reptiles about the same time as dinosaurs, but bird evolved from later dinosaurs. Plus I am not sure how many people wouldn't volunteer to live in a situation similar to the way we raise cattle, if the alternative was starving in the wilderness and cold like a wild animal. I am sure the mortality rate from starvation alone is dramatically higher amongst semi-wild buffalo than farmed cattle. Most beef cattle only get into relatively tight confinement, like you'd see at a dairy, just before slaughter for a couple of months, but spend most of their lives on the range (with supplements of water resources and food they do not have naturally available on the range). Now Dairy cattle are handled much more like you see chickens raised,though they still have much more freedom and area to roam than chickens (more like free-range chickens). And, the way we slaughter fish, would be equivalent to throwing cattle in a deep pool with weights and allowing them to drown while they struggle, Let alone shell fish, lobsters and such. So obviously, it is not a question of the treatment of the beef or pigs, as they are treated substantially better than other food sources. Nor can it be a belief in the animals capacity to be aware of its situation and living conditions, as chickens are likely at least as sentient as cattle, maybe not pigs. Some of the issues are related to a racial bias that most people have where they assign human characteristics of mental capabilities based on observed physical traits, particularly the eyes, or sounds. As such this simplistic thought process cause a generalization of many human characteristic to these animals based on some simple physical trait, and thus many people would question whether to save their pet dog or some guy they do not know. However, given the prevalence of dog fighting world-wide, some people might just as easily fight to protect a butterfly but raise dog to fight ( this is another simple bias many people suffer regarding things they perceive as beautiful).

Regarding the concept of simple life forms, obviously in many ways plant are vastly more evolved and complicated than humans. Otherwise we could just walk outside and stick out feet in some soil and soak up some sunlight to get our food. Plants protect themselves by producing some extremely complicate biochemicals, which we find hard to reproduce many times. Plant biochemisty is much more complicated and evolved than human biochemistry. They also have complicated physiological responses to environmental conditions and stressors, including movement, however, these tend to occur in response to factor much different than those we'd respond to, in part because different environmental factor effect plants more strongly than animals, or vice versa.

I have been reading the posts about self awareness in animals and it occurred to me that the case for self awareness may be summed up from a quote of Tom Regan's Kantian Account of Animal Rights.

The following passage, I believe, hits the nail on the head. Regan cited that in order to posses inherit worth you only need be "the subject of life."

"That is, you must be conscious of having a life that can get better or worse. You need not be able to place it on a graph, or reflect deeply about it, or set ultimate goals, or develop rule-governed justifications of your evaluations, or even give a verbal description of the process of your life. You must have a life, and have sufficient self-awareness that you can recognize when things are going well or ill."

When you consider all the creatures that can fit this definition it is easier to attach a definition of self-aware on a case-by-case basis. I think that self-aware as defined as being able to recognize that life can get better or worse is a very, very good definition.

Hmm, by that definition, i am not sure that 30% of the human population would qualify.

5 perry, but who judges? You? and if you do, does that mean I get to judge you as not capable?

Regan cited it with the arrogance of ignorance...The Liberal Agenda. See, if they can define something, they can tax it or make you feel guiltiy about it.

I tell you what, if you really want to be at one with the earth...take off everyihing you have and walk neked into the sun...forage and be one with nature...I give you 5 days before you're a raving lunatic....and you wouldn't last a year north of alabama

You probably worship Al Gore, who's house burnes 30 times what the normal household energy footrprint is, though he's there 30% of the year...the rest of the time he is flying on his private jet, buning more fuel in an hour than most truckers burn in a month...Telling you to fuck off and use less because you are a fucking asshole unless you are buying carbon credits from his companies

You will have a wonderful life sucking down soilent grean and not thinking about the grandma they just took out in a garbage truck

Milliions of people in the world are vegitarians...and 99.995% of those would kill your mother for meat, but don't have it as an available source of food. India is a great example....India actually is able to feed itself on available resources...if you want half your population living on less than 1 lb of rice a week. and whatever weeds they can stomach that don't kill them...China...same problem, though they are not self sufficent in food

Lets see, the average earnings in India, Indonesia, China and most of Aftrica...less than $1000.00 per year. Yet they are to be concidered advanced. My ass. Not that they do not have an afluent class....one that spits and abuses the lower classes as slaves.

And don't gimme that shit about that's not true. Been to China, been to taiwan (which is actually much more advanced than most), been to India, been to Egypt, been to Nigeria, been to South Africa. In any one of these countries I could buy a human life for 50 us dollars

Never seen a leper in the US...stepped over them in India..dying people on the street. Contempt for life is a given...China is the same...drown the first female ofspring in the river because only sons are worthy. Practices that go on today.

Bring up an Indian or Chinese national that wouldn't gut you in the street for the chance to go to a first world contry. I don't see a whole lot of people clamoring to move to India or China. No one wants to go there, everyone wants to get out.

So the nail on the head that you indicated is the one that was driven into your skull to keep you stupid and docile for when we need soylent green. You were given life....and if you can't figure out what to do with it, you should be plant food. No one gave it to you nor owes you one. You want it, take it, you don't and I'll stomp your head into the ground to pave my driveway.

You deserve nothing. You get what you take, you strive for, you earn. Else, you push up daisays and feed the soil. And you knw what...things eat you...and they are not vegitarian.

Cheesy selfrightious inoramui like you just let us know what is wrong with the world and make me happy I can make my own bullets.

Wanna play catch?

THe day you couldn't go to the store to get milk and a cheeseburger...you'd be screwed.

"Humans are non carnivores animals they do not have canine teeth and no digestive acids to consume meat."

Humans do have canine teeth. We developed as omnivores eating both plants and animals. I have never had any problem digesting meat.

"But to-day most of the diseases are born out of animal meat."

Most deseases that effect animals is due to over crowding in poor living conditions. The worry over these deseases is that they mutate into something a human can catch with out consuming. Even plant matter can be contaminated with bacteria and cause one to become sick.

Actually, most of our disease comes from exposure of animals maintained in concentrated groups, along side dense populations of humans, to native species that are carriers. Almost all flu viruses come from exposure of concetrated domestic bird populations to residues from migratory birds, then some pig (monkeys are a good intermediate source too) is exposed to one of many ongoing mutations in the virus that allows specific crossing of species boundaries, then the virus mutates in pigs to be more suited to that environment, based on the original strain, then one of those ongoing mutation is exposed to a human susceptible to it and it crosses the species boudary into humans. Direct exposure to birds by susceptible humans usually does not cause a transmittable strain of influenza, though given the mutation rates, it may some day. We do not get diseases from the meat usually, most major infections are related to our own exposure to the animals, and the naimals exposure to native species that act as uncontrolled carriers. Prions, however are different, these are directly transmitted through consumption and may occur in the neurologic tissues (they are also very hard to denature with heat). Bacteria and higher parasitic life forms that infect us can be associated with meat, though most have been removed from our domestic meat sources through better treatment and health care available to the animals. Of course some of the worst outbreaks of parasitic and bacterial infections in the 1st world have been associated with fruits and vegeatables, like spinach or orange juice (again a handling and management issue). Wild sources, however, or mismanagement/handling coupled with exposure are the primary causes of infections and outbreaks in the human populations. By far the most dangeroius thing in the first world is migratory birds and the vast number of viruses they carry that exposure all of our domestic animals, which can lead to a virus crossing species boundaries. So a better way to control the risk is to get rid of the uncontrolled carriers, like migratory native birds.

Also of note, humans do not have a ruminents digestive tract for digesting vegetative matter either, so they must not be truly vegetarian. Plus it occurs to me that many mammals with canine teeth eat far more vegetative matter than meat, e.g. black bears. On the other hand i am not sure that some perceived pure carnivores like monitor lizards really have canine teeth, so i guess they aren't really carnivorous. What if a fish doesn't have canine teeth, would it not be carnivorous? I would feel much better around sharks then. Do Orcas have canine teeth?

Additionally, the main nutritional deificiency that effects the most of the third world is a protein deficiency associated with as shortage of meat (meat is the primary source of protein in countries where there are not readily available artificial sources supplied).

I suspect humans, much like most land mammals are omnivorous (Even chimps will put a reasonably large effort into obtaining meat if they can, more so than a similar mass of roots or leaves, but roots or leaves do not run away and easily obtained with little effort). Maybe a good method of evaluation would be to determine based on the dry mass intake relative to dry mass wasted , how much nutrition was absorbed. Maybe humans are better carnivores than a black bear, i do not know. We should have some large scale experiment with a lot of barbequed ribs, filet mignon wrapped in bacon, or a nice tender prime rib would be nice too; and some people get salad with olive oil vinagette, some tomatoes, maybe cucumber (but no ham or shrimp). Hmm, must be getting close to dinner, my mind is wandering a bit all this talk of meat.

No canine teeth?

Um, if you don't, I'd ask you're parents if they were evil dentists in your youth (Muahaha)...(no slight on your parents, just a joke). That or a genetic abnormality.

As for not being carnivores, technically true, we're omnivores. We can eat most anything. As for your choice, there is nothng wrong with that. Since you said you don't eat eggs, I'm assuming your a strict vegitarian. You might want to take a look at some of the research. It seems completely abstaining from meat is not as healthy as adding small amounts to your diet.

This is the paragraph that states this result:

However, entirely abstaining from meat consumption does not appear to be the healthiest nutritional lifestyle. Comparison of the three categories suggests that those who occasionally consume meat have an even lower risk of mortality than the other groups. For every 100 deaths among vegans, there were 66 among vegetarians and 60 among occasional meat eaters.

The full article can be found here:

http://www.nutraingredients.com/news/ng.asp?id=37478-vegetarians-live-longer

We don't have canines??

Right behind the four incisors, we have canine teeth. From Wikipedia:

Among permanent teeth, 16 are found in the maxilla with the other 16 in the mandible. The maxillary teeth are the maxillary central incisor, maxillary lateral incisor, maxillary canine, maxillary first premolar, maxillary second premolar, maxillary first molar, maxillary second molar, and maxillary third molar. The mandibular teeth are the mandibular central incisor, mandibular lateral incisor, mandibular canine, mandibular first premolar, mandibular second premolar, mandibular first molar, mandibular second molar, and mandibular third molar. Third molars are commonly called "wisdom teeth" and may never erupt into the mouth or form at all.

We are considered ominvores. That is we eat both. You can of course choose not to eat meat for your own personal reasons and that is fine. My digestive acids work just fine on the meat I eat. Good sources of proteins, iron and other important nutrients as part of a well balanced diet.

Dear Sir Robin,

Your comment to my thread has come after a long time.Well your research may be correct, but it is upto you what to eat and what not to eat. I would only inform you that there are many items from vegi diet which can supplement equaly same amount of nutrition as you get from non vegi food. The fact is that it is observed that non vegi food may be risky some times. That is the reason for many non vegis are turning vegis all around the world.

God Bless You,

Suresh Sharma.

I thnk that a stronger issue for why people do not just eat plant tissue is that for most people without strong psychological drives contrary to our nature, would eat meat in preference of vegetable if they were forced to choose. Even chimpazees will go out of their way to get meat to a much greater degree than they will for anything else except some ripening fruits. They recently discovered simple hunting implements they believe chimpazees in central africa made prior to influence from humans from which they normally adapt such skills. The hunter-gather is our basic social form, humans spent millenia as such, farming is relatively new and even then we have put far more effort into meat production than plant. The domestication of animals, not just hybridization, is a good example. Humans are stongly driven to eat meat. However, some people have psycholigical issues that are stronger than this drive, typically the isdea of eating something they equate human characteristics too like the innocent eyes of a calf, or they have strong status reasons in order to maintain class segregations and their own wealth and power over the masses (to feel superior to the lesser classes).

Aye, that was my entire point....in debunking his premise that we did not. I know my canines are well and good and can tear meat easily, but cooked and raw (don't ask how I know that, but training sometimes requires me to eat what I catch)

Ok so there's a movement to genetically engineer food and there's also a movement to stop genetically engineered food. I say let them fight it out to the death.

But seriously, people worry about if genetically created vegetables are bad for you, I could only imagine what the long term effects of this could be.

However if it is safe, I see it more as a relief for world hunger than an alternative for vegetarians. Depending on the cost of course.

I would wonder about the mutagenic, carcinogenic, and teratogenic risk to consumer from long term exposure to the chemicals used to culture the meat, since these will likely be different than in natural meat or in differing concentrations. Also, would there be a risk in the industrial production of the meat culture becoming infected en masse. A little poor handling of beef can contaminate the meat with E. Coli, which we are commonly exposed to as it exist in our intestines also, and we have a outbreak. What happens to bacteria, when the meat has no immune system and is cultured to improved growth rates, etc.. Waht kind of outbreaks would we see from this?

I would think a true vegetarian would not eat meat no matter how it was produced. If you want to get right down to it vegetables are living organisms too so when are we going to have someone start PETV? I think we as humans are designed to eat things on this earth in order to survive no matter what it may be. The idea of producing meat in a lab is really no different than producing the veggies. in a lab (greenhouse) For some reason making chicken meat in a lab without the animal sounds kind of disgusting to me. I am sure though if I was real hungry it wouldn't matter where it came from though.

pipewelder

Is "cat" the other white meat?

And besides, "Soylent Green" is only 14 years away!

Hmmm!! That would make Soylent Green a product in 2022. Yummy.

Couldn't help wonder what in vitro chicken would be? A very small meal, or a very large egg?

While watching the Science Channel a few nights back I heard a theory respecting our branching off from our other primate cousins. It seems some feel that eating meat may be what brought about our move toward a larger brain, therefore speech and advanced tool use.

A short explanation of animal protein and brain health was presented as part of the theory. I don't have a background in these subjects so I wondered what the group thought of this theory?

Of course, their efforts could backfire a bit. Without a reason to raise chickens, beef, ostrich, whatever for food, they simply won't be raised in the first place. The other option is that in order to compete with the artificial stuff, animals could be treated even more unethically to improve their flavor, texture, etc to stay on the market.

ah the mysteries of the human ability to create confusion for itself are arising.

i have as i am not a vegetarian the ability to enjoy the tast of real MEAT and had mannnn years of doing that.

but now i am really stumped by kates controversial challenge. will the good lady relate to me how she or any other vergetarian will be able to discern the difference between a real peice of real animal sourced meat and the experimentally produced meat?

perhaps the assitance of the university of gueph's profeesor david lavigne will be deemed the expert in taste and texture of animal meat.

after all the doctor has provided a very rare "elixir for floagging lovers" to the world as he has somehow been able to provide three penis wine to the non cognisente.

as a side perhaps the lady's debating skill regarding removal of feaotal tissue from a animal womb as supported by vegans will soon be put to the test as her exchanges with the roman catholic bishop of calgary occur?

i wouldlove a reply to those comments and questions, miss kate when will i recieve yours, not someone elses?

'da ber

Hello 'da ber,

Unfortunately, I don't have the answers to your question. I am not a vegetarian, which is why I thought this was such an interesting topic. To be perfectly honest, I am kind of uneasy about this idea... I mean, lab-grown meat?! But, as conflicted as I am about it, I know that people who have chosen the vegetarian lifestyle may have some interesting insight.

In an effort to try to answer your questions as you've called me out personally - the difference between real animal sourced mean and experimentally produced meat is that one is grown in an animal, while the other is not. What these researchers are trying to do is create meat from just a small amount of animal starter cells. This way, no animals will be killed for their meat as it would be grown in a lab.

As for an "expert" in taste and texture of the meat, I don't know. Since PETA is sponsoring the contest, I'd imagine that they are in charge of selecting the judges.

-Kate

One thing I have not seen is the energy cost of artificially culturing the tissues for long periods of time to develop into artificial meat. Could this process increase the impacts?

Whoa!!!! No how, no way should this be allowed to happen... What is going to be put into this "meat" for the populace to ingest? We, as a whole get WAY too many steroids and chemicals already from the meat that we eat; whether, it is red meat or white meat. Talk about easy access to population control via introduction of Hcg in the meat (don't think this would/could happen? It did in Africa,Mexico and the Phillipines when the "world health organization" started immunizing ONLY women of child bearing ages with tetanus shots. A shot that was followed up with a booster in 6 months and again shortly after the booster. Hmmmm...what was in the vaccination along with the tetanus vaccine? Hcg, the 'WHO' was practicing birth control for these women in these countries. What happened next? Well, the women were effectively rendered sterile because their bodies would produce an "anti-Hcg" hormone when the woman would get pregnant resulting in a miscarriage(s)), or how about introducing some sort of new virus (or something) that could spread pandemically around the world? EVER READ THE BOOK 'the STAND?'

With water getting flushed and then "cleaned" and re-used we are already getting hormones such as birth control (from pills ingested by women and then pee'd out later). Water treatment doesn't get rid of EVERYTHING!

Let our meat be grown the old fahioned way... With 2 or 4 legs! Free of steroids and enzymes and hormones that are man made...

Oh, my order? I'll take the 1/2 pound fillet, cooked medium well.

Cheers

Actually many steroid are extracted from animals like horses or derives from plants, man does very little in the chemistry, maybe a tweek once in a while to make them undetectable by current drug testing, but these types are too expensive to use on animals.

Isn' it funny? When you have vegetarians around for a meal you cook veg. food. When you go to their place they don't cook you meat!

I'm calling fowl!

I prefer 'Soylent Green' meats. They care for animals, the environment and their employees. You see it right in their company slogan.."Soylent Green is people"

YUMMY!

I think I am the only sole Vegi in the CR4 group supporting the PETA.

I'm a vegetarian, but I think PETA is so far removed from reality that it's an intergalactic long distance call just for them to call home.

PETA call home...

That may be true, Suresh, but it is also incomplete. Anonymous Hero's remark is on target. There are several vegetarian's in the group and, according to the remarks posted, many contributors that support the ethical treatment of animals. Even some of the omnivores support that.

The issue is that PETA can be extreme, or take an extreme position. I look at their material (my daughter is a PETA supporter) and can agree with them on some things, but not all.

Good to hear that there are many vegis like me. I would like to narrate some of my problems as being vegi. During my visit to "Promat" Material Handling Eqpmts. Show in Chicago in 1991, I could not get vegi lunch in restaurent, but a black kind lady at counter helped me with cheese burger and french fries. On my flight from Chicago to Kansas city I was offered only Chicken sandwhich on American Airlines as I had caught earlier than scheduled flight. During my visit to Singapore Restaurent at WTC offered only non veg food which I refused. I hope with so many people turning to be vegis I hope things are different.

Any restaurant can be an issue, but I have had nearly 100% success getting something to eat. I always tell the waiter or waitress I am vegetarian. I am surprised at the number of waiters and waitresses that tell me they are as well and are very helpful in making suggestions.

If not, I kindly explain what I will not eat. I usually joke about it by saying I don't eat anything with a central nervous system. That usually breaks the ice nicely. Once we understand each other I many times ask if the chef could prepare something for me that he/she would like to make. My reasoning is that I want to give the chef the chance to make something special that he/she doesn't normally have an opportunity to. Almost always they outdo themselves because they get to do something fun and people do their best work when they are having fun doing it.

Most of my friends get jealous when they see what the chef makes for me because it usually is extraordinary looking.

Airlines typically don't serve food anymore, but if a flight is scheduled to serve food you must specify a special meal when you order tickets.

I am surprised you found a restaurant in Singapore that did not serve something vegetarian! That must have been the only one in the country! You only need walk 20 meters before running into another restaurant there. The food is fabulous and I ate so well with so much variety that I would love to go back just for the food.

Hi Hero,

Good to hear that you got special treatment at many places. My purpose of posting my comment was to make aware all Vegis that we should insist on hotels to offer us at least one vegi dish. Regarding AA flight I caught earlier flight than I was scheduled. At Singapore I know Vegis can feast as there are many Indian & Chinese Vegi restaurants, I was referring to WTC tower in Singapore. There are many vegi dishes which our non vegi friends can relish.

Can we get these dishes with a nice steak on the side?

Here is a question for you veggies... How many of you were meat eaters before and have since supplemented the loss of meat by taking up smoking, or caffeine? I have known many veggies (and a couple of vegans) that were HARD CORE smokers and I was told that in the brian somewhere the desire for meat was replaced with a stoaggie or... what ever used to take the place of the carne, pork, chicken or what have you. As for me... strictly meat and potatoes, salads and fruits

Hi Ferris, I am born Vegi never eaten meat in my life. I belong to Hindu Brahmin family from India. We are strict vegis dont even eat eggs. In India we have millions of vegis.

Stopped eating meat when I left my family's home. I don't miss meat, don't like the smell, the taste, nor have I picked up any vices along the way.

I think that anyone that does what you described has other issues.

Same here. I stopped smoking soon after becoming a vegetarian. My caffeine intake is somewhat less than what it was -- now around two cups of coffee and one soda per day, sometimes less, rarely more.

I have heard of this happening when people give up an addiction -- substituting another. For example, alcoholics giving up alcohol but increasing smoking and/or caffeine consumption. That sort of makes sense as it is one legal drug for another.

Food on the other hand is different. You can live without caffeine, nicotine or alcohol, but cannot live without protein, carbs and fat. The challenge for most veggies, as indicated in other areas of the post is to make sure they still get the proper amounts. Most folks going on a vegetarian diet will lose weight -- but I have known some who actually gain -- usually because they overload on carbs and fat.

WOW, good for you all! There are many hmmmmmmm, "Vegies"(?) that I know that carry around a whole lot of something else their middles that never seems to go away 'cause they never truly get rid of their vices totally in order to go the healthy way.( I put the ? with the ""'s to show that I wouldn't truly call them vegetarian... They were on again off again. And on and off etc., etc.) As for the break down of all the nutrients (protein, carbs, fats) I'll have to gaze above to find out what all you have done... I know beans and legumes and tofu (?) are supposed to be high in protein... is there more? Thanks from an 'ignorant' meat eater !

Cheers

GODSPEED

Like you say, Ferris, legumes and tofu are probably the biggest in the West. Tofu comes from soy beans, so I guess it is "legumey" at least. Certain nuts and cheese can also provide high amounts of protein. Vegans will eschew the cheese and dairy products. The fact is, that there is some protein in just about all foods.

If you Google "vegetarian protein sources" you'll get a long list of sites with all kinds of information. I would recommend starting with http://www.happycow.net/vegetarian_protein.html. Lots of good information there.

If you look in the frozen foods section of the supermarket, you'll find lots of soy based meats substitutes, too. Burgers, sausages and the like. There is also a product from the UK called "Quorn" that is not soy based. To quote from their website (www.quorn.com) "The principle ingredient in all Quorn products is mycoprotein ("myco" is Greek for "fungi"). The mycoprotein comes from Fusarium venenatum, which was originally discovered growing in a field in Buckinghamshire, England. " Their products all taste like chicken or turkey. Really good, though.

I would also recommend checking out magazines like "Vegetarian Times." Lots of recipes in there. Even if you don't want them as main dishes, many of them are tasty compliments to a meat based diet as appetizers/starters, soups, salads, side dishes and desserts.

Ok, now I am hungry!

Umm actually there is protein in all food derived from living tissues. However, not all proteins are not suitable for efficient human digestion and absorption. The closer the species is, the more suitable the protein is, but along with that comes the risk of exposure to diseases (the closer the species is, the higher the risk of a disease crossing the inter-species barrier). Of course i am discussing diseases that infect the food, which is not the case with the likes of E. coli. E Coli is common in fecal matter and does not typicaly cause disease in the carrier species digestive tract.

"The closer the species is, the more suitable the protein is..."

To what? Soy is one of the best source of proteins you can get from a non-eukaryote cell. Are you suggesting there is a close relationship between human and soy?

A chicken egg is an even better source of proteins. Not much resemblance to humans (at least most).

The body needs something like 22 different types of protein. We ingest 7 different types and our body synthesizes the 22 out of the 7 we ingest.

Isn't there some sort of warning about taking in too much soy...I swear I remember hearing that TOO much is detrimental (i.e. could cause cancer or something). And being vegan, does that mean specifically eating uncooked veggies as well? As with all things, once you heat up the food source, the nutrients go bye bye. Look at raw cows milk vs. pastuerized and homogenized (with heat being introduced...). I know this is going to sound stupid, but how is it that you are not constantly hungry if you are eating veggies only? Doesn't the body need a certain amout of fat to feel satisfied (or full)?

"hearing that TOO much is detrimental (i.e. could cause cancer or something)."

Only in California.

Oh... ok I see

That is ok, my carnivorous ways can be cancer (so the "professionals" say) causing and I can admit that .

Cheers

I heard that too much soy is a concern due to the presence of hormone-like compounds. But I haven't heard anything lately about this, so I don't know how accurate this turned out to be.

The body needs something like 22 different types of protein. We ingest 7 different types and our body synthesizes the 22 out of the 7 we ingest.

I guess you meant "amino acids", and their are 20 of them. Our bodies produce 12 of them; the other 8 we must get from food.

I guess the flavor is another indicator to consider. If meat is so bad that we should all exclude meat from our diets, why would we want something designed to taste like a bad quality of meat? If it was more natural for us to eat vegetables, wouldn't we find that flavor preferable as young children before our taste become embedded and linked to our psyches. I wonder which flavors children prefer when really young, that would be a good test of our dietary needs. However, given that we may have had a short supply of some of these components in our diets during our evolution, maybe an excess of these foods is something we are meant to temper with fillers to address the hunger. Obviously some plant matter is highly desirable, like sugar, chocolate, vanilla, cinnamon, bananas, orange-mango juice, and i am not against consuming large quantities of these plant based products. I lean towards the rule, if it doesn't taste good don't eat, and if it tastes good eat it (within reason and balance), and of course if it is modified to taste like a poor quality substitute for chicken why eat it when you could have real chicken and the better flavor.

You're right, RCE. Flavor is a big consideration. I think a lot of what we consider "tasty" is learned. As kids/infants, we don't have a lot of choice and learn to like what we are fed, pretty much. That will determine to a large degree, what we want to eat later on: what we are used to. Heck, as an adult, I learned to like black coffee. Now I can't stand it with sugar or cream in it.

It is an interesting question that you pose about what kids would eat given the option. My guess is the "sweet" is going to figure highly there.

And it all boils down to personal preferences, I guess: to eat meat or not, to eat things that taste like meat or not.

So the real test of what a people naturally tend towards is when they are very young before these learned tastes develop, but as we all know almost all children when infants do not like vegetables and it is very hard to get most children to eat vegetables, so what would that imply.

I'm not sure about that. I remember asking my mother to fix asparagus as a snack when I was very young (3 or 4 years old) but later pitching a fit about eating broccoli when I was about 7.

4 might be a little old. I was thinking more along the lines of 18 months to 2 years when the child has no learned experiences relating to food.

My son was fed only veggies and milk (breast) or formula for the first year and a half to two years before he was introduced to fruit (that way he wouldn't develop a sweet craving for the fruits, ya know?). Now? Well the veggie consumption is down but it is still going, he runs strongly on fruit(s) now... The one thing that we could never get him to eat when he was an infant was cauliflower or brocolli. blehhh He took a taste the first time and spit it out, the second he smelled it and would not open his mouth...

Well, i guess that works. It doesn't demonstrate what he actually prefers, just creates an acquired taste, as we discussed above, rahter than a taste for the foods your body craves. However, restricting a infant to vegetables or nothing might be a bit extreme. I would bet you could get him to eat grass and eventually like it using that method. It could be a good vegetarian experiment. Of course, as you indicated above you would still need augment the diet with some milk (or something nutritious) to maintain the infants health (wouldn't want the infant to die).

I wonder if insects are a meat product, they are animals. Does PETA consider the pain incurred by consuming insects? Could you really be a vegetarian and make such arbitrary distinctions? Maybe that is the new source of protein, much like with Chimps. When Chimps can get meat they devour it, but usually meat is too fast, strong, dangerous, so they supplement their deits with a lot of insects and fruit.

Your comment on your child's aversion to broccoli reminds me of a somewhat tasteless comment from a man who had six children. The question was, "what is the difference between nose boogies and Broccoli?"

The answer was, "Kids don't eat broccoli!"

I apologize to those who might have found this offensive. My kids never had a problem with broccoli because we like Chinese food and they loved beef and broccoli or as they called it Beef and Trees.

In fact we have found that our five children have very little problems with vegetables now that they are adults. One of them will not eat sweet potato or are they yams, I don't know the difference but I sure like them.

You can't eat Chinese food if you don't like vegetables so I guess that we indoctrinated our kids at young ages.

Well, that aversion started at 6 mos old or so... He will eat brocolli when it is with other things, just not straight, by itself or on the side (however you want to call it whenit is eaten by itself). As for eating chinese food, I enjoy it from time to time, I am the minority in the family because I DO NOT LIKE hot and/or spicy foods. This is me after eating anything spicy, well that and .

I guess over time you can indoctrinate children in to eating just about anything if you cover it in the right meat and sugary sauces. However, I am not sure if the "vegetarian" fanatics would consider beef broccoli purely vegetarian. I think the real question related to babies who just start eating solid food or gerbers or such and are newly exposed to a flavor. That would be a true indicator of a natural diet for humans, or what we naturally desire for our nutritional needs. I suspect meats, starches and fruits will rank higher than vegetables.

HI RCE,

First of all we vegis are not fanatics neither we call non vegis as fanatics. It is personal choice if you want to live vegi you can live vegi if you like to live non vegi you can live non vegi. But if you have met vegis they are cool persons, believe in non violence b'cas they have not seen blood and dont eat meat by killing some one to fill their belly. Also not for getting extra proteins to built their strong bodies.

Regards,

Suresh Sharma

Actually, I was talking about the fanatics who happen to be vegetarians, not all vegetarians. There are some in PETA who would readily kill 5 babies to save one cow. Some vegetarians practice it to make a political statement, there is very little rational distinction involved in most of the practice of vegetarianism, it is just a statement. Some people just need to be different and then try to force others to follow them. There are many examples of people trying to be different and force others into the same belief system or perish for not becoming a convert. There are some NRA members, and other assorted groups, which tend to be fringe organizations, that draw these fanatics who need a cause to fight for never mind justification. This doesn't mean all vegetarians do this.

What many people fail to realize is cattle are like bison in the wild, because of the domestication of cattle (long before any eastern religions deemed them unfit for their diet) for food has made them a prolific species, far more abundant than bison (and in some places actually aid them in taking a dominant role in the ecosystem over bison, and replacing resident bison). If it was not for this domestication, they might be endangered. Domestic species that benefit a higher species gain an upper hand on those that don't, this is natural selection at work. Since cattle, pigs and other meat animals only benefit has been for meat, foregoing this they would not have the benefit of say horses, dogs, etc.. and maybe driven to near extinction (definitely not expanded their range to nearly corner of the earth). Meat animals aren't quite as skillful as some pests, e.g. Rats and Cockroaches, they are too big, so they can not compete and be so large (this makes easy targets). Large animals that make easy targets and are not domesticated for food or another resource would have likely gone extinct.

I am a strong believer in evolutionary theory, unlike many who claim to be, and since we are a natural species we belong to the food chain and effect the ecosystem like any species might, we are just the dominant species. So those that can not adapt go extinct, those species that do adapt (like rats) become abundant and fill niches left by other species that fail. We are part of the environment, and as such should expect to be a driving force in the evolution of species.

Hi RCE,

Thanks for clarifying about your views about fanatics. My comments about domestic animals is that here in India Cows are worshiped and protected. Hindus dont eat beef reasons being:-

1.Cow gives milk and it is nourshing liquid food for children and old persons. Milk is also converted in yougart, butter,cheese etc.

2.In ancient times cowdung was used as fuel for cooking and also for building huts.

3.Cow gives birth to bullocks which were/are used for ploughing feilds and transporting farm products to markets.

4.After death of the cow its skin is used in leather industry.

Cow is such as usefull domestic animal so it is still considered as holy and never eaten by atleast Hindus here.

Suresh Sharma.

The trick to making broccoli (and brussel sprouts) taste good is .... thoroughly cooking them and adding salt. These two veggies are bitter which explains children's almost universal aversion to them (young children retain a preference for sweetness acquired during breast-feeding). Saltiness balances bitterness (just as sweetness balances sourness).

svengali,

Your last posts deserve a good answer for being clear and factual. I too experimented with a lacto-veggy diet during the late 60s as part of a 3 year stint in a hippie commune. Although we had some books to go by we probably didn't have enough information. By the end of that period I became severely anemic. After going back to eating meat those problems cleared up. Although it was an interesting experiment I doubt I will ever repeat it.

Hi Shaetree,

I am surprised to hear about your condition after being 3 years lacto-vegi. I am 67 and born vegi but still rocking. I think you may not have got good vegi diet resulting in your becoming severly anemic. Vegi diet is also availble full with all vitamins, minerals, proteins, iron etc. You only should know what you should eat.

Suresh Sharma

...but cannot live without protein, carbs and fat. The challenge for most veggies, as indicated in other areas of the post is to make sure they still get the proper amounts.

I was a strict lacto-vegetarian for about 15 years in my youth (influenced by Hinduism and Buddhism). I did not cook (ate lots of fast food), so I did not quite get enough protein, and maybe not enough B-12 and iron either. I knew I needed better nutrition, so I started eating fish and birds again. Now that I do prepare more of my own meals, I am working my way back towards lacto-veggie. My reason: I want to minimize the amount of suffering that I contribute. Even if fish and birds can't recognize their own reflection, they still experience fear and pain. I would not be willing to personally kill any animal, so I feel hypocritical when I occasionally eat fish or birds killed in some mechanized factory. I definitely look forward to the availability of synthetic meat.

So we will be able to grow steaks the size and shape of hamburger buns, would this mean the end to the hamburger? hmm chicken breasts too. We could have whole new product lines where the meat was grown inside of someting, or shaped specifically to fit the shape of the product, rather than always having to use ground meats and risk the contamination.

What happens if they grow a whole chicken in vitro would that qualify for the million $? you would have the meat.

We in India have many vegis. We eat balanced food in form of "Thali" for lunch. It is plate consisting of one bowl of cooked vegetable, Dal ( cooked gram) in semi liquid form, bowl of rice (optional), Chapatis 3-4 Nos. (sort of wheat bread prepared on the pan), cup of curd or butter milk.

With such a plate of food your body gets all needed vitamins, proteins etc. If any one wants to try I would recommend him to visit local Indian restaurant which are mostly all around the important cities.

Hi RCE,

For your Kind information we Indians, 2 billion, dont import food we have become self sufficient in food. Rather we export food like rice of high quality. In past we exported wheat too. I dont know if you are vegi, if yes then what is your normal day time lunch. What was 1830 British naval diet? can you please explain to us?.

Regards,

Suresh Sharma.

Sorry for Replying to you, RCE, but it seemed idiotic to reply to Guest in his miopic little world.

Of course he touts india in it's ability to provide food for all it's people. Barely subsitance level for human life. Poverty is still rampant in India, and not like what we consider poverty in the western world, but "dig undigested grains out of ofal" poverty out of necessity.

India is a net importer of food, as is China. Yes, they do export rice, and several varieties, but that is not because they have extra, it is because the recieve more money for the product outside the country.

This is not, in any way a slight on India, but it is a slight on Guest. I do believe he has the best of intentions but lying to boost his country's image only makes us think less of them. India has problems, as does the rest of the world. Get a grip, Guest and deal with it.

Tom,

Your reply to RCE indirectly to me is most un courteous. Your comments about food situation in India are not correct. More over you are not authority on the subject. Hope you will show some respect to fellow forum members.

Suresh Sharma