On In Vitro “Meat”
“Consumers don't really have a sense of how meat is produced. They see the end product, which often bears no resemblance to the animal. What they care about is how the product tastes and whether
it's affordable. When people ask me if consumers will accept this kind
of meat, I think, ‘yes, look at what they already accept.’”
I see no reason why people who already eat the flesh, hoofs, lips and sphincters of various nonhuman animals would have a problem eating a in vitro meat.
The In Vitro Meat Consortium tells us "Why In Vitro Meat?" and the reasons are laudable. Humans aren't going to stop eating meat anytime soon, and the way it's currently "produced" is inefficient in several ways and of course terrible for the environment. New Harvest, an organization developing the technology, says:
"Because meat substitutes are produced under controlled conditions
impossible to maintain in traditional animal farms, they can
be safer, more nutritious, less polluting, and more humane
than conventional meat."
Here are some FAQs, in case you're interested, and No, the process isn't animal-free, but no one must be killed for it. There has been debate about this for about four years, with animal welfare advocates pretty much coming down on the side of in vitro meat, and of course this includes PeTA, which offered $1 million to the first scientist to produce it and bring it to market." (Bring to market is a much higher benchmark than produce, by they way, which pushes the ETA for a reward a couple more years into the future, it would seem.)
And I'm sure you've seen this by now, but if you're still anti cultured-meat, they take abolitionists to task with "Why Cultured Meat?" and link to Animal Rights sites and blogs (which does not include Animal Person, by the way).
What are your thoughts about in vitro meat?