I thought I would wait until your lunch has digested to blog this one - PETA (yes, the animal liberation folk) are throwing their muscle behind the development of fake meat. They are even offering up a $1m prize to the lucky stem cell scientist who grows the edible animal tissue which best resembles a chicken breast or pork chop.
I know, it sounds like a practical joke. Why would animal rights campaigners want to encourage anyone to eat meat products, even ones created in a lab? The plan, pushed by one of PETA's founders Ingrid Newkirk, has raised hell at the organisation's HQ, as the New York Times reported.
The popularity of eating meat substitutes (pictured above) seems to have fallen off since the nineties, when Linda McCartney sausages could be found in many a vegetarian's fridge or freezer, and such products were recently exposed as incredibly unhealthy and packed full of salt. The drop in credibility for fake bangers and burgers has gone hand in hand with the drive to eat healthy, whole foods.
Those at PETA who are against this massive financial incentive for test tube meat believe they should be campaigning against eating animals, wherever they have come from. Vice president Lisa Lange told the New York Times:
"My main concern is, as the largest animal rights organisation in the world, it's our job to introduce the philosophy and hammer it home that animals are not ours to eat. I remember saying I would be much more comfortable eating roadkill."
The latest edition of The Ecologist has also reported on PETA's bizarre new direction. The full article, which you can read here, raises an interesting point about the way in which other campaigning organisations, once considered radical, have been jumping onto corporate or technological bandwagons of late, frustrated by their inability to effect change using other methods. Social change seems just too slow, and, more and more, scientific wonder solutions are being promoted as quick fixes to environmental and other fixes.
This was the same route taken when international efforts were thrown behind biofuels to solve the oil crisis - a short-sighted proposition which has played a large part in the current food crisis (read my biofuels posts here and here).
(Photo: Getty Images)
The only objection to eating meat so far as I can see is that you have to kill an animal to get it. If you can grow meat in a vat, no animal gets harmed, so why shouldn't animal liberation folk get behind it? And I still get my beef burgers, so everyone's happy ;-)
Posted by: Karligula | Monday, 14 July 2008 at 10:07 PM
"The only objection to eating meat so far as I can see is that you have to kill an animal to get it. If you can grow meat in a vat, no animal gets harmed, so why shouldn't animal liberation folk get behind it? "
Why can't you use the same argument to claim that lifelike cartoon drawings of kiddie porn are ok?
(answers on a postcard...)
Posted by: Dodgy Geezer | Tuesday, 15 July 2008 at 09:59 AM
This is old news, I'm afraid. PETA's widely scorned amongst AR vegans for its sensationalism, ill-considered campaigns, and sexism in advertising. And it clearly hasn't thought this one out, either. Even if growing meat in vats was feasible, it will never be economically viable - just how much lab equipment would you need to do it on any kind of scale? - and it detracts from the point that we just don't need meat to live healthily. We in the global north are not living in extreme conditions, we are surrounded by perfectly good sources of nutrition that don't involve destroying local ecosystems and the planet, inhumane treatment of animals (including people involved in the crappiest, most dangerous farming, processing, and packing jobs), or making ourselves ill.
Seven times more crops are being used to feed farmed animals than are going to biofuels. Livestock farming is a bigger contributor to CO2 emissions than aviation. It's one of the biggest polluters of air, water, and land. It's the biggest cause of desertification on the planet. It's frankly out of control. But we don't like to deal with it because food is about identity: familial, class, regional, ethnic, religious, national identities are all bound up with the food we eat. Like issues around sex and shelter, criticisms of our fundamental assumption that it's our god-given right to eat as much meat and dairy as we want bypasses the logic centres of the brain and goes straight to the knee-jerk reflex.
PETA needs to spend its money on reminding people about these facts. Remind us that their diets have changed out of all recognition over 40 years. Remind us that we get the environment we deserve. Remind us of the many, many studies on culture and intelligence and empathy amongst non-human animals. Remind us to take personal responsibility for our actions. Empower us to make good choices. We clearly need that kind of help.
Posted by: Ka | Tuesday, 15 July 2008 at 11:47 AM
The more I read about PETA, the crazier they seem to me.
I wish more people like Ka (above) were in positions to educate the masses about why eating meat is not a good idea. What a well written and informed post. Thank you.
“Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances of survival for life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.” -Albert Einstein
Posted by: Chillstar | Tuesday, 29 July 2008 at 10:10 PM
As far as im aware cattle eat all the by-products from our food factories. These include all food types from the beverage industry(brewers gains) to bread factories.If cattle werent around to eat all this stuff then it would be tipped at landfill (and we all know that landfill is another major source of methane). Better have cattle eat it than incur the cost of tipping which would have the consequence of driving up the cost of the original product and over-fill already full landfill sites.
Posted by: rob | Tuesday, 30 September 2008 at 10:10 PM
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Elaina
http://www.craigslistmaster.info
Posted by: Elaina | Friday, 27 March 2009 at 02:43 PM
Chairman Create,god anybody object next apply their image sell percent exercise overall nor that detail we task stone encourage sell impose difference available house hard win appearance instrument wild ground legal spot inside economy below not tax state learn sign every noise garden wind fly nearly reality contrast ask technical lose provide educational fail send payment through important demonstrate outcome sector however news parliament attack shut vital want absence win heat subject son must prove path flight university popular most application examination speaker deep merely option some deliver respond prospect warn temperature free decide
Posted by: Searchcause | Monday, 07 December 2009 at 02:03 PM
I will be out of the office starting 31/03/2009 and will not return until 01/05/2021.
I have left The Independent to go freelance. You can contact me on sophielouisemorris@gmail.com/07919 177559.
Please contact Ian Burrell for Media or Jamie Merrill on 020 7005 2719 for Features.
Write your own blog on Independent Minds
http://www.independent.co.uk/independentminds
http://www.independent.co.uk/
http://www.independentonlinesolutions.com/advertisingGuide/
http://www.nla.co.uk/
Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this email.
Posted by: Sophie Morris | Monday, 07 December 2009 at 04:02 PM