i think you people are wrong in trying to push your thoughts on others. you are no better than religion. if those animals(cows) are not here for food then what are they her for. to put off methane gas?

Posted by: charles upton | April 21, 2008 10:32 AM

Hi there!
I'm a conservative and an animal lover. And while I personally have not gone meatless, I wholeheartedly approve of this initiative.
Heretofore, my impression was that your organization was primarily part of the rest of the modern liberal juggernaut: Namely, to control people's behavior out of a misguided sense of maudlin sentimentality mixed with unrealistic expectations of equity. The modus operandi of such groups is invariably to call for people to deny themselves any sort of comfort or happiness, economic ramifications bedamned. In so doing, everyone would be equal--- albeit equally miserable.

However, the fact that your group is advocating this lab-grown meat idea, has shown me that in fact, you are willing to a) embrace a market-driven solution and b) not deny people the eating of meat out of sheer sanctimony.

My only concern is that the $1M is insufficient to really motivate the necessary people to really get moving.

But I like the direction your'e going. Keep it up.

Sincerely,

Andrew
San Diego, CA.

Posted by: Andrew S | April 21, 2008 10:46 AM

Aren't you at all concerned for the possible public health and ecological consequences of this kind of bizarre bioengineering?

There are plenty of ways to be vegetarian or vegan without depending on food from a lab (or, for that matter, on soy grown on monoculture industrial farms that displace animal habitat and trucked across the country at a tremendous ecological cost.)

Posted by: Sean Donahue | April 21, 2008 10:50 AM

Man, that stuff is weird.

In the short term lab-grown meat could greatly reduce animal suffering, so I think I can get behind it. But I'm skeptical that technology will provide us with a silver bullet that solves the social problem of animal exploitation. To achieve animal liberation I think we need fundamental cultural change, not just a quick-fix like this.

But again, lab-grown meat could prevent millions or BILLIONS of animals from suffering in factory farms and dying in slaughterhouses.

This might be a derail, but... I can't see how lab-meat could be made without animal testing. What about that angle?

Posted by: dw | April 21, 2008 10:58 AM

I've had no previous sympathy for PETA's efforts -- the closest I come to "animal lover" is following the practice of "eat what you kill", in fact -- but as far as I'm concerned this is absolutely brilliant and my opinion of your organization just jumped several orders of magnitude.

In fact, if you set up an avenue for people to donate money to be added directly to the prize amount, I would be almost certain to divert some of my regular charitable givings towards that.

Congratulations on this initiative!

Posted by: Alex Curylo | April 21, 2008 11:07 AM

I think this is a fabulous idea. Unfortunately, people will continue to eat flesh regardless of wonderful organizations like PETA. I will never go back to eating flesh myself. To me it's not only a moral decision, but after seeing the truth of factory farms, I find the thought of eating another creatures flesh not only disgusting, but crude and completely intolerable. More power to those that want to try this "lab meat" idea though. Bravo PETA for being so open to new ideas. If you can't beat them, join them half way! :)

Posted by: Kellie | April 21, 2008 11:16 AM

I support this !! and hope it happens soon :)
Specially this part
"One million dollars is a lot of money, but it's a small price to pay for something that has the potential to save about 1 million lives every hour"

Posted by: Steven | April 21, 2008 11:30 AM

Hey Charles,

I believe that the purpose of movements for social change really is, in a way, to push thoughts on others. Or, more precisely, to push out the wrong thoughts and push in the right ones.

The movements against human slavery, for women's liberation, and for civil rights all did that. Our attitude of not taking seriously the suffering of nonhuman animals is a form of prejudice as well.

It is difficult to overcome the view that other animals exist for our use, just as it was difficult for men to overcome the view that women existed for their use. And as a result of our present attitude, billions of nonhuman animals are forced - yes, forced - to spend their lives in barren cages or filthy sheds.

Thanks to organizations like PETA, the situation is changing, and we can each help move the world in the right direction. I urge you to take a quick look around GoVeg.com, and see just how easy it is.

And Andrew, great comment - please also check out PETA's site above.

Posted by: Mark | April 21, 2008 11:35 AM

Unfortunately this kind of genetic tampering is implicated in celiac's disease and wheat allergies.

When chromosomes are rearranged in wheat, some people's immume systems may think it's a foreign substance and the body's own immune system will attack the digestive system.

This can increase the likelihood of stomach cancer. Not to mention making life miserable.

This kind of genetically altered frankenfood is dangerous.

Hire a celeb chef to make excellent veggie and vegan food instead.

Posted by: Maya, CVT | April 21, 2008 11:38 AM

The idea is rather gross. I would not put that in my mouth.
I see it as a mockery of nature and life in general( as is factory farming!).
I do not crave flesh and can simply live without it. I do not need any substitutes for meat. If something like this would stop the commercial killing of all animals fantastic. However something like this has it's own implications.

Posted by: Annalena | April 21, 2008 11:41 AM

There are all sorts of subsitutes for foods... substitute sugars, substitute salt, dairy alternatives, soy alternatives to meat; this would just be another alternative to food.

Posted by: Jaclyn | April 21, 2008 11:43 AM

I find it rather sad that a person would not be able to overcome their desire for the taste of meat in order to end cruelty and needless death.

Posted by: Annalena | April 21, 2008 12:29 PM

Well, it would still be wierd to eat it, but yes, it could be a great solution to stop a lot of torture. Maybe they can make in vitro fur, too. But a lot of people are really vile people and want to kill and would still want meat from real animals solely because they were hurt and killed, but this project could still help a whole lot, I think. Hmm, how about in vitro human meat from tender human body parts. Like if people want to know what their wife would taste like on a grill, they could submit some of her cells and get a burger. Or maybe there could be product lines from certain attractive celebrities. Hey, that would be a plan Peta could use. I'm not actually serious, just thinking, it would be interesting to see the public response and debate....

Posted by: Drew | April 21, 2008 12:41 PM

'lab-formulated-induced' meat?..
for those hard to wean off their daily portion of meat without fail.. why can't they just cut back and eat LESSS meat.. if everyone on planet earth ate LESSSS meat.. there would be less need for the intensive factory farmed production of animal meat.. not to mention the toll of suffering for these poor animals..
can't really see people opting out of 'naturally reared meat' and opting for 'laboratory formed meat'.. even if it was available.. esp for the die-hard red-blood meat eaters..
Planet earth.. everyone.. if you can't go 'cold-turkey' all veg or vegan.. just EAT LESSSSS MEAT!!! save the planet (or less damage) and save the animals so intensively bred and reared only to live pitifully short lives and then killed horribly, abruptly and pitilessly..

Posted by: lizbeth | April 21, 2008 12:49 PM

This is a good idea, but wouldn't you have to test on animals to get "lab meat?" Oh well, it might convince my meat eating relatives to eat that and stop sufferin. Also, I hope the person who wins doesn't take the 1 million. I would really find that selfish accepting 1 million from a non for profit organization.

Posted by: Amber | April 21, 2008 12:58 PM

p.s how would you kown the long term effects of eating 'lab meat' would not be detrimental?.. I was in 2 minds whether this was another 'April Fool' prank posting.. such as the 'Ingrid nuggets'..
hmm.. can't really see people 'eating 'lab meat' to be honest..
I konw I would be verrry sceptical myself.. but we have to try and keep/be open minds. afterall this is good intentions.. to save the factory farmed animals after all.. just wish it didnt' sound so
au UNnaturelle'..!

Posted by: liz | April 21, 2008 12:59 PM

I find it very loathsome comments such as Charles Upton.. who comment that animals are here on planet earth only for ‘human use’ or to serve humans.. in that case. what is the point of HIM being here on planet earth.?.. to create more garbage and trash for the landfills.. consume more animals and vegetation.. and create more deforstation.. relentless commuting and creating more CO2 gases into the atmosphere.. believe you me.. him and humans in overall create more destruction to planet earth than the animals coudl EVER do themselves!!!
USELESS!!

Posted by: ec | April 21, 2008 01:13 PM

"The Island"

Posted by: Holly | April 21, 2008 01:20 PM

Love this idea. I no longer eat meat but I find it frustrating that society at large prefers to ignorantly eat animals than face the truth of their miserable existence on factory farms. If society wants to eat meat and no animal is harmed, everyone wins!

Posted by: Mandy | April 21, 2008 02:14 PM

I personally think that this idea is great and that even if people were skeptical at first that the vegetarians would try out this lab-meat at first and it would eventually spread.

Posted by: Bailey | April 21, 2008 02:26 PM

Immediate Release
July 6, 2005
Contacts: Ellen Ternes, 301 405 4627 or eternes@umd.edu
Paper Says Edible Meat Can be Grown in a Lab on Industrial Scale

Experiments for NASA space missions have shown that small amounts of edible meat can be created in a lab. But the technology that could grow chicken nuggets without the chicken, on a large scale, may not be just a science fiction fantasy.

In a paper in the June 29 issue of Tissue Engineering, a team of scientists, including University of Maryland doctoral student Jason Matheny, propose two new techniques of tissue engineering that may one day lead to affordable production of in vitro - lab grown -- meat for human consumption. It is the first peer-reviewed discussion of the prospects for industrial production of cultured meat.

"There would be a lot of benefits from cultured meat," says Matheny, who studies agricultural economics and public health. "For one thing, you could control the nutrients. For example, most meats are high in the fatty acid Omega 6, which can cause high cholesterol and other health problems. With in vitro meat, you could replace that with Omega 3, which is a healthy fat.

"Cultured meat could also reduce the pollution that results from raising livestock, and you wouldn't need the drugs that are used on animals raised for meat."

Prime Without the Rib

The idea of culturing meat is to create an edible product that tastes like cuts of beef, poultry, pork, lamb or fish and has the nutrients and texture of meat.

Scientists know that a single muscle cell from a cow or chicken can be isolated and divided into thousands of new muscle cells. Experiments with fish tissue have created small amounts of in vitro meat in NASA experiments researching potential food products for long-term space travel, where storage is a problem.

"But that was a single experiment and was geared toward a special situation - space travel," says Matheny. "We need a different approach for large scale production."

Matheny's team developed ideas for two techniques that have potential for large scale meat production. One is to grow the cells in large flat sheets on thin membranes. The sheets of meat would be grown and stretched, then removed from the membranes and stacked on top of one another to increase thickness.

The other method would be to grow the muscle cells on small three-dimensional beads that stretch with small changes in temperature. The mature cells could then be harvested and turned into a processed meat, like nuggets or hamburgers.

Treadmill Meat

To grow meat on a large scale, cells from several different kinds of tissue, including muscle and fat, would be needed to give the meat the texture to appeal to the human palate.

"The challenge is getting the texture right," says Matheny. "We have to figure out how to 'exercise' the muscle cells. For the right texture, you have to stretch the tissue, like a live animal would."

Where's the Beef?

And, the authors agree, it might take work to convince consumers to eat cultured muscle meat, a product not yet associated with being produced artificially.

"On the other hand, cultured meat could appeal to people concerned about food safety, the environment, and animal welfare, and people who want to tailor food to their individual tastes," says Matheny. The paper even suggests that meat makers may one day sit next to bread makers on the kitchen counter.

"The benefits could be enormous," Matheny says. "The demand for meat is increasing world wide -- China 's meat demand is doubling every ten years. Poultry consumption in India has doubled in the last five years.

"With a single cell, you could theoretically produce the world's annual meat supply. And you could do it in a way that's better for the environment and human health. In the long term, this is a very feasible idea."

Matheny saw so many advantages in the idea that he joined several other scientists in starting a nonprofit, New Harvest, to advance the technology. One of these scientists, Henk Haagsman, Professor of Meat Science at Utrecht University, received a grant from the Dutch government to produce cultured meat, as part of a national initiative to reduce the environmental impact of food production.

Other authors of the paper are Pieter Edelman of Wageningen University , Netherlands ; Douglas McFarland, South Dakota State University ; and Vladimir Mironov, Medical University of South Carolina.

#

Read the Tissue Engineering paper at http://www.liebertpub.com/publication.aspx?pub_id=56.

For more information on cultured meat, see the New Harvest website, http://www.new-harvest.org .

Posted by: Holly | April 21, 2008 02:56 PM

Some of you people are truly brain washed. I don't know where you get off thinking that because your a human your somehow "above" enjoying everything that the world has to offer.
The incredible luck and circumstances that allow rain to fall, tides to rise, plants to grow and the rest of what makes our world inhabitable are not found anywhere else in the known universe and some how people with Peta have the audacity to disregard the utilization of some of these creatures.
Let's not forget that we are animals too, and while we may be the most gifted the laws of nature apply to us just as much as they do lion's, sharks, snakes, and hawks.
We are omnivores fore a reason, It's efficient, it is one of the fundamental building blocks of human anatomy and it gives us our ability to diversify our lives to such an extent that we don't need to waste anything.
Sure too many people eat too much meat and with out a doubt they either knowingly or unknowingly are hurting themselves and the environment. The person eating 2 Mcdonald's bacon cheeseburgers a day is certainly to extreme for their own good and the good of the world, but to say "no meat for humans" is just as extreme. You need look no further than the front row of your own teeth to see you too were designed to slice through flesh.
The old saying of "everything in moderation" has been proven right time and time again. A organic salad here a sustainably raised pork chop there is good for us all because truly successful farms, I'm talking about your Joel Salatin style farms where plants and animals help each other grow is how the circle of life is supposed to run.
If you only grew vegetables and never got any help from raising animals your missing out on the benefits the animals provide, from fertilizing the field with manure (cows) to eating pesky vegetable eating insects (chickens) to recycling the leftovers from humans (pigs). when you operate a farm that allows the plants and animals to do what they were designed to do you get a better product and a more diverse environment, along with happy cows, and they don't even have to be in California.
Eating animals is part of life. from wolves, to lions, to whales and Tuna it's just a small part of how the world operates and adjusts itself.
Why look for a genetically altered messed up nonmeat/meat chicken when a perfectly good chicken already exsists?
" I can't believe it's not butter" ha I can, and you know what i trust cows allot more than I trust the scientists who came up with partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, and sure enough it turned out to be worse for you then the butter it replaced.
If Peta really truly cared about the lives of animals they would start with humans and get those problems sorted out first. Nature gave us all we need right from the get go, Instead of sending hidden cameras into slaughter houses and slandering the factory farm (which i know is a bad way to raise food) why don't you come up with a viable economic solution to the problem and in a logical orderly way show the meat industry how "if you do this differently, and tweak this over here, then you can save a bunch of money, get a better product and be sustainable, all while charging a premium to the consumer"
This way you can have your cow and eat it too.

Posted by: jon | April 21, 2008 03:55 PM

I am very happy that PETA is encouraging this research. I have no desire for meat, but the aim of PETA should not be to convince people they don't like meat; that's not going to work. If we really want to stop animal cruelty and suffering we will try to encourage ways for people to get what they want without hurting animals.

If people are against others eating meat because they think it disgusting then they are really just not wanting people to eat it because it's "icky." We need to be more principled than children if we want to get anywhere. Thank you for demonstrating that PETA does act on legitimate principles.

Posted by: Myshkin57 | April 21, 2008 04:23 PM

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/11/can-people-have-meat-and-a-planet-too/?ref=science

April 11, 2008, 9:13 am
Can People Have Meat and a Planet, Too?
By Andrew C. Revkin

Muscle cells (in this case mouse) can be cultured in the lab. (Karim Sultan/Utrecht University)The world has seen the first international conference on manufacturing meat. This is the process, tested so far only at laboratory scale, of growing pork, chicken, or beef through cell culture in vats instead of raising and slaughtering animals.

Beef cattle raised for the Harris Ranch Beef Company, Coalinga, Calif. (Gary Kazanjian for The New York Times)
My colleague Mark Bittman wrote a fine piece recently about the greenhouse-gas consequences of conventional meat production. Others have explored the environmental and ethical impacts of factory and feedlot farming. Manufactured meat, in theory, provides an end run around these issues. What if you can have your meat, be ethical, and environmental, too? (And presumably they’ll engineer the bad fats out as well….)
The three-day meeting of the In Vitro Meat Consortium, held at the Norwegian Food Research Institute, is wrapping up today. (They might want to do something about that name.) It brought together biologists, engineers, government officials and entrepreneurs seeking – for both environmental and ethical reasons – to move from animal husbandry to technology as a means of providing the kind of protein people crave in a world heading toward 9 billion ever more affluent mouths.
A paper presented at the meeting concluded that, for the moment, the costs of cultured meat can’t come close yet to competing with, say, unsubsidized chicken. (A pdf is downloadable here.) The paper noted the reality of the climb up the protein ladder as countries move out of poverty, with global meat consumption at about 270 million metric tons in 2007 and growing at about 4.7 million tons per year.
It laid out the theory: “The environmental impact of meeting this forecast demand from existing livestock systems is significant. Cultured meat technology offers an alternative production route for a proportion of this consumption. This would then allow a downsized livestock production system to continue to be ecologically sound and to meet basic animal welfare needs.”
The group noted that costs for research, large-scale testing, and public relations will be significant, and anticipated that governments and nonprofit groups would chip in. That seems idealistic, at best, in a world with deeply entrenched interests linking ranching, the agrochemical industry, and giant restaurant chains.
But one could envision someday a model, say, of a solar-powered facility in southern California or Singapore basically turning sunlight and desalinated seawater into growth medium and then tons of cruelty-free, sustainable nuggets of chicken essence. (The promoters of this technology don’t envision anything, for now at least, beyond nuggets and ground meat. No filet mignon.)
For the moment, startup costs aside, the conferees concluded that unsubsidized chicken-raising still comes in at half the price. But the century is yet young.
I asked a few folks about facets of this, among them Peter Singer, the ethicist at Princeton who’s written for ages on animal rights and environmental values on a finite planet.
For those seeking an end to animal slaughter for human sustenance, is this kind of a cheat, I asked?
“Not necessarily,” he said. “My interest is in ethics, but whatever works best. If it is harder to move people on ethical grounds than it is to provide a sustainable humane substitute, I’m all for the substitute.”
I then went to my bellwether of techno-optimist thinking, Jesse Ausubel, the director of the program for the human environment at Rockefeller University. He said there is no reason to doubt that a long-term trend toward more concentrated food production will eventually lead to manufactured meat.
In fact, he said, there is essentially little choice on a crowding planet to pursue technological solutions to feeding ourselves, shifting away from carbon-containing fuels, and otherwise limiting our ecological imprint. Human nature is probably harder to change than technology, he said.
“If behavior and technology do not change, more numerous humans will trample the earth and endanger our own survival,” he told me. “The snake brain in each of us makes me cautious about relying heavily on changes in behavior. In contrast, centuries of extraordinary technical progress give me great confidence that diffusion of our best practices and continuing innovation can advance us much further in decarbonization, landless agriculture, and other cardinal directions for a prosperous, green environment. For engineers and others in the technical enterprise the urgency and prizes for sustaining their contributions could not be higher. Because the human brain does not change, technology must.”
What do you think? Can we change human nature? Should we?
Comments (241) E-mail this Share
Del.icio.us Digg Facebook Newsvine Permalink

Posted by: Holly | April 21, 2008 04:27 PM

I am so excited about this initiative! As an economist, I tend to think that money motivates, and this is a wonderful way to change the incentive structure of today's market on a very fundamental level. If this could work... wow. It would not only save lives, but really cut down on the negative effects of the meat industry (such as all the runoff polltion from farms, etc.)
As for eating it... I've been a vegetarian since I was 3, and old habits die hard. I don't think I could stomach flesh even knowing no animals were harmed in the process. But as a substitute for my meat-eating friends who cannot dream of a world without chick nuggets, I think this is absolutely brilliant.

Posted by: Jen | April 21, 2008 04:31 PM

This kind of Frankentechnology will only encourage cloning of zoo animals and cloning of endangered species.

Once meat can be grown in labs they will move on to pets, exotic pet store animals and many other horror experiments.

Anyone who likes this idea should learn the word "stochastic", in other words this kind of experimentation can result in unexpected and irreversable consequences.

Evil.

Posted by: Maya, C.V.T. | April 21, 2008 06:03 PM

Tampering so much with nature scares me more than the idea of an omnivorous species eating animals. End factory farming and animal cruelty instead of producing yet another GMO hazard .

Posted by: Phobosblack | April 21, 2008 06:13 PM

I've only been a vegetarian for a couple years, and every once in awhile there are a couple of meat-based meals I crave. Whether I could overcome the creep factor of eating lab-grown meat, I don't know, but I imagine if it became commonplace I might partake of a tuna melt or some chicken strips. On the other hand, I'm pretty happy with Tuno and Bocas, and even before I went veg I didn't eat very much meat, so my consumption would probably be quite limited. But if you could grow me a lab turkey? Thanksgiving would be ON. Tofurkey just does not do it for me.

Posted by: Aja | April 21, 2008 06:14 PM

I wish they'd invent or create the 'in vitro hamburger or beefburger'..
ever since McDonald's came onto the global scene I dread to think how many reared animals (ie. beef) are slaughtered just to feed the insatiable demand of the customers of this massive globalized fast-food eatery.. (not to mention all the others)..
that would be good start.. McDonalds'.. jaw dropping how many burgers they churn out globally just each day.. ps.. when are they ever goin' to start selling veggie burgers?
hopefully the veggie burgers will be even more tasty and hopefully lure all these red-blooded meat eaters off their beefy (high cholesterol) burgers.. save the animals and save the planet..

Posted by: ellac | April 21, 2008 06:21 PM

At last, a common sense proposal!

IMHO it would be no different than eating hydroponic vegetables. It would be much easier to control nutrients, avoid those massive doses of antibiotics that feedlot cattle get now, and would possibly make carniculture (a term taken from H. Beam Piper) available to those at home who wish to do so.

Posted by: Tony Benson | April 21, 2008 06:25 PM

What's wrong with the meat alternatives that are currently available that are made from soy, wheat, etc?
I think PETA is getting too much bad publicity by releasing their plans for this new initiative and their reputation as 'radical' is now being supported by things like this.
I don't think many nonvegetarians are even going to try lab-grown meat, yet alone switch over to it.
Also, a million dollars is not a very large reward for any person actually accomplishing this task; but it could do so much for the animals in other ways than imitating their flesh in labs.

Posted by: Beau | April 21, 2008 06:40 PM

I find what jon said to be extremely ignorant. Peta HAS tried to inform factory farms of more ethical and effective ways to slaughter animals, but those heartless peasants that control the farms dont care about anything but the money. They have no interest in the welfare of humans.
As for the in vitro meat, i believe that it is a start, but that we need to change society's views on meat consumption all together. There IS NO NEED for human to eat meat. The health benefits of being a vegetarian far outweigh those of a non vegetarian. I find the ignorance of meat-eaters pathetic. Eating meat really is an addiction, and similarly to a heroin addict hopelessly defending the need for drugs, meat-eaters try to ignore the cost to the environment as well as their own bodies, and continue to support the need for farming animals, no matter how cruel and uneccessary.

Posted by: Amanda | April 21, 2008 07:05 PM

This is about the best campaign peta has done. This could really work.... However like some people have said, I think we should put more money into this project.... I think peta should spend more time trying to get this campaign bigger and better. I realize ppl won't drop everything and eat test tube meat, but in the future this could replace factory farms!!! I haven't yet donated money to peta ( i'm only 15) but i would raise money for this cause and I would donate money to this cause.... I think that this could really work!

Posted by: Brendan E. | April 21, 2008 08:50 PM

So let me understand than. we should eat lab meat basically clone and chemical base. Chickens are not allowed to be killed than what is to be used for. The bird called chicken out numbers all birds in the world together and is never going to be endangered. People kill each other does that surprise that they kill animals. I'm strongly against horses and other same size animals that are being maltreated all over the world. search videos of horse abuse Romania and see what the gypsy's do and don't really get punished for it. Everyone seen that there is no global warming well going to extreme in one place and leave other to be going the same is not the best way to fix the problem. Thank you for reading my opinion.

Posted by: Cosmo | April 21, 2008 11:22 PM

mmm, did we evolve? Were we created? Do no other animals eat meat? So many questions and so few answers on this site that make sense.

Posted by: Bruce Johnson | April 21, 2008 11:30 PM

I fully support this! This lab meat will definitely save millions & millions of animals from cruelly, including those billions of food grains wasted on them... Great work PETA!

Posted by: Niranjan | April 22, 2008 12:14 AM

Fox news...video with Ingrid

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?videoId=94a4bc8f-8a50-464f-ac77-f89f3841d4df&sMPlaylistID=

Posted by: Holly | April 22, 2008 06:47 AM

On one hand if it saves animals it's great, but I still wouldn't eat it. I think it would just remind me too much of animal killed meat..and how natural is it anyway?

Posted by: Aus Veg | April 22, 2008 07:56 AM

1 million dollars could help alot of other animals that need help (shelters, vet care for animals in need). i support peta, and have gone veg, but where is my donation money going? i thought it was going to things like the above listed. if peta has a million bucks to toss around in a contest, then they really don't need the donations i give in response to countless emails.

Posted by: Amanda Dorney | April 22, 2008 08:35 AM

Oh my God the world is honestly doomed, theres just nothing anyone can say to you people to try and have a logical rational conversation. your really truly crazy. thats just what it comes down to, and its sad.

Posted by: Jon | April 22, 2008 09:37 AM

This is wrong on SO many levels. And that million dollars could be used for so much more. Like feeding and tending the animals you euthanize because you "don't have the money to feed them."

Posted by: Tabitha | April 22, 2008 09:57 AM

At this time I can't go with this idea. The idea of eating even a Veggie Burger makes me ill.
It's round just like a meat burger and just looking at it makes me ill.
Anything shaped like meat is just sending the wrong message.
And Ingrid, you are causing alot of infighting in PETA'S organization.
You yourself in an article, this has come close to a civil war in our office. You also said that PETA will be losing many members over this.
Be very careful, you are coming close to losing some of your finest people that have worked for PETA for many years.
Please rethink this.

Posted by: Judith, Freedom Fighter for Animals | April 22, 2008 11:30 AM

I applaud PeTA. As long as there is less suffering, this is brilliant. I really don't care if the "meat" is made with animal cells or not, if it lacks the consciousness of suffering, I am all for it, even if I won't eat it.

Holly....looks like you are a bit upset that anyone is promoting veg living. Do what you please...but don't assume we are meant to "dominate" the planet. "Dominion" YES, with thoughtfulness and stewardship..."dominate" NO. To be truly human is to be thoughtful, compassionate, full of mercy. Meat eating is none of these things. If you want to indulge, be my guest, but you are not acting noblely, you are not acting from the highest part of yourself. That is your choice...it is proven over and over we can live not hurting other living beings. I have, for 22 years. It's a choice...between our lower and higher selves. If you want to make excuses for your choice, OK, but remember you are making a choice.

A happy vegan who knows her life doesn't hurt animals

Posted by: Kristina C | April 22, 2008 11:47 AM

I think that it would be great if its saving animals lives.... and alot of meat eaters would be willing to make the transistion.

Posted by: Courtney | April 22, 2008 11:52 AM

Kristina C
what the heck are you talking about.
I am a VEGAN and have been for 46 years...
I think you are looking at someone else's post, not mine...I posted what I found online about lab made meats, so people could see...

Immediate Release
July 6, 2005
Contacts: Ellen Ternes, 301 405 4627 or eternes@umd.edu
Paper Says Edible Meat Can be Grown in a Lab on Industrial Scale

April 11, 2008, 9:13 am
Can People Have Meat and a Planet, Too?
By Andrew C. Revkin

(clearly not by me)

I gave no opinion of my own, except to say...
it reminds me of the movie,
"The Island"
Which is full of Danger related to cloning...

Posted by: Holly | April 22, 2008 01:42 PM

PETA is all about reducing or eliminating animal suffering. If millions of chickens could be spared lives of misery, then the money would be well spent. Having said that, I don't think I would bother to even eat lab meat; I'm very happy with my vegetarian diet.

Anyway, it's all hypothetical (and the money goes nowhere) until the food scientists are able to pull it off.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | April 22, 2008 02:31 PM

I am a long time PeTA member and I am in complete support for the funding of in vitro meat. If the choice results in fewer sentient beings from suffering and given that I would likely eat it myself then I support it. Given that it is just a matter of time for in vitro meat, but if an investment will bring the day closer then let's do it - Keep up the good work!

Posted by: Gabor Melli | April 23, 2008 02:54 AM

Well...it may not be made from animals...but it still has the word meat in it, so i still wouldnt eat it

Posted by: amber Falobas | April 23, 2008 08:40 AM

Eating Flesh is Eating Flesh!
I can't believe you would think this is an answer to the vegetarian persons dietary needs. We don't have to eat flesh and have proved it for many many years so this kind of thinking makes you look like you endorse eating animals as long as it doesn't suffer. So does mean that you can eat an animal if you give it a lethal injection and it doesn't suffer. NO! We don't need to eat our animals in any shape or form you want to call it. Whether it is grown in a lab or not, it is still flesh. Yuck!

Posted by: regina | April 23, 2008 08:46 AM

Violence starts with being violent or become a cause for a violence. If you can kill animal you can kill a human being also. So stop violence , adopt a violence free life style.

Live and Let Live- Lord Mahaveer

Posted by: vj | April 23, 2008 09:37 AM

I don't think that I would eat it, mainly because I'm worried about what would be in it. Substituting would mean more chemicals put in it that you probably wouldn't find in the most processed meat possible.

I think I'll just stick with the soy.

Posted by: Dove Bonet | April 23, 2008 11:22 AM

bad idea, the competition to find fake meat that tastes evermore like the real thing will mean MORE animal suffering, not less because for every lab you can control there will be millions uncontrolled experimenting behind closed doors with animal dna, tissues, cloning etc. really bad idea, and definitely NOT healthy!

Posted by: Susan Davis | April 23, 2008 11:35 AM

This idea really intrigues me. Especially since the lab-created meat would be without all of the harmful additives, hormones, etc., that are usually in meat. My only real question is where would the stem cells come from, and would animals need to die or suffer to contribute them? If the plan is to manufacture large quantities, you'd need a lot of stem cells. As far as the "gross" factor of eating "lab meat," uh, hello, how gross is it to eat the ripped out muscle tissue of a dead animal?

Posted by: Mamastacia3 | April 23, 2008 01:40 PM

To the people who have said
if they are not here for food what are they here for.
Regardless of what they are here for-- they are not here to be tortured. I am not a meat eater -thank heavens :-) but if someone is going to eat meat shouldnt it be where they hunt it or where the animal has been able to enjoy their lives instead of in a tiny cage w/ no sunlight or happiness. Even if I did think animals were here for us.. ( which i do not ) why can't we just enjoy them in their natural habitat-- why do we have to eat them? I have so much fun watching wild animals.
I agree that even if this was produced this fake meat in vitro stuff
I do not want chemicals in my body and what illnesses that can lead to. I'm good with the soy meats :-)
I am happy this is going to happen though because for the people who are strong enough to quick meat ;-) they can atleast stop hurting animals and continue to put chemicals inside their bodies instead!

Posted by: Arizona thorson | April 23, 2008 04:25 PM

i love the idea (i am a fellow veg head) but god put these animals on the planet for a reason. i think people do need to eat meat, just without the animals suffering. i will definitly eat this stuff but if three fourths of the planet start eating this stuff what's gonna happen to all the animals that people are planning to slaughter??? they'll over popullate. thats my only problem. keep up the good spirit peta!!!
cora, 11, colorado

Posted by: cora | April 23, 2008 04:45 PM

This was attached to a pop up add on MSN home page today...
______________________________

http://www.slate.com/id/2189676>1=38001

human nature: Science, technology, and life.

Tastes Like Chicken
Growing meat without growing animals.

By William Saletan
Posted Tuesday, April 22, 2008, at 8:41 AM ET

______________________________
People are talking, that sure...
Holly

Posted by: Holly | April 23, 2008 05:26 PM

It's not as though this is such a stretch from what's already being done. We're already tampering with the natures of animals used for food.
The crucial difference is that sentient animals won't have to suffer grim, painful lives and deaths. It's worth a try. I'm behind the idea.

Posted by: lynda downie | April 23, 2008 11:34 PM

In response to the concern of genetically modified meat- if this could be done it would be done in a safe way for people- One thing i hate about most people is they aren’t properly educated in biotechnology to show concern for these topics. Example: RBST in cows. RBST is human made BST which is naturally occurring in milk and in the cow! we just quantify the amount to effectively use the cow and also to reduce the amount of cows culled/year. (rbst has shown to increase life span or usage on farms so less change of being culled at an early age) BST does not attach to our receptors in the body and can not effect people- in fact its easily digested in the body. In response to increased mastitis; this is not proven and isn’t caused because of RBST. Mastitis is caused from improper management and care!

I know this isn’t in complete response to the lab grown chicken but it has to do with biotech- people would run scared of this if they weren’t educated! and peta fuels this by making wrong images of other biotech uses to scare people off for there own reasons.

Posted by: Unknown | April 24, 2008 10:43 AM

Jon
As a human I enjoy what the world has to offer in it's beautiful display's. Factory farming and animal cruelty is as far removed from nature as anything. I feel that I have an obligation as a moral being to stop as much suffering as possible. Sharks and Hawks are specialized carnivores with no other choice - kill or starve. We (most of us) have a choice. The meat you eat is also loaded with unhealthy chemicals. Our closest relatives are mainly vegetarian. They will sometimes eat insects and other small animals and of course Chimpanzees will occasionally eat other primates and mammals or small reptiles. Human teeth are not those of specialized carnivores, they do not at all resemble those of a tigers,wolves or shark. Humans have mostly placed themselves out of the natural order.We take endlessly from the earth without reciprocating and are virtually the only animal to do so. Because of this the world is in a nasty plight. The rest of nature does not farm their prey,torture them,wear them,lock them up, take photos of their prey's carcasses, or order some deep fried chicken breast in the car through a drive through window. Suffering is suffering, and needless killing is murder period. We are not brainwashed. I have been a vegetarian since grade for, of my own accord. And have recently veganized my diet. I answer to my own conscience. If you are so bent on natural living you should adopt the other behaviors of carnivores. Live in the wild with no technological benefits and hunt with your bare hands.

Posted by: Annalena | April 24, 2008 12:37 PM

rbST is a very bad!!! Its Growth Hormone!!!!

Mastitis is caused by Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus)
This bacteria is extremely difficult treat.
Milking cows who dont recover from from mastitis are sent to their death.
Even if they are young and first time mothers and milked.

Its awful to be a miking cow.
Go Vegan
Holly

meaning below...

bST is an abbreviation for bovine somatotropin or what is also called bovine
growth hormone.
The term rbST has been used to refer to bST that is produced
using fermentation technology and injected into dairy cows to increase
efficiency of milk production.

Posted by: Holly | April 24, 2008 01:31 PM

Oh Yah,
Culling is the 'selection' (removing or killing) of surplus animals from an animal population.
Go Vegan

Posted by: Holly | April 24, 2008 01:35 PM

This is a fantastic idea! Some people are so addicted to eating meat that you cannot get them to become vegetarian no matter what you tell them.

So, let them eat meat!...as long as no animal suffering is involved, I couldn't care less what they eat.

The $1 million will save billions of animals' lives.

And for those concerned about lab-grown meat, where do you think 90% of the food in grocery stores comes from nowadays? If it's not marked "organic" or "non-GMO," there's a good chance it's made from genetically modified substances grown in a lab or from Monsanto's genetically engineered seeds.

Posted by: Andi | April 25, 2008 01:58 AM

i'm personally not saying its a bad idea because it can potentially reduce animal suffering, but it kind of makes peta look like hypocrites. where will they get the stem cells to make the meat? from animals. who will they test it on before it can be sold to humans? animals. i thought using animals for anything was something peta was against. it just kind of makes them look even stupider to the public. im a vegan and i think they should focus on other things.

Posted by: kelly | April 25, 2008 03:47 PM

As a scientist, a medical student, the founder of my school's Nutrition Club, and a vegan, I can't wait to get started on making this happen. While I myself have no interest in eating flesh or even soy flavored like flesh, I think this initiative is brilliant and will change the world forever. No supporting animal industries, plenty of land to grow produce to feed the world, less pollution, less toxins in food, and a huge cut in global warming. Since our government subsidizes animal farming, taking the cost of 1 lb of meat from the true cost of ~$70 to ~$1, will they offer science the same subsidies? Let's find out!

Posted by: Jennet Amonte | April 26, 2008 04:34 PM

The fact that PETA will embrace and pursue the goal of lab-made meat proves their unswervingly dedicated goal to saving the animals.
I will support this method, and convince all my peers and family to the same.

Posted by: Lotus | April 27, 2008 01:43 AM

Andi, sorry but that's untrue. Most fruits, vegetables etc are not gmos or lab grown. Both things are expensive and most farmers just grow food naturally.

Of course they may be sprayed with pesticides, but to say that almost all food is gmo is completely untrue.

Posted by: Maya | April 27, 2008 11:59 AM

I'm personally in favor of research that can lead to safe, edible, lab-produced food products, and not only because I love petting and artistically rendering living animals!

In fact, I have had dreams about the future where lab food in great numerical quatities was produced and sold, and competitively, relieving world markets and overloaded meat production (butcheries) facilities in favor of mass consumption of easily proceessed artificial (and lab-cloned non-living meat parts) meats and assorted food products, approved by the FDA, in effect.

Thank you for your article and I enjoyed reading it!

John
USA

Posted by: John | April 28, 2008 12:49 AM

It would be cheaper, and better for us all to eat a totally natural diet.
With all the problems we are now seeing with world starvation, it seems to me it would be better to use the time and money to figure out a better way to feed the world period. Its sad to think that some people in our world are eating mud cakes to sustain hunger. What people would be able to afford to buy new lab made meat. Surly not the starving who are eating the mud cakes this very day.

Posted by: Holly | April 28, 2008 11:37 AM

Maya... do your research 95% of the food in america comes from industrialized agriculture which use GMO's to increase their output its a fact.

I can't even try to talk reason with you peta people so I have a simple question which should prove whether your entirely insane or just mostly insane.

PIck one

Kill a 3 month old chicken thats so stupid it would drown during a rain storm because it looked up.

or.

cut down a 3000 year old california red wood tree.

you can't straddle the fence you have to pick a side. and if anyone even considers that a little worthless .60 cents a pound chicken is more worthwhile than the tree then there is just no hope for you

Posted by: jon | April 29, 2008 03:13 PM

Hi Jon - thank you for educating me. I did not know that fact about GMOS. I'm curious, which journal article did you use for your research? I'd like to read it so I can learn more.

Please enlighten me about your question: why would a redwood tree have to be killed to save one chicken?

Please clarify. ;)

Thanks

Posted by: Maya, CVT | April 29, 2008 03:59 PM

An orangutang fishing with sharpened stick.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/28/eaorang128.xml

Posted by: Jon | April 29, 2008 08:17 PM