Mar18
Here's the Word: PETA's Ingrid on Colbert Last Night!
Posted at 10:17 AM | Permalink
| 
Comments (21)
 |
Colbert interviewed Ingrid on a subject that's either revolutionary or revolting, depending on your point of view: in vitro meat. As you may remember, PETA is offering 1 million dollars to the first team of scientists that can develop a method to produce viable, commercially available, lab-grown chicken meat by 2010. If the in vitro meat looks and tastes just like the "real thing" and can be sold at a competitive price, then even those who refuse to kick their meat addictions will have no justification for the continued slaughter of animals for food.
As you may have seen in last night's episode, scientists are already tackling this, ahem, meaty issue. And hey, who knows—maybe the "Colbert Bump" was exactly what this contest needed! We anticipate an absolute flood of entries in the very near future.
As for in vitro meat, what does the PETA Files nation think—revolutionary or revolting?
Posted by Amanda Schinke
TAGGED:
Comments
This is so exciting! Given the origin of normal meat (it's a DEAD BODY, folks) people shouldn't be so quick to turn away in horror. ;)
It's a real chance to move away from animal slaughter once and for all. For that reason, I'll back it all the way.
Posted by: Rachel A | March 18, 2009 11:09 AM
Revolutionary to say the least!!
Posted by: Carla | March 18, 2009 11:33 AM
What's revolting is the conditions that real chickens are keep in....this idea is definitely revolutionary!!
Posted by: PW | March 18, 2009 11:40 AM
Didn't this whole in vitro meat cause a civil war within PETA over eating meat regardless of it being fake or not?
:)
Posted by: Pepsi One is Fun | March 18, 2009 12:15 PM
Just eat a sprout. Franken meat is just too weird.
Posted by: Joanna | March 18, 2009 12:29 PM
The current production of meat is devastating the planet. While in vitro meat would be a great way to reduce animal suffering, we don't need to eat meat in the first place. Predictions are global meat consumption will increase dramatically, if, in fact, there's actually any place to raise all these extra animals.
If you won't go veg for the animals or your health, how about for saving our dying planet?
Posted by: Mike Quinoa | March 18, 2009 12:44 PM
revolutionary - but would we eat it? being veg*ns ...
Posted by: jessica | March 18, 2009 01:17 PM
Making meat in vitro does not cause animals to suffer, therefore vegans can eat it.
It is no different than eating plant or fungal mass.
They are cells without a nervous system to identify pain.
This is a wonderful idea. The people who are against this should smell the reality that most people are not going to give up meat.
I would love to be a dictator and outlaw meat. Unfortunately, in vitro is probably our best hope.
Posted by: Brad | March 18, 2009 03:42 PM
I still wouldn't eat mock meat, it's still bad for you even if it's not real. If it tastes the same and looks the same it probely has the same nutritional value (which is practicaly nothing) and saturated chlorestrol. My main reason for going veg is animal rights but I wouldn't eat this "in vitro meat".
Posted by: Kate | March 18, 2009 05:36 PM
While i'm not opposed to the idea, i wouldn't eat it either, for the same reason i try to avoid other unnatural foods...can't be healthy.
Posted by: heather | March 18, 2009 08:35 PM
I've a futuristic book coming out that deals with this concept in a unique and controversial way. My book, The Final War and 3001, is progressive, anti-war, pro-animal and for secular humanism. This is the quote from my book chapter that is on point:
"A very important lesson in history was when Prof. Jenn talked about creation of the manamals. This most important development led to more humane treatment of what was formerly considered livestock. The major change came about with development of the manimals, or modified animals. Stem cell research developed life forms to produce meat in ways that caused no suffering. Actual body parts could be grown in a petri dish, if desired. Yet, the manimals made the greatest contribution to end the suffering. It made large-scale painless production of meat products possible.
Essentially, the manimals were modified so that they had only the most primitive of brain stems. Manimals had just enough brain tissue to regulate heartbeat and breathing. They were produced that way through genetic engineering. There was no higher brain to react to stimuli, experience thought or emotion, or feel pain. Essentially, manimals were merely meat-producing factories that were not capable of experiencing or feeling anything at all. All of the life forms developed for food were, in reality, brain dead and on life support as to needs for food and water. Food and water was fed through nasogastric tubes going directly into the manimals' stomachs. Elimination was disposed of and used in the farming industry for fertilizer. The manimals could be kept disease-free in clean conditions. Moreover, genetic engineering could modify meat to taste like whatever meat was most popular—chicken, turkey, venison and fish, as well as the traditional basic pork and beef. It also made the meat more healthful because nutritional characteristics of the meat could be improved..
None of the manimals ever suffered because none of them were capable of brain function or consciousness. After the bodies grew, and when they reached the point of being ready for processing, the blood was drained from them, their hearts stopped and they could be processed. Unlike with unmodified animal food sources, these packages of meat were truly dissociated from any animal suffering.
Once manimals were developed, laws were enacted to protect animals that were previously unprotected as livestock. Pigs, cows and other livestock became protected creatures as were other animals."
In my book, this meat is not developed until much later, 3001,because the war sets back so much human development. Actually, I think the concept could easily be developed now. Human enoncephalic babies are often born in nature and live for only a short period of time--they can't develop intellectually. But manamals could be kept alive and harvested ethically, in my opinion. They
could be developed for food given current cloning and stem cell technology. I hope it happens soon. I know that it's controversial but, hey, what isn't?
Sorry this blog is so long. My book will be out in June or so on
Amazon. It's called The Final War and 3001--Birth of a Political Renassaince.
Keep fighting the good fight.
Priscilla Herochik, R.N.J.D.
Posted by: Priscilla | March 18, 2009 09:29 PM
Jessica, good laws sometimes get passed without a dictatorship making it so. Maybe way off in the future it will be illegal to eat meat, just as it is human flesh (at least I think that is illegal!). I can't imagine myself eating in vitro, even sans cruelty. But if it helps animals then I am all for it.
Posted by: Jamie Rivet | March 19, 2009 12:55 AM
This is perhaps the only decent idea that I have ever seen PETA come up with.
As soon as you realize that in order to live you must kill and ingest something else (yes, I know that you can to a degree chose what it is you kill but you do still prematurely end the life cycle of something) you'll probably find alot more peace in your life.
I am not a vegetarian or vegan or anything of the sort.
But, if meat can be grown in vats I'd be all for that because it would likely reduce the cost of meat.
It would also be all SciFi and thats always fun :)
Posted by: Ryan | March 19, 2009 02:05 AM
Millions of vegetarian Hindus, Jains, Buddists and Seventh Day Adventists have lived long and healthy lives without ever eating meat.
Posted by: Brien Comerford | March 19, 2009 09:28 AM
When you think of all the problems in vitro meat would solve, or at least help solve, how can anyone argue with it? So far as the nutrition aspect--without the meat industry's input, maybe people would finally find out the truth--that it's not healthy. But then, if they'll be able to produce meat in the lab, maybe they'll find a way to make it healthy too!
My guess--it'll happen.
Posted by: askny | March 19, 2009 06:54 PM
Ending animal suffering for the sake of food once and for all? WONDERFUL!!!
Ironically adding another cholesterol-laden nail to the coffin of gluttonous fatasses by potentially lowering the price of "meat"? QUESTIONABLE... but fair. :P After all, we humans have that choice.
Posted by: Meech! | March 19, 2009 07:32 PM
Although I think meat is gross, I totally support this 100% because that way it will put an end to slaughterhouse cruelty.
Posted by: Gina | March 19, 2009 09:52 PM
Revolutionary!
Posted by: Natasha | March 20, 2009 06:10 AM
I think it's revolutionary and revolting at the same time. I wouldn't eat it, because it's still flesh, whether grown in a laboratory or not. Remember cloned meat? I think what's most revolting about it is the idea that making babies in labs could follow. They're already trying to make "designer babies" and probably messing up the whole world as they do it! Mostly revolting.
Posted by: Janelle | March 20, 2009 11:23 AM
In the scifi vein...wouldn't it be great if we could genetically engineer our cells to create energy via photosynthesis? That way no suffering would be involved at all. There is evidence that plants are sentient too... check it out.
Posted by: Bill | March 20, 2009 05:47 PM
Its good that she is ontv spreading our message... but I would not go to public with Vitro meat yet, if you watch you will see how distuging it looks. I love meat :( (sorry Guys) but I would never eat that, you need to make the smeat more appitizing.
Posted by: Jon | March 22, 2009 11:14 AM