Would you eat it ? Lab grown meat

Most real animal farming uses stuff not found in home kitchens either. They're fed certain diets (many with process-enhanced crops and additives) and pumped up with various medications, innoculations, hormones and so on.
I think the bigger concern with bio-synthetic meat is that the lack of an immune system means identifying infected batches is much more problematic.
Not true. Routine antibiotic use and hormone enhancers are not used in UK. Antibiotic use is banned in EU. Organic meat forbids both.
 
Not true. Routine antibiotic use and hormone enhancers are not used in UK. Antibiotic use is banned in EU. Organic meat forbids both.
How dae ye stop yer Highland Coos from gettin' sick then, laddie?

They still use innoculations, non-organic feeds, pesticide and herbicide-laden grains, GMO additives and so on, though...?
And a lot of meat sold in supermarkets is still not free-range organic additive-free.
 
They don't ONLY say that:



I thought I would just post the link to the full article so people could read it all rather than post cherry picked paragraphs but it appears the above was missed in favour of selecting the items that fit your argument instead :confused:
The link from the meat association was a green washing exercise, no more no less.

I have never stated that farming does not have an impact. I merely have an issue with people saying that all farming only ever has a negative impact with respect to bio-diversity when its incorrect. Farming has both a negative and positive impact to the countryside.

Precisely. We, as a species, need to realise that allowing farmland to return to its former self is just not feasible, however emotionally pleasing that would be.

We have decimated biodiversity even worse than farming in the name of house building, infrastructure building (roads etc) and all other manner of man-made alterations to the natural UK habitats... Yet it is farming that is, once again, getting the waggly finger and told it is in the wrong.
Farming gets the finger pointed at it because around 70% of the U.K. land mass is used for agriculture and only around 8% is built on.

It’s inconceivable that the 8% that is built on has done more to destroy habitats than the 70% handed over to agriculture.

That’s before considering all the pesticides that historically got sprayed all over the place and all the run off that ends up in the streams and rivers. Don’t get me wrong, the sector is learning and doing better than it ever has but the horse has very much bolted, it then got ran over by a tractor and ploughed into the nearest field so it’s not getting back into the stable.
 
Not true. Routine antibiotic use and hormone enhancers are not used in UK. Antibiotic use is banned in EU. Organic meat forbids both.

Thats just flat out wrong mate.


Its even used on "free range" pig farms, because believe it or not, the overgrown pink, sickly pigs that are forced into gas chambers at 6months old, are not healthy.

Funny you should say that as you have made a few assumptions and put words in my mouth:



I didnt say that farming increased bio-diversity. My POV is it changes the local biodiversity, not necessarily increasing or decreasing it. Farming can create habitats that are more beneficial for certain wildlife at the same time it is less beneficial for other wildlife. Returning the land to non-farmed could mean that the current species die out and are replaced with others.

Biodiversity and farming is not necessarily mutually exclusive. I am not sure if you are seeing vast fields being arable farmed and then deciding this is all farming. To blanket say that ALL farming negatively impacts bio-diversity is wrong and, if I may take a leaf out of your own book given you are "arguing from a position that is fundamentally flawed" - " I'm struggling to see how this is hard to understand"

Oh yea, animal farming is great for the countryside, especially the streams and rivers that get constantly polluted.


"The main pollution causing concern is phosphate. Around 73% comes from nutrients leaching from livestock manure into the river and around 22% is from sewage treatment works."

As for lab grown meat, I think it can only be a good thing for the animals that will not be getting stabbed obviously, and environmental benefits.
 
Last edited:
Oh goodie he's here :D

buddy-the-elf-498-x-263-gif-pfr3nzdkjdquvwxp.gif



Ladies and gentlemen, let the entertainment commence.

Here Johno, I even got you some ultra soft to cry in to this time :D

640x640.jpg
 
The link from the meat association was a green washing exercise, no more no less.

Oh ok... :cry: :cry:

Tell me where they are incorrect and I will look at that but simply foo-fooing a source with a throwaway comment and nothing more will result in my reaction there.

Farming gets the finger pointed at it because around 70% of the U.K. land mass is used for agriculture and only around 8% is built on.

It’s inconceivable that the 8% that is built on has done more to destroy habitats than the 70% handed over to agriculture.

That’s before considering all the pesticides that historically got sprayed all over the place and all the run off that ends up in the streams and rivers. Don’t get me wrong, the sector is learning and doing better than it ever has but the horse has very much bolted, it then got ran over by a tractor and ploughed into the nearest field so it’s not getting back into the stable.

Ah, now you are going above the actual land being changed and bringing on other activities like pesticides that run into rivers and streams, which is a reasonable point.... Can we also therefore mention the vast quantities of sewage, primarily created from activities in said build up areas, being pumped into the same rivers and streams you talk about? Surely that has a massive effect on the wildlife as well.
 
Oh yea, animal farming is great for the countryside, especially the streams and rivers that get constantly polluted.


"The main pollution causing concern is phosphate. Around 73% comes from nutrients leaching from livestock manure into the river and around 22% is from sewage treatment works."

So you choose a singular waterway and base your argument on that?

Oxford University disagrees with you - New study finds that sewage release is worse for rivers than agriculture
 
So you choose a singular waterway and base your argument on that?

Oxford University disagrees with you - New study finds that sewage release is worse for rivers than agriculture

Thats fair, I never claimed animal ag to be the only source of river pollution.

Do you not remember the poisoning of people in devon last year? I lost count the times I opened up the BBC app to see some other river or stream polluted by some dairy farmer.

 
How many streams and rivers does the M1/M6 cross on its route north and are used to drain surface water run off completely with particulates, fuel oil, salts etc from the carriageways without additional treatment?
 
How many streams and rivers does the M1/M6 cross on its route north and are used to drain surface water run off completely with particulates, fuel oil, salts etc from the carriageways without additional treatment?

No idea, transport is pretty essential though, fisting cows so humans can take their milk isnt.
 
Back
Top Bottom