Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Difference between organic and non organic food production
What's the difference between organic and conventional farming
What's the difference between organic and conventional farming
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Scientists work around the clock trying to improve daily living. Lab grown meat has yet to hit the market but is without a doubt going to be in our near future. It is said to be healthier than traditional meat and better for the environment. Lab grown meat does offer plenty of significant advantages over traditional meat but never would be able to overcome the ick factor. Lab grown meat will be able to cut down on a few resource costs that traditional meat can not. Animals take up a great deal of farmable land, food that could be used for human consumption, and drinkable water. “Livestock in the US consume more than 7 times as much grain as the American population—enough grain to feed about 840 million people” (Stone, Maddie). When scientists …show more content…
“The beef, pork, and poultry grown by Memphis Meats provides all the same nutrients and flavor as the meat you get from the supermarket, but without all the unnecessary consequences of the contemporary livestock rearing process” (Manoogian, Jack). If meat is being made in a lab it is less likely for greenhouse gases to occur and for bacteria to form on the meat. Greenhouse gases would be less likely to occur since lab grown meat is produced by cells being joined together and with traditional meat the animal would be alive for some time and produce waste which releases gases. Also, bacteria are less likely to occur since it would be made in a more sterile environment and labs are able to control the process and what goes into the meat when creating it. Such as heme iron, which is most commonly found in meat and can cause breast cancer. Yet, lab grown meat such as beef and pork can be made free of heme iron. Regular meat has an abundance of saturated fat, but this too can be reduced in a lab. Although, if scientists were to remove all of those things the grown meat would become very unappealing. It would become yellowish, the texture would be different, and it would lose its juiciness. But, if they do not remove the fat or heme iron the meat will look and taste similar to traditional meat. Being grown in a lab there is room for many unhealthy aspects to be …show more content…
It is not being made directly from a living animal since they are extracting cells from a donor animal and people are very skeptical about the method. The process is taking muscle cells, combining them together and growing it until they have something that looks similar to meat. “The regulatory situation gets more complicated with cell-cultured meat, in which cells taken from animal muscle are grown on special scaffolds until they form enough tissue strands (about 20,000) to make a meatball or hamburger. It is not quite animal, not exactly a food additive—yet intended as food” (Devitt, Elizabeth). When with traditional meat the animal lives and breathes and when it becomes the required size it is slaughtered and taken to be processed for eating. “How natural is it to raise thousands of animals, pump them full of drugs and run them through death machines to get that filet mignon you love?” (Manoogian, Jack). The way animals are killed today for eating is very inhumane, but many people suppress the knowledge they have since it would make eating a burger less appealing. People may never want to give up eating traditional meat since that is what they are used to. The meat made from cells is very tough and does not have the same quality as livestock. Livestock can move around and cells can not, so the lab grown meat becomes very stiff. Individuals eat McDonald
It’s integral to accommodate culture in making changes. While accompanying Rhinehart trip to see Ethan Brown and his food truck, Widdicombe tried his tacos and described how “the white substance [of Brown’s taco] was remarkably meatlike: it tasted slightly fatty, and the texture resembled muscle fibre,” yet it was 100% plant-based protein. When asked why he went through the trouble to give it such a likeness to meat, “Brown explained that the main challenge with food tech is cultural. “People have been eating meat for two million years,” he said. “They’re hardwired to love meat, and they love the trappings of meat—Thanksgiving, Christmas, ballgames.” The food truck was there to show that plant-based chicken and beef could be part of an all-American life style.”
Lundberg describes how the demand for animal protein was incredibly higher than the production. She quoted Marlow’s article stating, “A nonvegetarian diet requires 2.9 times more water, 2.5 times more energy, 13 times more fertilizer, and 1.4 times more pesticide than does a vegetarian diet and the greatest difference comes from beef consumption” (Lundberg 483). She then questions: "Do we really want to wait until it’s too late to change our way of eating?” (Lundberg 485). These two points will make readers subconsciously pause to answer this question themselves, put themselves in the situation imagining the products used and having an immediate reaction to it.
... flesh are then ground into a paste-like matter, which is cleansed with the previously mentioned ammonia to rid it of E. coli. The meat filler product is purchased by many fast food restaurants, such as McDonald’s. The Beef Products executive predicts that his product will be in 100% of hamburgers within the next five years.
“U.S. Meat Production,” PSR, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Washington, D.C. 2014. Print. Web 1 Apr. 2014.
People may argue that meatpacking is an important industry for its efficiency and low cost. These naysayers are correct in saying this is an important industry. One way to mke it a much healthier industry, however, is to cut the efficiency of it. If there are not thousands of cattle in a pin, the risk of the cattle contracting a deadly virus such as E. Coli is proven to come down tenfold.
In the book Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer, the author talks about, not only vegetarianism, but reveals to us what actually occurs in the factory farming system. The issue circulating in this book is whether to eat meat or not to eat meat. Foer, however, never tries to convert his reader to become vegetarians but rather to inform them with information so they can respond with better judgment. Eating meat has been a thing that majority of us engage in without question. Which is why among other reasons Foer feels compelled to share his findings about where our meat come from. Throughout the book, he gives vivid accounts of the dreadful conditions factory farmed animals endure on a daily basis. For this reason Foer urges us to take a stand against factory farming, and if we must eat meat then we must adapt humane agricultural methods for meat production.
The next time you go to sit down and enjoy a nice juicy steak, take a moment to think about how that piece of meat came from a cow and became your rib eye steak. Many people in our nation have no idea where their food comes from, what exactly is in the food they consume, and the effects it has on their health and the health of our environment. This is largely due to the industrialized, factory farming way of producing our meat and poultry. It has left our bodies sickened and our earth battered but with an elimination of animal products and an addition of a more plant based diet we can begin to restore …..
Factory farming is a necessary component of our modern food production and supply system. In 2005, the U.S. produced 45.7 billion pounds of red meat. It efficiently produces and distributes huge quantities of food to feed the growing population of America. But the overfeeding of antibiotics in the U.S. meat industry has gotten to the extreme and it calls for a drastic change in order to prevent a potential public health crises.
At the turn of the new century, activists begun to protest the morality of animal experimentation: “… such methodology is far too cruel on beast, it cannot better mankind, but its lead to it demise…” Despite the rising concern for animal safety in laboratory research, federal legislations approved the practice. According to the federal bureaucrats, it is an essential tool to improve our current medical knowledge. Hence, most of the tested animals have a relatively shorter life span than human. Thus, it allows to test long-term disease in a smaller timeframe. Nonetheless, animal enthusiast request the banishment of animal experimentation in laboratory. Ergo, with our current technology, researchers are capable to reproduce the same result
Although animal research is a shareholder in the development of medicine and the advance of cosmetic and household products, it is still not legitimate to abuse those creatures to satisfy human needs and wants. Alternatives have been initiated to relinquish the use of non-human beings since it is against animal rights. Animal testing should be prohibited and new methods should be introduced to non-medical institutions like the cosmetic industries and the household production enterprises. Laboratories should take ease of technology to supersede animals by upgraded alternatives that can help in the development of new treatments that may be more efficient. Personally, I think animal testing is a cruel nature that cannot be justified. Why sacrifice those defenseless lives if superior methods are available?
The testing of animals is rising from pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies because the companies are spending billions of dollars on animals testing in order to make products safer to humans. Test animals are also treated poorly and, because of how they are treated, the animals begin to act differently. The substances cosmetics companies inject into animals are very harmful and torturous to animals, so most animals end up dying or being severely handicapped from then on. Most of the findings and conclusions from animal experimentation do not end up working the same way with humans. Enormous amounts of money are spent on animal testing each year when there are better ways to put the investments for better benefit for our country. Advancements in technology should be used to speed up and improve the process of developing cures for humans instead of continuing to torture innocent creatures. Although animal testing is still being used, the European Union has banned it completely. There are many alternative ways that are in the process of being made but ultimately we need an alternative method that bans animal testing completely.
Animals are currently being tested all over the world. They are being tested for things such as cosmetics, prescriptions drugs, and used for scientific testing. It is estimated that over 100 million animals are used for testing. Rats, mice, guinea pigs, rabbits, and monkeys are common animals used to test newly developed products. These testing procedures and conditions in which these animal must live are widely scrutinized among animal activists. There are many heated debates on whether or not animals should be used for testing. Current government regulations require that all new production available for human consumption undergo animal testing. New procedures for animal testing are necessary to allow the researchers to meet government regulations and to appease animal activists. Animal research should be ended, it is wrong to assume that animals do not feel pain or anguish as they endure needles, pain, diseases, and death.
There is much to be said about how exactly meat is being produced. In the present day, there are hardly any farms out there that still practice the traditional and environmental - friendly way. Animal agriculture is widely used all over the world and greatly contributes to climate change. Meat production leads to global warming because of the combination of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The process of raising animal is the major source to these harmful gases. It is vital to save the world from the worst impacts of climate change by reducing meat consumption. However stopping this meat eating system is extremely difficult, given that we had been consuming meat ever since our ancestors domesticated animals for that purpose. Over the decade Animal agriculture has been getting worse and worse. In 1973 when the Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz announced ‘’ what we want out of agriculture is plenty of food’’, overproduction was encouraged and lowering the price of meat was carried out; this originally started when there was a massive increase in corn (Wolfson). In order to keep up this mass production of meat, multiple pounds of grains are fed to livestock. Livestock industries depended on corn and soy based food and used over half of the artificial fertilizer used in the United States (McWilliams).
Meat consumption all over the world is increasing, making meat a global issue. As a result, many researchers have been trying to create meat substitutes to minimize the impact of consumption. Substitutes, to date, have been made from soybeans, peas, or even from animal tissues grown in a culture. What exactly is this “meat” grown in a culture? It’s called in vitro meat or “shmeat”....
Factory farms produce the meat that most people in densely populated areas consume each day. The conditions in these farms aren't ideal. There isn't much room in thes...