Islamic scholars consulted by a leading producer of cultivated meat say that the newfangled protein — which is grown from animal cells and doesn't require animals to be slaughtered — can be halal, or permissible under Muslim law.
And the Jewish Orthodox Union this month certified a strain of lab-grown chicken as kosher for the first time, "marking a significant step forward for the food technology's acceptance under Jewish dietary law," as the Times of Israel put it.
A lot of food handling instructions in religion are rudimentary sanitation practices. For example, food must be consumed same day, not left out. Don't eat raw shellfish. Don't drink blood. Wash your hands.
Pretty much all religious texts at their core are "how to not die," "how to make more of you," and "how not to be an asshole," with an overarching guilt system to enforce it.
Everything else is either people misconstruing things because they can't make sense of their own existence, either through mental illness, misguidedness, or plain old ignorance.
The reason these practices are in place are historical
Think about a time before modern sanitation. You eat THIS meat, you fucking die. So obviously God doesn't want us to eat it because otherwise he wouldn't have made it a dirty, deadly meat. Even today, these meats kill people occasionally.
I'm an atheist, but I think it's still worthwhile to understand the perspectives.
Bad chicken will kill you dead too. Apologists of these religions advance these hypotheses but they're not really supported by anything scientific or in the historical records.
Food taboos of all kinds are a common cultural feature (for example, modern Westerners don't like insects), and the Judaism-derived religions incorporated the food taboos of the Jews sometimes.
And isn't it funny how the gods are always concerned with the same things their worshippers are? It would be odd to care deeply about regulating the sexual and dietary habits of the ants in our backyards. If god(s) were real I'd expect their interests to be wild and beyond our understanding, and not about what hats humans can wear and what meat is acceptable.
The in-lore explanation is that we are created by the god(s) in their own image. Much like if you made a toy to play with other toys, you'd probably make something humanoid, or at least anthropomorphic.
Unless you want to talk about Lovecraftian horror gods, but in that lore, humans weren't created by the gods (as far as I know).
Yes, but when communicating to these minions, it makes sense to translate your intentions into what they can relate to.
If I want a way to control my ants so that they stay away from some places but go to others, I might teach them to avoid soap and seek sugar.
They might not understand what my bed is because it's too big and alien for them, but if I put some soap around it, they will avoid going there.
They might not understand what I mean by "go to my neighbor's garden", but they will be able to follow a trail of sugar to that place.
So especially if the interests of the gods are wild and beyond our understanding, I'd expect them to give us some relatable proxies instead.
If you read through the stories that define them, it makes a lot more sense. Blood and sacrifice are intertwined with life and righteousness. God is holy and set apart, and can't be in the presence of less -- so their lives and habits are built around remaining in relationship to their God.
So the careful handling of death, food, and blood makes perfect sense from that worldview, whether you personally agree with it or not.
organized religion is and always has been about using laws to control people and take their money through brainwashing backed with death threats where and whenever they can get away with it
I'm glad to see lab-grown meat clear another hurdle. The better and more common this technology is, the closer we'll be to finally getting rid of the meat industry and factory farming.
It is a bit weird to think though that the eradication of factory farming is going to lead to a decrease in global cow populations. So based on raw numbers alone this is actually a bad thing for the species.
We should at least factor in how natural or pleasant their existence is. Or else a maliciously engineerd creature which spreads like crazy but is genetically bound to suffer immensely all their life is somehow preferrable over a local population of happy birds.
The species we use to harvest their products and body parts are often unable to survive naturally, some suffering from accumulated genetic defects, like being unable to support their artificially increased body weight.
If we don't need to reserve pastures for human-cows, there might be a chance for natural species to grow their numbers again.
Not really. We had a similar reduction in the global horse population at the beginning of the 1940s. We used to have basically a couple horses per person there for a few thousand years. We still have plenty of horses, most even have better lives now. Hopefully we can finally make horse racing financially unviable so we stop killing so many horses for no good reason.
There are already people who have pet cows that they won't eat when the cow dies. Those people will tend the smaller herds.
To be fair, plant based food can be good, but it's a different food, not an alternative. I've tried a few and none of them got close to tasting of feeling like meat.
If we can manage to produce lab grown meat at a large industrial scale, it could solve the animal suffering, pollution and water consumption problems caused by current production
Also to be fair, it only tastes "different" when you know it's different. I remember seeing a blind taste test with a panel of trained chefs and none could tell they were eating plant-based meat.
Of course, meat doesn't taste like meat once you've seasoned it, salted it, put sauce and other condiments on it, and otherwise made it taste anything like meat. LOL
So, we can eliminate a great amount of the "it's not the same" factor simply by not marketing plant-based food as "gross" and "different". Let the taste, texture, versatility, and cost speak for itself.
Second, yes, on an industrial scale lab grown meat is better than factory farms. They likely come with the same detriments to human health as real meat, but that aside, I think lab grown meat would make a fantastic alternative to farmed meat used in pet food.
On the climate front, lab grown meat might not be better than beef. It would honestly be a shame if the world all went to lab grown meat, only to find out decades later that it caused more harm than good.
I always think that lab grown meat is a weird idea why don't they just do something interesting why don't they do lab grown velociraptor. I want to eat a velociraptor please.
Or better yet go through the fossil record and find the tastiest animal, and then grow that.
There's no Jewish or Islamic pope so what a lab-grown meat producer has to do is simply find a Imam or a Rabbi that will agree to say it's halal or kosher. They can pay them nice consulting fee for that. I've seen kosher light switches and cell phones before. Other Rabbis will say it's not actually kosher but everyone can choose which rabbi to follow.
There are a handful of organizations that will certify your product as kosher. Some people trust one organization or another, some trust any of em, some use their best judgement in general. A large organization of Rabbim agreeing on its kashrut status could hold a lot of sway, though, and be a catalyst to start a conversation over many tables of "Should we eat this?"
Now, what I'm curious of is what the meat qualifies as.
Yes, but which scholars? For some things there's a consensus - pork is haram - but for others there's not, and different scholars will contradict each other. I'm guessing this is still in the early stages where there's no consensus.
That being said, I hope they decide cultured versions of halal meats are halal because there's no good reason not to.
There was once a thought experiment about whether a hypothetical potato containing a pig gene (to make it tastily fatty) would be halal and/or kosher. IIRC, because of the different philosophical bases of the two taboos, it would have been one but not the other, though I can’t remember which.
Okay but this isn't an example of zealots being weird, and food taboos in general are usually based on cultural hygiene. For example, poorly run pig pens are typically filthy disease vectors so it's not strange that a society would ban them as meat animals.
The problem I have with artificial environment is that humans (and all life on Earth) evolved in natural environment trough many many years. Can we be so certain that artificial environment (food, cosmetics, ...) are not triggering undesired response, body trying to adopt to synthetic materials, what would be the outcome? I'm thinking about cancer, auto immune disease and similar.
We only observe consequences and for some it might take a lot of time to show, but then it might be too late to fix, or, fix in a hurry could make it even worse.
I always ask myself, for example, how long it took giraffe to develop long neck, why, and so on. It didn't happened in 100 years, 3 - 4 generations.
How many food is now labeled "unhealthy" that was "healthy" few years back, or even medicine, this recent anti congestion in Sudafed (I think). There are examples everywhere.
We should be more humble and less arrogant when trying to understand complexity of nature and its processes.
We evolved in an environment without heating, plumbing, electricity, and modern medicine. Are you suggesting that we get rid of all that too or just manufactured meat?