[the3rdpower]

I was perusing my favorite app, Flipboard, when I came across a Gizmodo posting about GMO foods. The vast majority of people were jumping on board the meat wagon of synthetic foods, stating that it was the only way we will survive in the long run (eating lab created chicken breasts and beef burgers.)

While I am highly opinionated on the subject my usual attitude towards GMO is somewhere between "that shit's fake" to "I do not know if the long term effects are positive given the fact that industrial food is such a capitalistic driven mentality."

So I am curious. Would you eat a lab grown flesh burger or a test tube generated chicken breast? If so, do you care if your food is labeled GMO or not?

 

[nujabes]

Hopefully animal flesh is available for the foreseeable future, because there is no chance i'm letting any Monsanto Menace get into my diet.

I'll take my burgers all-natural, please, and may god have mercy on the souls of people who would stand in my way, for i shall have none.

 

[that]

I obviously would prefer to have a burger that was cut out of a cow's ass(yes, hamburger is generally ass meat) than one grown in a petri dish. But if it didn't taste any different, and it had no effects on my health, I think I'd be ok with eating GMO meats.

 

[affezwilling]

I refuse to eat soy burgers because they're not real, same goes for all fake meats. We didn't claw our way to the top of the food chain so that we could eat petri dish food. As long as I have a choice I'll always go for the real thing.

As far as available farmland vs overpopulation goes you could fit the entire world's population (all 7 billion people) into an area the size of the state of Texas and still have a population density slightly less than that of New York City. New York City isn't even in the top 50 of the world's most densely populated cities. There's plenty of space available and the only crisis we have when it comes to facing overpopulation comes purely at the hands of human stupidity. It will be a very, very, veeery long time before we reach a point that we will be required to grow all our food in a lab.

For anyone who wants to preach animal cruelty to me, I would direct them to hike on foot across the savanna to practice their speech to a pride of lions first. For as cruel as we may be, compared to wild animals and mother nature at large, we're downright freakin' pleasant.

 

[the3rdpower]

Soy is so phytoestrogen...

 

[sighcantthinkofaname]

When I first heard about this my initial reaction was that it was gross, but to paraphrase Hank Green "You may think it's disgusting, but I would argue it's no more disgusting than how we get our meat now"

I feel like if it's safe and it tastes the same, why should I care if it's been grown in a lab?

 

[Meowschwitz Man]

I have several friends who know exactly how GMO products are created and they could care less whether what they eat is GMO or not. From what I understand it's just the same natural process reproduced in a lab with some minor changes to traits/characteristics that's it. Honestly, living in a college town the whole "organic and free range" concept seems to carry a bit of snobbery and is more common among the affluent.

 

[Curlyy_friess]

I would honestly prefer my food to be "organic and free range" as Meow put it. But its not. The stuff we eat (using cattle as an example) is stuck in tiny pens, some times up to there knees in there own shit. There feed corn, which isn't good for them and often results in the animal needing there stomach pumped. The FDA allows a certain percentage of poop, animal hair, and bug parts(sometimes even multiple bigs) in food. I know with chickens they are kept in a holding area where they never see the sunlight, male chicks are killed at birth, females have part of there beaks clipped, and the chickens are injected with hormones that make them so fat they can only take a few steps at a time. Some are equivalent to a 300 pound person.

As for GMO's how much worse can it be? If they can grow an apple that provides regular apple nutrients plus the nutrients of a carrot that'd be great, I see that as being more beneficial in fact. We could eventually generate food that tastes like a Twinkie but has high nutrient levels.

Although, there are no conclusive studies that prove that GMO's do not lead to cancer or other diseases( this due to the fact that GMO's are relatively new) If there were studies done on the subject I feel I could give a better answer. Currently I do not have an opinion on them. I want my food to be labeled if it contains GMO's, but the idea of them does not sicken me. And I would probably purchase stuff containing them.

 

[HypoTempes]

When I first heard about this my initial reaction was that it was gross, but to paraphrase Hank Green "You may think it's disgusting, but I would argue it's no more disgusting than how we get our meat now"

I feel like if it's safe and it tastes the same, why should I care if it's been grown in a lab?

Same here , but only if it's safe for human consumption.

BTW "over here" biologic means pesticides and such to a threshold of 60% per acre of crops produced for human consumption....

Oh and I have NO tolerance whatsoever for making animals suffer for religious reasons, don't care who you are or what you believe in, if you are willing to let an animal suffer because of your belief system I will do everything I can to stop you.

 

[Word Dispenser]

It seems that the most popular view on this subject is, 'Ew, fakeness', and 'yay, natural.'

But, if you think what they're doing in the animal and animal byproduction industry is 'natural'...

And would be more natural than food grown in a lab that's safe... That could potentially contain the nutrients, vitamins and minerals our bodies need, but may not get in our actual diets (which are, for the most part, grossly unnatural, synthetic, and damaging to us anyway, particularly if you don't read ingredients labels), and therefore fill in gaps in our health...

Then, I have one word for you, my friend:

BAHAHAHAHA.

The potential for good, fake food is apparent in the vision of Star Trek, where they no longer make animals slaves, and their food covers all of their nutrient needs.

Currently, everything is based upon how well it will sell, so 95% of everything is unhealthy anyway.

But, I do dream of a world where that potential for good, fake food, is met, without any potentially toxic ingredients.

 

[TinyTacos]

Eating food sometimes is a chore, especially eating the right foods. If you could produce a synthetic food that was capable of meeting the usual recommended daily value of vitamins, fiber, protein, etc. and there were no sizable\moderate detrimental health effects, than I would eat it.

You could squeeze it into bars, and you'll find me carrying around multiple servings of the stuff in my backpack and car in case I'd ever need a quick bite to eat.

 

[PowerShell]

Unless it was absolutely proven as safe, then no.