Can vegans embrace test-tube meat?
Animal-rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is offering $1 million to the first person to come up with a commercially viable way to create meat in a test tube, said Terry Cowgill in a Lakeville, Conn., Journal blog, but the revulsion o
Animal-rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals said Monday it would give $1 million to the first person who came up with a commercially viable way to create meat in a test tube by 2012. PETA cofounder Ingrid Newkirk said the idea for the prize launched “a near civil war in our office,” as a great number of PETA members are repulsed at the thought of eating animal flesh, even if it were created in vitro. PETA vice president Lisa Lange said her initial reaction was that she "would be much more comfortable promoting eating roadkill.” (The New York Times, free registration) PETA announced the prize after a scientific conference on in vitro meat held in Norway earlier this month. One paper presented at the conference said vat-grown meat could be on shelves at comparable prices in 5 to 10 years. (Wired)
What the commentators said
The plan is “a bit impractical,” but certainly good news for “vegans who, in actuality, are closet carnivores,” said Terry Cowgill in his blog at The Lakeville (Conn.) Journal. This PETA verbal “civil war” over the fake meat, though, is indicative of “how overheated the rhetoric gets from these people.” Seriously, how can it be wrong to grow meat in a tube? “No animals suffer and I can still get a cheeseburger at Applebee's.”
The internal struggle could actually be “good for PETA,” said Graeme Wood in The Atlantic’s The Current blog. And if it signals that the group is “jettisoning” its “reflexively anti-science wing” and those simply disgusted by animal products, then it’s good for the “anti-cruelty movement,” too. “PETA’s acceptance (subsidy, even) of meat-eating,” even in this “so-far hypothetical” manner, is central to “what should be the core mission of the group, which is alleviating the needless suffering of animals in whatever way possible.”
The in-vitro meat “compromise” does go a long way toward showing that PETA “may not be as radical as some people think,” said Ed Morrissey in the blog Hot Air. But it seems like “a kidney-pie-in-the-sky solution.” The four-year time frame is “ridiculously ambitious,” and where would we get the protein for the meat? You can’t make even fake meat “out of thin air.” As for the prize, “I’d bet a steak dinner that it will go unclaimed.”
THE WEEK'S AUDIOPHILE PODCASTS: LISTEN SMARTER
MOST POPULAR ON THE WEEK
- What would a U.S.-Russia war look like?
- Scottish independence is another financial crisis waiting to happen
- The 10 best networking tips for people who hate networking
- The Pentagon's troubled, expensive new fighter jet
- The Obama era is over. The presidency continues.
- Fall movie guide: All the films you should see in September
- America created the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria? Meet the ISIS 'truthers'
- 11 scientific studies that will restore your faith in humanity
- The elusive 'It factor' in presidential politics
- 7 grammar rules you really should pay attention to
Subscribe to the Week