The proposal for the production of artificial meat that looks, tastes, and has the texture of chicken is disturbing and wrong in many ways... or is it really? PETA's 5 year challenge to produce in-vitro meat runs out on June 30t, 2012 and there are $1 million on the table should this happen before then. See here.
For those who are true vegetarians there is not really an issue but I ask the question "What should 'non-meat eating by principle' vegetarians do?". At what point does meat produced in a lab cease to be 'meat'? Without delving into the pedantry of the real word meaning ('food' or 'sustenance'), I use the word to refer to the flesh product of a living animal; namely chicken, pig, cow etc. This should technically include the offal as well as associated animal by products (stock cubes and flavourings) but for the purpose of this discussion understand I mean the flesh of an animal. There are people who do not eat it and those who have a principle about eating it. There are people who do eat it. There are those whose mission in life is to make others aware of their choice.
I am sure you know the type (NB wife is vegetarian) who try to guilt you about meat eating (I am a carnivore) with the various arguments they put forward. What I object to is the stridency with which their personal choice is put forward. All well and good for the likes of PETA to campaign on THEIR followers behalf for a principle THEY belive in but, when it impinges on my personal choices, I draw the line and will equally stridently defend my choice in eating meat. Yes, I support the ethical treatment of animals and try to ensure the meats I eat are appropriately sourced. However, I live in the real world and find it difficult to balance their arguments for animal treatment when there are humans who are treated far worse...
Anyway... IF the manufactured 'flesh' is NOT from an animal, how could someone who is vegetarian on principle NOT eat it. An interesting thought
No comments:
Post a Comment