Lab-grown meat is produced by culturing animal cells and could serve as an alternative to traditional livestock farming. Proponents argue that it can reduce environmental impact and animal suffering, and improve food security. Opponents argue that it may face public resistance and unknown long-term health effects.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
Political party:
Constituency:
Yes, so long as all relevant and thorough regulatory frameworks are put in place, and it has been scientifically proven to be non-harmful to consumer and planet
@9NX22WK10mos10MO
I'm vegetarian so if it helps reduce animal cruelty then yes. It depends on the health implications and cost. I think people should be signposted to a reduced meat diet.
If it passes food safety standards, the public will decide if it's a food source they wish to buy. Not really a government decision.
@9QDKCKM9mos9MO
Provide new methods of cultivating food rather than creating their own which can be full of additives and ingredients that aren’t nutritious or natural
@9Q958H29mos9MO
No, and should instead spend money on non-lab grown meat alternatives and encouraging meat free diets
@9Q83PJ89mos9MO
Yes, but only after extensive studies into the health impacts of lab grown meat compared to natural meats and other meat alternatives, as well as requiring proof of a lesser environmental impact than organic meats.
@9Q753HN9mos9MO
Depends on how safe it is, and would it lead to more economic growth without leaving farmers without work
@9PK59G610mos10MO
Yes, and only once the process has been extremely well studied for safety and long-term health outcomes
@9PJQCXS10mos10MO
Yes, as long as it has been proven to be safe for human consumption without any side effects occurring later on in life
@9PJPTXV10mos10MO
I want to reduce animal suffering and mass farming. However, the lab grown needs to be of the same nutritional value and still be 100% meat.
@9N4WYRP10mos10MO
Yes, but only with evidence that there will be genetic variation to reduce the risk of antibiotic resistance, and the development of other diseases that could spread to humans and other animals
@9MQ2YWG10mos10MO
Yes, but with in depth research to risks and benefits
@9PCBMP910mos10MO
I think if the meat has been fully tested and doesn't produce any bad effects or issues later on in life then yes but if the meat isn't 100% then no.
@9P7GWY6Workers of Britain10mos10MO
Yes provided it is passing health regulations and properly marketed as such and clear in what it contains. Should probably link the price to pure meat, not to lock out low incomes of natural foods.
@9N67JG410mos10MO
So long as thorough testing has been done, to ensure this is safe for public consumption and will not have consequences to the publics health further down the line.
@9N44T4R10mos10MO
Once there have been studies ensuring that the health of the consumers and ensures that the food safety quality of these items are up to standards.
@9NWLP3XLiberal Democrat10mos10MO
Only if it has been studied to ensure that there are no long term health effects and it can be ethically sourced. Additionally, it should prove to be beneficial to the environment.
@9MZJ53F10mos10MO
Yes as it would help with the issues of how to humanely slaughter an animal, however I think that it should not replace traditional meats but help give vegetarians and vegans more options
@9NRRHBT10mos10MO
There needs to be adequate research to ensure it is safe but if it is then it definitely should be introduced
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
