Instigator / Pro
0
1458
rating
3
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#2604
Which is the future, fake meats such as impossible foods, or lab grown meat?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
0
4
Better legibility
0
2
Better conduct
0
2
After 2 votes and with 14 points ahead, the winner is...
seldiora
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
14
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Description
I, as Pro, will be arguing in favour of fake meats such as Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat. This is not a debate on whether or not meat is ethical or anything like that but is a debate where I and con (Whoever that may be) will have to prove
1) That the product, whether that be fake meat or lab-grown meat, is going to have a better foothold in the future markets
2) That the product they are defending is better health-wise, environmentally, and which one will have a better chance in the future.
Round 1
Pro
#1
First off, I would like to thank my opponent, Seldoria, for accepting my open challenge. Even though I hope to win, best of luck to you mate.
I will first be speaking about the environmental part of lab-grown meat, then health, then finally I will conclude on why fake meat, such as impossible foods and beyond meat will have a better foothold in the consumer market. I was thinking of using ethical reasons as to why the fake meat industry is better, but I decided to go against that option because I said I would not be using ethical arguments in this debate, and that my opponent could not make them either. So, unless my opponent allows it, I will not be using any ethical arguments.
The environment with lab-grown meat
First off, fake meat is much better for the environment than lab-meat. According to recent studies, the lab-grown meat industry could prove just as bad over time, if not worse than the meat industry. Lab-grown meats need a lot of energy to be made, especially at a large scale, so if we are not carbon-free in the future, we may face global warming up our planet even faster.
Not only that but cows produce more methane than carbon dioxide. Even though methane is worse for global warming, it is much shorter-lived. What is my point? Well, my point is that the lab-grown meat industry can potentially not only produce just as much if not more greenhouse gasses than the current meat industry and the fake meat industry, but also would produce greenhouse gasses that last much longer than the greenhouse gasses that are usually produced by the current meat industry. If we cannot have lab-grown meat as an option due to the environment, that leaves fake meat and the meat industry. Because of ethical and environmental reasons, the fake industry would obviously win over the meat industry any day.
Conclusion: Lab-grown meat would be better in combating global warming only if we have decarbonized the energy industry before it hits the market, which is impossible.
While fake meat burgers do not currently have this problem, which still tasting great
Health with lab-grown meat
Even though in the future we may be able to fix SOME of the lab-grown meat’s health risks, I would like to show some of its present health concerns. Lab-grown meat, at the moment, has all the risks that conventional meat carries, which includes examples such as
- Cholesterol
- Risk of cardiovascular disease
- Heme iron that is already present in conventional meat and unhealthy
- Similar fat content
- L-Carnitine, which bacteria in our guts break down and then give us a higher risk of heart disease
From these examples, brands like impossible foods and beyond meat have little risk of if any risk with any of these. Essentially, to conclude, lab-meat is more unhealthy than fake meat.
Foothold in the market
Which will win? Fake meat, or lab grown meat? I believe, of course, fake meat, but am always open to having my mind changed (But I hope it won’t, because if it is that would mean I would have lost this debate)
According to recent studies, vegetarian burgers have had sales rise exponentially in 2018 and 2019, and the same could hold true for this year too. While this exponential rise continues, lab-grown meat will obviously be left behind, as it is in the development stage. The earliest people have given lab-grown meat to finally be cheap enough to be bought has been by 2022, but they do not take into account that lab grown meat still does not taste like conventional meat, and this number of 2022 may possibly be increased because of the horrid year that was 2020 (And 2021, but we will have to see if that is a copy and paste of 2020, or the opposite).
Also, according to another survey, fake meats may win in the long term over other alternatives to conventional meat because of its high popularity with millennials, which, of course, are the people making the children of tomorrow. If popularity of fake meats is high within millennials, it is perfectly acceptable and logical to conclude that they will be just as, if not more popular with their children.
Hey so I just wanted to apologize for not turning in my argument sooner. I have been busy this week, so I have not had much time to create my arguments or spend as much time researching. Because of this, my argument is not as good as it could have been. So, now, I guess the floor is yours Seldoria. Good luck.
Con
#2
1) Environment
So pro already concedes that, by the time decarbonized energy is the standard, Lab meat will surpass Impossible Meats. He claims that fake meats is better than lab meat, but the environmental reduction effects are currently about equal:
Metric
Lab Meat, % Reduction
Plant-Based Meat, % Reduction
Energy Use
7%-45%
N/A
Water Use
82%-96%
87%
Land Use
99%
96%
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
78%-96%
89%
Lab Meat, % Reduction
Plant-Based Meat, % Reduction
Energy Use
7%-45%
N/A
Water Use
82%-96%
87%
Land Use
99%
96%
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
78%-96%
89%
In addition, decarbonized energy industry is in only three decades, looking in the future to be near 2050 (https://www.pnas.org/content/117/13/7108). Because encouraging lab grown meat encourages this energy industry, it will eventually lead to the big drop of pollution and greatly encourage the environment. Even if we do not produce lab grown meat, the goal encourages massive development that hampers pro's case. Pro offers no significant environmental change that Impossible foods would encourage.
The purposes of impossible meat are inherently greedy and based on finance. As a news source reports the CEO saying: “We’ll have to get those resources either from investors, or from getting our profit margins to the point where we can scale at the velocity that we want to scale with the profit we make from our business,” said Brown. “It’ll be a while before we’re at that point. So we’ll definitely have to raise more money, I would say we are not looking in the near-term future toward an IPO,” he continued." (https://techcrunch.com/2019/10/03/no-near-term-ipo-for-impossible-foods-ceo-says/) So encouraging fake meat is a bad idea since they just want the finances.
2) Health
Lab-grown meat, at the moment, has all the risks that conventional meat carries
No source given.
Contrary to his argument, lab-grown meat is better than conventional meat. The Atlantic notes the scientist says “We gain greater control over what the meat consists of, for example its fat content,” and also notes the lack of pesticides, growth hormones, and even diseases! (https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/08/is-lab-grown-meat-good-for-us/278778/)
3) Support
While currently plant based support is greater, eventually lab grown meat will surpass. In a news report, the predicted growth from a consultant shows that it will definitively overtake impossible burgers. Note how the 2050 mainstream time perfectly aligns with the carbonized industry, allowing justification for support. The same site also greatly lowers pro's energy requirements, noting " Industry experts predict that, when built up to mass scale, these systems could use just one-fifth of their current energy consumption during the production process."
As you can see, pro isn't thinking far enough. he isn't thinking of how lab grown meat, though flawed, through the demand for it, may precisely revolutionize the way for decarbonized environment, far outweighing the lack of change on his side. His health argument has zero sources. And the support is only temporary. I've overtaken his argument completely.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
A good start, but then forfeiture.
Ah, crap. I have been busy these past few weeks. School is the absolute worst, especially under Covid. I have just now remembered about the debate. Maybe we can do this debate another time when I am less busy?
ez vote
As long as we get this fake meat to replace animal meat, that works. Animal death and suffering should be minimal.