We have the technology to substitute all the nutrients we don't get from our diet - and a whole lot more that we don't need at all - — Vera Mont

That's like cheating yourself. You are not being fed with the real nutrients. I respect the technology and pharmaceutical products to help us to get a better life. Nevertheless, those tablets never will be a real substitute of a bistec.

Veganism is a speciesist half-measure. A far more effective solution is – the one which I'm enthused about – vat-grown / 3-d printed meat (i.e. animal protein) that tastes like natural beef, pork, poultry, eegs, etc. — 180 Proof

True it seems an ever more possible option with the advancement in technology and bioengineering. My only question here is that this process of synthesising meat surely demands a lot of electricity in these factories. And that electricity has to come from somewhere - currently not renewable energy so this solution to eating meat must come simultaneously with a change over to renewables otherwise it won't solve the fossil fuel - climate change dilemma.

Current natural sources of meat are based on renewable energy - photosynthesis of sunlight by plants which are then eaten by animals. This is nature's way and doesn't disturb the balanced ecosystem: the atmosphere, carbon cycle etc.
and keeps our climate in equilibrium.

Synthesising meat seems a perfectly acceptable solution to eating animals as long as it mimics nature in full - powered by renewable healthy clean energy.

Nuclear, geothermal, wind / wave turbine generation, biomass, solar farms, hydroelectric, etc renewables are being used around the world as an accelerating share of global energy generation:

https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/electric-power-and-natural-gas/our-insights/renewable-energy-development-in-a-net-zero-world

I also found this recent comparative study encouraging:

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00005/full

We can walk and chew gum at the same time, Ben. "Veganism", to me, is a luddite stop-gap whose time has come and gone. We don't need to eat like cows or eat cows themselves or wind up with "soylent green is people" ... :smirk:

. "Veganism", to me, is a luddite stop-gap whose time has come and gone. We don't need to eat like cows or eat cows themselves or wind up with "soylent green in people" ... :smirk: — 180 Proof

Be that as it may I do admire vegans for the basic principles of their beliefs - that we ought respect animals more than we do. They have highlighted a conundrum that we face in daily life by acting as an extreme. Considering extremes are often the best way to establish the full extent of a problem and find a "middle ground".

Should we see eye to eye with animals, to really be friend not foe or do we objectify them and enslave them to our whims? As you pointed out there is always a third option which satisfies our desire to eat meat while not subjugating other animals.

It seems that all we need to do to approach an appropriate solution is to keep an open mind and tread lightly with the options presented. I for one am eager to see where synthetic meat tech goes. In the meantime we can only make decisions based off the current model/tech that we have available to us, but hope for a better one to come along.

And I do think renewable energy is entirely within our grasp. Considering how capitalism and the open market works if we increase the supply of renewables and make it competitive (in other words trust in them as the future) then they will naturally fall in price through investment and innovation. And eventually overtake fossil fuels both in desirability and cost efficiency.

We must never underestimate our intelligence in the face of fear and uncertainty. We can make things certain through cooperation and trust.

That's like cheating yourself. You are not being fed with the real nutrients. — javi2541997

And yet I continue to thrive! There are no real and false nutrients, just molecules! Chemical compounds that an organism requires to function, not a magic elixir for supernatural beings. There is no mystique to feeding humans. Vitamins and supplements are already used in vast quantities by prosperous western nations - which consume the overwhelming majority of the world's animal products: meat+dairy+plant+supplements - yet we keep getting fatter and less healthy.

My only question here is that this process of synthesising meat surely demands a lot of electricity in these factories. And that electricity has to come from somewhere - currently not renewable energy so this solution to eating meat must come simultaneously with a change over to renewables otherwise it won't solve the fossil fuel - climate change dilemma. — Benj96

That's right. It's not a complete solution yet; it's a step in the right direction. Can you calculate the production of feed and the butchering, processing, packaging, transportation and refrigeration of the meat already use a considerable amount of coal- and nuclear- generated energy, plus the land use (cutting down carbon-capturing trees to make room for cattle) plus the waste methane of cattle and waste products of the associated industries? And weigh that total against the energy needed for vat propagation of meat? They can:

An Oxford study in 2011 estimated lab-grown meat production could involve up to 96 per cent fewer global greenhouse gas emissions, 98 per cent less land use and up to half as much energy.

The net gain is even bigger, since the meat factories can be located in the cities where the meat is consumed: Tiny footprint on the land; inside a contained and controlled environment, in which the CO2 can be easily captured and recycled. Further advantages: no disease, no hormones, no antibiotics: 100% pure meat, made to taste specifications.
Set 'em up next to the neighbourhood greenhouse/hydroponic installation/mushroom bunker and use the byproducts for heat and fertilizer; open a food outlet on the same premises, so people can get their fresh meat and veg within walking distance of their home.
All of these 'problems' are solvable with existing technology.
Only two obstacles: vested financial interest and popular prejudice. (You can bet the former is promoting the latter with every resource they have.)

That's right. It's not a complete solution; it's a step in the right direction. Can you calculate the production of feed and the butchering, processing, packaging, transportation and refrigeration of the meat already use a considerable amount of coal- and nuclear- generated energy, plus the land use (cutting down carbon-capturing trees to make room for cattle) plus the waste methane of cattle and waste products of the associated industries? And weigh that total against the energy needed for vat propagation of meat? — Vera Mont

Currently I cannot. If I'm truly honest Vera. I'm not sure whether artifical meat manufacturing will outcompete natural processes that have evolved for millenia in the use of energy. But id love to know. Its a great point you've made and one due serious consideration.

An Oxford study in 2011 estimated lab-grown meat production could involve up to 96 per cent fewer global greenhouse gas emissions, 98 per cent less land use and up to half as much energy.

If this is the case it's truly remarkable. It would have great power to resolve many of the current issues facing humanity. I hope then that this is the case. Fingers crossed.

The net gain is even bigger, since the meat factories can be located in the cities where the meat is consumed: Tiny footprint on the land; inside a contained and controlled environment, in which the CO2 can be easily captured and recycled. Further advantages: no disease, no hormones, no antibiotics: 100% pure meat, made to taste specifications.
Set 'em up next to the greenhouse and use the byproducts for heat and fertilizer; open a food outlet on the same premises, so people can get their fresh meat and veg withing walking distance of their home.
All of these 'problems' are solvable with existing technology.
Only two obstacles: vested financial interest and popular prejudice. (You can bet the former is promoting the latter with every resource they have.) — Vera Mont

Quite right Vera. A spot on analysis. Broad consideration, logical and succinct. Brava. I think such a case is the way forward.

Now all that stands in the way is issues of doubt as to the lucrative nature of such an undertaking (the securing of investment) and prejudice (beliefs that it is unnatural and harmful or whatever the case may be). Education and inspiration are most needed here indeed.

I see your point and I am partially agree. It is true that thanks to chemistry some scientists developed important tablets full of nutrients which can (more or less...) replace organic food as meat.
But after reading your arguments, I think you still defend that we consume animals just for fun or greed. Like we don't replace them with tablets or pills because we are assassins. It is more complex than we are debating here and I think it is not possible at all to completely substitute the nutrients of animals with some chemical stuff. They help us, for real but they are far of being a "real" steak.

It is more complex than we are debating here and I think it is not possible at all to completely substitute the nutrients of animals with some chemical stuff. — javi2541997

Is that to say that animals are not made of chemical stuff? What is the difference between a carbon in my body and a carbon in the body of a cow?

And if a cow or plant for that matter, are not made of the same chemicals as I am what's the point in eating them? Why eat a collection of chemicals that are not the same as the chemicals in one's own body? Eating in this case would be useless/pointless as there's no useful way to use chemicals that are different in a cow to make parts of my own body.

All food is chemical. And all of my body parts are chemical. Regardless of whether those chemicals are artificial or natural, if they are the same then my body knows how to digest and metabolise them.

What I try to say is that we cannot replace the proteins of animals with chemistry or technological stuff. I am agree those tablets or pills are full of vitamins, proteins, energy, etc... but they are just a "substitute"

And if a cow or plant for that matter, are not made of the same chemicals as I am what's the point in eating them? — Benj96

You would not be able to eat them because it would be dangerous to our organism

I'm not sure whether artifical meat manufacturing will outcompete natural processes that have evolved for millenia in the use of energy. — Benj96

What natural processes? Buffalo grazing over vast unfenced prairies and a few wolf-packs picking off the stragglers and weak calves at the edge of the herd? We disrupted that cycle around 30,000 BCE when humans moved into agricultural settlements. All of our present food production is artificial; we don't compete with nature; we eliminate competition and alter the life and reproduction of other species to suit our own requirements. What's produced in the vats is not artificial meat* but actual cloned muscle tissue from live animals. The only difference is that you can get many tons of clean, healthy meat from a single cow, without injuring her.
* There is also something to be said for plant-based meat substitutes. There is more processing involved and the nutrient value needs to be monitored, and sometimes enhanced, in order to make these foods part of a healthy diet. They do serve, however, as an intermediate stage for people who want to change their eating habits but have difficulty breaking old habits.

Now all that stands in the way is issues of doubt as to the lucrative nature of such an undertaking (the securing of investment) and prejudice (beliefs that it is unnatural and harmful or whatever the case may be). Education and inspiration are most needed here indeed. — Benj96

Yes, the important thing is never what's good for the world or the people, but what's good for the morbidly obese bank accounts of the ultra-wealthy.
I despair. This is all coming far too late, in the looming shadow of a retrograde political swing and closing-panic. Half a century ago, we might have been able to avert destruction; even two or three decades' head-start might have mitigated the coming disaster.

But after reading your arguments, I think you still defend that we consume animals just for fun or greed. — javi2541997

No, I condemn it. But I acknowledge that it's one of our species' less endearing traits.

It is true that thanks to chemistry some scientists developed important tablets full of nutrients which can (more or less...) replace organic food as meat. — javi2541997

You're the only one talking about tablets. Nobody's replacing a dripping pink slab of flesh with a pill. In fact, the cultured meat is just that: meat. The DNA comes from a cow, a chicken, a fish or a pig. You can adjust the fat content and texture; you can have a dripping pink steak that contains all of the same nutrients as the one chopped out of the flank of an animal.
What we can do instead, or in the meantime, is eat a vegetarian diet, and if necessary, add in whatever mineral, vitamin or amino acid may be insufficient. The Hindu population of India has managed to keep up its numbers, in spite of wars, foreign occupation and droughts, for a few thousand years with no pills at all.

PS - that's where I had my Damascus moment, at a buffet dinner hosted by a colleague from India. The array, variety and taste of the food was astounding - without a speck of meat on the entire table.

What we can do instead, or in the meantime, is eat a vegetarian diet, and if necessary, add in whatever mineral, vitamin or amino acid may be insufficient. The Hindu population of India has managed to keep up its numbers, in spite of wars, foreign occupation and droughts, for a few thousand years with no pills at all. — Vera Mont

Agreed. But it is not the same having a controlled vegetarian diet as they tend to use in India than using chemicals substitutes. At least, when you consume only vegetables you are feeding yourself with real food. That's the point I want to make. If you do not want to eat animals I respect it but I am not agree with substitute them with pills or tablets.
In the other hand, while India is a good example of veganism they also consume animals as chickens.

If you do not want to eat animals I respect it but I am not agree with substitute them with pills or tablets. — javi2541997

Yet once more again: I never have advocated substitution. I only suggested that if you think the vegetable-based diet is missing some nutrients you need for health, you can add them. It's an optional extra. I eat vegetables, grains, legumes and root-crops, supplemented by eggs (from a local free-range farm. I've met the hens; they're not just happy, they're downright feisty.) and dairy products (not currently available from a wholesome source, but my egg supplier is raising goats, so hopefully, soon).

while India is a good example of veganism they also consume animals as chickens — javi2541997

That's not veganism. Not all Indians are practicing Hindus, any more than all Americans are all devout Christians; not all Indians are vegetarian, anymore than all Americans are tooth-and-claw carnivores, and not all vegetarians are vegan.

https://thevou.com/lifestyle/how-many-vegans-are-in-the-world/Right now, there are about 5%, equal to 15.5 million people in the US following a vegetarian-based diet, according to the Statista Global Consumer Survey on diets and nutrition in the U.S. in 2022.
However, only 2 million of them – that’s approximately 0.5 percent – lead a purely vegan lifestyle.

It's never been a question of replacing normal food with pills - not even for astronauts is that a current option. It's a question of changing the way we produce, distribute and consume normal foods.

That's not veganism. Not all Indians are practicing Hindus, any more than all Americans are all devout Christians; not all Indians are vegetarian, anymore than all Americans are tooth-and-claw carnivores, and not all vegetarians are vegan. — Vera Mont

I didn't say all Indians were Hindus but the fact that Indian gastronomy is based on vegetables, rice, spices, etc... So they are closer of being vegetarians rather than other cultures where the consumption of meat is pretty high.

I did a quick research on Indian gastronomy and I found out this: Indian cuisine consists of a variety of regional and traditional cuisines native to India. Given the diversity in soil, climate, culture, ethnic groups, and occupations, these cuisines vary substantially and use locally available spices, herbs, vegetables, and fruits.
Some Hindu communities consider beef taboo since they believed that Hindu scriptures condemn cow slaughter. Cow slaughter has been banned in many states of India. However, these restrictions are not followed in the North-Eastern states, West Bengal and Kerala. Vaishnavism followers generally are strict lacto-vegetarians due to an emphasis on Ahimsa. They also do not consume garlic and onions.
Jains follow a strict form of lacto-vegetarianism, known as Jain vegetarianism, which in addition to being completely lacto-vegetarian, also excludes all root vegetables such as carrots and potatoes because when the root is pulled up, organisms that live around the root also die.
Muslims do not eat pork or pork products.
Except in certain North-Eastern regions, canines are not considered suitable for consumption

What natural processes? — Vera Mont

I meant strictly in regard to trophic levels of nature. Not whether the animal is domesticated or not. Domesticated animals still do what is natural to them within the confines and conditions we set up for them. They still eat grass/ crops that photosynthesise (uses solar energy) to generate food. Again.. Whether we feed it to them that grains directly or they are free to eat grass from the ground themselves is irrelevant to the energy source.

Artificial/synthetic meat doesnt eat. It is grown on purified minerals and exercised mechanically by machines all of which take electricity to incubate/nurture

Yes, the important thing is never what's good for the world or the people, but what's good for the morbidly obese bank accounts of the ultra-wealthy.
I despair. This is all coming far too late, in the looming shadow of a retrograde political swing and closing-panic. Half a century ago, we might have been able to avert destruction; even two or three decades' head-start might have mitigated the coming disa — Vera Mont

Well you might be right the system is stubborn to change and any change that is occuring certainly is tardy. But it's never too late to adapt to current conditions. If it was then we may as well be dead already. Which I disgree with. We must persevere even when the odds seem set against us. That is the survival instinct

What I try to say is that we cannot replace the proteins of animals with chemistry or technological stuff. I am agree those tablets or pills are full of vitamins, proteins, energy, etc... but they are just a "substitute — javi2541997

Why can we not replace protein with source A with an identical protein from source B? I don't reallynget your argument. Substituting something with something identical is hardly a substitution of any less quality.

Animals are chemistry. They are made of molecules like anything else. For example animals make insulin, and so does genetically engineered E. coli bacteria. Does that mean that human insulin derived from bacteria is any less functional or healthy than human derived insulin in thr treatment of diabetes.

Its just a chemical. Identical in every way regardless of source. Many diabetics are alive today because of bacterial insulin production. And I don't see the difference here with eating artificial meat that has the same fat protein vitamin and mineral content as natural organic meat sources. The only difference is an animal didn't have to be slaughtered to obtain it.

They still eat grass/ crops that photosynthesise (uses solar energy) to generate food. Again.. Whether we feed it to them that grains directly or they are free to eat grass from the ground themselves is irrelevant to the energy source. — Benj96

I don't understand this. If we stop breeding food animals, there won't be any more of them to need the grass and grain. We can eat the grain and leafy plants directly, saving a huge amount of energy on the intermediaries.

I don't understand this. If we stop breeding food animals, there won't be any more of them to need the grass and grain. We can eat the grain and leafy plants directly, saving a huge amount of energy on the intermediaries. — Vera Mont

Yes and lose biodiversity in the process. If we don't breed food animals then they will go extinct. Sure if you want to say good riddance to poultry, pigs, cattle, goats, sheep etc be my guest. But then we have no natural source of high density protein nor do we have any animals to extract stem cells from to artificially produce meat.

So we just inherit a new set of problems do we not? The density of protein in plant material never has nor likely will ever match that of meat/animal products. The human stomach is only so big we can't eat 1kg of lentils when two chicken breasts, cheese or eggs would suffice.

Yes and lose biodiversity in the process. If we don't breed food animals then they will go extinct. — Benj96

Maybe. Or maybe their numbers will simply decline from the expendable billions to a cherished few. To a manageable population level, where they provide milk and eggs and wool for their caregivers and stem cells for the meat factories. On a family farm with one or two cows, they would be better treated and more valued than on a factory-sized dairy farm with 2000 cows, which are slaughtered for dogfood at age 5 or 6 when their milk production falls below the financially mandated quota. Beef cattle have a life expectancy of 1-3 years. I'm pretty sure you don't want to think about the 'life' of poultry. None of them have the freedom to mate according to their natural inclination; their genetic makeup is rigidly controlled for uniformity.
Domestic animals are not contributing to biodiversity; on the contrary

More than 1.7 billion animals are used in livestock production worldwide and occupy more than one-fourth of the Earth's land.
Production of animal feed consumes about one-third of total arable land. https://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/march/livestock-revolution-environment-031610.html

Grazing livestock and the specialty crops grown for feed push wildlife, as well as native plants out of their ecological niches, and thus reduce biodiversity.

So we just inherit a new set of problems do we not? — Benj96

Not necessarily. We could opt to solve the present ones sensibly, with moderation and forethought.

And I don't see the difference here with eating artificial meat that has the same fat protein vitamin and mineral content as natural organic meat sources. The only difference is an animal didn't have to be slaughtered to obtain it. — Benj96

There's no such thing as that, is there?

There's no such thing as that, is there? — frank

You sound like one of those "landing men on the moon" nay-sayers from 1950s, frank.

What then are we to make of eating meat? How could we compromise and settle everyone's concerns surrounding the ethics of meat? — Benj96

The way to settle it is to farm people for food also. Then let's talk ethics. People complain about overpopulation, then why not gather a group of people and hunt them for sports? Yes, this sounds crazy -- but is it really?
Early humans didn't eat meat. They were insectivores, or practiced entomophagy, besides being herbivores.

Why is it hard for humans to reconcile ethics and eating meat? Because we have the capacity to know the ethics behind it. Our desire for taste of meat overwhelms our desire to recognize the life you snuff out of that living being. Hunting animals stirs excitement in people. This could be an outlet for serial killing, but not using people. The adrenaline is the same. The highs are the same. Now of course, the added advantage is that hunters can pose with the carcass and post the picture in social media for others to admire. They get a lot of views. Short penises get a boost by the number of clicks.

Let's cut the bullshit and call it for what it is.

I take it there is a limit to what we owe to others? If, for example, the only way your life could be saved is if I stop eating all of my favourite foods for the rest of my life, presumably that is beyond the call of duty. I am not obliged to make that kind of sacrifice for a stranger.

If that is correct, then it applies to cows and so on as well.

Veganism is, then, supererogatory. As is vegetarianism. At most we are obliged to make some dietary sacrifices, or to make some for a period and then no longer. But it seems implausible that we should be required to abandon entirely a diet we have come to be very attached to.

The way to settle it is to farm people for food also. Then let's talk ethics. People complain about overpopulation, then why not gather a group of people and hunt them for sports? Yes, this sounds crazy -- but is it really? — L'éléphant

Have you come across a thing called "prion diseases" like kuru. They are transmitted best through cannabilism because the misfolded protein in the "food" is so similar to the protein in the person eating it that the bodies immune system finds it difficult to tackle. (As we are the same species).
It's not random that nature tends to favour predators eating other animals rather than theur own.

I also think this is more or less another manifestation of antinatalism. Undervaluing our own rights to eat or reproduce just as any other animal does unquestioningly. By that logic we might as well all be dead because no humans, no human problems. Seems a bit nonsensical. Also if we were to hunt eachother for food who has any more right than anyone else to be hunter rather than prey. This is just advocating for mass genocide rather than more humane and intelligent ways of minimising our population - like contraception, education etc.

https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001379.htm#:~:text=Causes&text=Kuru%20is%20a%20very%20rare,part%20of%20a%20funeral%20ritual.

Why is it hard for humans to reconcile ethics and eating meat? Because we have the capacity to know the ethics behind it. Our desire for taste of meat overwhelms our desire to recognize the life you snuff out of that living being — L'éléphant

It's hard to reconcile when we consider other animals as having sentience and emotions etc like we do. If we didn't consider this then the debate about veganism, vegetarianism, artifical meat etc woukdnt exist would it? The fact that this is still an active contentious subject is proof in itself that people do want to improve their relationship with animals and wish to debate as to how to do so.

It's hard to look at a dog and say they don't have the same basic feelings and behavior that we do: love, joy, anger, aggression, sadness, fear etc. And if dogs have those feelings it's unlikely that hundreds of not thousands of other animals also have these socially evolved interrelations with one another and with humans.

Sure we could go the opposite way and completely objectify other animals and even all other humans too and demonstrate no empathy for anything other than your own agenda and point of view - but popular opinion is that such people are most uncooperative, unpalatable and often dangerous to a society as they only consider their own goals ans are entirely self serving in everything they do.

I am not obliged to make that kind of sacrifice for a stranger. — Bartricks

Correct. No one is obliged to do anything for strangers. I'm not obliged to help care for the sick either, nor obliged to give to charity, I'm not obliged to be kind, respectful, considerate or help others in any way shape or form. What exactly do you think the world would look like if everyone held this attitude? Do you think it would be civil or totally barbaric/chaotic?

Most people believe what we owe extends to other animals as overconsumption of meat/animal products not only leads to health detriment in ourselves - obesity, cardiovascular disease, colon cancer, intolérances, inflammatory bowel disease to list just a few, but also aggravates the climate crisis through a number of pathways: appropriation of limited fresh water supply, deforestation for agriculture, CO2 release by the raising of ruminants, use of fossil fuels in their processing, packaging (plastic) and transport across the world to where they are consumed.

Furthermore besides health and climate issues associated with overconsumption of meat, it also encourages food provision inequality. For us to overconsume others must underconsume. Just as for some to be wealthy others must be impoverished. They are opposites and mutually dependent on one another.

I'm not advocating for completely abolishing meat from our diets. I think that would just be a severe pendular swing to thr opposite extreme with similar impacts on land use, biodiversity, and our health. I think eating meat in an appropriate balanced diet is healthy and what we evolved to do as omnivores.

Im merely highlighting the pros and cons as I understand them - of both sides of the issue in response to feedback from other contributors.

There's no such thing as that, is there? — frank

They have not perfected artifical meat products yet but technology is improving on this front and artifical meats like burgers etc are being trialled already with consumers (for texture and taste/like-ability) and in labs for nutrional value and correct portion of macronutrient, vitamins and minerals. Of course this research can be expedited by investment and positive public opinion.

Any innovations success is of course down to its lucrative nature/ usefulness to the public and whether they would consume it (capital viability) or avoid it (collapse and lack of competitiveness)

Maybe. Or maybe their numbers will simply decline from the expendable billions to a cherished few. To a manageable population level, where they provide milk and eggs and wool for their caregivers and stem cells for the meat factories. On a family farm with one or two cows, they would be better treated and more valued than on a factory-sized dairy farm with 2000 cows, which are slaughtered for dogfood at age 5 or 6 when their milk production falls below the financially mandated quota. Beef cattle have a life expectancy of 1-3 years. I'm pretty sure you don't want to think about the 'life' of poultry. None of them have the freedom to mate according to their natural inclination; their genetic makeup is rigidly controlled for uniformity. — Vera Mont

Yes I see what you mean. You're right. We could avoid total collapse of the population of domestic animals by slowly winding down the demand for their products so that just a handful are left and better cared for.

On that note regarding the strict control of genetic diversity of poultry (or any domestic animal for that matter) as you described, this doesn't fare well against transmissible infections (bird flu for example) because the resilience of a population to epidemics depends on genetic diversity of their immune systems. If they are identical clones then they will likely be equally vulnerable to a fatal disease.

So if we downsize poultry numbers we must simultaneously increase their natural genetic diversity to safeguard against extinction through a single disease. Luckily by downsizing the average distance between potentially infectious animals as well as their general well being /resilience is increased inadvertently which works in our favour to prevent the spread of animal born infections.

High intensity, poorly sanitised farming and overcrowding of animals is a condition ripe for contagion.

and in labs for nutrional value and correct portion of macronutrient, vitamins and minerals. Of course this research can be expedited by investment and positive public opinion. — Benj96

I think the main issue is protein. I get most of my protein from goat whey and peanut powder. I don't have any interest in the taste of meat.