My reaction-

(hurl sound)

Bleeah!

I'm thinking about all of the nutritional aspects that would be lost. A lot of the beneficial nutrients in meat are synthesized in the liver, kidneys and elsewhere. Creatine, carnitine, beta-alanine, and others. And that's a good reason to get some meat in the diet in my view, but without the liver and kidneys we would have a far less nutritious meat.

I doubt that they're going to pay any mind to the health implications of anything. If it could be absolutely 100% proven that panda meat was safe I might try it, but it wouldn't be replacing grass-fed meat for me.

Soylent Green v1.0

For those not familiar with the movie, food had been reduced to highly processed squares that came in different colors (green, red, yellow, etc...) Real food was only available in minute quantities on the black market at incredible prices.

If farmed fish is less healthy than wild caught and grass-fed free range beef is healthier than CAFO - then how could this possibly compare to the real thing? Are they going to inject it with vitamins and minerals? The article implies that they could give it a better fatty acid profile, ie more PUFA, less saturated fat.

Great! We need more PUFA on our fat asses!

And frankly, it just grosses me out. The Soylent Green comment is quite appropriate.

My gut wants to hurl as I think about this.

At least Soylent green is REAL PEOPLE!?!!

Added to the opinions mentioned above I would like to venture another viewpoint...

(Please read in the voice of Richard Attenborough)

The grain-eating human supertribes that roam the countries in Europe and North America have developed a habit unseen anywhere else in the animal world. They actually create most of their food themselves whereby they take the utmost care that it bares no resembles whatsoever to any natural origins. Human grain eaters seem to appreciate food most when it has fantastic shapes and properties, as can be seen observing human children eating cereal. One of the explanations is that as a result of having no natural enemies, and having developed themselves in every ecological niche possible, they can actually take the time to play with food. Playfulness, by the way, is a very important skill in their young, adults are discouraged to display this behaviour.

The more likely explanation is that the grain eater tends to fashion his territory to his liking and that food is just a part of this. Grain eaters can be seen erecting barriers, living quarters, communal pathways and even influencing nature itself to create a predictable surrounding in which the graineater feels safe. In that the grain eater differs from most other animals who will just mark their territory using urine.

It seems that fashioning and restyling food is a next level in the development of the supertribes.

It sounds like the new trans-fat.

My gut would probably not like this.

Not going to bite.

Ewww! No thanks, I'd sooner eat a nutria! And those aren't very appetizing.

Hearing about it makes me want to barf. I am not really sure why, but it just sounds wrong.

My family is now looking into buying a cow at we can raise. We hope to breed the cow and then when the calf is old enough we can take the calf to the butcher. This way we will always have real meat. My grandparents did this when I was growing up and now I am realizing just how smart they were!