Islamic scholars consulted by a leading producer of cultivated meat say that the newfangled protein — which is grown from animal cells and doesn't require animals to be slaughtered — can be halal, or permissible under Muslim law.
And the Jewish Orthodox Union this month certified a strain of lab-grown chicken as kosher for the first time, "marking a significant step forward for the food technology's acceptance under Jewish dietary law," as the Times of Israel put it.
Arguably. I think a lot of lab meat currently uses massive amounts of FBS instead of alternatives. Though I guess many vegetarians don't have a problem with renet.
Pretty sure it'd still be vegetarian, just not Vegan then right? At least how I generally have heard it defined, vegetarians are OK with eating food made from animal byproducts (though it's preferable to avoid) and only vegans refuse to consume anything with any animal byproducts
For some vegetarians, it makes a difference wether an animal had to die in the process. It's one thing to continously harvest milk or eggs from an animal which otherwise lives on happily. It's another thing to eat something which could only be obtained by slaughtering an animal.
In the same sense, many hard cheeses like Parmesan or Gran Padano aren't vegetarian either, because they use rennet.
Isn’t the vast majority of cheese now made with bacterial rennet instead of calf rennet? I remember reading that something like 95% of cheese now was made with that instead.
Would be nice to know, I'd like to read a source. On wiki, I got the impression the driving incentive is not to kill less calfs, but to produce more rennet, to ultimately produce more cheese. The German wiki quotes "Nur ca. 35 % der weltweiten Käseproduktion können mit Naturlab produziert werden.", roughly "Only about 35% of worldwide cheese production can be produced with rennet from animals". Technically still a vast majority.
It was from Wikipedia, and I was misremembering slightly - not 95% of all cheese, but of cheese made in the US. Which could be saying a lot about cheese in the US.
There isn't really a central authority for deciding if it's vegetarian or not though.
Technically is not an animal product so I guess it is vegetarian but also at the same time it's still meat so it isn't.
I guess it depends on what your objection to meat is. If your objection is based on animal cruelty then I guess it's probably vegetarian but if your objection is based on dietary restrictions (religious or otherwise) then obviously it's not.
The vegans I know seem to be split on the issue. Most of them agree that it's technically vegan, but about half of them worry that they have been plant based so long that it still might wreck their digestive systems.
Vegans have more to do with morals than vegetarians. Vegans may refrain from using animal based products like leather, which can be completely unrelated to health. A vegetarian diet is just that, a diet without meat. Can be for health or moral reasons, unspecified.
Many things are tasty, many of which don't have the detrimental implications of animal products, especially meat.
From what I have read it seems that these cultures are started with a small biopsy. Probably nothing worse than what we do at the doctor or the veterinarian. Lemmy knows I've had to have a ton of lumps on dogs checked out.
I would argue given it is still animal tissue - not cellulose etc - it remains not vegetarian because it is not in any way made of plants. It is, however, not made via animals in any way and thus most people who currently consider themselves vegetarians would probably eat it as most vegetarians are so on moral grounds.