Hacker News Reader

Comment by cs702 | Hacker News Reader

Italy's minister of agriculture explains the decision: "With the law approved today, Italy is the first nation in the world to be safe from the social and economic risks of synthetic food." The OP adds that the new law "also prohibits the use of meat-related terms, like 'salami' or 'steak', for plant-based meat substitutes."

The unintended consequence of the new law is to ensure that Italy 100% misses out on the many promising social, economic, and environmental benefits of a transition to lab-based meats. The new law strikes me as very shortsighted. I hope Italy eventually comes to its senses and repeals it.

Sigh.

View on HN

I think there are two things to consider here. One is a question: is Italy a player in this field and do they have research companies that have a vested interest in this? I don't know the answer to that question, but if they don't have much to lose in the short term it probably doesn't represent much of a lost opportunity.

Besides, it's Italy. It is about as politically stable as a jenga tower where all the easy pieces have already been removed. I'm not sure how robust such a ban might be if economic interests were to change.

The other is an observation: Italy has a lot of high value PDO (Protected Designation of Origin) products. Compare countries like Italy and France, which have many PDO products, to, for instance, the US, which has extremely few.

Of course, I haven't made a systematic study to map out how many PDO products countries have and cross-referenced that to how skeptical they are towards cultivated meat products, but it would surprise me if there was no correlation. This represents a guess on my part.

IMO Italy has lots of high value origin stuff because they value and care about tradition and realness and so on.

Go to Italy and you'll see real stonework. If you want to find a micrometer layer of gold on top of plastic, or not much more marble on top of concrete, then go do Saudi or UAE. Not Italy. The stone you find there is real, and so's the porchetta. So they get PDO designation for the stuff they care about, and abhor makebelieve alternatives for the same reason that they value the real porchetta.

I used to think the outrage Italians show when you mess with Italian dishes on Youtube was exaggerated. Then I worked with a couple of Italians from the north of Italy. Oh boy do they take food in general, and their national cuisine in particular, seriously :-)

The food I get in Italy is on average substantially better than the one I get in Vancouver, so that protection of food has some serious value.

when I arrived in Canada, I asked what is a canadian dish and I've been told poutine, nothing else. I was shocked, in Italy I can't count all traditional dishes, let alone know all of them

(I'm of Italian origin).

That being said, banning food is not a good idea, but I can see also a rationale for banning it. We'll see how it goes

Banning food is common enough practice. You may have heard the story about European eggs being banned in the US because they fall short of the hygienic requirements, while US eggs are banned in Europe because they fall short of the hygienic requirements? The story is true.

Much else too. You can't import "prosciutto di parma" into Italy, it's banned. (Well, technically I suppose you could export the legal stuff and then reimport it.)

The unintended consequence of the new law is to ensure that Italy 100% misses out on the many promising social, economic, and environmental benefits of a transition to synthetic and plant-based food.

I'm glad I missed all the benefits of introduction of margarine because they couldn't use the word "butter" on packaging.

It does seem like an oddly nonsensical line of argument.

But it is exactly the same thing!? Labeling margarine as butter would be misrepresenting what it is just like labeling whatever meat replacement they have as salami would be wrong.

Funniest thing is that since I strongly dislike salami, you would never see me buying the "fake" if it is supposed to be anything like the real thing. But I'm might be tempted by an alternative product that they may call whatever they want.

The thing with the meat replacement stuff is that they want to cheat on naming to get people to "try" by mistake. But in reality, what prevents their adoption is that they are not very good (when it's not just outright nasty) on top of being extremely expensive. I really don't understand how they want people to switch to those stuff when they are not competitively priced when you adjust for nutrition per $ without even talking about taste. Either greed is unreal in this sector or the production of those things is actually a less efficient process than eating animals and the ecological argument is moot.

According to this article, this law bans "cultivated meat" which is cultured from animal-derived cells, and it bans labelling of plant-based products with names that use common meat products like "steak" or "salami".

The law does not ban plant-based meat-like alternatives. Italy will probably continue to increase its consumption of these products, and they'll just have to use names that aren't traditionally used in the meat industry in Italy.

they'll just have to use names that aren't traditionally used in the meat industry

and that's how it should be. because the alternative is confusing. as someone who also enjoys vegetarian food i really want to be clear if something is actually including meat or not without having to study the fine print.

Interesting, I would argue that's very positive. I found ridiculous the "chocolatey" vs "chocolate" that some stuff has in Canada

I really wish we'd resist the trend to trying to create imitations of meat dishes hear and calling them "vegan" X. Vegetables, and even vegan meals, can be amazing on their own. They often become awful and disgusting when made to play dress-up as meat.

I mean, look at cuisine in India. The veg dishes, even the dairy-free dishes, are amazing without ever trying to turn them into meat-impostors. I say all of this as someone who loves a good steak. If you're going to serve me a veg dish, just serve me a veg dish. I can handle it.

These “meat-impostors” are popular with vegans who liked taste of meat and miss it. Turns out there are quite few of these. It might be stupid from point of view of non-vegans. The products might even be unlheathly but it doesnt matter. Hard to put this against them.

If plant-based foods are so good then sell them as so. Don't sell them as $adjective meat. If your whole business idea is based on misleading customers, perhaps it's not that good.

I’m French so I’m extremely in favor of naming things correctly. For example I’m cringing hard when I see Americans not understanding what the big deal is with « Champagne » vs « sparkling wine ».

However I think it makes sense to name new things based on what they look or feel like, as long as an adjective is there to clear any ambiguity.

For example no one has an issue with coconut milk, although it’s not milk? In my opinion if an almond milk is labeled as just « milk », yeah that’s a problem, it’s deceptive. If it’s labeled as « almond milk », seems pretty clear to me? Same for « vegetal steak » or « chickpea sausage » or whatever. Or even « turkey bacon » to stay in the meat products.

Some of these rulings are just out of spite, and not to protect consumers, and it’s not really a good thing.

Yes I do enjoy an occasional glass of Korbel California Champagne.

https://vinepair.com/wine-blog/loophole-california-champagne...

See, this is deceptive because Champagne is more like a brand, not a type of product. The type of product is « sparkling wine », « méthode champenoise » or « méthode traditionnelle ». Using Champagne in the name is lying.

« Steak » is not a brand, neither is « milk » or « sausage ».

Another example would be « California Kobe steak », it doesn’t exist. « California wagyu » sure, go for it, but not Kobe.

Despite the French attempts to pass laws dictating how language works, in English champagne is typically a type of product, not a brand.

Yeah, but because Champagne is such a success it's now the synonym for all sparkling wines. Mind you, I do use proper wording, I just don't understand what the fuss is all about.

The fuss is that if you call everything champagne, then champagne doesn’t exist anymore. It becomes impossible to know if you get the real stuff or not. This is very anti-consumer.

That’s not just a problem with « made in China » copycats, the US is a big offender too in this regard. I’d hate to be a consumer in the US because there’s no way to be sure about what you buy.

> For example I’m cringing hard when I see Americans not understanding what the big deal is with « Champagne » vs « sparkling wine ».

I guess get ready to cringe again, what is the big deal? Just seems like protectionism.

It is protectionism indeed, but not only. There’s 2 ways using the correct term is a good thing:

- first for the consumer. If everything is named « champagne », it stops existing. It means there’s no way to know if you’re getting champagne or a sparkling wine from somewhere else. As a consumer I want to know what I’m getting. Sparkling wine made with a soda stream is not champagne, yet it seems you would be enclined to allow it. It’s like a brand or a trademark, you can’t use the name « Channel » or « Microsoft », same thing goes for food products.

- for the producers, they have to follow strict rules to label their wine as Champagne, and they’re proud of their product. Would you add Picasso’s signature on a painting made in his style and expect it to be okay?

don't get me started on how chocolate milk isn't a cocoa plant extract but misleadingly contains dairy ...

This industry is new and seemingly needs a little deception at first to get people to adopt their products faster. Time will solve this one, people will find an identifier that they like and in this case it won’t be Italian since they won’t be enjoying these for now.

If you'd have read the article, you'd know that lab-based meat is not plant-based.

> strikes me as very shortsighted

The world doesn't have to be homogenous and probably shouldn't be. Nations have "brands" that mean something to their people and that have outsized economic value in trade. Further, heterogenous approaches to new technology is a powerful way for the human species to hedge its bets against unknowable long-term risks.

Italy can spend the next N decades branding themselves as the place to look for quality traditional meats that convey millennia of culinary heritage and husbandry practice and almost certainly come out far ahead economically vs rushing to void that implicit value in favor of factory-grown synthetic meats shipped in from some distant country.

And then, if the tides have turned after those N decades, they can consider hopping on the bandwagon then.

For a small nation with a strong and valuable brand for culinary goods, there's very very little to lose in this strategy. Excepting those peers that have a mature industrial stake in synthetic meats, you can expect to see similar discussions in France and elsewhere.

Why does that require a law? Why can't Italian companies that want to brand themselves as everything you're saying? Then if the tides have turned, Italian companies aren't prevented from swimming with them.

How do they miss out on the benefits? This reads as if you still can sell plant-based food, just not name it with typical meat-names. And considering how strong the food-culture (& and industry) in Italy is today, this is kinda understandable. For the loud voices, this is part of their identity at the moment.

Also, isn't Italian food already very focused on plants? So the benefit are probably far less than in the more unhealthy country anyway.

They outlawed animal-derived cell based meat.

Yes, and they also outlawed using "meat-names" for meat-replacements. I just don't see how this will have a 100% lose on the benefits of plant-based food. Maybe it does influence the market, maybe not. But the plant-based food is till there. The loose will not be 100%

What they they lose out 100% at the moment is on artificial animal-meat. But I also don't see where those have actual benefits at the moment. Availability on market is zero to none at the moment, and how much impact this will really have on climate and environment is still unknown at this point.

>But I also don't see where those have actual benefits at the moment

???

Fucking... killing cattle, maybe?

> very shortsighted

While the western world is getting angry about change, China is out eating our lunch by moving into all these emerging technologies. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a conscious effort to push conservative extremism in western countries for this exact reason.

If I just look around in my country, new electric cars are quickly becoming mostly Chinese and most solar panels are Chinese. Meanwhile, a very large group just voted for a party that wants to stop pretty much every investment in renewables, while also pushing out migrants in an already very tight and quickly aging labor market.

In the long term, our own bigotry and climate denialism is going to severely bite us in the ass. Especially since we're already barely above sea level.

> Meanwhile, a very large group just voted for a party that wants to stop pretty much every investment in renewables, while also pushing out migrants in an already very tight and quickly aging labor market.

So, Netherlands, then?

> barely above sea level

Sounds like it.

From an American (sigh) living in the UK (sigh), you have my deepest sympathies.

Much appreciated! And right back at ya!

They have a reactionary far right government since September 2022. They've got more where that came from

Yes, but Italy is a parliamentary republic, the president has only a ceremonial/ guarantee role. Governments/parliaments last much less, maximum 5 years, but often way less

Merf I just found that out and edited it right before you posted.

As an Italian, I despise them as any other reasonable person.

But this decision is not unreasonable.

Let the World eat it so we can gather data. We are Italians, we've never been early adopters of anything coming from outside our borders.

Especially food wise and except mobile phones.

It is also not unreasonable to label things for what they really are.

Almond juice is not milk as in "the white liquid food produced by the mammary glands of mammals" and plant based meat substitutes are not a steak or a burger, they are vegetable patties.

"Burger" is not a meat-specific term. It's simply two usually round bread patties with some other savory ingredient placed between them.

I wonder how long it will take Italy to make coconut milk producers/distributors to rename their products to "coconut juice".

> "Burger" is not a meat-specific term.

that's because you're talking about English, In Italian it absolutely is, we do not call them burgers but hamburger which means a patty of meat between two slices of bread or in a sliced bun. Or just the patty of meat. But being made of meat is the most important part.

It's not milk.. it's usually a thickened liquid that works really hard to resemble milk, but it's not milk..

I'm not sure if you left your reply on the wrong comment by mistake since it doesn't seem to directly relate to anything I said?

The use of "milk" for other things far predates almond milk.

cf: milk of magnesium, milk of ambrosia, various plant saps called "milk", etc.

> milk of ambrosia

in the original story of Amrita there was a sea of real milk involved.

> plant saps called "milk"

like coconut milk or oat milk of course. That doesn't mean it's not juice and that the name stayed for historical reasons. And because they actually look like milk. Almond juice doesn't look like milk, unless processed. That's why I mentioned almond milk in the first place.

milk of is key. Not Coconut Milk. Call it milk of Coconut. Either way it's not milk, just a thickened beverage desperately trying to mimic milk.

It's been called Coconut Milk since at least 1698.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coconut%20milk

"Almond milk" is referenced in the 1390 book "The Forme of Cury"

I thought Italy was responsible for introducing the rest of Europe to all sorts of goods coming across the silk road for the first time. Italy was the most important center of trade in Europe for a long time.

> to goods like tea and coffee

coffee and tea came to Europe through Ottoman Empire.

> other new goods coming across the silk road

Marco Polo went through the silk road, but Italy did not invent it.

The silk road went from China to the actual Crimea.

For quite a while, Venice had exclusive trading rights with the ottoman empire. Even before, Italian traders were dominating trade coming into Europe.

Imagine having a traditional Bologna prosciutto crudo made from plant

it's not prosciutto crudo, it's a vegetable thing.

I agree with this ban that meat terms should be used for meat and not vegan alternatives. And as others pointed out, Italy is not only known for pizza, pasta and their wines, their meat is also protected in the same way their wine is. This has a side-effect of ensuring the traditional meat products will remain meat-based.

Protected foods are big thing in Italy.

Also consider cheeses like Parmigiano Reggiano and Pecorino Romano. For extended list see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PDO_products_by_countr...

I don't think many customers would accept paying the premium for synthetic or vegan cheeses...

What would then call the Mussolini government if this one is far right? Was the previous government far left?

I'll take the bait. It's not so surprising to see "reactionary" politics when social 'progress' continues to become more and more demented. But I'll admit, fake meat is not even present on my list of problems.

Protect the local meat industry? Salami, Soppresata, Prosciutto, Pepperoni; damn left with their synthetic meat trying to poison us and destroy us economically

Hey, do me a favor and read the last sentence of my comment. There are only three sentences so it shouldn't be hard to find.

Sorry, I don't seem to understand you comment. I read it a few times but. I don't get it. Sorry to have bothered you...

>many promising social, economic, and environmental benefits of a transition to synthetic and plant-based food

Can you elaborate on that?

“Meat production accounts for 57 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions of the entire food production industry. It also results in widespread deforestation and loss of biodiversity, and each of these means that it significantly contributes to climate change.”

https://sentientmedia.org/why-is-eating-meat-bad-for-the-env...

Now can you elaborate on how/why is lab-produced synthetic food based on plants better for our organism? won't they qualify as ultra-processed products, so you're pretty much trading your health for protecting the environment?

Ignoring that cultivated meats should be generally indistinguishable from their host, there are many ways that cultivated meats will be better for humanity

Animals tend to be parasitic hosts, which is where lots of our cooking temperature guidelines come from

Animal / human viral crossovers can make more deadly virus variants, so reducing that exposure is probably better for us

Cultivated meats should ultimately result in lower emissions, so if you’re anywhere near a coal fired plant, that will directly result in lower cancer rates

This should similarly have a positive impact on climate change

Funny thing is that you are much more likely to get food poisoning from salads than from anything else, including raw meat like you would find in a "tartare". But yes, cooking meat products at a certain temperature ensures safety because normally no bacteria should be able to survive those temperatures. But at the same time, we also do it because it tastes better that way, it's pre-processed for digestion and we can come up with lots of creative ways to mix and match with other types of foods. Reducing it to a safety measure is extremely shortsighted.

In fact, I wish vegetable processing was held up to the same standard, because in the end you are much more likely to have trouble with this part of your food. If you have digestion problems, chances are it is most likely poorly processed beans/veggies or bacteria on raw veggies...

Okay but what about the actual benefits for our health? All these things you mentioned have little to no effect on our health (nutrition wise).

>cultivated meats should be generally indistinguishable from their hosts

>you should get sick less

There doesn’t need to be health benefits anyway. This is a ridiculous “whataboutism” that you’re putting forth.

Foodborne parasites are not a major health problem in the developed world. A litany of ills stemming from ultra processed foods are. Your reply doesn't seem to have actually addressed the question raised in the previous comment.

Ultra-processed does not necessarily imply being unhealthy, and lab-grown meat isn't ultra-processed. Arguably, it is less processed than farm-grown meat.

And it doesn't involve the extreme suffering of animals, a point not even raised yet, but far more important than your health.

The atmosphere is almost the best example of a commons that we have. If a reason for cultivated meat is greenhouse gas emissions, then Italy misses out on virtually none of the benefits by banning it.

I was under assumption deforestation is mainly happening in developing nations, is meat production causing deforestation in Italy?

Does synthetic food show or promise improvements in any of these aspects?

Those are heavily disputed claims.

In what reality ...?!

> For instance, replacing beef with beans in the US could free up 42% of US cropland

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7184671/

> Global soy production has increased more than 10-fold over the past 50 years. This has been driven by increased demand for meat

https://ourworldindata.org/soy

Sorry but i have to call you out here, because the list of sources is huge and it is even common sense, that meat consumption requires more resources.

I think you urgently need to esacpe the bullshito sphere in which this is disputed. It is sickening to read such ad hoc bs on evident and pressing issues.

How can they be disputed? It's a fact clear as a day that deforestation in many places is caused by people making room for farmland… that don't produce food for people but fodder for livestock. And livestock has a calorie conversion efficiency much lower than unity. So you need to cut more forest to feed the same number of people. It can also scarcely be disputed that cattle produce large amounts of methane, enough that it's a significant factor in total greenhouse emissions.

There's also no disputing the fact that turning uncultivated land into monocultural farmland is a great cause of biodiversity loss – it's essentially the definition of farmland!

If you mean the claim that the beef, pork, poultry, eggs and milk represents a huge emissions footprint, then no. That's not in dispute and it isn't particularly hard to prove that by looking at how much of the agricultural output goes into producing these protein sources.

And that's _before_ you consider the emissions from raising cattle, swine or poultry.

It is also useful to consider the scale of these industries. In terms of biomass, livestock represents more than 30 times the biomass of land based wildlife. In terms of creatures living on land, our food completely dominates the planet.

And if you wonder: I eat meat (in moderation) and I plan to continue doing so as part of a healthy, balanced diet. But that doesn't mean I'm unaware of the environmental cost of what I eat. If we're going to keep eating animal proteins we can't ignore this as the global population grows, and even more importantly, as more and more of the global population is moving up the wealth ladder (see Hans Rosling's talks and how the global population is moving out of the lower income categories).

> I do a thing that I consider bad, but I understand that it is bad, therefore I am good.

This is always one of my favorite takes.

Are you projecting your own need to have others think you are good? I can assure you I have no need to make strangers think I'm good.

The point I was making was that it is possible to know, and acknowledge, that you are doing something that has negative impact without having to deny reality. I don't think anything is gained by departing from what observed reality tells us and turning the discussion into a moral discussion. When something becomes a moral discussion it stops being about solving problems and it becomes a spectacle where assholes unashamedly pleasure themselves in public and expect applause. It solves nothing.

Which ones?

Not OP, but I think the effects of modern meat production are well known.

Especially when we apply higher standards on how to take care of farm animals, there's simply not enough room to fulfill "the meat needs" of an ever-growing population in the world.

On the other hand, plants are fine with being stacked and raised by artificial light sources and finely setup nutrient solutions and whatnot. So by changing our food (production) chains to more plant-based, industrialized systems we can reduce the space needed for food production and also the economical and ecological impact.

> plants are fine with being stacked and raised by artificial light sources and finely setup nutrient solutions and whatnot

We also don't even need to do that to produce plenty of plant protein for the world population. Current farming output is way more than enough to sustain us all several times over: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

Hmm, stacked and raised... Artificial light... That sounds like how eggs are produced...

Broilers are not stacked, but I suppose if land was at premium like in downtowns it could be also be done in skyscrapers...

Yes, but plants are not breathing, feeling animals.

Synthetic meat can be cheaper, more environmentally friendly and more ethical at scale.

IMHO fake meat is less appealing than regular plant-based options.

But if you want people to eat less meat, people need to stop pushing for full-on veganism. Taking away cheese, milk, and eggs is just way too much for many people. Focus on 'less meat, more veg' and you may have a more palatable message.

So lower quality than real meat, and higher cost? I only took economics yesterday, but wouldn't that be a net negative on those who go to sleep hungry(children) since costs are higher and a decline in demand for animal meat.

Those who go hungry eat beans not meat.

> lower quality than real meat

Strawman, no one said anything about the quality of the meat.

> higher cost

Literally the opposite of what GP said?

> those who go to sleep hungry(children)

Weird appeal to emotion.

Costs are multitudes higher for synthetic meat right now. Some of these decision on paper may sound good, but ultimately will people be able to afford it with all of the environmentally friendly and sustainable boxes checked was my point. Do you like the taste of fake meat?

> The unintended consequence of the new law is to ensure that Italy 100% misses out on the many promising social, economic, and environmental benefits of a transition to synthetic and plant-based food. The new law strikes me as very shortsighted.

Not sure how truthfully labelling products would mean all that. I think the consumer is smart enough to make choices for themselves, and the language of food labels only benefits, not harms, that.

Well, they appear to actually be banning the products. I personally have zero problem if they don't want the products to be labeled similarly to the "real" versions. There are already a ton of regulations in Europe about how food products are labeled.

> social, economic, and environmental benefits

Can you elaborate or is the first word just extra weight? Please no offense, it's an honest question: I find very interesting how most people, when they want to get a debatable point across, almost always throw exactly 3 profound and all-encompassing adjectives (rarely 2, 4 or 5).

Even ChatGPT has noticed the pattern and picks up this style. But if you break the sentences down, very often realize that 1 or even 2 of such adjectives are fillers.

>The unintended consequence of the new law is to ensure that Italy 100% misses out on the many promising social, economic, and environmental benefits of a transition to synthetic and plant-based food. The new law strikes me as very shortsighted.

Whatever they are doing with food laws in Italy, I am 100% ok with it. There's a reason why anything imported is strictly superior to the US made version. They are dead serious when it comes to quality and purity, and I appreciate that greatly.

It's not shortsighted. It's just a decision driven by some Italian lobbies (meat industry), scared about this innovation where they feel threatened. For the same reason they managed to forbid the use of some Italian meat-words applied to plant-based meat.

Or they don’t want to be a Guinea pig for something that (currently) has higher environmental impact than conventional meat[0].

I’ve less concern for the naming bans, however as someone allergic to soy, like when it’s stated up front. I’m not sure how forcing packaging of plant based goods to not use meaty words affects anyone negatively.

0 - https://www.ucdavis.edu/food/news/lab-grown-meat-carbon-foot...

Feel free to go ahead and test lab grown meat on yourself and report back in 30 years. Plastic was once considered safe, right? Smoking too?

Of course, we should all be drinking Soylent and eating pill-based food. Who cares about preserving a tradition of high-level cuisine that exists from time immemorial, when we can live like they did in bad science-fiction books from the 1960s or 1970s instead.

I don't think anyone is arguing for what you're arguing against here tbh. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything.

On the other hand, the law in question rather limits the freedom to chose cultivated meat products.

The law also limits the freedom of corporations to dump experimental foodish products onto the market. What a travesty

I don't believe the foods you don't like are subject to different food safety requirements than the ones you like.

I also don't believe for a second that these laws are put in place for safety reasons. They are absolutely to protect domestic farming industry.

Europe has more stringent food safety requirements than the US...so yes, at least some of the laws are in place for safety reasons.

And who says protecting domestic food sovereignty is a bad thing?

My family is 3 generations of living in plantation housing...on stolen land in Hawaii. A big part of how colonialism works is controlling "the essentials". Food production, water, land rights, information, martial force, etc

It seems like the claim is there is some large consumer demand for these foodish items. If there is, then we can expect a huge black market for these foodish products to emerge in Italy. Policía de Italia better get ready for the deluge...Expect Mama Mia to throw away her heirloom cookbooks for the new meatish craze that's about to sweep through Italy.

The soylent Don will be the most powerful man in the country I tell you...Actually, that could be the real reason behind the ban on the foodish the Italians so desperately crave. Soylent Don wants to corner the market? Your multi-national corporations better make Soylent Don an offer he can't refuse before this gets out of hand...

I'm not necessarily against protecting your local food market, I think there are compelling reasons both for and against it. What I am against is politicians being dishonest about their motivations for imposing laws. If they want to protect your local farmers, they should say so. If the real reason is to protect local farmers, so amount of evidence regarding the safety will be convincing, because it was never about safety. This kind of behavior is detrimental to the public discourse.

I've never claimed there is a large demand, merely that those who wish to consume it should be allowed to, as long as there are no negative effects to the individual or society as a whole of course.

Please refrain from misconstruing my arguments.

The vast majority of Italian culinary tradition stems from the late 19th century or after that. Dishes like carbonara are from the 50s. Pizza as we know it is from the US and was reintroduced to italy by American soldiers. Italians ate rice and beans, same as everyone else, before the

You are talking about a part of the world that literally has caves with paintings of early humans hunting animals for food. There are a lot of regions in this part of the world where the landscape has been completely shaped centuries of animal husbandry. There are stories centuries old about wolves decimating herds. Coffee was found by a goat shepherd because his animals couldn't sleep after eating the coffee beans.

You are completely delusional about the story of food in the world. People can rely more on cereal/bean farming because of advancement in agriculture, mostly after the industrial revolution. Because before the invention of the tractor, much of farming was actually reliant on, you guess it, animals (horses, cows, donkeys, etc.).

The thing is that animals were mostly reserved for the richer and the poor would die much earlier, very often from malnourishment/undernourishment from all the physical work they had to.

You guys are fanatics, ready to throw away centuries of Europe history just to "be right". It's pure insanity.

You're a not forced to eat or do anything. That's the same argument religious people have against abortions, even though no one is forcing you to have one.

> That's the same argument religious people have against abortions

No, That's the same argument religious people have about dietary restrictions.

In Italy food is a religion.

If Jews can have Kashrut and Muslims can only eat halal food (basically everything, except pork and its by-products), we can say no to lab grown food.

Why not?

Is it really progress to blindly accept everything, even if it could mean to completely hijack your own cultural traditions, that are such an important part of everyone's daily life?

No Jew ever died by eating non-kosher food. It's just a cultural tradition. Nonetheless we respect them, at least I do.

Well Israel doesn't ban unkosher food and _many_ Muslim countries don't ban non-halal food. I think most people would say that the countries that do ban food at a state level are pretty authoritarian.

Individuals that that follow Judaism and Islam _choose_ to limit their _personal_ diets. It's not forced upon them by the state (mostly?). To follow your analogy, you and the rest of Italy can say no to lab grown food, nothing is stopping you from not buying lab grown food.

On this specific topic though, I think banning lab grown meat could be done in a _somewhat_ reasonable way, they just went about it the wrong way. They could have just said they are worried about safety, jobs done.

Bringing in farmers, their livelihoods and tradition seems unnecessarily inflammatory.

> they just went about it the wrong way.

You're totally right about it.

but honestly I did not expect anything better from post-fascists

> If Jews can have Kashrut and Muslims can only eat halal food (basically everything, except pork and its by-products), we can say no to lab grown food.

As an agnostic person who believes church and state should be very separate, you make the perfect argument for why I think this law is stupid. If you don't want to drink alcohol, smoke, eat pork or lab grown meat, go ahead. But don't force others into your religious ways of doing through restrictive laws. Just don't buy that stuff at the grocery store.

> I think this law is stupid.

of course it is!

As an Italian from Rome, I am not only an atheist, but I'm deeply fond of the Roman Republic constitution that predates the Italian Constitution against the pope and the Vatican ruling over the people of Rome.

nevertheless food is like a religion for Italians

And religious and non religious people treat it like that.

we constantly talk about it, to the point that sometimes even I am sick of it.

I believe Japan is similar in that way.

you may be forced to eat the synthetic food when it is the only kind of meat you can afford after most meat producers switched to the a production chain that produces synthetic meat for higher profit.

Time will tell if synthetic meat substitutes take off, if that's technically feasible and well received by consumers, but I welcome the possibility of looking beyond what red meat mass producing monopolies impose us.

The discussion of cheap, non nutritious food can take place pretty much anywhere today, sugary drinks, fast food, boutique organics with high markup values, labor, etc. but that's a matter of economics, whereas the move in Italy, although reasonable for their economy, is impacting a much earlier phase: R&D and P&D.

Considering a lot of the nutrition in meat products comes from the fact that animals go around in the world collecting valuable nutriments for us to consume in easy to obtain and concentrated form; I very much doubt any synthetic meat will have success. Unless it is half the price and just use it as filler with supplements. Nothing like what we call meat in the end...

We're going to have to wait and see. Eletric cars didn't make much economic sense 30 years ago, but we've come a long way. Maybe in 20-30 years they might taste/have nutrients somewhat similarly and have a smaller environmental footprint, cheaper, etc. Call me optmistic.

Like our current food supply isn't highly processed already [0]... This law has nothing to do with preserving tradition. It has to do with populist right wing politics that ban anything new. High level cuisine will always exist, even when affordable alternatives arise.

0: https://foodtank.com/news/2022/11/database-indicates-u-s-foo...

The law eliminates misinformation. The synthetic products are still available.

Unless literally all headlines around this subject are incorrect (which wouldn't be the first time), Italy banned cultivated meat:

> Italian MPs have voted to back a law banning the production, sale or import of cultivated meat or animal feed

My Italian isn't good enough to actually judge whether this is a case of mistranslation or misinterpretation, so if you have any more nuanced quotes please provide some.

Weird how laws that base their validity on “culture” tend to be absolutely shitty laws.

The Italians have largely voted for a party that vowed to protect their culture. Perhaps the resulting laws are shitty for you, but likely not for the majority of Italians.

It’s funny, cause if you asked all the people who approve of this, they’d scream “free market capitalism! End regulation!”

Meanwhile, they support a move that is incredibly anti-free market and stomps on the right to do business in the name of virtue signalling bullshit.

What is “a law formed on ‘culture’” if not entirely virtue signalling? I thought you guys said that virtue signalling was bad?

In order to signal virtue, the thing in question has to be considered virtuous, by the mainstream media intelligencia and generally the opponents as well. You cannot appear virtuous if what you stand for is contrary to the mainstream opinion of how moral behavior is supposed to look like. By deciding to give preference to history and the thing that is currently considered immoral (eating meat) they actually do the reverse of virtue signaling.

And yes, that is a pro free market move, because the only thing they say is: you can call your alternative product whatever you want and you may sell it as well, but do not try to confuse customers with historical naming that do not represent what your product is. Vegans/vegetarians are in general for an outright ban of those products, so basically authoritarian fascist behavior; but as always, it's the most tolerant called on his behavior and somehow it is found problematic that it is forbidden to lie on products packaging...

This is a problem with many dimensions and few equilibrium points. Libertarianism and nationalism are certainly incompatible, but that doesn't mean everybody needs to make their mind an pick one. They can accept both as valid equilibria, and rally for a gradient-descent into the closest one according to local politics.

Right now we find ourselves far from any equilibrium points: just an awkward heavily polarized in-between. I hope we can find the next equilibrium without a global civil war.

PS: Not sure if "you guys" goes for me, I'm merely an observer. I'm not even Italian.

Hilarious to me how proponents of synthetic/plant-based food always seem to gloss over the cultural aspects of food. It's such a spreadsheet-brain way of looking at the world.

They seem to be avoiding the "unintended consequences" of consuming synthetic food. Perhaps they are thinking on the timeline of lifetimes & generations?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com