Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Related Literature Foreign
Related Literature Foreign
2. The Burger Lab: Revisiting the Myth of The 12-Year Old McDonald's Burger That
Just Won't Rot
A few weeks back, I started an experiment designed to prove or disprove whether or not
the magic, non-decomposing McDonald's hamburgers that have been making their way
around the internet are indeed worthy of disgust or even interest.
The problem with coming to that conclusion, of course, is that if you are a believer in
science (and I certainly hope you are!), in order to make a conclusion, you must first
start with a few observable premises as a starting point with which you form a theorem,
followed by a reasonably rigorous experiment with controls built in place to verify the
validity of that theorem.
Thus far, I haven't located a single source that treats this McDonald's hamburger
phenomenon in this fashion. Instead, most rely on speculation, specious reasoning, and
downright obtuseness to arrive at the conclusion that a McDonald's burger "is a
chemical food[, with] absolutely no nutrition."
As I said before, that kind of conclusion is both sensationalistic and specious, and has
no place in any of the respectable academic circles which A Hamburger Today would
like to consider itself an upstanding member of.
Theres a strong evidence that burger doesn't rot because it's small size and relatively
large surface area help it to lose moisture very fast. Without moisture, there's no mold or
bacterial growth. Of course, that the meat is pretty much sterile to begin with due to the
high cooking temperature helps things along as well. It's not really surprising. Humans
have known about this phenomenon for thousands of years. After all, how do you think
beef jerky is made?
Now don't get me wrongI don't have a dog in this fight either way. I really couldn't care
less whether or not the McDonald's burger rotted or didn't. I don't often eat their burgers,
and will continue to not often eat their burgers. My problem is not with McDonald's. My
problem is with bad science.
For all of you McDonald's haters out there: Don't worry. There are still plenty of reasons
to dislike the company! But for now, I hope you'll have it my way and put aside your beef
with their beef.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR J. Kenji Lpez-Alt
3. Test tube meat is here to save the world!
"In October we are going to provide a proof of concept showing out of stem cells
we can make a product that looks, feels and hopefully tastes like meat," says
Mark Post at the announcement . Of course, what does processed meat actually
taste like anyway? MSG, sodium nitrite and processed salt, for the most part. So
making lab-grown meat taste like today's factory-processed meat only requires
the injection of a few additives into the growth culture. Imagine growing meat
patties with MSG inside every cell!
Creating one hamburger will require 3,000 strips of meat, each just half a
millimeter thick and grown in laboratory vats. Unlike a cow, which requires
roughly two years to grow to the point of slaughter, a test tube burger can be
produced in just six weeks.
The "benefits" of test tube hamburger production are being touted as substantial,
including:
More efficient conversion of plants to meat.
Less environmental damage.
More humane than killing animals.
Is the only feasible way to feed more meat to the world.
Of course, they also said that GMOs would "feed the world." Bill Gates calls
genetically modified foods "high-tech agriculture" now, with the strong implication
that technology is always superior to Mother Nature But I'm not so sure about
that. In fact, this whole thing sounds more than a little creepy to
mehttp://www.naturalnews.com/035020_artificial_meat_test_tube_hamburger.ht
ml#ixzz3V5dTnyxu
improvement on the American tradition. Turns out, we do speak the same language
after allwe just have a slight difference in accent.