Synthetic meat and fish (Is ‘Frankenfish’ the start of a food revolution?, G2, 21 September) could have huge benefits – although there are cheaper and simpler ways to improve food supplies, including better livestock practices, conservation plus careful use, integrated methods, silviculture and using different animals fed more sensibly. These ideas, technology and cutting waste could massively reduce livestock’s impact, but nobody wants the bill while benefits could still be lost.
Even dramatic reductions in human emissions may not stop the climate change trend. Those most at risk won’t benefit from technological advances, and the response to climate refugees approaching richer countries can be imagined. More food from less space doesn’t guarantee more room for wildlife; environmentalists often estimate western lifestyles for all would require at least three fully exploited planets. And it isn’t just burgers: biofuels, other cash crops, mineral extraction, suburban sprawl, dams and other developments could outweigh potential gains. Underlying these concerns are free market idiocies. Resources are looted for short-term gain, having enough is an alien concept and “make more money, buy more stuff” rules. Maybe the world needs to chill in more ways than one.
Iain Climie
Whitchurch, Hampshire
• The great thing about animals (including fish) is that they enclose a protected environment for their cells. Not only that, but they find and input their own raw materials and output their waste products. Compare that with cell culture, where a complex liquid has to be prepared and maintained which would be a five-star home for all manner of undesirable microorganisms. Sterility is tricky to maintain even at petri dish volumes, but must be a nightmare when scaled up to industrial levels.
David Ridge
London
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
