Why They Don't Believe Nobody Is Trying to Ban Steak
On lab-grown meat and the distrust in alternatives people suspect will become forced replacements.
If you're a frequent user of X — or what I sometimes call The App Formerly Known As Twitter — there will be days when a particular thread goes viral, particularly if it's from a pseudonymous account that gets scrutinized by the important people on the social media platform.
In this case, we have this thread about lab-grown meat and why a couple of states have banned it. This led to the argument from certain individuals that "nobody is trying to ban steak" which missed the point of the thread — the point being that elites want to dictate the terms to the rest of the citizenry by making certain items more difficult to produce, with the result being pushback to stop the elites.
We've seen instances of elites demonizing popular items, then citing a study showing the popular item is risky, dangerous or unhealthy. After a while, somebody with power and influence reacts to the study, suggesting a law to limit the use of the popular item. These laws get passed at either the state or local level, at which point the popular item becomes impractical to use and the alternative item gets pushed onto the public.
There was a study once released about the dangers of emissions from gas stoves, which later led to a local law to prohibit the future installation of gas stoves. We've also seen attempts to limit the traditional gas-powered vehicle in favor of electric vehicles, even when the infrastructure needed to support electric vehicles isn't in place.
As far as what this has to do with lab-grown meat, there is a trend among more people to avoid what's called "ultra-processed foods." There are certain types of ultra-processed foods that most everyone can agree are not part of a healthy diet (candy bars, soda, prepackaged cookies, potato chips) but other types might get overlooked as one tries to eat healthier (breakfast cereals, fruit juice beverages, prepackaged granola bars).
There's also the question about how much processing is necessary to be considered ultra-processed. The general definition of ultra-processed foods are foods that are broken down so much they are void of nutritional content. However, there are those companies who add nutrients back into the foods in question. And other foods go through less processing than, say, the likes of cereal and candy bars, but contain ingredients that might be added to ultra-processed foods.
This brings us back to lab-grown meat, which would not be considered fresh food but falls under the category of processed food. However, the question is whether one considers it processed like bacon (may have two or three ingredients added but no more than that) or processed like ham (has more ingredients added).
More importantly, lab-grown meat isn't readily available to the general public. It's currently expensive, meaning it's not something that poor people will be able to buy and might be something that the average middle-class family might avoid because regular meat is cheaper. Furthermore, it's not yet a given that lab-grown meat will truly be the nutritional equivalent of regular meat, given that samples for independent researchers are limited.
Still, you look at how the companies have touted their products and you can figure out why certain elites would want to push this product. After all, who wouldn't want to save more animals, cut back factory farming, protect the environment and still enjoy a hamburger?
But take note of that Twitter thread again. Companies that are developing lab-grown meat tout it as something that's going to change the world. As the user points out, the companies promote their product as something to replace regular meat, not simply provide an alternative.
And, thus, elites see something as an alternative and decide it is very important to speed up the process by finding ways to make it more difficult to provide what people typically prefer. Then, they can point to the alternative and feel good that they changed the world just as the companies promised.
The result is the so-called red states responding by banning the alternative product in question before that product can secure its place in the market. And when people object, those who have been gaslit before about how "nobody is banning a product" when laws were passed to make it more difficult to get the product (thus the effect is banning it) have no reason to sympathize.
After all, by banning the planned alternative, the elites don't get to dictate to the public what the alternative will be, along with the elites getting a taste of their own medicine by not getting to have their alternative. Sure, it may mean factory farmers wielded their influence, but that's a small price to pay to ensure the popular item remains available while the alternative the elites want is denied.
I would prefer not to ban anything, but those who are straight with the general public will come right out and tell you if they want to ban something, while those who are not will tell you at one point nobody is going to ban it or they aren't really banning it, but either back laws that have the effect of banning it, or watch as such laws are passed and act like nothing actually happened.
And while I have my issues with factory farming, I have issues as well with those who try to force an alternative on the public by making it more difficult to obtain a popular item. It's one thing to make an alternative available if people want it, but it's another thing to turn the alternative into a replacement by manipulating laws so that people have to accept the alternative.
It all goes back to broken trust, something that plenty of elites still don't understand. Until they figure out what the actual concerns are people have, they aren't going to be able to convince people that nobody is trying to ban steak.