Is Bill Gates' rich feast of marriage, is there a practice of "artificial meat"?

（IC photo/图）

Recently, Bill Gates' eldest daughter Jennifer Gates and her fiancé, Nayer Nassar, were married, which attracted the attention of social media. Some reports exaggerate the cost of the grand wedding, such as the so-called "$100 million spent renting wedding venues", which is not true. The wedding took place at the 124-acre racecourse in North Salem, New York, which the Gateses bought for Jennifer after she graduated from Stanford University in 2018 and was worth $16 million, or about $100 million.

Of course, this wedding did cost a lot. Some professional wedding experts said it would cost at least $2 million. More than 300 guests spend more than $250,000 on meals. This has also triggered a "group mockery" on social media – is their feast filled with the "artificial meat" that Gates admires?

This topic has actually gained hashtags on some social media, which is quite popular. This group ridicule is not an unreasonable siege of conspiracy theorists, Gates is a well-known "artificial meat" advocate, asking him to be famous at his daughter's wedding banquet.

In 2013, after Bill Gates took a bite of a brand of artificial chicken rolls, he became the number one advocate of "artificial meat" and began to publicly stand for artificial meat. At that time, Gates's reputation was booming, and it soon led to a wave of popularity in celebrity circles. Affected by it, even oriental predecessors such as Li Ka-shing have been successfully circled by artificial meat.

However, the popularity of "artificial meat" has always been limited to the fashion circle and the elite circle, and the acceptance of the general public is really limited. Whether it is the production principle or the flavor, it is difficult to get rid of the embarrassment of the "niche" status.

At present, "artificial meat" is divided into two types, one is artificially cultivated by biotechnology such as cell culture technology in the laboratory, also known as "cell meat" or "planted meat". Theoretically, the biometrics of this type of artificial meat are the same as those of traditional meat, which can be regarded as an industrial alternative to meat. However, this technology is still in the laboratory stage, expensive, bad taste, and difficult to promote. Gates recommends another kind of "plant protein meat" that is extracted from plant proteins such as soybeans and other raw materials and then processed by seasoning, molding, coloring and other processes. At present, all the "artificial meat" on the market is this "plant protein meat".

Chinese with a little scientific common sense see the official introduction of "plant protein meat", may show a heartfelt smile - "Isn't this a soy product?" Yes, this kind of "plant protein meat" packaged into a full sense of technology is essentially the same thing as traditional Chinese soy products. It is neither a high-tech product nor a perfect alternative to meat food.

In terms of flavor, the current "artificial meat" technology obviously cannot replace traditional meat. At the end of 2020, the well-known restaurant chain Haidilao replaced beef grains with "artificial meat", which triggered a lot of criticism. "Without beef pellets, Haidilao will lose its soul" was widely "praised", and the merchant came forward to apologize and correct the matter. It's reasonable that diners don't accept "artificial meat" alternatives because the flavors are so far apart. "Artificial meat" with the help of a large number of additives only imitates the flavor of a little meat, but people with a slightly sharper sense of taste can tell whether Li Kui or Li Ghost. Tasting broadcasters on numerous video sites have also demonstrated this. A better response is reluctantly accepted, and the poorer response is to spit out the "meat" first and then spit it out.

Of course, Gates vigorously promotes artificial meat, and does not value its flavor. The reason for his recommendation is the "carbon emissions" that seem to be impossible to beat - eating beef requires raising cattle, and cow farting will emit a lot of greenhouse gases to increase "carbon emissions". This emission is said to account for 18% of total human carbon emissions, more than the proportion of transportation, so it must be replaced.

So does Gates' statement make sense? The data model of carbon emissions is too "professional and high-end" or even "metaphysics", and many statements are difficult to distinguish between true and false.

The industry replaced by "artificial meat" has become the darling of capital through the golden sign of carbon emissions, but after years of development, this modern soy product is still functionally unable to replace meat. The biggest "contribution" is to provide a seemingly just excuse for catering businesses to cut corners and cheat.

Flavor is needless to say, and nutritional deficiencies are also insurmountable problems. Nutritional differences between plant protein and animal protein have long been well studied. Plant protein lacks the essential amino acids of meat protein, vitamin B12, some trace elements and so on. If plant protein is forcibly replaced by meat protein, then it is necessary to supplement other nutritional additives. These are all nutritional common sense.

Of course, this is not a big problem for Gates and Li Ka-shing, who have professional dietitians to customize what is missing. However, if ordinary people replace traditional meat with artificial meat for noble feelings, then they will face the risk of nutritional imbalance.

So, can artificial meat not achieve the purpose of reducing carbon emissions? The Gates have only argued that this alternative eliminates the carbon emissions of cattle farting, but no one has calculated the carbon emissions of the entire artificial meat industry chain – a common problem of the hot topic of "carbon emissions". The elimination effect of substitution is one-sidedly emphasized or even exaggerated, but the carbon emissions of the substitution itself are not accurately calculated. Previously, some European countries have learned a lesson from the so-called localization of food, assuming that the carbon emissions generated by long-distance transportation from large meat-producing countries such as New Zealand can be eliminated by localization. However, the damaged New Zealanders have therefore demonstrated the misconception with detailed data – intensive production, transport are more efficient, and carbon emissions per unit of product are lower than alternatives to inefficient local production and transportation. In the end, the "food localization movement" ended hastily, which was purely a farce of trade protectionism. So, is the carbon emission of the whole industrial chain of artificial meat lower than that of modern animal husbandry and meat processing industry? There should be doubts.

Even if artificial meat can achieve some degree of emission reduction, it is necessary to account for the overall social benefits. Human requirements for food are not only hungry, but also nutritious, as well as reasonable enjoyment needs. For some noble purpose, to demand that people restrain legitimate and reasonable needs is the modern version of ancient asceticism. The "artificial meat" with a sense of high quality, a sense of science and technology, and a sense of fashion may be the packaging upgrade of ancient soy product technology under the blessing of the emerging white left ideology.

But the Gates can't even do what traditional ascetic advocates do. The carbon emissions of the luxurious feast, they did not care. Carbon emissions from private jets have not been the first targets to cut emissions. Even if a complete artificial meat substitution is achieved on the table of this wedding banquet, the venue of the marriage makes it impossible to see the sincerity of abstinence and emission reduction - how many thoroughbred horses are raised in this huge luxury horse farm? Although these beautiful large livestock are expensive, they also increase carbon emissions and meet the need for luxury. Its economic value is not worth mentioning compared with the livelihood of the majority of animal husbandry and meat processing industry practitioners.

Since the Gates advocate abstinence and sacrifice on the issue of emission reduction, he and his rich friends should personally quit the luxury hobbies that cause carbon emissions, and then discipline the daily diet of the public to have a little confidence.

(This article is the author's personal opinion and does not represent the position of this newspaper)

Off the feather