hungry for science

The nature of 'novelty', they might say, lies with the eye and perceptions of the beholder.

Yes, we are agreed on something, Dr Wadge, a £200,000 burger is beyond the reaches of most pockets, and the processes involved in production do indeed sound quite 'novel'. My levels of remuneration undoubtedly fall well below the benefits associated with being a Chief Scientist as I work in an industry in which wages are low and wage repression has latterly been rife.

As for projections that meat consumption could double over the next forty years I stand circumspect. Yes it's understood economies are undergoing development and there is a general perception that development will lead to increased distribution of wealth and rising middle classes in developing nations who will elect to consume more meat, which because of perceived inexpediencies of production requires greater levels of inputs than do many plants, the mono-cots in particular.

However, in the long view there are two things worthy of note. First, evolutionary changes in human anatomy and proficiencies can be traced back to changes in the nature of the diet. The move, likely a forced move, away from an 'ape diet' largely based upon plant matter towards a diet involving exploiting food sources found in the carcasses of animals had a part in the evolution of the physiology of the modern human. Second, meat became an expedient source of energy and nutrients to human progenitors precisely because it is a concentrated source of energy and nutrients, and such concentrations are not generally available in plants.

If in the course of the evolution of the ecology of the Earth poly-cots began to lose ground to grasses (mono-cots) then the grasses, nor even the seeds of the grasses, were viable as potential food sources without considerable 'novel' pre-consumptive process being applied. Being unable to eat the grasses progenitors moved towards utilising the carcasses of animals that fed upon the grasses as potential sources of food. Grazing and herding animals are not so fleet-footed as carnivores which is why they have been important to us in the past and remain so in the present.

In the transition phase, so it is mooted, and in a time of declining habitat that supplied the 'ape diet', progenitors had not evolved the abilities to hunt and so scavenged. Fats, those that can be scavenged, from the remains of another creatures kill and meal, became highly expedient for their intrinsic energy density. Cracking open bones and skulls for marrow and brains, it has been suggested, prevented the extinction of our ancestors and fuelled the growth of an enlarging brain to which we owe our modern intellect, though we rarely utilise it to its full capacity.

Meat is expedient and healthful, though we do not need large amounts. However, we have been quite erroneously advised that animal fats are bad for us and so while we consume animal protein we tend to waste the fat, even before the product reaches the consumer. It's ironic that folks bleat about the inputs required to produce meat when the fats that make meat a whole-food get trimmed and go to waste.

Off the back of an entirely apocryphal medical hypothesis many of us have been directed to eat oils and fats stemming from 'novel' sources, subject to 'novel' processes, and contributing 'novel' fats to the diet, or contributing familiar (perhaps essential) fats in 'novel' quantities. The consequences can be seen all around us in incidence of the diseases of civilisation.

The trouble with development and wealth is that the wealth is largely illusory, though it needn't be. Sure, Asia has enjoyed economic development but those conditions and performance do not stand direct comparison with Western post-war economic revival. Certain scarcities in the time of the post-war revival encouraged promotion and preservation of levels of economic democracy in which street level incomes did rise. However there now persist other scarcities that result in alternate pressures towards high wage ratios in which the low paid get a less favourable share of the proceeds of development and the high earners take all. Street level incomes remain quite low. Sure, in China say, persons are enjoying proliferation of wealth - but not across a total demographic. the clamour for development and urbanisation is actively dispossessing the poor from livelihoods and homes, so I read. Paradoxically meat may actually become proportionately more expensive and less affordable for lower income groups.

In the face of wage repression, tax reform, and inflation meat has trended to be less affordable for this household. It makes a less frequent appearance although it hasn't yet trended to become a 'novelty'. we make some purchases now of cheaper, perhaps fattier cuts, that might, if somewhat paradoxically, be healthier choices.

Do in-vitro cultured steaks or Quorn (R) mince represent novelties? They do in this 'ouse irrespective of the rising cost or demand for the genuine stuff.

"Life in all its' fullness is mother nature obeyed" - Weston A Price.

"The superior man knows what is right; the inferior man knows what will sell" - Confucius.

.. and the average man is easily influenced by the inferior man to be distracted away from rightful expediencies as defined by nature.

I should find yourself an analyst whose predictions are based upon a sound and complete understanding of the nature of money and the process of supply (which reveals a lot about cause and consequence), Dr Wadge, but I caution such individuals are as rare as the droppings from rocking horses.