The world's first lab-grown burger is to be unveiled and eaten at a news conference in London on Monday.
Scientists took cells from a cow and, at an institute in the Netherlands, turned them into strips of muscle which they combined to make a patty.
Researchers say the technology could be a sustainable way of meeting what they say is a growing demand for meat.
Critics say that eating less meat would be an easier way to tackle predicted food shortages.
BBC News has been granted exclusive access to the laboratory where the meat was grown in a project costing £215,000.
Prof Mark Post of Maastricht University, the scientist behind the burger, said: "Later today we are going to present the world's first hamburger made in a lab from cells. We are doing that because livestock production is not good for the environment, it is not going to meet demand for the world and it is not good for animals".
But Prof Tara Garnett, head of the Food Policy Research Network at Oxford University, said decision-makers needed to look beyond technological solutions.
"We have a situation where 1.4 billion people in the world are overweight and obese, and at the same time one billion people worldwide go to bed hungry," she said.
"That's just weird and unacceptable. The solutions don't just lie with producing more food but changing the systems of supply and access and affordability so not just more food but better food gets to the people who need it."
"Bible, Wrath of Khan, what's the difference?"
Stan - South Park
But Prof Tara Garnett, head of the Food Policy Research Network at Oxford University, said decision-makers needed to look beyond technological solutions. "We have a situation where 1.4 billion people in the world are overweight and obese, and at the same time one billion people worldwide go to bed hungry," she said."That's just weird and unacceptable. The solutions don't just lie with producing more food but changing the systems of supply and access and affordability so not just more food but better food gets to the people who need it."
Hunger is a political issue, not a production one. We can already feed the world easily. So why does she care about this?
Isn't that what she's saying? Hunger is a political issue, so coming up with a way to produce more food isn't going to address an issue that doesn't result from a shortage of food. So what's the point?
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
She's talking about something that's not the point of doing this. From the article they're doing this to find a way to produce meat that doesn't require the resources of conventional livestock rearing or cause animal suffering. Being able to feed more people meat from the same resources or more likely, just use less resources. It appeared to me that the people doing this considered our current method of livestock rearing unsustainable and were looking for a new way to get meat that was sustainable and soothed their consciences.
She seems to be complaining that they solved a problem they weren't really trying to and that because of an unintended positive side effect the whole thing was a waste of time.
Then again the writer could have just been looking for anyone to provide the "Bah humbug," viewpoint.
GrahamKennedy wrote:I think it's more a case that she's saying why fiddle when there's a fire to be put out.
To which I'd say you're barking up the wrong tree. A bunch of researchers in a lab have no ability to influence national policy. You don't bitch at the Congressional janitor that Congress is doing something stupid.
).