In vitro meat

Should in vitro meat replace conventional meat production?  

An edited version of this article was printed in Humanism Ireland, Nov-Dec, Vol. 143 (2013)

The first public tasting of an in vitro beef burger, made from meat grown in a laboratory, using tissue engineering, was cooked and consumed at a news conference in London yesterday (5th August 2013). The burger, made completely from synthetic meat at a cost of €250,000, was developed by Professor Mark Post, a specialist in tissue engineering, at Maastricht University, in the Netherlands, using stem cells. It was revealed that Sergey Brin, one of the founders of Google, invested in the project. Post and his team of scientists took cells from a cow and converted them into strips of muscle that they joined to make a patty. The way it’s produced, in a sense, has more in common with how plants grow than sentient beings.

One of the tasters at the London event, Hanni Rützler, said: "I was expecting the texture to be more soft ...  it's close to meat, but it's not that juicy.” Yet she added: "This is meat to me. It's not falling apart." The American food critic Josh Schonwald stated: “The mouth feel is like meat. I miss the fat, there's a leanness to it, but the general bite feels like a conventional hamburger.”

Post accepted these blemishes, but confirmed that his team is working on developing something that more accurately replicates animal flesh. Lab-grown burgers will not reach commercial markets any time soon, but Post believes it could be feasible in less than a decade. So far, there’s a long way to go before it’s possible to grow something complex, like beef steak or chicken; Post’s intention at this week's tasting event, however, was to prove that meat can be grown in vats rather than in cows. It seems like he’s off to a good start!

You might wonder why we should be interested in spending so much time on something as convoluted and expensive as lab-grown meat. What’s wrong with conventional meat practices?  There are many significant ethical reasons why we should swap animal meat with lab-meat, assuming it can be fulfilled at an appropriate cost.

The first reason is to diminish non-human animal cruelty and suffering.  Globally, several billion animals every year are killed and callously treated, mostly through intensive industrial farming. Potentially this could be eradicated by more efficient and less cruel ways of producing meat. The Australian moral philosopher Peter Singer affirmed in his Guardian piece that “Among philosophers who discuss the ethics of our treatment of animals there is a remarkable degree of consensus that factory farming violates basic ethical principles that extend beyond the boundary of our own species.”  What’s more, lab-meat may permit ethical consumption to become more palatable for people, as one could steer clear of eating real meat without having to abandon their customary diet.

It is also suggested that lab-meat is better for the environment. The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations claim that current meat production causes significant environmental damages (see their Livestock’s Long Shadow report). A 2011 study, published in Environmental Science & Technology, argues that lab-meat will operate on 99% lower land use, produce 80-95% lower greenhouse gas emissions, and 80-90% lower water use when compared to conventional meat production. Another reason for replacing current practices relates to global food security. Currently it takes around 16 pounds of grain to grow 1 pound of animal flesh, but since lab-meat doesn't need to be given food, we could supply those same crops to others in need, like the almost one billion people that go undernourished on a daily basis.

People associated with animal rights might disapprove of in vitro meat, if it’s not really free from cruelty, given that some animals may have to be sacrificed in its testing and practice. If so, this is unfortunate. Some vegetarians and vegans could say that rather than endorsing lab-meat, we should try to encourage everyone to convert to a plant based diet, as it can give us enough protein. In theory, of course, this would be a desirable option, but I remain doubtful that all of humankind will consent to this ideal in the near future. Though some scientists, encouragingly, believe that it may be possible for future meat to be grown with little or no animal suffering. The lab-meat project, by and large, is a matter of moral pull rather than technological push. The objective of its improvement isn't to satisfy vegetarians or vegans, but meat eaters.

Despite increases in the number of people adapting a meat-free diet in western societies over the past few decades, the Food and Agriculture Organisazion still predicts that meat consumption is to double by 2050. If we’re concerned about significantly reducing the scale of animal suffering, in vitro lab-meat might be the best practical way to achieve this outcome.  To steer clear of the lab-meat opportunity, because it conflicts with intrinsic principles, could ensue the continuation of the status quo and evade the possibility of bringing about real change.   

Others might feel that lab-grown meat is unnatural. But what ethical importance does naturalness have by itself?  Nearly all modern food production interferes with nature in some way. Besides, meat that often depends on the confinement and slaughter of sentient beings in factory farms, where most meat is produced worldwide, is not everyone’s idea of natural.

We might question whether lab-meat is suitable for human use, or if it could have unintended and adverse health consequences. In fact, seeing that it would be produced in a controlled environment, it would be possible to model it to be safer than conventional meat. Nevertheless additional testing is undeniably required ahead of accessibility in a commercial environment.

The reasons for embracing lab-meat seem powerful. Perhaps we should not get too carried away though. Scientists often overestimate the advantages of their research and the reality of application often doesn't fully gratify original expectations.  Advancing lab-meat as a serious alternative to existing production, for instance, may take much longer, cost a good deal more, and use a lot more energy and resources than presently envisaged. It’ll also be a genuine challenge to persuade people to alter their consumption of animal meat for artificial meat; after recent food scandals, many will be sceptical of anything authorities declare. 

Even if lab-meat can overcome these matters, we shouldn't assume its technical prospects will run smoothly when it becomes absorbed within politics and business. Certain religious and cultural traditions may urge its citizens against use for particular reasons, thus restricting its existence in some domestic markets. Various businesses, governments and think tanks, no doubt, will also have sway over the success or failure of lab-meat. All the same, the various possibilities that lab-meat could offer, ought to make anybody concerned about the adverse consequences of conventional meat production more confident now that real progress can be achieved.