Finding Hope In Small Scale Production Of Cultured Meat
Whatever your opinions on cultured meat – otherwise known as lab meat or in vitro meat – it seems to represent a logical extension of the current direction of the food system. Humans already use a variety of technological processes in conventional factory farming; in many ways, it makes sense that we are moving towards eliminating animal farming altogether. There is also a push for the development of cultured meat for ethical reasons. While billions of animal live and die on factory farms, the possibility of “growing” meat without causing suffering to animals is an enticing one. Cultured meat stands at the intersection of a variety of issues and represents a possible solution that gives some animal advocates hope and makes others deeply uncomfortable.
Researchers have already created and eaten burgers made from laboratory-grown meat as a “proof of concept” and surveys show a range of responses to the idea of cultured meat from the general public, “from ‘wow’ to ‘yuck.'” This study from Dutch researchers looked at both the “societal responses” to cultured meat as well as the manufacturing process, trying to understand the point at which the two might come together. They note that while people’s reactions to the idea of cultured meat are often negative and focused on the “unnaturalness” of it or that it might “alienate us further from our food,” more engaged respondents have different perspectives. Worries about the naturalness of cultured meat are “typically followed by the thought that the production of meat in factory-farming systems is not very natural either; the idea of cultured meat invariably inspires discussions on the drawbacks of factory-farmed meat.”
For example, when presented with scenarios in which pigs would live in our backyards as companion animals and cells would be harvested from them by harmless biopsies for “local meat factories,” respondents did not worry about “unnaturalness.” In this scenario, “the idea of local production and close contact with the animals seemed to dispel these concerns.” As far as the actual production goes, the authors dive into a rather technical discussion of cultured meat and its economics. The building blocks of cultured meat are the cells used for the culture, as well as a growth medium. They provide some back-of-the-envelope estimates showing that cultured meat may not be economically feasible at the moment; just the growth medium for 1kg of cultured meat is about eight Euros ($9) while the price of minced meat is not much more than five Euros per kg in the Netherlands. But cultured meat may become more feasible as time goes on.
For some animal advocates, this article may not assuage discomfort around the idea of eating cultured meat. For others it shows a promising future for “homegrown” laboratory meat that may be ethically and socially acceptable, as well as affordable. “Cultured meat has great moral promise,” they say, and worries about its uncanniness or unnaturalness may be met “through small-scale production methods that allow close contact with cell-donor animals and thereby reverse feelings of alienation.” From an advocacy point of view, this is especially interesting: perhaps this type of small-scale cultured meat “farming” could actually become more connected to the animals that we currently use for food. From an economic point of view, the challenge will be competition with factory farming and conventional meat products. We live in a world where such concentrated farming is the norm; for cultured meat to be successful, it will have to play catch-up.