Vegetarian Meat: Could Technology Save Animals and Satisfy Meat Eaters?

Abstract

Between people who unabashedly support eating meat and those who adopt moral vegetarianism, lie a number of people who are uncomfortably carnivorous and vaguely wish they could be vegetarians. Opposing animal suffering in principle, they can ignore it in practice, relying on the visual disconnect between supermarket meat and slaughterhouse practices not to trigger their moral emotions. But what if we could have the best of both worlds in reality-eat meat and not harm animals? The nascent biotechnology of tissue culture, originally researched for medical applications, holds out just such a promise. Meat could be grown in vitro without killing animals. In fact, this technology may not just be an intriguing option, but might be our moral obligation to develop.

Is the future of meat palatable? Perceptions ofin vitromeat as evidenced by online news comments

“…Marcu et al (10) (p. 8) found evidence of these sentiments in response to a descriptive video about IVM and suggest that these science-fiction metaphors are drawn from 'futuristic dystopian human societies as depicted in science-fiction films' and help individuals make sense of novel technologies such as IVM. Some researchers also noted there is a 'yuck factor' related to the perceived unnaturalness and technological nature of IVM (20,22) . The suggestion of perceived unnaturalness is very much in line with empirical data on public perceptions of other emerging technologies, such as geoengineering and GM organisms (23)(24)(25) .…”

Tainted Food and the Icarus Complex: Psychoanalysing Consumer Discontent from Oyster Middens to Oryx and Crake

“…One interesting example of this is cultured meat (also known as vegetarian meat, 'in vitro meat' or test-tube burgers), made from algae, or from stem cells (taken from pigs for instance), or from other forms of 'carniculture'. Here is a food product with the aura of being untainted, promising a significant reduction in both animal suffering and the emission of greenhouse gasses (Hopkins and Dacey 2008;van der Weele and Driessen 2013;van der Weele and Tramper 2014). At the same time, it seems profoundly tainted in the sense that it is Tainted Food and the Icarus Complex 261 extremely unnatural, so that it will even further alienate us from our natural food (van der Weele and Tramper 2014, p. 294).…”

“…One argument against in vitro meat, listed by Hopkins and Dacey (2008) is that, one way or another, the connection with animals will always be there, for instance because animals will act as stem cell or tissue donors, or because in vitro meat will continue to look like animal meat. Therefore, in the eyes of sceptics or critics, it will continue to be morally ''suspect'' or even ''tainted'' (p. 591).…”

From killing cows to culturing meat

“…Among the critiques on them, which include the danger of biotechnologies, repugnance and 'yuk factor', moral issues, future of the potentially useless livestock (Hopkins and Dacey, 2008), one of the most interesting is the concern for naturalness, the fact that eating cultured meat is a practice which positions human beings as out of nature (Welin and Van Der Veele, 2012).…”

“…In conclusion, cultured meat appears to be the new answer that the human being has found to solve issues that cannot be sorted out with the current tools. The only obstacle to this last step of the process seems to be a matter of acceptability (Hopkins and Dacey, 2008). To what extent will people consider cultured meat as a food?…”