A cruelty-free, cultured meat is on the horizon that will help save a large percentage of the 27 billion animals slaughtered each year for food.
...
Complete entry
Posted by
feol on 10/06 at 07:08 PM
Nice interview! You compared environmental impacts and costs between in vitro meat and the current harm-and-kill meat. But how does in vitro compare to vegetarian food in terms of nutritional content, production efficiency, cost and resource and environmental impact?
Posted by
Nick on 10/07 at 08:54 PM
In re: Nice interview!...
In many respects, the benefits (nutrition, resource use efficiency, environmental impacts) of a vegetarian diet share those prospective of a diet including cultured meat. In terms of costs, cultured meat will be at least as competitive as vegetarian meat analogs if it can be priced within the range of conventional meat products. Vegetarian meat analogs, in general, tend to be more expensive than their conventional meat equivalents.
While an individual may personally choose to adopt a vegetarian diet, this strategy falls short on a broader, global scale to reduce environmental impacts. Most people enjoy the taste of authentic meat and are choosing to include meat in, rather than exclude meat from, their diets. This trend is expected to continue. Following the demand for meat, the poultry and livestock industries are expanding their production capacities and further increasing the impacts of conventional meat production. Cultured meat can potentially satisfy the demand for authentic meat without requiring dietary lifestyle modification by the consumer.
Both vegetarian diets and those including cultured meat as a substitute for conventional meat are expected to have much reduced environmental impacts than diets including conventional meat consumption. Both strategies can work for different consumer audiences according to their personal preferences and may represent viable alternate solutions to the broader issues associated with conventional meat production systems.
Posted by
feol on 10/08 at 05:14 AM
Nick: thanks for the reply.
“In terms of costs, cultured meat will be at least as competitive as vegetarian meat analogs if it can be priced within the range of conventional meat products. Vegetarian meat analogs, in general, tend to be more expensive than their conventional meat equivalents.”
The real comparison point is the costs and negative impacts of these two alternative in high volume scenarios. I had the impression that non-animal analog costs are mostly due to low scale of production. The ingredient costs must be extremely low compared to animal based products. Much more soy is likely used as feed in the process to produce the average meat burger compared to the average soy burger.
So what’s you take on that: if we assume great global demand and so great production volumes for either product, which one of the two (soy meats vs in vitro meats) would then have the upper hand?
“While an individual may personally choose to adopt a vegetarian diet, this strategy falls short on a broader, global scale to reduce environmental impacts.”
I accept a moral rights view for humans and animals so the environmental impact is of secondary importance. I worry somewhat that the in vitro message will crowd out the pro veg messages.
Posted by
Nick on 10/09 at 10:40 AM
feol,
“if we assume great global demand and so great production volumes for either product, which one of the two (soy meats vs in vitro meats) would then have the upper hand?”
I am unaware of any published analytical data comparing current and projected production metrics of available veg. meats (soy, wheat gluten, fungus) vs. cultured meat. In the absence of a study, it is not possible to provide a meaningful answer to your question. Even if one of these products did have the ‘upper hand’, I do not see the utility of the question at this time if both products could potentially eliminate the ethical issues and drastically reduce the environmental impacts relative to the conventional meat production systems currently dominating the market.
Mass production of veg. meats or cultured meats alone will not likely provide a universally sufficient solution. Consumers that would never consider adopting a vegetarian diet may prefer cultured meat. Current vegetarians may prefer veg. meats instead. Product price, variety and availability will be consumer considerations that will differ on a case-by-case basis. Cultured meat may be one effective component of a multilateral approach to provide consumers with alternative choices to conventional meat products.
“I worry somewhat that the in vitro message will crowd out the pro veg messages.”
Public awareness of meat alternatives and the consequences of conventional meat production can augment both messages, that in many respects are similar in scope and reflect consumer values. In this spirit, there will be a symposium at the 2012 American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Annual Meeting discussing both plant-based meat analogues and cultured meat as alternate solutions to conventional meat.
The symposium is titled, “The Next Agricultural Revolution: Emerging Production Methods for Meat Alternatives” and is listed under the ‘Food’ symposium track.
http://www.aaas.org/meetings/2012/program/symposia/tracks/
Posted by
PeterW on 10/11 at 10:58 AM
Thanks Nick this symposium looks very promising.
Posted by
Christian Munthe on 10/16 at 04:18 AM
Nice and informative interview, but one things gets a bit overstated. It is difficult to say that in vitro meat (IVM) diet and production will in fact save any of those animals currently tortured and killed in the meat industry. This since the effect of IVM being taken up on a broad basis would mostly mean that most of these animals would never come to exist in the first place. This does not imply, of course, that there are no good animal welfare arguments for IVM - there are (in terms of reduced suffering). But the argument should not be overstated, lest it risks to backfire.
IEET Blog