Pros and Cons of Test Tube Meat - Essay Example

Introduction Genetically modified organisms can be defined as organisms whose DNA has been altered artificially or in the lab using different kinds of gene technology. Using genetic engineering, scientists have the ability to modify the characteristics of different organisms, introduce favored characteristics and eliminate unfavorable ones in the genetic make-up of the organism. A related factor to genetically modified organisms that has slowly gained debating points is test-tube meat, which refers to in-vitro meat made completely from the laboratory. It should however be noted that the creation of in vitro meat is completely non-genetic, meaning that test tube meat is not a form of GMOs. The animal flesh product is made using fetal animal serum and has technically never been inside an animal. The first demonstration of the use of in vitro meat was done in 2013 in London when a chef cooked and served a test-tube meat beef burger, and debate has been going on about whether the test tube meat can be a viable alternative to conventional meat. Research into the production of test tube meat has been continuing all over the world, with researchers from the United States, Netherlands and NASA being on the forefront to produce in vitro mat for production and human consumption. Pros of Test Tube Meat Proponents of the use of test tube meat as a viable alternative to conventional meat have stated that its production will be better for the environment in general. According to research, it is stated that at least 51% of all man-made greenhouse gas emission can be attributed to livestock, including the waste from animals (Edelman et al, 2005). In addition, the factory process required to convert animal products to meat is another source of environmental degradation. With the introduction of test tube meat, the harm to the environment would be reduced since the meat is produced in laboratories. At the moment, attributes like factory farming are a major part of environmental degradation because of the amounts of greenhouse gases released. The use of test tube meat will greatly reduce the gases released into the atmosphere as opposed to increasing them. Additionally, the process of producing test tube mat is carefully controlled, and the greenhouse gases produced can be closely monitored and controlled according to different regulations by the relevant authorities. The other major advantage of using in vitro meat as a replacement for conventional meat is the health component to be derived. As originally stated, in vitro meat is made completely in the laboratory, which means that the elements are carefully controlled to fulfill certain standards. In effect, the final product will be free from any outside elements including diseases like swine flu which come from rearing live animals (Edelman et al, 2005). With the use of test tube meat, diseases that can be passed along from the animal to human beings can be eliminated in the laboratory. In the past, outbreaks of some diseases have occurred because the animals we eat contacted them first, so the use of in vitro meat would eliminate this process. Animals kept for consumption are also fed different antibiotics and drugs to keep them healthy, and in the long run, the resistances to these drugs are transferred to human beings, who then develop different strains of resistance to drugs. With the use of in vitro meat, these resistances are virtually eliminated since the meat is made in a controlled setting, meaning that the meat would be healthier for the consumers. Finally, the meat can be genetically altered to provide health benefits as needed, for example, additives to boost the immune system or boost nutritional content for parts of the population that need them. For example, the nutritional content can be modified to help in the control of obesity and other food related complexities of human health. The last advantage to the use of in vitro meat is the ethical view, with animal rights activists on the forefront of campaigning for its use. With the introduction of in vitro meat, animal suffering is considerably reduced or eliminated, since the animals are not butchered for meat. The support from animal welfare groups for the production of in vitro meat has been growing, and recently, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) offered a $1,000,000 price for the first group to come up with viable test tube chicken meat. With the current use of factory farming, it can be argued that animal suffering is increased, a fact that can be eliminated with the use of test tube meat (Welin, Gold and Berlin, 2012). In vitro meat does not have a nervous system, so the factor of pain to the animal is completely eliminated. The production of in vitro meat would also help with vegetarian people, since the meat is not derived from animal, apart from the serum at the beginning. With the refining of the process, vegetarians would be able to consume the meat. Cons of Test Tube Meat From research, the main disadvantage of producing in vitro meat as a viable alternative to conventional meat is the cost element attached. One of the key factors that should be mentioned is that test tube meat will be very costly to produce since it requires very advanced technology. Furthermore, the research and development costs attached will be ay higher than the costs needed to produce conventional meat at the moment. For example, research indicates that the costs needed to produce 250 grams of in vitro meat in 2008 were as high as $1 million (Welin, Gold and Berlin, 2012). Granted that initial research would have cost that much, the cost reduction from this figure would not be viable to the economies of different countries. In effect, the final cost of the production on test tube mat would be transferred to the final consumer, who would prefer conventional meat costs despite the disadvantages mentioned. As mentioned earlier, test tube meat was tested in 2013 for eating, but it should also be noted that the final costs of creating the beef burgers were $325,000, which in itself is quite unmanageable. This indicates that after the refining of the process, test tube meat would still not be a viable option because of the attached costs in production and research. The potential health impacts of test tube meat also have to be carefully considered before its introduction as a replacement to conventional food. Prior to the debate about test tube meat, genetically modified food have been on the forefront on debate, and one of the main topics were the health concerns of GMOs. In the same case, the unknown health implications of test tube foods have to be considered. Despite the fact that in vitro meat is not originally genetically modified, some gene modification might be needed to introduce crucial nutrients to the meat, which raises the concerns about genetic modification of items for human consumption (Kuiper et al, 2001). In the same case, it is also not conclusive that in vitro meat will have the same nutrients as can be found in conventional meat, meaning that the health concern would be increased for in vitro meat. Research also indicates that large scale production of in vitro meat would require the use of artificial growth hormones, which increases the risk factor for health concerns. Despite arguments that in vitro meat would be strictly controlled in production, the additives to make the food palatable and healthy could work in the opposite manner and introduce unhealthy aspects. The final opposition to the use of test tube meat is the hardness with which the population will accept it as a replacement for conventional meat. It should be noted that the world is enshrined in different cultures, and most will not be willing to accept technologically modified food. The test tub meat will not be expected to taste exactly the same as conventional meat, and the costs attached to production will have gone to waste if the population is not convinced to use it as replacement meat. For example, in the testing of the beef burgers made from test tube meat, one of the tasters remarked that the meat did not taste normal (Ghosh, 2013). This means that people will initially be reluctant to switch over to test tube meat from normal meat. Conclusion and Personal Opinion From the above analysis, I am of the opinion that test tube meat should be introduced as a viable substitute but not replacement for conventional meat. With the production of test tube meat, environmental concerns will be reduced since conventional meat production is a major factor in environmental degradation. From the research conducted, it can be seen that the production of test tube meat will go a long way in helping to reduce the global hunger crisis, therefore, this should be encouraged. As mentioned, test tube met can be enhanced to provide nutrients to the population. This can be exploited to ensure that starving parts of the population have access to nutrients that they would otherwise lack. Despite the health concerns of the proponents, the research done before test tube meat is released for consumption would ensure that it is safe for human consumption. References Edelman, P., McFarland, D., Mironov, A. and Matheny, J. (2005). Commentary: In Vitro-Cultured Meat Production. Tissue Engineering, Vol. 11(5-6). Pp. 659-662. Ghosh, P. (2013). Worlds First Lab-Grown Burger is eaten in London. Retrieved on February 19, 2014 from: Kuiper, H. A., Kleter, G. A., Noteborn, H. P. J. M. and Kok, E. J. (2001). Assessment of the Food Safety Issues Related to Genetically Modified Foods. The Plant Journal, Vol. 27. Pp. 503–528. Welin, S., Gold, J. and Berlin, J. (2012). The Philosophy of Food. California: University of California Press. Read More