What is In Vitro Meat - Assignment Example

IN-VITRO MEAT Name: Course Instructor’s name Institution Date In-vitro meat is the scheme of producing meat products via the process of tissue engineering technology (Bartholet, 2011). It involves extracting cells from living animals through a painless process. The cells are put in a culture media where they flourish and grow away from the animal. The production of in-vitro meat does not involve genetic modification (Post, 2013). Recently, a number of research teams have diverted their attention into working on the laboratory production of in-vitro meat. For instance, in the year 2013 the first beef burger produced through tissue engineering technology was eaten in a London demonstration. The burger was created by a Dutch team. According to Post (2013,) cultured meat is projected to be advantageous over the traditional type in terms of environmental friendliness, animal welfare, health as well as finances. Though theoretically this process is thought to be the most appropriate in meeting the ever growing global meat demands, it has been faced by a number of challenges. Consumption of cultural meat is an ethical issue thus people have divergent views regarding its consumption. The production of cultured meat is not only prohibitively expensive but it is also challenging to manufacture in-vitro meat in terms of taste. In-vitro meat will only become feasible if these challenges are fully addressed (Allenby, 2013). In Post (2013), the production of in-vitro is an ethical issue. The consumption of in-vitro meat is considered a possible solution to animal cruelty. It is therefore, friendly to the environment, more efficient and safer. Animal welfare groups are in support of the production of in-vitro meat because it does not involve killing the animal (Tuomisto & Mattos, 2011). A certain group of vegetarians is likely to embrace the idea of uncultured meat due to its cruelty free quality. Conversely, there are those who feel that the consumption of in-vitro meat is unethical since it does not develop naturally. The latter are likely to result in resistance the consumption of in-vitro meat. This skepticism can be partially linked to health concerns but it is more related to the procedures involved in the production process. However it should be noted that there is no clear definition of “artificial” or “unnatural”. Though in-vitro meat is produced artificially the process involved resembles the natural one. Consequently, it could be termed as natural as well. Regarding this concern, it would be better to draw a clear distinction between what is natural and what is not. It should however be noted that unnatural products could be superior to what is offered by nature. The artificiality associated with in-vitro meat production should therefore not be a hindrance to the progress of the research prospect (Jones, 2011). In-vitro meat production is likely to alienate human being from animals and nature (Allenby, 2011). First the consumption of in-vitro meat may lead to rural urban migration; therefore, there would be a remarkable reduction in and use.Tuomisto and Mattos (2011) highlight that most areas would not be affected by human activities. The alienation from nature can be considered to have negative and positive impacts at the same time. For instance, the consumption of cultured meat could a solution to the many problems associated with environmental conservation. Cultured meat consumption, thus, allows for the consumption meat and positive impacts on both the environment and the animals. Conversely, in-vitro meat consumption would largely deny human beings their animal identity (Jones, 2010). Similarly, reduction in and use could mean a rise in the number of forests world which actually improves human-nature relationships. The human-nature alienation can therefore be disputed (Post, 2013). Presently, the consumption of conventional meat presents a number of health challenges (Post 2013). Though conventional meat is assumed to be natural and therefore ‘good’, it is linked with a number health issues. First, the growing global meat demand has necessitated the need for large scale meat production. Consequently, this has resulted into artificial methods such as genetic modifications that are linked to health issues (Jones, 2011). . On the other hand, animals that develop fully under natural conditions are exposed to many hazardous conditions as well as chemicals. Cultured meat would, therefore, be the better solution to these health challenges. Since in-vitro meat is produced under controlled conditions, it is not likely to come into contact with harmful chemicals such as fungicides and pesticides. The controlled condition may also reduce the meat’s exposure to diseases as well as bacteria. It has also been suggested that an addition of Omega-3-acids to the meat could be a possible health bonus. Cultured meat is, therefore, a safer and healthier food, though presumed unnatural, than what is currently available in animal Agriculture (Tuomisto and Mattos, 2011). The economic aspect linked with production of cultured meat, is one of the factors that has prevented its commercial production. Currently, the process involved is termed as “prohibitively expensive”. It would, therefore, be unreasonable to avail such an expensive product in the market since only a few would afford it. Considering that the main concern of in-vitro meat is to meet the high demand of meat and replace the conventional option this would be unjustifiable. Cultured meat is mainly expensive due to the technology required in it production (Allenby, 2011).Large scale production of cultured meat has not been possible due to the cost of production. It is herein implied that commercial production of in-vitro meat is likely to take a considerable amount of time before it is fully realized. It is, however, projected that the cost challenge can be solved if the current technologies are improved. Overcoming the cost challenge is very significant since it would give room to commercial production of in-vitro meat thus rendering its practicability (Jones, 2010). Another challenge regarding the production of in-vitro meat is that of meeting the taste demands of the population. Since most people are used to taste of conventional meat, there a tendency to compare the two. Cultured meat will, therefore, not be regarded as ‘meat’ if its taste is distinct from that of the conventional meat. Additionally, since one of the objectives of in-vitro meat production is to replace the conventional meat, it is very important that the taste of cultured meat reflects that of the conventional meat. Cultured meat should therefore resemble the conventional meat in terms of taste, smell and even the color. This resemblance will make it possible for the in-vitro meat to compete with the conventional meat in the market place (Post, 2013). The lack of bones and fats in in-vitro meat is another major concern. Most consumers are accustomed to associating the taste of meat to the bones and fats and are, therefore, likely to take some time before they fully appreciate cultured meat. On the contrary, lack fats and bones is likely to be advantageous as it would make in-vitro meat more palatable to small children as compared to the conventional type. As a result, the cultured meat would gain a competitive advantage over the conventional meat. Furthermore, the aspect of colorfulness in in-vitro meat would be an advantage to the children since it could allow children to get used to taking meat (Bartholet, 2011). The numerous beneficial prospects of the commercial consumption of cultured meat would not come without risks. These risks can be categorized as short term and long term. The developed countries, for instance, are likely to suffer enormous economic draw backs since they may not be in a position to export meat to their developed counter parts. In opposition, the developed countries would benefit more financially since they can easily access the technology required for meat production. Additionally, these countries would enjoy sufficient meat supplies and even export to the developing countries. Commercial in-vitro meat production would therefore result in both economic losers and winners (Bartholet, 2011). However the problem likely to be experienced in the developing countries can be compensated for in a number of ways. As already discussed above in-vitro meat consumption reduces land use. The developing countries would benefit since more room would create for crop growing. The problem of technology as prospected in the developing countries is also likely to be short term (Allenby, 2013) In conclusion, the benefits acclaimed of the in-vitro meat technology are more attractive than its plausible dangers. Considering the many problems that are associated with the consumption of conventional meat, in-vitro meat would be a better option. Since the global meat demand is ever on the rise, the continual over-reliance on conventional meat is likely to result into more health, social as well as environmental problems (Post, 2013). The partial or full adoption of the new food production technology is thus a possible remedy to the deteriorating situation. However, it would be unreasonable to ignore the risks that come with new food technologies. It is however not possible to make in-vitro meat consumption a reality, if the challenges that currently hinder the advancement of the technology are not fully addressed. The viability of commercial in-vitro meat consumption is far reaching due to the challenges encountered. It would therefore take time before the commercial consumption of cultured meat becomes practical (Allenby, (2013). References Allenby, B. (2013) Theory and Practice of Sustainable Engineering Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Allenby, B &. Serewitz, D. (2011) The Techno- Human Condition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Bartholet, J (2011) “Inside the Meat Lab,” Scientific American: 64-69 Jones, N. (2010) “Food: A Taste of Things to Come?” Nature 448, No 7325:725-753 Post, M. (2013) ‘Cultured Meat from Stem Cells: Challenges and Prospects,’ Meat Science 92, No.3 297-301 Tuomisto, H. & De Mattos, J.(2011) Environmental Impacts of Cultured Meat Production,” Environmental Science and Technology. 45 No. 14 6117-6123 Read More