An Anticipatory Social Assessment of Factory-Grown Meat

Mattick, Carolyn S.; Wetmore, Jameson M.; Allenby, Braden

doi:10.1109/mts.2015.2395967

Cited by 13 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Conversely, we must also consider the wider benefits that might be provided from meat production systems, including associated co-products, the provision of ecosystem services, their socioeconomic role in rural communities, and their landscape or cultural value (Rodríguez-Ortega et al , 2014). It has been argued that cultured meat production is a potentially transformative technology, and so social assessments must also be made to anticipate the disruption (positive or negative) that may be caused (Mattick et al , 2015c), alongside environmental impacts such as climate change. As a concept, it has been suggested that cultured meat overcomes some of the ethical problems of livestock production (Schaefer and Savulescu, 2014), but has also been criticised as a problematically techno-centric, profit-motivated approach (Metcalf, 2013).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate Impacts of Cultured Meat and Beef Cattle

Lynch

Pierrehumbert

2019

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

237

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Improved greenhouse gas (GHG) emission efficiency of production has been proposed as one of the biggest potential advantages of cultured meat over conventional livestock production systems. Comparisons with beef are typically highlighted, as it is a highly emissions intensive food product. In this study we present a more rigorous comparison of the potential climate impacts of cultured meat and cattle production than has previously been made. Warming impacts are evaluated using a simple climate model that simulates the different behaviours of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), rather than relying on carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) metrics. We compare the temperature impact of beef cattle and cultured meat production at all times to 1000 years in the future, using four synthetic meat GHG footprints currently available in the literature and three different beef production systems studied in an earlier climate modelling paper. Cattle systems are associated with the production of all three GHGs above, including significant emissions of CH4, while cultured meat emissions are almost entirely CO2 from energy generation. Under continuous high global consumption, cultured meat results in less warming than cattle initially, but this gap narrows in the long term and in some cases cattle production causes far less warming, as CH4 emissions do not accumulate, unlike CO2. We then model a decline in meat consumption to more sustainable levels following high consumption, and show that although cattle systems generally result in greater peak warming than cultured meat, the warming effect declines and stabilises under the new emission rates of cattle systems, while the CO2 based warming from cultured meat persists and accumulates even under reduced consumption, again overtaking cattle production in some scenarios. We conclude that cultured meat is not prima facie climatically superior to cattle production; its relative impact instead depends on the availability of decarbonised energy generation and the specific production systems that are realised.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate Impacts of Cultured Meat and Beef Cattle

Lynch

Pierrehumbert

2019

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

237

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The focus on nonviolence means that vegetarian Hindus are likely to see cultured meat as a way of avoiding harming animals, and some may decide it is permissible to eat. Some have suggested that cultured beef is unlikely to be accepted in Hinduism because cows are considered sacred ( Mattick et al, 2015 ).…”

Section: Religionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Culture, meat, and cultured meat

Bryant

2020

Journal of Animal Science

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cultured meat grown in vitro from animal cells has the potential to address many of the ethical, environmental, and public health issues associated with conventional meat production. However, as well as overcoming technical challenges to producing cultured meat, producers and advocates of the technology must consider a range of social issues, including consumer appeal and acceptance, media coverage, religious status, regulation, and potential economic impacts. Whilst much has been written on the prospects for consumer appeal and acceptance of cultured meat, less consideration has been given to the other aspects of the social world that will interact with this new technology. Here, each of these issues is considered in turn, forming a view of cultured meat as a technology with a diverse set of societal considerations and far-reaching social implications. It is argued that the potential gains from a transition to cultured meat are vast, but that cultural phenomena and institutions must be navigated carefully for this nascent industry to meet its potential.

show abstract

“…However, consumer acceptance of cultured meat is not universal [ 21 ]. Although some surveys have shown that the majority of US consumers would eat cultured meat [ 22 , 23 ], cross-country data indicates that acceptance is likely lower in Europe compared to the US [ 24 ], a trend anticipated by experts in the field [ 25 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

European Markets for Cultured Meat: A Comparison of Germany and France

Bryant

Nek²,

Rolland

2020

Foods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The negative impacts of meat consumption for animals, the environment, and human health are more pressing than ever. Although some evidence points to an ongoing reduction in meat consumption in Europe, consumers are overall unwilling to cut their meat consumption in a substantial way. The present study investigates dietary identities and perceptions of cultured meat in nationally representative samples from Germany (n = 1000) and France (n = 1000). Participants were recruited through an Ipsos panel to answer an online survey, which included questions about their current and intended consumption of conventional meat, as well as questions about their opinions of cultured meat. We find that, whilst rates of vegetarianism were relatively low in France, unrestricted meat-eaters were a minority in Germany, and concern for animal welfare was the most common reason given for meat reduction. Substantial markets for cultured meat exist in both countries, although German consumers are significantly more open to the concept than the French. Strikingly, cultured meat acceptance is significantly higher amongst agricultural and meat workers, indicating that those who are closest to existing meat production methods are most likely to prefer alternatives. We found some evidence that pro-cultured meat messages, which focus on antibiotic resistance and food safety, are significantly more persuasive than those that focus on animals or the environment. Furthermore, consumers project that they would be significantly more likely to consume cultured meat that does not contain genetically modified ingredients. Overall, we find substantially large markets for cultured meat in Germany and France, and identify some potential ways to further increase acceptance in these markets. We conclude by highlighting the most promising markets for cultured meat, and highlighting a lack of antibiotics as a potentially persuasive message about cultured meat.

show abstract

An Anticipatory Social Assessment of Factory-Grown Meat

Cited by 13 publications

References 8 publications

Climate Impacts of Cultured Meat and Beef Cattle

Climate Impacts of Cultured Meat and Beef Cattle

Culture, meat, and cultured meat

European Markets for Cultured Meat: A Comparison of Germany and France

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About