Benevolent technotopias and hitherto unimaginable meats: Tracing the promises of in vitro meat

Abstract

Today, in vitro (Latin: in glass) meat researchers strive to overhaul meat production technologies by producing meat outside animal bodies, primarily by culturing cells. In the process, meat should become healthier, more environmentally friendly and kinder to animals. In this article, I scrutinize (and problematize) this promissory discourse by examining the world that proponents envision alongside the world from which promises emerge. First, I trace the increasing number of publications striving to pinpoint the nature of in vitro meat to unveil the creation of an in vitro meat canon wherein perceived possibilities become taken for granted. Second, I investigate how the promissory discourse is often relatively silent on key aspects of how this technology could remake the world. Wet laboratories, animals and end products become foregrounded at the expense of political economy and the biophysical properties of cultured cells. Thus, questions concerning how funding requirements shape representations of this new technology, together with in vitro meat’s particular socio-spatial and socio-ecological implications, become problematically de-emphasized.

Bringing cultured meat to market: Technical, socio-political, and regulatory challenges in cellular agriculture

“…Numerous narratives in favour of cultured meat and other alternative proteins have emphasised the ability for these novel foods to ‘disrupt’, and thus overcome, the negative impacts associated with conventional livestock production. However, cultured meat has to date existed predominantly in promissory narratives rather than in tangible, material forms ( Jönsson, 2016 ; Stephens & Ruivenkamp, 2016 ; Stephens, King, & Lyall, 2018 ). The abundance of this aspiration rhetoric (fuelled largely by corporate and media actors) coupled with the relative lack of scientific assessments, such as Life Cycle Assessments, has made for an ambiguous and at-times prematurely optimistic discourse around cultured meat.…”

What's in a name: are cultured red blood cells ‘natural’?

“…For example ‘Synthetic blood created by British scientists could be used in transfusions in just two years’ by MacRae () and ‘Synthetic blood breakthrough after scientists ‘produce red cells from IVF embryos’ by Hough (). In this respect, our research shares some parallels with the development of ‘cultured meat’ which has been described as an ‘as‐yet undefined ontological object’ (Stephens : 400, see also Jönsson , Stephens et al . in press).…”

On Resurrected Nuggets and Sphincter Windows: Cultured Meat, Art, and the Discursive Subsumption of Nature

“…This is unsurprising. Stories can add hype, vital when researchers hunt for venture capital (Post 2014a;Jönsson 2016). Speculation is unarguably integral to capitalist development.…”

“…Especially since 2014, venture capital has also become prevalent. This shift from public to private funding, with a concomitant necessity to attract prospective investors' and donors' attention, has been identified as an important reason for both current research priorities and the often spectacular scenarios researchers and proponents circulate (Jönsson 2016).…”