Pig towers and in vitro meat: Disclosing moral worlds by design

Abstract

Technology development is often considered to obfuscate democratic decision-making and is met with ethical suspicion. However, new technologies also can open up issues for societal debate and generate fresh moral engagements. This paper discusses two technological projects: schemes for pig farming in high-rise agro-production parks that came to be known as 'pig towers', and efforts to develop techniques for producing meat without animals by using stem cells, labelled 'in vitro meat'. Even before fully entering our world as actually realized systems or commercially viable products, these technologies disclosed societal concerns over animal agriculture. These concerns were expressed through active public responses and were informed by formal methods of assessment, such as applied ethics and lifecycle analysis. By closely examining how features of these designs entered public debates and ethical thought, we trace the moral world-disclosing character of technological projects. We find that these proposals generate occasions for debate and gather new societal actors to form new coalitions or rifts. Both technologies gave rise to particular understandings of societal issues. As the central means through which problems were discussed changed, new types of arguments were considered relevant and ontological shifts could even be seen to occur with what was considered 'real meat' and the 'true nature' of animal farming. We argue that world disclosing involves a renewed sense of the character of political and moral agency, whereby the sensibilities that constitute a moral subject are redefined. Finally, we explore the inner tensions and ambiguities of this process of moral and political change by confronting the notions of 'world disclosure' developed by Dewey and Heidegger, thereby connecting to recent debates within both STS and political theory on how to understand political processes in a technological culture.

Challenges and prospects for consumer acceptance of cultured meat

“…There is, in fact, a considerable gap between culturing a relatively small quantity of cells in vitro and developing a marketable product. It seems risky to rely on a few tests carried out by the project financiers (such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), i.e., stakeholders with a vested interest) using 'artificial chicken' products which indicated their good reception by consumers (Driessen and Korthals 2012). Major challenges ahead pertain to further improving the product and its production process in order to make it mimic traditional meat (based on the insights of the present study, notably in terms of sensory characteristics and price), up-scaling the process and making it more resource-and cost-efficient, and dealing with regulatory and intellectual property issues (Post 2014).…”

“…An interesting remark is the fact that even positive intended information can fuel consumer resistance because it can increase awareness of previously unknown risks (Verbeke et al 2007). Driessen and Korthals (2012) mentioned the fact that the development of cultured meat had already given rise to heightened media attention in the Netherlands, for example, and this prior to the highly publicized tasting of the first cultured meat burger in August 2013 in London (Hopkins 2015). Goodwin and Shoulders (2013) analysed the media coverage about cultured meat in the United States (U.S.) and the European Union (prior to the August 2013 cultured burger tasting) and concluded that print media were primarily supporting the idea of cultured meat production.…”

“…As seen with genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the launching of cultured meat is bound to be controversial and its largescale acceptance may depend on the progressive unveiling of the advantages and/or disadvantages of the product together with guarantees from trustworthy public authorities and market participants. Issues such as how safety controls are performed and guaranteed, how credible and transparent the information is, and how regulatory structures and procedures are set up are major challenges in this respect (Driessen and Korthals 2012). Vanhonacker et al (2013) investigated consumer interest in available substitutes for meat in the context of a more sustainable food choice in Flanders (Belgium).…”

Meat Your Enemy

“…In light of such, it is unsurprising that those with a vested interest in various forms of animal exploitation will not simply accept that their activities are inconsistent with the technical efficiency mode of evaluation associated with the industrial common world. Thus, and at the same time that animal rights activists have sought to promote the efficiency of a vegan diet, shmeat, and so on, the livestock industry, and other interested parties, have proposed such things as 'pig towers', or what amounts to a more efficient method of intensive pig farming (Driessen, 2012).…”

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

“…While names such as 'Labchops' and 'Meat 2.0' have previously been put forward (Driessen and Korthals, 2012), proponents today increasingly settle for 'cultured' meat (Datar, 2016).…”