Uncoupling Meat From Animal Slaughter and Its Impacts on Human-Animal Relationships

Heidemann, Marina Sucha; Molento, Carla Forte Maiolino; Reis, Germano Glufke; Phillips, Clive J. C.

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01824

Cited by 27 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 89 publications

(122 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This might reflect a special pattern of Chinese consumers who have a lack of knowledge about this novel product. Whereas it has been suggested that the limited knowledge curbs the development of artificial meat [45], by contrast, the core value of food products lies not only in physical aspects but also in long-term added value [46]. For instance, willingness to pay about animal welfare in relation to a social consensus has clearly a moral value [47].…”

Section: Unfamiliarity With Artificial Meat May Lead To a First Try Bmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chinese Consumers’ Attitudes and Potential Acceptance toward Artificial Meat

Liu

Hocquette

Ellies-Oury

et al. 2021

Foods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The interest for artificial meat has recently expanded. However, from the literature, perception of artificial meat in China is not well known. A survey was thus carried out to investigate Chinese attitudes toward artificial meat. The answers of 4666 respondents concluded that 19.9% and 9.6% of them were definitely willing and unwilling to try artificial meat respectively, whereas 47.2% were not willing to eat it regularly, and 87.2% were willing to pay less for it compared to conventional meat. Finally, 52.9% of them will accept artificial meat as an alternative to conventional meat. Emotional resistance such as the perception of “absurdity or disgusting” would lead to no willingness to eat artificial meat regularly. The main concerns were related to safety and unnaturalness, but less to ethical and environmental issues as in Western countries. Nearly half of the respondents would like artificial meat to be safe, tasty, and nutritional. Whereas these expectations have low effects on willingness to try, they may induce consumers’ rejection to eat artificial meat regularly, underlying the weak relationship between wishes to try and to eat regularly. Thus, potential acceptance of artificial meat in China depends on Chinese catering culture, perception of food and traditional philosophy.

show abstract

Section: Unfamiliarity With Artificial Meat May Lead To a First Try Bmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chinese Consumers’ Attitudes and Potential Acceptance toward Artificial Meat

Liu

Hocquette

Ellies-Oury

et al. 2021

Foods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lastly, veterinarian respondents predicted a favourable view from bioprocess engineers due to field of work (40), opportunities (22) and job offers (19). Similarly, animal scientists estimated an unfavourable position from veterinarians because of field of work (4) and job losses (3), and, regarding a favourable view, the main reason cited was animal welfare (3). Additionally, animal scientists who predicted unfavourable positioning from their own professional class cited reasons related to the field of work (12), job losses (6) and the quality of cell-based meat (4); neutral expectations were related to the emergence of a new market (5) and animal welfare (2).…”

Section: Demographic Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, the increasingly questioned paradox of humane slaughter [3] may finally be completely bypassed. Indeed, the development of alternative meats may be related to a significant change in our relationship with nonhuman animals, with greater benefits than the prima facie effects on farm animals; this has been discussed in detail in [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Critical Perspective of Animal Production Specialists on Cell-Based Meat in Brazil: From Bottleneck to Best Scenarios

Heidemann

Taconeli

Reis

et al. 2020

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, many studies regarding consumer perception of cell-based meat have been published. However, the opinion of the professionals involved in animal production also seems relevant. In particular, veterinarians and animal scientists may be important players in the new cell-based meat production, acting as proponents or barriers to this major improvement for farm animal welfare. Therefore, our aim is to analyse the knowledge and perspective of Brazilian veterinarians and animal scientists regarding cell-based meat. Veterinarians (76.8%; 209/272) and animal scientists (23.2%; 63/272) responded to an online survey. Logistic regression, latent class and logit models were used to evaluate objective answers, and the Discourse of the Collective Subject method was used to interpret open-ended answers. Specialists who were women (62.5%; 170/272), veterinarians (76.8%; 209/272), vegetarians (7.0%; 19/272) and vegans (1.1%; 3/272) were more supportive of cell-based meat. Lack of knowledge and the connection with artificiality, the most frequent spontaneous word associated with cell-based meat by all respondents, were the main negative points highlighted. Thus, it seems fundamental to offer higher education to veterinarians and animal scientists regarding cell-based meat, since engaging them with this novel technology may mitigate both the resistance and its negative consequences for the professionals, society, the animals involved and the environment.

show abstract

“…This form of food production involves growing animal-based foods (i.e., “cultured meat” or “clean meat”) from cell cultures, as opposed to harvesting animal products from the animals themselves [ 265 ]. As with edible insects, almost all harms associated with cellular agriculture are associated with what nutrient source is used [ 266 ], with one point of deviation related to the relatively high electricity requirement for this form of production. Meat grown in a laboratory is currently grown using nutrient broth originally derived from some form of traditional agriculture, e.g., bovine fetal serum [ 265 ].…”

Section: Summaries Of Food Production Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We also do not intend for our conclusions to remain fixed. New food technologies such as cellular agriculture are likely to require a re-evaluation of the comparative benefits of different systems as new products become more widely available [ 266 ]. However, given the inescapable connection between sentient animals and the ecosystems from which we obtain our food, we do not expect to see a “harm-free” food option emerge in the foreseeable future.…”

Section: Where To From Here?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Animal Harms and Food Production: Informing Ethical Choices

Hampton

Hyndman

Allen

et al. 2021

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ethical food choices have become an important societal theme in post-industrial countries. Many consumers are particularly interested in the animal welfare implications of the various foods they may choose to consume. However, concepts in animal welfare are rapidly evolving towards consideration of all animals (including wildlife) in contemporary approaches such as “One Welfare”. This approach requires recognition that negative impacts (harms) may be intentional and obvious (e.g., slaughter of livestock) but also include the under-appreciated indirect or unintentional harms that often impact wildlife (e.g., land clearing). This is especially true in the Anthropocene, where impacts on non-human life are almost ubiquitous across all human activities. We applied the “harms” model of animal welfare assessment to several common food production systems and provide a framework for assessing the breadth (not intensity) of harms imposed. We considered all harms caused to wild as well as domestic animals, both direct effects and indirect effects. We described 21 forms of harm and considered how they applied to 16 forms of food production. Our analysis suggests that all food production systems harm animals to some degree and that the majority of these harms affect wildlife, not livestock. We conclude that the food production systems likely to impose the greatest overall breadth of harms to animals are intensive animal agriculture industries (e.g., dairy) that rely on a secondary food production system (e.g., cropping), while harvesting of locally available wild plants, mushrooms or seaweed is likely to impose the least harms. We present this conceptual analysis as a resource for those who want to begin considering the complex animal welfare trade-offs involved in their food choices.

show abstract

Uncoupling Meat From Animal Slaughter and Its Impacts on Human-Animal Relationships

Cited by 27 publications

References 89 publications

Chinese Consumers’ Attitudes and Potential Acceptance toward Artificial Meat

Chinese Consumers’ Attitudes and Potential Acceptance toward Artificial Meat

Critical Perspective of Animal Production Specialists on Cell-Based Meat in Brazil: From Bottleneck to Best Scenarios

Animal Harms and Food Production: Informing Ethical Choices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About