|Title||Author(s)||Year||Abstract or Key Findings||Peer-Reviewed Source||Other Source||Key Words from Source||Samples for Experimental Designs||Type of Resource (quant, qual, lit review, theoretical, opinion, etc.)||Geographic Location||URL||Notes|
|Social Values, Science and Technology||European Commission||2005||"Q17 I am going to read out a list of possible future applications of science and technology over the next 20 years. For each one please tell me to what extent, if at all, you approve of its use. %EU|
Growing meat from cell cultures so that we do not have to slaughter farm animals
6% In all circumstances
18% Onlyif it is highly regulated and controlled
12% Only in exceptional circumstances
[Numbers also available at the individual country level and my certain demographic characteristics.]
|N/A||European Commission||N/A||N/A||Quantitative||European Union||http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf|
|In Vitro-Cultured Meat Production||PD Edelman, D McFarland, V Mironov, J Matheny||2005|
|Exercised' meat grown in labs?||P Walter||2005|
|Vegetarian Meat: Could Technology Save Animals and Satisfy Meat Eaters?||Patrick Hopkins, Austin Dacey||2008||"Between people who unabashedly support eating meat and those who adopt moral vegetarianism, lie a number of people who are uncomfortably carnivorous and vaguely wish they could be vegetarians. Opposing animal suffering in principle, they can ignore it in practice, relying on the visual disconnect between supermarket meat and slaughterhouse practices not to trigger their moral emotions. But what if we could have the best of both worlds in reality—eat meat and not harm animals? The nascent biotechnology of tissue culture, originally researched for medical applications, holds out just such a promise. Meat could be grown in vitro without killing animals. In fact, this technology may not just be an intriguing option, but might be our moral obligation to develop."||Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics||N/A||Animal suffering; animal welfare; artificial meat; biotechnology; carniculture; cultured meat; food production; in vitro meat; moral vegetarianism; tissue culture||N/A||Review, Theoretical||http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10806-008-9110-0|
|Fake meat: burgers grown in beakers||Leo Hickman||2009|
|Oryx and Crake and the New Nostalgia for Meat||Jovian Parry||2009|
|Possibilities for an in vitro meat production system||I. Datar, M. Betti||2010||"Meat produced in vitro has been proposed as a humane, safe and environmentally beneficial alternative to slaughtered animal flesh as a source of nutritional muscle tissue. The basic methodology of an in vitro meat production system (IMPS) involves culturing muscle tissue in a liquid medium on a large scale. Each component of the system offers an array of options which are described taking into account recent advances in relevant research. A major advantage of an IMPS is that the conditions are controlled and manipulatable. Limitations discussed include meeting nutritional requirements and large scale operation. The direction of further research and prospects regarding the future of in vitro meat production will be speculated."||Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies||N/A||In vitro meat ; Myocyte culturing; Meat substitutes||N/A||Review||N/A||http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1466856409001222||More natural sciences than social sciences, but does have some references to consumer acceptance|
|Food: A taste of things to come?||Nicola Jones||2010||"Researchers are sure that they can put lab-grown meat on the menu — if they can just get cultured muscle cells to bulk up."||N/A||Nature||N/A||N/A||Other||N/A||http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101208/full/468752a.html|
|Meat and Morality: Alternatives to Factory Farming||Evelyn B. Pluhar||2010||"Scientists have shown that the practice of factory farming is an increasingly urgent danger to human health, the environment, and nonhuman animal welfare. For all these reasons, moral agents must consider alternatives. Vegetarian food production, humane food animal farming, and in-vitro meat production are all explored from a variety of ethical perspectives, especially utilitarian and rightsbased viewpoints, all in the light of current U.S. and European initiatives in the public and private sectors. It is concluded that vegetarianism and potentially in-vitro meat production are the best-justified options."||Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics||N/A||Factory farming; Humane farming; In-vitro meat production; Rights theory; Utilitarianism; Vegetarianism||N/A||Theoretical||N/A||http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10806-009-9226-x|
|Real Artificial: Tissue-cultured Meat, Genetically Modified Farm Animals, and Fictions||Susan McHugh||2010||"Although touted by promoters as the cutting edge of food science, meat produced in vitro (rather than from a whole animal) is emerging more directly from developments in fine art—more specifically, from the aesthetic experiments of Australian-based artists Oron Catts and Ionat Zurr, who ask: What language do we have to describe the agency of tissue-cultured life? This essay begins to answer this question by tracing a tradition whereby bioengineered meat mediates complex environmental critiques in literary fiction over the past century, including Margaret Atwood's exemplary novel Oryx and Crake (2003), which depicts biotech industries producing three distinct kinds of "real artificial meat," all sourced in genetically modified animals."||Configurations||N/A||N/A||N/A||Theoetical||N/A||https://muse.jhu.edu/article/429848|
|A horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2010||William J. Sutherland, Mick Clout, Isabelle M. Côté, Peter Daszak, Michael H. Depledge, Liz Fellman, Erica Fleishman, Rachel Garthwaite, David W. Gibbons, Jennifer De Lurio, Andrew J. Impey, Fiona Lickorish, David Lindenmayer, Jane Madgwick, Ceri Margerison, Trevor Maynard, Lloyd S. Peck, Jules Pretty, Stephanie Prior, Kent H. Redford, Jörn P.W. Scharlemann, Mark Spalding and Andrew R. Watkinson||2010||"Horizon scanning identifies emerging issues in a given field sufficiently early to conduct research to inform policy and practice. Our group of horizon scanners, including academics and researchers, convened to identify fifteen nascent issues that could affect the conservation of biological diversity. These include the impacts of and potential human responses to climate change, novel biological and digital technologies, novel pollutants and invasive species. We expect to repeat this process and collation annually."||Trends in Ecology & Evolution||N/A||N/A||N/A||Opinion/Review||Global||http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534709003206||Has a section on "synthetic meat"|
|Playing Chicken: Technologies of Domestication, Food, and Self||Wyatt Galusky||2010|
|Life cycle assessment of cultured meat production||Hanna L. Tuomisto and M. Joost Teixeira de Mattos||2010||"Cultured meat is produced in vitro by using tissue engineering techniques. It is being developed as a potentially healthier and more efficient alternative to conventional meat. The goal of this study was to estimate energy use, land requirements, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for large-scale cultured meat production. Life cycle assessment (LCA) research method was used for assessing the environmental impacts along the production chain. Cyanobacteria hydrolysate was assumed to be used as the nutrient and energy source for muscle cell growth. The results showed that cultured meat production involves approximately 35-60% lower energy use, 80-95% lower GHG emissions and 98% lower land use compared to conventionally produced meat products in Europe. Conventionally produced poultry had slightly lower energy use than cultured meat. It is concluded that the overall environmental impacts of cultured meat production are substantially lower than those of conventionally produced meat."||7th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector, 22nd - 24th September 2010, Bari, Italy||N/A||in vitro meat, environmental impacts, energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, land use||N/A||Quantitative||Europe||http://futuremeat.org/index.php/essays/academic-articles/77-life-cycle-assessment-of-cultured-meat-production||Can't find original source URL|
|In Vitro Meat: Zombies on the Menu?||Neil Stephens||2010||"In April 2008 the In Vitro Meat Consortium held its first meeting at the Norwegian Food Research Institute. They are a group of scientists and advocates who seek to turn the techniques of tissue engineering to the production of food, producing meat in laboratories that has at no point been part of a living animal. This is a fascinating technology, and one that fits well with the topic of this SCRIPTed analysis section: the ‘zombification’ of meat products. I have been conducting interviews with scientists who are involved in In Vitro Meat research at the three main research sites to explore the emergent social, ethical and regulatory issues of the technology. In this discussion I first provide detail on the current level of scientific development in the field and then describe the social context and promise of In Vitro Meat, before finally returning to the central question of what exactly In Vitro Meat is: zombie or not?"||SCRIPTed: A Journal of Law, Technology & Society||N/A||N/A||N/A||Review||N/A||https://script-ed.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/7-2-Stephens.pdf|
|Prospectus of cultured meat—advancing meat alternatives||Zuhaib Fayaz Bhat, Hina Fayaz||2011||"The in vitro production of meat is probably feasible with existing tissue engineering techniques and may offer health and environmental advantages by reducing environmental pollution and land use associated with current meat production systems. By culturing loose myosatellite cells on a substrate, it is probably possible to produce cultured meat by harvesting mature muscle cells after differentiation and processing them into various meat products. Besides reducing the animal suffering significantly, it will also ensure sustainable production of designer, chemically safe and disease free meat with favourable nutritional profile as the conditions in an in vitro meat production system are controlled and manipulatable. However, the production of highly-structured, unprocessed meat faces considerably greater technical challenges and a great deal of research is still needed to establish a sustainable in vitro meat culturing system on an industrial scale. This review discusses the requirements that need to be met to increase the feasibility of meat production in vitro, which include finding an appropriate stem cell source and being able to grow them in a three dimensional environment inside a bioreactor, providing essential cues for proliferation and differentiation."||Journal of Food Science and Technology||N/A||Cultured meat, Meat substitute, Need, Challenges||N/A||Review||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3551074/|
|Environmental Impacts of Cultured Meat Production||Hanna L. Tuomisto, and M. Joost Teixeira de Mattos||2011||"Cultured meat (i.e., meat produced in vitro using tissue engineering techniques) is being developed as a potentially healthier and more efficient alternative to conventional meat. Life cycle assessment (LCA) research method was used for assessing environmental impacts of large-scale cultured meat production. Cyanobacteria hydrolysate was assumed to be used as the nutrient and energy source for muscle cell growth. The results showed that production of 1000 kg cultured meat requires 26–33 GJ energy, 367–521 m3 water, 190–230 m2 land, and emits 1900–2240 kg CO2-eq GHG emissions. In comparison to conventionally produced European meat, cultured meat involves approximately 7–45% lower energy use (only poultry has lower energy use), 78–96% lower GHG emissions, 99% lower land use, and 82–96% lower water use depending on the product compared. Despite high uncertainty, it is concluded that the overall environmental impacts of cultured meat production are substantially lower than those of conventionally produced meat."||Environmental Science & Technology||N/A||N/A||N/A||Quantitative||Spain, California, and Thailand||http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es200130u|
|The Fictions and Futures of Farm Animals: Semi-Living to "Animalacra" Pig Tales||Susan McHugh||2011|
|Plate Expectations||Lou Reade||2011|
|Animal-free Meat Biofabrication||Z.F. Bhat and Hina Bhat||2011||"Nutrition-related diseases, food borne illnesses, resource use and pollution and use of farm animals are some serious consequences associated with conventional meat production system and consumers have expressed growing concern over them. Biofabrication, production of complex living and non-living biological products, is a potential solution to reduce these ill effects of current meat production system. The industrial potential of biofabrication technology is far beyond the traditional medically oriented tissue engineering and organ printing and, in the long term, biofabrication can contribute to the development of novel biotechnologies that can dramatically transform traditional animal-based agriculture by inventing animal-free food, leather and fur products. In this study we review the possibility of producing in vitro meat using tissue-engineering techniques that may offer health and environmental advantages by reducing environmental pollution and land use associated with current meat production systems. Besides, reducing the animal suffering significantly, it will also ensure sustainable production of designer, chemically safe and disease free meat as the conditions in an in vitro meat production system are controlled and manipulatable. The techniques required to produce in vitro meat are not beyond imagination and the basic methodology of an in vitro meat production system (IMPS) involves culturing muscle tissue in a liquid medium on a large scale but the production of highly-structured, unprocessed meat faces considerably greater technical challenges and a great deal of research is still needed to establish a sustainable in vitro meat culturing system on an industrial scale. In the long term, tissue-engineered meat is the inescapable future of humanity. However, in the short term the extremely high prohibitive cost of the biofabrication of tissue-engineered meat is the main potential obstacle, although large-scale production and market penetration are usually associated with a dramatic price reduction."||American Journal of Food Technology||N/A||N/A||N/A||Review||N/A||http://scialert.net/fulltext/?doi=ajft.2011.441.459|
|Cultured Meat: The Systemic Implications of an Emerging Technology||Carolyn Mattick, Braden Allenby||2012||"Cultured meat - edible muscle tissue grown in a laboratory or factory (carnery) without the need of a whole animal - was shown to be feasible in 2000  and several researchers have since suggested that large-scale production is possible [2-5]. Using ESEM principles as a guide, this investigation represents a preliminary attempt to shed light on some of the environmental, economic, and social implications of this emerging technology. The ultimate goal is to facilitate adaptive management of its commercialization and diffusion in order to prevent or mitigate sub-optimal lifecycle impacts. "||N/A||IEEE International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technology||carneries; cultured meat; earth systems engineering and management; emerging technologies; in vitro meat||N/A||https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84866244978&origin=inward&txGid=0E4AD8C032B87FBA22847056AC040886.wsnAw8kcdt7IPYLO0V48gA%3a1|
|Cultured meat from stem cells: Challenges and prospects||Mark J. Post||2012||"As one of the alternatives for livestock meat production, in vitro culturing of meat is currently studied. The generation of bio-artificial muscles from satellite cells has been ongoing for about 15 years, but has never been used for generation of meat, while it already is a great source of animal protein.|
In order to serve as a credible alternative to livestock meat, lab or factory grown meat should be efficiently produced and should mimic meat in all of its physical sensations, such as visual appearance, smell, texture and of course, taste. This is a formidable challenge even though all the technologies to create skeletal muscle and fat tissue have been developed and tested. The efficient culture of meat will primarily depend on culture conditions such as the source of medium and its composition. Protein synthesis by cultured skeletal muscle cells should further be maximized by finding the optimal combination of biochemical and physical conditions for the cells. Many of these variables are known, but their interactions are numerous and need to be mapped. This involves a systematic, if not systems, approach. Given the urgency of the problems that the meat industry is facing, this endeavor is worth undertaking. As an additional benefit, culturing meat may provide opportunities for production of novel and healthier products."
|Meat Science||N/A||Cell culture ; Tissue engineering ; Meat substitutes||N/A||Review||N/A||http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174012001210|
|Sugar, Vegan Deli Slices, Whole Grains, Meat Genes – What Will Vegans and Vegetarians Eat? VRG Asks in a New National Harris Poll||Charles Stahler||2012||"Would purchase a meat alternative grown from animal cell DNA obtained ten years ago, which does not currently involve the raising of animals|
4% All Vegetarians including vegans
5% Vegetarians not including vegans
12% All those that eat one or more vegetarian meals per week, not including vegetarians/vegans."
|N/A||Vegetarian Resource Group||N/A||N/A||Quantitative||U.S.||http://www.vrg.org/blog/2012/04/18/sugar-vegan-deli-slices-whole-grains-meat-genes-what-will-vegans-and-vegetarians-eat-vrg-asks-in-a-new-national-harris-poll/|
|Worldwide Alternatives to Animal Derived Foods – Overview and Evaluation Models||Kurt Schmidinger||2012||"This present dissertation can be separated into 3 main sections|
The chapters 2 to 5 summarize the huge negative effect of the mass production of animal products and the breeding of more than 65 billion animals annually on the environment, on human health, on world nutrition and on the animals themselves.
In chapter 6 ethical evaluation methods for foods are summarized and also adapted and refined to be applied to the alternatives to livestock products that are presented in the last chapters. Chapter 7 presents major success criteria for such new alternative foods and based on this, chapter 8 presents economical evaluation methods for foods with further elaboration done on existing models for applying them to alternatives to livestock products.
Chapters 9 to 11 give an overview of the wide variety of existing alternatives to meat, egg products and dairy products globally, with some of them evaluated by applying the methods elaborated on in the preceding chapters. Chapter 12 invites the reader to journey to a possible future by presenting the status quo of the plans to produce actual meat in vitro without the use of animals (and not "just" products which are copies of meat). These final chapters, 9 to 12, have a journalistic touch, presenting a global overview of remarkable developments and trends in the market and in science."
|dissertation||N/A||Livestock, vegetarian, climate, environment, life cycle assessment, footprint, world nutrition, health, cancer, cardiovascular diseases, animal welfare, animal rights, ethical food models, economical food models, vegetarian meat alternatives, egg alternatives, alternatives to dairy products, cultured meat, in vitro meat.||N/A||?||?||http://futurefood.org/DissertationSchmidinger.pdf|
|Cultured meat: will it separate us from nature?||Stellan Welin & Cor Van der Weele||2012||N/A||"Climate Change and sustainable development: Ethical perspectives on land use and food production" by Thomas Potthast & Simon Meisch||N/A||N/A||Book chapter||N/A||https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=kha0N2yg3RMC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=potthast+and+meisch+climate+change+and+sustainable+development&ots=EsSH5BNqVV&sig=-4qL64kNQRuiWSOXo7eZKqABxBU#v=onepage&q=potthast%20and%20meisch%20climate%20change%20and%20sustainable%20development&f=false|
|In Vitro Meat: What Are the Moral Issues?||Stellan Welin, Julie Gold, Johanna Berlin||2012|
|Pig towers and in vitro meat: Disclosing moral worlds by design||Clemens Driessen & Michiel Korthals||2012|
|Could cultured meat reduce environmental impact of agriculture in Europe?||Hanna L. Tuomisto, Avijit G. Roy||2012||"This paper assesses the potential of cultured meat to reduce environmental impacts of livestock production in Europe. Cultured meat (i.e. in vitro meat or lab-grown meat) is produced by cultivating livestock muscle cells in a growth media. The environmental impacts of hypothetical large-scale production of cultured meat were compared to the impacts of livestock production in the EU-27. The re-sults showed that if all meat produced in the EU-27 was replaced by cultured meat, the GHG emissions, land use and water use would be reduced by two orders of magnitude compared to current meat production practices. When the opportunity costs of land use were included, the environmental benefits were even higher. More research and development is required before the product can be commercialised. Further effort is needed to gain public acceptance for this technology."||8th International Conference on LCA in the Agri-Food Sector, Rennes, France, 2-4 October 2012||N/A||in vitro meat, greenhouse gas emissions, land use, life cycle assessment, water footprint||N/A||Quantitative||Europe||http://futuremeat.org/index.php/essays/academic-articles/26-environment/73-could-cultured-meat-reduce-environmental-impact-of-agriculture-in-europe||Can't find original source URL|
|The future of meat: A qualitative analysis of cultured meat media coverage||JN Goodwin, CW Shoulders||2013||"This study sought to explore the informational themes and information sources cited by the media to cover stories of cultured meat in both the United States and the European Union. The results indicated that cultured meat news articles in both the United States and the European Union commonly discuss cultured meat in terms of benefits, history, process, time, livestock production problems, and skepticism. Additionally, the information sources commonly cited in the articles included cultured meat researchers, sources from academia, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), New Harvest, Winston Churchill, restaurant owners/chefs, and sources from the opposing countries (e.g. US use some EU sources and vice versa). The implications of this study will allow meat scientists to understand how the media is influencing consumers' perceptions about the topic, and also allow them to strategize how to shape future communication about cultured meat."||Meat Science||N/A||Communication; Consumers; Cultured Meat; Media coverage||34 news articles||Qualitative analysis of news media articles||United States & European Union||http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174013002210|
|In Vitro Meat: Space Travel, Cannibalism, and Federal Regulation||Zachary Schneider||2013||"Over the course of the next few decades, the world population will surge from seven billion to nine billion people. Coupled with the skyrocketing development of countries such as China and India, this population growth will place new burdens on the world’s food supply, especially the production of meat. Currently, meat production consumes about 20% of the world’s energy, 70% of potable water, 30% of arable land, and is responsible for between 15 and 24% of greenhouse gas emissions. At these rates, the world cannot sustain an increased burden on its natural resources due to heightened demand for meat.
Genetic engineering and cloning are already being implemented to help ease some of the burdens on the world food supply. “In 2005, 52% of corn, 87% of soybeans, and 79% of cotton planted in the United States [were] genetically engineered . . . .” Genetically-engineered (GE) plants enable farmers to produce more resilient crops, allowing them to prevent economic damage to yearly harvests and waste. Creating fast-growing animals and inherently insect-resistant plants can alleviate strains on the environment and the global food supply. These techniques still face the same limitations of traditional farming, such as land and resource consumption. However, some genetic modifications produce faster growth, such as the AquAdvantage salmon, thereby reducing the cost of raising the animals and lessening their environmental impact.
This Comment argues that growing demand for protein, especially from meat, will drive a search for alternatives to conventional meat production. A developing technology, in vitro meat, could help ease many of the environmental burdens of worldwide meat production. In vitro meat research seeks to develop a method to grow meat in a lab environment. Some researchers estimate that in vitro meat production systems could reduce use of land and water resources for raising meat by up to 80% and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from raising livestock by as much as 90%."
|Houston Law Review||N/A||N/A||N/A||Review||http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/hulr50&div=34&id=&page=|
|Emerging Profiles for Cultured Meat; Ethics through and as Design||Cor van der Weele and Clemens Driessen||2013||"Simple Summary: The idea of cultured meat is to grow meat from animal cells with tissue engineering techniques. Cultured meat is an idea under investigation that will not be ready for the market for several years. It is also still open what it could or should be like. We argue that this openness offers the opportunity to explore different directions in which this idea could be developed. Feelings, critical thinking and the imagination all have important roles to play in this exploration.|
Abstract: The development of cultured meat has gained urgency through the increasing problems associated with meat, but what it might become is still open in many respects. In existing debates, two main moral profiles can be distinguished. Vegetarians and vegans who embrace cultured meat emphasize how it could contribute to the diminishment of animal suffering and exploitation, while in a more mainstream profile cultured meat helps to keep meat eating sustainable and affordable. In this paper we argue that these profiles do not exhaust the options and that (gut) feelings as well as imagination are needed to explore possible future options. On the basis of workshops, we present a third moral profile, “the pig in the backyard”. Here cultured meat is imagined as an element of a hybrid community of humans and animals that would allow for both the consumption of animal protein and meaningful relations with domestic (farm) animals. Experience in the workshops and elsewhere also illustrates that thinking about cultured meat inspires new thoughts on “normal” meat. In short, the idea of cultured meat opens up new search space in various ways. We suggest that ethics can take an active part in these searches, by fostering a process that integrates (gut) feelings, imagination and rational thought and that expands the range of our moral identities."
|Animals||N/A||meat; in vitro meat; animal welfare; stem cells; sustainable consumption; tissue engineering; design; ethics||N/A||Theoretical; Qualitative (workshops)||?||http://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/3/3/647/htm|
|Intertwined ambiguities: Meat, in vitro meat, and the ideological construction of the marketplace||Robert M. Chiles||2013||"Political stakeholders play a critical role in the cultural construction of the marketplace, and consumers often look to them for guidance in framing ambiguous cultural and scientific issues. Unfortunately, however, the existing consumer culture literature usually focuses on consumers’ use of ideology while neglecting stakeholders’ ideological orientations. In order to address this gap, I ask two questions: First, how do stakeholders draw upon ideology in order to make sense of ambiguous goods and of the extant and potential reactions of consumers to these goods? Second, what are the potential political consequences of stakeholders’ ideological commitments vis-a-vis supporters and outside audiences? I explore these questions by interviewing agrifood system stakeholders on the subject of in vitro meat, a nascent technology whereby meat is produced through stem cell cultures. Although ideology serves as a useful tool with which stakeholders can navigate labyrinth-like cultural conundrums, stakeholders’ ideological positions can also result in ambiguities, ironies, and incongruities. By investigating the beginnings of a potential consumer controversy, this study illuminates how ideology operates as an epistemic resource for political claims-makers and how stakeholders’ ideological commitments can result in either rewards or repercussions from allies and consumers."||Journal of Consumer Behaviour||N/A||N/A||N/A||Qualitative||U.S.||http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cb.1447/abstract|
|If they come, we will build it: in vitro meat and the discursive struggle over future agrofood expectations||Robert Magneson Chiles||2013||"According to recent literature in the sociology of expectations, expectations about the future are ‘‘performative’’ in that they provide guidance for activities, attract attention, mobilize political and economic resources, coordinate between groups, link technical and social concerns, create visions, and enroll supporters. While this framework has blossomed over the past decade in science and technology studies, it has yet to be applied towards a more refined understanding of how the future of the modern agrofood system is being actively contested and understood. I seek to redress this gap by using the sociology of expectations to explain the discursive topography surrounding in vitro meat, a nascent agrofood technology whereby processed meat products are developed from stem cells as opposed to live animals. In discussing the obstacles and challenges which confront the proponents of this technology, I utilize three key concepts from the sociology of expectations: (1) hype, (2) retrospective prospects, and (3) the role of myth, metaphor, and ideology. I find that despite sluggish results and financial setbacks, the controversial legacy of previous agrofood technologies, and persistent cultural skepticism, the core ideological justifications for in vitro meat have proven to be resilient in buoying the technology through rough discursive waters."||Agriculture and Human Values||N/A||In vitro meat; Agrofood; Sociology of expectations; Technology; Discourse; Stakeholders||N/A||Qualitative||North America||http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10460-013-9427-9|
|Growing Meat in Laboratories: The Promise, Ontology, and Ethical Boundary-Work of Using Muscle Cells to Make Food||Neil Stephens||2013||"Over the last decade, several clusters of scientists have been using animal cells in an attempt to grow meat. Known as in vitro, or cultured, meat, the technology involves tissue engineering muscle cells for potential consumption as food. Those supporting the technology articulate a diversity of potential benefits in producing meat in this way, which include environmental-, health-, innovation-, and animal-welfare-related benefits. This essay reports on interviews with scientists and animal activists involved in making and promoting in vitro meat (IVM). While the technology remains in its infancy, its promotion has assertively been pursued with a set of promissory narratives designed to enroll potential funders, commercial investors, and consumers. The essay explores the ethical boundary-work—the drawing of boundaries around what constitutes ethical scientific practice—pursued in the creation of socio-technical expectations around IVM. In particular, it focuses on the emergence of an animal-libratory promissory narrative by exploring how ethically correct practice toward animals is constructed and used to underpin notions of what IVM is and what it can do. The key contributions of the essay are to provide a detailed analysis of the situated ethics of IVM, and to make explicit the relatedness among ethics, promise, and ontology."||Configurations||N/A||N/A||N/A||Theoetical/Qualitative||N/A||http://muse.jhu.edu/article/526144|
|Is Lab-Grown Meat Good for Us?||Marta Zaraska||2013||N/A||The Atlantic||N/A||N/A||Article||USA||http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/08/is-lab-grown-meat-good-for-us/278778/|
|Introducing the new meat. Problems and prospects.||Stellan Welin||2013||Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics||N/A||N/A|
|Engineering Freedom? A Critique of Biotechnological Routes to Animal Liberation||Matthew Cole, Karen Morgan||2013|
|The Substratum of Bioengineered Meat and its Ethical Implications to the Animal Rights Movement||Charles J Dishmon||2013|
|Consuming Monsters: Big, Perfect & Infectious||A Dunne & F Raby||2013|
|Concentrating on Healthy Feeding Operations: The National School Lunch Program, "Cultured Meat", and the Path to a Sustainable Food Future||Kevin Schneider||2013|
|Cultured beef: medical technology to produce food||Mark J Post||2013||"Culturing beef from bovine satellite cells can be done and the urgent need for alternative beef production requires full-scale research into this interesting possibility."||Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture||N/A||skeletal muscle; cultured beef; adipose tissue; sustainability||N/A||Review||N/A||http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jsfa.6474/abstract|
|The Future of Meat||Carolyn Mattick, Brad Allenby||2013||"Just because the first in vitro hamburger cost $335,000 to produce doesn’t mean we shouldn’t start thinking about how factory-grown meat might transform our food system, the environment, and even our culture."||N/A||Issues||N/A||N/A||Review||N/A||http://issues.org/30-1/carolyn/|
|An Emerging Technology Assessment of Factory-Grown Food||Carolyn Mattick||2014||"In vitro, or cultured, meat refers to edible skeletal muscle and fat tissue grown from animal stem cells in a laboratory or factory. It is essentially meat that does not require an animal to be killed. Although it is still in the research phase of development, claims of its potential benefits range from reducing the environmental impacts of food production to improving human health. However, technologies powerful enough to address such significant challenges often come with unintended consequences and a host of costs and benefits that seldom accrue to the same actors. In extreme cases, they can even be destabilizing to social, institutional, economic, and cultural systems. This investigation explores the sustainability implications of cultured meat before commercial facilities are established, unintended consequences are realized, and undesirable effects become reified and locked in. The study utilizes expert focus groups to explore the social implications, life cycle analysis to project the environmental implications, and economic input-output assessment to explore tradeoffs between conventionally-produced meat and factory-grown food products. The results suggest that, should cultured meat be widely adopted by consumers, food is likely to be increasingly a product of human design, perhaps becoming integrated into existing human institutions such as health care delivery and education. Environmentally, cultured meat could require smaller quantities of agricultural inputs and land than livestock. However, those avoided costs could come at the expense of more intensive energy use as biological processes are replaced with industrial systems. Finally, the research found that, since livestock production is a driver of significant economic activity, shifting away from traditional meat production in favor of cultured meat production could result in a net economic contraction."||PhD Thesis (Arizona State University)||N/A||N/A||https://repository.asu.edu/attachments/135058/content/Mattick_asu_0010E_13815.pdf|
|Frankenburgers, Risks and Approval||Ludivine Petetin||2014||"This piece critically analyses the development of a novel food technology: the Franken-burger, a type of cultured/in vitro meat (or 'shmeat', which stands for 'sheet of meat'). It assesses the risks raised by cultured meat as well as the role it could play to alleviate environmental and food security concerns. The article argues that the current EU regulatory structures for cultured meat, and for novel foods more generally, ought to be strengthened. There is a necessity to transfer and develop food innovations in partnerships with all the relevant stakeholders (the public, scientists, the food industry, policy-makers and regulators). Including interested parties from the inception of a technology as well as within the decision-making process would provide a supporting framework for cultured meat."||European Journal of Risk Regulation||N/A||None||N/A||Review, policy analysis||European Union||http://web.b.ebscohost.com/abstract?site=ehost&scope=site&jrnl=1867299X&AN=97110629&h=yednsqM%2fhGJ%2bakNvPxHaZc6QLPmqhJ6%2fWGEPgGCFBylbhpDVjVqhbyJFRJxut31PSwwpt5xEbiVDFvuIiolNqg%3d%3d&crl=f&resultLocal=ErrCrlNoResults&resultNs=Ehost&crlhashurl=login.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26profile%3dehost%26scope%3dsite%26authtype%3dcrawler%26jrnl%3d1867299X%26AN%3d97110629|
|Cultured meat: every village its own factory?||Cor van der Weele, and Johannes Tramper||2014||"Rising global demand for meat will result in increased environmental pollution, energy consumption, and animal suffering. Cultured meat, produced in an animal-cell cultivation process, is a technically feasible alternative lacking these disadvantages, provided that an animal-component-free growth medium can be developed. Small-scale production looks particularly promising, not only technologically but also for societal acceptance. Economic feasibility, however, emerges as the real obstacle."||Trends in Biotechnology||N/A||N/A||N/A||Review||N/A||http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167779914000869|
|In Vitro Meat: A Future Animal-Free Harvest||Zuhaib Fayaz Bhat, Sunil Kumar & Hina Fayaz Bhat||2014||"In vitro meat production is a novel idea of producing meat without involving animals with the help of tissue engineering techniques. This biofabrication of complex living products by using various bioengineering techniques is a potential solution to reduce the ill effects of current meat production systems and can dramatically transform traditional animal-based agriculture by inventing ‘animal-free’ meat and meat products. Nutrition-related diseases, food borne illnesses, resource use and pollution, and use of farm animals are some serious consequences associated with conventional meat production methods. This new way of animal-free meat production may offer health and environmental advantages by reducing environmental pollution and resource use associated with current meat production systems and will also ensure sustainable production of designer, chemically safe and disease free meat as the conditions in an in vitro meat production system are controllable and manipulatable. Theoretically, this system is believed to be efficient enough to supply the global demand for meat, however, establishment of a sustainable in vitro meat production would face considerably greater technical challenges and a great deal of research is still needed to establish this animal-free meat culturing system on an industrial scale."||Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition||N/A||In vitro meat, history, techniques, benefits, objections||N/A||Review||N/A||http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408398.2014.924899||Just a manusctipt. Same as another paper by the same authors?|
|From killing cows to culturing meat||Francesco Buscemi||2014||"Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate how in Britain, France and Italy the idea of the living animal is being detached from the action of eating meat. It is an ongoing historical process, which has recently been fuelled by the new issue of cultured meat.|
Design/methodology/approach – Starting from Goody’s developmentalist stages (Production, Distribution, Preparation and Consumption), first this work analyses historically how these stages
have undergone the process of the disappearance of the animal origins of meat (animal origins of meat are parts like the head and legs that remind us that once meat was an animal). Second, this paper applies cultured meat to Goody’s stage of Production, linking the new product to the historical, above described, process.
Findings – The analysis shows that, in the past, Goody’s stages of Consumption, Distribution and Preparation witnessed the disappearance of the animal origins of meat, while Production was not affected by the phenomenon. Today, with testing on cultured meat, even the stage of Production has gone through this process. Now, all of Goody’s stages are involved in the process. Usually considered a shocking novelty, cultured meat is instead a stage of a historical process.
Originality/value – No one has previously analysed the disappearance of the animal origins of meat relating it to Goody’s stages, and a current issue like cultured meat has never been considered a further step of this process."
|British Food Journal||N/A||Retailing, Europe, Meat, Animal products, Food history||N/A||Theoretical||N/A||http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/BFJ-11-2012-0288|
|U.S. Views of Technology and the Future: Science in the next 50 years||Aaron Smith||2014||"Similarly, just one in five Americans (20%) would be willing to eat meat that was grown in a lab. Men express a greater willingness to do so than women (27% of men and 14% of women say they would give lab grown meat a try), and college graduates are around three times as likely as those who have not attended college to say this is something they’d attempt (30% vs. 11%)."|
"But significant majorities say that they are not interested in [...] eating meat that was grown in a lab (just 20% would like to do this)."
"Eat meat grown in a lab
78% would not"
|N/A||Pew Research Center||N/A||N/A||Quantitative||U.S.||http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/04/17/us-views-of-technology-and-the-future/|
Download dataset: http://www.pewinternet.org/datasets/february-2014-views-of-science-and-the-future/
|Would you eat lab grown meat to save the environment? - poll||Hannah Gould||2014||"Would you eat lab grown meat to save the environment?|
37% Yes, I could come round to the idea
9% Yes please, with extra cheese and insects on the side
14% No thanks, I'd rather just give up meat completely
4% No way, I like my steak old fashioned and that's how it is
36% Not for me, I'm already a meat free zone, real or fake"
|A European perspective of innovations towards mitigation of nitrogen-related greenhouse gases||Wilfried Winiwarter, Adrian Leip, Hanna Tuomisto, Palle Haastrup||2014|
|Growing for different ends||Oron Catts & Ionat Zurr||2014|
|Technology as Responsibility: Failure, Food Animals, and Lab-grown Meat||Wyatt Galusky||2014|
|The Ethics of Producing In Vitro Meat||G. Owen Schaefer, Julian Savulescu||2014|
|Technology as the Human Evolution Prosthetic||M Taylor||2014||MA Thesis|
|Disrupting the Meat Industry: Tissue Culture Beef||Jose B. Alvarez and Matthew Preble||2014||"Dr. Mark Post and his team at Maastricht University were perfecting their tissue culture beef product-made entirely from muscle grown in his lab-to give it the same taste, texture and appearance of a traditional beef hamburger. A previous iteration of this product had been taste tested live, with good results, and Sergey Brin, a co-founder of Google, had provided Post with much of the funding to make the burgers. The next step was to form an independent company around this technology and take it to market. This innovative product could both radically disrupt the existing beef production and supply chain, and provide an animal welfare and environmentally-friendly food that had far less of an environmental impact than traditional beef products. Post faced several challenges in making this a commercially viable product though. He had to get price down, as it currently cost roughly $330,000 to make a single burger. He also had to find the right partner(s) to help him bring the product to market, but who should he work with: someone from the established beef production and supply system, a retailer, or someone entirely outside the traditional beef system? How could he expect established companies to react to this disruption of the status quo? Messaging around this product was critical: How should Post communicate with the public to convey that this was a natural product-the way muscle tissue grew in his lab was the same way it developed in cattle-and overcome public skepticism of overt scientific involvement in their food?"||Harvard Business Review||N/A||N/A||N/A||Case Study||The Netherlands||https://hbr.org/product/disrupting-the-meat-industry-tissue-culture-beef/515001-PDF-ENG|
|Challenges and prospects for consumer acceptance of cultured meat||Wim Verbeke, Pierre Sans, Ellen J Van Loo||2015||"Consumer acceptance of cultured meat is expected to depend on a wide diversity of determinants ranging from technology-related perceptions to product-specific expectations, and including wider contextual factors like media coverage, public involvement, and trust in science, policy and society. This paper discusses the case of cultured meat against this multitude of possible determinants shaping future consumer acceptance or rejection. The paper also presents insights from a primary exploratory study performed in April 2013 with consumers from Flanders (Belgium) (n=180). The concept of cultured meat was only known (unaided) by 13% of the study participants. After receiving basic information about what cultured meat is, participants expressed favorable expectations about the concept. Only 9% rejected the idea of trying cultured meat, while two thirds hesitated and about quarter indicated to be willing to try it. The provision of additional information about the environmental benefits of cultured meat compared to traditional meat resulted in 43% of the participants indicating to be willing to try this novel food, while another 51% indicated to be ‘maybe’ willing to do so. Price and sensory expectations emerged as major obstacles. Consumers eating mostly vegetarian meals were less convinced that cultured meat might be healthy, suggesting that vegetarians may not be the ideal primary target group for this novel meat substitute. Although exploratory rather than conclusive, the findings generally underscore doubts among consumers about trying this product when it would become available, and therefore also the challenge for cultured meat to mimic traditional meat in terms of sensory quality at an affordable price in order to become acceptable for future consumers."||Journal of Integrative Agriculture||N/A||acceptance; artificial; attitude; consumer; cultured; in vitro; meat; synthetic||Quantitative||Belgium||http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095311914608844|
|In vitro meat production: Challenged and benefits over conventional meat production||Zuhaib Fayaz Bhat, Sunil Kumar, Hina Fayaz||2015||"In vitro meat production system is the production of meat outside the food animals by culturing the stem cells derived from farm animals inside the bioreactor by using advanced tissue engineering techniques. Besides winning the favour of animal rights activists for its humane production of meat, in vitro meat production system also circumvents many of the issues associated with conventional meat production systems, like excessively brutal slaughter of food animals, nutrition-related diseases, foodborne illnesses, resource use, antibiotic-resistant pathogen strains, and massive emissions of methane that contribute to global warming. As the conditions in an in vitro meat production system are controlled and manipulatable, it will be feasible to produce designer, chemically safe and disease-free meat on sustainable basis. However, many challenges are to be faced before cultured meat becomes commercially feasible. Although, the production cost and the public acceptance are of paramount importance, huge funds are desperately required for further research in the field."||Journal of Integrative Agriculture||N/A||in vitro meat; history; advantages; techniques; problems||N/A||Review||http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S209531191460887X|
|What is artificial meat and what does it mean for the future of the meat industry?||Sarah P F Bonny, Graham E Gardner, David W Pethick, Jean-Francois Hocquette||2015||"The meat industry cannot respond to increases in demand by ever increasing resource use. The industry must find solutions to issues regarding animal welfare, health and sustainability and will have to do so in the face of competition from emerging non-traditional meat and protein products in an increasingly complex regulatory environment. These novel meat and protein products, otherwise known as ‘artificial meat’ are utilising ground breaking technologies designed to meet the issues facing the conventional meat industry. These artificial meats, in vitro or cultured meat and meat from genetically modified organisms have no real capacity to compete with conventional meat production in the present environment. However, meat replacements manufactured from plant proteins and mycoproteins are currently the biggest competitors and are gaining a small percentage of the market. Manufactured meats may push conventional meat into the premium end of the market, and supply the bulk, cheap end of the market if conventional meat products become more expensive and the palatability and versatility of manufactured meats improve. In time the technology for other artificial meats such as meat from genetic modified organisms or cultured meat may become sufficiently developed for these products to enter the market with no complexity of the competition between meat products. Conventional meat producers can assimilate agroecology ecology concepts in order to develop sustainable animal production systems. The conventional meat industry can also benefit from assimilating biotechnologies such as cloning and genetic modification technologies, using the technology to adapt to the changing environment and respond to the increasing competition from artificial meats. Although it will depend at least partly on the evolution of conventional meat production, the future of artificial meat produced from stem cells appears uncertain at this time."||Journal of Integrative Agriculture||N/A||artificial meat; in vitro meat; meat industry; consumer satisfaction; sustainable production||N/A||Review||http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095311914608881|
|Moral Steaks? Ethical Discourses of In Vitro Meat in Academia and Australia||Tamsin Dilworth, Andrew McGregor||2015||"The profile and possibilities of in vitro meat are rapidly expanding, creating new ethical conundrums about how to approach this nascent biotechnology. The outcomes of these ethical debates will shape the future viability of this technology and its acceptability for potential consumers. In this paper we focus on how in vitro meat is being ethically constructed in academic literatures and contrast this with discourses evident in the mainstream print media. The academic literature is analysed to identify a typology of ethical discourses, ordered from the most common to least expressed. We then apply this typology to investigate the frames present in Australian print media reportage on the topic. In the academic literature, discourses relating to in vitro meat’s promised environmental, animal welfare and food security benefits are most prominent. In contrast, ontological struggles over its ‘nature’ have emerged as the dominant feature in the Australian print media. Although these spaces of engagement evidence decidedly different discursive trends, ethical discourses critical of in vitro meat’s wider socio-cultural ramifications are currently under-represented in both. This paper therefore calls for critical scholars to move beyond the narrow, presumptive framings of in vitro meat as a technological remedy for our consumptive ills, to more seriously engage with the ethical consequences of this new form of food."||Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics||N/A||In vitro meat; cultured meat; Biotechnology; Bioethics; Discourse analysis; Australia||55 academic papers, 41 media articles||Qualitative analysis of news media articles||Australia||http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10806-014-9522-y|
|Educated consumers don't believe artificial meat is the solution to the problems with the meat industry||Aurelie Hocquette, Carla Lambert, Clementine Sinquin, Laure Peterolff, Zoe Wagner, Sarah P F Bonny, Andre Lebert, Jean-Francois Hocquette||2015||"The production of in vitro meat by cell culture has been suggested by some scientists as one solution to address the major challenges facing our society. Firstly, consumers would like the meat industry to reduce potential discomfort of animals on modern farms, or even to avoid killing animals to eat them. Secondly, citizens would like meat producers to reduce potential environmental deterioration by livestock and finally, there is a need to reduce world hunger by increasing protein resources while the global population is predicted to grow rapidly. According to its promoters, artificial meat has a potential to make eating animals unnecessary, to reduce carbon footprint of meat production and to satisfy all the nutritional needs and desires of consumers and citizens. To check these assumptions, a total of 817 educated people (mainly scientists and students) were interviewed worldwide by internet in addition to 865 French educated people. We also interviewed 208 persons (mainly scientists) after an oral presentation regarding artificial meat. Results of the three surveys were similar, but differed between males and females. More than half of the respondents believed that “artificial meat” was feasible and realistic. However, there was no majority to think that artificial meat will be healthy and tasty, except respondents who were in favour of artificial meat. A large majority of the respondents believed that the meat industry is facing important problems related to the protection of the environment, animal welfare or inefficient meat production to feed humanity. However, respondents did not believe that artificial meat will be the solution to solve the mentioned problems with the meat industry, especially respondents who were against artificial meat. The vast majority of consumers wished to continue to eat meat even they would accept to consume less meat in a context of increasing food needs. Only a minority of respondents (from 5 to 11%) would recommend or accept to eat in vitro meat instead of meat produced from farm animals. Despite these limitations, 38 to 47% of the respondents would continue to support research on artificial meat, but a majority of them believed that artificial meat will not be accepted by consumers in the future, except for respondents who were in favour of artificial meat. We speculated that the apparent contradictory answers to this survey expressed the fact that people trust scientists who are supposed to continuously discover new technologies potentially useful in a long term future for the human beings, but people also expressed concern for their health and were not convinced that artificial meat will be tasty, safe and healthy enough to be accepted by consumers."||Journal of Integrative Agriculture||N/A||meat production; artificial meat; consumers' responses||817 online participants in English, 865 online participants in French, 208 paper-based survey participants||Quantitative survey||Respondents from North America, China, 'other Asian countries', Africa, France, others(?)||http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095311914608868|
|Cultured meat in western media: The disproportionate coverage of vegetarian reactions, demographic realities, and implications for cultured meat marketing||Patrick Hopkins||2015||"This paper examines the media coverage of the 2013 London cultured meat tasting event, particularly in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. Using major news outlets, prominent magazines covering food and science issues, and advocacy websites concerning meat consumption, the paper characterizes the overall emphases of the coverage, the tenor of the coverage, and compares the media portrayal of the important issues to the demographic and psychological realities of the actual consumer market into which cultured meat will compete. In particular, the paper argues that Western media gives a distorted picture of what obstacles are in the path of cultured meat acceptance, especially by overemphasizing and overrepresenting the importance of the reception of cultured meat among vegetarians. Promoters of cultured meat should recognize the skewed impression that this media coverage provides and pay attention to the demographic data that suggests strict vegetarians are a demographically negligible group. Resources for promoting cultured meat should focus on the empirical demographics of the consumer market and the empirical psychology of mainstream consumers."||Journal of Integrative Agriculture||N/A||Cultured meat; vegetarianism; vegans; Mark Post; in vitro meat; moral psychology; consumer market; disgust||Qualitative analysis of news media articles||United States, Canada, United Kingdom||http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095311914608832|
|Public Perceptions of the Ethics of In-vitro Meat: Determining an Appropriate Course of Action||Linnea Laestadius||2015||"While in vitro animal meat (IVM) is not yet commercially available, the public has already begun to form opinions of IVM as a result of news stories and events drawing attention to its development. As such, we can discern public perceptions of the ethics of IVM before its commercial release. This affords advocates of environmentally sustainable, healthy, and just diets with a unique opportunity to reflect on the social desirability of the development of IVM. This work draws upon an analysis of ethical perceptions of IVM in 814 US news blog comments related to the August 2013 tasting of the world’s first IVM hamburger. Specifically, I address three primary questions: (1) How does the public perceive the ethics of IVM development? (2) How acceptable is IVM to the public relative to alternative approaches to reducing animal meat consumption? and (3) What should all of this mean for the ongoing development and promotion of IVM? Ultimately, it is argued that there is a strong need for facilitation of public dialogue around IVM, as well as further research comparing the acceptability of IVM to other alternatives."||Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics||N/A||In vitro meat; cultured meat; public opinion; biotechnology; bioethics||814 comments on news blogs||Qualitative analysis of comments on news blogs||United States||http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10806-015-9573-8|
|Is the future of meat palatable? Perceptions of in vitro meat as evidenced by online news comments||Linnea Laestadius, Mark Caldwell||2015||"To understand current public perceptions of in vitro meat (IVM) in light of its potential to be a more environmentally sustainable alternative to conventional meat. A qualitative content analysis of the comments made on online news articles highlighting the development of IVM and the world’s first IVM hamburger in August 2013. News article comment sections across seven US-based online news sources (The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Cable News Network and National Public Radio). Four hundred and sixty-two commenters who made eight hundred and fourteen publicly available online comments addressing IVM. Key themes in commenter perceptions of IVM included environmental and public health benefits, but also negative themes such as IVM’s status as an unnatural and unappealing food. Overall, the tone of comments was more negative than positive. Findings suggest that while the environmental and public health motivations for developing and in turn consuming IVM resonate with some segments of the population, others find that reasoning both uncompelling and problematic. Concerns about IVM as an unnatural and risky product also appear to be a significant barrier to public acceptance of IVM. Supporters of IVM may wish to begin to develop a regulatory strategy for IVM to build public trust and explore messaging strategies that cast IVM as a new technology with benefits to individuals rather than primarily a solution to global challenges. Those in the public health nutrition field can make an important contribution to the emerging public discussion about IVM."||Public Health Nutrition||N/A||In vitro meat; meat consumption; public opinion||814 comments on news blogs||Qualitative analysis of comments on news blogs||United States||https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/public-health-nutrition/article/is-the-future-of-meat-palatable-perceptions-of-in-vitro-meat-as-evidenced-by-online-news-comments/99ABC527FD839475BDD0BDEB2727F3F6|
|The moral limitations of in vitro meat||Ben Levinstein, Anders Sandberg||2015||"Almost everybody agrees factory farming is morally outrageous, with several billions of animals living lives that are likely not worth living. One possible solution to this moral disaster is to make in vitro meat technologically and commercially viable. In vitro meat is biologically identical to real meat but cultured in a tank: one day it may become cheaper, more efficient and safer than normal meat. On animal welfare grounds, then, in vitro meat seems like a clear win as it has the potential to eliminate or greatly reduce the need for factory farms. However, there is a problem…"||N/A||University of Oxford 'Practical Ethics' Blog||N/A||N/A||Blog post||http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2015/09/the-moral-limitations-of-in-vitro-meat/|
|Analogies, metaphors, and wondering about the future: Lay sense-making around synthetic meat||Afrodita Marcu, Rui Gaspar, Pieter Rutsaert, Beate Seibt, David Fletcher, Wim Verbeke, Julie Barnett||2015||"Drawing on social representations theory, we explore how the public make sense of the unfamiliar, taking as the example a novel technology: synthetic meat. Data from an online deliberation study and eighteen focus groups in Belgium, Portugal and the UK indicated that the various strategies of sense-making afforded different levels of critical thinking about synthetic meat. Anchoring to genetic modification, metaphors like ‘Frankenfoods’ and commonplaces like ‘playing God’ closed off debates around potential applications of synthetic meat, whereas asking factual and rhetorical questions about it, weighing up pragmatically its risks and benefits, and envisaging changing current mentalities or behaviours in order to adapt to scientific developments enabled a consideration of synthetic meat’s possible implications for agriculture, environment, and society. We suggest that research on public understanding of technology should cultivate a climate of active thinking and should encourage questioning during the process of sense-making to try to reduce unhelpful anchoring."||Public Understanding of Science||N/A||Anchoring; commonplaces; metaphors; online deliberation; social representations; synthetic meat||174 online participants, 109 participants in 18 focus groups||Qualitative analysis of sense-making techniques||Belgium, Portugal, United Kingdom||http://pus.sagepub.com/content/24/5/547|
|Anticipatory Life Cycle Analysis of In Vitro Biomass Cultivation for Cultured Meat Production in the United States||Carolyn Mattick, Amy Landis, Braden Allenby, Nicholas Genovese||2015||"Cultured, or in vitro, meat consists of edible biomass grown from animal stem cells in a factory, or carnery. In the coming decades, in vitro biomass cultivation could enable the production of meat without the need to raise livestock. Using an anticipatory life cycle analysis framework, the study described herein examines the environmental implications of this emerging technology and compares the results with published impacts of beef, pork, poultry, and another speculative analysis of cultured biomass. While uncertainty ranges are large, the findings suggest that in vitro biomass cultivation could require smaller quantities of agricultural inputs and land than livestock; however, those benefits could come at the expense of more intensive energy use as biological functions such as digestion and nutrient circulation are replaced by industrial equivalents. From this perspective, large-scale cultivation of in vitro meat and other bioengineered products could represent a new phase of industrialization with inherently complex and challenging trade-offs."||Environmental Science & Technology||N/A||None||N/A||Life Cycle Analysis||http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b01614|
|An Anticipatory Social Assessment of Factory-Grown Meat||Carolyn Mattick, Jameson Wetmore, Braden Allenby||2015||"On August 5, 2013, a prototype sample of cultured, or in vitro, meat was tasted at a well-publicized event in London . This hamburger was not grown in an animal, but rather from bovine stem cells in Dr. Mark Post?s laboratory at Maastricht University in the Netherlands. The event may foreshadow a day when traditional livestock production has given way to large-scale growth of meat in factories, or carneries. Dr. Post has suggested that commercialization of cultured meat could be ten to twenty years away . The implications are profound. By some accounts the technology could reduce the environmental impacts of meat production , promote human health by eliminating harmful contents such as saturated fats and pathogens , address global hunger issues , and alleviate the ethical concerns associated with industrial livestock operations . However, technologies powerful enough to address such significant challenges often come with unforseen consequences and a host of costs and benefits that seldom accrue to the same actors. In extreme cases, they can even be destabilizing to social, institutional, economic, and cultural systems ."||IEEE Technology and Society Magazine||N/A||N/A||http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7064862/|
|In vitro meat production system: why and how?||Shruti Sharma, Sukhcharanjit Singh Thind, Amarjeet Kaur||2015||"Due to the nutritional importance and the sustained popularity of meat as a foodstuff, the livestock production sector has been expanding incessantly. This exponential growth of livestock meat sector poses a gigantic challenge to the sustainability of food production system. A new technological breakthrough is being contemplated to develop a substitute for livestock meat. The idea is to grow meat in a culture in the lab and manipulate its composition selectively. This paper aims to discuss the concept of In Vitro Meat production system, articulate the underlying technology and analyse the context of its implications, as proposed by several scientists and stakeholders. The challenges facing this emerging technology have also been discussed."||Journal of Food Science and Technology||N/A||Cultured meat; IMPS; stem cells; GHG emissions; consumer acceptance||N/A||Review||http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13197-015-1972-3|
|Meat alternatives: life cycle assessment of most known meat substitutes||Sergiy Smetana, Alexander Mathys, Achmin Knoch, Volker Heinz||2015||"Purpose
Food production is among the highest human environmental impacting activities. Agriculture itself accounts for 70–85 % of the water footprint and 30 % of world greenhouse gas emissions (2.5 times more than global transport). Food production’s projected increase in 70 % by 2050 highlights the importance of environmental impacts connected with meat production. The production of various meat substitutes (plant-based, mycoprotein-based, dairy-based, and animal-based substitutes) aims to reduce the environmental impact caused by livestock. This article outlined the comparative analysis of meat substitutes’ environmental performance in order to estimate the most promising options.
The study considered “cradle-to-plate” meal life cycle with the application of ReCiPe and IMPACT 2002+ methods. Inventory was based on literature and field data. Functional unit (FU) was 1 kg of a ready-to-eat meal at a consumer. The study evaluated alternative FU (the equivalent of 3.75 MJ energy content of fried chicken lean meat and 0.3 kg of digested dry matter protein content) as a part of sensitivity analysis.
Results and discussion
Results showed the highest impacts for lab-grown meat and mycoprotein-based analogues (high demand for energy for medium cultivation), medium impacts for chicken (local feed), and dairy-based and gluten-based meat substitutes, and the lowest impact for insect-based and soy meal-based substitutes (by-products allocated). Alternative FU confirmed the worst performance of lab-grown and mycoprotein-based analogues. The best performing products were insect-based and soy meal-based substitutes and chicken. The other substitutes had medium level impacts. The results were very sensitive to the changes of FU. Midpoint impact category results were the same order of magnitude as a previously published work, although wide ranges of possible results and system boundaries made the comparison with literature data not reliable.
Conclusions and recommendations
The results of the comparison were highly dependable on selected FU. Therefore, the proposed comparison with different integrative FU indicated the lowest impact of soy meal-based and insect-based substitutes (with given technology level development). Insect-based meat substitute has a potential to be more sustainable with the use of more advanced cultivation and processing techniques. The same is applicable to lab-grown meat and in a minor degree to gluten, dairy, and mycoprotein-based substitutes."
|The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment||N/A||Insect meal; LCA; meat substitute; mycoprotein; soy meal||N/A||Life cycle assessment||http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11367-015-0931-6|
|In vitro meat production: Challenges and benefits over conventional meat production||Zuhaib Fayaz Bhat, Sunil Kumar, Hina Fayaz||2015||"In vitro meat production system is the production of meat outside the food animals by culturing the stem cells derived from farm animals inside the bioreactor by using advanced tissue engineering techniques. Besides winning the favour of animal rights activists for its humane production of meat, in vitro meat production system also circumvents many of the issues associated with conventional meat production systems, like excessively brutal slaughter of food animals, nutrition-related diseases, foodborne illnesses, resource use, antibiotic-resistant pathogen strains, and massive emissions of methane that contribute to global warming. As the conditions in an in vitro meat production system are controlled and manipulatable, it will be feasible to produce designer, chemically safe and disease-free meat on sustainable basis. However, many challenges are to be faced before cultured meat becomes commercially feasible. Although, the production cost and the public acceptance are of paramount importance, huge funds are desperately required for further research in the field."||Journal of Integrative Agriculture||N/A||in vitro meat; history; advantages; techniques; problems||N/A||Review||N/A||http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S209531191460887X|
|Cultured meat from muscle stem cells: A review of challenges and prospects||Isam T Kadim, Osman Mahgoub, Senan Baqir, Bernard Faye, Roger Purchas||2015||"Growing muscle tissue in culture from animal stem cells to produce meat theoretically eliminates the need to sacrifice animals. So-called “cultured” or “synthetic” or “in vitro” meat could in theory be constructed with different characteristics and be produced faster and more efficiently than traditional meat. The technique to generate cultured muscle tissues from stem cells was described long ago, but has not yet been developed for the commercial production of cultured meat products. The technology is at an early stage and prerequisites of implementation include a reasonably high level of consumer acceptance, and the development of commercially-viable means of large scale production. Recent advancements in tissue culture techniques suggest that production may be economically feasible, provided it has physical properties in terms of colour, flavour, aroma, texture and palatability that are comparable to conventional meat. Although considerable progress has been made during recent years, important issues remain to be resolved, including the characterization of social and ethical constraints, the fine-tuning of culture conditions, and the development of culture media that are cost-effective and free of animal products. Consumer acceptance and confidence in in vitro produced cultured meat might be a significant impediment that hinders the marketing process."||Journal of Integrative Agriculture||N/A||cultured meat, conventional meat, environmental impact, stem cells||N/A||Review||N/A||http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095311914608819|
|Artificial meat? Feasible approach based on the experience from cell culture studies||Arkadiusz Orzechowski||2015||"This short review is to list pros and cons which are based on the literature and personal experience in cell culture studies related to possible commercial production of artificial meat as functional food. The general view of muscle composition and determinants of meat quality are shortly described. Principles of muscle cell propagation in culture and mutual relationships between different cell types present in this organ are briefly discussed. Additionally, the effects of some cytokines and growth factors for muscle cell growth and muscle tissue development are indicated. Finally, conclusion remarks related to detrimental consequences of meat production to natural environment as well as personal opinion of author on the prospects of artificial meat production are declared."||Journal of Integrative Agriculture||N/A||artificial meat, cell and tissue cultures, muscle growth, muscle composition||N/A||Review||N/A||http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095311914608820||More natural sciences than social sciences, but does have some general information|
|‘Would you eat cultured meat?’: Consumers' reactions and attitude formation in Belgium, Portugal and the United Kingdom||Wim Verbeke, Afrodita Marcu, Pieter Rutsaert, Rui Gaspar, Beate Seibt, |
Dave Fletcher, Julie Barnett
|2015||"Cultured meat has evolved from an idea and concept into a reality with the August 2013 cultured hamburger tasting|
in London. Still, how consumers conceive cultured meat is largely an open question. This study addresses consumers'
reactions and attitude formation towards cultured meat through analyzing focus group discussions and
online deliberations with 179 meat consumers from Belgium, Portugal and the United Kingdom. Initial reactions
when learning about cultured meat were underpinned by feelings of disgust and considerations of unnaturalness.
Consumers saw few direct personal benefits but they were more open to perceiving global societal benefits relating
to the environment and global food security. Both personal and societal risks were framed in terms of uncertainties
about safety and health, and possible adverse societal consequences dealing with loss of farming and
eating traditions and rural livelihoods. Further reflection pertained to skepticism about ‘the inevitable’ scientific
progress, concern about risk governance and control, and need for regulation and proper labeling."
|Meat Science||N/A||Attitude ; Consumer; Cultured; In-vitro; Meat ; Synthetic||N/A||Qualitative||Belgium; Portugal; UK||http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174014005014|
|A case for systemic environmental analysis of cultured meat||Carolyn S Mattick, Amy E Landis, Braden R Allenby||2015||"The environmental implications of cultured meat are profound. An anticipatory life cycle assessment of cultured meat published in 2011 suggested it could have a smaller impact than agricultural meat in all categories except energy consumption. As with most technologies, cultured meat will almost certainly be accompanied by unintended consequences as well as unforeseen costs and benefits that accrue disproportionately to different stakeholders. Uncertainty associated with new engineered products cannot be completely eliminated prior to introduction, but ongoing environmental assessments of the technologies as they advance can serve to reduce unforeseen risks. Given the pace at which tissue engineering is advancing, systemic assessments of the technology will be pivotal in mitigating unintended environmental consequences."||Journal of Integrative Agriculture||N/A||cultured meat, in vitro meat, factory-grown food, anticipatory life cycle assessment, systemic environmental implications of emerging technologies||N/A||Review||N/A||http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095311914608856||Not specific to social sciences, but (here and elsewhere) enviro is an important aspect to capture in this biblio|
|The environmental prospects of cultured meat in China||Sun Zhi-chang, Yu Qun-li, Han Lin||2015||"To deal with concerns in China about environmental degradation and a growth in population accompanied by increased consumption of livestock products, a meat alternative is required. This study compared the environmental impacts of producing different protein sources for nutrition, including crops, livestock products, and cultured meat. The results showed that cultured meat has the lowest land use per unit of protein and unit of human digestible energy. China’s crops have the lowest energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per unit of energy and protein. The energy use in cultured meat production is slightly higher than that of current pork production in China, whereas GHG emissions are lower. It is concluded that the overall impact of replacing livestock products with cultured meat would be beneficial for China’s environment and would potentially improve food security because less land is needed to produce the same amount of protein and energy."||Journal of Integrative Agriculture||N/A||cultured meat, in vitro, environmental degradation, livestock products, greenhouse gas (GHG)||N/A||Quantitative||China||http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095311914608911|
|We have never been meat (but we could be)||Simon Dennis & Alison Witchard||2015|
|A Century of Ecological Innovation||Mitchell Joachim||2015|
|The Impact of New Technologies on the Management Accountant||Janek Ratnatunga||2015|
|Tainted Food and the Icarus Complex: Psychoanalysing Consumer Discontent from Oyster Middens to Oryx and Crake||Hub Zwart||2015|
|What Is In Vitro Meat? Food Phreaking #2. The Center for Genomic Gastronomy||Stephens, N. , Kramer, K. , Denfeld, Z. and Strand, R.||2015||"We are very excited about this issue, as it gathers the ideas and opinions of a number of scientists and other experts around the topic of in vitro meat. The authors in this publication range from being in vitro meat’s developers and most vocal supporters, to some adamant opposers. Collectively, these essays present a diversity of perspectives, and illustrate the challenge of pinning down an emerging technology."||N/A||Food Phreaking||N/A||N/A||Edited book||N/A||http://www.foodphreaking.com/FP02_WhatIsInVitroMeat.pdf|
|Is in vitro meat the solution for the future?||Jean-Francois Hocquette||2016||"The production of in vitro meat regularly generates media interest because of the contribution it could, at first glance, make to the issue of feeding humankind while also protecting the environment and respecting animals. However, the majority of experts considers that there are still numerous technological obstacles that have to be overcome to produce in vitro meat. In addition, even if in vitro meat could eliminate the supposed lack of well-being of livestock and has the potential to free up cultivable land, other supposed advantages are questionable and not always agreed upon by the scientific community. However, another major problem for the commercialisation of in vitro meat would be its acceptance by consumers, even if some consumers are ready to taste it at least once. In particular, the artificial nature of the product goes against the growing demand for natural products in many countries. The consumption of in vitro meat will depend on a conflict of values at an individual or collective level. The reality is that a range of other complementary solutions already exist which meet the challenges of food supply in our society, but which are less saleable to the media."||Meat Science||N/A||Meat; cultured meat; cell culture; social science||N/A||Review||http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174016301358|
|Cultured Meat: A pragmatic solution to the problems posed by industrial animal farming||A Rorheim, A Mannino, T Baumann, L Caviola||2016||"Industrial livestock production presents a growing problem on a global scale in terms of animal welfare, environmental sustainability, and human health. One solution might be cultured meat, in which animal tissue is grown in a controlled environment using cell culture technology, thereby making the raising and killing of animals for food unnecessary. This approach shows great potential of meeting all the requirements of a humane, sustainable and healthy form of meat production.
However, a great deal of scientific, technical, cultural and legislative challenges must be overcome before cultured meat can reach cost-competitiveness. Lack of funding is the main barrier to further development, and considerable upfront investment is needed for cultured meat to attain commercially viable retail prices.
We therefore strongly support increased funding of cultured meat initiatives. This entails, in order of priority: research and development of technology suitable for mass production, promoting fact-based public discussion regarding the technology and its societal implications, and eventual marketing of end products to consumers."
|N/A||Sentience Politics Policy Paper||N/A||N/A||Policy Paper||https://sentience-politics.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Cultured-Meat.pdf||Other version? https://sentience-politics.org/files/cultured-meat-revision.pdf via https://sentience-politics.org/research/policy-papers/cultured-meat/|
|The public perception of in vitro meat in The Netherlands||Bob Steenhuis||2016||"In vitro meat (IVM), meat produced in the laboratory, is a possible alternative to regular meat, of which the production is related to significant problems. However, new food technologies could raise suspicion among consumers and are not automatically accepted by the public (e.g. GM foods). Therefore, public perception and acceptance of food technologies received considerable attention. Current literature on the perception of IVM is limited, as is the knowledge of consumers about IVM. Therefore, this study aims to explore the public perception of IVM with qualitative methods (interviews with stakeholders and focus group discussions with people with different backgrounds). The results show that stakeholders and focus group respondents hold a variety of perceptions, varying from disgust and feelings of unnaturalness to curiosity and sympathy. Risks included health and safety, product flaws and the loss of farms, benefits included less environmental stress, global food security and less animal suffering. The current popularity of biological foods and the low confidence in food, experienced by the focus group respondents, also played a role in the perceptions. This study contributes to the limited literature public perception of IVM, and provides valuable information for parties that are concerned with the introduction, communication or policy decisions."||N/A||MSc Thesis||N/A||9 interviews, 4 focus groups||Qualitative||Netherlands||http://essay.utwente.nl/69214/1/Steenhuis_MA_BMS.pdf|
|Chewing Over In Vitro Meat: Animal Ethics, Cannibalism and Social Progress||Josh Milburn||2016||"Despite its potential for radically reducing the harm inflicted on nonhuman animals in the pursuit of food, there are a number of objections grounded in animal ethics to the development of in vitro meat. In this paper, I defend the possibility against three such concerns. I suggest that worries about reinforcing ideas of flesh as food and worries about the use of nonhuman animals in the production of in vitro meat can be overcome through appropriate safeguards and a fuller understanding of the interests that nonhuman animals actually possess. Worries about the technology reifying speciesist hierarchies of value are more troublesome, however. In response to this final challenge, I suggest that we should be open not just to the production of in vitro nonhuman flesh, but also in vitro human flesh. This leads to a consideration of the ethics of cannibalism. The paper ultimately defends the position that cannibalism simpliciter is not morally problematic, though a great many practices typically associated with it are. The consumption of in vitro human flesh, however, is able to avoid these problematic practices, and so should be considered permissible. I conclude that animal ethicists and vegans should be willing to cautiously embrace the production of in vitro flesh."||Res Publica||N/A||In vitro meat; Cannibalism; Animal ethics; Animal rights; Food|
|Sam Harris Twitter poll||Sam Harris||2016||"If cultured meat is molecularly identical to beef, pork, etc., and tastes the same, will you switch to eating it? (14,614 votes)
"For those who answered "no" to my last poll, what's your MAIN objection to eating cultured meat? (4,013 votes)
22% it's just “creepy"
27% it might not be safe
24% it will be expensive
27% I'm vegetarian/vegan"
|A Kill-Free Meat Product May Be Coming to a Grocery Store Near You||Kyle Jaeger||2016||"Would you eat meat harvested in a laboratory?|
|Scientists create first ever laboratory-grown meatball "which did not require the death of a cow"||Kirstie McCrum||2016||"Would you eat this laboratory-grown 'meat'?|
Yeah, looks quality
Ask me when we've run out of actual meat
No way, looks grim"
|Explicit and implicit attitude toward an emerging food technology: The case of cultured meat||Gerben A. Bekker, Hilde Arnout R.H. Fischer, Hilde Tobi, Hans C.M. van Trijp||2016||"Cultured meat is an unfamiliar emerging food technology that could provide a near endless supply of high quality protein with a relatively small ecological footprint. To understand consumer acceptance of cultured meat, this study investigated the influence of information provision on the explicit and implicit attitude toward cultured meat. Three experiments were conducted using a Solomon four-group design to rule out pretest sensitization effects. The first experiment (N = 190) showed that positive or negative information about cultured meat changed the explicit attitude in the direction of the information. This effect was smaller for participants who were more familiar with cultured meat. In the second experiment (N = 194) positive information was provided about solar panels, an attitude object belonging to the same sustainable product category as sustainable food products such as cultured meat. Positive information about solar panels was found to change the explicit attitude in the direction of the information. Using mood induction, the third experiment (N = 192) ruled out the alternative explanation that explicit attitude change in experiment 1 and 2 was caused by content free affect rather than category based inferences. The implicit attitude appeared insensitive to both information or mood state in all three experiments. These findings show that the explicit attitude toward cultured meat can be influenced by information about the sustainability of cultured meat and information about a positively perceived sustainable product. This effect was shown to be content based rather than merely affect based. Content based information in a relevant context could therefore contribute to the commercial success of cultured meat."||Appetite||N/A||Cultured meat, Explicit attitude, Implicit attitude, Attitude change, Information provision, Mood||Experiment 1: 190 university students|
Experiment 2: 194 university students
Experiment 3: 193 university students
|The first bite: Imaginaries, promotional publics and the laboratory grown burger||Kate O’Riordan, Aristea Fotopoulou, Neil Stephens||2016||"In this article, we analyse a 2013 press conference hosting the world’s first tasting of a laboratory grown hamburger. We explore this as a media event: an exceptional performative moment in which common meanings are mobilised and a connection to a shared centre of reality is offered. We develop our own theoretical contribution – the promotional public – to characterise the affirmative and partial patchwork of carefully selected actors invoked during the burger tasting. Our account draws on three areas of analysis: interview data with the scientists who developed the burger, media analysis of the streamed press conference itself and media analysis of social media during and following the event. We argue that the call to witness an experiment is a form of promotion and that such promotional material also offers an address that invokes a public with its attendant tensions."||Public Understanding of Science||N/A||cultured burger, cultured meat, Dewey, in vitro meat, media event, promotional public, publics||N/A||Theoetical/Qualitative||N/A||http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963662516639001|
|"Clean Meat": The "Clean Energy" of Food||Bruce Friedrich||2016||"At The Good Food Institute, when we’re discussing meat that’s produced through cell replication, we’ve taken to using the term “clean meat” rather than “cultured meat.” [...] Calling the product what it is—clean meat—both accurately describes it and helps to communicate some of its key benefits quickly and easily. We are not suggesting that “clean meat” is a perfect way of referring to meat produced without animal slaughter, but we are suggesting that talking about “clean meat” versus “cultured meat” promotes clarity and acceptance, both of which are critical when having conversations about this world-changing technology."||N/A||The Good Food Institute blog||N/A||N/A||Opinion||N/A||http://www.gfi.org/clean-meat-the-clean-energy-of-food|
|Will People Eat Clean Meat?||Bruce Friedrich||2016||"Two polls have been circulating that, at first glance, seem to cast doubt on consumer acceptance of a promising new food technology. [...] These two polls have been consistently misused to argue that “clean meat” (meat grown through cellular agriculture) is unlikely to displace conventionally grown meat any time soon. [...] Note that even if the numbers were as low as the worst polls indicate, 20 percent, that would still represent a massive market for clean meat. Recall that the entire plant-based meat market in the U.S. right now—Boca, Beyond Meat, Gardein, Tofurky, and all the rest—represents just one quarter of one percent of the meat market, and yet these companies are thriving. The numbers represented in these early consumer-acceptance studies are actually quite positive when put into context."||N/A||The Good Food Institute blog||N/A||N/A||Opinion/Review||N/A||http://www.gfi.org/will-people-eat-clean-meat|
|Promise and Ontological Ambiguity in the In vitro Meat Imagescape: From Laboratory Myotubes to the Cultured Burger||Neil Stephens & Martin Ruivenkamp||2016||"In vitro meat (IVM), also known as cultured meat, involves growing cells into muscle tissue to be eaten as food. The technology had its most high-profile moment in 2013 when a cultured burger was cooked and tasted in a press conference. Images of the burger featured in the international media and were circulated across the Internet. These images—literally marks on a two-dimensional surface—do important work in establishing what IVM is and what it can do. A combination of visual semiotics and narrative analysis shows that images of IVM afford readings of their story that are co-created by the viewer. Before the cultured burger, during 2011, images of IVM fell into four distinct categories: cell images, tissue images, flowcharts, and meat in a dish images. The narrative infrastructure of each image type affords different interpretations of what IVM can accomplish and what it is. The 2013 cultured burger images both draw upon and depart from these image types in an attempt to present IVM as a normal food stuff, and as ‘matter in place’ when placed on the plate. The analysis of individual images and the collection of images about a certain object or subject—known as the imagescape—is a productive approach to understanding the ontology and promise of IVM and is applicable to other areas of social life."||Science as Culture||N/A||In vitro meat, cultured meat, images, imagescape, promise, ambiguity||N/A||Qualitative||N/A||http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09505431.2016.1171836|
|Consumer responses to a future UK food system||Laura O'Keefe, Carly McLachlan, Clair Gough, Sarah Mander, Alice Bows-Larkin||2016|
|Consumer perception of vio-based products - an exploratory study in 5 European countries||Siet Sijtsema, Marleen Onwezen, Machiel Reinders, Hans Dagevos, Asta Partanen, Marieke Meeusen-van Onna||2016|
|Consumer perception and behaviour regarding sustainable protein consumption: A systematic review||Christina Hartmann, Michael Siegrist||2017||"Background|
Our daily food choices have a huge impact on the environment. Production of meat has a much larger impact compared with the production of vegetable-based proteins. In order to create a food production and supply system that is more sustainable and environmentally friendly, food consumption behaviour needs to change. A reduction of meat intake is necessary. The introduction of alternative protein sources (e.g., insects or cultured meat) might be one possibility to replace meat.
Scope and approach
The present systematic review identified 33 articles to answer the following three research questions: 1) Are consumers aware that meat consumption has a large environmental impact? 2) Are consumers willing to reduce meat consumption or substitute meat with an alternative? 3) Are consumers willing to accept meat substitutes and alternative proteins, such as insects or cultured meat?
Key findings and conclusion
Consumer awareness of the environmental impact of meat production is surprisingly low. This is true for consumers in various European countries. Likewise, willingness to change meat consumption behaviour in terms of reducing or substituting meat (e.g., by eating insects or meat substitutes) is low as well. How people can be motivated to decrease their meat consumption behaviour has been underexplored. In particular, experimental studies are lacking and further investigations should focus on strategies (e.g., nudging interventions) that might help to motivate pro-environmentally friendly meat consumption behaviour. Moreover, population-based studies are scarce, and we need more in-depth studies on the factors that increase people’s willingness to reduce or to substitute meat consumption."
|Trends in Food Science & Technology||N/A||consumer; meat; environment; sustainability; insects; meat substitutes||N/A||Review||N/A||http://www.sciencedirect.com.proxy.hil.unb.ca/science/article/pii/S0924224416302904?np=y|
|YouGov. (2013). No British demand for fake meat.||Will Dahlgreen||2012 (2013)||“62% of the British public ‘would probably not eat’ artificial meat grown in a laboratory – but men and the young are less hesitant”|
“The majority (62%) of British adults say they ‘would probably not eat’ artificial meat when asked to imagine it was available commercially. 19% ‘probably would eat’ the meat, while a further 19% haven’t made up their mind.”
“18-24 year olds are the most receptive to artificial beef, as a third (32%) probably would eat it. Half (50%) probably would not and 17% don’t know. That compares to an average of only 17% of their elders who might eat the meat.”
“More than twice as many men (28%) as women (11%) may eat fake meat. In fact, women are almost as put off by stem cell beef as vegetarians: 73% and 75% probably would not eat it, respectively. Interestingly, 14% of vegetarians would consider eating it, which is not many fewer than meat-eaters (20%).”
|Dutch people wouldn't mind trying the 'cultivated burger'||Flycatcher||2013?||"A series of recent scandals has affected the reputation of meat. When the cultivated meat burger was presented by researchers from Maastricht University, Flycatcher asked Dutch people whether they felt that cultivated meat would be a good alternative."|
"No less than four in every five (79%) Dutch citizens did not know what cultivated meat was prior to the presentation, a mere 14% had heard about it and also knew what it was."
"Two thirds of all Dutch citizens (63%) is in favour of producing cultivated meat."
"More than half of the Dutch population (52%) would like to try cultivated meat. The most important reasons mentioned were: preventing of animal suffering and helping to solve the world food problem. 71% would buy the product more often if taste, structure and nutritional value were the same as in traditional meat."
"The term cultivated meat was associated with dirty, unreliable and a bad word for the product." "Almost two-thirds of those interviewed (64%) would choose another name. Most frequently mentioned were 'artificial meat' and 'alternative meat'."
|Clean Meat:The Naming of Tissue-Engineered Meat||The Good Food Institute||2016?||The Good Food Institute||The research involved two experimental surveys with more than 4,300 total participants. Participants were recruited from the U.S. and Canada via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk.||Quantitative||http://mfait.gfi.org/the-naming-of-clean-meat|
|Attitudes to in vitro meat: A survey of potential consumers in the United States||Matti Wilks, Clive J. C. Phillips||2017||"Positivity towards meat consumption remains strong, despite evidence of negative environmental and ethical outcomes. Although awareness of these repercussions is rising, there is still public resistance to removing meat from our diets. One potential method to alleviate these effects is to produce in vitro meat: meat grown in a laboratory that does not carry the same environmental or ethical concerns. However, there is limited research examining public attitudes towards in vitro meat, thus we know little about the capacity for it be accepted by consumers. This study aimed to examine perceptions of in vitro meat and identify potential barriers that might prevent engagement. Through conducting an online survey with US participants, we identified that although most respondents were willing to try in vitro meat, only one third were definitely or probably willing to eat in vitro meat regularly or as a replacement for farmed meat. Men were more receptive to it than women, as were politically liberal respondents compared with conservative ones. Vegetarians and vegans were more likely to perceive benefits compared to farmed meat, but they were less likely to want to try it than meat eaters. The main concerns were an anticipated high price, limited taste and appeal and a concern that the product was unnatural. It is concluded that people in the USA are likely to try in vitro meat, but few believed that it would replace farmed meat in their diet."||PLoS ONE||N/A||N/A||N/A||Quantitative||United States||http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0171904||Dataset and survey instrument publicly available|
|Perceptions of Cellular Agriculture: Key Findings from Qualitative Research||Hart Research Associates (commissioned by New Harvest)||2017||"While there is still much hard science to be done to bring cultured meat to grocery stores, it is important to note that the potential benefits of cellular agriculture will only be realized if consumers accept the technology and its products. |
New Harvest, in partnership with the Environmental Law Institute (ELI), sought out to conduct the first American focus group studies on attitudes towards cellular agriculture and cultured meat. The focus groups were conducted by Hart Research, a firm with specific expertise in conducting public opinion research. The entire collaborative project was supported by the science and technology-focused Richard Lounsbery Foundation."
|N/A||New Harvest||N/A||N/A||Qualitative||United States||http://www.new-harvest.org/focus_groups|