In 1936, Winston Churchill wrote, “Fifty years hence, we shall escape the absurdity of growing a whole chicken in order to eat the breast or wing, by growing these parts separately under a suitable medium” (Test-Tube 2007). At this time, synthesized meat was science fiction, hypothesized and capturing the public’s imagination, but far from a technological reality. Churchill and others saw it as an efficient way to create food and losing the animal sacrifice for our food. Now, 80 years later, in vitro meat has been synthesized, Willem Van Eelen, one of the original scientists responsible for much of the meat’s popularity, has a patent filed, and there exists a possible future where lab grown meat can be commercially produced (Eelen 2007).
What started out as fantastical gained root after the bevy of benefits became apparent, particularly following arguments made by the environmentalist community. For example, initially, people were most concerned with animal rights – what if meat could be made without animal suffering (Bhat et al. 2015)? Animal rights activists flocked took to the idea, many seeing it as a compromise between a vegan ideal and a omnivore reality (Deych 2016). From a public health perspective, in vitro meat is attractive due to avoiding diseases related to meat production and not requiring artificial growth hormones (Bhat 2015). Also, in vitro meat gained popularity due to environmental concerns with conventional meat production. Growing meat in a lab circumvents the greenhouse gas emissions and large amounts of water, space, and pesticides required for raising livestock (Bhat 2015). All of these factors make in vitro meat seem very attractive as a large-scale food source for the future, but there are many hurdles to overcome before lab grown meat could be found on store shelves.
First and foremost, more research is required. In vitro meat is one sector of tissue engineering, a diverse and complex field (Edelman 2005). Some formidable problems are in quick proliferation of muscle cells and the best possible environments and mediums for culture creation (Edelman et al. 2005). While these problems stand tall, synthetic meat has been created and first eaten in 2013, despite a steep $330,000 price tag (Ott 2013). How much further research and development is required is still up for debate. Some academic researchers say it is not going to practical to consider in the short term future, while some of the researchers working on the synthesis predict the meat to be commercially produced in 10 to 20 years (Edelman et al. 2005; Ott 2013). But as Bhat et al. laments, “huge funds are desperately required for further research in the field” (2015). Eelen’s patent may also discourage further research done by third party researchers.
Furthermore, there is discussion on whether or not the general population could be convinced to consume synthesized meat because, as the Australian describes, “the notion of man-made meat seems uniquely repellent and unnatural” (2007). Yet, they point out that cultured meat is not so different than eating cultured yogurt. However, convincing the masses will likely require effective mass media campaigns that show how safe the product is. Consumers will also likely have to be incentivized through some sort of economic or hedonic benefits of buying the engineered meat over conventional meat. There is also the fact that the current meat lacks fat, a major setback for many meat products (Ott 2013). Without the added fat, too many consumers may prefer the conventional, fatty meat for their cooking needs. This is a problem engineers are looking to solve, but it is still far on the horizon compared to the economic impracticability of the procedure (Ott 2013).
In summary, in vitro meat is an exciting and imagination-capturing technology that provides solutions to numerous environmental and ethical concerns. However, despite being hypothesized dozens of years ago, there is still a long way to go before synthesized meat could be produced commercially, nevertheless start to replace conventional meat production. Research and development are critical to creating a working product, yet some may argue that a feasible product is so far off that time and resources are better spent with more immediate solutions. At this point it is impossible to say whether or not in vitro meat will ever be a major contributor to the global food market, but the idea of it has certainly sparked the imagination of many.
-
Bhat, Zuhaib Fayaz, Sunil Kumar, and Hina Fayaz. 2015. “In Vitro Meat Production: Challenges and Benefits over Conventional Meat Production.” Journal of Integrative Agriculture 14 (2): 241–48. doi:10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60887-X.
-
Deych, Rina. 2016. “In-Vitro Meat.” Animal Liberation Front. Accessed April 18. http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Practical/Health/In-Vitro%20Meat.htm.
-
Edelman, P.D., D.C. McFarland, V.A. Mironov, and J.G. Matheny. 2005. “Commentary: In Vitro-Cultured Meat Production.” Tissue Engineering 11 (5-6): 659–62. doi:10.1089/ten.2005.11.659.
-
Eelen, Willem Frederik Van. 2007. Industrial production of meat using cell culture methods. US7270829 B2, filed May 9, 2005, and issued September 18, 2007. http://www.google.com/patents/US7270829.
-
Ott, Stephanie. 2013. “Have a Taste of the World’s First Stem Cell Burger.” CNN. August 5. http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/05/world/europe/europe-stem-cell-burger-ott/.
-
“Test-Tube Meat Science’s next Leap.” 2007. The Australian. January 20. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/test-tube-meat-sciences-next-leap/story-e6frg8y6-1111112859219.