Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Visions of In Vitro Meat among Experts and Stakeholders

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
NanoEthics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In vitro meat (IVM) is presented by innovators as the most realistic and sustainable solution to the problems of current meat production and consumption. The innovators argue that in vitro meat could be more environmentally friendly, animal friendly, healthier, and safer than conventional meat. The paper elaborates different reactions of experts and stakeholders from science, civil society, economy, and politics to the innovators’ reasoning. The semi-structured interviews were conducted for the project “Visions of in vitro meat. Analysis of technical and societal aspects and visions of in vitro meat” (VIF) funded by the German Ministry of Education and Research. In this paper we will show how our interview partners positioned themselves in relation to the innovators’ vision on IVM and which other visions they brought into the discussion about IVM and the future of meat. The project was based on a concept of visions as socio-epistemic practices that are increasingly recognised as important elements in innovation and transformation processes. The analysis of these visions conducted in interviews with experts and stakeholders provided new knowledge for the conceptualisation and appraisal of in vitro meat beyond the innovators’ rhetoric.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See the project ‘Visions as socioepistemic practices. Theoretical foundation and practical application of vision assessment in technology assessment’, https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.itas.kit.edu_english_projects-5Floes14-5Fluv.php&d=DwIGaQ&c=vh6FgFnduejNhPPD0fl_yRaSfZy8CWbWnIf4XJhSqx8&r=Jlwf6PTsx3nzczHv_evoHZUk1Up1P-4nAf--FzaF4My4NUkMh7MjiPKfnmyOD2Gd&m=WR_JlMcxJTY0EC3iU5qRy6ma_-1FiYDj7tF1RVJJo9o&s=vncVG0GYPaY6ciwjz5LJzRCHDFzaGOS9ZR49t_pHBKw&e=..

  2. The representative of an animal rights organisation also thinks that farmers are pushed economically and would act differently if they had the possibility to do so (B65).

  3. ‘There’s just basically so many cuts of meat you can use which we don’t consider to be edible. So if we can change people’s perceptions of that, it would be a good thing, too’ (I189f.).

References

  1. Post M (2013) Cultured beef for food-security and the environment. Presented at TEDX Maastricht, August 5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnJn37jiX88. Accessed 14 March 2017

  2. Cultured Beef (2013) Burger Tasting London Aug 2013. https://youtu.be/_Cy2x2QR968. Last modified August 7, 2013

  3. Cultured Beef (2013) Cultured Beef Process. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LKsSEbSrUQ. Last modified August 6, 2013

  4. Auestad N, Fulgoni VL (2015) What current literature tells us about sustainable diets: emerging research linking dietary patterns, environmental sustainability, and economics. Adv Nutr 6:19–36. https://doi.org/10.3945/an.114.005694 Accessed 14 March 2017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brent K, Neff R, Santo R, Vigorito J (2015) The importance of reducing animal product consumption and wasted food in mitigating catastrophic climate change. Johns Hopkins Center for A Livable Future, Baltimore. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3385.7362

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Hawkesworth S, Dangour AD, Johnston D, Lock K, Poole N, Rushton J, Uauy R, Waage J (2010) Feeding the world healthily: the challenge of measuring the effects of agriculture on health. Philos Trans R Soc B 365:3083–3097

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hedenus F, Wirsenius S, Johansson DJA (2014) The importance of reduced meat and dairy consumption for meeting stringent climate change targets. Clim Chang 124:79–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1104-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Tilman D, Clark M (2014) Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature 515:518–522. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13959 Accessed 14 March 2017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Mattick CS, Landis AE, Allenby BR, Genovese NJ (2015) Anticipatory life cycle analysis of in vitro biomass cultivation for cultured meat production in the United States. Environ Sci Technol 49:11941–11949. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b01614 Accessed 14 March 2017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Tuomisto HL, Ellis M, Haastrup P (2014) Environmental impacts of cultured meat: alternative production scenarios. In: Schenck R, Huizenga D (eds) Proceedings of the 9th International conference on life cycle assessment in the agri-food sector (LCA food 2014), 8–10 October 2014, San Francisco, USA. American Center for Life Cycle Assessment, Vashon, pp 1360–1366

    Google Scholar 

  11. Pandurangan M, Kim DH (2015) A novel approach for in vitro meat production. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 99:5391–5395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-015-6671-5 Accessed 14 March 2017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bhat ZF, Sunil K, Bhat HF (2015) In vitro meat: a future animal-free harvest. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 57:782–789. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2014.924899 Accessed 14 March 2017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Maastricht University (2013) Cultured beef introduction video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn1h2TEJ3cU. Last modified August 7, 2013

  14. Memphis Meats (2017) Historic first: clean poultry tasting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5ezRx23EMg. Last modified March 21, 2013

  15. New Harvest (2013) Meat Culture. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvwxXYkfUyE. Last modified November 9, 2013

  16. Siegrist M, Sütterlin B, Hartmann C (2018) Perceived naturalness and evoked disgust influence acceptance of cultured meat. Meat Sci 139:213–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.02.007 Accessed 6 Sept 2018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Driessen C, Korthals M (2012) Pig towers and in vitro meat: disclosing moral worlds by design. Soc Stud Sci 42(6):797–820. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312712457110 Accessed 6 Sept 2018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. van der Weele C, Tramper J (2014) Cultured meat: every village its own factory? Trends Biotechnol 32(6):294–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2014.04.009 Accessed 6 Sept 2018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung (BLE) (2018) Fleischkonsum pro Kopf in Deutschland in den Jahren 1991 bis 2017 (in Kilogramm). https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/36573/umfrage/pro-kopf-verbrauch-von-fleisch-in-deutschland-seit-2000/. Accessed 4 Sept 2018

  20. Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (BMEL) (2018) Pro-Kopf-Konsum ausgewählter tierischer Produkte in Deutschland in den Jahren 1995, 2005 und 2016 (in Kilogramm). https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/sudie/36429/umfrage/pro-kopf-verbrauch-ausgewaehlter-nahrungsmittel/. Accessed 4 Sept 2018

  21. Dalia Research (2017) Befolgst Du eine oder mehrere der folgenden Ernährungsweisen? https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/587794/umfrage/ernaehrungstypen-in-deutschland/. Accessed 4 Sept 2018

  22. Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, BUND (2016) Fleischatlas 2016. Daten und Fakten über Tiere als Nahrungsmittel – Deutschland regional. https://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/fleischatlas_regional_2016.pdf. Accessed 4 Sept 2018

  23. Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (BMEL) (2017b) Welche Speisen zählen Sie zu Ihren Lieblingsgerichten? https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/262400/umfrage/umfrage-zu-den-lieblingsgerichten-der-deutschen/. Accessed 4 Sept 2018

  24. Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (BMEL) (2017a) Ernährungsreport 2017. https://www.bmel.de/DE/Ernaehrung/_Texte/Ernaehrungsreport2017.html. Accessed 4 Sept 2018

  25. Grunwald A (2007) Converging technologies: visions, increased contingencies of the conditio humana, and search for orientation. Futures 39(4):380–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2006.08.001 Accessed 4 July 2017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Grin J (2000) Vision assessment to support shaping 21st century society? Technology assessment as a tool for political judgement. In: Grin J, Grunwald A (eds) Vision assessment: shaping technology in 21st century society 4. Springer, Berlin, pp 9–30

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Böhle K, Bopp K (2014) What a vision: the artificial companion: a piece of vision assessment including an expert survey. STI Studies 10(1):155–186

    Google Scholar 

  28. Post M (2014) Cultured beef: a medical technology to produce food. J Sci Food Agric 94:1039–1041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Datar I (2016) Why cellular agriculture is the next revolution in food. Food and tech connect blog, April 11, 2016. https://foodtechconnect.com/2016/04/11/cellular-agriculture-is-the-next-revolution-in-food/. Accessed 6 April 2017

  30. Ferrari A, Lösch A (2017) How smart grid meets in vitro meat: on visions as socio-epistemic practices. Nanoethics 11:75–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Datar I (2015) In vitro meat is cultured. In: Stephens N, Kramer C, Denfeld Z (eds) What is in vitro meat? (Food Phreaking, Issue 02), pp 17–21. http://www.foodphreaking.com/FP02_WhatIsInVitroMeat.pdf. Accessed 24 October 2018

  32. Forgacs A (2013) Leather and Meat without Killing Animals. Presented at TEDGlobal 2013, June 13. https://www.ted.com/talks/andras_forgacs_leather_and_meat_without_killing_animals. Accessed 3 April 2017

  33. Klima-Allianz Deutschland (2016) Klimaschutzplan 2050 der deutschen Zivilgesellschaft. Klima-Allianz Deutschland, Berlin https://germanwatch.org/de/download/14935.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  34. The Future Farm Lab (2017) http://www.futurefarmlab.com. Accessed 3 April 2017

  35. van der Weele C, Driessen C (2016) In vitro meat is a chance to rethink. In: Stephens N, Kramer C, Denfeld Z (eds) What is in vitro meat? (Food Phreaking, Issue 02), pp 54–59. http://www.foodphreaking.com/FP02_WhatIsInVitroMeat.pdf. Accessed 24 October 2018

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Karlsruhe, Germany

    Inge Böhm, Arianna Ferrari & Silvia Woll

Authors
  1. Inge Böhm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arianna Ferrari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Silvia Woll
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Silvia Woll.

Additional information

List of Interview Partners

The references consist of a letter abbreviation for each interview and the line in the respective transcript.

A – Representative of an organic producer association

B – Representative of an animal rights organisation

C – Innovator

D – Politician

E – Representative of an environmental organisation

G – Representative of a food company

H – Food technologist

I – In vitro meat researcher

J – Tissue engineer

K – Representative of a conventional producer cooperative

L – Representative of a food service company

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Böhm, I., Ferrari, A. & Woll, S. Visions of In Vitro Meat among Experts and Stakeholders. Nanoethics 12, 211–224 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-018-0330-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-018-0330-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation