Skip to main content
Log in

Public Perceptions of the Ethics of In-vitro Meat: Determining an Appropriate Course of Action

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

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

Access this article

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

References

  • Benjaminson, M. A., Gilchriest, J. A., & Lorenz, M. (2002). In vitro edible muscle protein production system (MPPS): Stage 1, fish. Acta Astronautica, 51(12), 879–889. doi:10.1016/S0094-5765(02)00033-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhat, Z. F., & Fayaz, H. (2011). Prospectus of cultured meat: Advancing meat alternatives. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 48(2), 125–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bittman, M. (2012). A Chicken Without Guilt. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/opinion/sunday/finally-fake-chicken-worth-eating.html?_r=0.

  • Bonny, S. P. F., Gardner, G. E., Pethick, D. W., & Hocquette, J.-F. (2015). What is artificial meat and what does it mean for the future of the meat industry? Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14(2), 255–263. doi:10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60888-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catts, O., & Zurr, I. (2013). Disembodied livestock: The promise of a semi-living Utopia. Parallax, 19(1), 101–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiles, R. M. (2013). Intertwined ambiguities: Meat, in vitro meat, and the ideological construction of the marketplace. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 12, 472–482. doi:10.1002/cb.1447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Churchill, W. (1931). Fifty Years Hence, 1931. National Churchill Museum. https://www.nationalchurchillmuseum.org/fifty-years-hence.html. Accessed 17 June 2015.

  • Cole, M., & Morgan, K. (2013). Engineering freedom? A critique of biotechnological routes to animal liberation. Configurations, 21(2), 201–229. doi:10.1353/con.2013.0015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, N. (2011). First artificial burger to cost £250,000. The Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/8733576/First-artificial-burger-to-cost-250000.html. Accessed 17 June 2015.

  • Committee, T. L. M., Lemaire, O., Moneyron, A., & Masson, J. E. (2010). “Interactive technology assessment” and beyond: The field trial of genetically modified grapevines at INRA-Colmar. PLoS Biology, 8(11), e1000551. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corner, A., Parkhill, K., Pidgeon, N., & Vaughan, N. E. (2013). Messing with nature? Exploring public perceptions of geoengineering in the UK. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 938–947. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.06.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Datar, I., & Betti, M. (2010). Possibilities for an in vitro meat production system. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies, 11(1), 13–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deckers, J. (2005). Are scientists right and non-scientists wrong? Reflections on discussions of GM. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 18(5), 451–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietary Guidelines for Advisory Committee (DGAC). (2015). Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the US 4 Department of Agriculture (USDA). http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015-scientific-report/. Accessed 17 June 2015.

  • Dilworth, T., & McGregor, A. (2015). Moral steaks? Ethical discourses of in vitro meat in academia and Australia. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 28(1), 85–107. doi:10.1007/s10806-014-9522-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fessler, D. M. T., Arguello, A. P., Mekdara, J. M., & Macias, R. (2003). Disgust sensitivity and meat consumption: A test of an emotivist account of moral vegetarianism. Appetite, 41(1), 31–41. doi:10.1016/S0195-6663(03)00037-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forgacs, G. (2011). Gabor forgacs: In vitro meat: It’s what’s for dinner! TEDMED. http://blog.tedmed.com/gabor-forgacs-invitro-meat-its-whats-for-dinner/. Accessed 17 June 2015.

  • Frewer, L. J., Bergmann, K., Brennan, M., Lion, R., Meertens, R., Rowe, G., et al. (2011). Consumer response to novel agri-food technologies: Implications for predicting consumer acceptance of emerging food technologies. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 22(8), 442–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fromson, D. (2015). The Silicon Valley race to build a fake-meat burger that just might save the world. Grub Street. http://www.grubstreet.com/2015/06/silicon-valley-fake-meat-burger.html. Accessed 17 June 2015.

  • Gerber, P. J., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C., Dijkman, J., et al. (2013). Tackling climate change through livestock. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, J. N., & Shoulders, C. W. (2013). The future of meat: A qualitative analysis of cultured meat media coverage. Meat Science, 95(3), 445–450. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.05.027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hocquette, A., Lambert, C., Sinquin, C., Peterolff, L., Wagner, Z., Bonny, S. P. F., et al. (2015). Educated consumers don’t believe artificial meat is the solution to the problems with the meat industry. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14(2), 273–284. doi:10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60886-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, P. D. (2015). Cultured meat in western media: The disproportionate coverage of vegetarian reactions, demographic realities, and implications for cultured meat marketing. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14(2), 264–272. doi:10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60883-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, P. D., & Dacey, A. (2008). Vegetarian meat: Could technology save animals and satisfy meat eaters? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 21(6), 579–596. doi:10.1007/s10806-008-9110-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, D. (1990). Method and moral theory. In P. Singer (Ed.), A companion to ethics (pp. 476–487). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kata, A. (2012). Anti-vaccine activists, Web 2.0, and the postmodern paradigm: An overview of tactics and tropes used online by the anti-vaccination movement. Vaccine, 30(25), 3778–3789. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.11.112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, N., & Giacomini, M. (2005). Wanted: A new ethics field for health policy analysis. Health Care Analysis, 13(4), 247–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkham, G. (2009). Is biotechnology the new alchemy? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 40(1), 70–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laestadius, L. I., & Caldwell, M. A. (2015). Is the future of meat palatable? Perceptions of in vitro meat as evidenced by online news comments. Public Health Nutrition,. doi:10.1017/S1368980015000622.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laestadius, L. I., Neff, R. A., Barry, C. L., & Frattaroli, S. (2014). No meat, less meat, or better meat: Understanding NGO messaging choices intended to alter meat consumption in light of climate change. Environmental Communication,. doi:10.1080/17524032.2014.981561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Livsmedelsverket [National Food Agency of Sweden]. (2015). Find your way to eat greener, not to much and be active. http://www.livsmedelsverket.se/globalassets/english/food-habits-health-environment/dietary-guidelines/kostrad-eng.pdf. Accessed 17 June 2015.

  • Loke, J. (2013). Readers’ debate a local murder trial: ‘Race’ in the online public sphere. Communication, Culture and Critique, 6(1), 179–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcu, A., Gaspar, R., Rutsaert, P., Seibt, B., Fletcher, D., Verbeke, W., & Barnett, J. (2014). Analogies, metaphors, and wondering about the future: Lay sense-making around synthetic meat. Public Understanding of Science,. doi:10.1177/0963662514521106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marris, C., & Rose, N. (2010). Open engagement: Exploring public participation in the biosciences. PLoS Biology, 8(11), e1000549. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. (2012). In vitro meat: Power, authenticity and vegetarianism. Journal for Critical Animal Studies, 10(4), 41–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintel (2013). Meat Alternatives. US, June 2013.

  • Nisbet, M. C. (2012). The ethics of framing science. In M. B. Nerlich, D. R. Elliott, & M. B. Larson (Eds.), Communicating biological sciences: Ethical and metaphorical dimensions (pp. 51–73). Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96(10), 1767–1778. doi:10.3732/ajb.0900041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paskin, D. (2010). Say what? An analysis of reader comments in bestselling American newspapers. The Journal of International Communication, 16(2), 67–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piazza, J., Ruby, M. B., Loughnan, S., Luong, M., Kulik, J., Watkins, H. M., & Seigerman, M. (2015). Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns. Appetite, 91, 114–128. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pidgeon, N., Corner, A., Parkhill, K., Spence, A., Butler, C., & Poortinga, W. (2012). Exploring early public responses to geoengineering. Philosophical Transactions. Series A, Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, 370(1974), 4176–4196. doi:10.1098/rsta.2012.0099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Post, M. J. (2012). Cultured meat from stem cells: Challenges and prospects. Meat Science, 92(3), 297–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regan, Á., Shan, L., McConnon, Á., Marcu, A., Raats, M., Wall, P., & Barnett, J. (2014). Strategies for dismissing dietary risks: Insights from user-generated comments online. Health, Risk and Society, 16(4), 308–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schurman, R. (2004). Fighting “Frankenfoods”: Industry opportunity structures and the efficacy of the anti-biotech movement in Western Europe. Social Problems, 51(2), 243–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephens, N. (2013). Growing meat in laboratories: The promise, ontology, and ethical boundary-work of using muscle cells to make food. Configurations, 21(2), 159–181. doi:10.1353/con.2013.0013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takala, T. (2004). The (im)morality of (un)naturalness. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 13(1), 15–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuomisto, H. L., & Teixeira de Mattos, M. J. (2011). Environmental impacts of cultured meat production. Environmental Science and Technology, 45(14), 6117–6123. doi:10.1021/es200130u.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2006). GM Food Aid. In: Africa Environment Outlook 2. http://www.unep.org/dewa/Africa/publications/AEO-2/content/154.htm. Accessed 17 June 2015.

  • van der Weele, C., & Driessen, C. (2013). Emerging profiles for cultured meat; ethics through and as design. Animals, 3(3), 647–662. doi:10.3390/ani3030647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Weele, C., & Tramper, J. (2014). Cultured meat: Every village its own factory? Trends in Biotechnology, 32, 294–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, W., Marcu, A., Rutsaert, P., Gaspar, R., Seibt, B., Fletcher, D., & Barnett, J. (2015). ‘Would you eat cultured meat?’: Consumers’ reactions and attitude formation in Belgium, Portugal and the United Kingdom. Meat Science, 102(1), 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.11.013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, W., Sans, P., & Van Loo, E. J. (2014). Challenges and prospects for consumer acceptance of cultured meat. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14(2), 285–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welin, S. (2013). Introducing the new meat. Problems and prospects. Etikk i praksis, 7(1), 24–37.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thanks go to Mark Caldwell for assistance with data collection and Jan Deckers for valuable feedback.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Linnea I. Laestadius.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Laestadius, L.I. Public Perceptions of the Ethics of In-vitro Meat: Determining an Appropriate Course of Action. J Agric Environ Ethics 28, 991–1009 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9573-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9573-8

Keywords

Navigation