However, there are benefits that should be mentioned of artificial meat. Thanks to artificial meat, not only will it be possible to regulate the ratios of fat, also it will be possible to choose healthy types of fat (Jacobsen, 2017). But sadly, it may only apply to minced meat, as producing in vitro hamburgers is relatively easier than steak (Hocquette, 2016). Despite the benefits of cultured meat, unnaturalness, taste and price were the main factors that affected their choice. Almost similar to the survey in America, which was mentioned before, the result of a research in Europe showed that “future consumers” have the same thought regarding the in vitro meat lack of naturalness (Verbeke et al., 2015). Not only do they think that in vitro meat is unnatural, but also, they are worried about the possible harm that consuming it for a long period of time may cause. As the consequence of disgust, due to its unnaturalness, most participants signified that they prefer traditional meat over cultured one. The fact that it is artificial discourage consumers’ interest to try it.
Secondly, producing cultured meat has not been able to be produced in a large-scale and it is lack of nutrition (Datar & Betti, 2010). It is due to the fact that in vitro meat is produced by replicating the stem cells of animals. But the problem is that stem cells can not be replicated easily without using growth hormones (Carter, 2011). Not only does it make the cells replicate faster, but also makes the production less expensive. However, growth hormone may have the negative effects on human health, like chronic kidney diseases, early puberty in girls. Furthermore, it also increases the risk of cancer (Jenkins, 2005). In addition, there is a possibility of developing cancerous cells and may present in a large amount, as a result of high number of proliferations, which were used for stem cells multiplication (Hocquette, 2016). Even though, these cancerous cells might be harmless, as they are dead by the time the meat will be consumed. Furthermore, they are going to be digested in the stomach, so there is a small chance of them being absorbed in the body alive. Also cultured meat does not have that much nutrition like convenient meat, as it need to be stimulated with different machines to be exercised for getting strong proteins. These facts still remain as the reasons why, cultured meat is unlikely going to be commercialised in the future.
Consuming and producing in vitro meat might be better for the environment. To produce 1 tons of in vitro meat, it takes up to 45% less energy, about 90% of water, less land compared to traditional method of raising animals. But on the other hand, a study in America shows that the amount of heat and electricity used to produce artificial meat in a large scale can be massive (Jacobsen, 2017). For example, every sample of the in vitro meat require exercises to form strong proteins (Carter, 2011). As a result, the producing cost will increase, and also affect the problem of limited resources. Meanwhile, the nutrients and growth hormones are necessary for producing in vitro meat in a huge quantity, most of these compounds will be made by chemical companies, and thus the waste of it is likely to pollute the environment (Hocquette, 2016). Therefore, producing in vitro meat does not mean that it will prevent environmental pollution, but may even make it worse.
Last but not least, the word meat is understood as murdering itself, because animals are being hurt in the process, which is the reason why, animal welfare is one of the main concern in producing in vitro meat. As the method develop, the moral factors had gain more attention than the technological push (Weele and Driessen, 2013 cited in Sharma et al., 2015). Cultured meat production harm less animals than convenient meat production, but they could be wronged and disrespected without even being hurt (Schaefer & Savulescu, 2014). In any case, compared to ethical meat production programs, nature preserves are the best for animals, because they are able to live longer and free. Not only does animals welfare matters, but also the question about cannibalism comes up (Bhat et al. 2015). As it was mentioned before, the ability to synthesize meat might broaden the range of meat. It may be extinct animals, endangered species and even humans (Schaefer & Svulescu, 2014). Even though, it was predicted that cannibalism is unlikely to become widespread, but there will be people with mental instability or unusual cultural norms, who wants to try the taste of human flesh over curiosity.
On the other hand, the number of killed animals may be reduced by producing in vitro meat (Jacobsen, 2017) and cannibalism can be stopped by banning synthesis of human flesh. Because muscles tissue, which are used for growing cultured meat, need to be extracted from animals. Different methods of biopsy and biotechnology are being used for it, but it cannot be guaranteed that obtaining the correct cells will not be painful to livestock. But even if it is considered that the method is cruel-free to animals, but moving from traditional way of producing meat to artificial, the traditional relationship of animals with humans, ecology may be deteriorated (Welin and Weele, 2012 cited in Sharma et al., 2015). For example, excrement of cows, pigs, chickens have a large amount of nutrition for the soil, making it more rich and productive for harvesting. To be more detailed, it is oxytetracycline-rich and it is equal to enriched soil (Kyselkova et al., 2013). Moving to cannibalism, even though cloning is banned due to moral reasons by 13 States in the United States of America and the European Union, however it might not be stopped just by banning it. As the most viable examples are multiples of cases of cannibalism, which is happening all over the world. Furthermore, even from consumers point of view, cultured meat is not significant solution to animal welfare (Hocquette et al., 2015 cited in Verbeke et al., 2015).
In conclusion, even if in vitro meat becomes popular, there will be some limitations. One of the limitation is public perception. Even if the benefits of in vitro meat should be considered, people still expressed their disgust and fear. It is due to its unnaturalness and unknown consequences of regular consumption; cultured meat did not receive positive reaction and social acceptance. Despite that facts, the possibility of harming the environment should also be mentioned as the negative point of in vitro meat. Because if cultured meat will be used as substitute to convenient meat completely, then its production will need to be realised into an industrial scale. But if it will be produced in a large quantity, it will lead to unw
anted result, as environmental pollution and might be even more worse than traditional farming. Furthermore, because of the possible diseases, as the result of consuming artificial meat, which was grown in laboratories, using growth hormone to speed up the process and cut down the production cost, it should not be suggested to be produced in a large-scale. Meanwhile, the methodology of growing in vitro meat is morally disrespectful to animals and may lead to cannibalism. The method itself cannot guarantee the animal welfare, as they still suffer from the muscles tissue obtaining process. Also, cannibalism is possible to happen, because of the ability to synthesize cell of different species. Therefore, it is visible that in vitro meat is not the best solution for providing protein in the future.
...(download the rest of the essay above)