The concept of ‘Meatification’ of diets, as postulated by Weis (2015), implies the increasing infiltration and consumption of meat and meat products in the daily diets of individuals. The increasing consumption of meat has been associated with a number of ethical and humanitarian concerns, environmental implications, increased pathogenic disease transmission and physiological complications (Apostolidis & McLeay, 2016). Advancements in science and technology have witnessed emergence of innovative meatless solutions. ‘Meat Biofabrication’ or the proliferation of meat tissues in vitro has been advocated as an advantageous alterative to actual meat consumption devoid of the associated environmental, microbial, physiological and ethical concerns (Bhat, Kumar & Bhat, 2017). Hence the following paper will choose to argue in favor of the proposed thesis statement:
Meat Biofabrication is an innovated meat production and ecologically beneficial alternative agricultural technique for the manufacturing of microbiologically safe, nutritionally adequate and ethical sound meat products.
Ethical Production
As noted by Arshad et al., (2017), one of the primary arguments in favor of meat biofabrication is its ability to produce meat ‘without victims’. Tradition meat production and consumption techniques have continued to remain under public scrutiny and criticism due to the relentless killings and slaughtering of animals, merely for the satiation of human tastes, increased world hunger demands and a continuously expanding global population. Global campaigns can public support groups consisting of animal rights activists and environmentalists believe that animals are equally deserving of a safe, fulfilling life and not merely degraded to the value of a food commodity. Meat biofabrication necessitates the production of in vitro meat without any form of slaughtering and requires simply a tissue biopsy removal and its proliferation in mushroom-based extracts (Silva, 2019).
Environmental Sustainability
According to Pohjolainen et al., (2016), traditional meat production strategies of animal feeding and husbandry required immense environmental losses contributing to over 26% of land resource usage and consumption of water global water resources at the rate of 16, 730 tones on a global scale. Further, consumption of meat and meat products contributes to the production of greenhouse gases which further aggravate the global environmental implications of hindered ozone layer and greenhouse gas effects. Alternatively, as researched by Bhat, Kumar and Fayaz, (2015), meat biofabrication with its avoidance of alternative, meat production techniques results in the usage of 7-45% reduced energy usage from non-renewable sources, 78-96% reduced emissions of environmentally harmful greenhouse gases, 99% reductions in land resource usage and 82-96% decreased utilization of water resource. This aggravates increased advantages of environmentally sound meat products.
Nutritionally Advantageous
The alarming rise in obesity and its associated cardiovascular and metabolic implications have been attributed primarily to the increased consumption of traditional meat sources which are rich in saturated fats. Meat products like red meat are rich in saturated fats and may cause health implications in the form of atherosclerosis or possible carcinogenesis (Godfray, 2018). In vitro meat production is devoid of all these nutritional complications, the consumption of which will result in dual benefits of satisfied palates and healthy dietary intake free from future disease. Further, the utilization of in-vitro technologies during meat biofabrication provides potential for the production of innovative designer meat, which is nutritionally modified and fortified to contain decreased fat and increased essential micronutrients, hence proving to be nutritionally advantageous on a global scale (Alçay et al., 2018).
Microbiologically Safe
As researched by Anomaly (2018), existing methods of animal husbandry and animal rearing practices encompass forceful accommodation of potential animals for slaughter into environments which are cramped, congested and insanitary resulting in their increased susceptibility to acquire pathogenic disease strains which find way to people’s plates and result in increased transmission of food borne illnesses. Meat biofabrication is alternatively, associated with the production of meat which is microbiological safe due to their in vitro production of meat tissues in sterile, hygienic and disinfected environments (Ferrari & Lösch, 2017).
Hastened Production
The rising trends in global population rates have necessitated the need to adhere to increased food production techniques which will provide quick turnover and manufacture of food products. Conventional meat production strategies is a long drawn process which takes several months of animal rearing and feeding prior to the slaughtering resulting increased adherence to unethical animal farming techniques which leads to speedy meat production without ethical consideration of animal welfare (Clapp, 2014). In vitro meat production, occupies a time span of few weeks and is free from animal cruelty strategies, hence, solving the solution of an increased need of hastened food production free from ethical and time constraints (Hocquette et al., 2018).
Gastronomic Innovation
According to Ferrari and Lösch (2017), due to its ability to produce meat which is free from animal slaughtering, in vitro meat manufacturing methods in meat biofabrication provides opportunities of vegetarian food connoisseurs to explore alternative protein sources devoid of the ethical, cultural and palatability complications associated with conventional meat sources. Further, the possibility to customize meat production to accommodate nutritional fortifications or innovative textural components makes meat biofabrication and exciting field to manufacture novel ‘meatless’ meat products hence paving the way for culinary innovations and consumer opportunities to accommodate unique palates on the global landscape (Asioli, Bazzani & Nayga, 2018).
Hence, as observed from the above, meat biofabrication proves to an innovative alternative to traditional meat production techniques without its associated complications pertaining to nutritional, ecological, microbiological and ethical issues. Hence, meat biofabrication will pave the way for ‘meatification’ which is acceptable on a wide variety of multifaceted dimensions. Despite the innovations, meat biofabrication continues to be extensively scrutinized with however, possibilities of mitigation, as discussed extensively in the following paragraphs.
Financial Constraints
As researched by Mattick, Wetmore and Allenby (2015), meat biofabrication involves the in vitro proliferation of meat tissues in laboratory based serum concentrates such as animal sera from sources from fetal, human or animal based populations which are generally highly expensive. Further aggravating the issue of financial constraints is the requirement differential media characteristics for meat tissues mimicking structural and textural components of varied meat sources or for the accommodation of innovative meat characteristics, which again pose serious financial issues. Aggravating the issue is the alternative production of non-animal based tissue culturing sera which despite being nutritionally rich in vitamins, growth factors, hormones, binding factors, minerals and adhesion factors, may still exert technological and financial constraints (Kumar & Starly, 2015). However, despite these innovations, the usage of meat biofabrication still continues to remain advantageous for the fulfillment of positive global health and environmental outcomes, in the face of unethical traditional meat production techniques since the long term costs and environmental, nutritional and ethical benefits outweigh the short term costs in production (Khademhosseini & Langer, 2016).
Employment Losses
The processes of traditional and conventional meat production techniques encompass the usage of a number of processing steps outlining animal husbandry, rearing, slaughtering, storage, curing, smoking, freezing and associated procedures of meat-based convenience food manufacturing and additive formulation. Hence, the production of in vitro meat will result in the exclusion of several of these production steps due to its innovative technology usage and hence, will lead to loss of numerous employment opportunities and existing jobholders, causing a deleterious effect on the food employment scenario (Bhat & Fayaz, 2011). However, increased policy frameworks, promotional strategies and establishment of small scale laboratory production setups instead of absolute replacement of traditional production with in vitro strategies will prove to be beneficial in enlightening prospective employees on the importance of meat biofabrication and its possibility to pave the way for novel, innovative occupational fields, hence curbing issues associated with job losses (Bhat & Bhat, 2011).
Altered Taste
As researched by Bhat, Kumar & Fayaz (2015), meat tissues grown in laboratory environments and unconventional sera, often may result in the production of meat which is devoid of the characteristic flavorful fat tissue and myoglobin based color components which again may not be acceptable among the public in the long run. Further, due to the relative newness of this technology, there is a dearth of sufficient evidence on the true taste of lab based meat products, resulting in emergence of uncertainties surrounding acceptance. However, as discussed by Wilks and Phillips (2017), to combat this issue, increased sensory testing on small scale in vitro meat production projects instead of absolute replacement with conventional procedures, may pave the way for detection of possible organoleptic issues which can be corrected in the long run. Further, in vitro meat, as discussed by Jönsson (2016), poses the potential to experiment and produce innovative products with unique palatability components, which in the long run coupled with promotional strategies, can pave the way for increased consumer acceptability amidst a population eager to explore novel culinary pathways.
Nutritional Concerns
Despite possessing the potential to combat the increasing cardiovascular, metabolic, hepatic and carcinogenic issues associated with conventional meat production procedures, critiques have proposed the concern that the infiltration of fat modified in vitro meat products could result in consumer misperceptions and another repetition of excessive meat consumption. This would again result in the aggravation of meat consumption-associated states of obesity or emergence of novel, dietary related diseases (Sharma, Thind & Kaur, 2015). However, this issue poses possibilities of mitigation with the active participation of health promotional campaigns by health organizations and professionals, for the purpose of enlightening the public against the evils of excessive meat consumption (Sayd, Chambon & Santé-Lhoutellier, 2016).
Public Acceptance
There continues to exist as strong line of arguments, public promotions and evidence in support of the ethical and nutritional advantages associated with the consumption of meat, and hence, despite the potential benefits of in vitro meat production, achieving complete acceptance on intake of the same by the public still seems to be farfetched considering the prevalent stereotypes and misperceptions. However, the potential issue of lack of acceptance by the public can be mitigated with increasing educational campaigns and promotional advertisements disseminating information on the benefits of meat biofabrication (Dilworth & McGregor, 2015).
Solutions
Despite the increasing difficulties associated with production, consumption and acceptance of meat produced using in vitro techniques, there lie potential solutions which may prove to be beneficial in the mitigation of the same. A decentralized, multidisciplinary approach is required, which must infiltrate strategies and community involvement at the local, grass root levels and incorporate educational, occupational, qualitative, healthcare and advocacy platforms (Pandurangan & Kim, 2015).
One of key issues underlying the hindrances associated with establishment of in vitro meat production as a standard procedure is the lack of acceptance from the public, which is primarily due to lack of adequate education and awareness concerning the same (Stephens, 2015). Hence, novel educational solutions are required of which educational campaigns and altered educational curriculums may prove to be beneficial. Increased educational programs and policy frameworks comprising of a range of interdisciplinary professionals may be required such as environmentalist, scientists and health professionals who can disseminate information on meat biofabrication on a global scale through conferences or seminars (Mattick, Wetmore & Allenby, 2015). Further, to infiltrate educational awareness at the grass root level, governments and educational boards may be required to incorporate a course on ethical meat production techniques such as biofabrication coupled with practical or demonstrative courses, enlightening students on the same (Asioli, Bazzani & Nayga, 2018).
The potential financial and employment constraints continue to be a key obstacle outlining acceptance of meat biofabrication as a standard meat production method. Governments, non-profit organizations, notable food industrialists, laboratories and food factories may be required to provide collective funding to mitigate the high production costs of in vitro meats (Bryant & Barnett, 2019).. Additionally, governments may be required to establish funding or policy frameworks which may be useful for the establishment of small scale laboratories or projects at the local or grass root levels, which will not only enlighten local communities and farmers on the possibilities of in vitro meat but will also present employment opportunities (Arshad et al., 2017). To further increase the same, government or laboratory based organizations can conduct training programs at the local level or in food manufacturing companies, which will increase the competency levels and opportunities of potential employees (Bhat, Kumar & Bhat, 2017).
Lastly, as researched by Porier (2017), meat consumption continues to remain a controversial issue considering its potential health implications and nutritional consequences, which may not spare in vitro meat production. Hence the need of the hour is for the establishment and working of scientific advisory panels consisting of health professionals, nutritionist and quality monitoring professionals who will not only enlighten consumers on dietary precautions but will also dictate standards on the production of nutritious in vitro meat for concerned manufacturers and laboratories (Dagevos, 2016). Likewise, the government and international food regulatory organizations such as the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) may be required to establish a separate quality framework on in vitro meat production similar to Hazard Analysis Critical Control Procedures (HACCP), Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) and Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) (Laestadius, 2015).
Conclusion
Hence, it can be concluded that, meat biofabrication can prove to be a successful alternative in the production of meat and meat products with long term benefits. Meat biofabrication encompasses the production of meat which is ethically acceptable, conserves environmental resources, meets world food intake needs and prevents possible health complications associated with conventional meat production. In order to combat issues associated with employment losses, dietary repercussions and financial constraints a decentralized, multidisciplinary approach may be required. Hence, with an extensive discussion on notable arguments and solutions, this paper has successfully postulated in support of the advantages of meat biofabrication in mitigating the effects of increased dietary meatification.
References
Alçay, A. Ü., Sa?lam, A., Yalç?n, S., & Bostan, K. (2018). Possible Protein Sources for the Future. Academic Food Journal/Akademik GIDA, 16(2).
Anomaly, J. (2015). What’s wrong with factory farming?. Public Health Ethics, 8(3), 246-254.
Apostolidis, C., & McLeay, F. (2016). Should we stop meating like this? Reducing meat consumption through substitution. Food Policy, 65, 74-89.
Arshad, M. S., Javed, M., Sohaib, M., Saeed, F., Imran, A., & Amjad, Z. (2017). Tissue engineering approaches to develop cultured meat from cells: a mini review. Cogent Food & Agriculture, 3(1), 1320814.
Asioli, D., Bazzani, C., & Nayga, R. M. (2018). Consumers’ Valuation for Lab Produced Meat: An Investigation of Naming Effects.
Asioli, D., Bazzani, C., & Nayga, R. M. (2018). Consumers’ Valuation for Lab Produced Meat: An Investigation of Naming Effects.
Bhat, Z. F., & Bhat, H. (2011). Animal-free meat biofabrication. American Journal of Food Technology, 6(6), 441-459.
Bhat, Z. F., & Fayaz, H. (2011). Prospectus of cultured meat—advancing meat alternatives. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 48(2), 125-140.
Bhat, Z. F., Kumar, S., & Bhat, H. F. (2017). In vitro meat: A future animal-free harvest. Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 57(4), 782-789.
Bhat, Z. F., Kumar, S., & Fayaz, H. (2015). In vitro meat production: Challenges and benefits over conventional meat production. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14(2), 241-248.
Bryant, C. J., & Barnett, J. C. (2019). What’s in a name? Consumer perceptions of in vitro meat under different names. Appetite.
Clapp, J. (2014). World hunger and the global economy: Strong linkages, weak action.
Dagevos, H. (2016). Exploring flexitarianism: Meat reduction in a meat-centred food culture. In Impact of meat consumption on health and environmental sustainability (pp. 233-243). IGI global.
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.
Ferrari, A. (2017). Nonhuman animals as food in biocapitalism. Animal Oppression and Capitalism [2 volumes], 184.
Ferrari, A., & Lösch, A. (2017). How smart grid meets in vitro meat: on visions as socio-epistemic practices. NanoEthics, 11(1), 75-91.
Godfray, H. C. J., Aveyard, P., Garnett, T., Hall, J. W., Key, T. J., Lorimer, J., … & Jebb, S. A. (2018). Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science, 361(6399), eaam5324.
Hocquette, J. F., Ellies-Oury, M. P., Lherm, M., Pineau, C., Deblitz, C., & Farmer, L. (2018). Current situation and future prospects for beef production in Europe—A review. Asian-Australasian journal of animal sciences, 31(7), 1017.
Jönsson, E. (2016). Benevolent technotopias and hitherto unimaginable meats: Tracing the promises of in vitro meat. Social studies of science, 46(5), 725-748.
Khademhosseini, A., & Langer, R. (2016). A decade of progress in tissue engineering. Nature protocols, 11(10), 1775.
Kumar, A., & Starly, B. (2015). Large scale industrialized cell expansion: producing the critical raw material for biofabrication processes. Biofabrication, 7(4), 044103.
Laestadius, L. I. (2015). Public perceptions of the ethics of in-vitro meat: Determining an appropriate course of action. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 28(5), 991-1009.
Mattick, C. S., Wetmore, J. M., & Allenby, B. R. (2015). An anticipatory social assessment of factory-grown meat. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 34(1), 56-64.
Pandurangan, M., & Kim, D. H. (2015). A novel approach for in vitro meat production. Applied microbiology and biotechnology, 99(13), 5391-5395.
Pohjolainen, P., Tapio, P., Vinnari, M., Jokinen, P., & Räsänen, P. (2016). Consumer consciousness on meat and the environment—Exploring differences. Appetite, 101, 37-45.
Poirier, N. (2017). The Future of Meat without Animals.
Sayd, T., Chambon, C., & Santé-Lhoutellier, V. (2016). Quantification of peptides released during in vitro digestion of cooked meat. Food chemistry, 197, 1311-1323.
Sharma, S., Thind, S. S., & Kaur, A. (2015). In vitro meat production system: why and how?. Journal of food science and technology, 52(12), 7599-7607.
Silva, L. P. (2019). Current Trends and Challenges in Biofabrication Using Biomaterials and Nanomaterials: Future Perspectives for 3D/4D Bioprinting. 3D and 4D Printing in Biomedical Applications: Process Engineering and Additive Manufacturing, 373-421.
Stephens, N. S. (2015). What is in vitro meat? Food phreaking.
Weis, T. (2015). Meatification and the madness of the doubling narrative. Canadian Food Studies/La Revue canadienne des études sur l’alimentation, 2(2), 296-303.
Wilks, M., & Phillips, C. J. (2017). Attitudes to in vitro meat: A survey of potential consumers in the United States. PloS one, 12(2), e0171904.
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download