Cultured Meat A pragmatic solution to the problems posed by industrial animal farming Policy paper Industrial livestock production presents a growing problem on a global scale in terms of an- imal welfare, environmental sustainability, and human health. One solution might be cul- tured meat, in which animal tissue is grown in a controlled environment using cell culture technology, thereby making the raising and killing of animals for food unnecessary. This ap- proach shows great potential of meeting all the requirements of a humane, sustainable and healthy form of meat production. However, a great deal of scientific, technical, cultural and legislative challenges must be overcome before cultured meat can reach cost-competitiveness. Lack of funding is the main barrier to further development, and considerable upfront investment is needed for cultured meat to attain commercially viable retail prices. We therefore strongly support increased funding of cultured meat initiatives. This entails, in order of priority: research and development of technology suitable for mass production, promoting fact-based public discussion regarding the technology and its societal implica- tions, and eventual marketing of end products to consumers. April 2016 Policy paper by Sentience Politics. Preferred Citation: Rorheim, A., Mannino, A., Baumann, T., and Caviola, L.(2016). Cultured Meat: A pragmatic solution to the problems posed by industrial animal farming. Policy paper by Sentience Politics (1): 1–14. First release April 2016. Last update 2016. Website: sentience-politics.org Contents Introduction.............................1 Current impacts of livestock-based meat.........1 Cultured meat in comparison.................3 Challenges to cultured meat development........5 Conclusions.............................7 References..............................9 Adrian Rorheim, Research Associate, Sentience Politics Adriano Mannino, President, Sentience Politics Tobias Baumann, Director of Strategy, Sentience Politics Lucius Caviola, Executive Director, Eective Altruism Foundation Cultured Meat Introduction and human health. The concept of producing meat intended for human consumption independent of a complete living organism Each year, tens of billions of sentient animals[1] are has been a subject of speculative interest since at least reared in industrial conditions in order to produce 1931,[24] but proof of concept has existed in various forms meat. This global enterprise is currently the planet’s only since the early 2000’s.[25] Cultured meat technology main source of human pandemic diseases[2][3][4][5] is still in its experimental stage and has so far been lim- and likely among its greatest concentrations of human- ited to producing a small number of processed meat items inflicted suering.[6][7][8] Curbing this ongoing moral in laboratory settings for demonstrative purposes.[26][61] catastrophe should thus be of high concern for people Current research is focused on refining production meth- aiming to eectively help as many sentient beings as ods in order to lower cost, improve scalability and mini- possible.[6][9][10][11][12] Moreover, animal agriculture mize dependence on animal sources. contributes to climate change and makes ineicient use In this paper, we begin by presenting the rationale be- of a significant portion of our available resources.[13] hind developing animal-free meat products. Moving on, Addressing this massive challenge would ideally in- we explore cultured meat and its ethical, economic, envi- volve a worldwide shi to a vegetarian lifestyle, but such ronmental, and human health implications. We then re- a shi is unlikely to take place in our lifetimes. Humans view the most pressing challenges facing public accep- around the world namely place a high value on meat in tance and technical feasibility of cultured meat produc- terms of taste, nutrition, and tradition, evidenced in part tion, and conclude by proposing a number of funding rec- by a clear rise in global meat consumption over the past ommendations. half century — a trend strongly associated with economic empowerment of developing countries.[14][15][16] Even though vegetarianism has also witnessed steady growth in Current impacts of livestock-based recent years, its growth pales in comparison to the global meat demand for meat, with the latter predicted to increase by 73% within 2050.[17] Meanwhile, plant-based meat substi- Environmental tutes have, despite decades of costly improvements, not been suiciently eective at replacing meat in people’s Greenhouse gas emissions: The main causes of climate diets.[18] It would thus be a significant gain if we were able change are usually attributed to transportation and to introduce a cruelty-free replacement for meat with the housing. This, however, ignores another signifi- ability to rival conventional livestock-production. cant contributor: according to the UN Food and Enter cultured meat, an innovative way of synthesizing Agriculture Organization (FAO), animal agriculture meat from animal tissue samples. Compared with con- is responsible for 14.5% of the world’s total GHG ventional methods of meat production — which involve emissions.[27] It is therefore as bad for the environ- the breeding, raising, feeding, and slaughter of living ani- ment as the combined impact of every motor ve- mals — cultured meat instead involves using a cell sample hicle in the world, which collectively represent at to grow desired tissue in a controlled environment, mak- 15%.[28] Methane, whose global warming potential ing use of biotechnology originally developed for medi- is 25 times greater than that of carbon dioxide,[29] cal research and organ transplants. Proponents of cul- makes up 44% of the animal industry’s total emis- tured meat argue that this technology holds considerable sions. Most of this methane is emitted by ruminants promise as a replacement for conventional meat. Indeed, such as cows, sheep and goats as a natural byprod- cultured meat seems likely to oer vast benefits in terms of uct of their digestive processes. The United Nations animal welfare,[19][20] environmental impact[21][22][23] Environment Programme (UNEP) maintains that a Cultured Meat reduction of greenhouse gas emissions of at least cost preventative biosecurity measure intended to 50% by 2050 is necessary in order to avoid the worst cope with the aforementioned disease transimis- impacts of climate change.[30] sion problem. However, this practice – which has Resource ineiciency: Livestock farming takes up 70% resulted in substantial antibiotic contamination of of arable land around the globe and 30% of the waterways[35] – is now considered a leading cause earth’s land surface.[2] 70% of deforested areas in of the global rise of antimicrobial-resistant (mul- the Amazon rainforest are used as pastures and a tiresistant) pathogen strains.[36][37][38] The World large part of the remaining 30% is used to raise Health Organization considers this one of today’s animal feed crops (ibid.). The rate at which live- biggest threats to global health.[39][40][37] stock animals convert feed to energy and protein, Animal welfare meanwhile, is disturbingly ineicient; cows, for ex- ample, normally convert less than 5% of their pro- Non-human sentience: There is scientific consensus re- tein and energy intake into edible meat.[14] Taking garding animal sentience and their capacity to into account the water consumption for production, suer[41] and this is oicially recognized in EU more than 15,000L of water are needed for 1kg of legislation[42]. The opposing view that conscious beef.[31][32] experience is only possible in human brains is not supported by current evidence[43][44]. It follows Water pollution: The livestock sector uses a great deal of that any needless suering inflicted upon animals water for feed production, animal rearing, and sani- under human care, whether through direct action or tation. Water recycled from livestock manure is cur- inaction/neglect, is morally indefensible and must rently responsible for around 33% of global nitrogen be stopped. and phosphorous pollution, 50% of antibiotic pollu- tion, and 37% of toxic heavy metals contaminating Suering in factory farms: Intensive animal farming is the world’s freshwater. Animal feed production also inescapably associated with systematic disregard contributes to water pollution; around 37% of pesti- for their welfare.[45][46][47] Animal farming is al- cides that end up in the water supply are from live- ready very ineicient in terms of land and suste- stock production.[2] nance resources,[48][49] and high market demand for meat thus results in farmers striving to make all Human health aspects of production more cost-eective. Main- Infectious disease transmission: Livestock pose a signif- taining the wellbeing of animals is oen time- icant disease risk to humans. Around 60% of consuming, yet not strictly necessary to produce all known human diseases and 75% of the most meat at an aordable level. The result is that an- damaging emerging diseases are zoonotic (animal- imal welfare measures are commonly reduced to transmitted) in origin.[2][3] Most pathogens of re- an absolute minimum or largely ignored in factory cent concern – such as bovine spongiform en- farms.[45][46][47][50][51][52][53][7] An example of cephalopathy (BSE) and all forms of influenza this eect is the “broiler chicken”, a chicken breed (swine, avian, etc.) – are transmitted through live- optimized for morbid obesity and rapid matura- stock in particular.[4][5]