DOCSLIB.ORG

Cultured Meat Policy Paper

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cultured Meat Policy Paper 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]
Load more

Recommended publications
  • L'antispécisme
    L'ANTISPÉCISME LA QUESTION DES DROITS DES ANIMAUX Travail de maturité Ileana CREUTZ 4H Maître accompagnant : M. Boris Ducrocq COLLÈGE VOLTAIRE GENÈVE 2020-2021 Table des matières Introduction................................................................................................................... 2 1. Les approches philosophiques antispécistes 1.1. L'utilitarisme de Peter Singer................................................................................. 4 1.2. La théorie des droits de Tom Regan....................................................................... 6 1.3. La philosophie politique de Sue Donaldson et Will Kymlicka............................... 9 2. Les mouvements citoyens pour les droits des animaux 2.1. Les différences de stratégie.................................................................................. 13 2.2. Le « Projet Grands Singes » de Paola Cavalieri et Peter Singer........................... 16 2.3. La situation des droits des animaux en Suisse...................................................... 19 Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 22 Bilan personnel........................................................................................................... 27 Interview..................................................................................................................... 28 Bibliographie.............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Global Journal of Animal Law
    GLOBAL JOURNAL OF ANIMAL LAW A journal to promote human understanding of nonhumans’ legal status Volume 5, Issue 1, 2017 (September 5, 2017) Special Issue Based on the “Talking Animals, Law and Philosophy” Talk Series Organised at the University of Cambridge Publisher: Åbo Akademi University/Department of Law Editor-in-Chief: Visa AJ Kurki; Special Issue Editor: Raffael N Fasel Advisory Board: Professor Markku Suksi, Åbo Akademi University; Professor Anne Kumpula, University of Turku; Professor Matti Niemivuo, University of Lapland; Professor Matti J Tolvanen, University of Eastern Finland; Professor Teresa Giménez-Candela, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona; Professor David Bilchitz, University of Johannesburg; Professor Peter Sankoff, University of Alberta; Professor Joan E Schaffner, The George Washington University; Mr Jan-Harm de Villiers, University of South Africa Table of Contents TALKING ANIMALS, LAW, PHILOSOPHY – AND BEYOND (Raffael N Fasel) 3 1. Introduction 3 2. Talking Animals, Law and Philosophy 5 3. Overview of this special issue 7 SUFFERING IN NON-HUMAN ANIMALS: Perspectives from Animal Welfare Science and Animal Welfare Law (Peter Fordyce) 12 1. Introduction 13 2. The legal recognition of sentience in animals 16 3. What really matters to animals – Motivational research and ethograms 20 4. Welfare, sentience, emotions and feelings 29 1 Global Journal of Animal Law, Vol 5, No 1 (2017) 5. Freedoms, needs and welfare assessment systems 33 6. Conclusions and summary 39 Glossary of terms 41 References 47 FROM INSIDE THE CAGE TO OUTSIDE THE BOX: Natural Resources as a Platform for Nonhuman Animal Personhood in the U.S. and Australia (Randall S Abate and Jonathan Crowe) 54 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Against 'Effective Altruism'
    Against ‘Effective Altruism’ Alice Crary Effective Altruism (EA) is a programme for rationalising for the most part adopt the attitude that they have no charitable giving, positioning individuals to do the ‘most serious critics and that sceptics ought to be content with good’ per expenditure of money or time. It was first for- their ongoing attempts to fine-tune their practice. mulated – by two Oxford philosophers just over a decade It is a posture belied by the existence of formidable ago–as an application of the moral theory consequential- critical resources both inside and outside the philosoph- ism, and from the outset one of its distinctions within ical tradition in which EA originates. In light of the undis- the philanthropic world was expansion of the class of puted impact of EA, and its success in attracting idealistic charity-recipients to include non-human animals. EA young people, it is important to forcefully make the case has been the target of a fair bit of grumbling, and even that it owes its success primarily not to the – question- some mockery, from activists and critics on the left, who able – value of its moral theory but to its compatibility associate consequentialism with depoliticising tenden- with political and economic institutions responsible for cies of welfarism. But EA has mostly gotten a pass, with some of the very harms it addresses. The sincere ded- many detractors concluding that, however misguided, its ication of many individual adherents notwithstanding, efforts to get bankers, tech entrepreneurs and the like to reflection on EA reveals a straightforward example of give away their money cost-effectively does no serious moral corruption.
    [Show full text]
  • Review and Gap-Analysis of LCA-Studies of Cultured Meat for the Good Food Institute
    STUDY Review and gap-analysis of LCA-studies of cultured meat for The Good Food Institute Authors: Andreas Scharf, Elke Breitmayer, and Michael Carus Submitted by nova-Institute GmbH Tel. +49 2233 48 14 57 Michael Carus (Dipl.-Physiker) Fax +49 2233 48 14 50 Chemiepark Knapsack Email: [email protected] Industriestraße 300 Internet: www.nova-institut.eu 50354 Huerth HUERTH, 22/05/2019 Review and gap-analysis of LCA-studies of cultured meat Table of contents 1 Goal and background of the study 3 2 LCA-studies on cultured meat production 4 3 Method 5 3 1 Functional unit and reference products 5 3 2 Multifunctionality 5 3 3 System boundaries 6 3 4 Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) 8 4 Data acquisition and Life Cycle Inventory 9 5 Review of potential environmental impacts 13 6 Discussion 15 7 Recommendations 20 8 References 23 2 Abbreviations and acronyms CED Cumulative Energy Demand CHO Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) DM Dry matter ELCD European Life Cycle Database FU Functional Unit GWP Global Warming Potential HVAC Heating, Ventilation, Air-conditioning ILCD International Reference Life Cycle Data System ISO International Organization for Standardization LCA Life Cycle Assessment LCI Life Cycle Inventory LCIA Life Cycle Impact Assessment NREU Non-renewable energy use PLA Polylactic acid WULCA Water use in Life Cycle Assessment 3 Review and gap-analysis of LCA-studies of cultured meat 1 Goal and background of 2 LCA-studies on cultured the study meat production An alternative for conventional livestock production is To date, only a very
    [Show full text]
  • Messages to Overcome Naturalness Concerns in Clean Meat Acceptance: Primary Findings
    Messages to Overcome Naturalness Concerns in Clean Meat Acceptance: Primary Findings July 2018 Authors: Jo Anderson & Chris Bryant Research team: Jo Anderson (Faunalytics), Chris Bryant (University of Bath), Kathryn Asher (Animal Charity Evaluators; formerly Faunalytics), Che Green (Faunalytics), Kris Gasteratos (Cellular Agriculture Society), Bruce Friedrich (The Good Food Institute), Jeff Rotman (Deakin University), Jamie Macfarlane (The Good Food Institute). Funding: We gratefully acknowledge Animal Charity Evaluators and the Animal Advocacy Research Fund for their assistance in funding this project. Introduction Studies of clean meat (also called Contents cultured meat, in vitro meat, etc.) to date Key Findings (page 3) have found that consumers’ willingness to eat it is uncertain (Pew Research, Methodology (page 4) 2014; Slade, 2018; Surveygoo, 2018; Terminology The Grocer, 2017; Wilks & Phillips, 2017; Sample & Procedure YouGov, 2013). Results (page 6) Did Participants Believe the Messages? One of consumers’ primary concerns Perceived Unnaturalness of Clean Meat about clean meat is its alleged Perceived Unnaturalness of Conventional Meat unnaturalness. This is a theme that has Perceived Importance of Meat Naturalness been seen in many qualitative studies Willingness to Pay (WTP) for Clean Meat (Laestadius, 2015; Verbeke, Marcu, et Behavioral Intentions al., 2015) and cited as one of the most Beliefs about Clean Meat common reasons for rejecting clean meat Attitude in surveys (The Grocer, 2017). Indeed, Affect Siegrist and Sütterlin (2017) have Overall Pattern of Results: Supplementary demonstrated that the perceived Analysis unnaturalness of clean meat explains a Conclusions (page 16) great deal of consumers’ safety Experimental Messages concerns. Further, Siegrist, Sütterlin, and Implications Hartmann (2018) show that this Limitations perception evokes disgust and likely Future Directions causes rejection of clean meat in References (page 19) practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultivated Meat
    2019 State of the Industry Report Cultivated Meat Photo credit: Memphis Meats Contents Section 1: Introduction 3 Box 1: What Is Cultivated Meat? 4 Section 2: Companies 6 Overview 6 Table 1: Current Competitive Landscape for Cultivated Meat Industry 7 Global Perspective 11 Figure 1: Geographic Distribution of Cultivated Meat Companies 11 Product Focus: A Growing Field but Still Plenty of White Space 12 Companies Embrace Opportunities in the Cultivated Meat Value Chain 12 Box 2: Example Value-Chain Entry Points 14 Looking Ahead 15 Section 3: Investments 16 Overview 16 Figure 2: Cultivated Meat Industry Investment Overview (2016–2019) 16 Figure 3: Investments in Cultivated Meat Companies (2016–2019) 17 Deals 18 Investors 19 Figure 4: Cultivated Meat Company Investor Composition (2016–2019) 19 Table 2: Investors in Cultivated Meat Companies 20 Box 3: New Venture Funds Bring Dry Powder into 2020 24 Global Snapshot 25 Figure 5: Top Investing Countries by Number of Unique Investors 25 Box 4: Belgian Consortium Aligns Diverse Partners to Bring 26 Cultivated Foie Gras to Market Looking Ahead 26 State of the Industry Report Cultivated Meat Contents 1 Contents Section 4: Science and Technology 27 Overview 27 Research Highlights 29 Box 5: Technical Opportunities for Seafood Research in 2020 30 Looking Ahead 30 Box 6: Cultivated Milk Is an Emerging Application for Cell 31 Culture Technology Section 5: Regulation 32 Overview 32 Federal Regulation of Cultivated Meat 32 International Regulation of Cultivated Meat 32 State Label Censorship 32 Box 7: AMPS
    [Show full text]
  • Open Philanthropy Project
    NYC research event 2016-12-5 Open Phil half GiveWell NYC Research Event, December 5, 2016 – Open Philanthropy Project 06/07/17 Page 1 of 14 NYC research event 2016-12-5 Open Phil half This transcript was compiled by an outside contractor, and GiveWell did not review it in full before publishing, so it is possible that parts of the audio were inaccurately transcribed. If you have questions about any part of this transcript, please review the original audio recording that was posted along with these notes. 0:00:01 Holden Karnofsky: Okay, so yeah, now I'm going to talk about the Open Philanthropy project. Basically the story of the Open Philanthropy project. Elie and I founded GiveWell in 2007 and then in 2011 we met Cari Tuna and Dustin Moskovitz. Dustin is the co-founder of Facebook and Asana and they were asking kind of a similar question to what had made us start GiveWell but very different also. When we started GiveWell we were asking, "Hey, I want to give a few thousand dollars, I have a few hours to think about it. What do I do to do the most good?" 0:00:31 HK: And they were asking more something like, "We are giving away billions of dollars. We have our whole lives to think about this, all the time. What do we do to do the most good?" That is a question we obviously found very interesting and had a similar challenge around it in the sense that if you want to read people arguing about what our public policy should be, what our trade policy should be, there's an infinite amount to read.
    [Show full text]
  • Safety of Alternative Proteins: Technological, Environmental and Regulatory Aspects of Cultured Meat, Plant-Based Meat, Insect Protein and Single-Cell Protein
    foods Review Safety of Alternative Proteins: Technological, Environmental and Regulatory Aspects of Cultured Meat, Plant-Based Meat, Insect Protein and Single-Cell Protein Joshua Hadi 1 and Gale Brightwell 1,2,* 1 AgResearch Ltd., Hopkirk Research Institute, Cnr University Ave and Library Road, Massey University, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand; [email protected] 2 New Zealand Food Safety Science and Research Centre, Massey University Manawatu (Turitea), Tennent Drive, Palmerston North 4474, New Zealand * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Food security and environmental issues have become global crises that need transformative solutions. As livestock production is becoming less sustainable, alternative sources of proteins are urgently required. These include cultured meat, plant-based meat, insect protein and single-cell protein. Here, we describe the food safety aspects of these novel protein sources, in terms of their technological backgrounds, environmental impacts and the necessary regulatory framework for future mass-scale production. Briefly, cultured meat grown in fetal bovine serum-based media can be exposed to viruses or infectious prion, in addition to other safety risks associated with the use of genetic engineering. Plant-based meat may contain allergens, anti-nutrients and thermally induced carcinogens. Microbiological risks and allergens are the primary concerns associated with insect protein. Single-cell protein sources are divided into microalgae, fungi and bacteria, all of which have Citation: Hadi, J.; Brightwell, G. specific food safety risks that include toxins, allergens and high ribonucleic acid (RNA) contents. The Safety of Alternative Proteins: Technological, Environmental and environmental impacts of these alternative proteins can mainly be attributed to the production of Regulatory Aspects of Cultured Meat, growth substrates or during cultivation.
    [Show full text]
  • C​Ellular​ A​Griculture​ N
    C​ELLULAR ​ A​GRICULTURE ​ N​OMENCLATURE:​ Optimizing Consumer Acceptance Published September 2018 Updated January 2020 Keri Szejda, Ph.D. Senior Consumer Research Scientist The Good Food Institute Executive Summary The purpose of this research project was to better understand consumer perceptions of names used to describe meat produced through cellular agriculture. We generated a comprehensive list of potential names and then conducted a series of consumer studies to test name outcomes. The study included four distinct phases. Phase 1 was a stakeholder study, which generated a list of 74 names to consider for consumer testing. Phase 2 was a consumer survey to assess viability of a shorter list of 31 names selected from the Phase 1 list. Phases 3 and 4 were consumer experiments testing the top five selected names from the Phase 2 survey. These five names were: “clean meat,” “cell-based meat,” “craft meat,” “cultured meat,” and “slaughter-free meat.” These experiments were designed to test the unique influence of each of these names on consumers’ perception of the name itself (including the degree to which the name sounds appealing, accurately describes the product, and differentiates from conventional meat). The experiments also tested the unique influence of each of the names on consumers’ behavioral intentions, including likelihood of trying and of purchasing the product. The results from Phase 3 replicated in the Phase 4 experiment, lending additional validity to the results. Overall, “slaughter-free,” “craft,” “clean,” and “cultured” performed best in name appeal, “slaughter-free” and “cell-based” performed best in descriptiveness and differentiation, and “slaughter-free” and “craft” performed best in likelihood of trying and of purchasing the product.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Animal Equality 2015
    Additional information - for Animal Charity Evaluators - Assessment of Animal Equality 2015 Due date: October 7th 2015 1 1. What are your goals? Your vision? Your mission? (Update after strategic lines 2015) Vision Animal Equality works to create a world without animal suffering. Mission Animal Equality is a voice for farmed animals all over the world inspiring society and companies to adopt compassionate choices. 2. What are our objectives of the year? Goals in 3 or 5 years? Strategy Plan 2016 ­ 2020: Animal Equality has just finished its strategic plan for 2016­2020 and is working with an external company to have it summarized and transformed into a more visual document. As part of the strategic plan the organization has done a thorough internal and external analysis. Internal analysis: compilation of the financial, relations, material goods, management, function, procedures, dynamics of the organization in 8 countries. It has given insight to some of the internal problems that must be addressed as part of the strategy plan. As part of the external analysis we have analysed the education, legislation and companies in the 8 countries we are working in. This adds on to our STEP and SWOT analysis carried out sometime ago,as well as to the meat study being carried out in Germany to give AE an idea of what will be the areas of focus of the organization in the next years taking into account the organization's reality and resources. The organization’s country and international directors then had a 3 day meeting to discuss the organization's reality, identity and focus in the upcoming years.
    [Show full text]
  • Stated Preferences for Plant-Based and Cultured Meat: a Choice Experiment Study of Spanish Consumers
    sustainability Article Stated Preferences for Plant-Based and Cultured Meat: A Choice Experiment Study of Spanish Consumers Alfredo J. Escribano 1,* , Maria Belen Peña 2, Carlos Díaz-Caro 3 , Ahmed Elghannam 4 , Eva Crespo-Cebada 2 and Francisco J. Mesías 2 1 Independent Researcher, 10005 Cáceres, Spain 2 Department of Economics, University of Extremadura, 06006 Badajoz, Spain; [email protected] (M.B.P.); [email protected] (E.C.-C.); [email protected] (F.J.M.) 3 Department of Accounting and Finance, University of Extremadura, 06006 Badajoz, Spain; [email protected] 4 Faculty of Agriculture, Damanhour University, 22511 Damanhour, Egypt; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Meat production and consumption have been claimed to have negative impacts on the environment, and even on the consumer’s health. In this sense, alternative sources of protein, mainly meat substitutes and cultured meat, have emerged due to those perceived negative effects. Our paper carries out a choice experiment to analyze the preferences of 444 Spanish consumers and their willingness to pay for plant-based and cultured meats, as compared to conventional meat. Spain was considered of interest for this study due to its significant gastronomic culture, with high-quality meat products that make a great contribution to the economy, meaning that this could be a suitable and also challenging market in which to test alternative sources of protein. The findings show that Citation: Escribano, A.J.; Peña, M.B.; consumers’ motivations and their interactions with these products are complex. Additionally, a Díaz-Caro, C.; Elghannam, A.; cluster analysis allowed us to identify three types of consumers in terms of preference for these Crespo-Cebada, E.; Mesías, F.J.
    [Show full text]
  • Reducing Su Ering Among Invertebrates Such As Insects Policy
    Reducing suering among invertebrates such as insects Policy paper Invertebrates such as insects, spiders, worms and snails may very well feel pain, and we should therefore take actions to reduce their potential suering. The large number of such invertebrate individuals and the severity of the harms that they endure mean that their potential suering would be an ethical disaster. Sentience Politics advocates that actions should be taken in several areas: Invertebrates should, when possible, not be used in re- search and teaching, and should not be used as food and feed or in the production of silk, shellac, etc. If invertebrates are to be used in these areas, we advocate actions to at least reduce their suering. In addition, attempts to prevent invertebrates from damaging crops should use the least painful methods, and research should be done to develop methods that cause less suering. Finally, policy analysis should take into account the resulting amounts of suering among all invertebrates, whether it is caused by humans or not. May Policy paper by Sentience Politics. Preferred Citation: Knutsson, S. (). Reducing suering among invertebrates such as insects. Pol- icy paper by Sentience Politics ():-. First release May . Last update May . Website: sentience-politics.org Contents Summary . Introduction . Invertebrates such as insects may very well be able to feel pain . Vast amounts of potential suering suggest that we should care about invertebrates . Actions should be taken in several areas where inverte- brates are harmed . Objections and replies . References . Author: S K, Researcher, Foundational Research Institute Project leader: T B, Director of Strategy, Sentience Politics Advisor: A M, President, Sentience Politics Advisor: B T, Researcher Lead, Foundational Research Institute Layout editor: A P Language editor: J S Reducing suering among invertebrates such as insects Summary number of scientists have argued, researchers could be re- quired to induce insensibility to pain and suering before doing potentially painful research on invertebrates.
    [Show full text]