DOCSLIB.ORG

Chew on This: Investigating Public Perceptions of Lab Grown Meat by Kellie Boykin, B.S. a Thesis in Agricultural Communications

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chew on This: Investigating Public Perceptions of Lab Grown Meat by Kellie Boykin, B.S. a Thesis in Agricultural Communications Chew on this: Investigating public perceptions of lab grown meat by Kellie Boykin, B.S. A Thesis In Agricultural Communications Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCES Approved Dr. Courtney Meyers Chair of Committee Dr. Nan Li Dr. Lindsay Kennedy Mark Sheridan Dean of the Graduate School December, 2019 Copyright 2019, Kellie Boykin Texas Tech University, Kellie Anne Boykin, December 2019 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS “Immeasurably more.” This phrase from a verse in the New Testament has been constantly on my heart through this whole process of being a graduate student because God has truly blessed me more than I could have ever imagined in my time here at Texas Tech. Looking back, there are so many people that have supported me, loved me, and encouraged me through this process. First and foremost, I have to thank my parents. Dad and Mom, words don’t touch my gratitude to you. You were my first teachers and have always encouraged me to learn and pursue education. I owe so much of where I am today to my late grandpa, Dennis. You got me hooked on books and always encouraged me to write – a young communicator in the making. Grandpa, you were the reason that I love agriculture. You showed me the importance of caring for the land and how important it is to feed people. Now here I am pursuing a degree in agricultural communications. Kaitlyn, you’re not just my sister, you’ve been my best friend since the day you were born. Although this journey to Texas Tech took me further away from you physically, you have continued to be my most faithful friend and closest confidant, letting me tell you about my thesis every single day. When I moved to Texas, it was the furthest I had ever been away from home. To my dear Matthew, Cathy, Frank, Jason, Anthony, LaFawnda, Brennon, and Gage: Being 500 miles from my family and all things familiar has not been easy, but you accepted me into your family with open arms and provided me with so much love and stability. I am so thankful to be a part of your family! ii Texas Tech University, Kellie Anne Boykin, December 2019 Although distance has separated us, Terra, Lilly, Michaela, and Celsey, you have remained so close to my heart. Thank you for listening to me, letting me bounce ideas off of you, encouraging me, making me laugh, and being my adopted sisters. Dr. Meyers, when I met you for the first time in Fort Collins, CO, I was an undergraduate student that felt quite lost about what my future should look like. You were the most welcoming, energetic, and genuine person I had ever met, and I instantly knew I wanted to come to Tech and prayed I could be under you. Since coming to Tech, your enthusiasm and grace has never wavered. You are someone I look up to so much and aspire to be like “when I grow up.” You have pushed me to be better, encouraged me, and guided me through this crazy concept of research. Thank you so much for making this project possible and supporting me through the whole process! To Dr. Li, you saw this project evolve from just an idea in your class to fruition. Thank you for your help in designing this project and allowing it to come to fruition. When I got stuck, you always looked at things from a different perspective and propelled me forward. Dr. Kennedy, thank you so much for doing the nitty, gritty job of editing my stimuli and document! They say the design is in the details, and you took the time to look at all of the details of my thesis, while always meeting me with encouragement about the entire process. This thesis process has grown me and taught me much more than the information contained in this document. I have been challenged in so many ways and grown more than I thought possible. Each graduate experience is unique, and my singular experience is something I will always cherish. iii Texas Tech University, Kellie Anne Boykin, December 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................. ii ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... vii LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... viii LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... x CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1 Background & Setting ................................................................................................... 1 Social Media & Science Communication ..................................................................... 5 Need for the Study ......................................................................................................... 7 Purpose and Research Questions ................................................................................... 8 Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 9 Assumptions ................................................................................................................ 11 Limitations .................................................................................................................. 11 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................... 12 Overview ..................................................................................................................... 12 Consumer Acceptance of Food Technology ............................................................... 12 Consumer Acceptance of Lab Grown Meat ........................................................... 14 Science Communication .............................................................................................. 17 Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................... 18 Sentiment Analysis ................................................................................................. 18 Opinion Leadership ................................................................................................ 19 Risk and Benefit Perceptions ................................................................................. 21 Measures of Uncertainty ........................................................................................ 22 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY ................................................................................ 25 Overview ..................................................................................................................... 25 iv Texas Tech University, Kellie Anne Boykin, December 2019 Part I ............................................................................................................................ 25 Purpose and Research Objectives .......................................................................... 25 Research Design ..................................................................................................... 26 Sample .................................................................................................................... 26 Data Collection ....................................................................................................... 27 Data Analysis ......................................................................................................... 28 Part II ........................................................................................................................... 28 Purpose and Research Questions ............................................................................ 28 Research Design ..................................................................................................... 29 Sample .................................................................................................................... 30 Instrumentation ....................................................................................................... 31 Social Media Usage ........................................................................................... 31 Food Technology Neophobia ............................................................................ 32 Attitudes Toward Lab Grown Meat .................................................................. 33 Message Stimuli ................................................................................................ 34 Message Evaluation ........................................................................................... 35 Risk Perceptions ................................................................................................ 35 Measures of Uncertainty ................................................................................... 36 Intention to Share Content ................................................................................. 37 Intention to Consume Lab Grown Meat ............................................................ 37 Benefit Perceptions ........................................................................................... 38 Procedure ..................................................................................................................... 39 Message Testing .......................................................................................................... 40
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Meat and Muscle Biology™ Introduction
    Published June 7, 2018 Meat and Muscle Biology™ Meat Science Lexicon* Dennis L. Seman1, Dustin D. Boler2, C. Chad Carr3, Michael E. Dikeman4, Casey M. Owens5, Jimmy T. Keeton6, T. Dean Pringle7, Jeffrey J. Sindelar1, Dale R. Woerner8, Amilton S. de Mello9 and Thomas H. Powell10 1University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA 2University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, USA 3University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA 4Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA 5University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA 6Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA 7University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA 8Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA 9University of Nevada, Reno, NV, 89557, USA 10American Meat Science Association, Champaign, IL 61820, USA *Inquiries should be sent to: [email protected] Abstract: The American Meat Science Association (AMSA) became aware of the need to develop a Meat Science Lexi- con for the standardization of various terms used in meat sciences that have been adopted by researchers in allied fields, culinary arts, journalists, health professionals, nutritionists, regulatory authorities, and consumers. Two primary catego- ries of terms were considered. The first regarding definitions of meat including related terms, e.g., “red” and “white” meat. The second regarding terms describing the processing of meat. In general, meat is defined as skeletal muscle and associated tissues derived from mammals as well as avian and aquatic species. The associated terms, especially “red” and “white” meat have been a continual source of confusion to classify meats for dietary recommendations, communicate nutrition policy, and provide medical advice, but were originally not intended for those purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Don't Fall for Tricky Meat & Poultry Claims
    Lean? here do Wthe bro- chures, posters, and voluntary labels for meat get their num- bers? In most Don’t fall for tricky meat cases, from the USDA’s data- & poultry claims base. And where does the USDA BY LINDSAY MOYER & JENNIFER URBAN gets its numbers? 0" trim? Fat chance. It’s no secret that Americans need to cut back on meat. While we Mostly from, or now eat more chicken than beef, we still eat too much red meat, with funding from, the beef and pork industries. Hmm... especially beef. That’s bad news for our health and for the planet. The USDA’s database has numbers for beef that has had People who eat more red meat—especially processed meat—have the fat around its edges trimmed down to just ⁄8” or 0”. a higher risk of colon cancer, heart disease, and stroke. (The pork industry never even says how much its cuts were trimmed.) And it doesn’t help that misleading information about meat or The USDA also has numbers for what’s called “separable poultry can trick even the most careful shoppers. Here’s what to lean.” That’s after scalpel-wielding technicians trim off the watch out for. “separable fat”—every bit of fat except marbling within the muscle. Missing labels? All that trimming (where do you keep your scalpel?) helps explain how the beef industry’s website can end up touting voluntarily, you’re 38 cuts of “lean” beef. The list even includes fatty cuts like stuck with a brochure New York strip steak and brisket.
    [Show full text]
  • Ingredients in Meat Products Rodrigo Tarté Editor
    Ingredients in Meat Products Rodrigo Tarté Editor Ingredients in Meat Products Properties, Functionality and Applications iv Editor Rodrigo Tarté, Ph.D. Meat Science Research Research, Development & Quality Kraft Foods Inc. 910 Mayer Avenue Madison, Wisconsin 53704 USA ISBN: 978-0-387-71326-7 e-ISBN: 978-0-387-71327-4 DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-71327-4 Library of Congress Control Number: 2008939885 © Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009 All rights reserved. This work may not be translated or copied in whole or in part without the written permission of the publisher (Springer Science + Business Media, LLC, 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013, USA), except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis. Use in connection with any form of information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed is forbidden. The use in this publication of trade names, trademarks, service marks, and similar terms, even if they are not identifi ed as such, is not to be taken as an expression of opinion as to whether or not they are subject to proprietary rights. Printed on acid-free paper springer.com v Preface There is little doubt that today’s food industry is faced with a rapidly changing market landscape. The obvious need to continue to provide consumers with nutritious, delectable, safe, and affordable food products which are also profitable for food manufacturers, as well as the ongoing challenge of ensuring the delivery of adequate nutrition to hundreds of millions of disadvantaged people around the world, appears – at least as much as, if not more than, ever – to be at odds with the challenges posed by soaring energy and food commodity prices; fast-paced changes in consumer demographics, habits, and preferences; and the continual need to stay ahead of current and emerging food safety issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Biomarkers of Meat and Seafood Intake: an Extensive Literature Review Cătălina Cuparencu1*† , Giulia Praticó1†, Lieselot Y
    Cuparencu et al. Genes & Nutrition (2019) 14:35 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12263-019-0656-4 REVIEW Open Access Biomarkers of meat and seafood intake: an extensive literature review Cătălina Cuparencu1*† , Giulia Praticó1†, Lieselot Y. Hemeryck2†, Pedapati S. C. Sri Harsha3†, Stefania Noerman4, Caroline Rombouts2, Muyao Xi1, Lynn Vanhaecke2, Kati Hanhineva4, Lorraine Brennan3 and Lars O. Dragsted1 Abstract Meat, including fish and shellfish, represents a valuable constituent of most balanced diets. Consumption of different types of meat and fish has been associated with both beneficial and adverse health effects. While white meats and fish are generally associated with positive health outcomes, red and especially processed meats have been associated with colorectal cancer and other diseases. The contribution of these foods to the development or prevention of chronic diseases is still not fully elucidated. One of the main problems is the difficulty in properly evaluating meat intake, as the existing self-reporting tools for dietary assessment may be imprecise and therefore affected by systematic and random errors. Dietary biomarkers measured in biological fluids have been proposed as possible objective measurements of the actual intake of specific foods and as a support for classical assessment methods. Good biomarkers for meat intake should reflect total dietary intake of meat, independent of source or processing and should be able to differentiate meat consumption from that of other protein-rich foods; alternatively, meat intake biomarkers should be specific to each of the different meat sources (e.g., red vs. white; fish, bird, or mammal) and/or cooking methods. In this paper, we present a systematic investigation of the scientific literature while providing a comprehensive overview of the possible biomarker(s) for the intake of different types of meat, including fish and shellfish, and processed and heated meats according to published guidelines for biomarker reviews (BFIrev).
    [Show full text]
  • Role of Total, Red, Processed, and White Meat Consumption in Stroke Incidence and Mortality: a Systematic Review and Meta# Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies
    Role of Total, Red, Processed, and White Meat Consumption in Stroke Incidence and Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta# Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Kim, Kyuwoong, Junghyeon Hyeon, Sang Ah Lee, Sung Ok Kwon, Hyejin Lee, NaNa Keum, Jong#Koo Lee, and Sang Min Park. 2017. “Role of Total, Red, Processed, and White Meat Consumption in Stroke Incidence and Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta#Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies.” Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease 6 (9): e005983. doi:10.1161/JAHA.117.005983. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.117.005983. Published Version doi:10.1161/JAHA.117.005983 Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:34492482 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS Role of Total, Red, Processed, and White Meat Consumption in Stroke Incidence and Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies Kyuwoong Kim, BS; Junghyeon Hyeon, MD; Sang Ah Lee, PhD; Sung Ok Kwon, PhD; Hyejin Lee, MD; NaNa Keum, ScD; Jong-Koo Lee, MD, MPH, PhD; Sang Min Park, MD, MPH, PhD Background-—Previous meta-analyses on meat intake and risk of stroke did not report the effect of white meat (poultry meat, excluding fish) and did not examine stroke incidence and mortality separately.
    [Show full text]
  • 792421 - Fully Cooked Whole Grain Whole Muscle Chicken Breast Fillet
    792421 - Fully Cooked Whole Grain Whole Muscle Chicken Breast Fillet Nutrition Facts Product Specifications Serving Size 1 Fillet (113g) GTIN Case Net Weight 32 Servings Per Container 128 00850495005895 Item UPC Case L,W,H 14 7/16 x 10 1/16 x 16 5/8 Amount Per Serving Shelf Life 365 days from pack date Cube 1.3977 Calories 190 Unit Size 8 four pound bags Tie x High 7 X 7 Case Gross Weight 34 lbs SERVINGS 1 pc- 4.0 oz / 128 per case % Daily Value* Total Fat 7g 9% Features & Benefits Saturated Fat 1g 5% 31.68 donated food pounds per case (White Meat) Trans Fat 0 g Cholesterol 60mg 20% Sodium 470mg 20% CN Nutritional Information Total Carbohydrate 13g 5% One 4.0 oz breaded fully cooked chicken fillet provides 2.0 oz equivalent meat/meat alternate and 1.0 Dietary Fiber 1g 4% oz equivalent grain for the Child Nutrition Meal Pattern Requirements. Sugars 0g SMART SNACK COMPLIANT Protein 20g Ingredients INGREDIENTS: Chicken breast meat with rib meat, water, salt, sodium phosphate, onion Vitamin A % • Vitamin C 0 % powder, garlic powder, modified corn starch BREADED WITH: Whole wheat flour, enriched wheat flour (wheat flour, niacin, reduced iron, thiamine mononitrate, ribofloavin, folic acid), salt, Calcium 2% • Iron 6% spices, sucrose, dried yeast, garlic powder *Percent Daily Values are based on a 2,000 calorie diet. Your daily values may be higher or lower Preparation and Cooking depending on your calorie needs. Conventional Oven 20 min @ 350. Convection oven 14 min @ 350 J ack Crawford, Director 9/17/2020 Specifications subject to changes, errors and omissions.
    [Show full text]
  • SOC MEAT Questions
    SCIENCE OF COOKING MEAT QUESTIONS d. Muscle fibers e. Connective muscles Name _________________________________________________ 9. Which of the following proteins are found only in the thicK 1. The largest single component of meat is ___ filament? a. Water a. actin b. Protein b. troponin c. Fat c. titan d. Carbohydrate d. tropomyosin e. Connective tissue 10. Binding of ATP to the myosin head group 2. Bundles of muscle cells are Known as a. leads to the release of myosin from actin a. Muscle groups b. is followed by the active site of myosin closing and b. T-tubules hydrolysis of ATP c. Myofibrils c. causes a shifting or cocking oth the myosin head d. Muscle fibers d. all of the above e. Connective muscles e. none of the above 3. Ligaments, Tendons and collagen are all examples of ______ 11. Meat that has been treated with CO (carbon monoxide) a. Connective tissue will have what color? b. Ways muscle connects bone to bone a. Purple c. The proteins which holds muscle fibers together b. Red d. Proteins only digested by enzymes c. Brown e. The proteins which bind muscle to bone d. Pink 4. Gelatin _____ 12. Pork is a white meat because of which of the following a. Is from the breaKdown of muscle fibers a. They are mostly fast twitch muscle animals b. Is from enzymatic digestion of collagen b. They have high levels of myoglobin c. Is used to soften meats as a tenderizer c. They do not move as much and are typically harvested d. Is the breaKdown of collagen and used to maKe jello or younger than beef cattle thicKener for stew d.
    [Show full text]
  • How Foul Is Fowl?
    March 2006 The McDougall Newsletter www.drmcdougall.com Page 1 Volume 5 Issue 3 How Foul Is Fowl? Chicken and turkey are called “white meats,” as in “clean white meat,” and are considered to be health foods. The truth is fowl are filthy with a multitude of disease-causing ingredi- ents. The horrible threat of a bird flu pandemic may cause health-conscious people to ex- amine more closely the facts behind this traditional meal centerpiece—and we may see something like how mad cow disease, with all the emotions it aroused, caused people to rethink beef. Even though to date only a handful of people have died from either of these animal-borne infections, the fear of these two diseases could save millions of lives as peo- ple refrain from eating the more ordinary, but very lethal, parts of an animal’s tissues. The tissues of all fowl consist primarily of artery-clogging fat and cholesterol, and bone- destroying protein and acid. They are completely devoid of energy-giving carbohydrate and bowel-moving fiber. Like “sauce on the goose” they are contaminated with deadly microbes and cancer-causing chemicals. Have I stimulated your appetite?—to learn more? Amazing What People Eat A fowl is a bird of any kind, although some types of birds use the word specifically in their names; for example, Guineafowl and Peafowl. Chickens and turkeys are the most popular birds found on people’s dinner plates. In the US, over 35 billion tons of chicken are consumed annually, with a per capita intake of 87 pounds a year.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Review Vegetarianism. a Blossoming Field of Study
    Appetite 58 (2012) 141–150 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Appetite journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/appet Research Review Vegetarianism. A blossoming field of study q Matthew B. Ruby Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, 3126 West Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4 article info abstract Article history: Vegetarianism, the practice of abstaining from eating meat, has a recorded history dating back to ancient Received 27 July 2011 Greece. Despite this, it is only in recent years that researchers have begun conducting empirical investi- Received in revised form 23 September gations of the practices and beliefs associated with vegetarianism. The present article reviews the extant 2011 literature, exploring variants of and motivations for vegetarianism, differences in attitudes, values and Accepted 28 September 2011 worldviews between omnivores and vegetarians, as well as the pronounced gender differences in meat Available online 4 October 2011 consumption and vegetarianism. Furthermore, the review highlights the extremely limited cultural scope of the present data, and calls for a broader investigation across non-Western cultures. Keywords: 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Animal welfare Ó Attitudes Culture Gender Health Meat Motivations Veganism Vegetarianism Contents Introduction. ...................................................................................................... 141 Definitions and motivations . ..................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Poultry in Human Nutrition the Nutritional Benefits of Chicken Meat Compared with Other Meats
    FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS POULTRY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW The role of poultry in human nutrition The nutritional benefits of chicken meat compared with other meats David Farrell, School of Land, Crops and Food Sciences, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia 4072, Queensland, Australia Chicken meat is a white meat, distinguished from other meats breast meat was increased from 8.6 μg to 41 μg/100g, which is such as beef and lamb by its lower iron content (0.7 mg com- more than 65 percent of the RDI. The same amount of selenium pared with 2 mg/100 g). in the form of inorganic sodium selenite also increased selenium in the breast meat, but only to 16 μg/100g. Selenium deficiency is CHICKEN MEAT HAS SEVERAL ADVANTAGES OVER becoming more widespread in humans because soils are becom- OTHER MEATS ing depleted and the foods grown on them are therefore lower The fat content of cooked chicken varies depending on whether it in selenium. The RDI of selenium is 55 μg per day. Selenium is a is cooked with the skin on or off, the portion of the bird, and the powerful antioxidant and plays a role in the prevention of some bird’s diet and breed. Breast meat contains less than 3 g fat/100 g. forms of cancer. A deficiency of selenium can cause Keshan’s dis- An average value for dark meat (skin off) is 5 to 7 g/100 g. About ease, a heart ailment in the young, which is common in parts half of the fat from chicken meat is made up of the desirable mo- of China, and cognitive decline in adults.
    [Show full text]
  • Fresh Seafood BUYING GUIDE
    Fresh Seafood BUYING GUIDE Quality You Can Clearly Sea Serving North Florida & Southeast Georgia Sea Breeze Food Service 3807 Edgewood Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32254 (904) 356-9905 Fresh Fish ALL FISH WILD CAUGHT UNLESS SPECIFIED FARMED. IN STOCK WHEN AVAILABLE. Welcome to the Sea Breeze fresh seafood division. We are a state and HACPP inspected facility with our in COBIA Wild caught Cobia has firm white mild flesh. house cutting room. We cut whole fresh fish to order to EXCELLENT FOR GRILLING assure the finest quality. Fillets are skin off boneless or skin on scaled boneless. Loins are skin on boneless. We invite you to try our top quality seafood, truly guaranteed. CORVINA Mild, sweet flavor with firm large flake flesh. GRILL, FRY, SAUTÉ, BROIL FLOUNDER Mild, sweet flavored fine flakes white flash. BAKE, BROIL, FRY, SAUTÉ GROUPER (BLACK AND SCAMP) A lean moist flesh with a distinctive yet mild flavor. Firm texture with large flakes. BAKE, BROIL, FRY, GRILL, STEAM MAHI-MAHI Lean flesh with mild, sweet flavor profile and a moderately firm texture and large flakes. BAKE, BROIL, FRY, GRILL, SAUTÉ, SUSHI POMPANO VERMILLION SNAPPER (BEELINER) White flesh, medium flavored fish that holds Medium texture and flake with a mild, sweet flavor. together well for most modes of cooking. BAKE, GRILL, FRY, SAUTÉ BAKE, BROIL, FRY, GRILL, SAUTÉ, STEAM, POACH RAINBOW TROUT, FARMED LANE SNAPPER White meat with small flake and delicate texture. White flash with delicate texture Mild flavor with some mild nutty sweetness. and delicate flavor. BAKE, BROIL BROIL, SAUTÉ, FRY, POACH SALMON, ATLANTIC FARMED SHEEPSHEAD The flesh ranges from deep pink to orange White flesh with a medium to small firm flake with a medium-firm texture and large flakes.
    [Show full text]
  • Plus Managing Bison Love Your Label Methane Research Fake Meat Pie Mythane
    INCORPORATING AWA NEWSLETTER VOLUME 4 | ISSUE 3 | SUMMER 2019 | $5 PLUS MANAGING BISON LOVE YOUR LABEL METHANE RESEARCH FAKE MEAT PIE MYTHANE In response to growing yeast is used to produce heme, “the ‘magic Sustainable Farming public awareness of molecule’ that makes meat taste like meat.” Summer 2019 the climate emergency, Not what most conscientious consumers would Volume 4 / Issue 3 plant-based diets and consider natural or environmentally friendly! Cover price $5 lab-grown proteins And that’s before we discuss the potential sustainablefarming have rapidly emerged health and environmental questions mag.com as the self-proclaimed surrounding lab-grown meat production. answer to all our prayers, Editor: Peter Mundy ORLOV/ISTOCK VADIM offering healthy, animal- Whenever I can, I make a point of discussing [email protected] and climate-friendly ‘food solutions.’ these lab-based food solutions with shoppers Advertising: Methane emissions from the industrial sector between production systems, while promoting and people I meet. Most are pretty skeptical advertise@ New have been vastly underestimated, according to plant-based diets and white meat as the most But this is no coincidence. As highlighted in about lab-grown meat, often commenting that agreenerworld.org research new research from Cornell University and the sustainable dietary options. Yet this study reveals the last issue, powerful vested interests that something “just doesn’t feel right.” Although Environmental Defense Fund. that fertilizer production and use is the root cause The views expressed by reveals lie behind initiatives such as the Eat Forum are many want to see an end to industrial food contributors to Sustainable Published in Elementa, researchers equipped —and the data behind such dietary advice is wrong.
    [Show full text]