DOCSLIB.ORG

Happy Meat As a Passive Revolution: a Gramscian Analysis of Ethical Meat

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Happy Meat As a Passive Revolution: a Gramscian Analysis of Ethical Meat HAPPY MEAT AS A PASSIVE REVOLUTION: A GRAMSCIAN ANALYSIS OF ETHICAL MEAT PIERRE-ANDRÉ GAGNON Thesis submitted to the University of Ottawa in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the PhD degree in Political Science School of Political Studies Faculty of Social Sciences University of Ottawa © Pierre-André Gagnon, Ottawa, Canada, 2019 Abstract This thesis starts from the proposition that the ethical meat discourse that is, the discourse recognizing that factory farming is unacceptable while maintaining that it is possible to produce meat in an acceptable way — has not been thoroughly analyzed. Indeed, both the partisans of this idea and the animal rights literature provide oversimplified analyses of this relatively new phenomenon. Considering its explosion in popularity since Michael Pollan published the essay “An Animal's Place” in The New York Times Magazine in 2002, this lack of research is particularly problematic for the animal rights movement as this new discourse directly counters its objectives. As such, this thesis uses Gramsci’s concept of passive revolution to develop a richer analysis of the apparent marginalizing effect that this discourse has on the animal rights movement. More precisely, the thesis addresses the question: “If the emergence of the ethical meat discourse is understood as part of a passive revolution, what can the specific process of passive revolution tell us about the impacts of the ethical meat discourse on the animal rights movement?” It argues that the passive revolution operates on two levels: (1) it depoliticizes the issue of meat consumption by presenting it as irrelevant and reducing it to technical details and (2) it absorbs the moderate elements of the animal rights movement by proposing an attractive alternative. Both of these processes lead to the marginalization of the few animal advocacy organizations still criticizing ethical meat. The analysis is divided in three parts. The first and second analyze respectively the content of the discourse and internal dynamics of the coalition formed around it using Maarten Hajer’s concept of discourse-coalition. Building on this comprehensive understanding of the ethical meat discourse, the actual process of passive revolution is analyzed by looking at the way the meat industry, environmental organizations and animal advocacy organizations engage with it. ii Acknowledgements I like to think that this thesis is original, not based on its content, but for the fact that from the start, it has been a personal project more than a professional one. Considering this distinctive characteristic, I did not have the all-important motivating factor of needing a piece of paper with “Ph.D.” written on it to become a professor or a researcher. Looking back, this was both a blessing and a curse. A blessing since because I did not need to write this thesis, I had to find good reasons to want to do it. All along, the most important reasons were a fascinating subject and a strong desire to do my part to help the animals. The fact that I was lucky enough to get scholarships from both the governments of Quebec and of Ontario also made this much easier. This situation was also a curse because in hard times, I could not tell myself that I “needed” this piece of paper for a clear and distinct objective. For these moments, I was very lucky to be surrounded by supportive and caring people. The first person to thank is without hesitation Matthew without whom this thesis would certainly not exist. If I remember correctly, he is the one that initially asked me why I was doing a Ph.D. and accepted without questions my naive answer that it was “for fun.” Despite this, he gave more time than I would have ever hoped and somehow found a way to push me intellectually to do more without discouraging me. I remember, when he announced to me that he was moving to Manchester, telling some friends that if for some reason he could no longer be my supervisor, that I would quit. I meant it because I could not imagine a better supervisor. I am proud of having the chance to work with him and will forever be grateful for his work, support, and inestimable help. iii I also want to thank the members of the CGCÉEÉUOMDMVPISDM and especially its wise and benevolent leader, Pascal. Before starting this Ph.D., I was told that the people that make it to the end are the ones that make friends of their colleagues. Thank you for the beers, the laughs, and the all-important venting sessions. This project would also not have been possible without my Ph.D. partners in Montreal. Thank you Béatrice, as you said in your own acknowledgements, despite the distance in the first years, you have remained an essential ally to best the Ph.D. monster. Yes, it has been an honour to achieve yet another degree by your side. To Christian: you finished before I started, but during this journey, you were an essential source of support and inspiration. To Frédéric: we first met for “academic” reasons, but you quickly became a friend while becoming a key source of reassurance when I was confronted with the animal ethics literature. A very important thank you to all the people that helped me literally get out and work in uncountable cafes: Isabelle, Frédérike, Caroline, and Valérie. To my friends, thank you for your understanding, for the laughs, for the fun, and for all the opportunities to think about something other than this research. I am also very lucky to have a family that supported me throughout my numerous years in various universities and that always accepted the fact that I was simply there because I liked it. Thank you. And finally, thank you Marie. You came into my life as I started writing this thesis and you quickly became an essential part of its production. You were there to talk about all the existential crises such a project brings, you accepted without questioning my irregular Ph.D. life, and most importantly, you were there for all the crazy adventures. iv Table of Contents Abstract.............................................................................................................................................ii Acknowledgements.........................................................................................................................iii Table of Contents..............................................................................................................................v List of Tables.................................................................................................................................viii List of Figure...................................................................................................................................ix CHAPTER ONE: Introduction.........................................................................................................1 1. The Rise of Ethical Meat.........................................................................................................2 2. Research Question...................................................................................................................4 3. Gramsci: Ethical Meat as a Passive Revolution......................................................................6 4. Hajer: Ethical Meat as a Discourse-Coalition..........................................................................8 5. Methodology..........................................................................................................................10 6. Thesis.....................................................................................................................................12 7. Contribution and Normativity................................................................................................13 8. Plan........................................................................................................................................15 CHAPTER TWO: Ethical Meat, Animal Rights and Politics: Surveying the Literature...............19 1. What is Ethical Meat?............................................................................................................20 1.1 The Ethical Meat Literature............................................................................................22 1.2 The Animal Rights Literature and Ethical Meat.............................................................28 1.2.1 New Welfarism........................................................................................................28 1.2.2 Vegan Abolitionism.................................................................................................32 1.2.3 Critical Approaches.................................................................................................36 1.3 Towards a Political Analysis of Ethical Meat.................................................................39 2. Politics and Ethical Meat.......................................................................................................41 2.1 Politics of Food/Food as Politics.....................................................................................41 2.2 Politics and Animal Rights..............................................................................................47 2.3 The Politics of Ethical Meat in Critical Animal Studies.................................................51 3. Research Question.................................................................................................................59 CHAPTER THREE: Theory and Methodology: From Gramsci
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Inquiry Into Animal Rights Vegan Activists' Perception and Practice of Persuasion
    An Inquiry into Animal Rights Vegan Activists’ Perception and Practice of Persuasion by Angela Gunther B.A., Simon Fraser University, 2006 Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in the School of Communication ! Angela Gunther 2012 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Summer 2012 All rights reserved. However, in accordance with the Copyright Act of Canada, this work may be reproduced, without authorization, under the conditions for “Fair Dealing.” Therefore, limited reproduction of this work for the purposes of private study, research, criticism, review and news reporting is likely to be in accordance with the law, particularly if cited appropriately. Approval Name: Angela Gunther Degree: Master of Arts Title of Thesis: An Inquiry into Animal Rights Vegan Activists’ Perception and Practice of Persuasion Examining Committee: Chair: Kathi Cross Gary McCarron Senior Supervisor Associate Professor Robert Anderson Supervisor Professor Michael Kenny External Examiner Professor, Anthropology SFU Date Defended/Approved: June 28, 2012 ii Partial Copyright Licence iii Abstract This thesis interrogates the persuasive practices of Animal Rights Vegan Activists (ARVAs) in order to determine why and how ARVAs fail to convince people to become and stay veg*n, and what they might do to succeed. While ARVAs and ARVAism are the focus of this inquiry, the approaches, concepts and theories used are broadly applicable and therefore this investigation is potentially useful for any activist or group of activists wishing to interrogate and improve their persuasive practices. Keywords: Persuasion; Communication for Social Change; Animal Rights; Veg*nism; Activism iv Table of Contents Approval ............................................................................................................................. ii! Partial Copyright Licence .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Support for Non-Violent Activists and Protections of Animals in Commercial Operations
    Page 1 of 73 Peace and Justice Commission CONSENT CALENDAR December 10, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Peace and Justice Commission Submitted by: Igor Tregub, Chairperson, Peace and Justice Commission Subject: Support for Non-Violent Activists and Protections of Animals in Commercial Operations RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution supporting non-violent activists and protecting animals in commercial operations. SUMMARY Berkeley residents currently face felony charges for conducting non-violent investigations and animal rescues involving factory farms in Sonoma County. We urge the Berkeley City Council to adopt a resolution supporting those activists diverting resources to protecting animals in commercial operations. FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION Minimal to negligible. CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS At its September 9, 2019 meeting, the Peace and Justice Commission approved the attached resolution with an amendment including, as a footnote, the text of California Penal Code Section 597e. The action taken was as follows: M/S/C: Meola, Tregub Ayes: al-Bazian, Bohn, Lippman, Maran, Meola, Morizawa, Pancoast, Pierce, Rodriguez, Tregub Noes: None Abstain: Gussman, Han Absent: Askary Excused: None Five Berkeley residents – Almira Tanner, Cassie King, Wayne Hsiung, Priya Sawhney, and Jon Frohnmayer – and an Oakland resident – Rachel Ziegler – all of whom are members of the international grassroots activist network Direct Action Everywhere (DxE), presently face seven or eight felonies each in Sonoma County in connection with three 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager Page 2 of 73 Support for Non-Violent Activists and Protections of Animals CONSENT CALENDAR December 10, 2019 demonstrations by DxE in that county.
    [Show full text]
  • The Year of the Pig
    The Year of the Pig FOOD FORWARD FORUM Toolkit The China Biodiversity Conservation and Green Development Foundation is a proactive environmental non-governmental organization and social legal entity working to protect the environment, preserve natural resources and biodiversity in China and all around the globe. Founded in 1985, it is China’s oldest environmental non-governmental organization. The Good Food Fund aims to facilitate shifts in food production, distribution, and consumption patterns towards a healthier and more sustainable food system, by supporting relevant research, communication, and entrepreneurship efforts. Toolkit research, creation, and compilation: Caroline Wimberly*, Wanqing Zhou*, and Yi-Wen Lee Design: Tingting Xiong Copyright © Good Food Fund August 2019 Special thanks to Mia MacDonald, Jian Yi, Tiran Zhang, Ruiqi Xie, Jieli Xie, Cecilia Zhou, Cui Xin, Hailey Chang, Wenjing Zhu, Shuman Liu, Adam Millman, Chelsey Toong, and Cheng Qiu for your input and assistance Food Forward Forum logo design: William Wilson, Yale Hospitality Food Forward Forum Partners: The contents of this toolkit do not necessarily reflect the official positions of any organization, institution, or private enterprise that partnered with or participated in the Food Forward Forum in February 2019 or any of the organizations, networks, corporations, or individuals described in the text. *Brighter Green Contents Part I – Background and the Basics 03 Introduction to some key terms and concepts about food Part II – Deeper Dive: The Issue Nexus 11
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae
    Curriculum Vitae Name: Daniel A. Dombrowski Birthdate: August 8, l953 Citizenship: USA Address: Philosophy Department; Seattle University; Seattle, WA 98122 Phone: 206-296-5465 E-mail: <[email protected]> Education: University of Maine, B.A., l974 Saint Louis University, Ph.D., l978 Books: l. Plato's Philosophy of History (Washington, DC: University Press of America, l98l), 217 pp. 2. The Philosophy of Vegetarianism (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, l984), 188 pp. Also Vegetarianism: The Philosophy Behind the Ethical Diet (London: Thorsons, l985), 188 pp. Forward by Peter Singer. 3. Thoreau the Platonist (Frankfurt: Verlag Peter Lang, l986), 219 pp. 4. Hartshorne and the Metaphysics of Animal Rights (Albany: State University of New York Press, l988), 159 pp. 5. Christian Pacifism (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991), 181 pp. 6. St. John of the Cross: An Appreciation (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992), 219 pp. 7. Analytic Theism, Hartshorne, and the Concept of God (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996), 247 pp. 8. Babies and Beasts: The Argument from Marginal Cases (Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 1997), 221 pp. 9. Kazantzakis and God (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997), 193 pp. 10. A Brief, Liberal, Catholic Defense of Abortion, with Robert Deltete (Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 2000), 158 pp. Also Una Difesa Cattolica Dell’Aborto. Tr. Susi Ferrarello (Rome: Aracne, 2013), 157 pp. 1 11. Not Even a Sparrow Falls: The Philosophy of Stephen R. L. Clark (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2000), 366 pp. 12. Rawls and Religion: The Case for Political Liberalism (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001), 192 pp.
    [Show full text]
  • THE POLITICS of FLEXING SOYBEANS in CHINA and BRAZIL Gustavo De L
    Transnational Institute (TNI) Agrarian Justice Program THINK PIECE SERIES ON FLEX CROPS & COMMODITIES No. 3 September 2014 THE POLITICS OF FLEXING SOYBEANS IN CHINA AND BRAZIL Gustavo de L. T. Oliveira and Mindi Schneider No. 3 September 2014 1 Transnational Institute (TNI) Agrarian Justice Program THINK PIECE SERIES ON FLEX CROPS & COMMODITIES No. 3 September 2014 THE POLITICS OF FLEXING SOYBEANS IN CHINA AND BRAZIL Gustavo de L. T. Oliveira and Mindi Schneider University of California at Berkeley and the International Institute for Social Studies (ISS) in The Hague, Netherlands1 crop (see Borras et al. 2014). Of the world’s total soy SOYBEANS AS A MULTIPLE production, only 6 percent is consumed in the form of AND FLEXIBLE CROP whole beans, tofu, or other whole-soy and fermented foods. The remaining 94 percent is crushed, either In terms of production volume, land use, and interna- mechanically or chemically, to produce soybean tional trade, soy is among the most important crops in meal and oil for further processing: a crushed bean the world today. State- and agribusiness-led processes produces about 79 percent meal, 18.5 percent oil, of agro-industrialization have profoundly expanded and 2.5 percent waste and hulls (HighQuest Partners soy’s frontier, such that over the past 60 years or so, and Soyatech 2011, WWF 2014). Worldwide, the global soybean production has increased by almost meal portion of the crush is predominantly used 1,000 percent, while the land area under soy cultiva- in livestock feed (98 percent), while the remainder tion has more than quadrupled (FAOSTAT n.d., USDA becomes soy flour and soy protein for food processing 2014).
    [Show full text]
  • MEAT ATLAS Facts and Fi Gures About the Animals We Eat IMPRINT/IMPRESSUM
    MEAT ATLAS Facts and fi gures about the animals we eat IMPRINT/IMPRESSUM The MEAT ATLAS is jointly published by the Heinrich Böll Foundation, Berlin, Germany, and Friends of the Earth Europe, Brussels, Belgium Executive editors: Christine Chemnitz, Heinrich Böll Foundation Stanka Becheva, Friends of the Earth Europe Managing editor: Dietmar Bartz Art director: Ellen Stockmar English editor: Paul Mundy Copy editor: Elisabeth Schmidt-Landenberger Proofreader: Maria Lanman Research editors: Bernd Cornely, Stefan Mahlke Contributors: Michael Álvarez Kalverkamp, Wolfgang Bayer, Stanka Becheva, Reinhild Benning, Stephan Börnecke, Christine Chemnitz, Karen Hansen-Kuhn, Patrick Holden, Ursula Hudson, Annette Jensen, Evelyn Mathias, Heike Moldenhauer, Carlo Petrini, Tobias Reichert, Marcel Sebastian, Shefali Sharma, Ruth Shave, Ann Waters-Bayer, Kathy Jo Wetter, Sascha Zastiral Editorial responsibility (V. i. S. d. P.): Annette Maennel, Heinrich Böll Foundation This publication is written in International English. First Edition, January 2014 Production manager: Elke Paul, Heinrich Böll Foundation Printed by möller druck, Ahrensfelde, Germany Climate-neutral printing on 100 percent recycled paper. Except for the copyrighted work indicated on pp.64–65, this material is licensed under Creative Commons “Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported“ (CC BY-SA 3.0). For the licence agreement, see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode, and a summary (not a substitute) at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en. This publication has been produced with the financial assistance of the Development Fields project, funded by the European Commission. The contents of this report are the sole responsibility of Friends of the Earth Europe and the Heinrich Boell Foundation and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • “Good Death” in Small Animals and Consequences for Euthanasia in Animal Law and Veterinary Practice
    animals Article Philosophy of a “Good Death” in Small Animals and Consequences for Euthanasia in Animal Law and Veterinary Practice Kirsten Persson 1,*, Felicitas Selter 2, Gerald Neitzke 2 and Peter Kunzmann 1 1 Stiftung Tierärztliche Hochschule Hannover, Bünteweg 9, 30559 Hannover, Germany; [email protected] 2 Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany; [email protected] (F.S.); [email protected] (G.N.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 30 November 2019; Accepted: 7 January 2020; Published: 13 January 2020 Simple Summary: Euthanasia in veterinary practice is often discussed as one of the profession’s major burdens. At the same time, it is meant to bring relief to terminally ill and/or severely suffering animal patients. This article examines “euthanasia” from a philosophical perspective regarding different definitions and underlying basic assumptions concerning the meaning of death and welfare for nonhuman animals. These theoretical issues will then be discussed in relation to laws and guidelines on euthanasia and practical challenges with end-of-life decisions in small animal practice. Factors which are identified as potential causes of the complex problems regarding euthanasia are as follows: the confusing framework for euthanasia in law and soft regulations; the inclusion of many stakeholders’ perspectives in end-of-life decision-making; potential conflicts between the veterinarians’ personal morality and legal requirements and professional expectations; and, most of all, the veterinarians’ lack of awareness for underlying philosophical assumptions regarding possible understandings of euthanasia. Different practical suggestions are made to clarify and facilitate euthanasia in small animal practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Book Reviews
    Book Reviews Robin ATTFIELD. Environmental Ethics. Cambridge: Polity, 2014. 278 pp. The counterculture of the 1960s gave rise to the plea for new moral values: a new environmental ethic. While some works in this discipline still give the impression that ‘environmental ethics’ is a label for a particular set of norms, Robin Attfield correctly points out that it is just another field of application of normative enquiry, which encom- passes very diverse substantial views. As such, environmental ethics has made its way into university and college courses, where it is accompanied by partly overlapping fields of applied ethics, such as climate ethics, population ethics and animal ethics. The first edition of Attfield’s Environmental Ethics appeared around the turn of the new millennium and was meant to assist students, researchers and scholars in this discipline. It intro- duced relevant concepts and issues and it discussed a wide range of relevant schools of thought. Attfield also defended his own normative theory, which is called ‘biocentric consequentialism’. Throughout the book, Attfield provided opportunities to pause and review the issues raised in proceeding sections. Furthermore, he offered chapter summaries, a glossary of key terms, and suggestions for further reading as well as useful websites. The second edition retains these features, but is fully revised and expanded, most notably with a chapter on climate ethics. This makes for the following outline: Chapter 1 provides a categorization of environmental problems and introduces theories about the genesis of these problems. Chapter 2 introduces the major contending views concerning which entities ought to be given direct moral consideration: only humans or all sentient beings, or even plants or collectives, such as species or ecosystems? Chapter 3 explores in more detail whether a concern for human good covers all that matters morally and inquires to what extent going beyond it is useful and even possible.
    [Show full text]
  • The Animal Rights Movement in Theory and Practice: a Review of the Sociological Literature Lyle Munro* School of Applied Media and Social Sciences, Monash University
    Sociology Compass 6/2 (2012): 166–181, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00440.x The Animal Rights Movement in Theory and Practice: A Review of the Sociological Literature Lyle Munro* School of Applied Media and Social Sciences, Monash University Abstract Traditionally, philosophers have had most to say about the ethics of our treatment of non-human animals (hereafter animals); it is only in recent years that social scientists have engaged with issues concerning humans and other animals. However, in the sociological literature and more generally in the emerging field of Human–Animal Studies (HAS), evidence of interest in the animal protec- tion movement is slight. This review of Eliasian theory, Marxist realism, feminism, ecofeminism, and social constructionist theory – along with key activist approaches to animal activism and advo- cacy – indicates the theoretical richness of the topic that is nonetheless empirically poor. The ani- mal protection movement is referred to here simply as the animal movement or where appropriate, as one of its three strands – animal welfare, animal liberation and animal rights. The article concludes with a discussion of how social movement theory (the ‘why’) and practice (the ‘how’) might be enhanced by social movement scholars working in collaboration with animal acti- vists. Introduction A number of writers including Tovey (2003), Hobson-West (2007), and Irvine (2008) have recently drawn attention to the rare appearance of human–animal topics in social science texts. Work in the field of Human–Animal Studies (HAS) has mainly been con- fined to specialist journals and more recently to edited anthologies of previously published articles (Arluke and Sanders 2009; Flynn 2008; Wilkie and Inglis 2007).
    [Show full text]
  • Society Register
    ISSN 2544-5502 SOCIETY REGISTER 3 (3) 2019 Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan ISSN 2544-5502 SOCIETY REGISTER 3 (3) 2019 Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan SOCIETY REGISTER 2019 / Vol. 3, No. 3 ISSN: 2544-5502 | DOI: 10.14746/sr EDITORIAL TEAM: Mariusz Baranowski (Editor-in-Chief), Marcos A. Bote (Social Policy Editor), Piotr Cichocki (Quantitative Research Editor), Sławomir Czapnik (Political Science Editor), Piotr Jabkowski (Statistics Editor), Mark D. Juszczak (International Relations), Agnieszka Kanas (Stratification and Inequality Editor), Magdalena Lemańczyk (Anthropology Editor), Urszula Markowska-Manista (Educational Sciences Editor), Bartosz Mika (Sociology of Work Editor), Kamalini Mukherjee (English language Editor), Krzysztof Nowak-Posadzy (Philoso- phy Editor), Anna Odrowąż-Coates (Deputy Editor-in-Chief), Aneta Piektut (Migration Editor). POLISH EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS: Agnieszka Gromkowska-Melosik, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań (Poland); Kazimierz Krzysztofek, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities (Poland); Roman Leppert, Kazimierz Wielki University (Poland); Renata Nowakowska-Siuta, ChAT (Poland); Inetta Nowosad, University of Zielona Góra (Poland); Ewa Przybylska, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń (Poland); Piotr Sałustowicz, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities (Poland); Bogusław Śliwerski, University of Lodz (Poland); Aldona Żurek, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań (Poland). INTERNATIONAL EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS: Tony Blackshaw, Sheffield Hallam University (United King- dom); Theodore Chadjipadelis, Aristotle University Thessaloniki (Greece); Kathleen J. Farkas, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (US); Sribas Goswami, Serampore College, University of Calcutta (India); Bozena Hautaniemi, Stockholm University (Sweden); Kamel Lahmar, University of Sétif 2 (Algeria); Georg Kam- phausen, University of Bayreuth (Germany); Nina Michalikova, University of Central Oklahoma (US); Jaroslaw Richard Romaniuk, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (US); E.
    [Show full text]
  • The Market for Sustainable Meat Alternatives
    Applied Innovation Review Issue No. 2 June 2016 Applied Innovation Review AIRIssue No. 2 June 2016 1 Applied Innovation Review Issue No. 2 June 2016 Applied Innovation Review Saving the Planet: The Market for Sustainable Meat Alternatives Authors: Indira Joshi (Samsung) Seetharam Param (VMware, Inc.) Irene (Google) Milin Gadre (VMware, Inc.) 20 Applied Innovation Review Issue No. 2 June 2016 Abstract Meat production will be unsustainable by 2050 at current and projected rates of consumption due to high re- source intensity and destructive cost. This opens a large market for nutritious protein alternatives which can pro- vide comparable taste, texture, and nutrition density. This paper looks at the impacts of industrialized meat production and population demands to estimate the inflec- tion point by which meat-rich diets become unsustainable. We also evaluate the total available market for meat alternatives, current players, barriers to entry, and opportunities for future innovation. 21 Applied Innovation Review Issue No. 2 June 2016 Applied Innovation Review “It turns out that producing half a pound of hamburg- er for someone’s lunch a patty of meat the size of two decks of cards releases as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as driving a 3,000-pound car nearly 10 miles.” -Scientific American2 Impacts of Meat Production In the ten years between 2001 and a 2014 British study on the environ- 2011 alone, emissions from enteric mental impact of diet concluded that Carbon Footprint fermentation increased 11%4. Ma- dietary GHG emissions in self-se- nure management and farming appli- lected meat-eaters are approximate- Agriculture is one of the primary cation generate an additional 25.9%5.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Welfare in Australia: Politics and Policy, Published by Sydney University Press
    This document is an extract from Animal Welfare in Australia: Politics and Policy, published by Sydney University Press. ISBN: 9781743324738 (paperback) 9781743324745 (ebook: epub) 9781743325025 (ebook: PDF) All requests for reproduction or communication should be made to Sydney University Press at the address below: Sydney University Press Fisher Library F03 University of Sydney NSW 2006 AUSTRALIA [email protected] sydney.edu.au/sup Parts of this work are available on the University of Sydney eScholarship Repository at hdl.handle.net/2123/15349. Please cite the full work as: Chen, Peter John (2016). Animal Welfare in Australia: Politics and Policy. Sydney: Sydney University Press. The book may be purchased from Sydney University Press at the following link: http://purl.library.usyd.edu.au/sup/animalwelfareinaus. Animal welfare in Australia ANIMAL PUBLICS Melissa Boyde & Fiona Probyn-Rapsey, Series Editors Other titles in the series: Animal death Ed. Jay Johnston & Fiona Probyn-Rapsey Animals in the Anthropocene: critical perspectives on non-human futures Ed. The Human Animal Research Network Editorial Collective Cane toads: a tale of sugar, politics and flawed science Nigel Turvey Engaging with animals: interpretations of a shared existence Ed. Georgette Leah Burns & Mandy Paterson Fighting nature: travelling menageries, animal acts and war shows Peta Tait Animal welfare in Australia Policy and politics Peter John Chen First published by Sydney University Press © Peter John Chen 2016 © Sydney University Press 2016 Reproduction and Communication for other purposes Except as permitted under the Act, no part of this edition may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or communicated in any form or by any means without prior written permission.
    [Show full text]