30
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Making Sense of Making Meat: Key Moments in the First 20 Years of Tissue Engineering Muscle to Make Food

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Cultured/clean/cell-based meat (CM) now has a near two decade history of laboratory research, commencing with the early NASA-funded work at Touro College and the bioarts practice of the Tissue Culture and Art project. Across this period the field, or as it is now more commonly termed, the “space,” has developed significantly while promoting different visions for what CM is and can do, and the best mechanisms for delivery. Here we both analyse and critically engage with this near-twenty year period as a productive provocation to those engaged with CM, or considering becoming so. This paper is not a history of the field, and does not offer a comprehensive timeline. Instead it identifies significant activities, transitions, and moments in which key meanings and practices have taken form or exerted influence. We do this through analyzing two related themes: the CM “institutional context” and the CM “interpretative package.” The former, the institutional context, refers to events and infrastructures that have come into being to support and shape the CM field, including university activities, conferences, third sector groups, various potential funding mechanisms, and the establishment of a start-up sector. The latter, the interpretative package, refers to the constellation of factors that shape or assert how CM should be understood, including the various names used to describe it, accounts of what it will achieve, and most recently, the emergent regulatory discussions that frame its legal standing. Across the paper we argue it is productive to think of the CM community in terms of a first and second wave. The first wave was more university-based and broadly covers the period from the millennium until around the 2013 cultured burger event. The second wave saw the increasing prevalence of a start-up culture and the circuits of venture capital interest that support it. Through this analysis we seek to provoke further reflection upon how the CM community has come to be as it is, and how this could develop in the future.

          Related collections

          Most cited references52

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Bringing cultured meat to market: Technical, socio-political, and regulatory challenges in cellular agriculture

            Background Cultured meat forms part of the emerging field of cellular agriculture. Still an early stage field it seeks to deliver products traditionally made through livestock rearing in novel forms that require no, or significantly reduced, animal involvement. Key examples include cultured meat, milk, egg white and leather. Here, we focus upon cultured meat and its technical, socio-political and regulatory challenges and opportunities. Scope and approach The paper reports the thinking of an interdisciplinary team, all of whom have been active in the field for a number of years. It draws heavily upon the published literature, as well as our own professional experience. This includes ongoing laboratory work to produce cultured meat and over seventy interviews with experts in the area conducted in the social science work. Key findings and conclusions Cultured meat is a promising, but early stage, technology with key technical challenges including cell source, culture media, mimicking the in-vivo myogenesis environment, animal-derived and synthetic materials, and bioprocessing for commercial-scale production. Analysis of the social context has too readily been reduced to ethics and consumer acceptance, and whilst these are key issues, the importance of the political and institutional forms a cultured meat industry might take must also be recognised, and how ambiguities shape any emergent regulatory system.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Environmental impacts of cultured meat production.

              Cultured meat (i.e., meat produced in vitro using tissue engineering techniques) is being developed as a potentially healthier and more efficient alternative to conventional meat. Life cycle assessment (LCA) research method was used for assessing environmental impacts of large-scale cultured meat production. Cyanobacteria hydrolysate was assumed to be used as the nutrient and energy source for muscle cell growth. The results showed that production of 1000 kg cultured meat requires 26-33 GJ energy, 367-521 m(3) water, 190-230 m(2) land, and emits 1900-2240 kg CO(2)-eq GHG emissions. In comparison to conventionally produced European meat, cultured meat involves approximately 7-45% lower energy use (only poultry has lower energy use), 78-96% lower GHG emissions, 99% lower land use, and 82-96% lower water use depending on the product compared. Despite high uncertainty, it is concluded that the overall environmental impacts of cultured meat production are substantially lower than those of conventionally produced meat.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                101752278
                Front Sustain Food Syst
                Front Sustain Food Syst
                Frontiers in sustainable food systems
                2571-581X
                02 November 2020
                10 July 2019
                10 July 2019
                08 July 2021
                : 3
                : 45
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Social and Political Sciences, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, United Kingdom
                [2 ]Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
                [3 ]School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
                [4 ]Cultural Geography Group, Department of Environmental Sciences, Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands
                Author notes
                [* ] Correspondence: Neil Stephens, neil.stephens@ 123456brunel.ac.uk

                Edited by: Liz Specht, The Good Food Institute, United States

                Reviewed by: Noemi Elisabet Zaritzky, National University of La Plata, Argentina Guadalupe Virginia Nevárez-Moorillón, Autonomous University of Chihuahua, Mexico Benjamin Aldes Wurgaft, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, United States

                Article
                EMS102780
                10.3389/fsufs.2019.00045
                7611147
                34250447
                60444001-a715-4f96-800b-7f81fbfd598a

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                Categories
                Article

                cultured meat,clean meat,cell-based meat,social science,sense-making,in vitro meat,naming

                Comments

                Comment on this article