In Vitro Meat Commercialization By Crystal Oseagulu Abstract The production and commercialization of in vitro meat is currently an emerging topic

as more research becomes available each day. Some studies and research show that incorporating in vitro meat into our daily lives will provide beneficial environmental impacts, sustainability, and an improvement in public health. Other sources however, argue that commercializing in vitro meat will not result instead cause a decline in the environment and public health, and suggest that current farming practices should be continued. The following paper examines several academic journals and research studies in which in vitro meat positively and negatively affects public health, sustainability, and the environment. In conclusion, it is determined that continuing research will be necessary before one can confidently claim in vitro meat commercialization should occur. Keywords: Myocyte culturing, Greenhouse Gas Emission (GHG), Fat Content, Cardiovascular Disease, Industrialized Farming, Commercialization Introduction The new discovery of in vitro meat faces many critiques when analyzed as a new way manufacturing meat through tissue- engineering technology. The whole purpose of in vitro meat is to produce animal meat without having to slaughter or harm the animal. Research now shows that starter cells are taken from live animals through a biopsy, a process that causes no pain to the animal. Then, these cells are put into a growth medium and this process would produce enough cells to supply a demand for meat. Because meat is not taken from a slaughtered animal, but rather a live one, the environment is impacted. Additionally, because the meat is being cultured in a growth medium the amount and quality off at inside the meat can be monitored and controlled. With this ability, public health is impacted as well. The conventional method of obtaining meat is a 1.4 trillion dollar industry. The world population consumed 228 million tons of flesh in 2000, and that number is expected to more than double by 2050 as the world population increases to nine billion. The livestock on farmland consume 40 percent of the planet's cereal grain; livestock also despoils about 30 percent of the Earth's surface, 70 percent of its arable land, and 8 percent of its water supply7. Because meat is such an expansive industry, commercializing meat is sure to make some sort of difference worldwide.

Comment [LC1]: This doesnt make sense

Comment [LC2]: You dont discuss sustainability in your paper

Comment [LC3]: of Comment [LC4]: consider making this a keyword and defining it Comment [LC5]: have a source/data to back this up; why doesnt it cause pain to the animal? How is it performed? Comment [LC6]: Wouldnt the environment be impacted either way? Comment [LC7]: This does not make sense, reword Comment [LC8]: Impacted in what way? Comment [LC9]: awkward

Positive Effects on the Environment Meat production is one of the major contributions to global environmental degradation. In vitro meat is becoming more justifiable with the rising demand of meat production today. The adverse effects on the environment are very large. Datar of the University of Alberta highlights that with a growing population and great proportion of which facing starvation, it no longer makes sense to contribute staple crops toward inefficient meat production, where 1 kg poultry, pork and beef requires 2 kg, 4 kg and 7 kg of grain, respectively11. If as a whole, the world is trying to make steps towards sustainability by maximizing resources and reducing global warming, more effect uses of agriculture is necessary. Beef ranching accounts for 80 percent of Amazon deforestation, and cattle, which defecate 130 times more by volume than humans, dump 64 million tons of sewage in the United States alone7. According to Tuomisto and Teixeira de Mattos from the University of Oxford, performed the life cycle assessment research method (LCA) noting the environmental impact of conventional meat production in comparison with cultured meat production4.
Figure 1- Percent Impact on the Environment vs. Utilized Resource

Comment [LC10]: this sentence is long and somewhat confusing. I think if you broke it up into two sentences it would be easier to understand Comment [LC11]: unnecessary comma Comment [LC12]: what?

Comment [LC13]: This is not a complete sentence

The results showed that production of 1000 kg cultured meat requires 2633 GJ energy, 367521 m3 water, 190230 m2 land, and emits 19002240 kg CO2-eq GHG emissions. In comparison to conventionally produced European meat, cultured meat involves approximately 745% lower energy use (only poultry has lower energy use), 7896% lower GHG emissions, 99% lower land use, and 8296% lower water use depending on the product compared4. The environmental impact of resources utilized with cultured meat is substantially lower than that of conventionally produced meat through industrialized farming.

Comment [LC14]: I think defining some of these terms would be helpful. What are CO2-eq GHG emissions? Why are green house gases bad for the environment? I think a bit more explanation here would help the reader understand your point

Positive Effects on Public Health Myocyte culturing, the way the meat cells are replicated from muscle cells in vitro meat production, meat can be monitored and controlled. Within the academic journal, Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies, it is stated, myocyte culturing prevents the unpredictable complications that arise in industrialized farming, including the spread of disease among infected livestock. The diseases of concern in the industrial agriculture which have become more difficult to prevent are bird flu, swine flu, foot and mouth disease, and spongiform encephalopathy, will not be a threatening issue with cultured meat1. Food-borne illnesses have become increasingly problematic, with a six fold increase in gastro-enteritis and food poisoning in industrialized countries in the last 20 years (Nicholson et al. 2000) and the most common causes of food borne diseases in EU, USA and Canada are contaminated meats and animal products 9. The greatest criticism against meat is the high saturated fat content which is a contributing factor to cardiovascular disease. In vitro meat production with pure myocyte culture would produce a product rich in nutritionally beneficial fatty acids from phospholipids1. Additionally, with current industrialized farming and slaughterhouse practices, the employees who work at these locations also face problems. Michael Pollan recounts being asked to don a biohazard suit before visiting a brooder house. Despite the emotional and psychological issues that accompany working at a slaughterhouse, surrounding communities of these locations face the effects of pollution and increased disease susceptibility8. In vitro meat production would eliminate a majority of these facilities, improving quality for surrounding communities as well as employees working in farmlands. Negative Effects on Public Health A major setback on in vitro meat production is that the cell tissue will be cultured in the absence of homeostatic regulation. Without homeostasis produced collectively with other organs within an animals body, nutritional value of the meat will be affected, as organ systems within the animal are involved in nutrient absorption and distribution1. Negative Effects on the Environment Keeping the cells warm, healthy, well-fed, and free of contamination takes incredible labor and energy, even when scaled to the 10,000-liter vats that biotech companies use13. A main positive of in vitro meat was creating sustainability in our world. Although there may be less GHG emissions, a significant amount of energy would be used to produce enough meat to satisfy the current demand in the world. Additionally, for the cases of cultured hamburgers, the growth medium is that provides growth hormones, vitamins, and nutrients is currently made with sugars and amino acids supplemented
Comment [LC25]: What cells? Comment [LC15]: To? Comment [LC16]: this is not a complete sentence. I think you left some words out Comment [LC17]: dont need this comma Comment [LC18]: remove this comma and replace with that Comment [LC19]: not a complete sentence Comment [LC20]: why are these of concern? Can humans catch these diseases?

Comment [LC21]: Why? Why is in vitro meat healthier? What about the myocyte culture makes the meat healthier? Comment [LC22]: Consider replacing the word problems

Comment [LC23]: Is this the only negative effect? Are there possible other dangers that arent known yet? Comment [LC24]: Consider defining

Comment [LC26]: Tense change

Comment [LC27]: This is a great point Comment [LC28]: This doesnt make sense

with fetal bovine serum, the blood of unborn cows, although tissue engineers are currently coming up with cheaper and cruelty free alternatives to fetal calf serum13. Additionally, some sources believe that despite the use of in vitro meat, consumers will still demand conventionally produced meat as it is more familiar14. If this occurs, additional, although less, damage will still be cone with common industrialized farming practices. Conclusion After careful analysis of research studies and academic journals, in vitro meat commercialization would reap a large amount of benefits in both public health and our environment. However, there still remain risks with the uncertainties of how to produce meat with the same features as conventional meat methods that undergo homeostasis before consumption. Additionally, the growth medium is still not developed enough that it is completely animal cruelty free. Thus, I believe that further research and development of more efficient growth mediums and nutrient incorporation is required before in vitro meat should be publically released.

Comment [LC29]: This is an interesting statement, but it lacks context in this paragraph. Is this a good or bad thing? Why is it a negative environmental impact? Comment [LC30]: Repetitive, you started your last paragraph the same way Comment [LC31]: done Comment [LC32]: how is this an environmental effect? Can you explain further?

Comment [LC33]: awkward Comment [LC34]: not sure if you should use first person

References 1. http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/bio/Possibilities%20for%20an%20in%20vitro%20meat% 20production%20system.pdf 2. http://www2.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed/vol7-2/stephens.pdf 3. http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.neu.edu/science/article/pii/S1466856409001222 4. http://pubs.acs.org.ezproxy.neu.edu/doi/full/10.1021/es200130u 5. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-science-meat-in-vitroidUSBRE9740PL20130805 6. http://sss.sagepub.com.ezproxy.neu.edu/content/42/6/797.full.pdf+html 7. http://ic.galegroup.com.ezproxy.neu.edu/ic/bic1/MagazinesDetailsPage/MagazinesDetail sWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=BIC1&windowstate=normal&contentModul es=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Magazines&limiter=&u=mlin_b_northest&currP age=&disableHighlighting=false&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_re sults=&p=BIC1&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CA 274227519 8. http://ehis.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.neu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=1145284eea6f-4e8e-9ab5-1265b7979fea%40sessionmgr12&vid=2&hid=5 9. http://link.springer.com.ezproxy.neu.edu/article/10.1007/s13197-010-01987/fulltext.html 10. http://ehis.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.neu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=70e76d105a5b-4926-af41-e706a7f06fe2%40sessionmgr114&vid=2&hid=101 11. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1466856409001222 12. http://www.new-harvest.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/InVitroMeatJCAS2012.pdf 13. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/04/24/steak-of-the-art-the-fatal-flaws-of-invitro-meat/#.UoruLsSUTHE

14. http://aphilosophersblog.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/6-reasons-why-you-should-not-supportin-vitro-meat/

Crystal,

As I stated in the bloggy, your topic is extremely interesting and something that I believe is going to be extremely important in the near future as our population keeps growing at an alarming rate. However, the content of your paper seems to be lacking, and I think that you need to add many more details in order for the reader to truly understand the various impacts you are attempting to present. First, I would urge you to re-read your rough draft, for there are many incomplete sentences that simply do not make sense. Also, there are various tense changes throughout your narrative, which make it a bit hard to read. You should also consider defining some of the technical terms throughout your paper, for the casual reader would not be able to understand. Lastly, I suggest that you go back through your paper and try to add some more detail. For example, you discuss the growth medium for hamburgers, but dont really explain why it is being discussed; I know I was left wondering whether it was harmful or beneficial! You dont want your reader to finish your paper feeling confused!

I think if you take a closer look at your paper and add a bit more detail you will do fine!

Best, Lia Calise

PS- so sorry this is late!