IVM Journal Articles @ivmja - Tumblr Blog

Environmental Impacts of Cultured Meat Production

Hanna L. Tuomisto†,* and M. Joost Teixeira de Mattos‡

Received: January 12, 2011 Accepted: June 2, 2011 Revised: May 23, 2011

ABSTRACT: 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 m3 water, 190␣230 m2 land, and emits 1900␣2240 kg CO2-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.

1. INTRODUCTION Meat production is one of the major contributors to global environmental degradation. Currently, livestock raised for meat use 30% of global ice-free terrestrial land and 8% of global freshwater, while producing 18% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which is more than the global transportation sector.1 Livestock production is also one of the main drivers of deforestation and degradation of wildlife habitats, and it con- tributes to the eutrophication of water ways. Globally, 34% of the GHG emissions related to livestock production are due to deforestation, 25% are methane emissions from enteric fermen- tation of ruminants, and 31% of the emissions are related to manure management.1 It has been found that generally beef has the highest environmental impacts, whereas poultry has the lowest impacts when different species are compared.2 Because of increasing population size and per capita meat consumption in the developing world, global meat consumption is expected to double between 1999 and 2050.1 Such an increase will also double meat’s impacts on the environment unless more efficient meat production methods are adopted.

Continued at:

www.new-harvest.org/img/files/tuomisto_teixiera_de_mattos_cultured_meat_lca_es_t_published.pdf

#Ecological Impacts

Animal Free Biofabrication

Z.F. Bhat and Hina Bhat, 2011. Animal-free Meat Biofabrication. American Journal of Food Technology, 6: 441-459.

Received: October 09, 2010; Accepted: October 27, 2010; Published: November 24, 2010

ABSTRACT

Nutrition-related diseases, food borne illnesses, resource use and pollution and use of farm animals are some serious consequences associated with conventional meat production system and consumers have expressed growing concern over them. Biofabrication, production of complex living and non-living biological products, is a potential solution to reduce these ill effects of current meat production system. The industrial potential of biofabrication technology is far beyond the traditional medically oriented tissue engineering and organ printing and, in the long term, biofabrication can contribute to the development of novel biotechnologies that can dramatically transform traditional animal-based agriculture by inventing animal-free food, leather and fur products. In this study we review the possibility of producing in vitro meat using tissue-engineering techniques that may offer health and environmental advantages by reducing environmental pollution and land use associated with current meat production systems. Besides, reducing the animal suffering significantly, it will also ensure sustainable production of designer, chemically safe and disease free meat as the conditions in an in vitro meat production system are controlled and manipulatable. The techniques required to produce in vitro meat are not beyond imagination and the basic methodology of an in vitro meat production system (IMPS) involves culturing muscle tissue in a liquid medium on a large scale but the production of highly-structured, unprocessed meat faces considerably greater technical challenges and a great deal of research is still needed to establish a sustainable in vitro meat culturing system on an industrial scale. In the long term, tissue-engineered meat is the inescapable future of humanity. However, in the short term the extremely high prohibitive cost of the biofabrication of tissue-engineered meat is the main potential obstacle, although large-scale production and market penetration are usually associated with a dramatic price reduction.

Continued at:

http://www.new-harvest.org/img/files/bhat_2011.pdf

#Social Impacts #Methodology

Prospectus of cultured meat—advancing meat alternatives

Zuhaib Fayaz Bhat & Hina Fayaz

Revised: 8 October 2010 / Accepted: 7 December 2010 / Published online: 30 December 2010

Abstract The in vitro production of meat is probably feasible with existing tissue engineering techniques and may offer health and environmental advantages by reducing environmental pollution and land use associated with current meat production systems. By culturing loose myosatellite cells on a substrate, it is probably possible to produce cultured meat by harvesting mature muscle cells after differentiation and processing them into various meat products. Besides reducing the animal suffering significantly, it will also ensure sustainable production of designer, chemically safe and disease free meat with favourable nutritional profile as the conditions in an in vitro meat production system are controlled and manipulatable. However, the production of highly-structured, unprocessed meat faces considerably greater technical challenges and a great deal of research is still needed to establish a sustainable in vitro meat culturing system on an industrial scale. This review discusses the requirements that need to be met to increase the feasibility of meat production in vitro, which include finding an appropriate stem cell source and being able to grow them in a three dimensional environment inside a bioreactor, providing essential cues for proliferation and differentiation.

Introduction The livestock sector is the fastest growing agricultural sub- sector globally, employing 1.3 billion people (Steinfeld et al. 2006a) and supporting about 4 billion people worldwide (Thornton et al. 2002). Besides the draught power, livestock provides us foods of animal origin including meat required to maintain the health of a human body (Nestle 1999). Humans are taxonomically omnivorous and meat provides several essential nutrients unavailable in plant sources. Meat is specifically valuable as a source of omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin B12, protein and highly bioavailable iron (Bender 1992; Verma and Banerjee 2010). The consumption of meat and other animal products can alleviate nutritional deficiency which is still widespread in developing countries and can secure a better physical and mental development of children (Delgado 2003; Speedy 2003). Population growth, urbanization, economic growth and flourishing markets all lead to the increasing demand for meat and animal products (Delgado 2003; Costales et al. 2006; Steinfeld et al. 2006a, b). Also, changing nutritional needs driven by growing incomes and demographic transitions, there is an increased need for livestock products including meat on a global scale (Rosegrant et al. 1999; Speedy 2003; Steinfeld et al. 2006a, b). Apart from the nutritional status, meat and other animal products play an important social role in the modern society. Until 2020, meat demand is expected to increase highly in developing countries and slightly in developed counties (Rosegrant et al. 1999; Delgado 2003). To meet these increased meat demands of modern society, animals are intensively kept and production is optimized disregarding the well-being of the animals. Throughout history, domestic animals were able to adapt to the changing conditions, however since World War II the pace of change is increased to such a dramatic extent that this is no longer fully possible (Crok 2003). Because of the high number of animals being used an efficient and cheap production system is required. Herding of animals in confined spaces in unfavorable conditions is practiced. The adaptability of the animals is not high enough to cope with these unnatural conditions, and high stress levels are observed, resulting in disease, abnormal behaviour and death (Crok 2003). Globally, 30% of the land surface is used for livestock production with 33% of arable land being used for growing livestock feed crops and 26% being used for grazing (Steinfeld et al. 2006a). About 70% of the fresh water use and 20% of the energy consumption of mankind is directly or indirectly used for food production, of which a considerable proportion is used for the production of meat. Livestock species, particularly ruminants, are responsible for greenhouse gas emissions, including methane from alimentary tract fermentation and nitrous oxide that may be emitted from decomposing manure and fertilizer. The livestock sector contributes 18% of the anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and 37% of the anthropogenic methane emissions to the atmosphere worldwide (Steinfeld et al. 2006a). It is anticipated that by the year 2050 global population will increase from 6 billion (in 2000) to 9 billion people which will be accompanied by a rise in annual greenhouse gas emissions from 11.2 to 19.7 gigatonne of carbondioxide, carbon equivalent and in the same period annual global meat production will rise from 228 (in 2000) to 465 million tonnes (Steinfeld et al. 2006).

Continued at:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/m44xj0102k642xj0/

#Economics

Livestock production: recent trends, future prospects

Philip K. Thornton*

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 27 September 2010 vol. 365 no. 1554 2853-2867

Abstract The livestock sector globally is highly dynamic. In developing countries, it is evolving in response to rapidly increasing demand for livestock products. In developed countries, demand for livestock products is stagnating, while many production systems are increasing their efficiency and environmental sustainability. Historical changes in the demand for livestock products have been largely driven by human population growth, income growth and urbanization and the production response in different livestock systems has been associated with science and technology as well as increases in animal numbers. In the future, production will increasingly be affected by competition for natural resources, particularly land and water, competition between food and feed and by the need to operate in a carbon-constrained economy. Developments in breeding, nutrition and animal health will continue to contribute to increasing potential production and further efficiency and genetic gains. Livestock production is likely to be increasingly affected by carbon constraints and environmental and animal welfare legislation. Demand for livestock products in the future could be heavily moderated by socio-economic factors such as human health concerns and changing socio-cultural values. There is considerable uncertainty as to how these factors will play out in different regions of the world in the coming decades.

1. Introduction Livestock systems occupy about 30 per cent of the planet's ice-free terrestrial surface area (Steinfeld et al. 2006) and are a significant global asset with a value of at least $1.4 trillion. The livestock sector is increasingly organized in long market chains that employ at least 1.3 billion people globally and directly support the livelihoods of 600 million poor smallholder farmers in the developing world (Thornton et al. 2006). Keeping livestock is an important risk reduction strategy for vulnerable communities, and livestock are important providers of nutrients and traction for growing crops in smallholder systems. Livestock products contribute 17 per cent to kilocalorie consumption and 33 per cent to protein consumption globally, but there are large differences between rich and poor countries (Rosegrant et al. 2009). Livestock systems have both positive and negative effects on the natural resource base, public health, social equity and economic growth (World Bank 2009). Currently, livestock is one of the fastest growing agricultural subsectors in developing countries. Its share of agricultural GDP is already 33 per cent and is quickly increasing. This growth is driven by the rapidly increasing demand for livestock products, this demand being driven by population growth, urbanization and increasing incomes in developing countries (Delgado 2005). The global livestock sector is characterized by a dichotomy between developing and developed countries. Total meat production in the developing world tripled between 1980 and 2002, from 45 to 134 million tons (World Bank 2009). Much of this growth was concentrated in countries that experienced rapid economic growth, particularly in East Asia, and revolved around poultry and pigs. In developed countries, on the other hand, production and consumption of livestock products are now growing only slowly or stagnating, although at high levels. Even so, livestock production and merchandizing in industrialized countries account for 53 per cent of agricultural GDP (World Bank 2009). This combination of growing demand in the developing world and stagnant demand in industrialized countries represents a major opportunity for livestock keepers in developing countries, where most demand is met by local production, and this is likely to continue well into the foreseeable future. At the same time, the expansion of agricultural production needs to take place in a way that allows the less well-off to benefit from increased demand and that moderates its impact on the environment.

Continued at:

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1554/2853.full

#Economics

Algal Photosynthesis as the Primary Driver for a Sustainable Development in Energy, Feed, and Food Production

Ida G. Anemaet & Martijn Bekker & Klaas J. Hellingwerf Received: 26 February 2010 / Accepted: 30 June 2010 / Published online: 20 July 2010

Algal Biomass for “Vitromeat” A sustainable development of society in general may also require drastic changes in human consumption. To give an example: The environmental load of the level of meat consumption in the Western world is such that it will not be maintainable for the entire world population because of its very high energy (e.g., fertilizer) and fresh-water require- ment. Therefore, various initiatives are being taken to provide alternatives for this component of the human diet. One of these is often referred to as the “vitromeat” approach and implies the in vitro culturing of cells preferably derived from the muscle of a mammal to form an edible product (Edelman et al. 2005). Success in this approach heavily depends on finding a suitable cheap growth medium for these mammalian myoblasts. An important component in such media is the source of amino acids. Hydrolysates of plants are already in use to substitute the fetal calf serum (Chun et al. 2005; George et al. 2009). Algal biomass, also because of its high protein content, is an attractive starting point for the development of such medium constituents. Initial results in this approach, obtained in our research group hold great promise for success (M. Daniels et al., unpublished).

Continued at:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20640935

#Cellular Tech.

The Value of Cultured Meat

The Value of Cultured Meat: An Estimate of the Externality Costs of Meat Consumption

Nathan Fiala

Publication source unknown and date unknown (2010?)

Summary Using FAO estimates of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from meat production and a range of published cost estimates for these emissions, we find that the global environmental costs of meat consumption are more than $140 billion per year, totaling between $4 trillion and $15 trillion from 2010 to 2040. The estimates are conservative, as they do not include the projected increase in meat consumption. Using published estimates of the GHG emissions from cultured meat, we find that global cost savings of replacing meat would be more than $130 billion per year. Introduction This short note calculates the social externality costs of meat consumption and the value to society from shifting to consumption of alternatives, such as cultured meat. The calculations are based on research conducted by numerous authors and are presented as ranges in order to capture intrinsic uncertainties. This note focuses on the environmental externalities. In addition, there are also health- related externality costs, which include both individual health impacts and infectious diseases. Barnard et al. (1995) have calculated the individual health costs, in the form of increased rates of heart disease, cancer, etc., as between $30 billion and $60 billion dollars per year for the US, a number comparable to smoking. US consumption of meat is approximately 10% of the total world, suggesting that the world cost is significantly higher. How much higher though is not clear. In addition to individual health costs, there are also significant economic costs to E. coli and Salmonella contamination, as well as Mad Cow Disease and H1N1. The numbers presented below are thus a minimum amount. Environmental Externalities The 2007 FAO report, Livestock’s Long Shadow, puts the total greenhouse gases from worldwide livestock production at 4.6 billion metric tonnes of equivalent carbon dioxide (CO2). This amount is calculated by converting methane and other waste products into CO2 equivalent numbers. The conversion for methane is 23 times the effect of CO2 over 100 years. However, this time horizon may not be relevant for most policy decisions regarding climate change (IPCC 2007).

Continued at:

www.new-harvest.org/img/files/fiala_2010.pdf

#Economics

Meet the new meat: tissue engineered skeletal muscle

Marloes L.P. Langelaana, 1, Kristel J.M. Boonena, 1, Roderick B. Polaka, Frank P.T. Baaijensa, Mark J. Posta, b, Daisy W.J. van der Schafta,

Volume 21, Issue 2, February 2010, Pages 59–66

Abstract

Contemporary large-scale farming and transportation of livestock brings along a high risk of infectious animal diseases and environmental burden through greenhouse gas emission. A new approach to produce meat and thereby reducing these risks is found in tissue engineering of skeletal muscle. This review discusses the requirements that need to be met to increase the feasibility of meat production in vitro, which include finding an appropriate stem cell source and being able to grow them in a three-dimensional environment inside a bioreactor, providing essential cues for proliferation and differentiation.

Continued at:

www.new-harvest.org/img/files/invitromeat.pdf

#Methodology

Extracellular matrix components direct porcine muscle stem cell behavior

Karlijn J. Wilschuta, Henk P. Haagsmanb, Bernard A.J. Roelena,␣

Received 31 March 2009 Revised version received 2 October 2009 Accepted 16 October 2009 Available online 22 October 2009

...Apparently, the niche important for cell identity and behavior provides a suitable environment to sustain the self-renewal and differentiation capacity of primary stem cells. Therefore, by using the ECM components of the muscle niche we can enrich for muscle stem cells, optimize the myogenic capacity of the cells and investigate regulation of signaling pathways involved in muscle differentiation. Since pigs are more homologous to human than rodents in terms of physiology, organ size and life span, porcine stem cells can be of interest for tissue engineering and transplantation studies and in vitro culture of meat for human consumption [37]. In this study, we have examined the ECM components collagen, laminin, fibronectin, and also gelatin and Matrigel for their capacity to improve the proliferation and differentiation capacities of isolated primary porcine muscle stem cells.

Continued at:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19853598

#Cellular Tech.

Production of Animal Proteins by Stem Cells

H.P. HAAGSMAN, K.J. HELLINGWERF, B.A.J. ROELEN

October 2009

Preface This report was commissioned by the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality as part of a survey on meat alternatives. It presents the current state of research and development of cultured meat (‘kweekvlees”), a completely new idea to produce edible skeletal muscle (i.e. meat) by culturing and differentiating stem cells of farm animal species to skeletal muscle cells. This hypothetical method of producing ‘meat’ has been patented by the Dutchman Willem van Eelen in 1999, and research on its feasibility has been conducted by as part of a SenterNovem research project between 2005-2009. The current study is performed by three researchers of two Dutch universities who also took part in the SenterNovem research project. Since these authors were involved in the ‘in vitro meat’ research project they had already acquired a vast amount of knowledge about the scientific aspects of cultured meat. Also in the past few years they have build up an extensive global network of those working on or interested in this subject. These contacts range from colleague scientists to process technologists, food specialists, and representatives of vegetarian organizations to psychologists and sociologists. The authors have used these contacts and did an extensive literature research for this report. The study is therefore broad; not only scientific aspects are taken into account but also societal and economic factors. This was not an easy task since research and development of cultured meat is still in its infancy. In this report, it is first described why there is a current dire need for meat alternatives. Subsequently, the theoretical background and short history of cultured meat are described and the types of culture media that can be used or developed. This is followed by a section on bioengineering and process technology. Ethical and societal issues are discussed, as well as challenges, strengths and weaknesses of the current approach. Besides literature studies on technological and societal aspects of cultured meat, the opinions of many interviewed experts were also an important source of information. The opinions of the experts can be read throughout the report in the various boxes. We would like to thank all experts that have contributed to this report. The authors

Introduction The use of livestock for the production of food has always been an essential part of man’s existence on earth, and its impact has until recent years been primarily positive, both economically and socially. However, current production methods are rather demanding. Their impact may be direct, by ruminant methane production for example, or indirect, such as expansion of soybean production for feed in South America, replacing rain forests. About 70% of the fresh water use, 35% of land use and 20% of the energy consumption of mankind is directly or indirectly used for food production, of which a considerable proportion is used for the production of meat. The total area of ice-free land in use for grazing is about 26% of the earth’s total, and an additional 33% of arable land is in use for feed crop production. In total, livestock is responsible for 70% of agricultural land exploitation, and without change of policies this percentage will only increase in the near future. It has been estimated that the global population will increase from 6 billion people in 2000 to 9 billion people in the year 2050. This population increase will be accompanied by a rise in annual greenhouse gas emissions from 11.2 to 19.7 gigatonne of carbon dioxide, carbon equivalent. It is anticipated that in the same period annual global meat production will rise from 228 to 465 million tonnes due to rising incomes, urbanization and growing populations (FAO 2006. Livestock’s long shadow, environmental issues and options, Rome. http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.pdf). The amount of additional land available for the required increase in production capacity, however, is limited. This has serious consequences at various levels and makes it a major policy focus. It is now evident that we are experiencing a climate change, and that anthropogenic influences seem to be (at least partly) responsible for this. This includes the current level of meat production. Feed crop production demands high levels of energy, which in itself, leads to increased CO2 emission. Livestock species, particularly ruminants, are responsible for greenhouse gas emissions, including methane from alimentary tract fermentation and nitrous oxide that may be emitted from decomposing manure and fertilizer. Indeed ruminants constitute the biggest anthropogenic source of methane emissions.

Continued at:

www.new-harvest.org/img/files/production_of_animal_proteins_1207.pdf

#Survey

Extracellular matrix components direct porcine muscle stem cell behavior

Karlijn J. Wilschuta, Henk P. Haagsmanb, Bernard A.J. Roelena,⁎

aDepartment of Farm Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Yalelaan 104, 3584 CM, Utrecht, The Netherlands bDepartment of Infectious Diseases and Immunology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Yalelaan 1, 3584 CL, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Received 31 March 2009 Revised version received 2 October 2009 Accepted 16 October 2009 Available online 22 October 2009

Abstract

In muscle tissue, extracellular matrix proteins, together with the vasculature system, muscle- residence cells and muscle fibers, create the niche for muscle stem cells. The niche is important in controlling proliferation and directing differentiation of muscle stem cells to sustain muscle tissue. Mimicking the extracellular muscle environment improves tools exploring the behavior of primary muscle cells. Optimizing cell culture conditions to maintain muscle commitment is important in stem cell-based studies concerning toxicology screening, ex vivo skeletal muscle tissue engineering and in the enhancement of clinical efficiency. We used the muscle extracellular matrix proteins collagen type I, fibronectin, laminin, and also gelatin and Matrigel as surface coatings of tissue culture plastic to resemble the muscle extracellular matrix. Several important factors that determine myogenic commitment of the primary muscle cells were characterized by quantitative real-time RT-PCR and immunofluorescence. Adhesion of high PAX7 expressing satellite cells was improved if the cells were cultured on fibronectin or laminin coatings. Cells cultured on Matrigel and laminin coatings showed dominant integrin expression levels and exhibited an activated Wnt pathway. Under these conditions both stem cell proliferation and myogenic differentiation capacity were superior if compared to cells cultured on collagen type I, fibronectin and gelatin. In conclusion, Matrigel and laminin are the preferred coatings to sustain the proliferation and myogenic differentiation capacity of the primary porcine muscle stem cells, when cells are removed from their natural environment for in vitro culture.

Introduction

When postnatal skeletal muscle growth and regeneration are needed, stem cells become activated after which they begin to proliferate and differentiate to contribute to muscle tissue. The activity of muscle stem cells is governed by the micro-environ- ment, or ‘niche’, consisting of the basement membrane of the myofiber, resident supporting cells, vascular system and the extracellular matrix (ECM). The ECM surrounding each muscle fiber consists of a network of glycoproteins like collagens, laminin and fibronectin organized by proteoglycans such as heparin sulfate. This network provides the muscle structural support for bearing force transmissions, mediates in cell–cell adhesion through integrin receptors and improves the binding of molecules to activate signaling mechanisms for the regulation of myogenesis [1,2].

Continued at:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014482709004431

#Cellular Tech.

Possibilities for an in vitro meat production system

I. Datar, M. Betti ␣ Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2P5

Received 28 June 2009 Accepted 11 October 2009

Editor Proof Receive Date 26 October 2009

Abstract

Meat produced in vitro has been proposed as a humane, safe and environmentally beneficial alternative to slaughtered animal flesh as a source of nutritional muscle tissue. The basic methodology of an in vitro meat production system (IMPS) involves culturing muscle tissue in a liquid medium on a large scale. Each component of the system offers an array of options which are described taking into account recent advances in relevant research. A major advantage of an IMPS is that the conditions are controlled and manipulatable. Limitations discussed include meeting nutritional requirements and large scale operation. The direction of further research and prospects regarding the future of in vitro meat production will be speculated. Industrial relevance: The development of an alternative meat production system is driven by the growing demand for meat and the shrinking resources available to produce it by current methods. Implementation of an in vitro meat production system (IMPS) to complement existing meat production practices creates the opportunity for meat products of different characteristics to be put onto the market. In vitro produced meat products resembling the processed and comminuted meat products of today will be sooner to develop than those resembling traditional cuts of meat. While widening the scope of the meat industry in practices and products, the IMPS will reduce the need for agricultural resources to produce meat.

1. Introduction

In light of the sizable negative effects of livestock production, establishment of an in vitro meat production system (IMPS) is becoming increasingly justifiable. Current meat production methods are a major source of pollution and a significant consumer of fossil fuels, land and water resources. World meat production at present is contributing between 15% and 24% of total current greenhouse gas emissions; a great proportion of this percentage is due to deforesta- tion to create grazing land (Steinfeld et al., 2006). The production of beef requires 15 500 m3/ton of water, while chicken requires 3918m3/ton (Hoekstra & Chapagain, 2007) and 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, respectively (Rosegrant, Leach, & Gerpacio, 1999). Satisfying the demand for meat in the future will be a challenge if we intend on maximizing the use of agricultural resources and reducing greenhouse gas production, as Fiala (2008) calculates the amount of total meat consumed worldwide in 2030 to be 72% higher than that consumed in 2000 following current consumption patterns.

It is suspected that myocyte culturing would have a reduced water, energy and land requirement because a) solely muscle tissue is cultivated, bypassing the development of by-products and non- skeletal muscle tissues; b) for the same mass of meat, tissue cultivation is anticipated to be faster than growth to a slaughter- ready age and c) in vitro meat production systems are capable of increasing in volume vertically, making deforestation to create pasture unnecessary. The controlled conditions would theoretically eliminate product losses from infected and diseased animals. As a method with little to no waste products or by-products and a minimized land and resource requirement, myocyte culturing could possibly alleviate the environmental burden exhibited by today's meat harvesting techniques.

To provide meat globally, modern industrial meat production has become a complex landscape of trade where feed production, animal husbandry, processing and consumption may all take place in different countries (Burke, Oleson, McCullough, & Gaskell, 2009). The comparatively minimal land requirement of an in vitro meat production system allows meat production and processing to take place domestically in countries which would normally rely on imported meats. By bringing the stages of the meat production process closer together spatially and temporally, meat supply can be better determined by demand.

Continued at:

http://www.new-harvest.org/img/files/datar_and_betti.pdf

#Methodology

Biofabrication: a 21st century manufacturing paradigm

V Mironov1, T Trusk1, V Kasyanov2, S Little3, R Swaja4 and R Markwald1

Received 6 February 2009 Accepted for publication 13 May 2009 Published 10 June 2009 Online at stacks.iop.org/BF/1/022001

Abstract

Biofabrication can be defined as the production of complex living and non-living biological products from raw materials such as living cells, molecules, extracellular matrices, and biomaterials. Cell and developmental biology, biomaterials science, and mechanical engineering are the main disciplines contributing to the emergence of biofabrication technology. The industrial potential of biofabrication technology is far beyond the traditional medically oriented tissue engineering and organ printing and, in the short term, it is essential for developing potentially highly predictive human cell- and tissue-based technologies for drug discovery, drug toxicity, environmental toxicology assays, and complex in vitro models of human development and diseases. In the long term, biofabrication can also contribute to the development of novel biotechnologies for sustainable energy production in the future biofuel industry and dramatically transform traditional animal-based agriculture by inventing ‘animal-free’ food, leather, and fur products. Thus, the broad spectrum of potential applications and rapidly growing arsenal of biofabrication methods strongly suggests that biofabrication can become a dominant technological platform and new paradigm for 21st century manufacturing. The main objectives of this review are defining biofabrication, outlining the most essential disciplines critical for emergence of this field, analysis of the evolving arsenal of biofabrication technologies and their potential practical applications, as well as a discussion of the common challenges being faced by biofabrication technologies, and the necessary conditions for the development of a global biofabrication research community and commercially successful biofabrication industry.

Introduction

The launch of the new journal Biofabrication was an important milestone which manifested past predictions of the emergence of a new dramatic research field or discipline based on bridging the life, physical, and engineering sciences to address global priorities. Many believe that biofabrication is this anticipated field and that it has the potential to emerge as the leading manufacturing paradigm of the 21st century. The primary objectives of this topical review are to provide a basis for future activities in the area by presenting (i) a comprehensive survey of the state of the art of biofabrication including objectives, applications, approaches, and enabling technologies; and (ii) a discussion of opportunities and challenges in realising the potential economic and healthcare benefits.

1. Definition and scope of biofabrication

Defining an emerging field of science or technology is essential to provide a uniform framework for the development and implementation. Biofabrication is a technology, as opposed to a basic science, and is part of the much broader field of biotechnology. Whereas science involves observation, modeling, and explanation of natural phenomena, technology deals with engineering an artificial world. The prefix ‘bio’ implies that either raw materials, or processes, or final products (or all these) must be biology inspired or biology based. Raw materials for biofabrication can be biological molecules, extracellular matrices, living cells and tissues, and possibly decellularized organs. The term ‘fabrication’ means making or constructing something from a raw or semi-finished material or creating something that is different from its components. In this context, biofabrication deals with science, engineering and technology or production, based on using living matter as raw materials.

Continued at:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1758-5090/1/2/022001

#Methodology

Diet and the environment: does what you eat matter?

Harold J Marlow, William K Hayes, Samuel Soret, Ronald L Carter, Ernest R Schwab, and Joan Sabate

AJCN. First published ahead of print April 1, 2009

ABSTRACT Food demand influences agricultural production. Modern agricul- tural practices have resulted in polluted soil, air, and water; eroded soil; dependence on imported oil; and loss of biodiversity. The goal of this research was to compare the environmental effect of a vege- tarian and nonvegetarian diet in California in terms of agricultural production inputs, including pesticides and fertilizers, water, and en- ergy used to produce commodities. The working assumption was that a greater number and amount of inputs were associated with a greater environmental effect. The literature supported this notion. To accom- plish this goal, dietary preferences were quantified with the Adventist Health Study, and California state agricultural data were collected and applied to state commodity production statistics. These data were used to calculate different dietary consumption patterns and indexes to compare the environmental effect associated with dietary prefer- ence. Results show that, for the combined differential production of 11 food items for which consumption differs among vegetarians and nonvegetarians, the nonvegetarian diet required 2.9 times more wa- ter, 2.5 times more primary energy, 13 times more fertilizer, and 1.4 times more pesticides than did the nonvegetarian diet. The greatest contribution to the differences came from the consumption of beef in the diet. We found that a nonvegetarian diet exacts a higher cost on the environment relative to a vegetarian diet. From an environmental perspective, what a person chooses to eat makes a difference.

INTRODUCTION In developed countries, and throughout the world, there exists a link between agricultural production and environmental deg- radation (1–4). Public awareness of diverse global environ- mental issues, such as climate change (5–7), toxic residues in food (8), soil erosion (9, 10), and species endangerment (9, 11), has brought about a call for sustainable food production prac- tices (12) and responsible stewardship of our finite resources (13). Particular skepticism has been aimed at supporting the increased demand for animal products in the diet of the eco- nomically advantaged persons of the world (4, 14).

Continued at:

http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2009/04/01/ajcn.2009.26736Z.abstract

#Ecological Impacts

The Opposite of Human Enhancement: Nanotechnology and the Blind Chicken Problem

Paul B. Thompson

Received: 29 October 2008 / Accepted: 6 November 2008 / Published online: 22 November 2008 # Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract Nanotechnologies that have been linked to the possibility of enhancing cognitive capabilities of human beings might also be deployed to reduce or eliminate such capabilities in non-human vertebrate animals. A surprisingly large literature on the ethics of such disenhancement has been developed in response to the suggestion that it would be an ethically defensible response to animal suffering both in medical experimentation and in industrial livestock production. However, review of this literature illus- trates the difficulty of formulating a coherent ethical debate. Well structured arguments for disenhancement can be made on the basis of mainstream views on the basis of ethical obligations to animals, but these arguments have not been persuasive against the moral intuition that disenhancements are unethical. At the same time, attempts to ground these intuitions in a coherent philosophical doctrine have been plagued by logical fallacies and question begging assertions. As such, the debate over animal disenhancement fore- casts an enduring conundrum with respect to the core question of transforming the nature of sentient beings, and this conundrum is logically independent of claims that relate either to the distinctive of human beings or to issues deriving from the emphasis on enhancement.

Introduction

Like genetic manipulation, but perhaps with more realistic possibilities, nanotechnology is linked to a variety of post-human futures, where consciousness can be “downloaded” onto electronic media, where human sensory apparatus will be linked to spatially dispersed information gathering devices, where intel- ligence will be distributed amongst various brains and computing capabilities and where the vagaries of the human body will be bolstered by devices that increase its physical power and resistance to external threats. This paper will not engage the ethical and ontological issues of the distant post-human future directly. Instead, I will probe its opposite: the disenhancement of non-human animals’ capabilities in the present and near term, a set of technological possibilities exem- plified by the blind chicken problem, discussed below. Here we have a set of ethical quandaries that have already been widely discussed, and yet, I will argue, little progress has been made in articulating exactly what the ethical issue actually is. I make no overt claims about the ethics of human enhancement, though my suspicion is that similarly inchoate concerns pervade this area as well.

Continued at:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/g042l03721237110/

#Ethics

Vegetarian Meat: Could Technology Save Animals and Satisfy Meat Eaters?

Patrick D. Hopkins Æ Austin Dacey

Accepted: 24 June 2008 / Published online: 11 July 2008 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract Between people who unabashedly support eating meat and those who adopt moral vegetarianism, lie a number of people who are uncomfortably carnivorous and vaguely wish they could be vegetarians. Opposing animal suffering in principle, they can ignore it in practice, relying on the visual disconnect between supermarket meat and slaughterhouse practices not to trigger their moral emotions. But what if we could have the best of both worlds in reality—eat meat and not harm animals? The nascent bio- technology of tissue culture, originally researched for medical applications, holds out just such a promise. Meat could be grown in vitro without killing animals. In fact, this technology may not just be an intriguing option, but might be our moral obligation to develop.

The Problem of Eating Meat and Caring for Animals

Modern American society loves to watch television cooking shows—the creativity, the sensuousness, the clever techniques. But chances are, if a lamb were dragged in and killed at the beginning of the program, most of the viewers would find themselves less interested in the lamb chop recipes. They would be too horrified or disgusted to enjoy the rest of the program.1 And yet, if the lamb’s flesh is brought in already killed and sliced, almost all sense of horror and sympathy is muted enough to be nearly unfelt.

This is one of the disconnects of modern society. It is a widely commented on oddity that people can spend nearly as much money on their pets as on their children, oppose animal cruelty, and yet casually eat meat from slaughtered animals (Saletan 2006). There is also a widely commented upon explanation for the fact that most people who eat meat in modern societies can do so without triggering enough cognitive dissonance to stop. The way meat is presented to consumers avoids triggering horror or sympathy by being sterile and distancing—it appears in neat and nicely wrapped packages under bright lighting in the supermarket; fresh, clean and detached from its source, sometimes ground or covered in spices, and largely cut in such a way that we cannot even tell by looking which part of the animal the tissue comes from. Except for the tell-tale blood that pools up under the meat which we distastefully discard at home, there is little visual and cognitive connection between the meat before us and the animal from which it came. The oddity of meat-eating animal lovers is therefore easy to understand.

Continued at:

http://www.new-harvest.org/img/files/hopkins_2009_jaee_21_579.pdf

#Ethics #Social Impacts

In Vitro Meat Consortium Preliminary Economics Study

eXmoor Pharma Concepts

V5 March 2008

1 Executive Summary This study was commissioned by Professor Stig William Omholt to review whether the production of in vitro meat could be financially viable. Global meat consumption is estimated to be about 270m tonnes pa, growing at the rate of 4.7 m tonnes annually. The environmental impact of meeting this forecast demand from existing livestock systems is significant. Cultured meat technology offers an alternative production route for a proportion of this consumption. This would then allow a downsized livestock production system to continue to be ecologically sound and to meet basic animal welfare needs. The study built a net present value (NPV) model based on publicly available information on current and recent single cell protein plants. This model was then used to:

• Forecast the cost for large volume production of the medium required to grow mammalian cells. • Develop the financial model for the technically more advanced in vitro meat production system. The financial model identified four major areas of cost as follows:

Insert available in original document

It is likely that it will be possible to produce in vitro meat in large quantities for less than Euro 3300 - 3500 / tonne. This compares with the unsubsidised production of chicken meat at about Euro 1800 / tonne. On this basis it makes sense to continue to invest in both; • developing the process technology for the efficient large scale production of muscle tissue from stem cells. • developing cheaper and larger volume sources of growth medium that do not contain animal products.

2 Aims. The purpose of the study is to determine whether the production of in vitro meat is likely to be economically viable when compared with the factory gate prices for say chicken. The study will include; • Identifying the main cost components involved in building and operating a process plant directed towards the production of engineered meat in large quantities. • Using a forecast cashflow to identify the key areas that would need to be addressed in order to compete with chicken meat on price. • Assessing the realism in large-scale production of a serum free cell culture medium at a given price given current technological possibilities. The given price will come from the cashflow. It should be noted that this study is a very early look at potential viability. If the idea looks to be viable, recommendations will be made for further development / engineering. A large number of assumptions will be made and these will be listed.

3 Conclusions. 3.1 The costs required for R&D and for Promotion to ensure society acceptance of these products will be substantial and have not been included in this analysis. The main areas to focus R&D effort are identified below. Society acceptance includes both acceptance by the regulators (to grant licenses for human consumption) and acceptance by consumers. These costs will have to be incurred, the problems overcome and the solutions made readily available before manufacturers will invest in the necessary global supply chain. 3.2 Cell growth media costs will need to be about 1/10 the price for commercially available media purchased for small scale pharmaceutical applications. This, together with the need to produce large quantities will require the development of either on site processing or a separate media infrastructure. Single Cell Protein could be used as a component of this media. 3.3 Growing mammalian cells in sufficient volumes to produce a meat–like product for a price which is competitive with meat poses many technical challenges. Growing mammalian cells in suspension in 20k litre bioreactors is currently possible but expensive and increasing the volume will present challenges. Growing cells in a 3D matrix is still in the research stage. The key challenges for the design of the bio- reactor and associated plant are: • The biology around the choice of cell, the optimum conditions for growth and the method to differentiate into the final product. • The need to enable nutrients to get to the individual cells and for waste products to be removed within large scale bioreactors. • The need to minimise shear stress and to maintain constant conditions around all the cells. • The need to grow the cells on some form of structure and then to release them without damage for harvesting. • The need for sterile engineering over a considerable scale. Mammalian cells grow slowly and contaminants will out compete them. Plant must be cleanable and sterilisable, Clean in Place (CIP) and Sterilise in Place (SIP) systems will be needed, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) will be required and raw materials will need to be pharmaceutical grade. • Sophisticated instrumentation will be required to measure and control conditions inside the reactors. 3.4 The forecast costs for the two in vitro meat products are as follows:

Continued at:

www.new-harvest.org/img/files/culturedmeatecon.pdf

#Economics

Is there an “animal welfare Kuznets curve”?

Joshua Frank⁎

FIREPAW (The Foundation for Interdisciplinary Research and Education Promoting Animal Welfare, Inc.), United States

Received 12 February 2007 Received in revised form 9 October 2007 Accepted 11 October 2007 Available online 26 November 2007

ABSTRACT

The concept of a Kuznets curve has been applied to income inequality and to the environment. The Kuznets curve takes an inverted U-shape, with income or GDP on the X-axis and environmental degradation or inequality on the Y-axis. It is hypothesized here that an “animal welfare Kuznets curve” may exist, with harm to animals initially rising with economic growth followed by improvement in the treatment of animals after some peak value. Why an Animal Welfare Kuznets Curve might theoretically exist is explored. Empirical evidence supporting or refuting the existence of such a curve is also examined. The evidence is both quantitative and qualitative in nature, since some issues in welfare cannot be easily quantified. The evidence and theoretical presentation explores multiple areas of concern to animals, including animal agriculture, the use of animals in laboratories, companion animals (pets), and the fur industry. The conclusion is that evidence is mixed, with some measures indicating a turning point while other measures showing no sign of peaking/improving animal welfare.

1. Introduction

The concept of a Kuznets curve has been applied to income inequality and to the environment. Kuznets (1955) originally hypothesized the presence of an inverted U-shaped relation- ship between economic development and income inequality. According to this hypothesis, at low levels of economic development, economic growth increases income inequality, but at some point a peak would be reached where further economic development decreases inequality. More recently, the concept of this U-shaped relationship with economic development has been applied to the environment using the concept of the environmental Kuznets curve or EKC. In a recent survey of the EKC literature, Dinda (2004) concludes that the evidence for the EKC depends on the type of pollutant or environmental issue considered, with only some pollu- tants, particularly those with short-term and local effects showing evidence of a Kuznets curve relationship. Other surveys include Cavlovic et al. (2002) and Stern (2004), with evidence of an EKC curve generally being mixed or weak.

It is hypothesized here that an “animal welfare Kuznets curve” (AWKC) may exist, with harm to animals initially rising with economic growth, followed by improvement in the treatment of animals after some peak value. Although this concept has never been explicitly stated, the idea that animal welfare and economic development may go together is not new. This view has been expressed in newspaper and popular journal articles such as McDonald (2005) and Associated Press (2006).

The possible existence of an AWKC has important eco- nomic and public policy implications. As noted above, some authors have implied that further economic growth is associated with improving animal welfare. However, others, such as the sociologist Nibert (2002) sees capitalism as inevitably tied with large-scale animal exploitation. The absence of such a curve suggests that future economic growth will likely come at the cost of declining animal welfare, among...

Continued at:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800907005149

#Ethics

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

IVM Journal Articles