Would in vitro meat be vegetarian?
The notion of in vitro meat — flesh harvested from a vat rather than a living animal — seems straight from science fiction, which is perhaps not surprising given that NASA, the US space organization, originated the idea as a way to provide better-quality food for astronauts in space.
While the notion may seem far-fetched, some people are taking it very seriously indeed. PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, announced in 2008 a $1 million prize for the “first person to come up with a method to produce commercially viable quantities of in vitro meat at competitive prices by 2012.”
New Harvest, a nonprofit organization formed to promote the adoption of alternatives to meat, points out on its Web site, “Because meat substitutes are produced under controlled conditions impossible to maintain in traditional animal farms, they can be safer, more nutritious, less polluting and more humane than conventional meat.”
There are immense technical challenges in producing in vitro meat that has a suitable texture and flavour, but it may not be long before it’s an option in our supermarket shelves, alongside the Quorn, the textured vegetable protein, the tofu, and (of course) regular meat taken from the bodies of animals. What should Buddhist vegetarians make of this?
First, whether we would personally choose to eat in vitro meat ourselves, I think we should welcome the development as an alternative to the suffering that is involved in eating animals. The initial tissue for in vitro meat could presumably be obtained by means of a muscle biopsy sample that’s no more invasive or harmful than many a standard medical procedure.
The environmental benefits could be immense, there might well be less bacterial contamination, and such meat could also potentially be free from growth hormones and antibiotics.
But of course the very prospect of in vitro meat is controversial. One of the founders of PETA commented that the decision to launch the $1 million prize lead to “a near civil war” in the organization. Many committed vegetarians in PETA were repulsed by the very idea of eating meat, even if no animals were harmed.
As with the issue of transgenic vegetables (the famous tomato containing fish genes) questions of taste arise here that have nothing to do with the Buddhist ethic of non-harm. I don’t think I’d be inclined to eat in vitro meat. For one thing I don’t want to eat heavily-processed food, and for another I find the smell and sight of meat repulsive because of its associations with death and destruction. But in principle there’s no inherent ethical reason why a Buddhist vegetarian should avoid meat grown in a vat.
9 Responses to “Would in vitro meat be vegetarian?”
About this entry
You’re currently reading “Would in vitro meat be vegetarian?,” an entry on Bodhipaksa's blog, bodhi tree swaying
Published: Mar 17 2009
Tags and categories
Tags: buddhism, ethics, Science, Vegetarianism
Category: Meditation & practice, Religion & Society
I don’t have an answer to your question, but for me, it raises a different question: What vegetarian with a conscious would find it morally acceptable to eat anything that can only be produced in a lab? Either way, it takes far more energy than growing a vegetable… The point is not to replace killing animals with a process that does not kill animals, the point is to reduce our energy consumption and be healthier.
Personally, I find the entire idea of eating in-vitro meat totally repulsive. Even if it had the same texture and flavor, knowing that it was “grown” in a tube would ruin the whole experience.
Well, I’m a vegetarian, and I have a conscience, and I sometimes eat Quorn, which is made in a lab, as is tofu. So do many other vegetarians who are in possession of a fully functioning conscience. I also ingest other products that can be made only in a lab as well, from antibiotics to Lipitor. Artificiality does not amount to immorality. And disgust does not equate to morality.
I don’t actually have any figures to hand regarding how much energy it would take to grow in vitro meat, so I’m not in a position to make a comparison. The comparison would have to take into account all inputs involved in producing both types of food. But the true comparison would not be between in vitro meat and “growing a vegetable”, but between various kinds of high-protein vegetarian food, such as Quorn, tofu, and textured vegetable protein.
I’m curious as to how you’d respond to this. lets leave aside the fact that more animals means more suffering and death (simply because they will all die). Also, lets leave aside the environmental issues (Not saying these are not important, I just want to probe a line of thinking). And lets say we are talking about a farm that raises free range animals (like in the “happy cows” commercial).
Do we really increase suffering simply by eating meat? I would suggest that an animal may be given a less painful death in a slaughter house (one that took measures to make it as quick and painless as possible) then it would if it were just to die of disease in nature or be ripped apart by predators. I would think that from the Buddhist perspective, by not eating meat (if ignoring factors mentioned mentioned above), you aren’t really reducing the suffering and death in the world, you just aren’t involved in it.
Hi Bob,
You make a rather peculiar argument. When we create a demand for meat, animals are bred to fill that demand. They’re raised on farms, transported, slaughtered, butchered, and sold as meat. When we don’t eat meat, fewer animals are bred, raised, etc. So the alternatives for the animals are not “be slaughtered or be ripped apart by wild animals” but “be slaughtered or don’t come into existence.” A non-existent animal won’t suffer. There’s therefore less suffering caused by our actions when we don’t eat meat.
No argument. Just wondering what you’d think.
After a month, I think I finally have a second response:
The main problem with vitro meat is “who owns it?” The answer is probably that some company has created a patented manufacturing process. So by replacing the farmer with the corporation, we lose more control over our food to a profit-generating machine. This will, by the nature of the profit-generating machine, lead to large-scale suffering. Is it a good idea to replace the suffering of an animal worth the suffering caused by a corporation (think pollution, plastics, outsourcing, genetic tampering, lobbying, etc)?
Well if I had a choice I’d say it’s better to avoid making an animal suffer and also to avoid food produced by large corporations. Much of the food supply is already controlled by a few huge corporations, who contribute to our ill health by stuffing food with far, sugar, and salt, and who ensure that we eat an ever-narrower range of food-stuffs. They’re impossible to avoid of course. I don’t eat breakfast cereals, for example, and instead make my own bread — but who ultimately owns the company that makes the flour? It may be Nestle, for all I know. But at least I know that the flour is just flour. Purely in terms of my health I feel good about that.
When it comes to eating conventional meat, I’d say there’s a strong moral imperative involved because of the direct nature of the harm caused (the meat is the dead body of an animal). On the other hand, arguments based on whether food is highly processed or is made by large corporations involve weaker moral imperatives because the issues are more diffuse and the harm more indirect. I don’t think that means that those secondary moral considerations aren’t important, just that I think that in general they shouldn’t trump the first ones. I think it would be better, for example, for people who insist on eating meat, if they were to eat factory made in-vitro meat produced by a large corporation rather than the body of a slaughtered animal, whatever the status of the company that grew, slaughtered, and marketed the flesh (and of course in many cases that would be another large corporation).
An interesting thread. I don’t think there are any immediately troubling ethical issues surrounding invitro-meat (IVM). In fact, if those motivated by taste rather than ethics switched to IVM instead of creating demand for the slaughter of billions of sentient beings, then there would have to be a profoundly positive ethical impact by any measure – not just a utilitarian view.
But this isn’t the only consideration for someone seeking spiritual progress. Meat, we’re told, is part of the class of foods that stimulates the passions, thus unsettling rather than calming the mind. Given the need to still the mind in pursuing spiritual goals, even IVM would be counterproductive. This the reason why some traditions forego garlic and onion – not for any ethical reason, but for spiritual reasons.
I must say I’m not convinced that eating meat stimulates the passions. Also I don’t think I’ve ever come across that notion in the Pali canon (which doesn’t mean it’s no there), but only in later Buddhism. Maybe it’s true, but I have my doubts.