Laboratory-grown meat or cultured meat. Image credit: fdli.org

This essay will consider the issue of whether ethical vegetarianism is consistent with eating artificial, laboratory-grown meat (cultured meat). I will be focusing on animal use in cultured meat production. I will be looking at Peter Singer’s ethics theory that stems from his book Animal Liberation and some later developments of his views. By looking at strengths and weaknesses of his perspectives, I will apply them to this particular issue. I will look at the position of meat eaters turning to ethical vegetarianism rather than ethical vegetarians taking up cultured meat. From this stance, I will argue that ethical vegetarianism is not consistent with eating cultured meat.

As there are different types of vegetarianism, it is important to first distinguish what is unique to ethical vegetarianism.

A vegetarian is someone who intentionally does not consume meat in their diet and often avoids by-products from slaughtered animals¹ (such as gelatine) but there are also other subcategories of vegetarians who still eat eggs and/or dairy products. A vegetarian typically does not mind using products derived from animals such as wool. People may adopt a vegetarian lifestyle for different reasons such as health, environmental, religious, cultural or personal taste. However ethical vegetarianism is propelled by the wish to prevent (by refusing to support) the harming of sentient beings, which would be the animals slaughtered for meat production.²

The details of cultured meat production are quite extensive so I will omit any in-depth details that might find more relevance in a biological essay than a philosophical one.

Research into cultured meat production is a relatively uncharted area of food science and it unsurprisingly faces many practical and ethical challenges. One of the more obvious practical challenges would be the commercialisation of cultured meat and funding research in order to be able to achieve that affordable cost. The research cost required to produce the world’s first publicly revealed cultured burger was up to around £215,000.³ For the purpose of this essay I will not focus too much on monetary or practical challenges such as in vitro versus in vivo cell proliferation. I am aware that some of those challenges are not isolated as there usually are implications that crossover into the realm of ethics but there are many more challenges that face cultured meat production than I have space to address. I will instead focus on the challenges directly relevant to ethical vegetarianism such as the use of animals in the production process.

Methods of cultured meat production generally include the use of embryonic or adult stem cells as the primary growth agent. Both types of stem cells have their respective practical (biological) obstacles when applied to cultured meat production, however, they do share a relevant ethical similarity, which is that they are animal derived stem cells (I will later revisit the relevance of this in relation to Singer). Furthermore, in order to allow these stem cells to proliferate and form substantial quantities of meat, they must be in the presence of other processual components such as culture media, growth factors and bioreactors.

Culture media might be considered the ‘food’ for cultured meat because it is where the stem cells will proliferate. Presently, cultured meat production generally utilises animal sera because (when compared to the alternatives) it is relatively straightforward to obtain and serves its purpose well as a conducive medium for stem cell proliferation. There are efforts to find cost effective animal-free media as they could prospectively reduce production costs and transferable disease risk, but as of now, the relative expenses of animal-free media are too strong of a disincentive for its widespread use. Therefore, although I am aware of alternative media possibilities, I will instead focus on animal-based culture media used for production.

Foetal bovine serum (FBS) is a commonly used animal serum because it is harvested from the foetus of pregnant cows at the time of (often commercial) slaughter.⁴ This is important because it means that cows are not directly slaughtered for FBS but counts as an animal by-product in the same way gelatine is. So it seems by that account, an ethical vegetarian should avoid cultured meat unless it is cultured in an animal-free medium. Even still, given the necessity of animal derived stem cells in any cultured meat production, it is further evidence against the case for cultured meat consumption. However, it is not so simple for an ethical vegetarian to reject cultured meat on these grounds alone as there are further implications that need to be examined when applying Singer’s theory.

The specific perspective that Singer has taken on animal ethics since the release of ‘Animal Liberation’ in 1975 has changed over time but nonetheless, Singer is generally well known to be an advocate of utilitarian ethics. I will address the different types of utilitarian perspectives he has taken later but for general understanding, utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory. This means the focus is on the consequences alone and that the moral rightness or wrongness of an action lies in the total weighing of ‘good’ against ‘bad’ (in whichever forms they may take) when the consequences are examined. If an act (at the time it is examined) produces consequences where the measured ‘good’ outweighs the ‘bad’ then the act would be considered morally right. A utilitarian, specifically, is morally obligated to act in order to maximise the measured ‘good’ for the greatest number and thereby minimising the measured ‘bad’. This then begs the question, what constitutes ‘good’ and ‘bad’?

Animal Liberation by Peter Singer

Although Singer is widely known as a preference utilitarian (which I will examine later), in ‘Animal Liberation’, his argument adopts a perspective that follows similarly from Jeremy Bentham’s hedonistic utilitarian view of moral ethics. That is, humans have the sensory capacity to experience pleasure and pain, and we are morally obligated to act in a way that maximises good in the form of pleasure and minimises bad in the form of pain for the greatest number of humans possible. Although Bentham briefly questions the importance in an animal’s ability to reason in relation to utility, Singer further develops this idea.⁵

Many people would hold the view that actualising the hedonistic interests of a human baby takes a higher priority than those of an adult cow. Why is this? Singer argues that any being who has hedonistic interests at all, should not have their interests undermined solely because of differences in anatomy, intelligence or rationality. Singer suggests that prejudices of this nature are arbitrary and serve only to benefit human interests and attempt to disregard inconvenient propositions such as animal interests. To Singer, prejudice against animals on the basis of them being structurally different to us could be paralleled to the way in which racism operates. In modern societies the idea that a black and white human should have unequal moral consideration because of their skin colour seems absurd and is usually publicly scrutinised. Thus according to Singer, a black and white human should have equal moral consideration not because of their skin colour but because they have the interest of maximising pleasure and minimising pain. Singer refers to this type of prejudice against animals as speciesism.⁶

To then extend this idea of equal moral consideration between humans and animals through the capacity to feel pleasure and pain, his argument takes an evolutionary approach. For example, we know that human experiences of physical pleasure and pain come primarily from the central nervous system (brain and spinal cord) and given that some animals with similar anatomical structures also exhibit behavioural similarities in response to relatable pleasure and pain stimuli (such as food and limb damage); then they must also experience physical pleasure and pain in a similar sense to humans. Therefore, according to Singer’s argument, this means that their interests should also have the equal moral consideration that we humans apply to ourselves.⁷

Australian moral philosopher, Peter Singer

Therefore in accordance to the principle of utility that Bentham proposed, Singer argues that (with equal moral consideration) if human interests of maximising pleasure and minimising pain constitutes the greater good, animal interests should also be included under the same criteria.

Singer noted that humans and animals have different types and intensities of hedonistic experience but that does not take away from the idea that they experience them entirely. He does suggest few animals who do not express many signs of hedonistic experience (because of primitive sensory awareness) would not have equal moral consideration of interests but he does not draw a concrete line as to which animals that threshold can be applied. This degree of uncertainty led Singer to take the stance of preference utilitarianism, one he suggested, also provides a universal applicability of ethics.⁸

Preference utilitarianism adds another layer of consideration to the moral ethics of what is right and wrong. Instead of hedonistic experiences, it accepts good and bad in the satisfaction and frustration of preferences. Similar to the evolutionary analogy for animal interests, Singer argues that preferences are also rooted in the evolution of reasoning in humans which is continuously expanding.⁹

Then, regarding the morality of cultured meat, Singer’s argument suggests that we should weigh up the good and bad of humans and animals in production and consumption. Intuitively this may seem like an appealing approach because the values of good and bad are strictly defined. The ethical vegetarian might stand to find a lot of good from this. For example, more animal preferences to avoid pain and fear from commercial slaughter will be satisfied if consumption of cultured meat successfully substituted traditional meat consumption. Therefore the ethical vegetarian could say that it is consistent to eat cultured meat if it reduces the total frustration of sentient being preferences. I think it would be a stretch to counter-argue that the goods lost from falls in traditional meat consumption outweigh the potential goods gained from rises in cultured meat consumption, at least from a hedonistic perspective. On the other hand, it is important that the bad from cultured meat consumption is also taken into the equation according to Singer’s argument, whether it stems from different secular areas such as economics, environment or welfare (unlike, perhaps, a rights-based ethical theorist).

Image credit: newfoodmagazine.com

The added complexity of preference utilitarianism might be detrimental to its potential ecological applicability if we compare it to the straightforward evaluation of hedonistic utilitarianism. Singer might argue that use of animal stem cells for food is not wrong on its own because stem cells have no preferences. What Singer would have to consider is the preferences of humans who would prefer that animal stem cells were not part of the production process. Furthermore it likely is against the preferences (in adult stem cells) of an animal to have its body invaded for stem cells. Singer addresses that most human preferences have more moral weight because the satisfaction or frustration of their preferences are generally tied to the awareness of the future thus producing more good or bad over time.¹⁰ I agree with this to an extent but I believe that, perhaps with more weighted universalisability, Singer sacrifices the realistic applicability of his ethics towards animal welfare because of the variability and inclusiveness of other factors (like the environment) it must take into account.¹¹ It seems impractical without some sort of clairvoyance that an average person could come even remotely close to accurately weighing up different preferences and implications of their actions, based on the preferences they affect.¹²

The loophole of preference utilitarianism in this case is that, if applied, we focus only on the consequences which means we cannot make conclusions according to a timeline of our preference. For example, imagine a world where cultured meat consumption thrives for the next four years and satisfies a large surplus of preferences, but on the fifth year, it directly causes the development of a super-bacteria that wipes out all human and animal life. In a scenario like this, cultured meat consumption in abundance would eventually end up preventing the satisfaction of many more preferences over time. Thus if we concluded that after four years in this scenario, eating cultured meat was morally right, Singer could then argue that it was (in retrospect) morally wrong because an immeasurable amount of human and animal preferences would have been satisfied in a world where cultured meat consumption had not thrived. Given the loss of life and potential future preferences that could have been satisfied (equal or not), an argument from that perspective would hold.

Henry Sidgwick

However, in recent years, Singer has developed his views following Henry Sidgwick’s universalistic hedonism.¹³ Sidgwick follows similarly to Bentham’s hedonistic approach but rather than seeing good and bad as merely pleasure and pain values to be measured, Sidgwick argues that pleasure and pain are not limited to sensory experiences. Instead, they can extend further as different forms of agreeable and disagreeable feelings, for example, the pleasure of philosophical engagement. The aim of maximising pleasure and minimising pain therefore creates intrinsically desirable states of consciousness which form the value of happiness.¹⁴

Preferences are somewhat states of consciousness, but it is clearly possible for a preference to be realised without being conscious of it. This means that even if there is no change of consciousness, preference utilitarianism suggests that would be some measurable good, whereas Sidgwick would reject that claim. For example, I might prefer something that is not objectively good for me, yet if the preference is satisfied, the preference utilitarian would weigh that as good. That seems to be an incoherent conclusion but that is what preference utilitarianism suggests, so I can understand why Singer has shifted his view away from it.

Still, the complexity in weighing what Singer suggests for the ethical vegetarian then comes to attention in our present world. Taking a hedonistic approach, if cultured meat consumption grows and reduces traditional meat consumption to the point where, in utilitarian terms, the bad from cultured meat consumption outweighed the bad from traditional meat consumption, then regardless of the good from cultured meat, it seems that ethical vegetarianism would have to resign to an equilibrium level of both types of meat consumption (where the bad of cultured meat does not exceed the bad of traditional meat) in order to minimise the further harming of animal life. The following images assume that cultured meat is widely enjoyed by people and its production becomes commercially viable, whilst maintaining the use of FBS. Furthermore, in light of the increased production and consumption of cultured meat, the following images assume a significant decrease in the production and consumption of traditional meat.

Breaking or maintaining this equilibrium would seem inconsistent with the principles of ethical vegetarianism, which should surely be aiming to expunge the harming of animals completely. Therefore, through the increase of cultured meat consumption, the progression of reducing traditional meat consumption would be consistent with ethical vegetarianism. However, this would only be a temporary solution for the underlying problem of using animals in food production, since this currently produces a significant amount of bad inevitably. In accordance to Singer’s argument, as long as the good from cultured meat consumption outweighed the bad, we would be morally obligated to continue that trend in order to maximise happiness.

Intuitively, the presented scenario does not sound bad at all. In fact, the good gained and bad avoided in the scenario described above, compared to the current state of commercial meat production would be astronomical. It could be argued that ethical vegetarianism is consistent with eating cultured meat because of the potential to increase good over bad. However, it seems to be a problem for Singer, who is a self-proclaimed ethical vegetarian but whose argument does not fully support it. As a utilitarian, the good surplus that would come from immediate rises in cultured meat consumption would sit well with Singer but as an ethical vegetarian, it would not be consistent to accept cultured meat as a permanent solution given the current reliance on FBS.

Image credit: thebottomline.as.ucsb.edu (llustration by Lynn Lu)

Singer might want to argue for the rejection of both traditional and cultured meat consumption, and advocate the research of plant based culture media to an extent (whilst considering the attached challenges). However, if he follows utilitarianism logically, as long as traditional meat consumption is ongoing and given the cultured meat alternative; he would have to support cultured meat over traditional meat consumption. This applies even when the bad from cultured meat consumption grows larger than the bad from traditional meat consumption, as long as the sum total of good from both types of consumption outweighs the sum of bad. Regardless, in its current state, cultured meat consumption in the long term seems to be inconsistent with the principles of ethical vegetarianism.

In conclusion, I have argued that ethical vegetarianism is not consistent with eating cultured meat when applying Singer’s theory. Singer’s preference utilitarianism has many obstacles (as he recognises) such as measuring all the preferences affected by factors not directly related to animal welfare. Following Sidgwick’s universalistic hedonism, Singer narrows down the scope of what he aims to measure but I believe I have shown a case where his utilitarian ethics contradicts the position of ethical vegetarianism. Importantly, this only applies when cultured meat production uses animal serum as a culture medium and considers meat eaters turning ethical vegetarian. However, I ultimately believe that ethical vegetarians should avoid cultured meat consumption given its current state.

Footnotes

1.‘Animal(s)’ will refer to non-human animals.
2. R.G. Frey, Rights, Killing, and Suffering: Moral Vegetarianism and Applied Ethics (Oxford: Basil Blackwell Publisher Limited, 1983), p.6-7.
3. BBC, World’s first lab-grown burger is eaten in London (2013). Available online: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23576143 [Accessed 6/10/2016.
4. C. E. Jochems The use of fetal bovine serum: ethical or scientific problem? (2002). Available online: http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?sid=3ed446ae-9fa7-41c6[Accessed 7/11/2016]
5. P. Singer, ‘Animal Liberation’, in R. Garner (ed.) Animal Rights: The Changing Debate (Basingstoke: Macmillan Press LTD, 1996). p.7-18.
6. A term he credits to Dr Richard Ryder.
7. P. Singer, Practical Ethics, 3rd edition (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 59-61.
8. ibid 11-15
9. P. Singer, The Expanding Circle: Ethics and Sociobiology (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981) 87-124.
10. Singer, Practical Ethics p.80
11. H.L. Tuomisto, M.J.T. Mattos, Environmental Impacts of Cultured Meat Production. (2011) Available Online: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es200130u [Accessed 7/11/2016].
12. J. Broome, Can There Be a Preference-Based Utilitarianism? (2010). Available Online: https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/CD77BC4A3498F027DA8CF7BDEC635144/9780511619595c9_p221-238_CBO.pdf/can-there-be-a-preference-based-utilitarianism.pdf [Access 7/11/2016].
13. M. Pigliucci, Rationally Speaking podcast: Peter Singer on Being a Utilitarian in the Real World (2013). Available Online: http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/rationally-speaking-podcast-peter.html [Accessed 7/11/2016].
14. K. Lazari-Radel & P. Singer, The Point of View of the Universe: Sidgwick and Contemporary Ethics [eBook] (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2014) 240-241.

Bibliography

• BBC, World’s first lab-grown burger is eaten in London 2013. Available online: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23576143 Accessed 6/10/2016
• Broome, J. Can There Be a Preference-Based Utilitarianism? 2010. Available Online: https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/CD77BC4A3498F027DA8CF7BDEC635144/9780511619595c9_p221-238_CBO.pdf/can-there-be-a-preference-based-utilitarianism.pdf Accessed 7/11/2016.
• Frey, R. G. Rights, Killing and Suffering: Moral Vegetarianism and Applied Ethics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Publisher Limited, 1983.
• Jochems, C. E. The use of fetal bovine serum: ethical or scientific problem? 2002. Available online: http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail sid=3ed446ae-9fa7-41c6-81fc-cd22e2ea70d8%40 Accessed 7/11/2016.
• Lazari-Radel, K. & P. Singer, The Point of View of the Universe: Sidgwick and Contemporary Ethics [eBook]. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.
• May, A. In vitro meat: protein for twelve billion? 2012. Available online:https://ourarchive.otago.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10523/4101/MayAdamSG2013MSciComm.pdf Accessed 7/11/2016.
• Pigliucci, M. Rationally Speaking podcast: Peter Singer on Being a Utilitarian in the Real World 2013. Available Online:http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/rationally-speaking-podcast-peter.html Accessed 7/11/2016.
• Singer, P. Practical Ethics, 3rd edition New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
• Singer, P.‘Animal Liberation’, in R. Garner (ed.) Animal Rights: The Changing Debate. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press LTD, 1996.
• Singer, P.The Expanding Circle: Ethics and Sociobiology. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981.
• Tuomisto, H.L. & M.J.T. Mattos, Environmental Impacts of Cultured Meat Production 2011. Available Online: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es200130u Accessed 7/11/2016.

For more interesting information:

• US Health Experts Call on Hospitals to Serve Vegan Food
• Vegetarian Foods with More Iron than Meat!
• Rabbis Urge Jews to Go Vegan in Global Campaign
• Vegan Blood is Eight Times More Protective Against Cancer
• Wonderful News from Moby!
• 7 Things That Happen When You Stop Eating Meat
• 4 Myths of Being A Vegetarian – DEBUNKED!
• Earthlings
• Dr Jiang’s DELICIOUS HEALTHY RECIPES/videos
• WORLD’S BIGGEST VEGAN GROCER!
• A Vegetarian Jesus?

Please support us so that we can continue to bring you more Dharma:

If you are in the United States, please note that your offerings and contributions are tax deductible. ~ the tsemrinpoche.com blog team