Animal Activists: In Vitro Meat a Possibility in the Future? November 23, 2009

In the last year, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) started a competition offering 1 million dollars to the most authentic piece of chicken grown in vitro that scientists could offer. Since the start of the competition, scientists and ethicists alike have been in uproar regarding the production of such meat (see this article in the New York Times.) However, no group is more surprisingly divided than animal rights activists. Shortly after the announcement that PETA would start such a project, one PETA member stated that there was “a near civil war in our office” and that “we will have members leave us over this.”

One main reason for the divide is based on PETA’s founding principle, which says that animals are not ours to eat. In fact, some PETA members who do not support In Vitro Meat technology say that they would be more comfortable eating roadkill since the animals have already been killed, and not for the purpose of consumption.

On the other hand, other PETA members are quite supportive of PETA’s new competition, since there will be a significantly smaller number of animals suffering if the competition succeeds in highlighting the new technology as efficiently as they hope it will.

Clearly, animal activists are divided over the competition. What’s most surprising, however, is scientists take on the competition. Although many support In Vitro meat technology, lead researchers at Johns Hopkins University think that it will be nearly impossible for anyone to receive enough funding to complete the said task in such a short amount of time. So even without the support of PETA as a whole, it seems unlikely that such a project could even be feasibly completed.

Is it necessary to argue varying viewpoints in a competition that likely won’t succeed by 2012? I still say it is of the utmost importance. Without a doubt, major developments will be made in In Vitro Meat technology over the next 3 years (see this Time Magazine article!), even if the competition is not completed. That makes it critically important to understand why animal activists are still fighting such technology, since having the support of key groups like PETA is key in convincing the masses that In Vitro meat is a viable option to improve nutrition and taste, as well as helping to prevent animal cruelty.

So do animal activists have reason to be split over the million-dollar mince meat? And should PETA continue to support its competition? Comments are welcome.

Schwartz, John. PETA’s Latest Tactic: 1 Million for Fake Meat. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/us/21meat.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin

Siegelbaum, BJ. In Search of a Test Tube Hamburger. TIME Magazine. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1734630,00.html