Ari LeVaux, Alternet
November 2009
Factory farms use and pollute incredible amounts of water, degrading hundreds of rivers and killing millions of fish, and help create a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico the size of Massachusetts.
A philosophy paper recently published in Neuroethics presents the current
state of biotech research on the use of genetic engineering to eliminate
pain in animals.
Author Adam Shriver, a graduate student at Washington University in St.
Louis, argues that it's our moral obligation to use such technology to
reduce the suffering of animals on factory farms.
"If we can't do away with factory farming, we should at least take steps to
minimize the amount of suffering that is caused," he told New Scientist
recently.
Shriver, a vegetarian, says his personal preference would be that nobody eat
meat and that factory farms had no reason to exist. But given the demand for
meat, he assumes factory farms are here to stay and sees pain-free meat
(meat from animals genetically engineered to not feel pain) as a compromise
that would at least reduce the amount of suffering in the world.
Shriver isn't the only one in the ivory tower thinking about pain-free meat.
The problem with their argument, and the reason it's unlikely to advance
beyond an intellectual exercise, is that factory-farmed meat is problematic
in so many ways aside form suffering, and knocking out certain "pain genes"
would further encourage and enable a horrible practice.
When I was 5 years old, I wrote a letter to President Carter, asking him to
stop people from killing animals for meat. I probably wouldn't have felt so
strongly if my parents had said, "don't worry honey, the animals don't feel
pain."
By numbing animals, we'd be numbing ourselves to the ills of factory
farming, which we should be anything but numb to. Nearly one-fifth of global
carbon emissions come from factory farms -- more than the combined emissions
of the world's transport activities, including cars, planes, trucks, trains
and boats.
Factory farms use and pollute incredible amounts of water, degrading
hundreds of rivers and killing millions of fish, and help create a dead zone
in the Gulf of Mexico the size of Massachusetts.
Slaughterhouse suffering isn't limited to the animals that die there.
Uncomfortable and unhealthy working conditions, repetitive-stress injuries
and the occasional major trauma are the norm for slaughterhouse workers --
who are often exploited, undocumented and poorly paid immigrants whose
status helps keep them from unionizing for better conditions.
Those who eat factory-farm products can be victimized, too, by meat
contaminated with bacteria and pumped full of hormones and antibiotics.
Factory-meat victims also include the many people who go hungry because land
that could have been used to grow food for people is used to grow food for
animals. With the world's meat consumption expected to double in the next 40
years, such problems are likely to increase.
Few issues divide the human diet more than the eating of animal flesh. While
some argue that meat-eating played an integral part in the evolution of our
minds and bodies, others believe it's completely unnecessary -- and both
sides may have a point.
While Shriver's plan falls short of addressing all the problems associated
with factory farms, his assessment of the forces that create factory farms
is realistic. It probably is a given that cheap meat will be consumed. The
question remains: How will it be produced?
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has put its money on the
prospect of death-free, animal-free meat. The animal-rights group has a
standing offer of $1 million to the first person or company to come up with
a safe, affordable and commercially marketable process to create meat
without raising or killing animals.
PETA's interests are aligned with a growing network of scientists. The
In-Vitro Meat Consortium is an international alliance of environmentally
concerned scientists collaborating to facilitate the establishment of
large-scale carne-culture.
While the group has gained momentum and believers, the goal of lab-grown
meat that's affordable enough to compete with factory farms is still five to
10 years off, according to Jason Matheny of New Harvest, a U.S. nonprofit
that channels funding to animal-free meat research.
The science behind this young field is borrowed partly from medical research
into tissue regrowth. The idea is to take cells from tasty farm animals that
are stimulated and fed so they grow into edible masses of muscle meat that
vaguely resemble animal tissue -- perfect for nuggets or burgers.
New Harvest commissioned a recent Oxford University study to estimate the
environmental impact of lab-grown meat. The study found that replacing
factory farms with meat labs would create 80 percent fewer greenhouse-gas
emissions, use 90 percent less land and water, and be cost-comparable.
Many slow-food/small-farm types are calling foul at the prospect of further
distancing the eater from the source of his or her food. And they're right.
I personally wouldn't want to eat it. But while meat labs seem vaguely
disturbing, factory farms are completely disgusting.
Some argue that cultured meat is unnatural. But neither is it natural that
chickens are bred to grow so fast their legs snap under their own weight.
Nor is it natural when cattle are overbred to the point that they can't even
safely have sex and must rely on artificial insemination to procreate.
Some farmers and agriculture experts are convinced that small farms could
feed the world all the meat it needs. This may be so, depending on how we
define "need." If small farmers really think they can quench the world's
thirst for blood, they have a five- to 10-year window in which to make their
case.
One of the biggest obstacles to cultured meat is the development of a
suitable growth medium, which is a soup of salts, sugars, amino acids and
vitamins. Medical-tissue cultures use animal-derived sources, like blood,
but using animal fluids would defeat the purpose for meat production.
Matheny says the most promising source of growth media is algae, but making
the production process cost effective will take time.
If and when that time comes, and lab-grown meat begins filling the
processed-food troughs of the masses, the question becomes: Will the Oscar
Mayer wiener-eaters of the world even notice?
If not, and if it can be made safely, and if the environmental benefits turn
out to be true, I say let them eat from the meatri dish!
I won't be joining them, though, just as I don't join them at the troughs
where factory-farmed mystery meat is served.
Return to Environmental Articles