Scenarios for cellular agriculture

Cel­lu­lar agri­cul­ture—the pro­duc­tion of an­i­mal prod­ucts in cell cul­tures—has the po­ten­tial to mas­sively re­duce suffer­ing by re­plac­ing sys­tems of an­i­mal ex­ploita­tion. In this post I ex­plore differ­ent sce­nar­ios for the de­vel­op­ment of cel­lu­lar agri­cul­ture, and the im­pli­ca­tions for the effort to end fac­tory farm­ing and com­mer­cial fish­ing. (Hereafter I write “fac­tory farm­ing” for brevity, with­out for­get­ting the countless billions of wild sea crea­tures kil­led for food each year.)

Much of what I say also ap­plies to re­al­is­tic plant-based sub­sti­tutes, like those pro­duced by Beyond Meat. The differ­ence is that these seem eas­ier to achieve (Beyond Meat already has mass-mar­ket prod­ucts that are con­vinc­ing to at least some peo­ple), but less likely to re­place an­i­mal prod­ucts. The con­clu­sions are the same.

Through­out the ar­ti­cle I will re­fer to the Open Philan­thropy Pro­ject’s (Open Phil) De­cem­ber 2015 write-up on an­i­mal product al­ter­na­tives, which I strongly recom­mend read­ing in its en­tirety.

Summary

De­spite op­ti­mism in some cir­cles over cel­lu­lar agri­cul­ture, the path to cost-com­pet­i­tive cul­tured an­i­mal prod­ucts (CAPs) is hazy and the timeline dis­puted. In any case, cel­lu­lar agri­cul­ture alone can­not be re­lied on to end fac­tory farm­ing; there are se­ri­ous psy­cholog­i­cal and poli­ti­cal hur­dles in even the best-case sce­nar­ios for CAP tech­nol­ogy. More difficult still are the not-im­prob­a­ble sce­nar­ios in which cost-com­pet­i­tive CAPs ar­rive only on some mar­kets, or only for cer­tain kinds of an­i­mal product. Th­ese may leave fac­tory farm­ing largely in­tact even with com­plete sub­sti­tu­tion of CAPs for fac­tory farmed prod­ucts. The con­clu­sion is that an­i­mal ac­tivism re­mains es­sen­tial to re­duc­ing an­i­mal suffer­ing, and that the promise of cel­lu­lar agri­cul­ture should not count against fac­tory farm­ing in cause pri­ori­ti­za­tion.

Forecasts

An At­lantic ar­ti­cle—pub­lished Au­gust 6, 2013, the day af­ter the de­but of the first lab-grown burger13 - fea­tured this chart record­ing pre­dic­tions about in vitro meat made by sci­en­tists and jour­nal­ists. (The be­gin­ning of each hori­zon­tal bar is the pre­dic­tion date and the end is the date by which the event is pre­dicted to oc­cur. Some pre­dic­tions used the vague lan­guage “in a few years”—these were coded as “three years from now”.)14

Sev­eral pre­dic­tions about the timeline of cel­lu­lar agri­cul­ture have been made since 2013. In 2014 it was re­ported that the in vitro dairy com­pany Mu­ufri pre­dicted “most of us will be drink­ing ar­tifi­cial milk in 100 years”.15 In 2015 con­ver­sa­tions with Open Phil, lead­ing in vitro meat re­searcher Mark Post pre­dicted that cost-com­pet­i­tive cul­tured meat would ar­rive within 7-10 years, while “a sci­en­tist with 18 years ex­pe­rience in the tis­sue en­g­ineer­ing in­dus­try” said that “Without a ma­jor tech­nolog­i­cal break­through, it seems very un­likely that cost-com­pet­i­tive cul­tured meat will be available in the next 10-15 years.”12

Open Phil also re­ports three pre­dic­tions about the cost of in vitro meat (re­pro­duced from [12]):

Es­ti­mate by:

Cost of cul­tured meat (USD)

As­sumed man­u­fac­tur­ing volume

Year

Vandenburgh

$5M /​ kg

Small-scale pro­duc­tion in laboratories

2004

Exmoor

€3300 – 3500 /​ tonne (€3.3 – 3.5 /​ kg)

Scaled-up to large volume

2008

Van der Weele and Tramper

€391 /​ kg as­sum­ing typ­i­cal me­dia cost of €50,000 /​ m³. One es­ti­mate of the low­est pos­si­ble cost of me­dia is €1,000 per m³, but we do not know what this es­ti­mate is based on. Plug­ging this as­sump­tion into Van der Weele’s model would im­ply that €8 of me­dia is needed for 1 kg of meat

Scaled-up to large volume

2014

(In a 2015 in­ter­view, Mark Post es­ti­mated the price of pro­duc­ing an in vitro ham­burger at less than $1218 - down from $325,000 in 201313 - but it isn’t clear what this figure is based on.)

In con­sid­er­ing the like­li­hood of cost-com­pet­i­tive cel­lu­lar agri­cul­ture, Open Phil dis­cusses two (rel­a­tively) similar cases: tis­sue en­g­ineer­ing com­pany Organo­gen­e­sis, which used a pro­cess with cer­tain similar­i­ties to meat cul­ture to cre­ate wound care skin grafts, and syn­thetic biofuel com­pany Amyris. On the ba­sis of these com­pa­nies’ failures to achieve mass-mar­ket costs, along with a “holis­tic as­sess­ment of the challenges in­volved in re­duc­ing the cost of cul­tured meat, [and] dis­cus­sion with sci­en­tists who have ex­pe­rience with cell cul­tures and tis­sue en­g­ineer­ing”, Open Phil con­cludes that they re­gard “de­vel­op­ing cost-com­pet­i­tive cul­tured meat prod­ucts as ex­tremely challeng­ing, and we have been un­able to find any con­crete paths for­ward that seem likely to achieve that goal.”12

I am not in a po­si­tion to offer my own fore­casts, and in such un­cer­tain do­mains I fa­vor strate­gies which are ro­bust to a va­ri­ety of out­comes over those which try to an­ti­ci­pate what will hap­pen. (See this post on the ad­van­tages of sce­nario plan­ning over fore­casts in AI progress, an­other un­cer­tain do­main un­fold­ing over similar time hori­zons.) Nev­er­the­less, I think these di­ver­gent opinions serve as ev­i­dence against the in­evita­bil­ity of mass-mar­ket cel­lu­lar agri­cul­ture, es­pe­cially in the next few decades.

Sce­nar­ios for 2050

In this sec­tion I con­sider sev­eral sce­nar­ios for the state of cel­lu­lar agri­cul­ture wor­ld­wide in 2050. The year is cho­sen some­what ar­bi­trar­ily, but seems rea­son­able since 1) it is in the not-too-dis­tant fu­ture and 2) pre­dic­tions in the pre­vi­ous sec­tion have cost-com­pet­i­tive CAPs ar­riv­ing by 2035, which leaves 15 years for the re­al­iza­tion of the var­i­ous pos­si­bil­ities.

  • Cost-com­pet­i­tive ver­sions of all an­i­mal prod­ucts available wor­ld­wide

  • Cost-com­pet­i­tive cul­tured ver­sions available for some products

  • No cost-com­pet­i­tive cel­lu­lar agri­cul­ture

All an­i­mal prod­ucts have cost-com­pet­i­tive, cru­elty-free in vitro ver­sions on the market

In the best-case sce­nario, ev­ery type of (sen­tient) an­i­mal product now con­sumed—ev­ery kind of flesh, dairy, eggs, col­la­gen, leather, fur, silk, honey, etc. - has a cost-com­pet­i­tive ex­act sub­sti­tute available wor­ld­wide, and these sub­sti­tutes re­quire no harm to an­i­mals*. (In vitro meat cur­rently re­quires fe­tal bov­ine serum, which is ex­tracted from the heart of an un­born calf1. Even a sce­nario in which cru­elty-free meth­ods were not available would be a sub­stan­tial im­prove­ment, given that vastly fewer an­i­mals would be nec­es­sary to meet an­i­mal product de­mand2, but may still in­volve some an­i­mals kept in fac­tory farm-like con­di­tions sub­jected to painful pro­ce­dures.) Not only does this di­rectly cause re­duc­tions in suffer­ing as peo­ple switch from in vivo to in vitro an­i­mal prod­ucts, it places the an­i­mal rights move­ment in a much stronger po­si­tion to ar­gue for le­gal bans on an­i­mal ex­ploita­tion, as it be­comes less ten­able to re­gard an­i­mal ex­ploita­tion as “nec­es­sary” (I use scare quotes be­cause an­i­mal ex­ploita­tion is, of course, already un­nec­es­sary in the great ma­jor­ity of cases).

Push­ing for le­gal bans will be cru­cial, since we can­not count on de­mand alone to dis­pense with fac­tory farm­ing. First, some an­i­mal prod­ucts in­volv­ing hor­rific cru­elty already have con­vinc­ing sub­sti­tutes—faux fur, for in­stancebut re­main on the mar­ket. Se­cond, grow­ing con­cern over ge­net­i­cally mod­ified or­ganisms and a trend to­ward “nat­u­ral” eat­ing sug­gests that a sig­nifi­cant pro­por­tion of con­sumers are likely to be op­posed to ar­tifi­cial meat on the grounds of its un­nat­u­ral­ness. Lastly, the few opinion polls con­ducted on the sub­ject re­veal a wide­spread aver­sion to ar­tifi­cial meat**:

  • 2014 Pew Sur­vey: 78% of Amer­i­cans say they would not “eat meat grown in a lab”3

  • 2012 YouGov sur­vey: 62% of Bri­tish say they “prob­a­bly would not eat” ar­tifi­cial meat4

  • 2005 EU sur­vey: 54% of Euro­peans would “never” ap­prove of ar­tifi­cial meat5

Now, it is en­tirely pos­si­ble that dis­ap­proval of cul­tured meat will abate. In vitro fer­til­iza­tion is one ex­am­ple of an ac­cepted prac­tice which was once op­posed by a sig­nifi­cant frac­tion of the pop­u­la­tion due to its “un­nat­u­ral­ness”, though ac­cord­ing to a Gal­lup poll taken in 1978the year the first “test-tube baby” was bornonly 28% op­posed IVF, much lower than the num­bers op­posed to in vitro meat21. But the tran­si­tion from dis­taste to ac­cep­tance is by no means as­sured: for in­stance, GMO op­po­si­tion seems to be gain­ing in pop­u­lar­ity, with grow­ing de­mand for non-GMO foods22 and ma­jor food com­pa­nies get­ting rid of GMO in­gre­di­ents23 and la­bel­ing GMO-con­tain­ing prod­ucts24.

I get the im­pres­sion that many EAs be­lieve the to­tal re­place­ment of fac­tory farm­ing by cel­lu­lar agri­cul­ture is in­evitable. But hu­mans have long in­flicted ex­treme suffer­ing on an­i­mals for ut­terly triv­ial rea­sons. I worry that ab­nor­mally ra­tio­nal and al­tru­is­tic peo­ple may un­der­es­ti­mate the per­sis­tence of an­i­mal product de­mand even when eth­i­cal sub­sti­tutes re­quire the tiniest psy­cholog­i­cal bur­den (vague dis­com­fort, change of rou­tine, etc.). En­vi­ron­men­tal pro­tec­tion, biose­cu­rity, and healthall of which may be im­proved by cel­lu­lar agri­cul­tureap­pear to be similarly in­suffi­cient mo­ti­va­tors.

As­sum­ing wor­ld­wide availa­bil­ity, it is un­clear which coun­tries will be most and least re­sis­tant to CAPs. Western coun­tries (es­pe­cially Europe), along with a few non-Western coun­tries like Is­rael, have the high­est lev­els of con­cern for an­i­mal welfare and rights. But, as we have seen, Western­ers have already ex­pressed con­sid­er­able re­luc­tance to eat cul­tured meat. In China, whose an­i­mal product con­sump­tion and pro­duc­tion is mas­sive and grow­ing6,7,8, there is both lit­tle con­cern for an­i­mals9,10 and ex­ten­sive op­po­si­tion to GMOs11. This is quite dis­turb­ing if at­ti­tudes to­ward GMOs pre­dict ac­cep­tance of cel­lu­lar agri­cul­ture.

What would an an­i­mal rights move­ment look like un­der this sce­nario? Given that we can’t ex­pect the mar­ket to drive out an­i­mal ex­ploita­tion on its own, the move­ment should be em­bold­ened rather than con­tented. More peo­ple are likely to sym­pa­thize with an­i­mal rights, as the pos­si­bil­ity of us­ing CAPs can elimi­nate the cog­ni­tive dis­so­nance be­tween con­cern for an­i­mals and par­ti­ci­pa­tion in their tor­ture. With cost-com­pet­i­tive an­i­mal product re­place­ments available to the pub­lic, gov­ern­ments are more likely to con­sider ma­jor re­forms like an­i­mal per­son­hood and bans on en­tire in­dus­tries.

But as with eco­nomics, there is no guaran­tee that poli­tics will bring an end to fac­tory farm­ing. First, even a freshly em­pow­ered an­i­mal rights move­ment may be un­able to make the end of an­i­mal ex­ploita­tion a salient poli­ti­cal is­sue. Not only do many peo­ple be­lieve that an­i­mal suffer­ing should not be both­ered with un­til hu­man prob­lems are solved, many are sim­ply in­differ­ent to the suffer­ing of an­i­mals and would be un­con­cerned with end­ing an­i­mal ex­ploita­tion even if cel­lu­lar agri­cul­ture ren­dered it “un­nec­es­sary”. Se­cond, bans on an­i­mal ex­ploita­tion will still re­quire fight­ing the ex­tremely pow­er­ful agri­cul­tural in­dus­try (as­sum­ing the large part of the an­i­mal agri­cul­ture in­dus­try does not switch to cel­lu­lar agri­cul­ture). If cel­lu­lar agri­cul­ture poses a se­ri­ous threat to con­ven­tional agri­cul­ture, we can ex­pect the wealthy an­i­mal product in­dus­try to pour re­sources into me­dia cam­paigns at­tempt­ing to dis­credit “fake”, “un­nat­u­ral” CAPs and into lob­by­ing efforts to pre­vent the re­forms sought by an­i­mal rights ac­tivists.

In sum­mary, the abo­li­tion of fac­tory farm­ing is rife with challenges in even the most op­ti­mistic sce­nario for cel­lu­lar agri­cul­ture. The an­i­mal rights move­ment will have con­sid­er­ably more lev­er­age, but will still face the formidable ob­sta­cles of dis­taste, ap­a­thy, and the be­he­moth of the an­i­mal ex­ploita­tion lobby. Win­ning this fight in a sin­gle coun­try will be difficult enough. Win­ning in dozens of coun­tries is far from in­evitable, cel­lu­lar agri­cul­ture or not.

Cost-com­pet­i­tive cel­lu­lar agri­cul­ture for only cer­tain prod­ucts

In this sce­nario, we achieve mass-mar­ket cul­tured re­place­ments for only cer­tain types of an­i­mal prod­ucts. Ac­cord­ing to Open Phil’s ar­ti­cle on an­i­mal product re­place­ments, cul­tured egg whites may be sig­nifi­cantly eas­ier to pro­duce than cul­tured ground meat, which in turn may be eas­ier than slab meatlarge pieces of mus­cle tis­sue, in­clud­ing chicken breasts and fish filets. More­over, chicken and fish, which con­sti­tute the vast ma­jor­ity of an­i­mals kil­led for food, ap­pear to be a ne­glected area of in vitro meat re­search rel­a­tive to their num­bers. Is­rael’s Modern Agri­cul­ture Foun­da­tion and a new pro­ject at NC State27 are the only groups I have been able to find work­ing on cul­tured chicken, and be­sides Mark Post’s men­tion of a “team in Queensland, Aus­tralia” in his con­ver­sa­tion with Open Phil I have seen no ac­tive pro­jects on cul­tured fish12. It is not im­plau­si­ble, then, that we will see in­definite lags be­tween the ar­rival of differ­ent CAPs to the mass mar­ket.

Con­sider a sce­nario in which re­searchers have de­vel­oped a num­ber of in vitro an­i­mal prod­ucts but are un­able to de­velop slab chicken meat. In this case, even the com­plete re­place­ment of farm an­i­mal prod­ucts with available cul­tured prod­ucts leaves tens of billions of chick­ens sub­jected to ex­treme suffer­ing each year.

Cul­tured re­place­ments for differ­ent types of an­i­mal food prod­ucts would lead to some re­duc­tion in chicken suffer­ing, as a por­tion of con­sumers would re­place some or all of their chicken flesh with cul­tured meat. If cul­tured meat is cheaper than farmed an­i­mal flesh, sub­sti­tu­tion may drive sig­nifi­cant re­duc­tions in the num­ber of chick­ens farmed for food. But to­day there is still high de­mand for ex­pen­sive meats even when com­par­a­tively cheap ones are available (for ex­am­ple, ac­cord­ing to 2010 USDA es­ti­mates, the cross-price elas­tic­ity of chicken with re­spect to beef was 0.02; wrt pork, 0.31; and wrt fish, 0.23, in­di­cat­ing only weak to mod­er­ate sub­sti­tu­tion be­tween meats17). So even in the op­ti­mistic case that cul­tured meats be­come cheaper than their fac­tory-farmed coun­ter­parts, we can ex­pect fac­tory farm­ing to per­sist.

If cul­tured meat is at least as ex­pen­sive as farmed an­i­mal meat, it is doubt­ful that a sub­stan­tial frac­tion of con­sumers would sub­sti­tute, given the cur­rent un­will­ing­ness to re­place an­i­mal prod­ucts with similar ve­gan sub­sti­tutes. (Granted, for the typ­i­cal con­sumer the similar­ity be­tween chicken and pig is prob­a­bly greater than that be­tween e.g. cow’s milk and soy milk, so there is rea­son to think sub­sti­tu­tion be­tween meats would be some­what more com­mon.) With the availa­bil­ity of some cul­tured meats, an­i­mal rights ac­tivists would be in a bet­ter po­si­tion to ar­gue that farm­ing chick­ens is “un­nec­es­sary”, but again this seems un­likely to sway a crit­i­cal mass of the pop­u­la­tion given that many would be un­will­ing to ac­cept sub­sti­tutes for chicken flesh.

No cost-com­pet­i­tive cel­lu­lar agriculture

In this sce­nario, cost-com­pet­i­tive CAPs are never achieved. Such prod­ucts may ap­pear in spe­cialty stores or restau­rants, but re­main too ex­pen­sive to re­place con­ven­tional an­i­mal prod­ucts in large num­bers. An­i­mal rights ac­tivists must con­tinue to fight the ex­tremely difficult bat­tle of abol­ish­ing mas­sive an­i­mal ex­ploita­tion while no ex­act sub­sti­tutes for an­i­mal prod­ucts ex­ist.

Implications

An­i­mal Activism

To end mas­sive an­i­mal suffer­ing at the hands of hu­mans, we will need a ro­bust an­i­mal rights move­ment un­der any sce­nario for cel­lu­lar agri­cul­ture tech­nol­ogy, even the most op­ti­mistic. We can­not ex­pect de­mand alone to drive the aban­don­ment of fac­tory farm­ing.

This means that an­i­mal ac­tivists who are san­guine about the prospects for cel­lu­lar agri­cul­ture must not get com­pla­cent. Even if we are highly con­fi­dent about the wor­ld­wide availa­bil­ity of cost-com­pet­i­tive cel­lu­lar agri­cul­ture, we must build as much mo­men­tum as pos­si­ble now to be able to cap­i­tal­ize on what­ever poli­ti­cal and psy­cholog­i­cal lev­er­age is gen­er­ated by these de­vel­op­ments. Mass-mar­ket CAPs will only be the be­gin­ning of a se­ri­ous wor­ld­wide an­i­mal liber­a­tion move­ment.

What do the differ­ent pos­si­bil­ities im­ply for welfarism ver­sus abo­li­tion? In an­other post I ar­gued that given the great un­cer­tainty as to which meth­ods are most effec­tive in a par­tic­u­lar time or place, an­i­mal ac­tivists should cul­ti­vate a di­verse port­fo­lio of ap­proaches to re­duc­ing an­i­mal suffer­ing. This un­cer­tainty is only com­pounded by un­cer­tainty over the fu­ture of cel­lu­lar agri­cul­tureand which meth­ods will be most effec­tive un­der the var­i­ous sce­nar­iosso I be­lieve that di­ver­sity re­mains the best struc­ture for an­i­mal ac­tivism. (This does not mean the mix of strate­gies which con­sti­tutes an­i­mal ac­tivism at pre­sent is op­ti­mal. For in­stance, the non-neg­ligible pos­si­bil­ity of cost-com­pet­i­tive cel­lu­lar agri­cul­ture may im­ply the need for a greater bal­ance of liber­a­tionist mes­sag­ing, as this kind of ap­proach will be strength­ened if CAPs are available to re­place fac­tory farm­ing.)

Funding

As ap­proaches to re­duc­ing an­i­mal suffer­ing, cel­lu­lar agri­cul­ture and an­i­mal ac­tivism com­pete to some ex­tent for fund­ing. There is some rea­son to be­lieve over­lap in po­ten­tial fun­ders is not too great, since ma­jor in­vestors in cel­lu­lar agri­cul­ture will in­clude ven­ture cap­i­tal­ists (like New Crop Cap­i­tal, which will in­vest $25 mil­lion over 5 years in an­i­mal product re­place­ment firms in­clud­ing CAP com­pa­nies Mem­phis Meats and Gelzen19) and gov­ern­ment agen­cies (like the Dutch Sen­terNovem which funded cul­tured meat re­search from 2005-0920) that wouldn’t oth­er­wise in­vest in an­i­mal ac­tivism.

Nev­er­the­less, many al­tru­ists will find them­selves de­cid­ing be­tween dona­tions to cel­lu­lar agri­cul­ture re­search and to an­i­mal ac­tivist groups. An­i­mal ac­tivism will be vi­tal to re­duc­ing an­i­mal suffer­ing what­ever the availa­bil­ity of CAPs. This means that the rel­a­tive value of dona­tions to cel­lu­lar agri­cul­ture re­search and an­i­mal ac­tivism at any given point will largely be con­strained by how promis­ing cel­lu­lar agri­cul­ture ap­pears at the time, and its need for fund­ing.

Cause Prioritization

EAs who do not pri­ori­tize fac­tory farm­ing on the grounds that it will in­evitably be solved by cel­lu­lar agri­cul­ture should re­con­sider. Even if cost-com­pet­i­tive CAPs are as likely as they be­lieve (and they may be over­con­fi­dent; see the Fore­cast­ing sec­tion), they are prob­a­bly in­suffi­cient to end fac­tory farm­ing. An­i­mal rights move­ments through­out the world will need tal­ent and fund­ing to trans­late their new strength into ma­jor re­duc­tions in suffer­ing. (In fact, the value of work­ing to end fac­tory farm­ing ar­guably in­creases with one’s con­fi­dence in mass-mar­ket cel­lu­lar agri­cul­ture, since cel­lu­lar agri­cul­ture will not end fac­tory farm­ing alone but can make cam­paign­ing to end fac­tory farm­ing far more tractable.)

__

My views on this topic have been shaped my re­search on an­i­mal welfare/​rights in differ­ent coun­tries and through­out time (e.g. An­i­mal welfare and rights in In­dia, Timeline of an­i­mal welfare and rights), on the his­tory of cel­lu­lar agri­cul­ture, and on so­cial move­ments other than an­i­mal ac­tivism (fairly brief).

Thank you to Buck Sh­legeris, Carl Shul­man, Claire Za­bel, Jacy Reese, Michael Dello-la­covo, Michael Dick­ens, and Vipul Naik for their feed­back on this post. Thanks to Vipul Naik for fund­ing my work on this post (the views ex­pressed are mine).

Notes

*Some ar­gue that the best case sce­nario for an­i­mal farm­ing is in­stead that in which we still have farm an­i­mals, but they lead lives worth liv­ing. It is not clear where cel­lu­lar agri­cul­ture fits in this pic­ture. In any case, I hope you will agree that cost-com­pet­i­tive, cru­elty-free cel­lu­lar agri­cul­ture is at least a lo­cally op­ti­mal out­come.
**Less rigor­ous polls have found more sup­port. In a sur­vey con­ducted by The Ve­gan Op­tion blog, 28% of om­nivores an­swered “No” to “Would you eat lab meat?” and 36% an­swered “Maybe/​I’m not sure”25. In a poll on Sam Har­ris’ Twit­ter, only 17% said they would not switch to cul­tured meat26.

Sources

  1. https://​​www.the­guardian.com/​​busi­ness/​​2015/​​sep/​​05/​​meat-with­out-mur­der-mod­ern-meadow

  2. http://​​www.ny­times.com/​​2013/​​05/​​14/​​sci­ence/​​en­g­ineer­ing-the-325000-in-vitro-burger.html?_r=0

  3. http://​​www.pewin­ter­net.org/​​2014/​​04/​​17/​​us-views-of-tech­nol­ogy-and-the-fu­ture/​​

  4. https://​​yougov.co.uk/​​news/​​2013/​​08/​​05/​​no-de­mand-fake-meat/​​

  5. http://​​www.huffing­ton­post.co.uk/​​jas­mijn-de-boo/​​lab-grown-meat_b_3730367.html

  6. https://​​pub­licpolicy.whar­ton.upenn.edu/​​live/​​news/​​644-chi­nas-as­tound­ing-ap­petite-for-pork-re­cent-trends

  7. http://​​www.economist.com/​​blogs/​​dai­ly­chart/​​2011/​​07/​​global-live­stock-counts

  8. http://​​www.earth-policy.org/​​data_high­lights/​​2013/​​high­lights39

  9. http://​​www.forbes.com/​​sites/​​michael­to­bias/​​2012/​​11/​​02/​​an­i­mal-rights-in-china/​​#4e496a7c1ccf

  10. http://​​api.wor­l­dan­i­malpro­tec­tion.org/​​coun­try/​​china

  11. http://​​www.newyorker.com/​​tech/​​el­e­ments/​​can-the-chi­nese-gov­ern­ment-get-its-peo­ple-to-like-g-m-o-s

  12. http://​​www.givewell.org/​​labs/​​causes/​​an­i­mal-product-al­ter­na­tives

  13. http://​​www.ny­times.com/​​2013/​​08/​​06/​​sci­ence/​​a-lab-grown-burger-gets-a-taste-test.html?_r=0

  14. http://​​www.the­at­lantic.com/​​tech­nol­ogy/​​archive/​​2013/​​08/​​chart-when-will-we-eat-ham­burg­ers-grown-in-test-tubes/​​278405/​​

  15. http://​​www.takepart.com/​​ar­ti­cle/​​2014/​​07/​​05/​​who-needs-cows-when-you-can-make-milk-labm

  16. http://​​www.sci­enceal­ert.com/​​lab-grown-burger-patty-cost-drops-from-325-000-to-12

  17. http://​​www.ers.usda.gov/​​me­dia/​​875267/​​err139.pdf

  18. http://​​www.abc.net.au/​​am/​​con­tent/​​2015/​​s4205857.htm

  19. https://​​agfun­dernews.com/​​new-crop-cap­i­tal-closes-25m-fund-in­vests-in-be­yond-meat5547.html

  20. http://​​www.new-har­vest.org/​​mark_post_cul­tured_beef

  21. http://​​www.gal­lup.com/​​poll/​​8983/​​gal­lup-brain-birth-vitro-fer­til­iza­tion.aspx

  22. http://​​www.us­ato­day.com/​​story/​​money/​​2016/​​05/​​18/​​gmo-re­port-not-likely-to-change-minds-over-gmo-con­cern/​​84501686/​​

  23. http://​​www.npr.org/​​sec­tions/​​the­salt/​​2014/​​07/​​22/​​333725880/​​some-food-pro­duc­ers-are-quietly-dump­ing-gmo-in­gre­di­ents

  24. http://​​www.foxbusi­ness.com/​​fea­tures/​​2016/​​03/​​30/​​why-ma­jor-food-com­pa­nies-are-la­bel­ing-gmos-now.html

  25. http://​​theveg­anop­tion.org/​​2012/​​05/​​16/​​lab-meat-sur­vey-re­sults/​​

  26. https://​​twit­ter.com/​​samhar­ri­sorg/​​sta­tus/​​694260826820087808

  27. http://​​www.new-har­vest.org/​​new_har­vest_funds_fun­da­men­tal_re­search_for_the_pro­duc­tion_of_cul­tured_chicken_meat