Abstract
Cellular agriculture has been considered a mechanism to enable the generation of animal protein in the laboratory. Notwithstanding, this emerging technology, still on an experimental scale, is imbued with speculations, paradoxes, and ambiguities. So, the objective of this research was to analyze how synthetic meat is considered in the scientific context from the perspective of cellular agriculture considering its trajectory and its approaches. For this, we used a systematic review of the literature with detailed analysis of 109 manuscripts and application of network analysis of co-citations and predominance. This paper has constructed a historical overview of the conceptual evolution of science concerning synthetic meat from its emergence to the present day. We also verified and categorized the research about synthetic meat into three distinct approaches: (1) environmental and health; (2) technical and economic feasibility of the production process; and (3) social and market. This research maximizes the understanding of synthetic meat and its stage of technological and economic development to make commercial production feasible. Aside from that, it has brought insights about synthetic meat and this knowledge can be used by the conventional meat industries.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Source: Developed from VOSviewer software
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Acevedo CA, Orellana N, Avarias K, Ortiz R, Benavente D, Prieto P (2018) Micropatterning technology to design an edible film for in vitro meat production. Food Bioprocess Technol 11:1267–1273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11947-018-2095-4
Alexander P, Brown C, Arneth A, Dias C, Finnigan J, Moran D, Rounsevell MDA (2017) Could consumption of insects, cultured meat or imitation meat reduce global agricultural land use? Glob Food Secur 15:22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2017.04.001
Bekker GA, Fischer ARH, Tobi H, Van Trijp HCM (2017a) Explicit and implicit attitude toward an emerging food technology: the case of cultured meat. Appetite 108:245–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.10.002
Bekker GA, Tobi H, Fischer ARH (2017b) Meet meat: an explorative study on meat and cultured met as seen by Chinese, Ethiopians and Dutch. Appetite 114:82–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.03.009
Bhat ZF, Bhat H (2011) Animal-free meat biofabrication. Am J Food Technol 6:441–459. https://doi.org/10.3923/ajft.2011.441.459
Bhat ZF, Fayaz H (2011) Prospectus of cultured meat: advancing meat alternatives. J Food Sci Technol 48:125–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-010-0198-7
Bhat ZF, Kumar S, Bhat HF (2015a) In vitro meat: a future animal-free harvest. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 57:782–789. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2014.924899
Bhat ZF, Kumar S, Fayaz H (2015b) In vitro meat production: challenges and benefits over conventional meat production. J Integr Agric 14:241–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60887-X
Borja R, Banks CJ, Wang ZJ (1994) Stability and performance of an anaerobic downflow filter treating slaughterhouse wastewater under transient changes in-process parameters. Biotechnol Appl Biochem 20:371–383
Carruth A (2013) Culturing food: bioart and in vitro meat. Parallax 19:88–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/13534645.2013.743296
Chauvet DJ (2018) Should cultured meat be refused in the name of animal dignity? Ethical Theory Moral Pract 21:287–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-018-9888-4
Chen HG, Zhang YHP (2015) New biorefineries and sustainable agriculture: increased food, biofuels, and ecosystem security. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 47:117–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.02.048
Chiles RM (2013) Interwined ambiguities: meat, in vitro meat, and the ideological construction of the marketplace. J Consum Behav 12:472–482. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1447
Cole M, Morgan K (2013) Engineering freedom? A critique of biotechnological routes to animal liberation. Configurations 21:201–229. https://doi.org/10.1353/con.2013.0015
Crossan MM, Apaydin M (2010) A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: a systematic review of the literature. J Manag Stud 47:1154–1191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00880.x
Datar I, Betti M (2010) Possibilities for an in vitro meat production system. Innov Food Sci Emerg Technol 11:13–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2009.10.007
De Groot AP (1974) Toxicologic control of new products (Dutch). TNO Project 2:274–279
Donaldson B (2016) In the blink of an eye: reimagining our futures of food. In: Donaldson B, Carter C (eds) The future of meat without animals. Rowman & Littlefield, London
Easterby-Smith BM, Thorpe R, Lowe A (2010) Management research: an introduction. Sage Publications, London
Enrione J, Blaker JJ, Brown DI, Weinstein-Oppenheimer CR, Peczynska M, Olguín Y, Sánchez E, Acevedo CA (2017) Edible scaffolds based on non-mammalian biopolymers for myoblast growth. Materials 10:1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma10121404
Exmoor Pharma Concepts (2008) Preliminary economics study: the in vitro meat consortium. Project 5:29071
FAO (2011) World livestock. Livestock in food security. Rome: FAO. http://www.fao.org/3/i2373e/i2373e.pdf. Accessed 12 Dec 2018
Ferrari A, Lösch A (2017) How smart grid meets in vitro meat: on visions as socio-epistemic practices. Nanoethics 11:75–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-017-0282-9
Fink AG (2005) Conducting research literature reviews, the internet to the paperback. Sage Publications, London
Fox JL (2009) Test tube meat on the menu? Nat Biotechnol 27:873. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1009-873
Galusky W (2014) Technology as responsibility: failure, food animals, and lab-grown meat. J Agric Environ Ethics 27:931–948. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-014-9508-9
Ginsberg A, Venkatraman N (1985) Contingency perspective of organizational strategy: a critical review of the empirical research. Acad Manag Rev 10:421–434. https://doi.org/10.2307/258125
Griffiths TL, Steyvers M (2004) Finding scientific topics. Proc Natl Acad Sci 101:5228–5235. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0307752101
Hocquette JF (2016) Is in vitro meat the solution for the future? Meat Sci 120:167–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.04.036
Hocquette A, Lambert C, Sinquin C, Peterolff L, Wagner Z, Bonny SPF, Lebert A, Hocquette JF (2015) Educated consumers don’t believe artificial meat is the solution to the problems with the meat industry. J Integr Agric 14:273–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60886-8
Hopkins PD (2015) Cultured meat in western media: the disproportionate coverage of vegetarian reactions, demographic realities, and implications for cultured meat marketing. J Integr Agric 14:264–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60883-2
Hopkins PD, Dacey A (2008) Vegetarian meat: could technology save animals and satisfy meat eaters? J Agric Environ Ethics 21:579–596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-008-9110-0
Hsieh YPC, Pearson AM, Magee WT (1980) Development of a synthetic meat flavor mixture by using surface response methodology. J Food Sci 45:1125–1130. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1980.tb06502.x
Jönsson E (2016) Benevolent technotopias and hitherto unimaginable meats: tracing the promises of in vitro meat. Soc Stud Sci 46:725–748. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312716658561
Kadim I, Mahgoub O, Baquir S, Faye B, Purchas R (2015) Cultured meat from muscle stem cells: a review of challenges and prospects. J Integr Agric 14:222–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60881-9
Kaiser M (2013) Precaution or prudent vigilance as guiding the path to global food security? In: Röcklinsberg H, Sandin P (eds) The ethics of consumption. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, pp 71–76
Kitchenham B, Charters S (2007) Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Technical Report, EBSE-2007-01: School of Computer Science and Mathematics, Keele University
Korom P (2019) A bibliometric visualization of the economics and sociology of wealth inequality: a world part. Scientometrics 1:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-03000-z
Laestadius LI (2015) Public perceptions of the ethics of in vitro meat: determining na appropriate course of action. J Agric Environ Ethics 28:991–1009. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9573-8
Laestadius LI, Caldwell MA (2015) Is the future of meat palatable/perceptions of in vitro meat as evidenced by online News comments. Public Health Nutr 18:2457–2467. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980015000622
Lee A (2018) Meat-ing demand: is in vitro meat a pragmatic, problematic, or paradoxical solution? Can J Women Law 30:1–41. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjwl.30.1.1
Marcu A, Gaspar R, Rutsaert P, Seibt B, Fletcher D, Verbeke W, Barnett J (2015) Analogies, metaphors, and wondering about the future: lay sense-making around synthetic. Public Underst Sci 24:547–562. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662514521106
Mattick CS (2018) Cellular agriculture: the coming revolution in food production. Bull At Sci 74:32–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2017.1413059
Mattick CS, Landis AE, Allemby BR (2015a) A case for systemic environmental analysis of cultured meat. J Integr Agric 14:240–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60885-6
Mattick CS, Landis AE, Allemby BR, Genovese NJ (2015b) Anticipatory life cycle analysis of in vitro biomass cultivation for cultured meat production in the United States. Environ Sci Technol 49:11941–11949. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b01614
Mccarney LJ (1975) Communication problems in the marketing of synthetic meats. Eur J Mark 9:188–197. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005067
Miller WM, Morrow CT (1975) Mechanical characterization of fibrous materials as related to meat analogs. J Texture Stud 6:473–487. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4603.1975.tb01422.x
Moritz MSM, Verbruggen SEL, Post MJ (2015) Alternatives for large-scale production of cultured beef: a review. J Integr Agric 14:208–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60889-3
O’Keefe L, Mclachlan C, Gough C, Mander S, Bows-Larkin A (2016) Consumer responses to a future UK food system. Br Food J 118:412–428. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-01-2015-0047
O’Riordan K, Fotopoulou A, Stephens N (2017) The first bite: imaginaries, promotional publics and the laboratory grown burger. Public Underst Sci 26:148–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516639001
Orzechowski A (2015) Artificial meat? Feasible approach based on the experience from cell culture studies. J Integr Agric 14:217–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60882-0
Philippon DJ (2018) Changing food cultures, changing global environments. Glob Environ 11:4–11. https://doi.org/10.3197/ge.2018.110101
Post MJ (2012) Cultured meat from stem cells: challenges and prospects. Meat Sci 92:297–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.04.008
Post MJ (2014) Cultured beef: medical technology to produce food. J Sci Food Agric 94:1039–1041. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.6474
Post MJ (2017) Proteins in cultured beef. In: Yeda RY (ed) Proteins in food processing. Woodhead publishing, London
Reddy SG, Henrockson RL, Olson HC (1970) The influence of lactic cultures on ground beef quality. J Food Sci 35:787–791. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1970.tb01995.x
Rekik R, Kallel I, Casillas J, Alimi AM (2018) Assessing web sites quality: a systematic literature review by text and association rules mining. Int J Inf Manag 38:201–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.06.007
Schroder DJ, Busta FF (1973) Effects of synthetic meat components on growth of Clostridium perfringens. J Milk Food Technol 36:189–193. https://doi.org/10.4315/0022-2747-36.4.189
Schuster E, Wallin P, Klose FP, Gold J, Ström A (2017) Correlating network structure with functional properties of capillary alginate gels for muscle fiber formation. Food Hydrocolloids 72:210–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2017.05.036
Shapiro P (2018) Clean meat: how growing meat without animals will revolutionize dinner and the world. Simon and Schuster, New York
Shriver A, Mcconnachie E (2018) Genetically modifying livestock for improved welfare: a path forward. J Agric Environ Ethics 31:161–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-018-9719-6
Slade P (2018) If you build it, will they eat it? Consumer preferences for plant-based and cultured meat burguers. Appetite 125:428–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.02.030
Specht EA, Welch DR, Clayton EMR, Lagally CD (2018) Opportunities for applying biomedical production and manufacturing methods to the development of the clean meat industry. Biochem Eng J 132:161–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2018.01.015
Stephens N, Silvio LD, Dunsford I, Ellis M, Glencross A, Sexton A (2018) Bringing cultured meat to market: technical, socio-political, and regulatory challenges in cellular agriculture. Trends Food Sci Technol 78:155–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2018.04.010
Sun ZC, Yu QL, Han L (2015) The environmental prospects of cultured meat in China. J Integr Agric 14:234–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60891-1
Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manag 14:207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375
Tuomisto HL, Mattos MJT (2011) Environmental impacts of cultured meat production. Environ Sci Technol 45:6117–6123. https://doi.org/10.1021/es200130u
Van Aken J (2001) Management research base don the paradigm of the design sciences: the quest for field-tested and grounded technological rules. Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven Centre for Innovation Studies, Eindhoven
Van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2010) Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 84:523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
Verbeke W, Marcu A, Rutsaert P, Gaspar R, Seibt B, Fletcher D, Barnett J (2015a) Would you eat cultured meat?: Consumers’ reactions and attitude formation in Belgium, Portugal and the United Kingdom. Meat Sci 02:49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014
Verbeke W, Sans P, Loo EJV (2015b) Challenges and prospects for consumer acceptance of cultured meat. J Integr Agric 14:285–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60884-4
Verbruggen S, Luining D, Van Essen A, Post MJ (2018) Bovine myoblast cell production in a microcarriers-based system. Cyotechnology 70:503–512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10616-017-0101-8
Weele CV (2013) Meat and the benefits of ambivalence. In: Röcklinsberg H, Sandin P (eds) The ethics of consumption. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, pp 290–295
Weele CV, Driessen C (2013) Emerging profiles for cultured meat: ethics through and as design. Animals 3:647–662. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani3030647
Winiwarter W, Leip A, Tuomisto HL, Haastrup PA (2014) European perspective of innovations towards mitigation of nitrogen-related greenhouse gases. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 9:37–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.07.006
Zwart H (2015) Tailed food and the Icarus Complex: psychoanalysing consumer discontent from Oyster Middens to Oryx and Crake. J Agric Environ Ethics 28:255–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9530-6
Acknowledgements
This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brasil (CAPES)—Finance Code 001. The financial support of CNPq (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development) is gratefully acknowledged.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization: AMF and ÂRLS. Project: AMF and ÂRLS. Methodology: AMF, ÂRLS and JPR. Analysis: AMF, OST and JPR. Supervision: ÂRLS, OST and JPR. Writing—preparation: AMF, ÂRLS, OST and JPR. Writing—review and editing: AMF, ÂRLS, OST and JPR.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fernandes, A.M., de Souza Teixeira, O., Palma Revillion, J.P. et al. Conceptual evolution and scientific approaches about synthetic meat. J Food Sci Technol 57, 1991–1999 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-019-04155-0
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-019-04155-0