Whereas lab-grown meat is a staple chow in science fiction, researchers are working hard to make it a commercially viable product. Whereas there are various controversial features to lab grown meat, one matter of dispute is whether or not it’s meat.
As lab-grown meat startups arose, the meat business rushed to argue that lab-grown meat should not be labeled as meat. Curiously, authorized definitions of meals sorts don’t must correspond to methods chemists or nutritionists would outline them. For instance, since excessive fructose corn syrup has a nasty status amongst customers, the business tried to get the title modified to “corn sugar.” To the chemist and nutritionist, excessive fructose corn syrup is a sugar; however the sugar industry rejects this definition—they presumably see a monetary benefit in preventing this authorized label. Whereas the authorized wrangling over how meals needs to be categorized may be fascinating, it doesn’t remedy the issue of, metaphysically, what it’s to be meat. It’s because the authorized reply is simple and apparent: it’s regardless of the regulation says, and this want haven’t any rational basis in any respect. My concern, as a thinker, is with the problem of whether or not lab-grown meat is actual meat.
Whereas philosophers are sometimes accused of missing widespread sense, some philosophers suppose that is the place philosophy ought to start. That’s, when making an attempt to outline what one thing is, a superb place to begin is the place we already are when it comes to widespread sense. J.S. Mill took this strategy in his dialogue of poetry, electing to start out with the commonly accepted view of poetry and dealing from there. This appears to be a smart strategy and can be utilized to the matter of meat.
The common sense definition of “meat” is that it’s the edible flesh of an animal, mostly the muscle tissue. Whereas individuals do consult with the kernel of a nut as “nut meat”, widespread sense divides this form of meat from animal meats. For example, a vegan won’t say, “I don’t eat coconut as a result of that’s meat.” However a vegan would refuse to eat a turkey leg—as a result of that’s the meat they don’t eat. As such, I’ll follow animal-based meats and ignore the opposite makes use of of the time period “meat.” This does imply that I’m rejecting all plant-based meats. They aren’t, on the face of it, actual meat.
On the face of it, artificial meat wouldn’t appear to satisfy the commonsense definition. It isn’t reduce from an animal since it’s grown in a vat (or no matter). Thus, it might fail to be meat. On this view, it’s the origin of the meat that defines it as meat. At this level, one might increase a bizarre sci-fi state of affairs: what if scientists created an animal whose physique additionally included vegetable matter, reminiscent of potatoes rising as a part of a genetically modified cow? The potatoes could be a part of the animal, however they’d not appear to be meat. As such, the composition of the fabric additionally issues and to be meat one thing should have the precise composition (sometimes muscle tissue). On this view, composition could be a essential situation for being meat (so cow-potatoes wouldn’t be meat). However composition wouldn’t be a adequate situation. On this view, artificial meat that was not reduce from an animal wouldn’t be meat. Whereas this fast and simple answer is interesting, it doesn’t appear to be the ultimate phrase.
Suppose {that a} reduce of muscle groups cells is taken from a cow. This is able to clearly be a steak. Now suppose these meat cells had been cultivated in a lab and grown into a large slab. These cells originated from steak and are the identical. As such, it might appear to be onerous to assert the slab just isn’t meat. To us an analogy, if somebody took a plant reducing and grew a slab of the plant cells within the lab, it might appear simple that the slab could be plant. The identical must also apply to meat.
There are two replies to this analogy. One is to argue that crops lack the individuality of animals and therefore plant materials works in a different way from meat. If potato was grown as a slab within the lab, it might nonetheless be potato. However meat should come from a person animal, or it isn’t meat. The second reply is that the “plant” slab just isn’t plant (to make use of “plant” like “meat”) since it isn’t coming from a plant. A slab grown from potato cells just isn’t a potato plant and therefore just isn’t plant.
The counter to those replies is to deal with the query of what the discernible distinction could be between the slabs and the crops and animals. Clearly sufficient, them within the lab could be a useless giveaway, however that may be an unfair comparability. In any case, a dwelling cow doesn’t seem like a steak. A good comparability could be to place a steak reduce from a cow in opposition to an artificial steak in a collection of checks. Some would relate to meals, reminiscent of style testing. Some could be chemical and genetic, to see what the fabric is. Naturally, the checks must keep away from being rigged. So, a take a look at that was aimed solely at telling if the meat was grown in an animal could be an instance of a rigged take a look at. If artificial meat handed these take a look at (it tastes like meat, has the feel of meat, appears like meat, has the amino acids of meat and so forth), then it might be onerous to disclaim that it’s meat.
Thus far, I’ve solely been discussing artificial meat that may hint its origin again to non-controversial meat. However there’s additionally the issue of utterly artificial meat. That is meat that’s utterly artificial and has no causal chain linking it again to an precise animal. Within the ideally suited, it might be chemically engineered protein that duplicates the qualities of meat. To make use of a science fiction instance, consider the replicator from Star Trek. This fictional machine might create an ideal steak by assembling it from uncooked supplies, no cow concerned. Except somebody insists that an animal should die (or no less than be reduce) for meat to be meat, it might be tough to argue that replicator meat or correctly engineered protein wouldn’t be meat. In any case, except one knew that it didn’t come from an animal, it might move all of the empirical checks for being meat.
This does level to the plain counter—somebody might draw a line and demand that meat should, by definition, come straight from an animal to be meat. Anything could possibly be meat-like however would have to be distinguished from meat. This, after all, properly mirrors what Locke stated within the context of private id relating to using phrases, “And indeed every one will always have a liberty to speak as he pleases, and to apply what articulate sounds to what ideas he thinks fit, and change them as often as he pleases.” As such, the issue of meat could possibly be solved by having a number of phrases for numerous meat and meat-like issues. Or we might observe the lead of Hume and conclude that “…all the nice and subtle questions concerning personal identity can never possibly be decided, and are to be regarded rather as grammatical than as philosophical difficulties.” On this case, “meat” is merely a matter of language, which is to say that the issue stays unsolved
