Filthy, Cruel, and Unsustainable

Some critics argue that factory farming has exceeded acceptable limits. However, I believe it has not gone far enough.

This month, I delved into “Eating Animals” by Jonathan Safran Foer, which emphasizes that farm animals have been artificially created for human consumption, devoid of their natural essence.

“Regardless of how much we try to ignore it, factory farming is profoundly inhumane. The lives we impose on these beings matter deeply.” From “Eating Animals,” by Jonathan Safran Foer

The primary focus of factory farms is to maximize meat production while minimizing costs. They have engineered animals that are unable to survive outside of captivity. These animals have been selectively bred, genetically modified, and administered drugs to promote rapid muscle growth, sacrificing vital biological functions like mobility and reproduction.

Food animals are confined in unnatural, overcrowded conditions, stripping them of social behaviors inherent to their species. Foer highlights that such conditions lead to increased aggression and stress, prompting factory farmers to resort to practices like debeaking chickens, confining pregnant pigs in cramped crates, and administering drugs or genetic modifications to reduce stress. Consequently, these animals often suffer chronic illnesses, necessitating constant antibiotic treatment.

This scenario allows us to view these unnatural beings as mere commodities, thinking, "Dumb animals. You’re fortunate to be delicious; otherwise, you wouldn't exist."

Yet, these food animals are still sentient beings. Factory farms treat them as objects, but they are capable of feeling pain and distress. This middle ground is both filthy and unsustainable. We must logically and humanely transition farm animals into non-sentient entities.

The Solution and Its Benefits

“The factory farm will inevitably collapse due to its absurd economics. It is fundamentally unsustainable.” From “Eating Animals,” by Jonathan Safran Foer

The detrimental impacts of factory farming have been acknowledged by public health organizations, which have proposed various improvements. Regrettably, these proposals often lack enforceability. Time after time, the recommendations from health organizations become vague mandates from the FDA or USDA, easily evaded by factory farmers. As consumer demand for meat rises, so does the continuation of these practices.

True change is more likely when it aligns with the interests of factory farmers.

If factory farms seek efficiency and minimal waste, producing meat without a central nervous system is the way forward. This concept is not new, but advancements in technology make it increasingly feasible. Establishing non-sentient animal products should be prioritized globally in scientific endeavors.

The potential health benefits for humans could be significant. Eliminating the need for antibiotics would reduce the risk of creating antibiotic-resistant superbugs that could lead to pandemics. Without excretion, our meat would not come into contact with feces or associated bacteria, thus lowering the incidence of gastroenteritis. The absence of waste lagoons would prevent contamination of water sources, which often exacerbates respiratory issues in nearby communities.

The environmental advantages could also be substantial. The combined effects of land clearing, animal feeding, and waste management position factory farming as a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. According to a 2018 article in the New York Times, livestock accounts for approximately 14.5% to 18% of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions globally.

Brainless meat sounds appealing, but is it merely a fantasy? I am confident that research is underway. Here are some insights.

In Vitro / Cultured / Clean Meat

These terms refer to meat produced from animal cells using cell culture techniques, which currently represent the most practical solution.

In 2013, Professor Mark Post created the first in vitro burger by collecting muscle stem cells from cow muscle and culturing them in a nutrient-rich medium to promote growth. By placing these cells in differentiation medium with anchor points, they developed into skeletal muscle fibers, which were harvested and formed into a hamburger patty, combined with separately grown fat to enhance flavor.

Today, several startups, including Mosa Meat, Memphis Meats, and Finless Foods, are working to bring cultured meat to consumers within the next two years. Key challenges include cost, efficiency, and consumer acceptance.

“It must be efficient and genuinely meat, not just a substitute. We already have enough plant-based alternatives. It needs to replicate the taste, color, and mouthfeel of meat.” Mark Post, from his TED talk, “Meet the New Meat.”

Reproducing taste and mouthfeel is challenging, yet taste tests indicate that these companies are nearing success. Will consumers embrace meat that is almost indistinguishable from what they know?

The notion of the "fetishization of meat" arose during my research, illustrating the deep-seated satisfaction meat-loving consumers seek, which is essential for the acceptance of cultured meat. This task is formidable, yet if cultured meat becomes cheaper than traditional meat, many consumers may be swayed.

It's worth noting that this process still relies on animals for muscle stem cells. While theoretically, one stem cell can yield significant quantities of meat, the cultivation requires substantial amounts of cell nutrients, including 50 liters of serum to produce a single beef burger.

The challenge lies in the fact that animal cells thrive best in nutrients derived from animal bodies. Historically, fetal bovine serum, collected from fetal cows, has been used for cell cultivation due to its nutrient richness, but it is not a viable option for those seeking animal-free products.

This necessity drives cultured meat companies to develop plant-derived alternatives or find ways to recycle fetal bovine serum to minimize usage. This is perhaps the most significant hurdle to making cultured meat affordable and ethically produced.

Another related issue is the creation of 3D scaffolds for the rapid growth and assembly of muscle cells. The most effective scaffolds are currently animal-derived.

“Successful scaffolds for 3D skeletal muscle formation are all animal-derived due to factors like cell adhesion and fiber alignment.” From the Trends in Food Science & Technology review, “Bringing Cultured Meat to Market: Technical, Socio-Political, and Regulatory Challenges in Cellular Agriculture.”

3D growth can expedite the cultivation of burger patties, but it complicates the delivery of nutrients and oxygen to the cells. This requires engineered scaffolds and advanced perfusion systems to mimic blood vessel functions. The potential of 3D printing for creating such networks is promising.

Moreover, our future meat could be shaped as desired, thanks to 3D printing technology.

Mosa Meat refers to their pilot production facility as the “Meat Brewery,” a trendy and appealing name. There are even initiatives to develop DIY kits for home meat cultivation, allowing individuals to experiment with cellular ingredients and culture conditions. Combine this with a home 3D printer, and you could be the self-sufficient farmer of the future.

It's fascinating to observe the sources of funding for cultured meat startups. Mosa Meat, for example, recently received venture capital from Bell Food Group, a major European meat processor. Similarly, Memphis Meats has attracted investment from Tyson Foods, a leading player in the meat industry known for its questionable animal welfare practices.

Tyson Foods has also invested in cultured meat companies like Future Meat Technologies and the plant-based protein company Beyond Meat. This strategy makes sense; as demand for meat and protein continues to rise, these investments may be essential for maintaining profitability and supporting the growth of cultured meat and plant-based alternatives.

Personally, I would be open to consuming these products, particularly fish, if they can overcome the challenges ahead.

“S&M Pigs”

An alternative proposal is to genetically modify food animals to perceive pain as pleasure. This idea, introduced by an undergraduate student, won the 2018 Oxford Uehiro Prize in Practical Ethics. For a deeper dive, consider reading Katie Herzog's intriguing article in The Stranger.

While this concept has not yet been applied to farm animals, scientists have successfully genetically altered animals to diminish pain responses. Their goal is to understand pain mechanisms rather than create animals devoid of pain perception.

I find the idea of breeding animals with reduced pain sensitivity or altered pain perception unsettling. It resembles a scenario of locked-in syndrome rather than a humane solution. The result would be sentient beings that endure suffering without the capacity to express it, a truly nightmarish vision.

Brainless Chickens

Considering the challenges of producing entirely animal-free cultured meat, why not retain most of the animal? This would provide the necessary scaffolding and metabolic systems, as well as the flavors that meat enthusiasts crave.

In 2012, architecture student André Ford proposed the idea of chickens that lack a cerebral cortex, thereby reducing their pain perception and desensitizing them to their harsh conditions. He called this concept the "Centre for Unconscious Farming."

I find this idea troubling. Animals can still experience suffering without a cortex. This approach fails to address the core issue.

What would a truly brainless chicken look like? One possibility involves genetic interventions to prevent head development entirely. Geneticists might explore ways to inhibit the formation of heads, feathers, wings, or even legs. Alternatively, they could disrupt neural tube closure, resulting in little or no brain development. There are numerous avenues to consider, and while the journey may involve failures, the final product could eliminate animal suffering while feeding the world.

Such a creature would not survive without assistance. A brainless chicken would rely on artificial circulation—oxygen and nutrients in, waste out—eliminating the need for excretion. Optimized nutrient solutions could reduce reliance on plant agriculture, and waste could be recycled. Refer to André Ford’s designs for inspiration.

“Slaughter” would not be traditional slaughter; it would simply entail disconnecting the artificial circulation. There might be skin and bones to deal with, or perhaps the meat could be removed from a protective membrane and placed on ice.

For pigs, one might envision:

“The ideal pig for a factory farm could be designed to develop without feet, teeth, eyes, or even much of a brain, effectively becoming a biological machine for producing pork.” From “Future Man,” by Brian Stableford, 1984.

Ah, what a hopeful future awaits.

Thoughts on Increasing Global Protein Demand

Why not simply persuade everyone to adopt a plant-based diet? The public's craving for meat is substantial, accompanied by specific desires for taste and texture, making it unwise to present them with plant-based imitations.

The growing obsession with protein has led to an increase in supplement sales and a demand for meat in every meal. High-protein diets are popular among those seeking muscle gain, weight loss, or a return to ancestral eating habits.

How much protein does a person actually require? This seemingly simple question lacks a definitive, research-backed answer. I suspect there is a broad range of acceptable protein intake, where moderation is key.

Public health organizations provide more authoritative guidance than personal guesses, but finding clear answers has proven elusive.

The World Health Organization’s latest guidelines on a healthy diet focus on limiting sugar and salt, promoting fruit and vegetable consumption, and balancing caloric intake with expenditure, without mentioning protein specifically.

The “2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans” suggest aiming for approximately 5.5 ounce-equivalents of protein foods daily. However, the concept of an ounce-equivalent is vague, and there’s uncertainty about what constitutes a protein food.

This recommendation is relatively low and easily achievable for both meat eaters and vegetarians. A typical serving of salmon ranges from 4 to 6 ounce-equivalents, while hamburgers typically fall between 3 and 6 ounce-equivalents. Half a block of tofu yields about 3.5 ounce-equivalents, and 1/2 cup of lentils, chickpeas, or black beans provides roughly 2 ounce-equivalents.

A few important notes: 1. Health.gov emphasizes that any meat consumed should be lean and minimally processed, as lower consumption of processed meats can reduce risks of cardiovascular disease, obesity, type-2 diabetes, and certain cancers. 2. Only animal protein contains heme-iron, which is particularly crucial for children and pregnant women, although heme-iron supplements are available as alternatives.

The recommended 5.5 ounce-equivalents of protein daily is significantly lower than typical consumption levels. Why do we feel the need for more protein than necessary? Perhaps we are being misled by profit-driven marketing strategies that promote protein and meat consumption.

In the Meantime

“I like to think that when I die, the world will not be a worse place because of me.” Alex Honnold

Prior to reading “Eating Animals,” I had little understanding of the scale of factory farming. Over 70 billion land animals are slaughtered annually for food worldwide. If you're purchasing meat without investigating its source, it's likely coming from a factory farm.

While we await a future of brainless factory farms, we can choose to reduce or eliminate meat from our diets and verify the sources of our meat. Labels like “cage-free” or “pasture-raised” often fail to guarantee improved animal welfare.

I have personally chosen to stop eating meat again. We can thrive without it. If Alex Honnold can accomplish a 2,750-foot free solo ascent of El Capitan on a vegetarian diet, I suspect I will manage just fine. Beyond ethics, I find it difficult to view meat without associating it with feces and antibiotics—quite unappealing.

On Compassion

“Addressing the issues of factory farming demands a capacity for empathy that transcends mere information and the dichotomies of desire and reason, fact and myth, or even human and animal. […] Our response to factory farming tests our ability to care for the powerless, the distant, and the voiceless; it is a reflection of how we act when unobserved.” From “Eating Animals,” by Jonathan Safran Foer

Though I had much of this knowledge before, my capacity for compassion toward farm animals has evolved. This change is part of a broader personal journey away from ambition and toward fulfillment.

Caring for others and connecting with them is essential to this transformation. Recently, I have extended this consideration to non-human animals. The meals I prepare for my family have a substantial impact on the animals, the planet, and those I love.

“Temple Grandin has argued that ordinary people can develop sadistic tendencies due to the dehumanizing nature of constant slaughter.” From “Eating Animals,” by Jonathan Safran Foer

While reading “Eating Animals,” I recognized parallels between factory farm workers and corrections officers. The Stanford Prison Experiment illustrates how good individuals can commit horrific acts when placed in roles that require them to prioritize operational efficiency over empathy, often leading to suffering and death. Our actions in one area of life can influence our behavior in others, and acting against one’s values tends to corrupt.

For those who choose to consume meat despite awareness of animal suffering, what toll does that take on their values?

On the positive side, compassionate choices can inspire kindness in other facets of life. Making the decision to advocate for animal welfare might enhance your overall compassion, a quality we could all benefit from daily.

Recommended Reading (and Watching)

The 2018 documentary, Eating Animals, directed by Christopher Quinn, serves as an extension of Jonathan Foer’s 2009 book of the same name.

It Could Be the Age of the Chicken, Geologically With 65 billion chickens consumed annually, the remnants could become the defining fossil of the modern era. By James Gorman, New York Times.

Love Real Food By Kathryne Taylor. A beloved vegetarian cookbook featuring simple, flavorful dishes that nourish without stress.