In vitro Meat: The Normative Power of a Vision in the Innovation and Transformation Process

  • Inge BöhmEmail author
  • Silvia Woll
  • Arianna Ferrari
Part of the Technikzukünfte, Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft / Futures of Technology, Science and Society book series (TEWG)


The current production of meat and the high meat consumption have negative effects on humans, animals and the environment. A sustainable reorientation of mass production and mass consumption is not possible. However, a technological solution is in sight: in vitro meat is presented as an innovation which may solve the problems of today’s meat production and consumption without giving up on meat. We interviewed experts and stakeholders and confronted them with the vision of this innovation. The results of these interviews provide an insight in current visions and imaginations of possible futures that shows which particular challenges result from assessing the emerging technology in vitro meat, also beyond in vitro meat itself.


  1. Albritton, R. (2013). Between obesity and hunger: The capitalist food industry. In C. Counihan & P. van Esterik (Eds.), Food and culture. A reader (pp. 342–352). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, P., Brown, C., Arneth, A., Dias, C., Finnigan, J., Moran, D., et al. (2017). Could consumption of insects, cultured meat or imitation meat reduce global agricultural land use? Global Food Security, 15, 22–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Animal Equality. (2015). Das Fleisch der Zukunft. Accessed 8 May 2017.
  4. Bhat, Z., & Bhat, H. (2010). Tissue engineered meat-Future meat. Journal of Stored Products and Postharvest Research, 2(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
  5. Bhat, Z., Kumar, S., & Bhat, H. (2015). In vitro meat production. Challenges and benefits over conventional meat production. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14(2), 241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bioland. (2016). Fleisch aus dem Labor braucht kein Mensch! Accessed 23 Feb 2018.
  7. Churchill, W. (1931). Fifty years hence. Maclean’s Magazine.
  8. Cultured Beef. (2017). Cultured meat. Accessed 12 Apr 2017.
  9. Cultured Beef. (2017). What is cultured beef? Accessed 12 Apr 2017.
  10. Ferrari, A. (2016). Envisioning the futures of animals through in vitro meat. In I. Olsson, S. Araújo, & M. Vieira (Eds.), Food futures: Ethics, science and culture (pp. 265–270). Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ferrari, A., & Lösch, A. (2017). How smart grid meets in vitro meat: On visions as socio-epistemic practices. Nanoethics, 11, 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grin, J., & Grunwald, A. (Eds.). (2000). Vision assessment. Shaping technology in 21st century society. towards a repertoire for technology assessment. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Grunwald, A. (2004). Vision assessment as a new element of the FTA toolbox. EU-US seminar: New technology of foresight, forecasting and assessment methods-Seville 13–14, May 2004, 53–67.Google Scholar
  14. Grunwald, A. (2012). Synthetische Biologie als Naturwissenschaft mit technischer Ausrichtung. Plädoyer für eine “Hermeneutische Technikfolgenabschätzung”. Technikfolgenabschätzung-Theorie und Praxis, 21(2), 10–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grunwald, A. (2015). Die hermeneutische Erweiterung der Technikfolgenabschätzung. Technikfolgenabschätzung-Theorie und Praxis, 24(2), 65–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung & BUND (Ed.). (2016). Fleischatlas 2016-Deutschland regional. Daten und Fakten über Tiere als Nahrungsmittel. Berlin: Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung.Google Scholar
  17. Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT). (2014). Project visions as socio-epistemic practices-Theoretical foundation and practical application of vision assessment in technology assessment. Karlsruhe: ITAS/KIT. Accessed 6 May 2017.
  18. Klima-Allianz Deutschland (Ed.). (2016). Klimaschutzplan 2050 der deutschen Zivilgesellschaft. Berlin: Klima-Allianz Deutschland.Google Scholar
  19. Mattick, C., Landis, A., Allenby, B., & Genovese, N. (2015). Anticipatory life cycle analysis of in vitro biomass cultivation for cultured meat production in the United States. Environmental Science and Technology, 49(19), 11941–11949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Modern Meadow. (2016). Modern meadow.
  21. New Harvest. (2017). Mission and vision. Accessed 2 May 2017.
  22. Post, M. (2014a). An alternative animal protein source: Cultured beef. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 1328, 29–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Post, M. (2014b). Cultured beef. Medical technology to produce food. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 94(6), 1039–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rorheim, A., Mannino, A., Baumann, T., & Caviola, L. (2016). Cultured meat: A pragmatic solution to the problems posed by industrial animal farming. Switzerland: Sentience Politics.Google Scholar
  25. Schaefer, G., & Savulescu, J. (2014). The ethics of producing in vitro meat. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 31(2), 188–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stephens, N. (2013). Growing meat in laboratories-The promise, ontology, and ethical boundary-work of using muscle cells to make food. Configurations, 21(2), 159–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Top Agrar Online. (2018). Bauernverbund gegen Kunstfleisch: Konzerne greifen erneut nach Macht bei Lebensmitteln. Accessed 19 Feb 2018.
  28. Tuomisto, H., & Teixeira de Mattos, M. (2011). Environmental impacts of cultured meat production. Envirommental Science & Technology, 45(14), 6117–6123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Van der Weele, C., & Driessen, C. (2016). In vitro meat is a chance to rethink. In N. Stephens, C. Kramer, Z. Denfeld, & R. Strand (Eds.), What is in vitro meat? Food phreaking issue 02 (pp. 57–59). Dublin: The Center for Genomic Gastronomy.Google Scholar
  30. Vier Pfoten Deutschland. (2017). Clean meat. Accessed 18 Apr 2017.
  31. Wellesley, L., Happer, C., & Froggatt, A. (2015). Changing climate, changing diets. Pathways to lower meat consumption. London: Chatham House.Google Scholar


  1. The expert interviews are tagged with capital letters from A-L, the subsequent number refers to the line number of the interview transcript.Google Scholar
  2. Interview A: Representative of an organic producer association, conducted: 13.6.2016Google Scholar
  3. Interview B: Representative of an animal rights organisation, conducted: 15.6.2016Google Scholar
  4. Interview C: Innovator and researcher, conducted: 15.6.2016Google Scholar
  5. Interview D: Politician, conducted: 16.6.2016Google Scholar
  6. Interview E: Representative of an environmental organisation, conducted: 22.6.2016Google Scholar
  7. Interview I: In vitro meat researcher, conducted: 28.6.2016Google Scholar
  8. Interview J: Tissue engineer, conducted: 30.6.2016Google Scholar
  9. Interview K: Representative of a conventional producer cooperative, conducted: 13.07.2016Google Scholar
  10. Interview L: Representative of a food service company, conducted: 19.07.2016Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MannheimGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems AnalysisKarlsruhe Institute of TechnologyKarlsruheGermany
  3. 3.Department Strategy and ContentFuturium gGmbHBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations