Alternative Protein Source of the Future: Artificial Meat

Yıl 2020, , 209 - 216, 27.06.2020

Ece Sürek Pınar Uzun

https://doi.org/10.24323/akademik-gida.758840

Cited By: 7

Öz

Rapid growth in world population and changes in consumer habits have led scientists to research food alternatives or alternative protein sources. Genetically modified organisms, insects, seaweed, in vitro meat or, with the other name, artificial meat are considered as significant protein sources. In recent years, especially studies on artificial meat have gained importance. Undesired environmental effects caused by traditional meat production such as increase in greenhouse gases, destruction of forests and lands and increased utilization of farmlands are predicted to be reduced by artificial meat production. The artificial meat produced in a controlled medium is considered to decrease risk of foodborne diseases and provide safer and healthier meat production. On the other hand, there are some factors such as high production cost, reduction in consumer preference, non-acceptance as a natural product by consumers and ethical concerns, which prevent development and commercialization of artificial meat production system. In this study, the emergence, development process, production methods and possible problems in the future of artificial meat production are reviewed.

Anahtar Kelimeler

In vitro meat, meat substitute, future, alternative protein

Geleceğin Alternatif Protein Kaynağı: Yapay Et

Öz

Hızla artan dünya nüfusu ve değişmekte olan tüketici alışkanlıkları bilim insanlarını yenilebilir gıda alternatiflerini ve alternatif protein kaynaklarını araştırmaya yönlendirmiştir. Genetiği değiştirilmiş organizmalar, böcekler, deniz yosunları, in vitro et veya diğer ismiyle yapay et önemli alternatif protein kaynakları olarak görülmektedir. Son yıllarda özellikle yapay et ile ilgili yapılan araştırmalar önem kazanmıştır. Yapay et üretimi ile geleneksel et üretiminin neden olduğu sera gazlarının artışı, orman ve arazi tahribatı ve tarım arazilerinin aşırı kullanımı gibi olumsuz etkilerin azalacağı tahmin edilmektedir. Kontrollü ortamda üretilen yapay etin, et kaynaklı hastalık riskini azaltacağı ve daha güvenli ve sağlıklı et üretimini sağlayacağı düşünülmektedir. Diğer taraftan, yüksek üretim maliyeti, tüketiciler tarafından tercih edilmeme, doğal bir ürün olarak kabul edilmeme ve etik kaygılar gibi yapay et üretim sisteminin gelişmesini ve ticarileşmesini engelleyebilecek bazı faktörler de bulunmaktadır. Bu makalede, yapay et üretiminin ortaya çıkışı, gelişim süreci, üretim yöntemleri ve gelecekte ortaya çıkabilecek olası problemleri hakkında yapılan araştırmalar derlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yapay et, Et alternatifi, Gelecek, Alternatif protein

Kaynakça

• [1] Smil, V. (2002). Worldwide transformation of diets, burdens of meat production and opportunities for novel food proteins. Enzyme Microbial Technology, 30(3), 305-311.
• [2] FAO. (2011). World livestock 2011 livestock in food security. FAO publications, 1-130.
• [3] Pandurangan, M., Kim, D.H. (2015). A novel approach for in vitro meat production. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 99(13), 5391-5395.
• [4] Van der Spiegel, M., Noordam, M.Y., Van der Fels-Klerx, H.J. (2013). Safety of novel protein sources (insects, microalgae, seaweed, duckweed, and rapeseed) and legislative aspects for their application in food and feed production. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 12(6), 662-678.
• [5] Post, M.J. (2012). Cultured meat from stem cells: Challenges and prospects. Meat Science 92(3), 297301.
• [6] Hocquette, A., Lambert, C., Sinquin, C., Peterolff, L., Wagner, Z., Bonny, S.P.F., Lebert, A., Hocquette, J.F. (2015). Educated consumers don’t believe artificial meat is the solution to the problems with the meat industry. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14(2), 273-284.
• [7] Bonny, S.P.F., Gardner, G.E., Pethick, D.W., Hocquette, J.F. (2015). What is artificial meat and what does it mean for the future of the meat industry? Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14(2), 255-263.
• [8] Bhat, Z.F., Kumar, S. and Bhat, H.F. (2017). In vitro meat: A future animal-free harvest. Critical Reviews In Food Science and Nutrition, 57(4), 782-789.
• [9] Bhat, Z.F., Kumar, S., Fayaz, H. (2015). In vitro meat production: Challenges and benefits over conventional meat production. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14(2), 241-248.
• [10] Bhat, Z.F., Bhat, H. (2011). Tissue engineered meat-future meat. Journal of Stored Products and Postharvest Research, 2(1), 1-10.
• [11] Catts, O., Zurr, I. (2002). The tissue culture sculptures: Art project. Leonardo, 35(4), 365-370.
• [12] Benjaminson, M.A., Gilchriest, J.A., Lorenz, M. (2002). In vitro edible muscle protein production system (MPPS): Stage 1, fish. Acta astronautica, 51(12), 879-889.
• [13] Norton, T. (2015). From the lab to the supermarket: In vitro meat as a viable alternative to traditional meat production. Journal of Food Law and Policy, 1, 157-180.
• [14] Interview with Dr Mark Post: The man who grew the world’s first synthetic beef burger - ABC News. https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2015-03-27/interview-with-dr-mark-post-lab-burger/6351600 [Erişim Tarihi: 4 Mart 2019].
• [15] Hoogenkamp, B.H. (2018). Clean cultured meat for today’s future. Fleischwirtschaft International, 2, 42-46.
• [16] Chiles, R.M. (2013). If they come, we will build it: In vitro meat and the discursive struggle over future agrofood expectations. Agriculture and Human Values, 30(4), 511-523.
• [17] FAO (2006). Livestock’s long shadow environmental issues and options. FAO publications.
• [18] Hocquette, J.F. (2016). Is in vitro meat the solution for the future? Meat science, 12, 167-176.
• [19] Alçay, A.Ü., Sağlam, A., Yalçın, S., Bostan, K. (2018). Geleceğin olası protein kaynakları. Akademik Gıda, 16(2), 197-204.
• [20] Datar, I., Betti, M. (2010). Possibilities for an in vitro meat production system. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, 11(1), 13-22.
• [21] Pitesky, M.E., Stackhouse, K.R., Mitloehner, F.M. (2009). Clearing the air: Livestock's contribution to climate change. In Advances in agronomy, Edited by L.S Donald, Academic Press, Elsevier, Burlington USA, 103, 1-40.
• [22] FAO. (2009). How to feed the world in 2050. FAO Publications.
• [23] Driessen, C., Korthals, M. (2012). Pig towers and in vitro meat: Disclosing moral worlds by design. Social Studies of Science, 42(6), 797-820.
• [24] Welin, S., Van der Weele C. (2012). Cultured meat: will it separate us from nature? In Climate change and sustainable development, Edited by T. Potthast, S. Meisch, Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen.
• [25] Orzechowski, A. (2015). Artificial meat? Feasible approach based on the experience from cell culture studies. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14(2), 217-221.
• [26] Grigg, D. (1995). The geography of food consumption: A review. Progress in Human Geography, 19(3), 338-354.
• [27] Uzun, P., Masucci, F., Serrapica, F., Varricchio, M.L., Pacelli, C., Claps, S., Di Francia, A. (2018). Use of mycorrhizal inoculum under low fertilizer application: Effects on forage yield, milk production, and energetic and economic efficiency. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 156(1), 127-135.
• [28] Tuomisto, H.L., Teixeira de Mattos, M.J. (2011). Environmental impacts of cultured meat production. Environmental science & technology, 45(14), 6117-6123.
• [29] Lynch, J., Pierrehumbert, R. (2019). Climate impacts of cultured meat and beef cattle. Journal Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 3:5.
• [30] Ong, S., Choudhury, D., Naing, M.W. (2020). Cell-based meat: Current ambiguities with nomenclature. Trends in Food Science & Technology, In press.
• [31] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/ [Erişim Tarihi: 4 Mart 2019].
• [32] Siegelbaum, D. (2008). In search of a test-tube hamburger. Time.
• [33] Hopkins, P.D., Dacey, A. (2008). Vegetarian meat: Could technology save animals and satisfy meat eaters? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 21(6), 579-596.
• [34] Capper, J.L. (2011). The environmental impact of beef production in the United States: 1977 compared with 2007. Journal of Animal Science, 89(12), 4249-4261.
• [35] Macintyre, B. (2007). Test-tube meat science’s next leap. Weekend Australian, 20(29), 16.
• [36] Croney, C.C., Apley, M., Capper, J.L., Mench, J.A., Priest, S. (2012). Bioethics symposium: The ethical food movement: What does it mean for the role of science and scientists in current debates about animal agriculture? Journal of Animal Science, 90(5), 1570-1582.
• [37] Hou, F.J., Nan, Z.B., Xie, Y.Z., Li, X.L., Lin, H.L., Ren, J.Z. (2008). Integrated crop-livestock production systems in China. The Rangeland Journal, 30(2), 221-231.
• [38] Mariasegaram, M., Harrison, B.E., Bolton, J.A., Tier, B., Henshall, J.M., Barendse, W., Prayaga, K.C. (2012). Fine-mapping the POLL locus in B rahman cattle yields the diagnostic marker CSAFG29. Animal genetics, 43(6), 683-688.
• [39] Schaefer, G.O., Savulescu, J. (2014). The ethics of producing in vitro meat. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 31(2), 188-202.
• [40] Mancini, M.C., Antonioli, F. (2019). Exploring consumers' attitude towards cultured meat in Italy. Meat science, 150, 101-110.
• [41] Wilks, M., Phillips, C.J. (2017). Attitudes to in vitro meat: A survey of potential consumers in the United States. PloS one, 12(2), 1-14.
• [42] Siegrist, M., Sütterlin, B. (2017). Importance of perceived naturalness for acceptance of food additives and cultured meat. Appetite, 11, 320-326.