Criticism of cellular agriculture misses mark

I was disappointed to see Dr. Corey Lee Wrenn of Kent University wrote an opinion piece condemning cultivated meat in a November Vegan Society publication. I was aware she had taken this view in the past, but hoped — as the field of cellular agriculture developed and animal-exploitation industries increasingly saw it as a potential threat — she might have changed her mind.

I should mention I’m a fan of her work, which I’ve followed for some time. In particular, I appreciate her most recent book, Animals in Irish Society, which serves as an initial attempt to incorporate other creatures into the island’s history and culture. I admire Wrenn’s ability to weave together animal liberationist, feminist and socialist perspectives into a single, long-form text.

In the aforementioned piece condemning cultivated meat, she begins by discussing the ‘symbolic violence’ and ‘symbolic acts of violence’ which, in her view, cellular agriculture encourages by pandering to humanity’s desire for animal flesh. I’d argue focusing on symbolic violence in a world filled with so much actual violence, against animals and humans, is overly academic.

Wrenn correctly notes we wouldn’t search for ethical alternatives for various wrongs aimed at humans. Of course, efforts to protect vulnerable humans are far more advanced than efforts to protect animals. Pretending things are otherwise doesn’t change the political landscape we face. We must play the hand we’re dealt, as frustrating and unsatisfactorily as it is.

Moving along, the Kent University lecturer points out cellular agriculture is incapable of replacing all forms of nonhuman exploitation, which is true. I’m not sure why, however, this is an argument against it. There is no one thing or action that will create a vegan world, but accelerating the development of cultivated meat and related products will do far more than most other approaches.

I should mention, though, cellular agriculture could actually replace some forms of nonhuman exploitation Wrenn suggests it can’t. For instance, cultivated leather is being developed by a number of startups, like VitroLabs, Modern Meadow, and Qorium. Cellular agriculture isn’t limited to cultivated meat, while that’s obviously central, given human levels of meat consumption.

Finally, the animal-rights author seems to object to cellular agriculture on vaguely socialist grounds. It’s strange to me, since none of the plant-based analogues I’m aware of come from publicly-owned firms. Further, it’s not as if Silicon-Valley capitalists are the only people who believe technological change can drive cultural change. Marxists, quite famously, believe this.

Indeed, my biggest criticism of Wrenn’s piece is an assumption running through it that speciesism primarily causes animal exploitation, rather than the reverse. A Marxist would say, and I would agree, that animal exploitation primarily causes speciesism. If we could eliminate animal exploitation, society’s need for its ideological justification, speciesism, would slowly fade away.

This isn’t to suggest development of cultivated meat that tastes the same and is cheaper than slaughtered meat would automatically mean the end of wide swaths of nonhuman exploitation. But such a development would put animal activists in a much more favorable position to eliminate these. Even low rates of adoption of cultivated meat could save countless creatures.