#WORLD #WORLDWIDE #POLAND #ANARCHISM #News #Journal #Update - (en) Poland, ozzip: "Tester Meat" - an illusion of progress [machine translation]

 Contrary to popular belief, not only the middle class are interested in the

problem of healthy food. Health and environmental issues will play an increasing
role in economic, political and social struggles. Therefore, they should be at
the center of the trade unions' attention. ---- Recently, on the website of
Inicjatywa Pracowniczej, an article by Mateusz Zuk entitled "Test tube meat."
Will Polish farmers share the fate of miners? " In this article, I would like to
refer to a few issues raised by the author. First, however, we could ask: why
should a trade union deal with these futuristic and ecological issues?
Food, new technologies and the labor market

There is no doubt that Mateusz Zuk's article rightly indicates that the key
question for us is, inter alia, how new technologies can affect the labor market.
If Zuk's forecast came true, hundreds of thousands of people could lose their
jobs in agriculture and meat processing within a relatively short period of time
due to "test tube meat". This would mean not only changes in labor relations in
agriculture, but also a greater supply of labor in other sectors of the economy.
The process of proletarianization in the Polish countryside (and not only Polish)
would significantly accelerate. In such a system, the number of people seeking
new employment will increase. The social consequences (and controversies) could
be similar to those related to the transformation in mining. Although the changes
in the mining industry stretched over many decades. For this reason, perhaps the
comparison is more appropriate to the sudden liquidation of state-owned farms,
the negative effects of which affected hundreds of thousands of employees. They
also meant the long-term collapse of many rural areas in Poland.

Secondly, trade unions cannot be and are not unfamiliar with issues related to
the broadly understood conditions not only of work, but also of employees' life.
We should respond appropriately to increases in the prices of food products, but
also to their quality. We cannot disregard the conditions in which the food was
created and let go of the forecast about the impending high prices. For several
years, food prices on international markets have been steadily increasing. This
is an unprecedented increase, and despite - paradoxically - global overproduction
of agricultural products, it also results in millions of people suffering from
malnutrition and hunger in many regions of the world. It is said that this
problem also affects some social groups in Poland.

At the same time, more and more space is devoted to the problem of "healthy
food". Contrary to popular belief, this topic is interested not only in the
middle class, but also in other groups. Health and environmental issues will play
an increasing role in economic, political and social struggles. In recent years
(and even before COVID-19), for example, the average age in the so-called
developed countries, including Poland. Smog, epidemics, antibiotic resistance,
cancer, stress etc. represent a key challenge for the world of work.

For these reasons, analyzes of this type should not be underestimated, such as
the one presented in the article by Mateusz Zuk. The author, aware of the social
consequences of the liquidation of breeding, seems to present an alternative:
either a new technological revolution in agriculture, or a deepening ecological
crisis, especially climate crisis, with all its social consequences. This
revolutionary change is to be the production of "in vitro meat", i.e. cell
agriculture. This dilemma is presented by Zuk and many other authors in a too
simplified way, and the progress expected here may, unfortunately, turn out to be
costly for everyone - especially in the ecological sense. Why?

Meat macdonaldization

The first objection to the narrative proposed by Zuk is that he accepts - like
many other analysts - that meat is not only "natural", but also the best food for
humans. The problem we are facing, however, is the demographic growth and the
need to introduce breeding on an industrial scale, which has a number of negative
ecological consequences and affects animal welfare. In other words, there is no
substitute for animal products. People want and will want meat. Therefore, they
need to be "delivered", but by producing them in a different way than before -
using in vitro methods, in bioreactors. It seems technologically possible.

But meat - historically speaking - has never been a primary source of either
protein or calories for humans. That hunting and meat consumption shaped us as a
species and society is not true. Our dietary preferences have always been
plant-based. Moreover, also today the problem of replacing "farm meat" with "meat
from bioreactors" concerns only some societies and social groups. According to
the current FAO data, in Europe and North America, animal products meet our
caloric needs in as much as 27-28%, including meat in approx. 12%. In Africa
(with a much smaller amount of calories consumed), this percentage is
analogically: less than 8% and 4%. In other words, meat consumption concerns rich
countries, it is not a "universal" problem,

The fact that meat consumption grows with the spread of capitalism, the
commodification of the economy, and the increase in caloric consumption should be
attributed to what the sociologist George Ritzer called in his now forgotten book
"macdonaldization of society." Many countries entering the so-called capitalist
path of development, at the same time takes over the worst consumption patterns,
to the detriment of human health and the environment. This is happening without
supply pressure from international producers of animal products, pushing for
forms of consumption that guarantee adequate profitability for their businesses.
Meanwhile, the way to reduce the consumption of meat (or, more broadly, animal
products) is not faced by any biological or dietary conditions, but at most
economic and political ones.

One more important note. Most of the "test-tube meat" analyzes claim that meat is
unhealthy because of its farmed origin. However, rearing is only one of the
reasons. Meat is unhealthy for humans - he argues in his book "Proteinnabolic"
American doctor Garth Davis - because it is meat. This is one of the best books
on its health impact that has been published in Poland. But under the too pompous
title: "Meat Kills Us". It talks about the negative effects of a high-protein diet.

Bioreactors in the conditions of market competition

In studies on "meat from bioreactors" it is often convinced that it will be a
healthier product, free from contamination with antibiotics, hormones or
salmonella. It will therefore be "pure meat" - not only ethically but also literally.

Of course, in the laboratory setting, where well-paid and morally motivated
engineers work (a large number of them today do not hide their sympathy for the
animal rights movement), it is like that. The question is, what will happen when
mass production begins, and its main determinant will not be innovation or
ethics, but pure profit? When the murderous price competition begins between
individual food companies, which will incur huge expenditures on research,
production infrastructure and marketing. Capital will demand a return as quickly
as possible.

It is true that the living conditions of animals (especially on industrial farms)
are dangerous and are threatened by, inter alia, many pathogens. Every animal
organism tries to deal with it through a defensive reaction of the immune system
(and if it cannot cope, it is given, for example, antibiotics). In a bioreactor
where muscle cells are multiplying, this situation is more complicated in the
sense that we have to keep it under control. When a bacterium or a virus appears
there, it can find ideal conditions for its development. Therefore, everything
that enters the bioreactor must be sterile in its own way - both water and
nutrients needed for cell multiplication. We are therefore aware that the
"cleanliness" of the production process becomes crucial, but can it be maintained
on an industrial scale without "chemistry"? We have the right to doubt.

The same is the case with other assurances concerning, for example, radical
reduction of the demand for water, energy, arable land and low emission of
greenhouse gases. Optimistic assumptions are increasingly being questioned. For
example, some argue that keeping poultry uses less energy; while producing meat
in vitro, we can count on lower methane emissions, but not necessarily CO2. And
so on. An interesting article on these topics, entitled "Challenges related to
the production of" artificial meat "was recently published in" Zycie
Weterynaryjny "(No. 95 (2) / 2020).

A lot is written about the fact that not only the well-known bosses of the
capitalist world such as Billi Gates, Jeff Bezos or Richard Branson, but also
representatives of the largest meat companies, are interested in this latest
technology. However, if meat producers so far - to put it mildly - have not
excelled in ethical behavior both towards consumers and in maintaining proper
animal welfare, then why the belief that in the race for the highest profits
"clean meat" will actually be one? What will actually go to the bioreactors to
ensure the producers the lowest possible costs? Will this highly processed food
be healthy and its production environmentally friendly? Since companies have not
guaranteed this so far, why should we believe that it will change? When leaving
the laboratory on the market, we encounter a completely different

Not liquidation, but restructuring

Nevertheless, some of the more liberal activists and pro-animal plots welcomed
the fact that the largest concerns of the meat sector became interested in in
vitro meat production. They hope that, thanks to bioreactors, market mechanisms,
not only on the demand side but also on the supply side, will soon lead to the
elimination of large-scale farming. I wrote above that in the ecological sense,
the balance does not have to be favorable here. But what about the animals
themselves?

To convince them to be right, enthusiasts of new technology look for various
historical analogies, thus trying to convince us that they are right. For
example, Paul Shapiro, author of Clean Meat. How livestock-free meat farming will
revolutionize your dinner and the world, writes that the introduction of the
internal combustion engine freed horses from the burden of human exploitation. An
example in the context discussed here is extremely unfortunate. Apart from the
fact that the development of the automotive industry has led to a number of
environmental problems, including CO2 emissions, the balance for animals - apart
from horses - does not seem very favorable. Let us just mention that around
100,000 people die under wheels in Poland every year. larger individuals - not
counting small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds, not to mention insects. What
are the numbers around the world? Huge.

Let us look for more adequate examples when attempts were made to replace a
certain product of animal origin on the market with, for example, a plant
substitute. Let's take fats at the beginning and introduce the so-called
vegetable butter (or more broadly vegetable oils in place of animal fats, i.e.
also lard). We have several studies on the consequences of this change in Europe
and Poland. According to the data of the Central Statistical Office of Poland, in
relation to 1990, the annual consumption of animal fats per capita in the
post-transformation period decreased by approx. 11 kg per year per capita). It is
true that the percentage of animal fat consumption decreased further, but it was
related to an increase in total fat consumption: in 1990 the share of animal fats
was 68%, and currently approx. 30%. Key to the reversal of these proportions was
the liberation of food prices since the early 1990s and the emergence of a large
price difference between vegetable and animal fats. Additionally, a decline in
the real incomes of many social groups. Today, the vegetable butter substitute
available in supermarkets is cheaper by about half.

How does it look from the animals' point of view? The dairy market reacted to the
above-described state of affairs by increasing the efficiency of dairy cows,
mechanizing and concentrating production, changing product strategies, etc. The
number of dairy cows has dropped by half, but their unit milk yield has increased
significantly - from 3,000 to 6,500 liters per year! In other words, those cows
that "remained in their positions" (in Poland, about 2.1 million in 2020), were
subjected to greater exploitation. Their rotation has also increased. Those that
are not efficient enough end up quickly in the slaughterhouse. As a result, milk
production has fallen by only 6% since 1990 until today, and has been
systematically growing again in the last decade and everything indicates that it
will soon reach the level from before 1990. In addition, cheese production
increased compared to the beginning of the 1990s.

The dairy product market continues to develop successfully. It only needed
restructuring in order to, above all, increase the price attractiveness compared
to its vegetable competition, which in turn endangers animal products less and
less, and is developing in its own market segment. They complement each other.

A similar situation also occurs in other cases. The introduction of a number of
modern synthetic fibers led to a sharp decrease in the demand for sheep wool in
the early 1990s, and thus also to a reduction in the number of these animals.
This was hit hard by, among others Australian breeders. However, the demand for
meat and skin of this species continued to grow, and the world herd of sheep
"rebuilt" and is today - according to FAO data - already greater than three
decades ago.

Similarly with "faux fur". It seemed that their appearance on the market was one
of the reasons for the collapse of the production of fur from animals in the
1990s. and marketing, introducing mink farming on an industrial scale. As a
result, production increased again in the 2000s, reaching record results.
Although today the industry is again recording spectacular drops, there is no
connection with the supply of a synthetic equivalent of fur. Both products
function side by side, rather occupying separate market niches.

The conclusion is obvious. Even if 'in vitro meat' is brought to the market, it
may only reduce some livestock production, possibly more beef than pork or
poultry. For example, beef in Poland is 4-5 times more expensive than poultry.
But, among others for this reason, its share in the world market is declining. On
the other hand, some studies on "test tube meat" make it clear that it will be
difficult for the new product to compete with chicken broilers. It may also mean
that it will only occupy a specific market niche, which will not disturb the
structure and trends of the existing animal production at all, but only increase
meat consumption. The animals' situation will not change.

No time

Some market analyzes show that in terms of value, "test tube meat" will achieve a
10% share of the global market in 2030. Other predictions are less optimistic
here, at one percent or even less. For two decades, work has been limited to
laboratories. The market success announced from time to time does not take place.
(I assume that Mateusz Zuk would have noted it in his article). All this with the
constant increase in the supply of farmed meat. The question is: do we have
enough time to wait for "clean meat"? Recently, it has been increasingly
emphasized that the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions must take place much
faster and in parallel in many industries, not only in the energy sector. In the
case of meat consumption, there is one way - to radically limit meat consumption,
and preferably switch to a vegetarian or vegan diet.

Meanwhile, the discussion on "meat-like" products, derived from a bioreactor or
plant-based (such as soy sausages), maintains the myth that meat is indispensable
in the human diet and is in constant demand. The marketing strategy of
impersonating animal products is calculated for short-term economic benefits. It
is still possible to understand companies, but responsible socio-economic policy
on this basis should be more long-term. At the same time, all over the world,
meat consumption is growing and is starting to dominate even in countries where
the vegetarian diet has a long and well-established tradition, such as India and
China. This is not compensated in any way by the popularity, but still not as big
as we would think, of a meatless diet in the West.

Finally, instead of striving to decentralize the production system of both energy
and food, locate it close to recipients, shorten supply chains, minimize losses
(in the case of energy and food they can reach up to 50% in terms of calories),
save on consumption, build nuclear reactors and bioreactors, we will be going in
a completely different direction. As a consequence, we strengthen state and
capital control over forms of consumption. Neither our work nor our consumption
will regain independence. Recently, in activist and political circles the spirit
of progress and faith in scientific and technical achievements, which are
supposed to be a cure for today's social ills, have been reviving. Unfortunately,
this happens at the expense of a sober and critical view of the problem.

Jaroslaw Urbanski

https://ozzip.pl/publicystyka/spoleczenstwo/item/2837-mieso-z-probowki-zludzenie-postepu
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca