Synthetic biology is a highly disruptive technology that particularly affects the agriculture and food production domains. Rather than using farmed animals or crops, synthetic biology allows for ‘cellular agriculture’—the production of agricultural commodities using cell cultures and host micro-organisms. In light of the possibility that cellular agriculture can enable sustainable food production, and considering that most people strongly prefer food that they perceive as natural, this paper is guided by the following research question: how are the values of sustainability and naturalness affected by the disruption of cellular agriculture? We analyze how different stakeholders discuss these values. After demonstrating that the intra-value conflicts evident in sustainability and naturalness are based on different interpretations of these values, we create conceptual clarity in these different interpretations and show how these intra-value conflicts relate to the ongoing divide between ecomodernism and ecology with respect to the future of agriculture and food.
AsveldLOsseweijerPPosadaJA (2019) Societal and ethical issues in industrial biotechnology. In: FröhlingMHieteM (eds) Sustainability and Life Cycle Assessment in Industrial Biotechnology. Springer, pp.121–141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/10_2019_100.
4.
BartkowskiBTheesfeldIPirscherF, et al. (2018) Snipping around for food: economic, ethical and policy implications of CRISPR/Cas genome editing. Geoforum96: 172–180.
5.
BénéCLundyM (2023) Political economy of protein transition: battles of power, framings and narratives around a false wicked problem. Frontiers in Sustainability4: 1098011.
6.
BongaertsDDe RoosJDe VuystL (2021) Technological and environmental features determine the uniqueness of the Lambic beer microbiota and production process. Applied and Environmental Microbiology87(18): e0061221.
7.
BraunVClarkeV (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology3(2): 77–101.
8.
BreyPRoeserSIjsselsteijnW (2019) Ethics of Socially Disruptive Technologies. Project Proposal for Netherlands Organization of Scientific Research.
9.
BroadGMChilesRM (2022) Thick and thin food justice approaches in the evaluation of cellular agriculture. Nature Food3(10): 795–797.
10.
BryantCBarnettJ (2018) Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: a systematic review. Meat Science143: 8–17.
11.
BurtonRJF (2019) The potential impact of synthetic animal protein on livestock production: the new “war against agriculture”?Journal of Rural Studies68: 33–45.
Cellular Agriculture Society (2021) Cellular agriculture is here to solve the world’s biggest problems by addressing them on a micro scale. Available at: https://www.cellag.org/?p=m1 (retrieved 8 October 2022).
14.
ChristensenCM (2013) The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Harvard Business Review Press.
15.
DatarIKimEd’OrignyG (2016) New harvest: building the cellular agriculture economy. In: DonaldsonBCarterC (eds) The Future of Meat Without Animals. Rowman and Littlefield, pp.121–131.
16.
DeckersJ (2021) On (un)naturalness. Environmental Values30(3): 297–318.
DignumMCorreljéACuppenE, et al. (2016) Contested technologies and design for values: the case of shale gas. Science and Engineering Ethics22: 1171–1191.
19.
Editorial (2022) Cellular agriculture and food systems priorities. Nature Food3: 81.
20.
EiblRSennYGubserG, et al. (2021) Cellular agriculture: opportunities and challenges. Annual Review of Food Science and Technology12(1): 51–73.
21.
GarstJBlokVJansenL, et al. (2022) From value sensitive design to values absorption–building an instrument to analyze organizational capabilities for value-sensitive innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation9(2): 196–223.
GoyalNIychettiraK (2022) Value change, value conflict, and policy innovation: understanding the opposition to the market-based economic dispatch of electricity scheme in India using the multiple streams framework. Science and Engineering Ethics28(6): 58.
24.
GruberK (2022) Cellular agriculture could be a game-changer or just another spot on the supermarket shelves. Nature Food3(10): 782–784.
25.
GuthmanJBiltekoffC (2021) Magical disruption? Alternative protein and the promise of de-materialization. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space4(4): 1583–1600.
26.
HelliwellRBurtonRJ (2021) The promised land? Exploring the future visions and narrative silences of cellular agriculture in news and industry media. Journal of Rural Studies84: 180–191.
27.
HerdoizaNWorrellEVan Den BergF (2022) The expanding moral circle as a framework towards food sustainability. Environmental Values31(4): 421–440.
28.
HibinoANakamuraFFuruhashiM, et al. (2023) How can the unnaturalness of cellular agricultural products be familiarized?: modeling public attitudes toward cultured meats in Japan. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems7: 1129868.
29.
HopsterJ (2021) What are socially disruptive technologies?Technology in Society67: 101750.
30.
HowardPH (2022) Cellular agriculture will reinforce power asymmetries in food systems. Nature Food3(10): 798–800.
31.
JärviöNParviainenTMaljanenNL, et al. (2021) Ovalbumin production using Trichoderma reesei culture and low-carbon energy could mitigate the environmental impacts of chicken-egg-derived ovalbumin. Nature Food2(12): 1005–1013.
32.
JönssonE (2020) On breweries and bioreactors: probing the “present futures” of cellular agriculture. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers45(4): 921–936.
33.
KahnPHJrWeissT (2017) The importance of children interacting with big nature. Children, Youth and Environments27(2): 7–24.
34.
KarabinJMansfieldIFrowEK (2021) Exploring presentations of sustainability by US synthetic biology companies. PLoS One16(9): e0257327.
35.
Katz-RoseneRHeffernanAAroraA (2023) Protein pluralism and food systems transition: a review of sustainable protein meta-narratives. World Development161: 106121.
Manders-HuitsN (2011) What values in design? The challenge of incorporating moral values into design. Science and Engineering Ethics17(2): 271–287.
38.
MattickCSLandisAEAllenbyBR, et al. (2015) Anticipatory life cycle analysis of in vitro biomass cultivation for cultured meat production in the United States. Environmental Science & Technology49(19): 11941–11949.
39.
Meatable (2022) We want to satisfy the world’s appetite for meat without harming people, animals or the planet. Available at: https://meatable.com (retrieved 8 October 2022).
40.
MillerHI (1999) Substantial equivalence: its uses and abuses. Nature Biotechnology17(11): 1042–1043.
41.
MolinetJCubillosFA (2020) Wild yeast for the future: exploring the use of wild strains for wine and beer fermentation. Frontiers in Genetics11: 589350.
42.
NawazSSatterfieldT (2022) On the nature of naturalness? Theorizing ‘nature’ for the study of public perceptions of novel genomic technologies in agriculture and conservation. Environmental Science & Policy136: 291–303.
43.
NeyratF (2018) The Unconstructable Earth: An Ecology of Separation. Fordham University Press.
44.
PisoZWerkheiserINollS, et al. (2016) Sustainability of what? Recognising the diverse values that sustainable agriculture works to sustain. Environmental Values25(2): 195–214.
45.
PopaEOBlokVWesselinkR (2021) An agonistic approach to technological conflict. Philosophy & Technology34: 717–737.
RischerHSzilvayGROksman-CaldenteyKM (2020) Cellular agriculture—industrial biotechnology for food and materials. Current Opinion in Biotechnology61: 128–134.
48.
RobaeyZHTimmermannC (2021) Who owns the taste of coffee–examining implications of biobased means of production in food. In: SchübelHWallimann-HelmerI (eds) Justice and Food Security in a Changing Climate. Wageningen Academic Publishers, pp.85–90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-915-2_10.
49.
RomanSSánchez-SilesLMSiegristM (2017) The importance of food naturalness for consumers: results of a systematic review. Trends in Food Science & Technology67: 44–57.
50.
SandinP (2017) How to label ‘natural’ foods: a matter of complexity. Food Ethics1: 97–107.
51.
SextonAEGarnettTLorimerJ (2019) Framing the future of food: the contested promises of alternative proteins. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space2(1): 47–72.
StephensNDi SilvioLDunsfordI, et al. (2018) Bringing cultured meat to market: technical, socio-political, and regulatory challenges in cellular agriculture. Trends in Food Science & Technology78: 155–166.
54.
SwierstraTvan EstRBoeninkM (2009) Taking care of the symbolic order. how converging technologies challenge our concepts. Nanoethics3: 269–280.
55.
TadakiMSinnerJChanKM (2017) Making sense of environmental values: a typology of concepts. Ecology and Society22(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08999-220107.
56.
TaebiBKwakkelJHKermischC (2020) Governing climate risks in the face of normative uncertainties. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change11(5): e666.
57.
ThompsonP (1997) Sustainability as a norm. Society for Philosophy and Technology Quarterly Electronic Journal2(2): 99–110.
58.
ThompsonP (2010) The agrarian Vision: Sustainability and Environmental Ethics. University Press of Kentucky.
59.
ThompsonPB (2007) Agricultural sustainability: what it is and what it is not. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability5(1): 5–16.
60.
TimmermansJBlokV (2021) A critical hermeneutic reflection on the paradigm-level assumptions underlying responsible innovation. Synthese198(Suppl 19): 4635–4666.
61.
TuomistoHL (2022) Challenges of assessing the environmental sustainability of cellular agriculture. Nature Food3(10): 801–803.
62.
Van de PoelI (2013) Translating values into design requirements. In: MichelfelderDPMcCarthyNGoldbergDE (eds) Philosophy and Engineering: Reflections on Practice, Principles and Process. Springer, pp.253–266. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7762-0_20.
63.
Van de PoelIRobaeyZ (2017) Safe-by-design: from safety to responsibility. Nanoethics11(3): 297–306.
64.
Van der WeeleC (2021) How to save cultured meat from ecomodernism? Selective attention and the art of dealing with ambivalence. In: BovenkerkBKeulartzJ (eds) Animals in Our Midst: The Challenges of Co-Existing with Animals in the Anthropocene. Springer, pp.545–557.
65.
Van der WeeleCDriessenC (2013) Emerging profiles for cultured meat; ethics through and as design. Animals3(3): 647–662.
66.
Van HaperenPVGremmenBJacobsJ (2012) Reconstruction of the ethical debate on naturalness in discussions about plant-biotechnology. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics25: 797–812.
67.
VeraartRBlokV (2021) Towards a philosophy of a bio-based economy: a Levinassian perspective on the relations between economic and ecological systems. Environmental Values30(2): 169–192.
68.
VerhoogHMatzeMVan BuerenEL, et al. (2003) The role of the concept of the natural (naturalness) in organic farming. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics16: 29–49.
69.
VogelS (2015) Thinking Like a Mall: Environmental Philosophy after the End of Nature. MIT Press.
WoronieckiSWendoHBrinkE, et al. (2020) Nature unsettled: how knowledge and power shape ‘nature-based’approaches to societal challenges. Global Environmental Change65: 102132.
