I remembered that TWC was my first university module and I didn’t know what to expect from the lesson at first. In a blink of an eye, 13 weeks of TWC lessons are over. In this span of time, a vast number of topics were covered but I’d like to share that the most memorable one was the first lesson where we were introduced to the story of Guns, Gems and Steel by Jared Diamonds. The question that was raised by Yali: “Why you white people have so much while we Guineans have so little?” was sought to be answered throughout our entire journey of TWC lessons.

Throughout the course of TWC, I realized that this question couldn’t be simply answered because there are many factors that can affect a country’s success. To be honest, up until now, I am still unaware of the answer to Yali’s question. During the last week of TWC, one of the groups that presented on “Food for the Future” sought to answer the question by citing factors such as food wastage and lack of mobile channels for available food to be sold to the market on the one hand, and for consumers to acquire on the other. While these factors do indeed contribute to the shortage of food in third world countries like Yali’s, I believe other factors such the approach of historical developments and geographical factors as well as political decisions also constitute the basis of problem in these countries.

The 2^nd lesson was equally memorable to me because it was my very first presentation in university! What was more incredulous was the fact that I was the first person in class to present. Being unsure of the standard required of individual presentation as well as the relevance of my research to the topic for the week on Global Dominance and World Change, I took a long time contemplating about the suitability of research materials and editing my slides (although it was only supposed to last for 5 minutes!). For anyone reading this post, I’d like to give my advice to pick out a fun-filled article or a SHORT video (preferably less than 3 minutes) and to inject LOTS of humour into the presentation, enjoying the whole process along the way! I regretted being too paranoid about the content coverage of my presentation topic and as a result, I did not enjoy the whole process of individual presentation. What’s critical about individual presentation is that it is heavily weighted based on peer review –a process where your classmates will vote and grade your presentation. After a few lessons, prof told us that there would be an upward trend of marks for individual presentation as more students will be empathetic of the effort required for individual presentation and be lenient in peer-grading. I feel that there is room for changes to such a system and perhaps, peer grading should be given equal weightage to Prof’s grading(50-50 system).

Fortunately I immensely enjoyed the last TWC group presentation where a website is used in place of a powerpoint and my group designed a model of futuristic homes. (Our research topic is on futuristic buildings and living abodes is just one aspect of the research)

Lastly, I would like to end off by saying that the most important takeaway from this class is the friendships forged. As a law student, there is seldom any opportunity to interact with students of other faculties and TWC class provides a really friendly atmosphere for students to bond!

Not forgetting Prof’s quote “We are living in exciting times!” In TWC, we were introduced to numerous technologies of the future and I was, and still am, amazed by the impact that some of these technologies can bring about. Imagine in 20 years time, we no longer need fossil fuel and we can watch television using solar energy harnessed in the day!

Week 12. Presentation week. 

Futuristic buildings

In a blink of an eye, 12 weeks of TWC are over! For today’s lesson, my group was the first to present on Futuristic Buildings. Our topic can be summarised with 5 ‘S’ -Susceptibility, Speed, Sustainability, Smashing designs and Speed. Each category is further sub-divided into past, present and future. I would like to add that this was one of my most enjoyable presentation because it didn’t have an ordinary start. In order to capture the attention of the audience, we started off the presentation by revealing a 3D model of a futuristic building that incorporates the latest technology and runs on sustainable energies, one example being solar energy. On top of that, the concept of this futuristic building is based on “partially submerged” buildings -where the upper half of the building is above ground level and the lower half of the building is underwater. There are indeed some limitations to such building such as ethical implications to wildlife as well as the exorbitant cost of construction which implies that such buildings will be a luxury abode available to the wealthy. Nonetheless, our group felt that this phenomenon will be true only in the short term. Just like any other market goods, the higher the supply, the cheaper the price. With limited land space, Singapore might very well be turning to adopt this idea in 50 years time. There might even by government subsidies in purchasing such abode just like how the system of HDB purchase works. If there is one thing that TWC has taught me, it is that “We are living in exciting times!” and anything is possible. For more information, do visit our website: http://twcfuturists.wix.com/home 

Clean technologies

The next group that presented after us shared about clean technologies. While I do find that their website was a comprehensive one, the presentation failed to capture my attention as there was too much content in each speaker’s presentation and it was clearly overwhelming. The group could have benefitted by drawing main points from their website instead of reading out the contents. In addition, the website lacks graphics that will enhance the interest of visual learners and enable the group to bring across their points in a clearer manner. Nonetheless, there are also worthy learning points from this group’s website. Their research was really comprehensive and I like the way they classified the information on the website by including the case studies of different countries contrasting the different policies adopted by Germany,Masdar City, China, Algeria and Singapore. There was also sufficient coverage on the clean energies that are available including nuclear energy, biofuel, solar energy etc. 

Nanotechnology

This group kick start the presentation with a short skit and drawing the causal relationship between nanotechnology and Yali’s question. I felt that this was an interesting way to capture my attention and provoke my thoughts. What is all the more interesting is the different areas of applications that nanotechnology have in our daily lives including cosmetics, defence and security as well as medicine and drugs, just to name a few. I find that the application to healthcare will have the most benefit to mankind because the specificity of nanotechnology treatment will make treatment more effective and reduce the risk of error of cell recognition. Overall, I enjoyed the presentation on nanotechnology.

Overall ratings

I really enjoyed the process of presenting our group’s ideas to the class today and the innovative approach taken by the nanotechnology group in kick starting the presentation. For this, I’ll rate today’s lesson 9.5/10.

1. Mind controlled Prosthetics

I felt that one interesting aspect of this presentation is the evaluation of mind controlled prosthetics presented by Sam. This included (i) limitations, (ii) improvements and (iii) solutions of mind controlled prosthetics.

1.1 Limitations

The most eye catching limitation is the safety aspect of mind prosthetic where the prosthetics could be used to perpetrate undetectable crimes due to the difficulty in tracing the fingerprints of the accused because he employed the use of prosthetics. Unless mind-controlled prosthetics is made affordable in a common market, I doubt this will be a limitation in the near future due to the exorbitant cost of a mind-controlled prosthetics. From my background knowledge, most, if not all crimes in Singapore are committed by financially unstable individuals or individuals from broken families. It is unlikely that individuals with unstable income can afford such technology.

2. Food for the future

This group started the presentation with a skit involving a farmer in a third world country and a massive conglomerate in a business of GM food and started with the question by Yali “Why you white people got so much food while we have so little food?”

World hunger is a controversial issue today. Chandran drew a parallel of the hunger situation globally with the number of students in the seminar room that are starving -roughly 5/6 people in the seminar room do not have sufficient food at the moment.  I felt that this method of conveying the statistics to us was really impactful.

One method which were suggested by the group to increase food production is via the use of biotechnology which encompasses the growth of in-vitro meat and genetically modified food.

2.1 Impacts of in-vitro meat

Although it is a threat to current meat, there are boundless benefits that in-vitro meat can bring in the long time. Chermain talked about the environmental, social and health benefits that in-vitro meat production can bring about. I would like to add on that in terms of social implication does not solely encompass the benefits but detriments as well. Developed countries that have the technological know how to maximise the use of in-vitro meat production can benefit from its development but third-world countries that do not have access to this technology will continue to employ less efficient and unsustainable methods of meat production and this will lead to a widening income gap between the already rich and the poor.

2.2 Food preservation

The group also mentioned the use of food preservation and Eva also discussed about the advantages and disadvantages of food preservation. Though this part of the presentation was covered sufficiently in a broad spectrum, I felt that more details could have been added onto the blog. For example, one of the disadvantages that Eva mentioned was that diseases could be borne from food preservation. I think this should be discussed in more details -in respect of the type of diseases and the health effects of theses diseases. At the end of the presentation, Prof added that the group could also consider food spoilage and pestilence in detail.

2.3 Food wastage

30% of the food produced is wasted. One application that allows people to upload a photo of unfinished food that enables users to share their unwanted food and this mitigates wastage of food. 16% of the rural population don’t know where to buy and sell their food. The group proposed the adoption of mobile markets via trucks.

2.3.1 Decrease in meat production

Stanely said that consumer food preference is difficult to change so it is difficult to reduce production of meat in place of agricultural production. I would like to add on that Stanely could have linked this to Chermain’s part of the presentation where biofabrication of meat can be used as a substitute for conventional meat production in order to reduce wastage of resources for the livestock cultivation.

3. Sex advertising 

Eric started off the presentation by asserting that advertisements that relate to sex and intimacy appealed more to the consumers. I feel that this is not the only factor that affects the consumer appeal and other factors include relevance of the functions of products -in fact, there are some advertisements that focuses excessively on sexual appeal that the actual product is neglected.

3.1 Problems relating to sexual advertising

This relates to the later part of the presentation on the limitations relating to sexual advertisements might be a distraction from the promotion of actual products. Insufficient attention is attributed to the functions of the product as well.

3.2 Implications of sex advertising

Sex advertisements propagate a certain notion of “perfect body” of males and females. Sylvester said that this will have a negative impact on the society with an observation of more males being particular about their outer appearance. However, as some of us mentioned in class, there is no negative impact of males adopting a healthier lifestyle to “tone” their body. I feel that no parallel can be drawn with Sahana’s part about anorexia becoming a common occurrence amongst girls because in the latter case, an obvious health effect is inflicted.

3.3 Additional points that the groups could cover

It was mentioned in Q & A that the group failed to cover some aspects of sex advertising. The group could have discussed the economic benefits brought about by sex advertising where companies that exploit sex advertising can generate more revenue. In addition, I feel that sex advertising is more relevant in certain societies only. For a conservative society like Singapore, with the Media Development Authority (MDA)strictly regulating all forms of media, I doubt that explicit sexual advertisements will be common in Singapore.

4. Virtual reality

I think that an attention catching aspect of the presentation was when Glenda used her iphone to demonstrate how virtual reality is already utilised by Ikea to enable customers to perceive the  suitability of furnitures to your household.

Overall ratings

Today’s lesson was comprehensive especially since al 5 groups were able to share their  research and there was a broad coverage of all the topics. In addition, I really enjoyed the presentation on Food for the Future with the incorporation of a skit. Overall, I would rate today’s lesson a 9/10.

Biofabricated meat and its application to food production[1]

 

Heng Sok Li Vanessa (vanessaheng.2013@law.smu.edu.sg), 1^st year student, Bachelor of Laws, Singapore Management University

 

Executive Summary

This paper examines the history of meat production since the 1700s and how advancements in this field have been made over the years. It then examines the current technology that is employed in meat production, with particular emphasis on genetic engineering. This paper raises issues of food crisis caused by an expanding population and changes in consumers’ demand, all of which could trigger the development of biofabrication in food production. Finally, the paper analyses and addresses the future considerations that would arise in the future if biofabrication were to be developed on a massive scale.

 

The first half of the paper will examine how the past and current methods employed in meat production has impacted the following areas:

(i)             Environment

(ii)           Ethics

(iii)          Health risks

 

The second half of the paper will examine the implications of future technologies applied to meat production, namely:

(i)             Food security

(ii)           Social cost and receptiveness of public

(iii)          Wildlife preservation

(iv)          Environmental benefits

(v)           Health benefits

 

1)   Introduction

Since the birth of hominids[2], meat has been consumed as one of the primary sources of nutrients. From a time where the first slaughterhouse was established till today, technology for harvesting meat has witnessed evolutionary changes –once, saws were not available for slaughtering purposes, and now, the process of in-house slaughtering is largely mechanized. In addition, limitless potential lies in today’s meat production system where the composition, flavor and nutritional value of meat can be artificially regulated. (Z.F. Bhat and Hina Bhat, 2011)We are living in exciting times where meat production is no longer confined to the process of rearing and slaughtering farm animals.

 

In 2050, world population would hit 9.6 billion people. With a booming population and a starving population that is approaching one billion people (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, 2013), food security issues are becoming more pertinent. Rising sea levels and higher temperature reflects the urgency to solve environmental issues. However, the production of meat places a toll on the environment with livestock being a major source of greenhouse gas emission. (Steinfield et al., 2006)This is unsustainable in the long run with Earth’s finite resources that are reaching limits. As such, there is a pressing need to reduce our reliance on livestock.

 

Genetic modification of animals to produce higher meat yields and shorter weaning periods has been proposed as a solution, but it is unlikely to alleviate the problem of food shortages and environmental issues efficiently given the many problems that are plagued with genetic engineering of meat. A more effective solution that is currently being considered is the production of meat using biofabrication. (Z.F. Bhat et al., 2011)However, the application of biofabrication to meat production remains to be an idealistic solution that has yet to be introduced to the market.

 

This paper examines the historical production of meat and delves into the gradual evolution of meat production up till today. It also examines the current technologies that are employed in meat production and the future changes in the production of meat. Issues and pertinent problems of our current consumption of livestock are also discussed as they are driving factors behind people’s acceptance of an evolutionary change in food culture.

 

2)   Historical perspective: Meat production

 

Some 20,000 years ago, at the end of the last ice age, domestication of animals began in the Mideast. (Gascoigne, B. et al., n.d) Soon after, meat production expanded the labour market by recruiting meat butchers and traders. Then came the establishment of the first slaughterhouse in Egypt 4000 years ago. Most of meat trading was carried out among European countries in the Middle Ages. (Hoogenkamp, H., 2011) In 1773, Benjamin Franklin offered a “less brutal” way of slaughtering animals via the use of electrical stunning. (American Meat Association, 2003)

Before 1870, despite the labor-intensive process of European meat production, companies often employed less than 10 workers and this resulted in tedious working conditions in the meat industry. The introduction of steam-powered equipment in 1880 changed the meat processing industry dramatically and from then on meat production grew rapidly into a true industry, complete with industrial-scale machinery. As the world experienced technological breakthroughs with the introduction of bowl-chopper in 1895 and chilling equipment in the1890’s, the meat industry expanded conterminously by improving the range and quality of meat products. (Hoogenkamp, H., 2011) When the world opened its door to industrialization in the 1900s, mechanized methods of cutting carcasses were introduced –the Bandsaw and “Monster” Meat Grinder allowed for more efficient processing of livestock. (American Meat Association, 2003)

Notwithstanding technological advancements, there are still food safety concerns relating to the sanitary conditions of slaughterhouses till today. Even in the modern times, the meat industry is still researching for more efficient methods for hygiene regulation in slaughterhouses to prevent food borne diseases. The conventional method of rearing animals is unproductive as exorbitant sums of money are spent solely on improving hygiene standards. The labour intensive process of rearing and slaughtering cattle exacerbates low productivity of meat production. Given that labour is a necessary element to meat production, rising labour costs would translate into higher meat prices as well and this spells trouble for many farmers and anyone in this chain of business.

 

3)   Current meat production processes

 

3.1  Industrial Agriculture

 

3.1.1 Housing systems

In the United States, a large proportion of lactating cows are bred in indoor systems with restricted amount of space. Only a minority of dairies (9.9%) in the United States use grazing to breed cows on pasture. In conventional operations, cows are usually fed with harvested forage instead of pasture. A stunning 82.2% of the population of cows in US is fed via this method. The problem with the diet of cows will be further explored in the later part of this paper. (United States Department of Agriculture Report, 2007) Although the conventional system of rearing animals is widely adopted, this does not mean that it is the most ideal method. One caveat of raising cows via conventional methods is that improper management and upkeep of dairy facilities increases the chances of cattle becoming nonambulatory. Nonambulatory cattle are too weak and injured to move about freely due to musculoskeletal defects, infectious diseases and abnormal metabolic rates. A 2007 review of cattle suggests 500,000 cattle in the United States are nonambulatory. (Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 2007)

Operation Type	% Operations	% Cows
Conventional	63.9	82.2
Grazing	3.1	1.7
Combination conventional and grazing	31.1	14.9
Organic	1.7	1.2
Other	0.2	0.0

Fig 2: Adopted from U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2007)

 

3.1.2 Diet related Problems

In order to achieve high milk yields, cows are not only genetically modified but are also fed with forage that contains energy-intensive nutrients such as grains or slaughter waste. According to a 2006 report in Journal of Dairy Science, 30-60% feed concentrates are found in the diet of cows. However, such energy-intensive and low-fibre diet tends to result in the formation of organic acids in cows, which in turn lead to a serious condition known as rumen acidosis. Two consequences that flow from rumen acidosis are weaker immune system and poor appetite of cattle –where cows are observed to consume significantly less feed.

3.2  Stunning & Slaughter

Today, the process of animal slaughtering has evolved and comprises 2 stages –stunning and sticking. To satisfy the human palette, almost all of cattle that are reared are eventually slaughtered and processed. Every year, millions of dairy cow are slaughtered and enter the food chain as ground beef. (Troutt H.F. & Osburn, 1997)

Stunning is conducted before slaughter to render the cattle insensitive to discomfort. Once unconscious, the cattle should be slaughtered immediately to prevent them from regaining consciousness. Farm animals are normally infused with a gunshot to the head or captive bolt pistol. Advancements in the use of captive bolt technology and gas stunning supposedly increases the efficiency of stunning process. In using captive bolt, electricity is shot into the brains of cattle and in gas stunning; animals are exposed to high concentrations of gas, causing them to turn unconscious. However, a major problem of stunning is the poor maintenance of equipment. In order to achieve the result of rendering cattle unconscious (which should be obtained in a single gun shot if proper equipment was used), cattle are frequently subjected to multiple gunshots, resulting in lower welfare standards for the animals.

 

Sticking is conducted by fettering the hind leg of an animal and slitting the animal’s throat. By doing so, major blood vessels in the animal are severed, leading to rapid blood loss and death. The cruelty of slaughtering processes has brought about controversial debates, and has given rise to ethical implications, which will be mentioned in the next part of this paper.

 

3.3  Biotechnology

Biotechnology has also been largely employed in meat production for cows to attain higher birth weight, better growth performance and reach the slaughter weight within a shorter period of time.

 

3.3.1 Bovine Growth Hormone

Recombinant bovine somatotropin, rBST (also termed as bovine growth hormone), is a genetically engineered hormone inoculated into cattle to increase their output of milk. Bovine growth hormone is so widely employed in the U.S. that 71.1% of 113 dairy operations uses rBST on cows. (Fulwider W.K., 2008) In United States, approximately one in six dairy cows are constantly inoculated with this growth hormone. The use of rBST can have significant health implications for cows –unnaturally high milk yields in cows can result poor health condition, reproductive problems, and inflammation of the mammary glands and udder tissues. (Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare, 1999) The use of Bovine growth hormone also has side effects on heat tolerance of cows and can cause severe swelling at sites where injection of rBST was conducted.

 

4)   Implications of past and current meat production processes

 

4.1  Environmental impact

Conventional meat production system of rearing cattle in indoor systems is highly detrimental to our environment. The production of harvested forage for animals requires large amount of land area. Currently, 33% of land is used in the production of feed crop for cattle. On top of this, another 26% of arable land is used as pasture for farm animals. By adding up these 2 components, the total land usage for global meat production is a stunning 58%. Traditional method of meat production is also a significant user of fresh water. Today, 75% of clean water is used for food production and a significant amount can be attributed to meat production. In the process of rearing cattle, methane is emitted into the environment, thus contributing to the emission of greenhouse gases. (Steinfield et al., 2006)

 

4.2  Ethical impacts

Throughout the years, the ethics of consuming animals have been surrounded by hullabaloo and disputes.  Two ethical oppositions include the slaughtering of animals while they are still conscious and responsive as well as objections to specific agriculture practices such as keeping cattle confined to in-house systems and feeding them a non-herbivore diet. Current meat production process involves animal slaughtering, which is perceived to be a brutal procedure by certain groups of people. For example, some vegetarians do not eat meat because they are uncomfortable with the way meat is being processed.

 

4.3  Food safety/ health risks

In Europe, mad cow disease shocked many people, as people got to learn that it was the feeding of cow with nerve tissues and brain of sheep that caused the disease. The image of beef as a hygienic and nutritious food was shattered when the population got to know that beef cattle in in-house systems can be fed anything from corn to fishmeal, chicken litter, and even slaughterhouse waste.

 

Even in industrialized countries, food safety in meat production is still an issue. As a result of consuming contaminated meat and animal products, the number of consumers suffering from food poisoning and infectious diarrhea has increased considerably. (Nicholson et al., 2006) Due to over-consumption of fat meat produced by artificially inducing faster growth rates of cattle, one-third of the global population have become victims of atherosclerosis and diabetes. Cardiovascular disease is also a norm where people substitute plant-based meals with a carnivorous diet. (USDA,1992)

 

5)   Future of meat

 

There was a time when people doubted if we would ever genetically modify what we consume. They denounced thoughts of genetically “manipulating” animals but, fast forward to 2013, we can now hardly tell if the meat that we are consuming was derived from a genetically modified organism. The production of meat has progressed from a time where saws were used to slaughter animals to a time where we can control the specific traits of our livestock. So, what does the future entail?

 

5.1 Genetic engineering vs. biofabrication

The fresh concept of biofabrication of meat was sparked from the idea of genetic engineering. But far beyond just modifying meat, biofabrication of meat refers to the creation of the meat from scratch, using cells. It is scientifically defined as the “production of complex living and non-living biological products from raw materials such as living cells, molecule, extracellular matrices, and biomaterials.”(Z.F. Bhat et al., 2011)  In genetic engineering, the modified gene is inserted back into the livestock whereas in biofabrication, cells are cultured in a petri dish and are never introduced back into an animal.

 

5.2 Limitations of biofabrication using embryonic stem cells

Up until 2011, scientists have always preferred the use of embryonic stem cells to other cell types when culturing in vitro meat due to the almost infinite self-renewal capacity of these cells. Nonetheless, scientists and researchers have yet to overcome some limitations in the use of embryonic stem cells to culture meat from the embryos of cattle. One such limitation is the difficulty in stimulating embryonic stem cells to differentiate into myoblasts (long tubular cells that develop to form muscles) during a process known as myogenesis. Until now, only embryonic stem cell lines of rhesus monkey, mouse and humans have been successfully cultured. This is because cell culturing requirements required to keep mice and human embryonic stem cells unspecialised are distinct from the cell conditions that will be required for farm animals. However, meat cultured from the rhesus monkey, mice and humans will give rise to social resistance from the general population and these meat products are most probably not marketable.

 

5.3 Process of biofabrication using stem cells instead of embryonic cells  

In Netherlands, there has been a successful attempt at culturing 20,000 strips of meat from stem cells of a cow muscle, though at an exorbitant cost of 250,000 pounds. (Woollaston, Reilly, & McDermott, 2013) Stem cells can be utilized as an alternative to embryonic cells as they also have the ability to differentiate into specialized muscle cells in the process of growing meat in petri dishes.

 

Given that the process of biofabrication is not a simple one, this paper only seeks to list down a simplified process of growing in vitro meat. Firstly, stem cells are isolated from an animal muscle. Next, the cells are incubated in a culture for multiple divisions to form colonies and subsequently creating a tissue. Electrical shots are then applied to tissues to congregate the muscle, which is then combined with strips of biofabricated animal fat. Finally, flavor is added to the strips of the meat by mixing it with certain ingredients such as sodium chloride, powdered eggs and natural red colourings to produce an edible patty. Figure 3 below illustrates the summarized process of creating “meatless” meat.

 

 

Fig 3: Process of biofabrication of meat. Reproduced from Woollaston et al. (2013).

 

5.5 Limitations of using stem cells in biofabrication

Although stem cells is a potential alternative to embryonic cells, stem cells do not have unlimited regenerative potential unlike embryonic stem cells, and they can only propagate in vitro for several months at most. In addition, stem cells may also differentiate into skeletal muscle cells –which is not the desired cell type in meat culturing. Therefore, the conditions required to successfully culture stem cells to form muscle cells have to be regulated with greater sensitivity as compared to the conditions required for embryonic stem cells.

 

6)   Potential impacts

 

We have seen how researchers have successfully overcome the limitations of using stem cells in biofabrication. Whilst I dare not say that the human potential is limitless, I would agree that we still have much room for growth. For example, the possibility of using embryonic stem cells (which is the preferred source of cell type) remains open. It is plausible that in time to come, embryonic stem cells can also be harvested from farm animal species to be utilized in biofabrication. This will bring about profound implications on the world, in terms of (i) food security, (ii) social concerns, (iii) potential to preserve wildlife population and (iv) environmental benefits.

 

(i)  Food security

It is hard to draw a parallel between the successful harvesting of embryonic stem cells and the mitigation of starvation issues that many parts of the world are facing. As mentioned in the introduction, the booming population and the advancement of developing countries will increase the demand of nutritious food, in particular, meat. How will the use of embryonic stem cells in meat production alleviate the problem of food shortages? Embryonic stem cells have an almost infinite self-renewal capacity. In other words, they have the ability to differentiate and divide into many cells. Therefore, only one cell line from a single animal is needed to generate huge amount of meat and this eliminates the need to look for new animals when livestock is scarce.  Biofabrication using embryonic stem cells has the potential for infinite supply of meat and if it can be feasibly adopted globally, food shortage will no longer be a pertinent problem and there will be enough to feed the world, including developing countries, which are projected to have the highest population growth rates.

 

 

(ii)        Social concerns

• Costs

At present, the only successful attempt of biofabricating a 142g meat patty in Netherlands has cost 250,000 pounds for the entire procedure. As research into biofabrication of meat is a lengthy process and governments of developing nations may be repugnant to the idea of investing in industries of cloud opportunities with high risks and uncertainty. Production of in vitro meat also requires the use of industrial bioreactors for large-scale culturing as stem cells require a large surface area for culturing and such machineries can be costly. (Z.F. Bhat et al., 2011) As such, there are many obstacles that will impede developing countries from culturing meat via biofabrication, much less to sell biofabricated meat in the market at a high price. If developed nations are unwilling to share their expertise in this field, the division between developed and developing countries will be exacerbated –more efficient methods of meat production will be developed in first-world countries while third-world countries continue to adopt inefficient methods to feed their populations.

 

• Receptiveness of the consumers

It is inevitable for consumers to be repugnant to the taste of in vitro meat initially and be concerned with unknown health complications that might arise in the near future given that biofabricated meat is not a tried and tested method that has been widely embraced.However, the first ‘googleburger’ that has been developed by Professor Mark Post of Maastricht Univeristy in Netherlands has received good reviews for the taste and texture of the meat from food critics and food researchers. Biofabricated meat patty has been reviewed to have a flavor close to meat, although it is harder and less juicy. This shows that there is great resemblance between  biofabricated meat and authentic meat. Moreover as founder of Modern Meadows, Andras Forgacs had expressed, some of the food that we consume today are already cell-cultured. The process of culturing beer, cheese and yoghurt and the process of biofabrication to produce meat is in actuality the same. Therefore, it is possible that in time to come, biofabricated meat will be widely embraced by meat-lovers and in-vitro meat will be spotted in the poultry section in supermarkets.

 

Figure 4: ‘Googleburger’ developed by Professor Mark Post of Maastricht University in the Netherlands. Adopted from Woollasto et al. (2013).

 

(iii)        Potential to preserve wildlife population

Embryonic stem cells isolated from endangered or rare animals could be used to create specialized types of meats in vitro and this mitigates the demand for the carcass of wildlife animals. Given that only a single animal is required for the extraction of its stem cells, less wildlife animals will be slaughtered and the population of wild life species in many countries will be preserved.

 

(iv)          Environmental benefits

 

 

Fig 5: Comparison on environmental impact between traditionally farmed beef and biofabricated beef. Adopted from Ghosh (2013).

 

 

According to the 2011 edition of Journal of Animal Science, producing 0.5kg of hamburger patty requires the use of 3kg of feed crop (that is six times the amount needed to produce the hamburger alone), 200 liters of water and 7m² of land. From this, it can be inferred that conventional method of meat production is a highly unsustainable and inefficient process. This is because in conventional methods of livestock processing, land area is required to rear cattle in in-house systems and in some dairies, for grazing purposes. As compared to conventional methods, biofabrication of meat uses bioreactors that can be arranged on top of one another in a fabric hall and require minimal land space. In fact biofabrication only requires 1% of land as compared to conventional methods of meat production. On top of this, cultured meat production emits substantially less greenhouse gas emissions as production of methane per cattle is reduced. (Ghosh, 2013)

 

(v)            Potential to bring about health benefits

 

• Food Safety  

Food borne diseases arise due to contamination of meat at different stages of meat production. During the process of rearing animals in in-house systems, animal feed can be contaminated with bacteria such as Salmonella that can cause infection in cows and subsequently lead to human infection. Additionally, faeces of cattle in a confined area can also contaminate animal skin and fur. During slaughter, meat can be contaminated when it is in contact with intestinal contents of cattle and animal skin. (European Food Safety Authority, n.d.) These problems can be assuaged if meat is produced via biofabrication. In biofabrication, the need to raise cattle in a confined space and the process of slaughtering animals are eliminated as the key process to growing meat in-vitro is the isolation of embryonic stem cells from a single farm animal. Additionally, due to strict quality control requirements in biofabrication of meat that are not applicable in animal farms, slaughterhouses or meat packing plants, the chance of meat contamination is reduced. Biofabricated meat is more hygienic and safe for consumption.

 

• Health benefits

With biofabricated meat, humans no longer have to consume animals to meet nutritional requirements as they can easily obtain the same type of nutrients from extracted animal cells. (Hopkins and Dacey, 2008) In addition, cultured meat can promote a healthier diet as the fat content in the meat can be uniformly distributed while the process of artificially marbling is carried out. (Forgacs. G,2011) In fact, pieces of animal fat have to be cultured separately and incorporated into muscle tissues that are biofabricated because biofabricated meat contains no fat content at all. Therefore, consuming in vitro meat can reduce health risks involving cardiovascular diseases.

 

 

7)   Conclusion

 

In summary, the production of meat is no longer confined to the use of saws and meat grinder machines. Drivers of change will revolutionize meat production and it will very soon be carried out in laboratories with bioreactors, where pieces of meat are biofabricated from cells. Insofar as the production of food is concerned, biofabrication of meat offers a green and safer system that might potentially solve many pressing issues at hand including food security, scarcity of natural resources and animal suffering. However the introduction of biofabricated meat into the commercial market is only feasible if a cost-effective method of production is established so that biofabricated meat can be equally price competitive with existing meat products. Companies who are able to obtain smart money from investors have managed to break boundaries. In the same vein, the provision of government subsidies to agribusinesses will most probably spur research and development of effective methods of in-vitro meat production. Lastly, technological know-how and knowledge in this field have to be transferred and shared across borders so that developing countries can also utilized this technological innovation to solve issues of food scarcity. Biofabrication of meat can be the way to go if the obstacles mentioned are overcome.

 

8)    

9)   References

 

 

American Meat Association. (2003). History of Meat. Retrieved from http://www.depts.ttu.edu/meatscience/history_of_the_meat_industry.pdf

 

Bhat, Z. F., & Bhat, H. (2011). Animal-free Meat Biofabrication. American Journal Of Food Technology, 6(6), 441-459.

 

Bittman, M. (2008). What’s wrong with what we eat.

Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/mark_bittman_on_what_s_wrong_with_what_we_eat.html

 

Dairy Cattle Health and Management Practices in the United States. (2007). Retrieved from http://nahms.aphis.usda.gov/dairy/dairy07/Dairy2007_Ptl.pdf

 

European Food Safety Authority. (n.d.) Food Borne Zoonoses. Retrieved from http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/corporate/doc/factsheetfoodbornezoonoses.pdf

 

Forgacs, A. (2013) Ted Global: Leather and meat without killing animals Ted Global 2013 Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/andras_forgacs_leather_and_meat_without_killing_animals.html

 

Forgacs, G. (2011). Are you ready for tissues you can “print on demand”? Retrieved from http://tedmed.com/talks/show?id=7221

 

Fulwider WK, Grandin T, Rollin BE, Engle TE, Dalsted NL, and Lamm WD. (2008). Survey of dairy management practices on one hundred thirteen North Central and Northeastern United States dairies. Journal of Dairy Science 91(4), 1686-92.

Gascoigne, B. (n.d.). History of the Domestication of Animals. Retrieved from http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?groupid=1813&HistoryID=ab57&gtrack=pthc

Ghosh,P. (5 August 2013). World’s first lab grown burger eaten in London. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23576143

 

Hoogenkamp, H. (2011). A Fast Forward History of Meat. Retrieved from http://www.henkhoogenkamp.com/Articles/History_meat_processing55.pdf

 

Hopkins, P.D. and A. Dacey. (2008). Vegetarian meat: Could technology save animals and satisfy meat eaters. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics,21 579-596

 

Hussein HS and Sakuma T. (2005). Prevalence of shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli in dairy cattle and their products. Journal of Dairy Science 88(2), 450-65.

Mcdermott, J.  (Nov 1 2012). A pork chop to change the world

Retrieved from http://www.inc.com/john-mcdermott/big-ideas/modern-meadow-in-vitro-meat.html

 

Nicholson, F.A., M.L. Hutchison, K.A. Smith, C.W. Keevil, B.J. Chmabers and A. Moore (2000). A Study On Farm Manure Applications to Agricultural Land and An Assessment of the Risks of Pathogen Transfer Into Food Chain.

 

Sanders, T.A.B. (1999). The nutritional adequacy of plant-based diets. Proceedings of the Nutrient Society, 58(1), 265-9

 

Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare. (1999). Report on animal welfare aspects of the use of bovine somatotrophin. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scah/out21_en.pdf

Singer,P. (Jun 14 2006) The Ethics of Eating. Retrieved from http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-ethics-of-eating

 

Spika JS, Waterman SH, Hoo GW, et al. 1987. Chloramphenicol-resistant Salmonella newport traced through hamburger to dairy farms: a major persisting source of human salmonellosis in California. New England Journal of Medicine 316(10), 565-70.

Steinfield, H. , P. Geber, T. Wassenaar, V. Castel, M. Rosales and C. De Haan. (2006). Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. Food and Agricultural Organisation, Rome.

Stull, C.L. and Payne, M.A. and Berry,S.L. and Reynolds, J.P. (2007). A review of the causes, prevention, and welfare of nonambulatory cattle. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 231(2), 227-34.

Troutt, H.F. and Osburn, B.I. (1997). Meat from dairy cows: possible microbiological hazards and risks. Scientific and Technical Review 16(2), 405-14.

UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2012). World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision. Retrieved from  http://esa.un.org/wpp/Documentation/pdf/WPP2012_Press_Release.pdf

Woollaston,V. & Reilly,R. & Mcdermott,N. (5 August 2013). World’s first test-tube artificial beef ‘Googleburger’ gets GOOD review as it’s been eaten for the first time. Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2384715/At-tastes-meat–Worlds-test-tube-artificial-beef-Googleburger-gets-GOOD-review-eaten-time.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Before delving into the topic of technology assessment and forecasting, prof showed us a video by Siemens. In this video, Siemens predicted a mega demographic change where people all around the world are moving from rural to urban areas. This implies that the demands of people are changing and thus,  there is a need for us to propose solutions to alleviate the problem of scarcity of resources. In this video, Siemens identified some of the issues in relation to important natural resources and proposed futuristic solutions. 

An interesting observation from the video is that Siemens adopts an open strategy by sharing ideas and proposed solutions. In prof’s opinion, Siemen’s open business strategy is a smart strategy because by publicising its suggested solutions, Siemens is allowing for feedbacks from policy makers and businesses thus creating alliances and partnerships simultaneously. The solutions proposed by Siemens were largely forward looking as well which leads to the reiterated fact that companies/ people who can envisage the future are the ones who will be at the forefront of society. 

Next, we were introduced to the drivers for technology assessment and forecasting. I feel that one key factor which drives technology assessment and forecasting is TIMING. It is worthy to note that all 4 factors that were listed relates to some kind of change overtime and the need to assess technology arises because it affects WHEN we should invest in it, and WHEN we will use it. Without time factor, technology can be said to remain stagnant. As quoted in prof’s presentation:

For time and the world do not stand still…

Change is the law of life.

And those who look only to the past or the present

are certain to miss the future. -John F  kennedy

This quote reinforces my point that the world of technology is ever-changing and it is imperative for us to adapt to such changes. This is especially applicable to businesses which have to adapt to strategic foresight in order to forecast changes in technological developments. Nonetheless, I feel that not just business sectors have to take responsibility in technology assessment. Governments and individuals have a role to play too. Individuals are the high end consumers of technology therefore their demand and preference will significantly impact the decisions of businesses so the onus should be on them to take responsibility. However this may not be practical because of the inavailability of research materials to the Joe on the street. At the end of the day, the issue of who should take responsible is a question of resources available to the parties. Governments and business entity can be said to possess more research materials for technology assessment and forecasting. This was also an issue of discussion in Yong Quan’s presentation today : Suicide Seeds. 

One important lesson that I took away from today’s lesson is the difference between technology assessment and forecast -assessment refers to assessing the current technologies available in the market while forecasting refers to predicting future changes in technology. Even when it is feasible to bring in new technology into the market, there is a need to take into consideration the social concerns.  For example, the introduction of robots into the market is perfectly feasible. However, an over-supply of robots in the future will have social implications in the job field where robots can make certain sectors of employment redundant, where robots can be seen replacing roadsweepers in keeping the environment clean; they may even do a better job than human beings. 

Overall Ratings

Although there were many interesting videos that were incorporated into today’s lesson(especially Microsoft’s parody) I feel that too many new terminologies and foresight methodologies were introduced to us, and the lesson was rather mundane therefore I would rate it 6.5/10.

 

 

I have been looking forward to today’s lesson on emerging and future technologies because this was a topic that I once thought was the crux of TWC.

Interesting observations

One of the emerging technologies that was introduced to us at the start of the lesson is Claytronics –an abstract future concept that combines nanoscale robotics and computer science to create individual nanometer-scale computers called claytronic atoms, or catoms, which can interact with each other to form tangible 3-D objects. My personal view on Claytronics is: although research is still going underway and this technology has yet been introduced into the market, I feel that claytronics have the potential to transform the world, especially in the way people share their ideas. With claytronics, it will be easier for innovators to transform their thoughts into realistic products that can be visualized by inventors and this will enhance the market of innovation, where more creative ideas can be born.

Another video that was shown in class is the Plastic electronics video. Unbeknown to many people (myself included), most plastics newly synthesized are derived from environmentally friendly biofuels. There has been a common assumption that the future of plastic will be bleak due to the non-biodegradable property of plastic, which render it unsustainable. However, as a matter of fact, in 10-20 years time, there will be breakthroughs in this sector as plastic microchips are going to be made affordable, and incorporated into existing products like common sense.

 

Some drivers for Development of Emerging and Future technologies

2 drivers of Development of Emerging and Future technologies that I found interesting is (i) Growing body of scientific and tech know how and (ii) 4 SMARTS.

(i)            It is interesting to note that amalgamation of different technologies is extremely important and that the different technologies are complementary to each other.

(ii)          Out of the 4 SMARTS, I find smart money to be the determining and most crucial factor that can impede future innovation. Without capital from a far-sighted investor, an idea, no matter how good it is, would be prevented from further development of idea into  realistic product that can be introduced into the market.

Individual presentation

One of the presentations today by Siddarth was on flying cars. I feel that the concept flying cars is definitely a possible solution to the congestion on the road, but there will be many complications of this tech as discussed by some of us in class –one involving the skill required to maneuverer a flying car (which resembles a plane), whether this technology will be available to the POOR etc.

Key takeaway message

 Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”

–       Albert Einstein –

This interesting quote which relates to the proliferation of innovation by Albert Einstein tells us that it is far better to create solutions with a fresh state of mind and apply our imagination at the same time; we should not restrict ourselves to short-sighted and cliché solutions that we can propose by relying on our existing knowledge.

One other impactful quote that was particularly impactful is in the words of Kahlil Gibran:

There is a space between man’s imagination and man’s attainment that may only be traversed by his longing”

The quote simply tell us that, in order for our dream real, we need to have commitment to make your dream real.

Ratings

I had expected the discussion of  tangible future technologies that we come across daily instead of remote technologies such as grid networking.  The lesson was different from what I had expected – identifying the features of  iphone 6. Therefore I would rate today’s lesson a 7/10.

 

Energy and World change

IF EVERYONE CONSUMED AS

MUCH ENERGY AS THE AVERAGE SINGAPOREAN AND U.S. RESIDENT, THE WORLD’S OIL RESERVES WOULD BE DEPLETED IN 9 YEARS

This quote clearly depicted the main crux of the lesson looking at depletion of fossil fuels and scarcity issues in relation to natural resources. At the same time, this quote also succinctly answers Prof’s question: why is there a need to change the way we operate?

Interesting Observations

Today’s lesson started with a short video on “Climate change and action” -behind the light hearted atmosphere displayed by animations of the video is astonishing statistics on the extent of environmental pollution. For example, it had never occurred to me that CO2 emissions can reach 23 billion tons in ONE year.  However, this video also suggests that new ideas and new technologies can replace our traditional methods of doing things which is polluting and inefficient, and I think this relates to Prof’s question on why we need to start changing the way we carry out our daily activities.

Global energy change is driven by forces such as burgeoning  population size, in the case of China. It was mentioned in class that China currently utilises 25% of oil compared to the US but given that its population is four times larger that of US, and given that China faces a possibility of growing population, we need to brace ourselves for such a change in energy demand by exploring the use of alternative sources of energy/ reducing energy wastage.

One country that has rose to fame in its efforts to promote energy sustainability is none other than Brazil. She became very successful from generating energy from agriculture, is a leader in green technology and discovered massive oil reserve. If I am not wrong, Brazil has also successfully powered the highest number of motor vehicles on corn ethanol. In my opinion, given that Brazil who may not necessarily have the standard of expertise that Singapore do have, why can’t we achieve the same? I venture to argue that it is most probably due to the reluctance of 3 parties: Government, businesses, consumers.(with the consumers playing the most significant role since government and business policies are born from consumers’ taste and preference.)  It is even more astounding to hear from today’s lesson that even Middle Eastern countries and Nigeria are aiming to move away from their dependency on the oil industry and looking to diversify into other industries. As mentioned above, Singapore, being a first-class developed nation, is bound to have better expertise to research about alternative energy sources and its daily application.

Where does energy come from?

We learn in primary school science that energy comes from the sun but we are most likely unaware of the potential source of energy that is generated from wind, water, biomass and waves!  Prof told us that the bottomline is that the sun provides more energy to the Earth in one hour than humankind currently uses in an entire year, which leads me to think about the possibility of harnessing the immense energy that can be generated using solar power(photovoltaics). However, I guess this is not available as of now because of practical difficulties which have yet to be overcome.

Practical difficulties of harnessing solar energy

Wind and solar energy can generate much more energy than farmed biomass that we have been relying on; nonetheless research into wind and solar energy entails high cost of research. This brings us to the chart showing leading countries’ investment in clean energy.

He/she who can develop clean energy will be the leading leader in the future -Prof Shahi

Solar energy in Germany – if it can be done in a cold, temperate country there is no reason why it cannot be done in tropical countries like Singapore, it has generated 38,000 green jobs so far. Solar power generators can provide up to 15% of energy in Europe by 2050

Individual presentations

Out of the few presentations, I find Sam’s and Matthew’s presentation to be the more interesting ones. In Matthew’s presentation about Hemp Plant, one of the issues of discussion is whether it is acceptable for plots of lands to be allocated to the growth of Hemp Plant despite the prevalence of food security issues. I find this issue to be a difficult one because such contention can already be witnessed in the case of growing corn for ethanol. However, in the circumstances where the growth of Hemp Plant is permissible,  and the fact that both the stem and the “flower” can be put to good usage(higher efficiency) , unlike in the case of corn where the essential part needed is the core; perhaps a lower input of Hemp plant can achieve the same level of efficiency in the use of corn! In this case, the area of land used can be reduced and furthermore, there is no direct causal relationship  between hemp plant and food that can be consumed in the sense that if hemp plant was not used for generating energy it can be consumed.

Overall ratings

Although informative, I feel that a  greater number of alternative sources of energy can be looked at thus I would rate today’s lesson 7.5.

Biofabrication and its application to food production

 Heng Sok Li Vanessa (vanessaheng.2013@law.smu.edu.sg), 1^st year student, Bachelor of Laws, Singapore Management University

Executive Summary

The developments of fermentation of food and live tissue culturing have been extended in its application to biofabrication.

This paper examines the history of biofabrication since 4000BC and how this technology has developed over the years. It then examines the current existing application of biofabrication to healthcare in creating living tissues and their effectiveness in achieving their purposes. This paper raises issues of food crisis(due to livestock and crop shortages), all of which could trigger the development of biofabrication in food production. Finally, the paper analyses and addresses the future considerations that would arise in the future if biofabrication were to be developed on a massive scale.

1)  Introduction

Cell cultured food had been manufactured for thousands of years (since the 17^th C), beginning with products such as wine, beer and yoghurt. The breakthrough in live tissue culturing in the 1950s laid the foundation of biofabrication today. Biofabrication is the production of complex living and non-living biological products from raw materials such as living cells, molecule, extracellular matrices, and biomaterials. Cell and developmental biology, biomaterials science, and mechanical engineering are the main disciplines contributing to the emergence of biofabrication technology. The development of biofabrication has been used to create artificial organs to meet the tight demands of organ shortages, but there have been speculations that biofabrication might just pave the way for the future of food.

Food security issues are becoming more pertinent, especially with global warming- where unpredictable weather conditions are jeopardizing the supply of crops. Ironically, the supply of food also places toil on the environment, with the depletion of fossil fuels and generation of waste. Livestock is the second-highest contributor to atmosphere-altering gases. This is unsustainable in the long run given that resources are finite and they are reaching the limits. As such, there is a pressing need to reduce our reliance on livestock.

Propositions of industrializing livestock production have been raised but it is unlikely to alleviate the problem of shortages and environmental issues. A more effective solution that is currently considered is the production of “meatless” meat using biofabrication. However, the application of biofabrication to meat production remains to be an idealistic solution that has yet to be introduced to the market.

This paper examines the historical production of cultured food since 4000 BC. It delves into the gradual evolution of live tissue culturing up till today. It then examines the current situation that the world is in, some of the latest livestock-derived product that has been produced using biofabrication and plans to extend the use of biofabrication to the production of meat. Issues and pertinent problems of our current consumption of livestock are also discussed as they are driving factors behind people’s acceptance of an evolutionary change in food culture.

2)  Historical perspectives

The application of fermentation to food production can be dated back to 4000BC in the brewing of Chinese rice wine. In 1854, French chemist Louis Pasteur understood the scientific procedure of fermentation microbiology. His work was further influenced by the earlier work of Theodor Schwann, the German scientist who helped developed the cell theory-he concluded that fermentation is a result of processes that occur in living things. In 1902, a German physiologist attempted to cuture isolated single palisade cells from leaves in knop’s salt solution enriched with sucrose. The cells remained alive for up to one month, increased in size, accumulated starch but failed to divide. Though he was unsuccessful but laid down the foundation of tissue culture technology for which he is regarded as the father of plant tissue culture.²

Today’s biofabrication originated from the primitive principles of fermentation and plant tissue cultures.

3)  Current situation

Despite the current progress that has been made thus far in tissue culturing, there are still numerous issues that have been left unaddressed. While many people may be receptive to the idea of wearing novel materials(leather) brewed from cells, they may not be receptive to the idea of consuming novel food (“meatless” meat) cultured from cells. It takes time for the consumers to change their preference of obtaining meat directly from a complex and sentient animal. There are also concerns of the high cost of technology required to brew leather and meat, although Andras Forgacs believes that costs to product will eventually come down. This can be attributed to a number of reasons which will be explored in greater details in the next section of future considerations.

3.1 Organ printing

Biofabrication has been utilized in organ printing, where the technology of three-dimensional printing has been applied to the technique of building layers of cells into living tissues. This process is developed from the knowledge that stem cells can be cultured in vitro. Scientists have successfully produced a facsimile of a human ear on a rat using biofabrication. The ear of a 5 year-old was scanned and based on the scanned image, printed a mould which was then injected with rat collagen. This acted as a scaffold and produced millions of cells. After allowing the culture to grow for a few days, they implanted it under the skin on a rat’s back and a human ear was grown. There are also evidences where sophisticated body organs like skin, windpipe, blood vessels and bone have been successfully implanted into patients. Hence, it has been proved that biofabrication has the ability to mitigate a critical medical issue of shortage of transplantation-there are 70,000 people waiting in line for organs and the longer they wait the worse the outcome. The ability to print organs demonstrates the power of medicine. Practical, scientific and engineering challenges. Accelerated tissue maturation- the longer you keep the tissue in the bioreactor the higher it costs, force cells to produce cellular matrix faster so that costs can be kept low.

3.2 Drugs development

Pure samples of human tissues cultured using biofabrication can be used to test drugs for its effectiveness. Dr Shu Wenmiao of Heriot-Watt university has developed a sensitive printer that prevents cells from suffering undue stress as they move through them so that they will remain in a pluripotent state and are able to become any cell type by specialization of cells at a later stage. At the current stage, a machine gentle enough to print human embryonic stem cells has been developed.³ Although pluripotent cells are valuable research tools that can be used in drug testing, it might have profound social and ethical implications as well. The ease of printing embryonic stem cells can allow anyone who has access to the printing machine from cloning cells, tissues and even human beings.

3.3 Consumer goods

Consumer products such as leather have also been successfully brewed from cells of animals. For instance, in order to produce leather from cow, the skin cells of the cow are isolated and multiplied in a cell culture medium to produce collagen naturally. Through a chemical tanning process, thin layers of collagen are stacked up to form leather. By utilizing the technique of biofabrication, animals are not sacrificed and therefore the demand of livestock to produce such luxurious consumer goods will decrease. Given that livestock is one of the biggest culprits of environmental degradation, when farmers are allowed to breed a smaller population of livestock, waste generation and emission of greenhouse gases is reduced. One other benefit of cultured leather produced from biofabrication is the versatility of such a product- its softness, durability, breathability can all be fine tuned.

4)  Future Considerations

Projecting into the future, there is a high possibility that biofabrication can be applied to food production given the need to reduce reliance on livestock due to environmental concerns. Nearly one-fifth of all greenhouse gases are generated by livestock production-more than transportation of food does. Livestock is also one of the biggest culprits in land degradation, air and water pollution.¹⁰Biofabrication can be incorporated into 3D printing for meat production. This can be done by: taking the smooth muscle cells (major constituent of meat) of a particular livestock, preparing the porcine cells, and incorporating the cells into a sensitive printer to print them in structure of meat.

This section examines some of the considerations that could arise in the future if biofabrication of food were to be developed on a massive scale. The future considerations that will be discussed in this paper relate to (i) consumer preference, (ii) environmental impacts, (iii) ethical implications.

4.1 Consumer preference

It is inevitable that people will initially harbor concerns as to whether there are health complications in consuming engineered meat as it is not a tried and tested method that has been widely embraced. 40% of people would be willing to try cultures meat⁶.Morevoer, based on current progress in this field of development, the appearance of engineered meat is indeed less appetizing than pure meat which have little or no appeal to the consumers⁵. However, as founder of Modern Meadows, Andras Forgacs had expressed, there is in actuality no distinction between engineered meat and beer, cheese, yoghurt and cultured food products that we eat and drink daily;While 3D printed meat might not sound appetizing, it has to be borne in mind that meat production is very resource-intensive and people in  developing countries are acquiring a taste for it. In contrast to the fact that health complications may arise from consumption of engineered meat, co-founder of Modern Meadows, Gabor Forgacs, stated that cultured meat can promote a healthier diet as the fat content in the meat can be uniformly distributed so that the meat is perfectly marbled⁶.

 4.2 Environmental impacts

Using traditional methods, producing just one quarter pound hamburger requires 6.7 pounds of feed, 52.8 gallons of water, 74.5 square feet of land, and 1,036 Btus of fossil fuel energy (enough energy to power a microwave for 18 minutes), according to the December 2011 edition of Journal of Animal Science. Cultured meat production emits substantially less greenhouse gas emissions and requires only a fraction of land water compared to conventionally produced meat in Europe. So, by adopting the biofabrication way of producing meat, a sustainable way of food production is put in place.

4.3 Ethical implications

Engineered meat produced from a bioprinter will blur the line between meat obtained directly from sentient animal and vegan meat- this issue then arises- can a vegetarian consume engineered meat?

 Some vegetarians do not eat meat they are uncomfortable with the way meat is being processed and/or due to religious consideration. There are one billion Hindus who do not eat meat because of religious reasons as it has been promulgated that thousands of gods reside in the stomach of a cow. As such, Hindus are prohibited from the slaughtering of cows. If meat was biofabricated, the issue of animal sanctity would not be mitigated. Viewing it in a positive light, the concern of vegetarians and religious individuals stemming from the cruel slaughtering and processing of meat may be eliminated afterall.

 5)  Conclusion

In summary, the development of biofabrication in the form of fermentation between 4000 BC and 1950s was gradual but picked up momentum from the 1950s with the breakthrough in cell tissue culturing advancements. Currently, biofabrication has brought about significant changes in the healthcare sector, with organ printing technology and drug testing becoming more and more prevalent. In addition, consumer goods such as leather has also been successfully brewed using the very same technique of biofabrication. However, these inventions are still not common in the consumer market probably due to reasons of high costs and the need to consider the ethical implications of such products. Nonetheless, the potential of biofabricated food products in alleviating environmental issues may be a selling point in the near future as the environmental impact of cultivating livestock becomes urgent.

6) References

1 http://new-harvest.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/bf9_2_022001.pdf

2 http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/40180/InTech-Plant_tissue_culture_current_status_and_opportunities.pdf

3 Fit to print- New ways to make living tissue artificially

 http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21575745-new-ways-make-living-tissue-artificially-fit-print

4 Printed human organs for testing and transplantation

http://www.hw.ac.uk/news-events/news/printed-human-organs-testing-transplantation-11075.htm

5 TedMed 2011 Gabor Forgacs – Are you ready for tissues you can “print on demand”?

http://tedmed.com/talks/show?id=7221

6 A pork chop to change the world(yes,really)

http://www.inc.com/john-mcdermott/big-ideas/modern-meadow-in-vitro-meat.html

7 Andras Forgacs: Leather and meat without killing animals Ted Global 2013

http://www.ted.com/talks/andras_forgacs_leather_and_meat_without_killing_animals.html

8 Printed human organs for testing and transplantation

http://www.hw.ac.uk/news-events/news/printed-human-organs-testing-transplantation-11075.htm

9 Billionare Peter Thiel’s latest investment: 3D-printed meat Aug 16 2012

http://techland.time.com/2012/08/16/billionaire-peter-thiels-latest-investment-3d-printed-meat/

10 What’s wrong with what we eat

http://www.ted.com/talks/mark_bittman_on_what_s_wrong_with_what_we_eat.html

 

Today’s lesson started with a video which portrayed humans as parasites on the planet, exploiting resources on planet earth. While some people felt that the video correctly depicts the behaviour of humans others felt that the video was too extreme and we are are on the threshold of change as we think about the future and progress  towards sustainable development.

A brief summary of today’s lesson on Biobusiness Revolution covered Environmental Life Sciences and Industrial Biotechnology : Using the knowledge that we have about the basic life forms on Earth to develop renewable sources technology.

Prof introduced the  concept of different colours of biotechnology to us, namely red(healthcare and well-being), green, blue(marine biotechnology) and white.

As mentioned in the previous session, we have crossed the threshold with a global population that has been urbanised by more than 50%. It’s a major transformation as the world changes from being rural to urban. With urbanisation, energy consumption increases, taste and preference changes. However,this also translates to people becoming more dependent on food supply as the world-wide population employed in agriculture sector decreases, with less farmers being engaged in subsistence farming.

Observations

An interesting observation that was mentioned during lesson is in the field of agri-biotechnology: Most of the food that we consume are now genetically modified. There were discussions regarding the perspective of Europe and USA where some countries in Europe are particular about labelling of GM food while USA, on the other hand, has constitutionally banned the labelling of GMO. This may be contributed to the fear of adverse market effect because consumers MAY not be receptive to consuming GMO but in my opinion, and as some of my classmates have raised in class: everyone should have the right to choose the class of food that they want to consume. Although Singapore’s perspective on this issue wasn’t raise in class, I feel that GM food has already pervaded the market here. A report by AVA showed that since Singapore imports more than 90% of its food products from various parts of the world, the increasing adoption of GM crops in many countries worldwide implies that it is most likely that foods with GM-derived components are sold here. The apples and vegetables that we consume everyday may well be GMO.

Another interesting idea that was raised involved the issue of farming: The population of farmers have reduced drastically over the years as countries evolved into urban cities(In the 1910s, 35% of the US population is engaged in agriculture, today, only 3.5% is working on farms). Nonetheless, as these farm owners adopt other means of living and sell their land to conglomerates who use industrialised methods to grow crops, productivity increases. The traditional way of farming  that is still adopted in developing countries like Bangaldesh is no longer feasible,much less profitable. As predecessors inherit farm land, the average landholding decreases-Average landholding in Bangladesh is about 0.22 hectares- this area of land is too small and is not a productive way of agriculture.

Takeaway message

“There’s enough on this planet for everyone’s need but not for everyone’s greed.” Mahatma Gandhi

We are currently over-using non-renewable resources to satisfy our desires and in years to come we may not have enough to sustain our needs. Earth’s resources are sufficient to meet everyone’s need but not our wants. It is time for us to use what is available from the biological system to move one step closer to sustainability.

Presentations

One presentation which I find particularly interesting is Wong Yiting’s presentation on Meat,providing an alternative to meat production using waste materials such as faeces. One of the issues of discussion is whether we are willing to consume this form of meat- I am open to this idea provided that faeces can be successfully marketed and packaged as meat. As mentioned by one of my classmates that “ignorance is bliss”. For instance, if faeces is packaged as a meat patty in a hamburger without our knowledge of its sources.

Overall ratings

I find today’s presentations highly applicable and interesting so I would rate the lesson 8/10.

I shall start by saying that this week’s lesson is finally not as time tight as the previous lessons because the lesson for week 6 only involved a single topic — BioBusiness Revolution: Healthcare and Biomedical Sciences; how it has evolved over the years and what is its future.

Interesting Observation

One interesting notion that I realise was that the biobusiness industry actually belonged to the category of summit opportunities instead of cloud opportunities. It only dawned on me that research into specific industries such as microbiologic innovation and cloning have already started since 1970s and this change is evolutionary: as time goes by, the number of life science patent approvals by US Patent Office is increasing. An upward trend is evident. I feel that the mindset of societies also impacts this trend, and perhaps an upward trend is the reason why the biobusiness industry is at its peak.

Prof also showed us a video on Health Future Vision that explored the possibilities of telemedicine and even a digital wallet. While the innovation of telemedicine is definitely plausible in 10 years(imo), I feel that this is a creepy notion because it can create a whole new field for invasion of privacy as well. Notwithstanding the fact that it is convenient, the ability of telemedicine to track whether you have taken your medicine on time, as well as the storage and instantaneous transmission of personal particulars across different healthcare providers poses the risk of leakage of of information to unknown parties. As such, although telemedicine offers great convenience for sure, it might be good to take a step back and rethink if society should embrace it wholeheartedly.

The most interesting video that we watched during lesson is “Obesity going global”. We discussed about the notion of obesity being a pandemic, in contrast to an epidemic. The issue of obesity is prevalent all over the globe–In Mexico, there is easy access to junk food. In India, high fat fast food is marketed as good food and given the rise in socioeconomic status of modern Indians, most, if not, all of them can afford fast food. In China, the one-child policy has breed the notion of children being treated as “chinese emperors” where there is too much to eat, and too little time to play. However, an important take away message that I got from the video is that family plays an important role in our diet. Little did I know that when parents go to work,children tend to prepare their own meal and for ease and convenience, junk food is ultimately their top choice. It is also common occurrence for obese families to have obese children.

Take away message

A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.

The biobusiness industry can give rise to many breakthroughs in the healthcare industry for our future generations. The present generation of people should fight for what is best for our future descendents, only if we plan ahead then can we ensure sustainability of society. As the saying goes, if you fail to plan, you plan to fail.

As this week’s lesson is less time-tight than the previous lessons, I feel that more issues in biomedical industries should have been brought up for discussion, since this industry is an exploding field and there are many innovations that are not discussed in class, such as the invention of Da Vinci robotic surgery, biofabrication, live tissue culturing etc. As such, I’d rate today’s lesson 7/10.