“It Would be Funny if it Wasn’t Horrifying”: A Discourse Analysis of the 2019 Conscious Eating Conference Debate on In Vitro Meat

Personal Reflexive Statement

I support veganism and, as far as is practicable, avoid exploiting or harming nonhuman animals in my daily life. Further, I see all oppression as connected and mutually reinforcing. Therefore, efforts to resist oppression must be underpinned by a holistic outlook that asserts the liberation of humans, nonhuman animals, and the environment as three interrelated components of total liberation. On behalf of this orientation, I have participated in street protests for various causes (pro-science, anti-Trump demonstrations, climate change) and am involved in organizing activist spaces online. This position informs my perspective regarding the debate that is the focus of this paper. I side with the radical perspective of the following debate on in vitro meat (referred to as the “con side”) nearly entirely in that their arguments resonate much more strongly with transformative, long-lasting, and positive change. As someone who promotes and practices veganism, I see essentially no reason to argue for IVM and believe it is destined to capitulate to capitalist forces and therefore be rendered neutral at best, or become a way to support the inherently harmful practice of animal farming and accelerate climate change at worst.

Introduction

There is an ongoing and robust debate, especially in activist circles but also among academics and the public, about overarching strategies for social change. Generally, this can be classified into two major approaches: reform and revolution. Reform movements tend to attempt to create change by working legally within existing institutions to make minor or major improvements but leaving the overall system intact. Revolutions seek to overthrow existing institutions, using illegal means when necessary, and replace them with the revolutionaries’ own. Reformism can also be classified as seeking “compromise” while revolutions can be classified as “no compromise.” The debate studied in the present paper reflects this general dichotomy. We can see a reform versus revolution debate play out over how to address problems with farming of animals for meat. An abolitionist stance suggests whole foods plant-based diets (i.e., veganism) as a solution to eliminate animal farming altogether. Some reformist approaches consist of meat alternatives that try to mimic the experience of eating meat but without animal products.

One such replacement is known as in vitro meat (referred to as IVM). IVM production relies on claims of improved animal welfare, sustainability, and human health (Chriki et al. 2022; Smetana et al. 2023). The purpose of IVM is to technologically grow meat from a biopsy of animal cells (as opposed to in the body of a living animal) (Melzener et al. 2021; see Chen et al. 2022 for a recent general overview). Extracted cells are added to a growth serum to supply nutrients, the most common of which is fetal bovine serum (FBS). FBS is obtained by cardiac puncture to drain the blood of fetuses from pregnant cows who are undergoing the process of slaughter (Chelladurai et al. 2021). Although plant-based serums are being vigorously researched (Chelladurai et al. 2021), little is known about their use status, composition, or cost with companies. The initial term of the meat product that is created, in vitro meat, refers to the cells being grown inside a glass Petri dish. Subsequent names, including cell-based meat, cultivated clean meat, and cultured meat, were developed from marketing-based research (Malerich and Bryant 2022). As such, I view IVM as the most objective name while realizing that no term is completely neutral.

This paper analyzes a debate on IVM which took place on March 2, 2019 at United Poultry Concerns’ Eighth Annual Conscious Eating Conference. The conference’s overall theme was, “What are the Most Compassionate Choices”? The statement that was debated was, “Cell-Based Meat is Good for Animals.” Those for the motion were Bruce Friedrich, founder and CEO of the alternative animal product think tank Good Food Institute (GFI), and Leah Garces, president of the animal activist group Mercy for Animals. Against the motion was Vasile Stanescu and John Sanbonmastu, both professors at U.S. universities who have extensive backgrounds in critical theory and critical animal studies. All four debaters self-identified as vegan. Cell-based meat was the chosen term by the Conscious Eating Conference organizers. But while it may be more descriptive than IVM, due to debaters of both sides more frequently using IVM, along with my perceived relative objectivity of the term in vitro meat, IVM is used throughout this paper except in quotations.

The debate was structured as follows: After an introduction of each speaker by moderator Hope Bohanec, each debater had 12 minutes for an opening argument. Each side was then given an opportunity to respond to what was said in the opening arguments. Then the debate was opened to questions from Bohanec. Both sides were given time to answer the questions and respond to each other’s answers. To end, each side was given 5 minutes for closing statements. The video of the debate analyzed for this paper has a total length of 120 minutes, 43 seconds and is available on YouTube.

The Conscious Eating Conference is a yearly event organized by United Poultry Concerns (UPC), a nonprofit focusing on advocacy for domestic fowl (e.g, chickens, turkeys, ducks) by raising awareness of the multiple ways humans use them and the consequences of those uses. UPC was founded in 1990 by Karen Davis, a longtime civil and animal rights activist. Davis has published numerous works that mostly focus on chicken and turkey advocacy. A recent anthology collected a number of her writings that span her career and cover the major topics on which she has published (Davis 2019).

All debates are structured to elicit thoughts on a particular topic. This debate is designed to represent the core arguments from both sides of the general pro/con debate on IVM. It presents the main issues at play over the nascent and somewhat turbulent debate within the animal rights movement regarding IVM and other alternative animal products (Poirier 2021). The purpose of this paper is to describe the basic debate for those who are interested in food systems, social movements, veganism, or animal/environmental protection. The debate over IVM has somewhat split the vegan community and this paper shows how, along what lines, and the discourses involved. Therefore, this paper provides the fundamental pro and con arguments to serve as an introductory paper on the topic via a detailed analysis of why some support IVM and why others are against it.

Briefly, the pro-side’s argument is premised on a presumed failure of current vegan activism in the form of education and public outreach to convince large amounts of people to stop eating animal products. Implicitly this stance relies on effective altruism paradigm as a guiding principle. Effective altruism purports to use evidence-based reasoning to inform people as to which actions or organizations deserve support based on the perceived effectiveness of those actions or organizations (Adams, Crary, and Gruen 2023). Their overall message is that what activists have tried is not working so something else more convincing, in this case IVM, is needed. The con-side challenges this rhetoric as fatalistic. They view IVM as distracting from animal activism’s fundamental goal of promoting ethical veganism. They also see effective altruism as trafficking funds away from more direct and perhaps effective forms of advocacy such as promotion of existing vegan foods.

Literature Review

This study analyzes the Conscious Eating Conference debate on its own terms, meaning that the literature used to help frame and analyze it uses the context of the debate itself. Thus, this literature review covers some contemporary debates in ethics and politics concerning social movements from general topics arising out of this debate specifically. Literature on the general framing and discourse(s) of social movements is not the focus.

This debate plays out in the space of vegan activism (Giraud 2021; Waters 2022). Here, reform strategies have taken the form of legal welfare measures or animal cruelty laws (Marceau 2019). The more revolutionary, no compromise camp favors abolishing animal farming altogether for vegan diets. While veganism is a contested term (see Dutkiewicz and Dickstein 2021), Giraud (2021) argues for retaining veganism’s radicalism as much “more than a diet,” a rejection of all unfair and unnecessary exploitation and use of others, human and nonhuman. Amongst the public, veganism often conjures off-putting notions of ethical superiority and moral purity. While veganism and vegans have continually been denigrated by mainstream Western paradigms, veg(etari)anism has also been devalued in light of IVM (Poirier 2018). Veganism is consistently critiqued as being too far-fetched and exclusive (e.g., in terms of personal choice, disability, and class accessibility). In this way, veganism is viewed as too radical. Yet, radicalness is often a point of pride by those within the vegan community (Griffin 2017; Waters 2022). While veganism may be seen as a radical challenge to an unjust status quo, it is precisely for this reason that the goal of many vegans is to make veganism the mainstream paradigm through cultural transformations (Quinn and Westwood 2018). This has engendered a strong cautionary view that in doing this, though, one must be careful not to water down veganism’s original intent by capitulating to existing animal exploitation industries—also known generally as the animal industrial complex (Noske 1997)—in order to have one’s message gain traction (Castricano and Simonsen 2016; Giraud 2021). As political scientist and animal studies scholar Kim (2015:141) states:

This is the activists’ dilemma here and in many places: in order to enter the public debate and be heard, one must accede to the discursive terms set by the powerful, but in doing so, one may end up compromising that which one is fighting for.

The debate of reform vs. revolution has played out in nearly every social movement (Frey, Dietz, and Kalof 1992; Pellow 2014). For instance, Alfred (2005) asserts that most indigenous people (in North America at least) have become too complacent and reformist, and must become more militant in their “taking action to force change” (45). Similarly but from a Black anarchist perspective, Ervin (2022) and Anderson (2021) proclaim that Black liberation efforts, such as Black Lives Matter and even mass street protests, are simply too reformist, ineffective and not threatening to white society. For them, if Black liberation is not rooted in anarchism, it is too reformist and not radical enough. Alfred, Ervin, and Anderson all emphasize the importance of creating anarchic and liberatory spaces, and being willing to use armed self-defense in defending the autonomy of those spaces for indigenous and Black people, respectively (although, importantly, all wish to avoid such confrontation but see it as inevitable). In the realm of trans liberation, Spade and Belkin (2021) debate the 2017 ban of transgender people from serving in the U.S. military. Belkin is of the reformist perspective and advocates for trans inclusivity into dominant society. Spade takes a radical perspective by arguing that trans people should not be concerned about whether they are “allowed” to be in the armed forces; instead, trans people should be about demolishing the military industrial complex altogether (see also LaPrairie 2022).

Clark (2013) theorizes the term “possibility” as it applies to social transformations. He breaks the term down into “actually possible” (what is doable under concrete circumstances) and “ideologically possible” (possible according to existing social systems). Both types interact and can support or hinder each other. What is actually possible may be ideologically impossible, and what is ideologically possible may be actually impossible. Although Clark’s (2013) general formulation, furthered by Jakobsen (2019), was derived to consider anarchism as a replacement of existing social structures, it is useful to help classify and compare discourses using a rigorous theoretical framework.

There are also theoretical links between sociology, philosophy, and ecology (Bookchin 1982). Ladd (2003) critiques some underlying assumptions of humanism, namely its tendency towards anthropocentrism, dominion, control, exceptionalism, and technocracy. Ladd’s focus is on domination in general as domination in any form impedes the goals of sustainability, justice, wisdom, freedom, and community. He also views Marxism as a form of humanism which devalues nature as a stock of raw materials from which to draw on to continually expand the mode of production. Such economic relations, with their focus on never ending accumulation, in turn has only made the ecological situation worse (Pineault 2023). In what would be general agreement with Ladd, sociologist Éric Pineault promotes degrowth as a radial alternative that considers interests of humans, nonhuman animals, and the environment. Both authors aim to get at the root causes of our global ecological predicament and propose transformative alternatives that combine sociology, philosophy, and ecology.

Philosophers and philosophical works on IVM tend to endorse the technology on ethical grounds. For instance, Chauvet (2018) asserts that IVM would be no more harmful to animals than veganism would be through incidental death in cultivation. He also posits that IVM is no more symbolically injurious to animals than veganism as it does not infringe on their dignity any more than veganism does. In general agreement with ethicists such as Peter Singer, Tom Regan, and others (see Robison-Greene 2023), this is based on a premise that “as long as none of their interests or fundamental rights are affected, it is appropriate to use live animals” for human purposes (Chauvet 2018:389). However, the virtue ethicist Alvaro (2019) disagrees. Alvaro places greater emphasis on the use of animals for IVM production or cell biopsies and argues that it is precisely use—humane or not—that ethical vegans should oppose. Alvaro is also skeptical that IVM will replace traditional meat and instead prop up the existing meat industry. Ultimately, Alvaro sees the desire to consume IVM as unvirtuous given the abundance of already existing vegan food. These two ethical discourses represent a microcosm of the wider debate regarding IVM.

The notion of purity politics is taken up by Shotwell (2016), using animal rights and veganism as a case study. Shotwell’s argument against a purist stance (in any domain of life) rests on a realization that to be alive necessarily entangles individuals with the wider community which entails complicity in harm. Pertaining to veganism, one must eat to stay alive and this entails the death of some—say, worms in the soil or plants themselves. There is an imbroglio of further relations within a vegan diet such as the politics of local, organic, fair-trade, or “cruelty free” vegan food (Harper 2010). All told, “purity” is an impossible ideal, what Max Weber calls an “ideal type,” abstractions or constructions from empirical observations that represent a “pure” version of a concept but are not attainable (Weber 2011). Epistemologically we cannot know reality exactly, but only approximately by comparing empirical reality to specific ideal types. As explained by Rosenberg (2016:86), Weber’s ideal types “were dynamic tools to be used in understanding and explaining the generally intended subjective meanings of lived reality, the domain of shared social experiences.” Ideal types pertain to veganism because the logic of veganism is to minimize one’s harm towards others. Taken to its extreme, this implies zero harm, which is a practical impossibility. Thus, some advocate for veganism to be viewed as an aspiration rather than an endpoint (Gruen and Jones 2016).

Cruel optimism denotes a relation in which “something you desire is actually an obstacle to your flourishing” (Berlant 2011:1). Optimistic attachments manifest in a recurring situation, bordering on fixation, accompanied by the thought that with the addition or application of this particular thing to a given situation a desired change will result. Cruelty enters when such a striving backfires yet the agent continues to believe in success. Berlant says this is increasingly becoming the case even as the evidence mounts that many fantasies of the good life are crumbling under neoliberal economies and governance. These social forces create immense pressure that strains previous beliefs and courses of action but without ameliorating “the need for a good life” (7). She presents her analysis through the frame of the “impasse”; in Berlant’s adapted use, aspiring to create change via existing social infrastructure despite evidence of its inadequacy. She also coins “situation tragedy” in contradistinction to the familiar “situation comedy”: “In a situation tragedy, the subject’s world is fragile beyond repair, one gesture away from losing all access to sustaining its fantasies: the situation threatens utter, abject unraveling” (2011:6).

Method

Beyond an obvious but overly simplistic anti-capitalism versus pragmatism dichotomy, my goal was to break down each side’s discourse in detail to know their arguments and reasons for their opinions and how each side attempts to critique the other. I am also interested in similarities and blind spots of both sides. Thus, discourse analysis is employed to reveal how each side attempts to produce a certain reality regarding IVM, veganism, and activism through interaction in the context and structure of a debate (Hardy et al. 2004). I focus on the main thrust of each side of the debate and do not attempt to categorize all that was said. This study is less concerned with particular words used than with meanings conveyed in tracts of speech (Hardy et al. 2004) and the implications those meanings might convey.

Language is particularly important because it can be a driving force between what comes to be seen as acceptable and unacceptable. Language researcher and animal activist Nguyen (2019) describes how language (Vietnamese and English) can be used to enact both great and terrible events: “Words can single-handedly set in motion a Shakespearean tragedy … [or] convince people that it’s a good idea to go to war” (x). Thus, words invoke values, activate norms, and shape attitudes, behaviors, and social processes. Language describing specific strategies for activism can influence people to follow certain modes of action, which have effects. This is important for animal and environmental activists because they are speaking and acting on behalf of others who will bear the consequences of their actions.

I came to this study having already watched the video of the full debate twice. For this study, the full video was watched a third time to create a transcript. The transcript was then proofread to correct errors. Special attention was paid to what themes arose from both sides and how each side engaged the other on a given theme. Each speaker’s opening argument and evidence used to support these arguments were noted. Entire opening comments of each panelist were broken down into main points to capture the big picture each speaker was presenting. Then the transcript was revisited by following each debater’s argument through the debate to track their argument/discourse. Representative quotes were copied and pasted into a document and arranged by theme. Some quotations were minimally edited for readability but without altering the debaters’ meaning.

Concerning trustworthiness of the interpretation of quotations, video of the conference was used to supplement the text. The basis for such interpretation included voice inflection, facial/body language, eye contact, or other actions observable in the video of the moments during the quotations being described. For these cases, I note in the text below what exactly lead to uses of such descriptors.

Results

In analyzing video of the Conscious Eating Conference debate, the two sides present starkly different arguments. However, the dominant theme running through the debate is that of strategy, which differs markedly between the two sides. Going forward, these two sides will be referred to as the “pro” side (represented by Friedrich and Garces arguing that IVM will help animals) and the “con” side (represented by Stanescu and Sanbonmatsu arguing that IVM will not help animals). Three subsets of differences were found: (1) small-scale vs. a large-scale focus, (2) variety of activist tactics vs. fundamentalist veganism, and (3) angry/pure vs. realistic (from the pro side’s view); realistic vs. naive (from the con side’s view). Evidence of each is presented.

In terms of underlying motivation for supporting IVM, the pro side looks at past and present animal activism and trends in meat production and consumption. Pointing to USDA data:

2018 was the highest per capita meat consumption in U.S. history. In 2019, per capita meat consumption is going to be even higher. All that despite the revolution, [in plant-based eating inspired by Francis Moore Lappé’s book Diet for a Small Planet] almost fifty years ago. (Friedrich)

From this, both conclude that a change in strategy is needed:

So by that thought, we are failing miserably at doing our job, Bruce and I as activists. (Garces)

Friedrich and Garces see themselves as being pragmatic and focusing on what they think will be effective. As Garces emphasizes, “I think my main thought I want you to go away with is, what works? What will work?” They appear to implicitly define “effective” through the eyes of the animals they are trying to save and protect. They keep a close grounding to what might be called a micro or small-scale perspective, that is, the lives of individual animals:

We need to be very laser focused on asking the question, if I were a hen in one of these battery cates, if I were a chicken in one of these broiler sheds, what would I want my advocates to be doing and supporting? (Friedrich)

The con side takes an entirely different approach. They look at a larger picture, such as social, psychological, and economic forces at play:

We’re not going to defeat speciesism with speciesism. (Stanescu)

The first two quotes by Stanescu highlight the role of speciesism—the favoring of some species as inherently different from and more important than others—and how he sees it as still prevalent in IVM. He draws a parallel—both in tactics and in rhetoric—to what he sees as a parallel instance of coal companies. This comparison is especially pertinent because Friedrich explicitly and unapologetically (almost proudly, even) ties IVM to clean energy in his opening argument, by saying the term clean meat is a “nod” to clean energy. The word “nod” signifies acknowledgement and respect, and he also talks about how clean energy is better for the environment, indicating admiration.

This last extract, in which Sanbonmatsu ends by pointing out the difference in strategy, leads to the second instantiation of this rift, that of the strategies chosen by each side. The pro side is clear that they view IVM as only one of many possible ways to protect farmed animals, that previous and current activism should continue:

I’m not advocating that anybody change what it is that they’re focusing on or what it is that they’re working on but it certainly seems to be that we should be looking at [and] we should be using all the tools in our toolkit. (Friedrich)

For being careful and measured, the pro side seems to embrace capitalism as a vehicle for IVM to the point where they consider it hardly a topic of discussion:

We’re not actually debating capitalism here today. I’d love to do that debate but that’s not the one for today so let’s just put that aside. (Garces)

Exactly what Garces means is unclear as she does not follow it up or give much context. But, since she and Friedrich have already proudly mentioned the multiple multi-national corporations they’re working with to bring about IVM (Friedrich promotes his GFI conferences by mentioning how he brought together representatives from such corporations as something unique and impressive for an animal rights conference, as well as that he is “excited” about comments from executives of Tyson Foods), it does seem like this comment by Garces brushes aside critical considerations of using capitalism as a vehicle for positive change in favor of expediency (see also Garces 2022; Poirier 2021 on Garces and Friedrich, respectively, endorsing corporations and capitalism).

The con side takes the opposite approach, digging in their heels against capitalism:

In response to Friedrich and Garces working with the meat industry, comments that IVM will help the meat industry to profit and grow, and that these companies want to “do something noble” (Friedrich), the con side replies, “I don’t believe they do” (Stanescu) and “are these people going to be trusted? No.” (Sanbonmatsu). Not only do Sanbonmatsu and Stanescu see capitalism as an errant strategy, they also see it as unnecessary. Instead, they suggest plant-based diets (vegetarianism or veganism), citing the availability of substitutes:

From taste to texture to nutritional quality, a cornucopia of options both natural and artificial already exist, are widely available and reasonably affordable. (Stanescu)

In short, while Sanbonmatsu and Stanescu might be perceived as radicals, their suggestion is to simply eat the foods that are already available. This hardly seems radical. Pursuing IVM when known and available solutions already exist, might be counterproductive:

There’s a flavor to this of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory to some extent. And I understand veganism is hardly taking off. However, pretty much everything that you folks have said about shifting to an alternative to this system could be applied to promoting, marketing plant-based things. (Sanbonmatsu)

Shifting the focus from capitalism to plant-based diets leads into the last dimension of this central debate, and that is how each side views the other’s and their own arguments. Each side views the other as emotional, and views themselves as realistic. Garces portrays the con side as being (overly) angry: “I get what it feels like to be angry about these things.” She goes on to explain why their strategy of working with the meat industry is a better approach:

I have been an angry activist for like twenty years, where I’m just like beating my head. The industry sucks! …. We’re not going to change anybody by being angry. …So you have to put yourselves in Tyson’s shoes and say what’s going to make them stop killing animals. Not, “I’m angry they’re killing them, I’m angry they’re capitalists.” … This is my life, trying to think about how do we stop Tyson from wanting to slaughter animals and it’s not going to be me sitting in the room yelling at them about the ethical — why aren’t you ethical? It’s not working.

However, Sanbonmatsu sees Friedrich and Garces as “frustrated” and, from that frustration, pursuing questionable strategies:

I get it. After so many years of frustration with people eating more meat, more animal suffering, we see something bright and shiny and new, a high technology item, something that has the backing of a lot of very powerful, rich, white men.

Sanbonmatsu uses the inclusive “we” here perhaps to foster some sort of shared intention on the part of all debaters. Indeed, he prefaces this comment by referring to Friedrich and Graces as “some courageous activists on the stage.” But Sanbonmatsu’s use of “we” seems more directed at Friedrich, Garces, and others who he sees as pursuing IVM optimistically and perhaps uncritically.

Further, this debate gets heated a few times. Both Stanescu and Sanbonmatsu take pointed, personal shots at Friedrich for his activism concerning IVM and Friedrich seems to visibly take offense (in addressing these criticisms, Friedrich lowers his voice, looks down more, has a serious face, and sharply defends himself, including some rhetorical jabs back at Sanbonmatsu and Stanescu while ignoring Bohanec’s initial attempts asking him for the microphone back). To help calm tensions about halfway in, Stanescu tries to foreground shared motivations:

I just want everyone to know I personally respect Bruce a great deal. I’m just meeting Leah but I personally respect her. And I respect every animal rights organization out there. I respect every vegan out there. I don’t think that people are fundamentally different in their hearts.

Despite this, Sanbonmatu’s possible attempt at commonality, and Leah’s gesture of shared anger, the two sides remain firmly at odds. So there is a continual attempt to be cohesive and present a united front concerning animal activism but differences tend to override similarities. This points to how factionalization in social movements can prohibit overall progress as it divides activists and weakens solidarity.

While there are similarities in how each side views the other and themselves, the pro side views the con side as being idealistic, pure, or fundamentalist:

Our opponents might say that meat shouldn’t be eaten even if it comes from an animal that was never slaughtered, that was never harmed, that was never alive. So should we reject it for that reason? Because it comes originally from a system of injustice and exploitation? (Garces)

In Stanescu’s opening argument, he ends with “what we should be fighting for is not for clean meat but for no meat at all.” This is an absolutist stance that rules out IVM a priori. Later in the debate, Friedrich replies with, “when Vasile says ‘we want not clean meat but no meat,’ the main thing I want to say is how’s that going for us?” This is an implicit echo of the pro side’s earlier arguments that current activism is not producing desired results, that taking a “pure” stance against meat will not lead to animal liberation because it hasn’t so far.

In the other direction, the con side views the pro side as naïve:

Sanbonmatsu portrays Friedrich and Garces as naive by describing their view as “the land of make-believe.” The second quote essentially suggests that those who support IVM under the general vision of Garces and Friedrich are living in an alternate reality because previous attempts at reforming the meat industry have led to the increase in animal slaughter. This uses Friedrich and Garces’s basic argument, that current activism isn’t working, against them. Sanbonmatsu sums this up when he says “We are being treated as fools, they [the meat industry] get the gold and the animals lose.”

Friedrich and Garces identify as activists and leading activist groups. From this standpoint and given the arguments both use—that current vegan activism isn’t working—their characterization of the con side is understandable. It likely does not help Sanbonmatsu and Stanescu that their argument fundamentally promotes veganism:

As vegans we don’t believe that it is okay to use animals and torture them and experiment [on] them, even if there’s a claim that it’s going to help animals later. (Stanescu)

This rhetoric is clearly in opposition to the fundamental message of the pro side in terms of tactics. Sanbonmatsu points out how the two sides are somewhat talking past each other: “I just want to say that we are not a contradiction between the moral purists over here and the pragmatists over there. We are arguing, at least I think we’re arguing, that it isn’t going to work.” By “work,” Sonbanmatsu means that IVM will not achieve animal liberation, not that IVM isn’t technically feasible (something Friedrich misinterpreted later in the debate). They are saying that IVM can be and has been made and likely will make certain corporations and individuals a lot of money but it will not achieve the goals both sides of this debate agree on.

Perhaps because of this, the pro side seems to view the con side as moral purists:

This is not without some merit. The con side does rest on morals and vegan principles. As Stanescu says, “I can’t think of a single social justice movement that has ever worked by abandoning its principles, and I don’t think we should start now.” Sanbonmatsu even reads a short poem by Langston Hughes called “Dreams”: “Hold fast to dreams/for if dreams die life is a broken winged bird that cannot fly/hold fast to dreams for when dreams go/life is a barren field/frozen with snow.” But both distance themselves from pipe dreams and ground their fundamentalist veganism in what they see as realism:

I don’t think we’re picking nits here. I think these are very profound, economic, social, political issues that are at stake. (Sanbonmatsu)

If the pro side may seem to critique the con side as too idealistic, Sanbonmatsu and Stanescu provide reasoning to their arguments grounded in applied observations:

If you find this very attractive, glittering new thing, please be very skeptical of how it’s going to end up and consider the fact that it isn’t going to be in our hands. It’s going to be in the hands of these incredibly powerful billion-dollar corporations. (Sanbonmatsu)

What these quotes show is that the con side sees themselves as trying to view the current social situation as it is and to learn from history, although a different lesson than the pro side. They consider previous (ab)uses of technology and capital in the hands of corporations, capitalists, and the meat industry and argue that IVM will be no different. This is always the dilemma of those promoting new technologies, to argue or demonstrate that this time and this technology will bring about the desired solution with minimal to no negative side effects. This is what Friedrich and Garces argue. Sanbonmatsu and Stanescu argue that there is no basis for this claim.

Discussion

Overall between the two sides, there is little explicit agreement beyond the basics of the need to eradicate animal suffering and mitigate climate change. The pro side pushes the capitalist production and promotion of IVM via the meat industry, millionaires, billionaires, and other elites as a realistic and pragmatic antidote to a failing strategy of changing people’s minds. The con side rejects this entirely, insisting that capitalism will not—and cannot—bring about desired results. Instead, it is argued that such an approach to IVM strengthens existing harmful industries by furthering their own logic. Both sides view themselves as realistic and view the other as misguided. As the con side presents capitalism as an unreasonable tactic that should never be pursued under any circumstances, they would agree with Jakobsen (2019:169) that “the capitalist machinery will commercialize and emasculate all such good intentions.” Instead, IVM pursued through capitalism leaves the “hard core” of the neoliberal paradigm intact, only affecting the “protective belt” (Jakobsen 2019).

It is interesting that the pro side repeatedly brings up the animals themselves and what they might prefer, yet largely ignores or downplays structural forces such as capitalism, use of technology, and social elites. While Sanbonmatsu and Stanescu also speak about animal care, they do so much more generally and focus on structural forces. They double down on what they see as fundamentally ethical (vegan) practices while the pro side advocates a need to change or at least incorporate new tactics.

These differences suggest a factionalization of the animal rights movement. Nearly every social justice movement (and most other movements) have sharp internal debates—M. L. King and Malcom X., the splits in Black Panthers and Students for a Democratic Society, etc. In U. S. social movements, factionalism is a strong predictor of movement failure as factions compete for resources (see Frey et al. 1992). Regarding IVM, the split between radicals’ opposition and mainstream activists’ support is indicative of an existing factionalization in the animal rights movement. Those in mainstream organizations or who support mainstream tactics tend to embrace IVM and those who consider themselves radical tend to oppose it (Poirier 2021), although even this is not completely cut and dry.

In general, Stanescu and Sanbonmatsu are aligned with Alfred (2005), Ervin (2022), Anderson (2021), and Spade (Spade and Belkin 2021), and Alvaro (2019) in terms of taking an anti-capitalist, anti-statist stance on IVM. The con side has a hardline, no compromise approach that often accompanies radical factions of social movements. They take this stance while realizing some unfortunate circumstances may arise as a result, such as longer-term change instead of saving individual animals now (incidentally, this is the crux of the debate between Spade and Belkin concerning trans military service). In contrast, Friedrich and Graces align more with reform-based social movements and a politics of inclusion within current systems (and perhaps philosophically align with Chauvet [2018]). They argue that working IVM into the current system is the best approach and are focused on protecting or saving individual animals that are alive now more so than hypothetical animals yet to exist.

Notable, although hardly noticeable, is that the con side concedes that IVM could be a viable strategy if done correctly, that is, accompanied by a systematic education and activist campaign. They are not absolutely against IVM but how it is being actualized in practice. This again helps distance them from accusations of being too abstract or too idealist. One way to help sort out these two approaches, and how they relate to each other, is to use Clark’s (2013) theorization of im/possibilities. Jakobsen (2019:6) organizes these options in a table, recreated in a slightly edited form here as Table 1.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Ideological Versus Actual Possibilities and Impossibilities.

		Actual
		Possible	Impossible
Ideology	Possible	1.	2.
	Impossible	3.	4.

Apply this formulation of both Clark and Jakobsen to the present debate, both sides would likely classify the other under cell 3, what Clark calls a “possible impossibility.” From the foregoing quotations presented above, both sides see the other as having a technically possible position. IVM had already been made at the time of this debate in 2019 and animal agribusiness had already shown interest by investing in it. Likewise, vegans exist and nearly everyone is physically capable of living a vegan lifestyle. So technical aspects represent actual possibilities and are agreed on by all panelists. Yet, both sides view these technical/actual possibilities as inhibited by ideological impossibilities. The con side would say that the success of IVM is blocked by ideologies of speciesism and capitalism. Sanbonmatsu captures this succinctly when he says IVM “is going to work probably as a technical matter but it’s not going to work in terms of replacing animals. That’s my concern.” Likewise, the pro side would say veganism is blocked by a strong desire to consume animal products, as evidenced by their reference to the failure of vegan activism: “So I haven’t heard the other side attempt to argue that what we’re doing now is working” (Friedrich). This interpretation fits closest to the theoretical usage by Clark and Jakobsen of the concepts in Table 1.

Arguably, both sides view themselves as advocating possible possibilities, that is, located in cell 1, being both actually and ideologically possible. Friedrich and Garces exemplify clear evidence of this:

Just think if you were in the room with Tyson and you had the chance to talk to them and this was your one shot. Really, put yourself in their shoes and what would convince Tyson executives to change? (Garces)

Friedrich is implying that because IVM will be more profitable, the meat industry will phase out farming animals for food (ideology) and Garces is asserting its practicality because she actually is at the table with the likes of Tyson, with the opportunity to influence them (Garces 2022).

Based on the differences in these two sides, the con side might say that the pro side is suffering from a sort of “cruel optimism,” (Berlant 2011) while the con side could be viewed by the pro side as practicing purity politics (Shotwell 2016). Berlant’s cruel optimism applies to relations in which the thing itself that is sought after prohibits success. In terms of this debate, this needs to be stretched some. It seems clear that both sides desire animal liberation. That would be their “object” or “scene.” But what they are striving for is a “good life” for others (farmed animals), not necessarily for themselves. Whether or not they succeed in their goal, Friedrich and Garces can have a good life. Their attachment is to capitalism, not animal liberation. The ability for capitalism to lead to or produce meaningful transformative change is precisely what Sanbonmatsu and Stanescu’s critique rests on. Their point is that capitalism is bound to disappoint and therefore, pursuing it as a vehicle for animal liberation will lead to failure and hence result in a cruel form of optimism.

Based on their own experiences working with meat companies, which both mentioned during the debate, Friedrich and Garces may view Sanbonmatsu and Stanescu as being caught up in a form of purity politics that draws lines of acceptable and unacceptable forms of activism in terms of radicality. This is further supported by comments by Friedrich and Garces about using a variety of strategies. Thus, the con side may view working with meat companies as not radical enough and the pro side views not working with them to not be pragmatic enough. This could be a manifestation of Shotwell’s (2016) argument that we are all enmeshed in relations, some beyond our control, and this must be acknowledged. Only then can we begin to live ethically via realizing “we are compromised and we have made compromises, and this will continue to be the way we craft the world to come…” (Shotwell 2016:5). Friedrich and Garces could be said to be starting from a more fraught position entangled in webs of relationships that include meat companies. They seem to be taking a stance that engages with the world as it is and arguably would label Sanbonmatsu and Stanescu as fixated on an unattainable ideal type. Importantly, while the pro side also acknowledges they would like to see animal farming and capitalism abolished, they also emphasize that even messy relationships can be used to make gains more quickly. In other words, to live ethically albeit necessarily impure. Contrarywise, Sanbonmatsu and Stanescu arguably view Friedrich and Garces as at an “impasse” and embattled in a “situation tragedy,” to use Berlant’s terms: aspiring to create change via existing social infrastructure (capitalism) despite evidence of its inadequacy and viewing the pro side as viewing IVM as a last-ditch effort to remain optimistic about animal liberation.

I’ll bring this discussion towards a close by noting two points that were essentially absent from the debate’s discourse. Sanbonmatsu and Stanescu critique Friedrich and Garces for their pro-capitalist tactics. But even whole food, plant-based solutions offered by Sanbonmatsu and Stanescu have the potential to be co-opted by the high concentration and power and unethical production practices due to capitalism’s influence. Great care must be taken to try to avoid this system. Yet Sanbonmatsu and Stanescu do not address this reflexively but use it only as a critique of the pro side. They essentially present capitalism in contrast to plant-based diets, which is a false dichotomy. Sanbonmatsu and Stanescu likely know this but do not say it. Notably, Friedrich and Garces do not point this out either, which would have been advantageous for their side, perhaps due to their lack of concern about capitalism.

For overall plant consumption to increase, there would need to be a corresponding increase in plant crop production. Thus, land conversion schemes would be required. Additionally, the concentrating power of capitalism often associated with such growth and the potential for monocultures to attend to such demand, and competition for market viability, would present a fair challenge to the anti-capitalist rhetoric. In other words, a non-capitalist vision is somewhat lacking. This is a common charge against those with utopian ideals. This being said, see the chapters by Abrell (2023) and Simon (2023) for trenchant critiques of Bruce Friedrich and GFI in terms of actions taken on behalf of both that capitulate to capitalism with an inevitable outcome of widespread animal harm for the sake of promoting alternative animal products. Although nowhere else in this article do I make evaluative judgements, I think the critiques of Abrell and Simon, which echo those of Sanbonmatsu and Stanescu, are more persuasive and carry more weight than a hypothetical lack of a non-capitalist vision from the con side.

Relatedly, while capitalist IVM is critiqued and plant-based foods (capitalism notwithstanding) given as a solution, non-capitalist IVM production is not discussed. Sanbonmatsu brings up public education as a necessary condition for which to support IVM but is not clear in how this would or could be disassociated from capitalism. Provided the condition of anti-speciesist education, it would seem like non-capitalist IVM may be something the pro side could support but their discourse is so strongly against IVM in general, it is difficult to conclude this based on the debate alone. The pro side would likely again take the opposite stance and insist that non-capitalist IVM is ideal but not practical because capitalism is necessary for the growth required to significantly curb animal agriculture. Indeed, they remark several times that they would like to see capitalism fall. But both sides seem to take a rather extreme position with little articulated reflection on either capitalist veganism or non-capitalist IVM. That this is essentially absent from the data makes it hard to comment but remains interesting in its absence.

At least such considerations bring ethics back into the picture. Friedrich is criticized by Sanbonmatsu for having said in a previous interview that the goal of IVM is to “take ethics off the table,” a stance Friedrich defends in this debate as a reason to support capitalist IVM production. His point is that if meat is decoupled from animal death, then using capitalism to promote IVM is essentially harmless if not beneficial. On the con side, there are virtues lurking in the background of Sanbonmatsu and Stanescu’s collective argument such as temperance, and rhetoric clearly against animal use, per Alvaro (2019). Yet the entanglement of death in vegan food recalls Chauvet’s (2018) argument for IVM. At the same time, Chauvet argues that IVM kills no animals (2018:389). But this is theoretical as IVM would have to decouple itself from FBS, or any other process that might incidentally kill nonhumans, such as that which might occur while constructing new infrastructure for IVM production facilities. The charge of incidental animal harm goes both ways and again recalls Shotwell’s (2016) purity politics. Not wishing to wade too deeply into this philosophical discussion, suffice it to say that capitalism’s infiltration of meat, IVM, and veganism does pose interesting ethical dilemmas for activists in terms of what they support and how they frame the issues. For an extended discussion of capitalism, IVM, and plant-based meats using similar data, see Poirier (2021) for elaboration.

Conclusion

This paper presented an analysis of a two-sided debate on whether “cell-based meat is good for animals.” The pro side believes previous and current vegan activism has not been very effective, so IVM is needed as one of many activist tactics. They envision part of this approach to entail working with meat companies to reduce the number of animals farmed and to transition toward an IVM (and/or plant-based meat) business model. Their logic is based on a capitalist impetus of helping animal agribusiness continue to make money and to stay in business as environmental and climatic factors impede the continuing expanse of animal agriculture. The con side argues completely against this line of thought, advocating staying with traditional activism motivated by a deep distrust of corporations and capitalism. The pro side is focused on shorter-term benefits while the con side focuses on long-term abolition. Both sides view themselves as taking a realistic approach and the other side as being misguided.

Both sides agree on the importance of veganism but not how to achieve widespread veganism. It is noteworthy that the con side is not against IVM wholesale but see it as being pursued unwisely. For them, IVM could be permissible “If the public was being educated, their consciousness was being raised about what speciesism is as a mode of production, of human life, then I could perhaps get on board with this” (Sanbonmatsu). They echo the sentiment that solutions already exist (Gelderloos 2022; Warburton 2021) in this case, in the form of vegan foods. But, along with others who have investigated the alternative animal products space in-depth by interviewing people like Friedrich (Kleeman 2020; Zimberoff 2021), they are skeptical of the transformative potential of IVM advocacy and find reasons to distrust the hype, optimism, and promises.

While this debate represents two opposing sides, the actual range of orientations to IVM is multifaceted. Many are not simply for or against it. Indeed, some are on the fence, as the moderator Hope Bohanec admits at the beginning of this debate. Also, the pro side is represented by two activists, while the con side is represented by two academics. This is not representative of the wider debate; it is not that academics are generally against IVM and activists are primarily for it. The reality is much more mixed. Regardless, the Conscious Eating Debate is a great source for hearing arguments for and against IVM and, for those interested, to watch and sort through the arguments presented to decide for oneself.

Lastly, this paper has made some connections to similarly divided debates within movements outside of animal or environmental protection, namely Black anarchism, decolonization, and trans liberation. The general debate and framing of the issues could be applied to numerous other movements such as police reform versus abolition (Kaba and Ritchie 2022) or green growth versus degrowth (Pineault 2023). Rhetoric and nuance of each of these debates will differ, but the general reform/abolition discourses of similar—and even not-so-similar—debates are fruitful for widening the applicability of this paper.