From Angus to Erlenmeyer Media Coverage of Lab Manufactured Meat

Abstract/Summary The following paper analyzes the coverage of lab manufactured meat in eleven different articles from a selection of online and traditional media as well as academic journals.Advertising We will write a custom report sample on From Angus to Erlenmeyer: Media Coverage of Lab Manufactured Meat specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The articles range in date from 2005 through to 2011 and cover various elements of the issues surrounding lab manufactured or in vitro meat, including the ethical concerns, the economic ramifications, the scientific viability of lab manufactured meat and the perceived environmental benefits of this technology. The report found that the portrayal of lab manufactured meat in the media spent the balance of coverage on the so-called ‘yuck’ factor, namely, that lab manufactured meat does not come from a real animal, but from a laboratory; this coverage skewed the reader unfavourably towa rd the environmental and ethical benefits of lab manufactured meat. Introduction/Background The purpose of this research is threefold: one, the research seeks to ascertain how lab manufactured meat is portrayed in the media, specifically in regard to its environmental benefits, and how these perceived benefits measure up against the palatability of in vitro meat to the current meat eating consumer. Two, the research seeks to uncover the facts about lab manufactured meat – what is it, how is it made and what are the pros and cons associated with this burgeoning food industry. Thirdly, this report aims to identify the viability of lab manufactured meat as a replacement for mass meat or factory farming, with an eye to cost effectiveness, ethical elements, the impact to labour worldwide and effective management of the finite resources associated with the mass meat farming techniques, particularly water, grazing areas and reduction of green house gas production. The technology ass ociated with lab manufactured meat has been around since the 1980s. Essentially lab manufactured meat takes ‘stem cells from a biopsy of a live animal, or a piece of flesh from a slaughtered animal, and [places] them in a three-dimensional growth medium – a sort of scaffolding made of proteins. Bathed in a nutritional mix of glucose, amino acids and minerals, the stem cells multiply and differentiate into muscle cells, which eventually form muscle fibres. Those fibres are then harvested for a minced-meat product’ (Raizel, 2005, p.76).Advertising Looking for report on communications media? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Lab manufactured meat is created within a piece of equipment called a ‘bioreactor, a fancy name for something as small as a Petri dish or as large as an industrial 10,000 litre vessel. Producing the tissue takes between four and five weeks, whether or not you are making one kilogram o r one tonne’ (Lee, 2010, p.6). The science around lab manufactured meat is still in its infancy; lab manufactured is expensive to produce and currently a means to mass produce lab manufactured meat does not exist. ‘One kilogram (2.2 pounds) of in vitro meat costs thousands of dollars to grow, with much of that money spent on the broth’s ingredients. [Scientists] †¦predict that the expenses will come down in about 10 years and that in vitro meat could sell for as little as $1 per kilogram’ (Jozefowicz, 2007, p. 7). Lab manufactured meat offers a real alternative to factory farming, and herein lies the issue at the heart of the research. According to Specter (2009) ‘part of the motivation for growing meat in laboratories is animal welfare: billions of cows, chickens and pigs would no longer spend their lives force-fed grain and antibiotics or cooped up in factory farms’ (Specter, 2009, n.p.). The mass meat farming industry generates billion s of dollars per year and employs millions of individuals all over the globe. According to Steinfeld et al (2006) ‘the livestock sector†¦accounts for 40 per cent of agricultural gross domestic product†¦it employs 1.3 billion people and creates livelihoods for one billion of the world’s poor. Livestock products [also] provide one third of humanity’s protein intake’ (Steinfeld et al, 2006, p. 22). Globally, the mass meat or factory farming industries utilize vast amounts of natural resources. According to Steinfeld et al (2006), the aggregate area of land allotted to grazing is ‘equivalent to 26 per cent of the ice free terrestrial surface of the planet. In addition, the total area dedicated to feed crop production amounts to 33 per cent of total arable land. In all, livestock production accounts for 70 per cent of all agricultural land’ (Steinfeld et al, 2006, p. 23). As the human population increases, the vast usage of resources will only continue to climb, causing more environmental damage in its wake. Steinfeld et al (2006) state that ‘70 per cent of previous forested land in the Amazon is occupied by pastures and feed crops [cover] a large part of the remainder’ (Steinfeld et al, 2006, p. 23). All of this points to the fact that meat consumption has become problematic. According to Specter (2011) ‘the global livestock industry is responsible for nearly twenty per cent of humanity’s greenhouse-gas emissions.Advertising We will write a custom report sample on From Angus to Erlenmeyer: Media Coverage of Lab Manufactured Meat specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Cattle consume nearly ten per cent of the world’s freshwater resources, and eighty per cent of all farmland is devoted to the production of meat. The consequences of eating meat, and our increasing reliance on factory farms, are almost as disturbing for human healthâ€℠¢ (Specter, 2011, p. 32). As an organization, the mass meat farming lobby gives voice to the millions of people who depend on this way of farming for their livelihoods – the farmers themselves, the grocery stores that sell the meat to the consumer, the people that manufacture the farming equipment – the list goes on (Miller, 2008, p.8). Taken in global context the mass meat farming industry affects billions the world over; the mass meat farming industry is a ‘structure based on collective and communal relationships†¦complex team structures†¦that eschew hierarchy in favour of flat organizational forms and structures that cross boundaries of time and space’ (Miller, 2008, p.10). In this sense, the mass meat farming lobby can be thought of a more complex organization; the traditional way of mass meat farming that the meat industry supports has a social and political presence that lab manufactured meat would have a significant destabilizing effect up on. While it is true that lab manufactured meat can be produced ‘by placing a few cells in a nutrient mixture that helps them proliferate†¦which could, in theory, be sold, cooked, and consumed like any processed meat,’ there are many other cultural, social and economic factors that this technology touches upon (Specter, 2011, p. 32). Lab manufactured meat offers an opportunity for many of the more harmful elements of meats such as saturated fat to be chemically altered so that they are reduced or do not exist at all, which offers real benefit to the millions of people worldwide who suffer from obesity, heart disease and high blood pressure. International patents have been issued for the development of this technology, and stakeholders from Europe and the U.S., ‘propelled by an unlikely combination of stem-cell biologists, tissue engineers, animal-rights activists, and environmentalists, [have] emerged in support of scientific teams working at universities all over the globe’ (Specter, 2011, p. 32). Lab manufactured meat triggers powerful discussions that reach far beyond the confines of the food industry, and affect ‘what most people see as the boundaries of nature and the basic definitions of life’ (Specter, 2011, p. 32). The goal of lab manufactured meat, according to biologist Mark Post, is ‘to create the volume previously provided by a million animals’ (Specter, 2011, p. 32).Advertising Looking for report on communications media? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Scientific goals aside, the moral and ethical debate growing around the implementation of lab manufactured meat may ‘ultimately prove†¦intractable’ (Specter, 2011, p. 32). Lab manufactured meat therefore is an issue with far reaching tentacles; the mass meat industry is truly a global organization. A change in the current factory farming practices would reverberate around the world and would affect labour and economic markets around the world (Miller, 2008, p.260) Literature Review Postdoctoral research fellow Jennifer Jacquet of the University of British Columbia states that ‘eating less meat would relieve a bit of pressure on our sullied atmosphere by lightening the methane load†¦by roughly 10 kilowatt hours per day—more than double what you’d save by changing lights to fluorescents’ (Jacquet 2009, n.p.). However, environmental benefits aside, Jacquet (2009) finds that in vitro meat misses the point that eating meat itself is not o nly bad for the planet but bad for the human species. In Jacquet’s (2009) words, ‘in-vitro meat does nothing to address the deeper, systemic issues of food production—we should be getting more intimate with our food by growing gardens, eating locally, and getting healthy. The Frankenmeat solution is one-dimensional. It addresses a symptom, but not the problem: We eat too much meat’ (Jacquet 2009, n.p.). A number of articles in the review see lab manufactured meat as a way to end the cruelty associated with current modes of factory farming which are inherently harmful and destructive to animals, and encourage a view of animals that is exploitative, inhumane and dismissive of their sentient status. According to NPR.org (2011), ‘there is something inherently creepy about†¦growing meat in labs†¦but there is something more inherently creepy about the way we deal with the animals that we eat†¦. They live a horrible life, and they often die q uite cruelly. So the idea of being able to eliminate some of that is extremely exciting for a lot of people’ (NPR.org, 2011, n.p.). Similarly, Lee (2010) points out that ‘in vitro meat would†¦be free from hormones and antibiotics as well as contaminates such as salmonella and campylobacter. Its fat content could be tightly controlled and, because you could have a bioreactor anywhere in the world, meat production could become more dispersed’ (Lee, 2010, p.7). Several of the articles observed in this report go beyond the scientific and socio economic ramifications lab manufactured meat to draw attention to the wide spread cultural changes that this technology would exact if and when it is implemented fully. Of particular concern for several publications is the whole scale change that lab manufactured meat would render between the fate of the farm, the farmer and the domestic animal. According to the New York Times (2008), ‘there is every reason to change the way meat is produced, to make it more ethical, more humane. But the result of the technology that PETA hopes to reward could be the end of domesticated farm animals. This has often seemed as if it were the logical conclusion of some radical animal-rights activists: better for animals not to exist at all if there is a chance that they would suffer’ (New York Times, 2008, p. 20). Aside from this rather extreme editorial stance, the New York Times (2008) goes on to advocate ‘a more measured approach. Ensure the least possible cruelty to animals†¦raise them in ways that are both ethical and environmentally sound. But also treasure the cultural and historical bond between humans and domesticated animals. Historically speaking, they exist only because of the uses we have found for them, and preserving their existence means†¦preserving the uses we have made for them. It will be a barren world if the herds and flocks disappear in favour of meat grown in a laborat ory tank’ (New York Times, 2008, p. 20). Similarly, other articles broach the topic of the revolutionary changes that lab manufactured meat would engender in the food industry as whole. Culturally, the meat industry represents an ancient organization that holds ancient ‘attitudes, beliefs, behaviours†¦and cultural consciousness’ about the nature of civilization itself (Miller, 2008, p. 261). According to Lee (2010): ‘In vitro meat bears no resemblance to food production as we know it – it doesn’t involve a farmer, land, or even a real animal. At the same time, when considered next to the factory farms exposed in films like Food Inc. or Pig Business – it is cruelty-free, low carbon and potentially environmentally-friendly. What we would stand to lose with cultured meat is the whole idea of provenance the local, well-reared, skilfully butchered cut of meat. And with it, the kinds of small, family farms and communities that support it ’ (Lee, 2010, p. 7). There are of course economic and labour ramifications for workers who rely on the traditional forms of farming: these include small to medium sized farms that rear meat, workers the world over involved in managing and herding grazing herds and the meat industry itself. According to Lee (2010), the lab manufactured meat lobby group is not popular with the farmers, and the ‘supporters of small farms are sceptical. Soil Association spokesperson Clio Turton says, we haven’t seen any evidence that [lab manufactured meat] this is safe for human consumption. There may be unforeseen consequences of growing meat this way. Growing meat in a Petri dish is odd. We can’t imagine it would replace meat production in the UK’ (Lee, 2010, p. 7). Researchers appear divided not only on the viability of this technology, but also on its overall purpose. According to Jacquet (2009), ‘laboratory-made meat†¦might relieve the guilt of the scie ntifically minded and environmentally aware, but beyond that, its advantages are as-yet unclear: because let’s face it, a centralized, high-tech model of food production is not likely to solve wholesale hunger issues, nor is it likely to appeal to the â€Å"down home cookin’† contingent. In-vitro meat won’t cure obesity. And it won’t change people’s nutritional needs’ (Jacquet 2009, n.p.). Research Questions Once the eleven articles had been chosen and assembled, the research questions were organized as follows: How do the online, traditional and academic media portray lab manufactured or in vitro meat? How do the online, traditional and academic media portray science? How do the online, traditional and academic media portray the meat industry? What are the implications of these media’s portrayal of lab manufactured meat on public perception of this burgeoning food technology? What are the possible cultural and socioeconomic r amifications of lab manufactured meat? Methods When conducting the research around in vitro meat, the researcher gave each article two close readings. The first reading sought to discover and detail the psychological and emotional impact that the articles had upon the researcher, and by extension, the media consumer, using the research questions as a guide. In order to achieve this, the researcher had to act from an uninformed place, having no prior knowledge of the topic. The researcher also needed to relate to the subject matter emotionally and psychologically open and neutral, with no stake in the information being purveyed by the articles and lacking an agenda to confront the subject matter, i.e. not as a scientist, animal rights activist or meat farmer. The second close reading undertaken by the researcher looked at the cultural and social biases implicit in the articles themselves. The articles on the whole share a point of view toward the science around in vitro meat or lab manufactured meat, and this point of view heavily favours the continuation of â€Å"natural† – i.e.: farmed livestock – which speaks to a larger cultural bias that will be covered later on in the paper (Miller, 2008, p.81). It is unclear from the readings whether or not the authors of the articles are aware of this bias, however the articles on the whole create contentiousness between science and consumers on the basis of taste – how lab manufactured meat will taste specifically, when compared to â€Å"real† meat. The media largely portray the scientific community as being unconcerned about how the lab manufactured meat will taste and focused instead on its environmental benefits. An example of this occurs in Fox (2009): ‘enthusiasts are persuaded by [lab manufactured meat’s] ‘green’ credentials. My main concern is environmental, says Stig Omholt of the Norwegian University of Life Sciences in As. If meat consumption doubl es by 2050, many forests will go and the calculations are very grim’ (Fox, 2009, p. 873). In the second close reading the researcher also looked at the impetus behind in vitro meat, specifically, why does this technology warrant coverage? Why are scientists pursuing this line of research? The answer lies in a host of problems facing the human species which centre largely on population control and the realization that the current food production paradigm remains unsustainable; there is simply not enough land and water to support it. The large network of people and livelihoods involved in the current food production paradigm, i.e. food grown in international destinations and shipped globally, will need to find ways to adapt to this reality. Findings The observations gleaned from the close reading given these eleven sources can be grouped into four headings: headlines, tone, treatment of science and article layout. Each of these findings generated a specific psychological impact upon the researcher which encouraged a feeling of revulsion toward lab manufactured or in vitro meat, regardless of the numerous benefits that this technology would bring to the environment, not to mention the ethical treatment of animals that this technology would support. Headlines Seven out of the eleven articles reviewed for this report contained a headline which evoked a negative response to the science as well as the concept of lab manufactured meat itself. The placement of these headlines, at the article’s outset, effectively swayed the researcher’s point of view toward the negative and effectively coloured the experience of reading the article. Examples of this phenomenon from each article are as follows: ‘Test tube meat on the menu’ (Fox, 2009, p. 873); ‘Test-Tube Meat: Coming Soon to a Plate Near You’ (Huffington Post, 2011, n.p.); ‘Pass the In Vitro Loaf’(Institute of Industrial Engineers, 2005, p. 66); ‘Mystery Meat’ (Jozefowicz, 2007, p. 6); ‘Burgers from a Lab’ (NPR.org, 2011, n.p.); ‘Test Tube Burgers’ (Specter, 2011, p. 32), and ‘Would you Eat Lab Engineered Meat?’ (Zimmer, 2011, n.p.). Seven out of the eleven articles researched began with a negative connotation that sustained itself throughout the article. Tone Of the eleven articles profiled in this report, each contained an acerbic tone in its coverage of the both the concept of lab manufactured meat and the science behind it, and actively promoted dividedness between the scientific community and consumers. Fox (2009) states that ‘the mere mention of lab-grown meat – an assortment of projects to produce beef, pork or chicken proteins in industrial-scale cell cultures – evokes enthusiasm at one end of the spectrum and caustic criticism at the other. I wonder if you can get people to eat that stuff, says Michael Hansen of Consumers Union in Yonkers, New York. There are safety questions, technical problems and a very huge yuck factor to deal with, he says’ (Fox, 2009, p. 873). In an article with the headline Test-Tube Meat: Coming Soon To A Plate Near You, the lead states ‘it sounds improbable – and more than a little creepy – to eat meat produced in a lab’ (Huffington Post, 2011, n.p.). Similarly, in an article published by the Institute of Industrial Engineers (2009), lab manufactured meat ‘experiments with fish tissue have created small amounts of in vitro meat in NASA experiments researching potential food products for long-term space travel, where storage is a problem. To grow meat on a large scale, cells from several different kinds of tissue, including muscle and fat, would be needed to give meat the texture to appeal to the human palate, say scientists’ (Institute of Industrial Engineers, 2009, p. 66). Treatment of Science Within the literature surveyed, the science behind lab manufactured mea t often receives a slightly biased approach, specifically in linking scientists with so called special interest groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Nylander, 2011, n.p.). Since special interest groups by definition are invested in the outcome of the research, these media create a certain lack of objectivity in the science surrounding lab manufactured meat by association. Also, a certain quack science feel infiltrated some of the articles through their depiction of scientists. An example of this exists in Nylander (2011), who profiled biologist Vladimir Mironov: ‘About 10 years ago, Mironov’s research dream to grow â€Å"cultured meat† became reality when he was awarded a grant from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for cardiovascular tissue engineering. He landed the grant with the help of Dr. Helen Lane, a top NASA food expert that Mironov invited to a workshop he hosted. But the research is no longer funded by NASA , and Mironov said he was told that NASA was moving towards researching transgenic plants as a source of protein. Now Mironov, along with Genovese, are funded by a three-year grant from the animal rights activists People of Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)’ (Nylander, 2011, n.p.). The fact that the biologist’s work was dropped by NASA effectively erodes some of the credibility from Mironov’s work; whether or not this is conscious on the part of the author remains unclear, however the effect distanced the researcher from the content, and would likely have the same effect on the reader. Furthermore, in a latter part of the article utilizes the heading â€Å"Yuck factor† and goes on to delineate (Nylander, 2011, n.p.): ‘A tissue engineer by trade, [Mironov] has taken embryonic muscle cells called myoblasts, which turn into muscle, from turkey, bathed them in a bovine serum and then grown animal muscle tissue. We are working on very small scale using NASA synthecon bioreactor and porous edible chitosan spheres seeded with myoblasts from edible animals. The cultured meat choice confronting tomorrow’s shoppers will be similar to today’s options in the meat department’ (Nylander, 2011, n.p.). Although the information shared in this section is useful and vital to an understanding of lab manufactured meat, the section heading – yuck factor – potentially undercuts the value of the information to the reader. Similarly, when the article uses other opinions to react to Mironov’s work, they are written in a forceful style that sticks with the reader, through the effective use of quotes. For example, Nylander (2011) quotes a certain Mr. Sam Bowen, a bar manager in Columbia, South Carolina, as saying that ‘one of the biggest things that people enjoy as a comfort thing is food†¦and until people grow up with the idea of artificial meat, it’s going to be hard to convince people other wise’ (Nylander, 2011, n.p.). Mironov does not receive a similarly effective or forceful quote within the article; instead, he is largely paraphrased, appearing in a direct quote in the following example, ‘[Mironov] says cultured meat will be functional, natural, designed food, arguing that modified food is already common practice, and not harmful’ (Nylander, 2011, n.p.). The weakness of the quotes used to introduce the biologist to the reader in effect further undercuts the viability of his research. According to Nylander (2011), the biologist Mironov is part of ‘a team of researchers who have been invited to a European Science Foundation workshop on in-vitro meat in Gothenburg, Sweden in August to discuss the obstacles they all share. Funding is one of the biggest hurdles. The National Institute of Food and Agriculture, among other organizations like NASA, won’t fund the research’ (Nylander, 2011, n.p.). Again, the proximity of Mironovâ€⠄¢s work being refused by funding bodies renders the message of his work diminished. Article Layout A number of the articles researched chose a specific location within the text to imbed the negative portrayal of lab manufactured or in vitro meat – the end of the text. This so called â€Å"last word† placement of the negative portrayal of lab manufactured meat successfully lingered in the mind of the researcher, as it was the last word, and by definition the strongest and most readily recalled element of the articles. For example, in the article published by the Institute of Industrial Engineers (2009), the last line of the article states that scientists ‘also concede that it might take some work to convince consumers to eat cultured muscle meat,’ effectively nullifying the information shared in the earlier parts of the article (Institute of Industrial Engineers, 2009, p. 66). Only one of the eleven articles reviewed ended with a relatively positive view o f the technology and the scientists who champion it: ‘We are ready but venture capitalists and federal agencies are not†¦but the time will come’ (Nylander, 2011, n.p.) Discussion and Conclusion In vitro or lab manufactured meat technology does not offer a viable alternative to factory farmed meat at present; estimates as to how long it will before in vitro meat is available in conventional grocery stores hover at around twenty years. That said, the technology does effectively highlight the unsustainable nature of the current food production model, particularly in the domain of meat. Much of the literature touts the advantage of lab manufactured meat to parts of the world where shortages in arable land and water would render traditional modes of meat farming impossible. For example in countries in Asia such as India and Singapore where the consumption of meat is on the rise, scientists have remarked that there is ‘significant interest’ in the technology behind lab manufactured meat (Lee, 2010, p. 7). However, many of these countries depend on the current factory farming model, especially the grazing of herds, and the loss of that revenue would render these countries less able to invest in the technology required to produce in vitro meat. Other articles draw attention to the fact that should the production of lab manufactured meat supplant so-called natural meat, the fate of domestic animals remains to be seen. Domestic animals that were not raised for meat consumption would presumable still be used for other purposes; however, the care and feeding of these large numbers of animals left superfluous by in vitro meat would require a comprehensive and qualitatively new farming strategy. Overall more than 50 per cent of the literature reviewed raised scepticism as to the viability of lab manufactured meat, and offered a less than flattering assessment of the science behind it, choosing to emphasize the cost involved in lab manufactured while often not equally balancing the cost of the factory farm within the article. Also, overwhelming emphasis placed on the perceived reluctance of the consumer to eat in vitro or lab manufactured meat pervaded most of the articles researched. The fact is, factory farming exacts huge costs on the environment, including air quality, land usage, water, deforestation and pollution. It also exacts costs on the animals that are slaughtered, as well as the people who ingest harmful fats, growth hormone, pesticides, veterinary drugs, and heavy metals when they eat the animals. Above all, the factory faming model cannot be sustain the human species; all this points to the needs for a radical shift in food production. Though essentially a new form of food technology, lab manufactured meat represents a complex cultural issue with global ramifications. According to Miller (2008), ‘globalization leads to disembedded organizations and people. In a global society, behaviour and interactio n are often lifted from their local context and restructured across time and space†¦cultural consciousness and self reflexivity is a requirement for organizational and individual well being’ (Miller, 2008, p. 261). The more lab manufactured meat enters into the mainstream of cultural consciousness, the greater the rate of change felt across traditional lines of farming, civilization, the relationship between humans and animals and the fate of domestic animals will be experienced. Effective environmental stewardship dictates that the unsustainable nature of the current mass meat industry method of factory farming must evolve if the planet’s resources are to be preserved for future generations. Whether or not in vitro or lab manufactured meat will provide a viable alternative for meat eaters remains to be determined. References Fox, J. L. (2009) Test tube meat on the menu? Nature Biotechnology, 27(10), 873. Huffington Post (2011, May 26), ‘Test-Tube Meat: Comi ng Soon To A Plate Near You? HuffPost Food. Available from:  https://www.huffpost.com/entry/test-tube-meat_n_864217 . Institute of Industrial Engineers (2005). Pass the in vitro loaf, Industrial Engineer 37 (9), 66. Jacquet, J. (2009, August 31) Even if meat isn’t murder, that doesn’t mean it’s good for you. Available from web. Jozefowicz, C. (2007), Mystery Meat. Current Science, 92 (14), 6-7. Lee, M. (2010), Lab Grown Meat: A Low-Fat, Low-Carbon, Cruelty-Free Future? Ecologist, 40 (11), p. 6-7. Miller, K. (2008), Organizational Communication – Approaches and Processes. 5th edition. Stamford, CT, Cengage Learning. New York Times (2008, April 23), Million-Dollar Meat. New York Times, p. 20, NPR.org (2011, May 18) Burgers from a Lab: The World of In Vitro Meat. Fresh Air [online]. Available from:  https://www.npr.org/2011/05/18/136402034/burgers-from-a-lab-the-world-of-in-vitro-meat . Nylander, J. (2011), Meat-Lovers get Food for Thought in Futuristic Lab. Swedish Wire (Katthammarsvik) [online]. Available from web. Raizel, R. (2005, December 11), In Vitro Meat. New York Times Magazine, 76. Specter, M. (2011, May 23) Test Tube Burgers, The New Yorker, 32. Available from:  https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/05/23/test-tube-burgers . Steinfeld, H. et al (2006), Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1-26. Available from web. This report on From Angus to Erlenmeyer: Media Coverage of Lab Manufactured Meat was written and submitted by user Izaiah H. to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.

Life in Ancient Rome essays

Life in Ancient Rome essays Romans of the Classical era built what was perhaps the greatest empire of all time. Roman civilization has served as a model or basis for much of Western culture. Roman engineers pioneered the use of concrete, glass windows, the dome, central heating, and apartment buildings. Roman roads, aqueducts, and buildings still survive. We still use the Roman alphabet, numerals, their system of months, religion, and marriage customs. Latin, the official language of the Roman Empire, is the basis of many modern languages, including Italian, Spanish, French, and English. As an Ancient civilization, Roman way of life formed a solid base for the ways of our present-day living. One can see the reflected, though improved, similarities first shaped hundreds of years ago that have remained essential concepts over time and still retain the original ideas created by the powerful Romans. From marriage customs to feminism, education, and the urban life, one can compare and contrast the ancient pa st with the present. Roman family was based on the unlimited power of the pater familias, or the male head of the family. By the second century of this era, this idea had disappeared completely along with the fathers absolute authority over his children and wife. While mans power weakened, the laws of marriage were modernized into what we believe our present day system is derived from. This new form of marriage consisted of a reciprocal engagement entered into by a young couple with the consent of their fathers and in the presence of a certain number of relatives and friends. Is seems that this newly founded procedure has not changed since it first originated in the second century AD. As is custom today, the concrete symbol of the betrothal was the gift to the girl from her fianc of a number of presents, more or less costly, and a ring. In the presence of the guests the girl ...

The logic of alliance Value Creation model on case study Renault and Assignment

The logic of alliance Value Creation model on case study Renault and Nissan - Assignment Example In this manner the alliance has proved to be a success for both Nissan and Renault. However the two companies are still facing challenges in creating an organizational culture that can maximize cooperation between the human resources from the two companies. In order to create the maximum value from this alliance, Nissan and Renault need to share their core competencies to synergistic effects. This will enable both companies to improve their specifications and standards in a continuous process so that the competitive advantages of both companies are made sustainable. Strengths and weaknesses Nissan’s strength is the worldwide market share while Renault’s strength is in financial management (Glover, 2006). By forming this alliance, both companies will be able to address these structural problems. In order to maintain its financial strength, the French car maker Renault has to access new markets and this objective is met by forming the alliance with the Japanese car maker Nissan. Both companies will be able to implement the practice of benchmarking which is defined as comparing an organization’s performance against the best practices in the industry. This alliance will enable Nissan to compare its financing strategies against those of Renault and thus identify the areas of improvement. Renault will be able to compare its product development practices with those implemented by Nissan. As a result both companies can improve their efficiencies in these operational processes and thus strengthen their competitive advantages. ... The main weakness is the different focus in each organization design. Nissan places strategic focus upon supply chain management while Renault’s strategic focus is upon product development. Therefore there are structural dissimilarities which must be addressed if the alliance is to enable Nissan and Renault to capitalize upon each other’s assets. The challenge in front of the management is to create a decision making process which will enable the human resources from both companies to coordinate their efforts so that there is no duplication. This can address the company-specific weaknesses. Nissan’s financial weakness can be addressed by importing the financial management practices from Renault. Similarly Renault can access additional geographic markets in order to maximize its market reach. However in order to meet the demand from additional markets, Renault has to focus upon supply chain management which is Nissan’s strength. Nissan has embarked upon a c ost-cutting initiative to create greater demand for its products. If Nissan can reduce its cost of operations, then it will be able to price its automobiles more competitively. Because of its financial management practices, Renault has been successful in maintaining demand for its products in the market that the automaker currently operates in. However demand in these markets is shrinking. Therefore Renault needs to access additional markets in those regions which have growing demand. By forming the alliance with Nissan, Renault has been able to meet this objective. By forming this alliance, Renault will be able to access those markets that Nissan operates in. As a result, Renault will be able to sell more cars and enhance scale economies. Because of the high costs of new

The Border DisputeWar Between Umma and Lagash Essay

The Border DisputeWar Between Umma and Lagash - Essay Example The border dispute and war between Umma and Lagash has a prominent place in the history of mankind as this marked the only recorded dispute between two city states over the issue of water and agriculture. "The only recorded incident of an outright war over water was 4,500 years ago between two Mesopotamian city-states, Lagash and Umma, in the region we now call southern Iraq." (Postel and Wolf, 60) Umma is greatly famous for the important wars that it fought against Lagash and the chief motivation of these wars was to free itself from paying tributes to the other city state. Competition for the open areas in the Near East followed the expansion of the city state's zone of influence and the border dispute and war between Umma and Lagash is one of the finest illustrations of the intercity wars over agricultural land. In fact, the increased competition over land among these city states is explicit as demonstrated in the series of documents found in the southern state of Lagash. "Over a period of 150 years, from about 2500 to 2350, the kings of Lagash provided their accounts of a border conflict with their northern neighbor Umma. The war was described in terms of a dispute between Ningirsu, patron deity of Lagash, and Shara, god of Umma, over an area of fields called Gu'edena, 'edge of the plain'." (Mieroop, 45) This paper undertakes an analysis of the events that caused the dispute and war between Umma and Lagash which has got immense significance to the historians. The city states of Sumerian civilization began to build upin ancient Mesopotamia around the year 4000 BC and one of the most significant outcomes of these developments was the emergence of several conflicts among them. Following such crucial wars among the city states, the relevance of warfare also increased and factors such as wealth, the availability of transportation, irrigation, luxury goods such as timber, stone and metals etc determined the warfare of the city states. The importance of the conflict between Umma and Lagash is that it was the earliest recorded war between any city states. The city states of Lagash and Umma were on the competition the possession and agricultural usufruct of the fertile region of Guendena for several generations. The war was caused by the violation of an earlier boundary treaty by Umma and Lagash began the war with Umma. The king of Umma was defeated by Eannatum of Lagash in this war which is important for a commemorative stele known as The Stele o f Vultures. "Although it is not the earliest conflict, the first war for which there is any detailed evidence occurred between Lagash and Umma in 2525 B.C., two Sumerian cities located eighteen miles apart The importance of this war to the military historian lies in a commemorative stele that Eannatum erected to celebrate his victory." (Early Sumerian Warfare) The historical importance of The Stele of Vultures was that it corresponds to the first important pictorial of war in the Sumerian period and, thus, there are significant pictorial evidences of the border conflict between Umma and Lagash. The most important document illustrating the border conflict and war between the city states of Umma and Lagash is the account given by King Enmetena and the beginning of Early Dynastic III marks the best documented period for military history. The series of martial inscriptions by the warrior kings of Lagash (2495-2345 BC) provide a clear picture of the war history

2.5 work file Essay Example for Free

2.5 work file Essay Directions: Complete the food safety interactive quiz. Use the information from the interactive quiz to complete the following responses regarding food safety practices. For each of the following food safety practices, share at least 2 statements from the interactive quiz. Be sure to put these statements in your own words and explain why they are helpful in preventing food borne illness. An example would be: When dining from a buffet, make sure hot food is hot and cold food is cold. Food that is 40 – 140 degrees Fahrenheit has already begun to grow bacteria and pathogens. Clean (16 points): 1. After handling raw meat, poultry, fish, or eggs wash your hands because you can get a foodborne illness. 2. Rinse fruits and vegetables with running tap water before eating, cutting, and cooking to reduce amount of bacteria present. Separate (16 points): 1. Keep many foods separate to avoid cross-contamination. It is the transfer of harmful bacteria from foods to other foods. Especially, when handling raw meat, eggs, or poultry. 2. Be sure to wash your counter and utensils with hot, soapy water to kill bacteria. Cook (16 points): 1. I f you leave cooked food out for 8 hours, throw away the food. See more: The Issues Concerning Identity Theft Essay Bacteria can grow rapidly and cause illness when it has the nutrients it needs. 2. You can a hamburger is cooked when you use a food temperature and the internal part of the hamburger is 160 F. Chill (16 points): 1. Freezing food should be kept and 0 F and below because it inactivates microbes- bacteria, yeasts, and mold. 2. By refrigerating foods at cold temperatures, you keep bacteria from multiplying. In your own kitchen, explain 2 food safety practices you feel your family can improve and 2 food safety practices you feel your family does well. (16 points) 2 food safety practices are: Run fruits and vegetables under tap water before cooking, eating, and cutting. Refrigerate food when not being used because bacteria forms rapidly. 2 safety practices: Wash utensils with warm, soapy water. Clean your counter with warm, soapy water to kill bacteria. In what ways do your school and community practice or promote food safety to contribute to your personal health? (20 points) They contribute to this by reducing pollution and cleaning up the community. By doing these little things, it can help my lungs be full of oxygen and not pollutants and cleaning up the community can save my life my protecting fish that I eat.

Israel :: essays research papers

Israel The Official language for Israel is Hebrew. It is a very old language dating back over 5000 years. The version that is spoken today is different than the kinda of Hebrew written in the Old Testament. The version spoken today is commonly refered to as modern Hebrew. Since Israel is a Jewish state, naturally the main religion is going to be Judaism. There is also a lot of Muslims and Christians, but most of the people are Jewish. Many of the Jewish Holiday are also national holidays, such as Yom Kippur, Purim, and Rosh Hashanah. One of the holidays exclusive to Israel is Independence Day, where Israel celebrates it's becoming a state. Israel Produces many crops such as figs, dates, apples, pairs, oranges, and olives. They are a very self-sufficient nation and do not need to import much. Probably the most renowned person in the country is the Prime Minister. He is similar to a President. The current Prime Minister is Benjamin Netanyahu. One of his biggest problems right now is to try and negotiate a peach agreement with the arabs. Two of the biggest Ethnic groups, the Arabs and the Jews, have been fighting every since the Jews came to the land in the early 20th century. The Jews want Peace and the Arabs wanna kick the Jews out. One of the Biggest debates is over the Mosque in Jerusalem. The Mosque is located right by the Whaling Wall, which is the remnants of an ancient Jewish Temple. They are both major parts of each religion so they are fighting over who has ownership of what. In Israel they like many of the sports we do. Soccer, Basketball, Football, etc. They eat many of the same foods we do. Some of the foods native to that area of the world are: Falafel, Hummus, Techina, and Shwarma. The population of Israel is roughly 6 million. Almost on sixth of those live in a city called Tel Aviv, the nations largest city. It is also a popular city for jews because it is about 95% Jewish. It is in the north where there are hills and mountains, the opposite of the South where there is deserts and flat lands. The Dead Sea is the lowest altitude onEarth and it is located in Israel. The Government is modeled after the British. With a parlaimentary Democracy. The Prime minister is elected by the people through an indirect vote. The people vote on the party and the party with the most votes, then votes on

Assessing the Quality of the Financial Statements Essay

†¢Reading the Financial Statements and Creating a Data File Our experience, and that of our students, is that careful and thorough reading of the financial statements yields a great deal of information about the firm. The financial statements, the notes, and management’s discussion and analysis provide valuable insights into the business strategies, profitability, and risk of the firm. Many firms explicitly disclose elements of the business that are performing well or poorly, also providing explanations about the performance. Many firms explicitly disclose projections of future business activities, such as expected future sales growth rates or capital expenditures, which are helpful information for projecting future financial statements. Analysts who do not carefully read the financial statements stand to miss this valuable information. After careful reading, the analyst should enter the financial statement data into a data file. One initial choice in creating a data file is whether to use the accounts and amounts that the firm provides in its Form 10-K or annual report to shareholders or to download and use amounts from various online sources or databases that format the amounts into a standardized template. One advantage of following the first approach is that you rely on the primary source of the financial statements, not on a secondary source about which you may not know all of the reclassifications and adjustments made to confirm the reported amounts to the standardized template. Another advantage of following the first approach is that the financial statement data will be classified into accounts consistent with the notes to the financial statements, the main source of information for assessing the quality of the reported amounts. The principal advantages of using amounts in a standardized template are that use of the template can save time and the financial statement amounts are reasonably comparable across firms. The next decision to be made is whether to input the financial statement data into FSAP, a financial statement analysis package that accompanies this text, or to create a new spreadsheet file. The principal advantages of FSAP are that it provides spreadsheets that have embedded formulas for the various profitability and risk ratios, it provides a template for preparing forecasted financial statements using the previously reported actual amounts as a base, and it inputs the forecasted amounts into several valuation models to arrive at equity values. †¢Assessing the Quality of the Reported Amounts One of the most important steps in financial statement analysis is to assess the quality of the reported amounts and make appropriate adjustments before proceeding to the analysis of profitability and risk. The saying â€Å"garbage in, garbage out† applies with particular importance to financial statements. To assess quality, you must read the financial statements and notes. Material nonrecurring or unusual income items are candidates for adjustment. Significant off-balance-sheet assets or liabilities also are candidates. Some adjustments may be needed to increase the comparability of the financial statement amounts for each of the firms analyzed in the term project.