Test Tube Burgers

“Test-Tube Burgers” One summer when taking a trip to a friends country house for a weekend I took on the challenge of being a vegetarian. My friend, an only child, had been raised a vegetarian by parents who were also vegetarians; never once in his life had he eaten meat. Although the family was tolerant of whatever I did, I decided this was an opportunity to try it for myself and see what it would be. At the end of the few days I found it quite easy, although in reality I did not consume nearly the protein I needed. It was a task I could complete but would not be able to do for longer periods of time. But what if a vegetarian could eat a burger? People are vegetarians for various reasons such as animal rights, health purposes and others. What if eating meat was healthier didn’t hurt animals and helped the planet, would a vegetarian take a bite of a burger? One man made this possible. Thinking way ahead of his time, Willem van Eelen came up with a way for this to be possible. Before the technology and science was even close to what it needed to be, Eelen introduced the idea of lab-produced meats. Michael Specter in his article “Test-Tube Burgers” (2011), in The New Yorker Magazine, uses facts and story to inform about the new idea and give detail about the controversial topic. In “Test-Tube Burgers” Specter starts by explaining how and why lab produced meats came into play. He uses facts and evidence to explain why vat produced meat is better for people, the environment, economy and obviously the animals. He validates his information and credibility using pathos and ethos by bringing in stories and information from scientists all different time periods, backgrounds and parts of the world working on this similar goal. With a well laid out argument and more than credible sources of information Specter leads a well-supported case. Creating meat using stem cells in a similar process to re-constructing organs can be a solution to many of our current issues. Specter shows that this will lead us to eat healthier, strengthen our economy, and benefit the well being of our planet and stop animal abuse. Willem van Eelen was the first person credited with the idea to produce meat synthetically in the 1940’s. Specter does a great job of telling Eelen’s story of being captured by Nazis and seeing starvation and animal abuse like he couldn’t imagine. Specter leads his argument with motivation and passion for the subject by giving the foundation of it all in the introduction of his article. Van Eelen after being in multiple prisoner of war camps made it alive to study psychology at the University of Amsterdam where he asked himself, “Why can’t we grow meat outside of the body? Make it in a laboratory as we do so many other things.” (page 32) Decades before this was possible van Eelen mad this his life goal. Specter uses this as a great way to set up the article as an argument and a story of determination simultaneously to keep the attention of the reader and not lose the focus of the topic. Even starting with van Eelen’s holocaust experiences Specter uses sensitive issues to motivate his liberal audience. Specter uses the environmental issues as one of his major points as to why vat produced meats could be a potential solution. When referencing a well-established source such as the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization the author gives indisputable facts. He references the sources claim that “the livestock industry is responsible for nearly twenty per cent of humanity’s greenhouse-gas emissions.” As well as environmental issues Specter makes the point that in-vitro meat would use one animal to feed what would normally take countless amounts. This would lower the death count of these animals as well as prevent them from synthetic upbringings and being caged and all the concerns with genetically altered and hormone fed animals. Specter uses this to bring in one more aspect to his analysis. While using everyday issues as part of the problem being solved in by this invention Specter also acknowledges a counter argument. When reading the article it is no less than normal to be taken back by the concept at first. Thinking about your burger coming from a test tube could throw someone off. Michael Specter himself acknowledges how weird a concept it is at first glance. When explaining that there would be hesitation to eat meat being produced artificially Specter comes up with an impressive way of showing the process that occurs. Specter fails to come up with a reason that the time or money needed to produce this meat would not be an issue. He also never mentions how using this as a primary source of meat would be detrimental to a lot of industries. The author with research done on many different scientists accomplishments and methods of achieving this products completion, has the information himself to explain exactly how it is done. With the detailed explanation of how the process would work on page 32 Specter shows how the counterargument is false. And Specter proves that it is a cleaner more effective way of producing meat and could possibly be better than that nature provides. Acknowledging this early on in the first page of his article Specter sets up more credibility and reason to consider this as an option for a product. Specter did a fantastic job of making this argument have the motivation, reason and proof to make the reader want to try the product. The article also leaves the reader with guilt that the things done everyday are causing issues and how giving this idea a chance could help greatly. After reading the article Specter has made me want to try the product and spread the word, meaning he achieved the goal he was longing for, awareness and consideration.

Work cited:
Specter, Michael "Test-Tube Burgers." The New Yorker Magazine 12 May 2011: 32-38. Print.