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

This paper examines a high-profile debate on whether in vitro (or as referred to in the debate, cell-based) meat is good for animals. The debate is structured to present the “pro” and “con” sides to this resolve. This debate and its subsequent analysis herein illuminates tensions within the animal rights movement concerning effective tactics, and highlights main arguments for and against in vitro meat. This paper analyses both sides’ arguments, justifications given, and how both sides engage with each other. The debate is framed in terms of vegan activist tactics. Discourses concerning these tactics are drawn out in terms of how each side views their own reasoning and the other side’s. Evidence for three subsets of differences is presented: (1) a small-scale vs. large-scale perspective (2) variety of activist tactics vs. fundamentalist veganism, and (3) anger vs. naivete. Overall, two drastically differing discourses are found to be reflective of reformist versus a radical orientation towards animal rights and veganism generally. The debate over IVM has somewhat split the vegan community and this paper shows how so and along what lines, and the discourses that have emerged.