Growing up on a cattle ranch introduced me to some of the benefits and problems we face in today's agricultural industry. The global population will continue to grow and there are not enough resources to provide food for everyone with current food production techniques. Progress needs to be made, starting with our generation, so that future generations can survive. If technologies are not applied to the food industry, the traditional agricultural practices we currently have to offer will not be sufficient to sustain current standards of living; hunger will skyrocket globally. Educating the public about technological advances is a key requirement to ensure they embrace change. Research has indicated that a large environmental impact will also come from the clean meat movement. Despite this, many lawmakers are concerned about who will regulate this type of meat production and whether it will be feasible on such a large scale. At the beginning of the debate, it is necessary to remember how crucial technological advances in the food industry will be for our future. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Hunger is a problem all over the world, not just in third world countries, but everywhere around us in the United States. We are already failing to meet the needs of the global population, and clean or cultured meat represents an opportunity to change that. The growing global population is expected to reach 9.8 billion by 2050, and food production will need to increase by 100% to support growth. Technological advances will be responsible for 70% of the increase (Stein, D., 2018). Agricultural production will still exist until, and perhaps even after, scientists find a way to make ribeyes and porterhouses look and taste the same in the lab as if they were made from an animal. As the human population increases, animal populations will also have to increase; therefore greater use of resources such as land and water by both people and animals. In a study by Hanna L. Tuomisto and M. Joost Teixeira De Mattos conducted in 2011, the clean meat movement will reduce approximately 7–45% of energy consumption, with the exception of traditional poultry production (which is already lower) , 78–96% greenhouse gas emissions, 99% land use and 82–96% water use, depending on the product compared to “conventionally produced European meat” (Tuomisto, H. L and De Mattos, MJT, 2011). Although variable across different products, the conclusion of this study is that the environmental impacts of cultured meat production are overall lower than those of traditionally produced meat. Cultured meat has the potential to overcome various environmental, health and ethical issues that have emerged globally from consumption of animal products and the industrial agriculture that supports it. Social Studies of Economies and Markets (SSEM) research conducted this year by Michael J. Mouat and Russell Prince has shown that the clean meat movement can be a huge “disruption” (in a good way) for the world. If produced on a large scale, it would revolutionize the economics behind food production. Land, water and feed would be replaced with laboratories, cell culture media and large Petri dishes. The market for new inputs would explode, and the resources saved by consuming cultured meat would be available for use by a growing population. However, the effects on traditional agricultural methods are still unknown, as is the time needed to achieve large-scale productionstairs. Despite all the hope for the future, the realistic time it will take to deliver cultured meat at a price competitive with traditionally produced meat is unclear. Producing clean meat on a large scale is much more challenging than on a small scale, as has been done so far. The main factor is the ability to produce culture media that can meet meat quality standards, while being priced appropriately. Leaders of the cultured meat industry want to make a visible impact on the environment, especially global climate change. From this point on, it is expected that it will take many decades to achieve this goal, if it is ever possible (Stephens, et al., 2018). Research has shown that it is, but it won't be possible to know fully until other factors are established, particularly public acceptance of cultured meat. The biggest influence on whether or not clean meat will succeed is public perception. Due to technological advances that have occurred in the past, not only in the food industry but also in the healthcare industry, which have not been properly investigated, public trust has not gone very far. Without proper education behind simulated meat, misconceptions could lead to the new technology being completely eliminated from the industry, as seen with bovine somatotropin, or bST. It is an FDA-approved hormone that helps increase milk production in dairy cattle (Tauer, LW, 2016). The simple word “hormone” resulted in the loss of a great potential for new efficiency in milk production, only because the public did not understand the meaning or the effects the addition would have. In a hypothetical choice experiment conducted by Peter Slade, consumers were given the option of purchasing burgers made with beef, plant-based protein, or cultured meat. Willingness to purchase plant-based and cultured meat burgers has been found to correlate with age, gender, opinions about other food technologies, and attitudes toward the environment and agriculture. Consumers were told that all burgers tasted the same and that beef burgers were still the favorite. At the same price, 65% of consumers would still purchase the beef burger, 21% would purchase the plant-based burger, 11% would choose the cultured meat burger and 4% would not make any purchases. Those who opted for plant-based and cultured meat burgers were found to be highly, but not exactly, connected. For example, women were more willing to purchase a plant-based burger than a beef burger, but less willing to purchase a cultured meat burger than either of the other two. Overall, individuals who have a positive attitude toward other food technologies and genetically modified organisms were more willing to purchase one of the two nontraditional patties. Due to the current availability of veggie burgers, consumers may already be more accepting of a simulated meat burger than a simulated chicken breast or steak. It is not yet known whether consumer preferences may vary based on the type of meat and the meat product simulated. (Slade, P., 2018). Due to uncertainty about the public's willingness to purchase cultured meat, its potential effectiveness may be questioned. Another public concern is that if cultured meat becomes more popular than traditional meat, the current agricultural market would take a hit. Millions of people would be laid off from farms, slaughterhouses and packing plants. Having grown up myself.