Table 3.

Illustrative quotes by theme; qualitative content analysis of comments about in vitro meat (IVM) in news article comment sections across seven US-based online news sources, 1 August to 31 August 2013

Quote number	News source*	Quote†
IVM’s impact on animals
1	NPR	‘This is brilliant technology in its infancy. Many comments here are akin to criticizing the Wright brothers’ first airplane for not featuring in-flight movies and overhead bins for carryon luggage. The potential is that in a hundred years people may laugh at the old barbaric days when humans used to actually kill and eat mammals and fish.’
2	WAPO	‘The fast track to extinction in the modern era is no longer being of use to man, meaning that the ultimate “success” of this product would be the mass abandonment and extermination of the very species it is ostensibly created to help. But, you know, science.’
IVM as a dystopian vision
3	CNN	‘We could also make use of corpse reclamation. Have some soylent green... It will become so popular that demand will out pace supply, which will then solve prison overcrowding problems. Oh, I think I've seen this movie/read this book before’
4	USA	‘What happens when (either inadvertently or deliberately) the sample tissue is substituted with human cells? Will that mean partakers are cannibals? That could make the “finger in the chilli” story seem quite tame’
5	NYT	‘I wish the people pushing this garbage had to eat it at every meal for the rest of their lives. Air heads who think vast profits, or fame, are far more important than delicious and healthy food have already ruined a huge percentage of our food supplies. If this trend continues much longer, there won’t be anything left that’s fit to eat’
IVM’s impact on the environment
6	NYT	‘I have been waiting for this for a long time as this will be a great environmental benefit if this were taken commercial. The biggest issue will be educating the public that this is a better way to go. I am all for it’
7	WSJ	‘This experiment is not a zero-sum activity. The necessary nutrients, the workers, the laboratory etc. all require much more energy than the product. There will be no benefit to the earth when the method is commercialized. A cow is a very efficient machine. A group of humans have historically been shown to be inefficient and enormous polluters’
IVM not needed
8	NYT	‘Too much animal protein is a major cause of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, arthritis and other diseases that plague us. Better to educate about healthful benefits of a plant- based diet. Vegetables, fruits, nuts and grains provide all the protein we need. If we ate animal protein only once or twice per week, which is still more than our bodies require, sustainability would not be an issue’
9	LAT	‘This is no more disgusting than old-fashioned hamburger. Wise up and go vegan people!’
10	NPR	‘I agree it's not normal to raise animals for meat the way the industry does now, but this isn't normal either. For those who must eat meat, there are other options beyond this false dichotomy: there's hunting, and there's small-scale, humanely-raised meat.’
IVM’s impact on public health
11	NPR	‘I would like to know the exact nutritional components of lab created food. I'll bet there aren’t many. You cannot fool Mother Nature—only stupid humans’
12	NYT	‘I'm also a cell biologist. The thought of consuming this “product” bathed in growth factors, steroids, fetal bovine serum, and who knows what else makes me ill. But the point about viruses and other contaminants is one I had had not considered—cells grown in the lab, removed from the cow or whatever host animal, will not have the benefit of an immune system to prevent the proliferation of all sorts of human pathogens. This stuff will make factory farm cattle, raised in the worst possible manner, seem like free range beef by comparison’
13	CNN	‘Personally, I don't think I would go for this; however, if costs can be vastly brought down, if this type of technological innovation could really help stave off famine across the globe I'm all for it!’
IVM as a new scientific development
14	USA	‘I think this idea is interesting but rediculous. We were born to be meat eaters, and livestock was put on this earth for us to eat. I'm the biggest animal lover there is but that fact doesn’t change. Ill take a fresh steak over some hocus pocus test tube burger every time!’
15	WAPO	‘If saving a cow is more important to you than being a lab rat, go right ahead—LoL.’
16	NYT	‘…so good for these scientists trying to do ground breaking work. I look forward to eating it someday. And for those saying it's unnatural, well, most technology is unnatural. Nature didn't create cars, airplanes, or medicines. Yet you wouldn't hestitate to use a plethora of technology.’
IVM as a culinary development
17	USA	‘What a waste of money. Test tube beef sounds disgusting and I would never eat it much less feed it to my family’
18	NPR	‘gross. we can't trust where our food comes from anymore. i'd become a vegetarian before taking a bite out of this lab-meat.’
19	WAPO	‘I'm actually psyched about this development. I have not eaten red meat for some years now, but it would be delightful to be able to enjoy an ethical hamburger again some day. Even if it cost me $50, it would be worth it as a once-a-year splurge’
Structural-economic considerations and IVM
20	NYT	‘One point here is unclear to me: what kind of “nutrient solution” was used. Typical cell cultures use sera from animals (bovine or horse typically) to provide growth factors necessary to make the cells proliferate. If these cells require serum, the whole point of being lab grown, animal-free, sustainable, etc is gone’
21	USA	‘And the price!? You guys are insane. This was a pointless experiment I doubt even superstars are going to spend that money on a healthier burger when they can eat what they please and get lypo cheaper anyways’

^*NPR, National Public Radio; WAPO, The Washington Post; CNN, Cable News Network; USA, USA Today; NYT, The New York Times; WSJ, The Wall Street Journal; LAT, The Los Angeles Times.

^†All comments are directly transcribed, including any typographical errors.