The Government of Australia has arrived as the prominent stakeholders in the provided case study as the authority for the final decision regarding the approval or disapproval of the utilization and consumption of the new synthetic (in-vitro) form of meat is linked with the Government of Australia’s decision (Stephens et al., 2018).
The in-vitro or synthetic meat and its utility have a higher relation to the farmers’ financial profitability and livelihood as the inception of the less-taxed synthetic meat can reduce the occupational earning of the farmers that are dependent on animal husbandry and related operations, hence terming the farmers as the major stakeholders of the study (Wilks & Philips, 2017).
The Australian general citizens and population act as the most expanded group of stakeholders in the synthetic meat case study. Followed by the regulatory measures and decisions taken by the Government of Australia on the approval of synthetic meat and its tax rate, the Australian citizens have a greater power to modify or revise the decision regarding the same for the sake of human welfare (Schawandt, 2019).
As one of the most active and socially-oriented stakeholders, the community groups involved in the synthetic (in-vitro) meat case has a higher connection and power (Vido, 2018). Several social welfares, animal welfare groups, etc. holds the stake for making the changes in the current working system such as increment of in-vitro meat and consumption.
The economic forces in the society have been observed to be attentive equally in the issues or concerns regarding the use and taxation issues of the synthetic (in-vitro) meat. In support of the tax slabs and its fluctuations on the synthetic form of meat, the economic groups in the case propound their value in support of the farmers and their livelihood by promoting the surplus of tax rates on the use of synthetic food in order to prevent its higher consumption so as to eventually lead the farmers’ organic meat businesses.
To illustrate, the economic groups measure the behavior and preferences in the economic terms by stating the view that higher pricing or value represents the stronger preference or willingness for the occupation of something. In the likewise context, the principles of such economic groups lay off the value to support the consumers to recognize the preference towards the non-utilization of synthetic foods in order to prevent its demerits at social, environmental, and business level (Schaefer & Savulescu, 2014).
Certain groups and communities concerning animal welfare and environmental conservation focus on the ethical treatments and values the ethical boundaries in social activities and welfare. Ethical groups and communities that value the ethical treatments for animals and their living such as PETA have a higher share in such cases where the focus is on the elimination of maltreatment of animals for consumption (Ferrari & Losch, 2017).
Hence such ethical groups have their values at the utilization of synthetic meat and products, irrespective of the tax rates and other issues, for the sake of animal welfare, thus in support of the sunset clause (Bhat, 2015).
According to Stephens et al. (2018), active political groups or interest communities for steering of the synthetic meat consumption values increased tax slabs on the synthetic (in-vitro) meat in order to reduce or eliminate the occupational burden on the farmers and hence provide for the lesser proneness in the usage of synthetic meat and foods and hence might have their interest towards the opposition of the sunset clause.
The case study provided is based on the grounds of conflict between different stakeholders and interest groups of the synthetic (in-vitro) meat and its consumption. Few groups or communities such as farmers, political groups, etc. opposes the sunset clause and pressurizes the increased price and tax slab for in-vitro meat products.
In the other part of the play, the communities and interest groups like ethical groups seek to enjoy the lowered rates of such synthetic products by way of supporting the sunset clause to maintain and preserve the animal livelihood in the society (Bhat, 2015).
In addition to this, in the support of Schaefer & Savulescu (2014), the concept of environmental management and sustenance has a high degree of relevance that has been into negligence in the case outline provided. The utilization and institution of practical use of synthetic or in-vitro meat materials for consumption can be seen as a better option in view of environmental upgradation and sustenance as it has been evident that the animal adding practices and toxic treatments of animals resulted in elevated methane emissions leading towards environmental degradation. Henceforth, there has been an environmental concern towards the approval of the sunset clause.
To conclude with a relevant option observable, the problem can intake a resolution by the adoption of a sunset clause in order to increase dependency on synthetic meat rather than the animal meat by use of cruel practices that could eventually lead benefits like:
In addition to this, to provide the farmer section of the society with the opportunistic areas must be trained or educated about the synthetic meat and production to remove their dependency from the traditional practices and focus on the new in-vitro opportunities (Grobler et al., 2020).
In my opinion, the Government of Australia should keep pace with the sunset clause as it is a highly difficult practice to introduce a country or society to become meat-free consumers and hence must reduce the tax rates on the synthetic meat to promote its consumption (Chriki & Hocquette, 2020) and thus reduce dependency on animal meat to sustain the ecological balance, environmental development, and many more along with a provision to farmers with a new opportunity of synthetic meat production and business for the modern employment factors.
In my opinion, the incorporation of the mentioned practices can leverage the overall societal benefits and development as well in terms of all i.e. economic, ethical, environmental, and political approaches.
Bhat, Z. F., Kumar, S., & Fayaz, H. (2015). In vitro meat production: Challenges and benefits over conventional meat production. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14(2), 241-248. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60887-X.
Chriki, S., & Hocquette, J. F. (2020). The myth of cultured meat: A review. Frontiers in nutrition, 7, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2020.00007.
Ferrari, A., & Lösch, A. (2017). How the smart grid meets in vitro meat: on visions as socio-epistemic practices. NanoEthics, 11(1), 75-91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-017-0282-9.
Grobler, R., de Witt, F. H., Cason, E. D., Einkamerer, O. B., Josling, G. C., O’Neill, H. A., Fair, M. D., Baloyi, J. J., MacNeil, M. D., & Neser, F. W. (2020). Training the next generation of animal scientists for South Africa. Animal Frontiers, 10(3), 10-17. https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfaa017.
Schaefer, G. O., & Savulescu, J. (2014). The ethics of producing in vitro meat. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 31(2), 188-202. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12056.
Schwandt, K. (2019). Consumer Acceptance of In-Vitro Meat. Cognitive deliberations versus emotional response. Wageningen University & Research. Retrieved from: https://edepot.wur.nl/499171.
Stephens, N., Di Silvio, L., Dunsford, I., Ellis, M., Glencross, A., & Sexton, A. (2018). Bringing cultured meat to market: Technical, socio-political, and regulatory challenges in cellular agriculture. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 78, 155-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2018.04.010.
Vido, C. (2018). An Ethical Argument for In Vitro Meat. Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 7484. Retrieved from: https://scholar.unwindsor.ca/etd/7484.
Wilks, M., & Phillips, C. J. (2017). Attitudes to in vitro meat: A survey of potential consumers in the United States. PloS one, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171904.
Remember, at the center of any academic work, lies clarity and evidence. Should you need further assistance, do look up to our Management Assignment Help
Proofreading and Editing$9.00Per Page
Consultation with Expert$35.00Per Hour
Live Session 1-on-1$40.00Per 30 min.
Doing your Assignment with our resources is simple, take Expert assistance to ensure HD Grades. Here you Go....
My Assignment Services acknowledges the academic integrity guidelines prescribed as per Australian Universities to ensure that the services, sample material, and study resources available on our website, in no way are utilised to commit academic misconduct of any type. All users of our services must adhere to and affirm acceptance of all conditions elucidated in our policy document on academic integrity.