Increasing Consumer Acceptance of Cultured Meat 1

Increasing Consumer Acceptance of Cultured Meat

Tiffany Shien

University of California, Berkeley

 Increasing Consumer Acceptance of Cultured Meat 2

Abstract

Cultured meat technology is relatively experimental and therefore still hasn’t been fully

understood or accepted by the public market. This literature review discusses the driving forces

against consumer acceptance of cultured meat and the possible steps that we can take to

counteract them, both socioeconomically and scientifically. Various studies have shown that

selective descriptions of cultured meat products can significantly alter consumers’ willingness to

try them. Food scientists and associated companies should take this into consideration when

promoting cultured meat. More social and psychological research is also required to pinpoint

specific aspects of cultured meat that need to be communicated across the table. On the other

hand, the science behind cultured meat production can be improved to allow higher efficiency

and quality of meat, both of which play important roles in increasing consumer acceptance.

Keywords​: cultured meat, food science, sustainability

 Increasing Consumer Acceptance of Cultured Meat 3

1. Introduction

As global climate change becomes an increasingly alarming issue, people start to pay

more attention to the concept of sustainability and to associated products like recycled paper and

solar panels. While those products are perceived positively, there are others that aren’t as readily

accepted by the general public and spike controversy in the commercialization process. An

example is cultured meat, also known as in-vitro, stem cell, or laboratory-grown meat. This

review explores the various driving forces behind both positive and negative perception of

cultured meat products and aims to answer the following question: How do we make such

products more readily accepted by consumers in the future? Many reviews have been done to

evaluate different techniques of developing cultured meat and they all agree that consumer

acceptance is one of the most concerning obstacles in this field. Scientists can make as much

artificial meat as they want but without interested consumers, all the meat will just go to waste.

Therefore, this literature review is necessary for those who are trying to promote cultured meat

technology and wish to push it forward in the food market.

2. Cultured meat: how and why it exists

2.1. The history of cultured meat

The traditional harvest of meat involves environmental concerns, including its

contribution to global warming, the slaughtering of livestock, and a pressing need to feed an

exponentially growing human population. Cultured meat could be a sustainable alternative to

alleviate these problems. This technology was first proposed in the early 2000s but has only been

popularized in scientific discussions and on social media after a cultured beef hamburger was

tasted on August 5, 2013 in London (Hocquette, 2016, p. 167). The burger contained five ounces
 Increasing Consumer Acceptance of Cultured Meat 4

of cultured meat patty, which took three months to grow using stem cells from a cow’s shoulder.

It was tasted by a panel of sensory judges, which collectively agreed that it tasted similar to a

conventional burger (Arshad et al., 2017, p. 4). This initiated the discussion of cultured meat in

the field of food science and the controversy surrounding it.

2.2. The production of cultured meat

As of 2019, researchers have developed a number of different techniques to grow

cultured meat. The self-organizing technique involves proliferating an explant from the muscle

of a donor animal in a nutrient medium. The culture medium contains essential vitamins, amino

acids, lipids, and often cyanobacteria, a potential food source to allow cell growth (Sharma,

Thind & Kaur, 2015, p. 4). This method forms tissue that will most closely resemble natural

meat and will have a well-defined three-dimensional structure (Sharma, Thind & Kaur, 2015, p.

4). However, proliferation potential is limited and new biopsies would be required from donor

animals on a regular basis (Sharma, Thind & Kaur, 2015, p. 5).

On the other hand, the scaffold-based technique uses suitable stem cells obtained from a

variety of tissues. Usually, embryonic myoblasts or adult skeletal muscle satellite cells are

proliferated on a carrier in the presence of a culture medium in a bioreactor (Sharma, Thind &

Kaur, 2015, p. 6). This method produces meat fibers that can be harvested and processed as meat

or its products. In comparison to the self-organizing technique, the scaffold-based technique is

less appropriate for producing highly structured meats like steaks (Sharma, Thind & Kaur, 2015,

p. 6). Both techniques are still under development and more details about each will be discussed

in later sections.

3. The controversy surrounding cultured meat

 Increasing Consumer Acceptance of Cultured Meat 5

3.1. Potential benefits

The invention of cultured meat technology started because people wanted to replace

conventional meat production with a more sustainable alternative. Most, if not all of the studies

that discuss the advantages of cultured meat technology, choose to do so by comparing it to

traditional meat production. The whole purpose of cultured meat is to substitute and perhaps

even eliminate the other option. The process of raising livestock, especially cattle, is a significant

contribution to methane gas and a higher carbon footprint, which worsens global warming.

Cultured meat production has a lower environmental footprint and is associated with fewer

animal welfare concerns and agricultural burdens. If mass produced, cultured meat could provide

food for a larger population without straining the environment and its natural resources.

3.2. Potential risks and limitations

In the current technology, the development of cultured meat production from stem cells is

still limited by a few obstacles. Real muscle tissue, though largely composed of muscle cells,

also contains some amounts of nerve, blood, and fat cells which are either present in very low

proportions or completely absent in laboratory-grown meat (Hocquette, 2016, p. 170).

Researchers are working to develop new techniques to co-culture cells, but none of the methods

are advanced enough to be brought to the table. This raises the question of whether cultured meat

technology is able to replicate the same level of nutritional value as that of conventional meat.

Because the technology is relatively new, the safety and health risks involved with

cultured meat has not yet been fully understood. Specifically, there are concerns on the genetic

instability of stem cells, which can potentially develop into cancerous tissue after a high number

of proliferations (Hocquette, 2016, p. 170). While it is very unlikely for cancerous cells to cause
 Increasing Consumer Acceptance of Cultured Meat 6

harm after the meat is thoroughly cooked, eaten, and digested, this is still a sensitive question for

potential buyers, which can significantly hinder the growth of a cultured meat industry

(Hocquette, 2016, p. 170). Cultured meat is a relatively new concept that many are ambivalent

towards and to increase positive perception, these risks need to be addressed first.

4. Expert perception of cultured meat

Before diving into the discussion about common perception of cultured meat, it is

valuable to first examine the attitudes of the scientifically advanced population towards artificial

meat production. It has been found that a majority of scientists who are not in the field of in vitro

meat technology think it is a realistic solution to address environmental concerns surrounding

conventional meat (Hocquette et al., 2015, p. 276). Despite this trend, most experts still don’t

think cultured meat would be tasty, nor are they willing to try it (Hocquette et al., 2015, p. 276).

This shows that even when people are aware of the potential of cultured meat to replace

traditional agriculture and provide opportunities for healthier food choices, there is still a barrier

between acknowledgement and acceptance.

Expert opinions on cultured meat can make or break its future. In-vitro meat technology

has not been widely advertised so it is relatively foreign to the general public. The majority of

consumers only get their information from newspaper articles or social media, which has been

found to cite scientific sources most commonly, including top researchers and academia

(Goodwin & Shoulders, 2013, p. 447). Other commonly cited sources include restaurant owners

and chefs, who may not be considered experts in the field of food science but whose opinions are

definitely well respected due to their relation to the food industry.

5. Common perception of cultured meat

 Increasing Consumer Acceptance of Cultured Meat 7

5.1. Driving forces against acceptance of cultured meat

Studies have shown that psychological factors, such as food neophobia, disgust

sensitivity, political conservatism, and distrust of food scientists can significantly lower

consumers’ willingness to try cultured meat products (Wilks, Phillips, Fielding, & Hornsey,

2019, p. 139). The strongest and most consistent psychological predictor is food neophobia, also

known as fear of trying new foods. It has also been discovered that people who are unwilling to

eat such foods subconsciously refuse to acknowledge the benefits that cultured meat can bring

(Wilks et al., 2019, p. 139). These results indicate that negative attitudes toward cultured meat

products can be traced back to a number of psychological roots, which need to be targeted by the

commercialization of artificial meat.

What’s worth noting is that many current approaches to cultured meat research assume

that providing more information about the advantages of cultured meat is sufficient to change

consumer perception. Although there are clear benefits to this “knowledge-deficit approach”,

simply educating the public might not be as effective as combining education with the

underlying psychology that are associated with people’s resistance (Bekker, Fischer, Tobi, &

Van Trijp, 2016, p. 252). Understanding the driving forces behind negative perception of

cultured meat is the first step and further research in these areas will help target these factors in

marketing.

5.2. Encouraging consumers to purchase cultured meat products

Researchers in this field have discovered that they were able to increase the overall

positive perception of cultured meat by associating it with a positively-perceived product that is

also related to sustainability (Bekker, Fischer, Tobi, & Van Trijp, 2016, p. 249). An example is
 Increasing Consumer Acceptance of Cultured Meat 8

solar panels, which they think can activate a “broader sustainable product category” that can

encourage acceptance of cultured meat, something that also belongs in that category (Bekker,

Fischer, Tobi, & Van Trijp, 2016, p. 252). This discovery must be taken into consideration when

pushing cultured meat forward and popularizing it in the food industry.

Another factor that strongly influences public acceptance of cultured meat is its perceived

naturalness. Consumers tend to reject cultured meat when they see it as unnatural. In other

words, when they are provided with information on such products, their acceptance either

increases or decreases depending on how the product is described. Specifically, labels such as “in

vitro” or “cultured” may be problematic because they emphasize the production process of the

meat, which happens to be the most unnatural aspect of it (Siegrist, Sutterlin, & Hartmann, 2018,

p. 218). These results demonstrate how important communication is between sales and

customers, especially for a product that hasn’t been widely accepted. To promote cultured meat,

companies must focus on presenting positive properties of the final product, not how it was made

in the laboratory.

Unfortunately, research has indicated that a positive perception of cultured meat does not

necessarily equate to the willingness to pay for and eat it. However, there is a positive correlation

between reassurance on the quality and taste of cultured meat products and consumer willingness

to purchase such products. Interestingly, it has also been found that meat consumers rather than

vegetarians and vegans seem to be more open to the idea of trying artificially synthesized foods

(Mancini & Antonioli, 2018, p. 108). There is also a trend of younger and more educated

consumers being more likely to pay for cultured meat. Therefore, it is best for promoters of
 Increasing Consumer Acceptance of Cultured Meat 9

cultured meat to also target people from older generations and make sure they understand the

highly regulated hygiene and quality of such products.

6. Further research

6.1. Limitations to cultured meat technology

As discussed earlier, cultured meat technology is relatively new and therefore still has

limitations and unanswered scientific inquiries. Researchers are still unsure about whether the

genetic instability of stem cells can be a problem if ingested, which cannot be ruled out until

further research is done (Hocquette, 2016, p. 170). The methodology of synthesizing cultured

meat is also limited in terms of scale and efficiency. Right now, large-scale production is still out

of reach due to the absence of a large-capacity bioreactor to feed a large quantity of cells in

optimal conditions that allows differentiation. The invention and maintenance of such machinery

is prohibitively expensive, which projects another barrier for cultured meat commercialization.

As a result, cultured meat products have not been commercialized among other foods yet.

Another obstacle for food scientists is to produce a muscle tissue that resembles its

natural form as much as possible. The color of currently formed muscle fibers is yellow, as

opposed to pink or red like what consumers are used to seeing on the dinner table (Hocquette,

2016, p. 170). Although researchers are already working on the possibility of co-culturing stem

cells, the exact same appearance, taste, and aroma of traditionally farmed meat can be difficult to

replicate. However, if this possibility comes true in the future, the market for cultured meat can

be expanded and attract more buyers.

6.2. Progress of improvement

 Increasing Consumer Acceptance of Cultured Meat 10

While promotion methods of cultured meat is important to consumer acceptance,

addressing technical challenges and improving the technology allow higher quality production

and better products. As mentioned earlier, the scaffold-based technique has a greater

proliferation potential but can only produce less structured, soft ground meat. This limitation is

due to the lack of in-vitro vascular systems that allow cells to attach and grow on. However,

researchers have successfully created a branched network with collagen that mimics native

vessel architecture in natural tissue (Edelman et al., 2005, p. 660). This edible network helps

retain meat structure and can also be further solidified by endothelial cells to form a larger

3-dimensional system (Borenstein et al., 2002, p. 172).

Scientists are also working to enhance the current bioreactors to enable large scale

production of in-vitro meat. They were able to design rotating bioreactors that balance

centrifugal, drag, and gravitational forces altogether (Kahn et al., 2008, p. 284). This allows the

cell culture to be submerged in its medium under free fall state, which improves diffusion and

mass transfer rates while minimizing shear stress. Development of such machinery can increase

production rates, scale, and capacity if popularized.

6.3. Organ printing

There is significant progress in retaining meat structure, enhancing machinery, and

ensuring safety of cultured meat products, but the ability to replicate appearance, taste, and

aroma of traditionally farmed meat has not yet been addressed. This aspect is heavily related to

consumer acceptance and can be used to expand the market for cultured meat. As of now, there

are no mature methods for co-culturing muscle, nerve, and blood cells. However, organ printing

technology seems to be a plausible solution. Organ printing involves spraying cell mixtures onto
 Increasing Consumer Acceptance of Cultured Meat 11

gels in thin layers to create any desired shape or structure (Mironov et al., 2003, p. 500). The

layered printing technique allows production of 3-dimensional and highly structured tissues.

Since a mixture of cells is used, fat, blood and nerve cells can be added into solution in

calculated ratios. Applying organ printing to cultured meat would enhance its consistency,

structure, and taste, which can greatly increase consumer acceptance.

7. Conclusion

Most of the articles summarized above agree that descriptions of cultured meat can

significantly alter consumers’ willingness to try such products. Promoters of cultured meat

should keep this in mind when presenting it on the market. Specifically, labels such as “in vitro”

or “cultured” may be problematic because they emphasize the unnatural aspect of the met

production process. On the other hand, when given positive information on sustainability or on

properties of the meat itself, consumers seem to accept cultured meat more readily. However,

these claims are quite vague and therefore more research is needed to pinpoint specific aspects of

cultured meat that needs to be communicated across the table.

The current state of scientific research on cultured meat is still under development, with

most studies focusing on increasing efficiency of bioreactors and quality of products. However,

it is also important to address the naturalness aspect as this can significantly alter consumer

perception of cultured meat. More research is required to expand current culturing methods or

incorporate new ones to produce meat that resembles its natural form as much as possible.

In conclusion, consumer acceptance is one of the most concerning obstacles of cultured

meat technology. Professionals in this field should address both socioeconomic and scientific

limitations of cultured meat production to maximize consumer acceptance.

 Increasing Consumer Acceptance of Cultured Meat 12

References

Hocquette, J. (2016). Is in vitro meat the solution for the future? ​Meat Science,120,​ 167-176.

doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.04.036

Arshad, M. S., Javed, M., Sohaib, M., Saeed, F., Imran, A., & Amjad, Z. (2017). Tissue

engineering approaches to develop cultured meat from cells: A mini review. ​Cogent Food

& Agriculture,3​(1). doi:10.1080/23311932.2017.1320814

Sharma, S., Thind, S. S., & Kaur, A. (2015). In vitro meat production system: Why and how?

Journal of Food Science and Technology,52(​ 12), 7599-7607.

doi:10.1007/s13197-015-1972-3

Hocquette, A., Lambert, C., Sinquin, C., Peterolff, L., Wagner, Z., Bonny, S. P., . . .Hocquette, J.

(2015). Educated consumers don’t believe artificial meat is the solution to the problems

with the meat industry. ​Journal of Integrative Agriculture,14​(2), 273-284.

doi:10.1016/s2095-3119(14)60886-8

Goodwin, J., & Shoulders, C. (2013). The future of meat: A qualitative analysis of cultured meat

media coverage. ​Meat Science,95(​ 3), 445-450. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.05.027

Wilks, M., Phillips, C. J., Fielding, K., & Hornsey, M. (2019). Testing potential psychological

predictors of attitudes towards cultured meat. ​Appetite,136​, 137-145.

doi:10.31219/osf.io/6tn27

Bekker, G. A., Fischer, A. R., Tobi, H., & Trijp, H. C. (2017). Explicit and implicit attitude

toward an emerging food technology: The case of cultured meat. ​Appetite,108​, 245-254.

doi:10.1016/j.appet.2016.10.002

Siegrist, M., Sütterlin, B., & Hartmann, C. (2018). Perceived naturalness and evoked disgust
 Increasing Consumer Acceptance of Cultured Meat 13

influence acceptance of cultured meat. ​Meat Science,139​, 213-219.

doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.02.007

Mancini, M. C., & Antonioli, F. (2019). Exploring consumers attitude towards cultured meat in

Italy. ​Meat Science,150,​ 101-110. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.12.014

Edelman, P., Mcfarland, D., Mironov, V., & Matheny, J. (2005). Commentary: In Vitro-Cultured

Meat Production. ​Tissue Engineering,11​(5-6), 659-662. doi:10.1089/ten.2005.11.659

Borenstein, J. T., Terai, H., King, K. R., Weinberg, E. J., Kaazempur-Mofrad, M. R., & Vacanti,

J. P. (2002). Microfabrication Technology for Vascularized Tissue Engineering.

Biomedical Microdevices,4(​ 3), 167-175. doi:https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016040212127

Kahn, C. J., Vaquette, C., Rahouadj, R., & Wang, X. (2008). A novel bioreactor for ligament

tissue engineering. ​Bio-Medical Materials and Engineering,18​(4-5), 283-287.

doi:10.3233/BME-2008-0538

Benjaminson, M., Gilchriest, J., & Lorenz, M. (2002). In vitro edible muscle protein production

system (mpps): Stage 1, fish. ​Acta Astronautica,51​(12), 879-889.

doi:10.1016/s0094-5765(02)00033-4

Mironov, V., Boland, T., Gutowska, A., Roth, E. A., & Markwald, R. R. (2003). Cell and organ

printing 2: Fusion of cell aggregates in three-dimensional gels. ​The Anatomical

Record,272A(​ 2), 497-502. doi:10.1002/ar.a.10059