Journal of Food Products Marketing

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wfpm20

How about Cultivated Meat? the Effect of

Sustainability Appeal, Environmental Awareness
and Consumption Context on Consumers’
Intention to Purchase

Caio Pedrinho Da Silva & Elder Semprebon

To cite this article: Caio Pedrinho Da Silva & Elder Semprebon (2021): How about Cultivated
Meat? the Effect of Sustainability Appeal, Environmental Awareness and Consumption
Context on Consumers’ Intention to Purchase, Journal of Food Products Marketing, DOI:
10.1080/10454446.2021.1921090

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2021.1921090

Published online: 12 May 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wfpm20
JOURNAL OF FOOD PRODUCTS MARKETING
https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2021.1921090

ORIGINAL PAPER

How about Cultivated Meat? the Effect of Sustainability Appeal,

Environmental Awareness and Consumption Context on
Consumers’ Intention to Purchase
Caio Pedrinho Da Silva and Elder Semprebon
Department of Management, Universidade Federal Do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
In order to understand the acceptance of cultivated meat, we propose Cultivated meat;
experiments regarding (i) a sustainability appeal to increase consumer’s Sustainability; Meat
purchase intention, (ii) private consumption as a mediator, and (iii) aware­ production processPurchase
ness of environmental issues related to the production process and the use intention; Public and private
consumption
of antibiotics and hormones in the production process as moderators. The
results showed that the sustainability appeal of cultivated meat raises con­
sumers’ intention to buy it, while private consumption explains their low
intention to buy it. In addition, the low awareness of the production process
and the use of antibiotics and hormones in the production process reduce
the consumers’ intention to purchase cultivated meat, both directly and
indirectly. These results contribute to the literature on the adoption of
cultivated meat and sustainable appeals, thus expanding the discoveries
regarding a more efficient way of placing it on the market.

Introduction
The constant development of science and technology has brought impacts in several sectors around
the world, including the food sector . Cultivated meat, for example, comes up with some good
perspectives of innovation for consumers and meat producers around the world (Bhat et al., 2015).
The term cultivated meat refers to the use of biotechnology for the development of laboratory meat
by means of the multiplication of satellite cells extracted from an adult animal, using salts, growth
hormones and nutrients through a bioreactor until a structured meat is formed, such as hamburgers
and meatballs (Bhat et al., 2015).
Academic studies on cultivated meat and consumer behavior have been based on perceived
naturalness, neophobia and disgust (Bryant et al., 2019; Siegrist & Hartmann, 2020), ethical concerns
(Weinrich et al., 2020), perceptions of environmental benefits (Verbeke, Sans et al., 2015), perceptions
of different cultures (Verbeke, Marcu et al., 2015) and provision of beneficial information on
cultivated meat, such as social animal welfare, high environmental technology, quality and flavor,
and similarities to conventional meat (Bryant & Dillard, 2019; Rolland et al., 2020; Van Loo et al.,
2020) and the best name for this meat (C. J. Bryant & Barnett, 2019).
However, these studies have not yet explored the contexts of meat consumption, taking into
account that there are divergences in the behavior of meat consumers in public and private contexts,
for example, (Khara et al., 2020), the private context refers to the consumption of meat in homemade
daily meals, while the public context refers to the social consume, such as at parties or barbecues.
Another factor that has not yet been properly explored is the sustainability appeal, even though
this is an important benefit of cultivated meat and which should be urged for consumer acceptance

CONTACT Caio Pedrinho Da Silva caio_pedrini@hotmail.com; elder.semprebon@gmail.com Universidade Federal Do

Paraná, Prefeito Lothário Meissner Avenue, Curitiba, 81530-000, Brazil.
© 2021 Taylor & Francis
2 C. P. D. SILVA AND E. SEMPREBON

(Verbeke, Marcu et al., 2015). Furthermore, consumer awareness variables regarding the conven­
tional meat production process are also relevant to be studied, given that consumers who are most
likely to adhere to alternative meat are those with greater awareness of this production process,
mainly the environmental issues related to it but also to the use of antibiotics and hormones
(Hwang et al., 2020).
In this sense, sustainability represents the outstanding environmental benefit that cultivated meat
can provide, by reducing water and energy consumption, emission of greenhouse gases and land
occupation compared to conventional meat production. . Besides, the use of antibiotics and hormones
in the traditional production process is often referred to as a reason of consumers’ rejection of
conventional meat in recent years.
Therefore, from a theoretical point of view, the present study contributes to the understanding of
alternative explanations of why cultivated meat has low purchase intent in comparison to conven­
tional meat, which is essential to develop strategies to reach these consumers more effectively. In this
sense, this study also corroborates the literature that explores differences in public and private
consumption of alternative products, shedding light on the hypothesis of public/private consump­
tion as a valid mediating variable. The present study also contributes to the literature on appeal,
demonstrating the effects of the sustainability appeal on the intention to purchase cultivated meat, as
an important benefit of this new meat and which should be urged to the consumer (Tuomisto, 2019),
but which may not be fully effective depending on the context. The research results can still be
translated into other scenarios of new products considered more sustainable, adding findings to the
literature on sustainable consumption. The study also contributes to the literature on marketing
strategies, bringing relevant findings for the construction of strategies with the use of the sustain­
ability appeal.
From a practical point of view, the present study contributes to marketing and sustainability. The
inclusion of cultivated meat in the market stimulates innovation, the economy and market competi­
tiveness through a new means of meat consumption, especially in Brazil, as it is one of the largest meat
producers in the world, and which, consequently, will suffer impacts due to the development of this
new meat, both for internal and external consumption, considering that several countries will be able
to produce meat in a more accessible way (Valente et al., 2019). The production of cultivated meat can
accentuate the divisions between developed and emerging countries, considering that it is the devel­
oped countries that have sought to produce this meat, while it is the emerging countries that are
responsible for the production of conventional meat, which can cause an economic, technological and
market disruption of this good, thus affecting Brazil directly (Reis et al., 2020).
Regarding sustainable consumption, meat consumption is predicted to increase by 73% by 2050,
which will make production unsustainable as it currently occurs on a global level, thus demanding
alternative means of production (Chriki & Hocquette, 2020; Gerber et al., 2013). The production of
cultivated meat can reduce energy consumption by 7 to 45%, propagation of greenhouse gases by 78%
to 96%, water consumption by 82% to 96% and land occupation as much as 99%, thus serving as an
alternative means of producing this food (Tuomisto & Teixeira De Mattos, 2011). Such resources are
becoming increasingly scarce and, consequently, more expensive, which also reflects in the prices of
meat offered to the final consumer, thus becoming more than an environmental cause, but also a social
and economic one (Gerber et al., 2013).
Therefore, the purpose of this research is to assess (i) the effect of the sustainability appeal on the
consumer’s purchase intention, (ii) the context of private and public consumption as mediators, and
(iii) the awareness of environmental issues related to the production process of conventional meat and
also the use of antibiotics and hormones in the production process as moderators.
 JOURNAL OF FOOD PRODUCTS MARKETING 3

Literature review
Cultivated meat
Cultivated meat is basically made by removing a small piece of animal tissue, without the need for
slaughter. Then, in a laboratory, the satellite cells are multiplied and developed by means of growth
factors, nutrients and hormones until reaching meat suitable for commercialization and consumption,
seeking to maintain the same flavor and nutrients of meat that the consumers know traditionally (Bhat
et al., 2015).
Seeking to understand consumer behavior, Hocquette et al. (2015), through a survey involving
respondents from several countries around the world, found that 5 to 11% of them would accept eating
artificial meat (a term used in the study). Furthermore, in the study by Wilks and Phillips (2017)
conducted in the United States through a survey, 65% would taste and 33% would constantly eat
in vitro meat. Finally, in an experimental study (Slade, 2018), 11% would eat cultivated meat. More
recently, Van Loo et al. (2020) identified through an experiment carried out in North America that
only 5% of consumers would choose laboratory-produced meat over conventional meat. The differ­
ences found may be due to the format of the question asked, the name of the meat that was used or
even sociodemographic factors (Bryant & Barnett, 2018).
Therefore, it is possible to note that those studies have shown that there is consumer resistance to
adhere to this new meat and to include it in their diet in most of the contexts covered. However, the
empirical studies that are related to the topic are scarce and many are still in progress, but already
point out that cultivated meat has low purchase intention.
Thus, the first out of our five work hypothesis (H1 to H5) is brought forth:

H1: Cultivated meat presents less purchase intention than conventional meat.

Sequentially, Rolland et al. (2020) in a study carried out in the Netherlands and Van Loo et al.
(2020) in a study conducted in North America demonstrate that beneficial information on cultivated
meat, including environmental, can increase consumer acceptance.
Still about consumer acceptance, Bryant and Dillard (2019) argue in an experimental survey
conducted in the United States that consumer attitudes diverge depending on the appeal that is
presented when it comes to cultivated meat. The authors created three types of appeals for cultivated
meat, namely social benefit, high technology and the fact that cultivated meat is equal to conventional
meat. The results showed that the high-tech appeal had a negative impact on the consumers’ intention
to purchase cultivated meat.
Previous studies (Hocquette et al., 2015; Tuomisto, 2019, 2019; Tuomisto & Teixeira De Mattos,
2011) also dealt with the sustainability appeal, although it was not experimentally tested in relation to
the consumer. Such studies address the fact that the dissemination of beneficial information about
cultivated meat can increase its acceptance.
Thus, the second hypothesis of our study comes forth:

H2: The appeal of sustainably of cultivated meat may balance consumers’ purchase intention with that
of conventional meat.

Public and private consumption

In a qualitative exploratory study carried out in India, Khara et al. (2020) found that consumers have
different meat consumption behaviors when it comes to contexts of public and private consumption.
The context of public consumption refers to occasional moments and visibility, characterized by
civility and attention to the rules of ethical conduct, while the context of private consumption refers to
a routine and freedom moment (Khara et al., 2020).
4 C. P. D. SILVA AND E. SEMPREBON

In this sense, although previous studies on cultivated meat have shown that the intention to buy this
new food can rise when the consumer realizes the benefits it provides (Verbeke, Marcu et al., 2015), the
exploratory study by Wilks and Phillips (2017) demonstrates that there may be a difference between
the willingness to occasionally eat the cultivated meat and the willingness to insert it steadily into food
routine, that is, include it daily in private consumption.
Accordingly, Hwang et al. (2020) debate that the consumer is not prepared to insert the cultivated
meat in their daily diet, that is, in their private meals, even under conditions in which the environ­
mental benefits of the cultivated meat are perceptible.
In the study by Wang et al. (2012), the contexts of public and private consumption are portrayed as
mediators, for it was demonstrated that when consumption is subject to public assessments, con­
sumers tend to choose products that are socially accepted by most people.
In this vein, it is possible to infer that the cultivated meat, even under the appeal of sustainability,
can raise uncertainties in the consumer as to the consequences of inserting this new food in his/her
private meals, in other words, consumers feel insecure as to the consequences of the constant
consumption of this new kind of meat.
Therefore, it is possible to realize that the private context of consumption can act as mechanism for
explaining the low intention to buy cultivated meat compared to conventional meat, even with an
appeal for sustainability, while, simultaneously, the public context of consumption cannot be regarded
the same, precisely because it is a context of occasional consumption, with consumers being prepared
for this type of sporadic consumption of cultivated meat, in addition to being a moment of visibility, in
which the consumption of sustainable products is well looked upon.
Thus, our third work hypothesis is shown below:

H3: The purpose of private (vs. public) consumption reduces the intention to buy cultivated meat even
in the presence of sustainability appeals.

Sustainability and the meat production process

Livestock is responsible for most of the greenhouse gas emissions in the world today, in addition
to having significant impacts on water and energy consumption, leading to considerations that by
2050 the production of conventional meat as it is now will be unsustainable (Gerber et al., 2013).
Having this in mind, some countries, such as France, for example, (Lang & Barling, 2013) have
invested in making people aware of their consumption related to impacts on the environment. This
knowledge and awareness of the need for greater sustainability in the conventional meat production
process leads to an increased willingness to consume alternative foods that have a higher degree of
sustainability, such as vegetable meat (Hwang et al., 2020). This latter study points out that consumer
awareness of the meat production process raises the disposition to consume vegetable meat, but not
cultivated meat. However, this same study does not approach the sustainable benefits that cultivated
meat present, rather only the consumer’s previous awareness about traditional meat production
process.
In this sense, it is possible that the sustainability appeal of cultivated meat can interact with the
awareness variable regarding environmental issues related to the production process of conventional
meat and raise the intention to purchase cultivated meat, considering that these two variables lead to
the same path. Therefore, the lack of consumer awareness regarding environmental issues related to
the production process of conventional meat will reduce the intention to buy cultivated meat because
these consumers do not perceive sustainable benefits to make this choice.
Thus, the following hypotheses are to be analyzed:

H4 -The level of awareness about environmental issues in meat production influences the consump­
tion decision.
 JOURNAL OF FOOD PRODUCTS MARKETING 5

H4a: The low (vs. high) awareness of environmental issues in the conventional meat production
process will reduce (vs. increase) the intention to purchase cultivated meat with a sustainability appeal.

Accordingly, low awareness of environmental issues related to the conventional meat production
process will also reduce the effect of private consumption, due to the fact that consumers do not
realize the sustainable benefits that this meat can provide if included in the consumers’ food routine
(Hwang et al., 2020). Furthermore, as private consumption is a moment of consumers’ freedom,
they do not feel socially pressured to become aware of the sustainable process of a product that they
will consume, whereas public consumption is a moment of visibility and that, consequently, results
in greater pressure for sustainability awareness (Khara et al., 2020). Therefore, in a context of public
consumption, even consumers with low awareness of environmental issues related to the meat
production process will be influenced to buy the cultivated meat, because it is a moment of social
visibility and greater consumption awareness, resulting in greater adherence to sustainable
consumption.
Thus, the following hypothesis is constructed:
H4b: The low (vs. high) awareness of environmental issues related to the meat production process
will increase (vs. reduce) the negative indirect effect of private consumption.

Antibiotics and hormones in the production process

The conventional meat production process involves the use of synthetic pesticides, antibiotics and
growth hormones. However, the cultivated meat allows production without the use of such chemical
elements (Bhat et al., 2015), allowing greater food security for the human consumption and also
greater animal welfare.
Thus, taking into account that the use of such substances might imply the threat of mutation,
transmission and spread of diseases with endemic and pandemic characteristics, as in the case of the
2009 H1N1 pandemic (Kumar & Funk, 2010), consumers have been increasingly concerned with the
use of antibiotics, synthetic pesticides and hormones during the meat production process and its
impacts on food safety and consumer health, leading to reduced consumption of this food or even its
complete elimination of daily menus (Jeong et al., 2010), in addition to the search for alternative foods
(Williams & Hammitt, 2001).
In this sense, it is proposed in the present study that consumer awareness regarding the use of
antibiotics and pesticides in the meat production process will increase the intention to purchase
cultivated meat in support of sustainability, considering that the variable of antibiotic use and
hormones in the production process have a collective perspective, for they can spread diseases in
the whole society.
Thus, the following hypotheses are presented:
H5 -The level of awareness about the use of antibiotics and hormones in meat production
influences the consumption decision.
H5a: The low (vs. high) awareness of the use of antibiotics and hormones in the production process
will reduce (vs. increase) the intention to purchase cultivated meat even in the presence of sustain­
ability appeals.
Consequently, the low awareness of the use of antibiotics and hormones in the traditional produc­
tion process will also reduce the effect of private consumption, because it is a mechanism for
explaining the effect between the sustainability appeal of the cultivated meat and its purchase
intention. Such a lack of awareness reduces the intention to buy cultivated meat in a private context
due to fact that consumers may not realize the benefits that a meat free of antibiotics and hormones
can provide if inserted in the food routine of consumers (Jeong et al., 2010, Williams & Hammitt,
2001). Furthermore, as private consumption is a moment of consumers’ freedom, they do not feel
socially pressured to become aware of the production process of a product that they will consume,
while public consumption is a moment of visibility and that, consequently, results in greater pressure
6 C. P. D. SILVA AND E. SEMPREBON

for awareness of what is being consumed (Khara et al., 2020). Therefore, in a context of public
consumption, even consumers with low awareness of the meat production process and the use of
antibiotics and hormones will feel the influence to buy the cultivated meat, because it is a moment of
social visibility and greater awareness of consumption, resulting in greater adherence to consumption
of products free of antibiotics and hormones in their production process.
Thus, the last hypothesis of this study is presented:
H5b: The low (vs. high) awareness of the use of antibiotics and hormones in the production process
will increase (vs. reduce) the negative indirect effect of private consumption.

Empirical overview
To test all hypotheses, a series of three experimental studies was conducted. The first study refers to the
preliminary analysis that evidenced the existence of low intention to buy cultivated meat without any
appeal in comparison with conventional meat through the technical description of cultivated
meat (H1).
The second study showed that the sustainability appeal equals the intention to buy cultivated meat
compared to conventional meat (H2) and that, in addition, private consumption reduces the intention
to purchase cultivated meat, (H3).
Finally, the third study replicated the findings of the second study in another scenario involving
a fictitious brand. In addition, the results also demonstrated that the low awareness of environmental
issues related to the production process of conventional meat and also the use of antibiotics and
hormones in the production process reduces the intention to buy meat directly and indirectly in
private consumption (H4a, H4b, H5a and H5b).

STUDY 1
The purpose of Study 1 was to demonstrate that cultivated meat has a lower purchase intention than
conventional meat through a technical description. Therefore, this study will test for H1.

2.1.1. Study 1 method

The sample of Study 1 was composed of 82 valid responses, being 47 women (57.31%) and 35 men
(42.68%) with an average age of 24.7 years. The study employed a single factor (cultivated meat vs.
conventional meat) with a between subjects, in which the participants were randomly assigned to one
of the two conditions when accessing the survey link. The sample was collected randomly via internet
on social networks with participants from all regions of Brazil.
Initially, participants were faced with one of the scenarios elaborated by the author describing
a type of meat, whether cultivated or conventional, in which due care was taken so that no information
was presented that would stimulate their affective reactions and influence their subsequent responses
(example: animal welfare or environmental information), according to the Table 1. The scenarios were
elaborated based on previous studies (Bhat et al., 2015; Post, 2012). Subsequently, the interviewees
answered the following question: “What is your intention to buy the cultivated meat (vs. conven­
tional)?”, using a Likert scale. Finally, sample control information was collected that measured reality,
difficulty and commitment in relation to research, as well as sociodemographic information.

2.1.1. Results
Participants in both conditions assessed that the survey information was real (M = 4.5; SD = 0.70), that
they were committed to answering the questionnaire (M = 4.76; SD = 0.59) and that the level of difficulty
in answering the questions was low (M = 1.57; SD = 0.49), with no difference between conditions.
 JOURNAL OF FOOD PRODUCTS MARKETING 7

Table 1. Description of study 1 conditions.

Conventional meat
Conventional meat that is consumed by most Brazilians starts with a chick, a piglet, a calf or a fish. These animals are born and
raised on the spot or purchased by ranchers. When the animal reaches minimum age and size, it is slaughtered and processed in
cuts immediately, being packaged and sent to the point of sale (butchers) for the purchase and consumption of people.
Cultivated meat
Cultivated meat, or meat developed in the laboratory, is a new product that will soon be available for consumption. Cultivated
meat refers to the use of animal cell culture technology to grow animal tissue in the laboratory, rather than a live animal.
Therefore, it is produced by means of cell multiplication, using cells extracted only once from a live animal (cow, chicken). They
are multiplied in the laboratory in order to form the meat that can be consumed, without the need to slaughter animals.
Source: Elaborated by the author (2020).

It was possible to confirm through the t-test that the purchase intention is greater for conventional
meat (M = 3.7; SD = 1.19) when compared to cultivated meat (M = 2.8; SD = 1.56; Sig <0.05). These
results confirm H1, in which cultivated meat has less purchase intention when compared to conven­
tional meat.

2.1.1. Discussion
This result corroborates a series of studies that claim a possible consumer resistance to cultivated meat,
thus directly influencing their purchase intention (Hocquette et al., 2015; Slade, 2018; Van Loo et al.,
2020; Wilks & Phillips, 2017). This demonstrates the real need of proposals for explanatory mechan­
isms, as well as variables that can increase the intention to buy cultivated meat before the product is
commercialized (Bryant & Dillard, 2019; Rolland et al., 2020; Van Loo et al., 2020; Verbeke, Marcu
et al., 2015). Therefore, these results support H1.

STUDY 2
The objective of Study 2 was to demonstrate that the appeal of cultivated meat sustainability equals the
purchase intention with conventional meat and the double mediation of private and public consump­
tion. Therefore, this study will test H2 and H3.

2.1.1. Study 2 method

The sample of Study 2 was composed of 62 valid responses, among which 36 were women’s (58.1%)
and 26 were men’s (41.9%), with an average age of 28.5 years. Eleven responses were considered
invalid because they did not correctly pass the control questions regarding reality, difficulty and
commitment in relation to the research. The study was employed with a single factor (sustainability
appeal of cultivated meat vs. conventional meat) with a between subjects, in which the participants
were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions when accessing the survey link. The sample was
collected in the same way as in Study 1.
We chose not to use a control condition for cultivated meat, since Bryant and Dillard (2019) argue
that it is not possible to construct a neutral condition regarding cultivated meat, because people will
always tend to it once they know it. Also based on this study, technological information on meat was
reduced compared to Study 1, in view of its negative effect on the consumer.
Initially, the participants were faced with the meat scenario prepared by the author and also with an
image of the food according to the condition in which they found themselves, which may be
conventional meat or cultivated meat with sustainability appeal, (all due care was taken to ensure
that no information was presented in addition to the sustainability benefits (e.g.: animal welfare
information)), according to the Table 2. The conditions were set in a more hedonic way with the
intention of increasing the reality of the research, considering that it is the way in which meat is
currently offered to the consumer (Bianchi et al., 2018). The scenarios were elaborated based on
8 C. P. D. SILVA AND E. SEMPREBON

Table 2. Description of the conditions of study 2.

Conventional meat
Conventional meat is consumed by most Brazilians. This meat refers to the creation of animals for consumption of a tasty food that
arouses consumer’s pleasure, presenting good smell, texture and taste.

Cultivated meat with sustainability appeal

Soon the cultivated meat will be available on the market. This meat refers to the use of technology in the laboratory to develop
a tasty meat that arouses consumer’s pleasure, presenting good smell, texture and taste.
Cultivated meat has consistent and identical flavor as that of conventional meat, in addition to sustainable benefits. This meat
reduces the emission of greenhouse gases, the occupation of land and the consumption of water and energy when compared
to conventional meat.
Think: would you choose cultivated meat?

Source: Elaborated by the author (2020).

previous studies (Bhat et al., 2015; Post, 2012; Tuomisto, 2019). Subsequently, respondents answered
to the following questions: “What is your intention to buy cultivated meat (vs. conventional)?”, “What
is your intention to consume cultivated meat (vs. conventional) privately in your daily life?” and “what
is your intention to consume cultivated (vs. conventional) meat publicly at events such as barbecues or
parties?”. Finally, sample control information was collected, as in Study 1, as well as sociodemographic
information.

2.1.1. Results
Participants in both conditions assessed that the research information is real (M = 4.19; SD = 1.00),
that they were committed to answering the questionnaire (M = 4.80; SD = 0.50) and that the level of
difficulty in answering the questions was low (M = 1.79; SD = 1.02), with no difference between
conditions.
 JOURNAL OF FOOD PRODUCTS MARKETING 9

Thus, through a t-test it was possible to perceive that the intention to purchase cultivated meat with
sustainability appeal (M = 3.18; SD = 1.53) is equal to that of conventional meat (M = 3.90; SD = 1.42;
Sig = 0.06). Therefore, these results confirm the H2 of the present study, proving that the sustainability
appeal of cultivated meat equals the purchase intention in relation to conventional meat.
With the double mediation test it was possible to notice that there was a significant direct effect
(Effect = 0.13; p = .03; LLCI = 0.01; ULCI = 0.25), indicating an increase in the purchase intention for
cultivated meat with sustainability appeal. The negative indirect effect of private consumption was
noted (Effect = −0.48; LLCI = −0.83; ULCI = −0.14). The indirect effect of public consumption was not
significant (Effect = −0.003; LLCI = −0.03; ULCI = 0.01) and neither was double mediation
(Effect = −0.007; LLCI = −0.05; ULCI = 0, 02). These results indicate that although there is an increase
in purchase intention for cultivated meat with sustainability appeal compared to conventional meat,
private consumption (vs. public) reduces (vs. does not change) this effect, confirming H3.

2.1.1. Discussion
In this sense, it is possible to conclude that the cultivated meat, even in the presence of the sustain­
ability appeal, reduces the intention of private consumption due to the uncertainties that the consumer
has about the consequences of the constant consumption of this new meat, that is, consumers have
greater resistance to insert it in their private consumption.
These results corroborate previous studies that suggest that exalting the sustainable benefits of
cultivated meat increases purchase intention (Van Loo et al., 2020; Verbeke, Marcu et al., 2015). In
accordance with previous studies, it could also be proved that consumers are not prepared to consume
cultivated meat in their private meals (Hwang et al., 2020; Wilks & Phillips, 2017), thus demonstrating
that the possible reduction in the intention to buy cultivated meat is focused specifically on including
this product in their private diet.
Furthermore, these findings also corroborate Khara et al. (2020), demonstrating that the context of
public consumption is a moment of visibility and adherence to socially acceptable standards, such as
sustainable consumption, while private consumption is a moment of freedom, taking into account that
private consumption explains the low intention to buy cultivated meat with a sustainability appeal,
while public consumption does not explain it.
In addition, the results also advance the study by Bryant and Dillard (2019), demonstrating a more
effective appeal to improve the acceptance of cultivated meat by the consumer, in addition to pointing
out that such effects should be studied in different contexts of meat consumption, because can lead to
different results.

STUDY 3
The objective of Study 3 was to reaffirm the findings of Study 2 and increase the reality of the
scenarios presented to the respondent, in addition to testing the variables of awareness of environ­
mental issues related to the production process of conventional meat, and also the use of antibiotics
and hormones in the production process as moderators. Therefore, this study will test H4a, H4b,
H5a and H5b.

2.1.1. Study 3 method

The sample of Study 3 was composed of 123 valid responses, 84 from women (68.3%), 38 from men
(30.9%) and 1 from others (0.8%) with an average age of 31.1 years. Fourteen responses were
considered invalid because they did not fit correctly the control questions regarding reality, difficulty
and commitment in relation to the research. The design of this study was based on the type of meat
(conventional meat vs. cultivated meat with sustainability appeal) vs. awareness of environmental
issues related to the production process of conventional meat (low vs. high awareness) and type of
10 C. P. D. SILVA AND E. SEMPREBON

meat (conventional meat vs. cultivated meat with sustainability appeal) vs. awareness of the use of
antibiotics and hormones in the production process (low vs. high) among subjects, in which the
participants were randomly assigned to one of the two meat type conditions when accessing the survey
link. The sample was collected in the same way as in Study 1.
The conditions of the study followed the same premises of Study 2, but to increase the reality of the
scenarios and reaffirm the effects of the manipulations, a fictitious brand was used and also an
advertising image elaborated by the author, positioned according to the condition in which the
respondent was, whether it was conventional or cultivated with sustainability appeal, according to
the Table 3. Subsequently, respondents answered the same purchase and consumption questions as in
the Study 2. After that, the participants were faced with the Sustainability Scale of the Meat Production
Process and also of Clean and Drug-Free Meat (Hwang et al., 2020). Finally, sample control informa­
tion was collected, as in Study 1, as well as sociodemographic information.

2.1.1. Results
Participants in both conditions assessed that the research information is real (M = 4.18; SD = 0.82),
that they were committed to answering the questionnaire (M = 4.78; SD = 0.56) and that the level of
difficulty in answering the questions was low (M = 2.08; SD = 1.10), with no difference between
conditions.
Thus, through a t-test it was possible to confirm the findings of Study 2, ensuring that the intention
to purchase the cultivated meat with a sustainability appeal (M = 3.05; SD = 1.56) is equal to that of
conventional meat (M = 3.49; SD = 1.47; Sig = 0.11). Therefore, these results again confirm the H2 of
the present study and reinforce Study 2.
The results of the double mediation model also confirmed the findings of Study 2, in which it was
possible to notice that there was a significant direct effect (Effect = 0.12; p = .03; LLCI = 0.02;
ULCI = 0.23), indicating once more the increase in purchase intention for cultivated meat with
sustainability appeal. It is also possible to note the occurrence of the negative indirect effect of private
consumption (Effect = −0.31; LLCI = −0.55; ULCI = −0.07). The indirect effect of public consumption
was not significant (Effect = −0.02; LLCI = −0.06; ULCI = 0.00) and neither was the double mediation
(Effect = −0.02; LLCI = −0.06; ULCI = 0.00). These results reinforce Study 2, pointing out that
although there is an increase in purchase intention of cultivated meat with sustainability appeal
compared to conventional meat, private (vs public) consumption reduces (vs does not alter) this
effect, confirming H3 again.
The analysis of direct moderation demonstrated an interaction between the awareness of environ­
mental issues related to the production process of conventional meat and handling (R2 = 0.03; p = .03),
pointing out that the low awareness of environmental issues related to the production process of
conventional meat reduced the intention to purchase cultivated meat in support of sustainability
(Effect = −0.51; p = .00; LLCI = −0.90; ULCI = −0.13), while high awareness showed no significance
(Effect = 0.06; p = .72; LLCI = −0.30; ULCI = 0.44). This result confirms the H4a of the present study.
Accordingly, the use of antibiotics and hormones in the production process also showed interaction
with manipulation (R2 = 0.04; p = .01), indicating that the low awareness of the use of antibiotics and
hormones in the production process also reduced the purchase intention of cultivated meat in support of
sustainability (Effect = −0.53; p = .00; LLCI = −0.90; ULCI = −0.15), while high awareness did not show
significance (Effect = 0, 09; p = .60; LLCI = −0.27; ULCI = 0.47). This result confirms the H5a of the present
study.
The analysis of moderate double mediation showed that the awareness of environmental issues
related to the production process of conventional meat showed a significant index (Index = 0.59;
LLCI = 0.11; ULCI = 1.06), pointing out that the low awareness of environmental issues related to the
meat production process reduce the intention to buy cultivated meat with a sustainability appeal for
private consumption (Effect = −0.61; LLCI = −0.94; ULCI = −0.29), while the high awareness did not
show significance for private consumption (Effect = −0.02; LLCI = −0.39; ULCI = 0.33). The public
 JOURNAL OF FOOD PRODUCTS MARKETING 11

Table 3. Description of study 3 conditions.

Conventional meat
Conventional meat is consumed by most Brazilians. This meat refers to the creation of animals for consumption of a tasty food that
arouses consumer’s pleasure, presenting good smell, texture and taste.
The Brazilian Meat (fictional) brand, a producer of conventional meat, has invested more and more in the production of this
food, consistently improving its taste, smell and texture.

Cultivated meat with sustainability appeal

Soon the cultivated meat will be available on the market. This meat refers to the use of technology in the laboratory to develop
a tasty meat that arouses consumer’s pleasure, presenting good smell, texture and taste.
The Brazilian Meat brand (fictitious), which has a production focused on the sustainable meat process, has invested in this new
food with the intention of reducing the environmental impacts caused by conventional meat, taking into account that this new
meat has sustainable benefits, such as the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, land occupation and water and energy
consumption when compared to conventional meat, in addition to having a consistent and identical taste, smell and texture.
Think: would you choose cultivated meat?

Source: Elaborated by the author (2020).

12 C. P. D. SILVA AND E. SEMPREBON

consumption index (Index = 0.01; LLCI = −0.02; ULCI = 0.06) and the double mediation (Index = 0.03;
LLCI = −0.01; ULCI = 0.10) was not significant. This result confirms the H4b of the present study.
Sequentially, the analysis of moderation in the use of antibiotics and hormones in the production
process showed a significant index (Index = 0.54; LLCI = 0.08; ULCI = 1.01), pointing out that the low
awareness of environmental issues related to meat production process reduces the intention to buy
cultivated meat with a sustainability appeal for private consumption (Effect = −0.58; LLCI = −0.89;
ULCI = −0.27), while high awareness did not show significance for private consumption
(Effect = −0.03; LLCI = −0.38; ULCI = 0.31). The public consumption index (Index = 0.02;
LLCI = −0.01; ULCI = 0.09) and the double mediation index (Index = 0.03; LLCI = −0.01;
ULCI = 0.10) was not significant. This result confirms the H5b of the present study.
The results of moderate mediation indicate that in fact there is a reduction in the intention to
purchase cultivated meat with sustainability appeal for private consumption, however this negative
effect occurs only among consumers with low awareness about environmental issues in the production
process and the use of antibiotics and hormones.

2.1.1. Discussion
The results of Study 3 corroborate the findings of Study 2 with different manipulations, reinforcing the
evidence of H2 and H3, demonstrating that the sustainability appeal of cultivated meat raises their
purchase intention and also that private consumption acts as a reduction mechanism of the intention
to buy cultivated meat, while, simultaneously, public consumption does not act as a mediator.
The other findings of the referred study support hypotheses 4a, 4b, 5a and 5b, demonstrating that
both the low awareness of environmental issues related to the production process of conventional
meat and the low awareness of the use of antibiotics and hormones in the production process reduce
the intention to buy cultivated meat in an appeal for sustainability both directly and indirectly for
private consumption, that is, the lower the consumers’ awareness of the sustainable meat production
process and the use of antibiotics and hormones in the process, the lower their intention to purchase
cultivated meat for private use.
The findings related to the awareness of environmental issues related to the meat production
process add contributions to the study by Hwang et al. (2020), which demonstrates that this variable
can interfere in alternative foods that are more sustainable, even though that does not occur in relation
to cultivated meat, i.e., consumer is not prepared to include it in their private consumption habits. The
present study demonstrates that there is an interaction between cultivated meat, the consumer’s
private consumption and his/her awareness regarding environmental issues related to the conven­
tional meat production process, but with sustainability appeal, that is, when the sustainable benefits of
cultivated meat are exalted, its adoption depends on the consumer’s degree of awareness regarding the
production process of conventional meat, in which the lower their degree of awareness, the lower their
intention to purchase and insert it into their private consumption.
In addition, the findings related to the use of antibiotics and hormones in the production process
are consistent with previous studies that report that as the consumers becomes aware of the use of
drugs, such as antibiotics and pesticides, in the production process of the food they consume, they start
to reduce the consumption of these foods or to look for substitutes, mainly in their private consump­
tion habits (Jeong et al., 2010; Williams & Hammitt, 2001).
A point that is consistent with the study by Hwang et al. (2020) is that, through a model of moderate
double mediation, moderators interacted only with the private consumption mediator, having no
significance in the direct relationship, in public or double mediation, demonstrating that the problem
in relation to the adoption of cultivated meat is the context of private consumption.
Finally, the findings also contribute to the premises pointed out by Khara et al. (2020) on public and
private consumption. Private consumption is a moment of consumer’s freedom, that is, in which the
consumer does not feel socially pressured to become aware of the sustainability and use of antibiotics
and hormones in the production process of a product they will consume, while the public
 JOURNAL OF FOOD PRODUCTS MARKETING 13

consumption is a moment of visibility, that is, it results in greater pressure for the awareness of what is
being consumed. Therefore, in a context of public consumption, even consumers with low awareness
of the meat production process and the use of antibiotics and hormones will be influenced in their
intention to buy the cultivated meat, because it is a moment of social visibility and greater awareness of
consumption, resulting in greater adherence to a consumption of sustainable products, free of
antibiotics and hormones in its production process.
Therefore, according to the results, Marketing strategies must include sustainable information
related to the consumption of cultivated meat so that it is accepted in the market and seek to educate
consumers about environmental issues and the use of antibiotics and hormones in the production
process of conventional meat. These strategies have an effect only when they are directed to the
consumer’s private consumption. These findings corroborate the study carried out by Palmieri et al.
(2020), complementing the way marketing strategies should be structured to present the meat to the
consumer and what the characteristics of that consumer are.
Another issue to be raised in view of the results found within a strategic scope are the challenges of
marketing capabilities, as pointed out by Apostolidis and McLeay (2016, 2019), Mancini and Antonioli
(2019) and Reis et al. (2020), with the perspective of the need for guidance, awareness and education of
its consumers regarding the impacts of the meat production chain on the environment so that the
adoption of this product can be an alternative at the time of purchase.

Conclusions
The results of the present study contribute to the literature on the adoption of cultivated meat,
demonstrating a more efficient appeal to reach consumers and also that the context of private
consumption acts totally as an explanation mechanism for the reduction of purchase intention. In
this sense, these results also contribute to the understanding of the existence of different consumer
attitudes toward public and private meat consumption, demonstrating that the consumer is prepared
to purchase cultivated meat when they realize its sustainable benefits, but not to include it in their
private meals, but rather, occasionally consume it, opening possibilities for new explorations in
different contexts.
Other relevant factors for the literature are the awareness of the production process of conventional
meat, demonstrating that variables related to it interfere in the consumer’s attitudes toward cultivated
meat. Such information becomes relevant when reflecting on food education present in different
cultures, opening the possibility that such variables can serve as mechanisms of explanation for
cultural differences in the intention to purchase alternative meat.
The results also bring findings to the Marketing strategy literature. The study contributes by
demonstrating that it is not in all contexts of consumption that sustainability communication of
a product can be effective. It also calls for the differentiation of contexts of public and private
consumption through communication strategies to offer more sustainable alternative products to
the consumer. The survey also adds new features to the profile of consumers of cultured meat. Finally,
another relevant factor refers to the use of sustainability appeals. Previous studies have exhorted the
question that the benefits of cultivated meat must be extolled so that the consumer has an interest in its
adoption; however, the current study has shown that purchase intention actually rises in face of the
sustainability appeal, but such appeal is not enough to convince consumers to include this food in their
private meals. Thus, the results of this research contribute to the literature of sustainability appeals and
benefits, demonstrating that this effect can positively stimulate the consumer, but that it may still not
be enough to achieve the intended objective in certain contexts.
The present study also has limitations. One of them is the fact that the cultural phenomenon is an
influential variable when it comes to meat consumption, and in a country with continental propor­
tions like Brazil there are different degrees of importance and consumption when it comes to meat,
depending on the region in which the survey respondent is from. For example, the Midwest region,
which is responsible for a large part of the national production of conventional meat and consequently
14 C. P. D. SILVA AND E. SEMPREBON

defends one of the main sources of income and jobs in the region. However, this factor was not taken
into account in the present study and may influence the results.
Another limitation is the reduced number of participants in the studies, which may jeopardize
sample representativeness.
Future studies may follow up on the findings improving some techniques, such as the manipulation
of public and private consumption contexts, instead of proposing a mere question, as was done in the
present research. It is still possible to explore biases in consumer decision-making process in private
meat consumption contexts, seeking to identify who is primarily responsible for the consumer’s
cognitive resistance to adhering to cultivated meat in this context. Furthermore, it is possible to
study the consumer’s cognitive dissonance in view of the beneficial appeals of meat and their low
purchase intention in the context of private consumption.
Other appeals can also be manipulated in future studies to find more effective scenarios, such as
food security. This appeal is a possible stimulus that can provide the consumer with beneficial
information necessary to make them feel safe to insert the cultivated meat in their private meals,
considering that this is a time when food security is regarded to as the highest priority.
Another important factor to be taken into account is the degree of information of a given appeal
that is passed on to the consumer, low, medium and high sustainability appeal, for example,
demonstrating a more accurate level of information that can increase the consumer’s purchase
intention.

ORCID
Caio Pedrinho Da Silva http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4214-8527
Elder Semprebon http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9201-3751

References
Apostolidis, C., & McLeay, F. (2016). Should we stop meating like this? Reducing meat consumption through
substitution. Food Policy, 65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.11.002
Apostolidis, C., & McLeay, F. (2019). To meat or not to meat? Comparing empowered meat consumers’ and anti-
consumers’ preferences for sustainability labels. Food Quality and Preference, 77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.
2019.04.008
Bhat, Z. F., Kumar, S., & Fayaz, H. (2015). In vitro meat production: Challenges and benefits over conventional meat
production. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14(1), 241–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60887-X
Bianchi, F., Garnett, E., Dorsel, C., Aveyard, P., & Jebb, S. A. (2018). Restructuring physical micro-environments to
reduce the demand for meat: A systematic review and qualitative comparative analysis. The Lancet Planetary Health, 2
(9), e384–e397. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(18)30188-8
Bryant, C., & Barnett, J. (2018). Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: A systemic Review. Meat Science, 143, 8–17.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.04.008
Bryant, C., & Dillard, C. (2019). The impact of framing on acceptance of cultured meat. Frontiers in Nutrition, 6. https://
doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2019.00103
Bryant, C., Szejda, K., Parekh, N., Deshpande, V., & Tse, B. (2019). A survey of consumer perceptions of plant-based and
clean meat in the USA, India, and China. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2019.
00011
Bryant, C. J., & Barnett, J. C. (2019). What’s in a name? Consumer perceptions of in vitro meat under different names.
Appetite, 137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.02.021
Chriki, S., & Hocquette, J. F. (2020). The myth of cultured meat: A review. Frontiers in Nutrition, 7. https://doi.org/10.
3389/fnut.2020.00007
Gerber, P. J., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C., Dijkman, J., Falcucci, A., & Tempio, G. (2013). Tackling
climate change through livestock – A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
Hocquette, A., Lambert, C., Sinquin, C., Peterolff, L., Wagner, Z., Bonny, S. P. F., Lebert, A., & Hocquette, J.-F. (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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60886-8
Hwang, J., You, J., Moon, J., & Jeong, J. (2020). Factors affecting consumers’ alternative meats buying intentions: plant-
based meat alternative and cultured meat. Sustainability, 12(14), 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145662
 JOURNAL OF FOOD PRODUCTS MARKETING 15

Jeong, S.-H., Kang, D., Lim, M.-W., Kang, C. S., & Sung, H. J. (2010). Risk assessment of growth hormones and
antimicrobial residues in meat. Toxicological Research, 26(4), 301–313. https://doi.org/10.5487/TR.2010.26.4.301
Khara, T., Riedy, C., & Ruby, M. B. (2020). “We have to keep it a secret” – The dynamics of front and backstage
behaviours surrounding meat consumption in India. Appetite, 149, 104615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.
104615
Kumar, A., & Funk, D. (2010). Emergence of a Novel Swine-Origin Influenza A (H1N1) virus in humans. Yearbook of
Critical Care Medicine, 2010, 176–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0734-3299(09)79333-5
Lang, T., & Barling, D. (2013). Nutrition and sustainability: An emerging food policy discourse. Proceedings of the
Nutrition Society, 72(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002966511200290X
Mancini, M. C., & Antonioli, F. (2019). Exploring consumers’ attitude towards cultured meat in Italy. Meat Science, 150,
101–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.12.014
Palmieri, N., Perito, M. A., & Lupi, C. (2020). Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: Some hints from Italy. British Food
Journal, 123(1), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-02-2020-0092
Post, M. J. (2012). Cultured meat from stem cells: Challenges and prospects. Meat Science, 92(3), 297–301. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.04.008
Reis, G. G., Heidemann, M. S., Borini, F. M., & Molento, C. F. (2020). Livestock value chain in transition: Cultivated
(cell-based) meat and the need for breakthrough capabilities. Technology in Society, 62, 101286. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.techsoc.2020.101286
Rolland, N. C., Markus, C. R., & Post, M. J. (2020). The effect of information content on acceptance of cultured meat in
a tasting context. Plos One, 15(4). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231176
Siegrist, M., & Hartmann, C. (2020). Perceived naturalness, disgust, trust and food neophobia as predictors of cultured
meat acceptance in ten countries. Appetite, 155, 104814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.104814
Slade, P. (2018). If you build it, will they eat it? Consumer preference for plant-based and cultured meat burgers.
Appetite, 125, 428–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.02.030
Tuomisto, H. L. (2019). The eco-friendly burger: Could cultured meat improve the environmental sustainability of meat
products? EMBO Reports, 20(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201847395
Tuomisto, H. L., & Teixeira De Mattos, M. J. (2011). Environmental impacts of cultured meat production.
Environmental Science & Technology, 45(14), 6117–6123. https://doi.org/10.1021/es200130u
Valente, J. P. S., Fiedler, R. A., Heidemann, M. S., & Molento, C. F. M. (2019). First glimpse on attitudes of highly
educated consumers towards cell-based meat and related issues in Brazil. PLOS ONE, 14(8). https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0221129
Van Loo, E. J., Caputo, V., & Lusk, J. L. (2020). Consumer preferences for farm-raised meat, lab-grown meat, and
plant-based meat alternatives: Does information or brand matter? Food Policy, 95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.
2020.101931
Verbeke, W., Marcu, A., Rutsaert, P., Gaspar, R., Seibt, B., Fletcher, D., & Barnett, J. (2015). “Would you eat cultured
meat?”: Consumers’ reactions and attitude formation in Belgium, Portugal and the United Kingdom. Meat Science,
102, 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.11.013
Verbeke, W., Sans, P., & Van Loo, E. (2015). Challenges and prospects for consumer acceptance of cultured meat.
Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14(2), 285–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60884-4
Wang, J., Zhu, R., & Shiv, B. (2012). The Lonely Consumer: Loner or Conformer? Journal of Consumer Research, 38(6), 6.
https://doi.org/10.1086/661552
Weinrich, R., Strack, M., & Neugebauer, F. (2020). Consumer acceptance of cultured meat in Germany. Meat Science,
162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.107924
Wilks, M., & Phillips, C. (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
Williams, P. R., & Hammitt, J. K. (2001). Perceived risks of conventional and organic produce: Pesticides, pathogens, and
natural toxins. Risk Analysis : An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 21(2), 319–330. https://doi.org/
10.1111/0272-4332.212114