The production of in vitro meat by cell culture has been suggested by some scientists as one solution to address the major challenges facing our society. Firstly, consumers would like the meat industry to reduce potential discomfort of animals on modern farms, or even to avoid killing animals to eat them. Secondly, citizens would like meat producers to reduce potential environmental deterioration by livestock and finally, there is a need to reduce world hunger by increasing protein resources while the global population is predicted to grow rapidly. According to its promoters, artificial meat has a potential to make eating animals unnecessary, to reduce carbon footprint of meat production and to satisfy all the nutritional needs and desires of consumers and citizens. To check these assumptions, a total of 817 educated people (mainly scientists and students) were interviewed worldwide by internet in addition to 865 French educated people. We also interviewed 208 persons (mainly scientists) after an oral presentation regarding artificial meat. Results of the three surveys were similar, but differed between males and females. More than half of the respondents believed that "artificial meat" was feasible and realistic. However, there was no majority to think that artificial meat will be healthy and tasty, except respondents who were in favour of artificial meat. A large majority of the respondents believed that the meat industry is facing important problems related to the protection of the environment, animal welfare or inefficient meat production to feed humanity. However, respondents did not believe that artificial meat will be the solution to solve the mentioned problems with the meat industry, especially respondents who were against artificial meat. The vast majority of consumers wished to continue to eat meat even they would accept to consume less meat in a context of increasing food needs. Only a minority of respondents (from 5 to 11%) would recommend or accept to eat in vitro meat instead of meat produced from farm animals. Despite these limitations, 38 to 47% of the respondents would continue to support research on artificial meat, but a majority of them believed that artificial meat will not be accepted by consumers in the future, except for respondents who were in favour of artificial meat. We speculated that the apparent contradictory answers to this survey expressed the fact that people trust scientists who

The meat industry cannot respond to increases in demand by ever increasing resource use, as had occurred during the industrial revolution. The industry must find solutions to issues regarding animal welfare, health and sustainability and will have to do so in the face of competition from emerging non-traditional meat and protein products in an increasingly complex regulatory environment. These novel meat and protein products, otherwise known as 'artificial meat' are utilising ground breaking technologies designed to meet the issues facing the conventional meat industry. These artificial meats, in vitro or cultured meat and meat from genetically modified organisms have no real capacity to compete with conventional meat production in the present environment. However meat replacements manufactured from plant proteins and mycoproteins are currently the biggest competitors in the market and are gaining a small percentage of the market. Manufactured meats may push conventional meat into the premium end of the market, and supply the bulk, cheap end of the market if conventional meat products become more expensive and the palatability and versatility of manufactured meats improve. In time the technology for other artificial meats such as meat from genetic modified organisms or cultured meat may become sufficiently developed for these products to enter the market add to the complexity of the competition between meat products. Conventional meat producers can assimilate agroecology ecology concepts in order to develop sustainable animal production systems. The conventional meat industry can also benefit from assimilating biotechnologies such as cloning and genetic modification technologies, using the technology to adapt to the changing environment and respond to the increasing competition from artificial meats. Although it will depend at least in part on the evolution of conventional meat production, the future of artificial meat produced from stem cells appears uncertain at this time. Key words:Artificial meat; In vitro meat; Meat industry; consumer satisfaction; sustainable production Introduction:

No abstract

The global population is estimated to plateau at 9 billion by the year 2050; however, projected food-production estimates would supply for only 8 billion people, using the ‘business as usual’ approach. In particular, the meat industry would need to increase production by ~50–73%. In response, there are several different options that have the potential to satisfy demand and increase production. Some of these options require advanced technologies and many may be considered as ‘artificial’ by different consumer groups. Within the meat industry itself, available technologies include selective breeding, agroecology systems, animal cloning and genetic modification. Alternatively, meat proteins can be replaced or substituted with proteins from plants, fungi, algae or insects. Finally, meat products could be produced using in vitro culturing and three-dimensional printing techniques. The protein produced by these techniques can be considered in the following three categories: modified livestock systems, synthetic meat systems, and meat substitutes. In the future, it is likely that meat substitutes will increase market share through competition with low-grade cuts of meat, sausages, ground meat and processed meat. However, synthetic meat systems and meat substitutes have significant barriers to commercialisation and widespread adoption that will affect their presence at least in the high-end premium sector in the market. To meet growing demands for protein, and in the face of growing competition from other sectors, the conventional meat industry must adopt new technologies and farming systems. These must be tailored to the challenges facing the industry and must effectively respond to consumer demands and the changing market place.

The beef industry must become more responsive to the changing market place and consumer demands. An essential part of this is quantifying a consumer's perception of the eating quality of beef and their willingness to pay for that quality, across a broad range of demographics. Over 19 000 consumers from Northern Ireland, Poland, Ireland and France each tasted seven beef samples and scored them for tenderness, juiciness, flavour liking and overall liking. These scores were weighted and combined to create a fifth score, termed the Meat Quality 4 score (MQ4) (0.3 × tenderness, 0.1 × juiciness, 0.3 × flavour liking and 0.3 × overall liking). They also allocated the beef samples into one of four quality grades that best described the sample; unsatisfactory, good-every-day, better-than-every-day or premium. After the completion of the tasting panel, consumers were then asked to detail, in their own currency, their willingness to pay for these four categories which was subsequently converted to a proportion relative to the goodevery-day category (P-WTP). Consumers also answered a short demographic questionnaire. The four sensory scores, the MQ4 score and the P-WTP were analysed separately, as dependant variables in linear mixed effects models. The answers from the demographic questionnaire were included in the model as fixed effects. Overall, there were only small differences in consumer scores and P-WTP between demographic groups. Consumers who preferred their beef cooked medium or well-done scored beef higher, except in Poland, where the opposite trend was found. This may be because Polish consumers were more likely to prefer their beef cooked well-done, but samples were cooked medium for this group. There was a small positive relationship with the importance of beef in the diet, increasing sensory scores by about 4% in Poland and Northern Ireland. Men also scored beef about 2% higher than women for most sensory scores in most countries. In most countries, consumers were willing to pay between 150 and 200% more for premium beef, and there was a 50% penalty in value for unsatisfactory beef. After quality grade, by far the greatest influence on P-WTP was country of origin. Consumer age also had a small negative relationship with P-WTP. The results indicate that a single quality score could reliably describe the eating quality experienced by all consumers. In addition, if reliable quality information is delivered to consumers they will pay more for better quality beef, which would add value to the beef industry and encourage improvements in quality.Keywords: consumer testing, beef, quality, demographics, Europe Implications A single quality descriptor of beef eating quality will likely be applicable to the entire European market due to the small impact of demographics on consumer scores. This descriptor could form the basis of an eating quality-based grading system for beef which would allow consumers to select beef of a desired quality when purchasing beef. As European consumers are also willing to pay more for better q...

21European conformation and fat grades are a major factor determining carcass value 22 throughout Europe. The relationships between these scores and sensory scores 23 were investigated. A total of 3786 French, Polish and Irish consumers evaluated 24 steaks, grilled to a medium doneness, according to protocols of the "Meat Standards 25Australia" system, from eighteen muscles representing 455 local, commercial cattle 26 2 from commercial abattoirs. A mixed linear effects model was used for the analysis. 27There was a negative relationship between juiciness and European conformation 28 score. For the other sensory scores, a maximum of three muscles out of a possible 29 18 demonstrated negative effects of conformation score on sensory scores. There 30 was a positive effect of European fat score on three individual muscles. However, 31 this was accounted for by marbling score. Thus, while the European carcass 32 classification system may indicate yield, it has no consistent relationship with sensory 33 scores at a carcass level that is suitable for use in a commercial system. The industry 34 should consider using an additional system related to eating quality to aid in the 35 determination of the monetary value of carcasses, rewarding eating quality in 36 addition to yield. 37 38

The ability of the biochemical measurements, haem iron, intramuscular fat (IMF%), moisture content, and total, soluble and insoluble collagen contents, to predict untrained consumer sensory scores both across different muscles and within the same muscle from different carcasses were investigated. Sensory scores from 540 untrained French consumers (tenderness, flavour liking, juiciness and overall liking) were obtained for six muscles; outside (m. biceps femoris), topside (m. semimembranosus), striploin (m. longissimus thoracis), rump (m. gluteus medius), oyster blade (m. infraspinatus) and tenderloin (m. psoas major) from each of 18 French and 18 Australian cattle. The four sensory scores were weighted and combined into a single score termed MQ4, which was also analysed. All sensory scores were highly correlated with each other and with MQ4. This in part reflects the fact that MQ4 is derived from the consumer scores for tenderness, juiciness, flavour and overall liking and also reflects an interrelationship between the sensory scores themselves and in turn validates the use of the MQ4 term to reflect the scope of the consumer eating experience. When evaluated across the six different muscles, all biochemical measurements, except soluble collagen, had a significant effect on all of the sensory scores and MQ4. The average magnitude of impact of IMF%, haem iron, moisture content, total and insoluble collagen contents across the four different sensory scores are 34.9, 5.1, 7.2, 36.3 and 41.3, respectively. When evaluated within the same muscle, only IMF% and moisture content had a significant effect on overall liking (5.9 and 6.2, respectively) and flavour liking (6.1 and 6.4, respectively). These results indicate that in a commercial eating quality prediction model including muscle type, only IMF% or moisture content has the capacity to add any precision. However, all tested biochemical measurements, particularly IMF% and insoluble collagen contents, are strong predictors of eating quality when muscle type is not known. This demonstrates their potential usefulness in extrapolating the sensory data derived from these six muscles to other muscles with no sensory data, but with similar biochemical parameters, and therefore reducing the amount of future sensory testing required.

Australia tasted cooked beef samples, then allocated them to a quality grade; 34 unsatisfactory, good-every-day, better-than-every-day and premium. The consumers 35 also scored beef samples for tenderness, juiciness, flavour-liking and overall-liking. 36The beef was sourced from all countries involved in the study and cooked by four