Cultured Meat and Australia's Generation Z

Bogueva, Diana; Marinová, Dora

doi:10.3389/fnut.2020.00148

Cited by 61 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In both the US and the UK, members of Gen Z were the most open to cultivated meat, whilst Baby Boomers were the least open. This is a notable contrast to recent research which was interpreted as suggesting that Generation Z may be particularly closed to cultivated meat [ 48 ]. In fact, this study did not compare different generations, and the low acceptance rates observed are more likely a result of methodology, particularly the stimuli presented to participants.…”

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 86%

US and UK Consumer Adoption of Cultivated Meat: A Segmentation Study

Szejda

Bryant

Urbanovich

2021

Foods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite growing evidence of the environmental and public health threats posed by today’s intensive animal production, consumers in the west remain largely attached to meat. Cultivated meat offers a way to grow meat directly from cells, circumventing these issues as well as the use of animals altogether. The aim of this study was to assess the overall consumer markets and a range of preferences around cultivated meat in the US and the UK relating to nomenclature, genetic modification, health enhancements, and other features. To this end, we recruited large representative samples to participate in an online survey about cultivated meat, and subsequently analyzed segments (a) in the early majority population (guided by the Diffusion of Innovations Model), (b) by generation, and (c) in the general population. Our findings showed a high level of openness (80%) in both the US and UK populations, with 40% somewhat or moderately likely to try and 40% highly likely to try. Younger generations had the greatest openness: 88% of Gen Z, 85% of Millennials, 77% of Gen X, and 72% of Baby Boomers were at least somewhat open to trying cultivated meat. All segments envisioned cultivated meat to be nearly half of their total meat intake. Findings show that consumers prefer the terms ‘cultured’ and ‘cultivated’ over ‘cell-based’ and ‘cell-cultured’ for use in a social context and on packages, even though they perceive these terms as less descriptive. The most important on-package label was one indicating government assurances, and participants preferred non-GM products over GM products. We also found that US consumers prefer nutritionally superior meat over nutritionally equivalent meat. We discuss implications for product development, messaging, and understanding the likely adoption path of this food innovation.

show abstract

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 86%

US and UK Consumer Adoption of Cultivated Meat: A Segmentation Study

Szejda

Bryant

Urbanovich

2021

Foods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The fact that older people reject "cell-based meat" to a greater extent confirms the results of another survey in Germany and France [49] and a recent European survey [46], both of which show that older respondents (65 years of age or older) have low acceptance of "cell-based meat". In contrast, in an Australian survey on the Generation Z, (18-24 years of age), considered to be familiar with technologies and with a sense of environmental responsibility, Bogueva and Marinova [30] reported that 72% of respondents from this younger generation are not ready to accept "cell-based meat" (compared to 3.1% of younger people between 18 to 30 years of age in our study who find this idea absurd and/or disgusting). The way in which the questions are worded or the difference in age or maturity of the respondents may explain this type of different observation.…”

Section: Hierarchical Classifications Of Quantitative and Qualitative Variables And Respondentscontrasting

confidence: 90%

“…A first approach to tackle this problem is to conduct online surveys to examine how consumers will react to "cell-based meat". Based on the consumers' perceptions and attitudes towards "cell-based meat", and their willingness to try, regularly eat, or buy it, these surveys have been conducted in different countries among various consumer groups, mainly focused on Europe [25][26][27][28] and the United States [29], but not exclusively [30][31][32][33][34][35], emphasizing that there were multiple factors influencing acceptance as well as rejection of "cell-based meat".…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Brazilian Consumers’ Attitudes towards So-Called “Cell-Based Meat”

Chriki

Payet

Pflanzer

et al. 2021

Foods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main goal of this online survey was to investigate the attitudes of Brazilians towards “cell-based meat”, which has become the subject of great scientific and media enthusiasm. The answers of 4471 respondents concluded that 46.6% of them thought “cell-based meat” was promising and acceptable. More than 66% would be willing to try this novel product compared to 23% who expressed reluctance to do so. Nearly 40% of the total respondents did not want to eat “cell-based meat” regularly at all, whereas 29%, 43.2%, and 39.9% were willing to eat it regularly in restaurants, at home, and/or in ready-made meals, respectively. However, the majority of respondents (71%) were keen to pay much less for “cell-based meat” than conventionally produced meat (or even nothing at all), compared to 24.3% who were willing to pay the same price as conventional meat, whereas only 4.8% were willing to pay more. Approximately 51% of them considered that “cell-based meat” should not be called “meat” for marketing purposes. Job, monthly income, age, and gender were major factors impacting consumer acceptance. Meat professionals and consumers with higher incomes were less willing to eat “cell-based meat” regularly. Women (especially younger women) were the most concerned about the ethical and environmental issues related to meat production and were the most convinced that reducing meat consumption could be a good solution to the meat industry’s problems. Respondents who did not accept “cell-based meat” and did not eat meat substitutes had a negative attitude to this novel food (they considered it absurd and/or disgusting) and did not believe that “cell-based meat” should be called “meat” for marketing purposes. In contrast, the people who thought that “cell-based meat” could be called “meat” perceived it in a rather positive way. These results are important for consumers of meat and meat substitutes and for companies aiming to enter the potential future Brazilian market of “cell-based meat”.

show abstract

“…They further suggested other men who would normally eat meat but had experienced the vegan options. We were not interested in men who are usually vegetarian or vegan as they represent a very small fraction of Sydney's population, estimated at less than 6% [53]. We continued the recruiting of participants through snowballing until we achieved repetition of the issues raised during the interviews indicating data saturation or exhaustion of the number of unique opinions offered [54].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It allowed us to apply theoretical insights that are not exclusive to the analysed sample of young men and their particular circumstances but convey higher-level concepts [55]. This is described as analytical generalisation based on the transferability of the results on a case-by-case basis when similarities exist [53]. Therefore, it is essential to present thick description [56] of the cases that forms the basis for analysis and from which conclusions are drawn.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meat Me Halfway: Sydney Meat-Loving Men’s Restaurant Experience with Alternative Plant-Based Proteins

Bogueva

Bryant

2022

Sustainability

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within the theoretical framework of psychological reactance and impression management, this study conducted in Sydney, Australia, in 2020–2021, explores the acceptance by men of alternatives to animal-based foods. Qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with 36 men who have visited a vegan restaurant and have eaten a plant-based burger. The findings from the study show that, despite the increasing popularity of these novel food options, men are unlikely to include the plant-based alternatives as a permanent feature of their diets as explained by the theory of psychological reactance. However, the study’s male participants acknowledged the importance of women for their visit to the vegan restaurant which can be explained by impression management theory. Using excerpts from the interviews, men’s experience is highlighted, particularly as it relates to concerns linked to masculinity, dietary identity and social perception by others. The analysis reveals the complexity of transitioning to more sustainable food choices within a gender-constructed social environment. Whether the new plant-based alternatives to meat are going to be a short-lived trend or a more lasting option in the men’s diets is also discussed. Practical implications for social marketing as a tool to influence collective behaviour are drawn. They emphasise the role of women, changing social perceptions and transparency about the new plant-based products.

show abstract

Cultured Meat and Australia's Generation Z

Cited by 61 publications

References 30 publications

US and UK Consumer Adoption of Cultivated Meat: A Segmentation Study

US and UK Consumer Adoption of Cultivated Meat: A Segmentation Study

Brazilian Consumers’ Attitudes towards So-Called “Cell-Based Meat”

Meat Me Halfway: Sydney Meat-Loving Men’s Restaurant Experience with Alternative Plant-Based Proteins

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About