Is the future of meat palatable? Perceptions of<i>in vitro</i>meat as evidenced by online news comments

Laestadius, Linnea; Caldwell, Mark Anthony

doi:10.1017/s1368980015000622

Cited by 117 publications

(123 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

102

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such measures may also assist for instance in studies exploring consumer acceptance of lab-grown meat (e.g. Laestadius & Caldwell, 2015;Verbeke, Sans, & Van Loo, 2015;Werbeke et al, 2015). Methodologically, given its psychometric properties, favorable initial evidence concerning its validity, parsimony, and versatility (i.e.…”

Section: Improving Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Attached to meat? (Un)Willingness and intentions to adopt a more plant-based diet

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In response to calls to expand knowledge on consumer willingness to reduce meat consumption and to adopt a more plant-based diet, this work advances the construct of meat attachment and the Meat Attachment Questionnaire (MAQ). The MAQ is a new measure referring to a positive bond towards meat consumption. It was developed and validated through three sequential studies following from an in-depth approach to consumer representations of meat. The construct and initial pool of items were firstly developed drawing on qualitative data from 410 participants in a previous work on consumers' valuation of meat. Afterwards, 1023 participants completed these items and other measures, providing data to assess item selection, factor structure, reliability, convergent and concurrent validity, and predictive ability. Finally, a sample of 318 participants from a different cultural background completed the final version of the MAQ along with other measures to assess measurement invariance, reliability and predictive ability. Across samples, a four-factor solution (i.e., hedonism, affinity, entitlement, and dependence) with 16 items and a second-order global dimension of meat attachment fully met criteria for good model fit. The MAQ subscales and global scale were associated with attitudes towards meat, subjective norm, human supremacy beliefs, eating habits, and dietary identity. They also provided additional explanatory variance above and beyond the core TPB variables (i.e. attitudes, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control) in willingness and intentions concerning meat substitution. Overall, the findings point towards the relevance of the MAQ for the study of meat consumption and meat substitution, and lend support to the idea that holding a pattern of attachment towards meat may hinder a shift towards a more plant-based diet.

show abstract

Section: Improving Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Attached to meat? (Un)Willingness and intentions to adopt a more plant-based diet

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a study funded by New Harvest, an organisation that supports this last technology, it is claimed that in-vitro flesh that is assumed to be able to be cultivated by using cyanobacteria as a growth medium might lower energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and land and water usage very substantially compared to conventionally produced flesh in Europe, but the authors also point out that its public acceptance may be marred by public concerns over its unnaturalness (Tuomisto and de Mattos 2011), a theme that will be explored in section 2.12. Empirical research, however, has found that this is not the only thing that people are concerned about regarding in-vitro flesh, and that their concerns include issues of safety and taste (Hocquette et al 2015;Laestadius and Caldwell 2015).…”

Section: The Case For a Radical Transformation Of Agriculturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Even if my concern with safeguarding the integrity of nature is less pronounced with in-vitro flesh than with the genetic engineering of animals, it is not allayed altogether. Research has already found that many invoke the concept of the 'unnatural' when they comment on this former technology (Laestadius and Caldwell 2015). I think that people are right to invoke this concept in this context: cultured flesh is more unnatural than conventional methods to produce flesh as stem cells do not grow into flesh outside living bodies without human intervention.…”

Section: Human Health and In-vitro Fleshmentioning

confidence: 99%

Animal (De)liberation: Should the Consumption of Animal Products Be Banned?

Deckers

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Next, Laestadius and Caldwell (2015) assessed U.S. consumer comments on online news stories about cultured meat. They found that the majority of comments contained negative statements about cultured meat, and many of the commentators described the product as unnatural and unappealing (Laestadius & Caldwell, 2015). More recently, Wilks and Phillips (2017) surveyed 673 U.S. adults, over half of whom indicated that they were willing to try cultured meat, but only one-third of whom reported willingness to eat cultured meat regularly.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“You Call that Meat?” Investigating Social Media Conversations and Influencers Surrounding Cultured Meat

Specht¹,

Rumble²,

Buck³

2020

Journal of Applied Communications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cultured meat has yet to reach store shelves but is nonetheless a growing issue for consumers, producers, and government regulators, many of whom have taken to social media to discuss it. Using a conceptual framework of social cognitive theory and issues management, this qualitative content analysis investigated social-media discourse surrounding the topic of cultured meat in the United States by describing the content of the discussion in late 2018 and identifying individual influencers and communities of influencers engaged in the discussion. Data were collected from Twitter using listening platform Sysomos MAP. The thematic analysis revealed eight themes: legality and marketing, sustainability, acceptance, business, animal concerns, science and technology, health concerns, and timeline, and indicated that conflicting views and questions about cultured meat exist among conversation participants. Top influencers included philanthropists, government officials, journalists and writers, and animal-welfare advocates. These influencers were grouped into four distinct communities based on interactions with each other and other users. The topics identified in the analysis provide insight into ways in which communicators can enter these conversations, and influencer communities represent groups of users whose broad reach could more easily transmit pro-agriculture messages.

show abstract

Is the future of meat palatable? Perceptions ofin vitromeat as evidenced by online news comments

Abstract: Objective: To understand current public perceptions of in vitro meat (IVM) in light of its potential to be a more environmentally sustainable alternative to conventional meat.

Cited by 117 publications

References 37 publications

Attached to meat? (Un)Willingness and intentions to adopt a more plant-based diet

Attached to meat? (Un)Willingness and intentions to adopt a more plant-based diet

Animal (De)liberation: Should the Consumption of Animal Products Be Banned?

“You Call that Meat?” Investigating Social Media Conversations and Influencers Surrounding Cultured Meat

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About