Making Meat, Better: The Metaphors of Plant-Based and Cell-Based Meat Innovation

Broad, Garrett M.

doi:10.1080/17524032.2020.1725085

Cited by 71 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, alternative meat does not require antibiotics or hormones to achieve mass meat production [29]. The new type of meat is an innovative food, so consumers feel curious about it [30]. On the other hand, prior research has also examined the following negative aspects of alternatives.…”

Section: Consumer Ambivalencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Factors Affecting Consumers’ Alternative Meats Buying Intentions: Plant-Based Meat Alternative and Cultured Meat

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Consumers have started to become aware of the negative aspects of conventional meat, including concerns about environmental issues, animal welfare, and consumer health. Alternative meats (i.e., cultured meat and plant-based meat alternatives) have been introduced recently to address these problems, and the rapid growth of the alternative meat market could pose a threat to the conventional meat market. It is necessary to identify the features of alternative meat that affect consumers’ purchasing intentions. Thus, we aimed to: (1) explore the positive and negative feelings toward alternative meat and (2) compare the differences in factors influencing alternative meat buying intentions. This study conducted an online survey with Korean participants in two separate sections (cultured meat: n = 513; plant-based meat alternatives: n = 504), and relationships between the variables and willingness to buy were analyzed using the partial least squares method. The results showed that sustainability and food neophobia are two of the different factors, and food curiosity, unnaturalness, and distrust of biotechnology are the common factors affecting consumers’ purchasing choice. The results of this study provide useful guidelines for effective promotional messages about cultured meat, plant-based meat alternatives, and conventional meat marketers focusing on the positive and negative aspects of significant factors.

show abstract

Section: Consumer Ambivalencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 18 innovative food, so consumers feel curious about it [30]. On the other hand, prior research has also examined the following negative aspects of alternatives.…”

Section: Consumer Ambivalencementioning

confidence: 99%

Factors Affecting Consumers’ Alternative Meats Buying Intentions: Plant-Based Meat Alternative and Cultured Meat

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At the same time, some jurisdictions may be able to create jobs and income by harnessing new economic opportunities associated with an emerging cultured and/or plant-based meat sector and their supply chains. These potential social and economic impacts of cultured and plant-based meat have received less attention particularly as they relate to rural communities (Stephens et al, 2018;Broad, 2020). Ranchers, farmers, and others involved both in animal agriculture and crop agriculture supply chains may experience threats and also new opportunities from the emergence of cultured and plant-based meat sectors at scale (van der Weele and Tramper, 2014;Stephens et al, 2018;Broad, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social and Economic Opportunities and Challenges of Plant-Based and Cultured Meat for Rural Producers in the US

Newton

Blaustein-Rejto

2021

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animal agriculture presents major sustainability challenges. Alternative meat (alt-meat) products (e.g., plant-based and cultured meat) are substitutes for animal meat products, made using innovative food technologies. The potential environmental impacts of plant-based and cultured meat have been well-explored but the social and economic impacts of alt-meat have received less attention, particularly as they relate to rural communities. This paper addresses the research question: What are social and economic opportunities and challenges of cultured and plant-based meat for rural producers in the US? We conducted semi-structured interviews with 37 expert informants, including representatives of cultured meat companies, plant-based meat companies, non-profit organizations, funding agencies, governmental agencies, and the beef, soy, and pea sectors, as well as researchers and farmers. Our interviews revealed a range of ways in which alt-meat sectors might present opportunities or threats for rural producers in the US. Opportunities included growing crops as ingredients for plant-based meat or feedstock for cultured meat; raising animals for genetic material for cultured meat; producing cultured meat in bioreactors at the farm level; transitioning into new sectors; new market opportunities for blended and hybrid animal- and alt-meat products; and new value around regenerative or high-animal welfare farming. Threats included loss of livelihood or income for ranchers and livestock producers and for farmers growing crops for animal feed; barriers to transitioning into emerging alt-meat sectors; and the possibility of exclusion from those sectors. Interviewees also identified a range of roles for universities and research organizations, government agencies, and non-profit organizations that could help to maximize the benefits and minimize the risks from emerging alt-meat sectors. Finally, most interviewees thought it likely that alt-meat would form an additional form of protein that captured some or all of the anticipated growing demand for protein rather than one that displaced animal meat entirely. As such, the emergence of alt-meat sectors alongside animal agriculture may offer more choices for rural producers in terms of which markets they sell to and what forms of production they adopt or pursue. This paper identifies numerous research gaps, to which natural and social scientists could usefully apply their attention.

show abstract

“…In part, this lack of consensus is because choosing what common or usual name to use on product labels goes beyond regulatory issues. There is power inherent in labeling a concept, because the name given to it can evoke images, emotions, metaphors, and meanings that profoundly shape public perceptions and acceptance (Broad, 2020). What to call these products have unsurprisingly been the subject of considerable debate among consumers, advocates, regulators, and the producers of both cell-based and conventional meat products, with various stakeholders proposing terms likely to elicit very different reactions from consumers (Ong, Choudhury, & Naing, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An empirical assessment of common or usual names to label cell‐based seafood products

Hallman

2020

Journal of Food Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An important consideration in the commercialization of cell‐based meat, poultry, and seafood is what common or usual name to use on package labels to meet U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations. However, naming these products has been the subject of considerable debate. This study used a 3 × 10 between‐subjects online experiment involving a quota sample of 3,186 U.S. adult panel participants to test common or usual names using images of realistic packages of three types of seafood that a consumer might encounter in a supermarket. The terms tested were, “cell‐based seafood,” “cell‐cultured seafood,” “cultivated seafood,” and “cultured seafood” and the phrases, “produced using cellular aquaculture,” “cultivated from the cells of ____,” and “grown directly from the cells of ____,” where the blanks are filled by the name of the seafood product. Five criteria were used for evaluation, including each term's ability to: enable consumers to distinguish cell‐based seafood from wild and farmed fish, to signal potential allergenicity, be seen by consumers as an appropriate term to identify the product, not disparage either cell‐based or conventional products, and not evoke thoughts, images, or emotions that are inconsistent with the idea that the products are safe, healthy, and nutritious. The results showed that “cell‐based seafood” outperforms the other names tested. It enables consumers to recognize that the products are neither wild caught nor farm raised, signals potential allergenicity, is seen as an appropriate name for describing the technology/process, and it performs well with respect to measures of consumer acceptance, particularly in comparison to conventional products. Practical Application Creating consensus around a single common or usual name for cell‐based meat, poultry, and seafood products is clearly important both for regulatory reasons and for shaping public perceptions and understanding of the products that are labeled with it. Our findings suggest that “cell‐based” is the best common or usual name for seafood products that both meets FDA regulatory requirements and performs well with respect to potential consumer acceptance. Consistent use of this term by industry, advocates, and regulators would help orient consumers to what is likely to be a transformational food technology.

show abstract

Making Meat, Better: The Metaphors of Plant-Based and Cell-Based Meat Innovation

Cited by 71 publications

References 29 publications

Factors Affecting Consumers’ Alternative Meats Buying Intentions: Plant-Based Meat Alternative and Cultured Meat

Factors Affecting Consumers’ Alternative Meats Buying Intentions: Plant-Based Meat Alternative and Cultured Meat

Social and Economic Opportunities and Challenges of Plant-Based and Cultured Meat for Rural Producers in the US

An empirical assessment of common or usual names to label cell‐based seafood products

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About