Milk, Meat, and Fish From the Petri Dish—Which Attributes Would Make Cultured Proteins (Un)attractive and for Whom? Results From a Nordic Survey

Abstract

Cultured meat, fish, or dairy produced in vitro are discussed as one of the most substantial disruptions the food sector might encounter in the coming decades. These cultured proteins are proposed as a potential solution to the detrimental effects industrial food farming and fishing have on the environment and animal welfare as they would allow people to continue consuming meat, fish, or dairy products while at the same time substantially reducing the burden for the planet. For most people, however, this technology is still unknown, and it is largely unclear how they position themselves toward it. This paper presents the results of a representative survey (N = 3,864) in three Nordic countries (Norway, Denmark, and Finland). After briefly introducing the technological background, respondents spontaneously assessed their general attitude toward cultured proteins, their willingness to try them, and the likelihood that changes in 24 features of cultured protein would improve the respondents' attitude toward cultured protein products. The results showed that people in the studied countries have a neutral to a slightly positive view of cultured protein products. More familiarity seems to improve acceptance. Males, younger people, and vegans/vegetarians are particularly positive. The anticipated attitude change profiles showed that meat-eating identity, social norms, environmental concern, and country yielded the clearest profile differences, whereas health identity, age, innovativeness, income, education, and gender have smaller effects. People on a vegan or vegetarian diet cared less about most of the positive and negative aspects of cultured proteins compared to meat-eaters, with the exception of environmental and ethical aspects.

The valency of consumers’ perceptions toward cultured meat: A review

“…The Western European region statistics indicated that consumers in region had a high expected economic and ethical benefit. The positive perceptions about the ethical and economic benefits found in Western Europe studies can be corroborated with findings reported by Klockner et al [ 61 ]. Klockner et al [ 61 ] focused on Western Europe countries (Denmark, Finland and Norway) and found that consumers were most convinced of the possible ethical and economic benefits associated with cultured meat as opposed to other health and safety benefits.…”

“…The positive perceptions about the ethical and economic benefits found in Western Europe studies can be corroborated with findings reported by Klockner et al [ 61 ]. Klockner et al [ 61 ] focused on Western Europe countries (Denmark, Finland and Norway) and found that consumers were most convinced of the possible ethical and economic benefits associated with cultured meat as opposed to other health and safety benefits. The current study's results indicate that the optimism of the ethical and economic benefits of cultured meat is higher than the optimism of the quality, health and safety benefits in Europe and the UK.…”

A Comparative Photographic Review on Higher Plants and Macro-Fungi: A Soil Restoration for Sustainable Production of Food and Energy

“…However, they have many challenges, including a need for non-food carbon substrates and a possibility for existing mycotoxins [111]. The main target that attracts several scientists all over the world is how to find "plant protein-based meat and dairy analogues" especially under climate change [115][116][117], and single-cell proteins derived from mushrooms as reported by Stephan et al [118] in Table 3. Mushrooms contain many bioactive compounds (e.g., phenolics, polysaccharides, polyketides, steroids, triterpenoids, etc.…”

Consumers´ Perception of Novel Foods and the Impact of Heuristics and Biases: a Systematic Review

“…J. Bryant & Barnett, 2019;C. Bryant & Sanctorum, 2021;Circus & Robison, 2018;Egolf et al, 2019;Franceković et al, 2021;Garcez de Oliveira Padilha et al, 2021;Gorgitano et al, 2017;Klöckner et al, 2022;Laestadius & Caldwell, 2015;Lensvelt & Steenbekkers, 2014;Lupton & Turner, 2018a, 2018bOnwezen et al, 2019;Rosenfeld & Tomiyama, 2022;Ruby et al, 2015;Ruzgys & Pickering, 2020;Shaw & Mac Con Iomaire, 2019)Siegrist et al, 2018;Siegrist & Sütterlin, 2017;Slade, 2018;…”