What's in a name? Consumer perceptions of in vitro meat under different names

Bryant, Christopher; Barnett, Julie

doi:10.1016/j.appet.2019.02.021

Cited by 185 publications

(161 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

150

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, in a peer-reviewed study using 185 mTurk participants, Bryant and Barnett (2019) concluded that "clean meat" and "animal-free" meat performed better than "lab-grown meat" and "cultured meat" with respect to positive participant attitudes and behavioral intentions.…”

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

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

show abstract

“…It is widely acknowledged that the name given to an object or phenomenon can affect subsequent evaluations and impressions of it. In this way, different names which have an influence on consumer attitude were proposed for cultured meat (55,56). Indeed, "in vitro meat, " "clean meat, " "cultured meat, " "labgrown meat, " "synthetic meat" and other names (15) suggest that this innovation is slaughter-free, more responsible toward our environment and a credible alternative to the current intensive farming systems.…”

Section: Consumer Perceptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Myth of Cultured Meat: A Review

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Nomenclature for cell-based meat is widely debated, and for an excellent discussion on the various terms and their history and socio-political connotations, see Stephens et al (2019). Producers, investors and advocates of cell-based meat production prefer to use the term 'clean meat' in order to promote consumer acceptance as it has positive connotations (Bryant and Barnett, 2019). Conversely, those arguing against the term 'clean' meat point out that the term implies that conventional meat production is 'dirty'.…”

Section: Definition and Process Of Cellular Meat Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Perhaps the most significant challenge for cell-based meat to overcome is that of consumer acceptance (Bryant and Barnett, 2019). There is a diversity of opinions in the media regarding consumer acceptance and consumer concerns.…”

Section: Consumer Acceptancementioning

confidence: 99%

Review: Analysis of the process and drivers for cellular meat production

Warner

2019

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cell-based meat, also called ‘clean’, lab, synthetic or in vitro meat, has attracted much media interest recently. Consumer demand for cellular meat production derives principally from concerns over environment and animal welfare, while secondary considerations include consumer and public health aspects of animal production, and food security. The present limitations to cellular meat production include the identification of immortal cell lines, availability of cost-effective, bovine-serum-free growth medium for cell proliferation and maturation, scaffold materials for cell growth, scaling up to an industrial level, regulatory and labelling issues and at what stage mixing of myo-, adipo- and even fibrocytes can potentially occur. Consumer perceptions that cell-based meat production will result in improvements to animal welfare and the environment have been challenged, with the outcome needing to wait until the processes used in cell-based meat are close to a commercial reality. Challenges for cell-based meat products include the simulation of nutritional attributes, texture, flavour and mouthfeel of animal-derived meat products. There is some question over whether consumers will accept the technology, but likely there will be acceptance of cell-based meat products, in particular market segments. Currently, the cost of growth media, industry scale-up of specific components of the cell culture process, intellectual property sharing issues and regulatory hurdles mean that it will likely require an extended period for cellular meat to be consistently available in high-end restaurants and even longer to be available for the mass market. The progress in plant-based meat analogues is already well achieved, with products such as the ImpossibleTM Burger and other products already available. These developments may make the development of cellular meat products obsolete. But the challenges remain of mimicking not only the nutritional attributes, flavour, shape and structure of real meat, but also the changes in regulation and labelling.

show abstract

What's in a name? Consumer perceptions of in vitro meat under different names

Cited by 185 publications

References 59 publications

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

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

The Myth of Cultured Meat: A Review

Review: Analysis of the process and drivers for cellular meat production

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About