Table 2.
Primary themes and key sub-themes identified, with number and percentage of commenters; qualitative content analysis of comments about in vitro meat (IVM) in news article comment sections across seven US-based online news sources, 1 August to 31 August 2013
| Primary themes and key sub-themes | Number of commenters | % of all commenters |
|---|---|---|
| Impact on animals | 61 | 13 |
| IVM will be better for animals* | 30 | 6 |
| Defence of killing animals for food | 23 | 5 |
| Concern for fate of animals if no longer needed for food* | 10 | 2 |
| Dystopian vision | 72 | 16 |
| IVM tied to cannibalism* | 45 | 10 |
| IVM is being developed for suspicious or greedy reasons | 17 | 4 |
| Fear of forced IVM consumption | 15 | 3 |
| Impact on environment | 76 | 16 |
| IVM will be more sustainable than conventional meat production* | 37 | 8 |
| Conventional meat production bad for environment (without reference to IVM) | 22 | 5 |
| IVM will be less sustainable than conventional meat production | 12 | 3 |
| IVM not needed | 53 | 11 |
| Consumers should adopt vegetarian or vegan diets instead of IVM* | 17 | 4 |
| Consumers should eat less meat instead of IVM* | 12 | 3 |
| Consumers should eat ‘better’ (e.g. organic, grass-fed or free-range) meats instead of IVM | 14 | 3 |
| Impact on public health | 85 | 18 |
| IVM will help reduce food insecurity* | 14 | 3 |
| IVM will be less nutritious than conventional meat* | 12 | 3 |
| IVM will have less fat than conventional meat* | 11 | 2 |
| IVM will be healthier/more nutritious than conventional meat* | 9 | 2 |
| IVM will pose food safety risk | 7 | 2 |
| IVM will improve food safety* | 6 | 1 |
| New scientific development | 205 | 44 |
| IVM is an unnatural scientific development* | 55 | 12 |
| Expressing excitement, joy or pride in the scientific process in light of IVM development | 45 | 10 |
| Faith in scientific process leading to IVM being more affordable and better tasting the future | 42 | 9 |
| Conventional meat production is already unnatural* | 34 | 7 |
| IVM will result in unknown or unanticipated negative risks to humans and/or theenvironment* | 21 | 5 |
| Science has replicated real meat | 20 | 4 |
| IVM as a culinary development | 97 | 21 |
| Disgust at the idea of IVM for human consumption* | 44 | 10 |
| IVM will appeal to current meat eaters* | 15 | 3 |
| IVM will have an inferior taste and/or texture relative to conventional meat* | 10 | 2 |
| IVM will taste as good as, if not better than, conventional meat | 10 | 2 |
| Structural-economic considerations | 49 | 11 |
| Non-rhetorical questions about IVM | 23 | 5 |
| Discussions of use and implications of fetal calf serum* | 22 | 5 |
| IVM will cost too much to be commercially viable* | 13 | 3 |
| IVM will harm traditional agriculture* | 5 | 1 |
*
Sub-themes that are also clearly identified or discussed in prior IVM literature.