Cultured Meat Reformulation: Health Potential and Sustainable Food Challenges—Narrative Review

ABSTRACT

Cellular meat is the result of an innovative technology that facilitates the production of meat through the cultivation of animal cells in controlled laboratory environments. This process reduces the negative impact of traditional animal farming on the environment and creates the possibility of optimizing the nutritional composition, which can have a positive impact on consumer health. The lipid profile, including saturated and unsaturated fatty acids, is a main component of this analysis, emphasizing their significance in health‐related contexts. Theoretical considerations suggest that cultured meat could be enriched with health‐beneficial fatty acids, such as omega‐3, and have a reduced content of saturated fats, which could positively impact public health. In addition to nutritional potential, the article addresses the factors influencing consumer acceptance of cultured meat, emphasizing the importance of transparent production processes and effective educational and communication strategies. Despite the potential benefits, full implementation of this technology requires overcoming technological, economic, and social challenges and further research on its safety and health impact.

1. Introduction

In recent years, the importance of cellular agriculture has increased. This emerging field represents an innovative approach to food production, seemingly aimed as a response to mounting challenges related to environmental protection and the need for sustainable development (Naraoka et al. 2024; Chotelersak et al. 2025; Nobre 2022). The objective of this technology is to produce products that are “biologically equivalent” to traditional products, such as meat, eggs, and dairy products, using cell cultures, tissue engineering, and other biotechnologies (Ong et al. 2020; Fish et al. 2020; Balasubramanian et al. 2021). It is imperative to acknowledge that conventional animal production practices are responsible for a significant proportion of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for approximately 57% of total agricultural emissions (Szejda et al. 2021; Treich 2021; Xu et al. 2021). Moreover, these practices consume an exorbitant amount of agricultural land, with estimates suggesting that they utilize up to 83% of all available agricultural land (Szejda et al. 2021; Treich 2021; Sinke et al. 2023). This presents a serious challenge in the context of global population growth and a projected 70% increase in meat consumption by 2050 (Lim et al. 2025; Hocquette et al. 2025). In response, there is a growing interest in developing environmentally sustainable protein alternatives that can meet future demand without further intensifying the environmental impact of conventional animal agriculture. Cell‐based meat technology has emerged as one such promising solution, offering a comparable nutritional profile while significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions, land use, and water consumption (Cai et al. 2024; Yoshida et al. 2025; Lee et al. 2024; Maqsood et al. 2025).

Cell‐cultured meat, also referred to as cultivated, cultured, clean, in vitro, lab‐grown, synthetic, animal‐free, or cell‐based meat (Habowski and Sant'Ana 2024; Gu et al. 2023a, 2025; To et al. 2024; Flaibam et al. 2024; Broucke et al. 2023), is produced by culturing animal cells in controlled laboratory conditions and then multiplying them in appropriate culture fluids (Habowski and Sant'Ana 2024; Sheng et al. 2025; Chotelersak et al. 2025; Wilks et al. 2024; Flaibam et al. 2024; Treich 2021). A simplified schematic of this production process is shown in Figure 1. This process enables the production of products that possess a sensory and nutritional profile comparable to traditional meat (Powell et al. 2024; Jin et al. 2025; Ma et al. 2024), while eliminating the need for animal production and slaughter (Jin et al. 2025; Sheng et al. 2025; Flaibam et al. 2024; Ma et al. 2024; Treich 2021). This process has the potential to contribute to a substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, water consumption, and agricultural land area (Jin et al. 2025; Ma et al. 2024; Tuomisto and Ryynänen 2024). Moreover, forecasts indicate that by 2040, cell culture technology may account for up to 35% of global meat production, serving as a substitute for conventionally produced meat (Guo et al. 2024; Lee et al. 2024).

FIGURE 1.

Simplified schematic of cultured meat production process (own elaboration based on: Habowski and Sant'Ana 2024; Chotelersak et al. 2025; Treich 2021).

The development of cell culture represents a response to two major factors. First, there is a growing need for sustainable protein production. Second, there is a heightened interest in public health and ethics. It is noteworthy that products obtained through this method are occasionally regarded as more ethical, “cleaner,” and healthier than traditional products (Ong et al. 2020; Alam et al. 2024). However, it is crucial to acknowledge that the implementation of cell culture technology is not without challenges, including concerns expressed by some consumers (Kadim et al. 2015). Continued research on the safety of this technology is imperative (Gu et al. 2023a; Manning 2024), as is consideration of its full impact on the environment and consumers (To et al. 2024; Noble et al. 2024; Pivoraite et al. 2024; Hanan et al. 2024). Additional challenges include technological difficulties and a deficient or nonexistent body of legal regulations (Lee et al. 2024; Naraoka et al. 2024; Chiles et al. 2021). A significant impediment to the widespread commercialization of this technology is the current high costs associated with this type of production (Lee et al. 2020, 2024; Soleymani et al. 2024). However, a reduction in production costs to a level comparable to that of traditional meat could potentially facilitate the commercialization of cultured meat, thereby displacing traditionally produced animal protein (Lee et al. 2020; Alam et al. 2024; Maqsood et al. 2025).

Notwithstanding the present impediments, cultured meat is becoming an increasingly promising alternative in the production of animal protein (Gu et al. 2023a; Wilks et al. 2024; Risner et al. 2025). It is noteworthy that cell‐based protein has already been introduced for sale in Singapore, the United States, and Israel. This development underscores the potential of this sector of the food industry (Chodkowska et al. 2022; Guo et al. 2024; Wilks et al. 2024; Alam et al. 2024; Albrecht et al. 2024; Hocquette et al. 2025). The production of cell‐based meat is undergoing rapid development, particularly in the United States and United Kingdom, while other countries, such as China, are observing the trend of potential future applications (Chriki, Ellies‐Oury, et al. 2020). Nevertheless, the challenge persists in the production of stable, high‐quality meat‐like products that satisfy consumer expectations regarding consistency, taste, and odor (Chodkowska et al. 2022; Xie et al. 2025). A thorough analysis of the current state of cell‐based meat production technology reveals that the first commercial products, such as a burger made of bovine stem cells, have already been available on the market (Martins et al. 2024; Chen et al. 2024; Albrecht et al. 2024; Lee et al. 2020).

To further advance this technology and integrate it into the global food production system, interdisciplinary research is imperative, particularly in the domains of health risk assessment and its impact on the conventional livestock industry. Furthermore, the development of comprehensive legal frameworks that regulate this issue is essential (Lanzoni et al. 2024; Gu et al. 2023a; Ye et al. 2022). It is therefore imperative to comprehend the potential of cell‐cultured meat, as there are numerous indications that it may serve as a breakthrough solution to global problems related to the growing demand for protein and the negative environmental effects of traditional animal production.

2. Method

The motivation to undertake the subject of this review paper was the growing need to assess the potential impact of cell‐cultured meat on human health and to identify the factors influencing its acceptance by consumers, which stems from the increasing popularity of animal cell culture technology. Despite the dynamic development of this field, the current state of knowledge regarding the long‐term effects of cultured meat consumption on human health remains limited. In response to this knowledge gap, this work is structured as a narrative review, aimed at synthesizing and contextualizing the most recent scientific findings related to the health implications of cell‐cultured meat and the determinants of its consumer acceptance. This approach allows for the integration of diverse sources and perspectives, providing a holistic understanding of the topic—particularly important given the multidisciplinary and rapidly evolving nature of cellular agriculture.

2.1. Review Procedure

A preliminary review of the scientific literature related to the topic and the aim of the work was conducted to identify the main research areas. Based on the analysis of the preliminary results, the most relevant keywords were selected, corresponding to the assumptions of the review.

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using the following scientific databases: PubMed, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect. The search was carried out using a predefined set of keywords, selected based on their relevance to the technological, nutritional, and sociopsychological aspects of cultured meat. The following terms were used in various combinations during the search process: (“cultured meat” OR “cell‐based meat” OR “lab‐grown meat” OR “in vitro meat”) AND (“nutritional value” OR “fatty acid profile” OR “unsaturated fatty acids” OR “saturated fatty acids” OR “food innovation” OR “consumer acceptance,” “functional food” OR “safety” OR “enrichment” OR “health impact”). All search terms were internally validated by the authors to ensure terminological consistency and thematic alignment with the review's scope.

Figure 2 presents a flow diagram of the study selection process based on the PRISMA 2020 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses) guidelines. Although this article is a narrative review rather than a systematic review, standards of transparency and systematic methodology were applied in the literature search and study appraisal.

FIGURE 2.

PRISMA 2020 flow diagram illustrating the process of identification, screening, eligibility assessment, and inclusion of studies in the review (Haddaway et al. 2022).

2.2. Eligibility Criteria and Search Strategy

The review included articles that met the following criteria: (1) were published between January 2015 and February 2025, (2) were available as full text in English, (3) were classified as original research, reviews, or meta‐analyses, and (4) concerned health, technological or consumer issues related to cell‐cultured meat.

The literature review was completed on February 28, 2025. Additional literature items were obtained using the snowball method, by analyzing the bibliographies included in the selected publications.

Due to the heterogeneous nature of the included studies, thematic narrative synthesis was employed. Extracted data were grouped into major themes:

1. health and nutritional aspects,

2. technological and compositional challenges,

3. consumer perceptions and sociopsychological determinants,

4. strategies for improving lipid profiles in cultured meat.

This thematic categorization facilitated the integration of findings from diverse disciplines and research designs into a coherent, comprehensive framework.

2.3. Critical Appraisal

In the process of the selection of source materials, particular emphasis was placed on the evaluation of the quality and reliability of the publication. The key qualifying criterion was the presence of a given item in peer‐reviewed scientific journals that demonstrate a high level of methodological transparency.

The two‐stage screening was conducted by two authors independently and blinded:

Stage I—title and abstract. Each reviewer classified articles as “include” or “exclude” based on preliminary criteria and verified that the paper was published in a peer‐reviewed scientific journal.

Stage II—full text. Publications that passed the first filter were re‐evaluated after a full reading for compliance with the inclusion criteria.

All publications qualified in Stage I were subjected to a structured critical appraisal process. For narrative reviews, the SANRA (Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles) tool was applied. For empirical studies (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed‐methods), we constructed a unified appraisal framework. The following methodological domains were evaluated for each paper:

1. Clearly defined research question or objective—stated in the introduction and aligned with reported outcomes.

2. Transparent methodology—study design, recruitment strategy, and data‐collection procedures described in sufficient detail to permit replication.

3. Adequate sample considerations—justification of sample size (or saturation, for qualitative studies) and description of key participant characteristics.

4. Rigorous analytical approach—appropriate statistical or qualitative methods clearly reported.

5. Explicit treatment of bias/confounding—identification of potential sources of bias and steps taken to mitigate them (e.g., blinding, use of control group, triangulation).

6. Ethical and funding transparency—ethical approval (where applicable) and disclosure of funding sources or potential conflicts of interest.

7. Coherent interpretation of results—conclusions supported by the data and accompanied by a clear discussion of limitations.

Any discrepancies (i.e., entries marked differently by the two reviewers) were resolved by consultation with a third author, who reviewed the justifications and the full text before making a final inclusion decision. Narrative reviews were included only if they received a high‐quality rating (10–12 points) on the SANRA scale, while empirical studies were qualified for the final analysis only if they met all seven predefined methodological quality criteria. Ultimately, 201 publications were selected as the most current, reliable, and relevant to the scope of the review.

This review is limited by the exclusion of non‐English literature and gray literature, which may have led to the omission of relevant findings. Moreover, as a narrative review, the study does not employ formal quality appraisal tools or meta‐analytical techniques, which may limit the generalizability of conclusions.

3. Consumer Attitudes and Acceptance of Cultured Meat

In light of the persistent public discourse surrounding the increasingly salient environmental concerns associated with industrial meat production, the notion of laboratory‐cultivated meat is garnering significant attention (Lin‐Hi et al. 2023). In examining the global challenges related to food security, especially in regions with limited natural resources, such as small island states, cell‐cultured meat has the potential to provide an appropriate response to the ever‐increasing demand for protein related to population growth and to contribute to increased food self‐sufficiency (Leung et al. 2023). However, for cell culture technology to achieve broader societal acceptance, it is crucial to understand current consumer attitudes and the factors that shape them (Bryant 2020).

3.1. Regional and Demographic Conditions for the Acceptance of Farmed Meat

The introduction of cell‐cultured meat on a large scale is largely associated with numerous technological and social challenges (Treich 2021; Jin et al. 2025; To et al. 2024; Leite et al. 2024). On the one hand, the production of meat cultivated in laboratory settings necessitates sophisticated technical infrastructure, as well as a meticulous control system over cell culture processes and their quality (Leite et al. 2024; Bryant et al. 2020). Conversely, in addition to the aforementioned technological challenges, there is still social resistance to cultured meat. This resistance may stem from concerns regarding the health and safety of the product (Leite et al. 2024; Siddiqui et al. 2022a; Boereboom, Sheikh et al. 2022). To achieve widespread acceptance, it is imperative to comprehensively capture and understand the variations in consumer attitudes across different regions, cultures, and demographics (Maqsood et al. 2025).

The acceptance of cell‐cultured meat exhibits significant regional variation, reflecting the diverse cultural, economic, and technological contexts present within individual countries (Franceković et al. 2021; Estevez‐Moreno et al. 2021; Lewisch and Riefler 2023). In Europe, for instance, interest in this product has been observed, particularly in countries such as Greece, Spain, and Croatia. Nevertheless, consumer decisions are currently largely dependent on the price of a specific product (Franceković et al. 2021). A comparatively elevated level of acceptance and interest in cell‐based meat has been documented in Italy, Portugal (Liu J. et al. 2023), Spain (Liu et al. 2023, 2021; Siegrist and Hartmann 2020), the Netherlands (Boereboom et al. 2022), and United Kingdom (Boereboom et al. 2022, Siegrist and Hartmann 2020). In Poland, the level of acceptance of this technology is currently moderate, and its popularization, for example, in order to effectively introduce such products to the market, will require intensified educational activities regarding the health and environmental benefits associated with the mentioned technology (Sikora and Rzymski 2023). In Brazil, studies have shown that the majority of respondents are willing to try cultured meat (Chriki et al. 2021; De Oliveira et al. 2021). A similar trend is also observed in Mexico and the Republic of South Africa (Siegrist and Hartmann 2020). In China, despite the generally low social acceptance of this technology (Sheng et al. 2025), almost half of the respondents expressed their willingness to at least try a product produced in this way (Liu et al. 2021; Siegrist and Hartmann 2020).

In analyzing the differences in consumer attitudes, which are closely related to geographical region, it should be noted that, for example, skepticism toward cell‐cultured meat present in Germany and France (Bryant et al. 2020; Siegrist and Hartmann 2020; Boereboom et al. 2022) has been observed to be mainly related to concerns about its safety, especially in the context of the lack of antibiotics in the production process (Bryant et al. 2020). Notwithstanding, studies conducted on consumers in Germany have demonstrated that a significant proportion of them express a readiness to consume a burger made from cell‐cultured meat (Dupont et al. 2022). In contrast, a markedly higher level of resistance to cell‐cultured meat has been documented among Generation Z in Australia. This disparity may be attributed, at least in part, to the cultural and historical underpinnings of Australia's attachment to conventional food production methods (Siegrist and Hartmann 2020; Bogueva and Marinova 2020). A similar unfavorable attitude toward cultured meat has been observed among consumers in Turkey (Baybars et al. 2023). The level of acceptance of cultured meat in selected countries is presented in Table 1.

TABLE 1.

Public acceptance of cultured meat across selected countries.

Country	Sample size	Acceptance rate	References
Australia	600	47.1% acceptance of cultured meat	Siegrist and Hartmann (2020)
Australia (Gen Z)	277	28% of Generation Z willing to try cultured meat	Bogueva and Marinova (2020)
Brazil	255	80.9% willing to try cultured meat	De Oliveira et al. (2021)
China	572	47.5% acceptance of cultured meat	Siegrist and Hartmann (2020)
China	4666	49.7% willing to try cultured meat (19.9% definitely willing)	Liu et al. (2021)
United Kingdom	612	52.0% acceptance of cultured meat	Siegrist and Hartmann (2020)
France	618	37.9% acceptance of cultured meat	Siegrist and Hartmann (2020)
France	1000	44.2% willing to try cultured meat	Bryant et al. (2020)
Germany	617	44.9% acceptance of cultured meat	Siegrist and Hartmann (2020)
Germany	1000	58.3% willing to try cultured meat	Bryant et al. 2020
Greece, Croatia, Spain	2007	43.5% willing to try cultured meat	Franceković et al. 2021
Italy, Portugal, Spain	2171	65.5% willing to try cultured meat	Liu J. et al. 2023; Liu et al. 2021
Mexico	629	56.3% acceptance of cultured meat	Siegrist and Hartmann (2020)
The Netherlands	231	45.5% willing to consume cultured meat, 36.8% uncertain with positive trend	Boereboom et al. (2022)
Poland	1553	54% willing to purchase cultured meat (29% definitely willing)	Sikora and Rzymski (2023)
South Africa	620	52.6% acceptance of cultured meat	Siegrist and Hartmann (2020)
Spain	611	50.1% acceptance of cultured meat	Siegrist and Hartmann (2020)
Sweden	619	47.8% acceptance of cultured meat	Siegrist and Hartmann (2020)
United Kingdom	366	34.7% willing to consume cultured meat, 34.7% uncertain with positive trend	Boereboom et al. (2022)
United States	630	45.8% acceptance of cultured meat	Siegrist and Hartmann (2020)

Studies conducted in countries where cultured meat is already available on the market demonstrate that residents of Singapore exhibit a higher level of acceptance of products produced through this method compared to consumers in the United States (Chong et al. 2022). However, a review of the literature by Tsvakirai (2024) indicates that there is a high level of optimism and acceptance of cultured meat in North America, while developing countries remain more skeptical. Concerns regarding its “naturalness” and safety persist as significant barriers to the global acceptance of this technology. These factors have the potential to impede the broader commercialization of this technology (Bogueva and Marinova 2020; Pakseresht et al. 2022; Escribano et al. 2021).

Another salient phenomenon is the correlation between consumer attitudes and demographic group affiliation. Research indicates that vegetarians (Baum et al. 2021) and women exhibit significantly diminished interest in products derived from cellular technology (Siddiqui, Khan, Farooqi et al. 2022b; Siddiqui et al. 2022c; Baum et al. 2021), and individuals in the younger demographic (Baum et al. 2021; Wilks et al. 2024; Chriki et al. 2021; Liu et al. 2023, 2021) and those with higher levels of education are more likely to consume this type of product (Baum et al. 2021; Liu et al. 2023, 2021; Wilks et al. 2024). Furthermore, studies have demonstrated that men exhibit a greater degree of optimism regarding this subject (Wilks et al. 2024; Liu et al. 2023, 2021; Baum et al. 2022). The different attitudes toward cell‐cultured meat may also be attributed to differing values and beliefs across various social groups. Research conducted in countries such as Belgium, Chile, and China clearly indicates that the level of acceptance of cultured meat varies depending on the culture (Escobar et al. 2025).

3.2. Consumer Concerns About Cultured Meat

The predominant impediment to consumer acceptance of cell‐cultured meat is its perceived “unnaturalness” (Chia et al. 2024; Hansen et al. 2021; Wilks et al. 2021). This aversion is predominantly attributable to apprehensions concerning its safety and the possibility of adverse health consequences, including allergies (Ho et al. 2023; Castellani et al. 2025; Chen et al. 2022a; Ho et al. 2023; Castellani et al. 2025; Siddiqui et al. 2022a; Boereboom, Sheikh, et al. 2022). Additional factors contributing to this reluctance include neophobia, defined as the aversion to new experiences, and a general mistrust of modern technologies, such as biotechnology (Jin et al. 2025; Sheng et al. 2025; Chia et al. 2024; Siddiqui et al. 2022a; Boereboom, Sheikh, et al. 2022; Rombach et al. 2022). Nonetheless, it is plausible that consumer attitudes may undergo a shift, particularly when the potential benefits of a given phenomenon are acknowledged. Factors that may positively influence the perception of cell‐derived protein include, for example, the belief in a lower environmental impact (Castellani et al. 2025; Pilarova et al. 2023; Pakseresht et al. 2022), reduced consumption of natural resources (Castellani et al. 2025), or improved animal welfare (Jin et al. 2025; Castellani et al. 2025; Chia et al. 2024; Pilarova et al. 2023). These factors assume particular significance in countries where ecological and ethical issues are of significant social importance, such as Switzerland (Hansen et al. 2021). However, it is noteworthy that health concerns, which predominate in Asian countries, are gradually shifting toward a greater emphasis on ecological and ethical considerations in Western countries. An effective marketing approach necessitates adapting communication media to the specific needs and priorities of individual markets (Hansen et al. 2021).

A notable consumer concern regarding cell‐cultured meat pertains to the absence of comprehensive knowledge regarding its production process, which is predominantly conducted within laboratory settings (Castellani et al. 2025). This suggests that a given segment of society's approach to this product may be shaped by their level of knowledge about the technology (Tsvakirai et al. 2024). In this regard, consumer education initiatives that provide reliable information regarding the health, environmental, and technological benefits of cell‐cultured meat could play a pivotal role in mitigating concerns and fostering a more positive attitude toward the product (Szejda et al. 2021; Sheng et al. 2025).

3.3. Determinants of Acceptance of Cultured Meat

The acceptance of cell‐cultured meat by consumers is a dynamic process influenced by complex cognitive and social mechanisms that determine the perception of innovative food technologies (Monaco et al. 2024; Engel et al. 2024; Kouarfate and Durif 2023). The context in which an individual makes a decision about choosing a specific product also has a significant impact on shaping public opinions about cell‐cultured protein (Tsvakirai et al. 2024). A comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms that shape societal attitudes toward cell‐cultured meat is imperative for its successful integration into the market.

3.3.1. Terminology and Perception of Cell‐Cultured Meat

It has been observed that one of the key elements that influences the acceptance of cell‐cultured meat is the terminology used to describe the product (Chriki and Hocquette 2020; Asioli et al. 2022; Hallman et al. 2023; Califano et al. 2023). Research findings, primarily from studies conducted in the United States and Western Europe, indicate that terms such as “cultivated” and “cultured” are generally perceived more positively by consumers. Although the term “cell‐based” is considered less emotionally appealing, it has been shown to be more easily understood and less likely to trigger negative reactions compared to more technical or unfamiliar terms such as “in vitro” or “synthetic” (Szejda et al. 2021). Furthermore, in terms of acceptability, the terms “artificial” and “lab‐grown” were also poorly assessed by consumers (Failla et al. 2023; Malerich and Bryant 2022; Li et al. 2024). In the context of labeling cultured meat, the provision of clear information labels, encompassing the composition and production process, is also deemed to be pivotal (Bakhsh et al. 2025; Naraoka et al. 2024; Ortega et al. 2022). The use of appropriate terminology helps to reduce the impression of the product being “unnatural,” which in turn promotes its better reception. Appropriate communication, consisting in the use of accessible and positive words, is therefore crucial in the process of building trust and increasing the acceptance of this technology (Szejda et al. 2021; Failla et al. 2023; Malerich and Bryant 2022).

3.3.2. The Importance of Consumer Personality Traits in the Acceptance of Cultured Meat

The acceptance of cell‐cultured meat is also significantly influenced by individual personality traits of consumers (Jin et al. 2025; Bates et al. 2023). Interestingly, research conducted in China has shown that individuals with more agreeable personality traits were less likely to choose cultured meat, whereas those with higher levels of neuroticism were more inclined to do so—a finding reported in Jin et al. (2025). In addition, studies conducted in Singapore have observed that individuals with better mental health are more likely to consider cultured meat as a healthy nutritional option (Leung et al. 2023). It should therefore be noted that consumers' personality traits, including their attitudes toward health, technology and environmental protection, have a significant impact on their decisions regarding the acceptance of this meat alternative.

3.3.3. The Influence of Sensory Properties of Cultured Meat on Its Perception

Sensory attributes, including taste, texture, and smell, are additional significant factors influencing the reception of the product (To et al. 2024; Rosenfeld and Tomiyama 2023; Starowicz et al. 2022). Studies by To et al. (2024) indicate that the current level of production technology does not yet allow for full reproduction of these elements in a way that corresponds to traditional meat. A substantial sensory discrepancy may act as a significant barrier to the acceptance of cell‐cultured meat. Due to this, coculture systems and precise formulation techniques are possible, which would enable precise shaping of the product's organoleptic characteristics under controlled conditions (Kang et al. 2024). Achieving a higher degree of compliance of the sensory properties of cultured meat with traditional meat may contribute to increasing its attractiveness among consumers and positively affect their willingness to consume it (Alam et al. 2024; Chen et al. 2022b).

3.3.4. Producer Reliability as an Element of Acceptance of Cultured Meat

One of the key roles in the acceptance of cultured meat is also played by the way society perceives the producers of a given product. As shown by the research of Lin‐Hi et al. (2023), consumers evaluate the product not only through the prism of its physical properties, but also on the basis of the credibility of the companies involved in its production (Lin‐Hi et al. 2023). The lack of transparency exhibited by entities involved in the production process, compounded by the pervasive social distrust in the food industry, engenders consumer apprehensions regarding the safety and ethical implications of this technology. This results in negative attitudes toward cultured meat (Hocquette et al. 2025; Pakseresht et al. 2022).

It cannot be ignored that a key aspect in the acceptance of cell‐cultured meat is also its nutritional value. Consumers have demonstrated a greater propensity to accept meat produced through this method if it is perceived as a healthier alternative (Szejda et al. 2021; Lim et al. 2025; Escobar et al. 2025). There is even a willingness to pay a higher price for cell‐cultured meat if it is characterized by higher nutritional quality. This clearly indicates that the health benefits of a given product are a key determinant of the purchase for consumers (Szejda et al. 2021).

The above should therefore be summed up by stating that producers, by taking care of both their reputation and making every effort to ensure that cell‐cultured meat has as much nutritional value as possible, can significantly contribute to its significant popularization.

3.4. Marketing and Promotion of Cultured Meat

Appropriate marketing and promotion of cultured meat requires the aforementioned comprehensive approach, which takes into account both social, educational, and communication aspects. As emphasized, limited consumer knowledge of the production process and potential benefits of using a given technology contributes to generating social skepticism. Therefore, educational and promotional activities, appropriately tailored to local cultural and social conditions, are key tools to reduce many concerns that consumers have (Tomiyama et al. 2020).

It is also impossible to ignore that an important aspect shaping consumer attitudes toward cell‐cultured meat is also the opinion of influential individuals, such as influencers (Leite et al. 2024; Ho et al. 2024). Recent research suggests that the promotion of this product by individuals with a high social impact can positively influence its acceptance, though the effectiveness of these activities varies depending on the specific context (Leite et al. 2024).

Leite et al.’s (2024) research showed that the effectiveness of promotion is not the same for all cases, which requires precise matching of marketing activities to the characteristics of the target consumer group, including their preferences and attitudes (Leite et al. 2024). Appropriate communication strategies that take into account consumer personality traits are therefore an important element in the process of increasing the acceptance of laboratory‐grown meat.

4. The Impact of Traditional Meat Consumption on Health

Meat consumption and the frequency of this activity depend on many variables (Font‐i‐Furnols 2023). The relationship between meat consumption and health is not straightforward to ascertain, as it is frequently conflated with other factors (Bomkamp et al. 2022). Nevertheless, meat consumption, especially red and processed meat, is associated with significant health risks, which have been widely documented in numerous scientific studies (Libera et al. 2021; Chung et al. 2021). Excessive consumption of products rich in saturated fats can lead to the development of obesity, cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes, and other health conditions. However, it should be emphasized that the deficiency of certain essential nutrients, of which meat is a major source, can negatively affect the health of some consumers (Rasmussen et al. 2024). Consequently, the regulation of meat consumption, particularly that of red and processed meat, emerges as a pivotal component of a nutritionally balanced diet and the primary strategy for the prevention of numerous diseases.

4.1. Lab‐Grown Meat as an Alternative to Traditional Meat

As indicated earlier, high consumption of red and processed meat increases the risk of developing chronic diseases, such as cardiovascular diseases and cancers, in particular colon cancer (Oleinikova et al. 2025; Giromini and Givens 2022; Libera et al. 2021; Chung et al. 2021). In addition, processed meat products are often characterized by a high content of salt, transfats (TFAs), and preservatives, the negative impact of which on human health has been analyzed many times (Gastaldello et al. 2022; Geiker et al. 2021). However, it is worth emphasizing once again that meat consumption provides the body with key nutrients, including iron, zinc, full‐value protein, B vitamins, and vitamin A (Chodkowska et al. 2022). It can therefore be stated that the search for alternative sources of protein that will provide the above‐mentioned essential nutritional values, while limiting the negative impact on health, should be a key issue for the social industry.

The process of producing cultured meat allows for both precise control of the composition and nutritional values (Li et al. 2022a; Soleymani et al. 2024; Treich 2021). To ensure a successful adoption of cultured meat as a substitute for traditional meat, it is imperative to preserve its beneficial nutritional properties, which are naturally present in animal meat (Bomkamp et al. 2022; Kumar et al. 2021). A reduction in the consumption of traditional red meat, which is considered beneficial to health (Rasmussen et al. 2024; James et al. 2022; Gu et al. 2023a; Pan et al. 2022), while replacing it with cell‐cultured meat could help reduce the risk of diet‐related diseases. Furthermore, effective implementation of this alternative can improve the availability of high‐quality products with optimized nutritional values (Chotelersak et al. 2025). Nevertheless, it is necessary to conduct further research on the long‐term effects of this type of food on the human body (Soleymani et al. 2024).

From a food safety perspective, cell‐cultured meat can be a solution that eliminates threats directly related to the method of production of traditional meat, such as microbiological contamination or the presence of antibiotics and other substances used in breeding (Rasmussen et al. 2024; Ramani et al. 2021). The controlled laboratory environment in which this product is produced is instrumental in mitigating the risk of pathogen contamination. This makes cultured meat potentially safer for the health of consumers (Siddiqui et al. 2022a; Chen et al. 2022a; Jairath et al. 2021). In contrast to traditional meat, whose lipid composition is subject to natural biological processes in animals, cultured meat can be modified through deliberate interventions, such as altering its fat content (Treich 2021). This modification may result in an augmentation of the proportion of unsaturated fats, which have been demonstrated to have a salutary effect on the cardiovascular system (Treich 2021; Coniglio et al. 2023; Liu et al. 2023). The process of laboratory meat cultivation allows for the reduction of the content of carcinogenic substances that may be found in processed meat products (Bomkamp et al. 2022). The possibility of modifying the composition of cultured meat also allows for its enrichment with bioactive substances that support the prevention of chronic diseases, such as atherosclerosis, type 2 diabetes, circulatory system diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, and autoimmune diseases (Savatinova and Ivanova 2024). It should be emphasized that the personalization of the composition of this product allows it to be adapted to individual dietary needs, which can potentially support the treatment of nutritional deficiencies and the diet of people with specific diseases (Chen et al. 2022a; Chotelersak et al. 2025). The potential differences in the benefits and challenges associated with the consumption of cultured and conventional meat are presented in Figure 3.

FIGURE 3.

Comparative analysis of benefits and challenges associated with conventional and cultured meat.

4.1.1. Pollution Control and Disease Elimination

The COVID‐19 pandemic has highlighted how important it is to effectively control foodborne infections today (Kirsch et al. 2023). It has been shown that 75% of new infectious diseases in humans originate from animals (Kirsch et al. 2023; Erkyihun and Alemayehu 2022; Shaheen 2022). The production of meat grown in the laboratory has great potential to eliminate nutrition‐related diseases as well as foodborne diseases. Excluding the exposure of society to the above is one of the key challenges of modern food production (Kirsch et al. 2023). The promotion of cultured meat offers a distinct advantage, namely, the ability to meticulously regulate the composition of the culture medium. It is imperative that the processes involved, such as cell proliferation and differentiation, occur under stringent sterile conditions (Cai et al. 2024; Chriki and Hocquette 2020). This approach mitigates the risk of contamination with pathogens that may occur in traditional meat production, such as intestinal bacteria (Escherichia coli, Salmonella, Campylobacter), which are the primary cause of foodborne diseases (Powell et al. 2024; Chodkowska et al. 2022; Hocquette et al. 2025; Zidarič et al. 2020).

A notable distinction of the cultured meat production process is its independence from animal slaughter, relying exclusively on the initial isolation of cells, a procedure that differentiates it from subsequent processing stages. This approach minimizes the risk of foodborne diseases, including in particular those related to pathogens of animal origin, and significantly contributes to increasing the health safety of the product (Powell et al. 2024; Chodkowska et al. 2022; Hocquette et al. 2025; Zidarič et al. 2020; Castle 2022).

4.1.2. Cultured Meat and Antibiotic Resistance

Antibiotics are a common practice in conventional livestock farming. This has resulted in the selection of antimicrobial‐resistant bacterial strains, which poses a significant threat to public health (Kirsch et al. 2023; Zidarič et al. 2020; Ong et al. 2021). This problem is increasing, as according to current predictions, in the next 20–30 years, antibiotic resistance may lead to more deaths than cancer, as well as generate huge economic costs, estimated at several trillion dollars per year (Kirsch et al. 2023). In the production of cultured meat, it is possible to exclude antibiotics, which may reduce the risk of developing new, resistant pathogens in humans (Munteanu et al. 2021).

4.2. Health Challenges of Lab‐Grown Meat

Food safety is one of the most important aspects of assessing new technologies in food production (Guan et al. 2021). Cultured meat, as a product obtained in controlled laboratory conditions, differs from traditional meat not only in terms of production methods, but also in terms of potential factors influencing its quality and impact on human health. The employment of contemporary biotechnological solutions facilitates precise modeling of meat composition and the elimination of certain risk factors associated with conventional animal production. Nevertheless, given the nascent stage of this technology, a thorough investigation into its potential health implications and long‐term consequences is imperative (Dijsalov et al. 2021).

Despite the progressive advancements in meat cultivation technology within controlled laboratory settings, the long‐term implications for human health remain to be fully elucidated (Deliza et al. 2023). This is due to the lack of long‐term clinical studies assessing the impact of regular consumption of this product on metabolism and body functioning (Hocquette et al. 2025). In contrast to the traditional meat, the impact of which on health has been widely analyzed, cultured meat is still a new category of food, the nutritional properties and potential health risks of which require further verification (Hocquette et al. 2025). The primary challenges associated with cultured meat include the potential presence of ingredients not found in traditional meat, which have not yet been thoroughly investigated in terms of their impact on the human body (Chotelersak et al. 2025). The cell culturing process involves the use of specialized media and growth factors that may contain substances that potentially affect metabolism. They may also cause adverse reactions, such as allergies or immunological hypersensitivity (Chotelersak et al. 2025; Sogore et al. 2024). The presence of such ingredients raises concerns about the safety of their use and the long‐term impact on consumer health.

It is imperative to acknowledge the absence of independent and comprehensive assessments of the safety of cultured meat, as well as its sensory and nutritional properties, which hinders its full acceptance as a substitute for conventional meat (Hocquette et al. 2025). Solving this issue by conducting appropriate studies, including long‐term studies, is a key challenge in the dissemination of this technology. It is also noteworthy that the increased availability and appeal of cultured meat might lead to an increase in its consumption, which could potentially compound health concerns associated with its excessive intake (Treich 2021). While the potential benefits of popularizing cultured meat make it an attractive alternative, its full integration into the diet requires extensive research into its effects on the human body.

5. Nutritional Profile and Technological Challenges in the Production of Cultured Meat

The nutritional value of meat and its substitutes, in addition to factors related to public health safety, is a key element through which products in this category should be assessed (Fish et al. 2020; Chen et al. 2024; Yang et al. 2024). Traditional meat consists of various types of cells, such as skeletal muscle, fat, connective tissue, and skin. Muscle tissue, in particular, provides a complete amino acid profile and high‐quality protein. Together, these tissues deliver a wide range of nutrients, including bioavailable amino acids, vitamins (such as B12 and D), and essential microelements like heme iron and zinc (Fish et al. 2020; Chen et al. 2024; Yang et al. 2024; Olenic and Thorrez 2022; Rodriguez Escobar et al. 2021). They are accumulated as storage compounds in animal muscles (Singh et al. 2022). In addition, meat is a source of long‐chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) and bioactive compounds, including creatine and carnosine, which have been shown to have a positive effect on the human body (Fraeye et al. 2020; Olenic and Thorrez 2022; Rodriguez Escobar et al. 2021).

Available alternatives to traditional meat often do not match it in terms of nutritional value and sensory characteristics (Kulus et al. 2023). Cultured meat, a recent innovation in the food industry, is increasingly seen as an alternative to conventional meat, but the proper balance of its nutritional value is a significant challenge (Bakhsh et al. 2025). The supply of appropriate nutritional values in cell‐cultured meat is a complex issue that must be solved technologically, because nutrients that are not synthesized by muscle cells should be supplemented separately (Zhang et al. 2021; Kumar et al. 2021). It should be emphasized here that traditional meat naturally contains the appropriate proportions of proteins, fat, vitamins and minerals. The nutritional profile of meat produced in laboratory conditions depends on the composition of the culture medium, as well as the processes of cell proliferation and differentiation (Hocquette et al. 2025; Broucke et al. 2023). Appropriate refinement of production processes makes it possible to adjust the composition of cultured meat to the desired standards of nutritional value, but this element is a technological challenge.

5.1. Challenges in Producing Cultured Meat

The development of cultured meat in a laboratory setting should prioritize the creation of a product that is at least comparable to, and potentially superior to traditional meat, in terms of both nutritional value and culinary properties (Bakhsh et al. 2025; Zidarič et al. 2020; Kulus et al. 2023). It should be emphasized that cell‐cultured meat has the potential to offer healthier nutritional options, while controlling the nutritional composition of the product (Lee et al. 2024; Chen et al. 2023). Cultured meat production is associated with a number of technological challenges that must be solved so that the final product can effectively compete with traditional meat.

5.1.1. Nutritional Value Challenges

A significant challenge in producing cultured meat is ensuring an adequate supply of nutrients, including vitamins (e.g., B12, B6, riboflavin, thiamine, pantothenic acid) and minerals (e.g., iron, zinc, selenium, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, copper), which are essential for the proper functioning of the human body (Chen et al. 2022a; Broucke et al. 2023; Deliza et al. 2023). It should be noted that muscle cells cultured in laboratory conditions are not able to synthesize some components, such as iron or myoglobin, in a natural way, as is the case in animal organisms that are the source of traditional meat (Rasmussen et al. 2024; Singh et al. 2022; Fraeye et al. 2020; Hocquette et al. 2025; Broucke et al. 2023). As a result, cultured meat may have deficiencies in important nutrients. Deficiencies of some of the above‐mentioned components, in particular vitamin B12 and heme iron, may lead to serious health problems, such as anemia or weakening of the nervous system (Shermatov et al. 2023; Nieto‐Salazar et al. 2023; Alqurashi et al. 2023). This represents a significant technological challenge in the field (Hocquette et al. 2025; Broucke et al. 2023). It is therefore necessary to enrich cultured meat with additional components, which must be supplied by an appropriate culture medium or supplementation during the production process (Singh et al. 2022). It has been demonstrated that the incorporation of compounds such as vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants, in conjunction with the regulation of component precursors, can result in a substantial enhancement of the final quality of the product (Bomkamp et al. 2022). Nevertheless, it is still unknown whether vitamins and minerals supplemented at the stage of cell growth will have the same health effects as those present in traditional meat (Broucke et al. 2023).

Further research is necessary to ascertain the efficacy of ingredient supplementation to ensure that cultured meat can be a full‐value source of nutrients, comparable to conventional meat. Activities aimed at improving the composition of culture media, called its optimization, are currently one of the key tools used to improve the nutritional value of cultured meat (Bomkamp et al. 2022; Disalov et al. 2021).

5.1.2. Key Technological Challenges

Although the primary goal of this article is to assess cultured meat from a dietary perspective, it is worthwhile to supplement this discussion with a brief overview of selected technological challenges, which are often cited in the scientific literature as crucial for the successful commercialization of this product.

The production of cultured meat begins with the use of stem cells capable of rapid multiplication and differentiation into tissue components. Therefore, providing appropriate cell lines is currently a key technological challenge (Zhang et al. 2020). These cells should be characterized by high proliferation, the ability to differentiate into desired cell types, and genetic stability. However, it should be emphasized that in practice, maintaining these properties without inducing spontaneous differentiation is very demanding (Chen et al. 2022a). It is also necessary to point out that the quantitative requirement of over 30 billion cells required to produce 100 g of meat (Lim et al. 2025) further increases the difficulty of scaling up the entire process. This is the reason for attempts to increase the efficiency of cell lines, often using genetic modifications. However, this practice can raise ethical controversies and encounter numerous regulatory barriers (Chen et al. 2022a). The use of potentially cancerous cells is particularly problematic, as although they may be destroyed during heat treatment, they will certainly trigger negative consumer reactions (Zhang et al. 2021). Consequently, research is intensifying to create safe and effective cell lines, as well as to develop effective methods for their propagation and storage (Zhang et al. 2020).

When analyzing the technological challenges associated with the production of cultured meat, it is impossible to ignore the need to develop bioreactors capable of conducting cell culture on an industrial scale while maintaining appropriate product quality and consistency (Zhang et al. 2020, 2021). Efficient large‐scale production carries numerous requirements, including systems capable of maintaining stable cell growth conditions, such as controlling pH, temperature, nutrient supply, and oxygen transfer, while maintaining metabolic efficiency (Chen et al. 2022a). Perfusion and hollow‐fiber bioreactor systems are being developed to address these requirements. They are based on continuous medium exchange and limited shear stress, which allows for higher cell density (Chen et al. 2022a; Risner et al. 2025). However, it should be emphasized that the design of these systems requires precise monitoring of parameters in real time, and the implementation of this type of control is associated with high operating costs (Guan et al. 2021). Furthermore, it should be emphasized that the perfusion strategy, although guaranteeing better microenvironmental conditions, generates lower production levels compared to the more advantageous fed‐batch systems. This leads to a complicating economic viability of the entire process (Risner et al. 2025).

Due to the need to replicate the natural structure of muscle tissues, another significant technological challenge in the production of cultured meat is the development of appropriate scaffold materials (Chen et al. 2022a). It is important to emphasize that scaffolds influence the correct composition, properties, and shape, and therefore must be appropriately tailored to optimize cell morphology and the structure of developing tissues. Therefore, it is essential to develop scaffolds that allow for the flexibility of the entire substrate while simultaneously mechanically stretching the attached cells (Zhang et al. 2021). It is also important to emphasize that the widespread use of cultured meat in the food industry requires the development of scaffolds that are not only biologically effective but also sensory‐acceptable, scalable, and economically viable (Rasmussen et al. 2024). It is important to emphasize here that depending on the material used—synthetic (such as PLA) or natural (including collagen or cellulose), it is possible to obtain different nutritional and sensory properties of the final product (Chen et al. 2022a; Guan et al. 2021). Furthermore, it should be noted that despite the appropriate biological effectiveness of animal‐derived materials, their omission is necessary, as they contradict the assumptions of cultured meat. This constitutes a significant limitation in the selection of possible raw materials that meet ethical criteria (Singh et al. 2022). The use of plant‐derived materials, although desirable from the perspective of ethical production of cultured meat, is associated with limitations in the mechanical properties, biocompatibility, and structure of the scaffolds (Singh et al. 2022). As a result, it is essential to develop new methods and biomaterials that will generate the possibility of improving specific properties, such as ligand availability, porosity, or precise adjustment of scaffold stiffness, which directly impact cell differentiation and proliferation (Chen et al. 2022a). It is also important to emphasize that scaffolds must meet a number of nutritional and functional criteria, such as thermal stability, hypoallergenicity, odorlessness, and adequate nutritional value. This is due to the fact that they become part of the edible final product, which significantly limits the selection of appropriate additives and materials (Rasmussen et al. 2024; Lim et al. 2025). In summary, failure to meet basic market criteria can significantly limit the possibility of introducing a product to a given market. This demonstrates the importance of resolving all technological obstacles and finding appropriate manufacturing solutions.

One of the most significant challenges in the production of cultured meat is the cell culture media, which is associated with maintaining production. Optimal media must be available in large quantities and sustainable. They should also be effective in maintaining cell proliferation and promoting differentiation. It is important to note that they should also be economically viable (Rasmussen et al. 2024). This is due to the fact that the media's share in the total cost of cell‐based meat production is 55%–95% (Yang et al. 2023). However, when analyzing the components of the media's cost, it should be emphasized that it is primarily influenced by the presence of growth factors and proteins, which generate as much as 95% of the total cost (Yang et al. 2023). It should also be emphasized that the use of traditional media supplemented with fetal bovine serum (FBS), while ensuring the availability of essential bioactive components such as lipids, proteins, amino acids, and growth factors, is associated with numerous limitations (Lim et al. 2025). Above all, the use of FBS raises a number of ethical concerns. Furthermore, it creates a risk of microbiological contamination and the introduction of uncontrolled substances into the cultured system (Singh et al. 2022; Zhang et al. 2021; Jairath et al. 2021). It is also unclear to what extent these components are retained in the final meat product, further complicating the issue of their use (Lim et al. 2025). As a result, an increasing number of studies are focused on developing alternative and chemically defined serum‐free media, as well as media based on fungal and plant extracts (Zhang et al. 2021; Singh et al. 2022). Although these new methods yield promising results, they also pose new challenges, such as the high costs associated with the synthesis of specific media (Singh et al. 2022). Furthermore, some extracts, notably mushroom extract, raise public health concerns stemming from the presence of plant‐based allergenic proteins (Jairath et al. 2021). Consequently, although the introduction of recombinant proteins and alternative nutrient sources has considerable potential, according to available knowledge, their large‐scale introduction into the cultured meat industry requires further optimization, both in terms of cost and cell culture efficiency (Rasmussen et al. 2024).

In summary, although the technology for producing cultured meat is undergoing dynamic development, numerous challenges with varying underlying causes limit its full‐scale commercialization. It should be emphasized that each obstacle indirectly impacts the others, therefore, the proposed solution models should be developed in a broadly compatible manner. The complexity of the technological system means that introducing this product to the market requires an integrated research approach that takes into account the interdependence of processes, their compliance with safety requirements, consumer acceptability, and economic viability. Finding solutions to the barriers outlined above is an essential element in promoting cultured meat until it truly competes with traditional meat on many levels, including ethical, nutritional, technological, and environmental.

5.2. Development of Cultured Meat Production Technology

The progressive advancements in cell culture technology have rendered the potential for the mainstream adoption of cultured meat within the food industry. In order for cultured meat to gain wide social acceptance, it is necessary to meet certain requirements. This is largely determined by the precise control of the cell culture process, and thus depends on further progress in the development of production technologies (Bakhsh et al. 2025; Naraoka et al. 2024; Zhang et al. 2020). Failure to adapt the nutritional value of cultured meat to the standards of natural meat will result in difficulties in its wide introduction to the market (Bakhsh et al. 2025; Naraoka et al. 2024).

One of the solutions, already developed by the branch of the food industry focused on cell‐cultured meat, is to improve the characteristics of the product by using cultured animal fat, which intensifies the taste, improves the consistency, and increases the nutritional value of a given product (Rasmussen et al. 2024). The employment of advanced cell culture technologies enables the precise regulation of fat content. The ongoing advancement of technological possibilities suggests the potential for cultured meat to exhibit a more favorable health profile compared to traditional meat (Kang et al. 2024; Kamalapuram et al. 2021).

An additional advantage of cell‐cultured meat is the potential for enrichment with bioactive substances and antioxidants, which can increase its health‐promoting value and constitute a significant advantage over traditional meat (Kang et al. 2024; Kamalapuram et al. 2021). Integration of this solution into the production process holds the potential to enhance the nutritional value of the product and augment its beneficial impact on human health.

As indicated, the development of cultured meat technology holds the promise of producing a product that will be more beneficial to consumers than traditional meat. However, in order to fully utilize the potential of this product, it is necessary to further improve the cell cultivation processes, optimize the composition of the culture media, and address potential deficiencies of micronutrients and vitamins that may occur in cultured meat (Bakhsh et al. 2025; Broucke et al. 2023).

5.3. Solutions Used in the Production of Cultured Meat in Order to Optimize It

In order to obtain the desired nutritional profile of cultured meat, it is necessary to enrich the cell medium with the appropriate amounts of vitamins and minerals. For instance, during the production stage, the addition of synthetic vitamin B12 to the cell medium is a common practice. This process has been shown to accumulate the vitamin within the cultured cells, thereby enhancing the nutritional value of the final product (Singh et al. 2022). Alternatively, it is possible to add vitamin B12 directly to the meat after the cultivation process is complete. This practice is commonly used in the case of plant‐based meat alternatives to improve their nutritional value (Fraeye et al. 2020).

Iron, zinc, and magnesium are other elements that should be enriched in the product during the production stage. Insufficient enrichment of the medium with these components can lead to a decrease in the nutritional quality of the final product (Zhang et al. 2021; Broucke et al. 2023). Cultured meat, like traditional meat, should contain bioactive compounds that support human health. One such example is taurine, a free amino acid that plays a pivotal role in metabolic processes (Fraeye et al. 2020). While the human body possesses the capacity to synthesize taurine, the incorporation of this amino acid through dietary means has been demonstrated to elicit favorable health outcomes, including the regulation of blood pressure, the enhancement of vascular health, and the promotion of cardiac function (Tzang et al. 2024; Santulli et al. 2023).

Currently, the use of cell structure enrichment technologies, including oleogels, is under consideration. These technologies facilitate the incorporation of macronutrients, such as proteins and fibers, and micronutrients, including vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants, into the composition of cultured cells (Yen et al. 2023). This technological advancement has the potential to enhance the nutritional value of cultured meat. In addition, for people with diseases associated with iron deficiency who are vegetarians or vegans, cultured meat may be an alternative, supporting the treatment of this deficiency (Munteanu et al. 2021). Nevertheless, it is worth noting that although nutrients are commonly found in food, their excess in the product may also pose a health risk to the consumer (Zandonadi et al. 2025).

During the production process of cultured meat, it is possible to precisely control the presence of selected nutrients. However, this aspect is associated with certain challenges regarding their absorption and bioavailability. The bioavailability of these nutrients in cultured meat may be lower than in traditional meat products. This is primarily due to differences in the cellular structure and the presence of other biological compounds in cell cultures that may affect their absorption (Fraeye et al. 2020; Broucke et al. 2023; Zandonadi et al. 2025). In order to ensure effective absorption and transport of nutrients, precise control of the culture process is important. In addition, genetic modification of cells may contribute to increasing the content of desired components, such as proteins or fatty acids (Broucke et al. 2023). It should be emphasized, however, that at this stage, understanding the mechanisms of absorption and transport of individual elements in cultured cells is a key aspect in ensuring its effective bioavailability. Moreover, the use of chemical compounds in the culture medium, although necessary, may interfere with nutrient stability or inhibit their effects, especially in the case of microelements such as iron (Chriki and Hocquette 2020; Hocquette et al. 2025), as summarized in Table 2, which outlines the key technological challenges and proposed solutions in cultured meat production.

TABLE 2.

Technological challenges and potential solutions for optimizing the nutritional and sensory properties of cultured meat.

Technological challenge	Proposed technological solutions	References
Deficiency of vitamins and minerals (e.g., B12, iron)	Supplementation of the culture medium or direct product fortification	Rasmussen et al. (2024), Singh et al. (2022), Fraeye et al. (2020), Hocquette et al. (2025), Broucke et al. (2023)
Low bioavailability of nutrients	Precise control of cultivation conditions and optimization of medium composition and cellular structure	Fraeye et al. (2020), Broucke et al. (2023), Zandonadi et al. (2025)
Absence of bioactive compounds (e.g., taurine)	Medium enrichment or postproduction supplementation	Fraeye et al. (2020), Singh et al. (2022)
Sensory properties not matching conventional meat	Coculture with adipose cells to enhance flavor and texture	Rasmussen et al. (2024)
Unfavorable fat profile	Inclusion of plant‐derived fats or microalgae‐based lipids	Yang et al. (2023), Yen et al. (2023), Fraeye et al. (2020)

Improving the sensory attributes, encompassing texture, taste, and smell is, alongside nutritional optimization, a significant direction in the technological advancement of cultured meat. The unique flavor of traditional meat is attributable to the presence of over 1000 water‐ or lipid‐soluble compounds. Reproducing this aspect is one of the greatest challenges for the cultured meat market (Broucke et al. 2023). It is important to emphasize that one of the most important elements determining the sensory quality of a meat product is intramuscular fat content. It influences juiciness, intensity, multidimensional flavor, and tenderness of the product (Broucke et al. 2023; Kang et al. 2024). In cultured meat, to replicate the effect of intramuscular fat, cocultures of myocytes and adipocytes are used. This allows for the replication of the organoleptic profile of traditional meat (Kang et al. 2024). Additionally, the use of precision fermentation enables the generation of flavor precursors that, through the Maillard reaction, create complex, characteristic meat aromas (Kang et al. 2024). When exposed to heat, complex thermally induced reactions generate a significant number of volatiles, some of which contribute to the typical meat flavor. The main reactions are the Maillard reaction and lipid degradation reactions, as well as interactions between them (Fraeye et al. 2020). It should be added that the use of coculture myoblasts, fibroblasts, and adipocytes also influences the achievement of appropriate product texture. However, the application of these technologies currently faces obstacles because specific cell types have different culture requirements and media composition. Using a common medium may introduce unfavorable conditions for certain cell populations (Fraeye et al. 2020).

Bioprinting and scaffolding methods are also used to improve the sensory properties of the product (Fraeye et al. 2020). However, it should be emphasized that the effectiveness of this approach depends on the use of appropriate scaffold material and its concentration. These factors influence the properties of the biomaterial and determine the quality of the final texture of the product (Kang et al. 2024). Therefore, there is a tendency to use edible materials such as alginate, starch, collagen, or gelatin (Kang et al. 2024). Following the literature, the significant potential of animal‐derived scaffolds cannot be ignored (Kang et al. 2024). According to Lee, Park et al. (2024), although there is an increasing interest in plant‐based alternatives, there is currently no data that would clearly confirm their similar effectiveness compared to animal‐derived materials in supporting cell differentiation processes and providing a stable culture microenvironment. The use of scaffolds, which provide cells with a structure resembling the extracellular matrix, is also crucial. Therefore, various engineering strategies are being employed, such as porous scaffolds, fibrous structures, hydrogels, microcarriers, and three‐dimensional (3D) bioprinting. These methods utilize synthetic polymers, self‐assembling peptides, ECM molecules, and plant‐ and fungal‐derived materials (Alam et al. 2024). This allows for the control of cell distribution in 3D space. These activities serve to replicate the integration of fat cells with muscle fibers, which is characteristic of high‐quality meat and is particularly noticeable through its marbling. The use of these technologies not only positively impacts the reproduction of tissue structure but also improves the visual appearance of the final product (Alam et al. 2024).

The reduced myoglobin content in cultured meat causes a pale coloration of the product. This is a significant obstacle to the growth of consumer popularity of this alternative to traditional meat due to significant differences between these products in this respect (Fraeye et al. 2020). Therefore, a key aspect of current technological research is the development of a method for modifying the product's color to replicate natural pigmentation. According to Broucke et al. (2023), color correction is possible by changing the culture conditions, including supplementing the medium with myoglobin or hemoglobin. This allows for the addition of heme pigments to the cellular microenvironment. However, it should be emphasized that the use of natural plant pigments such as beets or saffron is being explored as an alternative. These could be used to replace animal pigments (Broucke et al. 2023). Additionally, Fraeye et al. (2020) suggest that it is possible to regulate the color of cultured meat by culturing it under low‐temperature, oxygen‐rich conditions. This practice promotes the expression of pigments in muscle cells. However, it should be emphasized that each of these methods currently requires precise optimization, as there is a risk of undesirable effects, such as the color of traditional heat‐treated meat, which could negatively impact the authenticity of the product.

It should be emphasized that currently, many sensory challenges can be addressed by adding colorants, flavors, as well as nutrients and texturizing agents (Fraeye et al. 2020). However, this type of approach is inconsistent with healthy eating recommendations, which may negatively impact consumer acceptance of the product. Therefore, to improve the acceptance of cultured meat, efforts are necessary to optimize the formulation and coculture various cell types, which will enable the reproduction of organoleptic properties similar to those of traditional meat products.

5.4. The Role of Fatty Acids in the Nutritional and Sensory Quality of Farmed Meat

Fats are particularly important nutritionally, as they provide essential fatty acids and fat‐soluble vitamins (A, D, E, K; Fish et al. 2020; Bomkamp et al. 2022). They are also the most energy‐dense nutrient in meat, providing 37 kJ/g compared to 17 kJ/g protein. In addition to the fact that fat content affects the caloric density of the product, the composition of fatty acids determines the nutritional value of meat in a more complex way (Fraeye et al. 2020).

Fats have been shown to influence the nutritional value, texture, and visual appearance of traditional meat (Singh et al. 2022; Fish et al. 2020; Naraoka et al. 2024). They are responsible for the juiciness and overall taste of the final product (Lee, et al. 2024; Munteanu et al. 2021; Rasmussen et al. 2024; Singh et al. 2022; Yen et al. 2023; Naraoka et al. 2024; Ma et al. 2024; Bomkamp et al. 2022). The classification of fat in meat can be based on its percentage concentration as well as its fatty acid composition (Siddiqui et al. 2022a).

It should be emphasized that while the macronutrient composition of most meat products typically ranges from 70% to 75% water, 20%–25% protein, and 1%–10% fat, the relative amount of these nutrients is significantly dependent on many factors (Fish et al. 2020), such as the species of animal or the type of meat (Bomkamp et al. 2022). For instance, the average intramuscular fat content in different species ranges from 1.6% in turkeys to 8% in sheep (Fish et al. 2020). The fat composition of ruminants (cattle, sheep, goats) and monogastrics (pigs, horses) contains mainly saturated and monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs), with a comparatively lower abundance of PUFAs (Dinh et al. 2021).

5.4.1. Types of Fatty Acids

Fatty acids, which are components of plants and animals, play a fundamental role in the structure of lipids. Depending on the presence of double bonds in a given molecule, fatty acids are classified as saturated fatty acids (SFAs) or unsaturated fatty acids (MUFA, PUFA; Fish et al. 2020; Islam et al. 2023). Unsaturated fatty acids are divided into MUFA and PUFA. These fatty acids are obtained from diverse sources and are an important component of a balanced diet (Kapoor et al. 2021). The consumption of these fatty acids exerts a substantial influence on human health. The appropriate selection of fatty acids in the diet can contribute to, among other things, disease prevention (Jiang et al. 2022; Elagizi et al. 2021; Rodriguez et al. 2024).

5.4.1.1. The Importance of Saturated Fatty Acids in Human Health

Excessive consumption of saturated fatty acids (SFAs) is a risk factor in the pathogenesis of cardiovascular diseases such as atherosclerosis (Maki et al. 2021; Vogtschmidt et al. 2024). This mechanism is related, among others, to the effect of SFA on the blood lipid profile. Their increased consumption leads to an increase in the concentration of low‐density lipoproteins (LDLs), which have been identified as a pivotal factor in the development of atherosclerotic plaques in the walls of blood vessels. The accumulation of plaques leads to a gradual narrowing of the vessel lumen. This limits blood flow and increases the risk of cardiovascular incidents including myocardial infarction and stroke (Maki et al. 2021). Additionally, high SFA intake affects numerous biochemical processes, including inflammation, lipid homeostasis, the function of high‐density lipoproteins (HDLs) and mechanisms regulating heart rhythm and blood clotting (Maki et al. 2021). Due to the increasing cardiovascular risk, it is recommended to limit the share of SFA in the diet to less than 10% of the total energy supply. This is considered a preventive strategy aimed at reducing the risk of atherosclerosis and other cardiovascular diseases (Maki et al. 2021; Li et al. 2022b).

Long‐term exposure of the body to a high supply of SFA promotes the development of various types of cancer, including breast, prostate, and colon cancer (Castellani et al. 2025; Mei et al. 2024; Kargar and Saka 2024). Research findings suggest that the restriction of SFA intake can retard the progression of certain types of cancers, including prostate cancer. This finding suggests that dietary modifications may be an important element of oncological prevention (Wang et al. 2022). Additionally, reducing the supply of SFA contributes to reducing the frequency of cardiovascular diseases, such as ischemic heart disease and hypertension (Dicks 2024).

Considering health prevention, it is important to replace SFA with fatty acids with documented beneficial effects on the body, such as MUFAs and PUFAs, including omega‐6 acids. Research findings indicate that replacing SFA with unsaturated fats results in a reduction of LDL concentration, which leads to a reduction in the risk of cardiovascular diseases and other metabolic complications (Riley et al. 2024; Petersen et al. 2024; Dicks 2024). It can therefore be concluded that modifying dietary habits in accordance with the indicated recommendations is an effective prevention in terms of reducing the risk of atherosclerosis, cancer and metabolic disorders.

5.4.1.2. The Importance of Unsaturated Fatty Acids in Human Health

Reduction of lipid levels, associated with pharmacotherapy and lifestyle modifications, shows significant clinical benefits (Bhatt et al. 2024). Replacing SFAs with their unsaturated counterparts helps improve cardiovascular function (Pipoyan et al. 2021; Michels et al. 2020). Of particular importance are polyunsaturated omega‐3 fatty acids, which, thanks to their antioxidant and anti‐inflammatory properties, have been shown to reduce the risk of hypertension and atherosclerosis (Kapoor et al. 2021; Fernandez‐Lazaro et al. 2024; Patted et al. 2024; Darvishi et al. 2023). Consequently, there is a reduced risk of myocardial infarction and stroke (Yang et al. 2025; Petersen et al. 2024).

PUFAs play an important role in cell function (Rahman et al. 2024). Additionally, these acids participate in metabolic processes, supporting the body's homeostasis. Their supplementation, especially in the form of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), improves parameters such as triglyceride concentration, cholesterol, blood pressure, liver enzyme activity, and indicators of inflammation and oxidative stress (Fernandez‐Lazaro et al. 2024; Banaszak et al. 2024). It has also been observed that insufficient consumption of these acids, a common occurrence in individuals with obesity, leads to deterioration of metabolic parameters and increases the risk of cardiovascular diseases (Yang et al. 2025).

However, it should be noted that not all unsaturated fatty acids have a positive effect on the human body. A notable exception is TFAs, which are produced through the process of partial hydrogenation of unsaturated fatty acids (Pipoyan et al. 2021; Spiekermann and Seidensticker 2024; Gao et al. 2022; Wallis et al. 2022). These compounds are widely used in the food industry, due to their textural properties and stability (Liu et al. 2025; Maki et al. 2021; Nagpal et al. 2021; Bhat et al. 2022; Magriplis et al. 2022). Despite this, excessive consumption of TFAs is associated with many negative health effects. In particular, it increases the risk of cardiovascular diseases (Ahmed and El‐Sisy 2021; Zupanic et al. 2021). Furthermore, there is evidence of a correlation between TFA consumption and a higher risk of developing various types of cancer (Matta et al. 2021; Michels et al. 2020; Ismail et al. 2021; Ahmed and El‐Sisy 2021), including breast cancer (Matta et al. 2021; Ahmed and El‐Sisy 2021), prostate cancer, and colon cancer (Nagpal et al. 2021; Michels et al. 2020). According to the results of studies, it was found that the intake of TFA exceeding 1% of total dietary energy is associated with a 21% increase in the risk of heart disease and a 28% increase in mortality due to cardiovascular diseases, resulting in over 500,000 deaths globally each year (Guo et al. 2023). It has also been proven that high consumption of TFAs during pregnancy can lead to negative health consequences for the fetus, such as low birth weight (Alamolhoda et al. 2022). Therefore, it is necessary to clearly strive to ensure that cell‐cultured meat does not contain TFAs, because they can have a number of serious health consequences (Pipoyan et al. 2021).

An incorrect proportion of fatty acids in the diet, similarly to the presence of TFAs, may contribute to adverse health effects. For instance, an imbalance in omega‐6 and omega‐3 acid intake has been linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular diseases, cancers, inflammatory conditions, and autoimmune diseases. Appropriate intake of omega‐3 fatty acids has been demonstrated to inhibit the development of these diseases (Savatinova and Ivanova 2024; Kargar and Saka 2024). This balance is of particular significance during pregnancy, as it impacts the neurological development of the fetus (Shahabi et al. 2025). Additionally, omega‐3 acids play an important role in the functioning of the central nervous system. Consequently, the potential exists for a reduction in symptoms related to depression and cognitive disorders. Nevertheless, the described effects of omega‐3 acids should only be a supplement to pharmacotherapy (Serefko et al. 2024; Chang et al. 2024). It has been previously observed that the ingestion of omega‐3 fatty acids may also exert a beneficial effect on autism symptoms and enhance the health of individuals with diabetes (Bayram and Kiziltan 2024; Rababah et al. 2024). It is crucial to acknowledge the significant impact of lipid imbalances on dermatological health. A diet abundant in omega‐3 fatty acids yet deficient in omega‐6 fatty acids has been posited as a potential remedy for acne symptoms. EPA has also demonstrated protective potential against psoriatic arthritis (Xu et al. 2024; Pomianek et al. 2024). It has also been noted that compared to omega‐6 fatty acids, omega‐3 fatty acids are more effective in reducing body fat, which indicates their potential use in the prevention of obesity and its metabolic complications (Yang et al. 2025).

Although omega‐3 fatty acids have protective health effects, their excessive intake may lead to adverse outcomes, including nutritional toxicity and potential hearing impairment (Rahimi et al. 2024). Therefore, maintaining an optimal intake level is essential. In the context of enriching cultured meat with omega‐3 and omega‐6 fatty acids, it is crucial to define their proper ratio, as this may enhance the health benefits of the final product.

5.4.2. Modification of Fat Composition in Cultured Meat

Considering consumer health, it should be emphasized that excessive meat consumption may be associated with excessive energy intake. This leads to diet‐related diseases such as obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. The growing public awareness of the relationship between proper nutrition and public health has contributed to growing public concerns about the impact of excess fat, especially SFAs, on health (Fish et al. 2020). In light of these concerns and shifting consumer expectations, cultured meat can be tailored to reduce saturated fat and cholesterol content, thereby presenting a potentially more health‐conscious alternative to traditional meat products (Soleymani et al. 2024).

The use of cell culture technology enables precise control over the fat composition of meat, including adjustments to its fatty acid profile. Studies have shown that cultured muscle cells differ from natural muscle tissue by having higher levels of MUFAs and lower levels of PUFAs (Else 2020). As previously discussed, saturated fats in cultured meat can be replaced with more health‐promoting fats, such as omega‐3 fatty acids. This modification is possible while actively monitoring and managing the risk of lipid oxidation and rancidity (Chriki and Hocquette 2020; Singh et al. 2022; Broucke et al. 2023). Moreover, in the future it will be possible to further modify the composition of fatty acids. This will certainly allow for reducing the content of unhealthy saturated fats and TFAs, while increasing the level of beneficial omega‐3 and omega‐6 fatty acids, which will result in the creation of healthier meat that retains its taste and organoleptic qualities (Martins et al. 2024; Tomiyama et al. 2020).

5.4.3. Strategies to Optimize the Fatty Acid Profile of Cultured Meat

Cultured meat production systems have the ability to precisely control the composition and quality of meat. This creates the possibility of modifying the fat profile of the final product (Chriki and Hocquette 2020; Li et al. 2022a). One method of optimizing the fat content in cultured meat involves the coculture of adipocytes with muscle cells. However, this type of approach may not provide adequate amounts of essential fatty acids, such as linoleic and α‐linolenic acid. An alternative to this technique is the addition of vegetable fats to the culture. This approach is considered economically viable (Fraeye et al. 2020). Replacing animal fat in cultured meat with vegetable oil has been shown to reduce SFAs by up to 65% compared to conventional meat products, while simultaneously increasing the content of omega‐6 and omega‐3 fatty acids (Yen et al. 2023).

Another promising method of optimizing fat content is precise fermentation, which allows for the production of appropriate unsaturated fatty acids. It promotes the formation of aromatic heterocyclic flavor compounds as a result of the Maillard reaction, which has a positive effect on the taste of cultured meat (Singh et al. 2022). Another promising approach involves the cocultivation of microalgae with animal cells. Microalgae have been identified as a substantial source of proteins and unsaturated fatty acids. Their incorporation into meat cultivation has been shown to reduce the toxicity of metabolites while concurrently enhancing the nutritional value of the final meat product (Yang et al. 2023). It should also be noted that the integration of the above methods may allow for even more effective optimization of the fat composition. This integration has the potential to yield meat with a favorable nutritional profile, satisfying consumer expectations (Bomkamp et al. 2022). However, it should also be borne in mind that the introduction of these nutritional modifications is associated with the need to balance the impact on sensory values (Samad et al. 2025; Bomkamp et al. 2022). As already indicated, the fat content and the associated oxidation processes have a significant impact on the taste of meat. Studies indicate that a high content of PUFAs may negatively affect the tenderness of pork (Bomkamp et al. 2022). This requires precise management of the production process in order to maintain a balance between improving the nutritional value and the sensory acceptability of the product.

Given the persistent interest in public health issues, a proliferation of enterprises specializing in food bioengineering has been observed. For instance, a consortium that received government funding for a project to produce meat bred with reduced saturated fat and increased “healthy” fats, with the aim of preventing diseases such as colon cancer or dyslipidemia, exemplifies this trend (Bomkamp et al. 2022). This trend in the food industry may result in even more dynamic development of new production methods, including methods of optimizing the fat content in the product, and such a direction of development of this industry should be considered positive. Nevertheless, it is necessary to conduct further research and analysis in this area.

6. Conclusion

In conclusion, cell‐cultured meat, although it should still be considered an emerging field, has a huge potential to significantly impact human health. From a nutritional point of view, however, there is still a need for further research that will allow for a thorough comparison of this type of meat with traditional meat, especially in terms of protein content, amino acids, vitamins, minerals, bioavailability of nutrient, and the possibility of modifying fat content to improve the nutritional profile (Broucke et al. 2023).

In the health context, cell‐cultured meat could support the reduction of diet‐related diseases such as atherosclerosis, and its promotion could potentially contribute to improving consumer health. Nevertheless, concerns related to the introduction of this novel food to the market must be addressed through comprehensive research and public education on its potential health benefits. Conducting research and collecting information on the impact of cell‐cultured meat in countries where these products are already available on the market, such as Singapore, is particularly important. Research should not ignore the impact of production and the product itself on the environment, as this is another important aspect related to cell production technology.

The article addresses the subject in a relatively narrow scope, with a primary emphasis on theoretical aspects. Its objective is to draw attention to the key issue and organize the most important information. Nevertheless, it will be crucial to conduct further research on the additives to this meat and their impact on health, including the absorption of nutrients by the human body, as well as the identification of potential side effects.

In the future, with more precise knowledge of the impact of cell‐cultured products on human health, it will be possible to introduce this product as a functional food that can positively affect the health of specific groups of people. However, it should be remembered that a “healthy” product alone will not ensure health if it is not part of a balanced diet adapted to the needs of the individual. Consequently, while these products are currently available in certain countries, such as Singapore and the United States, there is an urgent and crucial need to intensify research on their impact on human health. This is essential to ensure the safety and health benefits associated with their consumption.

Author Contributions

Marek Kardas: Funding acquisition, project administration, supervision, writing–review and editing. Wiktoria Staśkiewicz‐Bartecka: formal analysis, investigation, methodology, resources, writing–original draft. Aleksandra Kołodziejczyk: conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, methodology, resources, validation, writing–original draft.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Kardas, M. , Staśkiewicz‐Bartecka W., and Kołodziejczyk A.. 2025. “Cultured Meat Reformulation: Health Potential and Sustainable Food Challenges—Narrative Review.” Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 24, no. 6: e70262. 10.1111/1541-4337.70262