Table 2.
Summary of 14 studies related to consumer acceptance and perceptions of cell-based meat
| Authors | The most important findings |
|---|---|
| Tucker (2014) | Although most people had an unfavorable opinion of cell-based meat, some people (especially men, younger people, middle-income people, and city dwellers) had a favorable opinion. Animal ethics and higher protein productivity were the main perceived benefits, while sensory qualities, unnaturalness, and perceived unhealthiness were the key reported downsides |
| Verbeke et al. (2015a; 2015b) | Disgust and weirdness were among the first reactions. Participants saw few personal benefits, but recognized social benefits such as food security and the environment. Health, safety, and negative social and economic consequences are all personal and society risks. Further issues included the necessity for regulation and unambiguous labeling, as well as the inevitable scientific progress, governance, and risk control |
| Marcu et al. (2015) |
Anchoring on more familiar technologies, utilizing metaphors and ordinary arguments to block off debate, and establishing polarities were among the tactics used by participants to make sense of the situation Others, on the other hand, posed questions and participated in realistic cost–benefit analysis |
| Hocquette et al. (2015) | The majority of respondents thought the meat industry had significant environmental and animal welfare issues, and that cell-based meat was viable and realistic. However, only a small percentage of people choose cell-based meat as their first option for reducing meat-related issues. The majority believed it would not be healthy or tasty, and that customers would reject it. Despite this, many people were in favor of funding more research on cell-based meat |
| Verbeke et al. (2015a; 2015b) | When compared to only providing basic information, providing additional information about the advantages of cell-based meat improved acceptance. Acceptance is hampered by both financial and sensory expectations |
| Laestadius and Caldwell (2015) | The majority of the remarks were unfavorable. Positive feedback focused on animal welfare, the environment, and public health benefits, while negative feedback focused on cell-based meat’s artificial and unpleasant appearance |
| Laestadius (2015) | Both favorable and negative comments had comparable principles (animal welfare, sustainability, equality, naturalness, and maximizing limited resources), but participants viewed cell-based meat differently. Themes that are comparable to the ones mentioned previously |
| O’Keefe et al. (2016) | A positive discussion about cell-based meat was largely fueled by a sense of scientific advancement. Although the main apparent benefit was animal welfare, much of the discussion focused on sustainability. Many people had concerns about the product’s safety and nutritional value, and most felt that it would have to be less expensive than traditional meat to win acceptability |
| Siegrist and Sütterlin (2017) | The health risks associated with cell-based meat were considered to be less acceptable than those associated with regular meat. Perceived naturalness was the sole mediator of this impact |
| Bekker et al. (2017a; 2017b) | Positive and negative information regarding cell-based meat (or a comparable product) altered explicit, but not implicit, attitudes about it. For more familiar participants, there was less of an effect |
| Wilks and Phillips (2017) | The majority of respondents were willing to test cell-based meat, but just one third were willing to consume it on a regular basis or as a substitute for conventional meat. Men were more receptive than women, and liberals were more susceptible than conservatives. Price, taste, and unnaturalness were the main concerns |
| Bekker et al. (2017a; 2017b) | The majority of the connections were about the future and societal consequences. In terms of physical qualities and composition, cell-based meat was thought to be equivalent to normal meat, while some participants thought it wasn’t’ real’ meat. Depending on how liberal their definition of meat was, this differed between participants from different nations |
| Siegrist et al. (2018) | As cell-based meat is perceived as unnatural, it has a lower acceptance rate than normal meat. The discussion about cell-based meat increased people’s acceptance of traditional meat. Non-technical descriptions of cell-based meat are accepted more readily than technical statements, owing to a sense of unnaturalness and unpleasantness |
| Slade (2018) | A small percentage of participants (11%) preferred cell-based meat to conventional meat or plant-based meat. Men, younger people, more educated people, those who eat meat alternatives, and those who care about the environment had a higher preference for cell-based meat |