Brazilian Consumers’ Attitudes towards So-Called “Cell-Based Meat”

Abstract

The main goal of this online survey was to investigate the attitudes of Brazilians towards “cell-based meat”, which has become the subject of great scientific and media enthusiasm. The answers of 4471 respondents concluded that 46.6% of them thought “cell-based meat” was promising and acceptable. More than 66% would be willing to try this novel product compared to 23% who expressed reluctance to do so. Nearly 40% of the total respondents did not want to eat “cell-based meat” regularly at all, whereas 29%, 43.2%, and 39.9% were willing to eat it regularly in restaurants, at home, and/or in ready-made meals, respectively. However, the majority of respondents (71%) were keen to pay much less for “cell-based meat” than conventionally produced meat (or even nothing at all), compared to 24.3% who were willing to pay the same price as conventional meat, whereas only 4.8% were willing to pay more. Approximately 51% of them considered that “cell-based meat” should not be called “meat” for marketing purposes. Job, monthly income, age, and gender were major factors impacting consumer acceptance. Meat professionals and consumers with higher incomes were less willing to eat “cell-based meat” regularly. Women (especially younger women) were the most concerned about the ethical and environmental issues related to meat production and were the most convinced that reducing meat consumption could be a good solution to the meat industry’s problems. Respondents who did not accept “cell-based meat” and did not eat meat substitutes had a negative attitude to this novel food (they considered it absurd and/or disgusting) and did not believe that “cell-based meat” should be called “meat” for marketing purposes. In contrast, the people who thought that “cell-based meat” could be called “meat” perceived it in a rather positive way. These results are important for consumers of meat and meat substitutes and for companies aiming to enter the potential future Brazilian market of “cell-based meat”.

Cultured Meat on the Social Network Twitter: Clean, Future and Sustainable Meats

“…Similarly, a study [ 16 ] that analyzed the various terms used to describe cultured meat reported that “process-centered terms” such as “cell-based”, “cultured”, and “cultivated” were considered to be the most transparent and “free of moral judgment”, while terms such as “lab-grown”, “in vitro”, and “synthetic” were negatively associated with artificiality in consumers’ minds. Other research [ 40 ] reinforced these findings, noting that, when consumers perceive a product as more “high tech”, they are more suspicious of it and less inclined to purchase or consume it.…”

“…Furthermore, analysis of the livestock industry through the lens of economic cost ignores another tangible cost: the impact on the environment and climate. With regard to greenhouse gas emissions [ 27 ], one previous study [ 40 ] noted that the size of the global middle class is rapidly expanding, leading more consumers in developing countries to have an interest in and the means to purchase animal products, including meat; consequently, consumer demand and global food security needs are exerting combined pressures on the livestock industry to produce greater amounts of animal products that are “environmentally sound, socially responsible, and economically viable”.…”

“…Linguistic choices surrounding cultured meat are a significant predictor of people’s willingness to potentially engage with the product. Another study [ 40 ] found that over half of the people surveyed believed that the word “meat” should not be used to describe cultured meat, and that the descriptor used to modify the word “meat” could have powerful effects. Similarly, a study [ 16 ] that analyzed the various terms used to describe cultured meat reported that “process-centered terms” such as “cell-based”, “cultured”, and “cultivated” were considered to be the most transparent and “free of moral judgment”, while terms such as “lab-grown”, “in vitro”, and “synthetic” were negatively associated with artificiality in consumers’ minds.…”

“…However, as research and development continue, and producers run into problems regarding scale, efficiency, and distribution, the initial excitement and funding offers wane, and the pace of innovation slows significantly. The advent of the COVID-19 pandemic may have accelerated interest in the industry, considering the ways in which cultured meat will lower the risk of pathogen transmission from domestic animals to humans, possibly preventing future pandemics, as well as the potential of cultured meat to bolster the supply chain and empower local economies to produce their own meat products instead of being reliant on a global meat production structure that can be easily disrupted [ 40 , 56 ]. One study [ 16 ] speculated that cultured meat could be imminently available, while another [ 57 ] projected that the widespread introduction of cultured meat will not occur for another 5–10 years, with plant-based meat retaining the majority of the protein alternatives market until at least 2030.…”

Qualités nutritionnelle, organoleptique et disposition à payer pour les alternatives à la viande : cas des analogues végétaux, de la « viande in vitro » et des insectes

“…Une récente étude en France va dans ce sens, puisque la majorité (entre 65,4 et 70,2 % selon les groupes de consommateurs) préfère payer moins cher à beaucoup moins cher la « viande in vitro » par rapport à celle issue d'élevage (Hocquette et al, 2022). Une grande proportion d'indécis est présente dans ces études, et s'explique par le fait qu'une majorité de consommateurs serait prête à goûter le produit une fois, sans en consommer de façon régulière (Wilks et Phillips, 2017 ;Weinrich et al, 2020 ;Chriki et al, 2021).…”