Cell-based meat: Current ambiguities with nomenclature

Ong, Shujian; Choudhury, Deepak; Naing, May Win

doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2020.02.010

Cited by 78 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The 24 keywords used to collect publications ( Table 1 ) were based on scientific articles and reviews dealing with cultured meat, particularly those based on the influence of the name on the acceptance of this novel food (Siegrist and Sütterlin, 2017 ; Asioli et al, 2018 ; Siegrist et al, 2018 ; Bryant and Barnett, 2019 ; Bryant C. J. et al, 2019 ; Ong et al, 2020 ). The question whether these keywords cover most of the articles from the written press will be discussed later based on the results.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other names: craft meat, victimless meat, cruelty-free meat, slaughter-free meat, Frankenmeat, unnatural meat, shmeat Metcalf, 2013;Welin, 2013;Marcu et al, 2015;Wilks and Phillips, 2017;Siegrist et al, 2018;Alvaro, 2019;Bhat et al, 2019;Bryant and Barnett, 2019;Burton, 2019;Mouat et al, 2019;Ong et al, 2020 a Names/keywords' number of citations in titles, keywords, and abstracts of articles. b This reference list is not exhaustive: the articles indicated as examples are those mainly discussed in the Results section.…”

Section: Abstractelectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Analysis of Scientific and Press Articles Related to Cultured Meat for a Better Understanding of Its Perception

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cultured meat is presented by its advocates as a good alternative for consumers who want to be more ethically minded but who do not wish to change their diet. This novel food has become an emerging topic in both the scientific field and the press media. From a bibliometric analysis of scientific publications and on a sociometric analysis of the mainstream press, the aim of this study was to identify potential differences between the scientific view and the public perception. This research analyzed the publications indexed by SCI-EXPANDED in the Web of Science Core Collection database owned by Clarivate Analytics, for scientific literature analysis, and indexed by the Factiva database, for the press media. A total of 327 scientific publications were analyzed according to year of publication and country and institution of origin, also including coauthorships, co-citations, and scientific fields' and journals' networks. A knowledge mapping using VOSviewer was used to study the literature in the field. Based on Factiva, 12,900 press articles dealing with artificial meat, mainly in English, have been found through public databases. The main conclusion is that cultured meat is mainly developing in the USA and the UK, with other countries, such as China, observing the trend for potential future applications. Scientific articles seemed initially to focus mainly on technical aspects of artificial meat and more recently on health value, consumer's acceptance, and sustainability. However, the potential environment-friendly effects of this novel food are more and more studied or described in scientific or press articles.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Abstractelectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of Scientific and Press Articles Related to Cultured Meat for a Better Understanding of Its Perception

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is power inherent in labeling a concept, because the name given to it can evoke images, emotions, metaphors, and meanings that profoundly shape public perceptions and acceptance (Broad, 2020). What to call these products have unsurprisingly been the subject of considerable debate among consumers, advocates, regulators, and the producers of both cell-based and conventional meat products, with various stakeholders proposing terms likely to elicit very different reactions from consumers (Ong, Choudhury, & Naing, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Hallman

2020

Journal of Food Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An important consideration in the commercialization of cell‐based meat, poultry, and seafood is what common or usual name to use on package labels to meet U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations. However, naming these products has been the subject of considerable debate. This study used a 3 × 10 between‐subjects online experiment involving a quota sample of 3,186 U.S. adult panel participants to test common or usual names using images of realistic packages of three types of seafood that a consumer might encounter in a supermarket. The terms tested were, “cell‐based seafood,” “cell‐cultured seafood,” “cultivated seafood,” and “cultured seafood” and the phrases, “produced using cellular aquaculture,” “cultivated from the cells of ____,” and “grown directly from the cells of ____,” where the blanks are filled by the name of the seafood product. Five criteria were used for evaluation, including each term's ability to: enable consumers to distinguish cell‐based seafood from wild and farmed fish, to signal potential allergenicity, be seen by consumers as an appropriate term to identify the product, not disparage either cell‐based or conventional products, and not evoke thoughts, images, or emotions that are inconsistent with the idea that the products are safe, healthy, and nutritious. The results showed that “cell‐based seafood” outperforms the other names tested. It enables consumers to recognize that the products are neither wild caught nor farm raised, signals potential allergenicity, is seen as an appropriate name for describing the technology/process, and it performs well with respect to measures of consumer acceptance, particularly in comparison to conventional products. Practical Application Creating consensus around a single common or usual name for cell‐based meat, poultry, and seafood products is clearly important both for regulatory reasons and for shaping public perceptions and understanding of the products that are labeled with it. Our findings suggest that “cell‐based” is the best common or usual name for seafood products that both meets FDA regulatory requirements and performs well with respect to potential consumer acceptance. Consistent use of this term by industry, advocates, and regulators would help orient consumers to what is likely to be a transformational food technology.

show abstract

“…Each sector that has a vested interest in the outcome of this new technology has a preferred term that is consistent with advancing their respective perspective. Proponents of cell-based meat have favored a name that does not alienate consumers; advocates for conventional meat want their product identity to remain as it has been without concern for consumer confusion ( Bryant and Barnett, 2019 ; Chriki and Hocquette, 2020 ; Ong et al, 2020 ). In the conversations focused on naming, a logical starting point has been to consider the definition of meat.…”

Section: When Is Meat Meat?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unlike milk, meat lacks a federal standard of identity. The U.S. Department of Agriculture ( USDA ) defines meat products as “any product … made wholly or in part from any meat or other portion of the carcass” and Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) defines meat as “part of the muscle of any cattle, sheep, swine or goats which is skeletal” ( Ong et al, 2020 ). FDA and USDA have preferred the term “cell-cultured product” or “cell-cultured food product” ( Stephens et al, 2019 ).…”

Section: When Is Meat Meat?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cell-based meat: the need to assess holistically

Faustman

Hamernik

Looper

et al. 2020

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Proof-of-principle for large-scale engineering of edible muscle tissue, in vitro, was established with the product’s introduction in 2013. Subsequent research and commentary on the potential for cell-based meat to be a viable food option and potential alternative to conventional meat have been significant. While some of this has focused on the biology and engineering required to optimize the manufacturing process, a majority of debate has focused on cultural, environmental, and regulatory considerations. Animal scientists and others with expertise in muscle and cell biology, physiology, and meat science have contributed to the knowledge base that has made cell-based meat possible and will continue to have a role in the future of the new product. Importantly, the successful introduction of cell-based meat that looks and tastes like conventional meat at a comparable price has the potential to displace and/or complement conventional meat in the marketplace.

show abstract

Cell-based meat: Current ambiguities with nomenclature

Cited by 78 publications

References 28 publications

Analysis of Scientific and Press Articles Related to Cultured Meat for a Better Understanding of Its Perception

Analysis of Scientific and Press Articles Related to Cultured Meat for a Better Understanding of Its Perception

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

Cell-based meat: the need to assess holistically

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About