Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: A systematic review

Bryant, Christopher; Barnett, Julie

doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.04.008

Cited by 359 publications

(336 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

265

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, agribusinesses, commodity groups, and researchers should develop strategic talking points and social media strategies to engage in online conversations about cultured meat. These themes show some similarities to themes and perceptions identified in previous studies (Bryant & Barnett, 2018;Bryant & Dillard, 2019;Goodwin & Shoulders, 2013;Laestadius & Caldwell, 2015;Wilks & Phillips, 2017). However, researchers in the different studies elected different names for similar themes.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 69%

“…Men and those who identified as politically liberal had more positive attitudes toward and a greater willingness to eat cultured meat. Respondents identified taste, price, and unnaturalness as barriers to consumption (Bryant & Barnett, 2018;Wilks & Phillips, 2017). Finally, a recent experimental study exposed U.S. consumers to different communication frames on cultured meat (Bryant & Dillard, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

“You Call that Meat?” Investigating Social Media Conversations and Influencers Surrounding Cultured Meat

Specht¹,

Rumble²,

Buck³

2020

Journal of Applied Communications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cultured meat has yet to reach store shelves but is nonetheless a growing issue for consumers, producers, and government regulators, many of whom have taken to social media to discuss it. Using a conceptual framework of social cognitive theory and issues management, this qualitative content analysis investigated social-media discourse surrounding the topic of cultured meat in the United States by describing the content of the discussion in late 2018 and identifying individual influencers and communities of influencers engaged in the discussion. Data were collected from Twitter using listening platform Sysomos MAP. The thematic analysis revealed eight themes: legality and marketing, sustainability, acceptance, business, animal concerns, science and technology, health concerns, and timeline, and indicated that conflicting views and questions about cultured meat exist among conversation participants. Top influencers included philanthropists, government officials, journalists and writers, and animal-welfare advocates. These influencers were grouped into four distinct communities based on interactions with each other and other users. The topics identified in the analysis provide insight into ways in which communicators can enter these conversations, and influencer communities represent groups of users whose broad reach could more easily transmit pro-agriculture messages.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 69%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“You Call that Meat?” Investigating Social Media Conversations and Influencers Surrounding Cultured Meat

Specht¹,

Rumble²,

Buck³

2020

Journal of Applied Communications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It must be noted that WTE artificial meat (and milk) was rather low, which is in line with previous observations (Siegrist & Sütterlin, ; Siegrist et al., ; Wilks & Phillips, ). Nevertheless, a review by Bryant and Barnett () indicates that the level of acceptance of artificial meat seems to vary according to how acceptance is assessed and what kind of descriptions are provided.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Even though it was shown that providing information about a new food technology can be counterproductive (Scholderer & Fewer, ; Siegrist et al., ), evidence exists indicating that it is important to whom the information is addressed (e.g., people with different worldviews) (Kahan et al., ) and how the information is labeled and described (Bryant & Barnett, ; Siegrist et al, ). Siegrist et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

When Evolution Works Against the Future: Disgust's Contributions to the Acceptance of New Food Technologies

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New food technologies have a high potential to transform the current resource‐consuming food system to a more efficient and sustainable one, but public acceptance of new food technologies is rather low. Such an avoidance might be maintained by a deeply preserved risk avoidance system called disgust. In an online survey, participants (N = 313) received information about a variety of new food technology applications (i.e., genetically modified meat/fish, edible nanotechnology coating film, nanotechnology food box, artificial meat/milk, and a synthetic food additive). Every new food technology application was rated according to the respondent's willingness to eat (WTE) it (i.e., acceptance), risk, benefit, and disgust perceptions. Furthermore, food disgust sensitivity was measured using the Food Disgust Scale. Overall, the WTE both gene‐technology applications and meat coated with an edible nanotechnology film were low and disgust responses toward all three applications were high. In full mediation models, food disgust sensitivity predicted the disgust response toward each new food technology application, which in turn influenced WTE them. Effects of disgust responses on the WTE a synthetic food additive were highest for and lowest for the edible nanotechnology coating film compared to the other technologies. Results indicate that direct disgust responses influence acceptance and risk and benefit perceptions of new food technologies. Beyond the discussion of this study, implications for future research and strategies to increase acceptance of new food technologies are discussed.

show abstract

“…Issues of ethics include ownership of cell lines and the accessibility of technology, changes in employment as well as the impact on less‐developed countries that are meat exporters or suppliers of animal feed 21 . Customer acceptance of cultivated meat has recently been reviewed, 22 which noted key concerns revolving around safety, healthiness, anticipated taste/texture, anticipated price and unnaturalness, with acceptability question arising for those who avoid certain meats for religious reasons. Perceived unnaturalness can be addressed through messaging designed to address consumers' concerns 23 .…”

Section: Cultivated Meat: Status and Barriers To Scale‐upmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges of cultivated meat production and applications of genome‐scale metabolic modeling

Suthers

Maranas

2020

AIChE Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: A systematic review

Cited by 359 publications

References 52 publications

“You Call that Meat?” Investigating Social Media Conversations and Influencers Surrounding Cultured Meat

“You Call that Meat?” Investigating Social Media Conversations and Influencers Surrounding Cultured Meat

When Evolution Works Against the Future: Disgust's Contributions to the Acceptance of New Food Technologies

Challenges of cultivated meat production and applications of genome‐scale metabolic modeling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About