Search

Cultivated or in-vitro meat is attracting attention for its potential to improve animal welfare, reduce environmental impact and offer health benefits to consumers and society. As a result, such products may also be of interest to vegetarians, in addition to meat eaters, even though they have tended to be dismissed as a potential target group. However, such a general assessment ignores the fact that vegetarians can differ greatly in their type of diet (e.g. vegan, lacto-ovo, pescatarian), the motives which drive their eating habits, and with regard to how long they have done so. All of these factors could in turn influence whether vegetarians might be interested in cultivated meat. Thus, the aim of this study is to investigate the factors that influence acceptance of cultivated meat among vegetarians. Based on a survey of German vegetarians, we find that animal welfare is rated as the highest motive for why cultivated meat would be acceptable, followed by health and safety. Environmental aspects were less relevant compared to animal welfare, though such motives remained present for the decision to try CM. Furthermore, ovo-lacto-vegetarians, ���new��� vegetarians, and those who tend to eat conventional meat occasionally appeared to be the parties most interested in trying cultivated meat, and vegans and ���established��� vegetarians the least interested ones., Berichte ��ber Landwirtschaft - Zeitschrift f��r Agrarpolitik und Landwirtschaft, Aktuelle Beitr��ge

This paper is part of the IRGC project “Ensuring the environmental sustainabilityof emerging technologies”

„Kultiviertem Fleisch“ oder „In vitro-Fleisch“ wird besserer Tierschutz, geringere Umwelt-auswirkungen sowie gesundheitliche Vorteile zugesprochen. Insbesondere durch diese Zusatz-nutzen sind neben der Zielgruppe der Fleischesser auch Vegetarier eine potenzielle Zielgruppe, jedoch unterscheidet sich diese Konsumentengruppe stark durch die Art der vegetarischen Ernährung (z.B. vegan, lacto-ovo, pescatarisch). Diese spiegeln verschiedene Motive für einen bewussten Lebensstil wider, die wiederum die Wahrnehmung von kultiviertem Fleisch (KF) beeinflussen könnten. Somit ist Ziel dieser Arbeit, die Bedingungen zu untersuchen, die zur Akzeptanz von KF bei Vegetariern führen. Auf Basis einer Umfrage mit deutschen Vegetariern, bewerten diese Tierwohl am stärksten, gefolgt von der Gesundheit und der Produktsicherheit. Umweltaspekte waren im Vergleich mit Tierwohl von weniger Relevanz, obwohl solche Motive für die Entscheidung, KF zu probieren, nach wie vor stark präsent sind. Weiterhin scheinen Ovo-Lakto-Vegetarier, „neue“ Vegetarier sowie diejenigen, die dazu neigen, gelegentlich konventionelles Fleisch zu essen, am meisten und Veganer sowie „etablierte“ Vegetarier am wenigsten bereit, KF zu probieren., Berichte über Landwirtschaft - Zeitschrift für Agrarpolitik und Landwirtschaft, Aktuelle Beiträge

Although interest in sustainable food has increased substantially in recent years, the actual demand for such products has typically proceeded quite unevenly across consumers. Making sense of the variable pace of behavioral change requires that we explore the foundations of sustainable consumer behavior, especially the importance attached to particular attributes and the types of tradeoffs that exist. For this reason, this study utilizes a discrete choice experiment (DCE) that integrates the type of retail format to establish the potential for interaction effects with attributes. Stated-preference methods like DCEs have proven useful to explain how and why individuals’ willingness to pay (WTP) for qualities such as organic, fair trade, and locality can differ. However, by mostly focusing on product qualities alone, the importance of the retail formats where products are actually purchased – and their potential impact on the valuation of attributes – is left unexplored. Framing this DCE in relation to sustainable tomato consumption, we can conclude that the type of retail format is a significant determinant of purchasing behavior, both on its own and in its interaction with the other qualities.

The impact that the retail format has on the level of individual motivation tends to be overlooked in discussions of the determinants of organic consumption, this neglect due to the tendency to model individual and contextual factors separately. Hence, the dominant research paradigm has difficulty accounting for the differences in energy and motivation across consumers. Moreover, in spite of the expansions to the set of contextual factors, this paradigm is unable to increase the reality of descriptions of consumer behavior so long as such attempts are then filtered back through modeling frameworks initially developed to address different questions. To illustrate the dual importance of asking the right questions and using appropriate models, this paper utilizes a modeling exercise to explore the consequences of using two prevalent modeling approaches that utilize a limited form of the relationship between individual and retail format to explain the level of motivation. By illustrating the potential for omitted variable bias and misleading policy implications, it is argued that novel modeling approaches are necessary to integrate the broader range of relationships that exist, as well as the relevance of these relationships to the level of motivation.

The greater awareness of the negative environmental and health-related externalities of the large-scale food industry is directly responsible for the diminished confidence of the quality of its products. Using the multi-level perspective on socio-technical transitions (Geels, 2004; 2010), I argue that the initial impetus for the emergence of mass production was the presence of threats to health and safety in the broader societal context. Rather than simply serving economic considerations, the scale and scientific expertise of mass production functioned as a credible signal due to its relationship to these threats. The declining health and safety of the food industry represents, however, a consequence of the changing relationship of scale and quality due to the emergence of new threats to health and safety. Scale as a signal of credibility is no longer sufficient to guarantee these qualities, however. Absent the incentives to undertake costly investments in quality production, the criteria of productivity and efficiency become duly emphasized to the detriment of health and safety. Hence, the continued emphasis on scale now represents a limitation to improving health and safety. Instead, further quality innovation demands the development of a costly signal appropriate to the extant social context.