Search

• Higher food technology neophobia predicts more negative evaluations of clean (vs. traditional) meat. • Food naturalness less important in predicting attitudes toward clean (vs. traditional) meat. • Safety concerns, but not naturalness concerns, explained negative evaluations of clean meat. Laboratory-grown (or "clean") meat is structurally similar to traditional meat yet comes with several environmental, health, and ethical benefits compared to regular meat. However, while some people are favorable towards clean meat, others are reluctant to engage with it. We tested whether these marked differences in clean meat acceptance are rooted in pre-test differences in fears of novel food technologies (i.e., food technology neophobia) and valuing the naturalness of food products (i.e., food naturalness importance). In three experiments (total N = 1169), participants evaluated dishes labelled as either clean or regular meat (counter-balancing dish labels across participants). The findings (Experiments 1–3) consistently demonstrated that only omnivores higher (but not lower) in food technology neophobia evaluated clean meat dishes more negatively than regular meat dishes. We found no support for the moderating role of food naturalness importance in the evaluation of clean (vs. regular) meat dishes. Experiment 2 also included dishes labelled as plant-based meat, revealing that vegetarians and vegans evaluated clean meat dishes considerably more negatively than plant-based dishes, an effect exacerbated among those higher in food technology neophobia. Finally, Experiment 3 demonstrated that safety concerns, but not naturalness concerns, partly explained why those higher in food technology neophobia evaluated clean meat dishes as less favorable. Taken together, the findings highlight the role of general concerns about the use of new food technology as a psychological barrier to clean meat acceptance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Concerns about animal welfare and sustainable meat production are growing among consumers. The awareness of carbon emissions linked to livestock and ethical concerns have triggered interest in more sustainable meat alternatives, among which cultured meat (also known as laboratory grown meat) is a recent entry. Like any new food, the ultimate success of cultured meat depends on consumer acceptance. This study analyses the peer-reviewed literature on consumer attitudes towards cultured meat to synthesize the existing evidence and identify priorities for future research. A systematic literature review was undertaken using the Web of Science, Science Direct and Scopus databases over 2008–2020, resulting in a final number of 43 articles meeting our selection criteria. The most important factors influencing consumer acceptance/rejection of cultured meat include public awareness, perceived naturalness, and food-related risk perception. Ethical and environmental concerns prompted consumers to be willing to pay a premium price for purchasing meat substitutes, but not necessarily cultured meat. Also, food neophobia and uncertainties about safety and health seem to be important barriers to uptake of this technology. Availability of other alternatives such as plant-based meat substitutes and product features, such as price and sensory appeal, are considered determinants of consumer reception of this technology. The effect of demographic factors is mixed. More research on the interrelationships between livestock production, food security, and alternative meat products is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[Display omitted] • The efficacy of different informative claims about cultured meat was assessed. • Claims referred to human safety, animal welfare, and environmental impact. • Claims significantly increased favour, and willingness to substitute cultured meat. • Human safety and animal welfare were the most divisive claims across sex and age. • Willingness to try cultured meat correlated modestly with willingness to substitute. Cultured meat (CM) is a potential sustainable novel food. Consumers' attitude towards this product is currently under investigation but a direct comparison of the effect of different types of information on consumers' response to CM is lacking. This study aimed: 1. to compare the efficacy of different informative claims in improving attitude towards CM; 2. to verify the effect of previously studied variables on attitude towards CM. Four information types were compared (human safety; animal welfare; environmental impact; no additional information: control), each envisaging two additional claims ('Antibiotic-free' and 'Pathogen- and zoonosis-free' for human safety; 'No animal breeding' and 'No animal slaughtering' for animal welfare; '82–96% reduction of water consumption' and '99% reduction of soil usage' for environmental impact). The response variables were favour towards CM, willingness to try, willingness to purchase, and willingness to substitute traditional meat with CM. Data from 603 participants (61% females, 15–80 years old) randomly assigned to four blocks, each corresponding to one type of information, were analysed. Participants were uniform among blocks in terms of socio-demographic data, frequency of consumption of traditional meat, previous knowledge of CM, food neophobia, and disgust sensitivity. The type of information given to respondents improved favour and willingness to substitute compared to the control, without differences across blocks. The effects of the additional claims were comparable. Environmental claims unified respondents, while human safety and animal welfare claims were divisive for sex and age groups. Favour, willingness to try, willingness to purchase, and willingness to substitute were positively correlated (r 0.38–0.72) but the weak correlation between willingness to try and willingness to substitute indicates that being curious may not imply the modification of actual behaviour (traditional meat substitution). Response variables seemed not to be interchangeable. Females showed higher willingness to substitute CM to conventional meat if informed with claims related to human safety. Youngsters (under '30 years old), who are plausibly the real future target, showed higher favour towards CM if provided with information related to animal welfare and human safety. Production companies should carefully choose what additional information to provide, depending on the consumer target. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Concerns about animal welfare and sustainable meat production are growing among consumers. The awareness of carbon emissions linked to livestock and ethical concerns have triggered interest in more sustainable meat alternatives, among which cultured meat (also known as laboratory grown meat) is a recent entry. Like any new food, the ultimate success of cultured meat depends on consumer acceptance. This study analyses the peer-reviewed literature on consumer attitudes towards cultured meat to synthesize the existing evidence and identify priorities for future research. A systematic literature review was undertaken using the Web of Science, Science Direct and Scopus databases over 2008-2020, resulting in a final number of 43 articles meeting our selection criteria. The most important factors influencing consumer acceptance/rejection of cultured meat include public awareness, perceived naturalness, and food-related risk perception. Ethical and environmental concerns prompted consumers to be willing to pay a premium price for purchasing meat substitutes, but not necessarily cultured meat. Also, food neophobia and uncertainties about safety and health seem to be important barriers to uptake of this technology. Availability of other alternatives such as plant-based meat substitutes and product features, such as price and sensory appeal, are considered determinants of consumer reception of this technology. The effect of demographic factors is mixed. More research on the interrelationships between livestock production, food security, and alternative meat products is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Alternative protein sources such as cell-based meat are potentially associated with improvements in important issues related to intensive industrial livestock production: animal welfare, environmental impact, food safety and the low efficiency of conventional meat production. However, little is known about the potential implications of the new cultivated meat technology for emerging countries. Thus, drawing on the Global Value Chain literature and on the blossoming literature on cell-based meat, we have first discussed how this new chain may be structured. Then, based on the analysis of a set of companies that operate in the fast-developing cultivated meat industry, core enabling capabilities that are required in order to enter the new meat value chain were identified; they encompass technological, business structuring, market positioning and relationship with stakeholder capabilities. It is likely that all listed capabilities are relevant for any country to access the livestock chain in transition. We propose reflections that may contribute to decisions which, in turn, may define aspects of the cultivated meat chain, for the sake of relieving animal suffering and taking care of our home planet, while providing all humans with quality food that meet their nutritional requirements and consumption desires. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cultured meat is a novel technology that uses tissue engineering to expand cells taken from animals to grow muscle for consumption as food. Those supporting the technology anticipate it could radically disrupt livestock farming with, they propose, significant benefits for the environment, human health, and animal wellbeing. This paper examines the emergence of this sector through the prism of one of the leading companies - Memphis Meats - in particular focusing upon their online recruitment activity in online videos. Founded in 2015, by 2020 they had announced investment of over $160 m to build a pilot-plant and recruit staff to bring cultured meat closer to commercialization. This paper argues the company's recruitment videos work to enact what I term "producibility", a concept aligned to existing work on "edibility", that emphasizes the process of becoming that foodstuff (included novel foodstuffs) undergo. I deploy existing theoretical work on multiple categories of futures - big/little, individual/institutional/field - to analyze Memphis Meats' online recruitment activity. I argue that, by entangling science and food futures, the company's videos work to assert the status and politics of cultured meat, render it producible and edible, and articulate a novel and transformative food-professional identity: the cultured meat producer., Competing Interests: No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author., (© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.)

Cellular agriculture is the controlled and sustainable manufacture of agricultural products with cells and tissues without plant or animal involvement. Today, microorganisms cultivated in bioreactors already produce egg and milk proteins, sweeteners, and flavors for human nutrition as well as leather and fibers for shoes, bags, and textiles. Furthermore, plant cell and tissue cultures provide ingredients that stimulate the immune system and improve skin texture, with another precommercial cellular agriculture product, in vitro meat, currently receiving a great deal of attention. All these approaches could assist traditional agriculture in continuing to provide for the dietary requirements of a growing world population while freeing up important resources such as arable land. Despite early successes, challenges remain and are discussed in this review, with a focus on production processes involving plant and animal cell and tissue cultures.

This review details the core activity in cellular agriculture conducted in the UK at the end of 2019, based upon a literature review by, and community contacts of the authors. Cellular agriculture is an emergent field in which agricultural products-most typically animal-derived agricultural products-are produced through processes operating at the cellular level, as opposed to (typically farm-based) processes operating at the whole organism level. Figurehead example technologies include meat, leather and milk products manufactured from a cellular level. Cellular agriculture can be divided into two forms: 'tissue-engineering based cellular agriculture' and 'fermentation-based cellular agriculture'. Products under development in this category are typically valued for their environmental, ethical, and sometimes health and safety advantages over the animal-derived versions. There are university laboratories actively pursuing research on meat products through cellular agriculture at the universities of Bath, Newcastle, Aberystwyth, and Aston University in Birmingham. A cellular agriculture approach to producing leather is being pursued at the University of Manchester, and work seeking to produce a palm oil substitute is being conducted at the University of Bath. The UK cellular agriculture companies working in the meat space are Higher Steaks, Cellular Agriculture Ltd, CellulaRevolution, Multus Media and Biomimetic Solutions. UK private investors include CPT Capital, Agronomics Ltd, Atomico, Backed VCs, and Breakoff Capital. The UK also has a strong portfolio of social science research into diverse aspects of cellular agriculture, with at least ten separate projects being pursued over the previous decade. Three analyses of the environmental impact of potential cellular agriculture systems have been conducted in the UK. The first dedicated third-sector group in this sector in the UK is Cultivate (who produced this report) followed by Cellular Agriculture UK. International groups New Harvest and the Good Food Institute also have a UK presence., Competing Interests: Competing interests: NS is a founding member of Cultivate, a third sector multi-voiced forum for discussing cellular agriculture from UK perspectives, and this publication forms part of the work of Cultivate. ME is a founding member of Cultivate, a third sector multi-voiced forum for discussing cellular agriculture from UK perspectives, and this publication forms part of the work of Cultivate. ME is also of co-founder of Cellular Agriculture Ltd, a start-up company active in cellular agriculture., (Copyright: © 2020 Stephens N and Ellis M.)

Cultured meat aspires to be biologically equivalent to traditional meat. If cultured meat is to be consumed, sensorial (texture, color, flavor) and nutritional characteristics are of utmost importance. This paper compares cultured meat to traditional meat from a tissue engineering and meat technological point of view, focusing on several molecular, technological and sensorial attributes. We outline the challenges and future steps to be taken for cultured meat to mimic traditional meat as closely as possible., (Copyright © 2020 Fraeye, Kratka, Vandenburgh and Thorrez.)

Due to the considerable environmental impact and the controversial animal welfare associated with industrial meat production, combined with the ever-increasing global population and demand for meat products, sustainable production alternatives are indispensable. In 2013, the world's first laboratory grown hamburger made from cultured muscle cells was developed. However, coming at a price of $300.000, and being produced manually, substantial effort is still required to reach sustainable large-scale production. One of the main challenges is scalability. Microcarriers (MCs), offering a large surface/volume ratio, are the most promising candidates for upscaling muscle cell culture. However, although many MCs have been developed for cell lines and stem cells typically used in the medical field, none have been specifically developed for muscle stem cells and meat production. This paper aims to discuss the MCs' design criteria for skeletal muscle cell proliferation and subsequently for meat production based on three scenarios: (1) MCs are serving only as a temporary substrate for cell attachment and proliferation and therefore they need to be separated from the cells at some stage of the bioprocess, (2) MCs serve as a temporary substrate for cell proliferation but are degraded or dissolved during the bioprocess, and (3) MCs are embedded in the final product and therefore need to be edible. The particularities of each of these three bioprocesses will be discussed from the perspective of MCs as well as the feasibility of a one-step bioprocess. Each scenario presents advantages and drawbacks, which are discussed in detail, nevertheless the third scenario appears to be the most promising one for a production process. Indeed, using an edible material can limit or completely eliminate dissociation/degradation/separation steps and even promote organoleptic qualities when embedded in the final product. Edible microcarriers could also be used as a temporary substrate similarly to scenarios 1 and 2, which would limit the risk of non-edible residues., (Copyright © 2020 Bodiou, Moutsatsou and Post.)

Cultured/clean/cell-based meat (CM) now has a near two decade history of laboratory research, commencing with the early NASA-funded work at Touro College and the bioarts practice of the Tissue Culture and Art project. Across this period the field, or as it is now more commonly termed, the "space," has developed significantly while promoting different visions for what CM is and can do, and the best mechanisms for delivery. Here we both analyse and critically engage with this near-twenty year period as a productive provocation to those engaged with CM, or considering becoming so. This paper is not a history of the field, and does not offer a comprehensive timeline. Instead it identifies significant activities, transitions, and moments in which key meanings and practices have taken form or exerted influence. We do this through analyzing two related themes: the CM "institutional context" and the CM "interpretative package." The former, the institutional context, refers to events and infrastructures that have come into being to support and shape the CM field, including university activities, conferences, third sector groups, various potential funding mechanisms, and the establishment of a start-up sector. The latter, the interpretative package, refers to the constellation of factors that shape or assert how CM should be understood, including the various names used to describe it, accounts of what it will achieve, and most recently, the emergent regulatory discussions that frame its legal standing. Across the paper we argue it is productive to think of the CM community in terms of a first and second wave. The first wave was more university-based and broadly covers the period from the millennium until around the 2013 cultured burger event. The second wave saw the increasing prevalence of a start-up culture and the circuits of venture capital interest that support it. Through this analysis we seek to provoke further reflection upon how the CM community has come to be as it is, and how this could develop in the future., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Cultured meat can be produced from growing animal cells in-vitro rather than as part of a living animal. This technology has the potential to address several of the major ethical, environmental, and public health concerns associated with conventional meat production. However, research has highlighted some consumer uncertainty regarding the concept. Although several studies have examined the media coverage of this new food technology, research linking different frames to differences in consumer attitudes is lacking. In an experimental study, we expose U.S. adults ( n = 480) to one of three different frames on cultured meat: "societal benefits," "high tech," and "same meat." We demonstrate that those who encounter cultured meat through the "high tech" frame have significantly more negative attitudes toward the concept, and are significantly less likely to consume it. Worryingly, this has been a very dominant frame in early media coverage of cultured meat. Whilst this is arguably inevitable, since its technologically advanced nature is what makes it newsworthy, we argue that this high tech framing may be causing consumers to develop more negative attitudes toward cultured meat than they otherwise might. Implications for producers and researchers are discussed.