Elsevier

Meat Science

Volume 139, May 2018, Pages 213-219
Meat Science

Perceived naturalness and evoked disgust influence acceptance of cultured meat

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.02.007Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Low level of cultured meat, because it is perceived as unnatural.

  • Informing about cultured meat results in increasing the acceptance of traditional meat.

  • How cultured meat is described influences it's acceptance.

Abstract

Cultured meat could be a more environment- and animal-friendly alternative to conventional meat. However, in addition to the technological challenges, the lack of consumer acceptance could be a major barrier to the introduction of cultured meat. Therefore, it seems wise to take into account consumer concerns at an early stage of product development. In this regard, we conducted two experiments that examined the impact of perceived naturalness and disgust on consumer acceptance of cultured meat. The results of Experiment 1 suggest the participants' low level of acceptance of cultured meat because it is perceived as unnatural. Moreover, informing participants about the production of cultured meat and its benefits has the paradoxical effect of increasing the acceptance of traditional meat. Experiment 2 shows that how cultured meat is described influences the participants' perception. Thus, it is important to explain cultured meat in a nontechnical way that emphasizes the final product, not the production method, to increase acceptance of this novel food.

Introduction

Current meat production imposes burdens on both animals (Grandin, 2014) and the environment (Westhoek et al., 2014). Research suggests that greenhouse gas emissions caused by meat eaters are approximately twice those caused by vegans (Scarborough et al., 2014). Reducing the consumption of animal protein would substantially decrease the environmental impact of people's food consumption (Westhoek et al., 2014). There are also moral reasons for reducing the consumption of animal proteins (Pluhar, 2010). Many consumers, even if they eat meat, experience a moral dilemma. On one hand, they enjoy eating meat; on the other hand, they have concerns about killing animals. Experimental studies suggest that people resolve the conflict by perceiving animals as unworthy and unfeeling (Loughnan, Haslam, & Bastian, 2010).

Most consumers are unaware of the environmental impact associated with meat production and consumption (Hartmann & Siegrist, 2017), and only a minority of consumers seems willing to substantially reduce their meat consumption by substituting animal proteins with plant-based ones (Hartmann & Siegrist, 2017). Another possibility to minimize the negative effect would be to opt for animal meat that is produced with a lower environmental impact. Therefore, insects have been proposed as alternative sources of animal protein (Van Huis et al., 2013). Consumers in many countries seem reluctant to substitute part of their animal proteins with nutrients from insects, however (Hartmann, Shi, Giusto, & Siegrist, 2015; Verbeke, 2015).

Novel approaches may therefore be necessary to reduce the negative externalities of animal protein production and consumption. Instead of replacing beef with insects or plant proteins, the production of meat could be transferred from the farm to the laboratory, where only muscle cells are grown instead of entire animals. Research has focused on cultured beef from muscle stem cells (Post, 2012, Post, 2014). The proof of the concept that meat can be produced in the laboratory has been delivered. Nonetheless, further research is required to make the production more efficient and sustainable (Post, 2014). Furthermore, cultured meat needs to be produced as thick cuts of meat, which is technically feasible (Post, 2014), but more studies on this aspect are necessary. There is still a long way to go from the proof of the concept in a laboratory to industrial-scale production (Bhat, Kumar, & Bhat, 2017).

Technological feasibility is one challenge to those whose goals are to successfully produce and to market cultured meat. Another issue will be consumer acceptance. Ethicists have concluded that in vitro meat may be morally justified from various ethical perspectives (Hopkins & Dacey, 2008; Pluhar, 2010). However, even if morality is an issue for consumers, it is not the driving force for most consumers' food decisions. Therefore, consumer acceptance cannot be taken for granted; other aspects, such as taste, price, and perceived naturalness, may be important factors influencing consumer acceptance of cultured meat. Improving the taste and reducing the cost of cultured meat are goals of current research (Post, 2012, Post, 2014). Given the significance that naturalness has for consumers and considering that gene technology is perceived as unnatural and, therefore, unacceptable (Rozin, 2005, Rozin, 2006), the acceptance of cultured meat may be difficult to achieve.

Cultured meat is often positively described in the media, for example, as a possible solution to the problems associated with conventional livestock production (Goodwin & Shoulders, 2013). On the other hand, studies that examined consumer acceptance and perception of cultured meat found less positive opinions on this novel food technology. When the participants were provided with basic information about cultured meat, only 25% were willing to try it. Even if the participants received additional information about the environmental benefits of cultured meat compared with traditional meat, only 43% indicated their willingness to try cultured meat, and fewer participants expressed their openness to buy such products (Verbeke, Sans, & Van Loo, 2015). Hocquette et al. (2015) reported a similar skeptical assessment regarding the acceptance of cultured meat. After providing information about the principles of cultured meat and its ability to solve the challenges facing the meat industry, participants were asked whether they thought that in vitro meat would be accepted by consumers. Only 9–19% of the participants responded affirmatively to the question.

New food technologies may face a lack of acceptance even if the risks are lower and the benefits are higher compared with existing technologies (Siegrist, Hartmann, & Sütterlin, 2016; Siegrist & Sutterlin, 2016). This observation is also in line with a recent study's findings that the risk associated with red meat consumption (i.e., colon cancer) is acceptable in the case of a familiar hazard such as red meat, but not in the case of cultured meat (Siegrist & Sütterlin, 2017).

One important factor influencing the acceptance of cultured meat could be the perceived lack of naturalness of such a product. A recent review found that perceptions of naturalness are crucial for the acceptance of foods and food technologies (Roman, Sanchez-Siles, & Siegrist, 2017). This review further suggests that the importance of naturalness for foods can be observed across countries. Perceived naturalness can be viewed as a heuristic attribute that consumers use as a positive indicator of food quality (Rozin, Fischler, Imada, Sarubin, & Wrzesniewski, 1999), and it influences the acceptance of foods and food technologies. Also, experimental results suggest that gene technology is viewed as less natural than traditional breeding technologies, and this seems to be an important reason why people perceive that there are fewer benefits associated with the former technology compared with the latter (Siegrist et al., 2016). The same benefit is valued more if the technology is perceived as more natural. Several studies examined the factors that influenced people's perception of naturalness (Evans, de Challemaison, & Cox, 2010; Rozin, 2005; Rozin et al., 1999; Rozin et al., 2004). An important finding was that judgments about naturalness were more strongly influenced by the process than by the content. If gene technology was used to produce food, it was perceived as less natural compared with a product of traditional breeding technology (Rozin, 2005). Participants regarded gene technology as having a much stronger impact on perceived naturalness compared with domestication. The results of qualitative studies suggest that cultured meat is perceived in a similar way as are other biotechnological applications and that the notion of tampering with nature is evoked (Marcu et al., 2015).

Another important predictor in the acceptance of new food sources is disgust. Disgust, at its core, is a food rejection emotion that has been defined as the underlying motivation of avoidance responses. There is evidence that disgust evolved to protect the organism from diseases and that it is considered as part of a behavioral immune system (Terrizzi, Shook, & McDaniel, 2013). However, even though disgust has important functional properties to prevent the organism from the incorporation of potentially noxious substances, it can also be a barrier to the acceptance of new food sources and technologies (Chapman & Anderson, 2012; Hartmann & Siegrist, 2018; Ruby, Rozin, & Chan, 2015). For example, disgust was identified as one of the strongest predictors of the willingness to consume insects (Ruby et al., 2015), the consumption of which has been suggested as another environment-friendly alternative to conventional animal protein consumption (van Huis, 2013). Moreover, focus group discussions conducted in Belgium, Portugal, and the UK revealed that, after being informed about cultured meat, consumers not only reacted with feelings about the perceived unnaturalness of such meat, but they also expressed disgust towards the novel meat product (Verbeke et al., 2015). Nevertheless, this cited study's participants also expressed concerns related to the possible negative societal consequences of cultured meat, such as loss of farming and eating traditions.

The present research aimed to examine the impact of perceived naturalness and disgust on the acceptance of cultured meat by using an experimental design and drawing on quantitative data. We hypothesized that cultured meat would be perceived as less natural and more disgusting compared with traditional meat, and that this might cause problems in the acceptance of cultured meat and the perception of the related benefits. Another aim was to investigate how the manner of describing meat production would shape consumers' perception and acceptance of the product.

Section snippets

Experiment 1

Perceived naturalness appears to be an important factor for the acceptance of foods and food technologies (Roman et al., 2017). In the case of gene technology, studies suggest that the lack of perceived naturalness is a crucial factor that indicates consumers are hesitant to accept this technology (Rozin, 2005; Siegrist et al., 2016). Based on these past findings, we expected that the process of growing meat in the laboratory would be more important for the evaluation of cultured meat than the

Experiment 2

The lack of perceived naturalness has been shown as an important factor for the rejection of cultured meat. Besides perceived naturalness, disgust also seems to be an essential factor for the acceptance of novel technologies, such as gene technology (Inbar, Scott, & Rozin, 2016; Scott, Inbar, & Rozin, 2016). Therefore, one aim of the second experiment was to measure both perceived naturalness and disgust associated with cultured and conventional meat. We hypothesized that cultured meat would be

Discussion

The production of meat has negative impacts on the environment and, in some instances, on animal well-being. If meat could be produced in the laboratory, consumers could still eat meat, but the negative externalities could be avoided (Post, 2012, Post, 2014). However, several studies showed that cultured meat evoked negative associations in many consumers (Marcu et al., 2015; Verbeke, Marcu, et al., 2015; Verbeke, Sans, & Van Loo, 2015). The lack of naturalness and also disgust were mentioned

References (38)

Cited by (186)

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text