Stuck in the middle with you: The role of similarity information on categorizing cultured meat

How Different Dimensions Shape the Definition of Meat Alternative Products: A Scoping Review of Evidence between 2000 and 2021

Consumer awareness of meat-associated health and environmental risks is increasing and motivates a shift toward consuming meat alternatives. This is also reflected in efforts invested in studying meat alternatives from the perspective of nutritional, environmental, and consumer sciences. Despite shared research interest, these studies cannot be readily compared and interpreted because there is no clear consensus on what meat alternatives are. Scholarly debates on acceptance, nutritional value, and environmental advantages of meat alternatives would benefit from a clear definition of meat alternatives. With the goal of defining meat alternatives, relevant scientific literature in the past 10 years was systematically searched and screened guided by the scoping review Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension. The initial search resulted in >100,000 hits, which was reduced to 2465 papers. Next, titles and abstracts were scrutinized using Rayyan.ai, resulting in 193 articles considered for the present review. Article screening and data extraction was performed using ATLAS.ti software. Three major themes were identified to define meat alternative products including: 1) producing and sourcing of ingredients; 2) product characteristics (that is, sensory characteristics, nutritional value, and health profile, social and environmental sustainability profile); and 3) consumer characteristics concerning the marketing and consumption context. Meat alternatives are multifaceted, that is, certain products can be considered as meat alternatives in some context, but not in another context. For any product, it is impossible to unequivocally state that it is a meat alternative. There is a lack of consensus from the diverse literature on what constitutes meat alternatives. However, products may be qualified as meat alternatives according to three key criteria as proposed in a taxonomy: 1) production and sourcing, 2) product characteristics, and/or 3) consumption. We recommend researchers (and other stakeholders) to do so as it allows for better informed future discussions of meat alternatives.

Will cultured meat be served on Chinese tables? A study of consumer attitudes and intentions about cultured meat in China

This research investigates the attitudes and intentions of Chinese consumers about cultured "meat" (CM). We also investigate framing effects through the names used for these products ("cultured meat," "artificial meat," and "cell-based meat") and the effect of information provision. Of the 1532 consumers in our sample, most had not heard of "cultured meat" or "cell-based meat" before, although 70% had heard of "artificial meat". Around 44% of the participants indicated that they would be willing to try CM, and 32% would be likely to purchase it. Participants disliked the terms "cultured meat" and "cell-based meat" less than they disliked the term "artificial meat," although the latter was the most familiar to them. The provision of neutral information on the production process increased consumer support for CM, but the effect was limited. Prior knowledge and naming terms were strong predictors of attitudes and willingness to buy. A key implication is that stakeholders should cautiously apply framing strategies when introducing CM to the public.

Same strategies - different categories: An explorative card-sort study of plant-based proteins comparing omnivores, flexitarians, vegetarians and vegans

Replacing animal-derived proteins with plant-based proteins has environmental and health benefits. Despite increasing consumer acceptance of plant-based proteins, most individuals do not frequently consume them. Understanding how different consumer groups perceive and categorise plant-based proteins in comparison to animal-derived proteins can support the protein transition, as it might provide insights into both consumer acceptance and how to position plant-based proteins. Based on categorisation theory, we investigated how different consumers - omnivores, flexitarians, vegetarians and vegans - categorise various sources of proteins and to what extent they use taxonomic, goal-derived or cross-categorisation approaches. 121 Dutch participants free-sorted 80 product cards (30 plant-based proteins, 20 animal-derived proteins, 5 hybrids (animal-plant) and 25 non-protein products). Forty participants elaborated on their categorisations in follow-up interviews. Our findings show that similar strategies can result in different categories depending on consumer group. Taxonomic categorisation strategies are dominantly applied by all consumer groups, but specific categories differ. With decreasing animal protein consumption, omnivores, flexitarians, vegetarians and vegans become increasingly strict in their categorisations. Omnivores do not separate proteins as strictly as flexitarians, vegetarians and vegans. All groups separate animal-derived meat from plant-based meat alternatives, but hybrid meat is ambiguous for omnivores and flexitarians. Variations in categorisations of plant-based proteins between groups give directions to marketers on how to tailor positioning of these products in a way that consumers identify and adopt plant-based proteins, to guide and accelerate the protein transition.

Effect of informative claims on the attitude of Italian consumers towards cultured meat and relationship among variables used in an explicit approach

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.