Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Wei Fu
 -- 1217 2023-08-17 21:54:23 |
2 format correct
Catherine Yang
 Meta information modification 1217 2023-08-18 02:53:14 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Fu, W.; Zhang, H.; Whaley, J.E.; Kim, Y. Cultivated Meat and Conventional Meat. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/48193 (accessed on 19 May 2024).
Fu W, Zhang H, Whaley JE, Kim Y. Cultivated Meat and Conventional Meat. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/48193. Accessed May 19, 2024.
Fu, Wei, Hongping Zhang, Jeremy E. Whaley, Youn-Kyung Kim. "Cultivated Meat and Conventional Meat" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/48193 (accessed May 19, 2024).
Fu, W., Zhang, H., Whaley, J.E., & Kim, Y. (2023, August 17). Cultivated Meat and Conventional Meat. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/48193
Fu, Wei, et al. "Cultivated Meat and Conventional Meat." Encyclopedia. Web. 17 August, 2023.
Cultivated Meat and Conventional Meat
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su151511722

Conventional meat production has become a force of environmental damage, but global meat consumption is predicted to continue increasing. Therefore, the technology of cultivated meat is undergoing rapid development. Physical health, animal welfare, and food quality significantly encouraged consumer acceptance of cultivated meat as a sustainable substitute for conventional meat. Food technology neophobia significantly inhibits the acceptance of cultivated meat, whereas unnaturalness did not show an impact on cultivated meat acceptance.

cultivated meat consumer acceptance sustainability

1. Introduction

Meat has been a historical staple in many diets worldwide as a good source of protein, vitamins, and minerals for humans. Beef consumption per person is approximately sixty pounds each year [1], and global meat consumption has “more than quadrupled since 1961” [2]. However, the human appetite for animal meats has become a major driving force of environmental damages such as freshwater scarcity, air and water pollution, biodiversity loss, and the spread of disease, threatening the future of humanity [3]. These damages inflicted to the environment and humans have called for attention to sustainable development. Considering a constant increase in global population, developing a sustainable substitute for conventional meat seems to be a feasible solution to meet this growing demand for meat products. As an innovative solution for substituting conventional meat, cultivated meat was created by growing muscle tissue from animal stem cells in a laboratory rather than by harvesting it from livestock [4]. While plant-based protein products have entered the meat market, they account for only 1.4% of total meat sales in the United States [5]. Furthermore, 98% of U.S. consumers who buy plant-based meat also purchase conventional meat [5]. Therefore, this study focuses on carnivore diet consumers and their willingness to switch from conventional meat to cultivated meat.
Cultivated meat has been acknowledged to provide benefits related to food quality, health, and animal welfare. Cultivated meat production can virtually eliminate contamination with disease-causing viruses; reduce the risks of emerging infectious diseases associated with the storage, production, and consumption of livestock; and lower the risk of food-borne illnesses transmitted from live animals [4][6]. Additionally, its nutritional content can be augmented to produce a more nutrient-dense meat product with lower amounts of saturated fat/cholesterol and higher amounts of vitamins and minerals [4][7]. Researchers argue that cultivated meat contains attributes (e.g., taste, nutrition, appearance, and tenderness) similar to those of conventional meat [8]. Also, because cultivated meat production uses a technology with which muscle cells are taken from an animal and cultured to grow more muscle, it can protect animals from being slaughtered and provide a painless process for the animals [9]. Perceiving these benefits can facilitate the acceptance of cultivated meat as a sustainable substitute for conventional meat [8].
However, food neophobia may be a major challenge for consumers to perceive cultivated meat as a sustainable substitute for conventional meat because they may have limited knowledge of cultivated meat technology and limited opportunities to taste cultivated meat. They may doubt this new food technology and fear trying an unfamiliar food, wondering whether the cultivated meat production process would generate long-term negative health effects following, for example, the consumption of faulty cell lines [10]. In addition, cultivated meat may be perceived as unnatural because it involves growing muscle tissues in the lab process. This perception of unnaturalness can evoke a sense of disgust or uneasy feelings, inhibiting the acceptance of cultivated meat [11][12].

2. Cultivated Meat

Cultivated meat, also labeled as clean meat, cultured meat, in vitro meat, and lab-grown meat [13], is a new food technology and brings an opportunity to change meat consumption modes and production patterns toward a more sustainable future. Scientists create cultivated meat by taking a sample of muscle cells from a living animal and adjusting the fat composites used in the production to control its nutrients (i.e., vitamins, minerals, and amino acids). These muscle cells enter a nutrient bath in a large stainless-steel vessel called a bioreactor and are converted into finished products such as chicken, beef, or steak [7][14].
Cultivated meat research started in 2002 when a U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) project successfully grew fish filets from goldfish skeletal muscle cells [9]. In December 2020, regulators in Singapore approved cultivated chicken nuggets for sale in restaurants [15]. By November 2022, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) completed its first pre-market consultation with UPSIDE Foods, a cultivated meat plant in Berkeley, CA, and confirmed its food production to be safe [16]. It is predicted that cultivated meat will soon be available on restaurant menus and grocery store shelves in the United States [17]. According to McKinsey & Company, the market of cultivated meat may reach $25 billion in annual sales by 2030, especially if cultivated meat can be distributed globally [18].
The literature illuminates that cultivated meat can serve as a sustainable substitute for conventional meat for multiple reasons. Compared to conventional meat production, which leaves a large water footprint, leading to the pollution and degradation of the environment, cultivated meat production reduces green gas emissions, land use, water use, and nutrient pollution [19][20]. Furthermore, cultivated meat production can be ethically beneficial for animal welfare and has the potential to be more sustainable than conventional meat production. Despite the growing potential of cultivated meat and the rising consumer interest in sustainable consumption, limited research has been conducted to examine whether and why consumers accept or reject consuming cultivated meat as a sustainable substitute for conventional meat. This study will address both the benefits and challenges of cultivated meat within the framework of the dual-factor theory.

3. Dual-Factor Theory

The dual-factor theory was first established by Frederick Herzberg [21] to understand drivers of job satisfaction (motivation factors) and dissatisfaction (hygiene factors) among employees. Motivation factors make employees feel good about their jobs, encouraging them to work harder, while hygiene factors such as basic needs, if not satisfied, can cause employees to feel poorly about their job and leave [21]. According to Cenfetelli [22], facilitators such as a high-quality (reliable and responsive) system and current information perception encourage individuals’ technology adoption, while inhibitors such as a lack of perception or a poor perception of current information and poor service quality discourage their technology adoption.
Dual-factor theory has been applied for examining consumers’ intention to adopt or reject new concepts, processes, or behaviors [23][24][25]. Kushwah et al. [26] reviewed 89 empirical studies and summarized five motives (functional value, social value, emotional value, conditional value, and epistemic value) and two barriers (functional and psychological barriers) of organic food purchase decisions. Among the five motives, functional value was the most critical motivator, followed by social value and conditional value. In terms of the two barriers, functional barriers arose when consumers experienced significant changes due to using a new product or innovation, while a psychological barrier happened when consumers experienced conflicts with their existing values. Tandon et al. [25] examined factors that facilitated or inhibited Japanese consumers’ buying behavior toward organic food. They identified natural factors, nutrition, and ecological welfare as facilitators, while they identified usage, risk, and value barriers as inhibitors. Kumar et al. [24] found that nature content (i.e., certifications, labels, packings, and brand names indicating product naturalness) and regional products were facilitators that encouraged brand love for natural products among food, cosmetics, and other fast-moving consumer goods, while usage barriers (i.e., using products inconsistent with the consumers’ existing values, experiences, needs, and expectations) and image barriers (i.e., consumers’ unfavorable impression towards a brand, product, or innovation) were inhibitors that impeded brand love for these natural products.

References

  1. U.S. Department of Agriculture-Economic Research Service (USDA-ERS). Available online: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/livestock-meat-domestic-data/livestock-meat-domestic-data/ (accessed on 11 June 2022).
  2. Meat Consumption. Redefine Meat. Available online: https://www.redefinemeat.com/blog/meat-consumption/ (accessed on 14 June 2022).
  3. Siegrist, M.; Hartmann, C. Perceived naturalness, disgust, trust and food neophobia as predictors of cultured meat acceptance in ten countries. Appetite 2020, 155, 104814.
  4. Food & Nutrition. Lab-Grown Meat: Exploring Potential Benefits and Challenges of Cellular Agriculture. Available online: https://foodandnutrition.org/march-april-2017/lab-grown-meat-exploring-potential-benefits-challenges-cellular-agriculture/ (accessed on 21 June 2023).
  5. Good Food Institute. U.S. Retail Market Data for the Plant-Based Industry. Available online: https://gfi.org/marketresearch/#category-sales (accessed on 21 June 2023).
  6. Chriki, S.; Hocquette, J.F. The myth of cultured meat: A review. Front. Nutr. 2020, 7, 7.
  7. Bhat, Z.F.; Kumar, S.; Fayaz, H. In vitro meat production: Challenges and benefits over conventional meat production. J. Integr. Agric. 2015, 14, 241–248.
  8. Szejda, K.; Bryant, C.J.; Urbanovich, T. US and UK consumer adoption of cultivated meat: A segmentation study. Foods 2021, 10, 1050.
  9. Cassiday, L. Clean meat. Inform 2018, 29, 6–14.
  10. Hwang, J.; You, J.; Moon, J.; Jeong, J. Factors affecting consumers’ alternative meats buying intentions: Plant-based meat alternative and cultured meat. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5662.
  11. Siegrist, M.; Sütterlin, B.; Hartmann, C. Perceived naturalness and evoked disgust influence acceptance of cultured meat. Meat Sci. 2018, 139, 213–219.
  12. Siegrist, M.; Sütterlin, B. Importance of perceived naturalness for acceptance of food additives and cultured meat. Appetite 2017, 113, 320–326.
  13. Huffpost; Friedrich, B. Clean Meat: The “Clean Energy” of Food. Available online: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/clean-meat-the-clean-energy-of-food_b_57cee00ee4b0f831f705a879 (accessed on 19 July 2023).
  14. Da Silva, C.P.; Semprebon, E. How about cultivated meat? The effect of sustainability appeal, environmental awareness and consumption context on consumers’ intention to purchase. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2021, 27, 142–156.
  15. Waltz, E. Club-goers take first bites of lab-made chicken. Nat Biotechnol 2021, 39, 257–258.
  16. FDA. Human Food Made with Cultured Animal Cells. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/food/food-ingredients-packaging/human-food-made-cultured-animal-cells (accessed on 21 June 2023).
  17. McKinsey & Company; Brennan, T.; Katz, J.; Quint, Y.; Spencer, B. Cultivated Meat: Out of the Lab, into the Frying Pan. Available online: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/agriculture/our-insights/cultivated-meat-out-of-the-lab-into-the-frying-pan (accessed on 16 June 2021).
  18. The New York Times. Toeniskoetter, C. Lab-Grown Meat Receives Clearance from F.D.A. Available online: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/17/climate/fda-lab-grown-cultivated-meat.html (accessed on 17 November 2022).
  19. Mattick, C.S.; Landis, A.E.; Allenby, B.R.; Genovese, N.J. Anticipatory life cycle analysis of in vitro biomass cultivation for cultured meat production in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 11941–11949.
  20. Tuomisto, H.L.; Teixeira De Mattos, M.J. Environmental impacts of cultured meat production. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 6117–6123.
  21. Herzberg, F.W. Motivation trough job enrichment. In Motivation and Productivity; Gillerman, S.S., Ed.; BNA Inc.: Bethesda, MA, USA, 1967.
  22. Cenfetelli, R.T. Inhibitors and enablers as dual factor concepts in technology usage. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2004, 5, 16.
  23. Hsieh, P.J. An empirical investigation of patients’ acceptance and resistance toward the health cloud: The dual factor perspective. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 63, 959–969.
  24. Kumar, S.; Dhir, A.; Talwar, S.; Chakraborty, D.; Kaur, P. What drives brand love for natural products? The moderating role of household size. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 58, 102329.
  25. Tandon, A.; Jabeen, F.; Talwar, S.; Sakashita, M.; Dhir, A. Facilitators and inhibitors of organic food buying behavior. Food Qual. Prefer. 2021, 88, 104077–104091.
  26. Kushwah, S.; Dhir, A.; Sagar, M.; Gupta, B. Determinants of organic food consumption. A systematic literature review on motives and barriers. Appetite 2019, 143, 104402.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Behavioral Sciences
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Wei Fu
,
Hongping Zhang
,
Jeremy E. Whaley
,
Youn-Kyung Kim
View Times: 242
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 18 Aug 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Feedback