Young, Ian (author), Waddell, Lisa (author), Harding, Shannon (author), Greig, Judy (author), Mascarenhas, Mariola (author), Sivaramalingam, Bhairavi (author), Pham, Mai (author), and Papadopoulos, Andrew (author)
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2015
Published:
International
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 153 Document Number: D06782
Croney, C.C. (author), Apley, M. (author), Capper, J.L. (author), Mench, J.A. (author), Priest, S. (author), and Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan 66506
Department of Animal Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman 99164
Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis 95616
Department of Communication, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2015-01-20
Published:
USA: American Society of Animal Science
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 164 Document Number: D08306
Consumer acceptance of cultured meat is expected to depend on a wide diversity of determinants ranging from technology-related perceptions to product-specific expectations, and including wider contextual factors like media coverage, public involvement, and trust in science, policy and society. This paper discusses the case of cultured meat against this multitude of possible determinants shaping future consumer acceptance or rejection. The paper also presents insights from a primary exploratory study performed in April 2013 with consumers from Flanders (Belgium) (n=180). The concept of cultured meat was only known (unaided) by 13% of the study participants. After receiving basic information about what cultured meat is, participants expressed favorable expectations about the concept. Only 9% rejected the idea of trying cultured meat, while two thirds hesitated and about quarter indicated to be willing to try it. The provision of additional information about the environmental benefits of cultured meat compared to traditional meat resulted in 43% of the participants indicating to be willing to try this novel food, while another 51% indicated to be ‘maybe’ willing to do so. Price and sensory expectations emerged as major obstacles. Consumers eating mostly vegetarian meals were less convinced that cultured meat might be healthy, suggesting that vegetarians may not be the ideal primary target group for this novel meat substitute. Although exploratory rather than conclusive, the findings generally underscore doubts among consumers about trying this product when it would become available, and therefore also the challenge for cultured meat to mimic traditional meat in terms of sensory quality at an affordable price in order to become acceptable for future consumers.
This paper examines the media coverage of the 2013 London cultured meat tasting event, particularly in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. Using major news outlets, prominent magazines covering food and science issues, and advocacy websites concerning meat consumption, the paper characterizes the overall emphases of the coverage, the tenor of the coverage, and compares the media portrayal of the important issues to the demographic and psychological realities of the actual consumer market into which cultured meat will compete. In particular, the paper argues that Western media gives a distorted picture of what obstacles are in the path of cultured meat acceptance, especially by overemphasizing and overrepresenting the importance of the reception of cultured meat among vegetarians. Promoters of cultured meat should recognize the skewed impression that this media coverage provides and pay attention to the demographic data that suggests strict vegetarians are a demographically negligible group. Resources for promoting cultured meat should focus on the empirical demographics of the consumer market and the empirical psychology of mainstream consumers.
A version of this article appears in print on September 6, 2015, Section A, Page 1 of the New York Edition of the New York Times with the headline, "Emails reveal academic ties in a food war.", Examines lobbying activities of firms and interest groups in the debate over bioengineered foods - and involving third-party scientists "and their supposedly unbiased research." Includes examples of interactions and financial support for university scientists by commercial firms.
Shan, Liran Christine (author), Panagiotopoulos, Panagiotis (author), Regan, Aine (author), De Brun, Aoife (author), Barnett, Julie (author), Wall, Patrick (author), and McConnon, Aine (author)
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2015
Published:
International
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 151 Document Number: D11599
5 pages., Online via UI e-subscription, Researchers examined the use and impact of social media on two-way communication between consumers and public organizations in the food safety and nutrition area. Findings indicated that social media penetrated and brought new opportunities to interactions between food organizations and the public.
