This review explores the current research on consumer acceptance of cell-cultured meat.¹ If it reaches price-competitiveness with conventional animal protein, cell-cultured meat is likely to cause a massive decrease in demand for farmed animal products. Gaining a more accurate view of consumer acceptance of cell-cultured meat—as well as the factors that will influence said acceptance—will allow us to better understand how we should allocate resources to effectively reduce animal suffering.²

This report begins with an outline and justification of our methodology, followed by a description of results, a discussion section, and some tentative conclusions. Finally, some questions for further consideration are outlined.³

Read the full report

---

1. In this review, farmed animal products grown via a cell culture are referred to as cell-cultured. 

2. Another factor that would influence our allocation of resources is our understanding of the timelines for cost-competitiveness. For more on this topic, please see Animal Charity Evaluators (2017). 

3. We would like to thank Kieran Grieg and Hibba Mazhary for their contributions in writing and researching this report. We would also like to thank external critics Chris Bryant, Keri Szejda, and John Sanbonmatsu for the valuable feedback and perspectives they provided for this piece. 

Download PDF View Online

Table of Contents

• Methodology
  • Literature Search
  • Assessing Bias
• Results
  • Cross-Sectional Surveys
  • Experimental Studies
  • Systematic Reviews
  • Synthesis of Results
• Discussion
  • Limitations and Future Research
• Conclusion
• Questions for Further Consideration

Methodology

There was no formal review protocol or methodology pre-committed to for this review¹; however, an internal planning document was used to outline objectives and some methods of analysis. This systematic review was guided by the following two central questions:

1. What are the current levels of consumer acceptance of cell-cultured meat?
2. What factors will affect those levels?

Attitudinal measures (e.g., responses to items regarding the consumption of cell-cultured meat) were the principal measures used to assess these central questions in the studies we reviewed. Attitudinal measures were dominant because cell-cultured products are not yet available on the market, so consumer acceptance data is not available. We did not limit this review to a particular population: We included studies that sample populations across the globe. This review attempts to cover all of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). PRISMA is a 27-item checklist that outlines the steps to be taken to ensure honest reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. These steps include describing the rationale and objectives for the review, outlining the full electronic search strategy, and sharing the study selection process.

Literature Search

Before starting this report, we were aware of previous systematic reviews that focused on consumer acceptance of cell-cultured meat, the most notable being Bryant & Barnett (2018). While this recent review successfully summarizes the results of studies that have measured consumer acceptance of cell-cultured meat, its scope is limited because it does not include (i) more recent important studies such as Macdonald & Vivalt (2017), (ii) an analysis of the results of polls, or (iii) certain gray literature² publications that offer valuable insights into consumer acceptance.

To identify all of the studies pertaining to our research question, in June 2018 we conducted a literature search of Google Scholar, the Animal Charity Evaluators Research Library (ACE RL), and the Faunalytics Bibliography for Cultured Meat Research. This literature search involved the use of search terms such as “acceptance,” “attitudes,” and “consumers” with regards to cell-cultured meat (e.g., “cultured meat attitudes”). We read other previous systematic reviews by Bryant & Barnett (2018) and Hartmann & Siegrist (2017) to help ensure no relevant studies were missed by the literature search. To find gray literature, we searched Google for pdf files with relevant search terms. As there are multiple terms employed to describe cell-cultured meat, our search methodology took this into account by including multiple variations.³ Through various contacts, we obtained unpublished data and studies such as Anderson & Bryant (2018), the Good Food Institute (2016), and a forthcoming study by Castelo funded by ACE’s Animal Advocacy Research Fund. We made a judgment call at this stage to stop searching for specific search terms when new relevant studies were no longer appearing.⁴

Articles were prioritized as high, medium, or low priority. Studies published most recently and with relatively large sample sizes (above 100) were deemed high priority. Quantitative studies were prioritized over qualitative ones because they tended to have larger sample sizes and offer numeric results/outcomes that were easier to compile and therefore most useful in testing and validating theories. Peer-reviewed articles or studies conducted by reputable organizations were deemed high priority, while bachelor’s and master’s theses were considered lower priority. We read the high-priority articles in detail in order to summarize key findings, methodological quality, and risk of bias. We briefly read the medium-priority articles and only read the abstracts of low-priority articles. This was due to time constraints and a consequent reluctance to spend time reading studies that did not directly inform our central questions. (See the full literature search results here.)

This project faced some delays due to staff transitions, and upon resuming its completion in 2019, several new studies were added that had been published since the original literature search.

Assessing Bias

It is important to evaluate the risk of bias present in research, as biases can skew results and undermine internal and external validity. We did not pre-specify the criteria that would be used to assess the risk of bias in the studies included in this report; during the risk of bias assessment process, we were not blinded to the names of authors and institutions. However, after the completion of the literature search, we decided to use different risk of bias assessments for different methodologies. For the evaluation of cross-sectional surveys, we applied an assessment from Agrawal, Guyatt, & Busse (n.d.), which judged risk of bias using five measures:

1. Representativeness of the sample 

The study should be representative of the general population. There is a high risk of bias if a sample consists of only one demographic (e.g. students), or if convenience sampling is used. In this review, we look at studies from a variety of different geographical regions and assess the representativeness of samples based on how they compare to the wider population within their region.

2. Adequacy of response rate 

The survey response rate should be high enough that there are unlikely to be significant differences between the respondents and the non-respondents that would affect results.⁵

3. Missing data from completed questionnaires

There may be bias present if there are substantial amounts of missing data from survey respondents not answering particular questions.⁶

4. Conduct of pilot testing

Conducting pilot assessments can reduce the risk of bias by making sure that the survey is understood by recipients as intended and that it appears to be measuring what is intended.⁷

5. Established validity of the survey instrument 

The survey items should be measuring the theoretical concepts that the survey is based on in order to be valid.⁸

We decided to omit the “conduct of pilot testing” measure from our risk of bias assessment as none of the studies provided information on whether or not they conducted pilot testing. As such, all of the studies were at the same level of an “unclear risk of bias” on this metric. Note that while we do not provide a weighting for these bias categories, we do not think these measures are all equally important in their effect. Notably, “established validity of the survey instrument” is likely to be the most important and “missing data from completed questionnaires” is likely to be the least.

For the experimental studies, the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment was used, which measured six forms of bias:

1. Selection bias

Selection bias is a systematic difference in the characteristics of the groups being compared in the study. This can be mitigated with randomized sampling methods.⁹

2. Performance bias

Performance bias refers to unintentional systematic differences in how each experimental group is treated, i.e. differences beyond the interventions being tested.¹⁰

3. Detection bias

Detection bias refers to systematic differences in how the outcomes of each experimental group are determined. This can be mitigated by blinding the outcome assessors.¹¹

4. Attrition bias

Attrition bias refers to systematic differences between experimental groups due to individuals withdrawing from the study.¹²

5. Reporting bias

Reporting bias is the tendency of a study to be more likely to report statistically significant results rather than results that are not significant.¹³

6. Other bias

This includes any other observed sources of bias in the study, such as funding sources.

We decided to omit “performance bias” and “detection bias” because they seemed less relevant out of the context of a clinical trial; most of the studies were information interventions and thus all treatment groups were treated the same apart from receiving different information. Each measure was given a score of either high, unclear, or low risk of bias. We applied these response options to the Agrawal, Guyatt, & Busse (n.d.) measures as we found them to be more useful.  Agrawal, Guyatt, & Busse’s response options were: definitely yes (low risk of bias), probably yes (low risk of bias), probably no (high risk of bias), and definitely no (high risk of bias). The quality of the three systematic reviews included in this review was more informally assessed by using the PRISMA guidelines, a checklist of preferred reporting items for systematic reviews.

We did not pre-specify any assessments for publication bias. Selective reporting within studies (“reporting bias”) was measured within the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment tool that was used to evaluate each experimental study. However, this was difficult to comment on as most studies lacked pre-analysis plans.

We must also acknowledge our own biases. One of the authors of this report was involved in writing a blog post included in the review. Moreover, the internal primary critic responsible for reviewing this report conducted a study included in the review. Two studies were carried out by the Good Food Institute, which Animal Charity Evaluators (ACE) promotes and towards which it directs funding. One of the main sources used in the literature search for this review was a bibliography from Faunalytics, an organization that ACE similarly supports. Both Macdonald & Vivalt (2017) and Vivalt & Macdonald (2017) were funded by ACE’s Animal Advocacy Research Fund. Kristopher Gasteratos (author of one study included in the review) works at the Cellular Agriculture Society, a charity that ACE evaluated in 2018. Moreover, Jacy Reese, the author of the Sentience Institute survey, was previously employed by ACE.¹⁴

Results

A number of polls on consumer acceptance of cell-cultured meat have been completed. These informal polls include: The Guardian (2012), The Guardian (2013), The Guardian (2014), Jaeger (2016), McCrum (2016), Harris (2016), Reeve (2017), Jha (2017), Consumer Reports (2018), Charleston|Orwig (2018), and Surveygoo (2018). These polls may have methodological flaws (such as unrepresentative samples or the possibility of the same individual voting numerous times) that should be taken into account during interpretation. More formal polls and surveys on the subject have also been completed by market research firms, non-partisan think tanks, and social scientists. These polls and surveys from more reputable sources include: European Commision (2005), YouGov (2012), Flycatcher (2013), Smith (2014), Hocquette et al. (2015), Verbeke, Sans, & Van Loo (2015), Harris Interactive (2016), and Wilks & Phillips (2017). Only some of those more formal polls and surveys provide an explanation of what cell-cultured products are. The polls and surveys which do not provide this information may poorly estimate expected consumer acceptance levels of cell-cultured animal products. It seems likely that most future consumers will become somewhat informed about cell-cultured products via sources like popular media reports, advertisements, or the products’ packaging, and that this additional information will likely affect consumer acceptance. Since we are more interested in the polls and surveys that we think more accurately reflect the consumer attitudes that we should expect in the future, this review prioritizes research that both seemed to provide an adequate explanation of cell-cultured products and seemed relatively unlikely to have large methodological flaws. It is important to note, however, that different explanations of cell-cultured meat products may themselves prime and frame in various ways, to which we are attentive in the discussion section.

Figure 1: Stages of identification and exclusion of studies based on Moher et al.’s (2009) phases of a systematic review diagram

First, we will examine the cross-sectional surveys, followed by experiments and previous systematic reviews. Lastly, we will offer a synthesis of these results.

Cross-Sectional Surveys

We reviewed eight cross-sectional surveys. (See Table 1a.)

Table 1a: Some key features and findings of the cross-sectional surveys

Across all eight studies, there were a total of 12,987 participants in the cross-sectional surveys (with questionnaire responses with missing data excluded). The samples were drawn in different ways. Wilks & Phillips (2017) used MTurk to gather their samples, while Bryant et al. (2019) used CINT. Harris Interactive (2016) recruited participants from online market research platforms which customers opted into, as did both Sentience Institute (2017) through their use of survey company Ipsos and Wilks et al. (2019) through Social Sampling International. Flycatcher (2013) used their own polling database to recruit participants, while Hocquette et al. (2015) distributed their online survey through various mailing lists. The primary outcome measured in the studies varied. All of the cross-sectional surveys above used attitudinal measures. In addition, Hocquette et al. (2015) and Wilks & Phillips (2017) used self-reported purchasing behavior to gauge acceptance. Most studies provided response options to participants, and it is unclear how this may have influenced the results.

The following tables provide risk of bias assessments for each of the included studies.¹⁵

The risk of bias assessments in each of those domains for the individual studies we analyzed, along with brief justifications, are available here.

In some cases, it was difficult to determine the level of bias in certain studies due to the lack of information provided by the authors. Polls such as the YouGov poll and Harris Interactive poll were most limited in this respect because they offered little to no methodological information. However, for most of the studies, we were able to obtain sufficient information to adequately judge the risk of bias.

Key findings from cross-sectional surveys

Willingness to try cell-cultured meat

A willingness to try cell-cultured meat was observed in 19% of respondents in the YouGov (2012) survey compared to 52% in Flycatcher (2013) and 65% in the Wilks & Phillips (2017) survey. This may be attributed in part to the larger amount of contextual information that the latter two provided to respondents.¹⁶ Bryant et al. (2019) observed significant differences between respondents internationally, finding that 29.8% of U.S. participants were very/extremely likely to try “clean meat” compared with 59.3% in China and 48.7% in India. While most surveys focused on the causes of negative associations with cell-cultured meat, Flycatcher (2013) respondents cited animal suffering and solving the world food problem as the two main factors leading to support.

A major factor affecting acceptance levels was the presence of aesthetic concerns around the taste, texture, and appearance of cell-cultured meat. Limited taste and appeal featured as a primary concern in Wilks & Phillips (2017). Hocquette et al. (2015) and Flycatcher (2013) found that a substantial number of respondents in their samples did not believe that cell-cultured meat would be healthy or tasty. Finally, food neophobia was one of the strongest predictors of negative attitude towards cell-cultured meat found in Wilks et al. (2019).

Concerns over naturalness were slightly less clear. Naturalness was one of the main concerns expressed in Wilks & Phillips (2017), and in Harris Interactive (2016), when citing concerns that would prevent them from buying cell-cultured meat, over 50% of respondents worried about chemicals in cell-cultured meat, 49% were concerned with long-term side effects, and 48% were worried about the “unnaturalness” of cell-cultured meat. Flycatcher (2013) respondents cited “genetic manipulation” as a main reason for not wanting to try cell-cultured meat. However, Wilks et al. (2019) found that the presence of a general naturalness bias in participants did not influence attitudes toward cell-cultured meat.

Wilks & Phillips (2017), YouGov (2012), and Harris Interactive (2016) found that men were more likely than women to be willing to try cell-cultured meat, and Wilks & Phillips (2017) and Wilks et al. (2019) both found that political conservatism was a negative factor in willingness to try.

Other key findings

While willingness to try cell-cultured meat was quite high in some cases, willingness to choose cell-cultured meat over conventional meat was still very limited. In particular, willingness to accept cell-cultured meat over conventional meat was low in Hocquette et al. (2015): between 5%–11%. One-third of the Wilks & Phillip (2017) sample was willing to try cell-cultured meat regularly or as a replacement to conventional meat.

Some studies found a disparity between people’s personal willingness to consume cell-cultured meat and what they believed society as a whole should consume. In Sentience Institute (2017), 56.2% of respondents agreed that they would prefer to eat more cell-cultured meat and fewer animal foods while 63.4% agreed with the statement that “People should eat more of these [cell-cultured] foods and fewer animal foods.” Hocquette et al. (2015) had similar findings—support for “human beings” to “eat less meat” varied from 59.4% to 64.5% across the three surveys, whereas support for individual reduction in meat consumption varied from 41.3% to 58.7%.

It is important to note that inconsistencies across studies of willingness to try cell-cultured meat may not necessarily indicate that consumers do not support cell-cultured meat research: In Hocquette et al.’s (2015) survey, although most respondents thought that consumers would not accept cell-cultured meat, they also believed that further research into cell-cultured meat should be supported.

Experimental Studies

We reviewed 13 experimental studies. (See Table 2a.)

Table 2a: Some key features and findings of the experimental studies included in the review

The experimental studies were all randomized controlled trials with interventions that involved short exposures (i.e., seconds or minutes) to different messages. All trials had a very short follow-up period after the intervention (i.e., only seconds or minutes), with the exception of the Macdonald & Vivalt (2017) and Vivalt & Macdonald (2017) studies, which followed up with respondents months later. The control groups often received information about another sustainable production technology unrelated to cell-cultured meat, such as solar panels.

There were a total of 31,065 participants in the 12 experimental studies. Macdonald & Vivalt (2017), Greig (2017), Vivalt & Macdonald (2017), the Good Food Institute (2016), Gasteratos & Sherman (2018), Szejda (2018) (first sample), and Bryant & Barnett (2019) drew their samples using MTurk. Anderson & Bryant (2018) employed the survey company Ipsos to recruit participants and Szejda (2018) (second sample) used the Datassential omnibus survey. The rest of the studies relied on a convenience sampling method, and in the cases of Verbeke, Sans, & Van Loo (2015) and Bekker et al. (2017), samples were mainly from student populations. The primary outcomes used in most of the studies were attitudinal measures, as in Verbeke, Sans, & Van Loo (2015), Bekker et al. (2017), Macdonald & Vivalt (2017), Siegrist et al. (2018), Siegrist & Sutterlin (2017), Vivalt & Macdonald (2017), Anderson & Bryant (2018), Gasteratos & Sherman (2018), Szejda (2018), and Bryant & Barnett (2019). Anderson & Bryant (2018) and Macdonald & Vivalt (2017) also used willingness to pay as a measure. Slade (2018), Greig (2017), and the Good Food Institute (2016) used reported purchasing preferences in hypothetical choice experiments.

The risk of bias assessments in each domain for the individual studies we analyzed, along with brief justifications, are available here.

Reporting bias was often difficult to comment on; in most cases, pre-analysis plans for studies were not provided, so it was difficult to determine whether all the measured outcomes were reported. Also, attrition bias was often not relevant due to the short follow-up times in the studies.

Key findings from experimental studies

Factors increasing acceptance

Slade (2018) found that in a hypothetical choice experiment between different types of burgers, if prices were equal, 65% of consumers would buy the beef burger, 21% would buy the plant-based burger, 11% would buy the cell-cultured meat burger, and 4% would make no purchase. There was no correlation between participants’ frequency of meat purchasing and their preference for cell-cultured meat. However, one model found a negative correlation between meat purchase frequency and preference for plant-based products. This may suggest that cell-cultured meat is more preferable than plant-based meat among meat eaters.

Providing information about the benefits of cell-cultured meat seemed to be effective. In Verbeke, Sans, & Van Loo (2015), after the intervention involving providing information about cell-cultured meat’s benefits, the number of respondents who said they were willing to try cell-cultured meat increased from about 25% to 43%, and the number of those who were hesitant changed from two-thirds to 51%. Bekker et al. (2017) found that providing positive information about cell-cultured meat’s sustainability and information about a positively perceived sustainable product (in this case solar panels) positively influenced explicit attitudes towards cell-cultured meat. Moreover, the Gasteratos & Sherman (2018) experiment demonstrated that presenting information on the possible benefits of cell-cultured meat increased consumers’ willingness to try it. Providing information on the health benefits of cell-cultured meat had the greatest effect of attitudinal change, more so than information on environmental or ethical benefits. Therefore, information provision may shape levels of acceptance, although Bekker et al. (2017) observed that the effect of information provision on explicit attitude change was less pronounced with people who were more initially familiar with cell-cultured meat. Likewise, van der Heide (2016) reported that while claims about cell-cultured meat may change some of consumers’ expectations, a consumer’s prior attitude towards novel food products may still be too strong for an external claim to overcome.

In addition, Siegrist et al. (2018) observed that the way in which cell-cultured meat was described influenced participants’ perception: There was a much higher rate of acceptance when participants were given a non-technical description¹⁷ of cell-cultured meat compared to a technical description¹⁸ (because of increased perceived naturalness). Thus, it may be beneficial to explain cell-cultured meat in a non-technical way that emphasizes the final product—as opposed to the production method—to increase acceptance of this novel food.

The perception of whether cell-cultured meat is natural seems to be an important factor for its acceptance. Macdonald & Vivalt (2017) found that “embracing” the unnaturalness of cell-cultured meat by pointing to the unnaturalness of conventional food was more effective than attempting to debunk the unnatural qualities of cell-cultured meat. A similar result was identified in Anderson & Bryant (2018), who found that trying to directly reduce naturalness concerns was ineffective. Describing conventionally-produced meat as unnatural produced the most acceptance of cell-cultured meat; potential consumers who read this message were willing to pay more for cell-cultured meat than those who did not. People who read this message also tended to be the most positive about cell-cultured meat in a variety of other ways: in their attitudes, feelings, and beliefs.

Moreover, nomenclature is a factor that could affect consumer acceptance quite substantially. Greig (2017) reported that the term “clean meat” resulted in much greater acceptance levels than the term “cultured meat.” In the Good Food Institute (2016) sample, respondents were significantly more willing to purchase and eat meat grown in a laboratory if it were labeled “safe meat” or “clean meat” rather than “cultured meat,” “pure meat,” or “meat 2.0”. Szejda (2018) reported that “slaughter-free,” “craft,” “clean,” and “cultured” performed best compared to other terms in “name appeal,” while “slaughter-free” and “craft” performed best compared to other terms in “likelihood of trying and of purchasing the product.” Bryant & Barnett (2019) found that those in the “clean meat” and “animal free meat” groups had significantly more positive attitude towards cell-cultured meat than those in the “lab grown meat” group, and that those in the “clean meat” group had significantly more positive behavioral intentions towards the product than those in the “lab grown meat” group.

Barriers to acceptance

Price and sensory quality were brought up in Verbeke, Sans, & Van Loo (2015) as a major barrier to acceptance. Unnaturalness was also a  key concern. Siegrist & Sutterlin (2017) indicated that the perceived naturalness of the meat affected participants’ evaluation of the acceptability of the risk of colon cancer associated with meat consumption. Even if the new production method (i.e., cell-cultured meat) was more environmentally friendly and less harmful to animals, the perceived lack of naturalness might reduce the acceptability of the risk associated with such a product.

Macdonald & Vivalt (2017) found that exposure to negative reactions about cell-cultured meat from strangers greatly undermined cell-cultured meat acceptance, demonstrating that social effects can be quite pronounced. Note that this is in an experimental setting and it is unclear how well the results will translate to real social settings. Similarly, Slade (2018) found that there was a positive correlation between the hypothetical market share of cell-cultured meat products and preference for them. This may be due to social pressure or a higher perception of quality that the increase in market share may bring.

According to Siegrist et al. (2018), informing participants about the production of cell-cultured meat and its benefits may have the paradoxical effect of increasing the acceptance of traditional meat. The participants who received information about the production of cell-cultured meat perceived traditional meat as more natural and expressed a higher willingness to buy traditional meat compared with the group that was informed about organic meat. However, as there was no control, it is impossible to determine whether the difference was due to the cell-cultured meat information increasing acceptance of traditional meat or the organic meat information decreasing the demand for conventional meat.

Systematic Reviews

We reviewed three systematic reviews. (See Table 3.)

Table 3: Key features of the systematic reviews included in this review

While Roman et al. (2017) explored novel food technologies more generally and Hartmann & Siegrist (2017) explored attitudes towards sustainable protein consumption, Bryant & Barnett (2018) specifically examined levels of consumer acceptance of cell-cultured meat. The reviews included peer-reviewed articles in their analyses. Hartmann & Siegrist (2017) included only studies using quantitative methods while Bryant & Barnett (2018) actively sought to include both quantitative and qualitative studies.

Bryant & Barnett (2018) omitted polls and research published by research groups from their analysis, which would have added to the review, though it also may have increased the risk of including poor quality or biased data. It is also important to note that one of the authors, Chris Bryant, works at the Cellular Agriculture Society, which is not disclosed in the article and introduces a possible risk of bias. All three of the reviews followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist and thus were considered to be of high quality.

Key findings for systematic reviews

Both Hartmann & Siegrist (2017) and Roman et al. (2017) looked at wider meat consumption and novel food technologies instead of focusing exclusively on cell-cultured meat, so they drew more general conclusions. Hartmann & Siegrist (2017) reported that knowledge of the environmental impact of meat production was low among European consumers. Consumers’ willingness to change dietary patterns by reducing meat consumption and eating meat substitutes, such as cell-cultured meat, was similarly low. The authors call for more experimental research such as nudging interventions to explore behavior change. Roman et al. (2017) observed that food naturalness was very important for most consumers across spatially and temporally variable studies. They also found that consumers measured naturalness by taking into account three factors: the way the food was grown, the way it was produced, and the attributes of the food product at the end of the supply chain/at the point of consumption.

Bryant & Barnett (2018) focuses specifically on cell-cultured meat and reported that safety concerns, taste, and price were the primary barriers to cell-cultured meat acceptance. They recommend that promoters of cell-cultured meat focus on addressing safety concerns, as taste and price can more easily be resolved through consumer experience.

Synthesis of Results

Representativeness of samples was better achieved by the experimental studies than by the cross-sectional surveys as they tended to have much larger samples, although some of the cross-sectional surveys were census-balanced.

Consumer acceptance levels

There was quite a lot of variation in consumer acceptance levels of cell-cultured meat overall. Generally, studies tended to use two types of questions to gauge consumer acceptance levels—willingness to try cell-cultured meat, and willingness to buy cell-cultured meat (see the appendix for a more detailed breakdown of the specific questions asked). As may be expected, willingness to try cell-cultured meat typically scored more highly, ranging from 19% in YouGov (2012) to 66.4% in Anderson & Bryant (2018), whereas willingness to buy ranged from 16% in Harris Interactive (2016) to 45.9% in Anderson & Bryant (2018). There is some evidence across studies that providing information about cell-cultured meat will increase rates of acceptance, as the lowest scoring acceptance levels for both willingness to try and willingness to buy provided no contextual information prior to asking the question, whereas all other studies provided basic information about the definition and production methods of cell-cultured meat. This is supported by Verbeke, Sans, & Van Loo (2015), in which the authors observed an increase in willingness to try from 23.9% to 42.5% and an increase in willingness to buy from 19.4% to 36.3% when the positive features of cell-cultured meat were described in addition to basic information. Given that cell-cultured meat has yet to reach the market, it seems likely that willingness to try is currently the most useful measure of initial consumer acceptance, whereas willingness to buy will likely be affected by how much future products live up to consumer expectations. It is encouraging, though, that willingness to buy levels are not substantially lower than willingness to try.

One notable alternative method for capturing consumer acceptance levels was via choice. This was used in Hocquette et al. (2015) in which consuming cell-cultured meat was one preference option among others including eating less meat and making no change, with 5%–9% of respondents selecting the cell-cultured meat option across their survey groups. A similar approach was taken in Slade (2018), which used a hypothetical choice experiment in order to determine that 11% of their sample would choose a cell-cultured meat burger when given the choice between beef, plant-based, cell-cultured, or no purchase.

Barriers to acceptance

For the most part, the results from both the cross-sectional surveys and experimental studies emphasized that perceived unnaturalness is a significant barrier to cell-cultured meat acceptance. This was acknowledged in Wilks & Phillips (2017) and Harris Interactive (2016), and further stressed in Siegrist & Sutterlin (2017). The proliferation of experimental studies on information interventions that address unnaturalness concerns—such as Macdonald & Vivalt (2017) and Anderson & Bryant (2018)—indicate that this presents a major obstacle to behavior change. This naturalness concern does not exclusively apply to cell-cultured meat; in their systematic review, Roman et al. (2017) state that this is a concern for all novel foods. One counterpoint to naturalness concerns was Wilks et al. (2019), which found that more general naturalness concerns (i.e. not specific to cell-cultured meat) were not a factor affecting cell-cultured meat acceptance in their sample. More research may be needed to determine the difference between specific naturalness concerns about cell-cultured meat versus more general traits of naturalness concern in individuals.

Other factors affecting consumer acceptance that surfaced both in the cross-sectional surveys and experimental studies were price, as in Verbeke, Sans, & Van Loo (2015), and sensory quality, as in Hocquette et al. (2015) Verbeke, Sans, & Van Loo (2015); Wilks & Phillips (2017).

Demographic trends

We can observe some demographic trends in acceptance levels across the studies. In Wilks & Phillips’ (2017) sample, men were more likely to be willing to try cell-cultured meat than women, as was echoed in YouGov (2012) and Harris Interactive (2016), and politically liberal participants were more likely to try cell-cultured meat than were conservative ones. YouGov (2012) found that older participants were less likely to eat cell-cultured meat than younger ones. In addition, Verbeke, Sans, & Van Loo (2015) found that vegetarians were less convinced than meat eaters of cell-cultured meat’s potential health benefits.

We did not conduct any additional analyses such as sensitivity, subgroup analyses, or meta-regression because the results were not suitable for this.

We did not find significantly different results from the Bryant & Barnett (2018) systematic review. The results were similar (as expected, because we reviewed similar studies), in terms of finding that aesthetic concerns (taste and texture), price, and safety/unnaturalness objections were the most dominant barriers to acceptance. However, there were some new insights from more newly published studies that added to our conclusions. In their review, they identified the need to build on how different names affected cell-cultured meat acceptance because this did not come through as much in their search of the literature. We synthesized results from more recent articles on this, such as Greig (2017), Szejda (2018), and Bryant & Barnett (2019). Bryant & Barnett (2018) also identified the need for research that looked at how different descriptions of cell-cultured meat products shaped acceptance. Our review covered this to a greater extent, such as in the recently published Anderson & Bryant (2018) and Macdonald & Vivalt (2017). Bryant & Barnett (2018) highlighted the lack of studies that compared the effectiveness of communicating different types of benefits to consumers. We found results on this, such as in Anderson & Bryant (2018). Therefore, while our conclusions were not significantly different from Bryant & Barnett (2018), we were able to further explore the relationships between certain factors and acceptance due to insights from recent studies.

Discussion

Research suggests that initial consumer acceptance levels of cell-cultured products remains low, seemingly due to the objections of perceived unnaturalness, anticipated high price, and concerns about taste appeal. This section links these concerns to wider issues—including the adoption of other novel technologies and the perception of conventional meat—and outlines some recommendations from the literature for increasing acceptance levels.

Overall, low levels of education about cell-cultured meat may partially explain poor acceptance levels, such as the 19% willingness to try amongst the YouGov (2012) sample in which no explanation of cell-cultured meat was provided to participants. (However, without a control group in the study, we can’t be certain of this.) Low levels of knowledge about cell-cultured meat may not necessarily be harmful to future levels of acceptance, as prior beliefs are difficult to change. Bekker et al.’s  (2017) study on explicit versus implicit attitudes found that the effect of information provision about cell-cultured meat on explicit attitude change was less pronounced with people who were initially more familiar with cell-cultured meat. In addition, wider public awareness of cell-cultured meat may result in increased negative perceptions of such products, as was found in the case of genetically modified (GM) foods in Sentience Institute’s (2018) report on novel food technologies.

It would be useful to consider whether the adoption of other novel food technologies or sustainable technologies can affect consumer acceptance of cell-cultured meat. Indeed, Bekker et al. (2017) found that providing positive information about cell-cultured meat’s sustainability, as well as information about a well-received sustainable product (in this case solar panels), can positively influence explicit attitudes towards cell-cultured meat. Drawing upon the case of GM food adoption, Sentience Institute (2018) suggests that other novel food technologies should promote themselves by focusing on their positive aspects rather than addressing negative perceptions. This was also indicated in Macdonald & Vivalt (2017), who observed that out of all their treatment arms, the “debunking unnaturalness” information intervention was one of the least effective messaging strategies for cell-cultured meat acceptance. Sentience Institute (2017)—a report on what we can learn from nuclear power about cell-cultured meat adoption—stated that technical explanations about a novel product’s safety are unlikely to succeed. Siegrist et al. (2018) echoed this in their experimental study, where they found that participants who were given a non-technical description of cell-cultured meat had a much higher level of acceptance compared to those who received a technical description. Moreover, an oral explanation of the benefits of cell-cultured meat may be more effective than a written one; Hocquette et al. (2015) observed that more respondents believed that cell-cultured meat could be healthy and tasty in the paper survey than in the internet surveys. This is perhaps due to the oral presentation before the paper survey being clearer and more convincing.

We can also observe a complex interaction between consumer acceptance of new technologies within conventional meat production and cell-cultured meat acceptance. By describing the technology of conventional meat production as unnatural, acceptance of cell-cultured meat may increase; Anderson & Bryant (2018) reported that describing conventionally-produced meat as unnatural produced the most acceptance of cell-cultured meat. Therefore, Siegrist et al. (2018) argue that the similarities in the production processes of cell-cultured meat and conventional meat should be highlighted. Conversely, informing customers about the production and benefits of cell-cultured meat may have an adverse impact: It could increase the acceptance of traditional meat. Siegrist et al. (2018) found that the participants who received information about cell-cultured meat perceived traditional meat as more natural and expressed a higher willingness to buy traditional meat compared with the group that was informed about organic meat. This may indicate that if novel food technologies are negatively perceived, it could lead to a more positive view of the existing meat production. However, as mentioned, this would need to be confirmed against a control group. Additionally, Hartmann & Siegrist (2017) report that knowledge of the harmful environmental impact of meat production is low amongst European consumers, so if more awareness was raised about this, this could positively affect cell-cultured meat acceptance.

Limitations and Future Research

In addition to the risks of bias outlined in the results section, there are further limitations to the studies. One limitation across the studies is the possibility of publication bias, where certain studies may not have been published if their outcomes did not support an existing hypothesis. There may be a heightened risk of publication bias due to the fact that many studies were conducted and funded by animal advocacy organizations or other groups invested in cell-cultured meat. We did not attempt to measure publication bias as we did not have access to the results and studies that journals and research organizations did not publish. One way to reduce publication bias is to monitor whether studies with similar experimental designs produced similar results, which would make it less likely that our review is subject to a high level of publication bias.

A majority of the studies in this review, with the exception of Hocquette et al. (2015), had samples that reflected the population structure of the country they were investigating. In some cases, the samples were also census-balanced, such as in Sentience Institute (2017), Anderson & Bryant (2018), and Slade (2018). The samples in these studies are likely to be overall representative of the general population and their attitudes towards cell-cultured meat.

The manner in which the choice experiments were performed may differ from real-life choices around cell-cultured meat purchases. The experimental studies were carried out in controlled environments and relied on reported preferences: There could be meaningful differences between these findings and consumers’ revealed preferences. A potential study that would overcome the reliance on self-reported data would track participants’ spending, for instance by tracking supermarket expenditure or using food diaries. This is not currently feasible with cell-cultured meat, though there is some existing research that has sought to address the question.¹⁹

There are also potentially significant differences in the way the studies framed each question, which may have shaped the results. Different questions were posed across studies, making the results incomparable: Some studies such as YouGov (2012) surveyed consumers’ willingness to try cell-cultured meat, some such as Sentience Institute (2017) asked participants to agree or disagree with the statement that they should consume more cell-cultured meat and fewer conventional animal products, and others such as Hocquette et al. (2015) investigated consumers’ willingness to replace conventional meat with cell-cultured meat in their diets. (See the appendix for a more detailed breakdown of the specific questions asked.)

There are several important outcomes not measured across the studies. Firstly, with the exception of Hocquette et al. (2015), the studies did not investigate consumers’ perceptions of the feasibility of cell-cultured meat, which may affect their estimation of their willingness to try the product. Secondly, they did not measure participants’ support for other actions that benefit animals, which could be linked to willingness to consume cell-cultured meat. Moreover, as mentioned above, the studies did not measure actual behavior, but rather reported preferences. They also did not measure reported preferences after substantial media coverage related to cell-cultured meat, which has yet to occur and which could significantly impact those preferences. Finally, if cell-cultured meat fails to become cost-competitive, consumers’ willingness to purchase it over animal products should be measured.

There is also scope to observe how a greater variety of factors—which are insufficiently covered in this review—might affect acceptance. The unpublished study by Noah Castelo (forthcoming) offers the most diversity in mediating factors of acceptance. The study examines the possible mediating factors of age; gender; frequency of eating conventional meat; trust in institutions; political party affiliation; social, economic, and general conservatism; frequency of religious practice; income; and urban/rural residence. Relatedly, the focus of this report on quantitative over qualitative studies may also have restricted the scope of factors that influence acceptance.

Moreover, focusing on consumer acceptance—which has been the focus of this review—is not sufficient, and institutional reform must also be examined. Stephens et al. (2018) argue that analyses of the future of cell-cultured meat are too often reduced to discussions of ethics and consumer acceptance, and do not sufficiently pay attention to the need for political and institutional reform in the context of a wider regulatory system. Sentience Institute (2017) echoes this by pointing out the important role that “institutional choices by governments, industries, and news media” will play in making cell-cultured meat widely available.

Conclusion

Acceptance levels measured by willingness to try cell-cultured meat varied between 19% and 66.4% across studies, while acceptance levels measured as willingness to buy cell-cultured meat regularly or replace conventional meat with it entirely was typically lower. Cell-cultured meat has not yet reached the market, and the public currently seems to be generally unfamiliar with it. As such, it is not exactly clear how degrees of willingness to try should be interpreted at this stage, though further research into acceptance of comparable technologies may provide valuable insight. Experimental studies reveal that attitudes may be positively affected by information interventions on the benefits of cell-cultured meat, although the wording and framing of such information are likely to be important and require further research.

Further research is also needed on the effects of social information on cell-cultured meat attitudes, as explored by Macdonald & Vivalt (2017). Moreover, there is much scope to explore cell-cultured meat acceptance in different cultural contexts, especially outside of the U.S. and the U.K. Hocquette et al. (2015), Bekker et al. (2017), and most notably Bryant & Barnett (2019) have provided some valuable insights on international views, but the majority of the research is currently U.S.-focused. Future research would also benefit from moving away from self-reported data. While this is currently not feasible, it may become more practical if cell-cultured meat becomes more widely available in the future.

Questions for Further Consideration

There are many questions—some of which are listed below—that could lead us to significantly update our views.

• How readily available will cell-cultured meat be in the future?
• How educated will consumers be about cell-cultured meat?
• What are consumer acceptance levels of cell-cultured meat in lower- and middle-income countries?
• What do acceptance levels of other related novel technologies tell us about the likely acceptance levels of cell-cultured products?
• What messages or interventions will most improve low levels of consumer acceptance?
• Is there some other nomenclature that would lead to greater acceptance levels of cell-cultured meat?
• What form are cell-cultured meat products likely to be offered in?

Check the resources

---

1. As a result, we did not pre-commit to:
   – Any methods of handling data and combining results from different studies.
   – Any methods of additional analyses.
   – Any specific forms of data extraction.  

2. For more on gray literature, see Wikipedia (n.d.). 

3. For example, we used the search terms “cultured meat,” “clean meat,” and “in-vitro meat.” See the appendix for a list of specific search terms we used. 

4. In the case of the ACE Research Library, we examined all of the search pages that appeared because they never exceeded five pages.  

5. Agarwal, Guyatt, & Busse (n.d.) note that the survey response rate should be high enough “to minimize the likelihood that any systematic differences between respondents and non-respondents will influence results.”  

6. Agarwal, Guyatt, & Busse (n.d.) note that “[a] survey may be completed by the majority of a study sample, but a substantial amount of missing data due to items that were not answered by survey respondents may introduce bias.”  

7. Agarwal, Guyatt, & Busse (n.d.) note that “[r]isk of bias is decreased if investigators have conducted a formal assessment of the comprehensiveness, clarity and face validity of a questionnaire with a field-test in a subset (e.g., 5 to 10 individuals) drawn from the larger sample. Such “pilot” assessments may ensure survey feasibility, readability of included items and assessment of whether they are subjectively perceived by respondents as addressing what they are designed to measure.” 

8. Agarwal, Guyatt, & Busse (n.d.) note that “[t]he degree to which survey items evaluate the theoretical concept(s) the survey is focused on are important considerations. A survey should produce similar responses as other established surveys evaluating related constructs.” 

9. Section 8.4 of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions states that selection bias is present when there are “systematic differences between baseline characteristics of the groups compared. The unique strength of randomization is that, if successfully accomplished, it prevents selection bias in allocating interventions to participants. Its success in this respect depends on fulfilling several interrelated processes. A rule for allocating interventions to participants must be specified, based on some chance (random) process. We call this sequence generation.” 

10. Section 8.4 of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions states that “[p]erformance bias refers to systematic differences between groups in the care that is provided, or in exposure to factors other than the interventions of interest. After enrolment into the study, blinding (or masking) of study participants and personnel may reduce the risk that knowledge of which intervention was received, rather than the intervention itself, affects outcomes. Effective blinding can also ensure that the compared groups receive a similar amount of attention, ancillary treatment, and diagnostic investigations.” 

11. Section 8.4 of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions states that “[d]etection bias refers to systematic differences between groups in how outcomes are determined. Blinding (or masking) of outcome assessors may reduce the risk that knowledge of which intervention was received, rather than the intervention itself, affects outcome measurement. Blinding of outcome assessors can be especially important for assessment of subjective outcomes, such as degree of postoperative pain.” 

12. Section 8.4 of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions states that “[a]ttrition bias refers to systematic differences between groups in withdrawals from a study. Withdrawals from the study lead to incomplete outcome data. There are two reasons for withdrawals or incomplete outcome data in clinical trials. Exclusions refer to situations in which some participants are omitted from reports of analyses, despite outcome data being available to the trialists. Attrition refers to situations in which outcome data are not available.” 

13. Section 8.4 of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions states that “[r]eporting bias refers to systematic differences between reported and unreported findings. Within a published report those analyses with statistically significant differences between intervention groups are more likely to be reported than non-significant differences. This sort of ‘within-study publication bias’ is usually known as outcome reporting bias or selective reporting bias, and may be one of the most substantial biases affecting results from individual studies (Chan 2005).” 

14. Additionally, some ACE staff members maintain friendships with some staff members at Sentience Institute. While we do not think that these associations have impacted our impartiality on this particular piece, we would like to note the potential for a conflict of interest. 

15. These risk of bias assessments are adapted from Section 8.5.a. and Section 8.6 of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 

16. YouGov (2012) asked whether people would eat “artificial meat grown in a lab,” whereas Wilks & Philips (2017) provided additional information about the technology, including by providing an example of a cell-cultured hamburger crafted in 2013. 

17. Siegrist et al. (2018) provided the following non-technical description: “Red meat such as ground beef is produced by tissue cultivation. In doing so, cells are obtained from the muscle tissue of cows. These cells are artificially grown and develop into muscle cells. This production method is more environment-friendly and associated with less animal suffering compared with conventional meat production. Consumption of ground beef produced by tissue cultivation is comparable with consumption of ground beef from conventional meat production, also with regard to taste.”  

18. Siegrist et al. (2018) provided the following technical description: “In vitro meat is produced by means of biotechnology. In doing so, red meat such as ground beef is produced in the laboratory. Cells are obtained from the muscle tissue of cows. By utilizing biotechnology, these cells are artificially grown and develop into muscle cells. This production method is more environment-friendly and associated with less animal suffering compared with conventional meat production. Consumption of in vitro ground beef is comparable with consumption of ground beef from conventional meat production, also with regard to taste.” 

19. See, for example, Chang, Lusk, & Norwood (2009).  

Resources

Anderson, J. and Bryant, C. (2018). Messages to Overcome Naturalness Concerns in Clean Meat Acceptance: Primary Findings. Retrieved December 3, 2019, from https://faunalytics.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Clean-Meat-Acceptance-Primary-Findings.pdf

Bekker, G. A., Fischer, A. R., Tobi, H., & van Trijp, H. C. (2017). Explicit and implicit attitude toward an emerging food technology: The case of cultured meat. Appetite, 108, 245-254. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2016.10.002

Bryant, C., & Barnett, J. (2018). Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: A systematic review. Meat science, 143, 8-17. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.04.008

Bryant, C., & Barnett, J. (2018). What’s in a name? Consumer perceptions of in vitro meat under different names. Appetite, 137, 104-113. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2019.02.021

Bryant, C., Szejda, K., Parekh, N., Deshpande, V., Tse, B. (2019). A Survey of Consumer Perceptions of Plant-Based and Clean Meat in the USA, India, and China. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 3, 11. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2019.00011

Flycatcher Internet Research. (2013). Kweekvlees. Retrieved December 3, 2019, from https://www.flycatcherpanel.nl/news/item/nwsA1697/media/images/Resultaten_onderzoek_kweekvlees.pdf

Flycatcher Internet Research. (2018). Nederlanders positiever over kweekvlees. Retrieved December 3, 2019, from https://www.flycatcher.eu/nl/Home/NieuwsItem/1085

Gasteratos, K. S., & Sherman, R. (2018). Consumer Interest Towards Cell-based Meat. Retrieved December 3, 2019, from https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/34901168

Greig, K. (2017) “Clean” meat or “cultured” meat: a randomized trial evaluating the impact on self-reported purchasing preferences. Retrieved December 3, 2019, from https://animalcharityevaluators.org/blog/clean-meat-or-cultured-meat-a-randomized-trial-evaluating-the-impact-on-self-reported-purchasing-preferences/

Harris Interactive. (2016). Cultured Meat: Research in Conjunction with The Grocer. Retrieved December 3, 2019, from https://harris-interactive.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2017/03/Cultured-Meat-Report-December-2016.pdf

Hartmann, C., & Siegrist, M. (2017). Consumer perception and behaviour regarding sustainable protein consumption: A systematic review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 61, 11-25. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2016.12.006

Hocquette, A., Lambert, C., Sinquin, C., Peterolff, L., Wagner, Z., Bonny, S.P.F., & … Hoquette, J. (2015). Educated consumers don’t believe artificial meat is the solution to the problems with the meat industry. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14(2), 273-284. doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60886-8.

Macdonald, B., & Vivalt, E. (2017, August 15). Effective strategies for overcoming the naturalistic heuristic: Experimental evidence on consumer acceptance of “clean” meat. doi: 10.31219/osf.io/ndtr2

Reese, J. (2017). Survey of US Attitudes Towards Animal Farming and Animal-Free Food October 2017. Retrieved December 3, 2019, from https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/animal-farming-attitudes-survey-2017

Roman, S., Sanchez-Siles, L. M., & Siegrist, M. (2017). The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends in food science & technology, 67, 44-57. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2017.06.010

Siegrist, M., & Sütterlin, B. (2017). Importance of perceived naturalness for acceptance of food additives and cultured meat. Appetite, 113, 320-326. doi: /10.1016/j.appet.2017.03.019

Siegrist, M., Sütterlin, B., & Hartmann, C. (2018). Perceived naturalness and evoked disgust influence acceptance of cultured meat. Meat science, 139, 213-219. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.02.007

Slade, P. (2018). If you build it, will they eat it? Consumer preferences for plant-based and cultured meat burgers. Appetite, 125, 428-437. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2018.02.030

Szejda, K. (2018). Cellular Agriculture Nomenclature: Optimizing Consumer Acceptance. Retrieved December 3, 2019, from https://www.gfi.org/images/uploads/2018/09/INN-RPT-Cellular-Agriculture-Nomenclature-2018-0921.pdf

The Good Food Institute. (2016). Clean Meat: The Naming of Tissue-Engineered Meat. Retrieved December 3, 2019, from https://www.gfi.org/the-naming-of-clean-meat.

Verbeke, W., Sans, P., & Van Loo, E.J. (2015). Challenges and prospects for consumer acceptance of cultured meat. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14(2), 285-294. doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60884-4

Vivalt, E., & Macdonald, B. (2017, November 9). The Impact of New Products on Ethical Beliefs. doi: 10.31219/osf.io/4dczh

Wilks, M., & Phillips, C. J. (2017). Attitudes to in vitro meat: A survey of potential consumers in the United States. PLOS ONE, 12(2). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171904

Wilks, M., Phillips, C.J.C., Fielding, K., Hornsey, M.J. (2019). Testing potential psychological predictors of attitudes towards cultured meat. Appetite, 136, 137-145. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2019.01.027

YouGov. (2012). YouGov Survey Results: Artificial Meat. Retrieved December 3, 2019, from http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/ie3yd1pd8v/Copy%20of%20Results%20120305%20Artificial%20meat.pdf

Check the appendix

Appendix

The search terms used and the number of pages searched are listed below:

• “Cultured meat consumers” (Google Scholar 10 pages, ACE RL 5 pages)
• “Cultured meat acceptance” (Google Scholar 15 pages, ACE RL 5 pages)
• “Cultured meat attitudes” (Google Scholar 10 pages, ACE RL 2 pages)
• “Clean meat consumers” (Google Scholar 5 pages, ACE RL 1 page)
• “Clean meat acceptance” (Google Scholar 5 pages, ACE RL 1 page)
• “Clean meat attitudes”  (Google Scholar 5 pages, ACE RL 1 page)
• “In-vitro meat consumers”  (Google Scholar 5 pages, ACE RL 2 pages)
• “In-vitro meat acceptance”  (Google Scholar 5 pages, ACE RL 1 page)
• “In-vitro meat attitudes”  (Google Scholar 5 pages, ACE RL 1 page)
• “Cultured meat acceptance filetype:pdf” (Google 5 pages)
• “Clean meat acceptance filetype:pdf” (Google 5 pages)
• “In-vitro meat acceptance filetype:pdf” (Google 5 pages)

---

1. These entries are ordered by positive intention. This table is not comprehensive: It covers studies that either provided percentage-based results for willingness to try or had raw data available for analysis. 

2. These entries are ordered by positive intention. This table is not comprehensive: It covers studies that either provided percentage-based results for willingness to buy or had raw data available for analysis. 

3. These entries are ordered by positive intention. This table is not comprehensive: It covers studies that either provided percentage-based results for other relevant questions or had raw data available for analysis.