We've updated our Privacy Policy to make it clearer how we use your personal data. We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. You can read our Cookie Policy here.


"High-tech" Framing May Be Driving Negative Attitudes Towards Cultured Meat

"High-tech" Framing May Be Driving Negative Attitudes Towards Cultured Meat content piece image
Credit: Pixabay.
Listen with
Register for free to listen to this article
Thank you. Listen to this article using the player above.

Want to listen to this article for FREE?

Complete the form below to unlock access to ALL audio articles.

Read time: 2 minutes

In the near future, we will be able to mass-produce meat directly from animal cells.

This cultured meat could change the world – or it could falter like GM ‘frankenfoods’.

Writing in Frontiers in Nutrition, researchers warn that the most common media framing of cultured meat – as a ‘high-tech’ innovation – may be the least effective in garnering consumer acceptance.

The revolution will be televised

“Cultured meat has the potential to reduce the ethical, environmental, and public health burdens associated with conventional livestock farming,” says lead author Christopher Bryant of the University of Bath.

In a free market, this potential can only be realized through consumer demand.

“Surveys show hesitancy towards cultured meat centers around its perceived ‘unnaturalness’, which can lead to concerns about food safety,” explains Bryant.

These echo consumer concerns about the last food technology breakthrough of this scale: GM crops.

“Extensive research has shown that media coverage of GM foods had a significant negative impact on public perceptions of, and behaviour towards, the technology.”

Just as ‘climate change’ took the heat off global warming, GMOs were reanimated as ‘frankenfoods’. In the public imagination, will cultured meat ever truly leave the lab?

“As most people have so far heard little or nothing of cultured meat,” argues Bryant, “this is a crucial time to assess how the framing of this innovation can impact consumer perceptions.”

Presentation matters

With co-author Dr. Courtney Dillard of Portland State University, Bryant assessed how framing cultured meat as (a) an innovation which benefits society, (b) a high-tech development, or (c) as very similar to conventional meat affected attitudes and behavioral intentions.

Their sample of 480 US adults was broadly representative of the country as a whole in terms of age, gender, geographic distribution and diet (88% were meat eaters).

“We found that those who encounter cultured meat through the ‘high tech’ frame have significantly more negative attitudes towards the concept, and are much less willing to consume it,” reports Bryant.

For example, the ‘high-tech’ framing group were the least likely to consider cultured meat safe, healthy or environmentally friendly. They rated themselves on average 14% less likely to try cultured meat, compared to the ‘societal benefits’ or ‘same as meat’ groups.

Even before the frames were presented, the most common word associations to cultured meat across all 480 participants were “artificial” and “science”.

“Worryingly, cultured meat as a ‘high-tech’ development has been a very dominant frame in early media coverage, which frequently features ‘science themed’ photos such as meat in a petri dish in a lab. This may be causing consumers to develop more negative attitudes towards cultured meat than they otherwise might.

Still, there was cause for optimism: overall, around two thirds of respondents said they would be willing to give cultured meat a try.

Fake meat news

The results sit well with findings from other cultured meat researchers.

“We’d love to get away from the ‘lab-grown’ label,” says Tufts University researcher Natalie Rubio, who recently introduced an astounded world to cultured insect meat. “When cultured meat is ready to go, it won’t be produced in a lab at all but in a food processing plant just like existing meat alternatives and other foods.”

The Good Food Institute in particular has demonstrated that consumers are much more likely to find ‘clean meat’ appealing than more technical terms like ‘cultured meat’ and ‘cell-based meat’.

“Our suggestion to news media and startups is to normalize not only the name but the whole concept of clean meat – which has the same taste, nutrition and basic building blocks as conventionally farmed meat. Hopefully, the texture and price will soon match too.”

Journalists can look down under for inspiration, says Bryant.

“This ‘naturalness’ has already been identified as a key focus in Australian media coverage of clean meat, in contrast with US and European counterparts.”

The Impact of Framing on Acceptance of Cultured Meat. Christopher Bryant and Courtney Dillard. Front. Nutr., 03 July 2019, https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2019.00103.

This article has been republished from the following materials. Note: material may have been edited for length and content. For further information, please contact the cited source.