'Would you eat cultured meat?': Consumers' reactions and attitude formation in Belgium, Portugal and the United Kingdom

Meat Science

Volumn 102, Issue , 2015, Pages 49-58

  Verbeke, Wim ^a   Marcu, Afrodita ^b   Rutsaert, Pieter ^a,c   Gaspar, Rui ^d,e   Seibt, Beate ^d,f   Fletcher, Dave ^g   Barnett, Julie ^h  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SURREY   (United Kingdom)

^c INTERNATIONAL RICE RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Philippines)

^d INSTITUTO UNIVERSITÁRIO DE LISBOA ISCTE IUL   (Portugal)

^e UNIVERSITY OF ÉVORA   (Portugal)

^f UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^g White October   (United Kingdom)

^h University of Bath   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Attitude; Consumer; Cultured; In vitro; Meat; Synthetic

Indexed keywords

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; FOOD SUPPLY; HEALTH RISKS;

ATTITUDE; CONSUMER; CULTURED; IN-VITRO; SYNTHETIC;

MEATS;

ADULT; ADVERSE EFFECTS; AGED; BELGIUM; CONSUMER ATTITUDE; ETHNOLOGY; FEMALE; FOOD HANDLING; FOOD PREFERENCE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERNET; MALE; MEAT; MIDDLE AGED; PORTUGAL; SKELETAL MUSCLE; SOCIAL CHANGE; TISSUE CULTURE TECHNIQUE; UNITED KINGDOM; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; AGED; BELGIUM; CONSUMER BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; FOCUS GROUPS; FOOD PREFERENCES; FOOD TECHNOLOGY; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; INTERNET; MALE; MEAT; MIDDLE AGED; MUSCLE, SKELETAL; PORTUGAL; SOCIAL CHANGE; TISSUE CULTURE TECHNIQUES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84919934543     PISSN: 03091740     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.11.013     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Aston L.M., Smith J.N., Powles J.W. Impact of a reduced red and processed meat dietary pattern on disease risks and greenhouse gas emissions in the UK: A modelling study. BMJ Open 2012, 2(e00107):1-9.
2. Austgulen M.H. Environmentally sustainable meat consumption: An analysis of the Norwegian public debate. Journal of Consumer Policy 2014, 37(1):45-66.
3. Barnett J., Burningham K., Walker G., Cass N. Imagined publics and engagement around renewable energy technologies in the UK. Public Understanding of Science 2012, 21(1):36-50.
4. Barnett J., Fife-Schaw C., Shepherd R., Timotijevic L., Fletcher J., Fletcher D. Online deliberative engagement: A pilot study. A report for the Wellcome Trust 2008, The Wellcome Trust, London.
5. Batra S.K., Kazmi S.H.H. Consumer behaviour: Text and cases 2008, Excel Books, New Delhi.
6. Blue G. Food, publics, science. Public Understanding of Science 2010, 19(2):147-154.
7. Braun V., Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 2006, 3(2):77-101.
8. Burningham K., Barnett J., Thrush D. The limitations of the NIMBY concept for understanding public engagement with renewable energy technologies: A literature review. Working paper 2006, School of Environment and Development, University of Manchester, Manchester.
9. Burri R.V. Coping with uncertainty: Assessing nanotechnologies in a citizen panel in Switzerland. Public Understanding of Science 2009, 18(5):498-511.
10. de Barcellos M.D., Kügler J.O., Grunert K.G., Van Wezemael L., Péreze-Cueto F.J.A., Ueland O., Verbeke W. European consumers' acceptance of beef processing technologies: A focus group study. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 2010, 11:721-732.
11. Flycatcher Kweekvlees [2013-12-18]. http://www.flycatcherpanel.nl/news/item/nwsA1697/media/images/Resultaten_onderzoek_kweekvlees.pdf.
12. Frewer L.J., Bergmann K., Brennan M., Lion R., Meertens R., Rowe G., Siegrist M., Vereijken C. Consumer response to novel agri-food technologies: Implications for predicting consumer acceptance of emerging food technologies. Trends in Food Science & Technology 2011, 22:422-456.
13. Goodwin J.N., Shoulders C.W. The future of meat: A qualitative analysis of cultured meat media coverage. Meat Science 2013, 95:445-450.
14. Grunert K.G. Food quality and safety: Consumer perception and demand. European Review of Agricultural Economics 2005, 32(3):369-391.
15. Grunert K.G., Verbeke W., Kügler J.O., Saeed F., Scholderer J. Use of consumer insight in the new product development process in the meat sector. Meat Science 2011, 89(3):251-258.
16. Guerrero L., Claret A., Verbeke W., Enderli G., Zakowska-Biemans S., Vanhonacker F., Issanchou S., Sajdakowska M., Granli B.S., Scalvedi L., Contel M., Hersleth M. Perception of traditional food products in six European regions using free word association. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21(2):225-233.
17. Hocquette J.-F., Mainsant P., Daudin J.-D., Cassar-Malek I., Rémond D., Doreau M., Sans P., Bauchart D., Agabriel J., Verbeke W., Picard B. La viande du future sera-t-elle produite in vitro?. INRA Productions Animales 2013, 26:363-374.
18. Hocquette J.-F., Van Wezemael L., Chriki S., Legrand I., Verbeke W., Farmer L., Scollan N.D., Polkinghorne R., Rødbotten R., Allen P., Pethick D.W. Modelling of beef sensory quality for a better prediction of palatability. Meat Science 2014, 97:316-322.
19. Hoek A.C., Luning P.A., Weijzen P., Engels W., Kok F.J., de Graaf C. Replacement of meat by meat substitutes. A survey on person- and product-related factors in consumer acceptance. Appetite 2011, 56(3):662-673.
20. Hopkins P.D., Dacey A. Vegetarian meat: Could technology save animals and satisfy meat eaters?. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 2008, 21:579-596.
21. Joffe H., Yardley L. Content and thematic analysis. Research methods for clinical and health psychology 2004, 56-68. Sage, London. D.F. Marks, L. Yardley (Eds.).
22. Looy H., Dunkel F.V., Wood J.R. How then shall we eat? Insect-eating attitudes and sustainable foodways. Agriculture and Human Values 2014, 31(1):131-141.
23. Marcu A., Gaspar R., Rutsaert P., Seibt B., Fletcher D., Verbeke W., Barnett J. Analogies, metaphors and wondering about the future: Lay sense-making around synthetic meat. Public Understanding of Science 2014, (in press). 10.1177/0963662514521106.
24. Marris C., Wynne B., Simmons P., Weldon P. Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnologies in Europe: Final report of the PABE research project 2001, University of Lancaster, Lancaster.
25. Mattick C.S., Allenby B.R. Cultured meat: The systemic implications of an emerging technology. Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technology 2012, IEEE, Boston, (May 2012).
26. McAfee A.J., McSorley E.M., Cuskelly G.J., Moss B.W., Wallace J.M.W., Bonham M.P., Fearon A.M. Red meat consumption: An overview of the risks and benefits. Meat Science 2010, 84(1):1-13.
27. Morgan D.L. Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology 1996, 22:129-152.
28. Pan A., Sun Q., Bernstein A.M., Schulze M.B., Manson J.E., Stampfer M.J., Willett W.C., Hu F.B. Red meat consumption and mortality: Results from 2 prospective cohort studies. Archives of Internal Medicine 2012, 172(7):555-563.
29. Pluhar E. Meat and morality: Alternatives to factory farming. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 2010, 23:455-468.
30. Post M.J. Cultured meat from stem cells: Challenges and prospects. Meat Science 2012, 92:297-301.
31. Post M.J. Cultured beef: Medical technology to produce food. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 2014, (in press). 10.1002/jsfa.6474.
32. Rozin P. The meaning of "natural": Process more important than content. Psychological Science 2005, 16(8):652-658.
33. Schnall S., Haidt J., Clore G.C., Jordan A.H. Disgust as embodied moral judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2008, 34:1096-1109.
34. Siegrist M. Factors influencing public acceptance of innovative food technologies and products. Trends in Food Science and Technology 2008, 19:603-608.
35. Slovic P., Fischhoff B., Lichtenstein S. The psychometric study of risk. Risk Evaluation and Management 1986, 1:3-24.
36. Steinfeld H., Gerber P., Wassenaar T., Castel V., Rosales M., de Haan C. Livestock's long shadow - Environmental issues and options 2006, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome.
37. The Guardian Would you eat a synthetic beefburger? [2013-08-05]. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/poll/2013/aug/05/eat-synthetic-beefburger-poll.
38. Ueland O., Gunnlaugsdottir H., Holm F., Kalogeras N., Leino O., Luteijn J.M., Magnusson S.H., Odekerken G., Pohjola M.V., Tijhuis M.J., Tuomisto J.T., White B.C., Verhagen H. Stage of the art in benefit-risk analysis: Consumer perception. Food and Chemical Toxicology 2012, 50(1):67-76.
39. Vanhonacker F., Van Loo E.J., Gellynck X., Verbeke W. Flemish consumer attitudes towards more sustainable food choices. Appetite 2013, 62:7-16.
40. Verbeke W. Functional foods: Consumer willingness to compromise on taste for health?. Food Quality and Preference 2006, 17:126-131.
41. Verbeke W. Consumer attitudes and communication challenges for agro-food technologies. Agro-Food Industry Hi-Technology 2011, 22:34-36.
42. Verbeke W. Profiling consumers who are ready to adopt insects as a meat substitute in a Western society. Food Quality and Preference 2015, 39:147-155.
43. Verbeke W., Pérez-Cueto F.J.A., de Barcellos M.D., Krystallis A., Grunert K.G. European citizen and consumer attitudes and preferences regarding beef and pork. Meat Science 2010, 84:284-292.
44. Verbeke W., Sans P., Van Loo E.J. Challenges and prospects for consumer acceptance of cultured meat. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 2015, 84. (in press). 10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60884-4.
45. Verbeke W., Vackier I. Profile and effects of consumer involvement in fresh meat. Meat Science 2004, 67:159-168.
46. Verbeke W., Van Wezemael L., de Barcellos M.D., Kügler J.O., Hocquette J.-F., Ueland Ø., Grunert K.G. European beef consumers' interest in a beef eating-quality guarantee. Insights from a qualitative study in four EU countries. Appetite 2010, 54:289-296.
47. Welin S. Introducing the new meat. Problems and prospects. Etikk i Praksis - Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics 2013, 7:24-37.
48. Whatmore S. From farming to agribusiness: The global agrofood system. Geographies of global change 2002, 57-67. Blackwell, Oxford. R.J. Johnson, P.J. Taylor, M.J. Watts (Eds.).
49. Zajonc R.B. Feeling and thinking - Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist 1980, 35:151-175.