Attitudes to in vitro meat: A survey of potential consumers in the United States

PLoS ONE

Volumn 12, Issue 2, 2017, Pages

  Wilks, Matti ^a   Phillips, Clive J C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONSUMER; DIET; FEMALE; HUMAN; IN VITRO STUDY; MALE; PERCEPTION; UNITED STATES; VEGAN; VEGETARIAN; ADULT; AGRICULTURE; ANIMAL; ANIMAL WELFARE; ATTITUDE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CONSUMER ATTITUDE; ETHICS; FOOD PREFERENCE; MEAT; TISSUE CULTURE TECHNIQUE;

ADULT; AGRICULTURE; ANIMAL WELFARE; ANIMALS; ATTITUDE; CONSUMER BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; FOOD PREFERENCES; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; IN VITRO TECHNIQUES; MALE; MEAT; TISSUE CULTURE TECHNIQUES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 85012952335     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171904     Document Type: Review

References (38)

1. USDA. Chickens, cows and pigs...oh my!. Rabobank, 2016.
2. Walker P, Rhubart-Berg P, McKenzie S, Kelling K, Lawrence RS. Public health implications of meat production and consumption. Public Health Nutr. 2005;8(4):348-56. PMID: 15975179
3. Rollin BE. Animal Welfare and Rights: VI. Animals in Agriculture and Factory Farming. 2004. p. 212-5.
4. Nature. How to feed a hungry world: producing enough food for the world's population in 2050 will be easy. But doing it at an acceptable cost to the planet will depend on research into everything from hightech seeds to low-tech farming practices. (EDITORIALS) (Editorial). 5Nature. 2010;466(7306):531.
5. Daniel CR, Cross AJ, Koebnick C, Sinha R. Trends in meat consumption in the United States. Public Health Nutrition 2011;14(4):575-83. doi:10.1017/S1368980010002077 PMID: 21070685
6. Ruby MB, Heine SJ. Meat, morals, and masculinity. Appetite. 2011;56(2):447-50. doi:10.1016/j.appet. 2011.01.018 PMID: 21256169
7. Thomas MA. Are vegans the same as vegetarians? The effect of diet on perceptions of masculinity. Appetite. 2016;97:79-86. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2015.11.021 PMID: 26593101
8. Post MJ. An alternative animal protein source: Cultured beef. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2014;1328(1):29-33.
9. Post MJ. Cultured beef: medical technology to produce food. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 2014;94(6):1039-41. doi:10.1002/jsfa.6474 PMID: 24214798
10. World's first lab-grown burger is eaten in London. Science and Environment. 2013.
11. Cooney N. Veganomics: The Suprising Science of What Motivates Vegetarians, from the Breakfast Table to the Bedroom. New York Lantern Books; 2014.
12. Alexandratos N, Bruinsma J. World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2012 Contract No.: 12-03.
13. Bhat ZF, Kumar S, Bhat HF. In Vitro Meat: A Future Animal-Free Harvest. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 2015:00-.
14. Dilworth T, McGregor A. Moral Steaks? Ethical Discourses of In Vitro Meat in Academia and Australia. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 2015;28(1):85-107.
15. Schaefer GO, Savulescu J. The Ethics of Producing In Vitro Meat. Journal of Applied Philosophy. 2014;31(2):188-202. doi:10.1111/japp. 12056 PMID: 25954058
16. Laestadius LI, Caldwell MA. Is the future of meat palatable? Perceptions of in vitro meat as evidenced by online news comments. 2015;18(13):2457-67.
17. Tucker CA. The significance of sensory appeal for reduced meat consumption. Appetite. 2014;81:168-79. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2014.06.022 PMID: 24953197
18. Hocquette A, Lambert C, Sinquin C, Peterolff L, Wagner Z, Bonny SPF, et al. Educated consumers don't believe artificial meat is the solution to the problems with the meat industry. Journal of Integrative Agriculture. 2015;14(2):273-84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119 (14) 60886-8.
19. Verbeke W, Marcu A, Rutsaert P, Gaspar R, Seibt B, Fletcher D, et al. 'Would you eat cultured meat?': Consumers' reactions and attitude formation in Belgium, Portugal and the United Kingdom. Meat Science. 2015;102:49-58. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.11.013 PMID: 25541372
20. Mahar D, Barnes R. Entering the fray: How does personality impact on the commenting behaviour of readers on online news websites? 2014 International Communication Association (ICA) Conference; Brisbane, Australia 2014.
21. Verbeke W, Sans P, Van Loo EJ. Challenges and prospects for consumer acceptance of cultured meat. Journal of Integrative Agriculture. 2015;14(2):285-94.
22. Buckingham D. The making of citizens: young people, news and politics. London and New York: Routledge; 2000.
23. James C. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2013. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications 2013.
24. Scott SE, Inbar Y, Rozin P. Evidence for Absolute Moral Opposition to Genetically Modified Food in the United States. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2016;11(3):315-24. doi:10.1177/1745691615621275 PMID: 27217243
25. Gaskell G. Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the U. S. Science. 1999;285(5426):384-7. PMID: 10411496
26. Biotechnology PIoFa. US vs. EU: An Examiniation of the Trade Issues Surrounding Genetically Modified Food. 2005.
27. Frewer LJ, Van Der Lans IA, Fischer ARH, Reinders MJ, Menozzi D, Zhang X, et al. Public perceptions of agri-food applications of genetic modification-A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trends in Food Science and Technology. 2013;30(2):142-52.
28. Bartneck C, Duenser A, Moltchanova E, Zawieska K. Comparing the Similarity of Responses Received from Studies in Amazon's Mechanical Turk to Studies Conducted Online and with Direct Recruitment. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(4):e0121595. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0121595 PMID: 25876027
29. Berinsky AJ, Huber GA, Lenz GS. Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis 2012;20(3):351-68.
30. Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD. Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? DC;US;Washington;: American Psychological Association; 2016. p. 133-9.
31. Casler K, Bickel L, Hackett E. Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon's MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Comput Hum Behav. 2013;29(6):2156-60.
32. Bureau UC. 2015.
33. Bastian B, Loughnan S, Haslam N, Radke HRM. Don't mind meat? the denial of mind to animals used for human consumption. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2012;38(2):247-56. doi:10.1177/0146167211424291 PMID:21980158
34. Bratanova B, Loughnan S, Bastian B. The effect of categorization as food on the perceived moral standing of animals. Appetite. 2011;57(1):193-6. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2011.04.020 PMID: 21569805
35. Haidt J, Graham J. When Morality Opposes Justice: Conservatives Have Moral Intuitions that Liberals may not Recognize. Social Justice Research. 2007;20(1):98-116.
36. Graham J, Haidt J, Nosek BA. Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Sets of Moral Foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2009;96(5):1029-46. doi:10.1037/a0015141 PMID: 19379034
37. Rozin P. The meaning of "natural" process more important than content. Psychological Science. 2005;16(8):652-8. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01589.x PMID: 16102069
38. Baron J, Leshner S. How serious are expressions of protected values? Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2000;6(3):183-94. PMID: 11014051