As technology for producing cell-based meat, poultry, and seafood advances rapidly, there’s an increasing need for a widely accepted term to label these products. Choosing an appropriate common or usual name is crucial not only for regulatory compliance but also for shaping public perceptions and understanding of these foods. A study in 2021 aimed to compare two potential commonly used names, “cell-based seafood” and “cell-cultured seafood,” for labeling products manufactured from fish cells.

The study used an online experiment with a nationally representative sample of 1,200 adult American consumers. Participants were randomly assigned to view packages of Atlantic Salmon filets labeled as either “cell-based seafood” or “cell-cultured seafood.” The researchers assessed five key criteria: the ability to differentiate from conventional products, signaling allergen presence, avoiding disparagement of both cell-based and conventional products, consumer perceptions of safety and nutrition, and the appropriateness of the term for describing the production process.

Participants were asked about their initial thoughts upon seeing the package and rated their overall reactions, interest in tasting, and likelihood of purchasing. Questions assessed participants’ understanding of the product’s nature and allergen content. A greater proportion of those who saw “cell-cultured” (30%) assumed the product was farm-raised compared to those who saw “cell-based” (25%). More participants who saw “cell-based” (15%) assumed it was wild-caught compared to those who saw “cell-cultured” (11%). These findings suggest that the choice of terminology can significantly influence consumer perceptions and assumptions about novel food products.

Both labels proved effective in differentiating the product from conventional seafood, with 58-60% of participants recognizing the product was not wild-caught or farm-raised. Importantly, 74% of participants understood that those with fish allergies shouldn’t consume the product, meeting a crucial regulatory requirement for allergen labeling. When it came to consumer perceptions, “cell-based seafood” received slightly more positive overall impressions than “cell-cultured seafood.” Participants also showed marginally more interest in tasting and purchasing “cell-based” products, though the effect sizes were small.

Both labels were seen as equally appropriate for describing the production process, meeting the need for transparency in labeling. The study found no significant differences between the two in perceived safety, naturalness, taste, or nutritional value. However, products labeled as “cell-cultured” were seen as slightly more likely to have been genetically modified.

After participants read an explanation of the labels, “cell-based seafood” maintained its slight edge in positive impressions and purchase intent. This suggests that the label may have a small but consistent advantage in consumer acceptance, even as people become more familiar with the concept of cell-based seafood products.

This study has some limitations to consider. It only examined seafood products and didn’t test other potential names that have been suggested by various stakeholders. Additionally, participants viewed hypothetical products, as cell-based seafood isn’t yet available in the market. Consumer perceptions may shift as real products become available and as people gain more familiarity with the actual characteristics. 

The authors recommend adopting “cell-based seafood” as the common or usual name for seafood products made from fish cells. This label meets relevant regulatory requirements and slightly outperforms “cell-cultured seafood” in terms of positive consumer perceptions and purchase intent. For animal advocates, this research highlights the importance of clear, transparent labeling in introducing novel food products to consumers. It also underscores the potential for carefully chosen terminology to positively influence consumer acceptance of alternatives to conventional animal products. As cell-based products move closer to the market, further research may be needed to assess how consumer perceptions evolve and to test the effectiveness of various marketing strategies.