Clean Meat: The Faunalytics Resource Hub

We’ve just released our latest independent study, Messages to Overcome Naturalness Concerns in Clean Meat Acceptance: Primary Findings. To complement this release, we’ve gathered together several other resources that serve to explain the data, as well as some of the broader issues at play. Below is a list of key points from our findings, as well as a collection of the related resources we’ve made available.

Full Study And Library Summary

Messages to Overcome Naturalness Concerns in Clean Meat Acceptance: Primary Findings (Full Report), and Naturalness Concerns And Clean Meat Acceptance: A Faunalytics Study (Summary)

• Overall, 66% of people were willing to try clean meat, 53% were willing to eat clean meat as a replacement for conventional meat, and 46% were willing to buy it regularly
• A message informing consumers of the unnatural side of conventionally-produced meat (e.g., use of hormones, antibiotics) was the most effective way to increase acceptance of clean meat
• Trying to directly reduce naturalness concerns (with messages arguing that clean meat is natural or that naturalness is unimportant) was not an effective strategy

Infographics And Blogs

For further information on the study, and different ways to explore the data, there are a variety of resources you can explore, which we’ll be rolling out over the month of August:

• This infographic by Faunalytics’ board member Caryn Ginsberg gives an overview of the Faunalytics’ study findings.
• This Faunalytics Slack Chat presents an informal discussion about clean meat with some experts in the field. If you don’t know where to start, this may be a good place.
• This blog by Faunalytics’ research director Jo Anderson provides more detail about how much potential consumers are willing to pay for clean meat compared to conventional meat.
• This graphic primer gives a different overview, using Faunalytics’ study, as well as pulling in information from other research related to clean meat as well and animal farming more broadly.
• Another blog by Jo Anderson, “Six Tips For Talking About Clean Meat,” looks at direct implications for advocates, lobbyists, and others.

While early research on consumers’ reactions to clean meat has been mixed, it has generally focused on understanding “baseline” attitudes toward clean meat — asking people who know little about it whether they’d be willing to eat it. This study put clean meat in context for people, by describing its positive benefits and the downsides of conventional meat production. With that positive context, we saw a much more favorable level of acceptance. Successful aspects of the messages used in this study can be used by advocates, lobbyists, and others to promote clean meat. The ultimate goal is to reduce reliance on animal farming by encouraging as many people as possible to switch to clean meat once it becomes available.

Datasets & Survey Instrument

We have made the research design document, survey instrument, and full dataset available so advocates and researchers can use their own lens and interpretations to find further takeaways from the study.

Thanks in Closing

The study has been a labor of love for the entire research team, comprising Jo Anderson, Chris Bryant, Kathryn Asher, Che Green, Kris Gasteratos, Bruce Friedrich, Jeff Rotman, and Jamie Macfarlane. We are also extraordinarily grateful to the many people who provided feedback and advice on the research design. And finally, this project would not have been possible without the generous support of the Animal Advocacy Research Fund.