Animal protein production is a major source of greenhouse gases, causes extensive environmental damage, increases risks to public health, and involves large-scale farmed animal suffering. Alternative proteins may offer a solution to these problems. In addition to plant-based substitutes, cultivated meat, produced by growing meat directly from animal cells, shows promise as an alternative to conventional meat.

However, the cultivated meat industry faces significant barriers. These include the cost of production and difficulties with the technology. Public perception and acceptance of alternative proteins are also a major challenge, especially as governments consider how to regulate this emerging industry.

While previous research has explored public views of alternative proteins, fewer studies have tested interventions to improve these attitudes, particularly for cultivated meat. Therefore, a team of researchers set out to do just that, focusing on Singapore, where cultivated meat has been approved for human consumption since 2020.

The researchers recruited a total of 277 participants, 18 years of age or older, through the National University of Singapore. Participants were asked to complete an online questionnaire before being invited to an in-person session at the university to taste some chicken nugget samples and fill out another survey.

The initial questionnaire asked about participants’ willingness to try and buy alternative proteins, which contributed to an “acceptance score” for each individual. The questionnaire also measured a number of other variables, such as:

• Attitudes towards alternative proteins
• Perceived behavioral control (expectation of whether it’s hard or easy to choose alternative proteins)
• Food technology neophobia (comfort level with new food production methods)
• Subjective norms (perceived level of social support for choosing alternative proteins)

During the in-person session, a third of participants read a passage about the benefits of plant-based meat while another third read about the benefits of cultivated meat. These were the intervention groups. The remaining third formed the control group and weren’t given anything to read. Then all participants tasted three identical conventional chicken nuggets that were deceptively labeled as “conventional chicken,” “plant-based chicken,” or “cultivated chicken.” Finally, after the tasting, participants completed another survey containing questions similar to the first one.

The researchers compared the results from before and after the intervention and between each of the three groups. They also examined the impact of psychological differences between the participants.

The results of the initial questionnaire revealed a clear hierarchy in acceptance of the different forms of meat, with participants expressing the highest acceptance for conventional meat (13.8 out of 15), followed by plant-based meat (12.2). Cultivated meat had the lowest acceptance score (11.9). And while 54% of participants were aware of cultivated meat, only 8% had actually tasted it.

However, the researchers found that the acceptance score for cultivated meat increased by 96% after participants read about its benefits and tasted the samples. In fact, there was no significant difference in acceptance scores between cultivated and conventional meat for these participants (12.9 versus 13.2, respectively). Meanwhile, there was no measurable change in acceptance of either plant-based or cultivated meat for the control group or the participants who read about plant-based meat benefits.

Participants’ attitudes and perceived behavioral control increased for both groups who read about alternative protein benefits. Interestingly, though, subjective norms improved only for the group educated on cultivated meat — meaning that once they learned about its positives, they felt greater social approval in eating cultivated meat. Analysis also found that participants’ food technology neophobia was a negative predictor of cultivated meat acceptance. In other words, participants who were the least comfortable with novel ways of producing food were the least accepting of cultivated meat.

The authors note some limitations of the study, including the fact that conventional chicken nuggets were used and relabeled in place of actual plant-based or cultivated meat. This helped them focus on preconceptions and attitudes while keeping the feel and taste of the samples constant, but in reality, plant-based and cultivated meat may taste significantly different than conventional meat. It’s therefore unclear whether the same intervention would work with real alternative proteins.

Also, while the intervention had an impact on participants’ self-reported acceptance of cultivated meat, it’s not certain whether this translates to actual purchases of these products. Further research would be needed to confirm this. Finally, the number of variables the researchers measured leaves the study exposed to false positives in the statistical analysis. This was controlled to some extent and the main finding for cultivated meat acceptance remains strong, but weaker effects such as the increases in perceived behavioral control might not be as reliable.

Overall, this study points to a promising direction for the promotion of alternative proteins. Given the public’s lack of familiarity with cultivated meat, advocates and cultivated meat companies have an opportunity to steer attitudes and gain acceptance for the technology. The findings suggest that providing basic information on the benefits of cultivated meat alongside exposure to these products may be all that’s needed to achieve this. However, this result needs to be interpreted with caution, as experimental conditions don’t always translate to real-world changes in behavior. Moreover, the technical, commercial, and legal challenges to cultivated meat still need to be addressed alongside efforts to increase public acceptance.

Ultimately, as cultivated meat takes up more space on supermarket shelves and restaurant menus, further studies like this one will be needed to offer advocates and marketers guidance in adapting their approaches to win over the public in the pursuit of alternatives to animal farming.