Positive and negative information effects on consumer preferences for lab grown meat

Abstract

We examine the effect of information framing on consumers’ preferences for In-vitro (or lab grown) meat (IVM). Our choice experiment uses eight choice tasks that vary across five attributes: production method (IVM or conventional), carbon trust label, organic label, animal welfare label, and price. We investigate four information treatments: (1) neutral (baseline), (2) positive, (3) negative, and (4) both positive and negative combined. Negative information framing leads consumers to require the largest discount to accept IVM, while positive information significantly reduces the discount required. Without positive information, food retailers should expect to offer steep discounts to attract customers to IVM.

Introduction

Growing income and population growth have led to an increase in the consumption of meat (Mancini and Antonioli 2022). In the USA and other high-income countries, meat accounts for approximately 15 per cent of daily energy intake and 40 per cent of daily protein intake (Daniel et al. 2011). As the global population swells to 9.15 billion by 2050, 70 per cent more food production is necessary to provide for the larger population. Alternatives to traditional meat production, developed in part to help reduce the consumption of meat, include plant-based diets and meat substitutes. In-vitro meat (IVM) could reduce the dependence on intensive farming methods, thereby reducing the negative impacts of the agricultural sector. IVM recreates livestock muscle structure from a live animal biopsy. Stem cells from the biopsy rapidly divide and multiply until a meat product forms. IVM potentially has fewer environmental impacts, lower food safety risks, and fewer animal care requirements than traditional meat production (Smetana et al. 2015). However, consumer acceptance of IVM products is crucial for increasing the scale of production to enable the technology to have an impact in the marketplace. We study how positive, negative, and both positive and negative information about the social and environmental effects of IVM influence US consumer demand for burger patties.

In the general population, consumer acceptance of IVM or other substitutes as an alternative protein source is often low possibly because consumers do not know that the conventional meat industry has a significant impact on the environment and other public goods (Hartmann and Siegrist 2017). Although consumers might be willing to try IVM, only a small number of the population reported they would regularly eat IVM over traditional meat products (Bryant and Barnett 2018). If IVM is not acceptable to many consumers, this could represent a barrier to the marketing of IVM to the broader population. The willingness of consumers to buy IVM depends on the success of IVM in replicating the characteristics, including texture and taste, of typical meat products. One study found that 44 per cent of the respondents report a willingness to buy cultured meat if it was like traditional meat products (Mancini and Antonioli 2019).

The information presented to consumers can also influence acceptance of IVM (Asioli et al. 2021). The terminology for labeling IVM affects marketing campaign strategy and labeling policy and could be a major factor in its acceptance (Watson 2020). Asioli et al. (2021) find that subjects in their choice experiment strongly preferred chicken meat produced through conventional production methods over IVM. However, they also found that the terms used to describe IVM were important. Specifically, they found that the term ‘cultured’ is more desirable than ‘lab-grown’ and ‘artificial’. Van Loo et al. (2020) consider the market share for farm-raised burger patties versus alternative burger patty production such as plant-based and IVM. They find that information about the environmental impacts and the technology of each production method has minimal influence on the market shares. Ortega et al. (2022) test the effectiveness of food identity labels (animal welfare, environment, and health) on Chinese consumer preferences for pork alternatives. The identity labels reduce the demand for traditional pork while increasing the demand for IVM pork. These studies suggest that in most cases the information provided about the meat products influences the preferences for IVM.

The use of positive and negative information framing also appears in the literature. For example, Ein-Gar et al. (2012) show that receiving solely positive information, solely negative information, or both types of information about hiking boots and chocolate bars will influence individual's choices. However, no study to our knowledge examines how positive, negative, and both positive and negative information about the effects of IVM influences the preference for burger patties produced through alternative production means. We provide baseline information regarding the demand for IVM beef for different positive and negative information treatments about IVM. In addition, we consider across information treatments how the demand for IVM differs by political view, age, and consumer preferences.

The policy relevance of positive and negative information about IVM on consumer choice of IVM is enormous. Public research can help not only policy but also private companies determine the information that can help bring IVM to all the population or just segments of the population. Information can be a cost-effective way to bring new meat production techniques into the mainstream rather than rely on cumbersome regulations or tax-payer depleting subsidies. But there is little evidence in the literature about how effectively information leads consumers to an acceptance of IVM. Our research can fill this gap by allowing policy makers to judge how effective an information campaign could be.

Meat is a source of nutrition as it provides essential amino acids and is a high-quality protein source. Protein content depends on the source, but the average protein content in animal sources is 22 per cent. Outside of nutritional benefits, individuals consume meat as part of custom and pleasure, and religious beliefs may also reinforce meat eating (Clough 2005). However, as the consumption of meat and the demands on the agricultural system increase, environmental impacts will also rise. In the USA, the agriculture industry accounts for 11 per cent of total greenhouse gas emissions . Meat production also affects water scarcity. For a 150-g beef burger, the water requirement is 2,400 liters (Hoekstra 2012). The land requirements to raise livestock, including grazing and feed production, are substantial. Livestock grazing occupies 26 per cent of the available ice-free land on earth and 33 per cent of the land is for livestock feed production’ (FAO 2012); the expansion of livestock production leads to an increase in negative practices such as deforestation (Steinfeld 2006).

Animal welfare has also grown in importance to consumers over time (Kilders and Caputo 2021). From January to February of 2020, commercial red meat production was 9.41 billion pounds (an increase of 6 per cent from 2019), and there was the slaughter of just over 2.5 million animals. Hence, some methods of intensive farming receive criticism from individuals advocating for animal welfare. Segments of the population that refrain from eating meat for ethical or religious reasons may view the process of IVM as more acceptable (Mouat et al. 2018). Since IVM production occurs in a controlled environment with fewer live animals necessary, there is less risk for disease and outbreaks among animals that may produce contaminated meat.

Moving away from intensive livestock production to a lab grown meat industry would have wide-ranging economic effects. Approximately 1 billion people have employment in the livestock industry, an industry that accounts for 40 per cent of agricultural GDP in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa (FAO 2012). With a shift towards IVM, employment opportunities in the livestock industry may shift or be lost, and the contribution to GDP may diminish. Given the trade-offs associated with the emergence of IVM, much is still unknown about the acceptance of IVM by consumers.

Materials and Methods

The construction and delivery of the choice experiment and survey to participants was through the internet. Web-based survey administration is a cost-effective way to reach a large population across many demographics in the USA.

Choice experiment design

Our product for the study of IVM is ground beef hamburger patties. Ground beef is 40–45 per cent of beef consumed in the USA. In our choice experiment, we focus on five attributes to describe the raw hamburger products: production method, carbon trust label, organic, animal welfare, and price (Table 1). Attributes and levels were chosen based on a review of literature (Van Loo et al. 2020; Watson 2020; Asioli et al. 2021; Ortega et al. 2022), and we included CE attributes that act as controls for the socio-environmental benefits of laboratory meat. This way we can see how the public responds to the laboratory technique itself holding the potential benefits of the laboratory technique, which can be achieved through other approaches, constant. We denote the production method attribute through a cultured/lab grown label. No label for cultured/lab grown production means that the meat is conventionally raised. The carbon trust label attribute represents a commitment to reducing CO2 emissions. The organic label attribute represents the absence of antibiotics or growth hormones when producing raw beef products. The animal welfare label means the raising of animals with high-welfare farming practices. Four price levels indicate the current market prices for four-pound packages of ground chuck hamburger patties in the US ($3.5/lb, $6.3/lb, $9.1/lb, and $12.0/lb).

We use a sequential Bayesian approach to construct the experimental design for our choice experiment (Scarpa et al. 2007; Blimer et al. 2008; Scarpa and Rose 2008). Using the software Ngene and uninformative priors, we construct an efficient design for use in a pilot survey (Blimer et al. 2008). The parameter priors from the pilot study (51 respondents) come from a multinomial logit model with fixed parameters and a willingness to pay (calculated by dividing by the price coefficient), which were used for the Bayesian efficient design (Scarpa and Rose 2008). The Bayesian design includes eight choice tasks, with each choice task containing three product alternatives (options A, B, or C) and a ‘no buy’ option (option D). We randomly order the choice tasks and product options within each choice set. A sample choice task is shown in Fig. 1. The choice experiment provides the respondents with an explanation and description of the attributes as well as the information treatment. Respondents read a cheap talk script (see Online Appendix 1) to reduce the possible hypothetical bias, given the hypothetical nature of the choice experiment (Cummings and Taylor 1999). After responding to the choice tasks, respondents fill out a questionnaire to collect consumers’ demographic characteristics and further data. The full survey instrument is available in Online Appendix 2.

Data collection

We collect responses from 1,184 consumers in the USA in 2021. Recruitment of consumers 18 years or older is through the market research company Dynata. A total of 1,120 respondents are in our sample. Responses excluded from our analysis are those from consumers that take less than 6 min or more than 45 min to complete the survey, and consumers that do not pass the attention checks. The sample is largely representative of the US population although the sample is more male, young, and educated (Table 2). Randomization of the respondents to the information treatments achieves a balance of observable characteristics across treatments (more detail on the treatment descriptions is in the following section). Table 2 shows tests for the equality of means across treatments for most socio-demographic characteristics and a failure to reject at the 5 per cent significance level.

Following the choice tasks, we then collect information on respondent preferences for the environment, cultured meat, and animal welfare through Likert scale questions to test for correlation between those preferences and individuals’ WTP for lab grown meat. The construction of the animal welfare attitude scale comprises the basic sum of six Likert scale attitudes from questions regarding the treatment and use of animals, including their use as food, in research, how animals should be slaughtered, and how the government should be involved in regulating animal welfare (Herzog et al. 1991; Matthews and Herzog 1997). The questionnaire also collects information on the respondent's marital status, education, employment status, age, and political orientation.

Experimental information treatments

Respondents are randomly assigned to different information treatments. The scripts for the information treatments are built on background research related to traditional meat and IVM production (Smetana et al. 2015; Kilders and Caputo 2021). While we do not know how the IVM market will emerge, and how this will affect the environment and traditional meat production, we assume that existing meat products will persist in the market and include organic, low carbon, and animal welfare options. There will be information about IVM that emerges from the traditional and emergent meat industries. Negative information about IVM could come from the traditional meat industry worried about the IVM capture of market share. The four information treatments are (Online Appendix 3 contains the full scripts of information in each treatment):

1. Neutral Information (n = 284): respondents in this treatment only receive the neutral information script, which includes a description of the increasing demand for meat consumption and an explanation of IVM as an alternative system to produce meat. This neutral information script is in all four treatments.

2. Positive Information (n = 277): respondents in this treatment only receive the neutral information script and additional information regarding the environmental and animal welfare benefits from IVM production relative to traditional livestock production practices.

3. Negative Information (n = 275): respondents in this treatment receive the neutral information script and additional information regarding the negative aspects of IVM, including the unknown impacts and issues relating to the texture and taste of lab grown meat.

4. Combined Information (n = 284): respondents in this treatment receive the neutral information first, followed by both the positive and negative information scripts. The order of positive and negative information is random in this treatment.

Research hypotheses

We test a series of hypotheses to determine impact of positive and negative information on consumers’ marginal willingness to pay (mWTP) values for buying lab grown hamburger products. First, we test treatment 1 (neutral) vs. treatment 2 (positive) to investigate whether positive information significantly increases consumers’ willingness to pay for lab grown meat. Namely, we test

Second, we test treatment 1 (neutral) vs. treatment 3 (negative) to investigate whether negative information significantly reduces consumers’ WTP for IVM. We test the following:

Third, we test treatment 1 (neutral) vs. treatment 4 (combined) to investigate whether combined positive and negative information results in significantly different WTP for IVM. Therefore, we test:

Fourth, we test treatment 2 (positive) vs. treatment 3 (negative) to examine the magnitude of the difference between positive and negative information on WTP for IVM. Fifth, we test treatment 2 (positive) vs. treatment 4 (combined) to investigate whether there are any significant differences in WTP for IVM between the positive and combined treatments. Sixth, and finally, we test treatment 3 (negative) vs. treatment 4 (combined) to investigate whether there are any significant differences in WTP for IVM between the negative and combined treatments.

We also tested the effects of age, political orientation, and attitudinal factors on the likelihood to buy cultured meat and animal welfare attitudes on individuals’ mWTP formation for IVM. Previous literature finds that older adults are less willing to accept new food technologies (Sourcier et al. 2019), and we expect younger participants to have higher mWTP values than older participants. Wilks and Phillips (2017) find that liberal/left consumers are more accepting of IVM due to the environmental and animal welfare gains, and we hypothesize participants who identify as liberal to have a higher mWTP values for IVM. For consumers who indicate a higher likelihood to buy cultured meat, we expect them to have a higher mWTP for lab grown meat. Since a reduction in animal slaughter is a prominent benefit of lab grown meat (Kilders and Caputo 2021), we hypothesize that consumers who have a higher score for animal welfare attitudes will have a higher mWTP value.

Econometric analysis

We use a discrete choice framework to estimate the effect of information treatments on consumers’ WTP values. The mixed logit model accounts for preference heterogeneity, and we specify the model in WTP space in order to directly estimate mWTP at the individual level (Train 2009). The WTP space models are consistent with random utility theory McFadden (1974) and Lancaster consumer theory Lancaster (1966). The utility (U) function specification is:

where i refers to the individual, j refers to three options available in each choice set, t refers to the number of choice situations, and α_i is a random price scale parameter that follows a log-normal distribution. The alternative specific constant (ASC) is an alternative specific constant indicating the selection of the ‘no-buy’ option available in a choice set. The price attribute (PRICE_ijt) has four experimentally defined price levels (i.e. $3.50/lb, $6.30/lb, $9.10/lb, and $12.00/lb). PRODUCT_ijt is a dummy variable representing the production method, taking the value of 0 if the production method is ‘conventional’ and the value of 1 if the production method is ‘cultured’. CARBON_ijt is a dummy variable representing the carbon trust label, taking the value of 0 if no label is present and the value of 1 when the carbon trust label is present. ORGANIC_ijt is a dummy variable taking the value of 0 if no organic label and 1 if the organic label is present. WELFARE_ijt is a dummy variable representing the animal welfare label, taking the value of 0 if no label and 1 if the label is present. θ_i1, θ_i2, θ_i3, and θ_i4 are coefficients that represent the individual level mWTP value estimates for production method, carbon trust label, organic label, and animal welfare label, respectively. Finally, ∈_ijt is a normally distributed unobserved random term that follows an extreme value type I (Gumbel) distribution, independent, and identically distributed (iid) over alternatives. The parameters for the non-price attributes are random parameters with a normal distribution, and the no-buy parameter is fixed.

We test the six research hypotheses, the differences in the mWTP between the treatments, using the combinatorial approach by Poe et al. (2005). The test generates a distribution of 1,000 WTPs using the Krinsky and Robb (1986) bootstrapping method. The resulting mWTP for each treatment and their significance, or lack thereof, indicates the acceptance or rejection of each respective null hypothesis for each attribute. To test the effects of age, political orientation, and attitudinal factors of the likelihood to buy cultured meat and animal welfare attitudes on individuals’ mWTP formation for IVM, we allow respondent characteristics to influence the mWTP for the production method. Observed heterogeneity (namely, deterministic taste variations) is accommodated in the random parameters by including individual-specific covariates. Specifically, the vector of random coefficients is: β_i = β + Π_zi + L_ηi, where zi is a set of M characteristics of individual i that influence the mean of the preference parameters; and Π is a K × M matrix of additional parameters. We use the gmnl package to estimate the models in R (Sarrias and Daziano 2017). This approach permits us to observe the effect of a small change in a respondent characteristic (e.g. age) on mWTP for IVM by treatment, and we can evaluate the magnitude and significance that the respondent characteristics have on mWTP. An alternative approach that measures the difference in treatment effects across different sub-groups of respondents (e.g. subsample analysis) only allows us to determine the significance of differences in treatment effects across sub-groups without an assessment of the magnitude of the effect of a marginal change in the respondent characteristic.

Results and Discussion

The results for the mean of the attribute coefficients for the mixed logit model, specified in the WTP space of Equation (1), for the four treatments are in Table 3. We measure the mWTP values for consumers in each treatment based on the attributes in the choice experiment: production method, carbon trust, organic, animal welfare, and price. In all four treatments, respondents indicate a preference for ground beef production through conventional rather than cultured methods, as seen by the negative mWTP values (Table 3). This finding is consistent with earlier studies that show consumers prefer traditional meat products over IVM (Bryant and Barnett 2018; Mancini and Antonioli 2019). Production method has the largest mWTP from respondents, in absolute value, in comparison to the magnitude of the other attributes (the price coefficient is in preference space and not comparable). Respondents that receive treatment 3 (negative information) require the largest discount to purchase the lab meat product (mWTP value of −$7.34 for cultured meat). Those that receive the neutral information and combined information (Treatments 1 and 4) have WTP values of −$5.55 and −$5.72, respectively. Respondents that receive positive information (Treatment 2) require the lowest discount −$4.68. Like Asioli et al. (2021), who observe that the terminology to describe IVM affects willingness to pay, the positive or negative information about the lab meat products make a difference for WTP values. In all four treatments, there are positive and statistically significant coefficients for the organic label, with mWTP ranging from $1.50 to $2.79, and for the animal welfare label, with mWTP ranging from $3.28 to $4.11. The coefficient for the carbon trust label is not statistically significant in any treatment. The ASC is negative and statistically significant in all four treatments, and the level of the ASC indicates that respondents prefer a package of ground beef to none that is consistent with the market value of ground beef.

Hypothesis tests

Next, we examine the hypothesis tests for the effect of information on the WTP for cultured meat. Table 4 summarizes the results of the hypothesis tests for the mean coefficients. Online Appendix 4 has the Poe tests comparing the distributions between treatments for the hypotheses. First, we test treatment 1 (neutral) vs. treatment 2 (positive) to investigate whether positive information significantly affects consumers’ WTP for lab grown meat. The mixed results of this test are evident through the significantly greater and positive WTP values we observe for the carbon, organic, and animal welfare labels but a statistically insignificant effect for the production method. The insignificant difference in WTP for the production method is like the conclusion in Van Loo et al. (2020) who find that information about environmental impacts and the technology have little effect on the market shares. Our positive information script had less description about the reduction in the slaughter of animals than about environmental benefits, and more emphasis on animal welfare might have led to a significant difference in WTP for the production method. Table 3 shows that the mWTP for the production attribute is larger in magnitude in treatment 1 (neutral) than in treatment 2 (positive), −$5.55 and −$4.68, respectively. However, the effect of the positive information regarding the benefits of cultured meat production is not strong enough to significantly lower the discount required by consumers.

Second, we test treatment 1 (neutral) vs. treatment 3 (negative) to investigate whether negative information significantly reduces consumers’ WTP for IVM. The results of this hypothesis test demonstrate that when respondents receive negative information regarding IVM, consumers require a deeper discount of $1.84 to purchase cultured ground beef compared to those with neutral information. Table 4 indicates that only differences between the production method attributes are statistically significant when comparing treatment 1 (neutral) vs. treatment 3 (negative). We cannot say which aspects of the negative information script, or if all the negative information collectively, led to significantly lower WTP for IVM. Future studies could examine this by parsing the negative information apart by production challenges, genetic instability, or texture.

Third, we test treatment 1 (neutral) vs. treatment 4 (combined) to investigate whether combined positive and negative information results in a significantly different WTP for IVM. The results for this hypothesis 3 resemble those in hypothesis 1, with positive and significant differences for all attributes except the production method. The respondents that receive neutral information have significantly higher WTP values, relative to the respondent that receive the positive information, for all attributes except the production attribute. The positive information about cultured meat appears to decrease the WTP for alternative approaches to remedy environmental and animal safety problems (carbon trust, organic, and animal welfare) of traditional agricultural production.

Fourth, we test treatment 2 (positive) vs. treatment 3 (negative) to examine the effects of positive and negative information on the preferences for cultured meat. The results of this hypothesis test indicate that positive and negative information induces significant differences for all attributes. Negative information about cultured meat led to greater WTP values for the carbon, organic, and animal welfare attributes, relative to positive information. The magnitude of the difference in WTP for the production attribute is more substantial than for any other hypothesis test. Consumers that see negative information require a discount of $2.67 relative to consumers who see positive information on IVM. The average retail price of ground beef in the USA in 2023 is $4.83, and the required discount is thus more than half the current price of ground beef. This result demonstrates how much information provided about IVM can impact preference formation.

Fifth, we investigate whether there are any significant differences in the WTP for IVM between consumers that see the positive information (treatment 2) and the combined information (treatment 4). The mixed results show weakly significant differences for the production method and organic label attributes. The consumers who see the positive information about IVM have a higher WTP for cultured and organic meat relative to consumers that see the combined information. Lastly, we investigate if there are any differences in the WTP for IVM between treatment 3 (negative information) and the treatment 4 (combined information). The results show significant differences for all attributes. Those that receive negative information require a larger discount for the purchase of cultured meat than those who see the combined information, but we observe a higher WTP value for all the other attributes. Negative information about cultured meat leads consumers to have a higher WTP for other approaches (carbon trust, organic, and animal welfare) to address the environmental problems and other negative externalities associated with agriculture.

Influence of respondent characteristics

We evaluate the effect of respondent characteristics (age, political orientation, attitudinal factors of the likelihood to buy cultured meat, and animal welfare attitudes) on the mWTP for cultured meat, that is, the production attribute, by information treatment in Table 5. Age has little effect on the mWTP for cultured meat. The only significant effect for age is in treatment 4, where a 1-year increase in age decreases mWTP by $0.10. Older respondents are less likely to prefer newer products (i.e. IVM), which meets our expectations given the evidence of food neophobia present among adults (Jezewska-Zychowicz et al. 2021). The mWTP for cultured meat increases as political orientation moves from republican to democrat. Democrats are more accepting of IVM, which we expect due to the potential environmental and animal welfare gains of IVM currently favored by that political party, but this is only significant for the neutral or negative information framing. Positive information on IVM may dispel politically anchored views, but respondents retain those views when encountering neutral or negative information about IVM. Respondents who exhibit a greater willingness to purchase cultured meat have significantly higher mWTP values for IVM in all treatments. Strong preferences for animal welfare mean higher mWTP values for IVM with the positive information treatment, but there are lower mWTP values for IVM with the negative information treatment. Positive information about IVM encourages respondents to view IVM and animal welfare as complements, but negative information about IVM instead leads respondents to view IVM and animal welfare as substitutes.

Policy implications

IVM can potentially generate many public benefits for society in the form of a cleaner environment, enhanced animal welfare, and safer food. IVM's public benefits may justify public research to help private companies identify strategies to thrive in the marketplace. Another possibility for expanding IVM production is to provide education and assistance to private companies that wish to voluntarily label their IVM product.

The policy approach most relevant to our paper is the use of education and information. This includes helping IVM producers identify what to mail to consumers about IVM, providing information for private talks on IVM production and safety, or airing commercials on television or the internet. The content of this information can have a significant influence on consumer acceptance of IVM based on our findings. We find that information influences the mWTP for other attributes of the meat (e.g. carbon trust), and the labeling arrangement to create the strongest interest in IVM has policy relevance. Public research could help companies target information about IVM to specific consumer segments or demographics, such as liberal and young in our case of IVM beef, as a cost-effective way to build market share for IVM.

Conclusion

We find that consumers prefer ground beef from the conventional production methods rather than IVM. The heavy discount consumers expect on IVM places pressure on the producers of cultured meat to take an idea from a laboratory setting and scale it to a level where the cost of production falls enough to accommodate consumer price expectations. Consumers also express significant and positive preferences for the organic and animal welfare labels. The information treatments significantly influence the magnitude of the mWTP estimates. Specifically, negative information framing is more influential than positive information on the preferences for IVM. Obviously, the results are dependent on the details of the scripts for the positive and negative information, and we cannot know whether greater emphasis on one of the benefits of IVM or less emphasis on one of the disadvantages of IVM would have changed the finding. This could be a good topic for future research.

We find evidence that consumer's political orientation and animal welfare attitudes affect the mWTP for IVM, where more liberal views and stronger preferences for animal welfare increase mWTP, but crucially the significance depends on the information frame that the respondents observe. Our finding of low consumer acceptance of IVM ground beef is the same as in previous studies that show consumers rarely prefer IVM over traditional meat products (Hartmann and Siegrist 2017; Bryant and Barnett 2018). However, the information consumers receive about IVM can make a difference. Asioli et al. (2021) show that the term ‘cultured’ is preferrable to ‘lab-grown’ for IVM chicken. Van Loo et al. (2020) find that information about the environment and technology of each production method has minimal influence on the preference for IVM or a plant-based method. We show that, when the information about IVM is positive or negative, there can be an influence on the preference for IVM. Both Ortega et al. (2022) and our study find that labels for animal welfare or environmentally sustainable production significantly affect IVM preference.

While our study aimed to capture diverse consumer preferences, we acknowledge the potential conceptual misalignments in the combinations of attributes presented in our choice experiment. We recognize the complexity of pairing attributes such as ‘lab-grown’ with descriptors like ‘organic’ and ‘animal welfare.’ Although these pairings were intended to explore nuanced consumer perceptions, we acknowledge that they may not perfectly mirror real-world market scenarios. Furthermore, specific attribute combinations might lead to participant biases. For example, a ‘lab-grown’ label without a label for animal welfare might lead respondents to wonder if IVM does not align with animal welfare. However, these tensions reflect real-world debates and discussions surrounding emerging food technologies, and we believe consumers can evaluate complex attributes as distinct, but also connected, concepts.

Further research can help in the exploration of a potential market for IVM. One line of inquiry is to evaluate how close in texture and taste the IVM meat needs to be to traditional meat. Perhaps a threshold exists where the texture or taste is close enough to traditional meat that near full acceptance occurs. The traditional livestock industry will push hard for labeling requirements on IVM. The framing on those labels can have a substantial impact on the market for cultured meat. Given the amount of research documenting consumer interest in animal welfare, an experiment to examine how to better synthesize information about animal welfare and IVM is promising. The ability to combine information in a way that increases WTP is critical for reducing the required discounts for IVM. Another possibility is to evaluate a setting where consumers see information and real cultured meat products in a choice experiment, where consumers can gain experience with IVM, and researchers can see if this leads to similar results.

Acknowledgments

This project was supported by the Tyson Chair in Food Policy Economics Endowment.

Data Availability

The data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author.

References