Social Psychological Aspects of the Transition from Conventional Meat to Cultured Meat
Keywords:
Cultured meat, Conventional meat, Social psychology, Naturalness perceptionAbstract
Cultured meat is increasingly being seen as a viable food option in Thailand, thereby mitigating the environmental consequences of livestock rearing. It is necessary to explore the variables that impact consumer responsiveness to cultured meat. This study investigated the social psychological aspects that influence the shift from conventional meat to cultured meat. A cross-sectional design was employed to conduct quantitative research techniques because it allows for a systematic measurement and analysis of attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors associated with this transition among a larger population. An online survey was used to obtain 603 responses. The study results reveal that 77%of respondents indicated a willingness or potential to replace conventional meat with cultured meat (CM), whereas 42.95% of participants were price sensitive. Results from logistic models indicate that social psychological factors were associated with the transition from conventional to CM. Potential consumers had an incentive to choose alternatives to conventional meat on account of health-related concerns. Some individuals considered a transfer if the price was affordable and reasonable. This presents a wonderful chance for food companies to develop their own CM product. This advancement will result in an expanded assortment of brands and an increased degree of competition within the market. However, it is the responsibility of the entrepreneurs to provide insight into the perceived naturalness of the CM product, which is a pivotal determinant in shaping consumers' decision to purchase it.
References
Bekker, G. A., Fischer, A. R., Tobi, H., & van Trijp, H. C. (2017). Explicit and implicit attitude toward an emerging food technology: The case of cultured meat. Appetite, 108, 245-254.
Bryant, C., & Barnett, J. (2020). Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: An updated review (2018-2020). Applied Sciences, 10(15), 5201.
Bryant, C., Szejda, K., Parekh, N., Deshpande, V., & Tse, B. (2019). A survey of consumer perceptions of plant-based and clean meat in the USA, India, and China. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 3, 11.
Bujang, M. A., Sa’at N., Tg Abu Bakar Sidik TMI, & Lim C. J. (2018). Sample Size Guidelines for Logistic Regression from Observational Studies with Large Population: Emphasis on the Accuracy Between Statistics and Parameters Based on Real Life Clinical Data. Malays J Med Sci.25(4), 122-130.
Caputo, V., Sogari, G. & Van Loo, E.J. (2022). Do plant-based and blend meat alternatives taste like meat? A combined sensory and choice experiment study. Applied Economic Perspective and Policy. 45(1), 86-105.
Chen, B., Zhou, G., & Hu, Y. (2023). Estimating consumers’ willingness to pay for plant-based meat and cultured meat in China. Food Quality and Preference, 111, 104962.
Chriki, S., & Hocquette, J. F. (2020). The myth of cultured meat: a review. Frontiers in nutrition, 7, 7.
Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling techniques. 3rd Ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Cox, D., & Evans, G. (2008). Construction and validation of a psychometric scale to measure consumers’ fears of novel food technologies: The food technology neophobia scale. Food Quality and Preference, 19(8), 704-710.
FAO. (2023). Agricultural production statistics 2000-2022. FAOSTAT Analytical Brief 70. https://www.fao.org/3/cc9205en/cc9205en.pdf.
Gómez-Luciano, C. A., de Aguiar, L. K., Vriesekoop, F., & Urbano, B. (2019). Consumers’ willingness to purchase three alternatives to meat proteins in the United Kingdom, Spain, Brazil and the Dominican Republic. Food quality and preference, 78, 103732.
Henriques, A. S., King, S. C., & Meiselman, H. L. (2009). Consumer segmentation based on food neophobia and its application to product development. Food Quality and Preference, 20(2), 83-91.
Hicks, T. M., Knowles, S. O., & Farouk, M. M. (2018). Global provisioning of red meat for flexitarian diets. Frontiers in nutrition, 5, 50.
Jaeger, S. R., Prescott, J., & Worch, T. (2022). Food neophobia modulates importance of food choice motives: Replication, extension, and behavioural validation. Food Quality and Preference, 97, 104439.
Kenigsberg, J. A., & Zivotofsky, A. Z. (2020). A Jewish religious perspective on cellular agriculture. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 3, 128.
Mancini, M. C., & Antonioli, F. (2019). Exploring consumers' attitude towards cultured meat in Italy. Meat Science, 150, 101-110.
Michel, F., & Siegrist, M. (2019). How should importance of naturalness be measured? A comparison of different scales. Appetite, 140, 298-304.
Morais-da-Silva, R. L., Reis, G. G., Sanctorum, H., & Molento, C. F. M. (2022). The social impacts of a transition from conventional to cultivated and plant-based meats: Evidence from Brazil. Food Policy, 111, 102337.
Pakseresht, A, Kaliji, A. S., & Canavari, M. (2022). Review of factors affecting consumer acceptance of cultured meat. Appetite, 170,1-24.
Pliner, P., & Hobden, K. (1992). Development of a scale to measure the trait of food neophobia in humans. Appetite, 19(2), 105-120.
Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987-992.
Roman, S., Sánchez-Siles, L. M., & Siegrist, M. (2017). The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends in food science & technology, 67, 44-57.
Siegrist, M., & Hartmann, C. (2020a). Consumer acceptance of novel food technologies. Nature Food, 1(6), 343-350.
Siegrist, M., & Hartmann, C. (2020b). Perceived naturalness, disgust, trust and food neophobia as predictors of cultured meat acceptance in ten countries. Appetite, 155, 104814.
Siegrist, M., Sütterlin, B., & Hartmann, C. (2018). Perceived naturalness and evoked disgust influence acceptance of cultured meat. Meat Science, 139, 213-219.
Slade, P. (2018). If you build it, will they eat it? Consumer preferences for plant-based and cultured meat burgers. Appetite, 125, 428-437.
The United Nation. (2015). THE 17 GOALS.The United Nation. https://sdgs.un.org/goals
Van Loo, E. J., Caputo, V., & Lusk, J. L. (2020). Consumer preferences for farm-raised meat, lab-grown meat, and plant-based meat alternatives: Does information or brand matter?. Food Policy, 95, 101931.
Verbeke, W., Sans, P., & Van Loo, E. J. (2015). Challenges and prospects for consumer acceptance of cultured meat. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14(2), 285-294.
Weinrich, R., Strack, M., & Neugebauer, F. (2020). Consumer acceptance of cultured meat in Germany. Meat Science, 162, 107924.
Wilks, M., & Phillips, C. J. (2017). Attitudes to in vitro meat: A survey of potential consumers in the United States. PloS one, 12(2), e0171904.
Wilks, M., Horney, M., & Bloom, P. (2021). What does it mean to say that cultured meat is unnatural?. Appetite, 156.
Zhang, M., Li, L., & Bai, J. (2020). Consumer acceptance of cultured meat in urban areas of three cities in China. Food Control, 118, 107390.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Thammasat Review

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The opinions and ideas expressed in all submissions published in Thammasat Review are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect that of the editors or the editorial board.
The copyright of all articles including all written content and illustrations belong to Thammasat Review. Any individuals or organisation wishing to publish, reproduce and distribute a particular manuscript must seek permission from the journal first.