2004
Volume 44, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 1573-9775
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1236

Abstract

Abstract

Cultured meat looks, feels and tastes like conventional meat, but is much less destructive for humans, animals and the environment. However, consumer acceptance of cultured meat is still not very high, which may have to do with the perceived of the way it is produced. Previous research has suggested that part of this unease can be taken away if the textual description of the production process makes use of non-technical terms, instead of the rather technical terms that are often used in information brochures. The current study failed to replicate these earlier findings: there were no significant differences between the technical text, the non-technical text, and a control condition in which no description of the production process was included. Furthermore, from our results it appears that the feeling of ‘disgust’ that is evoked when participants read about cultured meat is central in the acceptance process, and not ‘perceived naturalness’ as has been hypothesized earlier. Thus, it seems to be important to focus on reducing the feeling of disgust in further communications about cultured meat, for instance by creating associations with pleasant and tasty sensations, and leave out descriptions of the production process altogether.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2022.2.003.HOEK
2022-12-01
2024-11-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/15739775/44/2/TVT2022.2.003.HOEK.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2022.2.003.HOEK&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Bäckström, A., Pirttilä-Backman, A.-M. & Tuorila, H. (2003). Dimensions of novelty: a social representation approach to new foods. Appetite, 40, 299-307.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Boer, J. de. & Aiking, H. (2011). On the merits of plant-based proteins for global food security: Marrying macro and micro perspectives. Ecological Economics, 70, 1259-1265.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bryant, C. J., & Barnett, J. C. (2019). What’s in a name? Consumer perceptions of in vitro meat under different names. Appetite, 137, 104-113.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Dagevos, H., Voordouw, J., van Hoeven, L., van der Weele, C., de Bakker, E. (2012). Vlees vooral(snog) vanzelfsprekend. Consumenten over vlees eten en vleesminderen (LEI-rapport 2012-029). LEI Wageningen UR, Den Haag.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Den Hollander, E. (2021, 2april). Vlees uit het lab: er zijn nog veel obstakels. Nu.nl. Geraadpleegd op 12april2021, van https://www.nu.nl/eten-en-drinken/6125408/vlees-uit-het-lab-er-zijn-nog-veel-obstakels.html#coral_talk_wrapper
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Hedenus, F., Wirsenius, S., & Johansson, D. (2014). The importance of reduced meat and dairy consumption for meeting stringent climate change targets. Climatic Change, 124(1/2), 79-91.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Howard, T., Jacobson, K. L., Kripalani, S. (2013). Doctor talk: Physicians’ use of clear verbal communication. Journal of Health Communication, 18(8), 991-1001.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choice, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341-350.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Kweekvleesinfo. (z.d.). Waarom kweekvlees eten? Geraadpleegd op 17april2021 van https://kweekvleesinfo.nl/waar-kan-ik-kweekvlees-eten/
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Lea, E., & Worsley, A. (2003). Benefits and barriers to the consumption of a vegetarian diet in Australia. Appetite, 6, 127–136.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Montoya, A. K., & Hayes, A. F. (2017). Two-condition within-participant statistical mediation analysis: A path-analytic framework. Psychological Methods, 22(1), 6–27.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Mosa Meat. (z.d.). Pioneering a cleaner kinder way of making beef. Geraadpleegd op 29maart2021, van https://mosameat.com/
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Nath, J. (2010). Gendered fare? A qualitative investigation of alternative food and masculinities. Journal of Sociology, 47(3), 261-278.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Natuur & Milieu. (2021). Vegamonitor 2020. Geraadpleegd op 29maart2021, van https://www.natuurenmilieu.nl/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Vegamonitor-Hoeveel-mensen-eten-vlees-rapport-2020-DEF.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987-992.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Shulman, H. C., Dixon, G. N., Bullock, O. M., & Colón Amill, D. (2020). The effects of jargon on processing fluency, self-perceptions, and scientific engagement. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 39(5-6), 579-597.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Siegrist, M., Sütterlin, B. & Hartmann, C. (2018). Perceived naturalness and evoked disgust influence acceptance of cultured meat. Meat Science, 139, 213-219.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Slade, P. (2018). If you build it, will they eat it? Consumer preferences for plant-based and cultured meat burgers. Appetite, 125, 428-437.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Terluin, I., Dagevos, H., Verhoog, D. & Wijsman, H. (2016). Vleesconsumptie per hoofd van de bevolking in Nederland, 2005-2015. Wageningen Economic Research, Wageningen.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Van Dinther, M. (z.d.). Kweekvlees is hard op weg naar uw bord. Volkskrant. Geraadpleegd op 17april2021, van https://www.volkskrant.nl/kijkverder/2018/voedselzaak/artikelen/kweekvlees-is-hard-op-weg-naar-uw-bord/
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2022.2.003.HOEK
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2022.2.003.HOEK
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error