What Kind of Consumer Is Mark When He Eats the Beef in a Hamburger Answers

• Loading metrics

Open Admission

Peer-reviewed

Research Commodity

The effect of information content on acceptance of cultured meat in a tasting context

• Nathalie C. 1000. Rolland,
• C. Rob Markus,
• Marker J. Post

x

• Published: April 16, 2020
• https://doi.org/x.1371/journal.pone.0231176

Figures

Abstruse

Cultured meat, in particular beefiness, is an emerging nutrient technology potentially challenged past issues of consumer acceptance. To understand drivers of consumer credence besides as sensory perception of cultured meat, nosotros investigated the effect of information content on participants' credence of cultured meat in a tasting context. Hundred ninety-three citizens from the Netherlands participated, divided across three age and sexual practice-matched groups which each received information on either societal benefits, personal benefits or data on the quality and taste of cultured meat. They filled out a questionnaire and tasted two pieces of hamburger, labeled 'conventional' or 'cultured', although both pieces were in fact conventional. Sensory assay of both hamburgers was performed. We observed that provision of data and the tasting feel increased acceptance of cultured meat and that information on personal benefits of cultured meat increased acceptance more than information on quality and gustation but not than societal benefits of cultured meat. Previous awareness of cultured meat was the all-time predictor of its acceptance. In dissimilarity to previous studies, sex and social economical status were not associated with different acceptance rates. Surprisingly, 58% of the respondents were willing to pay a premium for cultured meat of, on average, 37% in a higher place the cost of regular meat. All participants tasted the 'cultured' hamburger and evaluated its sense of taste to be better than the conventional one in spite of the absence of an objective difference. This is the first credence report of cultured meat where participants were offered to eat and evaluate meat that was labeled 'cultured'. Nosotros conclude that having positive information chiefly improves credence and willingness to gustatory modality and that the specific content of the data is of subordinate importance. Awareness of cultured meat is the all-time predictor of acceptance.

Citation: Rolland NCM, Markus CR, Mail service MJ (2020) The outcome of information content on acceptance of cultured meat in a tasting context. PLoS ONE 15(4): e0231176. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231176

Editor: Nobuyuki Sakai, Tohoku University, Nihon

Received: December 15, 2019; Accepted: March 17, 2020; Published: April 16, 2020

Copyright: © 2020 Rolland et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Eatables Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in whatever medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: Information are found in a Mendeley repository, URL: https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/658544trwd/1.

Funding: This study was funded by: MJP received an accolade from Stichting Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Limburg. It has no grant number. URL: https://world wide web.ufl-swol.nl. Zandbergen Globe'southward Finest Meats (Zoeterwoude, The Netherlands) provided the hamburgers. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have read the periodical's policy and the authors of this paper take the following competing interests: Marking J. Post is Master Scientific Officeholder and co-founder of Mosa Meat, a company that aims to commercialise cultured meat. In that location are no patents, products in development or marketed products associated with this research to declare. This does non alter our adherence to PLOS Ane policies on sharing data and materials.

Introduction

Cultured meat aka "clean" or "prison cell-based" meat, is an emerging nutrient technology that has potential benefits for resources efficiency, environmental bear on and animal welfare compared to livestock beefiness production [1, 2]. Cultured beef is meat grown in a lab from bovine musculus specific stem cells. Several companies are currently developing products based on this technology, which has also been extended to other species including pork, craven and fish. During introduction of this applied science to the public, it became clear that public acceptance was not firsthand and perhaps not obvious. The nature of this hesitance is poorly understood, although qualitative group interviews and initial surveys have shed some lite on the arguments and clarification of feelings that form the public soapbox on cultured meat [3–6].

The theoretical framework on rejection of novel and unfamiliar foods was laid downward by Rozin and Fallon [7], who suggested a taxonomy of food rejections based on taste or sensory perception in general, danger (safety, health) and disgust. Cloy is a mostly emotional response determined by cultural connotations or relatively fixed ideas of what is an 'advisable' food or not. The disgust response is typically stronger for novel animal-based products than for non-animal products [vii]. In a more recent study on acceptance of novel foods, Martins and Pliner [viii] identified the disgust cistron as being an important determinant in willingness to try these products.

Although the disgust response is an emotional 1, information technology is based on culturally defined ideas and therefore considered 'cognitive'. This element of rejection or acceptance may thus be influenced by information provided about the novel food, particularly if the novel food is highly technological [ix]. There are preliminary indications that providing positive data on cultured meat increases the self-reported willingness to endeavor, buy or pay more for cultured meat [3]. In an early experiment, conducted in 2012, Bekker et al. [10] explored the effect of positive and negative information on implicit (due east.k. disgust) and explicit attitudes (e.g. willingness to buy) towards cultured meat and found that this information indeed positively or negatively affected explicit attitudes towards cultured meat but had no outcome on implicit attitudes. Both these studies were performed with university students in agricultural or food scientific discipline and may non be generalizable to the population at big.

The present study aims to answer the question if specific information on societal or personal benefits or information virtually the quality of the food-product affects consumer acceptance and sensory perception of cultured meat in a full general population. This is the first acceptance written report that includes a tasting experiment with a slice of meat labeled as 'cultured'.

Our hypotheses are that the content of data provided will affect the liking of cultured meat, the willingness of the consumers to have it and how consumers value the product.

Material and methods

Study pattern

Details of the study design, including the questionnaires, are provided in S1 Text. In brief, a grouping of 193 participants from the Limburg region of the Netherlands were recruited through a pre-existing online survey cohort. They were informed that they would participate in a meat study and tasting. Participants were representative of the Dutch population in terms of age and sex. Their willingness and eligibility to participate were assessed with an inclusion questionnaire. Exclusion criteria were disability to chew, medication or a status affecting taste, smell or ability to concentrate or inability to come up to the University. Vegetarians and vegans were also excluded. From a full of 903 respondents, 383 were interested and matched the inclusion criteria (i.e. absenteeism of exclusion criteria). From these, based on power considerations, a concluding sample of n = 193 participants was selected, 41.ii% male and 58.8% female, average age = 56 (range 24–84). The sample size of the study was calculated based on 1-style ANOVA, with one-β = 0.8, α = 0.05, number of between grouping comparisons = three, and an result size of 0.75. This required n = 59 per group. The report was performed from June-August 2017. The study was approved past the Ethical Review Committee Psychology and Neuroscience (ERCPN, dossier 180_02_06_2017) of the Maastricht University, and all participants were provided with a written informed consent. Participants were debriefed later completion of the full study and were paid for participation.

Material and preparation

Hamburgers used for this written report were frozen beefiness hamburgers (>99% beef), kindly provided by Zandbergen World'due south Finest Meats (Zoeterwoude, Netherlands) in June 2017. They were stored at -eighteen°C and thawed at 2°C the twenty-four hour period before each sensory evaluation. Hamburgers were fried in a pan on an induction heat source with monitored temperature (Hendi 3500D, Steenoven, Netherlands). The pan was preheated for 10 min and the temperature was maintained at 165°C. The hamburgers were cooked 8 min to reach 73°C. After cooking, the hamburgers were cutting and immediately served to the participants on warm plates. One sample was presented every bit coming from a conventional hamburger (henceforth termed conventional hamburger), the other from a cultured meat hamburger (termed 'cultured' hamburger), although both samples were conventional meat of equal quality and identically cooked. The hamburgers were cut in two different shapes: a tertiary of a hamburger for the conventional hamburger samples and a quarter for the 'cultured' hamburger samples. The plates were labelled 'conventional hamburger' for the conventional meat sample and 'cultured hamburger' for the 'cultured' meat hamburger.

The study was performed in a room of the Metabolic Research Unit of measurement Maastricht (MRUM) at the Maastricht Academy (room temperature: 22°C) under white lite.

Product information manipulation and protocol

To avert priming, the participants filled out an initial questionnaire about their concerns on environmental issues, animal welfare, food security and safety of food products a few days before coming to the University.

The 24-hour interval of the evaluation, the participants received a cursory basic technical description of cultured meat and answered the first questionnaire focusing on credence of cultured meat (Fig 1). To mensurate the effects of product information on meat acceptance, participants were divided into three different data-receiving groups (the 'Information Condition'), matched for age and sex. Grouping one received information on societal benefits (northward = 65; age, mean (SD) = 56.9(thirteen.7); male person:female ratio = ane.71); grouping 2 received information regarding personal benefits (northward = 64; age = 56.4(fifteen.ix); male:female person ratio = one.21) and grouping 3 was informed near meat quality and gustation (n = 64; age = 54.7(14.5); male:female ratio = i.xl).

Fig 1. Study design.

Later an intake by telephone, participants came in and answered three questionnaires (Q1, Q2, Q3), before and later on having received specific information (info) and afterward tasting two pieces of hamburger (tasting 1&2). Afterward completion of the study, the participants were debriefed on the nature of the tasted products and the nature of the written report (debrief). The in-business firm part of the study lasted approximately 1 60 minutes.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231176.g001

The data given to each grouping:

Group 1: Societal Benefits

Meat is tasty, only its product through livestock farming will go a major problem in the well-nigh future. The world population is growing and the demand for meat is increasing due to increased prosperity, peculiarly in India and China. The increase in demand cannot be met by fauna husbandry. Moreover, we know that animal husbandry is responsible for xv–twenty% of all greenhouse gas emissions, specially marsh gas from cows. Finally, intensive animal husbandry is accompanied by animal suffering. Cultured meat offers a solution for all those problems. Through more efficient utilise of raw materials, cultured meat requires ninety% less country, 90% less water and sixty% less energy than meat from livestock. Because we need fewer cows, greenhouse gas emissions are greatly reduced. Reducing deforestation, giving agricultural land back to nature and reducing the greenhouse issue, tin can finish climatic change and perhaps opposite information technology. The smaller volume of livestock radically changes the way animals are kept: small-scale, animal-friendly and without the use of antibiotics or growth hormone. Animals do not take to be slaughtered. Yous can therefore continue to eat meat without having to worry about these problems.

Grouping 2: Personal benefits

In terms of composition, cultured meat is the same as regular meat and it is rubber; information technology is made from the muscle stalk cells of a healthy, organic cow. That too means that cultured meat has the same nutritional value every bit regular meat. The controlled culturing method ensures that cultured meat is not contaminated with bacteria and has no disease such equally mad moo-cow affliction. Moreover, cultured meat contains no antibiotics or hormones and is not genetically manipulated. By raising meat, the quality of each piece of meat can be guaranteed and standardized. The fat content and blazon of fat—such every bit polyunsaturated fat acids or omega-3 fat acids—can exist determined and composed as desired. This would make the meat fifty-fifty healthier than the electric current production. Cultured meat is safe and approved by the national food safety authority.

Grouping 3: Meat quality & taste

Eating meat is an experience that is seen as natural and necessary. Cultured meat is the only alternative to regular meat that consists of real meat. It therefore has the aforementioned gustatory modality, aroma, tenderness, juiciness and mouthfeel equally regular meat. You can determine for yourself how much fat yous desire in your meat and how it is distributed (marbled). The quality can be guaranteed because the production is standardized. Meat specialists select the all-time and most tasty ingredients to make your favorite meat. Cultured meat can meet the requirements of all types of consumers: from the gastronome who wants loftier quality and who loves adventurous meats to the fast-food consumer who wants easy to prepare or set-to-swallow meat. You lot tin can enjoy every piece of meat: your favorite burgers, steak or prime rib, BBQ meat with your family unit during holidays. Nosotros tin offering meat from all types of cow breeds, each with their own specific aroma. Cultured meat contains all the nutrient components of normal meat and is an splendid source of protein.

Subsequently providing the information, the credence questionnaire was repeated. Upon completion of the 2d questionnaire, all participants conducted a sensory evaluation of the conventional and 'cultured' hamburger samples and filled out the acceptance questionnaire for a third time. Then, participants were asked to value the cultured hamburger by willingness to pay a premium price. In addition, questions about socio-economic status were asked. Finally, participants were invited to make gratis-format remarks on cultured meat. The full study session lasted ane hr.

Sensory perception analysis

To accost the question if the provision of specific product (meat) information influences sensory perception of 'cultured' meat, a wanting/liking test was done on two samples of hamburger, one labeled (on the plate) as 'conventional' and the other one, of unlike size, every bit 'cultured'. Samples were offered in random social club.

Information analysis

Variables.

Credence, liking and circumstantial variables were acquired and evaluated.

Acceptance was defined as the response to four unlike acceptance questions: ane. "Are y'all in favor of cultured meat?" ('favor' question), two. "Do you want to taste it?" ('taste' question), 3. "Volition you buy information technology?" ('purchase' question) and 4. "Do you desire to replace conventional meat with cultured meat in your daily diet?" ('supplant' question). The questions were asked before and afterwards specific information was given, and after tasting in a repeated measures design. Responses to the questions were given on a 5-point scale ranging from ane–v; definitely against to definitely in favor (for the 'favor' question) or definitely non to definitely aye for the 'taste', 'buy' and 'replace' questions. Based on the results of a Reliability test and Cronbach's Alpha scores, the responses to the 'favor', 'purchase' and 'replace' questions were summated into a general 'Acceptance' variable, henceforth named acceptance. The scores for credence consequently ranged from 3 to 15. The 'taste' responses were left out as Cronbach'due south Alpha was not reduced by leaving information technology out and because the 'taste' question was not asked later the participants had tasted the pieces of hamburger. The response to the 'taste' question ranged from 1 to 5 and was designated as willingness-to-gustation variable. Cronbach's Blastoff was 0.892 for acceptance before data was given, 0.901 after information and 0.930 after tasting.

Two additional variables were measured to assess the value participants place on cultured meat: their willingness to pay a premium price (yes/no) and the level of premium cost, they were willing to pay.

Sensory perception variables included appearance, odor, color, taste, tenderness and juiciness on a 7- indicate hedonic scale. The presence of an palatableness and the quality of the palatableness, were noted every bit binary variables. All liking variables were acquired for conventional and 'cultured' meat in a paired setup, randomized for club in which samples were tasted.

Coexisting variables were: Sex (male, female person), historic period, family income (iv categories from <€1000/mo to >€4000/mo), general education (v categories from vocational to PhD level), prior awareness nearly cultured meat (iii categories: 'not aware', 'aware but don't know exactly what is', 'aware and know exactly what it is'), concerns about animal welfare, surroundings, food safety and food security (6 categories from 'not concerned at all' to 'extremely concerned'), meat or beefiness eating behaviour (8 categories from 'less than in one case a month' to '2 or more than times per solar day') and ambition before tasting (wanting savory snack 'aye/no', hungry 'aye/no').

Assay

All data were first analysed on accurateness of data entry and on missing values. In case of parametric testing, normal distribution was evaluated using the Shapiro-Wilk test of normality.

Acceptance (summation of responses to 3 acceptance questions) was analysed by repeated measures assay of variance (ANOVA) with Information Condition (Societal vs Personal vs Meat Quality & taste) as between factor and Time (before and subsequently receiving information and after tasting) as within-subjects measure. The same analysis was performed for the relationship between acceptance and prior sensation with prior awareness as between factor and fourth dimension as within-subjects factor. For Sensory Perception, repeated measures ANOVA included Information Status every bit between cistron and Blazon of Meat as within-subjects measure out.

To analyse relationships between levels of credence before information was provided (entire cohort, n = 193) and coexisting variables, 1-manner ANOVA was used with posthoc testing according to Tukey. For the human relationship between age and credence (entire cohort, n = 193), Spearman'southward correlation was used.

To analyse which factors, lone or in combination, predicted acceptance and the level of premium toll participants were willing to pay, stepwise linear regression was performed with responses to acceptance (afterward specific information and earlier tasting) as outcome measure and age, sexual practice, prior sensation, Data Condition and highest level of teaching as predicting factors. For level of premium participants are willing to pay, family income was added as independent gene. For binary outcome parameters such as presence and quality of aftertaste, the χ² test was used to examination the issue of Information Condition and the McNemar exam (paired) for the difference betwixt the Type of Meat Condition.

Where appropriate, nosotros presented data as mean and standard deviation: hateful(SD).

A P-value of < 0.05 (two-sided) was used to ascertain statistical significance.

Results

Cohort characteristics

The demographic characteristics of the cohort were like to that the same age categories in the full general population of the netherlands (Table 1). The boilerplate age was somewhat higher in the cohort than the general population and men were slightly overrepresented. Professional and educational status were similar.

Issue of data content on acceptance

One of the two main questions of the study was if the content of information affects the acceptance of cultured meat. A first Repeated Measures Analysis with Information Condition as between-subjects factor and Time (before, after data and afterward tasting) as inside-subjects cistron on acceptance revealed an increase in acceptance with Time (before and after information: df = 1, F = 109.12, p<0.001; after data and after tasting: df = 1, F = 102.35, p<0.001, Table ii). In that location was no effect of Data Condition (df = 2, F = 0.58, p = 0.561). Even so, a meaning interaction was observed between Information Status and Time between before and after information (df = 2, F = 4.thirteen, p = 0.018), just not between after information and after tasting (df = ii, F = 0.27, p = 0.767). This suggests that the modify in acceptance as a outcome of the received information, differs between the groups. Indeed, nosotros found the highest mean change in credence of 1.57(1.77), p = 0.018 in the 'Personal Benefits' group, followed past a not-meaning difference in the 'Societal benefits' group (0.97(1.47), p = 0.063) and a smaller change in credence in the 'Meat quality&gustation' group with 0.86(1.23), which was significantly different from the other groups, p = 0.022 (Fig two).

Fig 2. Boxplot change in credence of cultured meat after specific information.

The dark line in the box indicates median value. Open up circles: outliers, asterisk: extreme value. #: Pregnant change in acceptance, p = 0.022.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231176.g002

The responses to the question "Are you willing to taste cultured meat", or willingness-to-gustatory modality, also showed significance for the Fourth dimension Condition (df = 1, F = eighteen.88, p<0.001), just no effect of the Information Condition (df = ii, F = 0.09, p = 0.918) and no interaction (df = two, F = 2.45, p = 0.089).

Outcome of prior awareness on credence

From preliminary assay and from previous studies [12] it is clear that prior awareness is related to acceptance of cultured meat.

A 2nd Repeated Measures Assay with Awareness Condition every bit between-subjects factor and Time as within-subjects gene on acceptance showed a clear issue of prior awareness (df = 2, F = 96.353, p<0.001 for Time and df = 2, F = xv.69, p<0.001 for prior awareness). Based on the interaction consequence, the difference in credence over fourth dimension (every bit a result of information provision), was significant for the participants who never heard of cultured meat or did not know exactly what it was, only non for those who already knew exactly what it was. Knowing exactly what cultured meat is, consistently led to higher acceptance scores than just having heard of it but not knowing exactly what is or never having heard of it (Table three).

Given the relationship between prior awareness and acceptance, it is important to note that the level of prior awareness in the three information groups was not different (ANOVA, p = 0.307).

Willingness-to-gustatory modality was also determined by the Time Condition (df = one, F = 28.59, p<0.001) and Sensation Status (df = 2, F = 11.622, p<0.001), and showed a significant interaction (df = 2, F = 5.57, p = 0.004). The increase in willingness-to-taste by providing specific information, was 0.57(0.99) in the participants who had heard and knew exactly what cultured meat was, ane.74(1.62) in for those who heard of it, but were not exactly sure what it was (p = 0.002 compared to the outset group, p = 0.203 to group who had never heard of cultured meat) and 2.10(2.21) for participants who had never heard of cultured meat.

Acceptance, earlier providing information

To analyse the relationships between acceptance at the showtime of the study, earlier data was provided, and circumstantial variables such every bit sex activity, teaching, family income, meat or beef consumption beliefs and levels of business concern about environment, and creature welfare, ANOVA was performed. Of these coexisting variables, only the level of education (df = 4, F = 4.83, p = 0.001) and frequency of meat consumption (df = 4, F = 5.44, p<0.001) were significantly related to acceptance. No relationship was observed with acceptance based on the 'willingness to gustatory modality' question, since the willingness-to-taste was generally very high and therefore non discriminative.

Posthoc analyses (Tukey) of the relationships between credence and educational activity revealed that university educated participants were more accepting of cultured meat than participants who received a professional or secondary vocational education.

The relationship betwixt meat consumption (all meats) and credence showed lower acceptance in the group that ate meat once a week than in groups that ate meat 2-4/week (p = 0.009) or more frequently (p = 0.033).

To study the human relationship between acceptance and age we used Spearman'southward correlation avoiding the somewhat capricious binning of age groups. Nosotros found a negative correlation between age and acceptance (Rho = -0.204; p = 0.004), suggesting that acceptance is less at higher historic period. No relationship between historic period and willingness-to-taste was observed (Rho = -0.090; p = 0.213).

Regression analysis on acceptance

To further examination whether acceptance changes every bit a function of Information condition predictor, a regression model was designed to account for possible differences in change in acceptance as dependent gene betwixt categories of prior sensation, highest level of education, age and sexual practice. Stepwise regression analysis revealed that only prior awareness was significantly predictive: F (1,189) = 12.43; p = 0.001) with R² = 0.062 and Beta = 0.808. Thus, Regression analysis confirmed that variables other than prior awareness had trivial or no effect on acceptance after specific information was received, including the Information Condition itself.

The same analysis was performed on the effect of tasting on acceptance. Also here, prior awareness was the only predictor of credence (F (one,190) = 17.85; p<0.001, R² = 0.086, Beta = 1.077).

Sensory perception

The second aim of the study was to ascertain if the content of information on cultured meat affects sensory perception of meat, either conventional or cultured. A repeated measures ANOVA was performed with Data condition as between factor and Type of meat as within-subjects gene on changes in scores on the Wanting-Liking evaluation of the two hamburger products. Analysis did non reveal any effect of Information Condition on 'liking' (p-values ranged from 0.083 for odour to 0.835 for advent). The assay showed a principal event for Type of meat on gustatory modality with college Liking scores for the 'cultured' hamburger compared to 'conventional' hamburger (df = ane, F = four.26; p = 0.04). No interaction was observed for sense of taste (df = two, F = 0.58; p = 0.559). For the other five tested attributes (appearance, color, aroma, tenderness and juiciness), no main or interaction effects were observed (p-values ranging from 0.107 to 0.999).

The presence of an aftertaste (yeah or no) and quality of the aftertaste (bad or good), were scored as binary outcomes. Using χ^two- analysis, the Information condition did non affect the presence of an aftertaste (p = 0.514 for conventional hamburger, p = 0.918 for the 'cultured' hamburger). The same was plant for the quality of the aftertaste (p = 0.283 for the conventional hamburger and p = 0.171 for the 'cultured' hamburger).

For the entire cohort, there was no difference in the presence of an aftertaste (McNemar test; p = 0.503) or the quality of the aftertaste (p = 0.454) between the 2 hamburgers.

Premium

As a quantitative measure for the acceptance of cultured meat, we used the willingness to pay a premium toll for the product and the increase in amount participants are willing to pay more. A bulk (58%) of participants was willing to pay a premium cost and this did non depend on the Information Status (χ², p = 0.769). On boilerplate, the participants willing to pay a premium price were prepared to pay € 0.37 more than the set base toll of € 1.00 (Fig 3).

In that location was also no effect of Information condition on the extra corporeality participants were willing to pay (€ 0.37, € 0.34 and € 0.41 for the 'societal benefits', 'personal benefits' and 'meat quality & gustatory modality' groups respectively, df = two, F = 0.45; p = 0.636). There was no human relationship between family unit income and the level of premium toll, participants were willing to pay (df = iii, F = 0.22; p = 0.881 for entire cohort, df = 3, F = 0.88; p = 0.456, for participants who were willing to pay a premium).

Regression assay on the level of premium toll included the independent variables Information condition, prior awareness, age, pedagogy, family household income, and acceptance after tasting. None of these factors predicted the the level of premium price.

Solicited comments on cultured meat

On the open-ended question 'What kinds of thoughts practise y'all have about cultured meat? (This included unfinished thoughts, such as doubts, worries, hopes or mixed feelings)' a diversity of positive comments, concerns and neutral comments were expressed past the participants (Fig 4). These comments were categorized by two independent observers. Start, the full general tone of the comments was qualified as positive, neutral or negative. So, specific comments or questions were categorized co-ordinate to their topic (toll, health, animal welfare, safety, gustation, technical aspects, specific societal aspects) and within that topic qualified as positive, neutral or negative. Inter-rater variability for the general categories positive, neutral and negative was good with kappa values of 0.93, 0.83 and 0.83, respectively, P<0.001). For the four to five nearly prevalent remarks in each full general category, kappa values ranged from 0.67 (positive comment on safety) to 0.903 (negative comment on price), with an average kappa of 0.82(0.07) (hateful (SD)).

Fig 4. Qualitative remarks.

Positive (a), negative (b) and neutral (c) remarks, on cultured meat. N = number of remarks per category, the size of the pies indicates the relative number of remarks on the specified topic.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231176.g004

Positive remarks highlighted more often than not the perceived benefits for environment, food security and animal welfare (Fig 4A). Taste was judged positively just this was patently a result of the 'cultured' hamburger being equal to the conventional i. Food safety was as well mentioned equally a positive quality of cultured meat. The near prevalent concerns (Fig 4B) were almost the anticipated high cost, rubber and sense of unfamiliarity. The need for regulation was the 4^thursday nearly prevalent remark. Neutral remarks (Fig 4C) were expressed every bit questions and referred to health, job loss for farmers, nutritional value and a desire to get more information about cultured meat. There were no remarkable differences in remarks made by participants assigned to the three specific information groups.

Give-and-take

We conducted the first credence written report on cultured meat that was performed in the setting of a tasting of meat that was labeled as either 'conventional' or 'cultured'. Studies thus far have been either focus group studies or questionnaire-based surveys, without a physical product exposure. The study was performed in a representative cross-section of the population that was geographically located in the Limburg region of the Netherlands. We observed that increasing literacy of participants by giving them information on cultured meat increased acceptance. The content of the information was besides relevant. In a repeated measures analysis, a small-scale but significantly college level of acceptance was observed when participants received information on personal benefits of cultured meat rather than data on quality and sense of taste of the meat. No difference was observed with information on societal benefits.

Initial credence based on the question if people are in favor of the cultured meat development, was already fairly high before specific information was provided, ranging from 48 to 56% in the studied groups. These results are in accord with earlier quantitative studies that were geographically spread through Europe [three, 13, fourteen], the US and parts of Asia [iv, 15]. Acceptance of novel, biotechnical, foods earlier whatever given information depends on prior awareness about the bailiwick [four, 10, 12, sixteen–18] and indeed we observed a strong positive relationship betwixt prior awareness/understanding and initial acceptance charge per unit of cultured meat. The studied population had a higher level of prior sensation (89% had heard of it; 55% knew what it was) than the population in Belgium (49% heard of information technology) [three], and the U.s. (29% heard of information technology; data not reported but calculated from the online available source information) [four]. Bekker et al observed that prior awareness negated the effect of positive and negative information, respectively on positive or negative explicit attitudes towards cultured meat [10]. At that place can be a complex relationship between prior awareness/information and the bear on of newly provided information, where participants basically weigh the two [12]. The strength of prior beliefs and information, especially when thinking most future technologies with no tangible products in the marketplace yet, can exist as important as the new information [17]. This was illustrated in a study on the result of information on the acceptance of genetically modified food, where the aforementioned information had opposite effects in unlike geographical locations, presumably considering some people did not trust the provided information [nineteen]. Independent third-party information has more than impact than company-provided information. We considered the university-provided information as independent, although some participants may accept viewed the local university equally an interested party since it has been publicized as the birthplace of cultured meat. Thus, it is possible that populations less well informed than the participants in our study, may respond stronger to the content of information provided. It is difficult to judge if the participants experienced the information provided to them in an academic setting was considered as tertiary-political party information, as that question was non specifically addressed.

Nosotros chose to give only positive information on cultured meat. It is expected that more balanced data would bear on credence differently [20]. For instance, Rousu et al. institute that third political party verifiable information had more than issue when negative pre-existent information had been present on the acceptance of genetically modified food [21].

The steady increase in acceptance later information and after tasting confirms before studies on unfamiliar foods [22–24]. This is the get-go study on acceptance of cultured meat with a tasting component, which allows to study of the effect of physical exposure to an otherwise imagined product on acceptance. In a recent report of Tan et al, where participants were presented with hamburgers containing unfamiliar components such as lamb encephalon, frog meat or mealworms, the tasting experience did non lead to the hamburgers existence accepted as appropriate food [sixteen]. Disqualifying novel foods by considering them inappropriate likely reduces delivery to start adopting them. In our report however, tasting did increase acceptance. This might suggest that a cultured meat hamburger is considered an appropriate food when its sensory features are equivalent to conventional meat.

Information technology is interesting to note that the four acceptance questions produced unlike results. Specifically, the willingness to gustatory modality cultured meat had a much college score than the responses to the other questions. The same difference was found past Wilks et al [iv], where 2-third of the participants was willing to try in vitro meat and just one-tertiary willing to eat information technology on a regular ground. Likewise, in a large Italian cohort, willingness to endeavour (54%) scored higher than willingness to buy (44%) or to pay more (23%) [14]. Willingness to taste was further substantiated past the observation that all participants really tasted the 'cultured' hamburger that was presented to them. A similar observation was made by Tan et al where 94% of the participants tasted the hamburgers that were labelled to contain unfamiliar items [sixteen] and by Caparros Medigo et al. in whose study 70–90% of participants ate insects, with the level beingness age-dependent [25]. In the Caparros Medigo study, willingness to taste was situation dependent (during 'special' occasions that elicited marvel). It is therefore possible that the report context and university environment of our study may accept had a positive event on the decision to taste the 'cultured' hamburger. Every bit perceived danger is a major determinant for willingness to taste novel foods [26], this suggests that participants did not consider cultured meat dangerous. Unwillingness to effort novel foods is generally referred to as neophobia. We did not test food neophobia in this particular population, just in previous studies food neophobia appeared to be a poor predictor of choices for unfamiliar foods [16, 27]. Notwithstanding, contempo studies by Bryant et al [15] and by Wilks et al [28] have identified food neophobia as a predictor of cultured meat rejection. Disgust and perceived unnaturalness seem to underlie unwillingness to try foods that are considered technical [10]. Indeed, disgust and perception of naturalness appear to play a role in rejection of cultured meat as well [29].

The sensory evaluation of the hamburgers on the vi attributes revealed a deviation betwixt the conventional and 'cultured' hamburger on taste, which was considered slightly ameliorate for the 'cultured' hamburger. On the other attributes, global appearance, colour, smell, tenderness, juiciness and aftertaste, there were no differences between the two hamburgers. The content of information provided had no influence on sensory analysis. Several theories and experimental data relate sensory expectations to sensory analysis [12]. Expectations can exist created by providing data, but they are typically referring to sense of taste or quality of a product. Since we found no difference in gustation evaluation betwixt the information groups, and therefore not a college taste difference betwixt the conventional and 'cultured' hamburger in the 'Meat quality & taste' information group, our data cannot be directly interpreted along those theories and experimental data. The label 'cultured hamburger' probably did create expectations, more likely towards an junior gustation feel than a superior i [iv, 30]. Given that the hamburgers were identical, the gustatory modality feel of the 'cultured' hamburger was a pleasant one and thus led to a positive valuation through assimilation [31], whereas the experience and expectation of the conventional hamburger probably matched. In a similar experimental setup, Tan et al found a stiff label effect on sensory-linking of hamburgers with unfamiliar components [xvi]. In that written report however, the hamburger with unfamiliar components was generally rated lower on the sensory-liking scale simply they likewise did have a composition that was unlike from the beef hamburger. For experimental reasons, nosotros presented the conventional hamburger in a slightly larger size than the 'cultured' slice, justified past 'limited availability' of the latter. This may have affected the sensory analysis upshot as items perceived as scarce can be considered of higher value [32].

Interpretation of the sensory analysis effect depends on the confidence participants had in the authenticity of the 'cultured hamburger'. Nosotros take not addressed this in the questionnaire to avoid priming when asked before tasting (raising suspicion) or unreliable answers later tasting (not admitting beingness misled). Based on reactions during debriefing and the absenteeism of remarks expressing this suspicion in the solicited comments provided sufficient confidence that participants believed to have eaten a slice of cultured hamburger.

A surprising event was that more than half of the participants were willing to pay a premium for cultured meat with an boilerplate of 37% more than for conventional meat. We used this parameter as a measure of credence. Many studies in food acceptance have used a methodology called experimental auctioning, where groups of participants are bidding on nutrient items either to learn the food items (willingness to pay) [17] or to have the foods (willingness to have; receiving compensation for an undesirable food) [xix]. In the study by Wilks et al, without a tasting experience, only xvi% was willing to pay a premium [4]. In the Verbeke study, 14% was willing to pay a premium afterward having received bones technological information, which number rose to 36% when additional data on benefits of cultured meat had been provided [three]. Baseline willingness to pay a premium for cultured meat was 23% and the premium range was between 10 and 30% in an Italian study [14]. Nosotros observed no influence of specific information on willingness to pay a premium, in contrast to the study of Verbeke. It is possible that the favorable tasting experience led participants to exist more enthusiastic resulting in willingness to pay a premium. Alternatively, the mostly more than favorable mental attitude towards cultured meat in comparing with previous studies may be associated with a higher willingness to pay a premium. Since we did not ask the question before and after tasting, this question remains unanswered. Information technology does suggest nonetheless, that consumers are potentially willing to pay a premium for cultured meat based on its perceived benefits.

All studies on the acceptance of cultured meat has been survey-based or performed in focus groups. The data from these types of studies can be discipline to fallacies, the most important one mayhap being the witting pick fallacy. Surveys select for conscious choices where consumer behaviour is non always conscious, leading to a discrepancy between responses in surveys and bodily behaviour [33]. In the absenteeism of a commercial product, the approach of exposing participants to a labeled product which they believe to be cultured meat, is likely closer to the human experience. Even so, this study was still performed in a rather formal bookish setting that is different from the regular food buy setting.

Some of the favorable responses to credence and willingness to pay questions were received after the favorable tasting feel, which is obviously artificial, as the tested product was in fact conventional beefiness. These results can therefore just be translated to an eventual cultured meat product, if that is indistinguishable from a conventional hamburger. That result has to exist awaited.

Conclusion

For a novel and unfamiliar food such as cultured meat, credence depends on the level of information, either pre-existent or provided advertizing hoc. The content of information seems of minor importance. When framed positively and when tasting experiences are favorable, credence of cultured meat is potentially loftier. The perceived benefits of cultured meat may translate in a willingness to pay a premium price.

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the advice of prof Catherine Dacremont, ENSBANA, Université de Bourgogne, France and prof Cor van der Weele. They are too indebted to the organizational support by Ms Bianca Gorski, Ms Vivian Schellings, Mr Samuel Becker, Ms Sophia von Stockert and Ms Frea Mehta. Dr Ton van Ambergen provided valuable statistical guidance and dr Josh Flack critically read and edited the manuscript.

References

1. 1. Mail service MJ. Cultured meat from stem cells: challenges and prospects. Meat Sci. 2012;92(three):297–301. pmid:22543115.
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
2. 2. Post MJ. Cultured beef: medical technology to produce food. J Sci Food Agric. 2014;94(vi):1039–41. Epub 2013/11/12. pmid:24214798.
   • View Commodity
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
3. 3. Verbeke W, Sans P, Van Loo EJ. Challenges and prospects for consumer credence of cultured meat. Journal of Integrative Agriculture. 2015;14(two):285–94. https://doi.org/x.1016/S2095-3119(14)60884-4.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
4. iv. Wilks 1000, Phillips CJ. Attitudes to in vitro meat: A survey of potential consumers in the United States. PLoS One. 2017;12(2):e0171904. Epub 2017/02/17. pmid:28207878; PubMed Primal PMCID: PMC5312878.
   • View Commodity
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
5. 5. van der Weele C, Driessen C. Emerging Profiles for Cultured Meat; Ideals through and every bit Design. Animals. 2013;3(three):647. pmid:26479525
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
6. 6. Bryant C, Barnett J. Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: A systematic review. Meat Sci. 2018;143:eight–17. Epub 2018/04/24. pmid:29684844.
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
7. 7. Rozin P, Fallon A. The psychological categorization of foods and non-foods: A preliminary taxonomy of nutrient rejections. Ambition. 1980;1(iii):193–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-6663(80)80027-four.
   • View Commodity
   • Google Scholar
8. viii. Martins Y, Pliner P. Human food choices: An examination of the factors underlying acceptance/rejection of novel and familiar animal and nonanimal foods. Ambition. 2005;45(3):214–24. pmid:16188344
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
9. 9. Van Wezemael L, Ueland O, Rodbotten R, De Smet S, Scholderer J, Verbeke Due west. The issue of technology data on consumer expectations and liking of beef. Meat Sci. 2012;xc(2):444–50. Epub 2011/10/11. pmid:21981934.
   • View Commodity
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
10. 10. Bekker GA, Fischer ARH, Tobi H, van Trijp HCM. Explicit and implicit attitude toward an emerging food technology: The instance of cultured meat. Appetite. 2017;108:245–54. pmid:27717657
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
11. 11. CBS. CBS statline 2019 [March 20th 2020]. Available from: https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/nl/dataset/7461bev/tabular array?dl=308BE&ts=1584699312649 https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/nl/dataset/80384ned/tabular array?ts=1584704553792 https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/nl/dataset/82309NED/table?ts=1584704591753.
12. 12. Deliza R, MacFie HJH. The generation of sensory expectation by external cues and its effects on sensory perception and hedonic ratings: A review. Journal of Sensory Studies. 1996;11(2):103–28.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
13. 13. Flycatcher. Dutch People wouldn't mind trying the "cultivated burger" 2017 [cited 2017 17 Dec 2017]. Available from: https://www.flycatcher.eu/en/Home/NieuwsItem/38.
14. 14. Mancini MC, Antonioli F. Exploring consumers' attitude towards cultured meat in Italy. Meat science. 2019;150:101–10. pmid:30616073
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
15. 15. Bryant C, Szejda K, Parekh Northward, Desphande V, Tse B. A Survey of Consumer Perceptions of Establish-Based and Clean Meat in the U.s., India, and China. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. 2019;3:xi.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
16. 16. Tan HSG, Fischer ARH, van Trijp HCM, Stieger M. Tasty but nasty? Exploring the function of sensory-liking and food appropriateness in the willingness to eat unusual novel foods like insects. Food Quality and Preference. 2016;48(Office A):293–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.xi.001.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
17. 17. Huffman WE, Rousu M, Shogren JF, Tegene A. The furnishings of prior behavior and learning on consumers' acceptance of genetically modified foods. Journal of Economic Beliefs & Arrangement. 2007;63(one):193–206. https://doi.org/ten.1016/j.jebo.2005.04.019.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
18. 18. Zajonc RB. Attitudinal furnishings of mere exposure. Journal of personality and social psychology. 1968;nine(2p2):1.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
19. 19. Lusk JL, Firm LO, Valli C, Jaeger SR, Moore M, Morrow JL, et al. Issue of information near benefits of biotechnology on consumer credence of genetically modified food: evidence from experimental auctions in the Usa, England, and France. European Review of Agricultural Economics. 2004;31(2):179–204.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
20. 20. Play tricks JA, Hayes DJ, Shogren JF. Consumer Preferences for Nutrient Irradiation: How Favorable and Unfavorable Descriptions Affect Preferences for Irradiated Pork in Experimental Auctions. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 2002;24(ane):75–95.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
21. 21. Rousu M, Huffman Nosotros, Shogren JF, Tegene A. Furnishings and value of verifiable data in a controversial market: Testify from lab auctions of genetically modified food. Economic Enquiry. 2007;45(iii):409–32.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
22. 22. Birch LL, Marlin DW. I don't similar it; I never tried it: furnishings of exposure on two-year-old children's food preferences. Appetite. 1982;3(iv):353–60. Epub 1982/12/01. pmid:7168567.
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
23. 23. Pelchat ML, Pliner P. "Try information technology. You'll similar it." Effects of information on willingness to try novel foods. Appetite. 1995;24(2):153–65. Epub 1995/04/01. pmid:7611749.
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
24. 24. Pliner P. The furnishings of mere exposure on liking for edible substances. Appetite. 1982;3(3):283–90. Epub 1982/09/01. pmid:7159080.
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
25. 25. Caparros Megido R, Sablon Fifty, Geuens M, Brostaux Y, Alabi T, Blecker C, et al. Edible Insects Acceptance by Belgian Consumers: Promising Attitude for Entomophagy Development. Periodical of Sensory Studies. 2014;29(ane):14–20.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
26. 26. Pliner P, Pelchat M, Grabski One thousand. Reduction of neophobia in humans past exposure to novel foods. Appetite. 1993;xx(2):111–23. Epub 1993/04/01. pmid:8507067.
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
27. 27. Arvola A, Lähteenmäki Fifty, Tuorila H. Predicting the Intent to Purchase Unfamiliar and Familiar Cheeses: The Furnishings of Attitudes, Expected Liking and Nutrient Neophobia. Ambition. 1999;32(1):113–26. pmid:9989922
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
28. 28. Wilks M, Phillips CJC, Fielding One thousand, Hornsey MJ. Testing potential psychological predictors of attitudes towards cultured meat. Appetite. 2019;136:137–45. pmid:30731104
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
29. 29. Siegrist M, Sütterlin B, Hartmann C. Perceived naturalness and evoked disgust influence credence of cultured meat. Meat science. 2018;139:213–9. pmid:29459297
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
30. 30. Hocquette A, Lambert C, Sinquin C, Peterolff 50, Wagner Z, Bonny SPF, et al. Educated consumers don't believe artificial meat is the solution to the bug with the meat industry. Periodical of Integrative Agriculture. 2015;14(two):273–84. PubMed PMID: WOS:000349516100011.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
31. 31. Sherif M, Hovland CI. Social judgment: Absorption and contrast furnishings in advice and attitude change. Oxford, England: Yale Univer. Press.; 1961.
32. 32. Lynn Chiliad. Scarcity effects on value: A quantitative review of the commodity theory literature. Psychology & Marketing. 1991;8(1):43–57.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
33. 33. Köster EP. The psychology of food choice: some oftentimes encountered fallacies. Nutrient Quality and Preference. 2003;14(5):359–73. https://doi.org/x.1016/S0950-3293(03)00017-10.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar

parowiscon.blogspot.com

Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0231176