The willingness of Turkish consumers in different sociodemographic groups to try and consume in-vitro meat

Abstract

This study was conducted to determine the willingness of Turkish consumers in various socio-demographic groups to try, consume, and pay for in-vitro meat. The study was applied to potential participants through social media via Google Forms in the form of a questionnaire, and 989 responses were collected. Males were more willing than females to try in-vitro meat, consume it regularly, and try it when recommended. People who have master's and doctoral degrees are more willing to try in-vitro meat compared to those with other education levels. Related professionals, students, and health workers are more willing to try in-vitro meat directly and even more willing to try it, if recommended, than other occupational groups. The willingness to try, to consume regularly, and to try on recommendations were higher in the Mediterranean, Aegean, and Central Anatolia regions compared to others. Compared to individuals with one or two children, those without children and those with three or more children were found to be more willing to try in-vitro meat and to try if recommended. In-vitro meat is not yet commercially marketed in TürkiyeTurkey, and this study addresses the perceptions and opinions of consumer groups in different socio-economic statuses about in-vitro meat.

Keywords

• In-vitro meat
• socio-demographic factors
• willingness to consume
• willingness to try

References

1. 1. Aleksandrowicz L, Green R, Joy EJ, et al (2016): The impacts of dietary change on greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use, and health: A systematic review. Plos One 11, Article e016579.
2. 2. Anonymous (2018): Nearly one in three consumers willing to eat lab-grown meat, according to new research. Available at https://www.datasmoothie.com/@surveygoo/nearly-one-in-three-consumers-willing-to-eat-lab-g/ (Accessed March 1, 2024).
3. 3. Arora RS, Brent DA, Jaenicke EC (2020): Is India ready for alt-meat? Preferences and willingness to pay for meat alternatives. Sustainability, 12, 4377.
4. 4. Asioli D, Bazzani C, Nayga RMJr (2022): Are consumers willing to pay for in-vitro meat? An investigation of naming effects. J Agric Econ, 73, 356–375.
5. 5. Baybars M, Ventura K, Weinrich R (2023): Can in vitro meat be a viable alternative for Turkish consumers? Meat Sci, 201, 109191.
6. 6. Bhat ZF, Fayaz H (2011): Prospectus of cultured meat—advancing meat alternatives. JFST, 48, 125–140.
7. 7. Bryant C, Barnett J (2018): Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: A systematic review. Meat Sci, 143, 8–17.
8. 8. Chriki S, Ellies-Oury MP, Fournier D, et al (2020): Analysis of scientific and press articles related to cultured meat for a better understanding of its perception. Front Psychol, 11, 1845.

9. 9. Chriki S, Hocquette JF (2020): The myth of cultured meat: A review. Front Nutr, 7, 7.
10. 10. Dennis RG, Kosnik PE (2000): Excitability and isometric contractile properties of mammalian skeletal muscle constructs engineered in vitro in vitro cellular & developmental biology. Animal, 36, 327-335.
11. 11. Font-i-Furnols M, Guerrero L (2014): Consumer preference, behavior and perception about meat and meat products: an overview. Meat Sci, 98, 361-371.
12. 12. Gilbert N (2010): How to feed a hungry world: producing enough food for the world’s population in 2050 will be easy. but doing it at an acceptable cost to the planet will depend on research into everything from hightech seeds to low-tech farming practices. Nature, 466, 531–532.
13. 13. Goodwin JN, Shoulders CW (2013): The future of meat: a qualitative analysis of cultured meat media coverage. Meat Sci, 95, 445–450.
14. 14. Gül U (2023): Durum ve Tahmin Kırmızı Et, Tepge Yayin. 374, ISBN: 978-625-8451-94-8.
15. 15. Heidmeier AK, Teuber R (2023): Acceptance of in vitro meat and the role of food technology neophobia, dietary patterns and information–empirical evidence for Germany. BFJ, 125, 2540-2557.
16. 16. Hocquette A, Lambert C, Sinquin C, et al. (2015): Educated consumers don't believe artificial meat is the solution to the problems with the meat industry. J Integr Agric, 14, 273-284.
17. 17. Hocquette E, Liu J, Ellies-Oury MP, et al (2022): Does the future of meat in France depend on cultured muscle cells? Answers from different consumer segments. Meat Sci, 188, 108776.
18. 18. Jiang G, Ameer K, Kim H, et al (2020): Strategies for sustainable substitution of livestock meat. Foods, 9, 1227. 19. Kombolo NM, Chriki S, Ellies-Oury MP, et al (2023): Consumer perception of “artificial meat” in the educated young and urban population of Africa. Front Nutr, 10, 1127655.
19. 20. Liu J, Almeida JM, Rampado N, et al (2023): Perception of cultured “meat” by Italian, Portuguese and Spanish consumers. Front Nutr, 10, 1043618.
20. 21. Liu J, Hocquette É, Ellies-Oury MP, et al (2021): Chinese consumers’ attitudes and potential acceptance toward artificial meat. Foods, 10, 353.
21. 22. Mancini MC, Antonioli F (2019): Exploring consumers’ attitude towards cultured meat in Italy. Meat Sci, 150, 101-110.
22. 23. Mehta F, Ruud T, Mark, JP (2019): Adipogenesis from bovine precursors. 111- 125. In: S. Rønning (Ed.), Myogenesis. Methods Mol Biol, Humana Press, New York.
23. 24. Min S, Yang M, Qing P (2024): Consumer cognition and attitude towards artificial meat in China. Future Foods, 9, 100294. 25. Pakseresht A, Ahmadi Kaliji S, Canavari M (2022): Review of factors affecting consumer acceptance of cultured meat. Appetite, 170, 105829.
24. 26. Post MJ (2012): Cultured meat from stem cells: Challenges and prospects. Meat Sci, 92, 297–301.
25. 27. Post MJ (2014): Cultured beef: Medical technology to produce food. J Sci Food Agric, 94, 1039-1041.
26. 28. Shapiro P (2018): Clean meat: How Growing Meat Without Animals Will Revolutionize Dinner and The World. Gallery Books. ISBN-13: 978-1501189081.
27. 29. Shaw E, Iomaire M (2019): A comparative analysis of the attitudes of rural and urban consumers towards cultured meat. BFJ, 121, 1782 – 1800.
28. 30. Sikora D, Rzymski P (2023): The heat about cultured meat in Poland: a cross-sectional acceptance study. Nutrients, 15, 4649.
29. 31. Slade P (2018): If you build it, will they eat it? Consumer preferences for plant-based and cultured meat burgers. Appetite, 125, 428-437.
30. 32. The Jamovi Project Jamovi (2022): (Version 2.3) [Computer Software]. Retrieved from https://www.jamovi.org.
31. 33. Vandenburgh H, Shansky J, Del Tatto M, et al (1999): Organogenesis of skeletal muscle in tissue culture. Methods Mol Med, 18, 217-225.
32. 34. Van Loo EJ, Caputo V, Lusk JL (2020): Consumer preferences for farm-raised meat, lab-grown meat, and plant-based meat alternatives: does information or brand matter? Food Policy, 95, 101931.
33. 35. Ward C (2017): “Attitudes towards cultured meat”, Harris Interactive, London, 8 March, 2017. Available at: http://harris-interactive.co.uk/attitudes-towards-cultured. (Accessed 1, March 2024).
34. 36. Weinrich R, Strack M, Neugebauer F (2020): Consumer acceptance of cultured meat in Germany. Meat Sci, 162, 107924.
35. 37. Wilks M, Phillips CJC (2017): Attitudes to in vitro meat: A survey of potential consumers in the United States. Plos One, 12, e0171904.
36. 38. Wilks M, Phillips CJC, Fielding K, et al (2019): Testing potential psychological predictors of attitudes towards cultured meat. Appetite, 136, 137-145.
37. 39. Willett W, Rockstrom J, Loken B, et al (2019): Food in the anthropocene: The EAT-Lancet commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet, 393, 447–492.
38. 40. Zhang G, Zhao X, Li X, et al (2020): Challenges and possibilities for bio-manufacturing cultured meat. Trends Food Sci Technol, 97, 443–450.