Cultivated meat labeling study finds consumers prefer ‘cultivated’ over ‘lab-grown’ in USA and Germany

Researchers at Tufts University have found that the terminology used to describe cultivated meat products can significantly influence consumer acceptance and willingness to pay, with terms such as 'cultivated', 'cultured', and 'cellular' outperforming the widely used label 'lab-grown'.

The study, published in Food Quality & Preference by researchers from the Tufts University Center for Cellular Agriculture (TUCCA), examined consumer responses in both the United States and Germany and found remarkably consistent patterns across the two markets.

• Researchers found that terms including 'cultivated', 'cultured', and 'cellular' generated stronger consumer acceptance than 'lab-grown' in both the USA and Germany.
• Consumer traits such as food neophobia and trust in food system institutions significantly influenced responses to cultivated meat terminology.
• The findings suggested naming conventions could play an important role in future labeling discussions, marketing strategies, and consumer education efforts.

The research adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that how cultivated meat is presented to consumers may be almost as important as the product itself, particularly during the industry's early commercialization phase.

According to the study, naming serves as one of the first pieces of information consumers encounter when evaluating a new food technology. Researchers found that terminology can shape perceptions before consumers have any direct experience with the product.

The study's lead author, Katherine Fuller, now a faculty member at Oregon State University, completed most of the work while serving as a postdoctoral scholar at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University. She continues to hold an adjunct appointment at the school.

Sean Cash, Chair of the Division of Agriculture, Food and Environment at the Friedman School, served as senior author. Additional co-authors included Adjunct Assistant Professor Shijun Gao, alumna Caroline Andrews, and collaborators from TUCCA and partner institutions in Germany.

Discussing the findings, Fuller said terminology had a measurable effect on how consumers valued cultivated meat products.

"Our findings suggest that the words used to describe cell-cultivated meat can meaningfully influence consumer valuation," she said. "Naming is often one of the first pieces of information consumers find, so terminology can shape initial perceptions before people have direct experience with the product."

The researchers found, however, that terminology did not affect all consumers equally.

"At the same time, we found that naming does not affect everyone equally," Fuller said. "Consumers who are more open to trying new food technologies and who have greater trust in food system institutions tend to be more responsive to naming differences than those who are more skeptical."

One of the most notable findings was that the results replicated across both US and German consumer samples despite cultural differences between the two countries.

The authors suggested this consistency indicates that consumer responses may be driven by broader cognitive mechanisms rather than attitudes unique to a specific national market.

A key factor identified by the study was food neophobia, a term used to describe reluctance to try unfamiliar foods.

Fuller explained that consumers exhibiting higher levels of food neophobia were generally less receptive to cultivated meat regardless of the terminology used.

"Food neophobia is the tendency to be cautious about trying unfamiliar foods," she said. "Essentially, the 'I'll wait and see before I try that.'"

She added that terminology alone may not be enough to overcome deeper concerns about novel food technologies.

"In our study, people with higher food neophobia were less willing to choose cell-cultivated meat products regardless of how they were named, suggesting that concerns about the product itself may outweigh the influence of terminology."

The findings also have implications for industry stakeholders, regulators, and policymakers as discussions continue around labeling standards for cultivated meat products.

Fuller noted that consumer behavior research has historically played an important role in shaping how emerging food categories are communicated to consumers.

"Consumer behavior research often informs how companies and regulators communicate about new products," she said. "For example, terms such as 'plant-based milk' versus 'almond beverage' can bring up different consumer reactions, even when they refer to similar underlying products."

She said the study could help stakeholders better understand the relationship between language and consumer perceptions.

"Research like ours helps stakeholders understand how terminology shapes perceptions and valuation and can inform discussions about labeling standards and consumer education."

The cultivated meat sector has long debated the merits of different descriptors, with industry participants, regulators, and advocacy groups variously promoting terms such as cultivated, cell-cultivated, cultured, cell-based, and cellular agriculture-derived products.

The new research suggests those choices may have tangible consequences for market acceptance.

While the study focused specifically on consumer attitudes rather than regulatory outcomes, its findings arrive as cultivated meat companies continue efforts to build public familiarity with products produced from animal cells rather than conventional livestock farming.

The research was supported by a grant from the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Sustainable Agricultural Systems program through the US Department of Agriculture's National Institute of Food and Agriculture.