Technological Aspects of Bridging the Gap Between Cell-Based Food and Conventional Meat

Different cell types for in vitro muscle culture

During embryonic development, skeletal muscles originate from the paraxial mesoderm through the differentiation of myogenic progenitor cells (Chal and Pourquié, 2017). These progenitor cells develop to muscle fibers and tissues through cell fusion events. Throughout an animal’s entire lifespan, various types of stem cells, including embryonic stem cells (ESC), muscle stem cells (MuSC), and mesenchymal stem cells (MSC), contribute to muscle tissue generation (Chal and Pourquié, 2017). As a result, research focused on muscle tissue regeneration and growth draws extensively from studies involving these cell types. The production of cultured meat mirrors the principles of in vivo muscle regeneration. The theoretical framework and research underpinning cultured meat production also draw from these foundational studies on pluripotent stem cells (PSC), MSC, genetically modified cells such as induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC), as well as MuSC.

ESC and iPSC

In theory, PSC represent an ideal cell source for cultured meat production as they eliminate the need for continuous animal sacrifice due to their indefinite “stemness,” a term that refers to the unique capacity of these cells for self-renewal and their potential to differentiate into a wide array of cell types (Choi et al., 2020). This characteristic of PSC allows for the sustained production of cellular material necessary for cultured meat, without resorting to the use of animals. Several studies have reported the establishment of ESC lines from both pigs and cows (Bogliotti et al., 2018; Choi et al., 2019). These ESC lines hold considerable potential for enhancing the efficiency of cultured meat production. In another way, researchers have explored the use of iPSC derived from domestic animals (Post et al., 2020). However, it is important to note that the generation of iPSC without transgene expression has not been reported to date. Moreover, the process of cellular reprogramming to create PSC from somatic cells raises concerns related to genetically modified organisms (GMO), which might be met with consumer resistance as GMO are not allowed in some countries such as in Europe (WHO, 2023). Furthermore, a notable limitation of PSC is the complex challenge of controlling their stemness in vitro, making the optimization process complex. Consequently, the commercialization of PSC as cell sources for the muscle culture may be a lengthy process.

MSC

MSC, primarily found in bone marrow, can also be present in various tissues such as skeletal muscle, umbilical cord, and adipose tissues, or acquired through differentiation from PSC in vitro culture. MSC are multipotent stem cells which could be differentiated into cells mesodermal-derived cells such as adipocytes, chondrocytes, and myogenic progenitor cells (Li et al., 2021b). Okamura et al. (2018) reported that MSC derived from fetal bovine bone marrow exhibit myogenic potential, as evidenced by the expression of muscle regulatory factors. However, the formation of multinucleated muscle fibers was scarcely observed. Similarly, other studies have demonstrated the myogenic potential of human MSC derived from adipose tissue and synovial membrane (De Bari et al., 2003; Di Rocco et al., 2006; Stern-Straeter et al., 2014). MSC originate from different developmental pathways, with MuSC originating from the lateral-plate and paraxial mesoderm, respectively, therefore some studies have raised doubts about the myogenic capabilities of MSC (Leinroth et al., 2022; Uezumi et al., 2010). This debate raises concerns about the suitability of MSC for cultured muscle. However, it is worth noting that there have been studies suggesting that conditioned media from MSC culture can promote muscle regeneration (Archacka et al., 2021; Mitchell et al., 2019). Therefore, while MSC may not be ideal for direct muscle tissue culture, they could find application in co-culture systems or as a source of conditioned media for MuSC and adipose tissue culture.

Genetically modified cell lines

GMO have been a long-posed challenge to the consumer acceptance of novel foods developed through biotechnology. Recently, genetically modified pigs and salmon were approved by the US Food Drug Administration (FDA) as food (Dolgin, 2021; Waltz, 2017). In this regard, genetically modified cell lines also could be an option for cultured meat production except in the European Union. In fact, these types of cell lines were granted regulatory clearance by the US Food Drug Administration (FDA) and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 2023 for the commercialization of cultured chicken meat (Zheng et al., 2024). Notably, this milestone was achieved through the use of both spontaneous and Telomerase Reverse Transcriptase-cisgenic immortalized chicken cell lines, as exemplified by companies such as Eat Just Inc. and Upside Foods Inc. (Azhar et al., 2023).

One of the potential genetic modification techniques of cells is transdifferentiation, a process involving the introduction of fully differentiated somatic cells to differentiate into other cell types through the ectopic expression of transcription factors. Jeong et al. (2021) succeeded the induction of fibroblasts, which can be more easily obtained from the animal body than MuSC and have the potential of transdifferentiation to muscle because of identical origin, to MuSC by reprogramming with MYOD1 overexpression.

Another genetic modification strategy is the process of immortalization. Senescence, loss of stemness in proliferation and differentiation, presents a significant challenge for MuSC when compared to other PSC, although it has a higher differentiation ratio to muscle than other cell types. Therefore, immortalizing primary cells holds an importance, as it directly influences production efficiency without necessitating the continual slaughtering of animals. Although naturally immortalized cell lines, such as C2C12—defined populations of cells that can be maintained in culture for an extended period of time, retaining stability of certain phenotypes and functions—are exceedingly challenging to obtain. In genetic engineering, telomerase (a telomere synthesis enzyme) along with BMI-1 and CDK4, which are cell cycle regulators, has been used to immortalize MuSC (Chua et al., 2019; Douillard-Guilloux et al., 2009; López et al., 2020).

The immortalized muscle cells can overcome the problem and provide uniform and consistent outputs. However, because the immortalized cells are programmed to possess excellent proliferation ability, the differentiation ability might be inferior to other cell types, which should be taken care of. Furthermore, genetic engineering techniques offer the possibility to modify genes such as myostatin, known for its role as a muscle growth inhibitor, with the aim of enhancing the productivity of cultured meat. This approach finds support in sheep research, where the knock-down of myostatin has been demonstrated to induce the proliferation and differentiation of sheep myoblasts, showcasing its potential for augmenting cultured meat production (Liu et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2014). Genetically modified cell lines have indefinite potential, while, as previously indicated, the issue of consumer acceptance remains a challenge.

MuSC

MuSC are muscle-resident stem cells including satellite cells or myoblasts located in the basal membrane of muscle fibers and capable of muscle fiber production. Because MuSC have more myogenic potential without genetic modification than other stem cell sources, these cells have been considered the first option for cultured meat production. Furthermore, many studies of isolation and culture condition for MuSC derived from livestock animals have been reported (Choi et al., 2021; Ryu et al., 2023). Therefore, many researchers and industries are using MuSC for cultured meat cell sources (Table 1).

The cell is a seed for cell-based food production. Nevertheless, it is regretful that many studies have used immortalized cell lines such as C2C12 derived from mouse leg muscles. This is because they significantly differ from primary MuSC derived from domestic animals (Table 1). Consequently, the results obtained using the C2C12 cell line could not be directly applied to primary cells, and culture conditions suitable for primary cells need to be determined further, which is usually more difficult and tedious work to set up. For instance, optimizing the oxygen concentration, adjusting the serum composition in the growth medium, and calibrating the substrate stiffness are critical for enhancing the proliferation and differentiation of primary MuSC. Therefore, except for C2C12, notably, primary bovine and porcine MuSC have been the focus of extensive research, with the isolation of MuSC primarily achieved through techniques such as fluorescent-activated cell sorting (FACS) targeting both positive and negative markers such as Cluster of Differentiation (CD)31⁻CD45⁻CD56⁺CD29⁺ or pre-plating method. In the previous studies, the purity of MuSC was typically confirmed by the presence of markers such as PAX7⁺, MYOD⁺, CD29⁺ or CD56⁺ (Choi et al., 2020; Takahashi et al., 2022; Zhu et al., 2022). Consistent and reliable high production efficiency and product quality relies on the purity of MuSC, ensuring their purification from other cell types.

Some studies have explored genetically modified MuSC. For instance, Stout et al. (2020) demonstrated the development of carotenoid-producing bovine MuSC, and this research group subsequently published the findings on the immortalization of bovine MuSC through the overexpressing TERT and CDK4 genes (Stout et al., 2023a). In contrast, research involving other types of stem cells remains relatively limited, with only a few studies utilizing MSC for cultured fat production (Ianovici et al., 2022; Song et al., 2022; Zagury et al., 2022; Zernov et al., 2022).

MuSC have emerged as the most successful cell type for cultured meat production to date due to their higher myogenic potential and their ability to directly contribute to muscle fiber formation without genetic modification.

Media components

Cell culture media significantly influences the determination of production costs, accounting for 55%–95% of the expenses and was a major factor behind the €250,000 ($272,960) price tag of the first 142 g artificial hamburger in 2013 (Hubalek et al., 2022). For instance, it can be estimated that the production of 1000 kg of cultured meat requires approximately 10¹⁴ MuSC, which need 20,000 L of media for their sustenance (Hubalek et al., 2022). These media typically comprise basal components, animal serums or substitutes, signaling molecules, and various additives crucial for optimal cell growth. Previous studies have comprehensively documented the components of these media (Choi et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2022a).

As mentioned earlier, the percentage of cell culture media in the production cost of cultured meat is very high. Accordingly, in order to reduce the production cost of cultured meat at a price acceptable to consumers, it is necessary to reduce the proportion of cell culture media. The first step of reducing cell culture media cost is serum replacement, especially fetal bovine serum. Serum consists of growth factors, hormones, amino acids, lipids, and unknown factors stimulating cell growth (Ho et al., 2021). Considering the limitations such as the unethical production process, batch-to-batch variation, animal origin, and high costs, serum replacement in cultured meat production is not only inevitable but essential. These challenges necessitate a holistic approach that encompasses scientific, economic, and social considerations. Scientifically, developing an effective serum replacement requires innovative research to identify alternatives that can support cellular growth and proliferation without compromising the quality of cultured meat. Economically, finding a cost-effective solution is crucial to making cultured meat affordable for consumers and viable for producers. Socially, addressing ethical concerns and public acceptance is key to integrating cultured meat into mainstream food systems. By incorporating these considerations, the pursuit of sustainable cultured meat production becomes a multidimensional effort to align technological advancements with broader societal goals. Therefore, some start-up companies seem to have taken some initiative and have recently succeeded in producing an artificial animal-free medium, but they are not disclosing its composition for reasons of industrial and commercial secrecy (Ho, 2021).

Indeed, FBS can potentially be substituted with protein hydrolysates derived from different protein-rich sources, including plants, fungi, and algae (Batish et al., 2022). An economical protein hydrolysate with potential to replace FBS An economical protein hydrolysate with potential to replace FBS has been obtained from the agro-industrial by-product okara (a byproduct of soymilk and tofu production) (Teng, 2022).

Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that the majority of recent studies have continued to rely on FBS or serum for cell proliferation and differentiation, as indicated in Table 2. In addition, cultured meat commercialized in Singapore is produced using FBS (Zheng et al., 2024). Stout et al. (2022) developed chemically defined medium containing transforming growth factor, fibroblast growth factor, Neuregulin, transferrin, insulin, albumin, sodium selenite, and L-ascorbic acid 2-phosphate. This medium demonstrated equivalent or superior performance in the culture of bovine MuSC compared to media containing 20% FBS, while concurrently reducing the cost per liter by one-sixth compared to the later. Also, differentiation media which usually containing low concentration of serum than growth media could be replaced with chemically defined media (Messmer et al., 2022).

Another key area of research in cell culture media for cultured meat production involves substituting non-edible components with edible counterparts. For instance, certain non-edible ingredients traditionally used in culture media—such as synthetic growth factors, antibiotics, and other additives—can be replaced with edible alternatives, like plant extracts or food-grade growth factors. This substitution aims to enhance the safety and consumer acceptance of cultured meat while potentially reducing production costs. The related research is crucial for developing sustainable and economically viable cultured meat production. The supplementation of edible antioxidants such as vitamin C and flavonoids has demonstrated enhanced MuSC growth (Fang et al., 2022; Guo et al., 2022; Zhu et al., 2022). Furthermore, utilization of protein hydrolysates as serum replacement or media supplement also has been studied (Kim et al., 2023; Lei et al., 2022; Okamoto et al., 2022; Venkatesan et al., 2022). Nevertheless, it is important to note that even chemically defined media with serum replacements may still contain animal-origin components or costly ingredients, such as recombinant human albumin. A recent breakthrough by Stout et al. (2023b) involved substituting recombinant human albumin with hydrolysates derived from rapeseed.

Given that cell culture media significantly influences the cost and safety of cultured meat, the research and development aimed at cost reduction and defined components is an essential step toward the commercialization of cultured meat. A recent webinar by the Good Food Institute (Swartz, 2024) has described different possibilities to reduce costs of culture meat production considering growth media is the current cost driver while infrastructure will be a long-term cost driver. For example, sourcing lower-cost ingredients (by reducing pharma-grade ingredients or by using recombinant proteins) or reducing use or cost in production of growth factors has the potential to reduce media costs by 99%. Amico acids are also cost drivers and can be produced from hydrolysates to reduce their costs. Another solution is media formulation optimization, media recycling, and the use of less media thanks to a better feed conversion of cells. Cell metabolism is indeed central to achieving goals of cost reduction.

In conclusion, while elimination of FBS in the culture medium is now a prerequisite, a significant reduction in the cost of culture media is needed to make their production economically viable since adding growth factors is expensive. Recycling of the culture medium, for example by recovering some of the residual nitrogen, is also a very promising way to reduce the cost of its use and hence the price of the final product.

Scaffold

Scaffolds employed in in vitro cell culture aim to replicate the chemical, mechanical, and morphological characteristics of the extracellular matrix (ECM) found in living organisms (Samandari et al., 2023; Valdoz et al., 2021). In the field of tissue engineering, particularly for biomedical applications, a considerable effort has been directed toward developing biomaterials, which can be broadly classified into 2 main categories: natural and synthetic (Seah et al., 2022). In muscle tissue engineering, there has been a historical preference for animal-derived biomaterials, mainly due to their accessibility and their inherent similarity to the native cellular microenvironment (Samandari et al., 2023). However, in cultured meat production, there exists consumer apprehension regarding the use of synthetic materials. Hence, recent research efforts in cultured meat have been directed toward the development of scaffolding materials that not only are edible and digestible but also align with consumer acceptability criteria including safety, taste, texture, nutritional value, ethical consideration, environmental impact, transparency, etc. These materials encompass plant-based, invertebrate-based, and microbial biomaterials (Ben-Arye et al., 2020; Jones et al., 2021; Park et al., 2021b).

While animal-derived biomaterials are not the preferred choice for cultured meat, a significant portion of current research has focused on previously developed biomaterials that include animal-derived components commonly used in biomedical applications, such as gelatin, fibrin, collagen, and Matrigel (MacQueen et al., 2019; Zhu et al., 2022). Despite their usefulness in other contexts, these animal-derived biomaterials conflict with their primary goal of producing alternative protein without animal slaughtering. They also suffer from issues like batch-to-batch variability, high production costs, and limited scalability. In this review, we classified scaffold structure as dried scaffolds, cell-laden hydrogels, films, and microcarriers (Table 3). Details on the characteristics, advantages, and disadvantages of each scaffold type can be found in previously published paper (Kumar et al., 2023). Ben-Arye et al. (2020) reported the soy protein-based edible scaffold for bovine MuSC, epithelial cells, and smooth muscle cells. The volunteers in this study evaluated the cultured meat product for its ability to generate flavor and texture of conventional meat after cooking. Following this study, researches on solid structure scaffolds mainly focused on edible materials from plants such as decellularized spinach, wheat glutenin, peanut or others (Ben-Arye et al., 2020; Ianovici et al., 2022; Jones et al., 2021; Song et al., 2022; Xiang et al., 2022b; Zheng et al., 2022b). Additionally, researchers also used edible yet non-plant-based sources for scaffolds such as chitosan, alginate, collagen, or gelatin (Lee et al., 2022c; Li et al., 2021a; Zheng et al., 2022a).

One of the prominent approaches of scaffold for cultured meat is hydrogel. While cells reside in pores of solid structure scaffold, hydrogel scaffolds involve mixing cells with the hydrogel, also called “cell laden.” This could achieve higher cell density than those of the solid scaffolds. Additionally, it can be used as a 3D printing bioink with cells inside. Furuhashi et al. (2021) showed their millimeter-thick bovine MuSC cultured steak with collagen hydrogel or fibrin-Matrigel hydrogel with an anchor mold system. Kang et al. (2021) used cell-laden hydrogel as a 3D bioink, enabling the creation of whole-cut meat-like tissues incorporating muscle, fat, and endothelial cells individually. In addition, alternative scaffolds such as films or microcarriers have been studied to facilitate the scalability and cost-effectiveness of cultured meat production (Park et al., 2021a; Park et al., 2021b; Thyden et al., 2022). The role of scaffolds in cultured meat production is important, impacting both the quality and cost of the final cultured meat products. Decellularized plant-based scaffolds, for example, can be used as a key component in affordable scale for cultured meat production system. Although recent scaffold research holds promise, the optimal strategies for cultured meat production remain to be definitely established.

Adipogenesis process

Adipogenesis, the intricate process of fat cell development, entails the differentiation of multipotent MSC into adipocytes (Ali et al., 2013). This process involves 2 key stages: commitment to become pre-adipocytes followed by subsequent terminal differentiation into mature adipocytes (Lee et al., 2023).

The induction of adipogenic differentiation relies on specific chemical compounds, while ongoing research endeavors aim to discover alternative methods for enhancing differentiation rates and prolonging adipocyte culture (Lefterova and Lazar, 2009). Precise manipulation of specific transcription factors guides MSC toward adipogenic differentiation. Within the stromal vascular fraction (SVF) of adipose tissue reside cells capable of differentiating into adipocytes, chondrocytes, and osteoblasts. However, challenges such as reduced differentiation potential with subculture and ethical concerns related to animal euthanasia limit the use of SVF-derived cells for in vitro culture of fat (Lee et al., 2023).

Researchers are focusing on establishing a stable and sustainable cell supply source for fat culture. Preadipocytes can be isolated from SVF cells using enzymes like collagenase. SVF comprises various cell types, including endothelial cells, pericytes, and macrophages (Guo et al., 2016). Ongoing research aims to classify pre-adipocytes, identifying cell lines with the highest potential for adipogenic differentiation. The isolation of pure preadipocytes significantly enhances their capacity to differentiate into mature adipocytes. Recent studies have explored co-culturing of adipocytes with muscle cells to supplement fat content, with a certain degree of success (Ianovici et al., 2022; Song et al., 2022; Zagury et al., 2022).

Dedifferentiated fat (DFAT) cells have emerged as a potential alternative cell source for cultured fat production, given that SVF shows reduced adipogenic potential when cultured in vitro (Lee et al., 2023). DFAT cells are derived from fully mature adipocytes through a process known as ceiling culture, in which lipid storage in adipose cells decreases, leading to the cells reverting to fibroblast-like progenitor cells, known as DFAT cells. These cells possess the ability to differentiate into various mesenchymal lineages, including adipocytes and osteoblasts (Shen et al., 2011). Research has demonstrated that DFAT cells showed lipid accumulation per cell over extended culture periods (Yuen Jr et al., 2023). However, an inherent limitation of DFAT cells lies in their discrepancy on high serum concentrations, often ranging from 15% to 20%, for in vitro proliferation, the dependence on which raises concerns regarding cost and animal welfare implications, making it essential to develop serum-free culture conditions and address other characteristics of DFAT cell to facilitate their application in cultured fat production (Lee et al., 2023). A case study demonstrated the production of cultured meat with oleic acid content similar to the one of the Wagyu cheek fat by adjusting the fatty acid composition of the culture medium (Louis et al., 2023).

Current studies and limitations

Compared to research on cultured muscle, there has been relatively less focus on cultured fat. Yuen Jr et al. (2023) recently introduced a method for producing bulk cell-cultured fat tissue, addressing challenges related to mass transport. They found this by initially culturing adipocytes in a 2D environment and subsequently aggregating them into 3D constructs. Another approach explored by researchers involved the use of adipose-derived stem cells on collagen-based 3D models to produce cultured fat. This method demonstrated texture and volatile compound similarities to animal-derived fat (Liu et al., 2023c). In a separate study, Song et al. (2022) focused on constructing cultured fat with porcine adipose-derived MSC on peanut wire-drawing protein scaffolds, showing promising potential for enhancing the quality of cultured meat. Furthermore, research involving bovine fat cells for cultured meat production has also been conducted, resulting in the creation of a fat-rich edible tissue with a marble-like structure that closely mimics the natural distribution of fat in meat (Zagury et al., 2022). Recently, Pasitka et al. (2023) demonstrated that spontaneously immortalized chicken embryo fibroblast could be good source of cultured fat. Their research revealed a high degree of differentiation into fat cells, as confirmed through both visual and sensory analysis. Collectively, these studies provide valuable insights and methodologies for the development of cultured fat, addressing both technological and sensory aspects. However, there is still progress to be made in fully replicating the characteristics of real animal fat tissues.

General observations

As with conventional meat (Liu et al., 2023b), consumer research on cultured meat suggests that several factors influence consumption decisions. These include cultural factors, such as different perceptions of “meat” in various countries, psychological factors such as safety concerns and food neophobia, and social factors, such as age, gender, education levels (Siddiqui et al., 2022), meat consumption levels, country of origin, or place of residence (Asioli et al., 2022; Kombolo Ngah et al., 2023; Liu et al., 2023a). The preference for cultured meat is commonly associated with its perceived societal, animal, and environmental potential benefits (Bekker et al., 2017). However, some consumers concerned for animal welfare and environmental issues may also not be convinced by the potential benefits of cultured meat for these issues (Hocquette et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2023a). On the other hand, many studies (Liu et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2020) observed that the level of consumer education significantly increases the potential acceptance of cultured meat (Siddiqui et al., 2022). On the contrary, a better knowledge of the traditional meat sector significantly reduces the potential acceptance of cultured meat in China (Liu et al., 2021) as in other countries (Chriki et al., 2021; Hocquette et al., 2022; Jacobs et al., 2024; Liu et al., 2023a).

According to the literature, consumers who are skeptical about cultured meat are mainly concerned about the additives and chemicals that could be found in this new cellular food, but also about the possible long-term safety problems that could appear later on (Szejda and Dillard, 2020). Neophobic people, who are reluctant to test any new foods (Pliner and Hobden, 1992), are logically unlikely to accept cultured meat (Bryant et al., 2019; Hamlin et al., 2022; Siegrist and Hartmann, 2020). The most skeptical generally reject cultured meat on moral (Schaefer and Savulescu, 2014) or religious grounds (Boereboom et al., 2022). A recent review showed that consumer acceptance/rejection of cultured meat also depends on public awareness in addition to perceived (un)naturalness and food-related risk perceptions related to uncertainties about the safety and health of cultured meat. Consumer acceptance/rejection of cultured meat also depends on the availability and potential benefits or quality attributes of other alternatives competing with cultured meat, such as plant-based meat substitutes (low price, low carbon footprint, taste, etc.) (Pakseresht et al., 2022). All these reasons support the idea that, in order to mitigate the doubts of some populations, the implementation of vigilant assessments of potential dangers and the development of effective communication are indispensable elements of the start-up strategy in favor of cultured meat.

So, in brief, positive attitudes toward cultured meat often align with concerns for human health, animal welfare, and environmental sustainability, while opposing viewpoints stem from factors such as disgust, negative beliefs about unnaturalness, and food neophobia (Weinrich et al., 2020).

Western perspective

Most studies related to consumer acceptance of cultured meat have been conducted in Western countries, especially in the US, The Netherlands, and the UK (Tsvakirai et al., 2024). Results have been previously reviewed (Ellies-Oury et al., 2022). On average, when different countries were compared, Spanish and French consumers are more reluctant compared to British consumers who exhibit a more positive attitude toward this new product (Siegrist and Hartmann, 2020; Asioli et al., 2022). French respondents expressed a higher level of disgust compared to British respondents, and French consumers also perceived cultured meat as less natural and more disgusting than consumers in any other country (Siegrist and Hartmann, 2020). Although potential acceptance of cultured meat is low in France—respondents were not familiar with “cultured meat”—young people and women are more in support of it due to a greater sensitivity to welfare and environmental issues associated to livestock (Hocquette et al., 2022). A low perception of conventional meat weaknesses, a low perception of cultured meat potential benefits, and/or a high perception of potential risks associated to cultured meat explain the potential low acceptance of cultured meat as in countries of South Europe. Indeed, many barriers not only technological but also institutional and cultural have been identified for the acceptance of cultured meat in Italy (Mancini and Antonioli, 2022a). This may explain why Italy is the first country to want to ban cultured meat, arguing that the effects that the consumption of synthetic food could have on human health have not been verified at all, with possible negative effects (Hocquette et al., 2024). A similar law under examination has been proposed in France with the same objective to avoid any possible deterioration in human and animal health due to the consumption of cultured meat and also to protect the environment. In Spain, most of the respondents to a specific survey (Escribano et al., 2021) preferred to consume conventional meat produced through sustainable systems with information on the origin of meat products, rather than consuming meat alternatives including cultured meat. In Turkey, consumers do not consider cultured meat to be ethical, natural, healthy, tasty, or safe (Baybars et al., 2023). On the contrary, in the Northern Europe, such as Germany and Finland, cultured meat is perceived as a technocratic but a promising solution, as it can be an option for continued meat consumption without feelings of guilt associated with animal slaughter, but this requires guaranteed safety, affordable prices, and an authentic meat taste similar to or better than that of meat (Moritz et al., 2023).

Outside Europe, in line with a previous study (Siegrist and Hartmann, 2020), Australian respondents, especially those aged 35–54, were found to be significantly less willing to reduce their meat consumption and to consume meat alternatives including cultured meat compared to UK consumers (Ford et al., 2023). This may, at least, be explained by higher levels of meat consumption in Australia compared to the UK. In general, the highest levels of acceptance of cultured meat were observed in Mexico, South Africa, and England (Siegrist and Hartmann, 2020). So, South Africa is the African country with the highest level of potential acceptance of cultured meat (Kombolo Ngah et al., 2023). Familiarity with exotic or novel foods and influences from different countries, such as former colonies in the case of England or British culture in the case of South Africa, may explain why consumers of some countries such as the UK or South Africa are more receptive (Siegrist and Hartmann, 2020).

On average, and whichever the country, respondents who do not know the meat sector and who consume a low amount of meat and/or young or well-educated respondents (such as scientists) have the highest acceptance of cultured meat. On the opposite, people working within the meat sector or consuming more meat have the lowest acceptance (Liu et al., 2021 and Liu et al., 2023c). In addition, an Irish survey showed that urban consumers were more receptive to cultured meat (Shaw and Mac Con Iomaire, 2019). Rural consumers were more concerned about the potentially negative effects that cultured meat production could have on agriculture and the farmers’ lifestyles (Chriki et al., 2021; Dueñas-Ocampo et al., 2023).

Consequently, in countries such as Spain (Escribano et al., 2021), France (Hocquette et al., 2022), and Croatia (Faletar and Cerjak, 2022) as examples, different consumer segments can be identified according to consumers’ moral and ethical concerns about livestock, about cultured meat, and about their perceptions of the impact of cultured meat production on the society and the economy.

Generally speaking, consumers express two broad categories of attitudes: (i) root attitudes, which arise from unconsciously elaborated behaviors with consumers’ personalities, worldviews, culture, and motivations, (ii) surface attitudes that originate from consciously elaborated evaluations of product-specific attributes, and that explain why consumers’ attitudes are malleable to change (Tsvakirai et al., 2024). Root attitudes are likely to explain why potential acceptance of cultured meat slightly differs between countries. In addition, consumers who expressed higher levels of trust in the stakeholders in the food domain perceived cultured meat as more natural than participants who had low levels of trust. Thus, trust was identified as a significant negative predictor of disgust evoked by cultured meat in Australia and the US but not in other Western countries (Siegrist and Hartmann, 2020).

Asian perspective

The global cultured meat market is expanding rapidly, with Asia emerging as a significant player in this field. In 2021, the investment in cultured meat in Asia reached $62 million (USD) (Cohen et al., 2021), marking it as the fastest-growing area in the world’s cultured meat market (Liang and Lee, 2022). Key contributors to this rapidly growing industry in Asia include Singapore, South Korea, China, and Japan. Notably, Singapore became the first country in the world to approve the commercial sale of cultured meat (Kantono et al., 2022). Given the active research and increasing investments in the remaining 3 countries—Korea, China, and Japan—where commercial approval is pending, it is imperative to gauge consumer awareness and acceptance to comprehend the rapid growth of the future Asian cultured meat market.

In China, a survey involving 1,019 adults to assess their willingness to purchase cultured meat found that 59.3% expressed a strong inclination to do so (Bryant et al., 2019), but this was not confirmed by a more recent study: Indeed, the answers of 4,666 respondents concluded that 19.9% and 9.6% of them were definitely willing to try and unwilling to try cultured meat, respectively, whereas 47.2% were not willing to eat it regularly, and 87.2% were willing to pay less for it compared to conventional meat. Finally, 52.9% of them will accept cultured meat as an alternative to conventional meat. Emotional resistance such as the perception of “absurdity or disgusting” would lead to no willingness to eat cultured meat regularly (Liu et al., 2021). Another study confirmed the high level of disgust expressed by Chinese consumers (Siegrist and Hartmann, 2020). The main concerns were related to safety and unnaturalness, but less to ethical and environmental issues as in Western countries. Nearly half of the respondents would like cultured meat to be safe, tasty, and nutritional. Although these expectations have low effects on willingness to try, they may induce consumers’ refusal to eat cultured meat regularly, underlying the weak relationship between wishes to try and to eat regularly (Liu et al., 2021).

In Japan, concerns about animal welfare and environmental issues positively correlate with the willingness to pay for cultured meat. However, social acceptance of cultured meat remains relatively low, standing at 40.9% (Takeda et al., 2023), mainly due to reservations about its perceived lack of naturalness. Interestingly, Japanese consumers are more inclined to experiment with cultured meat when in the company of friends, as opposed to family members (Motoki et al., 2022). These dynamics suggest that the acceptance of cultured meat in Japan may hinge on societal attitudes and contextual factors.

In Korea, an examination of cultured meat awareness revealed higher levels among men, younger individuals, those with higher educational attainment, and those with a greater interest in environmental issues (Lee et al., 2022b). Surveys conducted among Koreans of various ages and educational backgrounds unveiled mixed perceptions of cultured meat, shaped by sociocultural and demographic factors. Interestingly, 40%–80% of respondents expressed interest in purchasing cultured meat, with sustainability, food neophobia, and culinary curiosity identified as motivating factors for consumer acceptance (Hwang et al., 2020). On the other hand, based on the survey of consumer opinions on cultured meat conducted by Consumers Korea (2021), the following observations were made: 68.4% (342 individuals) expressed agreement that cultured meat can help address food security issues and 51.6% (258) indicated agreement that cultured meat is necessary as an alternative to conventional meat for addressing food scarcity and environmental concerns. On the contrary, 39.4% disagreed that cultured meat is more beneficial for health, while 23.6% expressed agreement. Safety concerns were evident, with 38.0% considering it unsafe and 22.6% viewing it as safe.

In summary, assessments of cultured meat perceptions across 3 Asian countries indicate relatively lower consumer preference in Japan, while Korea and China demonstrate a higher degree of consumer acceptance. However, it is noteworthy that consumer perceptions of cultured meat exhibit notable similarities—motives and barriers for cultured meat acceptance—across these 3 countries as in other countries of the world.