STUDY: The names used to market ‘clean meat’ products may determine whether consumers eat them or not.
Of all the words tested, 'clean meat' had the most positive associations, such as healthiness/nutrition. Participants were most negative about the term 'lab-grown meat', associating it with artificiality.
MICHAEL GREENBLATT: ‘In vitro meat (IVM) is a new technology that produces animal meat for consumption from animal cells but doesn’t require a living animal to produce it. IVM – also referred to as “clean meat” – production, therefore, avoids most of the negative aspects of conventional meat production, such as animal suffering, animal slaughter, and environmental impacts, and may have greater health benefits compared to conventional meat.
However, because IVM is a new and unusual concept, many consumers are unaware of it or wary of the idea of it. Further complicating consumer acceptance of IVM is that no one name has been universally agreed upon for it. Several different names for the technology are already in common use, which can cause more confusion for the public and, in some cases, a rejection of the idea.
The researchers in this study set out to compile all of the names that have been commonly used to describe IVM, then categorize them and figure out which names encourage and discourage consumer acceptance of the concept. They did so by questioning survey participants on their opinion of IVM names using word associations, and then asking them how likely they are to purchase or eat IVM products…
Of all the words tested, “clean meat” had the most positive associations, such as healthiness/nutrition (15.7%), tastiness, cleanness, and naturalness (all 10.8%). Although “clean meat” did have some negative associations (one participant wrote “bleach”), it also evoked other favorable, albeit unrelated, qualities, like “organic”, “lean”, and “no antibiotics”… The participants were most negative about the term “lab-grown meat”, associating it most frequently with artificiality/unnaturalness (15.7% of responses), disgust (13.8%), and unusualness/novelty (9.4%)’. SOURCE…