Research and analysis

Cell-cultivated and precision-fermented products

Published 30 April 2026

Rapid projects support government departments to understand the scientific evidence underpinning a policy issue or area by convening academic, industry and government experts at a single roundtable. These summary meeting notes seek to provide accessible science advice for policymakers. They represent the combined views of roundtable participants at the time of the discussion and are not statements of government policy.

What does social and behavioural evidence tell us about the factors that influence public attitudes to human consumption of cell-cultivated and precision-fermented products?

Meeting notes from roundtable chaired by Gideon Henderson, Chief Scientific Adviser to Defra at the time.

24 March 2025

Key points

• Public opinion on alternative proteins is malleable. More research on public attitudes towards alternative proteins is needed as the sector evolves.

• Familiarity (especially through trying products beyond laboratory settings) increases public acceptability – as does education, though providing accurate information alone is not sufficient.

• Engagement should focus on what consumers care about. Public attitudes are primarily informed by cost and taste. Health and safety are also important issues and generally take precedence over farming and environmental considerations.

• Regulators have an important role to play in addressing public concerns around safety and governance of the sector, but they shouldn’t bear sole responsibility for early, proactive public engagement nor for increasing transparency around alternative proteins.

• There are useful lessons to be had from the launch of cell-cultivated products in Singapore, the CCP ban in Italy and the Bovaer controversy (including the impacts of mis/disinformation).

Evidence for public awareness and concerns around alternative proteins

1. There is limited (but growing) evidence on public attitudes towards alternative proteins.

2. Gaps in knowledge are partly a function of limited product availability and thus limited consumption. They are also partly a function of a narrow range of questions put to the public (Bryant & Barnett, 2020).

3. More research is needed to better understand public perceptions, especially as the sector evolves. Some deeper public engagement is underway, e.g. through the CARMA programme (Cellular AgRiculture MAnufacturing Hub), which explores whether people believe cell-cultivated products (CCPs) are consistent with their notion of a “good society” and how people can contribute to shaping the future of food systems (CARMA, 2024).

4. Public opinion on alternative proteins is malleable and changing. Familiarity and education increase acceptability. Commercial polling around alternative fats has found that people are more receptive once they understand production methods. Polling in 2022 found more people willing to eat cultivated meat compared to 2012 (YouGov, 2012; YouGov 2022). However, according to other polling, consumer acceptance has not increased since 2022, despite significant media attention around cultivated meat in that time (Food Standards Agency, 2024; 2025; Armstrong et al., 2022; Goodman et al., 2024).

5. There is greater awareness of CCPs compared to precision fermented products (PFPs). Companies remain unsure about how to describe PFPs; despite this, PFPs are of less concern to the public from a safety perspective than CCPs (Perkins, 2018).

6. Food can prompt emotive responses. Identities and emotions are particularly strong around meat (Wilks et al., 2024; Connors et al., 2022). There is some evidence for correlation between rejection of alternative proteins and factors such as conspiratorial ideation, disgust sensitivity and food neophobia (Siegrist & Hartmann, 2020; Wilks et al., 2019; 2021).

7. Public attitudes are primarily informed by consumer-targeted benefits, especially cost and taste (Bryant Research, 2023). Price and taste/enjoyability are reliable predictors of acceptability (Peacock, 2023; Bryant Research, 2024).

8. Health and safety are also important. People tend to assume that “natural” products are intrinsically healthier and that more processed products are less healthy (Connors et al., 2022; Van Hensbergen, 2024). There is a perception of alternative proteins as unnatural, highly processed and therefore less healthy and safe to eat (see point 17 below) (Wilks et al., 2024; Bryant Research, 2023).

9. The motivations of alternative protein producers are an issue for the public – as is transparency around this sector, with appetite for its independent scrutiny. This makes the role of regulators important, both in terms of governance and public engagement/communication.

10. Trust in regulators, like the FSA, is necessary but not sufficient, however. They shouldn’t bear sole responsibility for communicating with the public.

11. NGOs and campaign groups have concerns about how new proteins could entrench existing social inequalities, undermine progress in regenerative agriculture and take attention away from broader food systems issues (Royal Agricultural University, 2024).

12. Public debate in this area is hard for consumers to interpret, given unevidenced or selectively evidenced claims that alternative proteins will, for example, solve food shortages or harm farmers’ livelihoods.

13. Despite growing public interest in sustainability issues and awareness of food production methods, farming and environmental considerations are generally secondary to price and health/safety for most consumers.

Lessons from previous public engagement

14. The purpose of any engagement will inform its design, substance and timing: engagement to optimise communication with, or marketing to, consumers is different from seeking citizen input on policy development.

15. There was general consensus about the limitations of the “knowledge deficit model”, i.e. providing information about emerging technologies to convince citizens of their merits. While this approach has some value (Rolland et al., 2020; Szejda et al., 2021), it narrows public debate around technologies and engages citizens relatively late in their emergence.

16. Communication and engagement should be framed in terms of what consumers care about and value (see above). While price and taste are primary considerations, it should also be possible to frame benefits around nutrition, safety (products without the antibiotics and contaminants contained in meat) (Bryant et al., 2020), animal welfare, and environmental and food system sustainability (Bryant & Barnett, 2020).

17. The nutritional benefits of both PFPs and CCPs are as yet unclear. Reliable evidence – e.g. on protein content, saturated fat levels and amino acid profiles of CCPs relative to meat – is important for meaningful communications (Ma et al., 2024; Sikora & Rzymski, 2024; Lim et al., 2024). There is potential in future, for example, to add beneficial supplements (e.g. Omega 3) to CCPs (Zaraska, 2013; Good Food Institute, n.d.).

18. CCPs have been launched in a small number of countries, providing only limited insights. One is Singapore, where just a tiny number of products are now available on a very limited basis (Reynolds, 2024; Sutrisno, 2024). Cost rendered the market unviable, although Singapore did encourage familiarity through opportunities to taste CCPs in non-laboratory settings.

19. Some further general observations are possible, however:

a. early, clear, transparent and proactive communications from regulatory agencies is important to explain safety criteria and to tackle mis/disinformation (Food Standards Agency, 2018)

b. some people will inevitably take an absolute or moral position against CCPs and PFPs; the risk is that a vocal minority influences the broader public, prompting unscientific bans on these products

c. language matters: “lab-grown meat” and more derogatory/sensationalist terms (“Frankenfoods”) are likely to put people off (Food Standards Agency, 2015; Szejda et al., 2021)

d. it is important for people to try new products in an appealing setting rather than a laboratory (although regulations currently make this difficult)

e. it is too early to know for sure who would be seen as trusted voices on CCPs and PFPs, but independent scientists, chefs and food influencers are more trusted than politicians or those with financial interests in the sector.

20. Italy’s recent ban on cultivated meat offers a cautionary tale, where public debate became deeply polarised, was not grounded in scientific evidence and featured considerable mis/disinformation (Boren, 2024).

21. The recent Bovaer controversy in the UK – featuring mis/disinformation around the motivations of “big food” – is also salient (BBC, 2024).

22. Since the market in alternative proteins for humans is relatively new and evolving, public engagement should build on previous research, adapting its methods accordingly.

Attendees

• Gideon Henderson (Chair; Chief Scientific Adviser, Defra)

• Julie Barnett (University of Bath)

• Graham Bukowski (Sciencewise; UKRI)

• Chris Bryant (Alternative Protein Association)

• Annie Conde (Hoxton Farms)

• Ruth Helen Faram (Uncommon Bio)

• Tara Garnett (University of Oxford)

• Linus Pardoe (Good Food Institute)

• Michelle Patel (FSA)

• Karen Polizzi (Imperial College London)

• Neil Stephens (University of Birmingham), Matti Wilks (University of Edinburgh)

References

Armstrong, B., King, L., Clifford, R., Jitlal, M., Jarchlo, A. I., Mears, K. (2022) Executive summary for Food and You 2 Wave 4

BBC (2024). Why misinformation about a cow feed additive prompted people to throw milk away.

Boren, Z. (2024) How a livestock industry lobbying campaign is turning Europe against lab-grown meat.

Bryant, C. and Barnett, J. (2020). Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: an updated review (2018–2020).

Bryant, C., van Nek, L. and Rolland, N.C., (2020). European markets for cultured meat: A comparison of Germany and France.

Bryant Research (2023). What We Know About Uk Plant-Based Meat Consumers.

Bryant Research (2024). On the Importance of Price and Taste for Food Choice.

CARMA (2024). Work Packages: work package 5.

Connors, C., Cohen, M., Saint-Warrens, S., Sissoko, F., Allen, F., Cerasale, H., et al., (2022). Psychologies of Food Choice: Public views and experiences around meat and dairy consumption.

Connors, C., Malan, L., Esposito, M., Madden, C., Trikka, N., Cohen, M., et al., (2022). The UK Public’s Interests, Needs and Concerns Around Food: UK main report.

Food Standards Agency (2025). A rapid evidence review on consumer responses to cell-cultivated products.

Food Standards Agency (2025). F&Y2 Wave 8: Chapter 7 Changes to eating habits, meat alternatives and genetic technologies.

Food Standards Agency (2018). Trust in a changing world.

Good Food Institute. (n.d.). The Science of cultivated meat.

Goodman, M., Rose, D.C., McMillan, T.M. and Manning, L. (2024). Analysis Of The Narrative Grammars Of Cultured Meat In UK Food And Farming Media.

Lim, P.Y., Suntornnond, R. and Choudhury, D. (2024). The Nutritional Paradigm of Cultivated Meat: Bridging Science and Sustainability.

Ma, T., Ren, R., Lv, J., Yang, R., Zheng, X., Hu, Y., Zhu, G. and Wang, H. (2024). Transdifferentiation of fibroblasts into muscle cells to constitute cultured meat with tunable intramuscular fat deposition.

Mohorčich, J. and Reese, J. (2019). Cell-cultured meat: Lessons from GMO adoption and resistance

Peacock, J.R. (2023). Price-, Taste-, and Convenience-Competitive Plant-Based Meat Would Not Currently Replace Meat.

Perkins, C. (2018) ‘‘Test tube milk’ more likely to win Brits than lab-grown meat’

Rolland, N.C., Markus, C.R. and Post, M.J. (2020). The effect of information content on acceptance of cultured meat in a tasting context.

Royal Agricultural University (2024) Culture Clash? What cultured meat could mean for UK farming?

Reynolds, M. (2024) Lab-Grown Meat Is on Shelves Now. But There’s a Catch.

Siegrist, M. and Hartmann, C. (2020). Perceived naturalness, disgust, trust and food neophobia as predictors of cultured meat acceptance in ten countries

Sikora, D. and Rzymski, P. (2024). Assessment of the potential nutritional value of cell-cultured chicken meat in light of European dietary recommendations.

Sutrisno, G.B. (2024) Singapore’s Huber’s Butchery first retailer worldwide to sell lab-grown meat.

Szejda, K., Bryant, C.J. and Urbanovich, T. (2021). US and UK consumer adoption of cultivated meat: a segmentation study.

Van Hensbergen, H. (2024) Nature Knows Best? Naturalness in the Ultra-Processed Foods Debate.

Wilks, M., Crimston, C.R. and Hornsey, M.J. (2024). Meat and morality: The moral foundation of purity, but not harm, predicts attitudes toward cultured meat

Wilks, M., Hornsey, M. and Bloom, P. (2021). What does it mean to say that cultured meat is unnatural?

Wilks, M., Phillips, C.J., Fielding, K. and Hornsey, M.J. (2019). Testing potential psychological predictors of attitudes towards cultured meat.

YouGov (2013) No British demand for fake meat.

YouGov (2022) If labgrown meat was available in UK supermarkets, how likely or unlikely would you be to try it?

Zaraska, M. (2013) Is Lab-Grown Meat Good for Us?