Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 7-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Setting the table for meat consumers: an international Delphi study on in vitro meat

Setting the table for meat consumers: an international Delphi study on in vitro meat www.nature.com/npjscifood BRIEF COMMUNICATION OPEN Setting the table for meat consumers: an international Delphi study on in vitro meat 1 1 2 Victor Tiberius , Jenny Borning and Sabrina Seeler The growing global demand for meat is being thwarted by shrinking agricultural areas, and opposes efforts to mitigate methane emissions and to improve public health. Cultured meat could contribute to solve these problems, but will such meat be marketable, competitive, and accepted? Using the Delphi method, this study explored the potential development of cultured meat by 2027. Despite the acknowledged urgency to develop sustainable meat alternatives, participants doubt that challenges regarding mass production, production costs, and consumer acceptance will be overcome by 2027. Considering the noticeable impacts of global warming, further research and development as well as a change in consumer perceptions is inevitable. npj Science of Food (2019) 3:10 ; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-019-0041-0 INTRODUCTION and health, researchers have explored laboratory-grown meat as an alternative, so-called cultured or in vitro meat. A form of Global meat consumption has been increasing in recent decades, cellular agriculture is applied in which animal cells are cultured though with regional differences: while average per capita consumption has been stagnating or even decreasing in many with the help of tissue engineering or 3D printing technologies. high-income countries, it has risen drastically in middle-income The Dutch scholar Mark Post demonstrated the first successful countries. This positive correlation between disposable income proof-of-concept in 2013. Over a period of two years and with an and consumption of meat and dairy products—termed Bennett’s investment of US$300,000, Post cultured beef from thin strips of law—has been confirmed in previous research. In addition, meat fresh muscle to produce an 85 g cultured beef burger. choices are changing and the consumption of processed meat The production of cultured meat is still in its infancy and further and meat alternatives is rising. research and development is required to realize a competitive With the global population growth and a rising middle-class, alternative that is generally accepted. global meat demand is expected to accelerate even faster. If this To date, a broad market launch has not taken place and growing demand is to be met, the area of agricultural land will cultured meat is not yet commercially available. Thus, the actual have to increase as well. Due to climate change, degradation, acceptance level of cultured meat is unclear and it remains erosion, and pollution, the land area available for agricultural use unanswered whether cultured meat will become a niche or is actually shrinking, with a loss of nearly one-third of the world’s mainstream product. While cultured meat experts propagate the arable land since the 1970s. With more than half of agricultural multiple advantages of the product unanimously, consumers have emissions arising from enteric fermentation, an increase in the 12,13 a more differentiated view. Several consumer surveys have livestock population, particularly ruminant animals such as cattle investigated attitudes towards cultured meat with equivocal and sheep, would substantially raise the emissions of CO and results on the personal and societal level. While most US methane. Ecotrophologists are also concerned with negative consumers would try cultured meat once, they cannot imagine impacts on consumer health, especially of increased red meat 4 replacing farmed meat regularly. European consumers who consumption. These prospects call for the urgent search for gained more technical knowledge about cultured meat produc- alternatives to conventional meat production. tion even reacted with disgust. Consumers expect a high price Plant-based proteins (e.g., proteins based on soy or lupines) are 14,16 and a limited taste. In addition, the synthetic nature of mainly consumed by vegetarians and vegans as smaller market 13–15,17 cultured meat contradicts the global trend for natural food. segments but are insufficiently accepted by the general public. When taking a societal perspective, consumers have a more Insects as another source of protein are increasingly used in some positive attitude as they understand the negative ecological, African, Asian and Latin American countries, while Western ethical, health, and food safety concerns related to factory markets are more hesitant with this kind of nutrition. Although 15,18 farming. the majority of consumers remain omnivores, they are generally Acceptance of cultured meat strongly depends on demo- reluctant to adopt alternative diets. Meat consumption seems to graphics and individual values. For example, men have a stronger be deeply imprinted in consumers’ value systems evoking strong tendency to cultured meat than women. Educated consumers emotional connections and providing a satisfying experience for do not expect cultured meat to be a sustainable solution for the all the senses. problems with factory farming. Muslims can accept cultured With the aim of satisfying the demand for meat, and at the same time minimizing its negative impacts on the environment meat if it is halal. 1 2 University of Potsdam, August-Bebel-Straße 89, 14482 Potsdam, Germany and Auckland University of Technology, 55 Wellesley Street East, Auckland City, New Zealand Correspondence: Victor Tiberius ([email protected]) Received: 19 December 2018 Accepted: 15 April 2019 Published in partnership with Beijing Technology and Business University V. Tiberius et al. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION features. Due to the product’s novelty and consumer inexperience with cultured meat, respondents showed uncertainty whether Descriptive Statistics factors related to consumer health, transparency, animal welfare, The respondents agreed to projections 2, 5, 6, 7b, 15, 17, 19, 20, or environmental conservation would be central to encourage 23, and 24 and partly agreed to projections 9 and 21, while acceptance and the willingness to purchase. High safety and projections 1, 3, 8, 10–14, 18, and 22 were rejected. Due to the health standards as well as transparent production processes are high scattering of the responses and several commentaries, the considered as an absolute requirement for cultured meat to be expert opinions regarding projection 4, 7a, 16, 21, and 25–31 do approved by consumers. Without improved control systems, the not provide a unified picture (Table 1). overall notion of developing a competitive substitute for Comparing the results of the first and second round, the conventional meat will not be accomplished. Closely related to scattering for ten projections—1, 3, 10–14, 17, 18, 23—decreased. the necessity of transparency in production processes is the The highest reduction and, therefore, consensus can be found for pressing need to create a mass-market product that resembles the environment-related projections. Critics argue that a decrease conventional meat regarding cooking and sensory experiences. of IQR represents a majority impact and the tendency to the group If oneweretoplotthe storyofglobalwarming as adramatic median rather than an approximation to the most-probable future 21–23 play, the year 2018 would portray the second stage in Freytag’s development. For projections 4, 6, 8, 25, 27, and 30, the IQR five-stage dramatic structure: the “rising action”. The Northern increased unusually indicating a high level of uncertainty among Hemisphere has experienced a summer as never before— the respondents. Only a few slight shifts of the median occurred. temperature extremes, record heat waves, wildfires, droughts, Since projection 7b was added for the second round, a floods, crop failures. The impacts of global warming through comparison with the first round is omitted. greenhouse gas emission have been served on a silver platter. This seemstobeaforetasteofwhatistocome, as theclimaxof Scenario the dramatic play has not been reached. If global meat Advancing innovative technologies. Although production costs consumption and production remain unchanged in the near have fallen since the first beef patty was introduced in 2013, future, the “falling action” might not resolve in the release of experts are not convinced that reduction in costs will be sufficient tension desired by today’s political leaders, scientists, and the to make cultured meat price-competitive with conventional meat general population. by 2027. Experts are also not convinced that 3D printing The production of cultured meat should mitigate methane technologies will develop fast enough to facilitate mass produc- emissions. To achieve the aim of ‘a meat alternative for all’ that tion of cultured meat, meaning that its accessibility will remain positively contributes to environmental conservation and health limited in the next years. Whether alternative mass production issues, cultured meat can only be a successful substitute if methods, such as bioreactors, will be developed that allow technological advancements are achieved. Results from this study efficient cultivation of meat that is more marketable and demonstrate that experts are hesitant of projecting any sub- competitive is disputed. Experts are optimistic that improved stantial positive change in the next decade. The realization of production processes will create cultured meat free from animal mass production under the same conditions as small-scale by-products that might be more nutritious and healthier than laboratory tests is required and the cooperation and coordinated conventional meat, though such an achievement is expected to efforts of stakeholders, governmental support, and investors are depend strongly on public subsidies and stakeholder cooperation. crucial. It is seen as being very unlikely that production costs will decrease significantly in the near future and it is deemed doubtful Increasing market size. Similar to the development of other plant- whether technological advancements will result in the desired based alternatives that currently appeal to a rather small market improvements by 2027. Most critical to the vital change in meat segment, experts see cultured meat as a niche, not as a mass consumption, however, is the human factor and the uncertainty product. As meat substitute alternatives are already established whether burgeoning demand will bring acceptance of cultured whose market share is growing, it is considered unlikely that meat as an alternative to traditional meat. cultured meat will capture a higher market share than these by With experts being skeptical of breakthrough improvements by 2027. This could prove to be critical considering that huge 2027, and with the outlook being gloomy, a resounding success in investments have been made and will be needed in the future to sustainable meat production does not seem reachable, and a realize the aspired environmental and health improvements change in consumer perceptions and acceptance appears doubt- ascribed to cultured meat. The sustained progress in research ful. However, the consequences of projections are not inevitable; and comparably rapid development has recently attracted new they can be changed. As in any dramatic play, it will be the investors. With the transition from research project to business protagonists’ tasks to facilitate interventions and policies that will stage, several start-ups have been founded aiming to become result in the desired outcome. The specific manner of commu- pioneers in the market. This will lead to intensified competition nication is key in fostering consumer acceptance. Bekker et al. and correspondingly more media attention in the upcoming showed in their experiments that framing and priming could decade. In addition, a spillover effect of raising consumer change customers’ explicit attitudes toward cultured meat awareness and stimulating demand could be expected. significantly—even an established indirect cognitive association of cultured meat with solar panels could ameliorate the attitude Hardly any effect on the environment. Due to the low market toward cultured meat. Also positive imagery and narratives can share, only small positive effects on the environment will be seen. foster a positive attitude. Greenhouse gas emissions, the size of agricultural spaces, the In addition, governments have to meet today’s regulatory quantity of livestock, and water consumption will not significantly challenges and could act on both the production and demand decrease. However, the experts do not expect an increase in sides. Funding could facilitate research into cheaper mass energy consumption due to cultured meat production either. production. As information on cultured meat and its benefits Researchers will be able to evaluate the effects on the produce favorable expectations about the concept, public environment better in the future. information could be more widely broadcast. Distorted images of obstacles in the way of cultured meat have to be removed from 13,29 Influencing consumer acceptance. As cultured meat is seen as the recipients’ minds. Protagonists need to be reminded that unlikely to possess a price advantage, competitiveness can only be change is slow, and might be even slower when it comes to realized through non-price-related determinants, such as health products that are loaded with memories and personal attachment npj Science of Food (2019) 10 Published in partnership with Beijing Technology and Business University 1234567890():,; V. Tiberius et al. Table 1. Descriptive statistics Projection 1st Round (N = 37) 2nd Round (N = 30) Difference x x x IQR x x x IQR x x x IQR 0.25 0.5 0.75 0.25 0.5 0.75 0.25 0.5 0.75 Cluster 1: Technology 1 Lower production costs 2 2 4 2 2 2 3 1 0 0 −1 −1 2 Mass production: Bioreactors 3 4 4 1 3 4 4 1 0 0 0 0 3 Mass production: 3D print technology 2 2 4 2 2 2 3 1 0 0 −1 −1 4 Mass production: different methods 3 3 4 1 2 3 4 2 −10 0 +1 5 Production without fetal calf serum 3 4 4 1 3 4 4 1 0 0 0 0 6 Enrichments with vitamins etc. 4 4 5 1 3 4 5 2 −10 0 +1 7a Government subsidies 2 3 4 2 2 4 4 2 0 +10 0 7b Cooperations –– – – 345 2 ––– – 8 Production at home possible 1 2 2 1 1 2 3 2 0 0 +1 +1 9 Structured, cultured meat possible 2 2 4 2 2 3 4 2 0 +10 0 Cluster 2: Environment 10 Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions 0 5 20 20 0 1.5 10 10 0 −3.5 −10 −10 11 Reduction of agricultural spaces 1 5 20 19 0 5 10 10 −10 −10 −9 12 Reduction of livestock 0 5 20 20 0 3 10 10 0 −2 −10 −10 13 Increase of energy consumption 0 0 5 5 0 0 2 2 0 0 −3 −3 14 Reduction of water consumption 0 5 20 20 0 1 10 10 0 −4 −10 −10 15 Environmental advantages/ 3 4 4 1 344 1 0 0 0 0 disadvantages proved 16 Other risk with negative effects 2 3 4 2 2 2.5 4 2 0 −0.5 0 0 Cluster 3: Market and competition 17 Niche product 3 4 4 1 4 4 4 0 1 0 0 −1 18 Higher market share than other meat 1 2 3 2 223 1 1 0 0 −1 substitutes 19 Intensified competition among producers 3 4 4 1 3 4 4 1 0 0 0 0 20 Sales to meat processing industry/ 3 4 4 1 344 1 0 0 0 0 manufacturer 21 Production by conventional meat producers 2 3 4 2 2 3 4 2 0 0 0 0 Cluster 4: Consumers 22 Price advantage over conventional meat 2 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 23 Price-independent factors 2 4 4 2 4 4 4 0 2 0 0 −2 24 Acceptance due to safety standards 3 4 4 1 3 4 4 1 0 0 0 0 25 Perception as healthy product 3 4 4 1 2 4 4 2 −10 0 +1 26 Acceptance due to transparency 3 4 4 1 3 3.5 4 1 0 −0.5 0 0 27 Acceptance due to animal welfare 3 4 4 1 2 4 4 2 −10 0 +1 28 Acceptance due to environmental factors 2 4 4 2 2 4 4 2 0 0 0 0 29 Equivalent in appearance 2 3 4 2 2 4 4 2 0 +10 0 30 Equivalent in taste 3 3 4 1 2 4 4 2 −1 +10 +1 31 Equivalent in meat texture & structure 2 3 4 2 2 3 4 2 0 0 0 0 N— x —lower quartile x —median x —upper quartile IQR—interquartile range 0.25 0.5 0.75 sample size —replacing turkey with ham on Thanksgiving or at Christmas will of experts in the field of inquiry in at least two rounds using a require time, but that time will be well invested in the future. standardized questionnaire and giving structured feedback about the results from the first round in order to enhance consensus 21,30–33 among the respondents. The Delphi method is suitable for forecasting man-made future METHODOLOGY states. In contrast to causal-deterministic natural development The Delphi method processes, like weather, societal futures are based on human Due to the fact that cultured meat has not yet been introduced to intentions, social interactions, and coincidence. Therefore, societal the market, it is necessary to use forecasting methods to build a forecasts can be derived from a group of experts expressing their reliable foundation for exploring the future of cultured meat. subjective, knowledge-based, and experience-based opinions, To generate the aspired future scenario of the potential unlike laypersons’ opinions. 34,35 development of cultured meat by 2027, the Delphi study was In contrast to scenario analyses, whose intent is to generate conducted online. The Delphi method addresses the questioning multiple future scenarios, the Delphi method aims at the current Published in partnership with Beijing Technology and Business University npj Science of Food (2019) 10 V. Tiberius et al. Table 2. Delphi projections No Projection: By the year 2027, … Response type Cluster 1: Technology 1 production costs of cultured meat will be significantly lower compared to conventional meat. Likert 2 mass production of cultured meat will be possible due to further development of bioreactors. Likert 3 mass production of cultured meat will be possible due to 3D printing. Likert 4 mass production of cultured meat will be possible due to another method which is not utilized today. Likert 5 there will be at least one mature alternative to produce cultured meat in larger quantities without fetal bovine serum. Likert 6 cultured meat can be enriched with more vitamins, minerals, and poly-unsaturated fatty acids than conventional meat. Likert 7a it will have become possible with the help of government subsidies to refine the production process for cultured meat. Likert 7b the cooperation between research teams, market participants (like start-ups or investors), and government will have improved Likert to refine the production process for cultured meat. 8 consumer will be able to produce cultured meat at home. Likert 9 it will be possible to produce highly structured cultured meat (e.g., steak meat). Likert Cluster 2: Environment 10 the greenhouse gas emissions caused by agriculture can be reduced worldwide by about X percent. Percentage 11 the agricultural land used for livestock breeding and feed crop can be reduced worldwide by about X percent. Percentage 12 the number of farm animals can be reduced worldwide by about X percent. Percentage 13 the energy requirement or meat production will increase by about X percent. Percentage 14 the required quantity of water for meat production will be reduced by about X percent. Percentage 15 environmental advantages and disadvantages of cultured meat will have been sufficiently investigated and proven. Likert 16 other risks will have been identified in the production process of cultured meat which will have a negative impact on the Likert environment. Cluster 3: Market and competition 17 cultured meat will be a niche product with a small market share (less than 10 percent). Likert 18 cultured meat will have a larger market share than other meat substitutes (like products made of soy, lupines, or insects). Likert 19 There will be an intense worldwide competition between several companies producing cultured meat. Likert 20 companies will exist that are specialized in the production of cultured meat to sell it to meat processing companies (e.g., Likert sausage manufacturers). 21 conventional meat producers will also produce cultured meat. Likert Cluster 4: Consumers 22 the demand for cultured meat will be positively influenced because it can be offered at a lower price than conventional meat. Likert 23 the demand for cultured meat will be positively influenced by offering more attractive non-price aspects in cultured meat to Likert consumers. 24 consumer acceptance will increase due to high security standards and relevant certifications in the production process of Likert cultured meat. 25 consumers will appreciate cultured meat as a healthy product (due to added nutrients). Likert 26 a special product label will enhance transparency for consumers and thus the acceptance of cultured meat will increase. Likert 27 cultured meat will be better socially accepted than conventional meat due to animal welfare regards. Likert 28 cultured meat will be better socially accepted than conventional meat due to the reduction of environmental impacts. Likert 29 cultured meat will be equivalent to conventional meat in appearance. Likert 30 cultured meat will be equivalent to conventional meat in taste. Likert 31 cultured meat will be equivalent to conventional meat in meat texture. Likert most-probable scenario which is generated by merging multiple University of Potsdam was not competent for this kind of research expert statements. and an approval was neither needed nor possible. After the first questioning, the interim results of the first round are revealed to the respondents during round two. Some scholars Selection of panelists criticize that the scientific requirement of independent judgments The selection of appropriate respondents for the Delphi study is 36,37 is violated by this disclosure. However, the aim of the Delphi often confronted with the question of how an expert can be study is the convergence of expressed opinions and the 39 characterized, and how his or her expertize can be measured. narrowing of the statistical spread to receive an unequivocal For this study, 82 potential respondents who had published scenario as a consensus. Conclusions for the resulting scenario can professionally on cultured meat were identified. The experts work be drawn from consensus or from a dissent. at universities or other research institutions, start-up companies The Delphi study was conducted in accordance to the voluntary researching or promoting cultured meat, foundations, and state “Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique”. Since the institutions from the United States of America, The Netherlands, survey did not include any medical or clinical experimentation or Germany, and several other countries. Of this sample, 39 ethically relevant human research, the ethics commission of the participated in the first round, 30 in the second round. Although npj Science of Food (2019) 10 Published in partnership with Beijing Technology and Business University V. Tiberius et al. the sample size appears relatively limited, Delphi studies are 5. Cameron, D., Osborne, C., Horton, P. & Sinclair, M. A sustainable model for intensive agriculture. Grantham Centre briefing note, Grantham Centre for Sustainable usually small-scale and considering the infancy of the field, the Futures & The University of Sheffield: Sheffield, 2–3 (2015). sample size is satisfactory for this research project. 6. Yusuf, R. O., Noor, Z. Z., Abba, A. H., Abu Hassan, M. A. & Din., M. F. M. Methane The participants were informed that their provided information emission by sectors: a comprehensive review of emission sources and mitigation would be anonymized and that the results of the survey would be methods. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 16, 5059–5070 (2012). published. Written consent was obtained from the participants. 7. Hoek, A. C., Pearson, D., James, S. W., Lawrence, M. A. & Friel, S. Healthy and environmentally sustainable food choices: consumer responses to point-of- purchase actions. Food Qual. Pref. 58,94–106 (2017). Data collection 8. Slade, P. If you build it, will they eat it? Consumer preferences for plant-based and The questionnaire contained 31 projections regarding possible cultured meat burgers. Appetite 125, 428–437 (2018). technological developments, their impacts on the consumer and 9. Bhat, Z. F., Kumar, S. & Fayaz, H. In vitro meat production: challenges and benefits the market, and competitiveness derived from a literature review over conventional meat production. J. Integr. Agric. 14, 241–248 (2015). and exploratory interviews. 10. Post, M. J. Cultured beef: medical technology to produce food. J. Sci. Food Agric. To minimize the risk of misinterpretations of the statements 94, 1039–1041 (2014). presented to the experts, a pretest was conducted. The 11. Post, M. J. An alternative animal protein source: cultured beef. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1328,29–33 (2014). respondents were asked to express their consent or dissent with 12. Bohm, I., Ferrari, A. & Woll, S. Visions of in vitro meat mong experts and stake- most projections on a five-point Likert scale (“do not agree at all”, holders. Nanoethics 12, 211–224 (2018). “rather do not agree”, “partly agree”, “rather agree”, and “agree 13. Dilworth, T. & McGregor, A. Moral steaks? Ethical discourses of in vitro meat in completely”). For projections 10–14, the respondents were asked academia and Australia. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 28,85–107 (2015). to provide estimates in percentage. Projection 7b was added after 14. Wilks, M. & Phillips, C. J. C. Attitudes to in vitro meat: a survey of potential the first round due to suggestions from respondents (Table 2). consumers in the United States. Plos ONE 12, e0171904 (2017). The study was conducted anonymously, since anonymity is 15. Verbeke, W. et al. ‘Would you eat cultured meat’? Consumers’ reactions and regarded a central feature of Delphi studies. Critics argue that attitude formation in Belgium, Portugal and the United Kingdom. Meat Sci. 102, anonymity is accompanied by the respondents’ irresponsibility 49–58 (2015). 22,37 16. Verbeke, W., Sans, P. & Van Loo, E. J. Challenges ans prospects for consumer with the results. This is especially a problem when self- acceptance of cultured meat. J. Integr. Agric. 14, 285–294 (2015). fulfilling prophecies are expected. However, in this study it can be 17. Hocquette, J. F. Is in vitro meat the solution for the future? Meat Sci. 120, 167–176 expected that scientific progress has a higher impact on the future (2016). development than the expression of the experts’ views. 18. Laestadius, L. I. & Caldwell, M. A. Is the future of meat palatable? Perceptions of in vitro meat as evidenced by online news comments. Public Health Nutr. 18, Reporting summary 2457–2467 (2015). 19. Hocquette, A. et al. Educated consumers don’t believe artificial meat is the solu- Further information on research design is available in the Nature tion to the problems with the meat industry. J. Integr. Agric. 14, 273–284 (2015). Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. 20. Hamdan, M. N., Post, M. J., Ramli, M. A. & Mustafa, A. R. Cultured meat in Islamic Perspective. J. Relig. Health 57, 2193–2206 (2018). 21. Rowe, G. & Wright, G. The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and DATA AVAILABILITY analysis. Int. J. Forecast. 15, 353–375 (1999). The authors confirm that all relevant data are included in the paper. Further data 22. Hill, K. Q. & Fowles, J. The methodological worth of the Delphi forecasting available on request from the authors. technique. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 7, 179–192 (1975). 23. Bardecki, M. Participants’ response to the Delphi method. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 25, 281–292 (1991). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 24. Freytag, G. Freytag’s Technique of the Drama: an Exposition of Dramatic Compo- sition and Art. An authorized translation from the 6th German edition by Elias J. We acknowledge the support of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) and MacEwan. (Scott Foresman, Chicago, IL, 1900). the Open Access Publishing Fund of University of Potsdam. 25. Bekker, G. A., Fischer, A. R. H., Tobi, H. & van Trijp, H. C. M. Explicit and implicit attitude toward an emerging food technology: the case of cultured meat. Appetite 108, 245–254 (2017). AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS 26. Stephens, N. & Ruivenkamp, M. Promise and ontological ambiguity in the in vitro Victor Tiberius and Jenny Borning jointly developed the study design. Jenny Borning meat imagescape: from laboratory myotubes to the cultured burger. Sci. Cult. 25, conducted the study. Victor Tiberius and Sabrina Seeler wrote the paper. 327–355 (2016). 27. Stephens, N. et al. Bringing cultured meat to market: technical, socio-political, and regulatory challenges in cellular agriculture. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 78, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 155–166 (2018). Supplementary information accompanies the paper on the npj Science of Food 28. Laestadius, L. Public perceptions of the ethics of in-vitro meat: determining an website (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-019-0041-0). appropriate course of action. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 28, 991–1009 (2015). 29. Hopkins, P. D. Cultured meat in western media: the disproportionate coverage of Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests. vegetarian reactions, demographic realities, and implications for cultured meat marketing. J. Integr. Agric. 14, 264–272 (2015). 30. Bell, W. Technological forecasting—what it is and what it does. Manag. Rev. 56, Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims 64 (1967). in published maps and institutional affiliations. 31. Dalkey, N. & Helmer, O. An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Manag. Sci. 9, 458–467 (1963). 32. Skulmoski, G. J., Hartman, F. T. & Krahn, J. The Delphi method for graduate REFERENCES research. J. Inform. Tech. Edu. 6,1–21 (2007). 1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAOSTAT. http://www. 33. Woudenberg, F. An evaluation of Delphi. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 40, fao.org/faostat/en/?#data (2018). 131–150 (1991). 2. Popkin, B. M. The nutrition transition and its health implications in lower-income 34. Kahn, H. & Wiener, A. J. The Year 2000—A Framework for Speculation on the Next countries. Public Health Nutr. 1,5–21 (1998). Thirty-Three Years. (Macmillan, New York, NY, 1968). 3. Godfray, H. C. J. et al. Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science 35. Gausemeier, J., Fink, A. & Schlake, O. Scenario management: an approach to 361, 6399 (2018). develop future potentials. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 59, 111–130 (1998). 4. Apostolidis, C. & McLeay, F. Should we stop meating like this? Reducing meat 36. Sackman, H. Summary evaluation of Delphi. Policy Anal. 1, 693–718 (1975). consumption through substitution. Food Policy 65,74–89 (2016). 37. Goodman, C. The Delphi technique: a critique. J. Adv. Nurs. 12, 729–734 (1987). Published in partnership with Beijing Technology and Business University npj Science of Food (2019) 10 V. Tiberius et al. Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party 38. Hasson, F., Keeney, S. & McKenna, H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless technique. J. Adv. Nurs. 32, 1008–1015 (2000). indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the 39. Welty, G. Problems of selecting experts for Delphi exercises. Acad. Manag. J. 15, article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory 121–124 (1972). regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give © The Author(s) 2019 appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative npj Science of Food (2019) 10 Published in partnership with Beijing Technology and Business University http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png npj Science of Food Springer Journals

Setting the table for meat consumers: an international Delphi study on in vitro meat

Download PDF
6 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/setting-the-table-for-meat-consumers-an-international-delphi-study-on-PuQzliAB9x

References (43)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 by The Author(s)
Subject
Chemistry; Chemistry/Food Science, general; Food Science; Nutrition; Food Microbiology
eISSN
2396-8370
DOI
10.1038/s41538-019-0041-0
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

www.nature.com/npjscifood BRIEF COMMUNICATION OPEN Setting the table for meat consumers: an international Delphi study on in vitro meat 1 1 2 Victor Tiberius , Jenny Borning and Sabrina Seeler The growing global demand for meat is being thwarted by shrinking agricultural areas, and opposes efforts to mitigate methane emissions and to improve public health. Cultured meat could contribute to solve these problems, but will such meat be marketable, competitive, and accepted? Using the Delphi method, this study explored the potential development of cultured meat by 2027. Despite the acknowledged urgency to develop sustainable meat alternatives, participants doubt that challenges regarding mass production, production costs, and consumer acceptance will be overcome by 2027. Considering the noticeable impacts of global warming, further research and development as well as a change in consumer perceptions is inevitable. npj Science of Food (2019) 3:10 ; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-019-0041-0 INTRODUCTION and health, researchers have explored laboratory-grown meat as an alternative, so-called cultured or in vitro meat. A form of Global meat consumption has been increasing in recent decades, cellular agriculture is applied in which animal cells are cultured though with regional differences: while average per capita consumption has been stagnating or even decreasing in many with the help of tissue engineering or 3D printing technologies. high-income countries, it has risen drastically in middle-income The Dutch scholar Mark Post demonstrated the first successful countries. This positive correlation between disposable income proof-of-concept in 2013. Over a period of two years and with an and consumption of meat and dairy products—termed Bennett’s investment of US$300,000, Post cultured beef from thin strips of law—has been confirmed in previous research. In addition, meat fresh muscle to produce an 85 g cultured beef burger. choices are changing and the consumption of processed meat The production of cultured meat is still in its infancy and further and meat alternatives is rising. research and development is required to realize a competitive With the global population growth and a rising middle-class, alternative that is generally accepted. global meat demand is expected to accelerate even faster. If this To date, a broad market launch has not taken place and growing demand is to be met, the area of agricultural land will cultured meat is not yet commercially available. Thus, the actual have to increase as well. Due to climate change, degradation, acceptance level of cultured meat is unclear and it remains erosion, and pollution, the land area available for agricultural use unanswered whether cultured meat will become a niche or is actually shrinking, with a loss of nearly one-third of the world’s mainstream product. While cultured meat experts propagate the arable land since the 1970s. With more than half of agricultural multiple advantages of the product unanimously, consumers have emissions arising from enteric fermentation, an increase in the 12,13 a more differentiated view. Several consumer surveys have livestock population, particularly ruminant animals such as cattle investigated attitudes towards cultured meat with equivocal and sheep, would substantially raise the emissions of CO and results on the personal and societal level. While most US methane. Ecotrophologists are also concerned with negative consumers would try cultured meat once, they cannot imagine impacts on consumer health, especially of increased red meat 4 replacing farmed meat regularly. European consumers who consumption. These prospects call for the urgent search for gained more technical knowledge about cultured meat produc- alternatives to conventional meat production. tion even reacted with disgust. Consumers expect a high price Plant-based proteins (e.g., proteins based on soy or lupines) are 14,16 and a limited taste. In addition, the synthetic nature of mainly consumed by vegetarians and vegans as smaller market 13–15,17 cultured meat contradicts the global trend for natural food. segments but are insufficiently accepted by the general public. When taking a societal perspective, consumers have a more Insects as another source of protein are increasingly used in some positive attitude as they understand the negative ecological, African, Asian and Latin American countries, while Western ethical, health, and food safety concerns related to factory markets are more hesitant with this kind of nutrition. Although 15,18 farming. the majority of consumers remain omnivores, they are generally Acceptance of cultured meat strongly depends on demo- reluctant to adopt alternative diets. Meat consumption seems to graphics and individual values. For example, men have a stronger be deeply imprinted in consumers’ value systems evoking strong tendency to cultured meat than women. Educated consumers emotional connections and providing a satisfying experience for do not expect cultured meat to be a sustainable solution for the all the senses. problems with factory farming. Muslims can accept cultured With the aim of satisfying the demand for meat, and at the same time minimizing its negative impacts on the environment meat if it is halal. 1 2 University of Potsdam, August-Bebel-Straße 89, 14482 Potsdam, Germany and Auckland University of Technology, 55 Wellesley Street East, Auckland City, New Zealand Correspondence: Victor Tiberius ([email protected]) Received: 19 December 2018 Accepted: 15 April 2019 Published in partnership with Beijing Technology and Business University V. Tiberius et al. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION features. Due to the product’s novelty and consumer inexperience with cultured meat, respondents showed uncertainty whether Descriptive Statistics factors related to consumer health, transparency, animal welfare, The respondents agreed to projections 2, 5, 6, 7b, 15, 17, 19, 20, or environmental conservation would be central to encourage 23, and 24 and partly agreed to projections 9 and 21, while acceptance and the willingness to purchase. High safety and projections 1, 3, 8, 10–14, 18, and 22 were rejected. Due to the health standards as well as transparent production processes are high scattering of the responses and several commentaries, the considered as an absolute requirement for cultured meat to be expert opinions regarding projection 4, 7a, 16, 21, and 25–31 do approved by consumers. Without improved control systems, the not provide a unified picture (Table 1). overall notion of developing a competitive substitute for Comparing the results of the first and second round, the conventional meat will not be accomplished. Closely related to scattering for ten projections—1, 3, 10–14, 17, 18, 23—decreased. the necessity of transparency in production processes is the The highest reduction and, therefore, consensus can be found for pressing need to create a mass-market product that resembles the environment-related projections. Critics argue that a decrease conventional meat regarding cooking and sensory experiences. of IQR represents a majority impact and the tendency to the group If oneweretoplotthe storyofglobalwarming as adramatic median rather than an approximation to the most-probable future 21–23 play, the year 2018 would portray the second stage in Freytag’s development. For projections 4, 6, 8, 25, 27, and 30, the IQR five-stage dramatic structure: the “rising action”. The Northern increased unusually indicating a high level of uncertainty among Hemisphere has experienced a summer as never before— the respondents. Only a few slight shifts of the median occurred. temperature extremes, record heat waves, wildfires, droughts, Since projection 7b was added for the second round, a floods, crop failures. The impacts of global warming through comparison with the first round is omitted. greenhouse gas emission have been served on a silver platter. This seemstobeaforetasteofwhatistocome, as theclimaxof Scenario the dramatic play has not been reached. If global meat Advancing innovative technologies. Although production costs consumption and production remain unchanged in the near have fallen since the first beef patty was introduced in 2013, future, the “falling action” might not resolve in the release of experts are not convinced that reduction in costs will be sufficient tension desired by today’s political leaders, scientists, and the to make cultured meat price-competitive with conventional meat general population. by 2027. Experts are also not convinced that 3D printing The production of cultured meat should mitigate methane technologies will develop fast enough to facilitate mass produc- emissions. To achieve the aim of ‘a meat alternative for all’ that tion of cultured meat, meaning that its accessibility will remain positively contributes to environmental conservation and health limited in the next years. Whether alternative mass production issues, cultured meat can only be a successful substitute if methods, such as bioreactors, will be developed that allow technological advancements are achieved. Results from this study efficient cultivation of meat that is more marketable and demonstrate that experts are hesitant of projecting any sub- competitive is disputed. Experts are optimistic that improved stantial positive change in the next decade. The realization of production processes will create cultured meat free from animal mass production under the same conditions as small-scale by-products that might be more nutritious and healthier than laboratory tests is required and the cooperation and coordinated conventional meat, though such an achievement is expected to efforts of stakeholders, governmental support, and investors are depend strongly on public subsidies and stakeholder cooperation. crucial. It is seen as being very unlikely that production costs will decrease significantly in the near future and it is deemed doubtful Increasing market size. Similar to the development of other plant- whether technological advancements will result in the desired based alternatives that currently appeal to a rather small market improvements by 2027. Most critical to the vital change in meat segment, experts see cultured meat as a niche, not as a mass consumption, however, is the human factor and the uncertainty product. As meat substitute alternatives are already established whether burgeoning demand will bring acceptance of cultured whose market share is growing, it is considered unlikely that meat as an alternative to traditional meat. cultured meat will capture a higher market share than these by With experts being skeptical of breakthrough improvements by 2027. This could prove to be critical considering that huge 2027, and with the outlook being gloomy, a resounding success in investments have been made and will be needed in the future to sustainable meat production does not seem reachable, and a realize the aspired environmental and health improvements change in consumer perceptions and acceptance appears doubt- ascribed to cultured meat. The sustained progress in research ful. However, the consequences of projections are not inevitable; and comparably rapid development has recently attracted new they can be changed. As in any dramatic play, it will be the investors. With the transition from research project to business protagonists’ tasks to facilitate interventions and policies that will stage, several start-ups have been founded aiming to become result in the desired outcome. The specific manner of commu- pioneers in the market. This will lead to intensified competition nication is key in fostering consumer acceptance. Bekker et al. and correspondingly more media attention in the upcoming showed in their experiments that framing and priming could decade. In addition, a spillover effect of raising consumer change customers’ explicit attitudes toward cultured meat awareness and stimulating demand could be expected. significantly—even an established indirect cognitive association of cultured meat with solar panels could ameliorate the attitude Hardly any effect on the environment. Due to the low market toward cultured meat. Also positive imagery and narratives can share, only small positive effects on the environment will be seen. foster a positive attitude. Greenhouse gas emissions, the size of agricultural spaces, the In addition, governments have to meet today’s regulatory quantity of livestock, and water consumption will not significantly challenges and could act on both the production and demand decrease. However, the experts do not expect an increase in sides. Funding could facilitate research into cheaper mass energy consumption due to cultured meat production either. production. As information on cultured meat and its benefits Researchers will be able to evaluate the effects on the produce favorable expectations about the concept, public environment better in the future. information could be more widely broadcast. Distorted images of obstacles in the way of cultured meat have to be removed from 13,29 Influencing consumer acceptance. As cultured meat is seen as the recipients’ minds. Protagonists need to be reminded that unlikely to possess a price advantage, competitiveness can only be change is slow, and might be even slower when it comes to realized through non-price-related determinants, such as health products that are loaded with memories and personal attachment npj Science of Food (2019) 10 Published in partnership with Beijing Technology and Business University 1234567890():,; V. Tiberius et al. Table 1. Descriptive statistics Projection 1st Round (N = 37) 2nd Round (N = 30) Difference x x x IQR x x x IQR x x x IQR 0.25 0.5 0.75 0.25 0.5 0.75 0.25 0.5 0.75 Cluster 1: Technology 1 Lower production costs 2 2 4 2 2 2 3 1 0 0 −1 −1 2 Mass production: Bioreactors 3 4 4 1 3 4 4 1 0 0 0 0 3 Mass production: 3D print technology 2 2 4 2 2 2 3 1 0 0 −1 −1 4 Mass production: different methods 3 3 4 1 2 3 4 2 −10 0 +1 5 Production without fetal calf serum 3 4 4 1 3 4 4 1 0 0 0 0 6 Enrichments with vitamins etc. 4 4 5 1 3 4 5 2 −10 0 +1 7a Government subsidies 2 3 4 2 2 4 4 2 0 +10 0 7b Cooperations –– – – 345 2 ––– – 8 Production at home possible 1 2 2 1 1 2 3 2 0 0 +1 +1 9 Structured, cultured meat possible 2 2 4 2 2 3 4 2 0 +10 0 Cluster 2: Environment 10 Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions 0 5 20 20 0 1.5 10 10 0 −3.5 −10 −10 11 Reduction of agricultural spaces 1 5 20 19 0 5 10 10 −10 −10 −9 12 Reduction of livestock 0 5 20 20 0 3 10 10 0 −2 −10 −10 13 Increase of energy consumption 0 0 5 5 0 0 2 2 0 0 −3 −3 14 Reduction of water consumption 0 5 20 20 0 1 10 10 0 −4 −10 −10 15 Environmental advantages/ 3 4 4 1 344 1 0 0 0 0 disadvantages proved 16 Other risk with negative effects 2 3 4 2 2 2.5 4 2 0 −0.5 0 0 Cluster 3: Market and competition 17 Niche product 3 4 4 1 4 4 4 0 1 0 0 −1 18 Higher market share than other meat 1 2 3 2 223 1 1 0 0 −1 substitutes 19 Intensified competition among producers 3 4 4 1 3 4 4 1 0 0 0 0 20 Sales to meat processing industry/ 3 4 4 1 344 1 0 0 0 0 manufacturer 21 Production by conventional meat producers 2 3 4 2 2 3 4 2 0 0 0 0 Cluster 4: Consumers 22 Price advantage over conventional meat 2 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 23 Price-independent factors 2 4 4 2 4 4 4 0 2 0 0 −2 24 Acceptance due to safety standards 3 4 4 1 3 4 4 1 0 0 0 0 25 Perception as healthy product 3 4 4 1 2 4 4 2 −10 0 +1 26 Acceptance due to transparency 3 4 4 1 3 3.5 4 1 0 −0.5 0 0 27 Acceptance due to animal welfare 3 4 4 1 2 4 4 2 −10 0 +1 28 Acceptance due to environmental factors 2 4 4 2 2 4 4 2 0 0 0 0 29 Equivalent in appearance 2 3 4 2 2 4 4 2 0 +10 0 30 Equivalent in taste 3 3 4 1 2 4 4 2 −1 +10 +1 31 Equivalent in meat texture & structure 2 3 4 2 2 3 4 2 0 0 0 0 N— x —lower quartile x —median x —upper quartile IQR—interquartile range 0.25 0.5 0.75 sample size —replacing turkey with ham on Thanksgiving or at Christmas will of experts in the field of inquiry in at least two rounds using a require time, but that time will be well invested in the future. standardized questionnaire and giving structured feedback about the results from the first round in order to enhance consensus 21,30–33 among the respondents. The Delphi method is suitable for forecasting man-made future METHODOLOGY states. In contrast to causal-deterministic natural development The Delphi method processes, like weather, societal futures are based on human Due to the fact that cultured meat has not yet been introduced to intentions, social interactions, and coincidence. Therefore, societal the market, it is necessary to use forecasting methods to build a forecasts can be derived from a group of experts expressing their reliable foundation for exploring the future of cultured meat. subjective, knowledge-based, and experience-based opinions, To generate the aspired future scenario of the potential unlike laypersons’ opinions. 34,35 development of cultured meat by 2027, the Delphi study was In contrast to scenario analyses, whose intent is to generate conducted online. The Delphi method addresses the questioning multiple future scenarios, the Delphi method aims at the current Published in partnership with Beijing Technology and Business University npj Science of Food (2019) 10 V. Tiberius et al. Table 2. Delphi projections No Projection: By the year 2027, … Response type Cluster 1: Technology 1 production costs of cultured meat will be significantly lower compared to conventional meat. Likert 2 mass production of cultured meat will be possible due to further development of bioreactors. Likert 3 mass production of cultured meat will be possible due to 3D printing. Likert 4 mass production of cultured meat will be possible due to another method which is not utilized today. Likert 5 there will be at least one mature alternative to produce cultured meat in larger quantities without fetal bovine serum. Likert 6 cultured meat can be enriched with more vitamins, minerals, and poly-unsaturated fatty acids than conventional meat. Likert 7a it will have become possible with the help of government subsidies to refine the production process for cultured meat. Likert 7b the cooperation between research teams, market participants (like start-ups or investors), and government will have improved Likert to refine the production process for cultured meat. 8 consumer will be able to produce cultured meat at home. Likert 9 it will be possible to produce highly structured cultured meat (e.g., steak meat). Likert Cluster 2: Environment 10 the greenhouse gas emissions caused by agriculture can be reduced worldwide by about X percent. Percentage 11 the agricultural land used for livestock breeding and feed crop can be reduced worldwide by about X percent. Percentage 12 the number of farm animals can be reduced worldwide by about X percent. Percentage 13 the energy requirement or meat production will increase by about X percent. Percentage 14 the required quantity of water for meat production will be reduced by about X percent. Percentage 15 environmental advantages and disadvantages of cultured meat will have been sufficiently investigated and proven. Likert 16 other risks will have been identified in the production process of cultured meat which will have a negative impact on the Likert environment. Cluster 3: Market and competition 17 cultured meat will be a niche product with a small market share (less than 10 percent). Likert 18 cultured meat will have a larger market share than other meat substitutes (like products made of soy, lupines, or insects). Likert 19 There will be an intense worldwide competition between several companies producing cultured meat. Likert 20 companies will exist that are specialized in the production of cultured meat to sell it to meat processing companies (e.g., Likert sausage manufacturers). 21 conventional meat producers will also produce cultured meat. Likert Cluster 4: Consumers 22 the demand for cultured meat will be positively influenced because it can be offered at a lower price than conventional meat. Likert 23 the demand for cultured meat will be positively influenced by offering more attractive non-price aspects in cultured meat to Likert consumers. 24 consumer acceptance will increase due to high security standards and relevant certifications in the production process of Likert cultured meat. 25 consumers will appreciate cultured meat as a healthy product (due to added nutrients). Likert 26 a special product label will enhance transparency for consumers and thus the acceptance of cultured meat will increase. Likert 27 cultured meat will be better socially accepted than conventional meat due to animal welfare regards. Likert 28 cultured meat will be better socially accepted than conventional meat due to the reduction of environmental impacts. Likert 29 cultured meat will be equivalent to conventional meat in appearance. Likert 30 cultured meat will be equivalent to conventional meat in taste. Likert 31 cultured meat will be equivalent to conventional meat in meat texture. Likert most-probable scenario which is generated by merging multiple University of Potsdam was not competent for this kind of research expert statements. and an approval was neither needed nor possible. After the first questioning, the interim results of the first round are revealed to the respondents during round two. Some scholars Selection of panelists criticize that the scientific requirement of independent judgments The selection of appropriate respondents for the Delphi study is 36,37 is violated by this disclosure. However, the aim of the Delphi often confronted with the question of how an expert can be study is the convergence of expressed opinions and the 39 characterized, and how his or her expertize can be measured. narrowing of the statistical spread to receive an unequivocal For this study, 82 potential respondents who had published scenario as a consensus. Conclusions for the resulting scenario can professionally on cultured meat were identified. The experts work be drawn from consensus or from a dissent. at universities or other research institutions, start-up companies The Delphi study was conducted in accordance to the voluntary researching or promoting cultured meat, foundations, and state “Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique”. Since the institutions from the United States of America, The Netherlands, survey did not include any medical or clinical experimentation or Germany, and several other countries. Of this sample, 39 ethically relevant human research, the ethics commission of the participated in the first round, 30 in the second round. Although npj Science of Food (2019) 10 Published in partnership with Beijing Technology and Business University V. Tiberius et al. the sample size appears relatively limited, Delphi studies are 5. Cameron, D., Osborne, C., Horton, P. & Sinclair, M. A sustainable model for intensive agriculture. Grantham Centre briefing note, Grantham Centre for Sustainable usually small-scale and considering the infancy of the field, the Futures & The University of Sheffield: Sheffield, 2–3 (2015). sample size is satisfactory for this research project. 6. Yusuf, R. O., Noor, Z. Z., Abba, A. H., Abu Hassan, M. A. & Din., M. F. M. Methane The participants were informed that their provided information emission by sectors: a comprehensive review of emission sources and mitigation would be anonymized and that the results of the survey would be methods. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 16, 5059–5070 (2012). published. Written consent was obtained from the participants. 7. Hoek, A. C., Pearson, D., James, S. W., Lawrence, M. A. & Friel, S. Healthy and environmentally sustainable food choices: consumer responses to point-of- purchase actions. Food Qual. Pref. 58,94–106 (2017). Data collection 8. Slade, P. If you build it, will they eat it? Consumer preferences for plant-based and The questionnaire contained 31 projections regarding possible cultured meat burgers. Appetite 125, 428–437 (2018). technological developments, their impacts on the consumer and 9. Bhat, Z. F., Kumar, S. & Fayaz, H. In vitro meat production: challenges and benefits the market, and competitiveness derived from a literature review over conventional meat production. J. Integr. Agric. 14, 241–248 (2015). and exploratory interviews. 10. Post, M. J. Cultured beef: medical technology to produce food. J. Sci. Food Agric. To minimize the risk of misinterpretations of the statements 94, 1039–1041 (2014). presented to the experts, a pretest was conducted. The 11. Post, M. J. An alternative animal protein source: cultured beef. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1328,29–33 (2014). respondents were asked to express their consent or dissent with 12. Bohm, I., Ferrari, A. & Woll, S. Visions of in vitro meat mong experts and stake- most projections on a five-point Likert scale (“do not agree at all”, holders. Nanoethics 12, 211–224 (2018). “rather do not agree”, “partly agree”, “rather agree”, and “agree 13. Dilworth, T. & McGregor, A. Moral steaks? Ethical discourses of in vitro meat in completely”). For projections 10–14, the respondents were asked academia and Australia. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 28,85–107 (2015). to provide estimates in percentage. Projection 7b was added after 14. Wilks, M. & Phillips, C. J. C. Attitudes to in vitro meat: a survey of potential the first round due to suggestions from respondents (Table 2). consumers in the United States. Plos ONE 12, e0171904 (2017). The study was conducted anonymously, since anonymity is 15. Verbeke, W. et al. ‘Would you eat cultured meat’? Consumers’ reactions and regarded a central feature of Delphi studies. Critics argue that attitude formation in Belgium, Portugal and the United Kingdom. Meat Sci. 102, anonymity is accompanied by the respondents’ irresponsibility 49–58 (2015). 22,37 16. Verbeke, W., Sans, P. & Van Loo, E. J. Challenges ans prospects for consumer with the results. This is especially a problem when self- acceptance of cultured meat. J. Integr. Agric. 14, 285–294 (2015). fulfilling prophecies are expected. However, in this study it can be 17. Hocquette, J. F. Is in vitro meat the solution for the future? Meat Sci. 120, 167–176 expected that scientific progress has a higher impact on the future (2016). development than the expression of the experts’ views. 18. Laestadius, L. I. & Caldwell, M. A. Is the future of meat palatable? Perceptions of in vitro meat as evidenced by online news comments. Public Health Nutr. 18, Reporting summary 2457–2467 (2015). 19. Hocquette, A. et al. Educated consumers don’t believe artificial meat is the solu- Further information on research design is available in the Nature tion to the problems with the meat industry. J. Integr. Agric. 14, 273–284 (2015). Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. 20. Hamdan, M. N., Post, M. J., Ramli, M. A. & Mustafa, A. R. Cultured meat in Islamic Perspective. J. Relig. Health 57, 2193–2206 (2018). 21. Rowe, G. & Wright, G. The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and DATA AVAILABILITY analysis. Int. J. Forecast. 15, 353–375 (1999). The authors confirm that all relevant data are included in the paper. Further data 22. Hill, K. Q. & Fowles, J. The methodological worth of the Delphi forecasting available on request from the authors. technique. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 7, 179–192 (1975). 23. Bardecki, M. Participants’ response to the Delphi method. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 25, 281–292 (1991). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 24. Freytag, G. Freytag’s Technique of the Drama: an Exposition of Dramatic Compo- sition and Art. An authorized translation from the 6th German edition by Elias J. We acknowledge the support of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) and MacEwan. (Scott Foresman, Chicago, IL, 1900). the Open Access Publishing Fund of University of Potsdam. 25. Bekker, G. A., Fischer, A. R. H., Tobi, H. & van Trijp, H. C. M. Explicit and implicit attitude toward an emerging food technology: the case of cultured meat. Appetite 108, 245–254 (2017). AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS 26. Stephens, N. & Ruivenkamp, M. Promise and ontological ambiguity in the in vitro Victor Tiberius and Jenny Borning jointly developed the study design. Jenny Borning meat imagescape: from laboratory myotubes to the cultured burger. Sci. Cult. 25, conducted the study. Victor Tiberius and Sabrina Seeler wrote the paper. 327–355 (2016). 27. Stephens, N. et al. Bringing cultured meat to market: technical, socio-political, and regulatory challenges in cellular agriculture. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 78, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 155–166 (2018). Supplementary information accompanies the paper on the npj Science of Food 28. Laestadius, L. Public perceptions of the ethics of in-vitro meat: determining an website (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-019-0041-0). appropriate course of action. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 28, 991–1009 (2015). 29. Hopkins, P. D. Cultured meat in western media: the disproportionate coverage of Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests. vegetarian reactions, demographic realities, and implications for cultured meat marketing. J. Integr. Agric. 14, 264–272 (2015). 30. Bell, W. Technological forecasting—what it is and what it does. Manag. Rev. 56, Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims 64 (1967). in published maps and institutional affiliations. 31. Dalkey, N. & Helmer, O. An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Manag. Sci. 9, 458–467 (1963). 32. Skulmoski, G. J., Hartman, F. T. & Krahn, J. The Delphi method for graduate REFERENCES research. J. Inform. Tech. Edu. 6,1–21 (2007). 1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAOSTAT. http://www. 33. Woudenberg, F. An evaluation of Delphi. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 40, fao.org/faostat/en/?#data (2018). 131–150 (1991). 2. Popkin, B. M. The nutrition transition and its health implications in lower-income 34. Kahn, H. & Wiener, A. J. The Year 2000—A Framework for Speculation on the Next countries. Public Health Nutr. 1,5–21 (1998). Thirty-Three Years. (Macmillan, New York, NY, 1968). 3. Godfray, H. C. J. et al. Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science 35. Gausemeier, J., Fink, A. & Schlake, O. Scenario management: an approach to 361, 6399 (2018). develop future potentials. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 59, 111–130 (1998). 4. Apostolidis, C. & McLeay, F. Should we stop meating like this? Reducing meat 36. Sackman, H. Summary evaluation of Delphi. Policy Anal. 1, 693–718 (1975). consumption through substitution. Food Policy 65,74–89 (2016). 37. Goodman, C. The Delphi technique: a critique. J. Adv. Nurs. 12, 729–734 (1987). Published in partnership with Beijing Technology and Business University npj Science of Food (2019) 10 V. Tiberius et al. Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party 38. Hasson, F., Keeney, S. & McKenna, H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless technique. J. Adv. Nurs. 32, 1008–1015 (2000). indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the 39. Welty, G. Problems of selecting experts for Delphi exercises. Acad. Manag. J. 15, article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory 121–124 (1972). regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give © The Author(s) 2019 appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative npj Science of Food (2019) 10 Published in partnership with Beijing Technology and Business University

Journal

npj Science of Food – Springer Journals

Published: Jun 4, 2019

There are no references for this article.