GFI study finds 'real meat' and humane framing boost appeal for cultivated meat among US consumers

A new national survey has found that how cultivated meat is described can significantly influence US consumer appeal and purchase intent, with benefit-focused messaging outperforming technical explanations of the production process.

• Fewer than half of US consumers had heard of cultivated meat before reading a description, with 'lab-grown' the most recognized term.

• After reading detailed messaging, net appeal increased by 18 percentage points and purchase intent rose by 10 percentage points.

• Phrases emphasizing '100% real meat', humane benefits, and antibiotic-free production scored highest, while references to 'grown from cells' were rated most unappealing.

The report examined how specific words and phrases affected attitudes toward cultivated meat among 3,517 US adults surveyed in October 2024. The findings arrive as cultivated meat products begin entering the US market, where consumer familiarity remains limited.

Prior to viewing any description, fewer than half of respondents had heard of cultivated meat by any name. While 44% said they had heard the term 'lab-grown meat', only 27% had heard of 'cultivated meat' and 29% had heard of 'cultured meat'.

Baseline appeal was mixed. Just 21% said they found cultivated meat appealing, while 22% were unsure. Around 26% said they would be likely to purchase it based on what they knew at the outset.

However, willingness to try was higher than purchase intent, with 37% saying they would be likely to try a free sample.

After respondents read one of seven detailed descriptions of cultivated meat, net appeal increased by 18 percentage points on average. Purchase intent rose by 10 percentage points.

Most of the increase came from respondents who were previously unsure rather than those who initially found the concept unappealing.

Participants were shown descriptions that combined benefit claims, similarity-to-meat framing, and process explanations, then asked to highlight phrases they found appealing or unappealing.

The highest-performing phrases emphasized similarity to conventional meat and ethical or health-related benefits.

'100% real meat' received one of the strongest net appeal scores, followed by phrases such as 'no sacrifice required', 'no animals have to be killed', 'more humane', 'high-quality food', and 'antibiotic-free'.

Environmental claims also resonated, with terms such as 'sustainable' and 'environmentally friendly' scoring positively. Phrases reinforcing familiarity, including 'same as the meat we eat today' and 'looks, cooks, and tastes like regular meat', were also rated as appealing.

The findings suggest that consumers respond most favorably when cultivated meat is framed as conventional meat with added benefits, rather than as a novel technological product.

In contrast, descriptions that focused on how cultivated meat is produced tended to reduce appeal.

Phrases such as 'grown from cells', 'grown directly from animal cells', and 'outside the animal' were among the most negatively rated. References to 'muscle', 'fat', 'connective tissue', and facilities 'that look like a beer brewery' were also viewed unfavorably.

However, the report found that these same technical phrases improved understanding of what cultivated meat is. Messages that incorporated process explanations increased agreement with statements such as 'is grown directly from animal cells' and 'is real meat'.

This created a tension between appeal and comprehension. Technical accuracy increased clarity but often reduced immediate consumer enthusiasm.

Different descriptions also shaped perceptions of safety, sustainability, and naturalness.

Overall, 55% of respondents agreed that cultivated meat is safe to eat after reading a description, and 60% agreed that it is environmentally friendly. Nearly half said it is artificial.

Agreement that cultivated meat is free of antibiotics rose sharply in messages that emphasized that attribute. In some versions, more than 70% of respondents agreed that the product was antibiotic-free.

The study also found that explicitly stating cultivated meat is not plant-based was moderately appealing but not necessary for comprehension.

The research suggests that anchoring messaging in familiarity and benefits may be more effective at increasing appeal than leading with detailed scientific explanations.

At the same time, process explanations play an important role in building understanding and credibility. The report recommends carefully sequencing technical language between benefit-driven phrases to balance appeal and clarity.

As cultivated meat enters wider commercial distribution in the United States, the findings indicate that wording choices may materially affect consumer acceptance, particularly among those who remain undecided.