How the media talks about cultivated meat could shape its future, study suggests

When the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) granted label and sales approval to UPSIDE Foods and GOOD Meat Inc in June 2023 for cell-cultivated chicken, it marked a historic step for food regulation. The USA became only the second country in the world – after Singapore – to permit the commercial sale of meat made without animal slaughter. With the headlines came heightened attention. But what exactly did the American public learn from the media about this new technology?

A study by researchers Alejandra Sofia Marquez, Ellen Messer, Suzannah Gerber, and Sean B. Cash offers the first comprehensive look at how major US news outlets covered the regulatory milestone. Drawing on 34 news articles published between mid-June and the end of August 2023, the authors conducted a qualitative content analysis to explore how the media presented cell-cultivated chicken to readers, what narratives were emphasized, and who got to speak.

The findings, published in the journal Future Foods, show that journalists framed the topic through eight major themes – ranging from whether cell-cultivated meat counts as 'real' meat, to questions about technical viability, politics, and environmental benefits. The media’s choices, the authors argue, are not merely descriptive but help shape the 'emerging meaning system' of this novel food.

One of the most consistent themes – appearing in 94% of the analyzed articles – was whether cell-cultivated chicken qualifies as real meat. Often described through analogies to breweries or laboratories, the production process was emphasized as unfamiliar yet grounded in scientific credibility. Still, many outlets were quick to clarify that the product was not just a plant-based imitation but actual animal meat grown from cells.

As Fox News put it, “It’s supposed to be real meat made from real animal cells.” Company leaders reinforced the point: “This is real meat, no compromise,” said Dr Uma Valeti, CEO of UPSIDE Foods.

The most frequently mentioned benefit, found in 91% of articles, was environmental. Cell-cultivated meat was portrayed as a response to the heavy carbon footprint and resource use associated with industrial animal farming. Yet only a handful of articles included quantifiable data on these benefits, and some expressed skepticism. A New York Post article even warned that energy demands from cell-based production could make it more carbon-intensive than conventional meat.

Animal welfare was another key angle. The idea of eating meat without causing animal suffering was often framed as a moral advantage. CNN Newsroom stated that “consumers can get the meat they love but without the harm,” while other pieces raised the possibility of a “guilt-free” eating experience.

Still, others challenged the necessity of cell-cultivated meat altogether. Critics featured in several pieces argued that the billions invested in the field might be better spent on agroecological farming, food access, or home gardening initiatives. In one article, a chef interviewed in Dallas asked, “Do we need synthetic meat, or do we need food sovereignty?”

Although widespread consumer access to cell-cultivated chicken remains limited, several journalists did sample it at events hosted by fine dining establishments in San Francisco and Washington, D.C. Their descriptions were mostly positive. One writer described a dish “pan-seared in a kind of lovely, buttery wine sauce,” while others said it “tasted like chicken” – though the texture was occasionally noted as different.

Yet not all public sentiment leaned positive. Some articles highlighted polls showing Americans wary of the product’s safety or simply put off by the idea. “Eww” was a common first reaction quoted by reporters. Others questioned whether the USDA and FDA were up to the task of overseeing such a new category of food. “They can’t even regulate spinach,” one chef said in a Fox News segment.

Scaling the technology and reducing costs were repeatedly cited as barriers to broader availability. Even those optimistic about the field, like investors and company leaders, acknowledged that cell-cultivated meat is years away from reaching grocery store shelves. As one representative from Ark Biotech said, “Over the next decade, I expect cultivated meat to move from a luxury… to a product on supermarket shelves.”

The USDA’s approval of cell-cultivated chicken triggered political debates that spilled into state legislatures and cable news studios. While some commentators framed it as a milestone in innovation, others saw it as government overreach. A Fox News host questioned whether the push for cell-cultivated meat reflected “the left’s obsession with controlling our diets.”

By late 2023, several US states – including Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi – had introduced or passed laws banning the sale or production of cell-cultivated meat. Meanwhile, Italy implemented its own ban, and debates raged across Europe about how to regulate the new technology.

Amid the political wrangling, representatives from cell-cultivated meat companies were the most frequently quoted sources in the media, followed by USDA officials, academics, and chefs. Conventional meat industry voices were less prominent, and when quoted, their reactions were mixed – some skeptical, others open to coexisting markets.

The authors argue that how the media discusses cell-cultivated meat will shape how the public comes to understand and accept it. The framing of the technology as either a revolutionary solution or a dubious experiment affects both consumer sentiment and the political climate surrounding future regulation.

Notably, the media often blurred lines between factual reporting and promotion. While company voices dominated the narrative, critical perspectives – on energy use, labor impacts, or social equity received comparatively less airtime. The portrayal of cell-cultivated meat as both innovative and controversial reflects an unresolved tension in how society views food produced outside of traditional systems.

As the paper concludes, "It is obvious that for at least some members of the public, the debate over cultivated meat products has become confounded with pre-existing political identities." Whether consumers will come to view cell-cultivated meat as a triumph of science or an unnatural intrusion will likely depend as much on media messaging as on taste or price.

For now, one thing is clear: this is no longer just a science experiment. It’s dinner. And everyone has an opinion.

(Main picture shows GOOD Meat's cutlivated chicken)