Tasting plus positive messaging lifts acceptance of cell-cultivated meat in Singapore

A randomized tasting study in Singapore finds that pairing brief, positive information with a hands-on tasting experience can raise consumer acceptance of cell-cultivated meat. Conducted at the National University of Singapore and published in Scientific Reports, the experiment showed that acceptance scores for cultivated chicken increased only when participants both sampled nuggets and received concise, benefit-focused information. Attitudes and perceived behavioral control toward choosing either plant-based or cultivated options improved across the board after the session, although conventional chicken continued to score highest overall.

The researchers set out to move beyond attitude surveys by testing practical interventions that food companies and educators might use in markets where novel proteins are becoming available. Singapore, the first country to approve the sale and consumption of cultivated meat, offered a timely backdrop for the work.

The team recruited 277 adult participants, who were randomly assigned to one of three groups: a control with no additional information, a plant-based benefits group that received a short paragraph on environmental, animal welfare, health, and food safety advantages of plant-based diets, and a cultivated benefits group that received a similarly structured paragraph on cultivated meat. All participants completed a 20-minute online survey at least 24 hours before attending an on-site, 40-minute sensory session in a university facility.

To isolate the influence of labels and information from underlying sensory differences, the tasting used only conventional chicken nuggets prepared under standardized conditions. During the session, participants first practiced with unlabelled samples, then evaluated three labelled samples presented sequentially as 'conventional chicken nugget', 'plant-based nugget', and 'cultivated chicken nugget'. At each step they rated liking attributes and answered questions on willingness to try, consider as a protein source, and buy the product. The study also measured core constructs from the Theory of Planned Behavior, capturing attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control before and after the tasting.

Baseline awareness mirrored market maturity. Nearly all participants had heard of conventional chicken, followed by plant-based meat, while just over half reported awareness of cultivated meat. Prior tasting experience showed a larger gap: 95% for conventional chicken, 74% for plant-based, and 7.6% for cultivated. Sensory liking did not differ by intervention group, and aside from texture being preferred for conventional chicken over plant-based, liking patterns did not show strong clustering by label.

Acceptance scores, which combined willingness to try, consider, and buy, ranked conventional chicken first, followed by plant-based and cultivated, both before and after the tasting session. Statistical tests confirmed significant differences among the three categories at both time points. Notably, however, acceptance for cultivated meat rose significantly in the cultivated benefits group after tasting, while the same shift did not appear in the control or plant-based benefits groups. Within that cultivated benefits group, the post-session difference between conventional and cultivated narrowed to the point that the two were not significantly different. In contrast, acceptance for conventional chicken declined significantly after tasting across all groups.

Beyond acceptance rankings, the interventions moved psychological levers tied to future behavior. Attitudes and perceived behavioral control toward choosing plant-based and cultivated meat as dietary protein improved after the session for participants in all three groups. Subjective norms, which reflect perceived social approval, were more resistant to change and only increased for cultivated meat in the cultivated benefits group. These shifts suggest that a single exposure can make people feel more positive about alternatives and more confident in their ability to choose them, even if social cues lag behind.

Regression analyses helped explain who moved and why. The single strongest predictor of change was where participants started: higher baseline acceptance left less room to increase. Food technology neophobia emerged as a substantial barrier for cultivated meat, with higher neophobia associated with lower post-tasting acceptance gains. The importance participants placed on meat predicted higher acceptance for conventional chicken, and older age was associated with lower post-tasting acceptance for conventional. Interactions between information treatments and psychographic factors such as nature relatedness and health consciousness were not significant in this dataset.

The experimental design leaned on deception to make the test feasible, since cultivated meat remains limited in volume for research use. The authors argue that labeling conventional nuggets as plant-based or cultivated allowed them to probe preconceptions without confounding from formulation differences. Reactions during debriefing and the absence of comments expressing doubt suggested participants generally believed they had tasted the alternatives. Still, the authors note that future studies using actual cultivated and plant-based products will be important for validating how far information and exposure can move acceptance when sensory realities come into play.

Context matters for interpretation. Singapore’s early adoption and media coverage have raised public familiarity with cultivated meat compared with many countries. Even in this relatively aware population, however, psychological predispositions such as food technology neophobia remained the most important brake on cultivated meat acceptance. The results indicate that concise, balanced benefits messaging paired with direct tasting can help, particularly for cultivated meat, but does not erase deep-seated preferences for conventional options after a single session.

The authors also highlight the limits of short-term shifts. While attitudes and perceived behavioral control improved consistently, only one arm of the study produced a significant acceptance gain for cultivated meat, and acceptance for conventional chicken declined across groups after tasting. The mixed pattern echoes prior research showing that labeling and brief exposure can shape perceptions of health and sustainability and nudge intentions, but that sustained changes in purchase behavior typically require repeated positive experiences, broad social endorsement, and convenient availability.

Taken together, the findings point to a pragmatic playbook for markets exploring alternative proteins: pair clear, evidence-based information with low-stakes opportunities to try products; expect attitudes and perceived control to respond first; address food technology concerns directly; and recognize that social norms and entrenched preferences are slower to move. The study’s authors call for follow-up trials using real cultivated and plant-based products, as well as messaging that balances current limitations with the category’s potential to improve over time.

The paper, Improving perceptions of cultivated meat and plant-based proteins in Singapore, is authored by Chloe Yun Yi Tan, Yanyun Yan, Jacqueline Choo, Xiaotong Cai, Hafizah Yusri, Nalini Puniamoorthy, Mei Hui Liu, and L. Roman Carrasco in Scientific Reports (2025).