The DOI matches its Crossref record; 207 of the 207 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Review of factors affecting consumer acceptance of cultured meat
Open accessAbstract
Concerns about animal welfare and sustainable meat production are growing among consumers. The awareness of carbon emissions linked to livestock and ethical concerns have triggered interest in more sustainable meat alternatives, among which cultured meat (also known as laboratory grown meat) is a recent entry. Like any new food, the ultimate success of cultured meat depends on consumer acceptance. This study analyses the peer-reviewed literature on consumer attitudes towards cultured meat to synthesize the existing evidence and identify priorities for future research. A systematic literature review was undertaken using the Web of Science, Science Direct and Scopus databases over 2008-2020, resulting in a final number of 43 articles meeting our selection criteria. The most important factors influencing consumer acceptance/rejection of cultured meat include public awareness, perceived naturalness, and food-related risk perception. Ethical and environmental concerns prompted consumers to be willing to pay a premium price for purchasing meat substitutes, but not necessarily cultured meat. Also, food neophobia and uncertainties about safety and health seem to be important barriers to uptake of this technology. Availability of other alternatives such as plant-based meat substitutes and product features, such as price and sensory appeal, are considered determinants of consumer reception of this technology. The effect of demographic factors is mixed. More research on the interrelationships between livestock production, food security, and alternative meat products is recommended.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
Rogers, E. M., Singhal, A., & Quinlan, M. M. (2019) · An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research · doi:10.4324/9780203710753-35 · Cited by 37,322
Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1988) · Decision, Probability and Utility · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511609220.014 · Cited by 32,474
PRISMA-P Group, Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., & Stewart, L. A. (2015) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 · Cited by 26,223
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
Valente, T. W. (2003) · Genetics in Medicine · doi:10.1097/01.gim.0000061743.67794.c4 · Cited by 13,723
Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness
(2008) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.46-0977 · Cited by 11,572
Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A meta‐analytic review
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001) · British Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1348/014466601164939 · Cited by 9,970
Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.35.2.151 · Cited by 8,094
The Transtheoretical Model of Health Behavior Change.
Prochaska, J. O., & Velicer, W. F. (1997) · American Journal of Health Promotion · doi:10.4278/0890-1171-12.1.38 · Cited by 7,782
Cited by
Helmy, M., Elhalis, H., Liu, Y., Chow, Y., & Selvarajoo, K. (2023) · Advances in Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.advnut.2022.11.002 · Cited by 57
Metadata
- Authors
- Pakseresht, A., Ahmadi Kaliji, S., & Canavari, M.
- Venue
- Appetite
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2022-03
- Volume
- 170
- Pages
- 105829
- ISSN
- 0195-6663 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3217591848
- Cited by
- 317
- References
- 207
- FWCI
- 33.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Review of factors affecting consumer acceptance of cultured meat. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105829
- The paper
- Pakseresht, A., Ahmadi Kaliji, S., & Canavari, M. (2022). Review of factors affecting consumer acceptance of cultured meat. Appetite. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105829
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.