The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: A systematic review
Open accessAbstract
Cultured meat grown in-vitro from animal cells is being developed as a way of addressing many of the ethical and environmental concerns associated with conventional meat production. As commercialisation of this technology appears increasingly feasible, there is growing interest in the research on consumer acceptance of cultured meat. We present a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature, and synthesize and analyse the findings of 14 empirical studies. We highlight demographic variations in consumer acceptance, factors influencing acceptance, common consumer objections, perceived benefits, and areas of uncertainty. We conclude by evaluating the most important objections and benefits to consumers, as well as highlighting areas for future research.
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
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
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
Valente, T. W. (2003) · Genetics in Medicine · doi:10.1097/01.gim.0000061743.67794.c4 · Cited by 13,723
Five steps to conducting a systematic review
Khan, K. S., Kunz, R., Kleijnen, J., & Antes, G. (2003) · Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · doi:10.1177/014107680309600304 · Cited by 1,873
Food quality and safety: consumer perception and demand
Grunert, K. G. (2005) · European Review of Agricultural Economics · doi:10.1093/eurrag/jbi011 · Cited by 1,719
Standard Quality Assessment Criteria for Evaluating Primary Research Papers from a Variety of Fields
Kmet, L. M., Cook, L. S., & Lee, R. C. (2004) · University of Alberta Library · doi:10.7939/r37m04f16 · Cited by 1,682
Rozin, P., & Fallon, A. E. (1987) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.94.1.23 · Cited by 1,674
(1987) · PubMed · Cited by 1,496
Mere Exposure: A Gateway to the Subliminal
Zajonc, R. B. (2001) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00154 · Cited by 1,299
Cited by
Onwezen, M. C., Bouwman, E. P., Reinders, M. J., & Dagevos, H. (2021) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2020.105058 · Cited by 1,048
Consumer acceptance of novel food technologies
Siegrist, M., & Hartmann, C. (2020) · Nature Food · doi:10.1038/s43016-020-0094-x · Cited by 802
Plant-based and cell-based approaches to meat production
Rubio, N. R., Xiang, N., & Kaplan, D. L. (2020) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-20061-y · Cited by 606
Consumer Acceptance of Cultured Meat: An Updated Review (2018–2020)
Bryant, C., & Barnett, J. (2020) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app10155201 · Cited by 373
Self-citationGómez-Luciano, C. A., de Aguiar, L. K., Vriesekoop, F., & Urbano, B. (2019) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103732 · Cited by 327
Metadata
- Authors
- Bryant, C., & Barnett, J.
- Venue
- Meat Science
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-09
- Volume
- 143
- Pages
- 8-17
- ISSN
- 0309-1740 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2798114807
- Cited by
- 532
- References
- 60
- FWCI
- 9.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: A systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.04.008
- The paper
- Bryant, C., & Barnett, J. (2018). Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: A systematic review. Meat Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.04.008
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.
