The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Attitudes to in vitro meat: A survey of potential consumers in the United States
Open accessAbstract
Positivity towards meat consumption remains strong, despite evidence of negative environmental and ethical outcomes. Although awareness of these repercussions is rising, there is still public resistance to removing meat from our diets. One potential method to alleviate these effects is to produce in vitro meat: meat grown in a laboratory that does not carry the same environmental or ethical concerns. However, there is limited research examining public attitudes towards in vitro meat, thus we know little about the capacity for it be accepted by consumers. This study aimed to examine perceptions of in vitro meat and identify potential barriers that might prevent engagement. Through conducting an online survey with US participants, we identified that although most respondents were willing to try in vitro meat, only one third were definitely or probably willing to eat in vitro meat regularly or as a replacement for farmed meat. Men were more receptive to it than women, as were politically liberal respondents compared with conservative ones. Vegetarians and vegans were more likely to perceive benefits compared to farmed meat, but they were less likely to want to try it than meat eaters. The main concerns were an anticipated high price, limited taste and appeal and a concern that the product was unnatural. It is concluded that people in the USA are likely to try in vitro meat, but few believed that it would replace farmed meat in their diet.
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
Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations.
Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0015141 · Cited by 4,560
Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk
Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpr057 · Cited by 4,008
When Morality Opposes Justice: Conservatives Have Moral Intuitions that Liberals may not Recognize
Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007) · Social Justice Research · doi:10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z · Cited by 2,385
Casler, K., Bickel, L., & Hackett, E. (2013) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.009 · Cited by 1,662
Trends in meat consumption in the USA
Daniel, C. R., Cross, A. J., Koebnick, C., & Sinha, R. (2011) · Public Health Nutrition · doi:10.1017/s1368980010002077 · Cited by 504
Bartneck, C., Duenser, A., Moltchanova, E., & Zawieska, K. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0121595 · Cited by 317
Cited by
Future Protein Supply and Demand: Strategies and Factors Influencing a Sustainable Equilibrium
Henchion, M., Hayes, M., Mullen, A., Fenelon, M., & Tiwari, B. (2017) · Foods · doi:10.3390/foods6070053 · Cited by 1,519
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: A systematic review
Bryant, C., & Barnett, J. (2018) · Meat Science · doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.04.008 · Cited by 532
Consumer Acceptance of Cultured Meat: An Updated Review (2018–2020)
Bryant, C., & Barnett, J. (2020) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app10155201 · Cited by 373
Metadata
- Authors
- Wilks, M., & Phillips, C. J. C.
- Venue
- PLOS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2017-02-16
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- e0171904
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2588639388
- Cited by
- 397
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 17.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Attitudes to in vitro meat: A survey of potential consumers in the United States. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0171904
- The paper
- Wilks, M., & Phillips, C. J. C. (2017). Attitudes to in vitro meat: A survey of potential consumers in the United States. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171904
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.