[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aes/amfeco/v26y2024i65p346.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cultured Meat – From Scientific Challenge to Consumer Acceptance as Sustainable Food Source

Author

Listed:
  • Lelia Voinea

    (Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Romania)

  • Dorin Vicentiu Popescu

    (Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Romania)

  • Teodor Mihai Negrea

    (Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Romania)

  • Razvan Dina

    (Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Romania)

Abstract
Cultured meat obtained in vitro from animal cells represents one of the recent concerns of specialists, who thus try to solve part of the issues related to animal welfare and sustainable meat production. Beyond the technical difficulties that must be overcome, the acceptance of cultured meat by consumers is not an easy goal to achieve, as it depends on factors acting both at the global and local levels. Since this paper focuses on Romanian consumers, the authors emphasize the importance of developing a general information framework that would allow first their understanding and further their acceptance of cultured meat. For this purpose, a systematic literature review, based on 34 articles, was carried out in order to observe good practices at international level, which led, in the past, to the acceptance of other significant innovations in the food field. Thus, five directions of action were identified: communication, knowledge, trust, perception, and attitudes. Based on these, a model of cultured meat acceptance by Romanian was developed. This initiative is unique in Romania so far and its results can be of interest for Romanian consumers and also for many categories of specialists, from scholars and researchers to practitioners interested in launching new products on the market or policymakers in the field of nutrition, public health, and agriculture. Further research is needed on the relationships between food security and safety, traditional meat production, and cultured meat as an alternative to real meat, before the marketplace launch of this new product.

Suggested Citation

  • Lelia Voinea & Dorin Vicentiu Popescu & Teodor Mihai Negrea & Razvan Dina, 2024. "Cultured Meat – From Scientific Challenge to Consumer Acceptance as Sustainable Food Source," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 26(65), pages 346-346, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:aes:amfeco:v:26:y:2024:i:65:p:346
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.amfiteatrueconomic.ro/temp/Article_3297.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:aud:audfin:v:21:y:2019:i:51:p:347 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Magdalena Bobe & Roxana Procopie & Mihaela Bucur, 2019. "Exploring the Role of Individual Food Security in the Assessment of Population’s Food Safety," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 21(51), pages 347-347.
    3. Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, José M. & Traill, W. Bruce, 2008. "Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 99-111, April.
    4. House, Lisa & Lusk, Jayson L. & Jaeger, Sara & Traill, W. Bruce & Moore, Melissa & Valli, Carlotta & Morrow, Bert & Yee, Wallace M.S., 2004. "Objective And Subjective Knowledge: Impacts On Consumer Demand For Genetically Modified Foods In The United States And The European Union," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20125, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    5. Ali Siddiq Alhakami & Paul Slovic, 1994. "A Psychological Study of the Inverse Relationship Between Perceived Risk and Perceived Benefit," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 1085-1096, December.
    6. Nathalie Stampfli & Michael Siegrist & Hans Kastenholz, 2010. "Acceptance of nanotechnology in food and food packaging: a path model analysis," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(3), pages 353-365, April.
    7. Michael Siegrist & Heinz Gutscher & Timothy C. Earle, 2005. "Perception of risk: the influence of general trust, and general confidence," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 145-156, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aisha Egolf & Christina Hartmann & Michael Siegrist, 2019. "When Evolution Works Against the Future: Disgust's Contributions to the Acceptance of New Food Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(7), pages 1546-1559, July.
    2. Shoshana Shiloh & Gülbanu Güvenç & Dilek Önkal, 2007. "Cognitive and Emotional Representations of Terror Attacks: A Cross‐Cultural Exploration," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 397-409, April.
    3. Andrew Knight, 2007. "Intervening Effects of Knowledge, Morality, Trust, and Benefits on Support for Animal and Plant Biotechnology Applications," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(6), pages 1553-1563, December.
    4. Mei‐Chih Meg Tseng & Yi‐Ping Lin & Fu‐Chang Hu & Tsun‐Jen Cheng, 2013. "Risks Perception of Electromagnetic Fields in Taiwan: The Influence of Psychopathology and the Degree of Sensitivity to Electromagnetic Fields," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(11), pages 2002-2012, November.
    5. Joseph Seong & Simone Valle de Souza & H. Christopher Peterson, 2023. "Seeds of Industry Sustainability: Consumer Attitudes towards Indoor Agriculture Benefits versus Its Advanced Technology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-21, January.
    6. Xiaoqin Zhu & Xiaofei Xie, 2015. "Effects of Knowledge on Attitude Formation and Change Toward Genetically Modified Foods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 790-810, May.
    7. Jaesun Wang & Seoyong Kim, 2019. "Searching for New Directions for Energy Policy: Testing the Cross-Effect of Risk Perception and Cyberspace Factors on Online/Offline Opposition to Nuclear Energy in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-26, March.
    8. Yang Yang & Jill E. Hobbs, 2020. "How Do Cultural Worldviews Shape Food Technology Perceptions? Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(2), pages 465-492, June.
    9. Han, Y. & Lam, J. & Guo, P. & Gou, Z., 2019. "What Predicts Government Trustworthiness in Cross-border HK-Guangdong Nuclear Safety Emergency Governance?," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1989, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    10. Greehy, Grainne & McCarthy, Mary & Henchion, Maeve M. & Dillon, Emma J. & McCarthy, Sinead, 2011. "An Exploration of Irish Consumer Acceptance of Nanotechnology Applications in Food," 2011 International European Forum, February 14-18, 2011, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 122006, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    11. Hu, Yang & House, Lisa A. & Gao, Zhifeng, 2022. "How do consumers respond to labels for crispr (gene-editing)?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    12. Omid M. Ghoochani & Mansour Ghanian & Masoud Baradaran & Erfan Alimirzaei & Hossein Azadi, 2018. "Behavioral intentions toward genetically modified crops in Southwest Iran: a multi-stakeholder analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 233-253, February.
    13. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    14. Van Asselt, Joanna & Nian, Yefan & Soh, Moonwon & Gao, Zhifeng & Morgan, Stephen N, 2020. "Do Plastic Warning Labels Reduce Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Plastic Packaging?," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304503, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Marina Zapilko & Sandra Feigl & Klaus Menrad & Tobias Hirzinger, 2009. "Economic Consequences of GMO Traceability in the EU Food and Feed Industry," Journal of Socio-Economics in Agriculture (Until 2015: Yearbook of Socioeconomics in Agriculture), Swiss Society for Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, vol. 2(1), pages 81-112.
    16. Erdem, Seda, 2018. "Who do UK consumers trust for information about nanotechnology?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 133-142.
    17. Rodríguez-Entrena, Macario & Salazar-Ordóñez, Melania & Sayadi, Samir, 2013. "Applying partial least squares to model genetically modified food purchase intentions in southern Spain consumers," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 44-53.
    18. Katarzyna Zagórska & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley, 2022. "“GMO – Doesn’t Have To Go!” – Consumers’ Preferences Towards Genetically Modified Products Labelling and Sale," Working Papers 2022-07, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    19. Olsen, Robert A., 2008. "Trust as risk and the foundation of investment value," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2189-2200, December.
    20. Chang, Jae Bong & Lusk, Jayson L., 2009. "Fairness and food choice," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 483-491, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    cultured meat; Romanian consumers; model of consumer acceptance of cultured meat; sustainable food consumption;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • D18 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Protection
    • M31 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Marketing
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
    • I12 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Behavior

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aes:amfeco:v:26:y:2024:i:65:p:346. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Valentin Dumitru (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aseeero.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.