DESPITE having a great concern for the environment and animal welfare, 72 percent of Generation Z members are not ready to accept cultured meat, a new research project has found.
However, despite their lack of enthusiasm for the new meat alternative, 41pc believed it could be a viable nutritional source because of the need to transition to more sustainable food options and improve animal welfare.
Cultured meat was defined for the purposes of the survey as a lab-grown meat alternative produced by in-vitro cell cultures of animal cells, instead of from slaughtered animals.
The University of Sydney and Curtin University study found that Generation Z – those aged between 18 and 25 – are concerned about the environment and animal welfare, yet most are not ready to accept cultured meat and view it with disgust, said the study’s lead researcher, Dr Diana Bogueva from the University of Sydney’s School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering.
Some 59pc of participants were concerned about the environmental impact of traditional livestock farming specifically, however many were not clear on what those impacts were nor did they understand the associated resource depletion.
“In-vitro meat and other alternatives are important as they can help to reduce greenhouse emissions and lead to better animal welfare conditions,” Dr Bogueva says in a press release.
“However, if cultured meat is to replace livestock-based proteins, it will have to emotionally and intellectually appeal to the Gen Z consumers. It may be through its physical appearance, but what seems to be more important is transparency around its environmental and other benefits,” she said.
Researchers collected Generation Z’s opinions of cultured meat via an online survey, involving 227 randomly selected Australian-based respondents. They were asked questions about their demographics, dietary preferences (such as how often they liked to eat meat), how they felt about cultured meat and whether they thought it was necessary to accept and consume, as well as their preference for different meat alternatives (such as insects, plant based and cultured meat).
Gen Z’s concerns about cultured meat
The participants had several concerns relating to cultured meat, including an anticipated taste or disgust, health and safety, and whether it is a more sustainable option.
Societal concerns were also prevalent throughout the study, with a large number of respondents worried that eating cultured meat would be in conflict with perceptions of gender and national identity.
“Gen Z values Australia’s reputation as a supplier of quality livestock and meat, and many view traditional meat eating as being closely tied to concepts of masculinity and Australian cultural identity,” Dr Bogueva said.
Others were concerned about animal welfare, whereas some viewed cultured meat as a conspiracy orchestrated by the rich and powerful and were determined not to be convinced to consume it. Several participants were also unsure whether cultured meat was an environmentally sustainable option.
“Generation Z are also unsure whether cultured meat is actually more environmentally sustainable, described by several respondents as potentially “resource consuming” and not being “environmentally friendly”,” said Dr Bogueva.
“The respondents were effectively divided into two groups. The “against” group described cultured meat as “another thing our generation has to worry about” and questioned the motivations of those developing it, while supporters described it as “money invested for a good cause” and “a smart move” by people who are “advanced thinkers.”
“This Generation has vast information at its fingertips but is still concerned that they will be left with the legacy of exploitative capitalism that benefits only a few at the expense of many,” the research study found.
“They have witnessed such behaviour resulting in climate change and are now afraid that a similar scenario may develop in relation to food, particularly as investors are pursuing broader adoption of cultured meat,” Dr Bogueva said.
Gen Z’s five main attitudes towards cultured meat:
- 17pc of respondents rejected all alternatives, including cultured meat, seeing it as chemically produced and heavily processed.
- 11pc rejected all alternatives in favour of increased consumption of fruit and vegetables, saying they will stick with a vegetarian diet.
- 35pc rejected cultured meat and edible insects but accepted plant-based alternatives because they “sounded more natural” and are “normal”.
- 28pc believed cultured meat was acceptable or possibly acceptable if the technology could be mastered.
- A fifth group (9pc) accepted edible insects but rejected cultured meat as it was too artificial and not natural like insects.
The results echo recent findings published in Meat & Livestock Australia’s suggesting that despite enormous worldwide publicity, alternative proteins (almost entirely plant-based, but perhaps including some insect derivatives) currently account for just 0.3pc of Australia’s fresh meat volume sales, and 0.4pc of value sales. That’s based on Neilsen Homescan consumer annualised data to May 2020.
This compares with 25kg average annual consumption of beef, and 6.8kg of lamb. Combined, Australians on average eat around 31.8kg of red meat a year – among the largest consumers on earth.
Source: University of Sydney and Curtin University