| Description: |
PurposeConventional meat is linked to environmental and animal welfare-related concerns. Cultured meat, produced in the laboratory from animal cells, has been suggested as an alternative that could overcome these negative consequences of conventional meat, as it can incur fewer environmental impacts and avoid unnecessary animal suffering. Despite these prospective advantages, cultured meat acceptance varies substantially. In this study, we examined whether counter-messages emphasizing environmental damage, animal welfare impacts and unnatural aspects of conventional meat affect cultured meat acceptance compared to conventional meat.Design/methodology/approachThe current study employs a quantitative approach, with participants reading one counter-message (environmental, animal welfare, unnaturalness or control). The study follows a 2 (meat type: cultured vs conventional; within-subjects) × 4(essay condition: environmental, animal welfare, unnaturalness, control; between-subjects) mixed MANOVA design, with anticipated eating enjoyment and purchase intent as dependent variables.FindingsCounter-messages highlighting unnaturalness and negative animal welfare impacts of conventional meat increased cultured meat acceptance. However, counter-messages did not reduce conventional meat acceptance.Originality/valueThe current study uniquely indicates that counter-messages highlighting unnaturalness and negative animal welfare impacts of conventional meat enhance cultured meat acceptance, suggesting marketers of cultured meat should focus on unnaturalness and animal welfare, rather than environmental impacts, of conventional meat to promote cultured meat. |