Cultivated meat and ingredients have the potential to help diversify our protein supply, boost European food security and drive green economic growth while reducing climate impacts. However, in order for cultivated meat to deliver on its potential, consumers must be confident in the food they are eating.

In 2024, GFI Europe commissioned YouGov research in 15 different European countries, which demonstrated a promising level of consumer interest in trying and buying cultivated meat. This followed a separate 2021 research project, which sought to develop nomenclature for cultivated meat products and the benefits they can provide, testing this with European consumers to understand what resonates with them and drives consumer appeal.

However, a relatively underexplored research area remained how nomenclature and labelling can support consumers to understand what cultivated meat is and how it differs from conventionally produced meat. Specifically, GFI Europe wanted to understand how different terms and descriptions convey that cultivated meat and seafood products are:

• Not made by farming or catching animals or seafood.
• Not made from plant-based ingredients.
• Compositionally the same as meat or seafood and should therefore not be consumed by people with relevant allergies.

So in late 2024, GFI Europe commissioned strategic insight agency Opinium to conduct consumer-facing research in France, Germany, Spain, Switzerland and the UK. We analysed a sample of the nomenclature (“cultivated”, “cell-cultivated”) and the descriptors (eg, “made without farming animals”) that could appear on the front of packaging for cultivated meat, seeking to uncover what helps consumers understand what cultivated meat products are and how they are made.

About the research

To develop a robust evidence base, GFI Europe worked with Opinium to conduct surveys with nationally representative samples from across the five countries selected. The surveys were conducted with 2,000 participants in each market, and included representative weighting for age, gender and region. In total, we analysed four different nomenclatures: 

• “Cultivated”
• “Cell-cultivated”
• “Cultured”
• “Artificial”

We also tested three different descriptors:

• “Made without farming animals”
• “Made from cellular agriculture”
•  “Made from synthetic protein”

These were chosen to reflect a representative selection of the existing terms and descriptions used by the cultivated meat industry, as well as in policymaker and regulatory communications and media reporting on the sector. All of the stimuli used in testing were translated into the national languages of the countries in which they were tested to enable us to deliver robust findings on consumer understanding. Here, we outline some key takeaways of the research.

Allowing ‘meaty’ names for cultivated meat and seafood products will aid consumer understanding and reduce allergenicity risks

Our results show that, across all markets, consumers are more likely to confuse cultivated meat with plant-based meat products than with conventional meat when presented with a full label. While 80% of consumers were able to differentiate cultivated meat from conventional meat when presented with a front-of-package image and label, just 67% could differentiate it from plant-based meat.

This reinforces the need for cultivated meat and seafood products to be able to use ‘meaty’ names in their labelling to ensure consumer understanding, and therefore safety. For example, if consumers with allergies to seafood are unable to differentiate cultivated salmon products from plant-based salmon products, they may be at risk of consuming products to which they are allergic. To ensure consumer safety, policymakers and regulators must enable cultivated meat producers to use ‘meaty’ terms in their labelling – including generic names such as ‘fish’ or species names such as ‘beef’ – to provide additional allergenicity signifiers to support consumer understanding.

Negative or pejorative nomenclature do not support consumer understanding or differentiation

In our research, terms that could be considered as negative, including the qualifier “artificial” and the descriptor “made from synthetic protein”, scored the weakest for enabling consumers to correctly identify the allergenicity risks of cultivated meat products. Only 32% of respondents who saw a label with “artificial” were able to correctly ascertain allergenicity risks compared to almost double this figure for terms like “cultivated” [55%] and “cultured” [58%].

Consumers also rated these negative terms as being “too technical”, “misleading” and “unappetising”.

There is therefore a strong consumer safety justification for regulators avoiding mandating the use of these negative terms for cultivated meat and seafood products. This is in addition to already well-evidenced concerns that these terms are inaccurate descriptors of the cultivated meat manufacturing process at scale.

The variation in consumer responses shows that a ‘one-size fits all’ regulatory approach may not be appropriate

While there was significant alignment within our results on the qualifiers and descriptors that do not help consumer understanding of cultivated meat products, there was less alignment on the specific terms that do.

In our research, “cultivated” and “cell-cultivated” were chosen as the clearest qualifiers by the greatest number of respondents across Europe, and “made from cellular agriculture” was chosen as the clearest descriptor. 

However, the variation in preferences demonstrated by our findings means it may not be appropriate for regulators to mandate certain terms or labels for cultivated meat products and ingredients, but rather to set out a range of options that producers can utilise as they come to market.

Equally, regulators could follow the Singaporean regulatory approach for cultivated meat products, and avoid mandating specific terms but instead set out the conditions so that, whatever nomenclature is used, it must include “suitable” qualifiers, and does not mislead or confuse consumers.

Industry consistency in communication can support consumer understanding

Our research suggests that appropriate nomenclature and labelling can play an important role in supporting consumer understanding of cultivated meat and ingredients. However, uncertainty remains for consumers regarding this new way of producing meat, and appears to impact how confident they are in their understanding of products and production techniques.

Given cultivated meat represents a new way of producing meat, this is understandable. However, it underscores the role that industry players have in supporting consumers to understand what their products are and how they are made. Alignment within the industry on a preferred qualifier and descriptor when engaging publicly about their products – as has been undertaken in the Asia-Pacific region – and using this consistently moving forward, could be an important tool to drive this consumer understanding.

Just the beginning

Our research project marks the first Europe-specific analysis of the nomenclature and labelling practices that can support consumer understanding of cultivated meat.

Our results show that, while there is a degree of alignment among consumers on what helps them to identify cultivated meat and differentiate it from conventional meat and plant-based products, there is no single approach which works best for every consumer at this stage.

While our findings should provide a useful resource for regulators, policymakers and industry as they think through labelling practices for cultivated meat and ingredients, they should mark the beginning – not the end – of a sector-wide conversation. We encourage industry and regulatory agencies in Europe and overseas to proactively engage on these topics, sharing resources, insights and perspectives to strengthen consumer understanding of what cultivated meat products are and how they are made. GFI Europe looks forward to contributing to these discussions, to ensure that messages around cultivated meat are communicated effectively to consumers, safety risks are avoided, and these products are able to deliver on their potential.

Author

Seth Roberts Senior Policy Manager

Seth works with policymakers to create a robust, clear and evidence-based regulatory environment for the sustainable protein sector.