Nomenclature and messaging for precision fermentation: consumer research findings from France, Germany, Spain, the UK and the United States

Precision-fermentation nomenclature report cover

Precision fermentation (PF) has the potential to help meet the growing global demand for animal products like eggs and dairy, but with a fraction of the land, pollution and climate emissions that would come with expanding industrial animal agriculture.

The process uses organisms such as yeast to produce ingredients like the proteins found in eggs and dairy. Such proteins enable cheese to melt and stretch and give eggs their binding capabilities.

There are some applications where ingredients made via precision fermentation would simply “drop in” (eg, egg proteins as functional ingredients). Yet there is also an opportunity for ingredients made in this way to be the “hero” of a given end product (eg, whey protein powder). When the consumer is making an active choice, they will need to understand what to expect from precision fermentation products and recognise their benefits.

Finding the right language is key to success

eese bagels, made using precision fermentation whey protein
Photo: Perfect Day

Some alternative protein products using precision fermentation ingredients have already entered the US market and these ingredients have long been used in products like supplements. But the vast majority of consumers across Europe and the United States haven’t yet heard of precision fermentation, and there is no consensus on how to talk about it to drive consumer interest. 

As we’ve seen with other alternative proteins and innovations in food and technology more generally, the way products are talked about and positioned on pack dictates how they are perceived by consumers, policymakers, investors, and other key stakeholders. Finding language that stimulates appeal and makes clear what PF products are, how they’re made and why they’re needed – and using that language consistently across the sector to cement understanding – will be essential.

As a step towards this, GFI partnered with Accenture to research consumer preferences around the nomenclature and messaging of PF dairy and eggs in five key markets: France, Germany, Spain, the UK and the United States.

Key findings at a glance

  • Background information was key
    • A simple explanation of what PF products are created clarity for participants and should accompany the name when introducing consumers to the category. Stakeholders can consider how best to socialise such explanations across social media, news media, and on-pack messaging. Lengthy scientific explanations were not appealing to participants and did not help them understand what PF products were.​
  • “Animal-free” was the top naming option (as a modifier for the product or ingredient) in terms of appeal and differentiation, but more options may be necessary
    • Once participants were informed about the PF process, “animal-free” was found to be the most appealing nomenclature option tested and the most effective term for differentiating PF from plant-based and conventional foods.​
    • There is potentially a need for a variety of names and marketing propositions across various markets to account for different cultural meanings, motivations for consumption, and consumer expectations from products.
  • “Without using animals” was the most appealing component of PF process descriptions presented
    • In four of the five markets, “without using animals” was the most appealing element of the PF process explanations provided.​
    • The second most appealing component of the explanation was “produces the same proteins you’d find in cow’s milk or chicken eggs”.
  • PF products appeal to consumers, and appeal increases after they receive messaging about their benefits
    • The net appeal of PF products was positive, even before benefit statements were shown to participants.​
    • Knowledge of the PF products’ benefits significantly increased the appeal of PF products to participants.​
    • “Free from hormones or antibiotics” was found to be the most appealing statement among potential benefits of PF tested (as compared to environmental and animal welfare benefits).​
  • Consumers are open to trying food made with PF, and appeal may be strongest when used as an ingredient in an end product (rather than as a standalone product)
    • More than half of participants indicated they would try PF dairy and egg products if given a free sample or if someone else prepared it for them.​
    • Our research indicated that PF acceptance may be stronger for “convenience” products such as egg pasta than for whole foods such as milk.​
    • The functionality of egg means consumer acceptance of PF egg may be stronger where it is used as an ingredient in an end product, rather than in a standalone product such as liquid egg whites.​

About the research

Objectives

  1. To develop nomenclature for PF dairy and eggs for use on front-of-pack labels, ingredient lists, and in social contexts. A majority of consumers in France, Germany, Spain, the UK and the United States should find the resulting nomenclature understandable, appealing, and differentiating from plant-based and conventional dairy.
  2. To develop short descriptions of how PF dairy and eggs are produced that consumers find understandable, appealing, and differentiating from plant-based and conventional dairy and eggs.
  3. To develop messages about the benefits of PF dairy and eggs that consumers in each market find compelling.

Methods

  1. Desk research and industry interviews across the five markets to build an overview of the dominant narratives, branding and consumer and media perceptions of both conventional and alternative eggs and dairy.
  2. In-depth one-to-one interviews with consumers to gain insight into consumer attitudes and behaviour in relation to conventional and alternative egg and dairy products.
  3. Co-creation focus groups (12 participants per market) to explore the appeal, clarity and differentiation of initial messaging and nomenclature options.
  4. Surveys of around 1,000 consumers per market to test promising nomenclature and messaging options and gauge interest in trying and buying PF products.

The consumer groups involved in the research represented an even gender split, a range of ages between 18 and 75, a range of political beliefs, and an even split between urban and rural areas.

Insights from the research

Consumer perceptions of conventional egg and dairy

PF eggs and dairy aim to deliver the omelettes, ice cream, cheese and baked goods that consumers enjoy eating today, but with a fraction of the resources and impact – so it’s essential for the sector to understand what those consumers are looking for when they choose eggs and dairy products, and how PF could fit into the market. 

Conventional eggsConventional dairy
AppealSeen as perfectly packaged, versatile, convenient, a healthy source of protein.Considered essential for good nutrition. Cheese is considered an indulgent, taste-centric option, while milk and yoghurt are primarily for health.
Ethical considerationsFree range eliminates animal welfare concerns and indicates good taste/quality. No environmental concerns. Less thought given to the origins of eggs used as an ingredient in other products.Animal welfare is a concern for some, but consumers don’t associate dairy with environmental impacts to the same extent as meat.

It’s not all in the name

One of the key findings from this research was that, today, there is no single name that will indicate to consumers what PF products are and how they’re made. To successfully introduce an emerging category like this, consumers need more information.

Cheese toasty with stretchy animal free cheese made using precision fermentation
Photo: Formo

A simple explanation of the PF process, using familiar, non-technical words and a moderate amount of detail helped consumers understand the name better than explanations with unfamiliar and technical words and phrases, which were perceived as ‘scientific’ and confusing.

Study participants who had previously been provided with information about the process found the naming options tested to be more appealing and differentiating, and less confusing.

We considered several different use cases for the nomenclature we tested, including front-of-pack, social use, and ingredient lists. Even for the slightly more formal context of ingredient lists, consumers preferred short and simple descriptors alongside the ingredient, with no further explanation following it (eg, consumers preferred “animal-free whey protein” compared to “animal-free whey protein made from precision fermentation”).

Best-performing nomenclature for each market

FranceGermanySpainUK and United States
Most appealingSans élevage animalTierfreiSin origin animal / cuidadosamente elaboradoAnimal-free 
Best for differentiating from plant-based and conventional productsSans élevage animalTierfrei Sin origin animalAnimal-free
Most likely to be used sociallySans élevage animalTierfrei Sin origin animalAnimal-free 
Best for use in ingredient lists [whey protein in square brackets as an example]None of the terms tested Tierfreies [Molkenprotein][Proteína desuero lácteo] sin origin animalAnimal-free [whey protein]
Nomenclature tested by market: France: Non-animal(e), sans élevage animal, élaboré(e) à partir de microflore​, obtenu(e) par fermentation de precision​, ​obtenu(e) par fermentation​, cultivé(e)​, ​obtenu(e) par brassage de precision. Germany: Tierfrei​, ohne Tierhaltung​, Hergestellt aus Mikroflora, ​Hergestellt durch Präzisionsfermentation​, ​Hergestellt durch Fermentation, ​Kultiviert, Hergestellt durch präzises Brauen, Mikrobengebraut, Microbe-brewed. Spain: Sin origen animal, sin ganadería, elaborado a partir de microflora, elaborado por fermentación de precision, elaborado por fermentación, cultivado/cultivada, cuidadosamente elaborado. UK and United States: Animal-free​, non-animal,​ made with microflora,​ made from precision fermentation​, made from fermentation​, cultivated, ​precision-brewed​, precision-fermented​, microflora-made, fermentation-made​

The right messages can unlock appeal

When describing the process by which PF ingredients are produced, it’s clear that people want detail, but not a lengthy scientific explanation. Out of three explanations with varying levels of detail, the description most preferred by respondents across every market but Spain (where people preferred more detail) was the one with a medium level of detail:​

Just like brewing beer, this fermentation process uses microorganisms like yeast. In this case, microorganisms are programmed to produce specific proteins during fermentation, when they are fed sugars, which they convert into dairy or egg proteins, like whey or casein. These proteins are identical to what we’d find in milk or eggs but made without animals.

This explanation includes:​

  • A light walkthrough of the process.​
  • Familiar examples of both host microorganisms.​
  • Familiar examples of the ingredients produced.​
  • Confirmation that the final ingredient is the same as the conventional version.​
  • Mention of a particularly appealing element – that the ingredient is made without animals.​

As one participant put it, this explanation has “just enough detail for those of us who aren’t chemists”. Because this is a new concept to many consumers, some explanation is necessary, but too much could be overwhelming and unhelpful.​

Consumers are open to trying PF products

Our surveys across all markets found that half of consumers would try PF dairy and egg products if given a free sample or if someone else prepared them. PF products were more appealing than unappealing even before consumers had read about their potential benefits, with PF egg products marginally more appealing than PF dairy.

Onego Bio precision fermentation egg white
Photo: Onego Bio

Discussions with our consumer co-creation groups indicated that PF ingredients could have greater appeal when used as part of a larger product, rather than when presented as a standalone product – particularly when consumers are unfamiliar with the category. Research participants were more open to trying a ready-made cake mix or pasta product with PF egg as an ingredient, for example, than a bottle of PF milk. 

After survey participants had been shown a list of benefits of precision fermentation, their interest in trying the products increased further. At first, participants in our co-creation groups were sceptical about the benefits because they didn’t yet understand the process – but as soon as they received an explanation of how the products are made, they were more engaged in the discussion around benefits, with more questions asked and trial considered. 

In the survey, the questions on benefits appeared after the explanation of the PF process, and the findings further indicated that providing context around the process before introducing the benefits makes them more compelling.

Key messaging challenges for the sector and potential ways forward

Through the process of introducing precision fermentation to unfamiliar consumers, our research uncovered three key challenges that well-designed communications can help to overcome.

Challenge: People often currently categorise foods as coming from either plants or animals – but PF doesn’t fit into this framework.

Approaches to consider: We found that curiosity about trying something new could also be a selling point, as long as PF products were affordable. More than half of consumers were open to trying PF eggs and dairy when they understood what they were, if they were offered a free trial or if a friend prepared them. This indicates that personal recommendations and competitive pricing could encourage people to try PF products. Because final PF products will also contain other ingredients, often from plants, companies can also lean into the familiarity and benefits of all elements of the finished product.

Challenge: Consumers want to know how PF products are made – but scientific language can be offputting and confusing.

Approaches to consider: People trust what they know, so it can help to use simple and familiar language and analogies to familiar processes (like brewing beer) when describing the PF process.

Challenge: Lower environmental and animal welfare impacts are some of the key benefits of PF products – but these aren’t driving purchase decisions.

Approaches to consider: It will be essential to prioritise messages about key purchase drivers like taste and affordability, while providing evidence-backed claims about sustainability as additional reasons consumers should choose the PF option.

Questions for further exploration

Consumer research around precision fermentation is still at an early stage. While this project shed some light on how the sector can effectively approach communications, further work is needed to address outstanding questions such as:

  • Which categories are best primed to introduce PF ingredients to consumers? Research focused on this would build on our finding that consumers appear to be more open to products where the PF ingredient is a part of a larger product (like egg pasta), rather than presented as a whole entity (such as milk).
  • How should the industry structure consumer communication journeys? Research into the best ways to introduce consumers to PF and its benefits could build on our findings that the name alone isn’t enough to provide clarity for consumers, and prior knowledge of the PF process improves understanding and appeal of names and benefits.
  • Is there a need for different messaging approaches for different markets and consumer groups? While our research sought effective language that could appeal to a broad spectrum of consumers, it could be helpful to investigate how messages might be adapted to suit audiences with particular dietary needs or cultural backgrounds.

Download the full report

Read more about the research and its findings across countries below.