Consumers’ Perception of In-Vitro Meat in New Zealand Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour Model
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Ethics Statement
2.2. Research Design
2.3. Procedure
2.3.1. Online Survey Recruitment
“With the increase in population, the demand for food has also increased. FAO experts suggest that by 2050, there will be a 100% increase in the demand for food. The demand for meat in particular will be about 73% higher. Rearing of ruminants such as cattle, sheep and goat are carried out on green pastures that are cleared by deforestation. Animal breeding has been employed to further improve and increase calf production (95% of cattle and 5% of beef cattle).In the traditional meat industry animals are caged, castrated, confined to cages, and treated with antibiotics, pesticides and growth hormones, prior to being slaughtered. Most animal welfare associations are concerned about the well-being of animals and seek to prevent unnecessary animal suffering and death. The negative environmental effects associated with meat production include pollution through use of fossil fuel, animal methane, effluent waste, and water and land consumption.In order to address the growing environmental and ethical concerns amidst the negativity associated with production and consumption of meat, the production and perception of in vitro meat (IVM) has been increasingly researched. IVM production involves the culturing of stem cells from farm animals in bioreactors by employing advanced tissue engineering techniques. IVM advantages include being environmentally friendly, requiring lower energy consumption, lowering greenhouse gas emission, lowering land and water consumption, and resulting in low carbon footprint. In addition, IVM is high in protein, low in unhealthy fats, highly sustainable, environmentally friendly, ethical and animal friendly. Hence, IVM is quickly becoming the best sustainable alternative to conventional meat.”
2.3.2. Online Survey Procedure
2.3.3. Data Analysis
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Perception of IVM
3.1.1. Sociodemographic Characteristics
3.1.2. Validity Testing of Means, KMO and Cronbach’s Alpha
Means
Reliability
Sampling Adequacy
3.1.3. Partial Least Squares Path Modelling (PLS-PM): Structural Model Assessment
3.1.4. Analysis of TPB Factors in the Conceptual Model
IVM Purchase and Consumption Behaviour
Environment and Sustainability
Health and Safety
Religious and Cultural Beliefs
Current Purchase Behaviour and Consumption
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Post, M.J. Cultured meat from stem cells: Challenges and prospects. Meat Sci. 2012, 92, 297–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Post, M.J.; Levenberg, S.; Kaplan, D.L.; Genovese, N.; Fu, J.; Bryant, C.J.; Negowetti, N.; Verzijden, K.; Moutsatsou, P. Scientific, sustainability and regulatory challenges of cultured meat. Nat. Food 2020, 1, 403–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Catts, O.; Zurr, I. Growing semi-living sculptures: The tissue culture & art project. Leonardo 2002, 35, 365–370. [Google Scholar]
- Benjaminson, M.A.; Gilchriest, J.A.; Lorenz, M. In vitro edible muscle protein production system (MPPS): Stage 1, fish. Acta Astronaut. 2002, 51, 879–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, J. Meat Derived from Stem Cells: How, What and Why. Available online: http://medlink-uk.net/wp-content/uploads/pathprojectsstemcells2012/WilliamsJ.pdf (accessed on 30 June 2021).
- Verbruggen, S.; Luining, D.; van Essen, A.; Post, M.J. Bovine myoblast cell production in a microcarriers-based system. Cytotechnology 2018, 70, 503–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jossen, V.; Pörtner, R.; Kaiser, S.C.; Kraume, M.; Eibl, D.; Eibl, R. Mass production of mesenchymal stem cells—impact of bioreactor design and flow conditions on proliferation and differentiation. In Cells and Biomaterials in Regenerative Medicine; InTech: Rijeka, Croatia, 2014; Volume 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Wilks, M.; Phillips, C.J. Attitudes to in vitro meat: A survey of potential consumers in the United States. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0171904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wilks, M.; Phillips, C.J.; Fielding, K.; Hornsey, M.J. Testing potential psychological predictors of attitudes towards cultured meat. Appetite 2019, 136, 137–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bryant, C.J.; Szejda, K.; Deshpande, V.; Parekh, N.; Tse, B. A Survey of Consumer Perceptions of Plant-Based and Clean Meat in the USA, India, and China. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2019, 3, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bryant, C.J.; Dillard, C. The Impact of Framing on Acceptance of Cultured Meat. Front. Nutr. 2019, 6, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hocquette; Lambert, C.; Sinquin, C.; Peterolff, L.; Wagner, Z.; Bonny, S.P.; Lebert, A.; Hocquette, J.-F. Educated consumers don’t believe artificial meat is the solution to the problems with the meat industry. J. Integr. Agric. 2015, 14, 273–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verbeke, W.; Marcu, A.; Rutsaert, P.; Gaspar, R.; Seibt, B.; Fletcher, D.; Barnett, J. ‘Would you eat cultured meat?’: Consumers’ reactions and attitude formation in Belgium, Portugal and the United Kingdom. Meat Sci. 2015, 102, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tucker, C.A. The significance of sensory appeal for reduced meat consumption. Appetite 2014, 81, 168–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lupton, D.; Turner, B. Food of the Future? Consumer Responses to the Idea of 3D-Printed Meat and Insect-Based Foods. Food Foodways 2018, 26, 269–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gómez-Luciano, C.A.; de Aguiar, L.K.; Vriesekoop, F.; Urbano, B. Consumers’ willingness to purchase three alternatives to meat proteins in the United Kingdom, Spain, Brazil and the Dominican Republic. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 78, 103732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flycatcher. Kweekvlees [Cultured Meat]. Available online: http://www.flycatcherpanel.nl/news/item/nwsA1697/media/images/Resultaten_onderzoek_kweekvlees.pdf (accessed on 25 June 2021). (In Dutch).
- Guardian, T. Would You Eat Lab-Grown Meat? Available online: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/poll/2012/feb/20/lab-grown-meat-test-tube-burger?INTCMP=SRCH (accessed on 30 June 2021).
- Mancini, M.C.; Antonioli, F. Exploring consumers’ attitude towards cultured meat in Italy. Meat Sci. 2019, 150, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaw, E.; Mac Con Iomaire, M. A comparative analysis of the attitudes of rural and urban consumers towards cultured meat. Br. Food J. 2019, 121, pp. 1782–1800. [CrossRef]
- O’Keefe, L.; McLachlan, C.; Gough, C.; Mander, S.; Bows-Larkin, A. Consumer responses to a future UK food system. Br. Food J. 2016, 118, 412–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verbeke, W.; Sans, P.; Van Loo, E.J. Challenges and prospects for consumer acceptance of cultured meat. J. Integr. Agric. 2015, 14, 285–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Surveygoo. Nearly One in Three Consumers Willing to Eat Lab-Grown Meat, According to New Research. Available online: https://www.datasmoothie.com/@surveygoo/nearly-one-in-three-consumers-willing-to-eat-lab-g/ (accessed on 30 June 2021).
- Marcu, A.; Gaspar, R.; Rutsaert, P.; Seibt, B.; Fletcher, D.; Verbeke, W.; Barnett, J. Analogies, metaphors, and wondering about the future: Lay sense-making around synthetic meat. Public Underst. Sci. 2015, 24, 547–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Laestadius, L.I.; Caldwell, M.A. Is the future of meat palatable? Perceptions of in vitro meat as evidenced by online news comments. Public Health Nutr. 2015, 18, 2457–2467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Welin, S. Introducing the new meat. Problems and prospects. Etikk I Praksis Nord. J. Appl. Ethics 2013, 24–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Siegrist, M.; Sütterlin, B.; Hartmann, C. Perceived naturalness and evoked disgust influence acceptance of cultured meat. Meat Sci. 2018, 139, 213–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pluhar, E.B. Meat and morality: Alternatives to factory farming. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2010, 23, 455–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Weele, C.; Driessen, C. Emerging profiles for cultured meat; ethics through and as design. Animals 2013, 3, 647–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laestadius, L.I. Public perceptions of the ethics of in-vitro meat: Determining an appropriate course of action. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2015, 28, 991–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Meat Consumption. Available online: https://data.oecd.org/agroutput/meat-consumption.htm (accessed on 30 June 2021).
- Bryant, C.J.; Barnett, J.C. What’s in a name? Consumer perceptions of in vitro meat under different names. Appetite 2019, 137, 104–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bekker, G.A.; Tobi, H.; Fischer, A.R. Meet meat: An explorative study on meat and cultured meat as seen by Chinese, Ethiopians and Dutch. Appetite 2017, 114, 82–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Slade, P. If you build it, will they eat it? Consumer preferences for plant-based and cultured meat burgers. Appetite 2018, 125, 428–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanchez, G. PLS path modeling with R. Berkeley Trowchez Ed. 2013, 383, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Vinzi, V.E.; Chin, W.W.; Henseler, J.; Wang, H. Handbook of Partial Least Squares; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; Volume 201. [Google Scholar]
- Stephanie. Statistics How to. Available online: https://www.statisticshowto.datasciencecentral.com/resampling-techniques/ (accessed on 30 June 2021).
- Efron, B.; Tibshirani, R. Bootstrap methods for standard errors, confidence intervals, and other measures of statistical accuracy. Stat. Sci. 1986, 54–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davison, A.C.; Hinkley, D.V. Bootstrap Methods and Their Application; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1997; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
- Bryant, C.J.; Anderson, J.E.; Asher, K.E.; Green, C.; Gasteratos, K. Strategies for overcoming aversion to unnaturalness: The case of clean meat. Meat Sci. 2019, 154, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Streiner, D.L. Starting at the beginning: An introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. J. Personal. Assess. 2003, 80, 99–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hinton, P.R.; Brownlow, C.; McMurray, I. SPSS Explained; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Stephanie. Cronbach’s Alpha: Simple Definition, Use and Interpretation. Available online: https://www.statisticshowto.datasciencecentral.com/cronbachs-alpha-spss/ (accessed on 30 June 2021).
- Ismail, A.; Shariff, M.N.M. Interactional justice between pay level, job satisfaction and job performance within Malaysian institutions of higher learning. Int. J. Bus. Manag. Sci. 2008, 1, 67. [Google Scholar]
- Kaiser, M. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure for identity correlation matrix. J. R. Stat. Soc. 1974, 52, 296–298. [Google Scholar]
- Buckingham, M.; Bajard, L.; Chang, T.; Daubas, P.; Hadchouel, J.; Meilhac, S.; Montarras, D.; Rocancourt, D.; Relaix, F. The formation of skeletal muscle: From somite to limb. J. Anat. 2003, 202, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pereltsvaig, A. Global geography of meat (and fish) consumption. 2013. Available online: https://www.languagesoftheworld.info/geography/global-geography-meat-fish-consumption.html (accessed on 30 June 2021).
- The Economist. Kings of the Carnivores. Available online: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/04/daily-chart-17s (accessed on 30 June 2021).
- Flight, I.; Leppard, P.; Cox, D.N. Food neophobia and associations with cultural diversity and socio-economic status amongst rural and urban Australian adolescents. Appetite 2003, 41, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cox, D.; Evans, G. Construction and validation of a psychometric scale to measure consumers’ fears of novel food technologies: The food technology neophobia scale. Food Qual. Prefer. 2008, 19, 704–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scott, S.E.; Inbar, Y.; Rozin, P. Evidence for absolute moral opposition to genetically modified food in the United States. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2016, 11, 315–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hocquette, J.-F. Is in vitro meat the solution for the future? Meat Sci. 2016, 120, 167–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable | Category | Number | Percentage |
---|---|---|---|
Age | 18–25 | 152 | 73.79% |
26–35 | 33 | 16.02% | |
36–45 | 11 | 5.34% | |
46–55 | 5 | 2.43% | |
56–65 | 4 | 1.94% | |
Prefer not to say | 1 | 0.49% | |
Gender | Male | 77 | 37.38% |
Female | 126 | 61.17% | |
Prefer not to say | 3 | 1.46% | |
Qualification | High School | 80 | 38.83% |
Diploma or certification | 27 | 13.11% | |
Bachelor’s degree | 56 | 27.18% | |
Master’s degree | 22 | 10.68% | |
Postgraduate degree | 19 | 9.22% | |
Prefer not to say | 2 | 0.97% | |
Income | <$20,000 per year | 62 | 30% |
Approx. $50,000 per year | 19 | 9% | |
$50,000–$70,000 per year | 16 | 8% | |
$70,000–$90,000 per year | 22 | 11% | |
$90,000–$120,000 per year | 14 | 7% | |
>$120,000 per year | 18 | 9% | |
Prefer not to say | 55 | 27% | |
Respondents nationality | New Zealander | 59 | 29% |
Indian | 21 | 10% | |
Chinese | 21 | 10% | |
Other nationalities | 78 | 38% | |
Prefer not to say | 27 | 13% | |
Religious | Yes | 90 | 43.69% |
No | 96 | 46.60% | |
Prefer not to say | 20 | 9.71% | |
Eating habits | Vegetarian | 15 | 7% |
Non-vegetarian | 141 | 69% | |
Flexitarian | 30 | 15% | |
Pescatarian | 2 | 1% | |
Others | 16 | 8% | |
Prefer not to say | 1 | 0% | |
Frequency of meat consumption | Always | 44 | 21.36% |
Most of the time | 100 | 48.54% | |
Sometimes | 34 | 16.50% | |
Rarely | 12 | 5.83% | |
Never | 16 | 7.77% | |
N = 206 |
Factors | Mean * | SD | Cronbach’s Alpha | KMO ** |
---|---|---|---|---|
Environment and Sustainability | 3.18 | 1.18 | 0.861 | 0.854 |
Health & Safety | 2.72 | 0.95 | 0.573 | 0.714 |
Cultural Belief | 2.05 | 1.08 | 0.622 | 0.749 |
Current Purchase Behaviour and Consumption | 2.39 | 1.14 | 0.692 | 0.551 |
IVM Purchase | 2.93 | 1.01 | 0.634 | 0.603 |
Variables | β-Coefficients | p-Value |
---|---|---|
Current purchase behaviour and consumption → IVM purchase | 0.097 | Pr > |t| = 0.034 |
Cultural beliefs → IVM purchase | 0.516 | Pr > |t| < 0.001 |
Health and Safety → IVM purchase | 0.316 | Pr > |t| < 0.001 |
Environment and sustainability → IVM purchase | 0.100 | Pr > |t| = 0.036 |
Variables. | Question | Mean | SD | Distribution: 1–2 Score | Distribution: 3 Score | Distribution: 4–5 Score | Scale Anchors |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Willingness to try (WTT) | Do you think you would try in-vitro meat (IVM) for its nutritional profile? | 3.42 | ±1.05 | 13% | 39% | 48% | Definitely not–definitely yes |
Do you think you will try it over traditional meat? | 3.31 | ±1.05 | 15% | 44% | 41% | ||
Willingness to buy/purchase (WTB/WTP) | Do you think you would buy in-vitro meat (IVM) over traditional meat? | 3.35 | ±0.98 | 19% | 32% | 50% | |
Do you think you would buy in-vitro meat (IVM) if it is affordable | 3.53 | ±1.08 | 13% | 31% | 56% | ||
Do you think you would buy in-vitro meat (IVM) regularly | 2.97 | ±1.04 | 32% | 35% | 33% | ||
Do you think you would buy in-vitro meat (IVM) if it is labelled as guilt-free meat? | 3.64 | ±1.20 | 12% | 30% | 58% | ||
Do you think you would buy in-vitro meat (IVM) if it would be cheaper than conventional meat? | 3.4 | ±0.97 | 17% | 34% | 49% | ||
Do you think you would buy in-vitro meat (IVM) over conventional meat even though it is expensive? | 2.4 | ±1.04 | 53% | 35% | 11% |
Variables | Questions | Mean | SD | Distribution: 1–2 Score | Distribution: 3 Score | Distribution: 4–5 Score | Scale Anchors |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Environment and Sustainability | How important is the environment to you? | 3.83 | ±1.01 | 13% | 15% | 72% | Not at all important–extremely important |
Are you aware of the negative environmental effects of the conventional meat industry? | 2.94 | ±1.29 | 39% | 31% | 31% | Not at all aware–extremely aware | |
Do you think that the traditional meat industry contributes to global issues such as greenhouse gas emission and changes in climate? | 3.62 | ±1.14 | 14% | 30% | 56% | Definitely not–definitely yes | |
Are you aware of the fact that the conventional meat industry has a higher carbon footprint compared to other meat alternatives? | 2.99 | ±1.31 | 37% | 29% | 34% | Not at all aware–extremely aware | |
Are you aware of the terms such as sustainability and a sustainable environment? | 3.46 | ±1.22 | 22% | 24% | 54% | ||
Do you believe in animal welfare? | 3.84 | ±1.11 | 12% | 18% | 70% | Definitely not–definitely yes | |
Are you familiar of sustainable meat alternatives? | 2.64 | ±1.14 | 51% | 25% | 24% | Not at all familiar–extremely familiar | |
Do you think you are open to technologies related to the food industry? | 3.59 | ±1.11 | 16% | 22% | 61% | Definitely not–definitely yes | |
Are you familiar with meat analogues such as plant-based protein, insect protein, in-vitro meat (IVM), vegan fish and fishless seafood? | 2.66 | ±1.19 | 46% | 29% | 24% | Not at all familiar–extremely familiar | |
Are you familiar with technologies such as cellular agriculture/In-vitro meat (IVM) technology and tissue engineering? | 2.21 | ±1.18 | 60% | 25% | 15% |
Variable | Questions | Mean | SD | Distribution: 1–2 Score | Distribution: 3 Score | Distribution: 4–5 Score | Scale Anchors |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Health and Safety | Do you think in-vitro meat (IVM) should be produced by government-approved agencies? | 2.43 | ±0.99 | 52% | 38% | 10% | Definitely not–definitely yes |
Do you think in-vitro meat (IVM) has any health and safety concerns? | 3.27 | ±0.94 | 17% | 45% | 39% | ||
Do you think in-vitro meat (IVM) is likely to cause any disease? | 2.47 | ±1.01 | 53% | 35% | 12% | ||
Do you think in-vitro meat (IVM) is cancerous as it involves stem cells? | 2.86 | ±0.89 | 25% | 59% | 17% | ||
Do you think in-vitro meat (IVM) will have any food safety risk? | 2.54 | ±0.88 | 47% | 41% | 12% |
Variable | Question | Mean | SD | Distribution: 1–2 Score | Distribution: 3 Score | Distribution: 4–5 Score | Scale Anchors |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cultural beliefs | Do you think you would likely consume in-vitro meat (IVM) if your religious beliefs permitted? | 2.4 | ±1.09 | 44% | 38% | 18% | Definitely not–definitely yes |
Do you think you would eat in-vitro meat (IVM) if the religious leaders informed you? | 2.16 | ±1.08 | 25% | 54% | 21% | ||
In some religions, the intellectual level of the animal to be slaughtered for meat purposes are considered, such as “only those animals with lower intellectual capacity and pain sensation are to be slaughtered” whereas, in-vitro meat (IVM) does not require any animal slaughter at all. Do you think in-vitro meat (IVM) is a better meat alternative than conventional meat? | 1.73 | ±1.09 | 17% | 42% | 41% | ||
Do you think you would opt for in-vitro meat (IVM) if there will be halal 1 or kosher 2 options available? | 1.89 | ±1.05 | 18% | 53% | 28% |
Variables | Question | Mean | SD | Distribution: 1–2 Score | Distribution: 3 Score | Distribution: 4–5 Score | Scale Anchors (or Selection) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Current purchase behaviour and consumption | How often do you eat meat? | 3.69 | ±1.11 | 14% | 17% | 70% | Never–Always | ||
Which type of meat do you prefer the most? (Check all that applies) | - | - | 17% | 13% | 58% | 10% | 2% | (a) Poultry (b) Pork (c) Beef (d) Fish and other seafood (e) Others | |
What does your meat intake look like? | 3.49 | ±0.9 | 3% | 6% | 30% | 60% | 1% | (a) Once a month (b) Once a fortnight (c) Once a week (d) Every meal (e) Never | |
When do you usually eat meat? When I am ...? (Check all that applies) | - | - | 20% | 3% | 48% | 14% | 15% | (a) Hungry (b) Bored (c) Crave (d) Sad (e) Happy | |
Do you think you will still buy conventional meat although it has a higher carbon footprint? | 3.14 | ±1.18 | 23% | 32% | 45% | Definitely not–definitely yes | |||
Do you think you would give up meat for the sake of animals? | 2.78 | ±1.27 | 43% | 30% | 27% | ||||
Do you think you would buy plant-based products if it had a better health star rating compared to meat products? | 4.08 | ±1.18 | 69% | 10% | 15% |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Malavalli, M.M.; Hamid, N.; Kantono, K.; Liu, Y.; Seyfoddin, A. Consumers’ Perception of In-Vitro Meat in New Zealand Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour Model. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7430. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137430
Malavalli MM, Hamid N, Kantono K, Liu Y, Seyfoddin A. Consumers’ Perception of In-Vitro Meat in New Zealand Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour Model. Sustainability. 2021; 13(13):7430. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137430
Chicago/Turabian StyleMalavalli, Maya Murthy, Nazimah Hamid, Kevin Kantono, Ye Liu, and Ali Seyfoddin. 2021. "Consumers’ Perception of In-Vitro Meat in New Zealand Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour Model" Sustainability 13, no. 13: 7430. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137430