journal article·2025-03-05Open access

Is Cultured Meat a Case of Food or Technological Neophobia? On the Usefulness of Studying Social Representations of Novel Foods

Roberto Fasanelli, Ernesto Casella, Sofia Foglia, Sonia Coppola, Assunta Luongo, Giuliana Amalfi, Alfonso Piscitelli

Applied Sciences· Volume 15· Issue 5

Abstract

In recent years, many studies have examined “novel foods” from various perspectives; however, the theoretical framework of social representations has been underutilized in this research. This paper denotes an initial attempt to study the socio-symbolic impact of synthetic foods using this framework. Specifically, the study aims to explore how different audiences—such as carnivores versus vegetarians—interpret unfamiliar foods, focusing on a new food technology: synthetic meat. The research seeks to describe and compare the social representations of cultured meat that are co-constructed and shared among these social groups (n = 350). The study adopts the structural approach, analyzing both the structure and content of the social representations in question. This was achieved through a mixed-methods strategy, which included hierarchical evocation, a food neophobia scale, checklists, open-ended questions, and a projective sensory analysis technique. Data analysis employed both qualitative and quantitative methods. The main findings indicate the significant roles of generative processes, cognitive polyphasia, and sensory anchors in the co-construction of social representations of cultured meat. The use of chemical-genetic objectification, metaphors, and clichés reflects ongoing debates about the possible implications of synthetic meat consumption for the environment and society. Our findings encourage consideration of social knowledge and cultural variables in food studies.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Culinary Culture and Tourism · Multisensory perception and integration · Organic Food and Agriculture

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Social Sciences, University of Naples “Federico II”, 80138 Naples, Italy

LESDIT Ph.D. Program, University of Modena e Reggio-Emilia, 41121 Modena, Italy

Department of Political Sciences, University of Naples “Federico II”, 80133 Naples, Italy

Social Science and Statistical Ph.D. Program, University of Naples “Federico II”, 80138 Naples, Italy

MG&L Ph.D. Program, University of Naples “Federico II”, 80133 Naples, Italy

Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Naples “Federico II”, 80055 Naples, Italy

References (64)

Show source-provided references
1. Bringing cultured meat to market: Technical, socio-political, and regulatory challenges in cellular agriculture10.1016/j.tifs.2018.04.010 ↗
2. Join our team, change the world: Edibility, producibility and food futures in cultured meat company recruitment videos10.1080/15528014.2021.1884787 ↗
3. Hibino, A., Minari, J., Takahashi, K., Sugiyama, Y., and Kawana, S. (2024). The cultural construction of cellular agriculture food: Through the lens of the whole-parts framework for meat. Front. Sustain. Food Syst., 8.10.3389/fsufs.2024.1358012 ↗
4. Stephens, N., Sexton, A., and Driessen, C. (2019). Making sense of making meat: Key moments in the first 20 years of tissue engineering muscle to make food. Front. Sustain. Food Syst., 3.10.3389/fsufs.2019.00045 ↗
5. What is artificial meat and what does it mean for the future of the meat industry?10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60888-1 ↗
6. Artificial Meat industry: Production Methodology, challenges, and future10.1007/s11837-022-05316-x ↗
7. FAO, and WHO (2023). Food Safety Aspects of Cell-Based Food, World Health Organization.
8. New Technologies. Artificial meat as a new source of protein products in the nutrition of modern people
9. Review: Will “cultured meat” transform our food system towards more sustainability?10.1016/j.animal.2024.101145 ↗
10. What’s in a name? Consumer perceptions of in vitro meat under different names10.1016/j.appet.2019.02.021 ↗
11. Are consumers willing to pay for in-vitro meat? An investigation of naming effects10.1111/1477-9552.12467 ↗
12. Hedberg, R.C. (2023). Bad animals, techno-fixes, and the environmental narratives of alternative protein. Front. Sustain. Food Syst., 7.10.3389/fsufs.2023.1160458 ↗
13. Framing the future of food: The contested promises of alternative proteins10.1177/2514848619827009 ↗
14. Contesting and reinforcing the future of ‘meat’ through problematization: Analyzing the discourses in regulatory debates around animal cell-cultured meat10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.10.001 ↗
15. Promises of meat and milk alternatives: An integrative literature review on emergent research themes10.1007/s10460-020-10184-9 ↗
16. Jahir, N.R., Ramakrishna, S., Abdullah, A., and Vigneswari, S. (2023). Cultured meat in cellular agriculture: Advantages, applications and challenges. Food Biosci., 53.10.1016/j.fbio.2023.102614 ↗
17. Cultured meat and challenges ahead: A review on nutritional, techno functional and sensorial properties, safety and legislation10.1016/j.meatsci.2022.109006 ↗
18. Cultivated meat manufacturing: Technology, trends, and challenges10.1002/elsc.202300227 ↗
19. Cultured meat: Promises and challenges10.1007/s10640-021-00551-3 ↗
20. Bryant, C., and Barnett, J. (2020). Consumer Acceptance of Cultured Meat: An updated review (2018–2020). Appl. Sci., 10.10.3390/app10155201 ↗
21. Consumer’s Cultured Meat Perception and Acceptance Determinants: A Systematic Review and Future Research Agenda10.1111/ijcs.13088 ↗
22. Analogies, metaphors, and wondering about the future: Lay sense-making around synthetic meat10.1177/0963662514521106 ↗
23. Moscovici, S. (1961). La Psychanalyse Son Image et Son Public, PUF.
24. Lo Monaco, G., Delouvée, S., and Rateau, P. (2016). La perspective socio-génétique des représentations sociales. Les Représentations Sociales: Théories, Méthodes et Applications, De Boeck.
25. Sammut, G., Andreouli, E., Gaskell, G., and Valsiner, J. (2015). Central core theory. The Cambridge Handbook of Social Representations, Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781107323650 ↗
26. Abric, J.-C. (1994). Représentations sociales: Aspects théoriques. Pratiques Sociales et Représentations, PUF.
27. Jovchelovitch, S. (2019). Knowledge in Context: Representations, Community and Culture, Routledge.10.4324/9781315173368 ↗
28. Abric, J.C. (2003). La recherche du noyau central et de la zone muette des représentations sociales. Méthodes d’Etude des Représentations Sociales, Erès.10.3917/puf.jodel.2003.01.0203 ↗
29. Abric, J.-C. (1994). Pratiques Sociales et Representations, Presses Universitaires de France.
30. Jodelet, D. (1994). Structure et dynamique des représentations sociales. Les Représentations Sociales, Presses Universitaires de France.
31. Abric, J.-C. (1994). Structure, dynamique et transformation des représentation sociales. Pratiques Sociales et Representations, Presses Universitaires de France.
32. Guimelli, C. (1994). Structures et Transformations des Représentations Sociales, Delachaux et Niestlé.
33. Guimelli, C. (1994). Approche du noyau central: Propriétés quantitatives et structurales. Structures et Transformations des Représentations Sociales, Delachaux et Niestlé.
34. Jodelet, D. (1994). Les représentations sociales de l’économie: Une forme de connaissance. Les Représentations Sociales, Presses Universitaires de France.
35. Représentations sociales partagées, périphériques, indifférentes, d’une minorité: Méthodes d’approche
36. L’evocation de l’argent: Une méthode pour la définition du noyau central d’une représentation10.3406/bupsy.1992.14128 ↗
37. Roland-Lévy, C., Kirchler, E., Penz, E., and Gray, C. (2001). Towards the investigation of social representations of the economy: Research methods and techniques. Everyday Representations of the Economy, WUV Universitätsverlag.
38. Willingness to try new foods as predicted by social representations and attitude and trait scales10.1016/j.appet.2004.03.004 ↗
39. A self-report measure of attitudes toward the eating of insects: Construction and validation of the Entomophagy Attitude Questionnaire10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103757 ↗
40. Fasanelli, R., Galli, I., Riverso, R., and Piscitelli, A. (2020). Social representations of insects as food: An explorative-comparative study among millennials and X-generation consumers. Insects, 11.10.3390/insects11100656 ↗
41. More than words! A narrative review of the use of the projective technique of word association in the studies of food consumer behavior: Methodological and theoretical implications10.1016/j.foodres.2022.111124 ↗
42. Mesías, F.J., and Escribano, M. (2018). Projective techniques. Methods in Consumer Research, Woodhead Publishing.10.1016/B978-0-08-102089-0.00004-2 ↗
43. Projective methods for the study of food consumer behavior: An updated short review of its uses, challenges, and potential applications10.1016/j.cofs.2023.101069 ↗
44. Understanding food consumer behavior using projective methods and the big five personality traits model: The case of traditional Mexican cheeses10.1111/joss.12936 ↗
45. Crossmodal correspondences: A tutorial review10.3758/s13414-010-0073-7 ↗
46. Evaluation of Ideal Everyday Italian Food and Beer Pairings with Regular Consumers and Food and Beverage Experts10.1002/j.2050-0416.2008.tb00777.x ↗
47. Ratinaud, P. (2024, June 13). IRaMuTeQ: Interface de R Pour les Analyses Multidimensionnelles de Textes et de Questionnaires. Available online: http://www.iramuteq.org.
48. List task and a cognitive salience index10.1177/1525822X0101300303 ↗
49. Notes towards a description of Social Representations10.1002/ejsp.2420180303 ↗
50. Escribano, A.J., Peña, M.B., Díaz-Caro, C., Elghannam, A., Crespo-Cebada, E., and Mesías, F.J. (2021). Stated Preferences for Plant-Based and Cultured Meat: A Choice Experiment Study of Spanish Consumers. Sustainability, 13.10.3390/su13158235 ↗
51. Consumers’ Willingness to Purchase Three Alternatives to Meat Proteins in the United Kingdom, Spain, Brazil and the Dominican Republic10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103732 ↗
52. Hwang, J., You, J., Moon, J., and Jeong, J. (2020). Factors Affecting Consumers’ Alternative Meats Buying Intentions: Plant-Based Meat Alternative and Cultured Meat. Sustainability, 12.10.3390/su12145662 ↗
53. Food Technology Neophobia as a Psychological Barrier to Clean Meat Acceptance10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104409 ↗
54. Liu, J., Hocquette, É., Ellies-Oury, M.-P., Chriki, S., and Hocquette, J.-F. (2021). Chinese Consumers’ Attitudes and Potential Acceptance Toward Artificial Meat. Foods, 10.10.3390/foods10020353 ↗
55. Dupont, J., Harms, T., and Fiebelkorn, F. (2022). Acceptance of Cultured Meat in Germany—Application of an Extended Theory of Planned Behaviour. Foods, 11.10.3390/foods11030424 ↗
56. Factors Influencing People’s Acceptance of Gene Technology: The Role of Knowledge, Health Expectations, Naturalness, and Social Trust10.1177/1075547009358919 ↗
57. Biased Perception About Gene Technology: How Perceived Naturalness and Affect Distort Benefit Perception10.1016/j.appet.2015.10.021 ↗
58. Environmental Impact Judgments of Meat, Vegetarian, and Insect Burgers: Unifying the Negative Footprint Illusion and Quantity Insensitivity10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103731 ↗
59. Exploring Perceptions of Sustainable Proteins and Meat Attachment10.1108/BFJ-01-2018-0025 ↗
60. If You Build It, Will They Eat It? Consumer Preferences for Plant-Based and Cultured Meat Burgers10.1016/j.appet.2018.02.030 ↗
61. Alternative Proteins, Evolving Attitudes: Comparing Consumer Attitudes to Plant-Based and Cultured Meat in Belgium in Two Consecutive Years10.1016/j.appet.2021.105161 ↗
62. Perception of Cultured Meat Among Sri Lankan Community
63. Grasso, A.C., Hung, Y., Olthof, M.R., Verbeke, W., and Brouwer, I.A. (2019). Older Consumers’ Readiness to Accept Alternative, More Sustainable Protein Sources in the European Union. Nutrients, 11.10.3390/nu11081904 ↗
64. (2024, June 13). Camera dei Deputati, Servizio Studi XIX Legislatura. Provv. Divieto di Produzione e di Immissione sul Mercato di Alimenti e Mangimi Sintetici. 2 Novembre 2023. Available online: https://www.camera.it/temiap/documentazione/temi/pdf/1408029.pdf?_1714851055566.