6. Challenges: Technical and Financial

Economic and technological challenges

While the previous chapter listed the potential benefits of the cultured meat industry, the technology is not free from complications. The following section will focus on the difficulties involved.
The most important challenges are technological and economic ones. On the one hand, more funding is needed for research and development. On the other, there is a need for investment in scaling up the production infrastructure. The main economic challenges facing cultured meat are:

1. Scale-up of bioreactors and culture media to meet industrial demand
2. Required resources and production
3. Risk of unbalanced growth

These economic and technical challenges are interdependent, as the capacity to develop better technology and scale up infrastructure depends on the amount of available R&D funding.

Bioreactors are the central elements in the process of creating cultured meat. As such, the scaling up of bioreactors is a key challenge that is related to both the technological and the economic aspects of cell-based meat. “Carneries” would house tanks similar to brewing vats for the large-scale production of cultured meat. However, given the size of operations required to achieve the necessary economies of scale, maintenance and cleaning would become a significant cost factor due to the cost of the materials and the duration of the cleaning process:

Carneries would have to comply with hygiene and safety norms reminiscent of laboratories rather than factories, and these strict levels of hygiene and safety standards must also be applied to the animals from which stem cells are procured. The harvesting of biological material will need to be done under surgical conditions to avoid any contamination that could subsequently cause health issues.

Viable growth medium

Additionally, given the difference between biological organisms and bioreactors, there will be differences between cultured meat and traditional meat in terms of texture, taste, appearance, and other characteristics. Therefore, in-vitro meat manufacturers will have to implement additional processes to imitate the taste and feel of “real” meat.

The growth medium is the most expensive component. Because it is produced in small batches, it is a significant factor in calculating cost-efficiency. Therefore, cultured meat manufacturers should aim to save energy and avoid waste of culture materials through recycling of microcarriers (support matrices allowing for the growth of adherent cells in bioreactors). Moreover, since the cost of sanitizing a bioreactor for re-use is very high, it may be more economical to use new tanks for each batch instead of recycling old ones ^[64]. Given the ethical issues surrounding Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS), some authors consider the quest for a plant-based alternative growth medium to be the most difficult part of R&D surrounding cell-based meat and the biggest obstacle to scale-up, as the “media should be affordable, contain only food-grade components, be readily available in large quantities, and be effective and efficient in supporting and promoting muscle cell growth, proliferation, and differentiation” ^[65].

The chemical factor

Another challenge in connection with the growth medium is the need for chemical growth factors and hormones. They would be safe for human consumption, but unfortunately, the factories that produce them require land use, energy, and have other negative impacts on the environment. Therefore, developing an efficient process to create animal-free and efficient media is still one of the biggest obstacles to the widespread adoption of cultured meat ^[66].

Structural challenges

Finally, by far the most challenging technological issue remains the creation of structured cultured meat. In order to make a cultured T-bone steak or chicken drumstick with multiple layers of muscle, fat, bone, and circulatory tissue, different components will have to be combined on a synthetic scaffold. A number of companies are tackling the challenge of manufacturing such structured products by producing each component individually.

If Peace of Meat produces cultured animal fats, while Mosa Meat makes the muscle fibers, they will have to work in synergy to create a structured end product that combines all of these individual components. Still, in terms of both development and cost, the ability to create New York strip steaks through cellular agriculture is a more distant prospect than making cultured chicken nuggets.

There is a close connection between resource requirements and the technological developments required for mass production of in-vitro meat. Due to this link, new scientific developments are frequently treated as tightly guarded secrets, since intellectual property makes a company increase in investor value, at the cost of widespread scientific dissemination of the advances that a company may develop.

Furthermore, investment in bioreactor infrastructure is required in order to scale up the production of cell-based meat to levels at which it can compete with traditional meat production systems. Researching and developing culture media requires a large amount of funding, as does the combination of a bioreactor that can produce industrial amounts of cultured meat with a culture medium that is plant-based, recyclable, and contains all necessary nutrients, growth factors, and hormones. Shiitake extract is currently being tested as a potentially ethically sound and economically feasible substitute for FBS in various research institutes and start-ups.

Currently, the cell-based meat industry consists of a number of startup companies trying to move from the experimental stages to commercial launches, through which they jointly aim to create an entirely new business sector. One of the great challenges for individual companies and for the emerging eco-system that they aim to create is the risk of unbalanced growth. Some activities inevitably will get ahead of others, but growth to profitability can only happen when every issue is solved to a satisfactory level.

Social and consumer challenges

The ways in which cultivated meat relates to broader societal priorities and consumer behavior will be important determinants for broader market entry of cultured meat. As such, they have attracted plenty of attention from researchers and market analysts. Environmental aspects are briefly mentioned below, but discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5. All the research carried out regarding the industry’s carbon footprint and GHG emissions should be treated with the caveat that the figures are based on hypothetical projections regarding the emissions caused by industrial-scale production of in-vitro meat.

There is no question that cell-based meat production requires much less land and water use than the traditional meat industry. However, in the earlier stages of implementation, these financial and sustainability advantages may be offset by the energy requirements for basal media production and bioreactor maintenance ^[66]. As mentioned in section 5.1.2, the energy consumption for cultivated meat is just as high as in traditional meat production; however, as the technology develops and scales up from the current laboratory setting, this negative impact could decrease ^[67].

This suggests that better energy efficiency and a lower carbon footprint will be required for cell-based meat to really be “clean” in all senses of the word ^[66]. Given the inherently high energy requirements for mass-scale cultured meat production, the industry should give preference to sustainable energy sources to avoid environmental damage and maintain the “clean” image that is a central part of its marketing strategy.

Regarding land use, it may already be possible to meet the world’s protein intake needs without the need for competition over land between food and feed producers ^[68]. While there seems to be a broad consensus regarding the ethical benefits of in-vitro meat, there is more uncertainty, if not skepticism regarding its ecological benefits.

When you think about meat, the image of a perfectly marbled steak, a juicy salmon filet, or a delicate pork chop may come to mind. While these meat cuts come from different sources, they all feature a mix of muscle cells, adipose tissue (fat), and in some cases bone. As mentioned above in section 6.1.1, structured cultured meat will not be widely available for a while yet, but there are many more aspects that come into play besides texture in order for cultivated structured tissue to resemble traditional meat. Color, smell, and appearance should be replicated as far as possible, but maybe the most important aspect is that cultured meat should provide the full nutritional value of animal protein.

“A common problem is that the colour of currently formed muscle fibres is yellow, not pink or red unlike conventional meat, because culturing the cells at ambient oxygen conditions suppresses myoglobin expression which gives the red colour to meat. Similarly, it is difficult today to reproduce the taste of meat which results from a complex interaction between proteins, carbohydrates and the aromas of the lipid fraction. So, to obtain a minimum of taste, adipose cells need to be introduced in the cell culture process. Another challenge is to reproduce the detailed composition of muscle tissue specifically in vitamins (vitamin B12 in particular) and other micro-nutrients which benefit human health and give conventional meat certain nutritional benefits.” ^[68]

The imitation game

All the extra components that go into growing in-vitro meat should add nutritional value or at the very least be edible. In early prototypes of cultured meat, such as the first in-vitro burger patty presented by Mosa Meat, several aesthetic hurdles were ingeniously overcome: Beetroot and saffron were added to give the yellow cultured muscle cells a more “natural” color, and breadcrumbs were used to give the burger additional texture. However, tasters noted that the meat was lean, tasted bland due to the lack of fat, and did not have a natural color due a lack of myoglobin in the patty.

Supertrends expert Robert ten Hoor, CEO of Cultured Blood, notes that artificial blood created in vitro can improve the taste of cell-based meat and make its flavor resemble that of traditional meat more closely due to the iron present in the red blood cells. A viable, artificial blood circulation system, which is currently under development, could replace the use of lab-culture medium.

Flavor and nutrition

Much progress has been achieved since the first proof-of-concept patty was unveiled. Today, companies such as Peace of Meat provide cultured animal fat to other companies that seek to perfect the formula of in-vitro meat. This is no easy task, however: It takes more than 1,000 water-soluble and fat derived compounds to mimic the various flavors of meat from different species ^[69].

Setting aside the flavor aspect, butchered meat contains nutrients that are a product of the animal’s digestion and do not naturally occur in muscle tissue. One such nutrient is the essential vitamin B12, which is synthesized by bacteria in the animal’s digestive system and must be introduced artificially to the cell culture in the case of cultured meat. This is just one example of the complications that companies and researchers need to overcome in order to produce an artificial product that matches “real” meat not only in terms of smell, taste, look, and texture, but also in terms of its nutritional value.

Consumer perceptions

While consumer perceptions are crucial for any new product introduced to the market, this is especially true for staple foodstuffs. Consumer responses to cultivated meat can be broken down into three main categories:

1. Perceived unnaturalness
2. The Yuck Factor
3. Health issues

The biggest challenge to customer acceptance of cell-based meat is its perceived unnaturalness as a synthetic food product. Besides the ethical factor, some consumers feel that lab-grown or artificial meat products are “too unnatural” and therefore would not be keen to consume it, regardless of their posture toward animal welfare, land use, etc. Other concerns surrounding the question of “naturalness” relate to the notion that urban spaces are increasingly replacing cattle grazing pastures. One study revealed that: “For participants, cultured meat seemed to open a Pandora’s box of unknown societal, environmental, and technological evils” ^[64].

Anchoring: The cognitive element

Perceptions of unnaturalness, or that “natural” products may be better than those perceived as artificial, are strongly influenced by the cognitive phenomenon of anchoring, whereby consumer choices are disproportionally determined by an initial reference point or piece of information – the “anchor” of their decision-making – in this case, the fact that the cultured meat product was manufactured synthetically in a laboratory.

Due to this anchoring, many consumers who are less sophisticated regarding technological developments associate in-vitro meat with other negatively connoted agricultural technologies, such as GMO or cloning, in an attempt to integrate it into their heuristic framework. Cultured meat may thus become associated in their mind with the negative aspects of GM foods and similar technologies.

Cost, labeling, and other perceptions

Another conceptual challenge that may leave consumers skeptical towards in-vitro meat is the perceived cost. People who are familiar with the regenerative medicinal uses of cell culture such as skin grafts, and the high costs this entails, may be negatively disposed towards this innovative technology due to anchoring of the price factor in their decision-making processes. “Just because something is natural, does not mean it is good for you” ^[70];[71]. “Ideas of unnaturalness seem, however, to play a large part in much resistance at least in Europe to new food technologies.” ^[72]

Despite the prevalence of artificial food products in the market, labeling is an inherent problem for cell-based meat. In-vitro meat has the potential to alleviate hunger issues around the world, but if the name of this alternative protein is perceived by consumers to be very unnatural, the product could face rejection due to anchoring. The term “in-vitro meat” might be associated with cloning or genetic modification, whereas “cultured meat” has implications of “tampering with nature”, “Frankenfood” or “playing God”. Therefore, the industry is trying to establish the label “clean meat” for this technology.

The phenomenon of anchoring is correlated with specific consumer profiles. More privileged socioeconomic groups tend to be better educated, and these consumers are more likely to be willing to try cultured meat, be it because of their ethical stance toward animals or because of environmental concerns. Paradoxically, socially vulnerable consumers, who stand to benefit the most from better access to proteins through mass production of cultivated meat, are less well-informed, and they the ones who are the most skeptical about the naturalness of cell-based meat and therefore less prone to consume it ^[68].

Back to nature?

Finally, acceptance of in-vitro meat is also influenced by concerns over the estrangement from nature in modern societies. Research shows that technologies like cultured meat are perceived as conflicting with the desire to live in harmony with nature and the environment, which also extends to traditional farming and husbandry. “Whilst some consumers use the term ‘unnatural’ imprecisely to object to unrelated features of products (such as unfamiliarity), others are committed to worldviews in which naturalness itself is valued” ^[73].

In some rural societies that do not practice industrial models of husbandry and meat production, cultured meat may be perceived as being in conflict with, or as constituting a direct threat to, their culture and customs. This ties in with survey results showing that the main consumers of cultivated meat will be people living in urban spaces. Their choices will be anchored in very different concepts of naturalness. Since they are constantly exposed to products of industrialized agriculture, they may see the consumption of cultured meat as the expression of an ethical stance against these practices. A promising way to deal with consumer objections regarding naturalness is to explain that a switch from farmed to cultured meat will allow us to recreate nature as it was before farming.

An important aspect that shapes much of the customer attitude toward cell-based meat is the “Yuck Factor”. When it is explained to people what in-vitro meat entails, the response is often ambiguous, marked by both amazement and disgust (“wow” and “yuck”). The initial reaction is astonishment at the existence of such a technology, but when potential consumers are asked whether they would eat this alternative protein, they usually express revulsion ^[74]. This reaction is intrinsically tied to personal attitudes toward meat and the respondents’ perceptions of normality or abnormality.

The Yuck Factor entails a duality in customer perceptions ranging from disgust to surprise, corresponding to the product’s perceived novelty and artificiality. The Yuck Factor encompasses sensual perception, ethical perception, and preconceived notions from the consumers’ anchors surrounding biotechnology. The complexity of the Yuck Factor draws from the fact that this technology blurs the boundaries of life and death. Some consumers consider this an act of “playing God”, which causes an ethical conflict that elicits a “yuck” effect, while other consumers are awed by the possibility of producing meat without killing animals. The complexity arises when consumers have polar opinions on the same topic. Some of the most controversial perceptions are grounded in views about technology, ethical stances for and against cell-based meat, and preconceived notions.

As the current iteration of the technology only allows production of non-structured cultured meat, the importance of emulating “normal” meat as much as possible is very important in this stage. If customers perceive cultured meat as not having the taste or texture of normal meat, the “Yuck Factor” may make acceptance very difficult and jeopardize the viability of the product, regardless of all its perceived benefits.

“This tissue does not easily fit into the categories with which we make sense of meatness and animal kinship. So distinct is this form of meat production from prior methods, that what IVM actually is – its status as meat and how it fits with conceptualizations of life and death – remains contested and unclear. […] IVM provokes both ‘wow’ and ‘yuck’ responses when people are first confronted by the notion. It is unusual because it is different, but it is also unusual because it lacks a broadly accepted understanding of what it is and what it can do.” ^[75] A study based on a survey in Australia, China, England, France, Germany, Mexico, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and the United States has also helped to affirm the notion that food disgust sensitivity, directly and indirectly, influenced the acceptance of cultured meat, regardless of the nuanced cultural differences.^[90]

Ethical considerations

The ethical benefits of cultivated meat as well as cultural and economic factors will play a role in the widespread adoption and attitude towards in-vitro meat. Many speculate that cultured meat will not replace normal meat, but become a cheaper alternative to traditional meat. This is an ambiguous scenario considering the cultural importance given to meat in different parts of the world. In Asia, where red meat is consumed on a lesser scale, social acceptance may not be as complicated as in Europe or the Americas, where meat consumption is more widespread. Interestingly, certain activists argue that the disconnect between cell-based meat and traditional meat constitutes a violation of their dignity. Others claim that animals' lives will be better in the present meat industry than in a world with widespread vegetarianism. Some more radical voices claim that the method of collecting the original cells used to make in-vitro meat are gathered in a morally suspect way, tainting all future generations of tissue. Clearly, there is no general consensus on the ethics of cultivated meat.

Preconceived notions and anchoring regarding cell-based meat are in part due to media framing. It is a fact that research and large-scale development of cultured meat will depend on investment by large corporations, and this could cause a ripple effect in empowering multinational food companies. This would have the negative impact of strengthening the association of in-vitro meat with GMO and their perceived negative effects, and with the domination of rich countries over poor ones due to the ownership of food production technologies. This requires informing the public as much as possible about the process and outcomes of cell-based meat, so that consumer choices are based on facts and not preconceived notions.

As explained in connection with the technological challenges that cultivated meat faces, most of the nutritional value of cultured meat will be added after the cells have been cultivated. This additional step might be deemed unnatural or highlight its artificial nature, and create consumer doubt and controversy regarding the health value of cultured meat.

The artificial nature of clean meat comes with the consumer perception that it is harmful to health, either due to the production process (and the subsequent addition of nutrients) or simply because it is “unnatural”. Despite the environmental or ethical benefits that cultured meat brings to the table, such biases may lead some consumers to believe that it has little or no benefit to offer them.

Based on a number of surveys and other research ^{[73];[76];[77]}, it seems likely that consumers will continue to eat large and growing quantities of animal products. A study by Alexander et al. (2017) predicts that global animal product demand will strongly increase as the world’s population and wealth grows. Cultured meat can reduce the environmental impact of traditional animal husbandry practices, but it can only do so if it gains widespread consumer acceptance.

Lack of knowledge, negative preconceptions about advances in agricultural sciences, and a preference for “natural” products will be the biggest obstacles facing the cultured meat industry. Consumer responses may range from fascination with the novelty of cell-based meat to revulsion at its perceived artificiality. Whether in-vitro meat succeeds or fails to gain widespread acceptance will depend strongly on its framing, including its presentation in the media.

Normalizing cultured meat

Currently, cultured meat is largely viewed as a niche product, to be marketed to consumers who avoid meat based on ethical and environmental grounds, although the intention is for it to replace butchered meat altogether in the long run. Critics view this as a “problematically technocentric, profit-motivated approach” ^[78] to dealing with the problems of industrial animal husbandry in its current form.

One scenario is that despite the ethical benefits of cultivated meat, potential consumers would also at times choose to eat “normal” meat based on “a financial decision-making process that links price and occasional luxury to morally legitimate food buying practices”. Research shows ^[75] that many consumers continue to contrast in-vitro meat with “normal meat”, indicating that they continue to regard the former as an inherently “unnatural” product.

In conclusion, in-vitro meat has a long way to go before it is generally perceived as a good alternative to meat from slaughtered animals. Marketing campaigns will need to focus on educating consumers about the ethical, environmental, and health benefits of cultured meat. One strategy could be to try to “normalize” cell-based meat could through campaigns that emphasize the “unnatural” aspects of the global meat industry. However, this could compel that industry to strike back with the opposite claim. Finally, the term “clean meat” would have to gain general currency and be adopted as the label of choice by consumers. A term such as “artificial meat” suggests a product that is diametrically opposed to “natural” meat, while “clean meat” implies that conventional meat is “dirty”. Any media strategy must also be designed to respond to pushback from the incumbent meat industry.

Traditional meat production

In-vitro meat will have to prevail against a backlash and lobbying from the established meat industry. This has been especially pronounced in the US, one of the world’s leading meat-producing nations with an annual output of about 23.5 million tonnes of meat and 21.7 million tons of poultry, while at the same time also being home to many companies in the cultured meat business. As of July 2019, legislation had been proposed in 25 US states to ban the use of terms such as “meat” or “beef” in labeling plant- or cell-based products. Such laws are already on the books in a number of states with strong animal-breeding industries including Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North and South Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Washington, and Wyoming.

Lobbying over labels: Is it ‘meat’?

The argument is that using such terminology for cell-cultured protein, or anything other than produce derived from livestock, poultry, or fish, constitutes “misleading or deceptive practices” or “misrepresenting”, as stated for example in South Carolina’s H4245 General Assembly bill or Missouri’s 627 Senate bill. The Good Food Institute has challenged the Missouri bill, arguing that it not only gives established meat producers unfair protection from competition, but that the prohibition against the use of specific words also impinges on constitutional free-speech issues. In October 2019, after a federal judge refused to block the legislation, the GFI – supported by the American Civil Liberties Union – lodged an appeal that was still pending at the time of writing; however, the GFI did win a preliminary injunction against a similar law in Arkansas.

Still, when it comes to strategy, the established market players do not always form a united front. While some industry bodies such as the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association (USCA) are lobbying the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to exclude non-traditional products from its definition of “beef” and “meat”, the North American Meat Institute (NAMI) – a national trade association representing companies that process 95 percent of red meat and 70 percent of turkey products and their suppliers in the US – has filed comments with the FSIS calling the USCA petition “ill-considered,” as it would cede jurisdiction over cultured meat and poultry products to the US Food and Drug Administration, resulting in “chaos in the marketplace.” “Ensuring lab grown products are subject to FSIS inspection and the same regulatory requirements as other meat and poultry products will help ensure a level playing field in the marketplace,” according to the NAMI filing.

Pushback also comes from poorer countries that depend on traditional animal husbandry as a source of food and as a large source of income. These countries argue that the impact on the labor market and local economies far outweighs the benefits that cell-based meat could bring. It is arguable that the benefits of cultured meat, including a reduction of contamination caused by industrial meat production facilities, are more clearly visible in urban environments featuring advanced infrastructure and transport systems. Therefore, these benefits would not be as notable or even present at all in rural communities.

Takeaways

There are a number of clearly defined challenges surrounding in-vitro meat, with the main issue being the lack of funding for research that is required to upscale and achieve industrial levels of mass production of cultured meat, while the image of cell-based meat has to be reframed if the product is to be viewed as an attractive alternative by consumers.

More investment is needed to boost in-vitro meat research and production; however, scientific progress is hampered by the unwillingness of individual companies to share technical advances. Instead, they prefer to safeguard intellectual property in order to attract investors.

The roll-out of cultured meat depends on cooperation between suppliers of different components, and in the early stages, this commercial eco-system development might easily become unbalanced.

Financial backing from large-scale industrial agriculture corporations may cause image problems for individual cultured meat businesses, and for the product more generally. The media will play a large role in determining the acceptance of cell-based meat by the general public by portraying it in a positive or negative light.

Traditional meat will most likely not be fully replaced by cell-based meat. Thus, even if in-vitro meat becomes competitive and gains widespread acceptance, butchered meat will continue to be sold as a premium alternative product. The main target group for cultured meat should not be vegans or vegetarians, but meat eaters who have ethical concerns regarding animal welfare and the environment.

Cultured meat will be beneficial to the environment with regards to land and water use. However, the energy consumption required for the production of cell-based meat will be higher than that for pork or chicken, but lower than the energy requirement to produce a comparable amount of beef.

[63] Cassiday, L. 2018. Clean Meat. INFORM International News on Fats, Oils, and Related Materials, American Oil Chemists' Society (AOCS) 29(2):6–14. doi:10.21748/inform.02.2018.06.

[64] Kadim, I.T. et al. 2015. Cultured Meat from Muscle Stem Cells: A Review of Challenges and Prospects. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 14(2):222–33. doi:10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60881-9.

[65] Hocquette, J.-F. 2016. Is in Vitro Meat the Solution for the Future? Meat Science 120:167–76. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.04.036.

[66] Reisinger, A. and H. Clark 2018. How much do direct livestock emissions actually contribute to global warming? Global Change Biology 24(4):1749-61.

[67] “World Employment and Social Outlook – Trends 2018” n.d., 82:50.

[68] Claeys, E. et al. 2004. Quantification of fresh meat peptides by SDS-page in relation to ageing time and taste intensity. Meat Science 67:281–288.

[69] Hopkins, P.D. and A. Dacey 2008. Vegetarian meat: Could technology save animals and satisfy meat eaters? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21:579–96.

[70] Schneider Z. 2013. In vitro meat: Space travel, cannibalism, and federal regulation. Houston Law Review 50:991–1024.

[71] Bhat, Z.F. et al. 2015. In Vitro Meat Production: Challenges and Benefits over Conventional Meat Production. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 14(2):241–48. doi:10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60887-X.

[72] Bryant, C.J. et al. 2019. Strategies for Overcoming Aversion to Unnaturalness: The Case of Clean Meat. Meat Science 154:37–45. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.04.004.

[73] Bekker, G.A. et al. 2017. Meet Meat: An Explorative Study on Meat and Cultured Meat as Seen by Chinese, Ethiopians and Dutch. Appetite 114:82–92. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2017.03.009.

[74] Stephens, N. 2013. Growing Meat in Laboratories: The Promise, Ontology, and Ethical Boundary-Work of Using Muscle Cells to Make Food. Configurations 21(2):159–81. doi:10.1353/con.2013.0013

[75] Bryant, C.J. and J.C. Barnett 2019. What’s in a Name? Consumer Perceptions of in Vitro Meat under Different Names. Appetite 137:104–13. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2019.02.021.

[76] Siegrist, M. et al. 2018. Perceived Naturalness and Evoked Disgust Influence Acceptance of Cultured Meat. Meat Science 139:213–19. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.02.007.

[77] Lynch, J. and R. Pierrehumbert 2019. Climate Impacts of Cultured Meat and Beef Cattle. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 3:5. doi:10.3389/fsufs.2019.00005.

[78] Muchenje, V. et al. 2009. Relationship between pre-slaughter stress responsiveness and beef quality in three cattle breeds. Meat Science 81:653–7

[90] Siegrist, M., & Hartmann, C. 2020. Perceived naturalness, disgust, trust and food neophobia as predictors of cultured meat acceptance in ten countries. Appetite, 155, 104814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.104814