This material focuses on the concept, kinds, naming, companies, consumers' perspectives, pros and cons of cell-based meat. Though not yet accepted globally due to several reasons, cell-based meat might be a promising solution to the availability of meat, meeting high demands without killing animals

2. MEAT
Meat is the edible tissue from an
animals consumed as food (Boler and
Woerner, 2017)
 Meat samples include beef, fish,
pork, chicken, mutton, venison, etc
 Meat is consumed because it has
desirable nutritional benefits and
supports human health (O’Connor et
al., 2017)
 Meat also contributes to food
security

3. MEAT ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives to livestock production for the purposes
of meat are warranted because of concerns associated
with sustainability, environmental impact, and animal
welfare associated with conventional production of
meat (Boler and Woerner, 2017)

4. MEAT ALTERNATIVES
Plant-based alternatives
Tofu and tempeh Mushroom and mycoprotein
Caterpillars and locusts Cell-based beef, chicken and
salmon
Insect-based alternatives
Fungal-based alternatives
Cell-based meat

5. Oyster mushroom Mycoprotein Tofu

6. CELL-BASED MEAT
Cell-based meat production involves a
multidisciplinary approach that includes
biotechnology, tissue engineering, and
molecular biology to create a new design
to produce proteins and fats, and tissues
(Suthar and Devkatte, 2020)
Cell-based meat is developed via stem
cells obtained from muscle tissue
harvested from a live animal.
In 2013, a group of Dutch scientists
cooked and consumed the first
“cultured” hamburger (Hocquette, 2016)

7. NAMING
There has been various perspectives as regards the
naming of “this meat”. It has been widely referred to as
lab-grown meat, cultured meat, artificial meat, clean
meat, in-vitro meat, synthetic meat, slaughter-free meat
and cell-based meat (Pilaˇrová et al., 2023)
However, this material prefers to refer to this product as
cell-based meat in agreement with Food and Agriculture
Organization and World Health Organization (FAO and
WHO, 2023)

8. IS IT REALLY MEAT?
Although it appears like meat and is made from cells of animals from
which meat is obtained, following existing definitions and regulations
about meat, this product has not been totally accepted as meat globally.
Chriki et al. (2022) addressed issues surrounding whether or not this
product is meat, however this material suggests that consumers’
perspective and acceptance of this product (based on its safety, health,
taste, nutritional composition and environmental contributions) might
influence, to a large extent, the chances of global acceptance of this
product as meat.

10. EXISTING FORMS OF CELL-BASED
MEAT
 Cell-based beef
 Cell-based chicken and turkey
 Cell-based pork
 Cell-based mutton
 Cell-based fish e.g. salmon
 Cell-based seafood e.g. lobster
 Cell-based kangaroo
 Cell-based antelope
 Cell-based foie gras
 Cell-based sausage

11. SAFETY OF CELL-BASED MEAT
The processing, packaging and storage techniques of cell-
based meat contribute to its quality
Cell-based meat is produced under sterile conditions which
contributes to its safety, long shelf life and reduction in
food loss (Furuhashi et al., 2021)
Siddiqui et al. (2022) proposed modified atmosphere
packaging, vacuum packaging, antioxidant packaging,
antimicrobial packaging, pad packaging and edible film as
suitable packaging techniques for safe cell-based meat

12. Consumers’ perspectives affect
their acceptance and then the
development and purchase of the
product
Consumers’ perspectives vary in
population and regions
CONSUMERS’ PERSPECTIVES OF
CELL-BASED MEAT

13. FACTORS INFLUENCING
CONSUMERS’ PERSPECTIVES
Consumers greatly consider
the quality of cell-based meat in
comparison to the conventional
meat they have been previously
used to
Price and willingness to pay
influence consumers
perspectives about cell-based
meat; some are willing to pay
much less, less, same or more
for cell-based meat.
Food safety is a major concern
and whether or not cultured
meat is safe for consumption is
of equal concern
While some people are willing
to try cell-based meat, others
are not; some people are food
neophobic in nature.

14. STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE
CONSUMERS’ PERSPECTIVES
Provide nutritional information
Educate on health benefits
Improve the naturalness of cell-based
meat-colour, flavour and texture
Enlighten consumers on cell-based meat
production process and its advantage over
conventional meat

15. Country
No of
Respondents
Willing
to Try
Willing to
Pay Less
Willing
to Eat
Reference
France 5,418 50.6% 68.5% 20.3%
Hocquette et
al., 2022
UK
Spain
France
216
216
216
47%
38%
30%
Asioli et al.,
2022
Italy,
Portugal
and Spain
2,171 65.5% 62.8% 56.7%
Liu et al.,
2023
REPORTED CONSUMERS’ PERSPECTIVES

16. Country
No of
Respondents
Willing
to Try
Willing to
Pay Less
Willing
to Eat
Reference
Africa (12
countries)
12, 124 47.2% 65.4% 86.3%
Kombolo et
al., 2023
China 4, 666 49.7% 86.2% 52.8%
Liu et al.,
2021
Brazil 4, 471 66.4% 71% 60.5%
Chriki et
al., 2021
REPORTED CONSUMERS’ PERSPECTIVES

17. CONSUMERS’ DEMOGRAPHIC
PERSPECTIVES
Asioli et al. (2022) and Liu et al. (2023) reported that
young consumers tend to accept cell-based meat more
than aged consumers
According to Kombolo et al. (2023), Africans and
Chinese show less emotional resistance to cell-based
meat probably due to their exposure to other meat
alternatives – insects (Africa) and plant protein
(China)

18. CELL-BASED MEAT COMPANIES
 Sustainability drive:
As defined by FAO
(2010), a sustainable
food is one that is
healthy, safe,
culturally acceptable,
economically viable,
accessible and
affordable and has low
environmental impacts
 Environmental safety
 Biodiversity
In the cell-based meat
sector, there are other
companies involved
who are not into
production instead they
are into investment,
acquisition,partnership,
manufacturing,research
and development like
Nestle, Tyson, JBS and
Cargill (GFI, 2023).
 Need for additional research
and development in the
production process
 Potential regulatory issues
surrounding its production and
consumption
 Competition with traditional
livestock farming in order to
gain widespread acceptance
 High cost of investment
 Challenge of large-scale
production, technical know-
how and growth in certain
countries
Focus of cell-based
meat companies
Challenges faced by cell-
based meat companies

19. GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION OF CELL-
BASED MEAT COMPANIES BY YEAR
AND CONTINENT
Source: GFI (2023)

20. INDUSTRY ANALYSIS
Source: PMR (2022)

21. MARKET SIZE BY REGION
Source: PMR (2022)

22. PROS OF CELL-BASED MEAT
Reduce environmental pollution and water and land use
associated with current meat production systems (Mottet
et al., 2017; Tuomisto and de Mattos, 2011)
Reduce animal use, suffering, death significantly (Sikora
and Rzymski, 2023)
Ensure sustainable production of meat products,
chemically safe and disease-free meat
Engineer meat to be healthier and functional by
manipulating composition e.g. fat control (Fraeye et al.,
2020)
Reduce zoonotic and food borne diseases

23. PROS OF CELL-BASED MEAT
 Quick production
 Reforestation and wild life
 Availability of exotic meat
 Vegan meat
 Alternate protein source
 Longer shelf life leading to reduction in food loss
(Siddiqui et al., 2022)

24. CONS OF CELL-BASED MEAT
Product characteristics - colour, appearance as compared to
conventional meat
High cost of production
Economic disturbances – employment, meat export, etc
Social acceptance and ethical concerns
Alienation to nature
Religious view
Lack of hormones and growth factors to support growth and
development (Bedanta et al., 2021)
 High energy consumption (Tuomisto et al., 2022)

25.  Asioli, D., Fuentes-Pila, J., Alarcon´, S., Han, J., Liu, J., Hocquette, J.F. and
Nayga, R.M. (2022) Consumers’ valuation of cultured beef burger: A multi-
country investigation using choice experiments. Food Policy, 112: 102376
 Boler, D.D. and Woerner, D.R. (2017) What Is Meat? A perspective from the
American meat science association. Animal Frontiers, 7(4)
 Chriki, S., Payet, V., Pflanzer, S.B., Ellies-Oury, M.-P., Liu, J., Hocquette, E.,
Rezende-de-Souza, J.H. and Hocquette, J.-F. (2021) Consumers’ attitudes
towards so-called “Cell-Based Meat”. Foods. 10: 2588.
 Chriki, S., Ellie-Oury, M.-P. and Hocquette, J.-F. (2022) Is “cultured meat” a
viable alternative to slaughtering animals and a good comprise between
animal welfare and human expectations? Animal Frontiers, 12: 1.
 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2010) Dietary guidelines and
sustainability. U.N. Available from
http://www.fao.org/nutrition/education/food-
dietaryguidelines/background/sustainable-dietary-guidelines/en/
SELECTED REFERENCES

26.  Fraeye, I., Kratka, M., Vandenburgh, H. and Thorrez, L. (2020) Sensorial and
nutritional aspects of cultured meat in comparison to traditional meat: Much to
be inferred. Frontiers in Nutrition, 7: 35.
 Good Food Institute (GFI). (2023) State of the Industry Report: Cultivated
meat and seafood. https://gfi.org/resource/cultivated-meat-eggs-and-dairy-
state-of-the-industry-report/#startups
 Hocquette, J.F. (2016) Is In Vitro Meat The Solution for The Future? Meat
Science, 120: 167–176
 Hocquette, É., Liu, J., Ellies-Oury, M.P., Chriki, S. and Hocquette, J.F. (2022)
Does the future of meat in France depend on cultured muscle cells? Answers
from different consumer segments. Meat Science, 188: 108776
 Kombolo, N.M., Chriki, S., Ellies-Oury, M-P., Liu, J. and Hocquette, J-F.
(2023) Consumer perception of “Artificial Meat” in the educated young and
urban population of Africa. Frontiers in Nutrition, 10: 1127655.
SELECTED REFERENCES

27.  Liu, J., Almeida, J.M., Rampado, N., Panea, B., Hocquette, É., Chriki, S.,
Ellies-Oury, M.-P. and Hocquette, J.-F. (2023) Perception of Cultured “meat”
by Italian, Portuguese and Spanish consumers. Frontiers in Nutrition, 10:
1043618.
 Polaris Market Research (PMR). (2022) Cultured meat market size, share
industry forecast report, 2022 - 2030.
https://www.polarismarketresearch.com/industry-analysis/cultured-meat-
market
 Siddiqui, S.A., Bahmid, N.A., Karim, I., Mehany, T., Gvozdenko, A.A.,
Blinov, A.V., Nagdalian, A.A., Arsyad, M. and Lorenzo, J.M. (2022) Cultured
meat: Processing, packaging, shelf life, and consumer acceptance. LWT- Food
Science and Technology, 172: 114192.
 Tuomisto, H.L., Allan, S.J. and Ellis, M.J. (2022) Prospective life cycle
assessment of a bioprocess design for cultured meat production in hollow
fiber bioreactors. Science of the Total Environment, 851: 158051
SELECTED REFERENCES