|
|
|
|
|
| Educated consumers don’t believe artificial meat is the solution to the problems with the meat industry |
| Aurélie Hocquette, Carla Lambert, Clémentine Sinquin, Laure Peterolff, Zoé Wagner, Sarah P F Bonny, André Lebert, Jean-François Hocquette |
1、France Business School (FBS), 4, Boulevard Trudaine, Clermont-Ferrand Cedex 1 63037, France
2、Clermont Université, Polytech, 24 avenue des Landais, Aubière Cedex 61177, France
3、School of Veterinary and Life Sciences, Murdoch University, Murdoch, W.A. 6150, Australia
4、INRA, UMR1213, Recherches sur les Herbivores, Saint-Genès Champanelle F-63122, France
5、Clermont Université, VetAgro Sup, UMR1213, Recherches sur les Herbivores, Saint Genès Champanelle F-63122, France |
|
|
|
摘要 The production of in vitro meat by cell culture has been suggested by some scientists as one solution to address the major challenges facing our society. Firstly, consumers would like the meat industry to reduce potential discomfort of animals on modern farms, or even to avoid killing animals to eat them. Secondly, citizens would like meat producers to reduce potential environmental deterioration by livestock and finally, there is a need to reduce world hunger by increasing protein resources while the global population is predicted to grow rapidly. According to its promoters, artificial meat has a potential to make eating animals unnecessary, to reduce carbon footprint of meat production and to satisfy all the nutritional needs and desires of consumers and citizens. To check these assumptions, a total of 817 educated people (mainly scientists and students) were interviewed worldwide by internet in addition to 865 French educated people. We also interviewed 208 persons (mainly scientists) after an oral presentation regarding artificial meat. Results of the three surveys were similar, but differed between males and females. More than half of the respondents believed that “artificial meat” was feasible and realistic. However, there was no majority to think that artificial meat will be healthy and tasty, except respondents who were in favour of artificial meat. A large majority of the respondents believed that the meat industry is facing important problems related to the protection of the environment, animal welfare or inefficient meat production to feed humanity. However, respondents did not believe that artificial meat will be the solution to solve the mentioned problems with the meat industry, especially respondents who were against artificial meat. The vast majority of consumers wished to continue to eat meat even they would accept to consume less meat in a context of increasing food needs. Only a minority of respondents (from 5 to 11%) would recommend or accept to eat in vitro meat instead of meat produced from farm animals. Despite these limitations, 38 to 47% of the respondents would continue to support research on artificial meat, but a majority of them believed that artificial meat will not be accepted by consumers in the future, except for respondents who were in favour of artificial meat. We speculated that the apparent contradictory answers to this survey expressed the fact that people trust scientists who are supposed to continuously discover new technologies potentially useful in a long term future for the human beings, but people also expressed concern for their health and were not convinced that artificial meat will be tasty, safe and healthy enough to be accepted by consumers.
Abstract The production of in vitro meat by cell culture has been suggested by some scientists as one solution to address the major challenges facing our society. Firstly, consumers would like the meat industry to reduce potential discomfort of animals on modern farms, or even to avoid killing animals to eat them. Secondly, citizens would like meat producers to reduce potential environmental deterioration by livestock and finally, there is a need to reduce world hunger by increasing protein resources while the global population is predicted to grow rapidly. According to its promoters, artificial meat has a potential to make eating animals unnecessary, to reduce carbon footprint of meat production and to satisfy all the nutritional needs and desires of consumers and citizens. To check these assumptions, a total of 817 educated people (mainly scientists and students) were interviewed worldwide by internet in addition to 865 French educated people. We also interviewed 208 persons (mainly scientists) after an oral presentation regarding artificial meat. Results of the three surveys were similar, but differed between males and females. More than half of the respondents believed that “artificial meat” was feasible and realistic. However, there was no majority to think that artificial meat will be healthy and tasty, except respondents who were in favour of artificial meat. A large majority of the respondents believed that the meat industry is facing important problems related to the protection of the environment, animal welfare or inefficient meat production to feed humanity. However, respondents did not believe that artificial meat will be the solution to solve the mentioned problems with the meat industry, especially respondents who were against artificial meat. The vast majority of consumers wished to continue to eat meat even they would accept to consume less meat in a context of increasing food needs. Only a minority of respondents (from 5 to 11%) would recommend or accept to eat in vitro meat instead of meat produced from farm animals. Despite these limitations, 38 to 47% of the respondents would continue to support research on artificial meat, but a majority of them believed that artificial meat will not be accepted by consumers in the future, except for respondents who were in favour of artificial meat. We speculated that the apparent contradictory answers to this survey expressed the fact that people trust scientists who are supposed to continuously discover new technologies potentially useful in a long term future for the human beings, but people also expressed concern for their health and were not convinced that artificial meat will be tasty, safe and healthy enough to be accepted by consumers.
|
|
Received: 18 March 2014
Accepted: 11 February 2015
|
|
Corresponding Authors:
Jean-Fran?ois Hocquette,E-mail: jfhocquette@clermont.inra.fr
E-mail: jfhocquette@clermont.inra.fr
|
Cite this article:
Aurélie Hocquette, Carla Lambert, Clémentine Sinquin, Laure Peterolff, Zoé Wagner, Sarah P F Bonny, André Lebert, Jean-Fran?ois Hocquette.
2015.
Educated consumers don’t believe artificial meat is the solution to the problems with the meat industry. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14(2): 273-284.
|
| Bonny S P F, Gardner G E, Pethick D W, Hocquette J-F. 2015.What is artificial meat and what does it mean for the futureof the meat industry. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 15,255-263Datar I, Betti M. 2010. Possibilities for an in vitro meatproduction system. Innovative Food Science and EmergingTechnologies, 11, 13-22Dawkins M, Bonney R. 2008. The Future Of Animal Farming:Renewing The Ancient Contract. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford,UK.Dray S, Dufour A B, Chessel D. 2007: The ade4 package-II:Two-table and K-table methods. R News, 7, 47-52FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations).2009. How to Feed the World in 2050. Rome, Italy.FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations).2011. World Livestock 2011. Livestock in Food Security.Rome, Italy.FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations).2013. Insects for food and feed. [2014-3-1]. http://www.fao.org/forestry/edibleinsects/en/Frewer L J, Bergmann K, Brennan M, Lion R, Meertens R, RoweG, Siegrist M, Vereijken C. 2011. Consumer response tonovel agri-food technologies: Implications for predictingconsumer acceptance of emerging food technologies.Trends in Food Science and Technology, 22, 422-456Godfray H C J, Beddington J R, Crute I R, Haddad L, Lawrence D, Muir J F, Pretty J, Robinson S, Thomas S M, ToulminC. 2010. Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billionpeople. Science, 327, 812-818Goodwin J N, Shoulders C W. 2013. The future of meat: Aqualitative analysis of cultured meat media coverage. MeatScience, 95, 445-450Hocquette J-F, Botreau R, Picard B, Jacquet A, Pethick DW, Scollan N D. 2012. Opportunities for predicting andmanipulating beef quality. Meat Science, 92, 197-209Hocquette J-F, Mainsant P, Daudin J D, Cassar-Malek I,Rémond D, Doreau M, Sans P, Bauchart D, Agabriel J,Verbecke W, Picard B. 2013. Will meat be produced in vitroin the future? INRA Productions Animales, 26, 363-374Hopkins P D, Dacey A, 2008. Vegetarian meat: Couldtechnology save animals and satisfy meat eaters? Journalof Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 21, 579-596Husson F, Josse J, Le S, Mazet J. 2014. FactoMineR:Multivariate exploratory data analysis and data mining withR. R package version 1.26. [2014-3-1]. http://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=FactoMineRMoritz M S M, Verbruggen S E L, Post M J. 2015. Alternativesfor large-scale production of cultured beef: A review. Journalof Integrative Agriculture, 14, 208-216Pimentel D, Pimentel M. 2003. Sustainability of meat-based andplant-based diets and the environment. American Journalof Clinical Nutrition, 78(Suppl. 3), 660S-663SPost M J. 2012. Cultured meat from stem cells: Challenges andprospects. Meat Science, 92, 297-301Post M J. 2014. Cultured beef: medical technology to producefood. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, doi:10.1002/jsfa.6474R Core Team. 2014. R: A language and environmentfor statistical computing. R Foundation for StatisticalComputing, Vienna, Austria. [2014-3-1]. http://www.Rproject.org/Scollan N D, Greenwood P L, Newbold C J, Yá?ez Ruiz D R,Shingfield K J, Wallace R J, Hocquette J-F. 2011. Futureresearch priorities for animal production in a changing world.Animal Production Science, 51, 1-5Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, Rosales M, deHaan C. 2006. Livestock’s Long Shadow: EnvironmentalIssues and Options. FAO 978-92-5-195571-7. Rome, Italy.Tonsor G T, Olynk N J. 2011. Impacts of animal well-being andwelfare media on meat demand. Journal of AgriculturalEconomics, 62, 13.Tuomisto H L, de Mattos M J. 2011. Environmental impactsof cultured meat production. Environmental Science &Technology, 45, 6117-6123US Census Bureau. 2008. Total Midyear Population for theWorld: 1950-2050Washington, D.C.Verbeke W. 2011. Consumer attitudes and communicationchallenges for agro-food technologies. Agro-Food IndustryHi-Tech, 22, 34-36Verbeke W, Sans P, Van Loo E J. 2015. Challenges andprospects for consumer acceptance of cultured meat.Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14, 285-294Vinnari M, Tapio P, 2009. Futures images of meat consumptionin 2030. Futures, 41, 269-278 |
| No Suggested Reading articles found! |
|
|
Viewed |
|
|
|
Full text
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
|
Cited |
|
|
|
|
| |
Shared |
|
|
|
|
| |
Discussed |
|
|
|
|
