Cultivated meat is no longer a distant idea. It’s already approved for sale in the United States, with companies working to scale production. For those interested in reducing animal suffering, it holds enormous promise. But technological progress alone isn’t enough. A key question remains: will consumers actually accept it?
This is where framing becomes critical. Framing refers to how information is presented, and it can strongly shape how people respond to new ideas. Psychologists have begun studying how different ways of describing cultivated meat influence public perception. Their findings offer important insights for advocates trying to build support for animal-friendly alternatives.
In one study, participants read one of three descriptions of cultivated meat. One emphasized its societal benefits, such as reducing harm to the environment and helping animals. Another framed it as high tech, focusing on how it is made using highly advanced technology in a state of the art laboratory. The third highlighted its similarity to conventional meat, noting that it tastes the same, is becoming more affordable, and may offer health benefits. They found that people who read the high tech framing were less accepting of cultivated meat than those who read about the societal benefits or similarities to conventional meat.
Another study used a production frame, which described the steps of how cultivated meat is made in a lab, or a consumption frame, which describes how it can be cooked and ordered like conventional meat. Participants had more positive attitudes and were more likely to want to try and buy cultivated meat when they read the consumption frame than the production frame. This effect was driven by participants perceiving cultivated meat as more natural, familiar, and tasty when they read the consumption frame.
Together, these findings suggest that emphasizing the production process may not be the most effective way to encourage adoption. However, this high-tech framing is common in media coverage. For example, the first study notes how stories often use science-themed imagery, such as meat in a laboratory setting. News headlines often call cultivated meat “lab-grown meat,” which consumers have more negative attitudes towards than other names like “clean meat” and “animal free meat.”
Instead, these studies point to more effective communication strategies. Emphasizing societal benefits, such as reduced harm to animals, or highlighting similarity to conventional meat may improve perceptions. Messaging that reinforces familiarity, taste, and normalcy appears especially promising.
While cultivated meat has the potential to transform our food system, its success will depend in part on how it is introduced to the public. The research so far suggests that shifts in language and emphasis can meaningfully influence how people perceive it. At the same time, there is still much to learn about how different audiences respond to different messages. This is an opportunity for advocates to help shape a future where choosing meat no longer requires harming animals. As cultivated meat continues to become more visible, testing and refining how we talk about it will be essential.