IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i5p4009-d1076964.html

Perceptions of Cultivated Meat in Millennial and Generation X Consumers Resident in Aotearoa New Zealand

Author

Listed:
  • Caroline Giezenaar

    (Food Experience and Sensory Testing (Feast) Lab, School of Food and Advanced Technology, Massey University, Palmerston North 4410, New Zealand)

  • A. Jonathan R. Godfrey

    (Statistics Group, School of Mathematical and Computational Sciences, Massey University, Palmerston North 4410, New Zealand)

  • Olivia J. Ogilvie

    (Biomolecular Interaction Centre, School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch 8041, New Zealand
    School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, 20 Kirkwood Avenue, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch 8041, New Zealand
    Riddet Institute, Massey University, Palmerston North 4410, New Zealand)

  • Petra Coetzee

    (Food Experience and Sensory Testing (Feast) Lab, School of Food and Advanced Technology, Massey University, Palmerston North 4410, New Zealand)

  • Maheeka Weerawarna N.R.P.

    (Food Experience and Sensory Testing (Feast) Lab, School of Food and Advanced Technology, Massey University, Palmerston North 4410, New Zealand)

  • Meika Foster

    (Edible Research Limited, Christchurch 7475, New Zealand)

  • Joanne Hort

    (Food Experience and Sensory Testing (Feast) Lab, School of Food and Advanced Technology, Massey University, Palmerston North 4410, New Zealand
    Riddet Institute, Massey University, Palmerston North 4410, New Zealand)

Abstract

Evidence suggests that consumer perceptions and acceptance of cultivated meat (CM) differ between countries, cultures, and consumer groups. Limited research specific to Aotearoa New Zealand (A-NZ) is available. Survey responses from 592 A-NZ residents were analysed to determine CM awareness, willingness to engage with CM, and perceived CM product attributes relative to conventional meat and plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs). The effects of gender, age, meat/PBMA consumption frequency, CM awareness, and food neophobia on CM perceptions were determined. The statements were rated on a seven-point Likert scale. Half (52%) of the respondents agreed they were aware of CM. The awareness was higher in men compared to women ( p = 0.036), higher in Millennials compared to Generation X ( p = 0.022), and higher in regular compared to infrequent PBMA consumers ( p = 0.0003). The willingness to engage with CM and perceived CM product attributes were consistently more positive in consumers who were aware, compared with consumers not aware of CM ( p < 0.05). Being male, Millennial, low neophobic and a low meat, or high PBMA consumer was also associated with higher potential engagement and perceptions of CM to varying extents. Segmentation divided the respondents into three groups. The ‘positive’ cluster (41%) consumed more PBMAs and less meat and was more aware of CM than the ‘neutral’ (50%) and ‘negative’ (9%) clusters. In conclusion, consumers in A-NZ are not a homogenous group with regards to their perceptions and potential engagement with CM. Increasing awareness and familiarity with CM will be an important strategy to increase engagement with CM.

Suggested Citation

  • Caroline Giezenaar & A. Jonathan R. Godfrey & Olivia J. Ogilvie & Petra Coetzee & Maheeka Weerawarna N.R.P. & Meika Foster & Joanne Hort, 2023. "Perceptions of Cultivated Meat in Millennial and Generation X Consumers Resident in Aotearoa New Zealand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-20, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:5:p:4009-:d:1076964
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/5/4009/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/5/4009/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nicolas Treich, 2021. "Cultured Meat: Promises and Challenges," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(1), pages 33-61, May.
    2. Nathalie C M Rolland & C Rob Markus & Mark J Post, 2020. "The effect of information content on acceptance of cultured meat in a tasting context," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-17, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Romain Espinosa & Nicolas Treich, 2023. "Eliciting Non-hypothetical Willingness-to-pay for Novel Products: An Application to Cultured Meat," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 85(3), pages 673-706, August.
    2. Asioli, Daniele & Fuentes-Pila, Joaquìn & Alarcón, Silverio & Han, Jia & Liu, Jingjing & Hocquette, Jean-Francois & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2022. "Consumers’ valuation of cultured beef Burger: A Multi-Country investigation using choice experiments," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    3. Nick Lin-Hi & Marlene Reimer & Katharina Schäfer & Johanna Böttcher, 2023. "Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: an empirical analysis of the role of organizational factors," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 93(4), pages 707-746, May.
    4. Andersson, Henrik & Ouvrard, Benjamin, 2026. "Not on my plate! Challenges to promote meat substitutes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 240(C).
    5. Maria Giovina Pasca & Gabriella Arcese, 2025. "Sustainability and Quality of Cultured Meat: Consumer Perceptions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-18, February.
    6. Seong Soo Cha & JeungSun Lee, 2025. "Determinants of Splurge Consumption Behavior Among Generation MZ Effects on Satisfaction, Word-of-Mouth, and Repurchase Intention," SAGE Open, , vol. 15(4), pages 21582440251, November.
    7. Denni Arli & Luis Arango & Felix Septianto, 2025. "The Moderating Role of Intrinsic and Quest Religiosity on the Effectiveness of Religious Appeals in Promoting Cultured Meat," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 201(3), pages 759-776, October.
    8. Xue Zheng & Ying Tan & Dasheng Li, 2025. "RETRACTED ARTICLE: Navigating Environmental Governance in China’s Hog Sector: Unraveling the “Race to the Bottom” Phenomenon and Spatial Dynamics," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 16(2), pages 6765-6802, June.
    9. Wolfgang Brozek & Christof Falkenberg, 2021. "Industrial Animal Farming and Zoonotic Risk: COVID-19 as a Gateway to Sustainable Change? A Scoping Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-30, August.
    10. Leonore Lewisch & Petra Riefler, 2023. "Cultured meat acceptance for global food security: a systematic literature review and future research directions," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 11(1), pages 1-21, December.
    11. Alfredo J. Escribano & Maria Belen Peña & Carlos Díaz-Caro & Ahmed Elghannam & Eva Crespo-Cebada & Francisco J. Mesías, 2021. "Stated Preferences for Plant-Based and Cultured Meat: A Choice Experiment Study of Spanish Consumers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-21, July.
    12. Nicolas Treich, 2021. "Cultured Meat: Promises and Challenges," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(1), pages 33-61, May.
    13. Vincent A. Rabl & Frédéric Basso, 2021. "When Bad Becomes Worse: Unethical Corporate Behavior May Hamper Consumer Acceptance of Cultured Meat," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-18, June.
    14. Yuan, Rao & Asioli, Daniele & Jin, Shaosheng & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2021. "Consumers’ Valuation for Cultured Chicken Meat: A Multi-city Choice Experiment in China," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313957, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Nilesh Nirmal & Collins Fiifi Anyimadu & Anandu Chandra Khanashyam & Alaa El‐din A. Bekhit & Bablu Kumar Dhar, 2025. "Alternative Protein Sources: Addressing Global Food Security and Environmental Sustainability," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(3), pages 3958-3969, June.
    16. Arturo Nickolay Rojas-Tavara & Alberto Jesus Donayre-Torres, 2023. "Microalgae in lab-grown meat production," Czech Journal of Food Sciences, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 41(6), pages 406-418.
    17. Franziska Funke & Linus Mattauch & Inge van den Bijgaart & H. Charles J. Godfray & Cameron Hepburn & David Klenert & Marco Springmann & Nicolas Treich, 2022. "Toward Optimal Meat Pricing: Is It Time to Tax Meat Consumption?," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(2), pages 219-240.
    18. Luiz Morais-da-Silva, Rodrigo & Glufke Reis, Germano & Sanctorum, Hermes & Forte Maiolino Molento, Carla, 2022. "The social impacts of a transition from conventional to cultivated and plant-based meats: Evidence from Brazil," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    19. Marko Šostar & Jaiji Joy & Hareesh N. Ramanathan, 2025. "Consumer Trust in Emerging Food Technologies: A Comparative Analysis of Croatia and India," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-30, September.
    20. Shahida Anusha Siddiqui & Tayyaba Alvi & Aysha Sameen & Sipper Khan & Andrey Vladimirovich Blinov & Andrey Ashotovich Nagdalian & Mohammad Mehdizadeh & Danung Nur Adli & Marleen Onwezen, 2022. "Consumer Acceptance of Alternative Proteins: A Systematic Review of Current Alternative Protein Sources and Interventions Adapted to Increase Their Acceptability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-19, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:5:p:4009-:d:1076964. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.