How Media Frames Impact Perceptions of Cultivated Meat

Media framing shapes how we think about cultivated meat. Positive stories highlight benefits like reduced emissions and improved animal welfare, while negative ones focus on safety concerns, costs, and the impact on farming. In the UK, public opinion is split - some embrace it as a solution to food security, while others remain sceptical, influenced by terms like "lab-grown" or "unnatural."

Key points:

• Positive framing: Highlights benefits like emissions reduction (up to 96%) and ethical meat production.
• Negative framing: Raises concerns about safety, farming decline, and corporate control.
• Neutral framing: Treats it as another food option, focusing on taste, price, and availability.
• Public opinion: 16-41% of UK consumers are open to trying cultivated meat, with younger people more receptive.

The way cultivated meat is presented in the media directly impacts trust and acceptance. Balanced reporting and clear communication are essential to help consumers make informed decisions.

Types of Media Frames in Cultivated Meat Coverage

Building on the UK-specific framing context, media outlets are using various narrative approaches to shape how the public perceives cultivated meat. Research has identified distinct patterns in coverage that influence consumer acceptance. These frames - whether positive, negative, or neutral - play a crucial role in shaping public opinion and understanding.

Positive Frames: Opportunities and Progress

A significant portion of media coverage focuses on the potential benefits of cultivated meat, with 91% of stories highlighting its advantages [4]. One of the most common narratives presents cultivated meat as authentic protein, with 92% of articles referring to it as "real meat" [4]. This framing clearly differentiates cultivated meat from plant-based alternatives. Following USDA approvals for new products in summer 2023, Dr. Uma Valeti, CEO and founder of UPSIDE Foods, emphasised this point:

"This is real meat, no compromise, made in front of you" [4].

Environmental benefits are another major focus, mentioned in 64% of articles. These include reduced greenhouse gas emissions and lower resource consumption [3]. Similarly, 45% of stories highlight animal welfare, presenting cultivated meat as a way to enjoy meat without causing harm to animals. As noted in a CNN Newsroom report:

"Consumers can get the meat they love but without the harm" [4].

Additionally, 29% of articles discuss the "feeding the world" narrative, framing cultivated meat as a scalable solution to meet the rising global demand for protein. Stories about investments from traditional meat producers further bolster its image as a legitimate and commercially viable technology.

Negative Frames: Challenges and Concerns

Not all media coverage is optimistic. Negative frames often highlight barriers to consumer acceptance. Terms like "lab-grown" or "artificial" are frequently used, which can provoke scepticism [6]. Accompanying images of sterile laboratories often evoke associations with pharmaceuticals rather than food, reinforcing concerns about the product’s "unnaturalness" or perceived unpleasantness [4].

Economic concerns are another recurring theme. Critics worry about the potential decline of traditional animal farming and the "imagined degradation of rural areas" that could follow widespread adoption of cultivated meat [4]. Safety concerns also persist, despite regulatory approvals. Chef Andrew Gruel voiced his doubts during a media appearance:

"It scares me from a health perspective. I don't trust the government agencies that are regulating this. I mean, look, they can't even regulate spinach every year, melons, let alone some lab-grown meat" [4].

Environmental scepticism appears in some reports as well. For instance, a New York Post article suggested that "the carbon footprint of cell-cultured meat could actually be worse than industrial meat production" [4]. Additionally, concerns about corporate control are raised, with some stories warning that large food corporations might dominate cultivated meat production [4]. These narratives highlight the need for more balanced reporting to foster informed consumer perspectives.

Neutral and Normalisation Frames

Neutral framing offers a different approach, moving away from polarised narratives. This perspective presents cultivated meat as a standard market option, focusing on practical aspects like taste, price, and availability. By treating it as just another protein choice - similar to organic or free-range options - neutral framing avoids both overly optimistic and overly critical narratives, instead emphasising consumer choice and market dynamics.

However, overly scientific descriptions without clear benefits can reduce acceptance [6]. The success of neutral framing often depends on context and visuals. For example, when cultivated meat is displayed alongside conventional meat in retail or restaurant settings, it is more likely to be perceived as a familiar, viable option rather than an unfamiliar laboratory product.

Researchers from Tufts University have noted the complexity of these narratives:

"The optimistic framing of cell-cultivated meat as a more ethical and sustainable alternative notwithstanding, significant uncertainties and political resistance persist in media narratives, which likely influence regulatory pathways and consumer acceptance" [5].

This analysis underscores how different media frames actively shape public attitudes, influencing whether cultivated meat is embraced or rejected in the marketplace.

Impact of Media Framing on Public Perception

How media presents information plays a huge role in shaping public opinion about cultivated meat. Studies show that framing effects are especially influential when people are learning about unfamiliar products. In these cases, media narratives often become the foundation for initial opinions. For anyone looking to communicate effectively about cultivated meat, understanding these dynamics is key. These framing effects also influence consumer trust and choices down the line.

Positive vs Negative Framing Effects

When media coverage highlights benefits like environmental improvements, animal welfare, and food security, public attitudes toward cultivated meat become more favourable. However, researchers have raised concerns about the heavy focus on positive messaging from the industry. As Painter et al. pointed out:

"The industry dominance in news coverage of CM found here is a concern. On [the] one hand, it fails to provide the public with a realistic account of the current capabilities of this emerging technology. On the other, it may have unintended consequences on public sentiment if CM is slow to realise its promise or if the public begins to lose trust that start-ups and established meat companies will protect consumers' interests and produce a healthy and safe product" [3].

On the flip side, negative framing can dampen consumer interest. Research indicates that 85% of people have concerns about cultivated meat, particularly around its safety, perceived unnaturalness, and potential effects on farmers [7]. Even the terminology matters - "cultivated" is viewed more favourably than "lab-grown" [7].

In the UK, only 16-41% of people are open to trying cultivated meat. Acceptance rates tend to be higher when the term "cultivated" is used, when benefits are clearly outlined, or in more recent studies [7]. For example, a 2019 study by Bryant and Dillard found that participants exposed to a "high tech" frame were more sceptical and less willing to try cultivated meat compared to those who encountered "societal benefits" or "same meat" frames [2].

The Role of Source Credibility

The credibility of the media outlet plays a big part in shaping public trust. Respected publications like lend authority to positive narratives about cultivated meat. In an article from 14th December 2018, described lab-grown steak as:

"a significant step forward for a nascent industry that aims to provide people with real meat without the huge environmental impact and welfare problems of intensive livestock production" [3].

Trust also extends to the sources quoted within articles. For instance, when quoted industry figures on 30th April 2018, stating:

"Impossible Foods say its burger cuts GHGs by 87%" [3],

readers were more likely to believe the environmental claims due to the combination of the publication's reputation and the direct attribution.

Demographics also play a role in how credible people find media and regulations. Men, younger individuals, and those already familiar with cultivated meat are generally more trusting of media coverage and regulatory assurances [7].

Influence of Personal Values and Motives

Beyond the reputation of a source, individual values heavily influence how people interpret media messages. These values act as filters, amplifying or diminishing the impact of framing. For example, research in Singapore showed that frames emphasising "animal welfare" or "reducing carbon emissions and global warming" increased acceptance of cultivated meat among Buddhists [9].

Consumers with more knowledge about cultivated meat tend to evaluate messages more critically, making them less susceptible to framing effects [11]. As public awareness grows, simplistic positive or negative frames may lose their effectiveness.

Personality traits also influence receptivity. High sensation seekers are more drawn to messages focusing on innovation, while low sensation seekers prefer narratives centred on safety and familiarity [10].

In one study, 64.6% of participants said they were probably or definitely willing to try cultivated meat, with 49.1% open to buying it regularly and 48.5% considering it as a replacement for traditional meat [2]. However, these numbers varied depending on how the information was framed and whether it aligned with participants' values around health, the environment, or animal welfare.

Interestingly, messages that highlight the problems with conventional meat tend to be more persuasive than those solely focused on the benefits of cultivated meat [8]. This suggests that effective communication should acknowledge the challenges of the current food system while presenting cultivated meat as a solution that aligns with consumer priorities. Advocacy groups like The Cultivarian Society have embraced this approach, working to ensure media messages resonate with public values.

Strategies for Building Trust Through Media Communication

Gaining public trust in cultivated meat demands a thoughtful communication strategy that does more than just promote the product. It requires presenting balanced viewpoints, relying on trustworthy sources, and fostering media literacy to help consumers make informed choices.

Using Credible Sources and Experts

A study analysing US and UK media coverage from 2013 to 2019 revealed a heavy reliance on industry representatives as sources in articles about cultivated meat [3]. While these voices often highlight the potential of the technology, they can sometimes paint an overly optimistic picture that doesn’t fully reflect its current state. To provide a more rounded narrative, it’s crucial to include academics and scientists actively working in the field. Interestingly, the study found that fewer than 5 out of 40 quoted individuals were technical experts [3].

Incorporating opinions from traditional food sectors can also add diversity to the conversation [3]. For UK audiences, featuring experts from well-regarded academic institutions or regulatory organisations can be particularly effective, as these sources are often seen as having less commercial bias.

By balancing industry perspectives with insights from independent experts, media coverage can offer a more nuanced view, helping consumers critically assess the technology and its implications.

The Role of Media Literacy in Consumer Perceptions

Media literacy plays a key role in shaping how consumers perceive cultivated meat. Research suggests that media framing provides audiences with mental shortcuts, or heuristics, to process new and often complex information [3]. While these shortcuts can simplify understanding, they can also lead to skewed perceptions if the framing is overly promotional or alarmist.

To counter this, educational initiatives should encourage readers to question the sources cited in media stories and consider their potential biases. For example, industry representatives, academic researchers, and regulatory officials each bring unique perspectives, and understanding these differences can help consumers evaluate the information more critically.

Media literacy also involves recognising how framing choices influence public opinion. By learning to look beyond surface-level narratives, consumers can better assess the deeper messages and intentions behind media coverage.

The Cultivarian Society as a Model for Advocacy

Advocacy groups can play a pivotal role in fostering trust by prioritising education over promotion. The Cultivarian Society, founded by David Bell, offers a compelling example of how this can be done. The organisation focuses on education, public dialogue, and global outreach, aiming to provide a deeper understanding of cultivated meat within the broader contexts of ethics, environmental sustainability, and food systems.

Rather than relying on emotional appeals, the Society builds trust by offering well-researched content, thoughtful commentary, and curated insights. Its collaboration with researchers and startups ensures that its messaging is both scientifically grounded and accessible to the public.

In addition to its educational efforts, the Cultivarian Society recognises the social and cultural aspects of food choices. Through newsletters and community meetups, it fosters ongoing conversations that help people connect on a personal level, addressing not just the technical but also the human side of food innovation. This approach bridges the gap between technical advancements and public understanding, creating a foundation of trust rooted in shared values and informed dialogue.

Conclusion: The Future of Cultivated Meat Advocacy

The acceptance of cultivated meat in the UK hinges on clear and balanced communication that addresses both its advantages and the concerns surrounding it. How this is presented to the public - through language, tone, and framing - plays a crucial role in shaping perceptions about its safety, naturalness, and broader societal impact.

Key Insights on Media Framing

Media framing acts as a lens through which consumers view cultivated meat. The choice of terms like "cultivated meat", "cultured meat", or "lab-grown meat" significantly influences public attitudes. For example, framing it as "high tech" tends to foster more negative perceptions [12]. This challenges the assumption that highlighting technological innovation will automatically generate excitement, emphasising the need for media literacy to help consumers critically evaluate such messages.

Demographics also play a role in shaping opinions. Men are generally more open to the idea than women, younger people are more receptive than older generations, and vegetarians and vegans are less inclined to try cultivated meat compared to meat and fish-eaters [12].

Interestingly, while 59% of people in the UK acknowledge potential benefits of cell-cultivated meat - such as improved animal welfare, environmental gains, and enhanced food security - 85% still express concerns about its safety, perceived unnaturalness, and the impact on farmers [7]. This mix of optimism and scepticism highlights the need for thoughtful framing to bridge the gap between media narratives and consumer trust.

Suggestions for Advocacy and Communication

To build trust and acceptance, advocates must refine their communication strategies. Ethical messaging, transparency, and managing sensory expectations should take centre stage. Research indicates that using less technical language when describing cultivated meat can make it more appealing to consumers [12]. Rather than focusing on the production process, advocates should highlight the product's benefits and its positive impact on society [12].

Mathilde Alexandre, Senior Project Manager at ProVeg International, summarises this approach well:

"Cultivated meat has the potential to be a complementary solution to our current food system by offering a more sustainable and ethical way to produce meat." [3]

Media narratives should aim to provide balanced and realistic depictions of cultivated meat, moving beyond industry-driven messaging. This ensures that public sentiment is shaped by accurate and relatable information.

The most effective advocacy combines ethical, practical, and informational messaging [1]. These elements, when used together, have a strong influence on public acceptance of cultivated meat [1].

The Cultivarian Society's approach - focusing on education, transparency, and open dialogue - sets a strong example. By addressing both the promises and limitations of cultivated meat, advocacy groups can build the trust needed for long-term acceptance. As the UK market evolves and consumer willingness to try cultivated meat grows over time [7], organisations that embrace open communication and frame cultivated meat as part of a larger vision for a sustainable and ethical food system will be well-positioned to succeed.

FAQs

How does the way media presents cultivated meat affect public trust and acceptance?

The way the media portrays cultivated meat significantly impacts how the public perceives it, shaping opinions on its safety, ethics, and potential benefits. Positive stories that focus on its ability to reduce environmental damage and push the boundaries of food production can help build trust and acceptance. On the flip side, coverage that emphasises its 'unnatural' aspects or potential risks might make people more hesitant.

Reports on regulatory approvals or public tastings can also play a part in building confidence, as they showcase transparency and growing social acceptance. To encourage broader support, it's crucial to communicate clearly and address consumer concerns while highlighting the advantages of cultivated meat.

What challenges arise from negative media coverage of cultivated meat?

Negative media coverage can heavily influence public opinion about cultivated meat. When stories highlight challenges like steep production costs, regulatory obstacles, or exaggerated biological concerns, they can stir scepticism and even emotional resistance among consumers. Sensational headlines or misleading images only add fuel to the fire, reinforcing misconceptions and eroding trust in this emerging food alternative.

This kind of portrayal can overshadow the potential advantages of cultivated meat, such as cutting down on environmental harm and eliminating the need to slaughter animals. To address these hurdles, it’s crucial to prioritise clear, honest communication and ensure the media presents a balanced perspective, helping to build trust and understanding around this new technology.

How can advocacy groups build trust and communicate the benefits of cultivated meat to sceptical consumers?

To win over sceptical consumers, advocacy groups should prioritise transparency and straightforward communication about how cultivated meat is made and its potential benefits. By focusing on its ethical, environmental, and societal positives, they can better align with the values many consumers hold dear.

Addressing concerns about "naturalness" is key. Cultivated meat can be presented as a scientific breakthrough that supports sustainability and compassion. Using relatable stories, clear visuals to illustrate the production process, and a strong emphasis on safety and quality can help ease doubts and build trust.

Making the technology behind cultivated meat understandable is another crucial step. When consumers feel informed and confident, they’re more likely to embrace it. By fostering open conversations and tackling common misconceptions, advocacy groups can pave the way for greater acceptance and a shift towards a more sustainable way of eating.

Related posts

• How to Explain Lab-Grown Meat to Skeptical Friends
• Checklist: Talking About Cultivated Meat by Age Group
• Taste vs Ethics: What Matters More for Consumers?
• Study: Impact of Personal Stories on Cultivated Meat Awareness