How Social Media Shapes Views on Cultivated Meat

David Bell
23 hours ago
10 min read

Social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, and LinkedIn play a major role in shaping opinions about cultivated meat. These platforms amplify both positive and negative narratives, influencing public perception of this emerging food technology. While cultivated meat offers benefits like reduced land use, lower water consumption, and fewer greenhouse gas emissions, public acceptance is mixed. Safety concerns and perceptions of "unnaturalness" dominate discussions, with 85% of UK consumers expressing scepticism despite 59% recognising its potential for improving animal welfare and reducing environmental impact.

Key Points:

Misinformation is widespread: Between June 2022 and July 2023, nearly 1 million posts contained false claims about meat alternatives, with just 50 accounts driving half the engagement.
Influencers shape narratives: Industry leaders frame cultivated meat as forward-thinking, while critics emphasise risks and artificiality.
Younger generations are more open: They are more likely to trust regulatory systems and accept cultivated meat, especially when ethical and sensory aspects are addressed.
Language matters: Terms like "lab-grown" evoke distrust, while "cultivated" is seen as more neutral.

To combat misinformation, clear communication, transparency, and collaboration with independent scientists are critical. Social media will remain a key battleground for influencing public opinion on cultivated meat.

Social Media's Impact on Cultivated Meat Perception: Key Statistics and Consumer Attitudes

Social media plays a powerful role in shaping how people perceive cultivated meat, often before they've even had a chance to try it. Platforms like X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, and LinkedIn have become battlegrounds for narratives that either celebrate cultivated meat as a solution to climate issues or criticise it as an unnatural and harmful innovation. These online conversations influence whether consumers view cultivated meat as a promising option or something to steer clear of.

Influencers and Their Impact

A significant part of this narrative shaping comes from prominent online figures. Digital Food Influencers (DFIs) are instrumental in guiding public opinions, using what researchers call "grammars" - specific ways of framing cultivated meat as either a technological breakthrough or a looming threat [5].

Influencers tied to the industry, like CEOs, scientists, and investors, often present cultivated meat as a forward-thinking solution to climate change and animal welfare. For example, in December 2020, Josh Tetrick, CEO of Eat Just, highlighted the world's first commercial sale of cultivated chicken in Singapore, calling it one of the "most significant milestones in the food industry" [5]. On the other hand, influencers from the farming sector frequently portray it as a danger to traditional livelihoods [5].

Even the words influencers choose reflect their stance. Supporters of cultivated meat use terms like "cultivated" or "clean", which suggest progress and safety. Critics, however, lean on language like "lab-grown", "synthetic", or "artificial", evoking unease and unnaturalness [1][3][5]. Media coverage mirrors this divide, with 64% of articles promoting positive narratives - a trend driven by the industry's strong presence in news sourcing [5].

Viral Trends and Hashtags

Social media trends and hashtags amplify these narratives, giving them even more reach. Hashtags such as #cleanmeat, #culturedmeat, and #cellbasedmeat dominate discussions on X, often focusing on themes like sustainability, innovation, and cleanliness [1].

In June 2024, UPSIDE Foods launched a viral "Freedom of Food" campaign on Instagram and LinkedIn, promoting a public tasting event in Miami. The campaign framed cultivated meat as a symbol of personal choice, challenging restrictive policies. It sparked widespread engagement, with conversations centred on free-market principles and consumer autonomy [7].

"Florida and Alabama criminalised cultivated meat. These laws do not protect consumers. It is 'food policing' to protect entrenched interests." - UPSIDE Foods [7]

However, opponents have also used social media to stigmatise cultivated meat, employing terms like "Frankenstein products" and "fake meat" to associate it with artificiality and potential safety risks [6][7]. These debates have turned cultivated meat into a flashpoint in broader "culture wars", where it's framed as either a step forward for the planet or a threat to traditional farming and personal freedoms [6].

The Spread of Misinformation

While influencers drive much of the conversation, misinformation campaigns further complicate public perceptions. False claims about cultivated meat often spread faster than factual information, with just 50 accounts responsible for half of all engagement with misleading posts [6].

One particularly damaging claim suggested that cultivated meat produces up to 25 times more CO₂ than conventional beef. In May 2023, Donald Trump Jr. shared this claim with his 10 million followers, citing a non-peer-reviewed study. This single post triggered a wave of negative narratives, even influencing political discussions. Italian Senator Giorgio Maria Bergesio later referenced the "25 times" figure during parliamentary debates [6].

"Lab-Grown Meat Produces Up To 25 Times More CO₂, Study Reveals. We must ban fake meat to save the planet!!!" - Donald Trump Jr. [6]

Health-related fears add another layer of misinformation. Some narratives falsely link cultivated meat to cancer, arguing that its production process, which involves rapid cell division, equates to consuming "cancer cells" [6]. Conspiracy theories also frame cultivated meat as part of a broader agenda for "absolute control" by global elites or a "corporate-government alliance" aimed at dismantling traditional farming and personal freedoms [6]. These ideas have led to tangible outcomes, such as state-level bans in Florida, Alabama, and Italy, often justified as protecting "national identity" against foreign food technology [6].

Even the terminology used in these discussions has a significant impact. Words like "lab-grown" tend to make consumers feel the product is less safe, while "cultivated" is seen as more neutral - though it’s less familiar to the general public [3]. These linguistic choices play a crucial role in shaping trust and willingness to try cultivated meat.

Twitter Analysis Findings

Researchers have delved into social media data to uncover what drives discussions about cultivated meat. In 2022, an analysis of 36,356 tweets identified five main themes dominating the conversation: clean and sustainable products, comparisons with plant-based proteins, environmental benefits, alternative protein status, and regulatory challenges [8].

Many posts highlight cultivated meat's reduced energy, land, and water requirements. These environmental advantages resonate particularly with younger, highly educated individuals in developed nations, who often see cultivated meat as part of the "future of food."

In a 2016 Twitter poll involving 14,614 participants, the question was posed: "If cultured meat is molecularly identical to beef, pork, etc., and tastes the same, will you switch to eating it?" The response was striking - 83.4% said yes [8]. This finding suggests that straightforward, factual information shared on social media can significantly increase openness to cultivated meat. These insights provide a foundation for exploring how the tone and framing of messages further shape consumer attitudes.

How Message Tone Affects Perception

The way cultivated meat is discussed on social media plays a critical role in shaping public opinion. One study, which examined 23,020 tweets and 38,531 comments, found that posts combining ethical, sensory, and safety-related information were the most effective in persuading audiences [2]. Consumer attitudes shifted noticeably when these aspects were addressed together.

This sensitivity to messaging highlights the importance of terminology. Words like "clean", "future", and "sustainable" are often used to evoke positive values, while terms such as "lab-grown" or "synthetic" tend to provoke scepticism and feelings of artificiality [8][3].

The emotional response to cultivated meat is particularly influenced by how posts frame the information. Transparent explanations of the production process, paired with a focus on animal welfare, tend to resonate deeply, not just shaping what people think but also how they feel about the concept. Younger audiences, in particular, are more responsive to these nuanced approaches, as explored below.

Young People's Views

Younger generations are emerging as the most receptive demographic when it comes to cultivated meat. Research from the Food Standards Agency in 2025 highlights age as a key factor, with younger individuals showing more positive attitudes and greater confidence in regulatory oversight [3]. While overall willingness to try cultivated meat in the UK remains modest at 16%–41%, younger people are far more open to the idea [3].

"Whilst most people are willing to consume cultured meat, there is greater interest amongst the younger generation, highly educated people, and people from developed countries." - Lucie Pilaˇrová et al., Czech University of Life Sciences Prague [8]

Younger users also show higher levels of trust in the regulatory systems governing new food technologies, which shapes how they engage online [3]. They tend to prefer terms like "cultivated" or "cell-based", which are seen as more transparent and less artificial than "lab-grown" [8]. For this group, ethical considerations and sensory authenticity are key, and they expect these elements to be addressed if they are to continue supporting the concept [7].

Strategies for Better Communication

Fighting Misinformation

Misinformation about cultivated meat is widespread. Between June 2022 and July 2023, around 948,000 social media discussions included false or misleading claims about meat and dairy alternatives [9]. Shockingly, just 50 accounts were responsible for half of the engagement on these misleading posts, showing how a small number of sources can heavily influence public perception [6].

To counter this, rapid response systems are essential. These systems can monitor early-stage research and quickly issue peer-reviewed rebuttals to misinformation [9]. Collaborating with independent scientists is another key step. By relying on credible, peer-reviewed input rather than solely on industry voices, it’s possible to build a stronger, science-backed narrative [4]. Alongside debunking myths, clear and accessible educational campaigns are vital for reshaping public understanding.

Education and Advocacy Efforts

Education efforts should go beyond simply correcting falsehoods. Addressing public concerns with transparency and relatable explanations is equally important. Analogies can be a powerful tool here. For example, comparing cultivation facilities to breweries helps people grasp the concept of how cultivated meat is produced [10]. It’s also important to emphasise that cultivated meat is real meat, grown from animal cells, rather than a plant-based product. This distinction helps clarify misconceptions about what cultivated meat truly is [10].

One organisation leading the way is The Cultivarian Society (https://cultivarian.food). Through science-focused education and thoughtful public engagement, they provide detailed insights into cultivated meat as a potential solution to ethical, environmental, and societal challenges. Their work helps foster informed discussions about the future of food production.

Effective communication also means listening to those who feel threatened by these changes. For instance, farmers may have legitimate concerns about how cultivated meat could impact rural livelihoods. Instead of dismissing these fears, it’s crucial to engage with the farming sector and explore how traditional agriculture can adapt and find a place within the evolving supply chain [5]. These combined efforts help create a more trusted, science-driven dialogue around cultivated meat.

Conclusion

Bringing together earlier insights, social media has become a pivotal space where debates about cultivated meat play out. Platforms like X (formerly Twitter) have turned into battlegrounds where ethical discussions, scientific evidence, and waves of misinformation all compete to shape public opinion on this emerging food technology [2]. As noted, misinformation poses a persistent challenge, with a small number of accounts generating outsized engagement on misleading narratives [6].

Addressing these challenges requires a united effort from scientists, regulators, advocacy groups, and social media platforms. Clear and consistent communication is critical to counter misinformation campaigns that risk undermining public support for sustainable food solutions [6]. Jennie King from the Institute for Strategic Dialogue highlights this broader issue:

"We have reached a very interesting juncture where the end goals or the objectives of information warfare and information operations around climate are no longer exclusively about the process of decarbonisation... these activities are weakening the public mandate for action" [6].

Building trust in cultivated meat will hinge on transparent regulatory measures, meaningful dialogue with stakeholders - including traditional farmers - and the use of clear, accessible language to help people better understand what cultivated meat actually is [3]. In this effort, organisations like The Cultivarian Society (https://cultivarian.food) are essential, offering science-based education and fostering informed conversations about cultivated meat’s potential to address ethical and environmental concerns.

Although 85% of UK consumers report concerns about safety and the "unnaturalness" of cultivated meat, 59% also acknowledge its promise for improving animal welfare and reducing environmental impact [3]. Thoughtful education and outreach have the power to shift these perceptions. The pressing question remains: can advocates reach the public with accurate information before misinformation takes hold - and will social media platforms step up to manage the discussions unfolding on their platforms?

FAQs

Social media holds a powerful position in tackling misinformation about cultivated meat. By leveraging trusted voices - like influencers and experts - it can amplify accurate, reliable information. These platforms have the potential to spark open and informed discussions, helping to challenge and counteract misleading narratives.

They can also play a role in promoting transparency. Educational content that highlights the advantages of cultivated meat - such as its potential to lessen environmental impact and improve animal welfare - can reach a wide audience. With engaging campaigns and credible sources, social media can build trust and encourage consumers to make more informed choices.

Why are younger people more open to cultivated meat than older generations?

Younger generations, especially Gen Z, are showing greater acceptance of cultivated meat, largely due to the influence of social media. Platforms like Instagram and TikTok play a significant role in introducing them to new food trends, cutting-edge technologies, and ideas around sustainable eating. This constant exposure makes them more open to the idea of meat produced without the need for animal slaughter.

On top of that, Gen Z tends to prioritise ethical and environmental concerns. The concept of cultivated meat resonates with their desire to reduce animal suffering and address climate change. Social media further amplifies these values, shaping a favourable view of this emerging food technology.

How do influencers impact public opinion on cultivated meat?

Influencers hold a significant sway over how people view cultivated meat. Through their social media platforms, they share thoughts, personal experiences, and knowledge that can shape the broader conversation around this cutting-edge food technology. Their content often shines a spotlight on the ethical, environmental, and scientific dimensions of cultivated meat, helping to make these topics more approachable and engaging for their audiences.

That said, influencers can also spread misinformation - sometimes unknowingly - which adds a layer of complexity to their impact on public opinion. As cultivated meat continues to attract interest, their voices will remain central in shaping how the public perceives this new approach to creating sustainable food options.