1. Introduction

Lab-cultivated meat (LCM) is a novel and continually evolving product, first unveiled in 2013 by Maastricht University and rapidly progressing in its production capacity ever since (Jiaqi et al 2023). As of 2023, 174 LCM companies were publicly declared on the global stage (Good Food Institute 2023). However, this product is not without critique or controversy, and individual choice as well as the future viability of the industry currently is and will continue to be shaped by the perceptions of LCM. What cultural factors influence these perceptions, and how are individual perceptions of acceptance and disgust cultivated by unique social identities and cultural values? In this research paper, the acculturation process of this product will be explored tri-dimensionally. This paper will posit that a wide array of factors including socioeconomic status, existing knowledge and cultural values, and religious beliefs influence acceptance of lab-cultivated meat– and these factors will continue to shape the industry as the world knows it.

Answering this research question is important for a few distinct reasons. For one, lab-cultivated meat is a protein product with a few important niches that might make it ethically and environmentally superior to other products, at least in a vacuum. LCM has been cited as potentially being a lifesaver for land conservation in the face of climate change, given that a scaled expansion of livestock farming to projected population growth is predicted to take up near-30% of arable land (Jiaqi et al 2023). Additionally, it’s important to note that being able to replicate meat products without having to physically harm any animals also seems to be a promising advantage. Though some of these benefits are clear, they’re meaningless if LCM isn’t accepted by the general public. Understanding where the line is drawn via assessing cultural factors is needed to see if this industry is a worthy pursuit in this current moment. Additionally, LCM has seen mixed reception on the world stage, and cultural factors might offer significant explanatory power into the reasons why countries like Singapore and Israel have been so quick to adopt and implement LCM. Meanwhile, countries such as Italy have banned the product, and despite its legality in the US (admittedly in limited capacity, as only cultivated chicken is FDA-approved), state-to-state labeling politics remain mixed (Fitzgerald 2023). For example, some states such as Nebraska have imposed strict labels on the product, requiring that it cannot technically be labeled “meat” on its packaging (Fitzgerald 2023). Exploring these cultural features will help to explain why these cross-national and even intra-national differences exist. Though this paper does not express an opinion as to whether or not LCM is worth accepting or a beneficial pursuit, the primacy of cultural factors in determining acceptance and rejection of this product cannot be overlooked. Before assessing the product’s acculturation, though, it’s important to take a look at its development and gain an understanding of where the industry stands today.

4. Existing Knowledge, Cultural Values, and Lab-Cultivated Meat

As posited by the previously included model, existing knowledge and cultural values were also cited to have potential influence on the acculturation process of lab-cultivated meat. Though perhaps more abstract to empirically analyze, theories surrounding food groupings and connotations as well as encompassing the manifestations of disgust and acceptance of foods can provide insight into how LCM products might be viewed in differing cultural contexts. Lab-cultivated meat serves as somewhat of a unique product entering cultural conversations, given its novelty and a common notion of unnaturalness or artificialness that tends to be connotated with its sterile environment of cultivation. According to Alejandro Colás, “Elements… that fall outside [boundaries]... may become taboo, forbidden, or prohibited… definitively ‘other’” (Colás 2018, p. 59). In most communities that consume meat, conventional knowledge around the idea of where meat comes from is universally associated with the killing of an animal. Though ideas about which parts of animals are eaten or the hunting process of course differ, this throughline remains. Not surprisingly, lab-cultivated meat defies this traditional relationship. For individuals whose cultures strongly emphasize the purity of this meat procuring process, then, it would be easy to logically trace that LCM would almost definitely fall into this category of “other” or “taboo,” not in isolation from the aforementioned unnaturalness often thrust upon the product. 

In addition, ideas surrounding disgust or distaste towards a food item are far from innate or natural in any manner– as elicited in class, notions of disgust are learned (Looy et al 2013, p. 136). Thus, ideas surrounding disgust have much to do with cultural norms and existing knowledge– the aforementioned “other” would be more likely to be viewed with disgust by one unaccustomed to consuming a certain product. How this concept applies to the idea of LCM can be elucidated through the concept of the “law of sympathetic magic,” where anything deemed as coming into contact with something seen as disgusting or nauseating is thus given that same characterization (Looy et al 2013, p. 136). In the context of LCM, cultural norms surrounding the idea of the sterile, unfeeling laboratory setting and the perceived unnaturalness of the cultivation process bleed over into perceptions of the product– the product is perceived as unnatural and against the laws of nature because the environment in which it was constructed is a technological, human-made processing endeavor rather than something naturally occurring in the environment. Though perceptions of laboratory settings and of whether or not they should be used for food processing are of course dynamic between cultures, the connotations of unnaturalness that bleed over into the perception of the product cannot be ignored as integral to understanding the acculturation process. 

As can be seen in Figure 2, Muslim individuals tended to disfavor LCM compared to conventional forms of meat. Particularly relevant in explaining this is the concept of halal, an Islamic law of ritual purity that discourages consumption of “blood, carrion, and swine” as well as any animal product not slaughtered ritually (Colás 2018, p. 70). Though the concept of halal does not make Muslim individuals a monolith– as is observable, 30.1% of the surveyed population indicate that they do still consume conventional pork– its principles surrounding purity and the ritual process of slaughtering do largely explain these lower approval levels across the board (Bryant et al 2019). 

Diverging from the across-the-board lower favorability of LCM in Muslim populations, all meat products– albeit beef and poultry almost negligibly so– were viewed more favorably in their lab-cultivated form by Hindu individuals (Bryant et al 2019). It’s speculated that this comparative favorability of lab-cultivated meat products has mostly to do with ahimsā, the principle of nonviolence (Bryant et al 2019). Though many individuals choose to engage with this principle by choosing a vegetarian diet, it seems reasonable to conclude that some individuals might view the expansion of LCM products as a way to prevent harming animals, which might in part explain the slight uptick in favorability.

The contrasting examples of LCM perceptions between Islam and Hinduism demonstrate that different religious principles and values that come from religious practice can greatly influence individual, community, and national perceptions of lab-cultivated meat products. However, it is worth noting that questions of LCM acceptance– especially in the realms of certain religious dietary adherences such as kosher or halal– are extremely nuanced, and answers may very well vary from person to person depending on some of the other factors discussed. Questions of whether or not these products fit into these constraints are often questions of semantics and hyperspecificity, and asking them often means deeper philosophical questions about the nature of LCM must be invoked in order for individuals to make their own decisions regarding the product. Still, it is clear that religious identity has clear influences on perceptions of lab-cultivated meat.