New Research Examines How Naming Shapes Consumer Acceptance of Cultivated Meat

A new study from the Tufts University Center for Cellular Agriculture (TUCCA), recently published in Food Quality & Preference, explores how terminology influences consumer perceptions of cultivated meat products in the United States and Germany.

The research finds that naming plays a critical role in shaping both consumers’ acceptance and their willingness to pay. Terms such as “cultivated,” “cultured,” and “cellular” consistently outperform “lab-grown,” which tends to reduce consumer appeal and market share.

The study also shows that responses to naming are not uniform. Consumer characteristics—particularly levels of food neophobia (reluctance to try new foods) and trust—significantly impact these effects.

Notably, the findings replicate across both U.S. and German samples despite cultural differences, suggesting that these responses reflect broader cognitive mechanisms rather than country-specific attitudes.

The paper’s first author, Katherine Fuller—now on the faculty at Oregon State University—completed most of the research while serving as a postdoctoral scholar at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, where she continues to hold an adjunct appointment. The study’s senior author is Sean Cash, Chair of the Division of Agriculture, Food and Environment at the Friedman School. Co-authors include Adjunct Assistant Professor Shijun Gao, alumna Caroline Andrews, as well as collaborators from TUCCA and partner institutions in Germany.

The Friedman School News Team spoke with lead author Katherine Fuller about how naming shapes consumer perceptions, influences industry practices, and—for those of us who may not know— what the term “food neophobia” actually means.

Three Questions: Katherine Fuller

What are your thoughts on the implications of these findings?

Our findings suggest that the words used to describe cell-cultivated meat can meaningfully influence consumer valuation. Naming is often one of the first pieces of information consumers find, so terminology can shape initial perceptions before people have direct experience with the product. At the same time, we found that naming does not affect everyone equally. Consumers who are more open to trying new food technologies and who have greater trust in food system institutions tend to be more responsive to naming differences than those who are more skeptical.

How does this type of consumer-choice-related research influence industry trends or naming standards?

Consumer behavior research often informs how companies and regulators communicate about new products. For example, terms such as "plant-based milk" versus "almond beverage" can bring up different consumer reactions, even when they refer to similar underlying products. Research like ours helps stakeholders understand how terminology shapes perceptions and valuation and can inform discussions about labeling standards and consumer education.

Can you define “neophobia” in layman’s terms?

Food neophobia is the tendency to be cautious about trying unfamiliar foods. Essentially, the "I'll wait and see before I try that." In our study, people with higher food neophobia were less willing to choose cell-cultivated meat products regardless of how they were named, suggesting that concerns about the product itself may outweigh the influence of terminology. 

This work was supported by a grant from the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) Sustainable Agricultural Systems program, grant no.2021-699012-35978 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.