New research by the University of Sydney and Curtin University has found that, despite having a great concern for the environment and animal welfare, 72 percent of Generation Z are not ready to accept cultured meat – defined in the survey as a lab-grown meat alternative produced by in-vitro cell cultures of animal cells, instead of from slaughtered animals.

However, despite their lack of enthusiasm for the new meat alternative, 41 percent noted that it could be a viable nutritional source because of the need to transition to more sustainable food options and improve animal welfare.

“Our research has found that Generation Z – those aged between 18 and 25 – are concerned about the environment and animal welfare, yet most are not ready to accept cultured meat and view it with disgust,” said the study’s lead researcher, Dr Diana Bogueva from the University of Sydney’s School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering and the Centre for Advanced Food Enginomics. 

Although 59 percent of the 227 randomly selected, Australian-based participants said they were concerned about the environmental impact of traditional livestock farming specifically, many were not clear on what those impacts were nor did they understand the associated resource depletion.

“In-vitro meat and other alternatives are important as they can help to reduce greenhouse emissions and lead to better animal welfare conditions,” said Dr Bogueva. “However, if cultured meat is to replac livestock-based proteins, it will have to emotionally and intellectually appeal to the Gen Z consumers.

“It may be through its physical appearance, but what seems to be more important is transparency around its environmental and other benefits.”

Societal concerns were also prevalent throughout the study, with a large number of respondents worried that eating cultured meat would be in conflict with perceptions of gender and national identity.

“Gen Z value Australia’s reputation as a supplier of quality livestock and meat, and many view traditional meat eating as being closely tied to concepts of masculinity and Australian cultural identity,” said Dr Bogueva.

Others were concerned about animal welfare, wheras some viewed cultured meat as a ‘conspiracy’ and were determined not to be convinced to consume it. Several participants were also unsure whether cultured meat was an environmentally sustainable option.

“Generation Z are also unsure whether cultured meat is actually more environmentally sustainable, described by several respondents as potentially ‘resource consuming’ and not being ‘environmentally friendly’,” said Dr Bogueva.

“The respondents were effectively divided into two groups: the ‘against’ described cultured meat as ‘another thing our generation has to worry about’ and questioned the motivations of those developing it, while supporters described it as ‘money invested for a good cause’ and ‘a smart move’ by people who are ‘advanced thinkers’.

“This Generation has vast information at its fingertips but is still concerned that they will be left with the legacy of exploitative capitalism that benefits only a few at the expense of many. They have witnessed such behaviour resulting in climate change and are now afraid that a similar scenario may develop in relation to food, particularly as investors are pursuing broader adoption of cultured meat.”

Other findings included:

17 percent of respondents rejected all alternatives, including cultured meat, seeing it as chemically produced and heavily processed

11 percent rejected all alternatives in favour of increased consumption of fruit and vegetables, saying they will stick with a vegetarian diet

35 percent rejected cultured meat and edible insects but accepted plant-based alternatives because they ‘sounded more natural’ and are ‘normal’

28 percent believed cultured meat was acceptable or possibly acceptable if the technology could be mastered

Nine percent accepted edible insects but rejected cultured meat.