Very interesting and enlightening article on the relationship with plant-based alt-proteins.
I agree with you on the substance but, on the specific point of the acceptance criterion for cultured meat, I have a few points to raise. I believe that cellular meat continues to be a particularly interesting and promising answer, and that our ideas of its popularity and acceptance take on too much importance when we look at how a new market behaves historically.
I should point out that I have no particular knowledge of economics, so I’m particularly open to criticism on the second part of my analysis.
On the figures themselves, first of all
The figures you used, close to 10-20% adoption, are not entirely representative of the whole picture. Current polls in France and Europe give figures on which it’s difficult to build solid conclusions, so different are they. In France, one of the countries most hostile to this innovation, the figures range from 11% to 44%. In the rest of Europe, we find polls reaching 40-60% here and here, and even higher figures among younger people.
Besides that, because of its culinary traditions rooted in pastoral life and easy access to meat, Europe might not even be a good indicator for other markets. China, one of the world’s leading meat producers and consumers, is investing in farmed meat, and its population, which accepts what the government presents as good, safe and better for the environment, seems to welcome it.
This already demonstrates that farmed meat is not rejected by the population as a whole, although it is true that conservative political circles in the West often see it as a threat. What’s more, a majority of young people in all countries seem to be in favour of this development. We can imagine this trend continuing if we assume that it’s novelty that frightens people and that it frightens them all the more the older they are. In this hypothesis, time plays in favour of cultured meat, even if it’s more a question of the long term.
On what I consider to be a blind spot in some analyses, i.e. the power of advertising and PR
Investment has already begun, and given the market shares at stake, it’s more likely that the race will continue, bringing with it advertising and PR campaigns aimed at creating a new market through the standardization of cultured meat.
Perhaps the most important point about opinion and polls, over and above the nuance about precise figures made just above, is that they are only a snapshot in time. You only have to look at the history of communication (advertising and public relations) to see how public opinion can change radically in a short space of time on a defined and delimited subject, especially when the subject is not really well established. The case of the American breakfast, with mandatory bacon and eggs, is a striking example of how a practice can emerge from ‘nothing’ apart from communication and advertising, rapidly becoming not only a habit but also a symbol.
In the case of cellular meat, it would certainly be a different trick, particularly as it involves a set of habits and imaginations rather than a specific thing, but I believe that the prospects for rapid evolution continue to exist in the same way. In my opinion, therefore, we must not underestimate the power of the communication when undertaken by groups (individual companies or interest groups, particularly valid here), which could radically change the vision and acceptance of cultured meat in the space of a few years.
Given the commitment of major agribusiness groups and start-ups backed by investment funds, the likely outcome seem to be at the very least a support for cultivated meat. Even groups with a presence in livestock farming and the meat trade (Cargill, Tyson, JBS) or the agro-industry in general (Nestlé) are now involved with millions invested, which makes their commitment a strong signal towards, if not a complete transition, at least a massive diversification which we may assume is inevitable
Very interesting and enlightening article on the relationship with plant-based alt-proteins.
I agree with you on the substance but, on the specific point of the acceptance criterion for cultured meat, I have a few points to raise. I believe that cellular meat continues to be a particularly interesting and promising answer, and that our ideas of its popularity and acceptance take on too much importance when we look at how a new market behaves historically.
I should point out that I have no particular knowledge of economics, so I’m particularly open to criticism on the second part of my analysis.
On the figures themselves, first of all
The figures you used, close to 10-20% adoption, are not entirely representative of the whole picture. Current polls in France and Europe give figures on which it’s difficult to build solid conclusions, so different are they. In France, one of the countries most hostile to this innovation, the figures range from 11% to 44%. In the rest of Europe, we find polls reaching 40-60% here and here, and even higher figures among younger people.
Besides that, because of its culinary traditions rooted in pastoral life and easy access to meat, Europe might not even be a good indicator for other markets. China, one of the world’s leading meat producers and consumers, is investing in farmed meat, and its population, which accepts what the government presents as good, safe and better for the environment, seems to welcome it.
This already demonstrates that farmed meat is not rejected by the population as a whole, although it is true that conservative political circles in the West often see it as a threat. What’s more, a majority of young people in all countries seem to be in favour of this development. We can imagine this trend continuing if we assume that it’s novelty that frightens people and that it frightens them all the more the older they are. In this hypothesis, time plays in favour of cultured meat, even if it’s more a question of the long term.
On what I consider to be a blind spot in some analyses, i.e. the power of advertising and PR
Investment has already begun, and given the market shares at stake, it’s more likely that the race will continue, bringing with it advertising and PR campaigns aimed at creating a new market through the standardization of cultured meat.
Perhaps the most important point about opinion and polls, over and above the nuance about precise figures made just above, is that they are only a snapshot in time. You only have to look at the history of communication (advertising and public relations) to see how public opinion can change radically in a short space of time on a defined and delimited subject, especially when the subject is not really well established. The case of the American breakfast, with mandatory bacon and eggs, is a striking example of how a practice can emerge from ‘nothing’ apart from communication and advertising, rapidly becoming not only a habit but also a symbol.
In the case of cellular meat, it would certainly be a different trick, particularly as it involves a set of habits and imaginations rather than a specific thing, but I believe that the prospects for rapid evolution continue to exist in the same way. In my opinion, therefore, we must not underestimate the power of the communication when undertaken by groups (individual companies or interest groups, particularly valid here), which could radically change the vision and acceptance of cultured meat in the space of a few years.
Given the commitment of major agribusiness groups and start-ups backed by investment funds, the likely outcome seem to be at the very least a support for cultivated meat. Even groups with a presence in livestock farming and the meat trade (Cargill, Tyson, JBS) or the agro-industry in general (Nestlé) are now involved with millions invested, which makes their commitment a strong signal towards, if not a complete transition, at least a massive diversification which we may assume is inevitable