Introduction

Maintaining quality standards is crucial for the success of every business in the food industry. However, the concept of “food quality,” and the characteristics and features of foods that satisfy the needs of consumers, continue to evolve with the introduction of new food production systems such as cell-based food production. Quality may be divided into two categories1. Intrinsic quality includes food safety, sensory attributes (e.g., taste, texture, color), and nutritional, technological (e.g., cooking yield), culinary, and convenience properties. Extrinsic quality refers to price, and the ethical, cultural, and environmental aspects of food origin, production, and processing, and, more generally, how the consumer perceives the product on offer. In this article, as summarized in Fig. 1, the aim is to identify research gaps from the perspective of cell-based food producers that must be filled to better understand how these quality standards and expectations can be met with respect to cell-based food production, particularly in the economic and social sciences.

Fig. 1: Research gaps that need to be filled to better meet the expectations of cell-based food production.
Fig. 1: Research gaps that need to be filled to better meet the expectations of cell-based food production.
Full size image

The research gaps in cell-based food production are summarized in this Figure, in particular: technical (scalability, cost-effective and animal-free culture media), regulatory (approval process, nomenclature), social (consumer acceptance, ethics, religion) and sustainability (resource use, environmental impact) challenges. These barriers highlight the key areas where progress is needed for the industry to grow. Image generated using a function of ChatGPT 4.0, an Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based software, with all the texts provided by the authors with the prompt “a meat-on-a-plate image in the center”.

Food safety assurance first

Food safety is the first thing consumers may question about the intrinsic qualities of cell-based food.

A rigorous hazard identification process resulted in publication of comprehensive tables of potential food safety hazards in the four stages of cell-based food production: cell sourcing, cell production, harvesting and food processing2. The global experts who authored the report concluded that most of the hazards identified are like those found in conventionally produced foods, including microbiological, physical, and chemical contaminants, additives, and residues. Although some of the materials, inputs, and equipment used for cell-based food production may be new, the approaches to food safety assessment and risk mitigation necessary to produce safe cell-based foods are very similar to those used for conventionally produced food.

Remaining technical challenges

Despite the rapid development of cell-based food technology in recent years, many technical challenges still stand in the way of large-scale production and commercialization of this new product3. First, it is necessary to lay the groundwork for cell-based food production by obtaining superior seed cells and maintaining stable cell functions. The use of large bioreactors will also be necessary to produce cells at scale, likely introducing new challenges not encountered when producing cells using smaller bioreactors. Three-dimensional culture technologies such as scaffold culture or 3D printing are also used to build the three-dimensional structure of cell-based food. Although such products have been developed at the research level or in the pilot facilities, the sustainable commercial procurement of growth factor alternatives, stable and affordable serum-free media3, and efficient methods to recycle culture media4 has been a challenge to reduce the large-scale production costs and to allay potential consumer concerns about animal welfare. In addition to its nutritional value, the sensory qualities (taste and texture) of cell-based food will likely need to be improved to meet consumer expectations5. These intrinsic qualities must obviously be combined with extrinsic qualities (ethical, cultural, and environmental issues) if they are to be accepted by consumers.

However, research into cell-based food faces many other challenges. Data collection is tricky due to confidentially of research and reliance on theoretical models or small-scale lab experiments that don’t reflect industrial production. Varied methods yield inconsistent results, complicating comparisons. Industry-funded studies risk optimism bias and underestimate costs. Standardized methods and greater transparency are needed6.

Need for scaling-up to validate the sustainability claims

One of the main selling points of cell-based food production is the claim that it is more sustainable than conventional animal production systems. However, scaling up production remains critical to validate these sustainability claims and make cell-based foods competitive in the market. To achieve this, cell-based foods must capitalize on certain market trends, such as growing consumer demand for sustainable and ethical foods. Strategic investments are necessary to increase production and reduce costs through advances in bioprocessing, automation, and economies of scale. These developments will not only address current challenges but this will also position cell-based foods as viable alternatives to conventional meat products.

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) reviewed many of the relevant environmental issues associated with cell-based food7. They concluded that while assessing their lifecycle impacts are difficult, there is a “strong potential for reduced environmental impacts compared to many conventional animal products.” They present a lower risk of zoonosis and antimicrobial resistance, and do not share the animal welfare problems associated with conventional animal agriculture. In addition, cell-based food production will consume equivalent quantities of water as conventional meat, and require less land, although it would be necessary to quantify the land used by the upstream industry for the production of the equipment (bioreactors, etc.) and the various components of the culture medium8.

The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of cell-based food production is also presented to be much lower than those associated with the conventional production of beef. Yet, studies examining GHG emissions of cell-based food show great variability, attributable to the methodologies used, choice of system boundaries, different energy sources and combinations, data, and hypothetical system processes7. Moreover, because cell-based food production can be energy intensive, its full potential to reduce emissions is contingent on the use of low-carbon energy sources. In-depth research is therefore essential to fully understand the long-term environmental impact of cell-based food production.

However, substantial questions remain about the sustainability benefits of cell-based food mainly due to the fact that it has not been produced in a large scale, thus final product prices remain high. Unless customers can afford, and prefer them compared to traditional products, cell-based meat products are likely to simply expand the availability of desired proteins, without proving the full potential of the claimed sustainability benefits. Given the increasing demand for meat, poultry, and seafood, cell-based products won’t just fail to “prove the full potential of the claimed sustainability benefits.” Unless they replace animal products produced through conventional means, the environmental consequences of producing cell-based proteins will be added to those of conventional agriculture.

Mixed consumer perception around the world

Consumer willingness to purchase cell-based food will depend on awareness, perceptions of taste, color, odor, and texture, culinary and health considerations, ethical concerns, and price relative to conventional meat9. Perceptions will also likely vary depending on the type of cell-based meat produced (beef, poultry, seafood), and on the strategies chosen by the start-ups to introduce their products to the market (e.g., beginning with entry-level products such as minced meat or nuggets or sausages, or niche products for more affluent consumers)10.

Currently, consumer experience with cell-based food is minimal. Singapore is the only country where cell-based products have been commercially available, albeit on a limited basis, due to high production costs. So, it is unclear how many consumers have had any experience with the cell-based chicken nuggets approved for sale there. Singaporean authorities have indicated that reactions to cell-based food vary considerably from one population group to another, highlighting the complexity of consumer acceptance11.

Outside of Singapore, consumers have had no exposure to commercially available cell-based food, so consumer acceptance studies are necessarily conducted using hypothetical products. Often, these are portrayed as “whole muscle” cuts of meat (e.g., steaks or chicken breasts). Yet, such products are currently aspirational. Those now being produced more closely mimic “textured” or “ground” meat or poultry. For example, in Singapore, the cultivated chicken nuggets available to consumers consist of textured cell-cultured chicken proteins mixed with vegetable proteins and are coated with breadcrumbs.

The results of existing willingness-to-pay studies vary depending on their methods of assessment. There are significant country effects, though many survey populations are not representative of the country being studied12,13. Moreover, as of April 2025, cell-based foods are not yet sold in most countries, so participants are necessarily asked how much they would pay for a product that they have never encountered. Yet, in several studies, cell-based meat has been shown to be perceived by some as an affordable alternative to conventional meat, which may become a luxury product. This perceived affordability may explain the relatively high acceptance of cell-based food in some low- and middle-income countries, such as those in Africa13. Many more studies of consumer perceptions and willingness to purchase will be required after products are introduced to markets at scale, and consumers have had the opportunity to experience them. Generally speaking, relevant theoretical frameworks from fields like psychology, behavioral science, or sociology may help to understand these dynamics better.

Intentions, regulations, and religions

As of April 2025, regulatory approval of cell-based food products has been granted in 3 countries: Singapore, the United States of America and Israel. Other regions are also developing regulatory frameworks. The Netherlands is the first country within the European Union (EU) to pass legislation allowing pre-approval tasting of cell-based meat, even before receiving EU novel food approval. The French startup Gourmey and the Dutch company Mosa Meat are the first cell-based food companies that have applied for pre-market authorization in the EU (for human consumption). Yet, a dozen European countries and some American states have already expressed a desire to ban or to regulate cell-based food.

Governments have many policy options to advance novel food alternatives, including support for (open access) research and commercialization and just transition policies. However, like other new technologies, the production of cell-based foods raises practical, ethical, philosophical, and religious questions14. Religious authorities are still debating whether cell-based food products are Kosher (consumable under Jewish dietary laws) or Halal (consumable under Islamic dietary laws). At this stage, what emerges is that cell-based food could be considered Kosher and Halal if (i) the cultured stem cells are derived from an authorized animal (e.g. not swine/pork) and slaughtered according to religious standards, and (ii) the culture medium used does not contain substances considered impure in these religions (blood, pork, alcohol, etc.)2,14. Another question with both regulatory and cultural considerations is whether cell-based food products should be considered muscle or meat. Indeed, if the final product is to be sold as “meat,” cell-based foods must meet a number of biological, regulatory, and cultural requirements. However, meat results from the biochemical changes to muscles after cell death, and it is unclear whether cultured muscle cells will undergo equivalent biochemical processes after harvest, yielding equivalent sensory and nutritional qualities5.

Establishing clear nomenclature for cell-based food

Clear and consistent food labeling is essential for consumers to make purchasing decisions. A food name must therefore be “truthful and not misleading,” and not easily confused with other products. Manufacturers of cell-based foods aspire to create products with the same taste, texture, nutritional, and culinary attributes as their conventional counterparts, but without the downsides associated with traditional agri/aquaculture. Yet, few consumers are aware of the concept of producing cell-based foods, and fewer still have seen or tasted them. To provide clarity, the name of these products should convey their method of production. To signal potential allergenicity, the name should include the species from which the cells were derived. The name should also not disparage either the new products or the conventional products to which they will logically be compared15. Currently, there is no internationally agreed term to indicate cell-based food2, and the term must be culturally and linguistically appropriate and meet the regulatory and marketing needs in each country where it is used. In addition, FAO & WHO2 suggested considering the impact of terms referring to cell-based foods in local languages and cultures. To accomplish this, studies of appropriate nomenclature are needed around the world. In addition, to establishing the proper nomenclature for foods made entirely from cultured animal cells appropriate nomenclature must also be determined for products made from mixtures of cell-cultured, plant-based, and other ingredients.

Strong need for a cross-cultural social science studies

The scientific basis for food safety assurance currently exists2. But the extent to which cell-based meat, poultry, and seafood products will ultimately be adopted or preferred by consumers will likely depend on their perceived intrinsic and extrinsic qualities, particularly as compared to conventional products and other alternatives. Yet, the data necessary to address other essential topics critical to satisfying consumer expectations of food quality is lacking and the quality and potential biases of the existing research varies. Existing studies of consumer perceptions vary significantly in their goals, funding sources, objectivity, and methodological rigor. Many studies outside the peer-reviewed literature were funded or conducted by companies involved in making cell-based products or by other advocates hoping to increase investments in the sector. Within the peer-reviewed literature, inconsistencies in the choice and measurement of key demographics and psychographics, including relevant beliefs, attitudes, preferences, values, intentions, and behaviors make it difficult to draw valid and reliable conclusions across studies. Cross-cultural differences compound these difficulties when attempting to compare studies conducted across markets.

Appropriately rigorous studies are needed to better understand consumer perceptions of cell-based meat in different regions and cultures, individual purchase decision criteria, transparency in labeling and communications, and associated international trade issues. Extensive and comparable cross-cultural studies are also needed to develop a global picture given the many variations that exist in development drivers, regulatory frameworks, and socio-economic contexts, including religious implications. It is important that social scientists and economists fill these gaps to help consumers, producers, marketers, regulators, and policy makers, especially those in lower- and middle-income countries, make better informed decisions about cell-based food products and production methods as they evolve, and are introduced into different regions and markets. Funding for such studies needs to be provided by entities without clear stakes in their outcomes, and they need to be published in open-access journals (with appropriate funding), providing the means for interested stakeholders around the world to read them without paying a fee. Funding for unbiased research on cell-based foods can be achieved through public grants, as well as from non-profit organizations, but more importantly through the promotion of open-science and transparent university-industry collaborations that ensure neutrality and accessibility of results while minimizing industry bias.

Future cross-cultural studies to examine consumer perceptions of cell-based food products would ideally collect data from large samples of consumers, representative of the populations of each country/culture studied. To avoid potential sampling biases associated with convenience, snowball, or opt-in samples recruited from social media platforms, participants in future studies would be selected from existing survey panels, enabling the targeted recruitment of representative samples with known demographics. To ensure comparability, studies across cultures would use the same methodology, including consistency in the order in which information about the products is presented and questions are asked. The same terminology would also be used in describing the products, and clear wording of questions and response options would be used, with back-translations ensuring that the same constructs are communicated when rendered into local languages.