## 1 Introduction  
Existing conventional meat production systems have negative environmental effects, coupled with growing public health concerns. Furthermore, growing population has continued to increase the consumer demand for meat [1]. Research suggested the utilization of cultured meat (CUME) grown from animal cells without encompassing the slaughtering process. Additional benefits of CUME include being environmentally friendly, with lower production of greenhouse gases, reduced land, and water usage. Over the last few years, studies were conducted to determine the overall consumer acceptability of CUME. Studies have also elaborated that wide-scale adoption of CUME is dependent on a multitude of factors, including regulatory bodies, economic availability, religion, and media perception of CUME [2].  
Among other factors, media coverage plays a critical role in developing and distributing new information. Public opinion has been shown to be impacted in ways similar to the direction taken by media in portrayals of CUME. Both positive and negative attitudes are likely to be developed in correlation with the way media coverage of the topic is addressed; however, those already familiar with the topic beforehand are less likely to be influenced by exactly how media present the information. A study showed information dispersion by media to have a far greater role in developing a positive perception of CUME [3; 4]. For instance, CUME coverage by media in the United States of America (USA) and Europe has frequently discussed the comparative attributes of both conventional and cultured meat [5]. This analysis focused on conventional and cultural meat production mechanisms, food security, animal welfare practices and the impact on human health [5; 6]. The results showed that, in order to increase the acceptability of cultured meat, it would be important to inform and educate consumers about new foods and methods of production.  
Similarly, unflattering coverage also impacts public perception negatively. In an analysis of Australian print media, the most common messaging about CUME was a low degree of naturalness. The speculation was that farmers were not interested in increasing consumer acceptance of CUME [7; 8]. Other similar narratives included technological dependency that could undermine the genuine process of social change and the connection of animal production with the norms of nature, i.e., that instrumentalizing meat could undermine the animal liberation movement [9]. However, these arguments are likely resolvable with increased awareness and research. To improve the perception of cultured meat by consumers, an analogy strategy was investigated. Researchers focused on the unnatural nature of the production of other products, and then consumers were asked to evaluate cultured meat. Studies showed that, in most cases, consumers reported a change in their attitude toward cultured meat in a positive direction [10]. Nevertheless, the low naturalness of CUME repels consumers, being connected with intuitive perception or analytical thinking that so-called test tube meat is inherently bad.  
In different employed frameworks, the high-tech aspects of CUME contribute significantly less its consumption compared to social benefits and environmental and sensory attributes [7]. The aim of this article was to provide an analysis of the current state of cultured meat and the marketing content challenges and strategies used to spread CUME in the public eye.