# Consumer Acceptance of Cultured Meat: An Updated Review (2018-2020)
## 9 Discussion  
The themes and trends observed in this review can inform strategies for increasing the future market share of cultured meat, displacing more of the demand for meat from animals and the harm that its production entails. In particular, there are lessons for cultured meat advocates in terms of market segmentation, message content, and marketing strategy. First, there is good evidence that different profiles of consumers are likely to prefer different forms of alternative protein. Cultured meat, therefore, will be one of several types of alternative protein competing in the market alongside plant-based meat, insects, and other protein sources. Evidence suggests that cultured meat is likely to be particularly appealing to the heaviest meat-eaters [21; 22], and that it is likely to be particularly unappealing to those high in disgust sensitivity and/or neophobia [21; 32]. Acknowledging a wide range in the perceptions of cultured meat, producers should focus initially on those most enthusiastic consumers until the price decreases and the concept becomes more familiar. Secondly, pro-cultured meat messages may take a variety of approaches. Generally, rather than responding to the criticism that cultured meat is unnatural, advocates should focus on the benefits that the technology can bring [13; 44]. Marketers may choose to lean into the moral uncertainty around conventional animal agriculture, bringing attention to an ethical issue which many meat-eaters do not typically think about and framing cultured meat as the transparent and trustworthy option. However, producers should take care when moralizing the issue, since this approach could be off-putting not only to consumers, but also to conventional meat producers, whose investment may be vital to their success [13]. Other messages may highlight the environmental benefits of cultured meat, though some evidence suggests that messages focusing on the personal benefits, such as improvements to product healthiness and safety, are likely to be the most persuasive [19]. Indeed, a focus on the potential safety benefits of cultured meat in terms of avoiding antibiotic resistance and zoonotic pandemics could be especially effective, as it addresses one of the most common concerns about cultured meat (food safety) in a frame which compares it to the current system, which many view as far from ideal [37]. Thirdly, the long-term success of cultured meat will depend on its ability to compete with conventional meat in terms of price and taste. Experts generally agree that cultured meat is unlikely to be price competitive with conventional meat in the near future [43; 61]. This is seen as a significant barrier to mainstream adoption, and some have suggested that cultured meat will cater to an elite niche [43] or will need to offer consumers additional health benefits to justify the higher price [61]. As with any technology, it is likely that the price of cultured meat will fall over time as producers compete and production methods become more efficient. Recent public statements from cultured meat companies have suggested that cultured meat products will indeed have a price premium, though prices being suggested are closer to 10 USD per patty [71] or as low as 10 USD per pound by 2022 [72]. These are far more realistic consumer prices than the 280,000 USD widely reported as the cost of the first cultured meat burger in 2013 [71]. Recent research validates the finding that most consumers anticipate cultured meat to have an inferior taste, texture, and appearance. This pessimism about the quality of cultured meat can be seen as an opportunity--cultured meat companies which can convincingly emulate the taste and texture of a burger patty stand to exceed consumers' expectations. Indeed, the high trialability of cultured meat compared to other technological innovations allows consumers to try the key aspects for themselves with little commitment [42].