For most people outside the R&D lab and the small number of countries that have approved it, cultivated meat has remained shrouded in mystique. An exciting innovation in the abstract, yes, but when it comes to what it actually tastes like, most have no idea.
For a small group of consumers, that is no longer the case. In a free public tasting, the first of its kind, consumers were given the opportunity to try cultivated meat.
What do consumers think of cultivated meat?
Cultivated meat, also known as cultured meat, is meat grown from cells in a medium rather than from animals on a farm.
While it’s available in Singapore and recent regulatory approval in Australia means consumers there will see it on menus soon, in most markets, cultivated meat remains unavailable due to strict regulatory constraints. It therefore is still out of reach for most consumers.
But this hasn’t stopped consumers, and governments, developing strong opinions about lab-grown meat. A backlash has seen policymakers move to ban the product in both Italy and a range of US states, including Florida. Many have branded it “Frankenfood”. Some agricultural producers see it as a potential threat to their livelihood.
Nevertheless, the question remains – what’s the reaction when consumers actually try it?
Do consumers like the taste of cultivated meat?
It’s one thing to understand conceptually what cultivated meat is, and another to taste it oneself.
A study in the journal Science of Food looked at consumer responses from a public tasting, hosted by the US cultivated meat company Upside Foods. The tasting, of Upside’s cultivated chicken, was hosted in Florida, US, just four days before the state’s ban on cultivated meat was due to come into effect. The event framed the ban as in opposition to American values such as “freedom.”
Because most consumers don’t have access to cultivated meat, previous research on consumer perception has often been done without them actually trying it.
After the taste test, 58% said they liked the taste, compared with 11% who didn’t and 11% who had a mixed reaction.
However, 73% requested sensory or product improvements to be made. While 16% said they wouldn’t try it again, 26% said they would, and 32% would be willing to consume or purchase it regularly.
Perhaps surprisingly, vegans and vegetarians were often shocked by the authenticity of the chicken taste, suggesting that this isn’t something that they were used to with plant-based meat. Vegans expressed a “unique kind of ambivalence” to any sensory evaluation.
Everyone asked opposed Florida’s cultivated meat ban, saying it limited personal freedom and food choices.
Did consumers have reservations about cultivated meat?
However, some participants had reservations. Not everyone was happy with the taste or texture, with some describing it as rubbery. Others suggested that they would like to try the product further along in its development.
While some thought it tasted just like the real thing, others suggested it was similar or even inferior to plant-based meat.
Furthermore, some were sceptical about the perceived lack of transparency of the event (with one questioning how they were to know that the chicken hadn’t just been bought “at Walmart” that morning).
Others criticised the organisers for not making it clear that cultivated meat includes “animal ingredients.” It’s worth noting that the use of bovine serum is no longer universal within the cultivated meat sector (the tasting took place in 2024).
In conclusion, all but one who tried it saw a positive future for the product. At the same time, all but one thought it needed improvement.
Sourced From: NPJ Science of Food ‘Publicly tasting cultivated meat and socially constructing perceived value politics and identity’ Published on: 4 June 2025 Doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-025-00449-0 Authors: S. Gerber, H. Bae, I. Ramirez & S. B. Cash
