The burgeoning cell-based meat, poultry, and seafood industry is poised to enter the US market. With over 150 companies involved and significant capital investment, the need for clear and accurate product labeling is paramount. The FDA and USDA will jointly regulate these products, requiring a "common or usual name" to inform consumers and prevent mislabeling. Prior research suggested "cell-cultured" or "cell-based" for seafood, but the meat industry favors "cultivated." This study aims to evaluate several terms against regulatory criteria: clear differentiation from conventional products, communication of allergenicity, avoidance of disparagement, and lack of implication of unsafety or poor nutrition. The study focuses on beef, chicken, and salmon products in both whole-cut and ground forms, considering that the regulatory name must effectively differentiate the products without additional explanatory information on the label. Existing labeling practices for seafood (wild-caught/farm-raised) and the voluntary labeling of beef and chicken (grass-fed/free-range) provide context for the evaluation.

Previous research by Hallman and Hallman (2020, 2021) explored consumer perceptions of labeling terms for cell-based seafood. These studies highlighted the importance of including the word "cell" to differentiate novel products from conventional ones. The findings informed the selection of terms in the current study. Other relevant literature discussed the regulatory challenges of cultured meat (Post et al., 2020), the need for a unified nomenclature (Ong et al., 2020), and consumer preferences for food allergen labeling (Mara et al., 2017). The meat industry's advocacy for "cultivated" and consumer advocacy regarding "cell-cultured" seafood highlight the lack of consensus surrounding optimal nomenclature.

This study employed a 6 × 6 factorial design, testing six terms ('Cell-Based,' 'Cell-Cultured,' 'Cell-Cultivated,' 'Cultivated,' 'Cultured,' and a control) across three proteins (beef, chicken, salmon) and two forms (whole cuts/burgers). A representative sample of 4385 American adults (18+) participated in an online experiment. High-resolution images of product packages were created, featuring the product name and the assigned term. The experiment involved three exposures to the package images, eliciting participants' thoughts, feelings, and ratings on various aspects. Participants rated their overall reactions, interest in tasting, likelihood of purchase, and likelihood of serving to guests. They also assessed the clarity of the terms in differentiating the products from conventional ones, signaling allergenicity, and avoiding negative connotations. After exposure, participants read an explanation of the term's meaning and re-evaluated their perceptions. Statistical analyses, including ANOVA and Z-tests, compared the effectiveness of the different terms in meeting the regulatory criteria and influencing consumer perceptions.

The study revealed that 'Cultivated' and 'Cultured' inadequately distinguished cell-based products from conventional ones, especially for beef and salmon. A significant portion of consumers misidentified 'Cultivated' beef as grass-fed. 'Cell-Based,' 'Cell-Cultured,' and 'Cell-Cultivated' effectively conveyed the difference from conventional products and appropriately signaled allergenicity. There were no significant differences in most consumer perception measures (overall reactions, interest in tasting, purchase intent) among these three cell-based terms. 'Cell-Cultured' demonstrated slightly better overall consumer acceptance across beef, chicken, and salmon products. However, after participants read an explanation of the terms' meanings, these differences in consumer perceptions largely disappeared, suggesting the importance of consumer education.

The findings suggest that terms containing 'cell' are crucial for clearly differentiating cell-based products from conventional ones. The low familiarity of consumers with cell-based production necessitates a clear and unambiguous label. The success of 'Cell-Based,' 'Cell-Cultured,' and 'Cell-Cultivated' in meeting the regulatory criteria underscores the importance of transparency and accuracy in labeling. The results highlight the potential for initial marketing advantages to diminish with increased consumer education, suggesting that effective communication strategies beyond simple labeling might be necessary.

This study demonstrates the importance of using terms like 'Cell-Cultured' to clearly identify cell-based meat, poultry, and seafood. The terms 'Cultivated' and 'Cultured' are inadequate in conveying the distinction from conventional products. Future research should explore consumer reactions in realistic shopping environments and investigate effective strategies to educate consumers about this new food technology.

The study's limitations include the use of hypothetical product images and the absence of direct comparison with other products on a shelf. The online experiment setting may not fully replicate real-world shopping experiences. The relatively short duration of the online experiment might not fully capture the long-term impact of consumer education.