Cell-based, cell-cultured, cell-cultivated, cultured, or cultivated. What is the best name for meat, poultry, and seafood made directly from the cells of animals?

This study addresses the regulatory and consumer communication challenge of selecting a common or usual name for meat, poultry, and seafood made directly from animal cells. In the U.S., FDA and USDA-FSIS require names that identify the basic nature of a food and clearly distinguish it from other foods, without being misleading. As cell-derived products approach market entry, competing terms have emerged (“Cultivated,” “Cultured,” “Cell-Cultured,” “Cell-Cultivated,” “Cell-Based”), with different stakeholders favoring different options. The research question is which term best meets regulatory criteria—clearly distinguishing these products from conventional counterparts (Criterion A) and signaling allergenicity (Criterion B)—while avoiding disparagement or negative safety/health/nutrition inferences (Criteria C and D) and being perceived as appropriate (Criterion E). The study tests these candidate names across beef, chicken, and salmon products and hypothesizes that terms containing “cell” will better signal difference from conventional products, while “Cultivated” and “Cultured” may fail to differentiate effectively, especially in seafood contexts.

Regulatory context requires clear, truthful, and non-misleading common or usual names (21 CFR 101.3; 9 CFR 317.2; 9 CFR 381.171; FDCA 21 U.S.C. § 343(a)). Prior FDA requests for comment on labeling of cell-derived seafood found broad support for terms like “cell-cultured” and “cell-based,” including endorsements from industry alliances and public interest groups. Earlier empirical studies by Hallman & Hallman on seafood labeling indicated that inclusion of the word “cell” is essential for distinguishing cell-derived products from wild-caught and farm-raised seafood. The meat and poultry sectors have advocated for “cultivated” to improve consumer acceptance, but regulatory adequacy (clear differentiation, avoidance of confusion with established production descriptors such as wild/farm-raised, grass-fed/grain-fed, free-range/raised indoors) remains paramount. General consumer familiarity with cell-based proteins is low, increasing the importance of a name that conveys essential product identity without additional explanatory text.

Design: A 6 × 6 factorial online experiment tested six names (Cell-Based, Cell-Cultured, Cell-Cultivated, Cultivated, Cultured, and a control with no modifier) across three proteins (beef, chicken, salmon) and two forms (whole cuts: beef fillets, chicken breasts, salmon fillets; burgers: beef, chicken, salmon). Participants were randomly assigned to one of 36 conditions. Stimuli were high-resolution package images modeled on conventional products, with the tested term printed below the product name; back-of-pack elements included a serving suggestion photo, quantity/weights, fictitious inspection marks (for meat/poultry), and a Nutrition Facts Label with values from conventional counterparts. Labels included “CONTAINS [BEEF/CHICKEN/SALMON],” storage/handling statements, and cooking advisories. Sample: N = 4385 U.S. adults (18+), recruited via a consumer panel with quotas approximating ACS demographics. Data collection: Nov 15–28, 2021. The median session length was 12.4 minutes. Procedure: Each package was shown three times to elicit (1) first and (2) second thoughts/images/feelings with valence ratings, and (3) overall reactions, interest in tasting, likelihood to purchase (next 6 months), to order in a restaurant, to serve to guests, and information-seeking intentions. Familiarity with the focal product, prior tasting/cooking, and household allergies were assessed. Criterion A (differentiation) was measured by asking which conventional production method applied (beef: grass-fed, grain-fed, or neither; chicken: free-range, raised indoors, or neither; salmon: wild-caught, farm-raised, or neither), plus confidence. Criterion B (allergenicity signaling) asked perceived safety for those allergic to the focal protein and for non-allergic consumers. Additional perceptions included naturalness, likelihood of being organic, likelihood of being genetically modified; after showing an enlarged Nutrition Facts Label, participants rated nutritiousness, healthiness, and expected taste; and likelihood to recommend to pregnant women and children. No explanation of the naming term was initially provided. In a final segment (non-control only), participants read a standardized explanation of the assigned term describing cell cultivation and how the products differ from conventional production, then repeated key outcome measures and rated appropriateness and clarity (e.g., not grass/grain-fed; not free-range/raised indoors; not wild/farm-raised; not made from plants) and whether products should be sold alongside conventional counterparts. Statistical analysis: Unweighted analyses in SPSS v27. ANOVAs for mean differences with partial eta-squared (η²) effect sizes. MANOVA tested main and interaction effects. Z-tests of column proportions with Bonferroni correction for categorical outcomes. Significance thresholds: p ≤ 0.01 for main effects/interactions; p ≤ 0.05 for proportions.

- Differentiation from conventional products (Criterion A): - Salmon: “Cultured” and “Cultivated” failed to adequately differentiate from wild-caught/farm-raised. Terms containing “cell” (Cell-Based, Cell-Cultured, Cell-Cultivated) more often led participants to select “neither wild-caught nor farm-raised.” - Beef: “Cultivated” failed to differentiate Beef Fillets from conventional, with 33.9% interpreting it as grass-fed. Across beef burgers, all terms performed more similarly, likely due to lower salience of production method in burgers. - Chicken: Mixed patterns; “Cultured” and “Cultivated” were less effective than “cell” terms in indicating neither free-range nor raised indoors for chicken burgers; control often cued assumptions of conventional production. - Clarity ratings after explanation supported higher clarity for “cell” terms: not grain-fed/grass-fed (beef) and not farm-raised (salmon) were clearer for Cell-Cultivated/Cell-Cultured than for Cultivated/Cultured (Tables 14–15). All “cell” terms were clearer that products were not plant-based (Table 16). - Allergenicity signaling (Criterion B): All names communicated that if allergic to the focal protein, it was somewhat to moderately unsafe to eat (e.g., overall M ≈ 3.17–3.26 on a 1–7 safety scale for allergic individuals; Table 5), indicating effective allergen signaling across proteins without name × protein interaction. - Overall effects of name and product: MANOVA showed main effects of name, F(55,2033) = 6.640, p < 0.001, Wilks’ Λ = 0.920, η² = 0.017; and product, F(35,1286) = 12.696, p < 0.001, Wilks’ Λ = 0.854, η² = 0.031; no interaction, F(275,4782) = 1.108, p = 0.115, Wilks’ Λ = 0.932, η² = 0.206. - Acceptance metrics before explanation: - Overall reactions: Control and “Cultivated/Cultured” rated slightly higher than “cell” terms (Table 6; e.g., Overall Reaction M: Control 5.28; Cultivated 5.21; Cultured 5.19; Cell-Cultured 4.98; Cell-Based 4.97; Cell-Cultivated 4.85; F = 6.990, p < 0.001, η² = 0.008). - Interest in tasting: “Cultivated” higher than Cell-Cultured/Cell-Cultivated; Control and Cultured comparable to mid-range (Table 8; F = 4.35, p < 0.001, η² = 0.005). - Likelihood to purchase/order/serve: Control and “Cultured/Cultivated” generally higher than “cell” terms, though effect sizes small (Tables 9–11; all p < 0.001, η² ≈ 0.005–0.006). - Safety (non-allergic): All names indicated somewhat to moderately safe (e.g., Cultivated M = 5.98; Cultured M = 5.95; Control M = 5.94; Cell-Cultured M = 5.83; F(5,4348) = 3.24, p = 0.010, η² = 0.003; Cultivated seen slightly safer than Cell-Cultured). - Naturalness/organic/GM: - Naturalness: Control perceived most natural; “Cultivated/Cultured” more natural than the three “cell” terms (F(5,4348) ≈ 20.88, p < 0.001, η² = 0.023). - Organic: No name effect (F(5,4348) = 0.735, p = 0.597). - Genetically modified: “Cell” terms seen as more likely GM than “Cultured/Cultivated”; Control lowest (F(5,4348) significant, η² = 0.039). - Appropriateness (Criterion E): After explanation, all names rated between neither appropriate nor inappropriate to slightly appropriate; “Cultured” least appropriate (Table 13; e.g., Cell-Cultivated 5.14; Cell-Based 5.13; Cell-Cultured 5.09; Cultivated 4.91; Cultured 4.87; F = 3.80, p < 0.004, η² = 0.004). - Post-explanation convergence: After reading the meaning of terms, name differences on overall reactions, interest in tasting, and likelihood to purchase were no longer significant (MANOVA: F(3,1329) = 1.136, p = 0.274; Wilks’ Λ = 0.909, η² = 0.003). Notably, products labeled “Cultivated” showed the largest decline from pre- to post-explanation across acceptance measures, erasing initial advantages. - Product preferences: Overall ratings varied by product type (Table 7), with higher ratings for beef burgers and salmon fillets, lower for chicken burgers (F = 9.807, p < 0.001, η² = 0.011).

The results indicate that terms containing “cell” (Cell-Based, Cell-Cultured, Cell-Cultivated) better fulfill regulatory Criterion A by signaling that products are distinct from conventional production methods, especially in seafood where consumers expect explicit wild-caught/farm-raised labels. “Cultivated” and “Cultured” often failed to convey difference, and in some cases appeared misleading (e.g., “Cultivated” misread as grass-fed beef fillets), risking noncompliance with naming principles that prohibit confusion with other foods or production descriptors. All names met Criterion B by effectively signaling allergen risk equivalent to conventional products, and none elicited perceptions that the products are unsafe, unhealthy, or not nutritious (Criteria C and D). Although “Cultivated” and “Cultured” initially garnered slightly more favorable consumer reactions and higher interest/purchase intent, these advantages dissipated once participants learned the true meaning of the terms. This suggests early acceptance may reflect misinterpretations rather than durable preference. The convergence after explanation underscores that as consumers gain familiarity with cell-derived products, naming effects on acceptance will likely attenuate, emphasizing the primacy of regulatory clarity over short-term marketing appeal. Among “cell” terms, differences were small; however, patterns across proteins and measures suggest “Cell-Cultured” balances clarity and acceptance slightly better than alternatives.

Across beef, chicken, and salmon, “Cultivated” and “Cultured” did not consistently signal that products are different from conventional counterparts, potentially failing a key regulatory criterion. The three “cell” terms—“Cell-Based,” “Cell-Cultured,” and “Cell-Cultivated”—met the two key regulatory criteria evaluated (clear differentiation and allergen signaling) and were broadly similar on consumer perception measures. Considering small but consistent advantages in clarity and acceptance, “Cell-Cultured” emerges as the best candidate for a universal common or usual name for meat, poultry, and seafood made directly from animal cells. Future research should examine real-world shopping contexts (on-shelf comparison) and explore potential consumer backlash when initial assumptions are corrected by clearer explanations, as suggested by the declines observed post-explanation.

The study used hypothetical package images viewed online without in-store context or direct product interaction. Packages were evaluated in isolation rather than alongside conventional products on actual shelves. The brief exposure and pre-post explanation within a short session (approximately 12 minutes) may not capture durable attitudes or real purchasing behavior. Some measures showed small effect sizes, and certain presentation artifacts/wording could influence interpretations.