Food safety aspects of cell-based food

Background document one – Terminologies

Food safety aspects of cell-based food
Background document one – Terminologies

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Rome 2022
Required citation:
FAO. 2022. Food safety aspects of cell-based food. Background document one – Terminologies. Rome.
https://doi.org/10.4060/cc2241en

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development
status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The
mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these
have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.

ISBN: 978-92-5-136941-8
© FAO, 2022

Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO
licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo/legalcode).

Under the terms of this licence, this work may be copied, redistributed and adapted for non-commercial purposes, provided that
the work is appropriately cited. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that FAO endorses any specific organization,
products or services. The use of the FAO logo is not permitted. If the work is adapted, then it must be licensed under the same
or equivalent Creative Commons licence. If a translation of this work is created, it must include the following disclaimer along with
the required citation: “This translation was not created by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
FAO is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation. The original [Language] edition shall be the authoritative
edition.”

Disputes arising under the licence that cannot be settled amicably will be resolved by mediation and arbitration as described in
Article 8 of the licence except as otherwise provided herein. The applicable mediation rules will be the mediation rules of the
World Intellectual Property Organization http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/mediation/rules and any arbitration will be conducted in
accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).

Third-party materials. Users wishing to reuse material from this work that is attributed to a third party, such as tables, figures or
images, are responsible for determining whether permission is needed for that reuse and for obtaining permission from the
copyright holder. The risk of claims resulting from infringement of any third-party-owned component in the work rests solely with
the user.

Sales, rights and licensing. FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/publications) and can be
purchased through [email protected]. Requests for commercial use should be submitted via: www.fao.org/contact-
us/licence-request. Queries regarding rights and licensing should be submitted to: [email protected].
Contents

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................... iv
Abbreviations and acronyms .................................................................................................................................. v
Executive summary................................................................................................................................................ vi
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1. Background .......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Scope ................................................................................................................................................... 2
2. Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 2
3. Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 3
3.1. Product modifier terminologies .......................................................................................................... 3
3.2. Modifier terminologies used by authorities ........................................................................................ 4
3.3. Modifier terminologies used by industry and developers................................................................... 4
3.4. Modifier terminologies used in academic research ............................................................................ 5
3.5. Modifier terminologies used by the media and others ....................................................................... 5
4. Impact of the terminologies.......................................................................................................................... 7
4.1. Public perception and acceptance of modifier terminologies............................................................. 7
4.2. Language barriers and translation issues ............................................................................................ 8
4.3. Modifier terminologies that are fit for purpose .................................................................................. 8
4.4. Other considerations for terminologies ............................................................................................ 10
4.4.1. Allergen labelling .......................................................................................................................... 10
4.4.2. Commodity terminologies in the regulatory framework .............................................................. 10
4.4.3. The term “cellular agriculture” ..................................................................................................... 11
5. Discussion.................................................................................................................................................... 19
References ............................................................................................................................................................ 20

iii
Acknowledgements

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) would like to express its
appreciation to the many people who provided advice and guidance during the preparation of this
document. It was prepared for FAO as a technical background for the relevant expert consultations,
and authored by Mark Sturme and Gijs Kleter, Wageningen Food Safety Research, the Netherlands.
The development process of the document was coordinated by Masami Takeuchi (FAO) under the
overall guidance of Markus Lipp (FAO). Technical reviews were conducted by various international
experts, namely Ousama A. Abushahma, Joshua Ayers, Laura Braden, Jonatan Darr, Breanna Duffy,
Jeremiah Fasano, William Hallman, Ziva Hamama, Melissa Hammar, Natsuo Komoto, Teng Yong Low,
Rick Mumford, Paul Mozdziak, Glen Neal, Kimberly Ong, Yadira Tejeda Saldana, Yadira Tejeda Saldana,
Jo Anne Shatkin, Mehdi Triki, Hanna Tuomisto and Ruth Willis. Technical and editorial inputs were
provided by various FAO colleagues and technical editing was provided by Jennifer Parkinson.

iv
Abbreviations and acronyms
AMPS Alliance for Meat, Poultry and Seafood Innovation
ANPR Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FDA United States Food and Drug Administration
FSIS Food Safety and Inspection Service of the United States Department of
Agriculture
SD Standard deviation
USDA United States Department of Agriculture

v
Executive summary

Cell-based food technologies allow for the production of animal proteins from in vitro grown animal
or microbial cells. These technologies are developing rapidly and could play a role in safeguarding
access to animal proteins for a growing world population, while further analyses are necessary to
evaluate their sustainability and impact on human health and environmental health. There are
currently a wide range of different terminologies in relation to the technologies, production processes
and the final products, which might hamper clear communication to audiences from varying
backgrounds and sectors. Moreover, the terminologies can influence both consumer perceptions and
national regulatory frameworks, including the possible labelling requirements of cell-based food
products to provide consumers with information regarding food safety, allergens, and nutrition. It is
therefore important to analyse the existing cell-based food terminologies and how they can be used
and perceived by different stakeholders. An overview of the literature was conducted on the use of
cell-based food terminologies to serve as a basis to initiate a global discussion on the possible need to
support policymakers worldwide in making informed decisions on selecting cell-based food
terminologies that could be used in communications or in the relevant legislation on cell-based food
products.

Keywords: cultured meat, cultivated meat, cell-based food, alternative proteins, emerging
technology, novel food, terminology, nomenclature, definition, harmonization, food safety,
standards

vi
1. Introduction
1.1. Background
The increasing global demand for animal-sourced protein adds to the existing pressure on ecosystems
and biodiversity (FAO, 2018). Intensifying animal production may also threaten
broader sustainability objectives, such as climate change and public health, resulting in trade-offs in
various aspects of environmental protection, food security and animal welfare (FAO, 2019, Henchion
et al., 2021, OECD, 2021). These factors have triggered research efforts for developing more
sustainable ways of producing animal meat as well as a research focus on a “protein transition”
wherein consumption of animal protein will be at least partially replaced by alternative protein
sources, such as from plants and micro-organisms but also in vitro produced animal protein (Aiking
and de Boer, 2020), in order to accommodate the increased demand for protein and assure global
food security.

One of the technological developments that could produce analogues of animal proteins without
slaughtering animals is via in vitro cultivation of animal cells on a large scale, which could then be
processed into products that are substantially equivalent to conventional meat. Such products are
often called “cell-based”, “cultured” or “cultivated” meat, and currently there are several terms in use
to define this type of products around the globe.

While research in this area has been ongoing since the early 2000s, the development of the products
was presented to the general public in 2013, when researchers from the Netherlands demonstrated
the first product describing it as a “lab-grown” beef burger at a press conference in London (BBC News,
2013). In December 2020, so-called “cultured” chicken nuggets became the first commercialized
product of its kind, after market approval in Singapore; these particular nuggets are a blend of cultured
chicken and plant-based ingredients (Carrington, 2020). On a broader scale, the production of
analogues of animal products, such as meat, poultry, seafood, dairy, and eggs produced through cell-
based culture techniques has been advancing quickly in the past few years and at least 76 companies
have been developing similar products in 22 different countries since 2013 (Byrne, 2021).

Because of the novelty of the cell-based food production process and products, assurance of food
safety is one of the main concerns of nutritionists, food technologists, the competent authorities and
consumers. In addition, the national competent authorities will have to consider various socio-
economic issues relating to these products, including consumer preference, acceptance, ethical issues,
production costs, trade issues and market prices. When there is a need for clear labelling of such
products and/or special authorization processes are to be conducted by competent authorities, then
appropriate regulatory frameworks need to be adjusted or newly employed, as these products may
enter their jurisdictions or appear at the border at any time, via e-commerce for example.

In order to discuss the relevant technical issues about cell-based food production, it is important to
use clear and consistent terminologies that can be accepted by all the stakeholders. Terminologies
and labels are also an important and direct means of communicating information to consumers (FAO,
2021). However, currently many different terms and labels exist for these types of products in both
the scientific literature and public communications, thereby potentially creating confusion. It is
therefore important to make an inventory of these terms and their current usage, framing and legal
consequences, in order to achieve a consensus on the terminology to use at the global level. This will
also contribute to a better understanding of the topic as well as encourage further discussions on cell-
based food products in different parts of the world.

1
Food safety aspects of cell-based food Background document one – Terminologies

This document provides a synthesis of the available literature on the existing terminologies in the area
of cell-based food production and their associated positive and negative attributes, and recommends
options for the terms to use at the global level.

1.2. Scope
To aid the scientific advice activities provided by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO), it is essential to use clear terminologies to describe the relevant processes, associated
technologies, techniques and products in animal cell-based food production. The document focuses
on the terminologies used in different sectors and describes the associated issues, by making a
systematic inventory of the available scientific literature as well as non-scientific reports and public
communications. This overview employed the systematic-review methodology, and it does not
include any political nor opinion-based views. The aim of the document is not to define the relevant
terminologies but to simply collect the existing ones with the attributed analyses, so that subject-
matter experts and/or policymakers at the national level can use this overview as a reference to make
informed decisions. In this document, and without setting a precedent, the term “cell-based” is
generally used to indicate the products and production in this field. It is being published as one of the
background document series for the expert consultation in November 2022, thus the contents will be
further added to, modified and refined in the final publication in 2023. Therefore, the present
document can be considered as valid until that time.

2. Methodology
A systematic literature search strategy was defined for the collection of data, using search strings
relating to “cell-based” meat and seafood terminology for the technologies, products, regulations,
food safety and production processes. The strategy covers the collection of data from both English
language scientific literature from the period 2013–2021 and from English language “grey”
information sources with no time limit. The latter include national/supernational/regional competent
authorities, international organizations, private sector entities, academia, research institutions, civil
society and non-governmental organizations. Information from these grey sources was collected from
publicly available websites, white papers, reports, reviews and guidelines. Data from the scientific
literature was collected from the Web of Science and Scopus databases and from the abstracts of the
Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International (CAB) and the records retrieved from these
databases were searched through and screened for relevance before the retrieval of full references
and in-depth screening. Analysis of the frequency of use of cell-based modifier terms by the media
was done using the corpus of News on the Web (Davies, 2016), which is a highly searchable collection
of texts.

2
3. Results
3.1. Product modifier terminologies
A list of the synonyms used for cell-based food products, such as cell-based meat and seafood
products, and their use by different professional sectors is provided in Table 1 based on the outcomes
of several consumer and industry studies on the perception, acceptance and preference for
terminologies for the modifier part (e.g. “cultured”) of the terminologies.

Table 1: Synonyms of modifier terms for animal “cell-based” food products and their common use in
professional sectors
Sector
Industry and
Modifier term (1) Authorities developers Academia Media
animal-free X X
artificial X X
cell-based X X X X
cell-cultivated (2) X
cell-cultured X X X X
cellular X X
clean X X
cruelty-free X
cultivated X X X X
cultured X X X X
fake X X
Frankenmeat X
healthy X X
imitation X
in vitro X X
lab-grown X X
made X
Meat 2.0 (3) X
Shmeat X
slaughter-free X
synthetic X X
test tube X
vat-grown X
Source: Authors' own elaboration.

(1) Based on scientific articles collected from the literature search, grey literature and media; (2)
Hallman, W. K., Hallman, W. K. II, & Hallman E. E. (2021). Cell-Based, Cell-Cultured, Cell-Cultivated,
Cultured, or Cultivated. What is the best name for meat, poultry, and seafood made from the cells of
animals? https://www.biorxiv.org; (3) Meat 2.0 is a term that is used to cover “cell-based” meat, but
also plant-based and microbe-based meat replacers.

3
Food safety aspects of cell-based food Background document one – Terminologies

3.2. Modifier terminologies used by authorities

The use of terminologies by authorities such as governmental institutions and regulatory bodies is
often expected to be guided by legally accepted terms. Besides, for example, Singapore and the
European Union, regulatory bodies in most countries have not yet ruled as to what existing legislation
cell-based food products fall under, or which specific terms for labelling of cell-based food products
are to be used. As of February 2022, the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) is the only regulatory body that
has implemented a specific section for cell-based food products in their “Requirements for the Safety
Assessment of Novel Foods” document (SFA, 2021a). This document uses the term “cultured” meat,
but this is not the only term allowed, as the SFA has indicated that product package labelling will
require qualifying terms that clearly communicate the nature of “cultured” meat food products to
consumers so that they can make informed choices. These terms may also include, for example,
“cultured”, “cultivated” and “cell-based” (SFA, 2021b). Singapore has also published general food
labelling guidelines that advise against the use of claims that would cast doubt on the safety of other
foods or imply that a particular food is safer than other similar food, and these would also apply to
cell-based food (SFA, 2021a).

In the United States, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) published in September 2021 an ANPR (Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking)
in which it requests comments for “the labelling of meat and poultry products comprised of or
containing cultured cells derived from animals” (USDA, 2021). Similarly, the United States Food and
Drug Administration (FDA), which has labelling authority for cultured fish and seafood cell products,
published in October 2020 a “Request for Information” in which it calls for comments for “the labelling
of foods comprised of or containing cultured seafood cells.” (FDA, 2020). The FDA intends to use the
information and data resulting from this notice to determine what type(s) of actions, if any, the agency
should take to ensure that these foods are properly labelled. The FSIS and the FDA have agreed to
develop joint principles for product labelling and claims to ensure that products are labelled
consistently and transparently. Although the FSIS’s ANPR makes use of the term “cultured” meat, the
US authorities are still in the process of defining the actual food labels that will be allowed in the
future, which will impact the terms to be used by these authorities in the future. It is also worth
considering that the authorities’ labelling regulations may have preference for terms that describe the
process the food has undergone.

3.3. Modifier terminologies used by industry and developers

In September 2021, a focus group surveyed the Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of 44 cell-based food
companies globally about their preferred nomenclature for their products. Seventy five percent of the
companies were found to use the modifier “cultivated”, 20 percent the concept “cultured” meat, and
one company (~2 percent) “cell-based”. Several quotes from the interviewed CEOs appear to point to
a shared view that the use of “cultivated” allows us to differentiate from other products and at the
same time appeal to consumers and be amenable to consumer education. The use of “cultivated”
might therefore align the industry viewpoint for the modifier term (Byrne, 2021). This survey indicates
an increase in adoption of the term “cultivated” since a study in 2020, where this term was found to
be used in 45 percent of relevant websites and promotional material from the cell-based food
industry. This is partially in line with the recommendation from the American “cultured” meat industry
trade group Alliance for Meat, Poultry and Seafood Innovation (AMPS) to use either “cultured”,
“cultivated” or “cell-based” and in line with the recommendation by the cell-based meat industries
based on the outcomes of the consumer study by Szejda et al. (2019). Following various post-hoc
stakeholder meetings, the study executor and stakeholders chose the term “cultivated” meat to go
forward with. Towards this end, a communication strategy was devised, where an analogy was drawn
between cultivating meat and growing plants in a greenhouse.

4
 Results

In addition, the use of cultivation-related language, such as “cultivator” for the reaction vessel in which
cells are grown, was considered to expand the narrative to engage people with the concept of meat
cultivation (Szejda et al., 2019). It is important to note that the terminologies used or preferred by
industry are subject to change and indicates the need to harmonize terminologies in the industrial
sector, which might come from legal approval of specific terms by the authorities.

3.4. Modifier terminologies used in academic research

The scientific community uses a wide variety of terminologies (Table 1). However, no studies have
been performed to analyse the preferred modifier terminologies among scientists and, therefore, a
consensus on accepted terminologies does not exist. Based on the scientific articles (N1=144) collected
from the literature search on this topic for the period 2013–2022, the most used terms are “cultured”
(N=43) and “cell-based” (N=27), followed by “in vitro” (N=17), “artificial” (N=11) and “cellular”(N=10),
while other modifier terms appear to be less commonly used (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Relative share of the synonyms of “cell-based” meat modifiers

Synthetic
Animal-free Slaughter-free
Lab-grown
Cell-cultured
Clean
Cultured
Cultivated

Cellular

Artificial

In vitro Cell-based

Source: Authors' own elaboration.

Terms used in the titles of scientific articles collected from the literature search for the years 2013-
2021 (as mentioned in Table 1).

3.5. Modifier terminologies used by the media and others

Using the News on the Web corpus (Davies, 2016) via the website English-Corpora.org, a large
collection of texts was searched through to verify the frequency that “cell-based” meat terms were
mentioned in the media between 2010 and 2021 (Figure 2). This showed that media coverage of “cell-
based” meat developments has markedly increased in the last 10 years (Figure 2.a) and uses a wide
variety of synonyms (Figure 2B and Table 1). The most frequently used terms since 2010 were, among
others, “cultured” (30 percent), “lab-grown” (19 percent) and “fake” (14 percent) and “clean” (9
percent). It has to be noted that the preferentially used terms in the media have shifted in the last

1
N=144 means that the number (N) of scientific articles was 144.

5
Food safety aspects of cell-based food Background document one – Terminologies

years: while in the initial years, terms such as “in vitro”, “cultured” or “clean” meat were often used
alongside “cultured” meat, currently other terms are more frequently encountered, such as
“cultivated” or “cell-based” meat (Southey, 2021).

Figure 2.a: The number of mentions of various terms for the period 2010–2021

1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Cultured meat Cultivated meat Lab-grown meat Fake meat

Cell-based meat Synthetic meat Clean meat Artificial meat
Healthy meat Imitation meat In-vitro meat Others (<1%)

Figure 2.b: Relative share of the various synonyms

Note: “fake meat” and “imitation meat” were also used for other meat analogue types; “healthy meat”
occurred in many unrelated contexts

Source: Davies, M. 2016. Corpus of News on the Web (NOW). https://www.english-corpora.org/now.

6
4. Impact of the terminologies
4.1. Public perception and acceptance of modifier terminologies
Participants in studies on acceptance of cell-based meat and the impact of terminology thereon are
mainly from Western countries (United States of America, United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, European Union) with a few exceptions (Brazil, People’s Republic of China). Studies
carried out with other languages are not found with the current strategy. These are actually forward-
looking studies because the products had not yet been launched on the markets at the time of study.
Singapore might offer the opportunity to gauge consumer perception and acceptance in practice as
“cultured” chicken products are already marketed and available in restaurants. Singapore’s Agency
for Science Technology and Research (A*STAR) has also put out articles in local media outlets as early
as 2019 with the term “cultured meat”, which could have helped consumers become more familiar
with both the terminology and technology around “cultured meat”. Singapore, as a high-income and
high-tech country with a diverse ethnic population, might not be representative of other countries in
the region, however.

In the introduction to their study, Bryant and Barnett (2019) provide an overview of the various terms
for cell-based food encountered in the scientific literature and beyond. They also point out the
importance of names and labels that directly or indirectly impact consumers’ perceptions and appeal
of the product. These authors also note that certain widely used names, such as “artificial meat” or
“synthetic meat”, may indirectly suggest vague and confusing concepts of “natural meat” to be
associated with conventional meat. In the same study, the authors analysed consumer perceptions of
four concepts in more detail: “animal-free” meat, “clean” meat, “cultured” meat, and “lab-grown”
meat. The participants (N=185) in this study made statistically significantly more positive associations
with “clean” meat than with the other three concepts. In addition, “clean” meat and “animal-free”
meat triggered more positive attitudes than “lab-grown” meat (Bryant and Barnett, 2019). In fact,
negative associations arose particularly with “lab-grown” meat , whereas “clean meat” was associated
with positive attributes. However, there is a problem with calling the product “clean” meat, as
it implies that conventional meat is unclean in some way, which indirectly raises often
unsubstantiated negative connotations for conventional meat. The outcomes were considered to
prove the importance of how “cell-based” meat concepts are named in order to avoid negative
perceptions and improve acceptance of these food products.

Possidonio et al. (2021) also noted that when the modifier term “lab-grown” was used for meat
instead of the term plant-based meat (rather than other modifiers for cell-based meat), Portuguese
consumers linked negative attributes to the concept of “cultured” meat more than to that of plant-
based meat substitutes. “Lab-grown” meat was also perceived as having the lowest sustainability, the
highest price and caloric value of all meat substitutes. The authors hypothesize that, indeed, the use
of the term “lab-grown” alone might have evoked images of artificial production environments. In
addition, consumer perceptions of the term “lab-grown” meat are affected by how the products are
presented. This was supported by the observation that when terms were associated with pictures of
the corresponding food products (alone or in a meal), a picture of “lab-grown” meat that was included
into a meal markedly increased consumers’ positivity to it on many scores (Possidonio et al., 2021).

In contrast to the findings of Bryant and Barnett (2019), Krings et al. (2022) attributed the lower
popularity of “clean meat”-based dishes than of conventional meat dishes by consumers from
Western countries who were omnivores, but neophobic towards food technology to the perceived
lower safety and/or artificiality of “clean meat” dishes (Krings, Dhont and Hodson, 2022). These
studies indicate that the choice of the comparators used for “cell-based” meat concepts and the way
“cell-based” meat concepts and products are presented (such as a term alone or visualized together
with a product) have an influence on consumer perception.

7
Food safety aspects of cell-based food Background document one – Terminologies

As for Brazil, various large meat-producing companies have indicated their intention to develop and
market cell-based meat within the next few years. Regulation on approval and labelling still has to be
developed, though, pending the outcomes of research on food hazards (Costa, 2022). Consumer
research in Portuguese shows that a significant proportion (>34 percent) of interviewed Brazilian
respondents were willing to consume cell-based meat (Bryant and Krelling, 2021; Forte Maiolino
Molento et al., 2021). There is variability, though, between interviewees of different age groups and
from different urban areas of Brazil when asked if they would consume “meat from cellular
agriculture” (Forte Maiolino Molento et al., 2021). After having been presented texts with one out of
four different names for cell-based meat, subjects in another study found “clean meat” to be less
descriptive and less distinguishable from conventional meat and plant-based alternatives than
“cultivated meat”, “cell-based meat”, and “slaughter-free meat” (Bryant and Krelling, 2021). It should
be noted that both these studies were performed using the Portuguese equivalents of the English
modifier terms. Bryant et al. (2019) did a pre-test among Chinese consumers to rank various potential
names for cell-based meat in Mandarin for appeal and descriptiveness. Based on the outcomes, these
authors selected the term “purity meat” (similar to “clean meat”), for use in a survey to further study
consumer perception.

4.2. Language barriers and translation issues

Language-specific perception barriers may also exist for the use of certain terminologies. Direct
translation from English may not always be straightforward, or might be problematic due to non-
familiarity or negative connotations of the translated terms. For example, several respondents to a
consumer survey in Japan expressed their dislike of the translation of “cultured” meat into Japanese
(Baiyo-niku) (CAIC, 2021).

Among ten cell-based meat-related terms submitted to a cross-section of German society in a study
survey, “direct meat” (Direktfleisch in German) attained the highest scores for appeal, accuracy, and
clear differentiation. This term was nonetheless excluded from further study due to its dissimilarity to
the English synonyms currently used and the low acceptability among industrial stakeholders (Janat
et al., 2020). Similar issues in perception of specific terms might also exist in other languages, and
should be evaluated before using terms.

Bryant et al. (2019) employed back-translation of cultured-meat-related terms and a study

questionnaire from English into Mandarin to achieve equivalent meaning. Back-translation entails the
translation of a questionnaire into a target language by a bilingual person as a first step. This translated
text is subsequently translated back into the source language by another bilingual person who is
unaware of the original text. The original text and the second translation can then be compared. Any
ambiguities and discrepancies can then be resolved, and the text revised and refined accordingly
(Jones, 1998).

4.3. Modifier terminologies that are fit for purpose

Hallman and Hallman (2020) extended on the findings by Bryant and Barnett (2019) in their study on
possible names for “cultured” seafood products. They noted that past consumer studies had focused
on meat, yet that the category of “cultured” seafood products was also at an advanced stage of
development. Moreover, previous studies had not addressed the distinguishability between
“cultured” and conventional products. In the case of seafood, there is already a need to distinguish
products of farmed and wild-caught seafood, and this now needs to be further clarified for the term
“cultured” seafood as well.

The authors formulated three additional requirements for a designation for cell-based food products,
namely that they 1) are appropriate from the consumers’ point of view; 2) do not disparage one or
any other category of foods; and 3) do not raise a response inconsistent with the idea that “cultured”

8
 Impact of the terminologies

seafood is safe, healthy and nutritious. The term chosen should be able to modify not only seafood
but also poultry and meat. Three additional phrases were used for the investigation, including
“produced using cellular aquaculture”, “cultivated from the cells of ....”, and “grown directly from the
cells of ...” (Hallman and Hallman, 2020).

All the concepts using the term “cell” were most accurately identified as being neither farm-raised nor
caught in the wild, and also scored significantly lower in consumer acceptance than the conventional
products (Hallman and Hallman, 2020). All concepts used were equally well identified as products not
to be consumed by people who are allergic to seafood. The phrases “cultivated from the cells of ....”
and “grown directly from the cells of ...” were most accurately identified as not being “ocean-caught”
or “farm-raised”. They were also somewhat less appetizing (17-18 percent versus 26 percent) than the
other concepts, and evoked the least positive initial responses. With several others, participants
imagined products labelled with these two phrases to be less tasty and less safe to eat as well. They
also thought products labelled with the concepts “cell-cultured” and “cultivated from the cells of ...”
to be less nutritious than conventionally farmed and wild-caught seafood (Hallman and Hallman,
2020). The authors abandoned “cultivated”, “cultured”, and “produced using cellular aquaculture”
due to an apparent misidentification as being from conventional aquafarming, widely known as
aquaculture. They also abandoned the descriptors “cultivated from the cells of ....” and “grown directly
from the cells of ...” given the negative responses to these concepts and the association with genetic
modification. Survey participants expressed positive initial responses to the two remaining concepts
of “cell-based” and “cell-cultured”. While both these concepts performed well on many counts, “cell-
based” outperformed “cell-cultured” in terms of perceived nutritional value and taste of the product,
purchasing intention, and consumption advice to children. The authors concluded that “cell-based”
met all criteria and was an appropriate name for product description (Hallman and Hallman, 2020).

In a follow-up study, the authors compared the two selected terms “cell-based” and “cell-cultured” in
a more focused way using a group of American consumers as respondents (Hallman and Hallman,
2021). Participants (N=1200) were shown two pictures of imaginary pouches containing salmon
substitute products. The front of the pouch featured a picture of a salmon fillet (suggested serving),
the name “Atlantic salmon fillets” in large font with a smaller subscript “cell-based” seafood on the
left and “cell-cultured” seafood on the right, on top of a nutritional fact table plus storage advice and
product weight (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Product packaging shown to participants in the study

Source: Hallman, W. K. & Hallman, W. K., II. 2021. A comparison of cell-based and cell-cultured as
appropriate common or usual names to label products made from the cells of fish. Journal of Food
Science, 86(9): 3798-3809. dx.doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.15860.

9
Food safety aspects of cell-based food Background document one – Terminologies

The outcomes confirmed those of the previous study in that many participants correctly identified
both products as not being derived from farm-raised or wild-caught fish, and that they should not be
consumed by persons with allergies. For the remaining incorrect identifications, “cell-cultured” was
more often associated with farm-raised products than “cell-based”, which was also the case for ocean-
caught fish. Moreover, many participants correctly assumed that both products were derived from
salmon cells. Initial, subsequent, and overall reactions to “cell-based” were more positive than to
“cell-cultured”. Products with both concepts performed equally positive in some respects: consumers
considered both somewhat-to-moderately safe to eat, moderately nutritious, slightly good-tasting,
and neither natural nor unnatural. “Cell-cultured” was associated more with genetic modification than
“cell-based”, while purchasing and tasting intentions were slightly greater for “cell-based” than for
“cell-cultured” products (Hallman and Hallman, 2021).

Ong et al. (2020) also studied the term “cell-based” meats, reviewing the evolving production and
regulatory landscapes for these products. As regards nomenclature, they considered the possibility of
adding additional terms implying edibility, healthiness, sustainability and no involvement of animals.
While for edibility, the ingredients and production processes used should be proven to be safe, various
claims and labelling rules and guidelines may apply to claims of healthiness, sustainability and absence
of cruelty to animals. As regards healthiness, depending on the regulatory frameworks, certain claims
may be permitted provided that evidence can be provided in support of these claims. The authors
considered that reference to “animal-free” might still be controversial as cells from animals will be
used as donors in the initial stage, although the use of lines of immortalized cells could further
decrease dependency on animals, as does the avoidance of the use of animal-derived additives to the
production media (Ong et al., 2020).

Szejda et al. (2019), in collaboration with several cell-based food companies, carried out a study in
which focus groups (N=27) discussed a narrative for the “cultured” meat presented to them, followed
by another study with segmented consumer groups (enthusiasts, sceptics, opponents). They
concluded that, for example, the concepts “cultivated” meat and “cultured” meat had the most
appeal, and were moderately descriptive. “Cell-based” and “cell-cultured” were only somewhat
appealing yet scored better on the descriptiveness scale as being moderately to very descriptive. The
modifiers “cultivated”, “cultured”, and “cell-based” differentiated moderately and moderately to very
much from conventional meat. It was argued that “cultivated” evoked positive responses, considering
appeal, neutrality, and descriptiveness criteria, for many of the participants.

4.4. Other considerations for terminologies

4.4.1. Allergen labelling
The product noun, such as “salmon” in the collocation “cultured salmon” might impart important
information to allergy patients who are allergic to the traditional form of the product from the same
animal species (salmon in this example). It is important to ensure that the modifiers do not conceal
this, such as in the example “cell-based artificial salmon product” (Lamb, 2018).
In addition, it is also important to consider proper allergen labelling, as cell-based food products can
have the same level of risks for allergic reactions as conventional counterparts (Hallman and Hallman,
2020). This will entail the declaration of ingredients (listed on the product label) that may cause
hypersensitivities, such as egg, crustaceans, fish, and milk (Codex Alimentarius, 2018). These may then
have to be highlighted in bold font, for example, so as to stand out for consumers reading the product
label.

4.4.2. Commodity terminologies in the regulatory framework

While no internationally harmonized definition of the term exists and nothing indicates restrictions
on the use of any terms, there are potential and significant restrictions in many countries on using
commodity terms such as “meat”, “chicken”, “fish”, “milk” and so forth. Cell-based food can be

10
 Impact of the terminologies

considered a “novel food” in certain jurisdictions (e.g. in the European Union), which may place
additional requirements on the terms used and provides an opportunity to define terms, as certain
regulatory requirements of “meat” may not apply to this type of product (Seehafer and Bartels, 2019).
In the United States of America, new agency regulations for labelling of meat and poultry products
derived from animal cells is under consultation in a so-called “advance notice of proposed regulation
(ANPR)” (USDA, 2021). While the ANPR touches upon issues of regulation and safety, it is notable that
it also addresses the various aspects identified by the scientific investigations into the impact of
naming of these products on acceptance and interpretation accuracy.

4.4.3. The term “cellular agriculture”

As of February 2022, several terms are in use in science, industry and the media, such as “cellular
agriculture”, “cellular food technologies”, “cell-based techniques” and “cell-based food production".
The use of these terms is currently dictated by the end user, and no studies have been performed on
the perception and acceptance of alternative terms by different social or professional groups.

The term “cellular agriculture” is used by many stakeholders and it indicates the production method
that can be used to make acellular or cellular products, where acellular products are made of organic
molecules like proteins and fats and contain no cellular or living material in the final product, while
cellular products are made of living or once-living cells. For example, acellular animal-sourced foods
(like milk proteins or gelatine) are produced without animals through fermentation using micro-
organisms like yeast or bacteria (often referred to as precision fermentation). In contrast, cellular
products are formed by growing cells from a particular animal species and tissue type in vitro, followed
by assembly of cells on a scaffold to form tissue-like structures and further processing into products
(Rischer, Szilvay and Oksman-Caldentey, 2020). The use of the term is also documented in various
sources (CAIC, 2021).

However, it should also be noted that for the scientific community, the term “cellular agriculture”
encompasses not only the production of cell-based food but also the utilization of cell cultures of a
whole variety of host organisms (animals, plants, microorganisms) for the production of agricultural
food products rather than production from farmed animals or crops (Mattick, 2018, Rischer, Szilvay
and Oksman-Caldentey, 2020).

Table 2 gives a summary of the various studies we analysed into detail on the impact of terminology
on the perception of cell-based meat products by consumers. The results show that “cultivated” was
the preferred modifier in 5 studies, while “cultured” and “cell-based” were preferred twice in separate
studies and “clean” in one study.

11
Food safety aspects of cell-based food Background document one – Terminologies

Table 2: Studies on modifier terminologies for cell-based food products, their preferred use and associated attributes

Sector/social group Country Term preference Preference (%) or best perception/acceptance Study set-up Reference
Consumers USA Cultivated Preference of consumers based on survey, and of relevant Mixed methods consumer (Szejda, 2019)
companies and associations. survey and focus groups
Cell-based food industry (N=27). Survey report
Appeal: cultivated and cultured more appealing than cell- University students:
Non-profit advocates based and cell-cultured. participants expressed a
Descriptiveness: cell-based and cell-cultured more diverse range of political
descriptive than cultivated and cultured. views, skewed toward a
Differentiation from conventional meat: cultivated, cell- younger age (primarily 18-
based, and cultured were moderately and cell-cultured 21 years), majority female
was moderately to very differentiating. (59%), and the majority
Differentiation from plant-based meat: all terms were were omnivores.
moderately differentiating.
Consumers USA Clean “Clean meat” showed significantly more positive Between-subjects design (Bryant and Barnett,
associations than “animal-free”, “cultured” or “lab- (N = 185). 2019)
grown”. “Clean meat” and “animal-free meat” also Participants’ perception
triggered more positive attitudes - and “clean meat” more assessed for 4 product Scientific article
positive intentional behaviours - than “lab-grown meat”. names: (1) “cultured
meat”, (2) “clean meat”,
(3) “lab-grown meat”, and
(4) “animal-free meat”.
Participants were recruited
through Amazon MTurk
(online platform), and
were 57.8% male, 42.2%
female, aged 20-68 years
(mean = 34.86, standard
deviation (SD) = 10.38).
The country was not
recorded, though 75% of
MTurk workers are in the
USA.
Cell-based food industry Worldwide Cultivated 75% preference. Study poll - 49 company (Friedrich, 2021)
Cultured 20% preference. CEOs consulted.

12
 Impact of the terminologies

Sector/social group Country Term preference Preference (%) or best perception/acceptance Study set-up Reference
Poll report
Cell-based food industry Worldwide Cultivated 37% preference. Analysis of websites, (Byrne, 2021)
Cultured 25% preference. LinkedIn profiles, and
Cell-based 18% preference. media statements of all Survey report
Cell-cultured 7% preference. known cultivated meat
start-ups.
Cell-based food industry USA Cultivated Preferred terms – neutral and scientifically accurate, and Statement by AMPS (AMPS, 2022)
Cell-based clear distinction from “plant-based protein” and “animal- Innovation member
based meat”. companies. Opinion
Consumers USA Cell-based Cell-based best term for clarity, perception and Between-subjects online (Hallman and Hallman,
acceptance. experiments (N=3186). 2020)
Study participants were
Cell-based seafood, cell-cultured seafood, cultivated recruited from a web- Scientific article
seafood, and cultured seafood were compared. based consumer panel
with more than 3.2 million
active members enrolled
in the United States. The
experiment was
performed during an 18-
day period in 2020. A total
of 8 485 randomly
selected E-rewards panel
members were sent an e-
mail invitation to
participate in the study.
Demographic information
(education level, year of
birth, ethnicity, race, and
gender) was used to
produce a sample
balanced to 2010 USA
census data.
Consumers USA Cell-based Cell-based versus cell-cultured seafood was compared. Two-group between- (Hallman and Hallman,
subjects design (N=1200). 2021)

13
Food safety aspects of cell-based food Background document one – Terminologies

Sector/social group Country Term preference Preference (%) or best perception/acceptance Study set-up Reference
Data were collected in Scientific article
2020. Study participants
consisted of adult
American consumers (18
and older) recruited from
the YouGov.com
web-based consumer
panel. A sample of 1 600
participants were selected
to produce the final
dataset, matching
a sampling frame derived
from the 2018 American
Community Survey. Of
these 1 600 participants,
1 200 were randomly
assigned to one of the two
experimental
conditions. A total of 591
participants viewed
packages displaying the
“Cell-Based Seafood,” and
609 viewed packages
displaying “Cell-Cultured
Seafood.”
Median length of the
experiment was 11.8
minutes. Consistent with
census data, 51.3% of the
1 200
participants were female.
Mean age was 47.41, SD =
17.69.

14
 Impact of the terminologies

Sector/social group Country Term preference Preference (%) or best perception/acceptance Study set-up Reference
Consumers UK and USA Cultivated Preferred terms for social context and product packaging, Survey and experiments - (Szejda, 2021)
Cultured and considered more appealing. Both terms were (N=2 292 for USA
perceived very similar. and N=2 270 for UK). Survey report
Sampling protocol to
Cell-based and Cell-cultured not the preferred terms, but match adult population
considered more descriptive. Both terms were also aged 18--74 years, by
perceived as very similar. interlocked sex and age
groups to fit within
generational groups.
Geographical region and
race/ethnicity quotas in
the USA, and region
quotas in the UK were
accounted for.
Consumers Portugal N.A. Only the term “lab-grown” was included in comparison Study 1 (N=138) - (Possidonio et al., 2021)
between eight different food products: red and white participants 58.1% female,
meat, fish and seafood, insects, legumes, tofu, seitan, and aged 18-52 years (Median Scientific article
lab-grown meat. “Lab-grown” meat was perceived age = 26.77, SD = 8.89).
negatively as the least natural and most processed of all More than half (58.9%)
meat alternatives, associated with health risks and had a higher education
artificiality and it was seen as the least sustainable and degree (BSc, MSc or
most expensive. Doctorate), 38.8% had
completed secondary
education and 2.3%
primary education. Most
participants included
animal products (meat or
fish) in their diets (82.8%),
3.7% followed a vegetarian
diet, and 6% a vegan diet;
7.5% reported to have
“other” dietary
orientations.

15
Food safety aspects of cell-based food Background document one – Terminologies

Sector/social group Country Term preference Preference (%) or best perception/acceptance Study set-up Reference
Study 2 (N=285) -
participants (68% female)
aged 18–66 years (M =
30.21, SD = 10.19). More
than half (56.8%) had a
higher education degree
(BSc, MSc or Doctorate),
41.1% completed
secondary education, and
2.1% primary education.
Most participants were
employed (60.4%) or
students (22.1%). Most
participants included meat
or fish in their diets
(59.6%), and 15.1%
followed a vegetarian diet,
21.1% had a vegan diet,
and 4.2% reported “other”
dietary orientations. On
average, participants lived
in predominantly urban
areas.
EU, UK, USA N.A. The “clean meat” label was evaluated negatively. The Experiment 1 - participants (Krings, Dhont and
authors mention that the term “clean” meat was chosen, (N = 270) recruited Hodson, 2022)
as it tends to be associated with more positive through the crowdsourcing
evaluations of the product compared with other labels platform Prolific and Scientific article
such as “cultured”, “in vitro”, or “lab-grown” meat. Thus received financial
one of the more positive labels was used to avoid strong compensation. Only
negative effects induced by the label alone. omnivores were retained.
The sample consisted of
Images of “clean meat”-labelled dishes were more 54.9% men and 45.1%
negatively evaluated than images of “regular meat”- women, with a mean age
labelled dishes by omnivores. “Clean meat”-based dishes of 30.42 years (SD
age = 10.95). Most

16
 Impact of the terminologies

Sector/social group Country Term preference Preference (%) or best perception/acceptance Study set-up Reference
were perceived as lower in safety and/or lower in participants were from the
naturalness. EU (45.3%), the UK
(27.9%), or the USA
(11.4%).

Experiment 2 - participants
(N = 626) were recruited
through opportunity
sampling on social media
and received no financial
compensation. Only
omnivores and vegans
retained. Sample consisted
of 21.8% men and 78.2%
women, with a mean age
of 36.41 years (SD age =
16.41). Of this sample, 455
were omnivores (74.7%
women; Median age =
37.47 years, SD age =
17.07) and 171 were vegan
(87.8% women; Median
age = 33.35 years; SD age =
14.45). Participants were
not asked for their
nationality.

Experiment 3 - participants
(N = 273) were recruited
through the crowdsourcing
platform Prolific and
received financial
compensation. Only
omnivores were retained.
The sample consisted of

17
Food safety aspects of cell-based food Background document one – Terminologies

Sector/social group Country Term preference Preference (%) or best perception/acceptance Study set-up Reference
56.1% men and 43.9%
women, with a mean age
of 28.19 years (SD age =
9.36). Most participants
were from the EU (57.4%),
the UK (18.7%), and the
USA (6.7%).
Source: Authors' own elaboration.

18
5. Discussion
Overall, through the examination of both scientific and grey literature, “cell-based”, “cultivated” and
“cultured” are the three major terminologies used or preferred by consumers, industry and the
authorities. These terms are also commonly used in scientific publications, but a broader range of
terms can also be found in many cases in science, including the terms “in vitro”, “artificial” and “clean”
that were used more frequently in the early days of the technology developments. However, industry
prefers to use “cultured”, “cultivated” or cell-based”, while the media use a more diverse array of
terms including, but not limited to, “cultured”, “lab-grown”, “fake”, “clean”, “cultivated”, or “cell-
based”.

As for consumers, only a small number of well-designed quantitative studies in a limited number of
countries have addressed the appropriateness and relevant consumer perception and acceptance of
different terminologies. Moreover, these studies did not always include the same set of terms to be
analysed and compared. Despite these limitations, consumer studies indicated that the term
“cultivated” was often considered the most appealing, and “cultured”, “cell-based” and “clean” to a
lesser extent. These studies did not always test whether these four terms were also considered to be
the clearest.

It is recommended that, from the early stages, the national competent authorities establish clear and
consistent terminologies that fit in with their national and language contexts so that they can mitigate
potential miscommunications on this subject in the future. If English is the language to be used, based
on the data currently available and consumer studies, the potential candidates are “cell-based”,
“cultivated” or “cultured”, whereby the specific use might be further determined by the target
audience or language-specific associations of these terms. It is important to note that “cultured” and
“cultivated” may be wrongly interpreted when used for cell-based seafood products, as both terms
can be perceived as being “farmed fish” (Hallman and Hallman, 2020). In addition, United States’
federal agencies use the term “cultivated” to identify farmed shellfish. To make the terminology non-
commodity-specific, “cell-based” may be useful as in cell-based food, cell-based food products, or cell-
based food production, while “cultivated” and “cultured” most likely need to be followed by a
commodity name, such as meat, chicken, fish and so forth.

19
References
AMPS. 2022. A Guide to Terminology [Online]. Alliance For Meat Poultry And Seafood Innovation. Cited 2022.
https://ampsinnovation.org/resources/a-guide-to-terminology
BBC News. 2013. World's first lab-grown burger is eaten in London. www.bbc.com/news/science-
environment-23576143
Bryant, C. J. & Barnett, J. C. 2019. What's in a name? Consumer perceptions of in vitro meat under different
names. Appetite, 137: 104-113. dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.02.021.
Bryant, C., & Krelling, F. 2021. Alternative Proteins in Brazil: Nomenclature for Plant Based & Cultured Meat.
Sao Paolo: Good Food Institute Brazil. https://gfi.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Nomenclature-
Report.pdf
Bryant, C., Szejda, K., Parekh, N., Deshpande, V. & Tse B. 2019. A Survey of Consumer Perceptions of Plant-
Based and Clean Meat in the USA, India, and China. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 3: 11.
https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00011
Byrne, B. 2021. State of the Industry Report: Cultured Meat. Washington DC: The Good Food Institute.
https://gfi.org/resource/cultivated-meat-eggs-and-dairy-state-of-the-industry-report
CAIC. 2021. The Results of the Survey on Japanese Attitudes toward Cellular Agriculture and Cell-Cultured Meat
in 2020. Tokyo: Cellular Agriculture Institute of the Commons. www.cellagri.org/english/survey-result
Carrington, D. P. 2020. No-kill, lab-grown meat to go on sale for first time. The Guardian. Cited 23 August
2022.www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/02/no-kill-lab-grown-meat-to-go-on-sale-for-
first-time Codex Alimentarius 2018. General Standard for The Labelling of Prepackaged Foods. Rome:
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. www.fao.org/fao-who-
codexalimentarius/sh-
proxy/es/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FStand
ards%252FCXS%2B1-1985%252FCXS_001e.pdf
Costa, M. 2022. Carne de laboratório é igual à carne real? Pesquisadora do Cefet-MG explica. Estado do Minas,
19 January 2022
www.em.com.br/app/noticia/tecnologia/2022/01/19/interna_tecnologia,1338760/carne-de-
laboratorio-e-igual-a-carne-real-pesquisadora-do-cefet-mg-explica.shtml
Davies, M. 2016. Corpus of News on the Web (NOW). https://www.english-corpora.org/now
FDA (Federal Drug Administration). 2020. FDA Seeks Input on Labeling of Food Made with Cultured Seafood
Cells. https://www.fda.gov/food/cfsan-constituent-updates/fda-seeks-input-labeling-food-made-
cultured-seafood-cells
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2018. World Livestock: Transforming the
Livestock Sector through the Sustainable Development Goals. Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations.www.fao.org/3/CA1201EN/ca1201en.pdf
FAO. 2019. In brief. Five Practical Actions towards Resilient, Low-Carbon Livestock Systems. Rome: Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. www.fao.org/3/ca7089en/ca7089en.pdf
FAO 2021. Food Labelling. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. www.fao.org/food-
labelling/en
Forte Maiolino Molento, C., de Paula Soares Valente, J., Sucha Heidemann, M. & Glufke Reis, G. 2021.
Intenção de consumo de carne celular no Brasil e por que isto é importante (Chapter 9). In: Palhares,
J.C.P. (Ed.), Produção Animal e Recursos Hídricos. Brasilia: EMBRAPA, pp. 297-323.
www.embrapa.br/busca-de-publicacoes/-/publicacao/1048070/producao-animal-e-recursos-hidricos
Friedrich, B. 2021. Cultivated meat: A Growing Nomenclature Consensus. Washington DC: Good Food Institute.
https://gfi.org/blog/cultivated-meat-a-growing-nomenclature-consensus
Hallman, W. K. & Hallman, W. K., II. 2020. An empirical assessment of common or usual names to label cell-
based seafood products. Journal of Food Science, 85(8): 2267-2277. dx.doi.org/10.1111/1750-
3841.15351
Hallman, W. K. & Hallman, W. K., II. 2021. A comparison of cell-based and cell-cultured as appropriate
common or usual names to label products made from the cells of fish. Journal of Food Science, 86(9):
3798-3809. dx.doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.15860
Henchion, M., Moloney, A. P., Hyland, J., Zimmermann, J. & McCarthy, S. 2021. Review: Trends for meat, milk
and egg consumption for the next decades and the role played by livestock systems in the global
production of proteins. Animal: 100287. 10.1016/j.animal.2021.100287.

20
 References

Janat, C. & Bryant, C. 2020. Cultured Meat in Germany: Consumer Acceptance and a Nomenclature
Experiment. Miami: Cellular Agriculture Society. https://osf.io/dj9qx/download
Jones, P.W. 1998. Testing health status (“quality of life”) questionnaires for asthma and COPD.
European Respiratory Journal, Jan. 1998, 11 (1) 5-6; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.98.11010005
Krings, V. C., Dhont, K. & Hodson, G. 2022. Food technology neophobia as a psychological barrier to clean
meat acceptance. Food Quality and Preference, 96. 10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104409.
Lamb, C. 2018. Allergy fears and transparency among issues at latest USDA/FDA meat-ing. The Spoon (25
October 2018). https://thespoon.tech/allergy-fears-and-transparency-among-issues-at-latest-usda-
fda-meat-ing
Mattick, C. S. 2018. Cellular agriculture: The coming revolution in food production. Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists, 74(1): 32-35. 10.1080/00963402.2017.1413059.
OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) & FAO. 2021. OECD-FAO Agricultural
Outlook 2021-2030. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. www.oecd-
ilibrary.org/content/publication/19428846-en2021
Ong, S., Choudhury, D. & Naing, M. W. 2020. Cell-based meat: Current ambiguities with nomenclature. Trends
in Food Science and Technology, 102: 223-231. 10.1016/j.tifs.2020.02.010.
Possidonio, C., Prada, M., Graca, J. & Piazza, J. 2021. Consumer perceptions of conventional and alternative
protein sources: a mixed-methods approach with meal and product framing. Appetite, 156(44).
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.104860.
Rischer, H., Szilvay, G. R. & Oksman-Caldentey, K.-M. 2020. Cellular agriculture — industrial biotechnology for
food and materials. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 61: 128-134.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2019.12.003
Seehafer, A. & Bartels, M. 2019. Meat 2.0 - the regulatory environment of plant-based and cultured meat.
European Food and Feed Law Review, 4: 323-331.
SFA (Singapore Food Agency). 2021a. Requirements for the Safety Assessment of Novel Foods and Novel Food
Ingredients. Singapore: Singapore Food Agency. www.sfa.gov.sg/docs/default-source/food-import-
and-export/Requirements-on-safety-assessment-of-novel-foods_13Dec2021_final.pdf
SFA. 2021b. A Growing Culture of Safe, Sustainable Meat. Singapore: Singapore Food Agency.
https://www.sfa.gov.sg/food-for-thought/article/detail/a-growing-culture-of-safe-sustainable-meat
Southey, F. 2021. Cultivated, cultured, or other? Making alt meat terminology appealing and transparent. Food
Navigator. www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2021/10/27/The-best-terminology-for-cell-based-meat-
Experts-weigh-in.
Szejda, K., Allen, M., Cull, A., Banisch, A., Stuckey, B., & Dillard, C., & Urbanovich, T. 2019. Meat cultivation:
Embracing the science of nature. Washington, DC: The Good Food Institute.
Szejda, K., Bryant, C.J., Urbanovich T. 2021. US and UK consumer adoption of cultivated meat: A segmentation
study. Foods, 10(5): 1050. doi: 10.3390/foods10051050.
USDA. 2021. Labeling of Meat or Poultry Products Comprised of or Containing Cultured Animal Cells. 49491-
49496.86
Verzijden, K. 2021. Singapore Cultured Meat Regulatory Approval Process Compared to EU (Food Health Legal
Blog). Amsterdam: Axon Lawyers. http://foodhealthlegal.eu/?p=1081

21
 CC2241EN/1/10.22

Food Systems and Food Safety Division – Economic and Social Development Stream
Food and agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Rome, Italy