
There’s a reason why meat is at the heart of the culture wars – for cultivated proteins to succeed, companies need to tap into consumers’ emotions.
After four successive years of declining consumption, Europeans began eating more meat in 2024, with average annual intake reaching 66kg per person. That’s over four times more than what’s recommended by Eat-Lancet’s Planetary Health Diet guidelines.
The reason why meat is so revered in Europe is because it is far more than just food – it’s deeply woven into the region’s cultural fabric, representing tradition, identity and community. As is the agricultural systems that produce it.
According to a new report by the EU-backed EIT Food Consumer Observatory, Europeans view meat in four overarching ways. Some see it as a resource to be exploited for human benefit, some as part of a harmonious system with nature and society. Others believe eating meat is driven by instinctual and primal tendencies, and yet others think innovation and technology will reshape the way we eat.
“The cultural meaning of meat is in transition, moving from commoditised to more mindful narratives,” the 17-country More than Meat study states.
However, meat consumption isn’t sustainable for the planet, our health, and global food security. Existing farming systems are overstressed and incapable of keeping up with rising population numbers, while generating a third of all greenhouse gases. Meat, meanwhile, is being increasingly linked to a number of health detriments, from cardiovascular disease and cancer to type 2 diabetes and obesity.
It’s why climate-friendly alternatives like plant-based meat exist, and cultivated proteins are popping up. However, after peaking in hype in the late 2010s, the progress made by these innovations has slowed. They’re seen as artificial, overprocessed, and disconnected from traditional farming practices.
However, these proteins “address environmental, ethical, and health concerns associated with conventional meat production” and mitigate “the need for traditional animal farming”, EIT Food says.
“If we want sustainable meat alternatives to resonate with diverse European consumers, we must first grasp what meat means to them,” said Klaus Grunert, lead of the Consumer Observatory. Effective positioning and communication around alternatives requires more than environmental arguments. It must speak to values, habits, and emotions tied to food.”
Three types of consumers when it comes to meat

A companion report published by EIT Food, titled Reimagining Protein and also covering 17 nations, assesses how Europeans perceive cultivated meat, and the best strategies to bring it to market. It found that only 29% of consumers are open to trying these proteins.
EIT Food identified three main segments of consumers with different attitudes and consumption patterns around meat. Majority Meat includes people devoted to conventional meat, eating it several times a week and showing limited interest in reducing intake or trying alternatives. This group doesn’t prioritise environmental concerns, and sees meat as a natural part of their diet.
The Preference for Plant-Based group, meanwhile, is focused on a plant-forward diet. Even if they enjoy the taste of meat, they’re deterred by its sustainability and animal cruelty impact – that said, health is often the main driver. But these consumers often find it difficult to find tasty options on the go or out of home.
Finally, EIT Food found a middle ground in the Best of Both category. These are people who maintain a balanced approach to eating both meat and plant-based foods. They don’t believe eliminating it is necessary, but take issue with overconsumption, animal cruelty and factory farming. For this segment, higher prices make “responsible” meat unattainable.
The study then analysed how these consumer sets perceive cultivated meat. While taste and texture are important, people want to “see it with their own eyes” instead of relying on third-party accounts in the media. The Majority Meat group may be the hardest to crack, as they’re the least likely to believe cultivated meat can successfully replicate the proteins they love.
Concerningly for the industry, people who want to eat more healthily are less willing to try cultivated meat, primarily because they see the production process as unnatural and beyond simple food processing. People are also concerned about the long-term health effects for what is, by definition, a novel food.
And while cultivated meat has been proven to be much more environmentally friendly, participants question whether it will truly have a lower climate impact, citing concerns around energy use. Meanwhile, those in the Majority Meat segment aren’t convinced that meat itself is bad for the planet, despite the livestock industry being responsible for up to a fifth of global emissions.
When it comes to animal welfare, the Preference for Plant-Based group is unsure if the ethical promises can be fully realised since animals are still involved in the process. Even for the Best of Both category, cultivated meat isn’t seen as “the right solution” because they’re more likely to disapprove of the way animals are raised and slaughtered than their use in the food chain.
Is hybrid meat the right strategy?

The research highlighted several reasons why consumer confidence is low in cultivated meat. Manufacturers are one of the less trusted food chain actors generally – they’re seen as having more power than scientists, who are among the most trusted. Study participants also cite low levels of trust in authorities, a lack of publicity in the media, and negative coverage, which EIT Food ascribed to lobbying.
One of the key strategies for bringing cultivated meat to market has been to mix it with plant-based ingredients to develop hybrid products. But while these may appeal to the Best of Both group, they’re currently seen as a compromise between plant-based and cultivated proteins that aren’t entirely appealing on their own, so their benefits need to be better explained.
“The target audience for this product is unclear, as consumers in the Preference for Plant-Based group may avoid it due to the presence of animal fat, while those in the Majority Meat group might prefer real meat,” the report explains.
Another strategy is to position cultivated meat as a premium option, which would make its high costs more acceptable in theory. But it’s “currently not associated with scarcity, exclusivity and premium quality, but with laboratories and artificial food”, EIT Food found. Majority Meat consumers are unconvinced by the taste, while the Best of Both group are less interested in premium meat.
The authors write that the biggest barrier facing the industry is the perception that it is artificial, and that negatively influences both taste and safety. And with consumers having low expectations for the sensory experience and concerns about the long-term health effects, messaging that focuses on taste and nutrition may be hard to cut through.
The biggest perceived benefit, however, is animal welfare, and companies should lean into that, particularly with the Best of Both and Preference for Plant-Based groups.
How companies should market cultivated meat

In the companion Meaning of Meat report, EIT Food notes that consumers are “curious yet sceptical” about cultivated meat: “Despite its compelling ethical and environmental claims (which are positively evaluated by consumers), the perceived scientific nature of cultivated meat could push it towards the same territory as commoditised, industrial meat and plant-based meats. That is, a product perceived as artificial and soulless.”
This is the opposite of the current cultural movement around meat. So companies must find a balance between being informative and approachable. “The health aspect is least addressed in current cultivated meat communication: many consumers see it as ‘double-processed’ (from cell to meat, and from meat to burger), reducing appeal and willingness to consume,” the report says.
However, it adds: “Despite scepticism, consumers see cultivated meat entering the market sooner than later; in the far future, consumers perceive cultivated meat as a daily protein source alongside plant-based alternatives.”
So how do companies market cultivated meat? EIT Food recommends ‘mindful science’, which involves humanising the tech-heavy narrative, showing real people behind the scenes, and design elements that blend clean visuals with soft colours and calm typography.
Brands should also reclaim ‘real meat’ by clearly stating that cultivated meat is real, just made differently, and backing the claim with educational (not overly technical) storytelling. Products should be anchored in taste, health, and feel-good eating, with marketing communicating flavour, satisfaction and nutritional benefits – think images where friends are enjoying dishes with these proteins, instead of lab equipment.
EIT Food also suggests companies start with ‘soft science’ in the short term to build trust, before pivoting to emotional and ethical narratives without needing to focus on the tech in the longer run. “Phase this messaging over time: now, focus on people, trust, and transparency; later, shift to the broader cultural benefits, positioning cultivated meat as the future of ethical and sustainable protein, and part of everyday life and community,” it states.
“To successfully introduce cultivated meat into European markets, manufacturers must first understand how consumers perceive it – what excites them, what concerns them, and what values guide their food choices,” said Sofia Kuhn, director of public insights and engagement at EIT Food.
“Effective positioning must be rooted in empathy and evidence, responding to consumer beliefs, not just scientific facts. By aligning communication and marketing strategies with real consumer perceptions, we can build trust, foster acceptance, and pave the way for a more sustainable food future.”
The post In Europe’s Meat-Rich Cultures, Cultivated Proteins Need A Rebrand appeared first on Green Queen.
This post was originally published on Green Queen.