What should Europe call ‘fake’ meat?

With EU countries divided over the merits of artificially manufactured meat, a leading novel foods expert has told Euronews that finding a name for the product will assist consumers to get used to the idea.

A recent European Court of Justice ruling sparked debate on whether meaty descriptions may be applied to plant-based foods, but how to name lab-grown, cell-based or ‘fake’ meat, remains an open question.

The question will eventually fall to European lawmakers, however, since dubbing terms for this emergent foodstuff – made by cultivating animal muscle cells in bioreactors – will fall within EU food labelling and trade rules.

Different stakeholders, including governments and industry groups, have proposed names in a bid to propel it towards consumer acceptance or to consign it to the food bin.

Italy – no ally of the innovation – has advocated use of the term synthetic meat, although this may be misleading since the product originates from real animal cells.

“Ultimately, we just need to choose a name and use it consistently,” William K. Hallman, a professor at Rutgers University and leading expert on novel food, told Euronews. He pointed out that a single, consistent name would ease regulation, reduce consumer confusion, and facilitate international trade.

A rose, by any other name…

Research conducted by Hallman into potential names for lab-grown meat identified more than 85 potential monickers, and he explained the power of language in shaping consumer perception.

“Some opponents of this technology push for terms like ‘lab-grown’, which sound less appetising,” he said, adding that others use terms like ‘clean’ or slaughter-free to push its attractions over butchered livestock.

“Marketing companies spend millions of dollars trying to figure out what to call their products because they know that what you call it has meaning for people,” he said. “Everything that consumers learn about the product is framed by the name of it.”

Although no lab-grown meat products have been approved for sale in the EU, conservative parties across Europe have already voiced opposition. Some countries, including Italy and Hungary, have even banned cell-based meat production, consumption, and marketing – though such bans are contested by EU regulators.

Hallman believes a consistent name should be chosen now, before the products hit the European market, to increase public familiarity.

“There’s nothing more personal or emotional than food as we literally take foods into our bodies,” he said adding that novel foods can initially trigger fears known as “food neophobia”.

And the right term should be…

For Hallman, picking the right name is not a mere marketing exercise as it has to balance consumer perception and regulatory transparency.

“A name must align with public expectations and meet regulatory standards by being truthful and non-misleading,” he said.

Most importantly, consumers need to recognise that cell-based meat differs from traditional products but at the same time, those who may have allergies should acknowledge the conventional source of the cells as they’re probably going to be allergic to the cell-cultured version of that foodstuff.

ADVERTISEMENT

Cell-based meat tries to closely replicate traditional meat in taste, texture, and nutritional value. “The real substantial difference is the process [to produce it],” the expert noted.

For him, ‘cell-based’ or ‘cell-cultured’ are terms that meet both regulatory and consumer needs, as opposed to more stigmatising terms like ‘fake meat’ or ‘lab-grown’ which are also widely used in Europe.

However, Hallman emphasised that unfamiliarity with the concept of cell-based meat remains a challenge. “Most consumers globally are not yet familiar with creating meat from cell cultures,” he noted.

“Ultimately, what consumers care about is whether the product is going to work for what I want it to work for,” he said giving them the right to make informed choices and not be misled and what he referred to as “consumer sovereignty”.

ADVERTISEMENT