Assuring Food Security: Consumers’ Ethical Risk Perception of Meat Substitutes

The world’s growing population requires an adequate supply of protein to maintain food security, but animal protein production is limited by the finite resources of land, fresh water, and ocean capacity. Several meat substitutes offer protein alternatives that may improve food security in less-developed economies. However, perceptions of difference in the ethical risk associated with consumption of plant-based substitutes (PM) vs. cultured meat (CM) may affect purchases of these products. This study examined differences in ethical risk perception using online survey data gathered in 2020. An ordered logit technique yielded the probabilities of changes in ethical risk perception influenced by demographic attributes, views about the technology, and adequacy of industry regulations. The results show that consumers associated PM with low ethical risk. Educated consumers were more likely to agree that the ethical risks of CM are higher than PM and to regard PM products as safer than CM. Price sensitivity made consumers more likely to agree that the ethical risks related to CM are higher than those related to PM. Ingredient safety concerns increased the ethical risk perception of CM. Consumers perceiving the meat substitute classification to be unclear were more likely to assign a higher ethical risk to CM than PM. The perception of ethical risk associated with CM was greater than that associated with PM if meat substitute industry regulations were inadequate. The results suggest a need to provide verifiable information about each type of meat substitute as well as transparent and understandable standards and rules before these products can improve protein availability and food security.