**5. Synthetic Meat: Does Innovation Taste Better to Those Who Have Never Tasted It?**

Sensitivity to the suffering and killing of farm animals is increasing worldwide [87], as is the number of vegetarians. This, however, has not extinguished the desire to eat meat, particularly among higher-income consumers, who nevertheless also declare that they do not want to contribute to animal suffering [97]. From this perspective, cultivated meat is an excellent compromise for protecting animal welfare and allaying the ethical concerns of meat consumers [98]. Cultivated meat, also known as in-vitro, synthetic or "clean" meat, is another example of a novel food. It is produced from animal cells taken from a living animal and then grown in a laboratory environment with a nutrient serum [99–102]. Cultivated meat appears to be a more sustainable alternative to traditional meat: the first studies spoke of its potential to reduce land use by 99%, water use by 96% and energy consumption by up to 45% [103]. More recent research has scaled back these performance estimates, finding that cultivated meat has a smaller land footprint than beef, and lower greenhouse gas emissions than poultry, pork and beef. This, however, comes at the price of a higher energy consumption than that is required for poultry and pork, and which is ultimately comparable to that necessary for beef [104]. The controlled production environment in which cultivated meat would be produced could provide opportunities for health and safety improvements, reducing the risk of diseases [105,106]. Nevertheless, some authors [100,107] point out that large-scale cell culture is never perfectly controlled and that unexpected biological mechanisms, such as the proliferation of cancer cells, may occur in production. That this is in fact a problem for the health of the consumer is still to be demonstrated, but the authors anticipate that it would be a very sensitive topic both for consumers and for legislators tasked with regulating meat cultivation.

Although cultivated meat is unlikely to appear on the market soon, companies are already investigating the profile of potentially interested consumers. Europeans appear to be divided, with at least half deeply suspicious of cultivated meat because it is unnatural [108,109]. It seems that providing information, particularly regarding environmental benefits, is important in order to encourage positive opinions among potential consumers [110]. The lack of familiarity with new technologies has been cited as a cause of distrust, uncertainty and concern about potential long-term negative consequences [110–112]. Both GMOs and cultured meat are categorized in this way, i.e., as technological innovations that arouse feelings of distrust and concern [110]. It would thus be important to reduce the false equivalences created by consumers, for example those that associate cultivated meat with GMOs [111].

Italy provides a good vantage point for investigating attitudes towards cultivated meat, as its food culture centers on traditional and natural foods [113]. In a study conducted by Mancini [114], participants were given information about cultivated meat's positive effects on the environment and showed a generally positive attitude. The best potential consumers were found to be young adults, with a high level of education; if previously informed, they were significantly more interested in buying than the other categories of participants. One of the most intriguing contradictions noted by the researchers is the fact that non-meat eaters had higher expectations about the taste of cultivated meat than meat eaters, even though the latter had expressed a higher intention to buy. Similar findings, with vegans and vegetarians more positive about cultivated meat but less interested in trying it than meat eaters, have also emerged from studies conducted in the United States [115]. The explanation offered for this apparently contradictory behavior is that these categories are not opposed to cultured meat but at the same time are not interested in consuming it. This would be perfectly in line with the choice of a vegan or vegetarian diet, and it thus might be appropriate to direct some strands of research to investigating people's motivations for making certain food choices, which are probably driven by a very strict internal logic even if they seem contradictory at first glance. If this is true, positive

perceptions expressed about novel foods should not be simplistically interpreted as an indicator of their potential for commercial success [114].
