Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36496502›Full record

ArticleNPJ science of food2022

Nomenclature of cell-cultivated meat & seafood products.

Marlana Malerich, Christopher Bryant

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ science of food, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Marlana MalerichSchool of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. marmalerich@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7607-7635
Christopher BryantDepartment of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, UK. chris@bryantresearch.co.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cell-cultivated meat and seafood is getting closer to a reality for consumers in the US and around the world. However, regulators are still largely lagging behind on regulating production and labelling of these products. In a large experimental study using a representative US sample (N = 2653), we tested 9 different names for 3 different types of meat and seafood products in terms of their clarity, consumer appeal, and communication of safety and allergenicity. We found that terms proposed by the conventional meat and seafood industry including 'artificial' and 'lab-grown' tended to score low in terms of consumer appeal, purchase intent, and perceived safety, while 'artificial' also had the lowest score on clarity and communicating allergenicity. On the other hand, terms proposed by the cell-cultivated industry including 'Novari' scored high in terms of appeal and purchase intent but scored low in terms of clarity. The terms 'cell-cultured' and 'cell-cultivated' were the best all round labels in terms of clarity, appeal, and communicating safety and allergenicity - in particular, the addition of the prefix 'cell-' increased understanding compared to 'cultured' or 'cultivated' labels. The most-understood label was a short descriptive phrase ('grown from [animal] cells, not farmed [or fished]'), suggesting that additional wording on packaging could aid consumer understanding in this early stage. A high proportion of consumers were uncertain about the allergen status of cell-cultivated products under all names, suggesting that cell-cultivated products should be labelled as the type of meat they are, and carry applicable allergen information.

Identifiers

PMID36496502
PMCPMC9734853

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.