Preliminary Results of a Literature Review on Consumer Acceptance of Cultured Fish

Introduction The growing global demand for seafood has made the study of the fishing and aquaculture sectors crucial for global food security. However, the intensification of fishing has led to excessive exploitation of marine resources, with over a third of fish species currently overexploited and 60% at the limit of their regenerative capacity (FAO, 2020). At the same time, intensive aquaculture raises environmental and health concerns related to ecosystem contamination and antibiotic use (Naylor et al., 2021; Little et al., 2016). An emerging solution is fish derived from cell cultures, also known as "cultivated fish" or "lab-grown fish," which offers a sustainable alternative by reducing dependence on traditional fishing and farming methods. Cultivated fish has the potential to ease pressure on marine ecosystems, enhance food security, and meet the increasing demand for animal protein for human consumption (Post, 2012; Rubio et al., 2019). However, its adoption in diets largely depends on consumer acceptance, which is influenced by a range of socioeconomic, cultural, and psychological factors. Familiarity with the technology, perceptions of naturalness and food safety, expected taste, and price are just some of the elements that shape consumer attitudes toward this novel product (Bryant & Barnett, 2018; Mancini & Antonioli, 2019). The cultivated fish sector is expanding rapidly, with a growing number of companies developing these products (GFI, 2022). In light of these considerations, the proposed study aims to systematically analyze the existing scientific literature on consumer acceptance of cell-cultured fish, exploring the socioeconomic determinants and research trends of a product whose market is still in the early stages of development. The objective of the study is to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge, identify research gaps, and suggest directions for future studies. Methodology 
 The presented study was conducted through a systematic review of the scientific literature, based on recognized academic databases, including Scopus®, Web of Science® (WOS), and FSTA® (Food Science and Technology Abstracts). To ensure a rigorous and systematic approach, validated search strings were used, following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) protocol and the guidelines of Hagen-Zanker and Mallett (2013). This approach helps minimize the risk of bias in study selection, ensuring transparency, replicability, and methodological integrity. The use of the PRISMA method guarantees a structured and reliable process for identifying, selecting, and synthesizing scientific articles. Additionally, Zotero, an open-source reference management software, was employed for resource management and screening. Zotero facilitated the storage, organization, and critical analysis of sources while enabling an efficient categorization of the literature. This, in turn, streamlined the review process and reduced the risk of overcitation or the unintentional omission of relevant studies—common challenges in traditional reviews (Mallett, Hagen-Zanker, Slater, & Duvendack, 2012; Hagen-Zanker & Mallett, 2013). Strict selection criteria were applied to ensure the quality and relevance of the included studies, as illustrated in Table 1. Criteria Inclusion Exclusion Time frame Publications from 2018 onwards Publications prior to 2018 Language English Other languages Focus Consumer attitude and acceptance of cultivated fish Studies on other innovative (biotech) products or unrelated topics Publication type Peer-reviewed articles Grey literature, conference proceedings, book chapters Contributions from Google Scholar were excluded to reduce the risk of including non-validated sources (grey literature). The selected articles were analyzed by a team of three researchers, with cross-checks to ensure data reliability. The analysis combined qualitative and quantitative methods, classifying the content of the records into key thematic categories, as shown in Table 2. Category Main Variables Acceptance of cultivated fish or seafood Purchase intention, level of acceptance Perception of cultivated seafood products Safety, healthiness, nutritional value, naturalness, expected taste, environmental sustainability, animal welfare Sociodemographic factors Residence, education, age, gender, income, religion, ethnicity Psychometric and individual factors Attitude toward food technologies, knowledge, awareness, familiarity Data for sample description Residence, education, age, gender, income, religion, ethnicity Behavioral factors Dietary habits, role in household purchasing decisions   Results and Discussion Since 2020, publications on the topic have significantly increased, shifting from technological evaluation to consumer perception. A total of 901 records were screened, with 12 fully analyzed. Data sources include WOS (216), FSTA (48), and Scopus (637). Most studies are from North America and Europe, with contributions from Asia and Oceania. Research is concentrated in countries like the US, UK, Japan, and Australia, highlighting the need for cross-cultural analyses. Our preliminary results show that several studies have explored consumer perceptions of cell-based seafood products and the barriers to their adoption. These studies provide valuable insights into how the public responds to this innovative food technology. A key finding is that the term "cell-based seafood" is generally perceived positively by consumers. Hallman et al. (2020) highlighted that this term was seen as the most appropriate for describing the product, as it clearly distinguishes cultivated fish from both wild-caught and farmed fish, while also signaling potential allergens. This perception was even more favourable than other terms like "cell-cultured" or "cultivated," which in some cases were considered less clear. Hallman et al. (2021) further reinforced this, showing that consumers tend to prefer the term "cell-based" over "cell-cultured," as it generates more interest and higher acceptance regarding purchase intentions. Despite this, some uncertainty remains. Malerich et al. (2022) found that consumers were confused about the allergenic status of these products, underscoring the importance of clear labeling as a priority. In addition to labeling, there is growing interest in the environmental benefits and animal welfare aspects of cell-based products, as noted by Ford et al. (2023). However, there are significant concerns about cultural acceptance and trust in these new foods. Giacalone and Jaeger (2023) found that cell-based products, including cultivated fish, are generally viewed as low-acceptance food technologies, similar to cultivated meat and insects. This suggests that while the potential benefits are acknowledged, overcoming skepticism remains a challenge. Despite these concerns, several studies have reported moderate interest in trying cell-based products. Hallman et al. (2020) found that participants showed similar levels of interest in cell-based seafood as in conventional products, such as wild or farmed fish. Notably, participants expressed a preference for the term "cell-based." Similarly, Chuah et al. (2024) found that consumers were more likely to choose "cell-based" products over farmed fish, although wild-caught fish remained the preferred choice overall. Looking at a specific cultural context, Braun & Knight (2024) reported that 70% of Japanese participants were willing to try cultivated fish, but only 60% were willing to purchase it, with 11.8% willing to pay a higher price. This indicates that while there is interest in trying cultivated fish, concerns about price and taste may limit broader adoption. The safety, long-term health implications, and cultural acceptance of cell-based products are major concerns for consumers. Ford et al. (2023) identified hesitancy, particularly regarding the perceived naturalness and taste of these products. Braun & Knight (2024) found that some Japanese participants described cultivated fish as "unnatural," highlighting a significant barrier to acceptance. Moreover, individual factors such as age, gender, education, and prior knowledge play a crucial role in the acceptance of cell-based products. Younger participants (under 45 years) have been observed to be more open to trying and purchasing cultivated fish compared to older participants. Income also influences acceptance, with lower-income consumers more willing to replace conventional fish with cultivated fish. Prior knowledge of the product is another important factor. Participants who had heard about cultivated fish before the study were significantly more likely to pay a higher price for it. This suggests that educating consumers and raising awareness about the product can enhance acceptance. How the product is communicated is also essential for its adoption. Hallman et al. (2021) and Malerich et al. (2022) noted that terms like "cell-based" are clearer and more understandable than "cell-cultured" or "cultivated," which can create confusion. Communicating the environmental and food safety benefits effectively, as suggested by Chuah et al. (2024) and Ford et al. (2023), can further increase acceptance. While there is growing interest in cell-based seafood, particularly cultivated fish, concerns about food safety, naturalness, and cultural acceptance remain significant barriers. Clear communication about the environmental benefits, addressing safety concerns, and enhancing consumer knowledge are critical factors that could drive broader adoption of these innovative products. References 1. Braun, P. D., & Knight, A. (2024). Appetite or distaste for cell-based seafood? An examination of Japanese consumer attitudes. MDPI. 2. Bryant, C., & Barnett, J. (2018). Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: A systematic review. Meat Science, 143, 8-17. 3. Chuah, S. X. Y., Gao, Z. F., Arnold, N. L., & Farzad, R. (2024). Cell-Based Seafood Marketability: What influences United States consumers' preferences and willingness-to-pay? Food Quality and Preference. 4. Engel, L., Vilhelmsen, K., Richter, I., Moritz, J., Ryynänen, T., Young, J. F., Burton, R. J. F., Kidmose, U., & Klöckner, C. A. (2024). Psychological factors influencing consumer intentions to consume cultured meat, fish, and dairy. Appetite. 5. FAO. (2020). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020. FAO, Rome. 6. Ford, H., Gould, J., Danner, L., Bastian, S. E. P., & Yang, Q. (2023). "I guess it's quite trendy": A qualitative insight into young meat-eaters' sustainable food consumption habits and perceptions towards current and future protein alternatives. Appetite. 7. GFI. (2022). The Good Food Institute Annual Report. https://gfi.org/resource/gfi-annual-report/ 8. Giacalone, D., & Jaeger, S. R. (2023). Consumer acceptance of novel sustainable food technologies: A multi-country survey. Journal of Cleaner Production. 9. Hagen-Zanker, J., & Mallett, R. (2013). How to do a rigorous, evidence-focused literature review in international development: A guidance note. ODI. 10. Hallman, W. K., & Hallman, W. K. (2021). A comparison of cell-based and cell-cultured as appropriate common or usual names to label products made from the cells of fish. Journal of Food Science. 11. Hallman, W. K., & Hallman, W. K. II. (2020). An empirical assessment of common or usual names to label cell-based seafood products. Journal of Food Science. 12. Hallman, W. K., Hallman, W. K., & Hallman, E. E. (2023). Cell-based, cell-cultured, cell-cultivated, cultured, or cultivated. What is the best name for meat, poultry, and seafood made directly from the cells of animals? npj Science of Food. 13. Little, D. C., Newton, R. W., & Beveridge, M. C. (2016). Aquaculture: A rapidly growing and significant source of sustainable food? Status, transitions and potential. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 75(3), 274-286. 14. Malerich, M., & Bryant, C. (2022). Nomenclature of cell-cultivated meat & seafood products. npj Science of Food. 15. Mancini, P., & Antonioli, F. (2019). Exploring consumers' attitude towards cultured meat in Italy. Meat Science, 150, 101-110. 16. Naylor, R. L., Hardy, R. W., Bureau, D. P., Chiu, A., Elliott, M., Farrell, A. P., ... & Nichols, P. D. (2021). A 20-year retrospective review of global aquaculture. Nature, 591(7851), 551-563. 17. Post, M. J. (2012). Cultured meat from stem cells: Challenges and prospects. Meat Science, 92(3), 297-301. 18. Rubio, N. R., Xiang, N., Kaplan, D. L., & Yamanaka, S. (2019). Cultured meat: A future meat source. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 91, 196-203.