A new EIT Food report examines how consumer trust, health, safety and perceptions of naturalness could shape the future of biotechnology foods.
The science behind novel proteins is advancing quickly. But according to new research from EIT Food, the biggest challenge facing biotechnology foods may not be developing the technology itself. It may be convincing consumers that the food produced with it is safe, healthy and worth putting on the dinner table.
The EIT Food Consumer Observatory’s report, Turning novel proteins into trusted foods: Consumer perceptions of high-tech proteins, examines how European consumers understand food processing and how they respond to three different biotechnology-enabled protein concepts: mycoprotein produced through biomass fermentation, precision fermentation, and cultivated meat.
The research involved 215 consumers using EIT Food Consumer Observatory’s citizen participation forum, an online research community involving more than 300 consumers from 17 European countries.
Its findings point to a complicated picture. Consumers are not simply divided between people who embrace food biotechnology and those who reject it. Instead, their attitudes depend heavily on how a product is produced, how familiar the process feels, what the finished food looks like, and whether consumers believe it offers credible health and safety benefits.
For companies preparing to bring novel proteins to market, that makes communication almost as important as the technology itself.
The trust gap around biotechnology foods
The research comes at a pivotal point for the biotechnology sector, with novel protein manufacturers preparing for market launch and regulation beginning to catch up with technological development.
EIT Food argues that how these products are positioned when they reach consumers could have a significant influence on acceptance. Previous Consumer Observatory research found that perceived health and safety are major barriers to acceptance of alternative proteins, while perceptions of naturalness are closely linked to how processed a product is perceived to be.
That creates an immediate problem for biotechnology foods.
Consumers tend to associate familiar, minimally processed foods with naturalness and health. Biotechnology, by contrast, can conjure up laboratories, complex production systems and unfamiliar processes. The report describes a divide between “low-tech” proteins, such as legumes and algae, and “high-tech” proteins including cultivated meat and fermentation-enabled products. The former benefit from familiarity, while the latter are more likely to be perceived as engineered or heavily processed.
Yet the research also reveals that consumers’ views are not as straightforward as the simple label of “processed” might suggest.
Consumers understand processing until real food enters the picture
Participants in the study had relatively clear ideas about what separates whole foods from ultra-processed foods.
Whole foods were associated with naturalness, health, simple ingredients and traditional or familiar preparation. Ultra-processed foods, meanwhile, were associated with industrial processing, artificial ingredients and additives used to alter taste, texture or shelf life.
But when consumers were presented with actual foods, those definitions became much less certain.
Foods such as whey protein and oat milk were sometimes regarded as healthy despite being recognised as highly processed. Products with a reputation for being healthy could therefore escape the negative assumptions attached to processing. At the same time, foods regarded as whole were rarely classified as unhealthy.
The result was considerable variation in how participants categorised individual products.
That distinction matters for biotechnology foods. Consumers may say that more processing means less healthy food, but their actual judgements are more nuanced. They can separate the production process from the qualities of the finished product.
This creates an opportunity for novel proteins.
The product may matter more than the process
One of the report’s most significant findings is that consumers can decouple health from processing when considering biotechnology proteins.
Rather than automatically classifying these products as either healthy whole foods or unhealthy processed foods, participants considered both the manufacturing process and the characteristics of the final product.
The research identified three broad consumer groups: “Lab-Food Phobics”, who see biotechnology as the extreme end of food processing; “Biotech Optimists”, who focus on the familiar food being produced; and “Neutral Pragmatists”, who remain open to the possibility that complex production processes can produce healthy food.
This suggests that simply explaining the technology may not be enough.
In fact, the report finds that emphasising the purity and healthiness of biotechnology products is more likely to encourage acceptance than putting the production process at the centre of the message.
That does not mean consumers want biotechnology companies to hide how their products are made. Quite the opposite. The research finds that transparency is important, but technical or abstract explanations can make unfamiliar foods harder to understand.
The challenge is therefore to open the “black box” of biotechnology without making consumers feel as though they need a technical education before they can understand their dinner.
Moving beyond the “lab food” image
The phrase “lab food” captures one of the central barriers identified by the research.
Biotechnology foods can be perceived as artificial, particularly when consumers cannot easily visualise how the technology connects to something familiar. The report argues that building trust requires companies to explain the basics of where food comes from while focusing on the qualities of the final product.
Simple language matters.
The report recommends grounding descriptions of biotechnology in familiar food production processes and, where appropriate, established medical applications. At the same time, it warns that technical language, including references to genetic modification or specific strains of fungi and bacteria, can trigger strong objections.
For biotechnology foods, this makes the language surrounding a product more than a marketing consideration. It can shape how consumers interpret the food’s healthiness, safety and naturalness.
Sustainability alone will not win consumers over
It might seem logical to lead with the environmental case for novel proteins. The research suggests that this is unlikely to be enough.
EIT Food found that sustainability credentials do not necessarily provide a strong enough reason for consumers to choose biotechnology foods. Instead, credible health benefits and animal welfare considerations resonate more strongly. Sustainability can still play an important role, but the report recommends presenting it as a supporting benefit rather than assuming it will be the primary motivation for consumers.
The report’s figures underline the challenge. Among consumers looking to change their diet, only 12% prioritise making more sustainable choices. By contrast, animal welfare benefits associated with biotechnology proteins were found to resonate more strongly.
For manufacturers, that means the consumer proposition may need to start with what people put in their bodies, rather than what the technology could do for the planet.
Health, safety, taste, texture and familiarity can provide a more immediate connection. Environmental and animal welfare benefits can then reinforce that proposition.
Mycoprotein shows the value of familiarity
Of the three biotechnology approaches examined, mycoprotein produced through biomass fermentation was perceived as the most familiar and natural.
The reason is relatively straightforward. Consumers already understand fermentation through foods such as yoghurt and beer, while mycoprotein can be connected to mushrooms. These associations help make the technology feel less alien.
The research found that emphasising fermentation strengthened perceptions of healthiness and safety. However, language associated with fungi or mould, including terms such as “strains”, could be off-putting.
There was also a practical problem: some consumers found it difficult to visualise the finished product from the description alone. More concrete explanations tailored to specific products could therefore help make mycoprotein easier to understand.
The lesson is broader than mycoprotein. Familiarity can act as a bridge between an emerging technology and an established consumer expectation.
Precision fermentation faces a steeper challenge
Precision fermentation presents a different communication problem.
The technology can produce proteins found in cow’s milk or chicken eggs without animals, and the report’s concept description explains that microorganisms such as yeast are used to produce the desired proteins. The process was also connected to established applications such as the production of insulin.
That medical connection appears particularly important.
Consumers who responded positively to precision fermentation tended to see it as well tested, with comparisons to technologies used to produce insulin helping build confidence in its safety. But the technology was also perceived as the most artificial of those examined in the research.
References to gene sequences or genetic modification could trigger particularly strong objections, while concerns about unknown long-term health consequences remained prominent.
The implication is clear: precision fermentation may require especially careful explanation, combining transparency with language that consumers can understand without reinforcing their perception of biotechnology as unnatural.
Cultivated meat could appeal to conflicted meat-eaters
Cultivated meat presents perhaps the most emotionally charged proposition.
The concept tested by EIT Food positioned cultivated meat as real meat produced from a small sample of animal cells, with the cells grown in a fermenter. It was presented as offering the taste and texture of conventional meat without raising or slaughtering animals.
The research suggests that its strongest potential audience may not be vegetarians.
Instead, cultivated meat could appeal to people who continue to eat meat but feel conflicted about animal welfare and the environmental implications of meat production. For these consumers, it could represent a “best-of-both-worlds” option because it does not require them to abandon a familiar lifestyle.
That does not mean resistance has disappeared. Some consumers continue to see cultivated meat as artificial or unnatural and want stronger evidence that it is healthy and safe over the long term. Others remain unconvinced that it can genuinely replicate conventional meat or question its sustainability.
Still, continued exposure may be helping. The report notes that cultivated meat has been in the news for several years and is already available in some markets globally, potentially contributing to growing familiarity.
The route to acceptance is not simply “more technology”
The findings suggest that acceptance of biotechnology foods will depend less on technological sophistication than on whether consumers can make sense of what they are being offered.
That means communicating health claims with credible evidence, providing reassurance around safety, explaining production processes in simple and concrete terms, and showing how the finished food relates to things consumers already know.
It also means recognising that there is no single consumer response.
Some people will focus on the production process and reject foods they consider unnatural. Others will judge the final product and remain open to a protein that appears pure, simple and familiar. Between those groups sits a sizeable audience that is undecided but potentially receptive.
From novel technology to familiar food
The central message of the EIT Food report is not that consumers need to be persuaded to love biotechnology.
It is that they need reasons to trust it.
That trust is unlikely to come from technical sophistication alone. Nor will sustainability claims automatically overcome concerns about health, safety or naturalness. Instead, biotechnology foods will need to be presented as understandable products with clear consumer benefits, backed by evidence and explained with enough transparency to make the technology feel less remote.
For an industry preparing to move novel proteins from development into the marketplace, that distinction could prove decisive.
The technology may be new. The consumer expectations are not.
People still want food that feels healthy, safe and familiar. The challenge for biotechnology is to show that innovation can deliver those qualities rather than asking consumers to choose between technological progress and the food values they already trust.
