Expert-Public Mental-Model Divergence in Risk-Benefit Judgments of Cultivated Meat Technologies

Abstract

The rapid development of cultivated meat technologies presents a transformative opportunity to address the environmental, ethical, and public health challenges associated with conventional industrial animal agriculture. However, the successful commercialization and societal integration of these novel food technologies depend heavily on public acceptance, which often diverges significantly from expert assessments. This paper investigates the structural and conceptual disparities between expert and public mental models regarding the risk-benefit judgments of cultivated meat. Utilizing a comprehensive theoretical framework grounded in risk perception and cognitive psychology, this research systematically maps the divergent cognitive architectures that underpin how different cohorts evaluate cellular agriculture. Experts typically anchor their mental models in scientific paradigms, emphasizing bioprocess efficiency, toxicological safety, and quantifiable environmental life-cycle assessments. Conversely, public mental models are frequently dominated by heuristic evaluations, concerns regarding naturalness, neophobia, and skepticism toward corporate consolidation in the food system. By analyzing these divergent mental constructs, this paper elucidates the underlying mechanisms that drive public hesitation and potential rejection of cultivated meat. The findings underscore the limitations of the traditional information deficit model in science communication and highlight the necessity for dialogic engagement strategies that address foundational socio-cultural and moral concerns. Ultimately, bridging the expert-public cognitive divide is essential for the responsible development and equitable implementation of sustainable alternative protein technologies in the global food system.