With the complexities of modern consumer psychology, we are increasingly comfortable with the idea of injecting synthetic substances into our faces, yet we hesitate to consume them.
The cosmetics sector is thriving. Dermatological fillers and wrinkle-reducing neurotoxins have now become standard procedures in the injection market. It is projected to more than double by 2030.
At the same time, jewelry has also experienced a synthetic makeover. Initially criticized for being artificial, lab-grown diamonds are now gaining market traction, as sales of natural gems are declining. Luxury buyers seem unfazed by the term “fake,” as long as the allure remains.
However, when it comes to beauty, I draw the line at lunchtime while embracing composites. From plant-based substitutes to lab-cultured proteins, despite their clear advantages, they often face public resistance.
This skepticism may stem from our intrinsic respect for “nature,” viewed as a hallmark of purity, credibility, and safety. This tendency is referred to as Natural Bias in psychology. Even when the risks are lower than industrial agriculture, it helps explain our aversion to “synthetic meat.”
This preference isn’t unreasonable. For early humans, avoiding unknown foods was essential for survival, as strong disgust responses helped curb the consumption of harmful items. Yet, our instincts have not adapted to innovation, and what is currently seen as “natural” may harbor significant risks. Hormone-laden beef carries heavy environmental costs related to animal agriculture.
Unlike jewelry and cosmetics, food continues to provoke visceral reactions, which presents a serious challenge. As we seek to meet the protein needs of a global population projected to approach 10 billion by mid-century, food innovation isn’t just beneficial—it’s crucial. The demands of land, water, and emissions from livestock farming are unsustainable at current scales. Cultivated meat and precision fermentation—bioengineering organisms like yeast to produce proteins—are viable alternatives, yet consumer skepticism stemming from outdated naturalistic biases has hindered their acceptance.
This reluctance isn’t based merely on taste or health. Blind taste tests show that plant-based proteins can often replicate the mouthfeel of meat, frequently matching or exceeding nutritional profiles. Economically, alternative proteins, particularly plant-based options, are becoming more affordable. The real challenges lie in psychological barriers and a fear of technological advancements.
One way to navigate this is through transparency. Educating consumers about alternative protein production processes and comparing them to familiar operations like cheese-making and brewing can help build trust. Presenting alternative proteins as an evolution of tradition rather than a radical departure can also aid acceptance.
Additionally, we need to challenge the myth that today’s meat is somehow “natural.” A typical supermarket pack of sausages results from a lengthy process involving feed additives, pharmaceuticals, genetic manipulation, and large-scale industrial practices. If we’re apprehensive about “synthesis,” perhaps it’s worth considering what conventional meat production truly entails.
Our biases towards “natural” once ensured survival. Now, they may obstruct our embrace of technologies vital for long-term food security, environmental stability, and public health. After all, if we can welcome synthesis in the form of anti-aging injections, lip fillers, and lab-grown diamonds, it might be time to extend that pragmatism to our diets.
Sophie Atwood is the Behavior Science Consultant at Behavior Global, UK.
Topics:
Source: www.newscientist.com
