Precision fermentation may be viewed as the ‘Holy Grail’ of foodtech R&D by some, but the technology is yet to substantially change the face of the food and beverage industry. While fermentation-derived ingredients are currently produced, their application remains limited, as does market access. For consumer products such as ice creams or milk alternatives that launched in the US, high prices and consumer confusion have led to low uptake and subsequently discontinuation.
Few consumer food products made through precision fermentation are available in the US today, such as Strive Freemilk, a cow-free milk that contains fermentation-derived whey and is sold online and in some retail locations across New York and Kansas City. Elsewhere, ImaginDairy’s fermentation-derived whey is being used in Strauss Group’s first private-label range of cow-free dairy products sold in Israel – a development that may yield crucial learnings about consumer preferences.
Over in the UK, research carried out by science marketing consultancy Diffusion revealed consumers are still on the fence about supporting the development or use of precision fermentation for food ingredients.
According to the poll, which surveyed a nationally representative sample of 2,005 UK consumers aged 16 and over this summer, 40% of respondents were neutral or undecided, while 36% supported the technology. In the survey, ‘precision fermentation’ was defined as a process ‘where genetically engineered microbes (like yeast or bacteria) are used to produce food ingredients like milk proteins, eggs, or palm oil in a lab or factory’.
Men were more likely to back it than women (46% vs 27%) with Millennial and Gen Z consumers the most in favor and those over 55 – the least.
Compared to attitudes towards cell-grown (cultivated) meat, however, UK consumers generally viewed precision fermentation more positively.
“Support for precision fermentation (36%) is on par with cultivated meat (34%), but the public is currently far less divided over it,” Ivana Farthing, Science Communication Lead and UK MD at Diffusion, told us.
“One in three people (33%) reject cultivated meat outright, compared with just 24% who oppose precision fermentation. There is also a difference in awareness: precision fermentation is a newer concept, and 40% of people are still neutral or undecided about it, compared with just 34% for cultivated meat.”
Why do consumers oppose cultivated meat? “Our research found that the strongest objections are instinctive,” Farthing said.
“More than two-thirds (68%) of UK consumers say [cultivated meat] feels unnatural or artificial, making this the leading barrier by a significant margin. Almost half (49%) are concerned about possible health risks or long-term effects, reflecting uncertainty rather than known evidence.”
Meanwhile, nearly 39% worry about chemicals or substances used in the production process.
“When it comes to related food technology like precision fermentation, being able to address concerns around safety and production methods will also be critical to building public support.”
Capturing the public imagination
When it comes to precision fermentation, it’s the 40% - “that larger group of ‘persuadables’” –where the opportunity lies, according to Farthing.
“With a more complex and less visceral story than ‘lab-grown meat’, precision fermentation hasn’t yet been defined in the public imagination. This means the sector still has a window to build understanding and win trust before misinformation fills the gap.”
Consumer education is the way forward – but how should the industry approach this, and what role does government have?
The UK recently launched a market authorisation innovation research programme to bolster the UK food regulators’ capacity and specialist knowledge in overseeing emerging food technologies such as precision fermentation. The program complements the government’s work in the cell-based innovation hub launched in March 2025 and is designed to provide greater regulatory clarity to start-ups on how to gain market authorisation.
“Government and regulators like the Food Safety Authority will clearly have a pivotal role in reassuring the public on safety and oversight,” said Farthing. “They will have to communicate clearly how novel ingredients are assessed, what the approval stages involve, and how long-term monitoring on food safety will work once products reach the market.
“There is also a strong case that could be made for deeper public input into the approvals process via consumer engagement panels, to reassure consumers their concerns are being openly addressed.”
But education should be industry-led to start with. “Precision fermentation is a new industry, so there is a strong argument that communication should be initially led at an industry level, by associations like Cultivate and the FDF,” she explained.
“Diffusion’s research found that 41% of consumers would feel more confident about scientific breakthroughs if they heard about them from ‘scientists and doctors, rather than politicians or business people’. Leading food scientists and researchers who can educate and inform the public on PF in a jargon-free way will have an important role to play.
“Commercial pioneers will also need to show transparency in their research and utilize independent experts and peer-review. A third (33%) of consumers we surveyed stated ‘knowing that the information has been checked or approved by independent experts or fact-checkers’ would build trust.”
