Efforts to promote sustainable food systems rely on individuals' willingness to engage with biotechnological innovations. Cultured foods—grown from animal or plant cells without conventional farming—offer a compelling test case for understanding why sustainable technologies can evoke ambivalence. This collection of preregistered studies examines how the biological source of cultured foods uniquely elicits affective and cognitive responses linked to acceptance, focusing on perceived unnaturalness, disgust, and the symbolic meaning of human-animal relations.


Across three empirical investigations (total N = 1,355), cultured foods were consistently evaluated as less natural and more disgusting than conventional counterparts, yet the strength of these reactions depended on biological origin. In one study (N = 601), identical foods described as cultured rather than conventional were judged more unnatural and disgusting, with lower willingness to try—showing that biotechnological production transforms how familiar foods are appraised. Another study (N = 302) used sixteen real cultured products currently in research and development and found that participants categorized them primarily by cell origin—animal versus non-animal. These categories predicted distinct affective profiles, indicating that perceived "animal closeness" organizes the way people think and feel about cultured foods. A third study (N = 452) revealed a consistent gradient: the closer the product's origin was to an animal, the stronger the feelings of disgust and unnaturalness, and the lower the willingness to try.


Together, the findings identify animal closeness as a symbolic boundary that shapes affective and cognitive responses to sustainable food technologies. Cultured foods occupy a unique psychological space, evoking unease precisely because they blur boundaries between what is natural, animal, and human-made—when sustainability itself feels unnatural.