The promise is substantial. Biotechnology could help us produce food in ways that are less dependent on the weather, geopolitical disruption, fragile supply chains or blocked sea routes. It can also require far less land and place less pressure on scarce natural resources. Cultivated meat may be the best-known example, but it is already possible to make egg proteins without chickens and chocolate-like ingredients without cocoa beans.

The first products are now approaching the market: mycoprotein made through biomass fermentation, dairy and egg ingredients produced through precision fermentation, and cultivated meat. This is no longer science fiction. The first applications are with European regulators, and the Dutch company The Protein Brewery recently received EU authorisation for its Fermotein product.

Large food companies are acquiring biotech start-ups to bring these production methods in-house. The European Union is preparing a Biotech Act intended to support the sector and accelerate market access. The momentum is real.

Consumer acceptance is not a given

There is only one problem: consumers are not necessarily on board.

That was the message I brought on behalf of EIT Food’s Consumer Observatory at the launch of the report Positioning Biotech Ingredients, presented during EIT Food’s Next Bite event on biotechnology. The report builds on earlier research into the forthcoming Biotech Act and on wider work into consumer perceptions of alternative proteins.

The report can be downloaded here.

The pattern is consistent. European consumers are cautiously open, but acceptance is conditional and very few are truly convinced. In our large-scale quantitative study on the upcoming Biotech Act, almost half of Europeans surveyed said they felt neutral about the policy, with roughly equal numbers supporting and opposing it. Anyone who assumes the gates are wide open is mistaken.

An inconvenient moment to introduce high-tech food

Biotech food is entering the market at a time when consumers have become increasingly suspicious of processed food. Research shows that people use fairly clear mental categories: unprocessed food is seen as natural and healthy; ultra-processed food is seen as artificial and unhealthy. Long ingredient lists, additives and opaque industrial processes are signals that push a product into the second category.

Biotechnology sits almost by definition outside consumers’ existing frame of reference. That creates space for a new story, but also a risk. If the sector does not shape the narrative, consumers will fill the gap themselves. Too often, that gap is filled with the idea of “lab food”: industrial, artificial, unfamiliar and therefore potentially suspect. With the introduction of the term “cultivated meat”, the sector has not done itself a favour.

Yet this perception is not fixed. People already accept many processed products when they understand them, trust them and consider them healthy: yoghurt, oat milk, protein-enriched foods. Nobody instinctively calls these “ultra-processed”, even though they do not arrive on the plate in the same form in which they left the farm. This shows exactly where the opportunity lies for biotech food: do not sell the process. Sell the end product as safe, nutritious and useful.

“Consumers do not want an abstract technological promise. They want to know what will be on their plate.”

Different technologies, different reactions

Acceptance differs sharply by technology. Mycoprotein made through biomass fermentation tends to be experienced as the most natural and familiar. Consumers often make their own connection with mushrooms and with fermentation processes they already know from bread, yoghurt and beer.

Precision fermentation is more sensitive. As soon as language appears that points towards genetic modification, many people disengage, even though similar techniques have been used for decades to make medicines such as insulin. Cultivated meat sits somewhere in between. After years of media attention, the concept is now reasonably familiar. It appeals especially to meat-eaters who feel uneasy about animal welfare, but not uneasy enough to change their diet.

Do not call it the food of the future

The sector therefore needs a story that starts with the consumer, and it needs it quickly. Two things matter.

First, make the product tangible. What does it taste like? What can I do with it? Why is it good for me? Consumers do not want an abstract promise about technology. They want to know what they will soon be buying, cooking and eating.

Second, explain the process in simple, familiar language. Referring to fermentation in bread, yoghurt or beer can build trust. Technical jargon such as “gene sequences”, “strains”, or repeated references to fungi and microorganisms often has the opposite effect and triggers resistance. Independently verified safety assurances help too. People want to know that someone other than the manufacturer has checked the claims.

The message should therefore not be: this is the food of the future. It should be: familiar food, made in a new way, with clear benefits.

Those benefits need to be concrete at two levels. Personally, they are about taste, nutrition, safety, convenience and trust. Socially, they are about food production that is less vulnerable to shocks, uses fewer animals and requires fewer natural resources.

Sustainability should not be the headline

Sustainability should not become the main message. For many consumers, a sustainability argument is simply not enough to change behaviour. We know that only a small share of people who adapt their diet do so primarily for environmental reasons. Health, safety, naturalness and animal welfare are more persuasive arguments.

Sustainability can be mentioned as an additional benefit, but it should not be the number-one sales argument. Otherwise, the industry risks making consumers feel lectured or alienated, especially when sustainability is not their own primary motivation.

This also means that the task cannot be left to individual companies alone. A shared, consistent sector-wide narrative is needed, supported by both the European biotech industry and individual players. It should name the benefits, but also take doubts seriously. If that story does not emerge, it is only a matter of time before fragile, cautious support turns into resistance.

The voice that matters

Ultimately, consumers will decide whether this technology has a future. They will do so in two ways: with their vote at the ballot box and with their wallet in the supermarket. An industry that misjudges this phase, and allows the story of technology to dominate the story of better food, risks losing consumers before they have ever tasted the products.

The knowledge is already available. There is now a substantial body of consumer research from retail and foodservice, as well as practical experience with plant-based and hybrid products. That evidence shows where introductions get stuck and where they gain traction. Those who take the lesson seriously will improve the chances that new biotech foods become more than a promise from Brussels or the lab.

That matters because the sustainability gains will only materialise if people are willing to buy, cook and eat these products.

This article is based on research from EIT Food’s Consumer Observatory, including the report Uncovering Consumer Perceptions of the Upcoming Biotech Act and the report Positioning Biotech Ingredients, presented during EIT Food’s Next Bite event in Brussels.