William Kingsley Hallman

In the increasingly likely event of an engineered‐virus outbreak or pandemic of catastrophic potential, managing infectious aerosols to reduce transmission will be crucial. Now is the time to start preparing our buildings, public opinion, and regulatory environments for the infectious aerosol management interventions necessary to protect the public. But which interventions should governments and institutions invest in the most? We review the leading candidate methods for infectious aerosol management and discuss their respective advantages, disadvantages, and suitable settings. There is strong emerging evidence that two recently explored technologies, direct exposure to far‐ultraviolet‐C (UVC) light and triethylene glycol, are particularly efficacious and safe, but there remain open questions about the long‐term safety and efficacy of these interventions. In the meantime, we recommend other interventions—especially upper‐room UVC and in‐room air cleaners—for settings where most occupants regularly spend more than a small fraction of their day. We conclude by listing research questions about these interventions that still need to be researched in social science, product development, medicine, engineering, economics, and ethics.

As the FAO/WHO has completed the rigorous identification of food safety hazards of cell-based food, this article identifies remaining research gaps, particularly in the economic and social sciences, that need to be filled to better meet the expectations of cell-based food production.

In development for almost 20 years, artificial meat (also known as “cell‐based meat,” “cell‐cultured meat,” “cultured meat,” “cultivated meat,” “in vitro meat” and “lab‐grown meat”) is the most striking example of cellular agriculture. This research aims to study Arab consumers' attitudes toward artificial meat, which is a topic of great interest to scientists and the media. An online survey was conducted with 1025 participants revealed that 17% consider artificial meat to be promising and acceptable. Over 40% would be willing to try this novel product, whereas 36% expressed reluctance and 22.7% were unsure. Among non‐hesitant respondents, about 60% of all participants would be willing to eat artificial meat on a regular basis, particularly in restaurants (16.2%), at home (27.6%), and/or in ready‐made meals (33.9%). Nevertheless, the majority of participants (55%) indicated a willingness to pay (WTP) less or much less (or even nothing at all) for artificial meat in comparison to conventional meat. A notable 27% of participants expressed a WTP the same price for artificial meat as for conventional meat. Conversely, only 14% of them indicated a WTP more for artificial meat. Income, gender, and age were the most important predictors of consumer acceptance. Young and middle‐aged men and those with the highest monthly income are most likely to accept artificial meat. These are the consumers most likely to be targeted by those marketing artificial meat in Arabic‐speaking countries. Practical Application: The demographic groups most likely to accept artificial or cell‐based meat in Arab countries are young and middle‐aged men and those with the highest monthly incomes. These are the consumers most likely to be targeted by those attempting to market artificial meat in Arabic‐speaking countries. Consequently, the results of our study are directly relevant to understanding the potential approaches (and challenges) to selling artificial meat in this context.

The Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) recommend twice-weekly consumption of seafood for health benefits, yet many U.S. consumers have historically fallen short of this target. The economic and societal impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic brought concern about further declines in seafood intake. This study evaluated the influence of COVID-19 on seafood intake among U.S. residents, toward understanding potential public health implications. A nationally representative cross-sectional survey of 1200 U.S. residents conducted in June 2021 evaluated the frequency and types of seafood consumed, and purchase methods used, before and during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. The results (weighted data) indicate most U.S. consumers (90%) eat seafood, yet only 19% meet the seafood DGA. The likelihood of meeting the DGA was higher among consumers who were Asian, Black, or Hispanic; older; unmarried; of higher income; familiar with the DGA; choosing seafood for health reasons; and living in Atlantic or Gulf coast states. During COVID-19, some increased seafood intake for health reasons (45%), while others reduced intake due to factors such as cost (29%), limited availability (16%), and challenges with preparation (11%). Fresh salmon (68%), frozen shrimp (59%), and cooked oysters (41%) were most frequently purchased by consumers of these foods. More consumers indicated purchasing wild salmon (62%), shrimp (44%), and oysters (51%) than farm-raised products, though many were unsure. Fewer consumers included seafood in online grocery orders (36%) than meal kit orders (61%) when using these services. Though many consumers continued to eat seafood despite decreased restaurant patronage, most did not reach the intake level needed to maximize health benefits. Educational and marketing efforts promoting the health benefits of seafood and the convenience of procurement via online purchase methods may encourage intake across demographic groups to benefit public health outcomes in the U.S.

Front-of-package protein labels are frequently added to breakfast cereals, aimed at increasing purchases by consumers who believe they would benefit from eating more protein. However, the overall nutritional compositions of such products are often not significantly better than similar products without protein labels, and may contain more sugar, sodium, and calories to improve taste. We conducted an online survey with 1022 US adults to examine consumer perceptions of two cereals (Special K Original and Special K Protein). Participants perceived Special K Protein as healthier and more nutritious, though less tasty, than Special K Original. Special K Protein was perceived as providing greater health benefits, such as being more likely to help them build muscle, stay healthy, and live longer. Many participants perceived no differences in the amounts of certain nutrients between the cereals, such as sugar (54.5%), sodium (59.2%), and calories (49.1%). Yet, when serving sizes are equalized to one cup, Special K Protein has more sugar, sodium, and calories than Special K Original. Though most participants reported viewing the Facts Up Front label, only 21.3% correctly chose Special K Original as having the larger serving size. This pattern of results suggests the presence of a health halo surrounding the protein-labeled product.

To be sold in the United States, meat, poultry, and seafood products made from cultured cells must be labeled with a “common or usual name” to help consumers understand what they are purchasing. The terms “Cultured,” “Cultivated,” “Cell-Cultured,” “Cell-Cultivated,” “Cell-Based” and a control (without a common or usual name) were tested using an online experiment. Two regulatory criteria were assessed: that the term distinguishes the novel products from conventional products, and appropriately signals allergenicity. Three consumer acceptance criteria were assessed: that the term is seen as appropriate, does not disparage the novel or conventional products, nor elicit perceptions that the products are unsafe, unhealthy, or not nutritious. Each term was shown on packages of frozen Beef Filets, Beef Burgers, Chicken Breasts, Chicken Burgers, Atlantic Salmon Fillets, and Salmon Burgers. A representative sample of 4385 Americans (18 + ) were randomly assigned to view a single product with a single term or the control. Consumers’ ability to distinguish tested terms from conventional products differed by product category. “Cultured” and “Cultivated” failed to adequately differentiate the novel products from “Wild-Caught and Farm-Raised” salmon products. “Cultivated” failed to differentiate the novel Beef Filet product from “Grass-Fed” Beef Filets. “Cell-Cultured,” “Cell-Cultivated,” and “Cell-Based” each signaled that the products were different from conventional products across the proteins, and signaled allergenicity, meeting the two key regulatory criteria. They were not significantly different on most consumer perception measures. However, “Cell-Cultured” may have slightly better consumer acceptance across the novel beef, chicken, and salmon products, recommending its universal adoption.

The terms “Cultured,” “Cultivated,” “Cell-Cultured,” “Cell-Cultivated,” “Cell-Based” and a control were tested using five criteria to determine the best common or usual name for meat, poultry, and seafood products made directly from the cells of animals. A nationally representative sample of 4385 American consumers (18+) participated in an online experiment. The names were shown on labels of packages of frozen Beef Filets, Beef Burgers, Chicken Breasts, Chicken Burgers, Atlantic Salmon Fillets, and Salmon Burgers. The terms were assessed on two key regulatory and three consumer acceptance criteria. “Cultured” and “Cultivated” failed to adequately differentiate the novel products from conventional “Wild-Caught and Farm-Raised” salmon products. “Cultivated” also failed to differentiate the novel Beef Filet product from “Grass-Fed” Beef Filets. “Cultured” and “Cultivated” also performed more poorly than the control (with no common or usual name tested) in signaling that the Chicken Burgers were “Neither Free-Range nor Raised Indoors.” “Cell-Cultured,” “Cell-Cultivated,” and “Cell-Based” each signaled to consumers that the products were different from their conventional counterparts, and signaled allergenicity, meeting the two key regulatory criteria. These three names were not significantly different on most of the measures of consumer perceptions. However, the overall pattern of results suggests that the term “Cell-Cultured” may have slightly better consumer acceptance across the novel beef, chicken, and salmon products. Overall, the participants were as interested in tasting and purchasing “Cell-Cultured” products, ordering them in a restaurant, and as likely to serve them to guests as they were the conventional products used as controls.

Genetically modified (GM) foods have been commercially available in the US for more than two decades, yet Americans know very little about them. With the implementation of the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard of 2016, food manufacturers will be required to disclose the presence of GM ingredients in their food products. How food manufacturers communicate with consumers about GM ingredients may have consequences for public understanding of GM technology. In Study 1, we explore how food manufacturers characterize GM ingredients within their food products on SmartLabel, a digital disclosure website established by the Grocery Manufacturers Association. In Study 2, we test the effect of those characterizations on perceived risks and benefits of GM food. Overall, we find that varying characterizations of GM ingredients do not significantly affect perceived risks and benefits. Post hoc analyses suggest that knowledge of GM technology and moral evaluation of GM technology significantly predict perceived risks and benefits. Implications for the public communication of GM technology are discussed.

Poor air quality affects the health and wellbeing of large populations around the globe. Although source controls are the most effective approaches for improving air quality and reducing health risks, individuals can also take actions to reduce their personal exposure by staying indoors, reducing physical activity, altering modes of transportation, filtering indoor air, and using respirators and other types of face masks. A synthesis of available evidence on the efficacy, effectiveness, and potential adverse effects or unintended consequences of personal interventions for air pollution is needed by clinicians to assist patients and the public in making informed decisions about use of these interventions. To address this need, the American Thoracic Society convened a workshop in May of 2018 to bring together a multidisciplinary group of international experts to review the current state of knowledge about personal interventions for air pollution and important considerations when helping patients and the general public to make decisions about how best to protect themselves. From these discussions, recommendations were made regarding when, where, how, and for whom to consider personal interventions. In addition to the efficacy and safety of the various interventions, the committee considered evidence regarding the identification of patients at greatest risk, the reliability of air quality indices, the communication challenges, and the ethical and equity considerations that arise when discussing personal interventions to reduce exposure and risk from outdoor air pollution.