Purpose Conventional meat production is linked to multiple environmental and animal welfare-related concerns. Cultured meat, produced in the laboratory from animal cells, can overcome these negative consequences of conventional meat, as it incurs fewer environmental impacts and avoids unnecessary animal suffering. Despite these advantages, cultured meat acceptance varies substantially. In this study, we examined whether counter-messages emphasizing the environmental damage, animal welfare impacts, and unnatural aspects of conventional meat affect acceptance of cultured meat compared to conventional meat. Design/methodology/approach The current study employs a quantitative approach, with participants reading one counter-message (environmental, animal welfare, unnaturalness or control). The study follows a 2 (type of meat: cultured vs. conventional; within-subjects) x 4 (type of strategy: environmental, animal welfare, unnaturalness, and control; between-subjects) mixed MANOVA design, with anticipated eating enjoyment and purchase intent as the dependent variables. Findings Counter-messages highlighting the unnaturalness and negative animal welfare impacts of conventional meat were particularly effective in increasing cultured meat acceptance. However, counter-messages were not effective at reducing the appeal of conventional meat. Originality The current study uniquely indicates that counter-messages highlighting unnaturalness and negative animal welfare impacts of conventional meat are effective at enhancing cultured meat acceptance, suggesting marketers of cultured meat should focus on unnaturalness and animal welfare, rather than environmental impacts, of conventional meat to promote cultured meat.