Drivers of consumption of plant‐based meat alternatives and their nutritional contributions: A mixed methods approach

Abstract

BackgroundPlant‐based meat alternatives (PBMA) are considered an alternative to animal products. We aimed to understand the patterns and drivers of consumption of PBMA and their nutritional contributions using dietary modelling, whilst also considering the relevance of processing.MethodsThis study used a mixed methods exploratory sequential approach. Semistructured online interviews (n = 19) with consumers and nonconsumers of PBMA were conducted. Thematic analysis of interviews considered drivers of PBMA consumption, with content used to develop personas to represent key concepts driving incorporation (or lack of intake) into dietary patterns. Diets were modelled for personas, based on recommended and typical population intake and with variations in processed foods based on the Nova food classification system, including PBMA. Diets were analysed against nutrient reference values.ResultsThe main drivers of PBMA consumption were animal welfare, health improvement and environmental concerns. Convenience, cost, taste, processing and thoughts that the nutritional value of PBMA was lesser than meats were all described. Six personas were identified from the interview content. The three most disparate personas (age, dietary pattern and nutrient requirements) were used for dietary modelling. Nutrient analyses showed diets predominantly meeting reference values, with deficiencies more likely when modelled on food choices typical of population intake and diets excluding processed foods.ConclusionsThis study found that PBMA may have beneficial nutritional qualities such as lower saturated fat and higher dietary fibre when compared to their meat equivalents. PBMA may have a place in a healthy diet, whilst alleviating animal welfare and environmental concerns which were identified as key drivers of consumption.