Ontological struggle over new product category: Transition potential of meat alternatives

Prospects for Plant-Based Meat: Current Standing, Consumer Perceptions, and Shifting Trends

“…Hwang et al [ 6 ] found that people with high food curiosity (the strongest motivating factors that might make people try new food) are more likely to buy PBM; however, it would take a tough and long effort to make them permanent consumers (especially those who love eating meat daily). Moreover, consumers anticipate that PBM should be more affordable, higher in protein and vitamins, and lower in calories when compared to meat [ 36 , 72 ].…”

“…The barriers concerning the consumption of PBM vary for different consumer groups; thus, an intervention that is effective for one group of consumers may not be successful for other groups [ 25 ]. The main barriers to PBM are consumer beliefs, familiarity, or previous experience with PBM products and environmental, health-related, ethical, nutritional, and sensory aspects [ 5 , 36 , 87 , 95 ]. Carlsson et al [ 28 ] reported that lower acceptance of PBM in Asian countries compared to Western countries is due to cultural differences, food habits, availability, and accessibility issues, and, most importantly, awareness.…”

“…Overall, the success of the PBM market is determined by how well PBM is received by consumers around the world [ 33 , 34 ]. It is necessary to understand individual preferences with respect to meat alternatives in order to reduce animal meat demand and promote the shift toward PBM consumption [ 35 ], since protein transition (from higher meat consumption to its reduction or substitution through PBM) is highly dependent on consumer behavior [ 36 ].…”

“…When PBM products enter the markets, it is important to consider the properties, values, composition, and usage patterns of meat products, as well as the local customs and culinary preferences of specific areas [ 29 ]. Regular dietary patterns including meat or plant sources are differentiated by behaviors and practices and have significant social and cultural impacts [ 36 ].…”

Agri-food tech’s building block: narrating protein, agnostic of source, in the face of crisis

“…Scholarship on the alternative protein sector has appropriately examined how innovators go about making products derived from plants and or animal cells, already associated with food, appear ontologically equivalent to animal products (in taste, texture, etc.). Therefore, much of this literature has focused on the delicate onto-politics that go into positioning plant-based simulacra of meat, eggs, and milk (i.e., second generation alternative proteins) as the same, but better, in attempts to establish what Sexton (2018) calls "visceral equivalence" (see also Lonkila and Kaljonen 2022). Many have noted that it takes both material (transformational) and discursive (convincing) processes, with the former in the realm of bioengineering and formulation, and the latter in the realm of regulation and naming (Broad 2020;Jönsson 2016;Jönsson et al 2019;Mouat and Prince 2018;Sexton 2016Sexton , 2018Sexton et al 2019;Stephens and Ruivenkamp 2016).…”