Replacement of Meat with Non-Meat Protein Sources: A Review of the Drivers and Inhibitors in Developed Countries

Eckl, Marion R.; Biesbroek, Sander; Veer, P. van ‘t; Geleijnse, Johanna M.

doi:10.3390/nu13103602

Cited by 40 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They also found that, in the informed group, the preference and WTP for the plant-based patty labeled as “made with animal-like protein” exceeded those for the hybrid burger (70% beef and 30% mushrooms) and the plant-based burger “made with pea protein”. As reported by several studies, low prices of non-meat protein sources may act as a driver to accept such products [ 66 ]; however, it will probably take some years to reach price parity with traditional meat [ 4 ].…”

Section: Consumer Behavior Of Plant-based Meat Alternativesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: Technological, Nutritional, Environmental, Market, and Social Challenges and Opportunities

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a growing awareness that fostering the transition toward plant-based diets with reduced meat consumption levels is essential to alleviating the detrimental impacts of the food system on the planet and to improving human health and animal welfare. The reduction in average meat intake may be reached via many possible ways, one possibility being the increased consumption of plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs). For this reason, in recent years, hundreds of products have been launched on the market with sensory attributes (i.e., taste, texture, appearance, and smell) similar to their animal counterparts; however, these products have often a long list of ingredients and their nutritional values are very different from animal meat. The present review aims to highlight the main opportunities and challenges related to the production and consumption of PBMAs through an interdisciplinary approach. Aspects related to the production technology, nutritional profiles, potential impacts on health and the environment, and the current market and consumer acceptance of PBMAs are discussed. Focusing on the growing literature on this topic, this review will also highlight research gaps related to PBMAs that should be considered in the future, possibly through the collaboration of different stakeholders that can support the transition toward sustainable plant-based diets.

show abstract

Section: Consumer Behavior Of Plant-based Meat Alternativesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: Technological, Nutritional, Environmental, Market, and Social Challenges and Opportunities

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Interestingly, for the MeatPref and BothPos segments, the most frequently given reason for regularly eating meat alternatives was "I like trying new foods". Although food neophobia (i.e., reluctance to try new foods) has been frequently identified as one of the barriers to the consumption of alternative proteins [23,46,66], it may be more important in relation to certain other kinds of meat alternatives, such as insects and cultured meat, than plant-based meat alternatives [23]. Moreover, in the present study, the consumer segments did not differ significantly (according to Tukey's test) in terms of their Food Neophobia Scale scores.…”

Section: Consumption Of Meat and Meat Alternatives And The Underlying...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Millennials’ Consumption of and Attitudes toward Meat and Plant-Based Meat Alternatives by Consumer Segment in Finland

Knaapila

Michel

Jouppila

et al. 2022

Foods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Millennials are considered the key generation with regard to the consumption of plant-based meat alternatives via flexitarianism. This study sought to characterize millennials’ consumer segments based on their consumption of and attitudes toward meat and meat alternatives. We conducted an online survey on the hedonic tones of the associations evoked by meat and meat alternatives, consumption of such foods, and diet-related attitudes among a representative sample of Finnish millennials (N = 546, 59% women, age 20–39 years). Some 41% of respondents regularly ate plant-based meat alternatives, while 43% had tried such foods. We divided the respondents into six segments based on the hedonic tones of their meat vs. meat alternatives associations. The segments differed in terms of their consumption of meat alternatives and the underlying reasons why, importance of meat in meals, and Meat Commitment Scale scores. The segment that reported much more positive associations with meat than meat alternatives (~14% of the respondents) may prove resistant to interventions intended to reduce meat intake, whereas the segment that displayed the most positive attitudes toward meat alternatives (~18%) did not eat much meat. Thus, the four middle segments (totaling ~68%), whose associations’ hedonic tones were close to each other, may be the best targets for future interventions designed to reduce meat consumption through the use of meat alternatives. To conclude, introducing a simple segmentation allowed us to identify consumer segments with large potential to reduce meat consumption.

show abstract

“…Generally, manufacturers of these products seem to have focused on the known barriers associated with consumer acceptance to market their products. Low levels of acceptance for alternative protein products have been associated with lower perceived product quality (e.g., more artificial and less natural) and perceived health concerns (particularly regarding lack of protein) compared with conventional meat ( 22 , 23 , 43 – 45 ). About a quarter (26%) of products included in this analysis highlighted the absence of artificial colors, flavors and/or preservatives, and nearly two-thirds (62%) contained at least one protein-related claim.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another strength of this study is the clear definition of alternative protein products and their subcategories, which was easy to operationalise. However, there is no standardized definition of meat and non-meat protein replacements ( 43 ), therefore the categorisation used herein may not be comparable to other studies. This study included more traditional products such as falafel, and processed legume products which other studies have excluded from their analyses.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marketing strategies used for alternative protein products sold in Australian supermarkets in 2014, 2017, and 2021

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionMarketing plays an important role in consumers’ perceptions and acceptance of new foods. The purpose of this study was to investigate the marketing strategies used for alternative protein products available in Australia in 2014, 2017, and 2021.MethodsProduct data were extracted from FoodTrack™, an established database of packaged supermarket products. Marketing strategies investigated included product format descriptors, front of pack (FOP) labeling claims, price, and in-store placement (2021 only).ResultsData from 292 alternative protein products (n = 12 tofu-based products; n = 100 legume-based products; and n = 180 plant-based meats) were analyzed. Across the product range, “burgers” (n = 86), “strips and similar” (n = 51) and “sausages” (n = 42) were the most common product formats, accounting for ∼61% of the product range. Nutrient content claims featured on 273 (93%) products. “Positive” nutrient claims (those highlighting the presence of a nutrient) occurred on FOP labels four times more than “negative” nutrient claims (those highlighting the absence or low levels of a nutrient; 432 versus 101, respectively). Protein-related claims were the most common “positive” nutrient claim (n = 180, 62%). Health claims on FOP labels appeared on 10% of products. Most products (n = 265, 91%) mentioned a dietary pattern (such as “vegetarian” and “plant-based”), or a combination of dietary patterns on their FOP label. The price of alternative products increased over time; between 2014 and 2021, on average, the unit price increased (9% increase, p = 0.035) and the pack size decreased (14% decrease, p < 0.001). There was inconsistency in product placement across the eight stores visited. Occasionally (n = 3 of 13 locations), chilled alternative protein products were positioned near conventional meat products. More commonly, alternative protein products shared space with other vegetarian products (such as non-dairy cheeses and tofu blocks) or alongside convenience products, suggesting these products are promoted as convenience foods, or options for individuals with special dietary needs.DiscussionThis study provides a useful evidence base to understand the marketing strategies used for alternative protein products. It appears from this analysis that considerable effort has gone into providing consumers with a level of familiarity and comfort prior to purchasing these alternative protein products.

show abstract

Replacement of Meat with Non-Meat Protein Sources: A Review of the Drivers and Inhibitors in Developed Countries

Cited by 40 publications

References 63 publications

Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: Technological, Nutritional, Environmental, Market, and Social Challenges and Opportunities

Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: Technological, Nutritional, Environmental, Market, and Social Challenges and Opportunities

Millennials’ Consumption of and Attitudes toward Meat and Plant-Based Meat Alternatives by Consumer Segment in Finland

Marketing strategies used for alternative protein products sold in Australian supermarkets in 2014, 2017, and 2021

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About