Consumers’ associations, perceptions and acceptance of meat and plant-based meat alternatives

Dados Bibliográficos

ID23325152
AutoresFabienne Michel (0000-0003-3105-6747, ETH Zurich, autor correspondente), Christina Hartmann (ETH Zurich), Michael Siegrist (0000-0002-6139-7190, ETH Zurich)
Ano2021
Volume87
Páginas104063
Data de publicação2021-01-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoFood Quality and Preference (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0950-3293 • E-ISSN: 1873-6343
EditoraElsevier BV (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104063
OpenAlexW3074619921
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas70
Referências citadas40

The consumption of meat contributes significantly to undesirable effects on the environment. In order to reduce the impact of animal husbandry, one approach is to decrease meat consumption by substituting plant-based meat alternatives. Because the consumption of such meat alternatives is currently rather low, the aim of this research was to identify the barriers that keep people from consuming meat alternatives and increase the probability of future consumption. This was accomplished by exploring free associations people have towards meat and meat alternatives, comparing selected meat products with their respective meat alternatives using the semantic differential, and studying the perceived appropriateness of eating meat alternatives in different consumption situations. To achieve these objectives, we carried out an online survey with participants from Germany (N = 1039). Our results suggest that while meat is being associated with positive terms, meat alternatives were viewed more negatively. The previous findings that meat alternatives should be similar to meat with regard to taste, texture, and ease of preparation were confirmed. Results from the direct comparison of meat with corresponding meat alternatives indicate that meat alternatives are similarly perceived to their processed meat counterparts. Regarding different consumption situations, our results show that eating meat alternatives is perceived to be more appropriate in situations where one eats alone or with family and friends. In conclusion, our findings demonstrate that meat alternatives have the best chance of successfully replacing meat when they closely resemble highly processed meat products in taste and texture and are offered at competitive prices. The recommendation for producers of meat alternatives is thus to focus on replicating processed meat products instead of trying to imitate meat cuts such as steak or escalope.

Agricultural science · Biology · Business · Consumption (sociology) · Meat packing industry · Perception · Processed meat · Taste · Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact · Food Science · Food Waste Reduction and Sustainability · Olfactory and Sensory Function Studies · Psychology