{"title":"Which are the most promising protein sources for meat alternatives?","authors":"Bruno Etter, Fabienne Michel, Michael Siegrist","doi":"10.1016/j.foodqual.2024.105226","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Meat alternatives have the potential to shift people’s diets into a more sustainable direction. To improve consumers’ attitudes to meat alternatives and increase the likelihood of their consumption, it is important to identify the most promising protein sources from a consumer perspective. This study investigated expectations toward 17 specific protein sources applied in meat alternatives and four conventional animal-based protein sources across six rating dimensions in an online survey with 916 participants from the German-speaking part of Switzerland. Additionally, several relevant consumer characteristics, namely food neophobia, health consciousness, preference for naturalness, environmental identity, and consumers’ attitudes to meat and meat alternatives, were assessed. Meat alternatives containing potato, lentil, chickpea, and pea achieved the highest acceptance scores. Other protein sources, such as algae, insects, and different types of cultured meat, did not achieve high acceptance. Multiple regressions were used to investigate further the influence of consumer characteristics. For different types of protein sources, different consumer characteristics were identified as barriers, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing groups of consumers and types of protein sources. The study also showed that people’s commitment to meat has no influence on their acceptance of alternative proteins; rather, negative attitudes to meat alternatives are the problem. Future efforts should therefore focus on optimizing the properties of meat alternatives, instead of demonizing the consumption of meat. One way to optimize the acceptance of meat alternatives is to use ingredients that consumers already have positive expectations toward, such as potato, lentil, chickpea, and pea.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":322,"journal":{"name":"Food Quality and Preference","volume":"119 ","pages":"Article 105226"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329324001289/pdfft?md5=3fa62faebf73732457ad7c13668be1be&pid=1-s2.0-S0950329324001289-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food Quality and Preference","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329324001289","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Meat alternatives have the potential to shift people’s diets into a more sustainable direction. To improve consumers’ attitudes to meat alternatives and increase the likelihood of their consumption, it is important to identify the most promising protein sources from a consumer perspective. This study investigated expectations toward 17 specific protein sources applied in meat alternatives and four conventional animal-based protein sources across six rating dimensions in an online survey with 916 participants from the German-speaking part of Switzerland. Additionally, several relevant consumer characteristics, namely food neophobia, health consciousness, preference for naturalness, environmental identity, and consumers’ attitudes to meat and meat alternatives, were assessed. Meat alternatives containing potato, lentil, chickpea, and pea achieved the highest acceptance scores. Other protein sources, such as algae, insects, and different types of cultured meat, did not achieve high acceptance. Multiple regressions were used to investigate further the influence of consumer characteristics. For different types of protein sources, different consumer characteristics were identified as barriers, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing groups of consumers and types of protein sources. The study also showed that people’s commitment to meat has no influence on their acceptance of alternative proteins; rather, negative attitudes to meat alternatives are the problem. Future efforts should therefore focus on optimizing the properties of meat alternatives, instead of demonizing the consumption of meat. One way to optimize the acceptance of meat alternatives is to use ingredients that consumers already have positive expectations toward, such as potato, lentil, chickpea, and pea.
期刊介绍:
Food Quality and Preference is a journal devoted to sensory, consumer and behavioural research in food and non-food products. It publishes original research, critical reviews, and short communications in sensory and consumer science, and sensometrics. In addition, the journal publishes special invited issues on important timely topics and from relevant conferences. These are aimed at bridging the gap between research and application, bringing together authors and readers in consumer and market research, sensory science, sensometrics and sensory evaluation, nutrition and food choice, as well as food research, product development and sensory quality assurance. Submissions to Food Quality and Preference are limited to papers that include some form of human measurement; papers that are limited to physical/chemical measures or the routine application of sensory, consumer or econometric analysis will not be considered unless they specifically make a novel scientific contribution in line with the journal''s coverage as outlined below.