Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Yvaine Wei and Version 1 by Steffen Jahn.

Plant-based meat alternatives (PBMA) are highly processed products that aim to imitate the experience of eating meat by mimicking animal meat in its sensory characteristics such as taste, texture, or aesthetic appearance. 

  • plant-based diet
  • plant-based meat alternatives
  • motivational barriers

1. Introduction

In order to arrive at a sustainable future, it is important to rethink existing consumption practices. Meat consumption is in particular challenging in this regard as it places a heavy burden on the environment [4,5,6][1][2][3]. Animal-based foods have a bigger ecological footprint than plant-based foods, emitting more greenhouse gas emissions, requiring more land and nitrogen, and impacting terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity [7][4]. Consequently, increasing the consumption of plant-based foods, e.g., by replacing meat with meat substitutes, is normatively desirable [8][5] as it can be considered a ‘win–win’ situation with respect to both health and environmental protection [7][4].
Plant-based meat alternatives (PBMA) are highly processed products which try to mimic the ‘meaty’ characteristics of animal meat products, for example the ‘bleeding’ of a burger patty [9][6]. According to Slade [10][7] (p. 428), “there is a culinary race to create a plant-based burger that is indistinguishable from beef”. The highly successful Beyond Burger even advertises with a “Now even meatier” claim [11][8]. In addition to plant-based burger patties, there are also PBMA that mimic mince, sausages, or chicken with their typical taste, texture, and physical appearance. PBMA are intended to replace the meat component in many dishes due to their similarities in form, taste, and preparation method. However, that also means that those meat substitutes are oftentimes directly compared to their ‘original’ counterpart meat [12][9].
While the market for meat substitutes is booming, a majority of consumers are often still not attracted to these products [13][10]. Even in Switzerland, one of the most progressive countries in the world, average meat consumption per capita (47.8 kg in 2019) is above the global average and willingness to eschew meat among Swiss consumers is low [14][11]. Accordingly, while more than half of the Swiss population have already tried plant-based products [15][12], the question arises: what keeps consumers from changing their diet for good.

2. Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: What We Know

2.1. Why People Decide to Ban Meat from Their Diets

There are oftentimes multiple reasons why consumers decide to (at least gradually) remove meat from their diet [12][9], ranging from animal protection, protection of environmental resources, or personal health and weight control [12,16,21,22,23][9][13][14][15][16]. One of the most prominent reasons to renounce meat intake and to adopt a plant-based diet is motivated by health concerns [16,22,24,25,26,27,28][13][15][17][18][19][20][21]. Medical research indicates that high levels of (especially red and processed) meat consumption can be linked with several diseases, including cancer [29,30][22][23] and cardiovascular diseases [31,32,33][24][25][26]. Likewise, especially in high and middle-income countries, the intake of red meat is showing a negative impact on life expectancy [34][27]. Against this background, Izmirli and Philips [35][28] found that a large majority of vegetarians stated health reasons as one of the main motivators to refrain from eating meat. This finding is corroborated by self-reports indicating that vegetarians engage more with health issues [36,37,38,39][29][30][31][32] and are more weight-conscious [38,39,40][31][32][33].
While health concerns might be the reason to adopt a new diet, a recent study found that animal welfare is the main motivation to continue the diet [22][15]. In particular, vegetarian and/or vegan consumers link the consumption of meat to animal cruelty [35,41,42,43][28][34][35][36].
Besides ethical reasons (i.e., animal welfare) the role of environmental concerns in the context of meat consumption is growing. While sustainability and environmental concerns in general have been around for many years, its impact on consumer decision-making in the context of meat consumption is yet to unfold. One reason lies in the lack of awareness of the negative impact associated with meat production and consumption [25,44,45,46][18][37][38][39]. Only in recent years has meat consumption become a moralized issue for a growing number of consumers [47][40]. There is now a general consensus that meat production is associated with heightened greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity loss [5][2]. In fact, livestock farming is responsible for 14.5% of greenhouse gas emissions [48][41]—nearly a third of agriculture’s water footprint [6][3]—and is a major driver of deforestation [49][42]. From a consumption perspective, high meat-eaters cause almost twice as many carbon dioxide emissions than vegetarians [50][43].

2.2. Plant-Based Meat Alternatives (PBMA)

The alternative protein market is growing rapidly [51][44]. Besides alternative animal-based protein sources such as edible insects or lab-grown meat (i.e., meat produced in the lab without raising and slaughtering the animal, also termed clean meat, cultured meat, in vitro meat, or artificial meat), non-meat protein sources are a promising alternative to traditional meat. The market for non-meat proteins is booming and there is a variety of different products available in the market (see Figure 1). Non-meat protein sources vary in the extent to which they are processed. Foods are considered ‘natural’ if they are free from human intervention, such as removing negatives or adding positives [52[45][46],53], and examples of natural non-meat proteins are algae, lentils, pulses, soybeans, or fungi. These proteins are also typical ingredients in vegetarian and vegan cuisine.
Sustainability 13 13271 g001 550
Figure 1.
 Overview of alternative protein sources.
Foods are considered ‘processed’ if they have gone through different production steps or if other ingredients have been added to create the final product. Due to their comparable texture to processed meat products, these products are often perceived and consumed as plant-based meat alternatives (PBMA, also referred to as meat substitutes or meat analogues). Some of them, for example, tofu and tempeh, have been consumed in Asia for centuries [54][47]. This ‘first generation’ of PBMA were mainly based on soy. While Asian consumers perceive soy as a traditional food in their diet, Western consumers often have a negative image of soy [55][48]. Moreover, consumers in many countries hold unjustified concerns about genetically modified foods, and soy is often among those foods of concern [56][49]. ‘Second generation’ PBMA use different ingredients, are more highly processed, and thus manage to improve the sensory experience. New technologies such as extrusion has facilitated the development of food products from extracted pea or oat protein, which create a meat-like structure [19,20][50][51]. As part of this second generation PBMA, ‘ready to eat’ PBMA have recently been entering a market that tries to imitate the meaty original and tends to be rather highly processed.
PBMA 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 [18][52].

2.3. Barriers to PBMA Consumption

2.3.1. Structural Adoption Barriers

Several authors have examined barriers that hinder consumers from limiting or banning meat and switching to a plant-based diet (for recent reviews, see [8,14,16,17,18,19,20][5][11][13][53][52][50][51]). Some of these barriers are predominantly structural and are tied to the general demand of PBMA. For example, it may not always be convenient to purchase PBMA as they have limited availability in grocery stores or restaurants [22][15]. Another structural barrier is the relative newness of PBMA and a corresponding lack of exposure [12][9]. 
In summary, over time and with increasing consumer demand, the structural barriers will likely diminish and may even disappear entirely. According to self-reports, consumers would eat more plant-based foods if these structural barriers disappeared [22][15]. 

2.3.2. Motivational Adoption Barriers

Besides structural barriers, motivational barriers exist that will likely persist regardless of improvements in availability, exposure, and affordability. These motivational barriers are summarized as follows: (1) food neophobia, (2) social norms and rituals, and (3) conflicting eating goals. Table 1 lists these barriers as well as exemplary research findings. The motivational barriers jointly contribute to prevailing meat attachment, a positive emotional bond people have with meat [66][54]. Overcoming meat attachment is a key challenge for increasing PBMA adoption.
Table 1. Motivational Barriers to PBMA Adoption.
Motivational Barrier Research Findings
Food neophobia
  • A general reluctance to eat new foods hinders PBMA adoption [12][9]
Social norms and rituals
  • There is a strong link between meat consumption and the celebration of important holidays (e.g., Thanksgiving or Christmas) [62,71][55][56]
  • Consumers find it difficult to avoid meat when most of their family and friends consume meat [62,71,72][55][56][57]
  • People lack knowledge of how to eat in an alternative way [28,60,68][21][58][59]
  • Masculine-stereotyped dietary practice stands in the way of reduced meat consumption [73,74][60][61]
  • People have established routines of preparing and eating meat [75,76][62][63] but lack knowledge of how to prepare PBMA [61][64]
Conflicting eating goals Indulgence: Health:
  • Belief that animal meat contains important nutrients that cannot be substituted [28,77][21][65]
  • Perceived un-naturalness of ultra-processed PBMA [78,79,80][66][67][68]
  • Increase in undesirable nutrients such as saturated fat, sugar, and sodium [81][69]

3. Solutions to Increase Consumption of Plant-Based Meat Alternatives

3.1. Solutions to Counter Food Neophobia

It may be difficult to promote plant-based diets among consumers with high food neophobia, as neophobia is very difficult to transform [12][9]. Yet, one way to reduce neophobia is to make novel foods resemble familiar foods [119][70], which is the central idea behind PBMA. Against this background, the “Now even meatier” claim on the Beyond Burger can be seen as a good tactic to spark interest in PBMA. Product improvement is therefore seen as the most promising path to counter food neophobia, while providing information on environmental benefits is not likely to be effective in this regard [12][9].
Beyond product improvement, marketers could try to spark curiosity or turn supposed disadvantages into strength. Labels can be used to highlight aspects of PBMA that grab consumers’ attention and make them reconsider their typical choices. For example, recent consumer research has shown that unattractive produce can be sold more effectively, if it contained “ugly” labels [120][71]. Notably, this is a different labeling strategy than the more common claims that focus on scientifically verifiable characteristics (e.g., “low fat” or “high vitamins”) or the food’s natural preservation (e.g., “no additives” or “unprocessed”) [52][45]. This difference is important as sustainability labeling faces the problem that even certified claims are not always trusted [121][72]. Such skepticism is partly due to consumers using different sources and types of knowledge to decode sustainability claims, in addition to the sheer number of different claims [121][72]. A label that aligns with the visual assessment of the food (such as “ugly” labels) has a clear advantage in this regard. Using creative labels could therefore be a way to increase consumers’ willingness to try PBMA.

3.2. Solutions to Counter Social Norms and Rituals

Social norms are difficult to ignore, which effectively leaves two solutions to counter their inhibiting influence on a ‘meat-free’ diet. The first option would be to change these norms, but this is admittedly a process that takes time. However, younger generations are much more willing to eat plant-based and try novel foods [122,123][73][74]. In a recent study, younger age was associated with increased willingness to try in vitro meat [124][75], which points to a slow shift in norms over time. In these situations, it is advisable to communicate what is called a trending norm and not the prevalent norm [125][76]. Instead of highlighting the current state of a behavior (i.e., X% of a reference group show the ‘static norm’), trending norms emphasize the increasingly changing norm over time to elicit (pre-) conformity to this change. Compared to static norms, the dynamic norm information that increasingly more people are beginning to engage in sustainable behavior can effectively foster sustainable behavior that is not yet the norm [126][77].

3.3. Solutions to Minimize the Influence of Conflicting Eating Goals

Supposedly, the biggest challenge to PBMA adoption is minimizing the inhibiting influence of conflicting eating goals. While continuation in the path towards increased mimicking of traditional meat could be useful in some areas, it may have detrimental effects in others. For example, we have mentioned that PBMA products that closely resemble traditional meat can help overcome food neophobia, and it may also boost perceptions that PBMA can actually be as indulgent as meat. This strategy, however, can backfire with regard to the goal of consuming food that is natural. The more closely PBMA resemble meat dishes, the more obvious the highly processed state will become. Another strategic option is to emphasize both health and environmental benefits in all marketing communication.

References

  1. Hoek, A.C.; Malekpour, S.; Raven, R.; Court, E.; Byrne, E. Towards environmentally sustainable food systems: Decision-making factors in sustainable food production and consumption. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 26, 610–626.
  2. Godfray, H.C.J.; Aveyard, P.; Garnett, T.; Hall, J.W.; Key, T.J.; Lorimer, J.; Pierrehumbert, R.T.; Scarborough, P.; Springmann, M.; Jebb, S.A. Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science 2018, 361, eaam5324.
  3. Gerbens-Leenes, P.W.; Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. The water footprint of poultry, pork and beef: A comparative study in different countries and production systems. Water Resour. Ind. 2013, 1–2, 25–36.
  4. Willett, W.; Rockström, J.; Loken, B.; Springmann, M.; Lang, T.; Vermeulen, S.; Garnett, T.; Tilman, D.; DeClerck, F.; Wood, A.; et al. Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 2019, 393, 447–492.
  5. Weinrich, R. Opportunities for the Adoption of Health-Based Sustainable Dietary Patterns: A Review on Consumer Research of Meat Substitutes. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4028.
  6. Hu, F.B.; Otis, B.O.; McCarthy, G. Can Plant-Based Meat Alternatives Be Part of a Healthy and Sustainable Diet? JAMA 2019, 322, 1547–1548.
  7. Slade, P. If you build it, will they eat it? Consumer preferences for plant-based and cultured meat burgers. Appetite 2018, 125, 428–437.
  8. Beyond Meat. Meat the New Meatier Beyond Burger with Marbling That Melts and Tenderizes Like Beef! Available online: https://www.beyondmeat.com/whats-new/meat-the-new-meatier-beyond-burger-with-marbling-that-melts-and-tenderizes-like-beef (accessed on 28 October 2021).
  9. Hoek, A.C.; Luning, P.A.; Weijzen, P.; Engels, W.; Kok, F.J.; de Graaf, C. Replacement of meat by meat substitutes. A survey on person- and product-related factors in consumer acceptance. Appetite 2011, 56, 662–673.
  10. Gebhardt, B. Plant-Based for the Future. In Insights on European Consumer and Expert Opinions; University of Hohenheim: Hohenheim, Germany, 2021.
  11. Hartmann, C.; Siegrist, M. Consumer perception and behaviour regarding sustainable protein consumption: A systematic review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 61, 11–25.
  12. Coop. Plant Based Food Report: Studie Zum Pflanzenbasierten Genuss in der Schweiz. 2021. Available online: https://www.coop.ch/content/dam/Medien/Medienmitteilung/2020/Pflanzenbasierte-Ersatzprodukte-werden-immer-beliebter/Coop-Plant-Based-Food-Report-2021-DE.pdf (accessed on 29 October 2021).
  13. Fehér, A.; Gazdecki, M.; Véha, M.; Szakály, M.; Szakály, Z. A Comprehensive Review of the Benefits of and the Barriers to the Switch to a Plant-Based Diet. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4136.
  14. de Backer, C.J.S.; Hudders, L. Meat morals: Relationship between meat consumption consumer attitudes towards human and animal welfare and moral behavior. Meat Sci. 2015, 99, 68–74.
  15. Fresán, U.; Errendal, S.; Craig, W.J. Influence of the Socio-Cultural Environment and External Factors in Following Plant-Based Diets. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9093.
  16. Bryant, C.J. We Can’t Keep Meating Like This: Attitudes towards Vegetarian and Vegan Diets in the United Kingdom. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6844.
  17. Apostolidis, C.; McLeay, F. To meat or not to meat? Comparing empowered meat consumers’ and anti-consumers’ preferences for sustainability labels. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 77, 109–122.
  18. Lentz, G.; Connelly, S.; Mirosa, M.; Jowett, T. Gauging attitudes and behaviours: Meat consumption and potential reduction. Appetite 2018, 127, 230–241.
  19. Sun, C.; Ge, J.; He, J.; Gan, R.; Fang, Y. Processing, Quality, Safety, and Acceptance of Meat Analogue Products. Engineering 2021, 7, 674–678.
  20. Mylan, J. Sustainable Consumption in Everyday Life: A Qualitative Study of UK Consumer Experiences of Meat Reduction. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2307.
  21. Kemper, J.A.; White, S.K. Young adults’ experiences with flexitarianism: The 4Cs. Appetite 2021, 160, 105073.
  22. Bouvard, V.; Loomis, D.; Guyton, K.Z.; Grosse, Y.; Ghissassi, F.E.; Benbrahim-Tallaa, L.; Guha, N.; Mattock, H.; Straif, K. Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat. Lancet Oncol. 2015, 16, 1599–1600.
  23. Domingo, J.L.; Nadal, M. Carcinogenicity of consumption of red meat and processed meat: A review of scientific news since the IARC decision. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2017, 105, 256–261.
  24. Crowe, F.L.; Appleby, P.N.; Travis, R.C.; Key, T.J. Risk of hospitalization or death from ischemic heart disease among British vegetarians and nonvegetarians: Results from the EPIC-Oxford cohort study. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2013, 97, 597–603.
  25. Oomen, C.M.; Ocké, M.C.; Feskens, E.J.M.; van Erp-Baart, M.-A.J.; Kok, F.J.; Kromhout, D. Association between trans fatty acid intake and 10-year risk of coronary heart disease in the Zutphen Elderly Study: A prospective population-based study. Lancet 2001, 357, 746–751.
  26. Harguess, J.M.; Crespo, N.C.; Hong, M.Y. Strategies to reduce meat consumption: A systematic literature review of experimental studies. Appetite 2020, 144, 104478.
  27. Ranabhat, C.L.; Park, M.-B.; Kim, C.-B. Influence of Alcohol and Red Meat Consumption on Life Expectancy: Results of 164 Countries from 1992 to 2013. Nutrients 2020, 12, 459.
  28. Izmirli, S.; Phillips, C.J. The relationship between student consumption of animal products and attitudes to animals in Europe and Asia. Br. Food J. 2011, 113, 436–450.
  29. Hoek, A.C.; Luning, P.A.; Stafleu, A.; de Graaf, C. Food-related lifestyle and health attitudes of Dutch vegetarians, non-vegetarian consumers of meat substitutes, and meat consumers. Appetite 2004, 42, 265–272.
  30. Siegrist, M.; Hartmann, C. Impact of sustainability perception on consumption of organic meat and meat substitutes. Appetite 2019, 132, 196–202.
  31. Hartmann, C.; Ruby, M.B.; Schmidt, P.; Siegrist, M. Brave, health-conscious, and environmentally friendly: Positive impressions of insect food product consumers. Food Qual. Prefer. 2018, 68, 64–71.
  32. Ruby, M.B.; Heine, S.J. Meat, morals, and masculinity. Appetite 2011, 56, 447–450.
  33. Sadalla, E.; Burroughs, J. Profiles in Eating: Sexy Vegetarians and Other Diet-Based Social Stereotypes. Psychol. Today 1981, 15, 51–57.
  34. Jabs, J.; Devine, C.M.; Sobal, J. Model of the Process of Adopting Vegetarian Diets: Health Vegetarians and Ethical Vegetarians. J. Nutr. Educ. 1998, 30, 196–202.
  35. Beardsworth, A.; Keil, T. Health-related beliefs and dietary practices among vegetarians and vegans: A qualitative study. Health Educ. J. 1991, 50, 38–42.
  36. Adams, C.J. The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory; Bloomsbury revelations edition, reprinted; Bloomsbury Academic an imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Inc.: New York, NY, USA; London, UK; Oxford, UK; New Delhi, India; Sydney, Australia, 2017; ISBN 9781501312830.
  37. Campbell-Arvai, V. Food-related environmental beliefs and behaviours among university undergraduates. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2015, 16, 279–295.
  38. Lea, E.; Worsley, A. Australian consumers’ food-related environmental beliefs and behaviours. Appetite 2008, 50, 207–214.
  39. Graham, T.; Abrahamse, W. Communicating the climate impacts of meat consumption: The effect of values and message framing. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2017, 44, 98–108.
  40. Randers, L.; Grønhøj, A.; Thøgersen, J. Coping with multiple identities related to meat consumption. Psychol. Mark. 2021, 38, 159–182.
  41. Gerber, P.J.; Steinfeld, H.; Henderson, B.; Mottet, A.; Opio, C.; Dijkman, J.; Falcucci, A.; Tempio, G. Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock: A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities. 2013. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/i3437e/i3437e.pdf (accessed on 10 November 2021).
  42. Weindl, I.; Popp, A.; Bodirsky, B.L.; Rolinski, S.; Lotze-Campen, H.; Biewald, A.; Humpenöder, F.; Dietrich, J.P.; Stevanović, M. Livestock and human use of land: Productivity trends and dietary choices as drivers of future land and carbon dynamics. Glob. Planet. Chang. 2017, 159, 1–10.
  43. Perignon, M.; Vieux, F.; Soler, L.-G.; Masset, G.; Darmon, N. Improving diet sustainability through evolution of food choices: Review of epidemiological studies on the environmental impact of diets. Nutr. Rev. 2017, 75, 2–17.
  44. van Huis, A. Edible insects contributing to food security? Agric. Food Secur. 2015, 4, 20.
  45. André, Q.; Chandon, P.; Haws, K. Healthy Through Presence or Absence, Nature or Science?: A Framework for Understanding Front-of-Package Food Claims. J. Public Policy Mark. 2019, 38, 172–191.
  46. Rozin, P. The Meaning of Food in Our Lives: A Cross-Cultural Perspective on Eating and Well-Being. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2005, 37, S107–S112.
  47. Wild, F.; Czerny, M.; Janssen, A.M.; Kole, A.; Zunabovic, M.; Domig, K.J. The evolution of a plant-based alternative to meat. From niche markets to widely accepted meat alternatives. Agro Food Ind. Hi-Tech 2014, 25, 45–49.
  48. Tu, V.P.; Husson, F.; Sutan, A.; Ha, D.T.; Valentin, D. For me the taste of soy is not a barrier to its consumption. And how about you? Appetite 2012, 58, 914–921.
  49. Bawa, A.S.; Anilakumar, K.R. Genetically modified foods: Safety, risks and public concerns-a review. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2013, 50, 1035–1046.
  50. Ismail, I.; Hwang, Y.-H.; Joo, S.-T. Meat analog as future food: A review. J. Anim. Sci. Technol. 2020, 62, 111–120.
  51. He, J.; Evans, N.M.; Liu, H.; Shao, S. A review of research on plant-based meat alternatives: Driving forces, history, manufacturing, and consumer attitudes. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2020, 19, 2639–2656.
  52. Michel, F.; Knaapila, A.; Hartmann, C.; Siegrist, M. A multi-national comparison of meat eaters’ attitudes and expectations for burgers containing beef, pea or algae protein. Food Qual. Prefer. 2021, 91, 104195.
  53. Onwezen, M.C.; Bouwman, E.P.; Reinders, M.J.; Dagevos, H. A systematic review on consumer acceptance of alternative proteins: Pulses, algae, insects, plant-based meat alternatives, and cultured meat. Appetite 2021, 159, 105058.
  54. Graça, J.; Calheiros, M.M.; Oliveira, A. Attached to meat? (Un)Willingness and intentions to adopt a more plant-based diet. Appetite 2015, 95, 113–125.
  55. Collier, E.S.; Oberrauter, L.-M.; Normann, A.; Norman, C.; Svensson, M.; Niimi, J.; Bergman, P. Identifying barriers to decreasing meat consumption and increasing acceptance of meat substitutes among Swedish consumers. Appetite 2021, 167, 105643.
  56. Biermann, G.; Rau, H. The meaning of meat: (Un)sustainable eating practices at home and out of home. Appetite 2020, 153, 104730.
  57. Lea, E.J.; Crawford, D.; Worsley, A. Consumers’ readiness to eat a plant-based diet. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2006, 60, 342–351.
  58. Pohjolainen, P.; Vinnari, M.; Jokinen, P. Consumers’ perceived barriers to following a plant-based diet. Br. Food J. 2015, 117, 1150–1167.
  59. Lea, E.; Worsley, A. Benefits and barriers to the consumption of a vegetarian diet in Australia. Public Health Nutr. 2003, 6, 505–511.
  60. Nakagawa, S.; Hart, C. Where’s the Beef? How Masculinity Exacerbates Gender Disparities in Health Behaviors. Socius 2019, 5, 237802311983180.
  61. de Backer, C.; Erreygers, S.; de Cort, C.; Vandermoere, F.; Dhoest, A.; Vrinten, J.; van Bauwel, S. Meat and masculinities. Can differences in masculinity predict meat consumption, intentions to reduce meat and attitudes towards vegetarians? Appetite 2020, 147, 104559.
  62. Beekman, V. You are What You Eat: Meat, Novel Protein Foods, and Consumptive Freedom. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2000, 12, 185–196.
  63. Sahakian, M.; Godin, L.; Courtin, I. Promoting ‘pro’, ‘low’, and ‘no’ meat consumption in Switzerland: The role of emotions in practices. Appetite 2020, 150, 104637.
  64. Elzerman, J.E.; van Boekel, M.A.; Luning, P.A. Exploring meat substitutes: Consumer experiences and contextual factors. Br. Food J. 2013, 115, 700–710.
  65. Corrin, T.; Papadopoulos, A. Understanding the attitudes and perceptions of vegetarian and plant-based diets to shape future health promotion programs. Appetite 2017, 109, 40–47.
  66. Circus, V.E.; Robison, R. Exploring perceptions of sustainable proteins and meat attachment. Br. Food J. 2019, 121, 533–545.
  67. McBey, D.; Watts, D.; Johnstone, A.M. Nudging, formulating new products, and the lifecourse: A qualitative assessment of the viability of three methods for reducing Scottish meat consumption for health, ethical, and environmental reasons. Appetite 2019, 142, 104349.
  68. Hwang, J.; You, J.; Moon, J.; Jeong, J. Factors Affecting Consumers’ Alternative Meats Buying Intentions: Plant-Based Meat Alternative and Cultured Meat. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5662.
  69. Tso, R.; Forde, C.G. Unintended Consequences: Nutritional Impact and Potential Pitfalls of Switching from Animal- to Plant-Based Foods. Nutrients 2021, 13, 2527.
  70. Tuorila, H.; Meiselman, H.L.; Bell, R.; Cardello, A.V.; Johnson, W. Role of sensory and cognitive information in the enhancement of certainty and liking for novel and familiar foods. Appetite 1994, 23, 231–246.
  71. Mookerjee, S.; Cornil, Y.; Hoegg, J. From Waste to Taste: How “Ugly” Labels Can Increase Purchase of Unattractive Produce. J. Mark. 2021, 85, 62–77.
  72. Alevizou, P.; Oates, C.; McDonald, S. The Well(s) of Knowledge: The Decoding of Sustainability Claims in the UK and in Greece. Sustainability 2015, 7, 8729–8747.
  73. Szejda, K.; Bryant, C.J.; Urbanovich, T. US and UK Consumer Adoption of Cultivated Meat: A Segmentation Study. Foods 2021, 10, 1050.
  74. Bryant, C.; Barnett, J. Consumer Acceptance of Cultured Meat: An Updated Review (2018–2020). Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5201.
  75. Wilks, M.; Phillips, C.J.C.; Fielding, K.; Hornsey, M.J. Testing potential psychological predictors of attitudes towards cultured meat. Appetite 2019, 136, 137–145.
  76. Cialdini, R.B.; Kallgren, C.A.; Reno, R.R. A Focus Theory of Normative Conduct: A Theoretical Refinement and Reevaluation of the Role of Norms in Human Behavior. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1991, 24, 201–234.
  77. Sparkman, G.; Walton, G.M. Dynamic Norms Promote Sustainable Behavior, even if It Is Counternormative. Psychol. Sci. 2017, 28, 1663–1674.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback