Abstract

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.

Highlights

  • What we decide to eat has consequences for our health and wellbeing, it effects the future of our planet

  • When we looked at the consumption frequency of meat and meat alternatives, we found that the average flexitarian reported consuming slightly less than four portions of plant-based protein and almost five portions of meat per week, while omnivores reported consuming between one and two portions of plant-based protein and more than nine portions of animal protein in form of meat alone

  • This implies that consumption of meat alternatives is generally low, which is in line with previous findings and should be increased in order to reduce the negative environmental impact of animal products

Read more

Summary

Introduction

What we decide to eat has consequences for our health and wellbeing, it effects the future of our planet. The negative impacts of livestock farming are not exclusive to the environment, and directly affect human health and animal welfare (Aiking et al, 2006; Raphaely & Marinova, 2016). Many types of meat alternatives containing insects, egg whites, grains, pulses, or fungi as protein source have entered the market and cultured meat is close to a market launch. The rise in concerns about animal suffering and an increase in vegetarian and vegan lifestyles (Leitzmann, 2014) have certainly increased the demand for meat alternatives, but in most European countries, meat alternatives are still niche products (de Boer, Schösler, & Aiking, 2014; Hoek et al, 2011; Siegrist & Hartmann, 2019). In order to promote a more sustainable diet with meat alternatives as a protein source instead of meat, more information about possible barriers, expectations, and possibilities for these products are needed

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call