Drivers and Inhibitors in the Acceptance of Meat Alternatives: The Case of Plant and Insect-Based Proteins.

Wim De Koning,Beatriz Urbano,Zheng (Virgil) Jiang,Anouk Boereboom,Wendy Hao,Philippe Mongondry,David Dean,Martin Anderson,Luis Kluwe Aguiar,Bin Jiang,Emma Eastwick,Frank Vriesekoop,Mark Oppong-Gyamfi,Cristino Alberto Gómez Luciano

doi:10.3390/foods9091292

Abstract

Insects as an alternative protein source has gained traction for its advantageous environmental impact. Despite being part of many traditional food cultures, insects remain a novelty in Western cultures and a challenging concept for many. Even though plant-based protein alternatives are not facing the same barriers, product unfamiliarity and limited exposure hinder adoption, which could be detrimental to growth within the food sector. This study is aimed at evaluating plant- and insect-based proteins as alternative dietary proteins. A model indicating the drivers of consumer attitudes towards meat-alternative proteins and consumer willingness to try, buy, and pay a premium was tested. Further, 3091 responses were collected using surveys in nine countries: China, USA, France, UK, New Zealand, Netherlands, Brazil, Spain, and the Dominican Republic. Structural Equation Modelling was used to analyze the data. We found that consumer’s behavioral intentions towards both plant-based and insect-based alternatives are inhibited by food neophobia but to an extent, are amplified by the perceived suitability and benefits of the protein, which in turn are driven by nutritional importance, environmental impact, healthiness, and sensory attributes for both alternatives. The expectation of the nutritional value of meat is the strongest (negative) influence on perceived suitability/benefits of plant-based protein and willingness to try, buy, and pay more for plant-based proteins, but it only has a relatively small impact on the suitability/benefits of insect-based protein and no impact on willingness to try, buy, and pay more for insect-based proteins. Overall, we conclude that consumer adoption towards meat alternatives is complex and is strengthened by the perceived suitability/benefits of the protein and general importance of perceived food healthiness and sustainability. Conversely, adoption is hindered by dietary factors and the experiential importance of meat and food neophobia.

Highlights

Much has been publicized about how the unsustainable ways of traditional meat production and consumption [1,2,3] is detrimental to both the environment and human health [4,5,6]
Our results show that Food Neophobia and Food Technology Neophobia would inhibit consumer willingness to try, buy, and pay more for meat-alternative proteins, the notion of neophobia by itself might not have been a sufficient indicator to gauge consumers’ drivers
Our results show that consumer’s behavioral intentions towards meat alternatives are inhibited by food neophobia but to a larger extent, are augmented by the perceived suitability and benefits of the protein

Summary

Introduction

Much has been publicized about how the unsustainable ways of traditional meat production and consumption [1,2,3] is detrimental to both the environment and human health [4,5,6]. This, compounded with demographic pressures and socio-economic growth trends, has encouraged new product development and the introduction of a variety of alternatives to traditional animal proteins, extending the availability of meat substitutes in many markets. Meat alternatives are not new, plant-based and mycoproteins such as Quorn. Pulses, which are a great source of plant proteins, have been a traditional part of staple diets in many cultures for millennia [9]. Plant-based protein sources have been part of extensive new product development by the food industry bringing meat alternatives to the market that are promoted under higher sustainability credentials [10,11], catering to the burgeoning vegetarian and vegan segments

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion