Fake meat or meat with benefits? How Dutch consumers perceive health and nutritional value of plant-based meat alternatives

Abstract

Animal agriculture has a large impact on the environment. Hence, there is an increasing demand for meat alternatives – more sustainably produced plant-based products that replace meat as meal component. Demands for meat alternatives also seem to be fuelled by consumers' belief that meat alternatives are healthier than meat products. In an online questionnaire study, we examined whether consumers indeed perceived meat alternatives to be healthier, to what degree consumers adequately estimated the nutritional value of meat (alternatives), and whether a nutrition claim could misguide consumers. In a panel of 120 Dutch consumers, it was found that meat alternatives were generally perceived as being healthier than meat products. According to supermarket data, meat alternatives contained less protein and saturated fat, higher levels of fibre and salt compared to meat. Consumers were found to overestimate the protein content of meat alternatives relative to meat products, especially when meat alternatives carry a ‘high in protein’ claim. The current beliefs about the healthiness and nutritional content of meat and meat alternatives are precarious and a fair, transparent, and understandable environment should be created for the conscious consumer.