Abstract
Millennials are considered the key generation with regard to the consumption of plant-based meat alternatives via flexitarianism. This study sought to characterize millennials’ consumer segments based on their consumption of and attitudes toward meat and meat alternatives. We conducted an online survey on the hedonic tones of the associations evoked by meat and meat alternatives, consumption of such foods, and diet-related attitudes among a representative sample of Finnish millennials (N = 546, 59% women, age 20–39 years). Some 41% of respondents regularly ate plant-based meat alternatives, while 43% had tried such foods. We divided the respondents into six segments based on the hedonic tones of their meat vs. meat alternatives associations. The segments differed in terms of their consumption of meat alternatives and the underlying reasons why, importance of meat in meals, and Meat Commitment Scale scores. The segment that reported much more positive associations with meat than meat alternatives (~14% of the respondents) may prove resistant to interventions intended to reduce meat intake, whereas the segment that displayed the most positive attitudes toward meat alternatives (~18%) did not eat much meat. Thus, the four middle segments (totaling ~68%), whose associations’ hedonic tones were close to each other, may be the best targets for future interventions designed to reduce meat consumption through the use of meat alternatives. To conclude, introducing a simple segmentation allowed us to identify consumer segments with large potential to reduce meat consumption.
Highlights
The need for more environmentally sustainable alternatives to meat is increasing due to planetary boundaries limiting the capacity to produce more meat for the increasing global population [2]
We conducted an online survey on the hedonic tones of the associations evoked by meat and meat alternatives, consumption of such foods, and diet-related attitudes among a representative sample of Finnish millennials (N = 546, 59% women, age 20–39 years)
The terms meat analogues and meat substitutes are often used to refer to products that more closely resemble meat in terms of their sensory properties than meat alternatives, a term that is used in a broader sense to refer to alternatives to meat
Summary
The need for more environmentally sustainable alternatives to meat (and especially to red and processed meat) is increasing due to planetary boundaries (i.e., global biophysical limits for safe operating space in, e.g., climate change, biosphere integrity, land-system change, and freshwater use [1]) limiting the capacity to produce more meat for the increasing global population [2]. Food products that are made of protein-rich nonanimal sources intended to resemble meat and that are used instead of meat are often referred to as meat analog(ue)s, meat substitutes, or meat alternatives. In the literature, these terms are generally used synonymously [4], their definitions do sometimes differ among authors. Kumar et al [12] defined a meat analogue as “a food product that approximates the aesthetic qualities and/or chemical characteristics of certain types of meat These are made from non-animal protein and their appearance and smell are very much similar to meat”. Based on the previously mentioned studies, it appears that a consensus has not yet been reached concerning the terminology for these products
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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
