Which are the most promising protein sources for meat alternatives?

IF 4.9 1区 农林科学 Q1 FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY Food Quality and Preference Pub Date : 2024-05-14 DOI:10.1016/j.foodqual.2024.105226
Bruno Etter, Fabienne Michel, Michael Siegrist
{"title":"Which are the most promising protein sources for meat alternatives?","authors":"Bruno Etter,&nbsp;Fabienne Michel,&nbsp;Michael Siegrist","doi":"10.1016/j.foodqual.2024.105226","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Meat alternatives have the potential to shift people’s diets into a more sustainable direction. To improve consumers’ attitudes to meat alternatives and increase the likelihood of their consumption, it is important to identify the most promising protein sources from a consumer perspective. This study investigated expectations toward 17 specific protein sources applied in meat alternatives and four conventional animal-based protein sources across six rating dimensions in an online survey with 916 participants from the German-speaking part of Switzerland. Additionally, several relevant consumer characteristics, namely food neophobia, health consciousness, preference for naturalness, environmental identity, and consumers’ attitudes to meat and meat alternatives, were assessed. Meat alternatives containing potato, lentil, chickpea, and pea achieved the highest acceptance scores. Other protein sources, such as algae, insects, and different types of cultured meat, did not achieve high acceptance. Multiple regressions were used to investigate further the influence of consumer characteristics. For different types of protein sources, different consumer characteristics were identified as barriers, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing groups of consumers and types of protein sources. The study also showed that people’s commitment to meat has no influence on their acceptance of alternative proteins; rather, negative attitudes to meat alternatives are the problem. Future efforts should therefore focus on optimizing the properties of meat alternatives, instead of demonizing the consumption of meat. One way to optimize the acceptance of meat alternatives is to use ingredients that consumers already have positive expectations toward, such as potato, lentil, chickpea, and pea.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":322,"journal":{"name":"Food Quality and Preference","volume":"119 ","pages":"Article 105226"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329324001289/pdfft?md5=3fa62faebf73732457ad7c13668be1be&pid=1-s2.0-S0950329324001289-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food Quality and Preference","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329324001289","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Meat alternatives have the potential to shift people’s diets into a more sustainable direction. To improve consumers’ attitudes to meat alternatives and increase the likelihood of their consumption, it is important to identify the most promising protein sources from a consumer perspective. This study investigated expectations toward 17 specific protein sources applied in meat alternatives and four conventional animal-based protein sources across six rating dimensions in an online survey with 916 participants from the German-speaking part of Switzerland. Additionally, several relevant consumer characteristics, namely food neophobia, health consciousness, preference for naturalness, environmental identity, and consumers’ attitudes to meat and meat alternatives, were assessed. Meat alternatives containing potato, lentil, chickpea, and pea achieved the highest acceptance scores. Other protein sources, such as algae, insects, and different types of cultured meat, did not achieve high acceptance. Multiple regressions were used to investigate further the influence of consumer characteristics. For different types of protein sources, different consumer characteristics were identified as barriers, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing groups of consumers and types of protein sources. The study also showed that people’s commitment to meat has no influence on their acceptance of alternative proteins; rather, negative attitudes to meat alternatives are the problem. Future efforts should therefore focus on optimizing the properties of meat alternatives, instead of demonizing the consumption of meat. One way to optimize the acceptance of meat alternatives is to use ingredients that consumers already have positive expectations toward, such as potato, lentil, chickpea, and pea.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
哪些是最有前景的肉类替代品蛋白质来源?
肉类替代品有可能使人们的饮食向更可持续的方向转变。为了改善消费者对肉类替代品的态度并提高其消费的可能性,从消费者的角度确定最有前景的蛋白质来源非常重要。这项研究通过对瑞士德语区的 916 名参与者进行在线调查,从六个评分维度调查了他们对肉类替代品中应用的 17 种特定蛋白质来源和 4 种传统动物性蛋白质来源的期望。此外,还评估了一些相关的消费者特征,即食物新恐惧症、健康意识、对天然性的偏好、环境认同以及消费者对肉类和肉类替代品的态度。马铃薯、扁豆、鹰嘴豆和豌豆等肉类替代品的接受度最高。其他蛋白质来源,如藻类、昆虫和不同类型的养殖肉类的接受度不高。多元回归法进一步研究了消费者特征的影响。对于不同类型的蛋白质来源,不同的消费者特征被认为是障碍,这强调了区分消费者群体和蛋白质来源类型的重要性。研究还表明,人们对肉类的承诺并不影响他们对替代蛋白质的接受;相反,对肉类替代品的负面态度才是问题所在。因此,未来的工作重点应该是优化肉类替代品的特性,而不是妖魔化肉类消费。优化肉类替代品接受度的方法之一是使用消费者已经对其抱有积极期望的配料,如马铃薯、扁豆、鹰嘴豆和豌豆。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Food Quality and Preference
Food Quality and Preference 工程技术-食品科技
CiteScore
10.40
自引率
15.10%
发文量
263
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: Food Quality and Preference is a journal devoted to sensory, consumer and behavioural research in food and non-food products. It publishes original research, critical reviews, and short communications in sensory and consumer science, and sensometrics. In addition, the journal publishes special invited issues on important timely topics and from relevant conferences. These are aimed at bridging the gap between research and application, bringing together authors and readers in consumer and market research, sensory science, sensometrics and sensory evaluation, nutrition and food choice, as well as food research, product development and sensory quality assurance. Submissions to Food Quality and Preference are limited to papers that include some form of human measurement; papers that are limited to physical/chemical measures or the routine application of sensory, consumer or econometric analysis will not be considered unless they specifically make a novel scientific contribution in line with the journal''s coverage as outlined below.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board What differentiates the choice of certain foods? An exploratory analysis of food choice patterns among couples from the dyadic NutriAct Family Cohort in relation to social and health-associated determinants Parental norms and attitudes in Relation to Children’s sugar consumption − A mediation analysis of the “Are You Too Sweet?” intervention study Impact of olfactory priming on mental representations of food concepts and subsequent food choice Animal welfare has priority: Swiss consumers’ preferences for animal welfare, greenhouse gas reductions and other sustainability improvements in dairy products
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1