食物本质论与人们对植物肉类替代品具有肉类产品特性的看法有关

IF 4.9 1区 农林科学 Q1 FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY Food Quality and Preference Pub Date : 2024-09-16 DOI:10.1016/j.foodqual.2024.105328
{"title":"食物本质论与人们对植物肉类替代品具有肉类产品特性的看法有关","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.foodqual.2024.105328","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>A transition to greater plant-based protein consumption is recognized as a necessity for planetary and human well-being. A critical driver of acceptance of plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) is perceived similarity in their sensory and nutritional profiles with conventional animal-based meat. Consumers vary in food essentialism − beliefs that categories of foods have innate and immutable ‘essences’ that are responsible for their shared properties. Here, we examined whether food essentialism is associated with perceptions that PBMAs share similar properties as the animal-based products they replicate. Participants (N=298) rated two animal-based food items (beef burger and canned tuna) and two corresponding PBMAs (plant-based burger and tuna) on perceived processing, naturalness, nutritiousness, taste (like beef or fish), typical health benefits, and liking. Participants holding higher (vs. lower) food essentialism beliefs rated PBMAs as less processed, more natural, tasting more like beef (plant-based burger only), possessing greater health benefits of the animal-based products, and as more liked (plant-based tuna only). These relationships between food essentialism and perceived food properties were observed more consistently for PBMAs than their animal-based counterparts. Beliefs that food items from a common category, such as beef, share similar essences and properties may extend to PBMAs despite their non-animal origins. Given the challenges in developing PBMAs that adequately replicate the taste, texture, and nutritional properties of meat, targeting intuitions that guide perceived similarities of PBMAs and meat, like food essentialism, may be a promising approach for supporting the protein transition.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":322,"journal":{"name":"Food Quality and Preference","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Food essentialism is associated with perceptions of plant-based meat alternatives possessing properties of meat-based products\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.foodqual.2024.105328\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>A transition to greater plant-based protein consumption is recognized as a necessity for planetary and human well-being. A critical driver of acceptance of plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) is perceived similarity in their sensory and nutritional profiles with conventional animal-based meat. Consumers vary in food essentialism − beliefs that categories of foods have innate and immutable ‘essences’ that are responsible for their shared properties. Here, we examined whether food essentialism is associated with perceptions that PBMAs share similar properties as the animal-based products they replicate. Participants (N=298) rated two animal-based food items (beef burger and canned tuna) and two corresponding PBMAs (plant-based burger and tuna) on perceived processing, naturalness, nutritiousness, taste (like beef or fish), typical health benefits, and liking. Participants holding higher (vs. lower) food essentialism beliefs rated PBMAs as less processed, more natural, tasting more like beef (plant-based burger only), possessing greater health benefits of the animal-based products, and as more liked (plant-based tuna only). These relationships between food essentialism and perceived food properties were observed more consistently for PBMAs than their animal-based counterparts. Beliefs that food items from a common category, such as beef, share similar essences and properties may extend to PBMAs despite their non-animal origins. Given the challenges in developing PBMAs that adequately replicate the taste, texture, and nutritional properties of meat, targeting intuitions that guide perceived similarities of PBMAs and meat, like food essentialism, may be a promising approach for supporting the protein transition.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":322,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Food Quality and Preference\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Food Quality and Preference\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329324002301\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food Quality and Preference","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329324002301","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

摘要

人们认识到,为了地球和人类的福祉,必须向更多食用植物蛋白质过渡。推动人们接受植物性肉类替代品(PBMAs)的一个关键因素是,他们认为植物性肉类替代品在感官和营养方面与传统的动物性肉类相似。消费者的食物本质论各不相同--他们认为各类食物都有与生俱来、永恒不变的 "本质",这些 "本质 "决定了它们的共同特性。在此,我们研究了食品本质论是否与 PBMA 与其仿制的动物性产品具有相似特性的看法相关。参与者(人数=298)对两种动物性食品(牛肉汉堡和罐装金枪鱼)和两种相应的 PBMAs(植物性汉堡和金枪鱼)进行了感知加工、天然性、营养性、口味(像牛肉或鱼)、典型健康益处和喜好方面的评分。持有较高(与较低)食物本质主义信念的参与者认为植物性肉类和动物性肉类的加工程度更低、更天然、味道更像牛肉(仅植物性汉堡)、具有动物性产品的更大健康益处,以及更受人喜欢(仅植物性金枪鱼)。与动物源性食品相比,人们更一致地认为植物源性食品具有食品本质主义和感知食品特性之间的关系。认为同一类食品(如牛肉)具有相似的本质和特性的观点可能会延伸到 PBMAs,尽管它们并非源自动物。鉴于开发能够充分复制肉类口味、质地和营养特性的 PBMAs 所面临的挑战,针对指导人们感知 PBMAs 与肉类相似性的直觉,如食物本质论,可能是支持蛋白质转型的一种有前途的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Food essentialism is associated with perceptions of plant-based meat alternatives possessing properties of meat-based products

A transition to greater plant-based protein consumption is recognized as a necessity for planetary and human well-being. A critical driver of acceptance of plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) is perceived similarity in their sensory and nutritional profiles with conventional animal-based meat. Consumers vary in food essentialism − beliefs that categories of foods have innate and immutable ‘essences’ that are responsible for their shared properties. Here, we examined whether food essentialism is associated with perceptions that PBMAs share similar properties as the animal-based products they replicate. Participants (N=298) rated two animal-based food items (beef burger and canned tuna) and two corresponding PBMAs (plant-based burger and tuna) on perceived processing, naturalness, nutritiousness, taste (like beef or fish), typical health benefits, and liking. Participants holding higher (vs. lower) food essentialism beliefs rated PBMAs as less processed, more natural, tasting more like beef (plant-based burger only), possessing greater health benefits of the animal-based products, and as more liked (plant-based tuna only). These relationships between food essentialism and perceived food properties were observed more consistently for PBMAs than their animal-based counterparts. Beliefs that food items from a common category, such as beef, share similar essences and properties may extend to PBMAs despite their non-animal origins. Given the challenges in developing PBMAs that adequately replicate the taste, texture, and nutritional properties of meat, targeting intuitions that guide perceived similarities of PBMAs and meat, like food essentialism, may be a promising approach for supporting the protein transition.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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
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 Can children and artificial intelligence be sources of ideas for school meal preparations based on whole food utilization?
×
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