Identification of new food alternatives: How do consumers categorize meat and meat substitutes?

Hoek, Annet C.; Boekel, M.A.J.S. van; Voordouw, Jantine; Luning, Pieternel A.

doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.01.008

Cited by 99 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…That leads to another question; were members in the target groups looking for meat substitutes that look and taste like meat or might that even be an argument against buying those products, as consumers do not want to be reminded of meat? Further research is needed to clarify this question as recent Dutch research reported the need to make meat substitutes look like meat [30,31,33,50], e.g., via product tests in a sensory laboratory.…”

Section: Arguments Against the Uptake Of Meat Substitutesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-Cultural Comparison between German, French and Dutch Consumer Preferences for Meat Substitutes

Weinrich

2018

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Sustainability is becoming an increasingly important consideration for consumers when purchasing food. As meat production has a significant impact on the environment, meat substitutes are becoming more and more popular in Europe. However, consumers who regularly buy meat substitutes are still the exception. Although there are some initial results indicating why this proportion is still low, most research has been concentrated in the Netherlands. This paper aims to compare reasons for consuming or not consuming meat substitutes in three European countries-Germany, the Netherlands and France. As very little is known about the underlying reasons, an explorative approach was chosen. Focus group discussions were carried out in all three countries, six altogether. The results show that all participants can enumerate meat substitutes. The main reason for not consuming meat substitutes is the taste of meat. Further, eating habits seem to be fixed and convenience might also be an impediment to reducing meat consumption in favour of meat substitutes, as is confusion regarding healthy eating.

show abstract

Section: Arguments Against the Uptake Of Meat Substitutesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-Cultural Comparison between German, French and Dutch Consumer Preferences for Meat Substitutes

Weinrich

2018

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this context, a meat substitute can be anything a consumer eats in place of conventionally produced meat, so reducing the environmental burden of his or her diet. There has already been initial research into the barriers to establishing meat substitutes in consumption patterns [14][15][16][17][18]. The challenge that researchers and product developers face is the transition from animal-protein-based nutrition to a diet containing, for example, meat substitutes made from plant proteins [19].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Opportunities for the Adoption of Health-Based Sustainable Dietary Patterns: A Review on Consumer Research of Meat Substitutes

Weinrich

2019

Sustainability

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reviews empirical research on consumers’ adoption of meat substitutes published up to spring 2018. Recent meat substitutes often have sustainable characteristics in line with consumers’ concerns over aspects of healthy food and the environmental impact of food production. However, changing lifestyles with less time for cooking, any transition from a strongly meat-based to a more plant-based diet depends on the successful establishment of convenient meat substitutes. This article reviews the growing body of research on meat substitutes. These research articles were classified into five different stages in line with the innovation-decision process of: knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation and confirmation. The research was analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively, with results suggesting that although health, environmental and animal welfare aspects can persuade consumers and influence their decision to try a meat substitute, the appearance and taste of those meat substitutes are crucial factors for their consumption on a regular basis. However, there still remains a gap in research articles focusing on the regular consumption of meat substitutes.

show abstract

“…It has been used on a large variety of food products including vanilla beans (Heymann, 1994), cheese (Lawless et al, 1995), drinking waters (Falahee & MacRae, 1995Teillet et al, 2010), fruit jellies (Tang & Heymann, 1999;Blancher et al, 2007), beers (Chollet & Valentin, 2001;Lelie`vre et al, 2008Lelie`vre et al, , 2009), wines (Piombino et al, 2004;Ballester et al, 2005;Be´cue-Bertaut & Leˆ, 2011), yoghurts (Saint-Eve et al, 2004, spice aromas (Derndorfer & Baierl, 2006), cucumbers and tomatoes (Deegan et al, 2010). FST has also been used to understand how consumers perceive food products such as meat or meatsubstitute products (Hoek et al, 2011), wine (Ballester et al, 2008;Campo et al, 2008) or beer (Lelie`vre et al, 2009).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…, 2010). FST has also been used to understand how consumers perceive food products such as meat or meat‐substitute products (Hoek et al. , 2011), wine (Ballester et al.…”

Section: Similarity‐based Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quick and dirty but still pretty good: a review of new descriptive methods in food science

Valentin

Chollet

Lelièvre

et al. 2012

Int J of Food Sci Tech

314

215

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

WOS: 000306407200001International audienceFor food scientists and industrials, descriptive profiling is an essential tool that involves the evaluation of both the qualitative and quantitative sensory characteristics of a product by a panel. Recently, in response to industrial demands to develop faster and more cost-effective methods of descriptive analysis, several methods have been offered as alternatives to conventional profiling. These methods can be classified in three families: (i) verbal-based methods (flash profile and check-all-that-apply), (ii) similarity-based methods (free sorting task and projective mapping aka Napping (R)) and (iii) reference-based methods (polarised sensory positioning and pivot profile). We successively present these three classes of methods in terms of origin, principles, statistical analysis, applications to food products, variations of the methods and the Pros and Cons

show abstract

Identification of new food alternatives: How do consumers categorize meat and meat substitutes?

Cited by 99 publications

References 53 publications

Cross-Cultural Comparison between German, French and Dutch Consumer Preferences for Meat Substitutes

Cross-Cultural Comparison between German, French and Dutch Consumer Preferences for Meat Substitutes

Opportunities for the Adoption of Health-Based Sustainable Dietary Patterns: A Review on Consumer Research of Meat Substitutes

Quick and dirty but still pretty good: a review of new descriptive methods in food science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About