Role of Sensory Evaluation in Consumer Acceptance of Plant-Based Meat Analogs and Meat Extenders: A Scoping Review

Abstract

Growing demand for sustainable food has led to the development of meat analogs to satisfy flexitarians and conscious meat-eaters. Successful combinations of functional ingredients and processing methods result in the generation of meat-like sensory attributes, which are necessary to attract non-vegetarian consumers. Sensory science is a broader research field used to measure and interpret responses to product properties, which is not limited to consumer liking. Acceptance is evaluated through hedonic tests to assess the overall liking and degree of liking for individual sensory attributes. Descriptive analysis provides both qualitative and quantitative results of the product’s sensory profile. Here, original research papers are reviewed that evaluate sensory attributes of meat analogs and meat extenders through hedonic testing and/or descriptive analysis to demonstrate how these analytical approaches are important for consumer acceptance. Sensory evaluation combined with instrumental measures, such as texture and color, can be advantageous and help to improve the final product. Future applications of these methods might include integration of sensory tests during product development to better direct product processing and formulation. By conducting sensory evaluation, companies and researchers will learn valuable information regarding product attributes and overall liking that help to provide more widely accepted and sustainable foods.

A Critical Appraisal of the Evidence Supporting Consumer Motivations for Alternative Proteins

“…Many alternative proteins struggle to deliver meat-like textures [ 69 , 76 , 77 ], making it challenging to replicate the complex sensory profile and dynamic temporal changes that occur during consumption of animal meat products [ 78 ]. Even a partial (5%) replacement of meat with insects negatively affected the structural and physical stability of sausages, making them crumbly and producing inferior textural properties compared to conventional meat sausages [ 79 ].…”

“…Meat products supplemented with Spirulina and Chlorella have received low consumer acceptance as they tasted bitter due to the presence of high concentrations of amino acids [ 85 ]. The addition of spices, seasonings and flavouring agents has been shown to mask off-flavours in many alternative proteins, especially PBMAs [ 76 ]. However, the margin for error in designing such foods is larger because adding flavours may quickly polarise consumers who have developed clear expectations of what meat products ‘should’ taste like.…”

Meat analogs: Protein restructuring during thermomechanical processing

“…The sensorial attributes are the various taste perceptions during oral processing; their interpretation, measurement, and analysis require well‐designed and controlled sensory tests using human subjects (Stone et al., 2012). At present, two types of tests are mainly used to conduct sensorial evaluations of commercial meat analogs available in the form of emulsified products, patties, nuggets, sausages, and extrudates (Fiorentini et al., 2020). Of the two, the most widely used is the consumer acceptability test (CAT), which assesses the (dis)liking of meat analogs on a scale based on their sensorial appeal.…”

Food Texture Design by 3D Printing: A Review

“…However, one of the major drawbacks of most of the mentioned studies where consumers’ acceptability was performed was the reduced number of participants, generally with ≤30 participants on the sensory panel, who in most cases were untrained or semi-trained. To produce solid conclusions on consumer preferences, a panel composed of more than 100 untrained subjects is necessary, whereas the use of a trained panel composed of eight to 12 panelists is able to assess, in detail, the foods’ sensory profile [ 71 , 120 ]. From the mentioned studies, only three used trained panelists (Liu et al [ 70 ], Strother et al [ 119 ], and Yang et al [ 108 ] with 30, 12, and 9 trained panelists, respectively, on their evaluation).…”