Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38890856›Full record

ArticleFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Is Sustainable Consumption a Sufficient Motivator for Consumers to Adopt Meat Alternatives? A Consumer Perspective on Plant-Based, Cell-Culture-Derived, and Insect-Based Alternatives.

Nayyer Rehman, Victoria Edkins, Nives Ogrinc

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Nayyer RehmanWRG Europe Ltd., 26-28 Southernhay East, Exeter EX1 1NS, UK.
Victoria EdkinsWRG Europe Ltd., 26-28 Southernhay East, Exeter EX1 1NS, UK.
Nives OgrincJožef Stefan International Postgraduate School, Jamova 39, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.ORCID 0000-0002-5709-1594

Funding

European Union FoodTraNet/GA no. 956265Slovenian Research Agency INPROFF/J7-3155
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study investigates consumer preference and acceptance of three meat alternatives-plant-based, lab-grown, and insect-based-as sustainable choices to meet the demands of a growing population and evolving food systems. Insights were gathered from European consumers regarding their perceptions and consumption patterns using a mixed-methods approach. The approach employed a questionnaire followed by focus group discussions conducted in Slovenia and the UK to understand the motivations and barriers behind their responses. The UK and Slovenia were chosen as they provided the highest response rates to the questionnaire and they have differing legislation. The results show that plant-based alternatives are the most familiar and accepted option, while lab-grown meat and insect-based products are less familiar and have lower acceptance rates. Moreover, they show that although sustainability factors are important to consumers, they are not their only concern; health and nutrition are the primary motivators for choosing meat alternatives. These are followed closely by sensory appeal, pricing, and a preference for natural, minimally processed options. Based on insights from the focus groups, strategies to overcome the barriers to the acceptance of meat alternatives should include targeted product categorisation and placement, educational campaigns, effective use of media, and greater transparency in product information.

Indexed as

alternative proteinscell-culture-derived meatconsumer acceptanceconsumer perceptionedible insectsplant-based meat

Identifiers

PMID38890856
PMCPMC11171576

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.