ArticleCurrent research in food science2025
Perceived environmental impact of meat alternatives: Effects of a sustainability label and product type.
Article in Current research in food science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rethinking Meat Alternatives in Eastern Europe: A Just Transition Lens on Policy, Perception, and Innovation in Romania.Food science & nutrition · 2026Article
- Diffusion of innovation in emerging food technologies: Adoption dynamics of cultured meat.Current research in food science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Growing environmental awareness and interest in sustainable, nutritious diets fueled the rapid expansion of meat alternatives. However, consumer acceptance remains uneven, and responses to sustainability labels are ambiguous, particularly for novel protein sources. This study investigates how a sustainability label and product type influence consumers' perceptions of the environmental impact of meat alternatives and meat products. A 2 (label: sustainability label; no label) × 4 (product type: insect-based; cultured meat; plant-based; beef burgers) between-subjects experiment was conducted with 432 Romanian consumers. Perceived environmental impact was assessed across three dimensions - resource consumption, climate change, and animal welfare - using two-way MANOVA. The sustainability label had limited effects: only for insect-based burgers, and it unexpectedly increased perceived climate harm. For all other products, labels did not shift evaluations. Beef burgers were constantly perceived as the most damaging. An interaction effect between label and product type emerged only for perceptions of climate change. This research presents the first integrated analysis of label × product type effects across multiple environmental dimensions, comparing meat alternatives and meat products. It highlights that labels may not always enhance positive perceptions and can, for less familiar products, amplify negative judgments. Marketers of novel proteins should align sustainability messaging with product familiarity, while beef producers may benefit from highlighting verifiable environmental improvements. Policymakers may consider developing dimension-specific labeling standards and implementing consumer education initiatives to enhance the effectiveness of labels. Enhancing public understanding of sustainability claims can help align consumer perceptions with scientific evidence, supporting responsible marketing and sustainable dietary choices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.