Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42701417›Full record

ArticleCurrent developments in nutrition2026

Consumer Acceptability of Animal-Source Food Alternatives: A Literature Review to Support the Transition to Sustainable, Healthy Diets.

Stella Nordhagen, Ty Beal, Mario Herrero, Lynnette M Neufeld, Kristina Sokourenko, Maria Xipsiti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current developments in nutrition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Stella NordhagenGlobal Alliance for Improved Nutrition, Geneva, Switzerland.
Ty BealGlobal Alliance for Improved Nutrition, Washington, DC, United States.
Mario HerreroCornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States.
Lynnette M NeufeldFood and Nutrition Division, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, Rome, Italy.
Kristina SokourenkoAshley School of Global Development and the Environment, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States.
Maria XipsitiFood and Nutrition Division, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Animal-source foods (ASFs) have long been central to human diets but have come under increased scrutiny in recent years because of relatively large environmental impacts, animal welfare considerations, and some negative health impacts. One option for addressing these issues is (at least partially) replacing ASFs in the diet with alternatives to ASFs (Alt-ASFs): conventional or novel foods with the potential to be consumed as a substitute for conventional ASFs such as meat, eggs, dairy, and fish. However, the adoption of such products at scale depends on consumers purchasing, preparing, and eating them as part of their broader eating practices. This paper undertakes a structured narrative review informed by scoping review methods of consumer acceptability of alternative animal-free sources of serum (Alt-ASFs), separately considering Alt-ASFs made from plants, cells, insects, algae, and fungi. Two databases (Scopus, Google Scholar) were searched, covering articles published from 1 January, 2000 until 24 February, 2024 (the search date). A total of 5998 records were identified, and 61 were included in the full-text synthesis, covering 29 countries. The results show that acceptability varies significantly by Alt-ASF type. Key barriers across all categories include poor sensory qualities (e.g., taste, texture), limited access, high prices, unfamiliarity, and perceived inconvenience. Facilitating factors include perceived health and environmental benefits, though these alone rarely overcome the aforementioned barriers. Plant-based alternatives have the highest acceptance, whereas cell-based and insect-based alternatives have the lowest acceptance, although this varies across cultures and evidence is limited for some contexts. Although plant-based alternatives are often largely seen as merely less desirable due to sensory and convenience factors, cell- and insect-based alternatives may not even be seen as food by many consumers, who may express fear or disgust at eating them. Although food acceptability evolves over time through cultural, commercial, and policy influences, scaling Alt-ASF consumption will require both product improvements and consumer outreach.

Indexed as

alternative proteinsdairy analogsfood choicemeat analogsprotein transition

Identifiers

PMID42701417
PMCPMC13545432

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.