ArticleCurrent developments in nutrition2026
Consumer Acceptability of Animal-Source Food Alternatives: A Literature Review to Support the Transition to Sustainable, Healthy Diets.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.