ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Seductive or deceiving? A focus group study on perspectives and expectations of consumers on meat alternative labeling practices.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: As the global food system seeks sustainable solutions to address the challenges of climate change and a growing population, meat alternatives have emerged as a promising option for reducing the environmental impact of meat production. Over the past decade, their promotion has increased, while debates persist regarding the use of meat-related terminology on these products and its potential to confuse or mislead consumers. This study investigates Dutch consumers' perceptions of meat alternatives, with particular emphasis on elements perceived as confusing or misleading. Methods: A focus group study was conducted among Dutch consumers to explore their perceptions and experiences with meat alternatives and current labeling practices using a reflexive thematic analysis approach. A total of five focus groups were conducted, with participant compositions differing according to their level of meat consumption. Results: Product naming, positioning, and credence attributes were identified as key factors shaping consumer expectations. Although participants did not report unintentionally purchasing meat alternatives, they expressed concerns about potentially feeling misled by current labeling practices. At the same time, participants recognized that meat-like terminology can enhance familiarity and provide useful reference points regarding sensory properties, preparation, and usage. Discussion and conclusion: The findings highlight a distinction between legal and societal forms of misleading, emphasizing the need for clear and transparent communication across the food chain. Regulatory frameworks and policy efforts may play a critical role in standardizing labeling practices to ensure that information on meat alternatives is both informative and trustworthy. Balancing consumer protection with effective communication is essential for fostering consumer trust and supporting the wider adoption of sustainable meat alternatives in line with global sustainability goals.
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.