Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42840042›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2026

Seductive or deceiving? A focus group study on perspectives and expectations of consumers on meat alternative labeling practices.

Linsay Ketelings, Roos Caanen, Remco C Havermans, Stef P J Kremers, Alie de Boer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

5 authors.

Linsay KetelingsFood Claims Research Venlo, System Earth Science, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Maastricht University Campus Venlo, Venlo, Netherlands.
Roos CaanenFood Claims Research Venlo, System Earth Science, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Maastricht University Campus Venlo, Venlo, Netherlands.
Remco C HavermansLaboratory of Behavioural Gastronomy, System Earth Science, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Maastricht University Campus Venlo, Venlo, Netherlands.
Stef P J KremersSchool for Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism (NUTRIM), Department of Health Promotion, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Alie de BoerFood Claims Research Venlo, System Earth Science, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Maastricht University Campus Venlo, Venlo, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Consumer BehaviorFood LabelingMeatAdultFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMeat SubstitutesMiddle AgedNetherlandsYoung Adultconsumer behaviorEuropean food lawfood labelingfood systemsplant-based meat alternativesqualitative researchsustainability

Identifiers

PMID42840042
PMCPMC13638586

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.