The environmental pressure caused by meat production together with the growth of global meat consumption necessitates a shift in our dietary behavior from an animal-based diet to a more plant-based diet. An alternative for meat could be plant-based meat substitutes since meat substitutes can have a lower environmental impact than meat. Despite the growth of the market of meat substitutes, the adoption of these products by consumers is a slow process. Not only the properties of the product itself but also contextual factors (e.g., the usage situation or the meal) could influence consumer acceptance of meat substitutes. The overall aim of this thesis was to identify the roles of the product, the context and consumer characteristics in the acceptance of meat substitutes.
The experiences and perceptions that consumers had of meat substitutes were explored in consumer focus group discussions. These revealed that health aspects and easy preparation were regarded as positive aspects of meat substitutes, whereas lack of information on the package, and high price were reported as negative. Positive and negative sensory attributes were mentioned and when photographs of examples of meals with meat substitutes were presented, then most consumers found the use of meat substitutes appropriate in those dishes.
A web-based survey was developed to let consumers (N=251) assess the use of meat substitutes in different dishes. Six different dishes (spaghetti, rice, wrap, pizza, pasta salad, and soup) were rated for their appropriateness for the use of meat substitutes. Subsequently, appropriateness, attractiveness, and use-intention were rated based on photographs of the six dishes prepared with meat substitutes that differed in shape and appearance. Respondents also had to indicate (un)desirable sensory properties of meat substitutes for every dish. Spaghetti, rice, and wrap were found more appropriate for the use of meat substitutes than the other dishes. The most appropriate meat substitute–meal combinations were those that are similar to common Dutch meal combinations (e.g., spaghetti with mince and rice with pieces). Attractiveness and intention scores were in line with the appropriateness scores. Furthermore, we found that users of meat substitutes and younger respondents gave higher appropriateness ratings.
The role of meal context on the acceptance of meat substitutes was studied further in a central location test. A total of 93 participants tasted and rated meals with meat substitutes on overall liking, product liking (liking of the meat substitute in the meal), appropriateness and intention-to-use, and individual meat substitutes were rated on overall liking. Meat substitutes with similar flavor and texture, but with different shapes (pieces and mince), were rated differently in four meals (rice, spaghetti, soup, and salad) on product liking, appropriateness and intention-to-use, but not differently on overall liking of the meals. Meat substitutes with similar shapes, but different flavors and textures rated differently on overall liking when tasted separately, but did not always differ in product liking when tasted in a rice meal. Appropriateness seemed to be influenced by the appearance of the meat substitute-meal combination, and less by the experienced flavor and texture.
Perceived situational appropriateness of meat, meat substitutes and other meat alternatives in different usage situations using an item-by-use appropriateness survey. Products were presented via photographs and for each combination of product and situation, the appropriateness was rated on a 7-point scale. Personal information included the consumption of meat and meat substitutes and Food Neophobia. An exploratory survey was conducted in 2004 and an online survey in 2019. Overall, meat products were perceived as more appropriate than their vegetarian equivalents (e.g., hamburger vs. vegetarian hamburger) in almost all situations. Meat alternatives (chickpeas, nuts) scored generally higher than meat substitutes on situational appropriateness. Age and gender affected appropriateness ratings: women and younger respondents gave higher ratings to meat substitutes and meat alternatives. Food Neophobia showed a small effect. Meat substitute consumption frequency was a predictor of overall appropriateness in 2019, whereas it was not in 2004.
Finally, twenty in-depth interviews were performed to discover associations of Dutch current users of meat substitutes with the terms ‘eating vegetarian’ and ‘meat substitutes’. Furthermore, their motives for the appropriateness of the use of four meat substitutes in six different usage situations were investigated. The meat substitutes (vegetarian minced meat, vegetarian hamburger, vegetarian steak, and vegetarian stir-fry pieces) were presented as photographs and the usage situations (e.g., eating with family, having little time to cook) were described and the participants were asked to express why the meat substitutes were (in)appropriate in the usage situations. The term ‘Eating vegetarian’ was mostly associated with not eating meat or with specific meat alternatives, and the most mentioned motive for eating vegetarian was ‘environmental impact’, followed by ‘health’ and ‘animal welfare’. The thematic content analysis yielded seven categories for the motives given for the (in)appropriateness of the four meat substitutes in six usage situations: ‘functionality’, ‘convenience’, ‘properties’, ‘preferences’, ‘association with meat’, ‘association with meals’, and ‘nutrition’. Mainly motives in the categories convenience and functionality (function of the meat substitute in a meal) were mentioned for all situations and other motives were situation-specific.
Concluding, meat substitutes could become successful alternatives to meat, as they are perceived as convenient and versatile products. Meal context should play a central role in the design of new meat substitutes, as the combination of the meat substitute and the meal, and not so much the meat substitute itself, determines the acceptance of these products. Situational context plays a role as well; e.g, meat substitutes are perceived as appropriate for a dinner at home with the family, but not for special occasions. Challenges that need to be faced are the dual image of meat substitutes of being plant-based, healthy and low fat on the one hand, and unnatural, fake and processed on the other hand. Consumer acceptance and appropriateness of meat substitutes is still lower than that of meat, but increasing their familiarity could help overcome this issue and pave the way for a successful societal shift toward a more plant-based diet.