TY - JOUR
T1 - Fake meat or meat with benefits?
T2 - How Dutch consumers perceive health and nutritional value of plant-based meat alternatives
AU - Ketelings, Linsay
AU - Benerink, Eline
AU - Havermans, Remco C
AU - Kremers, Stef P J
AU - de Boer, Alie
N1 - Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
PY - 2023/9/1
Y1 - 2023/9/1
N2 - Animal agriculture has a large impact on the environment. Hence, there is an increasing demand for meat alternatives - more sustainably produced plant-based products that replace meat as meal component. Demands for meat alternatives also seem to be fuelled by consumers' belief that meat alternatives are healthier than meat products. In an online questionnaire study, we examined whether consumers indeed perceived meat alternatives to be healthier, to what degree consumers adequately estimated the nutritional value of meat (alternatives), and whether a nutrition claim could misguide consumers. In a panel of 120 Dutch consumers, it was found that meat alternatives were generally perceived as being healthier than meat products. According to supermarket data, meat alternatives contained less protein and saturated fat, higher levels of fibre and salt compared to meat. Consumers were found to overestimate the protein content of meat alternatives relative to meat products, especially when meat alternatives carry a 'high in protein' claim. The current beliefs about the healthiness and nutritional content of meat and meat alternatives are precarious and a fair, transparent, and understandable environment should be created for the conscious consumer.
AB - Animal agriculture has a large impact on the environment. Hence, there is an increasing demand for meat alternatives - more sustainably produced plant-based products that replace meat as meal component. Demands for meat alternatives also seem to be fuelled by consumers' belief that meat alternatives are healthier than meat products. In an online questionnaire study, we examined whether consumers indeed perceived meat alternatives to be healthier, to what degree consumers adequately estimated the nutritional value of meat (alternatives), and whether a nutrition claim could misguide consumers. In a panel of 120 Dutch consumers, it was found that meat alternatives were generally perceived as being healthier than meat products. According to supermarket data, meat alternatives contained less protein and saturated fat, higher levels of fibre and salt compared to meat. Consumers were found to overestimate the protein content of meat alternatives relative to meat products, especially when meat alternatives carry a 'high in protein' claim. The current beliefs about the healthiness and nutritional content of meat and meat alternatives are precarious and a fair, transparent, and understandable environment should be created for the conscious consumer.
U2 - 10.1016/j.appet.2023.106616
DO - 10.1016/j.appet.2023.106616
M3 - Article
C2 - 37286170
SN - 0195-6663
VL - 188
JO - Appetite
JF - Appetite
M1 - 106616
ER -