A recent study published within the journal Appetite evaluates how consumers within the Netherlands perceived plant-based meat alternatives.

Study: Fake meat or meat with advantages? How Dutch consumers perceive health and dietary value of plant-based meat alternatives. Image Credit: Oleksandra Naumenko / Shutterstock.com

Addressing meat demands with plant-based alternatives

Animal agriculture substantially impacts the health of the population and the planet. The production of meat requires vast water, land, and other resources, thus depleting and degrading the environment.

Meat is a core component of food plan across many cultures. The increased demand for meat threatens the well-being and health of consumers and livestock.

The excessive consumption of processed and pork is a risk factor for metabolic and non-communicable diseases, some cancer types, obesity, and mortality. High meat consumption involves the slaughter of many animals and requires industrialized meat production, which promotes problematic conditions for animal rearing. Thus, reducing the demand for animal products can assist create an equitable and sustainable food system.

Substituting meat with plant-based meat alternatives can reduce the consumption of animal-based products. While the worldwide demand for meat is high, the recognition of those alternatives has markedly increased. Nonetheless, there is restricted evidence on the buyer perception of the dietary value and healthiness of meat alternatives.

In regards to the study

In the current study, researchers surveyed how Dutch consumers perceived plant-based meat alternatives. Eligible individuals were Dutch-speaking adults aged 18 or older.

The researchers devised a questionnaire comprising 4 parts, the primary of which included questions related to shopping behavior and health status were addressed. The second part included questions on the consumption frequency of meat and meat alternatives. Participants were also asked to point how often they looked for various information on food packaging, akin to health value, shelf life, and price.

4 meat products and 4 meat alternatives were randomly presented to participants in each groups to point their agreement with statements related to the respective products. Within the claim group, subjects were shown these products with a dietary claim of being high in protein.

The third a part of the questionnaire was designed to explore the health beliefs related to meat and its alternatives, whereas the fourth part included questions on sociodemographics, akin to age, sex, food plan, and education level.

Dietary claims and values were obtained from three supermarket chains. A split-plot two-way evaluation of variance (ANOVA) was performed to find out whether participants perceived meat alternatives as healthier than meat and the way the dietary claim influenced their perception.

ANOVA was repeated to look at participants’ willingness to purchase either product and their perceptions of the expected salt, protein, fat, and fiber content within the products. The product features that customers were likely to think about when assessing the health value was also analyzed. The dietary values of meat alternatives and meat were compared using independent samples t-tests.

Study findings   

The study included 120 participants who accomplished the questionnaire in April 2022. There have been no significant differences in age, sex, dietary identity, and education between participants within the no-claim and claim groups. Likewise, there have been no significant differences in participants’ willingness to purchase meat or its alternatives.

Participants generally perceived meat alternatives as healthier than meat. Furthermore, they expected less salt in meat than in its alternatives, with no effects of the dietary claim.

The study participants also perceived higher protein content in either product when the dietary claim was specified on packaging labels. In addition they expected more saturated fats and fewer fiber in meat than meat alternatives.

There have been several differences within the dietary values of meat alternatives and meat. Meat alternatives had significantly lower levels of saturated fat and protein; nonetheless, these products had higher levels of fiber and salt than meat. Participants primarily searched for the value, shelf-life, nutrients, and quantity and sometimes considered health information when buying products.

Furthermore, subjects rank-ordered the product features they were likely to think about when assessing the health value. Nutrition information and ingredients of meat products were ranked higher than average, whereas organic origin and packaging design were ranked lower. General information, dietary value, and ingredients were ranked higher than average for meat alternatives, whereas organic origin, packaging design, and taste were ranked lower.

Conclusions

Dutch consumers perceived meat alternatives as healthier than meat. Nevertheless, the willingness to purchase meat alternatives was lower, which was likely as a result of lower palatability and better prices of meat alternatives than meat. The study participants also overestimated the protein content of meat alternatives as in comparison with meat.

These findings indicate that business operators and policymakers should create a transparent and fair environment regarding the dietary value of meat alternatives for consumers.