Unveiling Consumer Perspectives of Plant-Based Meats: Insights from a Comprehensive Review of the Literature

Abstract

This article offers a comprehensive analysis of consumers’ perspectives towards plant-based meats, utilizing insights derived from a systematic literature review (SLR). The primary objective is to identify the specific areas of focus in studies pertaining to plant-based meats that address consumer preferences, as well as the prevailing methodologies employed in those studies. To accomplish this objective, the authors conducted a rigorous systematic literature review (SLR) adhering to established guidelines and employing quality assessment parameters for a set of eighteen selected studies. The findings of this SLR bring 18 primary works that deal with acceptance, barriers, environmental concern, and brand preference, among other aspects related to the consumer. Regarding the research methods most used in studies, some research uses the qualitative method, but predominantly the quantitative method is found. By synthesizing the findings of rigorous and high-quality peer-reviewed articles, this study offers insights that have the potential to advance the field. The derived insights not only contribute to the formulation of strategies aimed at enhancing consumer acceptance of plant-based meats but also hold promise in addressing the critical issue of reducing animal meat consumption and mitigating the associated negative environmental impacts.

1. Introduction

The meat industry is confronting a substantial challenge as a result of the escalating demand for animal-derived products. This necessitates the provision of alternative protein sources that not only offer high quality but also address the critical constraint of natural resource utilization [1]. Projections indicate that the global population is expected to reach 10 billion by 2050 [2], thereby doubling the current consumption of animal-based food [3]. Consequently, promoting the adoption of plant-based meat consumption assumes paramount importance in order to reduce reliance on animal production and mitigate the adverse impacts of climate change on both human health and the environment [4].

Plant-based meats encompass a category of meat analogs developed from vegetable proteins, including soy, pea, or wheat, with the aim of mimicking the key attributes of animal-derived meat products [5,6]. Notably, research indicates that plant-based meats can exhibit up to a 50% reduction in environmental impact when compared to their animal meat counterparts [7]. From this perspective, European countries, the USA, Canada, Brazil, and Australia have launched plant-based meat alternatives in recent years, demonstrating a growing interest in the consumption of this type of product [8].

Consumers play a pivotal role in shaping both personal and planetary health, as their choices can have a profound impact on addressing environmental and health challenges by embracing alternative protein sources, including plant-based options [9]. Recognizing the influence of consumer preferences and behaviors in driving sustainability transitions, efforts should be directed towards fostering a greater acceptance and uptake of plant-based meat products. By raising awareness about the environmental and health benefits associated with plant-based diets, consumers can be empowered to make informed decisions that contribute to the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, preservation of natural resources, and improvement of overall well-being.

In this context, it is crucial for researchers, policymakers, and industry stakeholders to collaborate in order to develop effective strategies that promote the adoption of plant-based meat consumption. This includes conducting further research to enhance the sensory attributes, nutritional profiles, and overall acceptance of plant-based alternatives, as well as addressing barriers such as taste, texture, and familiarity. Additionally, efforts should be made to increase the availability, affordability, and accessibility of plant-based meat products [10], ensuring that they are not only perceived as environmentally friendly but also as convenient and desirable options for consumers. By addressing the pivotal role of consumers in propelling sustainable food systems, this research underscores the imperative for interdisciplinary approaches and cross-sector collaboration to effectuate a transformative shift toward more sustainable and health-conscious dietary patterns. In essence, a concerted endeavor to promote the consumption of plant-based meat holds the potential to address pressing global challenges pertaining to resource scarcity, climate change, and public health. Through such collective efforts, a path can be forged toward a future characterized by enhanced sustainability and resilience.

Much of the consumer-focused research has been centered around specific types of alternative proteins, such as in vitro-cultivated meat [11,12,13], algae [14], insects [15], plant-based alternatives [16,17], and legumes like lentils and beans [18]. Additionally, some studies suggest that certain sources of alternative proteins are more accepted than others [19]. Research findings indicate that consumer acceptance of alternative proteins is relatively low compared to traditional meat, but plant-based meat and legumes tend to have higher levels of acceptance, while insect-based and cultivated meat alternatives face more challenges, with taste and health being influential factors [9]. Other studies explore the drivers of alternative protein consumption, such as reasons for food choice [19], food neophobia [14], consumer familiarity with alternative proteins [20], and attitudes towards these proteins [21].

Therefore, the primary objective of this systematic literature review (SLR) is to fill gaps in the current body of knowledge by addressing less-explored dimensions pertaining to the consumer perspective on plant-based meat. This review also endeavors to discern the research focus on plant-based alternatives concerning consumers, along with the methodologies employed to analyze the ensuing results. These objectives are of paramount significance in elucidating the extent to which studies assess consumer-centric aspects of the product, including crucial factors such as price, taste, and quality, which hold sway over the incorporation of plant-based meat into consumers’ daily routines. Furthermore, such contextual examination has the potential to unveil divergent impacts across distinct consumer groups, thereby shedding light on whether socio-economic status and dietary preferences, among other variables, exert a positive or negative influence on plant-based meat consumption.

2. Theoretical Framework

Food production is recognized as one major contributor to climate change [22]. In Western countries, the food industry accounts for 20–30% of the overall environmental impact [23]. Consequently, environmental, social, and health concerns have spurred a global debate among policymakers, professionals, and researchers [24]. In this context, meat substitutes like plant-based meat, which resembles the taste of traditional meat, can play a significant role in reducing animal-based protein consumption [25] and alleviating the negative impacts of livestock production [7,26].

Despite the consensus in the literature regarding the correlation between reduced meat consumption and the mitigation of climate change impacts [24], Hansen (2018) [27] asserts that meat continues to serve as a symbol of social status and development within certain societies while also being popular and perceived as a vital component of a healthy diet [28]. Consequently, the transition towards a diet with diminished reliance on animal protein encounters multiple barriers, including tradition, cultural values [25] and lifestyle choices, and socialization patterns [28].

Evidence suggests that meat consumption tends to increase during special occasions, such as holidays, owing to its entrenched tradition and cultural significance in many countries [29]. From a cultural perspective, the association of meat consumption with masculinity leads many men to exhibit a diminished interest in plant-based dietary options [30]. De Backer et al. (2020) [31] found that men with lower adherence to traditional masculine stereotypes exhibit greater openness to incorporating plant-based meat into their diets.

Moreover, the literature highlights additional factors that contribute to the resistance of consumers in altering their dietary habits, including lifestyle and social status. Lang (2020) [32] posits that consumption preferences are intrinsically linked to shared values and meanings that shape individuals’ lifestyles. Consequently, adopting alternative protein sources poses a challenge to upholding existing habits and lifestyles, such as Sunday barbecues and the preparation of customary dishes during holidays or festivities [29]. Chan and Zlatevska (2019) [33] identify meat as a symbol of socioeconomic status, with individuals of lower income preferring animal protein consumption as a means to compensate for their lack of status.

Factors influencing consumer behavior include the existence of strengths, as well as the belief that plant-based foods are healthier. However, a weakness is precisely the lack of greater awareness about the impacts on health and sustainability of animal origin in relation to the positive contributions of plant-based foods to health and sustainability [34]. In theoretical terms, the theory of planned behavior (TPB) has been widely used to explain consumer behavior in a more sustainable way [35]. However, there is a need to use more explicit variables to identify behavioral variables. Thus, Perugini and Bagozzi (2001) [36] proposed the goal-directed model (GDM) to complement the identification of behavioral motivations.

Socialization has also emerged as a significant obstacle to reducing meat consumption, as highlighted in previous studies [28,37,38]. Mensah et al. (2022) [28] contend that adults have been socialized within a meat-centric culture, where meat plays a central role in numerous culinary creations. Consequently, these individuals often cite their lifelong exposure to a meat-oriented culture as a justification for their reluctance to curtail their consumption. Despite the greater resistance exhibited by adults, prior research indicates that younger individuals are more amenable to accepting plant-based meat alternatives [39,40,41].

The substitution of animal protein with plant-based meat presents notable environmental and social advantages. Plant-based food production has been observed to utilize fewer natural resources, thereby resulting in reduced greenhouse gas emissions [42]. Additionally, the promotion of plant-based meat consumption facilitates a reduction in water usage, eutrophication, and land utilization when compared to conventional meat production methods [43]. The transition from conventional meat consumption to alternative protein sources has the potential to generate favorable social outcomes, manifesting in enhanced protein accessibility, ameliorated labor conditions, the emergence of innovative business prospects, and diminished dependence on animal utilization within the realm of food production [44].

Reipurth et al. (2019) [45] highlight that Danish consumers, motivated by both mental and physical health concerns, tend to adopt plant-based meat alternatives, thereby recognizing the additional benefits these options offer beyond environmental considerations. Bryant and Sanctorum (2021) [46] identified several motivating factors that drive individuals to embrace plant-based protein consumption, including animal welfare concerns, addressing global food insecurity, reducing the risks of diseases such as salmonella, and decreasing the consumption of additives and preservatives. Moreover, regular consumers of plant-based meat also perceive it to be superior in terms of taste, texture, and appearance compared to traditional proteins [47].

3. Research Design

To ensure the rigor, audibility, and reliability necessary to achieve the research objective, this study employs the systematic literature review (SLR) method. The SLR method allows for the interpretation of studies related to a specific research question [48]. Conducting an SLR enables the identification of research gaps within a particular area of investigation by following a structured approach that aids decision-making for new tasks [49]. The SLR process can be divided into three stages: planning, execution, and reporting [50,51]. In this section, we present the steps utilized in this SLR.

3.1. Planning and Research Question Development

The planning phase of the SLR encompassed the development of search strings used in the databases and the formulation of research questions (RQs). Additionally, criteria for assessing study quality were established, along with the methods for extracting relevant studies [50]. Regarding the formulation of research questions, an effort was made to align them with the main objective of the study, which was to identify the focus of research on plant-based meat from the consumer’s perspective. Therefore, the formulation of RQs is crucial in this domain. The PICOC method (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, Context) was employed to guide the formulation of RQs and aid in the extraction process of relevant studies [48]. The PICOC analysis takes the following aspects into account:

• Population: Studies addressing plant-based meat proteins from the consumer’s perspective.

• Intervention: Analysis of studies linking plant-based meat with the consumer’s perspective.

• Comparison: No comparisons were made among the selected studies.

• Outcomes: The objective is to identify the goals of studies on plant-based meat from the consumer’s perspective.

• Context: Studies that explore plant-based meat proteins and the consumer’s perspective.

Hence, the paramount aim of this research is to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current body of knowledge concerning plant-based meat, with a specific emphasis on the consumer’s perspective. In light of this overarching objective, the following pivotal research question was formulated: What are the key findings underlying studies on plant-based meat that focus on consumers? In addition to the primary research question (RQ), the following secondary research questions (SRQs) were crafted to further enrich the investigation:

• SRQ1: What methods have been employed to obtain research outcomes?

• SRQ2: Which consumer groups have been targeted in these studies?

3.1.1. Search Strings

In this phase, keywords connected by logical operators were defined for automated searching in the databases [51]. In this regard, the PICOC framework was also employed to formulate the search strings. Furthermore, the adaptation of keywords alongside logical operators was performed based on the requirements of each database [49], in which three databases showed the need for greater adaptation according to their Boolean operators so that they would fit with the originally generated search strings, as illustrated below:

Original search strings:

(“plant-based” OR “plant-based protein”) AND (“consumer characteristics” OR “consumer perspective” OR “final consumer” OR “consumer behavior”)

Scopus:

TITLE-ABS-KEY ((“plant-based” OR “plant-based protein”) AND (“consumer characteristics” OR “consumer perspective” OR “consumer behavior” OR “final consumer”))

IEEE:

((((“Full Text Only”:“plant-based” OR “plant-based protein”) AND “Full Text Only”:“consumer characteristics” OR “consumer perspective” OR “consumer behavior” OR “final consumer”)))

ACM:

[[Full Text: “plant-based”] OR [Full Text: “plant-based protein”]] AND [[Full Text: “consumer characteristics”] OR [Full Text: “consumer perspective”] OR [Full Text: “consumer behavior”] OR [Full Text: “final consumer”]]

3.1.2. Data Sources and Studies Selection

Five data sources were selected: Web of Science, Scopus, IEEE Explore, ACM Digital Library, and Science Direct (Elsevier), as they encompass a significant portion of studies related to the topic of this research. The selection of studies was based on inclusion and exclusion criteria aligned with [48]. Peer-reviewed journal articles addressing concepts related to plant-based meat from the consumer perspective were included (I1), while secondary and tertiary works (reviews and surveys), informal literature (informal reports, slide presentations, conference reviews), non-peer-reviewed studies (E1), studies that failed to answer the research question (E2), studies with identical content or duplicates (E3), studies not written in English (E4), studies that did not meet quality criteria (E5), and studies for which the full text could not be downloaded from the database or obtained through contact with the author (E6) were excluded. No date restrictions were adopted.

3.1.3. Quality Assessment and Protocol Review

To ensure the best possible outcome of the SLR, additional factors related to the quality of the selected studies must be considered, as they are crucial for the reliability of the chosen primary studies. In this regard, a combination of dos Santos et al.’s (2022) [50] and Souza et al.’s (2019) [52] approaches was employed to address exclusion criterion E5. A set of general (G) and specific (S) criteria were calculated using the QualityScore equation, where studies with a score > 2 were classified as “high” quality, studies with a score = 2 were classified as “medium” quality, and studies with a score < 2 were classified as “low” quality. General questions carried a weight of 1, while specific questions carried a weight of 3.

$QualityScore=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{{\sum }_g^6=1}{6}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{{\sum }_s^4=1}{4}}\times 3\right)\right]$

Thus, the general questions G1 and G2, along with the specific questions (E1–E4) and their respective scores, underwent the aforementioned process and can be seen in Table 1. The general and specific questions were formulated due to the lack of greater exploration in the literature regarding the grouping of factors directed at consumer behavior regarding the consumption of plant-based foods.

3.1.4. Conduction

From the search strings used in this SLR, a total of 377 primary articles were obtained from digital libraries and added to the Start tool. Subsequently, after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, this number was reduced to 86 articles. These studies underwent a full-text extraction phase, resulting in a further reduction to 22 primary studies. Quality criteria were then applied, leading to the synthesis of articles and resulting in a total of 18 primary studies for the final analysis.

4. Study Results

This section presents the articles selected for the final analysis and synthesizes their demographic information. The research questions (RQs) are also addressed.

4.1. Demographic Information

Table 2 displays the composition of the 18 final articles selected for analysis in this SLR. It is noteworthy that all studies originate from journals published within the last 5 years, totaling 841 citations for the selected studies. This indicates that the theme has experienced recent expansion. Notably, three articles have garnered a high number of citations. Firstly, Slade (2018) [53] has 313 citations and reflects the adoption of alternative proteins (cell-based and plant-based meats) by consumers. Secondly, Bryant et al. (2019) [54] have 294 citations and are regarded as the first to compare the acceptance of plant-based and cell-based meats in the United States and Asia. Lastly, Bryant and Sanctorum (2021) [46] highlight the pursuit of reduced consumption of animal-based products, including plant-based meat, in subsequent years.

Figure 1 depicts the sequential steps of article selection and inclusion, highlighting the gradual reduction in the number of studies. Initially, a total of 377 relevant studies were identified. Through successive stages of screening, the inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, leading to a refined set of studies. Notably, the digital libraries that yielded the highest number of studies pertinent to the research focus of this SLR were Scopus, Science Direct, and Web of Science. This observation suggests that these platforms offer a greater likelihood of accessing literature pertaining to consumer-related subjects concerning plant-based meat. It is worth complementing that such articles were not selected by year-specific filter in the databases, allowing the verification of the entire state of the art of the studies until the month of January 2023.

4.2. Addressing the Research Questions

• Aims of the studies about consumers and plant-based meat (RQ)

Extensive scholarly literature has focused on investigating the acceptance of plant-based meat products among consumers [54,55]. Notably, these studies have shed light on the various barriers reported by consumers in relation to adopting plant-based meat alternatives [61,63]. Furthermore, researchers have explored the utilization of sustainability attributes in product marketing strategies [66] and packaging designs [67], within the plant-based meat industry. Additionally, brand preference has emerged as a salient factor impacting consumer decision-making in this domain [58].

Additionally, within the plant-based meat industry, brand preference has emerged as a salient factor impacting consumer decision-making in this domain [62]. The availability and diversity of conventional protein sources have also been identified as influential factors shaping consumer choices [68]. Furthermore, investigations have illuminated the impact of health considerations on consumers’ decision to opt for plant-based meat [59]. Importantly, comparative studies have demonstrated that the choice between plant-based meat and traditional beef products often occurs when the former is positioned as a standard option [69].

Furthermore, it is crucial to highlight the persistent concerns surrounding livestock-related issues and their implications for the adoption of plant-based meat products [46]. Moreover, an examination of the demographic profile of consumers embracing alternative protein sources reveals a prevalence of young, unmarried individuals with higher disposable incomes [56]. Lastly, researchers have investigated the role of social practices and sociocultural factors in facilitating the transition towards plant-based meat consumption [57].

In summary, the extensive body of scholarly research pertaining to consumer perspectives on plant-based meat encompasses a diverse array of studies exploring acceptance, barriers, sustainability attributes, brand preference, environmental concerns, protein source availability, health considerations, comparative decision-making processes, market dynamics, livestock-related issues, consumer demographics, and sociocultural influences. These investigations collectively contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the objectives and factors driving consumer behavior in relation to plant-based meat consumption and demonstrate that brand preference and the way in which plant-based products are presented on supermarket shelves can be points of attention for greater consumer demand.

• Methods that have been used

A diverse array of research methods has been employed in the identified studies. Notably, qualitative research methods such as semi-structured interviews have been utilized [57,60,61], alongside mixed-methods approaches that combine qualitative and quantitative data [64]. Additionally, cross-sectional surveys, squisa transversal [54], and panel data analysis [56,59] have been employed. However, the predominant approach observed across the literature is experimental research, with studies employing experimental designs to investigate consumer behavior [53,58,65,67,68]. Field experiments involving food tastings have been utilized in two studies [66,69]. Additionally, online surveys employing structural equation modeling or linear regression analysis have been employed to gather data [54,55,62,63]. Since closer contact with the consumer will result in more realistic results regarding their preferences, more studies involving direct contact with the consumer are necessary, as well as an experimental approach in the field.

• Consumer groups that have been addressed

Numerous studies have focused on the general consumer population, encompassing both genders and individuals over the age of 18 [53,54,55,56,58,65,67,69]. Other studies have specifically targeted individuals based on their dietary preferences, including vegetarians, flexitarians, who carry out the gentlest minimization of meat and include foods of plant origin in the diet, and vegans [62,63]. Moreover, studies have examined the perspectives of omnivores (includes foods of animal and vegetable origin) and carnivores [46,64,66]. Some investigations have focused on individuals aiming to reduce their meat consumption [61]; non-vegetarian Dutch children aged 8 to 10 years [60]; consumers from five European countries, namely Denmark, Germany, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom [59]; individuals who have purchased and are beginners in consuming plant-based meat alternatives [57]; and three consumer profiles identified as hedonically motivated meat eaters in which the main focus is on food pleasure and who are disinterested in meat substitutes, health-oriented individuals open to some meat substitutes, and those avoiding meat for ethical reasons and open to most meat substitute options [68]. The path traced by studies in this context brings a good number of different groups of consumers explored; thus, research with different perspectives and analysis methods with such groups can contribute more broadly to the theme.

4.3. Research Agenda

During the article selection process, previous systematic literature reviews (SLRs) were identified, offering valuable insights for future research directions. Noteworthy among these is Chen’s (2022) [62] review, which investigates the sensory characteristics of animal-based meat products, aiming to identify the key aspects to consider in the development of plant-based meat using alternative proteins. Graca et al. (2019) [70] and Onwezen (2022) [71] delve into the barriers and facilitators associated with reducing meat consumption and transitioning to plant-based alternatives. He et al. (2020) [6] provide a comprehensive overview of the historical progression of plant-based proteins.

Ishaq et al. (2022) [72] and Tso et al. (2021) [73] underscore general aspects pertaining to meat analogues, particularly their nutrient composition, safety considerations, and functional properties. Notably, several studies have focused on elucidating consumer acceptance of these products [9,74,75,76,77]. Ngapo (2022) [78] provides a comprehensive overview of meat analogues specifically within the Canadian context. Furthermore, Tyndall et al. (2022) [79] shed light on patents that influence ingredient selection in alternative meat production.

Within this framework, several avenues for future research can be identified based on the unresolved issues. Specifically:

• (1). In-depth exploration of sensory characteristics: While the sustainable development aspect of reducing animal meat consumption is of great concern to consumers, it is equally important to consider how plant-based meat can mimic the sensory attributes of its animal-based counterpart in terms of taste, aroma, and appearance. Collier et al. (2023) [55] emphasize the role of taste as a primary driver of consumer acceptance and recommend further investigation into this sensory aspect.

• (2). Utilization of research methods that bridge the consumer–product divide: Field experiments that provide consumers with the opportunity to directly sample plant-based meat products can offer a more authentic and nuanced understanding of sensory barriers [69]. These experiential methodologies should be employed to foster a closer alignment between consumer perceptions and actual product attributes.

• (3). Examination of the financial aspects of consumer profiles: While Zhou et al. (2022) [58] found that price was not the primary influencer in consumer decision-making, the study did not delve into the financial characteristics of the participants. Consequently, it remains unclear whether product pricing significantly impacts consumer choices. Thus, conducting studies that investigate alternative protein sources while considering consumer groups and their respective financial profiles can provide valuable insights into how different socioeconomic segments perceive price and other product attributes.

• (4). Exploration of psychological factors, beliefs, and religious influences: Notably absent from the reviewed studies are clear insights into the psychological factors, beliefs, and religious considerations that may positively or negatively influence the adoption of plant-based meat. Further investigation into these factors is warranted, as they play a vital role in shaping consumer attitudes and behaviors towards meat substitutes despite the current lack of empirical evidence.

Addressing these research gaps will contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of consumer behavior and preferences regarding plant-based meat alternatives. Furthermore, it will enable researchers to provide evidence-based recommendations for industry stakeholders and policymakers seeking to navigate the rapidly evolving landscape of alternative protein sources.

5. Conclusions

This systematic literature review (SLR) aimed to identify aspects related to the consumer that differ from previous reviews, with a focus on uncovering gaps in the literature to facilitate a more robust implementation of plant-based meat consumption. The analysis reveals an increasing emphasis on understanding consumer acceptance of plant-based meat, reflecting a growing concern among researchers regarding the barriers that may hinder the widespread adoption of reduced beef consumption.

Taste and appearance emerge as pivotal factors in attracting consumers, with sensory characteristics serving as guiding principles. This is exemplified by Slade’s (2018) [53] study, where, despite identical pricing, 65% of consumers still preferred beef burgers over plant-based alternatives. Notably, even when participants were informed that both products possessed an identical taste, the preference for beef remained stronger. These findings underscore the need to focus on technological advancements in plant-based meat production to achieve a flavor profile that closely resembles that of traditional beef.

Another significant finding pertains to the pronounced brand preference highlighted by Zhou, Guan, and Huang (2022) [58], although variations in preferences for other product attributes were observed. Consequently, enhancing brand representation by accentuating the authentic technological aspects of plant-based food production and striving for a taste profile that closely mimics beef are initial areas that warrant attention for fostering greater consumer acceptance.

Moreover, sustainability, nutrition, health, and livestock-related concerns emerged as influential factors in consumers’ considerations of adopting plant-based meat. This calls for further investigations into additional characteristics, as underscored in Section 4 of this review. Notably, all the studies included in this SLR were published within the past five years, indicating the recent expansion of this field and the need for increased knowledge dissemination. This finding is congruent with Chung et al.’s (2022) [64] study, which reported that a minority (6.4%) of participants possessed a higher level of knowledge regarding plant-based meat. Thus, familiarizing consumers with the subject matter is believed to enhance their confidence and willingness to embrace plant-based alternatives, given the associated benefits of reducing beef consumption.

Although this literature review study was conducted comprehensively, some limitations inherent to this type of research can be listed. First, the five databases (Web of Science, Scopus, IEEE Explore, ACM Digital Library, and Science Direct) used may not be sufficient since some journals are not indexed. Second, this study analyzed only articles published in English, which can be interpreted as a source of bias. Third, the research adopted the PICOC framework to formulate the search strings, which may limit the results.

5.1. Practical Implications

This SLR contributes to a comprehensive understanding of the factors that can facilitate increased consumption of plant-based meat by examining aspects related to the consumer. Successful expansion of plant-based meat consumption hinges on consumer adoption, underscoring the importance of exploring consumer attitudes toward plant-based meat and their intentions to reduce beef consumption. These insights shed light on various aspects, such as the preparation of plant-based meat in a home environment and potential differences in texture compared to beef, considering common seasonings.

However, the limited number of field studies involving consumer tastings, with Kunz et al. (2021) [66] and Taufik et al. (2022) [69] being notable exceptions, points to the need for further research to bridge this gap and encourage practical experimentation with plant-based meat products by individuals. Additionally, attention should be directed toward market positioning strategies. The literature lacks clear guidance on how to enhance the presentation of plant-based meat, making it more appealing and accessible to consumers, whether through dedicated sections in deli counters, butcher sections, or ambient temperature shelves.

5.2. Social and Policy Implications

According to the research results, this research unveils the imperative for targeted marketing campaigns aimed at disseminating knowledge about plant-based meat to the discerning end consumer. Such campaigns possess the potential to exert a profound influence on individuals’ choices as they navigate the marketplace, armed with the requisite knowledge to embark on a novel purchasing experience that could eventually permeate their routine, thereby yielding a tangible reduction in beef consumption.

Supplementary measures, such as the provision of comprehensive educational courses to the wider society, specifically designed to showcase the culinary prowess of plant-based meat, serve to forge a deeper bond between individuals and this alternative protein source. Such initiatives not only engender a comprehensive understanding of the technical and technological aspects underpinning the industry, but also facilitate an immediate and tangible appreciation of the food’s comportment within the individual’s domestic milieu. It becomes increasingly apparent that, beyond transcending existing barriers to consumption, a paradigm shift in consumers’ perception towards plant-based meat, fostered within an increasingly favorable framework, has the potential to yield a direct and far-reaching impact on the overarching demographic reached by this culinary revolution.

As plant-based meat is genetically modified, there is a certain distrust on the part of consumers when it comes to purchasing this type of product. Alternative meat does not require antibiotics and growth hormones used in animal farming, but consumers should be aware that some components of plant-based meat can cause allergies in some people due to seeds contaminated with aflatoxins or traces of insecticides or even high levels of sodium [80]. Therefore, the industry, together with research institutes and universities, should conduct further research and advances to provide greater confidence to future consumers and ensure that the human body is able to absorb the nutrients in plant-based meat.

Additionally, governments in countries that already produce plant-based meat, such as European countries, the USA, Canada, Brazil and Australia [8], can offer subsidies to farmers who grow crops used in the production of alternative proteins. This could make plant-based meat more affordable for consumers. In addition, policymakers could create regulations to inform consumers through specific labels that provide information about ingredients and allergens, and other factors.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.I.A.S.d.S.; methodology, J.I.A.S.d.S.; software, J.I.A.S.d.S.; validation, P.H.M.P. and M.F.d.C.; formal analysis, J.I.A.S.d.S. and A.B.P.; investigation, J.I.A.S.d.S. and A.B.P.; resources, M.F.d.C.; data curation, J.I.A.S.d.S.; writing—original draft preparation, J.I.A.S.d.S. and A.B.P.; writing—review and editing, J.I.A.S.d.S. and A.B.P.; visualization, M.F.d.C. and P.H.M.P.; supervision, J.I.A.S.d.S.; project administration, J.I.A.S.d.S.; funding acquisition, M.F.d.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Data Availability Statement

Data available on request due to restrictions, e.g., privacy or ethical. The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to homeland security.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Figure and Tables

Figure 1. Stages of article exclusion and inclusion. Source: Prepared by the authors.

Table 1

General (G) and specific (S) questions and scores’ criteria.

General Questions (G)	Score Criteria
Is there a clear motivation for the article?	1.0 if there is an explicit purpose stated in the article.0.5 if there is a superficial purpose statement in the article.0.0 if there is no clear purpose stated in the article.
Is there a well-defined methodology in the article?	1.0 if there is an explicit methodology in the article.0.5 if there is a superficial methodology in the article.0.0 if there is no methodology in the article.
Specific Questions (S)	Score Criteria
Is there an explicit description of the objectives/results of studies on plant-based meat related to consumers?	1.0 if there is a description of the objectives/results.0.5 if there is only a superficial description.0.0 if there is no description.
Is there a description of the consumer groups studied?	1.0 if there is a description of the groups.0.5 if there is only superficial information without specific groups.0.0 if there is no description of consumer types/groups.
Is there a description of the plant-based foods studied?	1.0 if there is a description of the foods.0.5 if there is only superficial information without specific foods.0.0 if there is no description of the types of foods.

Source: Prepared by the authors.

Table 2

Selected studies.

Articles	Citations
Collier et al. (2023) [55]. Just a matter of taste? Understanding rationalizations for dairy consumption and their associations with sensory expectations of plant-based milk alternatives. Food Quality and Preference.	2
Neuhofer and Lusk (2022) [56]. Most plant-based meat alternative buyers also buy meat: an analysis of household demographics, habit formation, and buying behavior among meat alternative buyers. Scientific Reports.	7
White et al. (2022) [57]. Consumer adoption of plant-based meat substitutes: A network of social practices. Appetite.	6
Zhou et al. (2022) [58]. Would You Buy Plant-Based Beef Patties? A Survey on Product Attribute Preference and Willingness to Pay among Consumers in Liaoning Province, China. Nutrients.	2
Henn et al. (2022) [59]. Willingness to replace animal-based products with pulses among consumers in different European countries. Food Research International.	8
Pater et al. (2022) [60]. The perception of 8- to 10-year-old Dutch children towards plant-based meat analogues. Appetite.	3
Collier et al. (2022) [61]. Making more sustainable food choices one meal at a time: Psychological and practical aspects of meat reduction and substitution. Foods.	4
Chen (2022) [62]. Towards Environmentally Sustainable Diets: Consumer Attitudes and Purchase Intentions for Plant-Based Meat Alternatives in Taiwan. Nutrients.	2
Lourenco et al. (2022) [63]. Psychological Barriers to Sustainable Dietary Patterns: Findings from Meat Intake Behaviour. Sustainability.	2
Chung et al. (2022) [64]. Plant-based meats in China: a cross-sectional study of attitudes and behaviours. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics.	1
Katare et al. (2023) [65]. Consumer willingness to pay for environmentally sustainable meat and a plant-based meat substitute. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy.	10
Kunz et al. (2021) [66]. The sustainability liability revisited: Positive versus negative differentiation of novel products by sustainability attributes. Appetite.	2
Bryant and Sanctorum (2021) [46]. Alternative proteins, evolving attitudes: Comparing consumer attitudes to plant-based and cultured meat in Belgium in two consecutive years. Appetite.	102
Bryant et al. (2019) [54]. A survey of consumer perceptions of plant-based and clean meat in the USA, India, and China. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems.	294
Slade (2018) [53]. If you build it, will they eat it? Consumer preferences for plant-based and cultured meat burgers. Appetite.	313
Sucapane et al. (2021) [67]. Exploring how product descriptors and packaging colors impact consumers’ perceptions of plant-based meat alternative products. Appetite.	28
Possidónio et al. (2021) [68]. Consumer perceptions of conventional and alternative protein sources: A mixed-methods approach with meal and product framing. Appetite.	50
Taufik et al. (2022) [69]. A reversal of defaults: Implementing a menu-based default nudge to promote out-of-home consumer adoption of plant-based meat alternatives. Appetite.	5

Source: Prepared by the authors.

References

1. Fiorentini, M.; Kinchla, A.J.; Nolden, A.A. Role of Sensory Evaluation in Consumer Acceptance of Plant-Based Meat Analogs and Meat Extenders: A Scoping Review. Foods; 2020; 9, 1334. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods9091334] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32971743]

2. Zheng, Y.; Li, Y.; Satija, A.; Pan, A.; Sotos-Prieto, M.; Rimm, E.; Willett, W.C.; Hu, F.B. Association of Changes in Red Meat Consumption with Total and Cause Specific Mortality among US Women and Men: Two Prospective Cohort Studies. BMJ; 2019; 365, l2110. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l2110] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31189526]

3. United Nations. Making Peace with Nature: A Scientific Blueprint to Tackle the Climate, Biodiversity and Pollution Emergencies; United Nations: Nairobi, Kenya, 2021.

4. Van Vliet, S.; Kronberg, S.L.; Provenza, F.D. Plant-Based Meats, Human Health, and Climate Change. Front. Sustain. Food Syst.; 2020; 4, 128. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.00128]

5. Choudhury, D.; Singh, S.; Seah, J.S.H.; Yeo, D.C.L.; Tan, L.P. Commercialization of Plant-Based Meat Alternatives. Trends Plant Sci.; 2020; 25, pp. 1055-1058. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2020.08.006]

6. He, J.; Evans, N.M.; Liu, H.; Shao, S. A Review of Research on Plant-based Meat Alternatives: Driving Forces, History, Manufacturing, and Consumer Attitudes. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf.; 2020; 19, pp. 2639-2656. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12610]

7. Smetana, S.; Ristic, D.; Pleissner, D.; Tuomisto, H.L.; Parniakov, O.; Heinz, V. Meat Substitutes: Resource Demands and Environmental Footprints. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.; 2023; 190, 106831. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106831]

8. Zahari, I.; Östbring, K.; Purhagen, J.K.; Rayner, M. Plant-Based Meat Analogues from Alternative Protein: A Systematic Literature Review. Foods; 2022; 11, 2870. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods11182870] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36140998]

9. Onwezen, M.C.; Bouwman, E.P.; Reinders, M.J.; Dagevos, H. A Systematic Review on Consumer Acceptance of Alternative Proteins: Pulses, Algae, Insects, Plant-Based Meat Alternatives, and Cultured Meat. Appetite; 2021; 159, 105058. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.105058]

10. Reis, G.G.; Heidemann, M.S.; de Matos, K.H.O.; Molento, C.F.M. Cell-Based Meat and Firms’ Environmental Strategies: New Rationales as per Available Literature. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 9418. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12229418]

11. Circus, V.E.; Robinson, R. Exploring Perceptions of Sustainable Proteins and Meat Attachment. Br. Food J.; 2019; 121, pp. 533-545. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-01-2018-0025]

12. Bekker, G.A.; Fischer, A.R.H.; Tobi, H.; van Trijp, H.C.M. Explicit and Implicit Attitude toward an Emerging Food Technology: The Case of Cultured Meat. Appetite; 2017; 108, pp. 245-254. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.10.002] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27717657]

13. Wilks, M.; Phillips, C.J.C.; Fielding, K.; Hornsey, M.J. Testing Potential Psychological Predictors of Attitudes towards Cultured Meat. Appetite; 2019; 136, pp. 137-145. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.01.027] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30731104]

14. Birch, D.; Skallerud, K.; Paul, N. Who Eats Seaweed? An Australian Perspective. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark.; 2019; 31, pp. 329-351. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08974438.2018.1520182]

15. Adámek, M.; Adámková, A.; Mlček, J.; Borkovcová, M.; Bednářová, M. Acceptability and Sensory Evaluation of Energy Bars and Protein Bars Enriched with Edible Insect. Potravin. Slovak J. Food Sci.; 2018; 12, pp. 431-437. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5219/925] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39367325]

16. Schösler, H.; de Boer, J.; Boersema, J.J. Fostering More Sustainable Food Choices: Can Self-Determination Theory Help?. Food Qual. Prefer.; 2014; 35, pp. 59-69. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.01.008]

17. Gravely, E.; Fraser, E. Transitions on the Shopping Floor: Investigating the Role of Canadian Supermarkets in Alternative Protein Consumption. Appetite; 2018; 130, pp. 146-156. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.08.018]

18. Melendrez-Ruiz, J.; Buatois, Q.; Chambaron, S.; Monnery-Patris, S.; Arvisenet, G. French Consumers Know the Benefits of Pulses, but Do Not Choose Them: An Exploratory Study Combining Indirect and Direct Approaches. Appetite; 2019; 141, 104311. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.06.003]

19. Onwezen, M.C.; van den Puttelaar, J.; Verain, M.C.D.; Veldkamp, T. Consumer Acceptance of Insects as Food and Feed: The Relevance of Affective Factors. Food Qual. Prefer.; 2019; 77, pp. 51-63. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.04.011]

20. Woolf, E.; Zhu, Y.; Emory, K.; Zhao, J.; Liu, C. Willingness to Consume Insect-Containing Foods: A Survey in the United States. LWT; 2019; 102, pp. 100-105. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2018.12.010]

21. Lemken, D.; Knigge, M.; Meyerding, S.; Spiller, A. The Value of Environmental and Health Claims on New Legume Products: A Non-Hypothetical Online Auction. Sustainability; 2017; 9, 1340. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su9081340]

22. Hallström, E.; Bergman, K.; Mifflin, K.; Parker, R.; Tyedmers, P.; Troell, M.; Ziegler, F. Combined Climate and Nutritional Performance of Seafoods. J. Clean Prod.; 2019; 230, pp. 402-411. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.229]

23. Collier, E.S.; Oberrauter, L.M.; Normann, A.; Norman, C.; Svensson, M.; Niimi, J.; Bergman, P. Identifying Barriers to Decreasing Meat Consumption and Increasing Acceptance of Meat Substitutes among Swedish Consumers. Appetite; 2021; 167, 105643. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105643]

24. Apostolidis, C.; McLeay, F. Should We Stop Meating like This? Reducing Meat Consumption through Substitution. Food Policy; 2016; 65, pp. 74-89. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.11.002]

25. de Bakker, E.; Dagevos, H. Reducing Meat Consumption in Today’s Consumer Society: Questioning the Citizen-Consumer Gap. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics; 2012; 25, pp. 877-894. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10806-011-9345-z]

26. Shanmugam, K.; Bryngelsson, S.; Östergren, K.; Hallström, E. Climate Impact of Plant-Based Meat Analogues: A Review of Life Cycle Assessments. Sustain. Prod. Consum.; 2023; 36, pp. 328-337. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2023.01.014]

27. Hansen, A. Meat Consumption and Capitalist Development: The Meatification of Food Provision and Practice in Vietnam. Geoforum; 2018; 93, pp. 57-68. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.05.008]

28. Mensah, D.O.; Mintah, F.O.; Oteng, S.A.; Lillywhite, R.; Oyebode, O. ‘We’re Meat, so We Need to Eat Meat to Be Who We Are’: Understanding Motivations That Increase or Reduce Meat Consumption among Emerging Adults in the University of Ghana Food Environment. Meat Sci.; 2022; 193, 108927. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2022.108927]

29. Jahn, S.; Furchheim, P.; Strässner, A.M. Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: Motivational Adoption Barriers and Solutions. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 13271. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su132313271]

30. Nakagawa, S.; Hart, C. Where’s the Beef? How Masculinity Exacerbates Gender Disparities in Health Behaviors. Socius; 2019; 5, pp. 1-12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2378023119831801]

31. De Backer, C.; Erreygers, S.; De Cort, C.; Vandermoere, F.; Dhoest, A.; Vrinten, J.; Van Bauwel, S. Meat and Masculinities. Can Differences in Masculinity Predict Meat Consumption, Intentions to Reduce Meat and Attitudes towards Vegetarians?. Appetite; 2020; 147, 104559. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104559]

32. Lang, M. Consumer Acceptance of Blending Plant-Based Ingredients into Traditional Meat-Based Foods: Evidence from the Meat-Mushroom Blend. Food Qual. Prefer.; 2020; 79, 103758. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103758]

33. Chan, E.Y.; Zlatevska, N. Jerkies, Tacos, and Burgers: Subjective Socioeconomic Status and Meat Preference. Appetite; 2019; 132, pp. 257-266. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.08.027] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30172366]

34. Aschemann-Witzel, J.; Gantriis, R.F.; Fraga, P.; Perez-Cueto, F.J.A. Plant-Based Food and Protein Trend from a Business Perspective: Markets, Consumers, and the Challenges and Opportunities in the Future. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr.; 2020; 61, pp. 3119-3128. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2020.1793730] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32654499]

35. Amit Kumar, G. Framing a Model for Green Buying Behavior of Indian Consumers: From the Lenses of the Theory of Planned Behavior. J. Clean. Prod.; 2021; 295, 126487. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126487]

36. Perugini, M.; Bagozzi, R.P. The Role of Desires and Anticipated Emotions in Goal-Directed Behaviours: Broadening and Deepening the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Br. J. Soc. Psychol.; 2001; 40, pp. 79-98. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1348/014466601164704]

37. Mycek, M.K.; Hardison-Moody, A.; Bloom, J.D.; Bowen, S.; Elliott, S. Learning to Eat the “Right” Way: Examining Nutrition Socialization from the Perspective of Immigrants and Refugees. Food Cult. Soc.; 2020; 23, pp. 46-65. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15528014.2019.1700681]

38. Rothgerber, H.; Rosenfeld, D.L. Meat-Related Cognitive Dissonance: The Social Psychology of Eating Animals. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass; 2021; 15, e12592. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12592]

39. Clark, A.E.; Lee, T. Early-Life Correlates of Later-Life Well-Being: Evidence from the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study. J. Econ. Behav. Organ.; 2021; 181, pp. 360-368. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2017.11.013]

40. Graça, J.; Calheiros, M.M.; Oliveira, A. Attached to Meat? (Un)Willingness and Intentions to Adopt a More Plant-Based Diet. Appetite; 2015; 95, pp. 113-125. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.06.024]

41. Vizcaino, M.; Ruehlman, L.S.; Karoly, P.; Shilling, K.; Berardy, A.; Lines, S.; Wharton, C.M. A Goal-Systems Perspective on Plant-Based Eating: Keys to Successful Adherence in University Students. Public Health Nutr.; 2021; 24, pp. 75-83. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1368980020000695]

42. Lynch, H.; Johnston, C.; Wharton, C. Plant-Based Diets: Considerations for Environmental Impact, Protein Quality, and Exercise Performance. Nutrients; 2018; 10, 1841. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu10121841] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30513704]

43. Hadi, J.; Brightwell, G. Safety of Alternative Proteins: Technological, Environmental and Regulatory Aspects of Cultured Meat, Plant-Based Meat, Insect Protein and Single-Cell Protein. Foods; 2021; 10, 1226. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods10061226] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34071292]

44. Morais-da-Silva, R.L.; Glufke Reis, G.; Sanctorum, H.; Forte Maiolino Molento, C. The Social Impacts of a Transition from Conventional to Cultivated and Plant-Based Meats: Evidence from Brazil. Food Policy; 2022; 111, 102337. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2022.102337]

45. Reipurth, M.F.S.; Hørby, L.; Gregersen, C.G.; Bonke, A.; Perez Cueto, F.J.A. Barriers and Facilitators towards Adopting a More Plant-Based Diet in a Sample of Danish Consumers. Food Qual. Prefer.; 2019; 73, pp. 288-292. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.10.012]

46. Bryant, C.; Sanctorum, H. Alternative Proteins, Evolving Attitudes: Comparing Consumer Attitudes to Plant-Based and Cultured Meat in Belgium in Two Consecutive Years. Appetite; 2021; 161, 105161. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105161]

47. Michel, F.; Hartmann, C.; Siegrist, M. Consumers’ Associations, Perceptions and Acceptance of Meat and Plant-Based Meat Alternatives. Food Qual. Prefer.; 2021; 87, 104063. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104063]

48. Kitchenham, B.; Charters, S. Guidelines for Performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2007.

49. van Dinter, R.; Tekinerdogan, B.; Catal, C. Automation of Systematic Literature Reviews: A Systematic Literature Review. Inf. Softw. Technol.; 2021; 136, 106589. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2021.106589]

50. dos Santos, J.I.A.S.; da Silveira, D.S.; da Costa, M.F.; Duarte, R.B. Consumer Behaviour in Relation to Food Waste: A Systematic Literature Review. Br. Food J.; 2022; 124, pp. 4420-4439. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-09-2021-1075]

51. Batista Duarte, R.; Silva da Silveira, D.; de Albuquerque Brito, V.; Lopes, C.S. A Systematic Literature Review on the Usage of Eye-Tracking in Understanding Process Models. Bus. Process. Manag. J.; 2021; 27, pp. 346-367. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-05-2020-0207]

52. Souza, E.; Moreira, A.; Goulão, M. Deriving Architectural Models from Requirements Specifications: A Systematic Mapping Study. Inf. Softw. Technol.; 2019; 109, pp. 26-39. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2019.01.004]

53. Slade, P. If You Build It, Will They Eat It? Consumer Preferences for Plant-Based and Cultured Meat Burgers. Appetite; 2018; 125, pp. 428-437. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.02.030] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29501683]

54. Bryant, C.; Szejda, K.; Parekh, N.; Desphande, V.; Tse, B. A Survey of Consumer Perceptions of Plant-Based and Clean Meat in the USA, India, and China. Front. Sustain. Food Syst.; 2019; 3, 11. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00011]

55. Collier, E.S.; Harris, K.L.; Bendtsen, M.; Norman, C.; Niimi, J. Just a Matter of Taste? Understanding Rationalizations for Dairy Consumption and Their Associations with Sensory Expectations of Plant-Based Milk Alternatives. Food Qual. Prefer.; 2023; 104, 104745. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104745]

56. Neuhofer, Z.T.; Lusk, J.L. Most Plant-Based Meat Alternative Buyers Also Buy Meat: An Analysis of Household Demographics, Habit Formation, and Buying Behavior among Meat Alternative Buyers. Sci. Rep.; 2022; 12, 13062. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-16996-5]

57. White, S.K.; Ballantine, P.W.; Ozanne, L.K. Consumer Adoption of Plant-Based Meat Substitutes: A Network of Social Practices. Appetite; 2022; 175, 106037. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2022.106037]

58. Zhou, M.; Guan, B.; Huang, L. Would You Buy Plant-Based Beef Patties? A Survey on Product Attribute Preference and Willingness to Pay among Consumers in Liaoning Province, China. Nutrients; 2022; 14, 4393. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu14204393] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36297077]

59. Henn, K.; Bøye Olsen, S.; Goddyn, H.; Bredie, W.L.P. Willingness to Replace Animal-Based Products with Pulses among Consumers in Different European Countries. Food Res. Int.; 2022; 157, 111403. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2022.111403] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35761657]

60. Pater, L.; Kollen, C.; Damen, F.W.M.; Zandstra, E.H.; Fogliano, V.; Steenbekkers, B.L.P.A. The Perception of 8- to 10-Year-Old Dutch Children towards Plant-Based Meat Analogues. Appetite; 2022; 178, 106264. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2022.106264]

61. Collier, E.S.; Normann, A.; Harris, K.L.; Oberrauter, L.-M.; Bergman, P. Making More Sustainable Food Choices One Meal at a Time: Psychological and Practical Aspects of Meat Reduction and Substitution. Foods; 2022; 11, 1182. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods11091182]

62. Chen, H.S. Towards Environmentally Sustainable Diets: Consumer Attitudes and Purchase Intentions for Plant-Based Meat Alternatives in Taiwan. Nutrients; 2022; 14, 3853. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu14183853]

63. Lourenco, C.E.; Nunes-Galbes, N.M.; Borgheresi, R.; Cezarino, L.O.; Martins, F.P.; Liboni, L.B. Psychological Barriers to Sustainable Dietary Patterns: Findings from Meat Intake Behaviour. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 2199. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14042199]

64. Chung, J.Y.; Bryant, C.J.; Asher, K.E. Plant-Based Meats in China: A Cross-Sectional Study of Attitudes and Behaviours. J. Hum. Nutr. Diet.; 2022; 36, pp. 1090-1100. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jhn.13092] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36151900]

65. Katare, B.; Yim, H.; Byrne, A.; Wang, H.H.; Wetzstein, M. Consumer Willingness to Pay for Environmentally Sustainable Meat and a Plant-Based Meat Substitute. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy; 2023; 45, pp. 145-163. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13285]

66. Kunz, S.; Florack, A.; Campuzano, I.; Alves, H. The Sustainability Liability Revisited: Positive versus Negative Differentiation of Novel Products by Sustainability Attributes. Appetite; 2021; 167, 105637. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105637] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34371122]

67. Sucapane, D.; Roux, C.; Sobol, K. Exploring How Product Descriptors and Packaging Colors Impact Consumers’ Perceptions of Plant-Based Meat Alternative Products. Appetite; 2021; 167, 105590. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105590]

68. Possidónio, C.; Prada, M.; Graça, J.; Piazza, J. Consumer Perceptions of Conventional and Alternative Protein Sources: A Mixed-Methods Approach with Meal and Product Framing. Appetite; 2021; 156, 104860. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.104860]

69. Taufik, D.; Bouwman, E.P.; Reinders, M.J.; Dagevos, H. A Reversal of Defaults: Implementing a Menu-Based Default Nudge to Promote out-of-Home Consumer Adoption of Plant-Based Meat Alternatives. Appetite; 2022; 175, 106049. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2022.106049]

70. Graça, J.; Godinho, C.A.; Truninger, M. Reducing Meat Consumption and Following Plant-Based Diets: Current Evidence and Future Directions to Inform Integrated Transitions. Trends Food Sci. Technol.; 2019; 91, pp. 380-390. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2019.07.046]

71. Onwezen, M.C. The Application of Systematic Steps for Interventions towards Meat-Reduced Diets. Trends Food Sci. Technol.; 2022; 119, pp. 443-451. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2021.12.022]

72. Ishaq, A.; Irfan, S.; Sameen, A.; Khalid, N. Plant-Based Meat Analogs: A Review with Reference to Formulation and Gastrointestinal Fate. Curr. Res. Food Sci.; 2022; 5, pp. 973-983. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crfs.2022.06.001]

73. Tso, R.; Lim, A.J.; Forde, C.G. A Critical Appraisal of the Evidence Supporting Consumer Motivations for Alternative Proteins. Foods; 2021; 10, 24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods10010024] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33374855]

74. Mancini, M.C.; Antonioli, F. Italian Consumers Standing at the Crossroads of Alternative Protein Sources: Cultivated Meat, Insect-Based and Novel Plant-Based Foods. Meat Sci.; 2022; 193, 108942. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2022.108942] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35963127]

75. Pakseresht, A.; Ahmadi Kaliji, S.; Canavari, M. Review of Factors Affecting Consumer Acceptance of Cultured Meat. Appetite; 2022; 170, 105829. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105829] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34863794]

76. Siddiqui, S.A.; Khan, S.; Ullah Farooqi, M.Q.; Singh, P.; Fernando, I.; Nagdalian, A. Consumer Behavior towards Cultured Meat: A Review since 2014. Appetite; 2022; 179, 106314. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2022.106314]

77. Szenderák, J.; Fróna, D.; Rákos, M. Consumer Acceptance of Plant-Based Meat Substitutes: A Narrative Review. Foods; 2022; 11, 1274. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods11091274]

78. Ngapo, T.M. Meat Analogues, the Canadian Meat Industry and the Canadian Consumer. Meat Sci.; 2022; 191, 108846. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2022.108846]

79. Tyndall, S.M.; Maloney, G.R.; Cole, M.B.; Hazell, N.G.; Augustin, M.A. Critical Food and Nutrition Science Challenges for Plant-Based Meat Alternative Products. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr.; 2022; 64, pp. 638-653. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2022.2107994]

80. Hwang, J.; You, J.; Moon, J.; Jeong, J. Factors Affecting Consumers’ Alternative Meats Buying Intentions: Plant-Based Meat Alternative and Cultured Meat. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 5662. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12145662]