Consumer acceptance and appropriateness of meat substitutes in a meal context

By J. Elzerman, A. Hoek, M. V. Boekel, Pieternel A. Luning. 2011

275 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The replacement of meat by meat substitutes could help to reduce the environmental burden of our food production systems. However, the acceptance of most meat substitutes is still low. This study investigated the role of meal context on the acceptance of meat substitutes. In a central location test involving 93 participants, meals with meat substitutes were rated on overall liking, product liking (liking of the meat substitute in the meal), appropriateness and intention-to-use, whereas individual meat substitutes were rated on overall liking. Meat substitutes with similar flavor and texture, but with different shape (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 shape, but different flavor and texture 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 flavor and texture. For the development of new foods (e.g. meat substitutes), more emphasis is needed on consumer evaluation of meal combinations instead of on the sensory properties of the individual product.

Subfields: Ecology, Food Science, Sensory Systems

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/be4934a8e57c61153d52990faa4730c72174b12e

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

1. J. Boersema
2. Hanna Schösler
3. Johannes de Boer
4. H. Dagevos
5. R. Boom
6. A. J. Goot

In Food Science

1. A. Kinchla
2. M. Fiorentini
3. A. Nolden
4. J. Boersema
5. Hanna Schösler
6. R. Boom
7. Johannes de Boer
8. J. Elzerman

In Sensory Systems

1. Johannes de Boer
2. C. de Graaf
3. J. Boersema
4. Hanna Schösler

Citations in the corpus

• Texture methods for evaluating meat and meat analogue structures: A review (2021, background): “To be commercially successful in the short term, and for large groups of consumers, alternatives should not deviate too much from their current meal and thus resemble existing meat in their texture (Elzerman et al., 2011; Hoek et al., 2011; Michel et al., 2021).”
• Are meat substitutes liked better over time? A repeated in-home use test with meat substitutes or meat in meals (2013, methodology): “Eindhoven & Peryam, 1959; King, Meiselman, Hottenstein, Work, & Cronk, 2007; King, Weber, Meiselman, & Lv, 2004; Köster, 2003; Marshall & Bell, 2003; Meiselman, 2000; Meiselman, 2009), there is still limited data available and more work needs to be done in this area, particularly in the light of mea”
• Role of Sensory Evaluation in Consumer Acceptance of Plant-Based Meat Analogs and Meat Extenders: A Scoping Review (2020, background): “For instance, before consumption, shape, color, and appearance have a greater influence on consumer acceptance compared to flavor and texture [20].”
• A Systematic Review on Consumer Acceptance of Alternative Proteins: Pulses, Algae, Insects, Plant-based Meat Alternatives, and Cultured Meat. (2020, methodology): “Elzerman et al. (2011) The Netherlands 93 Experiment Meat substitutes Perceived appropriateness of meat substitute-meal combination 76.”
• Motivational differences in food orientation and the choice of snacks made from lentils, locusts, seaweed or “hybrid” meat (2013, background): “This does not mean that hybrid meat products will be less useful, although the sensory quality of meat substitutes needs to be improved (Elzerman et al., 2011).”
• Structuring processes for meat analogues (2018, unknown): “Furthermore, other researcher have investigated the consumer acceptance, appropriateness and sensory preferences of meat analogue products (Elzerman, Hoek, van Boekel, & Luning, 2011, 2015; De Boer et al., 2014; Hoek et al., 2011; Schösler et al., 2012; Verbeke, Sans, & Van Loo, 2015).”