The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Impact of sustainability perception on consumption of organic meat and meat substitutes
Abstract
Consumers' food selections have a large impact on the environment. In this study, we examined how consumers evaluated the environmental impact of various foods. Furthermore, we investigated whether the perceived environmental effect of foods, health consciousness, and food disgust sensitivity would be related to the consumption of meat substitutes and organic meat. We used data from the Swiss Food Panel 2.0 for our analyses (N = 5586 participants from the German- and French-speaking part of Switzerland). The participants mistakenly perceived the environmental impact of soy-based meat substitutes as similar to that of conventionally produced meat. The results suggested that consumers with low meat consumption, perceptions about the high environmental impact of meat, high health consciousness, low disgust sensitivity, and who were female, younger, and better educated were more likely to consume meat substitutes compared with people who had the opposite attributes. Perceived environmental impact of conventionally produced meat, health consciousness, being female, age, income, and education had a positive impact on consumption of organic meat. Disgust sensitivity had a negative effect. The relatively low negative correlation between meat and meat substitute consumption implies that the substitution effect may not be as large as hoped for in the transition to more sustainable food behavior. However, our results also indicate that increasing consumer knowledge about the environmental impact of foods may lead to more sustainable food consumption.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
STEPTOE, A., POLLARD, T. M., & WARDLE, J. (1995) · Appetite · doi:10.1006/appe.1995.0061 · Cited by 2,176
Who are organic food consumers? A compilation and review of why people purchase organic food
Hughner, R. S., McDonagh, P., Prothero, A., Shultz, C. J., & Stanton, J. (2007) · Journal of Consumer Behaviour · doi:10.1002/cb.210 · Cited by 1,754
Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: A review of life cycle assessments
de Vries, M., & de Boer, I. J. M. (2010) · Livestock Science · doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2009.11.007 · Cited by 1,237
Magnusson, M. K., Arvola, A., Hursti, U.-K. K., Åberg, L., & Sjödén, P.-O. (2003) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/s0195-6663(03)00002-3 · Cited by 941
Consumer perception and behaviour regarding sustainable protein consumption: A systematic review
Hartmann, C., & Siegrist, M. (2017) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2016.12.006 · Cited by 880
Self-citationRelationship between nutrition knowledge and dietary intake
Spronk, I., Kullen, C., Burdon, C., & O'Connor, H. (2014) · British Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.1017/s0007114514000087 · Cited by 839
The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review
Román, S., Sánchez-Siles, L. M., & Siegrist, M. (2017) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2017.06.010 · Cited by 760
Self-citationHoek, A. C., Luning, P. A., Weijzen, P., Engels, W., Kok, F. J., & de Graaf, C. (2011) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2011.02.001 · Cited by 757
Disgust as an adaptive system for disease avoidance behaviour
Curtis, V., de Barra, M., & Aunger, R. (2011) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0117 · Cited by 746
Health-related determinants of organic food consumption in The Netherlands
Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Oude Ophuis, P. A. M. (1998) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/s0950-3293(97)00044-x · Cited by 669
Cited by
Onwezen, M. C., Bouwman, E. P., Reinders, M. J., & Dagevos, H. (2021) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2020.105058 · Cited by 1,048
Appiani, M., Cattaneo, C., & Laureati, M. (2023) · Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems · doi:10.3389/fsufs.2023.1268068 · Cited by 162
Michel, F., Knaapila, A., Hartmann, C., & Siegrist, M. (2021) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104195 · Cited by 127
Self-citationBastounis, A., Buckell, J., Hartmann-Boyce, J., Cook, B., King, S., Potter, C., Bianchi, F., Rayner, M., & Jebb, S. A. (2021) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu13082677 · Cited by 107
Consumer willingness to pay for environmentally sustainable meat and a plant‐based meat substitute
Katare, B., Yim, H., Byrne, A., Wang, H. H., & Wetzstein, M. (2023) · Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy · doi:10.1002/aepp.13285 · Cited by 63
Metadata
- Authors
- Siegrist, M., & Hartmann, C.
- Venue
- Appetite
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-01
- Volume
- 132
- Pages
- 196-202
- ISSN
- 0195-6663 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2896466473
- Cited by
- 308
- References
- 42
- FWCI
- 11.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Impact of sustainability perception on consumption of organic meat and meat substitutes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.appet.2018.09.016
- The paper
- Siegrist, M., & Hartmann, C. (2019). Impact of sustainability perception on consumption of organic meat and meat substitutes. Appetite. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.09.016
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
