Consumer acceptance and appropriateness of meat substitutes in a meal context
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Before consumption, shape, color, and appearance have a greater influence on consumer acceptance compared to flavor and texture.
“For instance, before consumption, shape, color, and appearance have a greater influence on consumer acceptance compared to flavor and texture [20].”
From Role of Sensory Evaluation in Consumer Acceptance of Plant-Based Meat Analogs and Meat Extenders: A Scoping Review (2020) · cites this paper as [20]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 38 · Cited by 326
- Authors
- Elzerman, J. E., Hoek, A. C., van Boekel, M. A. J. S., & Luning, P. A.
- Affiliations
- Wageningen University & Research (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Elzerman, Johanna E.
- Venue
- Food Quality and Preference
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-04
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 233-240
- ISSN
- 0950-3293 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2022948926
- Cited by
- 326
- References
- 38
- Citations by year
- 2026: 22 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 5.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Food Quality and Preference (publishedVersion)
- Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Stichting voor de Technische Wetenschappen
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Sensory Analysis and Statistical Methods
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
- Keywords
- meat substitutes, consumer acceptance, meal context, intention to use, texture and flavor, food shape, food appearance, meat consumption reduction
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