The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A multi-national comparison of meat eaters' attitudes and expectations for burgers containing beef, pea or algae protein
Open accessAbstract
Within recent years, demand as well as supply of products to replace meat, so called meat alternatives, have increased. For future products, new plant-based protein sources are of high interest. Protein from pea and especially from algae provide huge potential for human nutrition as well as for the environment. To provide insight on consumers' opinions on the development of new meat alternatives, this study investigated consumers' opinions of pea and algae burgers compared to the traditional beef burger in terms of taste, health, and environmental friendliness. It has also explored the influence of factors such as meat commitment, food neophobia, and the attitude towards vegetarians and vegans; it has then compared the findings between three European countries with different culinary backgrounds. The online survey was conducted with meat-eating participants from Germany (N = 567), France (N = 605), and the United Kingdom (N = 562). Participants in all three countries expected pea and algae burgers to be less tasty, but healthier and more environmentally friendly compared to the beef burger. Expectations of taste, health, and environmental friendliness of pea and algae burgers were negatively influenced by higher levels of meat commitment, more negative attitudes towards vegetarian and vegan lifestyles, and higher food neophobia. Although the attitudes towards vegetarian lifestyles were generally negative, pea and algae emerged as promising protein sources because of their favorable health and environmental friendliness expectations. Nevertheless, negative taste expectations and attitudes towards meat-free diets remain a challenge for the adoption of more plant-based diets.
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Studies conducted by Michel et al. (2021) demonstrate that, when compared to traditional beef burgers, those formulated with microalgae-based proteins arouse significantly lower sensory expectations.”
From Microalgae biotechnology and its role in sustainable and healthy food design (2025) · cites this paper as Michel et al., 2021
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
Livestock's long shadow: environmental issues and options.
Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., & de Haan, C. (2006) · Agritrop (Cirad) · Cited by 4,383
Climate Change and Food Systems
Vermeulen, S. J., Campbell, B., & Ingram, J. S. I. (2012) · Annual Review of Environment and Resources · doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-020411-130608 · Cited by 2,699
Micro-algae as a source of protein
Becker, E. W. (2007) · Biotechnology Advances · doi:10.1016/j.biotechadv.2006.11.002 · Cited by 2,311
Development of a scale to measure the trait of food neophobia in humans
Pliner, P., & Hobden, K. (1992) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/0195-6663(92)90014-w · Cited by 2,137
Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat
Bouvard, V., LOOMIS, D. P., Guyton, K. Z., Grosse, Y., Ghissassi, F. E., Benbrahim‐Tallaa, L., Guha, N., Mattock, H., & Straíf, K. (2015) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(15)00444-1 · Cited by 1,918
McGuire, S. (2016) · Advances in Nutrition · doi:10.3945/an.116.012211 · Cited by 1,900
Vegetarianism. A blossoming field of study
Ruby, M. B. (2011) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2011.09.019 · Cited by 889
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 884
Self-citationRationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns
Piazza, J. R., Ruby, M. B., Loughnan, S., Luong, M., Kulik, J., Watkins, H. M., & Seigerman, M. (2015) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.011 · Cited by 857
Food choices, health and environment: Effects of cutting Europe's meat and dairy intake
Westhoek, H., Lesschen, J. P., Rood, T., Wagner, S., Marco, A. D., Murphy‐Bokern, D., Leip, A., van Grinsven, H. J. M., Sutton, M. A., & Oenema, O. (2014) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.02.004 · Cited by 779
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bryant, C. J. (2022) · Future Foods · doi:10.1016/j.fufo.2022.100174 · Cited by 315
Finding flexitarians: Current studies on meat eaters and meat reducers
Dagevos, H. (2021) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2021.06.021 · Cited by 244
de Araújo, P. D., Araújo, W. M. C., Patarata, L., & Fraqueza, M. J. (2022) · Meat Science · doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2022.108952 · Cited by 186
Varela, P., Arvisenet, G., Gonera, A., Myhrer, K. S., Fifi, V., & Valentin, D. (2021) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2021.105793 · Cited by 148
Hartmann, C., Furtwaengler, P., & Siegrist, M. (2021) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104486 · Cited by 130
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Michel, F., Knaapila, A., Hartmann, C., & Siegrist, M.
- Affiliations
- ETH Zurich (CH)
- University of Helsinki (FI)
- Corresponding author
- Michel, Fabienne
- Venue
- Food Quality and Preference
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-07
- Volume
- 91
- Pages
- 104195
- ISSN
- 0950-3293 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3128513191
- Cited by
- 127
- References
- 43
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 9
- FWCI
- 12.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Food Quality and Preference (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Työväentutkimus Vuosikirja (submittedVersion)
- Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- ETH Zürich Research Collection (cc-by)
- Funders
- EIT Food
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Sensory Analysis and Statistical Methods
- Keywords
- meat substitutes, plant-based burgers, pea protein, algae proteins, beef burger, consumer attitudes, taste expectations, health perception, environmental perception, food neophobia, cross-national comparison, Germany, France, United Kingdom
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
