Abstract:
Plant-based alternatives (PBAs) that look and taste like animal-derived products have developed rapidly in recent years in response to growing interest in sustainable alternatives. However, PBAs face challenges meeting consumer expectations and mimicking the sensory profile of animal-derived products. Thus, consumers generally view PBAs as a separate category rather than animal-derived alternatives. The objective of this study was to characterize how consumers perceive PBAs (meat and dairy) and compare them to the animal-derived products they imitate. A total of 271 adults completed an online questionnaire, where they viewed food images (PBA, animal-derived and control products), reported expected tastiness, purchase intention, and endorsed descriptors using check-all-that-apply. Person-related factors influencing PBA perception were also assessed. PBAs were rated significantly lower in expected tastiness and purchase intention. Correspondence analysis confirmed that PBAs were perceived as distinct from their AD counterparts, and that PBAs were associated with the terms unnatural, eco-friendly, modern, adventurous, expensive, and bland, while animal-derived products largely separated by perceived healthiness. A penalty-lift analysis revealed that processed, unnatural, and bland were the top drivers of low PBA purchase intention. Furthermore, participants' trust in the food industry (positively) and food technology neophobia (negatively) predicted PBA acceptance. Together, this study confirms perceived taste as a PBA adoption barrier while also identifying unnaturalness and fear of food technology as important challenges. In addition to pursuing taste improvements, PBA developers should consider strategies to address the unnatural and processed perception of these products.
