Consumer Acceptance of Plant-Based Meat Substitutes: A Narrative Review
2. Materials and Methods
- Choosing the databases. We searched the SCOPUS and Web of Science (WoS) databases for peer-reviewed studies up to December 2021. In addition, the International Food Information Council (IFIC) (Source: https://ific.org/, accessed on 3 December 2021) and The European Consumer Organization (BEUC, Bureau Européen des Unions de Consommateurs) (Source: https://www.beuc.eu//, accessed on 3 December 2021) websites were used to search for eight further studies. Furthermore, the recent Smart Protein survey results were also used [34,46]. These studies have been a useful supplement in the area of market segmentation and expected industry trends due to their wide coverage. The inclusion and exclusion criteria are presented in Table 1.
- Choosing the key words. The term “plant-based meat” was combined with the keywords “consumer acceptance”, “consumer adoption”, and “consumer purchase”. Furthermore, a different search was made with the term “plant-based burger”, a product which was introduced early on the market and has been in the focus of several studies.
- Collect the bibliographic data. The bibliographic data were downloaded in RIS (.ris) format.
- Pre-processing and screening the articles. The R software was used to handle the article information, especially the ‘revtools’ package , which allowed a flexible interface for title and abstract screening. The ‘revtools’ package supports evidence synthesis projects, aimed at decreasing the time necessary to complete the article screening . The studies were screened based on their titles and abstracts, and the non-related articles were excluded. The process of selection and the details of the studies and reports included can be found in the Supplementary Materials. Although we did not report this review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) , the flow diagram presented here was largely based on the PRISMA flow diagram to facilitate comparability (Figure A1).
- Evaluating the articles and collecting the results based on different themes. Articles were evaluated based on their final content, which resulted in further exclusion. The final pool of studies consisted of 28 items (21 studies and 7 large-scale survey reports, Table S1, Supplementary Materials). A similar number of results were obtained by Bryant and Barnett  and Pakseresht et al.  when discussing the case of cultured meat (n = 16 and n = 43). Further data processing was performed in Tidyverse .
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Dietary Preferences
3.2. Consumer Preferences and Market Shares
3.3. Associations, Meat Attachment (MA) and Food Neophobia (FN)
3.3.2. Meat Attachment (MA)
3.3.3. Food Neophobia (FN)
3.4. Emotional and Situational Factors
3.7. Income and Price Effects
3.9. Environmental Impacts
3.10. Resource Use of Plant-Based Meat Substitutes
3.12. Religious and Political Views
3.13. Sensory Characteristics
3.14. Nutritional Profile
4. Miscellaneous Topics
4.1. Health Perception
4.3. Additional Factors of Consumer Acceptance
4.3.1. The Economics of Production
4.3.2. Competing Products
4.3.3. Problems of Naming
4.3.4. Future Prospects and Research Directions
4.4. Limitations of the Research
- The possible pool of studies may vary, based on the different search terms. A large body of literature is related to the different aspects of plant-based diets, which may contain useful information, but was missed due to the restrictions on the search terms;
- Only English language studies were included, which further limits the scope of the results, although this source of bias is considered marginal;
- Studies used definitions differently, which made the synthesis process more difficult. Differences arising from the different definitions may introduce some confusion into the results. Several studies used willingness to pay, willingness to purchase, willingness to try, willingness to consume, purchase intention and similar terms, which we attempted to summarize uniformly;
- Methodological constructs aimed to measure physiological factors or perceptions should be handled with care, while the possibly wide uncertainty should be acknowledged in these studies and during the interpretation;
- Questions aiming to measure the willingness to purchase or willingness to try of plant-based meat are hypothetical by nature, thus large-scale adoption remains speculative;
- Finally, some interventions appear to reinforce each other, thus the market effect may differ from the effects recognized in the studies included.
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
- Climate Watch. Agriculture. 2021. Available online: https://www.climatewatchdata.org/sectors/agriculture#coutries-actions-in-their-ndcs (accessed on 28 December 2021).
- Mbow, C.; Rosenzweig, C.; Barioni, L.G.; Benton, T.G.; Herrero, M.; Krishnapillai, M.; Liwenga, E.; Pradhan, P.; Rivera-Ferre, M.G.; Sapkota, T.; et al. Food Security; IPCC—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019; p. 114. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/chapter-5/ (accessed on 23 February 2022).
- Tilman, D.; Clark, M. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature 2014, 515, 518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Boehm, S.; Lebling, K.; Levin, K.; Fekete, H.; Jaeger, J.; Waite, R.; Nilsson, A.; Thwaites, J.; Wilson, R.; Geiges, A.; et al. State of Climate Action 2021: Systems Transformations Required to Limit Global Warming to 1.5 °C; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2021; p. 249. [Google Scholar]
- Clark, M.A.; Domingo, N.G.G.; Colgan, K.; Thakrar, S.K.; Tilman, D.; Lynch, J.; Azevedo, I.L.; Hill, J.D. Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2 °C climate change targets. Science 2020, 370, 705–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cole, M.B.; Augustin, M.A.; Robertson, M.J.; Manners, J.M. The science of food security. NPJ Sci. Food 2018, 2, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Godfray, H.C.J.; Aveyard, P.; Garnett, T.; Hall, J.W.; Key, T.J.; Lorimer, J.; Pierrehumbert, R.T.; Scarborough, P.; Springmann, M.; Jebb, S.A. Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science 2018, 361, eaam5324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Rubio, N.R.; Xiang, N.; Kaplan, D.L. Plant-based and cell-based approaches to meat production. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 6276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ranganathan, J.; Vennard, D.; Waite, R.; Searchinger, T.; Dumas, P.; Lipinski, B. Shifting Diets: Toward a Sustainable Food Future. Installment 11 of Creating a Sustainable Food Future; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2016; p. 90. [Google Scholar]
- Willett, W.; Rockström, J.; Loken, B.; Springmann, M.; Lang, T.; Vermeulen, S.; Garnett, T.; Tilman, D.; DeClerck, F.; Wood, A.; et al. Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 2019, 393, 447–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Satija, A.; Hu, F.B. Plant-based diets and cardiovascular health. Trends Cardiovasc. Med. 2018, 28, 437–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baden, M.Y.; Liu, G.; Satija, A.; Li, Y.; Sun, Q.; Fung, T.T.; Rimm, E.B.; Willett, W.C.; Hu, F.B.; Bhupathiraju, S.N. Changes in plant-based diet quality and total and cause-specific mortality. Circulation 2019, 140, 979–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Machovina, B.; Feeley, K.J.; Ripple, W.J. Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 536, 419–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loughnan, S.; Haslam, N.; Bastian, B. The role of meat consumption in the denial of moral status and mind to meat animals. Appetite 2010, 55, 156–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Popp, J.; Lakner, Z.; Harangi-Rákos, M.; Fári, M. The effect of bioenergy expansion: Food, energy, and environment. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 32, 559–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Milford, A.B.; Le Mouël, C.; Bodirsky, B.L.; Rolinski, S. Drivers of meat consumption. Appetite 2019, 141, 104313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Szejda, K.; Stumpe, M.; Raal, L.; Tapscott, C.E. South African Consumer Adoption of Plant-Based and Cultivated Meat: A Segmentation Study. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michel, F.; Hartmann, C.; Siegrist, M. Consumers’ associations, perceptions and acceptance of meat and plant-based meat alternatives. Food Qual. Prefer. 2021, 87, 104063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poore, J.; Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 2018, 360, 987–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Searchinger, T.; Waite, R.; Hanson, C.; Ranganathan, J.; Dumas, P.; Matthews, E.; Klirs, C. Creating a Sustainable Food Future: A Menu of Solutions to Feed Nearly 10 billion People by 2050. Final Report; WRI: Washington, DC, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Circus, V.E.; Robison, R. Exploring perceptions of sustainable proteins and meat attachment. Br. Food J. 2019, 121, 533–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tosun, P.; Yanar, M.; Sezgin, S.; Uray, N. Meat substitutes in sustainability context: A content analysis of consumer attitudes. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 2020, 33, 541–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Profeta, A.; Baune, M.-C.; Smetana, S.; Broucke, K.; Van Royen, G.; Weiss, J.; Heinz, V.; Terjung, N. Discrete Choice Analysis of Consumer Preferences for Meathybrids—Findings from Germany and Belgium. Foods 2021, 10, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arshad, M.; Anwar, S.; Pasha, I.; Ahmed, F.; Aadil, R.M. Development of imitated meat product by utilizing pea and lentil protein isolates. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 57, 3031–3037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- GFI. The Science of Plant-Based Meat; Good Food Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2021; Available online: https://gfi.org/science/the-science-of-plant-based-meat/ (accessed on 6 February 2022).
- Motoki, K.; Park, J.; Spence, C.; Velasco, C. Contextual acceptance of novel and unfamiliar foods: Insects, cultured meat, plant-based meat alternatives, and 3D printed foods. Food Qual. Prefer. 2022, 96, 104368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hwang, J.; You, J.; Moon, J.; Jeong, J. Factors Affecting Consumers’ Alternative Meats Buying Intentions: Plant-Based Meat Alternative and Cultured Meat. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edge, M.S.; Garrett, J.L. The Nutrition Limitations of Mimicking Meat. Cereal Foods World 2020, 65, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Loo, E.J.; Caputo, V.; Lusk, J.L. Consumer preferences for farm-raised meat, lab-grown meat, and plant-based meat alternatives: Does information or brand matter? Food Policy 2020, 95, 101931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IFIC. Plant and Animal Protein Choices: Consumer Viewpoints and Purchasing Behaviors; International Food Information Council: Washington, DC, USA, 2021; p. 39. Available online: https://foodinsight.org/plant-and-animal-protein-consumer-survey/ (accessed on 5 February 2022).
- Slade, P. If you build it, will they eat it? Consumer preferences for plant-based and cultured meat burgers. Appetite 2018, 125, 428–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schouteten, J.J.; De Steur, H.; De Pelsmaeker, S.; Lagast, S.; Juvinal, J.G.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Verbeke, W.; Gellynck, X. Emotional and sensory profiling of insect-, plant- and meat-based burgers under blind, expected and informed conditions. Food Qual. Prefer. 2016, 52, 27–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Marchi, M.; Costa, A.; Pozza, M.; Goi, A.; Manuelian, C.L. Detailed characterization of plant-based burgers. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 2049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smart Protein. What Consumers Want: A Survey on European Consumer Attitudes towards Plant-Based Foods with a Focus on Flexitarians. Available online: https://smartproteinproject.eu/ (accessed on 10 February 2022).
- GFI. Plant-Based Meat, Eggs, and Dairy; The Good Food Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2021; p. 85. [Google Scholar]
- Witte, B.; Obloj, P.; Koktenturk, S.; Morach, B.; Brigl, M.; Rogg, J.; Schulze, U.; Walker, D.; Koeller, E.V.; Dehnert, N.; et al. Food for Thought: The Protein Transformation; Boston Consulting Group: Boston, UK, 2021; p. 48. [Google Scholar]
- Arora, R.S.; Brent, D.A.; Jaenicke, E.C. Is India Ready for Alt-Meat? Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Meat Alternatives. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldstein, B.; Moses, R.; Sammons, N.; Birkved, M. Potential to curb the environmental burdens of American beef consumption using a novel plant-based beef substitute. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0189029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bryant, C.; Szejda, K.; Parekh, N.; Deshpande, V.; Tse, B. A Survey of Consumer Perceptions of Plant-Based and Clean Meat in the USA, India, and China. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2019, 3, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartmann, C.; Siegrist, M. Consumer perception and behaviour regarding sustainable protein consumption: A systematic review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 61, 11–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eisler, M.C.; Lee, M.R.F.; Tarlton, J.F.; Martin, G.B.; Beddington, J.; Dungait, J.A.J.; Greathead, H.; Liu, J.; Mathew, S.; Miller, H.; et al. Agriculture: Steps to sustainable livestock. Nature 2014, 507, 32–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Smith, J.; Sones, K.; Grace, D.; MacMillan, S.; Tarawali, S.; Herrero, M. Beyond milk, meat, and eggs: Role of livestock in food and nutrition security. Anim. Front. 2013, 3, 6–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- FAO. Biodiversity and the Livestock Sector—Guidelines for Quantitative Assessment—Version 1; Livestock Environmental Assessment and Performance Partnership; FAO LEAP: Rome, Italy, 2020; pp. 1–142. [Google Scholar]
- Foley, J.A.; Ramankutty, N.; Brauman, K.A.; Cassidy, E.S.; Gerber, J.S.; Johnston, M.; Mueller, N.D.; O’Connell, C.; Ray, D.K.; West, P.C.; et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 2011, 478, 337–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Sabaté, J.; Soret, S. Sustainability of plant-based diets: Back to the future. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2014, 100, 476S–482S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Smart Protein. What Consumers Want: A Survey on European Consumer Attitudes towards Plant-Based Foods; ProVeg International: Berlin, Germany, 2021; Available online: www.smartproteinproject.eu (accessed on 10 February 2022).
- Westgate, M.J. Revtools: Tools to Support Evidence Synthesis; R Package Version 0.4.1; The R Project for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2019; Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=revtools (accessed on 6 August 2021).
- Westgate, M.J. revtools: An R package to support article screening for evidence synthesis. Res. Synth. Methods 2019, 10, 606–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bryant, C.; Barnett, J. Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: A systematic review. Meat Sci. 2018, 143, 8–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pakseresht, A.; Ahmadi Kaliji, S.; Canavari, M. Review of factors affecting consumer acceptance of cultured meat. Appetite 2022, 170, 105829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wickham, H.; Averick, M.; Bryan, J.; Chang, W.; McGowan, L.D.A.; François, R.; Grolemund, G.; Hayes, A.; Henry, L.; Hester, J.; et al. Welcome to the Tidyverse. J. Open Source Softw. 2019, 4, 1686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IFIC. Survey of Consumers’ Attitudes and Perceptions of Environmentally Sustainable and Healthy Diets; International Food Information Council: Washington, DC, USA, 2019; p. 23. Available online: https://foodinsight.org/sustainability-healthy-diets/ (accessed on 5 February 2022).
- IFIC. Consumption Trends, Preferred Names and Perceptions of Plant-Based Meat Alternatives; International Food Information Council: Washington, DC, USA, 2021; p. 57. Available online: https://foodinsight.org/consumption-trends-plant-based-meat-alts/ (accessed on 5 February 2022).
- Krings, V.C.; Dhont, K.; Hodson, G. Food technology neophobia as a psychological barrier to clean meat acceptance. Food Qual. Prefer. 2022, 96, 104409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IFIC. Consumer Research on Plant Alternatives to Animal Meat 2.0; International Food Information Council: Washington, DC, USA, 2020; p. 43. Available online: https://foodinsight.org/consumer-research-on-plant-alternatives-to-animal-meat-part-2-what-nutrition-facts-information-do-people-use-to-decide-which-product-is-healthier/ (accessed on 5 February 2022).
- IFIC. A Consumer Survey on Plant Alternatives to Animal Meat; International Food Information Council: Washington, DC, USA, 2020; p. 29. Available online: https://foodinsight.org/consumer-survey-plant-alternatives-to-meat/ (accessed on 5 February 2022).
- BEUC. One Bite at a Time: Consumers and the Transition to Sustainable Food; The European Consumer Organisation (Bureau Européen des Unions de Consommateurs): Brussels, Belgium, 2020; p. 44. [Google Scholar]
- Broeckhoven, I.; Verbeke, W.; Tur-Cardona, J.; Speelman, S.; Hung, Y. Consumer valuation of carbon labeled protein-enriched burgers in European older adults. Food Qual. Prefer. 2021, 89, 104114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stoll-Kleemann, S.; Schmidt, U.J. Reducing meat consumption in developed and transition countries to counter climate change and biodiversity loss: A review of influence factors. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2017, 17, 1261–1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Graça, J.; Calheiros, M.M.; Oliveira, A. Attached to meat? (Un)Willingness and intentions to adopt a more plant-based diet. Appetite 2015, 95, 113–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pliner, P.; Hobden, K. Development of a scale to measure the trait of food neophobia in humans. Appetite 1992, 19, 105–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, A.D.; Herle, M.; Fildes, A.; Cooke, L.; Steinsbekk, S.; Llewellyn, C.H. Food fussiness and food neophobia share a common etiology in early childhood. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry Allied Discip. 2017, 58, 189–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- IFIC. Climate Change and Food Production; International Food Information Council: Washington, DC, USA, 2020; p. 29. Available online: https://foodinsight.org/consumer-survey-climate-change-and-food-production/ (accessed on 5 February 2022).
- Saerens, W.; Smetana, S.; Van Campenhout, L.; Lammers, V.; Heinz, V. Life cycle assessment of burger patties produced with extruded meat substitutes. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 306, 127177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smetana, S.; Mathys, A.; Knoch, A.; Heinz, V. Meat alternatives: Life cycle assessment of most known meat substitutes. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2015, 20, 1254–1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fiorentini, M.; Kinchla, A.J.; Nolden, A.A. Role of Sensory Evaluation in Consumer Acceptance of Plant-Based Meat Analogs and Meat Extenders: A Scoping Review. Foods 2020, 9, 1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wickramasinghe, K.; Breda, J.; Berdzuli, N.; Rippin, H.; Farrand, C.; Halloran, A. The shift to plant-based diets: Are we missing the point? Glob. Food Secur. 2021, 29, 100530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sucapane, D.; Roux, C.; Sobol, K. Exploring how product descriptors and packaging colors impact consumers’ perceptions of plant-based meat alternative products. Appetite 2021, 167, 105590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balogh, P.; Békési, D.; Gorton, M.; Popp, J.; Lengyel, P. Consumer willingness to pay for traditional food products. Food Policy 2016, 61, 176–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Czine, P.; Török, Á.; Pető, K.; Horváth, P.; Balogh, P. The Impact of the Food Labeling and Other Factors on Consumer Preferences Using Discrete Choice Modeling—The Example of Traditional Pork Sausage. Nutrients 2020, 12, 1768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Román, S.; Sánchez-Siles, L.M.; Siegrist, M. The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 67, 44–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- GFI. Reducing the Price of Alternative Proteins; The Good Food Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2020; p. 14. Available online: https://gfi.org/reducing-the-price-of-alternative-proteins/ (accessed on 9 February 2022).
- European Commission. Farm to Fork Strategy. For a Fair, Healthy and Environmentally-Friendly Food System; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020; p. 23. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/food/horizontal-topics/farm-fork-strategy_hu#Strategy (accessed on 3 February 2022).
- Huis, A.V. Potential of Insects as Food and Feed in Assuring Food Security. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2013, 58, 563–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Heffernan, O. Sustainability: A meaty issue. Nature 2017, 544, S18–S20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gjerris, M.; Gamborg, C.; Röcklinsberg, H. Ethical aspects of insect production for food and feed. J. Insects Food Feed. 2016, 2, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fróna, D.; Szenderák, J.; Harangi-Rákos, M. The Challenge of Feeding the World. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Kwasny, T.; Dobernig, K.; Riefler, P. Towards reduced meat consumption: A systematic literature review of intervention effectiveness, 2001–2019. Appetite 2022, 168, 105739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
|Search Criteria||Web of Science (WoS)||Scopus|
|Keywords||(“plant-based meat *”) AND (consumer * accept *, consumer * adopt *, consumer * purch *)|
(“plant-based burger *”)
|Search type||All Fields||Article title, abstract and keywords|
|Inclusion criteria||Focus on the aspects of consumer acceptance of plant-based meat|
Studies published in peer-reviewed journals or related organizational websites
Studies written in English
Empirical studies or reviews with strong relevance
|Exclusion criteria||No discussion of consumer behavior|
Conference papers, abstracts, and educational papers
Focus on purely technological innovations
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Szenderák, J.; Fróna, D.; Rákos, M. Consumer Acceptance of Plant-Based Meat Substitutes: A Narrative Review. Foods 2022, 11, 1274. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11091274
Szenderák J, Fróna D, Rákos M. Consumer Acceptance of Plant-Based Meat Substitutes: A Narrative Review. Foods. 2022; 11(9):1274. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11091274Chicago/Turabian Style
Szenderák, János, Dániel Fróna, and Mónika Rákos. 2022. "Consumer Acceptance of Plant-Based Meat Substitutes: A Narrative Review" Foods 11, no. 9: 1274. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11091274