Animal agriculture has a large impact on the environment. Hence, there is an increasing demand for meat alternatives - more sustainably produced plant-based products that replace meat as meal component. Demands for meat alternatives also seem to be fuelled by consumers' belief that meat alternatives are healthier than meat products. In an online questionnaire study, we examined whether consumers indeed perceived meat alternatives to be healthier, to what degree consumers adequately estimated the nutritional value of meat (alternatives), and whether a nutrition claim could misguide consumers. In a panel of 120 Dutch consumers, it was found that meat alternatives were generally perceived as being healthier than meat products. According to supermarket data, meat alternatives contained less protein and saturated fat, higher levels of fibre and salt compared to meat. Consumers were found to overestimate the protein content of meat alternatives relative to meat products, especially when meat alternatives carry a 'high in protein' claim. The current beliefs about the healthiness and nutritional content of meat and meat alternatives are precarious and a fair, transparent, and understandable environment should be created for the conscious consumer.

Consumer awareness of meat-associated health and environmental risks is increasing and motivates a shift toward consuming meat alternatives. This is also reflected in efforts invested in studying meat alternatives from the perspective of nutritional, environmental, and consumer sciences. Despite shared research interest, these studies cannot be readily compared and interpreted because there is no clear consensus on what meat alternatives are. Scholarly debates on acceptance, nutritional value, and environmental advantages of meat alternatives would benefit from a clear definition of meat alternatives. With the goal of defining meat alternatives, relevant scientific literature in the past 10 years was systematically searched and screened guided by the scoping review Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension. The initial search resulted in >100,000 hits, which was reduced to 2465 papers. Next, titles and abstracts were scrutinized using Rayyan.ai, resulting in 193 articles considered for the present review. Article screening and data extraction was performed using ATLAS.ti software. Three major themes were identified to define meat alternative products including: 1) producing and sourcing of ingredients; 2) product characteristics (that is, sensory characteristics, nutritional value, and health profile, social and environmental sustainability profile); and 3) consumer characteristics concerning the marketing and consumption context. Meat alternatives are multifaceted, that is, certain products can be considered as meat alternatives in some context, but not in another context. For any product, it is impossible to unequivocally state that it is a meat alternative. There is a lack of consensus from the diverse literature on what constitutes meat alternatives. However, products may be qualified as meat alternatives according to three key criteria as proposed in a taxonomy: 1) production and sourcing, 2) product characteristics, and/or 3) consumption. We recommend researchers (and other stakeholders) to do so as it allows for better informed future discussions of meat alternatives.

Meat alternatives are becoming increasingly popular amongst consumers. The names on these products, specifically the use of meat-like designations on non-animal products, remains a major point of contention. The aim of this study was to investigate whether meat-like vs. non-meat-like names are potentially confusing or even misleading. In this study, a categorisation task was used where participants classified products as animal-based or plant-based. Our results show that the presence of a meat-like name on a meat alternative label leads to significantly more mistakes when classifying a product as plant-vs. animal-based. The response latency was on average 116ms longer when classifying these products compared with the other categories. This indicates that a consumer is in doubt whether the product should be classified as plant- or animal-based, possibly explained by the activation of unconscious cognitive processing and interference due to stimulus-response compatibility. When participants were asked to give their opinion about meat alternative labelling, views divided into two camps: some strongly believe that using meat-like names is misleading, while others consider it fully acceptable and not misleading in any way. Assessing whether a meat-like name is misleading involves more than the name itself; it requires considering label details, retail placement, and advertising. Ensuring accurate and transparent meat alternative labels begins with a clear legal basis and policy guidelines based on scientific research.

Introduction: As the global food system seeks sustainable solutions to address the challenges of climate change and a growing population, meat alternatives have emerged as a promising option for reducing the environmental impact of meat production. Over the past decade, their promotion has increased, while debates persist regarding the use of meat-related terminology on these products and its potential to confuse or mislead consumers. This study investigates Dutch consumers’ perceptions of meat alternatives, with particular emphasis on elements perceived as confusing or misleading. Methods: A focus group study was conducted among Dutch consumers to explore their perceptions and experiences with meat alternatives and current labeling practices using a reflexive thematic analysis approach. A total of five focus groups were conducted, with participant compositions differing according to their level of meat consumption. Results: Product naming, positioning, and credence attributes were identified as key factors shaping consumer expectations. Although participants did not report unintentionally purchasing meat alternatives, they expressed concerns about potentially feeling misled by current labeling practices. At the same time, participants recognized that meat-like terminology can enhance familiarity and provide useful reference points regarding sensory properties, preparation, and usage. Discussion and conclusion: The findings highlight a distinction between legal and societal forms of misleading, emphasizing the need for clear and transparent communication across the food chain. Regulatory frameworks and policy efforts may play a critical role in standardizing labeling practices to ensure that information on meat alternatives is both informative and trustworthy. Balancing consumer protection with effective communication is essential for fostering consumer trust and supporting the wider adoption of sustainable meat alternatives in line with global sustainability goals.

The importance of meat alternatives is expected to grow significantly in the future. Resulting from their increasing popularity, a political debate has been ongoing in the European Union, among other jurisdictions, concerning regulatory requirements of the labelling of meat alternatives. A restriction of meat terminology on the labels of meat alternatives was proposed, as these labels are allegedly misleading. However, limited research exists that provides insight into consumer perspectives on this presumed confusing or even misleading potential of meat alternatives. Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate whether meat-like terminology used on meat alternative labels have a confusing or misleading effect on Dutch consumers. The participants were presented with a reaction time test, where they were asked to categorise food products (based on their labels) as either animal-based or plant-based. There was a total of four categories: (1) vegetables, (2) meat, (3) meat alternatives with meat terminology, and (4) meat alternatives not referring to meat. The participants categorised the presented stimuli as fast as possible. The participants were excluded from the study if they did not speak the Dutch language fluently or if they followed a vegan diet. Additionally, in a short questionnaire, the participants were asked for their demographic information and about their perception towards meat alternative labelling. The preliminary results show that the participants had an increased response latency when classifying plant-based products with meat terminology as plant-based products compared to when non-meat names were used for plant-based meat substitutes. Also, the participants did make significantly more errors when categorising plant-based meat alternatives with names referring to meat products. In conclusion, the increased time needed and an increased number in mistakes when classifying meat alternatives with meat terminology could support the argument that the terminology is confusing when only the name is shown to consumers. Nevertheless, other factors such as packaging design, labels and place in the supermarket can significantly reduce this confusing aspect. These results can inform legislators and policymakers in deciding on labelling requirements for plant-based meat alternatives.