1. Introduction
Meat consumption is considered to be part of a healthy diet. However, excess meat consumption raises several issues ranging from health problems [
1] through animal welfare issues [
2] to adverse environmental effects of meat production [
3]. Due to these unwanted effects of meat consumption, several attempts are made to reduce the consumed amount of meat [
4,
5] or to substitute meat with a presumably more healthy, more sustainable protein source [
6,
7]. Different research groups have focused on a wide range of meat alternatives starting from the application of plant-based diets [
8], algae [
9], insects [
10], cultured meat [
11], or even using meat by-products and 3D printing [
12].
Plant-based diets are well-known and are popular among vegetarians and vegans. Yet, a completely meat-free diet might be not universally acceptable. A possible strategy to promote the transition from meat-based diets to a more sustainable plant-based one blends plant-based ingredients into traditional meat-based foods. One study using a mushroom-meat blend-based product revealed that consumers would consume such a product mainly for its health benefits, and of interest to the food industry, would most strongly accept a mushroom-meat blend-based burger [
13]. In turn, algae offer a viable, cost-effective option with which to create protein-rich products. Consumers from Germany, France, and the Netherlands preferred a blend of algae with eggs, peas, and milk, respectively. Since eggs and milk have animal origin, as well as being implicated in food-allergies, the study suggested that algae and peas might achieve the necessary acceptance as protein sources for non-vegetarians. Additionally, it has been shown that consumers value the organic and local nature of meat substitutes [
14]. At the other end of the spectrum, almost opposite to the desire for vegetable analogs, lies the potential use of insect protein. Consumer acceptance of insects as food is mainly limited by food neophobia (fear from new, unfamiliar food products) as well as food safety issues associated with insects [
15]. However, product tests reveal that insect-enriched products are accepted, respectively, in pastas [
16], breads [
17], and biscuits [
18].
Although cultured meat has been introduced in the past decade and continues to attract attention for its novelty and possibilities, the emerging studies suggest that proper messaging to enhance consumer awareness, understanding and acceptance needs to be discovered. When cultured meat is then featured, one needs a deeper understanding of how to convince consumers of the naturalness and thus perceived safety of products containing cultured meat [
19]. Data has emerged which suggest that cultured meat has inferior sensory quality, questionable food safety, societal concerns, and is incorrectly priced, either too low or too high, but just “not right.” [
20,
21]. The conclusions from these studies stress that the foregoing issues may be addressed and probably solved by providing appropriate information to the consumers regarding the benefits of cultured meat products, stressing the triumvirate of health, environment, and food safety [
22,
23,
24]. Add to the benefit of familiarizing the consumer with the nature of cultured meat, and there may be an opportunity for an entirely new class of products [
20].
Measuring consumer acceptance of meat-alternatives presents some difficulties. In many cases, real products are not available or difficult to produce. A promising method to address these issues comes from the emerging science of Mind Genomics® [
25], a method using experimental design to construct test vignettes or concepts, present these to the consumer respondent for evaluation, and then deconstruct the response into the contribution of the different elements. In practice, Mind Genomics works in a Socratic fashion, defining the topic, creating four questions which “tell a story,” creating four answers to each question, with these answers being in the form of a phrase. The respondent evaluates different concepts, systematically created combinations of these answers. The question never appears. The question is only used to “motivate” the answer.
In practice, therefore, the respondent evaluates mixtures of messages, each respondent evaluating a unique set of 24 such mixtures, incorporating 2–4 answers into a single vignette, and each vignette presented a unique stimulus to be evaluated in and of itself, on a rating scale provided by the researcher. The analysis, usually by OLS, ordinary least-squares, reveals the part-worth contribution of each element or answer to the rating. When applied to the topic of meat analogs, Mind Genomics immediately reveals the contribution of each element, viz., answer, providing a fountain of knowledge about how people respond to these different messages about food analogs. The combination of elements makes it impossible to “game” the system. The respondent is presented with a set of test concepts, the mixtures of elements, rating and rating these concepts (aka vignettes) in about 3–5 seconds each. The responses are thus provided not so much by intellectualized, considered judgment as they are by intuitive judgment, responses to a “blooming, buzzing confusion” of different messages, with only a few seconds to decide.
Mind Genomics® was created in the early 1990s, based upon work from the late 1970s and 1980s in the practical world of product marketing [
25]. The science was then expanded to address problems in food product design [
26,
27]. The science has found wide application because of ongoing efforts to create a simple, fast, inexpensive system (do it yourself research), to address complex problems from food product development [
26], to specific almost esoteric problems such as consumer concerns about indoor plant toxicity [
28], and on to applications such as criteria involved in agriculture such as peach variety selection [
29].
A recent study evaluated consumer’s willingness to purchase different meat alternatives versus traditional meat products. The study was conducted in four countries. The authors reported that consumers attributed higher importance to meat characteristics such as healthiness, safety, and nutritional content, and/or higher sustainability, taste, and lower price as compared to their own standard buying decisions or their own neophobia, fear of new things, when they compared meat alternatives to traditional meat products. Additionally, the study reports that
“… a one unit increase in the healthiness, safety and nutritional content of plant-based products might be associated with a 68.7% increase in the probability of willingness to purchase plant-based proteins in Spain. A one-unit stronger belief in the cultured meat healthiness, safety and nutritional content may be associated with an 86.8% increase in the probability of willingness to purchase cultured meat in Brazil. A one-unit stronger belief in the perception of the insect-based characteristics of healthiness, safety and nutritional content might be associated with a 68.7% increase in the probability of willingness to purchase insect-based products in the United Kingdom, a 72.1% in Brazil and a 58.6% in the Dominican Republic” [
6].
This paper focuses on the topic of the mind of the consumers related to meat alternatives. The paper expands the hitherto limited single-focus studies of Mind Genomics, exploring the possibility of creating a bank of knowledge through easily and inexpensively executed sets of related studies, a Wiki approach to the consumer mind. The four topics for this first “Wiki” are sensory expectations, food product development, health, and then environment.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Food Types
The results from the total panel shows that respondents accepted the idea of meat alternatives (
Table 3.) The coefficients are high, especially for elements such as “Contains plant-based meat” and “Contains cultured-meat.” Based on the coefficients, the most accepted meat-alternative would be:
A processed meat product (sausage, meat patty, etc.))
Containing plant-based meat
Consumed home with family
Having lightly lower price compared to traditional meat
When comparing males and females, the most obvious differences arise in the case of the location of consumption. Men proved to be more open to the different locations and gave the highest ratings to fancy restaurant, while women were less open and would consume meat alternatives during a family event. The other significant difference was price. Women show more price sensitivity; they would accept a slightly lower price of meat alternatives, while men showed generally low interest in prices.
The emergent mind-sets showed three distinct groups (
Table 2). Mind-Set 1 appears to be more open to alternatives, Mind-Set 2 appears to focus on the price, whereas Mind-Set 3 appears to focus on the consumption venue. Thee three mind-sets showed completely different picture about their expectations of meat-free food products:
Mind-set 1 (Foodies):
Sliced meat (steak-like) product
Made of plant-based meat
Consumed on a business lunch
Same price as traditional meat
Mind-set 2 (Price sensitives):
Pasta (spaghetti pasta, noodle, etc.) product
Made of cultured meat
Consumed as fast food
Slightly higher price compared to traditional meat
Mind-set 3 (Diners):
A processed meat product (sausage, meat patty, etc)
Made of plant-based meat
Consumed home with family
Lower price compared to traditional meat
3.2. Sensory Aspects
Sensory aspects of meat-free products resulted in three distinct clusters.
Table 4 presents the regression coefficients for total panel, genders, and mind-sets, respectively. The coefficients from the Total Panel suggest that respondents would buy meat-free products having similar sensory aspects as traditional meat. If we construct the product features greatest for each sensory input, we would emerge with this product:
Looks exactly like real meat (element A1);
Has strong but not unpleasant aroma (element B3);
Has soft, juicy, and succulent texture (element C3) and
Has exact flavor as any meat (D1).
When gender differences are considered, the data suggest that males place more emphasis on appearance since their highest coefficient occur for the element “Looks exactly like real meat.” In contrast, women agree most with the element “Similar flavor but obvious differences to meat” the most.
The generally higher coefficients of men, a higher willingness to buy, are in accordance with the literature. For example, in the case of cultured meat, men proved to be more accepting compared to women in the US [
33]. Along with this, female participants showed significantly higher willingness to change their meat consumption patterns compared to the expressed willingness of men, respectively [
4].
As the total panel and gender results suggest, participants expect meat alternatives having similar characteristics to the mean products with which they are familiar. The three emergent mind-sets tell a different story, however, or more appropriately, tell three different stories. The created clusters show characteristic differences and completely different patterns of highly rated elements.
Mind-Set 1 is the “Flavor-oriented” cluster, since they would buy meat alternatives which have positive flavor notes, whether or not these notes show similarity or difference compared to traditional meat products. Consequently, Mind-Set 1 places a great emphasis on aroma notes. They would buy a meat alternative which has:
Mind-Set 2 focuses on aroma and texture attributes since these elements received the highest ratings, therefore have the highest positive coefficients. Mind-Set 2 can be labelled Texture-Oriented. They want:
Mind-Set 3 is more responsive to appearance and flavor attributes, and so can be labelled “Appearance-Oriented.” They want a meat alternative which
Based on the pattern of the answers, cultured meat should be introduced to Mind-Set 1 since cultured meat has the most similar sensory attributes to traditional meats. On the other hand, plant-based proteins should meet the requirements of Mind-Set 2 since they have no apparent aroma and can be formed to have similar texture to ground meat [
13]. Insect-based proteins could be a good alternative for Mind-Set 3 since insects have major but not unpleasant flavor differences to meat and they can also be formed to look like real meat [
33].
3.3. Health Aspects
Total panel analysis of health aspects of consumption of meat-free products (
Table 5) revealed a number of noteworthy patterns. Among the total panel, the highest coefficient is “
Meat-Free Diet Helps in Losing Weight” (element B1), which suggests that meat-free diets are associated with weight loss. Yet, respondents do not consider a meat-free lifestyle and meat-free diets as a healthier life style, since they agree with the element “Eggs and milks should not be discarded completely” (D3). Furthermore, elements in Question C (meat-free lifestyle) received the lowest agreement ratings. These patterns accord with the literature. It has been shown that regardless of being semi-vegetarian or omnivore, the leading motive to eat less meat was “my health” [
34]. In the Netherlands, it has been shown that vegetarians reported two key reasons of not eating meat: they do not like it at all and they think animal welfare is important [
35]. Another study from the United States found that flexitarians turn into full vegetarians due to social identity aspects of meat avoidance [
36].
For genders, men agree more with statements related to weight loss and benefits during exercises compared. In contrast, women are more open to messages about health benefits such as lower risks of diseases, and messages about better nutrient intake of meat-free diets. These results were also supported by a recent study from the United States examining gender differences in vegetarian identity. Major differences between vegetarian identities of men and women were found as dietary motivation and dietary adherence. Women were reported as more motivated and willing to keep their diet stricter [
37].
Our total panel and gender results are well supported by other, different authors and different, other methods from the literature. The most interesting results emerge from clustering into “mind-sets” based upon the patterns of coefficients of the individual respondent.
Mind-Set 1, which we label nutrition-minded group, showed coefficients for elements highlighting the nutrient intake benefits of meat-free diets. They agree with the statements of eggs should not be discarded and that a meat-free diet lacks some essential nutrients, such as iron and calcium. Perhaps paradoxically, Mind-Set 1 has strong negative coefficients for elements in silo A which are about the lower risks of diseases.
Mind-Set 2, which we label disease-avoiders, agree with all the elements of Question A, meaning that they see the lower risks of diseases as the major health benefit of a meat-free diet.
Mind-Set 3, which we label sports enthusiasts, see the benefits of a meat-free diet in helping them losing weight and getting into better shape.
3.4. Environmental Aspects
Total panel results presented by
Table 6 highlight the most important elements regarding environmental aspects of meat-free products. The highest coefficients, viz. those driving the greatest agreement by the respondent to the proposition embedded in the element, are
fear of biodiversity loss (element C3), positive effects on conscience (D3) and animal welfare (C2), as well as the general agreement that people need meat to maintain our normal functions (D4). Previously published data suggest that respondents agree that a meat-free diet exerts positive effects on the environment and on animal welfare, respectively [
34,
35].
Patterns of response by gender show some interpretable patterns. Whereas men uprated elements about climate change higher, women uprated elements dealing with local production and land/energy aspects. Women gave their highest rating to element “The increased meat demand contributes to significant biodiversity loss.” Additionally, compared to men, women agree more with the proposition about the positive effects of meat-free diets on animal welfare.
Men gave the highest coefficient of both genders for
“Humans are carnivores, our body needs meat to work properly” (D4), possibly hinting that men might be less willing to follow a meat-free diet. These results are in accordance with those found in the literature; compared to men, women express a greater support for animal rights and environmental benefits of meat-free diets [
37].
The emergent mind-sets suggest three clearly different ways of thinking, a result which characterizes clusters created on the basis of responses to specifics (relevant messages), rather than clusters created on the basis of a person is, or how a person thinks in general about a topic. Mind-Set 1 suggests local patriots who value local products and support the production of meat and meat substitutes by local farmers. Additionally, they consider eating meat as good for their consciousness and their local environment. They may be similar to the emerging group called “locavores.” Mind-Set 2 suggests environmentalists, who decry the fact that that meat production contributes to deforestation, animal abuse, and the loss of biodiversity. Mind-Set 3 appears to be practicals, who care about both local values and land/energy aspects of meat production. They are not idealists, who blame climate change on the activities involved with meat product.
4. Conclusions
The four integrated studies with comparable coefficients and interrelated elements reveal the possibility of creating a Wiki of a topic area in a short time (1–2 weeks), with the studies conducted among the desired target population, and with the cost and time parameters so low and fast that one can do several iterations. Our goal here is to explore the topic of the new meat analogs or replacements, showing what can be created in terms both of experimentation and about data-based hypothesis generation to guide subsequent explorations of the topic.
The importance of the studies is their integration into a database, the aforementioned “wiki,” as well as the importance of emergent mind-sets, with these mind-sets relevant to the particulars of the topic. Researches know that data from the “many,” from total panels, might give overgeneralized, and seeming irrelevant, “bland” results which do not teach or advance science, and simply “do not work in practice.” Some improvement could be achieved by splitting the participants based on gender and/or age; however, these can result in misleading results, too.
Besides the speed, low cost, and sheer interactivity of Mind Genomics experiments, the contribution of Mind Genomics may be most important in terms of its ability to reveal specific, granular mind-sets, groups of individuals emerging from the pattern of responses to a particular localized topic. It is the granularity of knowledge, and the ability to test specific, concrete suggestions of what to say and what to do, that allows Mind Genomics to contribute both to science and to practice.
The mind-sets created in these studies did not show any significant differences neither by gender nor by age groups, meaning that the mind-sets may be explained and described better by categorized "thinking styles" that crosswise the different demographic variables. This confirms the 30–40-year science of Mind Genomics as a powerful discovery and application tool for sensory and consumer scientists. The presented results enable food companies and policy makers to get a clearer overview of US participants’ attitudes toward meat-free products and some related aspects. Future studies are needed to uncover how to classify newly recruited participants into the defined mind-sets by developing a fast, simple, powerful, and cost-effective method to classify. A good analogy is color science. Mind Genomics provides the “theory of colors” in a day or two for any defined or even hypothesized set of topics and questions. The next step is to create a “personal viewpoint identifier” to assign new people to the just-uncovered mind-sets, a discovery that may have taken simply one morning or one afternoon to make.