1. Introduction
In the last decade, consumer demand for sustainably and ethically produced food has led to a shift in lifestyle and dietary patterns in several Western societies [
1,
2,
3]. Meat consumption all around the world has been steadily increasing, reaching 324 million metric tons in 2020 [
4]. The increase in meat demand has led to negative societal and environmental externalities such as deforestation and greenhouse emissions [
5,
6,
7]. These externalities are often cited as consumer motivations towards meat-reduced lifestyle changes as well as concerns for animal welfare and cruelty, and health-related reasons [
8,
9].
Diets devoid of meat, such as vegetarianism and veganism, are increasing in popularity [
10,
11,
12]. A vegetarian diet requires the non-consumption of meat, seafood, or any form of animal flesh, while a vegan diet requires abstaining from eating not only meat but also any animal-based product, for instance, milk, yogurt, eggs, or honey [
13,
14,
15]. The occurrence of meat-reduced or meat-free dietary changes is reflected in the increased availability of plant-based meat, dairy, and egg alternatives in food retail, as well as in the occurrence of vegetarian and vegan options in restaurants [
16,
17,
18]. Currently, soy, wheat, and peas dominate the plant-based meat market, and cultured meat constitutes an emerging product that has enjoyed significant notoriety [
8,
19].
Cultured meat and many plant-based meat alternatives have been explored in the existing body of literature [
8,
20,
21,
22], along with the attitudes, norms, values, motivations to become vegetarian or vegan, health behavior, and dietary beliefs [
16]. One meat alternative that has not yet received wide academic attention in the consumer context is mycoprotein [
23,
24], even though mycoprotein is commercially available and enjoying popularity in consumer markets [
24]. Mycoprotein is a fungal-based protein source that was commercially developed in the 1980s and is derived from
Fusarium venenatum, a fungus belonging to the mold family [
25,
26]. Quorn is a famous mycoprotein product available in many consumer markets around the world [
26,
27], which is produced through fermenting fungi spores along with glucose and other nutrients [
25]. Until 2020, Quorn had a rather exclusive position and, in many consumer markets, was the only fungal-based protein option available [
28]. However, the Swedish business Mycorena developed an alternative product for the European markets with the brand Promyc. Promyc is advertised to be neutral in taste and therefore suitable for a wide variety of products such as burgers, nuggets, protein bars, and snacks [
28]. Consumers appreciate mycoprotein products such as Quorn and Promyc for being high in fiber, low in fat, sodium, and sugar, and rich in essential amino acids, and for their meat-like texture. In addition, compared to regular meat production, mycoprotein has a smaller water footprint and smaller carbon emissions [
29].
Mycoprotein studies have largely focused on production and processing [
25,
26,
27,
29] and, in the consumer area, on consumers’ attitudes, knowledge, and willingness to try [
23,
24]. However, the willingness to buy and pay a price premium for mycoprotein specifically is largely unexplored. In addition, differences between consumers with varying levels of meat consumption have yet to be investigated. Therefore, the present study is dedicated to this literature gap and explores key factors influencing consumers’ willingness to try, buy, and pay a price premium for mycoprotein for consumers with varying types of meat consumption. In the remainder of this section, these key factors are presented as well as the resultant hypotheses, and these are drawn together to form a conceptual model.
2. Health and Safety Aspects of Mycoproteins
Mycoproteins are known to be a high-quality and high-protein source of fungal biomass as they are rich in fibers and low in terms of fat content [
30,
31]. While dietary studies show that mycoproteins can positively affect appetite regulation, medical studies provide evidence that consumers of mycoproteins have a lower risk of cardiovascular diseases and strokes, and that this form of protein is beneficial in controlling glycemic responses [
30]. In addition to these benefits, recent studies have also reported negative health effects. A study related to the Quorn brand emphasized that mycoprotein can cause allergic reactions such as urticaria and anaphylaxis, and severe gastrointestinal issues [
32]. For these reasons, mycoproteins are not unilaterally safe for health. Before producers can introduce new mycoprotein products into the market, toxicity testing is required [
30]. Amidst this background, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis (H1). The healthiness of mycoprotein positively impacts willingness to (a) try, (b) buy, and (c) pay a price premium for mycoprotein.
Hypothesis (H2). Food safety positively impacts willingness to (a) try, (b) buy, and (c) pay a price premium for mycoprotein.
Hypothesis (H3). The nutritional benefits of mycoprotein positively impact willingness to (a) try, (b) buy, and (c) pay a price premium for mycoprotein.
Consumers expect meat alternatives such as mycoproteins to be similar to traditional meat products in terms of appearance and taste. A study on meat alternatives compared consumer preferences for various vegetarian and vegan brands [
33]. The results emphasized that Quorn was preferred over other brands, in particular for the product attributes appearance and taste. For the overall consumer preference ranking, Quorn outranked Tivall vegan and vegetarian products, vegan products from Vivera, and Goodbit chicken-style products [
33]. However, studies that included in-home usage tests showed that, after several weeks of consumption, there were no significant preference differences between the products. For this reason, the following hypothesis is proposed [
33,
34,
35]:
Hypothesis (H4). Taste impacts willingness to (a) try, (b) buy, and (c) pay a price premium for mycoprotein.
Mycoprotein products such as Quorn are sold as meat substitutes and are often more expensive than traditional meat products [
36,
37]. These products target consumers who follow a vegetarian, flexitarian, vegan, or other health-conscious lifestyle and are likely to be willing and able to pay a price premium for these alternative proteins [
38]. Some studies indicate that consumers are willing to pay a premium for mycoproteins [
38], while others emphasize price/demand elasticities [
39].
Hypothesis (H5). The affordability positively impacts willingness to (a) try, (b) buy, and (c) pay a price premium for mycoprotein.
Mycoproteins are currently appreciated by consumers favoring sustainability [
31,
40]. Compared to regular meat products, mycoproteins are more sustainable due to the negative externalities associated with meat production, namely, concerns about animal husbandry, inefficient use of resources, and high carbon and water footprints [
31]. In this context, consumers focusing on sustainable diets are likely to appreciate Quorn as a third-party verified and certified producer, having obtained the carbon trust footprint [
41].
Hypothesis (H6). The product’s sustainability positively impacts willingness to (a) try, (b) buy, and (c) pay a price premium for mycoprotein.
Not only are the product attributes of mycoprotein as a meat alternative crucial to consumer willingness to try, buy, and pay a price premium, but its positioning as a suitable substitute for meat in terms of sensory attributes and nutrition is also important. When buying or eating meat, consumers evaluate meat attributes that are inherent to the product and essential to the sensory experience such as freshness, taste, tenderness, and texture [
21]. Accordingly, these attributes are the standard of comparison either in a negative or positive manner, depending on whether consumers appreciate or reject meat. For example, those who feel that only meat provides some nutrients that are necessary for a healthy diet will be less likely to look for substitutes. Likewise, consumers who appreciate the sensory aspects of meat will be likely to favor substitutes that have meat-like aspects, while these aspects may not be appreciated by those who do not appreciate the taste, texture, or smell of meat [
34,
35]. Many meat substitutes are processed into burger patties or nuggets, and many meat alternatives have tried to mimic the sensory features of meat [
34].
Hypothesis (H7). The sensory importance of meat negatively impacts willingness to (a) try, (b) buy, and (c) pay a price premium for mycoprotein.
Hypothesis (H8). The nutritional importance of meat negatively impacts willingness to (a) try, (b) buy, and (c) pay a price premium for mycoprotein.
The proposed conceptual model is based on the recent body of literature and is depicted in
Figure 1. The conceptual model indicates that willingness to try, buy, and pay a price premium for mycoprotein is driven by the consumers’ perception of product attributes such as healthiness, food safety, nutritional properties, taste, price, and sustainability. Conversely, willingness to try, buy, and pay a price premium is inhibited by the importance placed on the sensory and nutritional of aspects of meat, as mycoprotein is positioned as a meat substitute. In addition, the recent body of literature emphasizes that the perception of factors driving the consumption of meat alternatives as well as attitudes towards meat alternatives is rather diverse. Differences among consumers with varying degrees of meat-eating behavior, as well as those related to gender, have been found. Given that findings related to mycoproteins in this context are relatively scarce, the present study draws from research on plant-based meat alternatives. It is suggested that the appeal of meat alternatives is greater for women than for men [
1,
42], and very recent studies have found that women consume plant-based meat alternatives more frequently than men [
43]. Even associations with meat have been found to differ between men and women [
1]. Women tend to associate animals with living beings, note their suffering, and moderate their meat consumption accordingly, while men associate animals with food products, focusing on form and taste. Overall, men tend to have more positive associations with meat compared to women [
1]. Plant alternatives are more widely purchased and eaten by consumers with flexitarian, vegetarian, and vegan diets compared to consumers with an omnivore diet [
1,
11,
44]. Therefore, the proposed model will be applied to subgroups and examine whether the hypothesized relationships apply to males, females, vegetarians, flexitarians, and omnivores.
4. Results and Discussion
In the overall sample, the healthiness of mycoproteins positively influenced consumers’ willingness to try, buy, and pay a price premium for the product (see
Table 6 and
Figure 2), supporting hypotheses H1a/b/c. These findings confirm the general consensus in the recent body of literature describing mycoproteins as a product that is bought for its health beneficial characteristics, e.g., dense in fiber and low in fat [
30,
31,
32]. Comparisons between subgroups confirmed a few differences in the subgroups, namely, that H1a/b/c were supported in the male and the omnivore subgroup but not supported in the vegetarian subgroup. While in the recent body of literature, men are described as strong meat eaters [
50], the mean age ranging from 23 to 44 years old (see
Table 1) indicates that males may be more health-conscious as they belong to cohorts of millennials and Gen Z [
43,
51]. Both cohorts are open to eating alternatives and interested in healthy lifestyles [
43,
51]. In the female subgroup, a non-significant relationship was found for willingness to try (H1a); however, the relationships for willingness to buy and pay a price premium were found to be significant (H1b/c). Similarly, in the flexitarian subgroup, the relationship for willingness to buy was not found to be significant (H1b).
However, willingness to try and willingness to pay a price premium were found to have significant relationships, confirming hypotheses H1a and H1c. Given that consumers with a vegetarian and flexitarian lifestyle are eating no meat or only in moderation, they may feel that their plant-based diet is very healthy and do not see meat alternatives such as mycoproteins as a healthier option. After all, mycoproteins are sold in food retail at a high price point targeting vegan, vegetarian, and flexitarian consumers [
36,
37,
38]. In terms of food safety, consumers seem to perceive mycoproteins as safe to eat. In the overall sample, food safety positively influenced consumers’ willingness to try, buy, and pay a price premium, supporting hypotheses H2a/b/c. In all subgroups, a significant relationship for willingness to try and buy was found, confirming hypotheses H2a/b. However, non-significant relationships were found in the female and flexitarian subgroups for willingness to pay a price premium, therefore confirming partial support for hypothesis H2c. Food safety is a basic requirement of any product sold in food retail. However, there are discussions in the recent body of literature on mycoprotein whether the fungal-based meat alternative fulfills this requirement [
31,
32,
33]. While some studies report that the product is safe for consumers, others report consumers having adverse reactions such as nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea after consuming the product. It is even possible to develop allergies over time [
31]. The individuals in the subgroups indicating non-significant relationships may be aware of these safety issues and unwilling to pay a price premium.
Overall, the nutritional benefits of mycoprotein are a significant driver of willingness to try, buy, and pay a price premium, supporting H3a/b/c. However, for flexitarians and vegetarians, there was little or no support for nutrition as a driver. Perhaps, like healthiness, flexitarians and vegetarians are already enjoying a plant-based diet that meets their nutrition needs and do not view mycoprotein as a more nutritious option. Certainly, omnivore consumption is driven by the healthiness of mycoproteins (H3a/b/c supported), perhaps because it offers the nutritional benefits of fungal-based protein in forms/textures that are familiar to meat eaters (e.g., burger patties, nuggets, and schnitzels).
In the overall sample, taste positively influenced consumers’ willingness to buy and pay a price premium, but taste was a significant inhibitor of trying mycoproteins, thus supporting hypotheses H4b/c but not H4a. For the subgroups, taste was not a significant driver, and for females, it was a significant inhibitor of willingness to try. For all but the vegetarian and flexitarian subgroups, taste drove willingness to buy and pay a price premium, and in all but the vegetarians, taste drove willingness to pay a price premium. In other words, no one seems to be drawn to trying mycoproteins because of their taste, but presumably after trying, taste is a significant driver for buying and the strongest driver for paying a premium for them. Especially for omnivores and men, or men that love meat [
43], the comparability in terms of taste may not be a major concern for trying mycoproteins, but it may be for behavior involving higher commitment such as repeated purchases or paying a price premium. Vegetarians—at least the ones following these diets for concerns related to animal cruelty—may stand at the other end of the continuum and prefer a taste and a sensory experience that diverge from those of meat [
1,
21].
The affordability, or lack thereof, seems to inhibit most from trying mycoproteins and has no significant impact on willingness to buy them. In the overall sample and in all subgroups apart from flexitarians, only one willingness to try relationship was found to be significant, but it was opposite to what was proposed in hypothesis H5a. In the recent body of literature, the fact that mycoproteins are more costly than meat or dairy and not necessarily affordable for consumers with a low income is a major criticism of this meat alternative [
36,
39].
Consuming sustainable product options is important for many consumers. In the overall sample, sustainability positively influenced consumers’ willingness to try, buy, and pay a price premium for mycoprotein, confirming hypotheses H6a/b/c. In fact, sustainability was a significant driver for all the subgroups to try mycoproteins, and for all but the female subgroup in willingness to buy mycoproteins. However, for willingness to pay a premium, it was a driver for only the males and flexitarians. Perhaps the sustainability credentials encourage consumers to try and buy mycoproteins, but they are not strong enough to justify a premium. For example, mycoprotein sold under the brand name Quorn is a sustainable product and certified as such [
41], but consumers may not be aware that it is, or may not perceive it to be, more sustainable than other products. The certification for Quorn relates to its carbon footprint [
41]. Some consumers may be in favor of other aspects of sustainability or want only products that consider all three pillars of sustainability.
Some consumers cannot imagine a diet without meat. Some think that meat is nutritionally necessary or important to maintain a healthy diet. Others are drawn to the sensory aspects of eating meat. For these consumers, finding a substitute for meat is not going to be a high priority, and this was confirmed in the results. In the overall sample, meat’s nutritional importance inhibited consumer willingness to try, buy, and pay a price premium for mycoprotein, confirming hypotheses H8a/b/c. This was also found to be the case for almost all subgroups. This finding is unsurprising given that meat is such an essential part of an omnivore’s diet [
21]. The importance of the sensory aspects of meat (taste, texture, smell) was less consistent. Overall, the importance of meat sensory aspects did not significantly influence willingness to try mycoprotein, but it inhibited willingness to buy and pay a premium for mycoproteins, supporting H8b/c but not H8a. For willingness to buy, it was only an inhibitor for males and omnivores, and it inhibited willingness to pay a price premium for males, females, and omnivores.
5. Conclusions
Overall, the attributes that were the biggest drivers of willingness to consume mycoprotein were healthiness, followed by nutritional benefits, safe to eat, and sustainability. Affordability and taste had mixed results. Willingness to consume mycoprotein was inhibited if nutritional importance was placed on meat and, to a lesser extent, if sensory aspects of meat (taste, texture, and smell) were deemed important. Of the 21 relationships that were significant in the total sample, 20 were significant for men, 18 for omnivores, 15 for women, 11 for flexitarians, and only 9 for vegetarians. Additionally, the biggest driver was healthiness for men and omnivores, nutritional benefits for women, and safe to eat for flexitarians and vegetarians.
These findings are of relevance to several participants in the food industry, particularly marketing managers in food retail and businesses involved in the production of meat alternatives, as well as non-profit organizations advertising for health and sustainability. Non-profit organizations could be investing in awareness campaigns and best practice advice related to sustainable, balanced, or meat-free diets, promoting mycoproteins and other meat alternatives. Campaigns should strongly focus on sustainability, nutrition, and healthiness, as these are important key factors driving consumers’ willingness to try, buy, and pay a price premium. To stand out and to be genuine, organizations should point out the relatively high price point and provide information on potential allergies and other adverse health-related issues [
31,
36,
39]. The latter issue is also important to consider for Quorn and other businesses involved in mycoprotein production [
26].
Marketers of mycoproteins and other meat alternatives must thoroughly consider their targeting and profiling of potential consumers. When making comparisons between mycoprotein and traditional meat, marketers must consider their target consumers. Advertising nutritional and sensory similarity to meat may be appealing to consumers who enjoy eating traditional meat products, especially those who wish to reduce the meat in their diet for health reasons. However, such information may not be as suitable for people following a vegan or vegetarian diet. For those consumers, marketers should consider emphasizing the safety and sustainability aspects of mycoprotein and make comparisons with other plant-based products.
The data of the present study were procured using social media and email; however, the novelty of the topic and the comparison among consumers with different meat-eating behaviors add value to the recent body of literature. The non-probability-based nature of the sampling approach should be acknowledged. A social media sample was chosen to overcome budget constraints. In addition, the debate of whether to consume fungal- and plant-based meat alternatives can be controversial and sensitive, so a sampling approach via social media platforms was considered suitable for the present study overall, despite its limitations as a potential source of sampling bias. Nevertheless, social media platforms allow researchers to access their personal contacts who are members of interest groups that connect other users throughout the internet [
52]. Such groups are classified as online communities connecting members with shared interests, attitudes, and, in the case of this study’s context, consumption habits. A multi-referral sampling approach can mitigate the risk of obtaining one-dimensional information from survey participants [
52]. However, the sampling approach led to a sample that is relatively young, and the voices of elderly consumers may have been under-represented. Recruitment through a dietary organization or opt-panel providers in the future would allow for representative sampling and more specific consideration of socio-cultural background factors such as ethnicity or religion, as they are likely to impact consumption and access to the product in the market.
Future research may be dedicated to cross-country comparisons, as well as investigations related to mycoproteins and sustainability. Mycoproteins are praised for their contribution to the environmental component of sustainability (Quorn is certified for its contribution to a low carbon footprint) [
41]; however, the other aspects of sustainability are widely disregarded. A best–worst approach will allow uncovering consumer preferences for varying sustainability product attributes. Further studies may be adapted from Lombardi et al., 2017 [
53] and be dedicated to climate-neutral meals. Choice experiments to explore consumer preferences and willingness to accept would be suitable, as climate-friendly meals may require renunciation which would be accommodated in a willingness-to-accept scenario.