Exploring Consumer Preferences and Challenges in Hybrid Meat Products: A Conjoint Analysis of Hotdogs

Overview

Journal Foods

Specialty Biotechnology

Date 2024 May 25

PMID 38790760

Authors

Kashmira Salgaonkar

Alissa A Nolden

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Plant-based meat has been the primary strategy to reducing meat consumption. While this category has demonstrated success, with the market value estimated to reach USD 20 billion by 2023, the subsequent reduction in meat consumption has not been proportionate. An alternative approach is hybrid products, which are thought to produce products that more closely resemble meat products. However, whether consumers will be willing to purchase hybrid products remains uncertain. Therefore, the present study uses a conjoint analysis approach to assess the product features driving the selection of a hybrid hotdog. This approach uncovers factors driving consumers' purchase intentions for hybrid meat products when offered as a choice against 100% plant-based and 100% beef products. In an online survey, participants (n = 454; 45.6% female) were asked to select the product they would be most willing to purchase, varying in four characteristics: protein source, price, fat content, and price. Following this task, participants answered questions related to meat attachment, food neophobia, health, ecological, social, and moral motives regarding food consumption. The results revealed that protein source was the most important factor driving product selection, followed by price, fat, and packaging claims (35%, 24%, 21%, and 20% relative importance, respectively). In this study, hybrid hotdogs were the least preferred to beef and plant-based (-16, -2.5, and 18 part-worth utility, respectively). These product-specific attributes (protein, fat, and price) had distinct relationships with the choices of hybrid, plant-based, and hybrid hotdogs, with these factors together explaining slightly more variability in the selection of hybrid (9%) compared to plant-based (7%) and beef hotdogs (4%). For hybrid hotdogs, protein had the greatest influence (B = -1.2) followed by fat (B = -0.8) and price (B = -0.5). Interestingly, person-related parameters (health, meat attachment, ethics, and food neophobia) had no relationship with the selection of hybrid hotdogs, contrary to plant-based (7%) and beef hotdogs (5%). This influence of the different parameters on the selection of hybrid meat is thought to be due to the lack of consumer knowledge and familiarity with hybrid products. The current understanding of plant-based products may not correspond to hybrid products. Engaging with consumers during the development of these products is critical to ensure consumer acceptance and thus support the transition to a more sustainable diet.

References

Hoek A, Luning P, Weijzen P, Engels W, Kok F, de Graaf C . Replacement of meat by meat substitutes. A survey on person- and product-related factors in consumer acceptance. Appetite. 2011; 56(3):662-73. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2011.02.001. View

Gundala R, Singh A . What motivates consumers to buy organic foods? Results of an empirical study in the United States. PLoS One. 2021; 16(9):e0257288. PMC: 8432837. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257288. View

Ryder C, Jaworska S, Grasso S . Hybrid meat products and co-creation: What do consumers say, feel and think?. Front Nutr. 2023; 10:1106079. PMC: 9980336. DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2023.1106079. View

McMichael A, Bambrick H . Meat consumption trends and health: casting a wider risk assessment net. Public Health Nutr. 2005; 8(4):341-3. DOI: 10.1079/phn2005742. View

Allen M, Baines S . Manipulating the symbolic meaning of meat to encourage greater acceptance of fruits and vegetables and less proclivity for red and white meat. Appetite. 2002; 38(2):118-30. DOI: 10.1006/appe.2001.0474. View

Kershaw J, Lim T, Nolden A . Health- or Environmental-Focused Text Messages to Increase Consumption of a Sustainable Diet among Young Adults: Importance of Expected Taste. Foods. 2023; 12(6). PMC: 10048040. DOI: 10.3390/foods12061297. View

McCarthy K, Parker M, Ameerally A, Drake S, Drake M . Drivers of choice for fluid milk versus plant-based alternatives: What are consumer perceptions of fluid milk?. J Dairy Sci. 2017; 100(8):6125-6138. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2016-12519. View

Lindeman M, Vaananen M . Measurement of ethical food choice motives. Appetite. 2000; 34(1):55-9. DOI: 10.1006/appe.1999.0293. View

Lindstrom B, Jangard S, Selbing I, Olsson A . The role of a "common is moral" heuristic in the stability and change of moral norms. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2017; 147(2):228-242. DOI: 10.1037/xge0000365. View

10.

Pfeiler T, Egloff B . Personality and meat consumption: The importance of differentiating between type of meat. Appetite. 2018; 130:11-19. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2018.07.007. View

11.

Weinrich R, Elshiewy O . Preference and willingness to pay for meat substitutes based on micro-algae. Appetite. 2019; 142:104353. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2019.104353. View

12.

Profeta A, Baune M, Smetana S, Broucke K, Van Royen G, Weiss J . Discrete Choice Analysis of Consumer Preferences for Meathybrids-Findings from Germany and Belgium. Foods. 2021; 10(1). PMC: 7823736. DOI: 10.3390/foods10010071. View

13.

Hughes G, Kress K, Armbrecht E, Mukherjea R, Mattfeldt-Beman M . Initial investigation of dietitian perception of plant-based protein quality. Food Sci Nutr. 2014; 2(4):371-9. PMC: 4221835. DOI: 10.1002/fsn3.112. View

14.

Rosenfeld D, Burrow A . Vegetarian on purpose: Understanding the motivations of plant-based dieters. Appetite. 2017; 116:456-463. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2017.05.039. View

15.

Graca J, Truninger M, Junqueira L, Schmidt L . Consumption orientations may support (or hinder) transitions to more plant-based diets. Appetite. 2019; 140:19-26. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2019.04.027. View

16.

Shan L, De Brun A, Henchion M, Li C, Murrin C, Wall P . Consumer evaluations of processed meat products reformulated to be healthier - A conjoint analysis study. Meat Sci. 2017; 131:82-89. DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.04.239. View

17.

Neuhofer Z, Lusk J . Most plant-based meat alternative buyers also buy meat: an analysis of household demographics, habit formation, and buying behavior among meat alternative buyers. Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1):13062. PMC: 9336146. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-16996-5. View

18.

Spencer M, Guinard J . The Flexitarian Flip : Testing the Modalities of Flavor as Sensory Strategies to Accomplish the Shift from Meat-Centered to Vegetable-Forward Mixed Dishes. J Food Sci. 2017; 83(1):175-187. DOI: 10.1111/1750-3841.13991. View

19.

Graca J, Calheiros M, Oliveira A . Attached to meat? (Un)Willingness and intentions to adopt a more plant-based diet. Appetite. 2015; 95:113-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.06.024. View

20.

Lindeman M, Sirelius M . Food choice ideologies: the modern manifestations of normative and humanist views of the world. Appetite. 2002; 37(3):175-84. DOI: 10.1006/appe.2001.0437. View