Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 12 No. sp1 (2025): Recent Advances in Agriculture by Young Minds - II

Analysis on consumer awareness and preferences on plant-based protein alternatives

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.8382
Submitted
19 March 2025
Published
23-07-2025 — Updated on 31-07-2025
Versions

Abstract

The consumption behaviour is influenced by rising concerns about environmental sustainability, health and animal welfare. Plant based Protein alternatives are having high nutritional value. hence the knowledge, attitudes and preferences for plant-based proteins among 130 consumers is analysed and presented in the article. The analysis indicated that the awareness of plant-based protein alternatives is high, with word-of-mouth and personal experience being the most common sources of information. Pea protein and nuts were the most prominent alternatives, whereas hemp protein and quinoa were less popular. Factor analysis identified four key determinants of consumer choices: branding and marketing, health and well-being, practicality and ethical concerns - especially regarding animal welfare. increasing accessibility, cost, ethical messaging and marketing methods will increase plant-based protein acceptance and consumption. Limited research exists on consumer perception and market readiness in Indian urban cities compared to developed countries. It is suggested to businesses and policymakers to strategically promote plant-based alternatives by distributing through the public distribution systems, organic product retailers in affordable assortments in the market to attain sustainable development goals.

References

  1. 1. Mushi GE, Di Marzo Serugendo G, Burgi P-Y. Digital technology and services for sustainable agriculture in Tanzania: A literature review. Sustainability. 2022;14(4):2415. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042415
  2. 2. Calicioglu O, Flammini A, Bracco S, Bellù L, Sims R. The future challenges of food and agriculture: An integrated analysis of trends and solutions. Sustainability. 2019;11(1):222. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010222
  3. 3. Sethi S, Tyagi SK, Anurag RK. Plant-based milk alternatives an emerging segment of functional beverages: a review. Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2016;53:3408-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-016-2328-3
  4. 4. Jafari S, Hezaveh E, Jalilpiran Y, Jayedi A, Wong A, Safaiyan A, et al. Plant-based diets and risk of disease mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 2022;62(28):7760-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2021.1887076
  5. 5. Bulah B. An institutional perspective on innovation system dynamics: the case of plant-based proteins. Master’s Thesis; 2020.
  6. 6. Curtain F, Grafenauer S. Plant-based meat substitutes in the flexitarian age: an audit of products on supermarket shelves. Nutrients. 2019;11(11):2603. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11112603
  7. 7. Pan Z, Zhang R, Zicari S. Integrated processing technologies for food and agricultural by-products. Academic Press; 2019.
  8. 8. Rizzo G, Baroni L. Soy, soy foods and their role in vegetarian diets. Nutrients. 2018;10(1):43. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10010043
  9. 9. Bessada SM, Barreira JC, Oliveira MBP. Pulses and food security: Dietary protein, digestibility, bioactive and functional properties. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 2019;93:53-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2019.09.024
  10. 10. Palander S, Laurinen P, Perttilä S, Valaja J, Partanen K. Protein and amino acid digestibility and metabolizable energy value of pea (Pisum sativum), faba bean (Vicia faba) and lupin (Lupinus angustifolius) seeds for turkeys of different age. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 2006;127(1-2):89-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2005.09.003
  11. 11. Malek L, Umberger WJ. Distinguishing meat reducers from unrestricted omnivores, vegetarians and vegans: A comprehensive comparison of Australian consumers. Food Quality and Preference. 2021;88:104081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104081
  12. 12. Gómez-Luciano CA, de Aguiar LK, Vriesekoop F, Urbano B. Consumers’ willingness to purchase three alternatives to meat proteins in the United Kingdom, Spain, Brazil and the Dominican Republic. Food Quality and Preference. 2019;78:103732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103732
  13. 13. De Boer J, Schösler H, Boersema JJ. Motivational differences in food orientation and the choice of snacks made from lentils, locusts, seaweed or “hybrid” meat. Food Quality and Preference. 2013;28(1):32-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.07.008
  14. 14. Hair Jr JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate data analysis. 7th ed. Pearson, New York; 2010. p. 785.
  15. 15. Sharma N, Yeasmen N, Dube L, Orsat V. Rise of plant-based beverages: a consumer-driven perspective. Food Reviews International. 2024;40(10):3315-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/87559129.2023.2180705
  16. 16. Szejda K, Urbanovich T, Wilks M. Accelerating consumer adoption of plant-based meat: An evidence-based guide for effective practice. Washington (DC): The Good Food Institute; 2020. p. 1-110.
  17. 17. Aschemann-Witzel J, Gantriis RF, Fraga P, Perez-Cueto FJ. Plant-based food and protein trend from a business perspective: Markets, consumers, and the challenges and opportunities in the future. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 2021;61(18):3119-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2020.1793730
  18. 18. Joshi V, Kumar S. Meat analogues: Plant based alternatives to meat products-A review. International Journal of Food and Fermentation Technology. 2015;5(2):107. https://doi.org/10.5958/2277-9396.2016.00001.5
  19. 19. Benton TG, Harwatt H, Høyer-Lund A, Meltzer HM, Trolle E, Blomhoff R. An overview of approaches for assessing the environmental sustainability of diets–a scoping review for Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2023. Food & Nutrition Research. 2024;68:10.29219/fnr.v68.10453. https://doi.org/10.29219/fnr.v68.10453
  20. 20. Poore J, Nemecek T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science. 2018;360(6392):987-92. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.