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

Review Articles

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

Strategic labelling of alternative protein foods and beverages for consumer clarity

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.8578
Submitted
30 March 2025
Published
07-10-2025

Abstract

This review examines effective labelling techniques for foods and beverages with alternative proteins, emphasizing their impact on dietary choices and consumer behaviour. It explores key aspects such as protein composition, health claims and sustainability indicators, integrating previous research to assess how labelling influences consumers’ choices between plant-based substitutes and animal products. The findings suggest that clear and accurate labelling is essential for consumers to make informed decisions that align with environmental and health goals. However, the review highlights inconsistencies in regional regulatory frameworks, particularly regarding protein labelling norms. Additionally, it underscores the potential of underutilized, high-protein plant sources as effective alternatives in plant-based products. This study provides a closer examination of how food and beverage labels, particularly those for alternative protein products, are used and understood globally. Using the PRISMA framework, this paper systematically reviewed 42 peer-reviewed studies from the Scopus database. The research goal was to explore not just what the labels say, but how clear, consistent and useful they are for consumers and found that labelling rules often vary between regions, which can create confusion and reduce consumer trust. What sets this review apart is its focus on areas that often receive little attention, such as the mislabelling of protein content, the challenges in agreeing on terms for plant-based foods and the limitations of current front-of-pack labels. By pulling together insights across these underexplored topics, the research suggests ways to improve labelling so that consumers can make more informed, healthier and environmentally conscious food choices. Socially, it promotes the wider adoption of sustainable diets through informed decision-making, while practically, it highlights the role of improved labelling standards in encouraging healthier and more environmentally conscious consumer behaviour.

References

  1. 1. Shekhar SK, Raveendran P. An exploration into Indian's perception on food products nutritional labeling. Manag Res Pract. 2014;6(1):65-78.
  2. 2. Nazmi A, Monteiro C. The nutrition transition: the same, but different. Public Health Nutr. 2013;16(4):571-72. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980013000372
  3. 3. Alae-Carew C, Green R, Stewart C, Cook B, Dangour AD, Scheelbeek PF. The role of plant- based alternative foods in sustainable and healthy food systems: Consumption trends in the UK. Sci Total Environ. 2022;807:151041.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151041
  4. 4. Hoek AC, Luning PA, Weijzen P, Engels W, Kok FJ, 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.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.02.001
  5. 5. Pohjolainen P, Vinnari M, Jokinen P. Consumers’ perceived barriers to following a plant-based diet. Br Food J. 2015;117(3):1150-67. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-09-2013-0252
  6. 6. Sha L, Xiong YL. Plant protein-based alternatives of reconstructed meat: Science, technology and challenges. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2020;102:51-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2020.05.022
  7. 7. Gravely E, Fraser E. Transitions on the shopping floor: Investigating the role of Canadian supermarkets in alternative protein consumption. Appetite. 2018;130:146-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.08.018
  8. 8. Aschemann-Witzel J, Gantriis RF, Fraga P, Perez-Cueto FJA. Plant-based food and protein trend from a business perspective: Markets, consumers and the challenges and opportunities in the future. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2021;61(18):3119-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2020.1793730
  9. 9. Silva ARA, Silva MMN, Ribeiro BD. Health issues and technological aspects of plant-based alternative milk. Food Res Int. 2020;131:108972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2019.108972
  10. 10. Kumar P, Chatli MK, Mehta N, Singh P, Malav OP, Verma AK. Meat analogues: Health promising sustainable meat substitutes. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2017;57(5):923-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2014.939739
  11. 11. Malav O, Talukder S, Gokulakrishnan P, Chand S. Meat analog: A review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2015;55(9):1241-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2012.689381
  12. 12. Kyriakopoulou K, Dekkers B, van der Goot AJ. Plant-based meat analogues. In: Galanakis CM, editor. Sustainable Meat Production and Processing. Cambridge (MA): Academic Press; 2019. p. 103-26 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814874-7.00006-7
  13. 13. Tso R, Lim AJ, Forde CG. A critical appraisal of the evidence supporting consumer motivations for alternative proteins. Foods. 2020;10(1):24. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10010024
  14. 14. Das A, Raychaudhuri U, Chakraborty R. Cereal based functional food of Indian subcontinent: a review. J Food Sci Technol. 2012;49:665-72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-011-0474-1
  15. 15. Donga G, Patel N. A review of research studies on factors affecting consumers’ use of nutritional labels. Nutr Food Sci Int J Label. 2018;7(3):1-8.
  16. 16. Iraldo F, Griesshammer R, Kahlenborn W. The future of ecolabels. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2020;25:833-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01741-9
  17. 17. Sonntag WI, Lemken D, Spiller A, Schulze M. Welcome to the (label) jungle? Analyzing how consumers deal with intra-sustainability label trade-offs on food. Food Qual Prefer. 2023;104:104746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104746
  18. 18. Bangsa AB, Schlegelmilch BB. Linking sustainable product attributes and consumer decision-making: Insights from a systematic review. J Clean Prod. 2020;245:118902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118902
  19. 19. Crockett RA, King SE, Marteau TM, Prevost AT, Bignardi G, Roberts NW, et al. Nutritional labelling for healthier food or non-alcoholic drink purchasing and consumption. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;2(2):CD009315. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009315.pub2
  20. 20. Ikonen I, Sotgiu F, Aydinli A, Verlegh PW. Consumer effects of front-of-package nutrition labeling: An interdisciplinary meta-analysis. J of the Acad Mark Sci. 2020;48:360-83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-019-00663-9
  21. 21. Marcotrigiano V, Lanzilotti C, Rondinone D, De Giglio O, Caggiano G, Diella G, et al. Food labelling: regulations and public health implications. Ann Ig. 2018;30(3):220-28. https://doi.org/10.7416/ai.2018.2213
  22. 22. Weinrich R, Spiller A. Developing food labelling strategies with the help of extremeness aversion. DARE Discussion Papers 1511. Göttingen: Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE); 2015.
  23. 23. Lähteenmäki-Uutela A, Rahikainen M, Lonkila A, Yang B. Alternative proteins and EU food law. Food control. 2021;130:108336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.108336
  24. 24. Hall I, Pinto A, Evans S, Daly A, Ashmore C, Ford S, et al. The challenges and dilemmas of interpreting protein labelling of prepackaged foods encountered by the PKU community. Nutr. 2022;14(7):1355. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14071355
  25. 25. Wood P, Tavan M. A review of the alternative protein industry. Curr Opin Food Sci. 2022;47:100869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2022.100869
  26. 26. Johnson H, Parker C, Evans B. “Don’t mince words”: analysis of problematizations in Australian alternative protein regulatory debates. Agric Hum Values. 2023;40:1581-98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-023-10441-7
  27. 27. Hadi J, Brightwell G. Safety of alternative proteins: Technological, environmental and regulatory aspects of cultured meat, plant-based meat, insect protein and single-cell protein. Foods. 2021;10(6):1226. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10061226
  28. 28. Springmann M, Wiebe K, Mason-D'Croz D, Sulser TB, Rayner M, Scarborough P. Health and nutritional aspects of sustainable diet strategies and their association with environmental impacts: a global modelling analysis with country-level detail. Lancet Planet Health. 2018;2(10):e451-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(18)30206-7
  29. 29. Brooker PG, Hendrie GA, Anastasiou K, Woodhouse R, Pham T, Colgrave ML. Marketing strategies used for alternative protein products sold in Australian supermarkets in 2014, 2017 and 2021. Front nutr. 2022;9:1087194. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2022.1087194
  30. 30. Rust NA, Ridding L, Ward C, Clark B, Kehoe L, Dora M, et al. How to transition to reduced-meat diets that benefit people and the planet. Sci Total Environ. 2020;718:137208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137208
  31. 31. Pravst I, Kušar A. Labeling of nonalcoholic beverages. In: Galanakis CM, editor. Trends in Non-alcoholic Beverages. Cambridge (MA): Academic Press; 2020. p. 263–307 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-816938-4.00009-4
  32. 32. Vandevijvere S. INFORMAS protocol: Labelling module – monitoring health-related labelling and promotional characters/premium offers on foods and non-alcoholic beverages in retail outlets. Auckland: The University of Auckland; 2015. Updated 2017 Nov.
  33. 33. Pulker CE, Scott JA, Pollard CM. Ultra-processed family foods in Australia: nutrition claims, health claims and marketing techniques. Public Health Nutr. 2018;21(1):38-48. https://doi.org/10. 1017/S1368980017001148
  34. 34. Fernan C, Schuldt JP, Niederdeppe J. Health halo effects from product titles and nutrient content claims in the context of “protein” bars. Health Commun. 2018;33(12):1425-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2017.1358240
  35. 35. Schuldt JP, Schwarz N. The “organic” path to obesity? Organic claims influence calorie judgments and exercise recommendations. Judgm Decis Mak. 2010;5(3):144-50. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500001017
  36. 36. Blanco-Gutiérrez I, Varela-Ortega C, Manners R. Evaluating animal-based foods and plant-based alternatives using multi-criteria and SWOT analyses. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(21):7969. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17217969
  37. 37. Schyver T, Smith C. Reported attitudes and beliefs toward soy food consumption of soy consumers versus nonconsumers in natural foods or mainstream grocery stores. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2005;37(6):292-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1499-4046(06)60159-0
  38. 38. Lea E, Worsley A. Benefits and barriers to the consumption of a vegetarian diet in Australia. Public Health Nutr. 2003;6(5):505-11.https://doi.org/10.1079/PHN2002452
  39. 39. Konstantina PE, Chrysa A, Konstantinos R, Dimitrios F. Plant-based protein food products: perceptions from the Greek food industry. KnE Soc Sci. 2023;8(1):119-37.
  40. 40. Yang T, Dharmasena S. Consumers preferences on nutritional attributes of dairy-alternative beverages: hedonic pricing models. Food sci. nutr. 2020;8(10):5362-78. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.1757
  41. 41. Sexton A. Alternative proteins and the (non) stuff of “meat”. Gastronomica. 2016;16(3):66-78. https://doi.org/10.1525/gfc.2016.16.3.66

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.