Green or clean? Perception of clean label plant-based products by omnivorous, vegan, vegetarian and flexitarian consumers.

Consumers are increasingly interested in health and sustainability aspects of their diets. Meat reduction diets have gained popularity with some consumers, leading to an increase in plant-based products in the markets. Additionally, the demand for more natural and healthier products is associated with the clean label trend. But how these two trends relate to each other, has not yet been widely investigated. The aim of the present research was to explore the perception of different consumers (vegans, vegetarians, flexitarians and omnivores), towards clean label, plant-based products in order to better understand their motivations and attitudes. Consumers in Spain, followers of these four diets, participated in a projective mapping task - categorisation of twenty plant-based products (ten clean label and ten original products) - and answered a health and sustainability attitudes survey. The results showed that according to the diet followed by the consumers, they categorised and perceived the products differently, in line with their attitudes. Meat-reducer and avoider consumers paid more attention to quality and health and presented a greater concern for animal welfare and sustainability. Also, they focused on the clean label status for product categorization, while omnivores did not separate between original and clean label products. The present study shows a first exploration of how consumers with different relation to meat (frequent consumption-reduction-avoidance) perceive clean label plant-based products, in relation to their attitudes to health and sustainability, a building block on the way to support consumers in the transition to healthier, more sustainable diets.

Noguerol AT ，Pagán MJ ，García-Segovia P ，Varela P ... -  《-》

Similarities and differences between vegetarians and vegans in motives for meat-free and plant-based diets.

Plant-based diets are quickly gaining popularity for their benefits to animal welfare, the environment, and public health. Compared to meat-eaters, meat-abstainers such as vegetarians and vegans are especially motivated by animal rights and the environment. However, little is known about the motivational and psychological factors that distinguish vegetarians from vegans, and what prevents vegetarians to shift towards a fully plant-based diet. In a sample of vegans (n = 335) and vegetarians (n = 182), we investigated a) motives for reducing or quitting meat consumption and b) motives for reducing or quitting animal product (dairy and egg products) consumption, as well as moral psychological and social-contextual factors that may explain potential differences. Results demonstrate that vegetarians and vegans tend to be similar in their motives to abstain from meat consumption and are most strongly motivated by animal rights. However, vegetarians are less motivated by health, environmental, and especially animal rights for dairy/egg reduction compared to meat reduction and compared to vegans. Lower moral concern for animals, stronger beliefs in human supremacy over animals, and heightened veganism threat among vegetarians (vs. vegans) partly explained why vegetarians were less strongly motivated by animal rights for dairy/egg reduction. Human supremacy beliefs also explained differences between vegetarians and vegans in health and environmental motives for dairy/egg reduction. Furthermore, vegetarians reported significantly less social support for plant-based diets and perceived more practical barriers to plant-based diets than vegans. These findings reveal meaningful differences in the motivational and psychological profiles of vegetarians and vegans and highlight the value of distinguishing between motives for meat-free diets and motives for plant-based diets.

Dhont K ，Ioannidou M 《-》

Feeling morally troubled about meat, dairy, egg, and fish consumption: Dissonance reduction strategies among different dietary groups.

A largescale shift towards plant-based diets is considered a critical requirement for tackling ethical, environmental, and global health issues associated with animal food production and consumption. Although previous research has identified psychological strategies that enable meat-eaters to justify and continue meat consumption and feel less morally conflicted about it, research on the psychological strategies that enable consumers to continue dairy, egg, and fish consumption is scarce. We conducted an online survey study using an adjusted version of the Meat-Eating Justification Scale to investigate the use of psychological strategies to cope with cognitive dissonance related to meat, dairy, egg, and fish consumption in omnivores (n = 186), pescatarians (n = 106), vegetarians (n = 143), vegans (n = 203), and flexitarians (n = 63). Results indicated greater use of meat-related dissonance reduction strategies among omnivores as compared to other dietary groups, greater use of fish-related dissonance reduction strategies among fish consumers (omnivores, flexitarians and pescatarians) compared to vegetarians and vegans, and greater use of dairy and egg-related dissonance reduction strategies among dairy and egg consumers (omnivores, flexitarians, pescatarians, and vegetarians) as compared to vegans. This pattern was particularly clear for justifications used to defend animal product consumption, denial of animal suffering, and use of dichotomization when considering meat and fish consumption. These findings highlight the importance of extending the research on dissonance reduction strategies beyond meat consumption and studying the consumption of a range of animal products. This can help in identifying the psychological barriers to adopting a plant-based diet and informing interventions for behaviour change.

Ioannidou M ，Lesk V ，Stewart-Knox B ，Francis KB ... -  《-》

Same strategies - different categories: An explorative card-sort study of plant-based proteins comparing omnivores, flexitarians, vegetarians and vegans.

Replacing animal-derived proteins with plant-based proteins has environmental and health benefits. Despite increasing consumer acceptance of plant-based proteins, most individuals do not frequently consume them. Understanding how different consumer groups perceive and categorise plant-based proteins in comparison to animal-derived proteins can support the protein transition, as it might provide insights into both consumer acceptance and how to position plant-based proteins. Based on categorisation theory, we investigated how different consumers - omnivores, flexitarians, vegetarians and vegans - categorise various sources of proteins and to what extent they use taxonomic, goal-derived or cross-categorisation approaches. 121 Dutch participants free-sorted 80 product cards (30 plant-based proteins, 20 animal-derived proteins, 5 hybrids (animal-plant) and 25 non-protein products). Forty participants elaborated on their categorisations in follow-up interviews. Our findings show that similar strategies can result in different categories depending on consumer group. Taxonomic categorisation strategies are dominantly applied by all consumer groups, but specific categories differ. With decreasing animal protein consumption, omnivores, flexitarians, vegetarians and vegans become increasingly strict in their categorisations. Omnivores do not separate proteins as strictly as flexitarians, vegetarians and vegans. All groups separate animal-derived meat from plant-based meat alternatives, but hybrid meat is ambiguous for omnivores and flexitarians. Variations in categorisations of plant-based proteins between groups give directions to marketers on how to tailor positioning of these products in a way that consumers identify and adopt plant-based proteins, to guide and accelerate the protein transition.

van der Meer M ，Fischer ARH ，Onwezen MC 《-》

Mediterranean-Style Diet and Other Determinants of Well-Being in Omnivorous, Vegetarian, and Vegan Women.

Kaluza J ，Lozynska K ，Rudzinska J ，Granda D ，Sicinska E ，Szmidt MK ... -  《Nutrients》