Differences in Asian Consumers’ Willingness to Purchase Plant-Based Meat and Alternative Protein Products

Authors

  • Zhishu Zhang

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61173/wanp6j33

Keywords:

Artificial meat, Consumption, Alternative protein

Abstract

The rapid population growth and excessive consumption of traditional meat resources have led to environmental degradation. Replacing meat consumption with alternative protein products can effectively reduce traditional meat consumption. Some developed countries, such as Singapore and the United Kingdom, have conducted research in this area for many years and achieved some results, with alternative protein products already commercialized. However, active participation from consumers in other countries is still needed. Moreover, alternative protein products cannot be accepted by many consumers in a short period of time. This paper summarizes findings from indicator surveys conducted among consumers in representative countries. It identifies variations in consumption willingness toward alternative protein products among Asian populations and analyzes underlying reasons. Furthermore, it explores technical and ethical challenges that must be addressed before promoting alternative protein products, aiming to provide clear guidance for enterprises regarding the consumption prospects of such products. As environmentally conscious and green consumption concepts gain traction, we believe these obstacles will be expected to be effectively resolved through technological innovation.

References

[1] Wang, H. H. (2022). The perspective of meat and meatalternative consumption in China. Meat Science, 194: 108982.

[2] Jafarzadeh, S., et al. (2024). Alternative proteins; A path to sustainable diets and environment. Current Research in Food Science, 9: 100882.

[3] Takefuji, Y. (2021). Sustainable protein alternatives. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 107: 429-431.

[4] Starowicz, M., et al. (2022). What are the main sensory attributes that determine the acceptance of meat alternatives? Current Opinion in Food Science, 48: 100924.

[5] Mok, W. K., et al. (2020). Technology innovations for food security in Singapore: A case study of future food systems for an increasingly natural resource-scarce world. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 102: 155-168.

[6] Juraimi, S. A., et al. (2025). A mixed-methods exploration of regular consumers’ experiences of plant-based meat alternatives (PBMA) in Singapore and the United Kingdom. Future Foods, 11: 100641.

[7] Ho, S. S., et al. (2023). Halal or not? Exploring Muslim perceptions of cultured meat in Singapore. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 7.

[8] Takeda, K. F., et al. (2023). Comparison of public attitudes toward five alternative proteins in Japan. Food Quality and Preference, 105: 104787.

[9] Kim, Y.-J., et al. (2022). Consumer awareness survey analysis of alternative protein: Cultured meat and edible insect. Food and Life, (3): 89-95.

[10] Lee, D. Y., et al. (2025). An Investigation of the Status of Commercial Meat Analogs and Their Ingredients: Worldwide and South Korea. Food Science of Animal Resources, 45(1): 31- 61.

[11] Runte, M., et al. (2024). Consumers’ perception of plant-based alternatives and changes over time. A linguistic analysis across three countries and ten years. Food Quality and Preference, 113: 105057.

[12] Szenderák, J., et al. (2022). Consumer Acceptance of Plant- Based Meat Substitutes: A Narrative Review. Foods, 11(9), 1274.

[13] Wedamulla, N. E., et al. (2024). Korean Edible Insects: A Promising Sustainable Resource of Proteins and Peptides for Formulating Future Functional Foods. Food Supplements and Biomaterials for Health, 4(1).

Downloads

Published

2025-12-19