Ketelings Linsay, Havermans Remco C, Kremers Stef P J, de Boer Alie
Food Claims Centre Venlo, Campus Venlo, Maastricht University, Venlo, The Netherlands.
Laboratory of Behavioural Gastronomy, Centre for Healthy Eating and Food Innovation, Maastricht University Campus Venlo, The Netherlands.
Curr Dev Nutr. 2023 Jun 8;7(7):101960. doi: 10.1016/j.cdnut.2023.101960. eCollection 2023 Jul.
Consumer awareness of meat-associated health and environmental risks is increasing and motivates a shift toward consuming meat alternatives. This is also reflected in efforts invested in studying meat alternatives from the perspective of nutritional, environmental, and consumer sciences. Despite shared research interest, these studies cannot be readily compared and interpreted because there is no clear consensus on what meat alternatives are. Scholarly debates on acceptance, nutritional value, and environmental advantages of meat alternatives would benefit from a clear definition of meat alternatives. With the goal of defining meat alternatives, relevant scientific literature in the past 10 years was systematically searched and screened guided by the scoping review Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension. The initial search resulted in >100,000 hits, which was reduced to 2465 papers. Next, titles and abstracts were scrutinized using Rayyan.ai, resulting in 193 articles considered for the present review. Article screening and data extraction was performed using ATLAS.ti software. Three major themes were identified to define meat alternative products including: ) producing and sourcing of ingredients; ) product characteristics (that is, sensory characteristics, nutritional value, and health profile, social and environmental sustainability profile); and ) consumer characteristics concerning the marketing and consumption context. Meat alternatives are multifaceted, that is, certain products can be considered as meat alternatives in some context, but not in another context. For any product, it is impossible to unequivocally state that it is a meat alternative. There is a lack of consensus from the diverse literature on what constitutes meat alternatives. However, products may be qualified as meat alternatives according to three key criteria as proposed in a taxonomy: ) production and sourcing, ) product characteristics, and/or ) consumption. We recommend researchers (and other stakeholders) to do so as it allows for better informed future discussions of meat alternatives.
消费者对肉类相关健康和环境风险的意识不断提高，这促使人们转向食用肉类替代品。这也反映在从营养、环境和消费者科学角度对肉类替代品进行研究的投入上。尽管有共同的研究兴趣，但这些研究难以进行直接比较和解读，因为对于什么是肉类替代品尚无明确共识。关于肉类替代品的接受度、营养价值和环境优势的学术辩论，将受益于对肉类替代品的明确定义。为了定义肉类替代品，在系统评价和元分析扩展的范围综述推荐报告项目的指导下，对过去10年的相关科学文献进行了系统检索和筛选。初步检索结果超过100,000条记录，经筛选后减少至2465篇论文。接下来，使用Rayyan.ai对标题和摘要进行审查，最终确定193篇文章用于本综述。使用ATLAS.ti软件进行文章筛选和数据提取。确定了定义肉类替代产品的三个主要主题，包括：）成分的生产和来源；）产品特性（即感官特性、营养价值、健康状况、社会和环境可持续性状况）；以及）与营销和消费背景相关的消费者特性。肉类替代品是多方面的，也就是说，某些产品在某些情况下可被视为肉类替代品，但在其他情况下则不然。对于任何产品，都不可能明确地说它就是肉类替代品。关于什么构成肉类替代品，不同文献缺乏共识。然而，根据一种分类法中提出的三个关键标准，产品可能有资格被视为肉类替代品：）生产和来源，）产品特性，和 / 或）消费。我们建议研究人员（以及其他利益相关者）这样做，因为这有助于未来对肉类替代品进行更明智的讨论。
