Perceptions toward Plant-Based Milk Alternatives among Young Adult Consumers and Non-Consumers in Denmark: An Exploratory Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Data Collection
2.2. Questionnaire Development
2.3. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Dairy Alternatives Market by Source (Soy, Almond, Coconut, Rice, Oats, Hemp), Application (Milk, Yogurt, Ice Creams, Cheese, Creamers), Distribution Channel (Supermarkets, Health Food Stores, Pharmacies), Formulation and Region—Forecast to 2027. 2022. Available online: https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/dairy-alternative-plant-milk-beverages-market-677.html (accessed on 10 January 2023).
- Conway, J. Value of the Plant-Based Beverage Market Worldwide from 2017 to 2023 (In Million U.S. Dollars). 2018. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/948450/plant-based-beverages-market-value-worldwid (accessed on 2 September 2019).
- Smart Protein Project. Plant-Based Foods in Europe: How Big Is the Market? Smart Protein Plant-Based Food Sector Report. A European Union´s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (No 862957). 2021. Available online: https://smartproteinproject.eu/plant-based-food-sector-report (accessed on 7 October 2022).
- Derbyshire, E.J. Flexitarian Diets and Health: A Review of the Evidence-Based Literature. Front. Nutr. 2017, 3, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Grunert, K.G.; Hieke, S.; Wills, J. Sustainability labels on food products: Consumer motivation, understanding and use. Food Policy 2014, 44, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Newton, J.D.; Tsarenko, Y.; Ferraro, C.; Sands, S. Environmental concern and environmental purchase intentions: The mediating role of learning strategy. J. Bus. Res. 2015, 68, 1974–1981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alae-Carew, C.; Green, R.; Stewart, C.; Cook, B.; Dangour, A.D.; Scheelbeek, P.F. The role of plant-based alternative foods in sustainable and healthy food systems: Consumption trends in the UK. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 807, 151041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fuentes, C.; Fuentes, M. Making a market for alternatives: Marketing devices and the qualification of a vegan milk substitute. J. Mark. Manag. 2019, 33, 529–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeske, S.; Zannini, E.; Arendt, E.K. Past, present and future: The strength of plant-based dairy substitutes based on gluten-free raw materials. Food Res. Int. 2018, 110, 42–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sethi, S.; Tyagi, S.K.; Anurag, R.K. Plant-based milk alternatives an emerging segment of functional beverages: A review. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 53, 3408–3423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCarthy, K.S.; Parker, M.; Ameerally, A.; Drake, S.L.; Drake, M.A. Drivers of choice for fluid milk versus plant-based alternatives: What are consumer perceptions of fluid milk? J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 6125–6138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaeger, S.R.; Giacalone, D. Barriers to consumption of plant-based beverages: A comparison of product users and non-users on emotional, conceptual, situational, conative and psychographic variables. Food Res. Int. 2021, 144, 110363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reyes-Jurado, F.; Soto-Reyes, N.; Dávila-Rodríguez, M.; Lorenzo-Leal, A.C.; Jiménez-Munguía, M.T.; Mani-López, E.; López-Malo, A. Plant-Based Milk Alternatives: Types, Processes, Benefits, and Characteristics. Food Rev. Int. 2021, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erhard, A.L.; Chin, E.R.; Chomak, E.R.; Erlendsdottir, E.Y.; Perez-Cueto, F.J.A.; Orlien, V. Exploratory study on purchase intention of vitamin D fortified drinks in Denmark, Iceland, and the UK. Int. J. Gastron. Food Sci. 2020, 22, 100242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoek, A.C.; Luning, P.A.; Weijzen, P.; Engels, W.; Kok, F.J.; de Graaf, C. Replacement of meat by meat substitutes. A survey on person- and product-related factors in consumer acceptance. Appetite 2011, 56, 662–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Weinstein, A. Customer retention: A usage segmentation and customer value approach. J. Target. Meas. Anal. Mark. 2002, 10, 259–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Beacom, E.; Bogue, J.; Repar, L. Market-oriented Development of Plant-based Food and Beverage Products: A Usage Segmentation Approach. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2021, 27, 204–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bartlett, J.E.; Kotrlik, J.W.; Higgins, C.C. Organizational Research: Determining Appropriate Sample Size in Survey Research. Inf. Technol. Learn. Perform. J. 2001, 19, 43–50. [Google Scholar]
- Uprichard, E. Sampling: Bridging probability and non-probability designs. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2013, 16, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez-Padilla, E.; Li, K.; Frandsen, H.B.; Joehnke, M.S.; Vargas-Bello-Pérez, E.; Petersen, I.L. In vitro protein digestibility and fatty acid profile of commercial plant-based milk alternatives. Foods 2020, 9, 1784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- R Studio: Integrated Development Environment for R, Version 3.5.3. Computer Software. R Studio: Boston, MA, USA, 11 March 2019.
- Švecová, J.; Odehnalová, P. The determinants of consumer behaviour of students from Brno when purchasing organic food. J. Econ. Perspect. 2019, 9, 49–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Carrillo, E.; Varela, P.; Salvador, A.; Fiszman, S. Main Factors Underlying Consumers’ Food Choice: A First Step for the Understanding of Attitudes toward “Healthy Eating”. J. Sens. Stud. 2011, 26, 85–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miklavec, K.; Pravst, I.; Grunert, K.G.; Klopčič, M.; Poharl, J. The influence of health claims and nutritional composition on consumers’ yoghurt preferences. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 43, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ünal, S.; Deveci, F.G.; Yıldız, T. Do We Know Organic Food Consumers? The Personal and Social Determinants of Organic Food Consumption. Istanb. Bus. Res. 2019, 48, 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandmann, A.; Brown, J.; Mau, G.; Saur, M.; Amling, M.; Barvencik, F. Acceptance of vitamin D-fortified products in Germany—A representative consumer survey. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 43, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raji Lahiji, M.; Dehdari, T.; Shokouhi Shoormasti, R.; Hosseini, A.F.; Navaei, M.; Zarrati, M. Nutrition knowledge, attitudes, and practice towards breast cancer prevention among the female population of Iran University of medical science students. Nutr. Cancer 2019, 71, 1355–1364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hawley, K.L.; Roberto, C.A.; Bragg, M.A.; Liu, P.J.; Schwartz, M.B.; Brownell, K.D. The science on front-of-package food labels. Public Health Nutr. 2013, 16, 430–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Grunert, K.G.; Wills, J.M.; Fernández-Celemín, L. Nutrition knowledge, and use and understanding of nutrition information on food labels among consumers in the U.K. Appetite 2010, 55, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gregori, D.; Ballali, S.; Vögele, C.; Galasso, F.; Widhalm, K.; Berchialla, P.; Baldi, I. What Is the Value Given by Consumers to Nutritional Label Information? Results from a Large Investigation in Europe. J. Am. Coll. Nutr. 2015, 34, 120–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bech-Larsen, T.; Grunert, K.G. The perceived healthiness of functional foods: A conjoint study of Danish, Finnish and American consumers’ perception of functional foods. Appetite 2003, 40, 9–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jezewska-Zychowicz, M.; Królak, M. Do Consumers’ Attitudes Towards Food Technologies and Motives of Food Choice Influence Willingness to Eat Cereal Products Fortified with Fibre? Pol. J. Food Nutr. Sci. 2015, 64, 281–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nordic Council of Ministers. Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2012: Integrating Nutrition and Physical Activity, 5th ed.; Nordisk Ministerråd: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adamczyk, D.; Jaworska, D.; Affeltowicz, D.; Maison, D. Plant-Based Dairy Alternatives: Consumers’ Perceptions, Motivations, and Barriers—Results from a Qualitative Study in Poland, Germany, and France. Nutrients 2022, 14, 2171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kriwy, P.; Mecking, R.A. Health and environmental consciousness, costs of behaviour and the purchase of organic food. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2012, 36, 3037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Questionnaire Themes | Question Formulation | Response Options |
---|---|---|
Age | What is your age? | Numeric value |
Sex | Which is your birth-sex? | (a) Female (b) Male |
Educational level | What is your last finished education? | (a) Primary school (b) High school (c) Higher education up to 5 years (d) Higher education > 5 years |
Employment status | What is your employment status? | (a) Unemployed (b) Employed (c) Student (d) Retired |
Place of living | Do you live in the Area of Copenhagen? | (a) Yes (b) No |
Type of diet | Which of the following types of diets do you feel that best represents you? | (a) Omnivorous (b) Flexitarian (c) Vegetarian (d) Vegan |
Consumption of plant-based drinks | Do you consume plant-based drinks? (i.e., oat drink, almond drink, soy drink, rice drink) | (a) Yes (b) No |
Frequency of consumption | How often do you consume a glass of the following plant-based drinks: Oat drink Almond drink Soy drink Rice drink Other (i.e., hazelnut drink, coconut drink) | (a) Never (b) < 1 glass/week (c) 1–3 glasses/week (d) 4–6 glasses/week (e) 1 glass/day (f) >2 glasses/day |
Pattern of consumption | With what or how do you consume the following plant-based drinks (only choose those that you consume): Oat drink Almond drink Soy drink Rice drink Other (i.e., hazelnut drink, coconut drink) | (a) Alone (b) Coffee/ Tea (c) Breakfast (cereals, cookies) (d) Porridge (e) Other (cooking, baking) |
Attitudes toward PBMA | Do you think plant-based drinks: Are high-processed food? Are natural food? Are healthy? Are tasty? Are expensive? Are environmentally friendly? Are nutritionally equal to cow milk? Are nutritionally better than cow milk? | 7-point agreement scale from 1 “Strongly disagree” to 7 “Strongly agree” |
Perceive nutritional knowledge regarding PBMA | Do you consider plant-based drinks as: Source of protein Source of fat Source of fiber Source of vitamins Source of calcium | 7-point agreement scale from 1 “Strongly disagree” to 7 “Strongly agree” |
Source of information for PBMA | From which source(s) do you receive information regarding plant-based drinks? Social media (Facebook, Instagram, YouTube) Education Package labeling Friend/Family/Colleague Healthcare professional (i.e., dietitian, nutritionist) | Not at all To some extent To a great extent |
Consumers of PBMA (n = 171), n (%) | Non-Consumers of PBMA (n = 170), n (%) | ||
---|---|---|---|
Age, median (IQR) | 25 (22, 41) | 28 (24, 41) | |
Gender | Female | 140 (81.8) | 97 (57.1) |
Male | 31 (18.1) | 73 (42.9) | |
Education | Primary education | 11 (6.4) | 13 (7.6) |
High school | 58 (33.9) | 36 (21.2) | |
Higher education up to 5 years | 81 (47.3) | 93 (54.7) | |
Higher education more than 5 years | 21 (12.2) | 28 (57.1) | |
Work status | Employed | 61 (35.6) | 85 (50.0) |
Student | 97 (57.7) | 74 (43.3) | |
Unemployed | 12 (7.0) | 4 (2.3) | |
Retired | 1 (0.5) | 7 (4.1) | |
Copenhagen area | Yes | 122 (71.3) | 129 (75.8) |
No | 49 (28.8) | 41 (24.1) | |
Dietary pattern | Omnivorous | 83 (48.5) | 145 (85.2) |
Flexitarian | 58 (33.9) | 24 (14.1) | |
Vegetarian | 21 (12.2) | 1 (0.6) | |
Vegan | 9 (5.2) | 0 (0.0) |
Perceptions toward PBMA 2 | Consumers of PBMA (n = 171) | Non-Consumers of PBMA (n = 170) | p-Value 3 |
---|---|---|---|
Are high-processed products | 3.89 ± 1.39 | 4.46 ± 1.16 | <0.001 |
Are natural products | 5.52 ± 1.10 | 4.73 ± 1.47 | <0.001 |
Are good for my health | 5.33 ± 1.05 | 4.27 ± 1.22 | <0.001 |
Are tasty | 5.40 ± 1.20 | 3.60 ± 1.43 | <0.001 |
Are expensive | 5.32 ± 1.27 | 5.35 ± 1.26 | 0.409 |
Are environmentally friendly | 4.24 ± 1.42 | 4.19 ± 1.41 | 0.354 |
Are artificial products | 2.84 ± 1.41 | 3.78 ± 1.47 | <0.001 |
Are nutritionally equal to cow-milk | 4.00 ± 1.51 | 3.48 ± 1.28 | <0.001 |
Are nutritionally better than cow-milk | 3.92 ± 1.41 | 3.52 ± 1.25 | <0.01 |
Are a source of protein | 4.72 ± 1.27 | 4.37 ± 1.19 | <0.01 |
Are a source of fat | 4.47 ± 1.39 | 4.2 ± 1.23 | <0.05 |
Are a source of fiber | 4.58 ± 1.38 | 4.59 ± 1.18 | 0.456 |
Are a source of vitamins | 4.76 ± 1.22 | 4.58 ± 1.19 | 0.080 |
Are a source of calcium | 4.52 ± 1.39 | 4.07 ± 1.26 | <0.001 |
Attitudes towards PBMA | Consumer of PBMA- Unadjusted | Consumer of PBMA- Adjusted 2 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OR 1 | 95% CI | p-Value | OR | 95% CI | p-Value | |
Are high-processed products | 0.71 | 0.59–0.84 | <0.001 | 0.76 | 0.61–0.93 | <0.010 |
Are natural products | 1.60 | 1.34–1.92 | <0.001 | 1.55 | 1.26–1.93 | <0.001 |
Are good for my health | 2.33 | 1.86–2.96 | <0.001 | 2.29 | 1.76–3.04 | <0.001 |
Are tasty | 2.77 | 2.24–3.53 | <0.001 | 2.54 | 2.02–3.29 | <0.001 |
Are expensive 3 | - | - | 0.819 | - | - | 0.295 |
Are environmentally friendly 3 | - | - | 0.708 | - | - | 0.951 |
Are artificial products | 0.67 | 0.57–0.78 | <0.001 | 0.73 | 0.61–0.87 | <0.001 |
Are nutritionally equal to milk | 1.30 | 1.11–1.53 | <0.001 | 1.38 | 1.14–1.69 | <0.01 |
Are nutritionally better than milk | 1.26 | 1.07–1.50 | <0.01 | - | - | 0.128 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Martínez-Padilla, E.; Faber, I.; Petersen, I.L.; Vargas-Bello-Pérez, E. Perceptions toward Plant-Based Milk Alternatives among Young Adult Consumers and Non-Consumers in Denmark: An Exploratory Study. Foods 2023, 12, 385. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12020385
Martínez-Padilla E, Faber I, Petersen IL, Vargas-Bello-Pérez E. Perceptions toward Plant-Based Milk Alternatives among Young Adult Consumers and Non-Consumers in Denmark: An Exploratory Study. Foods. 2023; 12(2):385. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12020385
Chicago/Turabian StyleMartínez-Padilla, Eliana, Ilona Faber, Iben Lykke Petersen, and Einar Vargas-Bello-Pérez. 2023. "Perceptions toward Plant-Based Milk Alternatives among Young Adult Consumers and Non-Consumers in Denmark: An Exploratory Study" Foods 12, no. 2: 385. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12020385
APA StyleMartínez-Padilla, E., Faber, I., Petersen, I. L., & Vargas-Bello-Pérez, E. (2023). Perceptions toward Plant-Based Milk Alternatives among Young Adult Consumers and Non-Consumers in Denmark: An Exploratory Study. Foods, 12(2), 385. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12020385