IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v12y2022i5p671-d811006.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assuring Food Security: Consumers’ Ethical Risk Perception of Meat Substitutes

Author

Listed:
  • Weijun Liu

    (College of Economics and Management, Shanghai Ocean University, 999 Huchenghuan Road, Shanghai 201306, China
    Shanghai Social Survey Center, Shanghai Ocean University Branch, 999 Huchenghuan Road, Shanghai 201306, China)

  • Zhipeng Hao

    (College of Economics and Management, Shanghai Ocean University, 999 Huchenghuan Road, Shanghai 201306, China
    Shanghai Social Survey Center, Shanghai Ocean University Branch, 999 Huchenghuan Road, Shanghai 201306, China)

  • Wojciech J. Florkowski

    (Department of Agricultural & Applied Economics, University of Georgia, 1109 Experiment Street, 212 Stuckey, Griffin, GA 30223-1797, USA)

  • Linhai Wu

    (Institute of Food Safety Risk Management, Jiangnan University, Wuxi 214122, China)

  • Zhengyong Yang

    (College of Economics and Management, Shanghai Ocean University, 999 Huchenghuan Road, Shanghai 201306, China
    Shanghai Social Survey Center, Shanghai Ocean University Branch, 999 Huchenghuan Road, Shanghai 201306, China)

Abstract

The world’s growing population requires an adequate supply of protein to maintain food security, but animal protein production is limited by the finite resources of land, fresh water, and ocean capacity. Several meat substitutes offer protein alternatives that may improve food security in less-developed economies. However, perceptions of difference in the ethical risk associated with consumption of plant-based substitutes (PM) vs. cultured meat (CM) may affect purchases of these products. This study examined differences in ethical risk perception using online survey data gathered in 2020. An ordered logit technique yielded the probabilities of changes in ethical risk perception influenced by demographic attributes, views about the technology, and adequacy of industry regulations. The results show that consumers associated PM with low ethical risk. Educated consumers were more likely to agree that the ethical risks of CM are higher than PM and to regard PM products as safer than CM. Price sensitivity made consumers more likely to agree that the ethical risks related to CM are higher than those related to PM. Ingredient safety concerns increased the ethical risk perception of CM. Consumers perceiving the meat substitute classification to be unclear were more likely to assign a higher ethical risk to CM than PM. The perception of ethical risk associated with CM was greater than that associated with PM if meat substitute industry regulations were inadequate. The results suggest a need to provide verifiable information about each type of meat substitute as well as transparent and understandable standards and rules before these products can improve protein availability and food security.

Suggested Citation

  • Weijun Liu & Zhipeng Hao & Wojciech J. Florkowski & Linhai Wu & Zhengyong Yang, 2022. "Assuring Food Security: Consumers’ Ethical Risk Perception of Meat Substitutes," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-19, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:12:y:2022:i:5:p:671-:d:811006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/12/5/671/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/12/5/671/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aisha Egolf & Christina Hartmann & Michael Siegrist, 2019. "When Evolution Works Against the Future: Disgust's Contributions to the Acceptance of New Food Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(7), pages 1546-1559, July.
    2. Xingzhi Xiao & Yue Gao, 2017. "An event study of the effects of regulatory changes on the food industry," China Agricultural Economic Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 9(1), pages 81-92, February.
    3. Lucia Savadori & Stefania Savio & Eraldo Nicotra & Rino Rumiati & Melissa Finucane & Paul Slovic, 2004. "Expert and Public Perception of Risk from Biotechnology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1289-1299, October.
    4. Michaelidou, Nina & Micevski, Milena, 2019. "Consumers' ethical perceptions of social media analytics practices: Risks, benefits and potential outcomes," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 576-586.
    5. David Tilman & Michael Clark, 2014. "Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health," Nature, Nature, vol. 515(7528), pages 518-522, November.
    6. Greene,William H. & Hensher,David A., 2010. "Modeling Ordered Choices," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521194204.
    7. Van Loo, Ellen J. & Caputo, Vincenzina & Lusk, Jayson L., 2020. "Consumer preferences for farm-raised meat, lab-grown meat, and plant-based meat alternatives: Does information or brand matter?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    8. Reis, Germano Glufke & Heidemann, Marina Sucha & Borini, Felipe Mendes & Molento, Carla Forte Maiolino, 2020. "Livestock value chain in transition: Cultivated (cell-based) meat and the need for breakthrough capabilities," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Camelia Teodorescu & Marin Burcea & Ana-Irina Lequeux-Dincă & Florentina-Cristina Merciu & Adrian-Nicolae Jipa & Laurenţiu-Ştefan Szemkovics, 2023. "Swine Breeding in the Villages of Vâlcea County, Oltenia (Romania)—Tradition or Necessity?," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-31, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bazoche, Pascale & Guinet, Nicolas & Poret, Sylvaine & Teyssier, Sabrina, 2023. "Does the provision of information increase the substitution of animal proteins with plant-based proteins? An experimental investigation into consumer choices," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    2. Michael Siegrist & Joseph Árvai, 2020. "Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2191-2206, November.
    3. Septianto, Felix & Sung, Billy & Duong, Chien & Conroy, Denise, 2023. "Are two reasons better than one? How natural and ethical appeals influence consumer preferences for clean meat," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    4. Irene Blanco-Gutiérrez & Consuelo Varela-Ortega & Rhys Manners, 2020. "Evaluating Animal-Based Foods and Plant-Based Alternatives Using Multi-Criteria and SWOT Analyses," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-26, October.
    5. Castro, P. & Pedroso, R. & Lautenbach, S. & Vicens, R., 2020. "Farmland abandonment in Rio de Janeiro: Underlying and contributory causes of an announced development," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    6. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.
    7. Rami Al Sidawi & Teo Urushadze & Angelika Ploeger, 2020. "Changes in Dairy Products Value Chain in Georgia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-29, July.
    8. Birgit Kopainsky & Anita Frehner & Adrian Müller, 2020. "Sustainable and healthy diets: Synergies and trade‐offs in Switzerland," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(6), pages 908-927, November.
    9. An, Wookhyun & Alarcón, Silverio, 2021. "Rural tourism preferences in Spain: Best-worst choices," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    10. Stefan Boes, 2013. "Nonparametric analysis of treatment effects in ordered response models," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 81-109, February.
    11. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    12. William H. Greene & Mark N. Harris & Rachel J. Knott & Nigel Rice, 2021. "Specification and testing of hierarchical ordered response models with anchoring vignettes," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(1), pages 31-64, January.
    13. Adam A. Prag & Christian B. Henriksen, 2020. "Transition from Animal-Based to Plant-Based Food Production to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agriculture—The Case of Denmark," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-20, October.
    14. Mélody Leplat & Youenn Loheac & Eric Teillet, 2022. "Preferences & choices experiments with real products consumption: application with plant-based proteins," Post-Print hal-03932623, HAL.
    15. Hanna Dudek & Joanna Landmesser, 2012. "Income satisfaction and relative deprivation," Statistics in Transition new series, Główny Urząd Statystyczny (Polska), vol. 13(2), pages 321-334, June.
    16. Xavier Simon & Damián Copena & David Pérez-Neira, 2023. "Assessment of the diet-environment-health-cost quadrilemma in public school canteens. an LCA case study in Galicia (Spain)," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(11), pages 12543-12567, November.
    17. Das, Ujjwal & Das, Kalyan, 2018. "Inference on zero inflated ordinal models with semiparametric link," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 104-115.
    18. F. Castro-Llanos & G. Hyman & J. Rubiano & J. Ramirez-Villegas & H. Achicanoy, 2019. "Climate change favors rice production at higher elevations in Colombia," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 24(8), pages 1401-1430, December.
    19. Andrew Powell & Pilar Tavella, 2012. "Capital Inflow Surges in Emerging Economies: How Worried Should LAC Be?," Research Department Publications 4782, Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department.
    20. Kaili Wang & Sanjana Hossain & Khandker Nurul Habib, 2022. "A hybrid data fusion methodology for household travel surveys to reduce proxy biases and under-representation of specific sub-group of population," Transportation, Springer, vol. 49(6), pages 1801-1836, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:12:y:2022:i:5:p:671-:d:811006. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.