Sustainability Perception of Italian Consumers: Is it Possible to Replace Meat, and What Is the Best Alternative?

Vittoria Aureli, Alessandra Nardi, Nadia Palmieri, Daniele Peluso, Jacopo Niccolò Di Veroli, Umberto Scognamiglio, Laura Rossi
Author Information
  1. Vittoria Aureli: CREA Council for Agricultural Research and Economics-Research Centre for Food and Nutrition, 00178 Rome, Italy.
  2. Alessandra Nardi: Department of Mathematics, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", 00133 Rome, Italy.
  3. Nadia Palmieri: CREA Council for Agricultural Research and Economics-Research Centre for Engineering and Agro-Food Processing, 00015 Monterotondo, Italy. ORCID
  4. Daniele Peluso: Department of Biology, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", 00133 Rome, Italy.
  5. Jacopo Niccolò Di Veroli: CREA Council for Agricultural Research and Economics-Research Centre for Food and Nutrition, 00178 Rome, Italy.
  6. Umberto Scognamiglio: CREA Council for Agricultural Research and Economics-Research Centre for Food and Nutrition, 00178 Rome, Italy. ORCID
  7. Laura Rossi: CREA Council for Agricultural Research and Economics-Research Centre for Food and Nutrition, 00178 Rome, Italy. ORCID

Abstract

Growing worldwide food demand with its environmental impacts requires a reshaping of food consumption. This study aims to evaluate the degree of Italian consumers' awareness of sustainability and whether protein alternatives to meat could be accepted. A cross-sectional survey was carried out on a group of 815 respondents, representative of the Italian adult population for geography, gender, and age, using multivariate analysis together with cluster analysis. Lack of awareness of the consequences of food choices on the environment was found in 45% of respondents, and 51% reduced their consumption of meat. Typical foods of the Mediterranean diet (84% legumes 82% eggs, and 77% fish) were selected as the preferred sources of protein to replace meat, while insects and insect-based products were less accepted (67%). The importance of meat is the latent factor that explains more than 50% of the common variance observed in the factor analysis. The cluster analysis confirmed the importance of meat for Italian consumers, emphasizing other aspects of the sustainability of food choices. Cluster 1 (25.6%) considered meat very important. Two out of five clusters (clusters 2 and 3, 38%) considered meat replaceable in the diet, and cluster 4 (31.3%) included meat consumers that were willing to be sustainable. Cluster 5 identifies the "unsustainable consumers" (5.7%). In conclusion, besides the perceived importance of meat, there is room for recommendations for its reduction by proposing alternative foods already present in the Mediterranean diet.

Keywords

References

  1. Proc Nutr Soc. 2017 Feb;76(1):1-11 [PMID: 28195528]
  2. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2017 Mar 4;57(4):782-789 [PMID: 25942290]
  3. Meat Sci. 2012 Sep;92(1):71-7 [PMID: 22560481]
  4. Nat Food. 2021 Apr;2(4):282-290 [PMID: 37118460]
  5. Sci Total Environ. 2018 Dec 10;644:77-94 [PMID: 29981520]
  6. Science. 2018 Jun 1;360(6392):987-992 [PMID: 29853680]
  7. Lancet. 2019 Feb 2;393(10170):447-492 [PMID: 30660336]
  8. Meat Sci. 2014 Nov;98(3):361-71 [PMID: 25017317]
  9. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Sep 1;180(9):1173-1184 [PMID: 32658243]
  10. J Am Heart Assoc. 2015 Oct 27;4(10):e002408 [PMID: 26508743]
  11. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2017 Mar 24;57(5):923-932 [PMID: 25898027]
  12. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2020 Jun 25;30(7):1094-1105 [PMID: 32451273]
  13. Nat Food. 2020 Jun;1(6):343-350 [PMID: 37128090]
  14. Sci Rep. 2022 Jul 29;12(1):13062 [PMID: 35906384]
  15. Nutrients. 2022 Dec 01;14(23): [PMID: 36501146]
  16. Nat Med. 2022 Oct;28(10):2001-2002 [PMID: 36216937]
  17. Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2018 Oct;28(7):437-441 [PMID: 29496410]
  18. Nature. 2022 May;605(7908):90-96 [PMID: 35508780]
  19. Appetite. 2008 Mar-May;50(2-3):207-14 [PMID: 17604876]
  20. Foods. 2022 Aug 30;11(17): [PMID: 36076814]
  21. Appetite. 2017 Jan 1;108:117-131 [PMID: 27686818]
  22. Front Nutr. 2022 Nov 10;9:1016858 [PMID: 36438730]
  23. Adv Nutr. 2016 Nov 15;7(6):1005-1025 [PMID: 28140320]
  24. Front Nutr. 2022 Mar 25;9:861526 [PMID: 35399680]
  25. Meat Sci. 2010 Sep;86(1):214-26 [PMID: 20579814]
  26. Appetite. 2013 Mar;62:7-16 [PMID: 23195711]
  27. Appetite. 2000 Jun;34(3):277-83 [PMID: 10888291]
  28. Nutrients. 2017 Aug 09;9(8): [PMID: 28792455]
  29. Appetite. 2016 Jan 1;96:487-493 [PMID: 26476397]
  30. NPJ Sci Food. 2021 Jun 3;5(1):17 [PMID: 34083539]
  31. NPJ Sci Food. 2019 Jun 4;3:10 [PMID: 31304282]
  32. Appetite. 2011 Dec;57(3):674-82 [PMID: 21896294]
  33. Appetite. 2001 Aug;37(1):15-26 [PMID: 11562154]
  34. Sci Rep. 2020 Feb 25;10(1):3416 [PMID: 32098982]
  35. BMJ. 2020 Jul 22;370:m2412 [PMID: 32699048]
  36. Nat Commun. 2020 Dec 8;11(1):6276 [PMID: 33293564]
  37. Public Health Nutr. 2015 Sep;18(13):2446-56 [PMID: 25766000]
  38. Appetite. 2005 Apr;44(2):195-205 [PMID: 15808894]
  39. Front Nutr. 2022 Nov 10;9:1035142 [PMID: 36438776]
  40. Appetite. 2023 Feb 1;181:106388 [PMID: 36414148]
  41. Public Health Nutr. 2018 Oct;21(14):2714-2722 [PMID: 29759096]
  42. Altern Ther Health Med. 2016 Sep;22(5):32-6 [PMID: 27622958]
  43. Nat Food. 2022 Jan;3(1):29-37 [PMID: 37118487]
  44. Nutr Rev. 2017 Jan;75(1):2-17 [PMID: 27974596]
  45. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Apr 12;113(15):4146-51 [PMID: 27001851]

Grants

  1. Nos. 23278-27 and 12.2019/the project FAOWASTE: "Food waste in Italy: International policies and measurements"

MeSH Term

Animals
Cross-Sectional Studies
Meat
Eggs
Cluster Analysis
Perception

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0meatfoodItaliananalysissustainabilityclusterdietimportanceconsumptionawarenessproteinacceptedrespondentschoicesfoodsMediterraneanfactorconsumersClusterconsideredclusters5recommendationsalternativeGrowingworldwidedemandenvironmentalimpactsrequiresreshapingstudyaimsevaluatedegreeconsumers'whetheralternativescross-sectionalsurveycarriedgroup815representativeadultpopulationgeographygenderageusingmultivariatetogetherLackconsequencesenvironmentfound45%51%reducedTypical84%legumes82%eggs77%fishselectedpreferredsourcesreplaceinsectsinsect-basedproductsless67%latentexplains50%commonvarianceobservedconfirmedemphasizingaspects1256%importantTwofive2338%replaceable4313%includedwillingsustainableidentifies"unsustainableconsumers"7%conclusionbesidesperceivedroomreductionproposingalreadypresentSustainabilityPerceptionConsumers:PossibleReplaceMeatBestAlternative?Italyconsumers’behaviordietary

Similar Articles

Cited By