Zaleskiewicz, H., Kulis, E., Siwa, M., Szczuka, Z., Banik, A., Grossi, F., Chrysochou, P., Nystrand, B. T., Perrea, T., Samoggia, A.,
Xhelili, A., Krystallis, A., & Luszczynska, A. (2024a). Characteristics of built food environments associated with alternative
protein food choices: A systematic review. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity , 21(1).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-024-01606-6
Grant funded publication
Background
This systematic review contributes to the understanding of the characteristics of built food environments that may be associated with choices of alternative protein foods (APF).
Using the built food environment typology proposed by Downs et al., we investigated various environmental structures (e.g., supermarkets, other retailers, farmers’ markets,
restaurants, schools, and online vendors) and the characteristics that may facilitate or hinder consumers’ choices. For example, facilitators and barriers may refer to the
physical characteristics of environmental structures, food presentation practices, the organizational strategies or policies operating in the setting, or the actions that
retailers or consumers engage in while selling, serving, choosing, trying, or purchasing APF in these environmental structures.
Methods
A systematic review (PROSPERO database preregistration; no. CRD42023388700) was conducted by searching 13 databases for peer-reviewed journals
focusing on the fields of economics and business, agriculture, medical sciences, and social sciences. Data searches, coding, and quality evaluations
were conducted by at least 2 researchers. A total of 31 papers (36 original studies) were included. The risk of bias was evaluated with the Joanna Briggs Institute
quality evaluation tool, with 24 publications presenting low risk of bias.
Results
The findings indicate that perceived and actual availability facilitate consumers’ APF choices across a built food environment. Several barriers/facilitators
were associated with APF choices in specific types of built food environments: the way food is presented in produce sections (supermarkets), consumer habits in
terms of green and specialty shopping (grocery stores), and mismatches among retailer actions in regard to making APF available in one type of food environment
structure (e-commerce) and consumers’ preferences for APF being available in other food environment structures (supermarkets, grocery stores). The effect of a
barrier/facilitator may depend on the APF type; for example, social norms regarding masculinity were a barrier affecting plant-based APF choices in restaurants, but these
norms were not a barrier affecting the choice of insect-based APF in restaurants.
Conclusions
Addressing barriers/facilitators identified in this review will help in developing environment-matching interventions that aim to make alternative proteins mainstream.
Zaleskiewicz, H., Kulis, E., Siwa, M., Szczuka, Z., Banik, A., Grossi, F., Chrysochou, P., Nystrand, B. T., Perrea, T., Samoggia, A., Xhelili, A.,
Krystallis, A., & Luszczynska, A. (2024b). Geographical context of European consumers’ choices of alternative protein food: A systematic review.
Food Quality and Preference 117.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2024.105174
Grant funded publication
This review synthesizes empirical evidence for the associations between alternative protein food (APF) choices and geographical context factors, including
differences and similarities between consumers from various European countries, rural versus urban environments, and the “local” attribute of APF. The
preregistered systematic review (PROSPERO repository, no. CRD42023388700) was conducted in 13 databases with 25 original studies being included. The
risk of bias was evaluated using Joanna Briggs Institute quality evaluation tools.
The findings indicate that across consumers from European countries, levels of intention to eat, try, and buy APF are low-to-moderate. Patterns of APF
consumers’ choices differed between Northern Europe (Denmark, Finland), Southern Europe (Italy, Spain), and Eastern Europe (Poland, Czech Republic).
For example, Danish consumers have positive attitudes but relatively low intention to eat plant-based APF. In turn, Polish consumers have lower levels of
knowledge and low readiness to shift dietary patterns toward APF intake compared to Western European consumers (e.g., Germany). Italian consumers have a
lower acceptance of insect-based APF than consumers from Western or Northern European countries (e.g., Belgium, Denmark). Our findings do not support
rural–urban differences. Finally, perceiving an APF product as local may increase the likelihood of APF choice by European consumers. Our review provides
preliminary insights into differences among consumers inhabiting European countries, suggesting the use of different messages to promote APF intake across Europe.
Systematic research comparing countries across Europe is needed to verify the consistency of geographical differences.
Zaleskiewicz, H., Siwa, M., Banik, A., Szczuka, Z., Kulis, E., Grossi, F., Chrysochou, P., Nystrand, B. T., Perrea, T.,
Samoggia, A., Xhelili, A., Krystallis, A., & Luszczynska, A. (2024c). Psychosocial determinants of alternative protein choices: a meta-review.
Health Psychology Review 191, 97-102.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2024.2412630
Grant funded publication
This meta-review synthesises evidence concerning individual-level psychosocial characteristics associated with alternative protein food (APF) choices.
We investigated the associations between: (i) individual-level determinants based on the COM-B model (capabilities, perceived opportunities, motivation),
sociodemographic factors, and (ii) indicators of APF choices (e.g., intention to eat, buy, pay, acceptance, intake). Differences in characteristics of APF
made from plants, insects, mushrooms, and other APF sources were explored. Thirteen databases were searched in this pre-registered (CRD42023388694)
meta-review and 28 reviews were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the ROBIS tool. For plant-based APF choices, consistent support was obtained
for associations with (i) capabilities, including cooking skills, exposure to/familiarity with APF; (ii) motivations, including perceived health-related,
pro-environmental, and sustainability benefits, and animal welfare; (iii) younger age and higher education. For insect-based APF choices, consistent support
was obtained for (i) capabilities, including formal knowledge about APF, exposure to/familiarity with APF; (ii) perceived opportunities, encompassing positive
social and cultural norms, distrust in technology; (iii) motivations, including perceived health benefits, pro-environmental and sustainability benefits, perceived
health risks, being adventurous/daring, curiosity, neophilia, disgust; (iv) male gender and younger age. Recognising differences in potential determinants across
various APF sources is essential for designing interventions aimed at promoting APF uptake.