ABSTRACT
We investigated adolescents’ perceptions of meat alternatives and examined the relationships among their views on various types of these alternatives. A survey was conducted with 372 middle and high school students, focusing on their perceptions of 3 categories of meat alternatives: plant-based meats, edible insects, and cultured meats. The relationships among these perceptions were subsequently analyzed. Overall, 77.4% of respondents were aware of meat alternatives, and 38.7% reported having consumed them. Perception levels differed by category, with plant-based meats receiving the highest scores, followed by cultured meats and edible insects. Notably, perceptions across the different categories of meat alternatives were significantly correlated. These findings suggest that increasing awareness about meat alternatives—particularly through education—may help promote sustainable and healthy eating behaviors among adolescents.
-
Keywords: Meat alternatives; Sustainable development; Healthy diet; Perception; Adolescent
INTRODUCTION
Meat is a nutritious source of animal protein that is essential for growth, development, and recovery from illness. However, rising levels of meat consumption have been linked to weight gain and increased risk of obesity and chronic diseases. In particular, excessive consumption of red meat has been associated with a higher risk of cancer. Additionally, the livestock industry is responsible for approximately 16.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions and is considered a major contributor to the climate crisis. Ethical concerns regarding animal welfare and the environmental impact of meat consumption have emerged as significant social issues [
1]. Consequently, there is growing interest in various meat alternatives—such as plant-based products, edible insects, and cultured meat—as potential solutions to these health, ethical, and environmental challenges.
Plant-based meat alternatives are reported to have nutritional advantages over conventional meat as they are lower in saturated fat and cholesterol, higher in fiber and minerals, and typically made from legumes, grains, and vegetables [
2]. Studies have also reported that plant-based meat alternatives are lower in saturated fatty acids and higher in unsaturated fatty acids compared to animal-based alternatives [
3]. Edible insects are considered an environmentally sustainable protein source, requiring relatively low energy consumption and offering high production efficiency. Moreover, they are nutritionally rich in protein, minerals, and B vitamins [
4,
5]. Cultured meat has been explored as a novel, health-oriented food owing to the addition of beneficial ingredients such as omega-3 fatty acids [
6,
7].
To date, most research on meat alternatives has focused primarily on adult consumers [
8,
9,
10], with relatively minimal attention paid to adolescents. However, growing societal concerns regarding climate change, environmental sustainability, and food security highlight the need for educational strategies that encourage sustainable eating practices. Adolescence is a formative period during which dietary attitudes and behaviors are shaped, highlighting the importance of studying adolescents’ perceptions and acceptance of meat alternatives.
Perceptions of meat alternatives have been reported to vary based on an individual’s consumption experience. Many individuals have not yet consumed meat alternatives due to limited exposure, and their perceptions tend to improve following actual consumption [
11]. Consumer evaluations have also indicated that awareness of alternatives, such as cultured meats, edible insects, and plant-based meats, is relatively low, and these products are consumed less frequently than conventional meat. This lack of familiarity has been identified as a major barrier to consumer acceptance [
12]. Therefore, increasing awareness through early exposure and consumption of meat alternatives may enhance acceptance and promote sustainable eating behaviors. However, adolescents may be unfamiliar with or hold negative perceptions of meat alternatives due to limited information and exposure, highlighting the need for further research.
We aimed to assess adolescents’ experiences and perceptions of meat alternatives and examine the relationships among their views on different types of alternatives. Our findings aim to support future research that promotes meat alternatives as part of sustainable dietary practices.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study participants and period
This survey-based study was conducted between July 10 and 26, 2023, and targeted male and female students from 2 middle and high schools in Daejeon, Korea. The purpose and contents of this study were fully explained to school principal and homeroom teachers, who then conveyed the same information to students in each class. Students who agreed to participate were required to obtain parental consent and submit a signed consent form before participation. A total of 400 questionnaires were distributed, and responses were collected directly from the students. After excluding 28 questionnaires due to non-return or insincere responses, 372 valid responses were included in the final statistical analysis (response rate: 93.0%). This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Kongju National University (KNU_IRB_2023-28) and conducted in accordance with the approved research protocol.
Study contents
The questionnaire used in this study was adapted and refined based on those used in previous related studies [
13,
14]. It was finalized following a preliminary survey of 10 students (middle and high school) similar to the participants of this study, in June 2023. The survey consisted of 3 main sections: general characteristics, experience with meat alternatives, and perceptions of meat alternatives. General characteristics consisted of 6 items: gender, age, grade, height, weight, and family type. Height and weight data were used to calculate body mass index (BMI, kg/m
2).
Experience with meat alternatives was assessed through several items: (1) whether the respondent was aware of meat alternatives, (2) the source of that awareness (e.g., mass media such as TV, newspapers, or magazines; social media platforms such as Instagram or YouTube; related books; acquaintances such as family and friends; or nutritional education at school), (3) whether they had ever consumed meat alternatives and, if so, their reason for doing so (e.g., the belief that meat alternatives are healthier than conventional meat; taste preference; ethical, environmental, or religious reasons; and availability at school or home), and (4) reasons for not consuming meat alternatives (e.g., perceptions that meat alternatives are less healthy or tasty than conventional meat; high cost; lack of knowledge about where to purchase them; belief that they are not “real” meat; or other reasons). Perceptions of meat alternatives were assessed for 3 categories: plant-based meats, edible insects, and cultured meats. Participants responded to the following statements: “I know what meat alternatives are,” “Meat alternatives taste as good as regular meat,” “Meat alternatives smell as good as regular meat,” “Meat alternatives have the same texture as regular meat,” “Meat alternatives are good for my health,” “I can get all the protein I need from meat alternatives,” “Meat alternatives are good for the environment,” “Meat alternatives are good for animal welfare,” “Meat alternatives are a good substitute for meat,” and “I would eat meat alternatives instead of meat.” Responses were measured on a 5-point Likert scale (5 for “strongly agree,” 4 for “agree,” 3 for “neutral,” 2 for “disagree,” and 1 for “strongly disagree”), with higher scores reflecting more positive perceptions.
Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was conducted using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Means, standard deviations, and frequencies were calculated for participants’ general characteristics and their experiences with and perceptions of meat alternatives. Differences between male and female students were analyzed using independent samples t-tests for continuous variables and χ2 tests for categorical variables. Reliability analysis of the 10-item questionnaire assessing the perceptions of plant-based meats, edible insects, and cultured meats yielded Cronbach’s α values of 0.796, 0.839, and 0.906, respectively. According to Cortina (1993), Cronbach’s α between 0.7 and 0.9 is generally considered acceptable, indicating that the internal consistency of the items for each category of meat substitutes used in this study was reliable. Differences in perceptions across the 3 categories of meat alternatives were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance, followed by Duncan’s multiple-range test to assess significance. Pearson’s partial correlation analysis was used to examine the relationships among perceptions, adjusting for age, BMI, and family type. Statistical significance tests were performed at the p < 0.05 level.
RESULTS
General characteristics
The general characteristics of the participants are presented in
Table 1. Girls were significantly older than boys (14.7 vs. 13.7 years, p < 0.001), while boys had a significantly higher BMI (21.5 vs. 20.4 kg/m
2, p < 0.01). Family type also differed significantly by sex, with girls reporting a higher proportion of nuclear families and boys reporting a higher proportion of extended families (p < 0.05).
Table 1General characteristics of participants
Table 1
|
Variables |
Total (n = 372) |
Male (n = 230) |
Female (n = 142) |
t value (p value) |
|
Age (yr) |
14.1 ± 1.5 |
13.7 ± 1.6 |
14.7 ± 0.9 |
−7.08 (< 0.001) |
|
Body mass index (kg/m2) |
21.1 ± 3.7 |
21.5 ± 3.8 |
20.4 ± 3.4 |
2.65 (0.008) |
|
Family type |
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear |
287 (77.2) |
168 (73.0) |
119 (83.8) |
6.438 (0.040) |
|
Extended |
51 (13.7) |
39 (17.0) |
12 (8.5) |
|
Living alone |
34 (9.1) |
23 (10.0) |
11 (7.7) |
Experience with meat alternatives
Table 2 presents participants’ experiences with meat alternatives. Overall, 77.4% of students reported having heard of meat alternatives, with the most common sources of information being social media (39.2%) and mass media (34.7%). A total of 38.7% of respondents reported having consumed meat alternatives, with taste being the most commonly cited reason for consumption (34.7%). No significant sex-based differences were observed. Among those who had not consumed meat alternatives, boys most frequently cited health concerns as the primary reason (34.3%), while girls most commonly cited taste (28.7%). This difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05).
Table 2Experience with meat alternatives among participants
Table 2
|
Variables |
Criteria |
Total (n = 372) |
Male (n = 230) |
Female (n = 142) |
χ2 value (p value) |
|
Have you ever heard of meat alternatives? |
Yes |
288 (77.4) |
177 (77.0) |
111 (78.2) |
0.074 (0.786) |
|
No |
84 (22.6) |
53 (23.0) |
31 (21.8) |
|
What routes have you heard of meat alternatives? (n = 288) |
Mass media |
100 (34.7) |
63 (35.6) |
37 (33.6) |
1.437 (0.838) |
|
Social media |
113 (39.2) |
71 (40.1) |
42 (38.2) |
|
Books |
15 (5.2) |
9 (5.1) |
6 (5.5) |
|
Friends or family |
22 (7.6) |
11 (6.2) |
11 (10.0) |
|
Nutritional education |
38 (13.2) |
23 (13.0) |
15 (13.6) |
|
Experiences with eating meat alternatives |
Yes |
144 (38.7) |
96 (41.7) |
48 (33.8) |
2.331 (0.127) |
|
No |
228 (61.3) |
134 (58.3) |
94 (66.2) |
|
Reasons for eating (n = 144) |
School meals |
11 (7.6) |
10 (10.4) |
1 (2.1) |
8.003 (0.155)*
|
|
Home meals |
4 (2.8) |
4 (4.2) |
0 (0.0) |
|
Health |
4 (2.8) |
2 (2.1) |
2 (4.2) |
|
Taste |
50 (34.7) |
35 (36.5) |
15 (31.3) |
|
Vegetarian |
27 (18.8) |
18 (18.8) |
9 (18.8) |
|
Others |
48 (33.3) |
27 (28.1) |
21 (43.8) |
|
Reasons for not eating (n = 228) |
Rare place to purchase |
10 (4.4) |
8 (5.97) |
2 (2.1) |
11.227 (0.049)*
|
|
Taste |
64 (28.1) |
37 (27.6) |
27 (28.7) |
|
Not real meat |
3 (1.3) |
0 (0.0) |
3 (3.2) |
|
Health |
67 (29.4) |
46 (34.3) |
21 (22.3) |
|
Expensive cost |
23 (10.1) |
13 (9.7) |
10 (10.6) |
|
Others |
61 (26.8) |
30 (22.4) |
31 (33.0) |
Perception of meat alternatives
Table 3 presents the participants’ perceptions of the different categories of meat alternatives. The overall mean perception was 2.9 out of 5. Among all participants—including both male and female students—perceptions differed significantly by category in the following order: plant-based meat, cultured meat, and edible insects (p < 0.001). No significant sex-based differences were observed in perception scores.
Table 3Perception of meat alternatives among participants
Table 3
|
Variables |
Total meat alternatives |
Plant-based meats |
Edible insects |
Cultured meats |
F value (p value) |
|
I am well aware of the definition of meat alternatives |
2.7 ± 1.0 |
3.0 ± 1.1 |
2.7 ± 1.2 |
2.5 ± 1.2 |
|
|
I think meat alternatives taste as good as regular meat |
2.5 ± 0.7 |
2.6 ± 1.0 |
2.1 ± 0.9 |
2.8 ± 1.0 |
|
|
I think meat alternatives smell as good as regular meat |
2.5 ± 0.8 |
2.6 ± 1.0 |
2.1 ± 0.9 |
2.8 ± 1.0 |
|
|
I think meat alternatives have as good texture as regular meat |
2.5 ± 1.0 |
2.5 ± 1.0 |
2.1 ± 1.0 |
2.7 ± 1.0 |
|
|
I think meat alternatives are beneficial to health |
3.3 ± 0.8 |
3.6 ± 0.9 |
3.3 ± 1.1 |
3.1 ± 0.9 |
|
|
I think I can get enough protein that I need with meat alternatives |
3.3 ± 0.8 |
3.4 ± 1.0 |
3.3 ± 1.1 |
3.2 ± 1.0 |
|
|
I think meat alternatives are beneficial to the environment |
3.6 ± 0.8 |
3.8 ± 0.9 |
3.5 ± 1.0 |
3.4 ± 1.0 |
|
|
I believe that meat alternatives are beneficial to animal welfare |
3.5 ± 0.8 |
3.9 ± 0.9 |
3.3 ± 1.1 |
3.4 ± 1.0 |
|
|
I think meat alternatives can replace regular meat |
2.7 ± 0.9 |
2.9 ± 1.1 |
2.3 ± 1.1 |
2.9 ± 1.1 |
|
|
I am willing to eat meat alternatives instead of regular meat |
2.5 ± 0.9 |
2.8 ± 1.1 |
2.1 ± 1.1 |
2.6 ± 1.2 |
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total participants (n = 372) |
2.9 ± 0.6 |
3.1 ± 0.6a
|
2.7 ± 0.7c
|
2.9 ± 0.8b
|
35.17 (< 0.001) |
|
Male (n = 230) |
2.9 ± 0.6 |
3.1 ± 0.6a
|
2.7 ± 0.7c
|
2.9 ± 0.8b
|
19.93 (< 0.001) |
|
Female (n = 142) |
2.9 ± 0.5 |
3.1 ± 0.5a
|
2.7 ± 0.76b
|
3.0 ± 0.7a
|
17.52 (< 0.001) |
|
t value (p value) |
0.17 (0.868) |
1.10 (0.274) |
0.63 (0.530) |
−1.06 (0.291) |
|
Correlations among perceptions of meat alternatives
Table 4 presents the results of correlation analyses examining the relationships among perceptions of different categories of meat alternatives, adjusted for participants’ age, BMI, and family type. Significant positive correlations (p < 0.001) were observed among perceptions of all 3 categories of meat alternatives across the total sample.
Table 4Correlations between the perceptions of meat alternatives in participants
Table 4
|
Variables |
Plant-based meats |
Edible insects |
Cultured meats |
|
Total participants |
|
|
|
|
Total meat alternatives |
0.83 (< 0.001) |
0.84 (< 0.001) |
0.86 (< 0.001) |
|
Plant-based meats |
- |
0.60 (< 0.001) |
0.57 (< 0.001) |
|
Edible insects |
- |
- |
0.54 (< 0.001) |
|
Male |
|
|
|
|
Total meat alternatives |
0.82 (< 0.001) |
0.84 (< 0.001) |
0.85 (< 0.001) |
|
Plant-based meats |
- |
0.60 (< 0.001) |
0.53 (< 0.001) |
|
Edible insects |
- |
- |
0.52 (< 0.001) |
|
Female |
|
|
|
|
Total meat alternatives |
0.86 (< 0.001) |
0.84 (< 0.001) |
0.88 (< 0.001) |
|
Plant-based meats |
- |
0.60 (< 0.001) |
0.67 (< 0.001) |
|
Edible insects |
- |
- |
0.58 (< 0.001) |
DISCUSSION
This study analyzed and correlated adolescents’ perceptions of meat alternatives—plant-based meats, edible insects, and cultured meats—given that adolescence is a critical developmental stage in which promoting sustainable and healthy eating behaviors is particularly important. Our key finding was that while approximately 80% of participants were aware of meat alternatives, only approximately 35% had actually consumed them. Ko et al. [
15] reported that individuals who are more concerned about environmental preservation tend to hold positive attitudes toward the environment and intentions to purchase environmentally friendly products—particularly when they believe their actions will have an effective outcome. However, even among individuals with strong environmental concerns, their actions may be limited if they feel that their efforts will not have a significant impact on the environment [
16]. Similarly, Park and Yoo [
17] found that meat consumption did not decline despite increased awareness of its environmental impact. In our study, participants exhibited relatively high awareness of meat alternatives but low levels of consumption—which is consistent with previous studies. These findings highlight the need for nutritional education that not only introduces meat alternatives but also strengthens adolescents’ understanding of the health and environmental implications of meat consumption. Ideally, such education should begin in early childhood and continue into adolescence.
In this study, the perception of meat alternatives was highest for plant-based meat (mean score: 3.1 out of 5, 62%), followed by cultured meat (2.9) and edible insects (2.7), with no significant sex-based difference observed. A previous study on adults’ perceptions of edible insects [
18] revealed that men were more familiar with edible insects than women. Similarly, Lee [
19] reported that awareness of plant-based meat alternatives was higher among boys than girls. However, these studies differ from ours, which assessed positive perceptions based on knowledge of alternative foods, rather than familiarity alone.
When evaluating the perceived value of each meat substitute across 10 detailed items, plant-based meat had the highest perceived value, surpassing that of edible insects and cultured meat in aspects related to health, the environment, and animal welfare. However, the perceived values of taste, smell, and texture were all rated below 3. Han et al. [
20] reported that taste is a primary factor influencing the purchase of plant-based meats and that unfavorable taste and texture are key reasons for avoidance. Similarly, Park et al. [
4] reported that plant-based meats are often negatively perceived due to unfavorable taste, odor, and texture, which supports the results of our study. These results highlight the need to enhance the taste, odor, and texture of plant-based meats to increase acceptance among adolescents.
Among the various categories of meat substitutes, edible insects had the lowest level of awareness among participants, particularly regarding taste, odor, texture, and willingness to consume (42%). Park and Choi [
18] found that women were less likely to try edible insects, while Jung et al. [
21] reported significantly greater willingness among men. These results contrast with ours, which found no significant sex-based differences in perception of edible insects. The high rejection rate of edible insects is likely due to the unappetizing appearance, which strongly influences consumer response [
22]. Additionally, individuals who have never consumed edible insects tend to have a greater negative perception than those with prior experience [
18]. Therefore, to improve adolescents’ perceptions of edible insects, it may be beneficial to process these products in ways that minimize visual cues associated with insects as this could help reduce rejection and increase acceptance and consumption.
Some studies suggest that consumers may perceive cultured meat as similar to genetically modified foods despite it not involving artificial genetic engineering. This misconception could contribute to increased resistance to its consumption [
23]. Individuals concerned about genetically modified foods are less likely to purchase cultured meat [
24], highlighting the need for proper nutritional education about its production process. As cultured meat has not yet been commercialized, few participants had consumed it, and their overall understanding and information about it was limited. In our study, cultured meat also had the lowest recognition as a meat alternative. Park [
25] reported that intention to consume cultured meat was low—even when compared to other meat substitutes with similar palatability (taste, odor, texture, etc.)—which he attributed to concerns about its novelty and perceived instability. Moreover, after being educated about the perception and definition of cultured meat, individuals perceived it more positively than that prior to education, and their preference increased when cultured meat was labeled with a food certification label [
26]. Therefore, improving adolescents’ perception of cultured meat through targeted education and awareness initiatives may help increase acceptance and reduce misconceptions.
Park et al. [
4] reported that health-conscious consumers were more willing to pay for plant-based meat alternatives. They attributed this to a virtuous circle in which the perception that meat alternatives are healthier than conventional meat encourages increased consumption of meat alternatives to improve health. When we analyzed the relevance of the perceptions of meat alternatives among adolescent participants, all 3 categories exhibited significantly positive correlations, suggesting that perceptions of meat alternatives are interrelated. These findings suggest that individualized education and exposure to each category of meat alternatives may enhance overall perception and consumption, ultimately leading to more sustainable and health-conscious dietary behaviors.
There are several limitations for generalizing the results of this study. First, as a cross-sectional survey, it cannot establish causal relationships between the perception of meat alternatives and related factors. Second, participants were recruited from a limited geographic area in Korea (Daejeon), which may restrict generalizability. Finally, this study did not investigate or adjust for various confounding variables beyond gender, age, BMI, and family type, which may have influenced the observed associations among perceptions of different types of meat substitutes. Nevertheless, this study is significant for its focus on adolescents—a population for which limited research exists on the perception of meat substitutes—and for identifying significant correlations between the perceptions of different categories of meat alternatives. Further research is needed to investigate additional factors influencing adolescents’ consumption of meat alternatives and to promote positive consumption behaviors.
CONCLUSION
In this study, 77% of adolescents were familiar with meat alternatives, but only approximately 35% had consumed them. Participants’ perceptions of meat alternatives averaged approximately 60%, with the highest levels observed for plant-based meats, followed by cultured meats and edible insects. Additionally, significant positive correlations were observed among perceptions across all categories. These findings suggest that providing tailored education and practical exposure to each type of meat alternative may enhance adolescents’ awareness and willingness to consume them. Such efforts could contribute to the adoption of more sustainable and healthier eating behaviors.
NOTES
-
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
-
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization: Choi MK.
Formal analysis: Lyum BY, Han SR, Choi M, Choi MK.
Investigation: Lyum BY.
Methodology: Lyum BY, Choi MK.
Supervision: Choi MK.
Writing - original draft: Lyum BY, Han SR, Choi M.
Writing - review & editing: Lyum BY, Han SR, Choi M, Choi MK.
REFERENCES
- 1. Jung MK, Lee YG, Choi JY. Environmental impact of livestock industry: analysis and policy tasks. Naju: Korea Rural Economic Institute; 2021.
- 2. Lee SY, Kim JH, Hur SJ. Current status and technologies of alternative foods in Korea and abroad. Inst Agric Life Sci 2023;12:59-72.
- 3. Jeong IS, Kim JJ, Lee JM, Lee DH, Kim SG, et al. Comparison of the nutritional characteristics of plant-based alternative meat products and processed animal meat products sold Korea. J Korean Soc Food Sci Nutr 2023;52:276-290.
- 4. Park MS, Park SH, Lee YS. Current status and challenges of alternative foods. Naju: Korea Rural Economic Institute; 2020.
- 5. Jang YH, Jeon JS, Lee SH, Choi YM, Choung MG. Evaluation of the vitamin B content of edible insects. J Korean Soc Food Sci Nutr 2022;51:1223-1231.
- 6. Amin SE, Qazi ZA, Karim A, Masood S, Soomro MB, et al. Identification of lab grown meat and its nutritional impacts on human health. Vet Res (Faisalabad) 2021;14:34-39.
- 7. Jeong JY, Jo CH. The application of meat substitutes and ingredients for meat and processed meat industry. Korean J Food Sci Anim Resour 2018;7:2-11.
- 8. Zhao Y, Oh JE, Cho MS. A cross-cultural study of influence factors of meat substitutes between Korea and China. J Korean Soc Food Cult 2020;35:440-449.
- 9. Salomé M, Mariotti F, Dussiot A, Kesse-Guyot E, Huneau JF, et al. Plant-based meat substitutes are useful for healthier dietary patterns when adequately formulated - an optimization study in French adults (INCA3). Eur J Nutr 2023;62:1891-1901.
- 10. White SK, Ballantine PW, Ozanne LK. Consumer adoption of plant-based meat substitutes: a network of social practices. Appetite 2022;175:106037.
- 11. Choi SI, Kim JE, Kong YB, Park JH, Lee HM. The consumption, perception, and sensory evaluation of soy meat by university students majoring in food and nutrition. J Korean Diet Assoc 2022;28:267-280.
- 12. Shim JY, Yong KM, Jo HR, Kim JH, Choe WS, et al. A study on consumer preference and market segmentation of meat substitute food. J Korea Acad Ind Coop Soc 2024;25:552-567.
- 13. Kang EJ. A Survey on menu preference and satisfaction regarding the vegetarian diet day of school food service among higher grade elementary school children in Jeju area [master's thesis]. Jeju: Jeju National University; 2015.
- 14. Koo YM. Effect of health interest on the experience and awareness of vegetarianism and soybean meat, and the mediating effect of nutrition knowledge [master's thesis]. Seoul: Yonsei University; 2021.
- 15. Ko HJ, Lee HJ, Song BH. Impact of public perception of environmental issues on environmental satisfaction and pro-environmental behavior: the moderated mediating effect of environmental information. J Fut Soc 2024;15:105-121.
- 16. Jekria N, Daud S. Environmental concern and recycling behaviour. Procedia Econ Finance 2016;35:667-673.
- 17. Park ME, Yoo SE. A study of consumer characteristics and climate-friendly food consumption behavior classified by food-related lifestyle. Korean J Community Living Sci 2016;27:351-369.
- 18. Park ES, Choi MK. Recognition, purchase, and consumption of edible insects in Korean adults. J Nutr Health 2020;53:190-202.
- 19. Lee SS. Awareness of meat consumption and alternative foods according to sustainable dietary habits. J Korean Pract Arts Educ 2022;35:101-124.
- 20. Han JH, Ryu JH, Lim HS, Kim SA. Consumers purchase intention toward soy meat and possible factors for consumption extension. J Korean Reg Econ 2023;21:75-94.
- 21. Jung JH, Lim BG, Bae SJ. Study on consumers’ perception of edible insect foods. J Korean Soc Food Cult 2018;33:558-566.
- 22. Kim YJ, Park YG. The insects industry and promotion policy. Naju: Rural Economic Institute; 2016.
- 23. Lee JM, Kim YR. Alternative livestock products development trends and implications. Naju: Korea Rural Economic Research Institute; 2018.
- 24. Ahn DH. Development and change of alternative meat. Food Ind Nutr 2019;24:1-6.
- 25. Park GH. The effect of consumption value on attitude and purchase intention of future alternative foods [master's thesis]. Daejeon: Woosong University; 2021.
- 26. Ahn SH, Hwang JH. The effects of consumers’ perceived benefits of meat alternatives on trust and purchase intention. 2020;23:49-75.
