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

Weijun Liu, Zhipeng Hao, Wojciech J. Florkowski, Linhai Wu and Zhengyong Yang
Additional contact information
Weijun Liu: College of Economics and Management, Shanghai Ocean University, 999 Huchenghuan Road, Shanghai 201306, China
Zhipeng Hao: College of Economics and Management, Shanghai Ocean University, 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

Agriculture, 2022, vol. 12, issue 5, 1-19

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.

Keywords: meat substitutes; ethical risk; plant-based meat; cultured meat; consumer perceptions (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q1 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/12/5/671/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/12/5/671/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jagris:v:12:y:2022:i:5:p:671-:d:811006

Access Statistics for this article

Agriculture is currently edited by Ms. Leda Xuan

More articles in Agriculture from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().