Attitudes of Nutrition and Dietetics Students towards Artificial Meat Consumption

Year 2023, , 80 - 89, 30.03.2023

Gözde Ede Halil Yalçın

https://doi.org/10.24323/akademik-gida.1274031

Abstract

Recently, interest in artificial meat has been increasing. However, there is no data from the literature on the perception of cultured meat in Turkey. The aim of this study is to determine the artificial meat consumption and future perspectives of undergraduate students studying in the department of nutrition and dietetics. In this study, 140 volunteer students living in Burdur (Turkey) participated in this study. The average age of the individuals was 21.2+2.80 years, 41.4% of them were sophomore students, and 75.7% were in the appropriate BMI classification. It was suggested that 44.3% of the individuals consumed meat at least once a week, 46.4% were not aware of the concept of artificial meat, 52.9% did not consider cultured meat edible, but 64.7% could consume it for trial purposes because of their curiosity. Only 15.0% of the individuals found artificial meat realistic, 63.5% of individuals thought that artificial meat was not healthy and safe compared to traditional meat, and 57.1% thought that the nutritional value of cultured meat was lower. While 36.8% of the students thought that artificial meat could meet their future meat needs, 68.6% stated that cultured meat was a commercial activity. While 36.7% of the individuals thought that the consumption of cultured meat should be evaluated in terms of religion, 59.2% reported that preparing meals in Turkish cuisine with cultured meat was not sustainable. In addition, there was a negative correlation between the probability of consumption and emotional resistance when presented with cultured meat and age. As a result, it was shown that most of the undergraduate students in nutrition and dietetics were willing to try cultured meat, nevertheless in the long run, relatively few individuals would prefer traditional meat or other meat alternatives.

Keywords

Artificial meat, Cultured meat, In vitro meat, Students’ behavior, Eating attitude

Beslenme ve Diyetetik Öğrencilerinin Yapay Et Tüketimine İlişkin Tutumları

Abstract

Son zamanlarda yapay ete olan ilgi artmaktadır. Ancak, literatürde Türkiye’deki yapay et algısına ilişkin veriler bulunmamaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, beslenme ve diyetetik bölümünde öğrenim gören lisans öğrencilerinin yapay et tüketimini ve geleceğe dair bakış açılarını saptamaktır. Çalışmaya Burdur’da eğitim gören 140 gönüllü öğrenci katılmıştır. Bireylerin yaş ortalaması 21.2+2.80 yıl, %41.4’ü 2. sınıfta öğrenim görmekte ve %75.7’si normal beden kütle indeksi (BKİ) sınıflamasında yer almaktadır. Bireylerin %44.3’ünün haftada en az bir kez et tükettiği, %46.4’ünün yapay et kavramını duymadığı, %52.9’unun yapay eti yenilebilir bulmadığı ancak %64.7’sinin merak ettiği için deneme amaçlı tüketebileceği belirlenmiştir. Bireylerin yalnızca %15.0’i yapay eti gerçekçi bulmaktadır. Ayrıca bireylerin %63.5’i yapay eti geleneksel ete kıyasla sağlıklı ve güvenilir olmadığını; % 57.1’i yapay etin besin değerinin daha düşük olduğunu düşünmektedir. Yapay etin gelecekteki et ihtiyacını karşılama durumu sorgulandığında öğrencilerin %38.6’sı olumlu yanıt vermiş olup %68.6’sı ise yapay etin ticari bir girişim olduğunu belirtmiştir. Bireylerin %36.7’si yapay et tüketiminin dini açıdan değerlendirilmesi gerektiğini düşünürken %59.2’si ise Türk mutfağındaki yemeklerin yapay et ile hazırlanmasının sürdürülebilir olmadığını beyan etmiştir. Ayrıca yapay et sunulduğunda tüketme olasılığı ve duygusal direnç ile yaş arasında negatif yönde korelasyon olduğu saptanmıştır. Sonuç olarak, beslenme ve diyetetik bölümünde öğrenim gören lisans öğrencilerinin çoğunun yapay eti denemeye istekli olduğu, ancak uzun dönemde nispeten daha az oranda bireyin geleneksel et veya diğer et alternatiflerine kıyasla tercih edeceğini göstermektedir.

Keywords

Yapay et, Kültürlenmiş et, In vitro et, Öğrencilerin davranışları, Yeme alışkanlıkları

References

• [1] The Food and Agriculture Organisation of of the United Nations (2013). Food Wastage Footprint: Impacts on Natural Resources. Rome, Italy, Erişim: http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3347e/i3347e.pdf. Erişim tarihi: 10.04.2022.
• [2] Alexandratos, N.a.J.B. (2012) World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision. ESA Working paper No. 12-03., Rome.
• [3] Nadathur, S.R., Wanasundara, J.P.D., Scanlin, L. (Eds.), (2016). Sustainable Protein Sources, Elsevier, London.
• [4] Zhang, G., Zhao, X., Li, X., Du, G., Zhou, J., Chen, J. (2020). Challenges and possibilities for bio-manufacturing cultured meat. Trends in Food Science Technology, 97, 443-450.
• [5] Faustman, C., Hamernik, D., Looper, M., Zinn, S.A. (2020). Cell-based meat: the need to assess holistically. Journal Animal Science, 98(8), skaa177.
• [6] Oonincx, D.G., van Itterbeeck, J., Heetkamp, M.J., van den Brand, H., van Loon, J.J., van Huis, A. (2010) An exploration on greenhouse gas and ammonia production by insect species suitable for animal or human consumption. PLoS One, 5, e14445.
• [7] Verbeke, W., Sans, P., Van Loo, E.J. (2015). Challenges and prospects for consumer acceptance of cultured meat. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14, 285-294.
• [8] Dupont, J., Harms, T., Fiebelkorn, F. (2022). Acceptance of cultured meat in Germany-application of an extended theory of planned behaviour. Foods, 11.
• [9] Weinrich, R., Strack, M., Neugebauer, F. (2020). Consumer acceptance of cultured meat in Germany, Meat Science, 162, 107924.
• [10] Dupont, J., Fiebelkorn, F. (2020). Attitudes and acceptance of young people toward the consumption of insects and cultured meat in Germany. Food Quality and Preference, 85, 103983.
• [11] Hocquette, J.F. (2016). Is in vitro meat the solution for the future? Meat Science, 120, 167-176.
• [12] Böhm, I., Ferrari, A., Woll, S. (2017). In-vitro-Fleisch : Eine technische Vision zur Lösung der Probleme der heutigen Fleischproduktion und des Fleischkonsums? Erişim: https://publikationen.bibliothek.kit.edu/1000076735. Erişim tarihi: 11.04.2022.
• [13] Schaefer, G.O., Savulescu, J. (2014). The ethics of producing in vitro meat, Journal of Applied Philosophy, 31, 188-202.
• [14] Bryant, C.J. (2020). Culture, meat, and cultured meat. Journal of Animal Science, 98.
• [15] Hoogenkamp H. (2018). Clean cultured meat for today’s future. Over time, these innovative food will ease into the supply chain. Fleischwirtschaft International: Journal For Meat Production And Meat Processing, 2, 42-46.
• [16] Tuomisto H,E.M., Haastrup P. (2014). Environmental impacts of cultured meat: alternative production scenarios, In Conference Proceedings: R. Schenck, D. Huizenga, editor(s), pp 1360-1366, Vashon, WA, USA.
• [17] Alexander, P., Brown, C., Arneth, A., Dias, C., Finnigan, J., Moran, D., Rounsevell, M.D.A. (2017). Could consumption of insects, cultured meat or imitation meat reduce global agricultural land use? Global Food Security, 15, 22-32.
• [18] Bryant, C.J., Barnett, J.C. (2019). What's in a name? Consumer perceptions of in vitro meat under different names. Appetite, 137, 104-113.
• [19] Wilks, M., Phillips, C.J. (2017). Attitudes to in vitro meat: A survey of potential consumers in the United States, PLoS One, 12, e0171904.
• [20] Slade, P. (2018) If you build it, will they eat it? Consumer preferences for plant-based and cultured meat burgers. Appetite, 125, 428-437.
• [21] Siegrist, M., and Hartmann, C. (2020). Perceived naturalness, disgust, trust and food neophobia as predictors of cultured meat acceptance in ten countries. Appetite, 155, 104814.
• [22] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007). Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. , In In Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change., UK.
• [23] Marlow, H.J., Hayes, W.K., Soret, S., Carter, R.L., Schwab, E.R., Sabaté, J. (2009). Diet and the environment: does what you eat matter? American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 89, 1699s-1703s.
• [24] Mancini, M.C., and Antonioli, F. (2019). Exploring consumers' attitude towards cultured meat in Italy. Meat Science, 150, 101-110.
• [25] de Oliveira, G.A., Domingues, C.H.F., Borges, J.A.R. (2021). Analyzing the importance of attributes for Brazilian consumers to replace conventional beef with cultured meat. PLoS One, 16, e0251432.
• [26] Boereboom, A., Mongondry, P., de Aguiar, L.K., Urbano, B., Jiang, Z.V., de Koning, W., and Vriesekoop, F. (2022). Identifying consumer groups and their characteristics based on their willingness to engage with cultured meat: A comparison of four European countries. Foods, 11.
• [27] Font, I.F.M., Guerrero, L. (2014). Consumer preference, behavior and perception about meat and meat products: an overview. Meat Science, 98, 361-371.
• [28] Henchion, M., McCarthy, M., Resconi, V.C., Troy, D. (2014). Meat consumption: trends and quality matters. Meat Science, 98, 561-568.
• [29] Liu, J., Hocquette, É., Ellies-Oury, M.P., Chriki, S., Hocquette, J.F. (2021). Chinese Consumers' attitudes and potential acceptance toward artificial meat. Foods, 10.
• [30] T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı Halk Sağlığı Genel Müdürlüğü. (2019). Türkiye Beslenme ve Sağlık Araştırması (TBSA). Ankara.
• [31] Arora, R.S., Brent, D.A., Jaenicke, E.C. (2020). Is India ready for alt-meat? Preferences and willingness to pay for meat alternatives. Sustainability, 12, 4377.
• [32] Valente, J.P.S., Fiedler, R.A., Sucha Heidemann, M., Molento, C.F.M. (2019). First glimpse on attitudes of highly educated consumers towards cell-based meat and related issues in Brazil. PLoS One, 14, e0221129.
• [33] Bryant, C., Barnett, J. (2018). Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: A systematic review. Meat Science, 143, 8-17.
• [34] Shi, H., Ma, P., Zeng, Y., Sheng, J. (2022). Understanding the Interaction between regulatory focus and message framing in determining chinese consumers' attitudes toward artificial meat. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 9(9), 4948.
• [35] Mattick, C.S., Landis, A.E., Allenby, B.R., Genovese, N.J. (2015). Anticipatory life cycle analysis of in vitro biomass cultivation for cultured meat production in the United States. Environmental Science & Technology, 49(19), 11941-11949.
• [36] SUN, Z.-c., Yu, Q.-l., Lin, H. (2015). The environmental prospects of cultured meat in China. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14(2), 234–240.
• [37] Post, M.J., Levenberg, S., Kaplan, D.L., Genovese, N., Fu, J., Bryant, C.J., Negowetti, N., Verzijden, K., Moutsatsou, P. (2020). Scientific, sustainability and regulatory challenges of cultured meat. Nature Food, 1, 403-415.
• [38] European Parliament and of the Council. Regulation 2015/2283 on novel foods of 25 November 2015. Erişim: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32015R2283. Erişim tarihi: 05.08.2022.
• [39] Gerber, P.J., Mottet, A., Opio, C.I., Falcucci, A., Teillard, F. (2015). Environmental impacts of beef production: Review of challenges and perspectives for durability. Meat Science, 109, 2-12.
• [40] Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S., Garnett, T., Tilman, D., DeClerck, F., Wood, A., Jonell, M., Clark, M., Gordon, L.J., Fanzo, J., Hawkes, C., Zurayk, R., Rivera, J.A., De Vries, W., Majele Sibanda, L., Afshin, A., Chaudhary, A., Herrero, M., Agustina, R., Branca, F., Lartey, A., Fan, S., Crona, B., Fox, E., Bignet, V., Troell, M., Lindahl, T., Singh, S., Cornell, S.E., Srinath Reddy, K., Narain, S., Nishtar, S., Murray, C.J.L. (2019) Food in the anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet, 393(10170), 447-492.
• [41] Boland, M.J., Rae, A.N., Vereijken, J.M., Meuwissen, M.P.M., Fischer, A.R.H., van Boekel, M.A.J.S., Rutherfurd, S.M., Gruppen, H., Moughan, P.J., and Hendriks, W.H. (2013). The future supply of animal-derived protein for human consumption. Trends in Food Science Technology, 29(1), 62-73.
• [42] Muslu, M. (2022). Sürdürülebilir beslenme ve protein ihtiyacı için alternatif bir kaynak: sentetik et (kültür eti). Akademik Gıda, 20(2), 189-193.