Influence of spice enrichment on consumer acceptance of plant-based meat alternatives

Abstract

The growing interest in plant-based meat alternatives has intensified the need to optimize their sensory properties to improve consumer acceptance. This study investigated the effect of spice enrichment on the sensory evaluation of plant-based meatball formulations during consumer testing. Additionally, the influence of socio-demographic characteristics and perception-related variables on sensory evaluations were examined. A total of 113 undergraduate students evaluated two formulations: a plain product and a spice-enriched variant. Sensory attributes were assessed using a 5-point hedonic scale, and statistical analyses included paired-samples t-tests, group comparisons, and correlation analyses. Spice enrichment significantly improved aroma-related attributes, particularly spiced aroma, which demonstrated a large effect size. Significant differences were also observed for colour, shape, homogeneity, and umami taste. However, no statistically significant difference in overall liking was found between the two formulations. Nutrition and Dietetics students scored higher on several attributes than Gastronomy students. Gender-based differences were observed primarily in food-choice motivations rather than in consistent sensory patterns. Correlation analyses revealed small to moderate associations between selected sensory attributes and participants’ perceptions of plant-based meat alternatives, particularly regarding taste balance and sustainability beliefs. Overall, spice enrichment appears to be an effective strategy for enhancing aroma perception in plant-based meat alternatives; however, improvements in overall consumer acceptance may require broader formulation adjustments beyond flavor optimization. These findings provide practical insights for developing more acceptable plant-based products.

Keywords

• Aroma
• consumer acceptance
• plant-based meat alternatives
• spice enrichment

Ethical Statement

The authors declare that informed consent forms were collected from all participants. Ethical approval was obtained from the Bahcesehir University Ethics Committee on 25 December 2024 (2024-06/01).

References

1. Alcorta, A., Porta, A., Tarrega, A., Alvarez, M. D., & Vaquero, M. P. (2021). Foods for plant-based diets: Challenges and innovations. Foods, 10(2), 293.
2. Boukid, F. (2021). Plant-based meat analogues: from niche to mainstream. European Food Research and Technology, 247(2), 297-308.
3. Broad, G. M., & Ruby, M. B. (2026). Consumer perceptions of plant-based meat innovation: A focus group study on food technology. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 10, 1800499.
4. Caputo, V., Sogari, G., & Van Loo, E. J. (2023). Do plant‐based and blend meat alternatives taste like meat? A combined sensory and choice experiment study. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 45(1), 86-105.
5. Chen, L., Lin, X., & Xia, Y. (2025). Plant-based meat alternatives: Advancements in ingredients, processing, consumer perception, and future directions. Journal of Future Foods.
6. Fiorentini, M., Kinchla, A. J., & Nolden, A. A. (2020). Role of sensory evaluation in consumer acceptance of plant-based meat analogs and meat extenders: A scoping review. Foods, 9(9), 1334.
7. Flint, M., Leroy, F., Bowles, S., Lynn, A., & Paxman, J. R. (2025). 'Meating' consumer expectations: More work required to improve acceptability of plant-based meat alternative products. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 39, 101102.
8. Godschalk-Broers, L., Sala, G., & Scholten, E. (2022). Meat analogues: Relating structure to texture and sensory perception. Foods, 11(15), 2227.

9. Graca, J., Oliveira, A., & Calheiros, M. M. (2015). Meat, beyond the plate. Data-driven hypotheses for understanding consumer willingness to adopt a more plant-based diet. Appetite, 90, 80-90.
10. Haydaroglu, M., Dikmen, D., & Bilgic, P. (2024). Adaptation and validation of the Turkish version of a Single-item Food Choice Questionnaire. Hacettepe University Faculty of Health Sciences Journal, 11(1), 232-246.
11. Hoek, A. C., Luning, P. A., Weijzen, P., Engels, W., Kok, F. J., & De Graaf, C. (2011). Replacement of meat by meat substitutes. A survey on person-and product-related factors in consumer acceptance. Appetite, 56(3), 662-673.
12. Inguscio, B. M. S., Carcaterra, G., Cherubino, P., Rossi, D., Madini, G., Fraccascia, L., ... & Cartocci, G. (2025). Neuroscience meets food choice: Implicit and explicit consumer responses to plant-based vs animal-based foods. Current Research in Food Science, 101288.
13. Jahn, S., Furchheim, P., & Strassner, A. M. (2021). Plant-based meat alternatives: Motivational adoption barriers and solutions. Sustainability, 13(23), 13271.
14. Knaapila, A., Michel, F., Jouppila, K., Sontag-Strohm, T., & Piironen, V. (2022). Millennials’ consumption of and attitudes toward meat and plant-based meat alternatives by consumer segment in Finland. Foods, 11(3), 456.
15. Kumar, P., Chatli, M. K., Mehta, N., Singh, P., Malav, O. P., & Verma, A. K. (2017). Meat analogues: Health promising sustainable meat substitutes. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 57(5), 923-932.
16. Michel, F., Hartmann, C., & Siegrist, M. (2021). Consumers’ associations, perceptions and acceptance of meat and plant-based meat alternatives. Food Quality and Preference, 87, 104063.
17. Munialo, C. D., Baeghbali, V., & Acharya, P. (2025). Plant-based alternatives to meat products. Foods, 14(8), 1396. Navarre, A., Musto, L., & Nazareth, T. (2025). Beyond meat substitution: A multifaceted review of plant-based and alternative proteins, from environmental impact to analytical technologies. Foods, 14(13), 2312.
18. Onwezen, M. C., Reinders, M. J., Verain, M. C. D., & Snoek, H. M. (2019). The development of a single-item Food Choice Questionnaire. Food Quality and Preference, 71, 34-45.
19. Petrescu, D. C., Petrescu-Mag, R. M., Aras, M., Bota, M., & Sut, A. (2025). Perceived environmental impact of meat alternatives: Effects of a sustainability label and product type. Current Research in Food Science, 101254.
20. Pohjolainen, P., Tapio, P., Vinnari, M., Jokinen, P., & Rasanen, P. (2016). Consumer consciousness on meat and the environment-Exploring differences. Appetite, 101, 37-45.
21. Pointke, M., Albrecht, E. H., Geburt, K., Gerken, M., Traulsen, I., & Pawelzik, E. (2022). A comparative analysis of plant-based milk alternatives part 1: composition, sensory, and nutritional value. Sustainability, 14(13), 7996.
22. Richi, E. B., Baumer, B., Conrad, B., Darioli, R., Schmid, A., & Keller, U. (2016). Health risks associated with meat consumption: a review of epidemiological studies. International Journal for Vitamin and Nutrition Research.
23. Sogari, G., Caputo, V., Petterson, A. J., Mora, C., & Boukid, F. (2023). A sensory study on consumer valuation for plant-based meat alternatives: What is liked and disliked the most?. Food Research International, 169, 112813.
24. Tuorila, H., & Hartmann, C. (2020). Consumer responses to novel and unfamiliar foods. Current Opinion in Food Science, 33, 1-8.
25. Varghese, C., Sosa, C., Maique, J., Curutchet, A., & Arcia, P. (2026). Beyond taste: unpacking consumer perceptions of plant-based cheese alternatives in Uruguay through sensory, ınformation, and expectation analysis. Plant Foods for Human Nutrition, 81(2), 55.