Last month, I took part in the 2023 SEACAPE Tertiary Market Immersion Program. SEACAPE, the Southeast Asia Centre of Asia-Pacific Excellence, provides research and resources to New Zealanders to better understand and engage in Southeast Asia. The Tertiary Market Immersion Program takes students to countries in Southeast Asia to understand business in the region.    The recent week-long program took us to Singapore to learn about their food system and how Aotearoa food businesses can engage in market. In this blog I will share some things that I learned about food and business in Singapore, and some things Aotearoa should consider.

Singapore has a unique food situation

We saw some of the key differences in food between Singapore and Aotearoa:

• Singapore imports 91% of its food, compared to 20% in Aotearoa
• The entire Singapore population of 5.4 million live in an area roughly the size of Lake Taupō, meaning there is little room for agriculture
• Singapore has a long culture of street food
• Wet markets are a unique hub for fresh food and community shopping experiences  

Similarities between food in Aotearoa and Singapore

Despite being far apart, both Singapore and Aotearoa are island nations in the Pacific and do share some similarities when it comes to food:

• Ongoing need to import some foods (grains in Aotearoa, meat, produce, seafood in Singapore)
• High rates of chronic disease like diabetes due to unhealthy food environments

Understanding these similarities and differences is important for food businesses wanting to engage with Singapore.

Opportunities for Aotearoa food business in Singapore

Singapore has a transformative goal in mind; it aims to produce 30% of its food needs by 2030. However, there will still be a need to import food. Singapore imports food from many countries, including Aotearoa. Aotearoa is advantaged by a reputation for food safety, and a recent NZ-SG partnership program for food innovation.  However, it can be expensive and difficult to break into the Singaporean food market because it is so competitive (and quite far away). 

Aotearoa still focuses on exporting raw products

Aotearoa already does export food to Singapore, with about 40% of this being milk powder. However, this isn’t a very valuable exchange for Aotearoa because any chance to turn milk powder into a more premium product here is lost. Intensive dairying and milk powder processing are also resource-intensive and contribute to local ecosystem damage. There is a need for Aotearoa to diversify the types of food it makes and exports. Plant-based foods may be one option for Aotearoa food export. This would tick the high-value box for and diversify our exports to Singapore.

Uncertainties for plant-based foods in Singapore

How much local Singaporean consumers would be interested in plant-based foods from Aotearoa is a significant, yet unanswered question. Despite Singapore’s heavy investment in alternative proteins, this doesn’t necessarily match local desire for plant-based foods. That being said, 7% of the country is already vegetarian, and Western-style plant-based alternatives could become more popular as time goes on. Food producers would have to grapple with the complexity of the Singapore consumer base, which is very diverse.

Whilst in Singapore, I did spot a jar of Raglan coconut yoghurt on the shelves! Other plant-based yoghurts were available too. However, they were always in “cold storage” retailers that tend to serve people with high incomes, and Western immigrants. Clearly, there is some opportunity for plant-based alternatives to be found but businesses need to know who their consumer is and how to reach them in Singapore.

Balancing export with local food needs

There are some concerns about how Aotearoa can ensure local food security and environmental health while focusing on maximising export returns. Food as a national profit generator doesn’t reflect the necessity of healthy food for wellbeing. 30% of people in Aotearoa already experience food insecurity, and this number is rising. Aotearoa could learn from Singapore’s goal for increased food security and implement its own plan for ensuring healthy and affordable diets for our country.

A lucky meeting in Singapore

Singapore amazed me in several ways – its urban makeup, tasty food, and great public transport were all highly enjoyable. I’m grateful to SEACAPE for inviting me on the trip and supporting us to learn more about food in a global context.

One highlight of the trip stood out though – for the first time since COVID, team members of our Aotearoa and Singapore FFC research groups got to meet in person! We visited the Clinical Nutrition Research Centre unit at A*STAR, where our Singaporean colleagues are based.

In conclusion, I learnt that collaboration with Singapore in both business and research is very valuable for us here in Aotearoa. Singapore and Aotearoa have a warm diplomatic relationship that gives rise to all sorts of collaborations, such as our program.  We hope to host some of our Singapore colleagues in Manawatū soon. 

Summer Wright, 1 May 2023

Have you ever eaten a bar of chocolate or a nice meal in a restaurant and had a strong feeling about the food? Maybe the food made you feel happy, excited, or maybe even a little bit disappointed or sad? Well, when people try foods, they often experience feelings!

People who make and experiment with food want to know how consumers feel about particular foods. Usually, consumers are asked to choose words from a list to describe how the food made them feel. This is called an ‘explicit’ approach because consumers are consciously choosing words to describe their feelings.

But sometimes, consumers don’t even actively realise how they feel about a food! This is called an ‘implicit’ approach because their feelings are more subconscious or hidden.

At the Consumer Dimensions of Future Foods project, researchers wanted to know if there is a difference between the way consumers tell us how they feel about food when using explicit versus implicit approaches.

Here is the story…

How do we make decisions or choices?

Sometimes people make decisions after thinking carefully and make a choice based on what they already know and believe – this is called an explicit decision.

Other times, when we make decisions, it’s like our brain decides for us without us actively thinking too much, almost like it’s automatic – this is called an implicit decision. Like reaching for a  yummy snack without thinking.

Beyond explicit, exploring hidden answers

So, even though consumers might think they feel one way about a food, their true feelings might be different.

Then the question is, do consumers reveal say what they truly feel after tasting foods? Even when they do, is it their implicit feeling? Or have they thought about it explicitly and answer with what they think they feel or even with what they think the researcher may want to hear having thought about explicitly?   

Consumer experience through an implicit eye

At the Consumer Dimensions of Future Foods project, first we used an explicit method, where people chose words from list to describe their feelings having tasted milk and different plant-based milk alternatives under no time limit so they could think about their response (Figure 1). We also used an implicit method, where people had to respond as quickly as they could by pressing a keyboard space bar if a feeling that flashed up on screen (Figure 2).  This was time pressured and we measure how long it took them to react to a word as a measure of their ‘hidden’ feelings.  We then compared the two.

What we found?

Guess what we found… sometimes consumers change their minds between the explicit versus the implicit approach That is for some consumers, the emotion words selected explicitly from a list were different to their implicitly selected emotion words. So, explicit, and implicit approaches tell us somewhat different stories about how the same product set made consumers feel.

This finding leads to our next set of questions…

Which approach better predicts which products consumers will buy in the real world? Or do we need a combination of both?  Are our findings relevant to other product categories as well?

To answer these questions, we need more research to find optimum ways of measuring how food products make consumers feel (consumer emotional experience) to improve our understanding of consumer food preferences and choice behaviours.

The Era of Plant-Based Alternatives

Plant-based alternatives have steadily entered grocery store shelves, and varieties are ever increasing. With an increasing global population, the consumption of plant-based protein products may be more sustainable than traditional animal meat.

The main ingredients used for current plant-based products, such as the Impossible Burger or Beyond Meat, are wheat gluten, soy, and pea proteins. These proteins are usually heavily processed, and have led to concerns around:

So, the hunt for novel plant-based alternatives that are both nutritious and delicious is ongoing.

From Land to Sea: An Untapped Potential

Algae is a novel plant-based protein that is gaining interest. Algae includes microalgae, such as Spirulina, and macroalgae, commonly known as seaweed.

Algae is highly nutritious – it is full of fibres, vitamins, minerals, and protein, and has a low fat and sodium content. Microalgae, like Spirulina, usually come in the shape of supplement pills or powder. But the use of seaweed in food is much more diversified.

Aquaculture (the cultivation of aquatic plants or rearing of aquatic animals for food) is gaining popularity as a significant source of food, and the overall global aquaculture food production has elevated from 31.1% in 2004 to 44.1% in 2014. Specifically, statistics from the FAO showed that over a whopping 20 million tonnes of seaweed was produced worldwide from aquaculture in 2011, with 75% going into the food industry.

Umami? What is that?

A defining sensory attribute of seaweed is its unique umami flavour. But what’s umami? Established as the fifth basic taste, umami (meaning “the essence of deliciousness” in Japanese) is best described as savoury, broth-like and meaty.

In 1908, Professor Kikunae Ikeda detected a taste that was different from the initial four basic tastes (sweet, salty, sour, bitter). He found out that this taste occurred most strongly in “dashi” prepared from kelp (a type of seaweed). He also discovered that this taste was due to the glutamates present in the kelp. Thus, he coined this taste “umami ”. Other foods such as mushrooms and food additive MSG impart strong umami flavours.

Current Consumer Perceptions in the West: Challenges in Acceptance of a Novel Food

Seaweed is an essential ingredient in Eastern cuisine: seaweed rice rolls (kimbap) from Korea, seaweed miso soup from Japan and seaweed salad from China would not be the same without the seaweed! More recently, seaweed is also emerging in Western cuisine, like seaweed pasta. But there is a long way to go before seaweed becomes a common food in Western countries.

The fear of trying new foods is a key factor in the hesitance of Western consumers to try seaweed products. Furthermore, there is no common ingredient in Western cuisine that resembles the umami taste. Lastly, many Western consumers are simply unfamiliar with seaweed as a food,

Seaweed for Western Consumers – Not All Hope is Lost

We know that seaweed is not only nutritious and a sustainable food ingredient, but also provides a unique flavour to foods. So, how can we get more Western consumers to try it?

Firstly, consumers need to be informed about seaweed. This includes seaweed’s health and sustainability aspects, but also its unique taste and affordability. By exposing consumers to seaweed repeatedly, they become familiar with its taste. Increasing familiarity, and associating seaweed with more familiar foods such as seafood, also increases its consumer acceptance.

Recent research also showed that young Western consumers(n=1403) find seaweed more appealing as a snack option (87.7%) compared to a full meal (30.7%). Seaweed snacks are usually roasted, giving it an appealing crispy texture instead of the slimy texture people generally associate with seaweed. Additionally, snacks usually come in smaller portions, which are less intimidating compared to a full seaweed-containing meal.

So, while seaweed is currently still a niche ingredient in Western cuisine, with continuous and more proactive promotion, seaweed may be able to win over the Western’s consumer heart once they are aware of its full potential.

Xanthe Lin, 10 Feb 2023

Meat alternatives are popping up like daisies. New products are launched every month. Sales of plant-based meat alternatives increased an impressive 74% between 2018 and 2021 in the US . But the plant-based meat alternative market is small: on average, an American spends less than 5$ on plant based meat alternatives, compared to over $300 per year on meat. What is holding consumers back?

Consumers do not think reducing meat intake contributes to the environment

A lifecycle analyses from Michigan University  showed that the Beyond Burger generates 90% less greenhouse emissions, 46% less energy, 99% less water, and requires 93% less land than beef. Despite clear differences in environmental impact between meat and meat substitutes, consumers think that a beef entrecote is more environmentally friendly than the Beyond burger.

Our recent online survey found that most flexitarians in Aotearoa do not believe that reducing meat intake, and consuming plant-based meal alternatives contribute to environmental sustainability. Participants are more likely to contribute to the environmental sustainability through other initiatives, such as avoiding food waste, recycling, or buying local products.

Apparently, not all consumers consider plant-based alternatives environmentally friendly. This could be due to the highly processed nature of these foods.

Consumers are not satisfied meat alternative products

Consumers are not satisfied with the taste and texture of plant-based meat alternatives. Our recent study showed that consumers choose beef over plant-based products in a supermarket, even if the plant-based alternative is labelled as more sustainable or healthy.

Most plant-based meat alternatives come in the shape of burgers, sausages, and nuggets. Therefore, they do not replace whole meat cuts such as chicken breast or steak. A plant-based meat alternative may not be considered a true alternative for the product the consumer buys on a regular basis.

Importantly, plant-based meat alternatives may appeal more to consumers who omit all meat from their diet. For them, it is the closest they can get to a meat product. But, only 6-10% of the population in Aotearoa are vegan or vegetarian. So, they account for only a small proportion of consumers.

Lab-grown meat is ‘unnatural’ and insects are ‘disgusting’

Lab-grown meat, is an alternative that it is claimed will have a taste and texture similar to meat once the technology is fully developed. However, consumers perceive lab-grown meat as ‘unnatural’ and ‘disgusting‘ despite acknowledging that it may be more environmentally friendly than meat. Insect products are not appealing to the vast majority of consumers. Those who do buy insect products often say its because they are ‘curious’, but curiosity does not result in repeated consumption of insects.

People are creatures of habit

People generally don’t like to consume foods that they don’t know. Expectation of a product is built on previous experience with a similar product. This is especially true for consumers who are neophobic – a term to describe being unwilling to try new foods – who have low intention to buy plant-based meat alternatives.

However, increasing familiarity can increase consumer acceptance. For example, consumers increased their liking for tofu and Quorn when they repeatedly ate these products for 10 weeks. Furthermore, consumers who are familiar with lab-grown meat have more positive perceptions – despite this product not being commercially available yet.

Price determines purchase

Price is one of the most important drivers for product choice. Currently, gram for gram, plant-based meat substitutes are more expensive than meat. Meat substitutes may become cheaper when technology develops or as a result of increased competition between products. Plant-based meats are now cheaper than meat products in the Netherlands. It is still unknown whether this will increase the uptake of plant-based products.

Generally speaking, consumers perceive imitation products as less valuable than the ‘real deal’: consumers are willing to pay more for maple syrup than for golden syrup, for example. It is likely that sales of plant-based products will remain low until these products are cheaper than meat.

There are challenges to overcome before plant-based meat alternatives will be the norm

A Facts & Factors report estimated that between 2021 and 2028 the global market share of plant-based meat alternatives will double from 7.5 to 15.8 billion. Technology is expected to develop, which will increase the quality of meat substitutes and reduce the price. Furthermore, increased familiarity with meat substitutes over time may reduce this barrier.

Are plant-based meat replacements here to stay? It is too early to tell at this stage, but, there are plenty of challenges to overcome before the majority of consumers will replace their steak with a plant-based alternative.

Caroline Giezenaar, 6 December 2022

Provenance stories for food

Food provenance is about the origins of food, and what processes are involved to produce it. It is one way of ensuring the authenticity, identity, and safety of products.

Food provenance also tells us something about the relationship between a place and a product. An obvious example of provenance is in wine; when you think of wine, do certain places come to mind? Perhaps Italy, France, or somewhere closer like Marlborough?

Aotearoa New Zealand has its own national provenance, owing to its ‘clean green’ image. This story has a long history, with notable beginnings in the way New Zealand was marketed to European settlers as an offshore sanctuary, ripe for colonisation.

An evolved version of this narrative has been used to promote tourism and food products in the last few decades, to great success. However, this veneer is not entirely truthful, given the extensive impact of the agriculture sector on environmental wellbeing.

Could Aotearoa achieve a plant-based provenance?   

Aotearoa plant-based food producers could take advantage of the reputation that already exists. Plant-based foods can fit well into the national sustainability image. This is because they are already associated with sustainability in consumers’ minds.

The effectiveness of a national provenance depends on how domestic and offshore consumers perceive Aotearoa. Overseas consumers perceive our food products to be healthy and safe. In order for the benefits of provenance to be realised, consumers need to be able to make the association between Aotearoa and high food quality. Therefore, revealing the origins of food can be beneficial for Aotearoa food producers.

Māori provenance could deepen food provenance

Food marketers are increasingly using provenance to sell a representation of place. However, places are more than an abstracted image because of the relationships people have with a place. A Māori provenance can tell a deeper story about food.

Māori are indigenous to Aotearoa and have rich oral histories about places and foods. Māori provenance is not only about unique connections to places, but also contains distinct perspectives on how relationships work. For Māori, foods are not discrete objects, but are also connected to a wider web of shared descent from ancestral parents Papatūānuku and Ranginui.

Consumers who connect with a Māori provenance may see not only a representation of place, but also understand how ancient, enduring relationships have given rise to a food product. For instance, a Māori kawakawa beverage has both an indigenous plant, but also can communicate a historical relationship with the species and the place it comes from. Revealing the underlying relationships embedded in the food provides it with a distinctiveness in market, which may support Māori enterprise. Nevertheless, those relationships have inherent value far beyond market economies.   

A Māori plant-based provenance is highly valuable, yet challenging to achieve

For plant-based foods, Māori could draw on their historical relationship with plants and the places they come from to tell a unique story. This could contribute to Māori wellbeing and self-determination in an evolving food landscape. Making plant-based products in a sustainable way can also support Māori economies for future generations.

However, there are ongoing challenges for the protection of Māori knowledge. Protecting communally shared cultural property can be difficult and expensive, but a lack of protection can leave it open to misappropriation by non-Māori. This is on top of the price and technology challenges that already exist for making high-value plant-based foods in Aotearoa.

Building a genuine plant-based provenance for Aotearoa

Nevertheless, some elements of Māori provenance are not easily copied, given that it draws on genuine place-based relationships. Māori provenance in plant-based products could build towards a genuine Aotearoa food provenance that is based on indigenous culture. Taking advantage of Aotearoa’s clean green provenance and genuinely bolstering  it with healthy, sustainable foods grounded in culture may pave the way for a flourishing Māori plant-based food sector.

Summer Wright, 24 Nov 2022

In everyday life, a meal usually consists of a combination of foods. For example, condiments such as tomato sauce are hardly ever consumed alone. When tomato sauce is added to fries for example, the characteristics of the fries will influence the way tomato sauce is perceived, and vice versa. We refer to these combinations of foods as composite foods. 

Sensory evaluations are more representative when composite foods are tested

Sensory evaluations are typically performed on a single food. Therefore, they may only indicate part of the sensory experience and might even be misleading. The sensory experience would be more representative of daily-life if consumption contexts were considered. Therefore, it is important to evaluate composite foods, rather than their individual components, in consumer testing.  

Combining foods could mask off-flavours

When a food is combined with its accompanying food, the complexity of the sensory experience increases. This shifts consumer attention, which could mask off-flavours detected if the product was consumed on its own. This is important when developing healthier or alternative versions of foods. For instance, in the plant-based products market, many consumers are not satisfied with products to replace meat. The products do not deliver a sensory experience comparable with the animal products they are used to. 

Plant-based meat alternatives are often described with off-notes such as “beany”, “bitter”, “cardboard-like” and “earthy”. Also, they often lack the juiciness and tenderness that meat has. So, a plant-based burger patty that is described as “cardboard-like” is probably not as attractive as a juicy beef burger. However, what if evaluating a plant-based burger patty, in combination with a traditional bun and condiments could mask flavour and texture deficiencies? The presence of other foods could distract consumer attention away from the patty under investigation, resulting in increased overall liking! And, evaluating a burger as a whole represents a more realistic consumption context than the patty on its own. 

An endless range of product combinations is a challenge to testing composite foods

The large range of possible food combinations to be assessed is the main challenge to this approach, especially when considering that different food combinations are used around the globe. Regardless, there is a need to extend sensory testing beyond the properties of single foods to understand how foods are experienced in the way they are normally consumed.

A burger and a bun reduced “off-notes” of a plant-based burger 

At FEAST, we explored how combining plant-based patties with condiments and a burger bun affected sensory perception and product liking. The results showed that off-notes and texture defects of plant-based patties were reduced by adding condiments and burger buns, but not enough to affect level of liking. This highlights the difficulty of masking off-notes in these novel products. Perhaps addition of more ingredients may help, such as mustard, lettuce and a pickle! 

Digital immersion created a realistic consumption context 

In this study, consumers evaluated the products in FEAST’s Immersive Space. Digital immersion was used to add consumption context to the burger evaluation. The digital immersive bar, and the combination of tested products, created a more realistic consumption context for investigating consumer response.

Karina said “the image of a restaurant bar was projected on the walls, typical bar music was played, and accessories such as table numbers and tablecloths were used. The consumers even received their burger in a cardboard box, just like in a burger restaurant!”

Karina Gonzalez Estanol, 10 Nov 2022

Plant-based burger patties are the most common meat-replacement products on the market.

Plant-based burger patties can be prepared and consumed in the same way as their meat counterparts – in a bun with the consumers desired toppings! This makes them less dauting and easier to use than products that cannot directly replace meat, such as legumes or tofu.

Plant-based patties can be split into two main categories:

• Meat analogues: aimed to taste like a meat product
• Traditional “Veggie” patties: not designed to taste like meat

There is a continuously growing range of plant-based patties available in our supermarkets, but what do they actually taste like? We decided to get more insight and invited 22 patty consumers along to Feast at Massey University to taste and chew over their sensory experiences of 10 plant-based burger patties and a beef patty in discussion groups.

What did they taste of?

There were so many different sensory characteristics, we’ve divided them by appearance, texture and flavour in the table below: the higher up the list, the more they were mentioned.

Meat analogue patties

Beef patty

Traditional ‘veggie’ patties

Meat analogue patties

Meat analogue patties are commonly made of soy, pea or wheat protein and aim to imitate the appearance, texture and flavour of a beef patty.

Meat analogue patties vary in how meat-like they are. Some products closely replicate the appearance, texture and flavour of meat while others miss the mark.

We also discussed the sensory attributes of a beef patty to see how the meat analogue patties compared.

The biggest difference between the meat analogue patties and the beef patty was flavour. The meat-analogues had a savoury/ umami and smoky/grill flavour while the beef patty unsurprisingly had a strong beef flavour. Beef flavour was also found in the meat analogue patties but wasn’t as strong. Other flavours like weak vegetable, soy, and wheat-cereal flavours were found in the analogues but not the beef sample.

The beef patty and analogue patties were similar in appearance with a dark brown outside and meat-like appearance. The analogues appeared highly processed and varied from moist to dry in appearance, the beef patty also appeared processed but did not look dry.

Both types of patties had a meat-like mouthfeel and were chewy and moist but the analogues were softer and more tender and had less desirable textures such as crumbly, and grainy/ granular.

Traditional ‘ veggie’ patties

Traditional ‘veggie’ patties are commonly made from vegetables e.g., mushroom, potato, kumara, cauliflower, kale and beetroot, and legumes e.g., beans, lentils, and chickpeas, and are not usually designed to mimic meat.

The sensory attributes of ‘veggie’ patties vary a lot. They can look moist or dry and, unlike meat analogues, are not usually brown in colour. Instead, colours like orange, brown, green, yellow and red/pink are common. They are sometimes heavily processed to the point where the ingredients are unrecognisable while others look more “natural” containing large chunks of vegetables and other ingredients like chickpeas, herbs, and seeds.

The texture of ‘veggie’ patties varies from soft and moist to hard/solid and dry and are often pasty or doughy when chewed.  Ingredients like quinoa and seeds create a grainy/ granular texture and can make the patty crumbly.

As you would expect, they commonly have a strong vegetable flavour but are also heavily spiced and salted to provide more flavour. Like the meat analogue samples, the veggie patties were often savoury and sometimes smoky, however, the veggie patties did not have a meat-like flavour.

Further investigations

No doubt this range of different sensory attributes appeal to different types of consumers.

Next, we will invite over 100 consumers, to taste a range of meat analogue patties and traditional ‘veggie’ patties to investigate how the different sensory attributes make them feel (emotional response). Using this information, we will determine which sensory attributes consumers positively engage with and make recommendations for how these products can be made more appealing to different groups of consumers.

Rebekah Orr, 13 Oct 2022

Cultivated meat is a developing technology that produces meat, without the need of animal slaughter. To produce cultivated meat, tissue is removed from a living animal (e.g. a salmon, cow or duck) and grown into cuts of meat/fish in a laboratory by feeding the tissue with essential nutrients. Cultivated meat is sometimes called lab-grown meat, clean meat, or cell-cultured meat. Because the technique is in its early stages, you can’t currently buy cultivated meat in supermarkets or restaurants. Except if you live in Singapore – Restaurant 1880 was the first place to serve cultivated chicken in December 2020.  

Consumers want familiar products 

Consumer perceptions from Aotearoa are limited 

Although consumer perceptions of cultivated meat have been investigated in other countries, research on consumer perception of cultivated meat in Aotearoa is very limited. The strong meat culture in Aoteraoa could be a barrier for interest in cultivated meat – as the consumer may want ‘the real thing’. On the other hand, cultivated meat may be of interest to meat-eaters who are conscious of their meat intake, but are only willing to use an alternative that tastes like meat.

Cultivated meat perceived to be more sustainable and animal friendly than traditional meat 

The study group thought that cultivated meat will be more environmentally sustainable and animal friendly than conventional meat. On the other hand, they thought cultured meat is less natural than conventional meat. From previous studies, we know that naturalness is an important factor for product acceptance. Importantly, enhanced environmental sustainability of cultivated meat is not guaranteed until proven once commercially available.

Consumer characteristics affect perceptions of cultivated meat 

Interestingly, perceptions of cultivated meat were more positive: 

• In men compared to women,  
• Millennials compared to Generation X,  
• those with low compared to high meat consumption frequencies,  
• those who were aware compared to not aware of CM prior to the survey,  
• and those who were interested in trying new foods compared to those who were not.  

This information gives us an indication of which consumers may ultimately be early adopters of cultivated meat, and for developing marketing strategies once it is commercially available. 

So, we now know that the majority of flexitarians would be willing to taste cultivated meat. Although gender and age affect consumer perceptions, we know that awareness and willingness to try new foods also play a role. To enhance adoption of cultured meat, it will be important to educate consumers about the concept to increase their awareness and familiarity.  

Caroline Giezenaar, 28 June 2022

A landmark symposium held 11-12 May 2022 united researchers and industry from across Europe, Asia, Australia and Aotearoa to share insights on future foods. During the symposium, 17 international speakers from universities, industry and non-profit organisations shed light on how and why consumers engage with future foods. The symposium was organised by the MBIE-funded Consumer Dimensions of Future Foods Catalyst Project, which is a collaboration between Massey University and A*STAR in Singapore.

Future foods need to be both nutritious and sustainable

Here, by future foods, we mean plant-based products that can be consumed in place of meat, dairy, or eggs – ranging from meat analogues to plant-based alternatives to milk, from seaweed to lab-grown meat. They are an important research topic because the reduction of animal protein consumption could simultaneously address human and planetary health issues. Understanding how consumers and industry navigate future foods is critical in unlocking their potential.

Motivations for consumption of future foods vary widely

Several speakers at the symposium highlighted that motivations to make and eat future foods are wide-ranging. Many consumers eat future foods for personal health, and some are motivated by concerns for effects of meat production on the environment and animal welfare. A sense of adventure also contributes to uptake of plant-based meat alternatives for a segment of consumers who like trying new foods. There is no ‘typical’ consumer of future foods. This can make it harder to develop products that meet the needs of a future food consumer.

Messaging around taste and emotion can increase product choice

A successful product needs to taste good, be easy to prepare, and affordable. Therefore, clear messaging that focuses on taste and convenience, rather than health, is more effective in attracting customers. Furthermore, eating foods that are meant to improve the environment and animal welfare is highly emotive to some consumers. Dr Marleen Onwezen showed that including emotions on packaging, rather than claims based on scientific facts, increases product choice.

Plant-based alternatives do not always mimic the nutrition, taste and texture of meat

Replicating meat-like taste and texture remains difficult for food technologists and the food industry. However, some consumers do not want meat replicas, instead preferring more plant-like products. Future generations who grow up with exposure to future foods may be more accepting of a wide range of plant-based meat alternatives.

Although plant-based meat alternatives are often used instead of meat, similar nutritional quality is not a guarantee, said Rachel Tso. Notably, consumers perceive plant-based products to be healthier than meat and dairy when they are often higher in salt and fat, and lower in protein and micronutrients, highlighting an education gap.

Cultivated meat still very ‘novel’

Cultivated animal products, which are grown from animal cells in a laboratory, may offer the best of both worlds to consumers – the ability to eat meat, without the animal or environmental sacrifice. Because these are ‘novel’ foods without a history of safe consumption, many countries have restrictive policies in place. Prof Ben Smith said consumers are hesitant and fearful about the unknown, and highlights that trusted processes of control and regulation are required for consumer to accept cultivated meat. Singapore currently leads the way and approved the sale of lab-grown meat in 2020.

Aotearoa can bridge physical distance with high-value foods

Aotearoa experiences difficulties to compete with large-scale plant-protein producers such as Canada, said Dr Abby Thompson. Distance from export markets remains a challenge for the Agrifood industry in Aotearoa. This may be outweighed by the country’s ability to make safe, high-quality food for international consumers. Māori industry have similar challenges but are also positioned to deliver entirely unique foods. Māori could communicate distinct cultural values to connect with consumers who appreciate indigenous-led food production but doing this authentically can be challenging.

Animal meat is not going anywhere

Consumer behaviour is very difficult to change, and meat will not be displaced anytime soon, said Prof Michael Siegrist. Whether future foods are a trend or here to stay remains to be seen, but since products are still in early stages, they will undoubtedly evolve over time. To drive change, consumer research is critical to contribute to solving the mysteries around our future foods.

Summer Wright, 24 May 2022

Globally consumers are increasingly interested in reducing their meat intake and it’s not different in Aotearoa New Zealand. Flexitarians are consumers who eat meat, whilst consciously reducing its consumption by reducing meat portion sizes, or by replacing meat with meat-free products or different meat free meal options.

One in three consumers are flexitarian

In Aotearoa, over a third of the consumers identify themselves as a flexitarian. Only about one in twelve consumers avoid meat altogether by following a vegetarian or vegan diet. Therefore, flexitarians drive demand in the plant-based product (PBP) market although it is not clear what motivates them.

What motivates flexitarians in Aotearoa? An online study

The Future Food Catalyst program conducted an online survey: 584 flexitarians answered questions about their motivators and barriers to consume plant-based meat alternatives. Flexitarians were classified as people who consume meat less than 7 days per week. PBPs were described as foods that provide the main protein source in a meal which may mimic meat in terms of shape or flavour (e.g., vegetarian mince, sausages or burgers or nuggets), or not (e.g., tofu, tempeh, falafel).

Health is the main driver for consuming plant-based products

We found that health was the most important driver for PBP consumption. The flexitarians in our study did not gain social status from consuming PBPs, and did not believe that such products necessarily contribute to environmental sustainability. They did not generally reduce their meat intake due to concern for animal welfare.

Flexitarians are not satisfied with currently available plant-based products

Flexitarians are not very satisfied with current plant-based meat alternatives. When asked what an ideal PBP would be like:

• They want their plant-based meat alternatives to ‘taste good’, through juiciness, savouriness and spice/flavour.
• They are divided in terms of wanting their plant-based meat alternative to taste meat-like – some do, but some do not.
• They desire a high-protein product, particularly those who eat meat most often.
• Female flexitarians generally want their plant-based meat alternatives to be made with wholefoods and free of GMO’s whereas men are less concerned.

Consumer segments have different drivers and desires

Flexitarians are not all the same. Not surprisingly, those that consume PBPs most often, are more satisfied with current options. Two thirds of the respondents, however, are not and hardly consume PBP as alternatives to meat. Segments with higher PBP consumption had higher concern for health/nutrition, animal welfare, the environment and food safety, and they derived more social status from eating plant-based products.

Moving flexitarianism forward

We can use this information in the development of PBPs that cater towards the motivations of flexitarians. Ideal products are healthy, high-protein, and made from wholefoods, and are juicy, savoury and flavourful to meet the needs of the flexitarian consumer in Aotearoa. A variety of products and marketing strategies should be used to engage different flexitarian consumer segments.

Petra Coetzee & Caroline Giezenaar, 23 May 2022