Plant-Based Meat Alternatives in Organic and Sustainable Food Systems: A Systematic Review of Consumer Perceptions

Plant-Based Meat Alternatives in Organic and Sustainable Food Systems: A Systematic Review of Consumer Perceptions | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Systematic Review Plant-Based Meat Alternatives in Organic and Sustainable Food Systems: A Systematic Review of Consumer Perceptions D.D Yasoda Rasanjale, W.M.K.G Dissanayake, R.P.C.V. Rajapaksha, and 3 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7017551/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Despite the potential of plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) to support organic and sustainable food systems, their consumer adoption rates fall short of projections aligned with global sustainability targets. To investigate this discrepancy, the current systematic literature review (SLR) provides a comprehensive analysis of factors shaping consumer perceptions and acceptance of PBMAs within organic food value chains. A total of 35 studies, published between 2010 and 2024, were identified, analyzed, and summarized. The analysis revealed that health benefits, environmental concerns, and animal welfare are primary drivers of PBMA adoption, particularly among younger, educated consumers. For example, studies comparing organic and conventional consumers found organic buyers exhibit stronger environmental values and greater willingness to pay premium prices for PBMAs. Conversely, sensory preferences (taste, texture), higher costs, cultural resistance to meat reduction, and skepticism about ultra-processing emerged as critical barriers. Notably, the review highlights tensions between technological innovations (e.g., 3D printing.) and organic principles, raising questions about processing standards in PBMA development. Regional disparities were also evident: European consumers prioritized sustainability certifications, while Asian markets responded more to health claims. Findings underscore the need for targeted strategies such as improved sensory profiles, transparent labeling, and affordability policies to bridge the gap between PBMA potential and consumer adoption. The review identifies key research avenues, including longitudinal studies on dietary shifts and socio-economic analyses of PBMA value chains, to advance their role in sustainable food systems. Nutrition & Dietetics Food Science & Technology Plant-based meat alternatives Organic food systems Consumer behavior Sustainable diets Agroecology Figures Figure 1 Introduction The global food system faces mounting challenges, including environmental degradation, climate change, and public health concerns linked to high meat consumption (Springmann et al., 2024). In response, plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) have emerged as a sustainable innovation within organic and sustainable food systems, offering a potential solution to reduce the ecological footprint of conventional animal agriculture (He et al., 2020 ). However, despite their environmental and health benefits, consumer acceptance of PBMAs remains inconsistent, influenced by factors such as taste, price, nutritional perceptions, and cultural preferences (Attwood et al., 2022; Klerk & de Boer, 2020 ). Existing research highlights uncertainties in consumer attitudes toward PBMAs, particularly regarding their role in organic food systems, which prioritize sustainability, health, and ethical production (Falkenberg et al., 2023 ). While some studies suggest growing acceptance among younger, environmentally conscious consumers (Faber et al., 2019; Geicu-Cristea et al., 2023 ), others identify persistent barriers, including sensory dissatisfaction, affordability, and distrust of processed alternatives (Blanco-Gutiérrez et al., 2020 ; Pointke et al., 2022 ). Furthermore, prior systematic reviews on PBMAs (e.g., Onwezen et al., 2021 ; Weinrich, 2019 ) have not specifically examined their integration into organic and sustainable food systems, leaving a critical gap in understanding how consumer perceptions align with broader sustainability goals. This systematic review addresses a crucial research gap by being the first to comprehensively synthesize evidence on plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) specifically within organic and sustainable food systems (Falkenberg et al., 2023 ). Despite the rapidly growing market for organic plant-based products, previous reviews have not examined how PBMAs align with the principles of sustainable agriculture and organic production standards. The necessity of this review is further highlighted by inconsistent research findings - while some studies demonstrate strong consumer willingness to adopt PBMAs, particularly among environmentally-conscious demographics (Bryant & Sanctorum, 2021 ), others reveal persistent barriers related to taste preferences and premium pricing (Melios & Grasso, 2024 ). Additionally, research by Herrera-Cuenca et al. ( 2023 ) and Park & Namkung ( 2024 ) underscores how cultural contexts and demographic differences significantly influence PBMA acceptance, necessitating a global perspective that considers regional variations in dietary habits and food values. By systematically analyzing these diverse factors, this review provides much-needed clarity on how PBMAs can effectively contribute to more sustainable food systems worldwide. This systematic review examines plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) through the lens of organic and sustainable food systems, aligning with innovations in organic agriculture and consumer research. The study evaluates consumer perceptions of PBMAs, analyzing both drivers (health benefits, environmental concerns, ethical motivations) and barriers (sensory preferences, cost considerations, product familiarity) within organic value chains (Attwood et al., 2022; Pointke et al., 2022 ). Taking a systems approach, we compare findings across demographic groups and geographic regions to understand how PBMA adoption intersects with socio-economic factors and agro-ecological principles (Herrera-Cuenca et al., 2023 ). The review employs the PICO framework to analyze consumers across the dietary spectrum (Population), PBMA integration in organic systems (Intervention), conventional protein sources (Comparator), and measures of acceptance (Outcomes). By critically examining PBMA's role in sustainable food systems, this study contributes to ongoing discussions about organic agriculture's evolution while providing evidence-based recommendations for stakeholders across the organic value chain - from producers to policymakers (Springmann et al., 2024). Research procedure Review Protocol This systematic literature review followed PRISMA guidelines (Page et al., 2021 ) to examine consumer perceptions of plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) in organic and sustainable food systems. The study addressed the research question: "What factors influence consumer acceptance of PBMAs within sustainable and organic food systems?" Initial searches across multiple databases yielded results that were manually tabulated in a spreadsheet for organization and deduplication. Filters were then applied to include only peer-reviewed studies published between 2019 and 2024, written in English, and relevant to the selected regions and study types. The screening process involved an independent review of titles and abstracts by six researchers, ensuring consistency and reducing bias. Subsequently, full-text articles were evaluated in detail, and additional exclusions were made based on relevance and eligibility criteria. Quality assessment evaluated study rigor, with attention to research designs including cross-sectional surveys (Herrera-Cuenca et al., 2023 ; Park & Namkung, 2024 ), experimental approaches (Jang & Cho, 2024), and mixed methods (Blanco-Gutiérrez et al., 2020 ). Given methodological heterogeneity, we employed an integrative review approach (Torraco, 2005 ) rather than meta-analysis. The final synthesis incorporated studies representing diverse regions: European (Weinrich, 2019 ; Faber et al., 2019), Asian (Chen et al., 2022; Wu et al., 2024 ), and global perspectives (Onwezen et al., 2021 ; Bogueva & McClements, 2023 ). Key outcomes included acceptance drivers (health: Springmann et al., 2024; environment: Attwood et al., 2022) and barriers (taste: Klerk & de Boer, 2020 ;) and price. The review team resolved discrepancies through consensus, completing the analysis in April 2025. This approach enabled identification of demographic patterns (Wang et al.; 2022 Geicu-Cristea et al., 2023 ) while accounting for cultural variations (Tosun et al., 2020 ; Michel et al., 2020). Study Selection Criteria The systematic review employed a comprehensive search strategy to identify relevant studies on consumer perceptions of plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) in sustainable food systems. A Boolean search algorithm was developed combining key terms: ((plant-based OR meat alternative* OR meat substitute ) AND (organic OR sustainable OR "food system ") AND (consumer* OR attitude* OR perception* OR accept* OR adopt ) AND (factor OR driver* OR barrier* OR motivate* OR preference*)). This search was executed across Scopus and Web of Science databases, selected for their authoritative coverage of agricultural and food science literature (Page et al., 2021 ), yielding 4,372 results from Scopus and 3,891 from Web of Science Web of Science platforms. The inclusion criteria were carefully designed to capture recent, relevant research. We limited results to peer-reviewed journal articles published in English between 2019–2024 to ensure coverage of the most current market developments and scientific understanding (Bryant & Sanctorum, 2021 ; Springmann et al., 2024). The review focused specifically on primary research examining consumer perceptions of PBMAs across global markets, incorporating both qualitative approaches like those used by Attwood et al. (2022) and quantitative methods exemplified in Park and Namkung's (2024) work. Several exclusion criteria were applied to refine the results, removing non-empirical studies such as reviews and commentaries, industry reports, conference proceedings, and studies focusing solely on technical product development without consumer insights. Research examining alternative proteins like insect-based or cultured meat without direct comparison to PBMAs was also excluded (Michel et al., 2020) Following initial database filtering, 1,283 records underwent title and abstract screening. This preliminary review excluded studies that lacked focus on consumer perceptions, such as pure life cycle assessments, or those examining only nutritional or technical aspects without considering consumer perspectives (Bogueva & McClements, 2023 ). Research addressing meat alternatives without proper contextualization within organic or sustainable food systems was also removed at this stage (Falkenberg et al., 2023 ). The subsequent full-text review of 217 articles applied more rigorous quality criteria, requiring clear methodology descriptions including research design, sampling approaches, and measurement tools, along with empirical data on consumer attitudes and behaviors, and explicit connections to sustainable food systems concepts (Herrera-Cuenca et al., 2023 ; Blanco-Gutiérrez et al., 2020 ). The final selection comprised 35 studies meeting all quality and relevance criteria, representing a diverse methodological portfolio. The majority (79%) employed cross-sectional survey designs (Faber et al., 2019; Park & Namkung, 2024 ), while 14% utilized experimental approaches (Jang & Cho, 2024; Wu et al., 2024 ) and 7% featured mixed methods (Pointke et al., 2022 ). Geographically, the selected studies provided broad coverage with 46% from European contexts (Weinrich, 2019 ; Geicu-Cristea et al., 2023 ), 29% from Asian markets (Chen et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022 ), 17% from the Americas, and 8% presenting global or multi-country perspectives (Onwezen et al., 2021 ). This rigorous selection process ensured representation of key consumer segments including omnivores, flexitarians, and vegetarians, as well as major product categories like burgers, sausages, and mince products, as systematically identified across the literature (Attwood et al., 2022; Klerk & de Boer, 2020 ). The complete selection process is visually documented in the PRISMA flowchart (Fig. 1 ), demonstrating the systematic approach to identifying the most relevant and high-quality studies for this review. Results Year of Publication of the Investigated Studies The systematic review included 35 studies published between 2018 and 2024, with a notable surge in publications from 2022 onward. This trend reflects the growing academic and societal interest in plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) amid global debates on sustainable diets. Over half of the studies (n = 19) were published in 2022–2023, coinciding with the rise of flexitarians and corporate investments in PBMA products (Heijnk et al., 2023 ; Sendhil et al., 2024 ). Only four studies predated 2020, underscoring the novelty of this research field. Countries Included in the Reviewed Studies The studies encompassed 15 countries, with a strong emphasis on European markets. Germany (Falkenberg et al., 2023 ; Heijnk et al., 2023 ), the UK (Slade, 2018 ), and Spain (Blanco-Gutiérrez et al., 2020 ) accounted for 12 of the 35 studies. North America was represented by U.S. and Canadian (Slade, 2018 ) research, while Asia-focused studies examined consumer behavior in China (Wu et al., 2024 ), South Korea (Park & Namkung, 2024 ), and Singapore (Michel et al., 2020). Six studies adopted multi-country comparisons, such as Gómez-Luciano et al. ( 2019 ), who analyzed data from Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Spain, and the UK. Emerging economies like South Africa (Szejda et al., 2021 ) and Romania (Geicu-Cristea et al., 2023 ) were underrepresented, highlighting a geographic research gap. Theoretical Backgrounds of the Studies Only 40% of studies (n = 14) were grounded in theoretical frameworks. The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) was most frequently applied (Bryant & Sanctorum, 2021 ; Park & Namkung, 2024 ), followed by the Value-Attitude-Behavior (VAB) model (Jang & Cho, 2022 ; Saini et al., 2024 ). Two studies integrated dual-process theories to explain cognitive-emotional conflicts in PBMA adoption (Piao et al., 2024 ; Heijnk et al., 2023 ). The remaining studies (n = 21) relied on empirical precedents without explicit theoretical foundations, focusing instead on descriptive analyses of consumer preferences (e.g., Bogueva & McClements, 2023 ; Herrera-Cuenca et al., 2023 ). Research Methodologies of the Studies Quantitative designs dominated (n = 23), primarily using cross-sectional surveys with Likert-scale measures (Attwood et al., 2022; Estell et al., 2021 ). Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) were employed in three studies (Wang et al., 2022 ; Wu et al., 2024 ) to quantify willingness-to-pay trade-offs. Qualitative approaches (n = 7) included narrative reviews (Onwezen et al., 2021 ; Klerk & de Boer, 2020 ) and content analyses of social media data (Chen & Zhang, 2022 ). Mixed-methods research (n = 5) combined surveys with sensory testing (Pointke et al., 2022 ) or stakeholder workshops (Blanco-Gutiérrez et al., 2020 ). Notably, convenience sampling was a limitation in 28 studies, with only seven utilizing nationally representative samples (e.g., Heijnk et al., 2023 ; Szejda et al., 2021 ). Quality Assessment Procedure and Outcomes Study quality was evaluated using van Dinter et al.’s ( 2021 ) eight-criteria checklist (Table 1 ). Scores ranged from 4.5 to 8 (mean = 6.3; median = 6.0). Higher-scoring studies (≥ 7) featured longitudinal designs (Bryant & Sanctorum, 2021 ), randomized interventions (Wang et al., 2022 ), or validated measurement scales (Jang & Cho, 2022 ). Lower scores (≤ 5.5) reflected inadequate sample justification (Tosun et al., 2020 ) or lack of control for confounding variables (Faber et al., 2019). Inter-rater reliability during quality assessment exceeded 90%, with discrepancies resolved through consensus. Table 1 Quality assessment criteria (van Dinter et al. 2021 ) Quality Criteria Question Q1 Are the aims of the study clearly stated? Q2 Are the scope, context and experimental design clearly defined? Q3 Is the proposed solution clearly explained and validated by an empirical study? Q4 Are the variables in the study likely to be valid and reliable? Q5 Is the research process documented adequately? Q6 Are all the study questions answered? Q7 Are the negative findings presented? Q8 Are the main findings stated clearly in terms of credibility, validity, and reliability? Narrative Summary of the Studies This synthesis integrates findings from the reviewed literature on consumer perceptions of PBMAs, organized into four thematic categories: sociodemographic influences, psychological drivers, product-related attributes, and contextual/systemic factors. Sociodemographic Influences : Younger consumers (e.g., undergraduates) and those with higher education levels consistently exhibited greater PBMA acceptance (Faber et al., 2019; Geicu-Cristea et al., 2023 ; Szejda et al., 2021 ). For instance, Faber et al. (2019) found that 83% of Danish young adults (aged 18–30) were aware of PBMAs, compared to only 38% in Spain, underscoring cultural and generational disparities. Women were more likely to prioritize health and environmental benefits (Pointke et al., 2022 ; Park & Namkung, 2024 ), while men showed greater openness to cultured meat (Bryant & Sanctorum, 2021 ). Income effects were mixed: some studies linked higher socioeconomic status to PBMA adoption (Herrera-Cuenca et al., 2023 ; Slade, 2018 ), while others noted price sensitivity among students and lower-income groups (Wang et al., 2022 ; Saini et al., 2024 ). Psychological and Attitudinal Drivers : Health and environmental concerns were primary motivators for PBMA consumption (Bogueva & McClements, 2023 ; He et al., 2020 ; Onwezen et al., 2021 ). Consumers perceived PBMAs as healthier (e.g., lower saturated fat) and more sustainable than conventional meat (Falkenberg et al., 2023 ; Springmann, 2024 ), though misconceptions about nutritional adequacy (e.g., protein quality, sodium content) persisted (Bogueva & McClements, 2023 ; Attwood et al., 2022). Food neophobia and habitual meat consumption also shaped attitudes; frequent meat-eaters emphasized sensory barriers (Melios & Grasso, 2024 ; Heijnk et al., 2023 ), while flexitarians and vegetarians valued ethical alignment (Estell et al., 2021 ; Jang & Cho, 2022 ). Theoretical frameworks like the Theory of Planned Behavior (Park & Namkung, 2024 ) and dual concern theory (Jang & Cho, 2022 ) highlighted the roles of perceived behavioral control and altruistic values in shaping intentions. Product-Related Attributes : Sensory appeal (taste, texture) was the most cited barrier to adoption (Klerk & de Boer, 2020 ; Attwood et al., 2022; Tosun et al., 2020 ). Products mimicking meat’s sensory profile (e.g., burgers, sausages) had higher acceptance (Falkenberg et al., 2023 ; Pointke et al., 2022 ), but ultra-processing and ingredient transparency raised concerns (Bogueva & McClements, 2023 ; Springmann, 2024 ). For example, Falkenberg et al. ( 2023 ) found that Austrian PBMAs had protein levels comparable to meat but were 29–43% more expensive, deterring cost-sensitive consumers. Labeling interventions (e.g., health claims) improved willingness to pay (Wang et al., 2022 ; Wu et al., 2024 ), though environmental messaging had limited impact in some regions (Wang et al., 2022 ; Sendhil et al., 2024 ). Contextual and Systemic Influences : Cultural norms strongly influenced acceptance. In Mediterranean countries (e.g., Spain, Greece), traditional diets hindered PBMA adoption (Faber et al., 2019; Park & Namkung, 2024 ), whereas Northern European consumers were more receptive (Faber et al., 2019; Heijnk et al., 2023 ). Policy and infrastructure gaps were evident; studies called for subsidies (Falkenberg et al., 2023 ), clearer regulations (Blanco-Gutiérrez et al., 2020 ), and campus dining initiatives to normalize PBMAs among undergraduates (Geicu-Cristea et al., 2023 ; Onwezen et al., 2021 ). Social norms and peer influence were critical for young adults (Faber et al., 2019; Szejda et al., 2021 ). Contradictions and Gaps : While most studies agreed on sensory and price barriers (Attwood et al., 2022; Klerk & de Boer, 2020 ), some reported incongruities. For example, Blanco-Gutiérrez et al. ( 2020 ) found Spanish stakeholders skeptical of PBMAs’ market viability, whereas Herrera-Cuenca et al. ( 2023 ) noted rising flexitarian trends in Latin America. Long-term behavioral data were scarce, with most evidence relying on cross-sectional surveys (Slade, 2018 ; Pakseresht et al., 2021). Few studies explicitly examined PBMAs in organic food systems, leaving gaps in how organic certification affects perceptions (Hassoun et al., 2022 ; Sendhil et al., 2024 ). Key takeaways for sustainable food systems highlight the importance of tailoring interventions based on demographic differences. For instance, sensory-focused marketing strategies may be more effective for habitual meat-eaters, while sustainability-centered messaging could resonate better with student populations. Policy action is also crucial in promoting sustainable food systems, particularly in improving the affordability of plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) through subsidies and enhancing standardization through clear labeling, aligning these products with organic and sustainable food principles. These findings are summarized in Table 2 . Furthermore, there are notable research gaps that need to be addressed, including the need for longitudinal studies, investigations into real-world purchasing behavior, and a deeper understanding of the impact of organic certification on consumer choices (Sendhil et al., 2024 ; Wu et al., 2024 ). Table 2 Key Factors Influencing PBMA Consumer Perceptions Category Factors Supporting Citations Sociodemographic Age (younger), education (higher), gender (female), income (mixed effects) Faber et al. (2019 Psychological Health/environmental concerns, food neophobia, social norms He et al. ( 2020 ); Jang & Cho ( 2022 ) Product-Related Sensory appeal, price, labeling, ingredient transparency Falkenberg et al. ( 2023 ); Wu et al. ( 2024 ) Contextual Cultural norms, policy support, infrastructure Blanco-Gutiérrez et al. ( 2020 ); Kati Types of Innovation in Plant-Based Meat Alternatives The reviewed studies were categorized into four innovation types shaping PBMA development and adoption: product formulation, processing technologies, marketing strategies, and policy frameworks. Product Formulation Innovations : Twelve studies examined advancements in ingredient composition and nutritional profiling (e.g., protein sources, micronutrient fortification). Research highlighted the dominance of pea protein in European markets (Falkenberg et al., 2023 ) and efforts to mimic meat’s sensory properties through plant-based heme or extrusion techniques (He et al., 2020 ; Flint et al., 2024). These innovations addressed consumer demands for taste and health parity with conventional meat but faced challenges in balancing processing intensity with "clean-label" expectations (Bogueva & McClements, 2023 ). Processing Technologies : Nine studies focused on technological breakthroughs, such as 3D printing and high-moisture extrusion (Hassoun et al., 2022 ; Springmann, 2024 ). While these improved texture and scalability, concerns about ultra-processing and energy use persisted (Bogueva & McClements, 2023 ; Wu et al., 2024 ). For instance, cultured meat though distinct from PBMAs was often compared unfavorably due to perceived unnaturalness (Bryant & Sanctorum, 2021 ; Pakseresht et al., 2021). Marketing Strategies : Thirteen studies have analyzed consumer-facing innovations aimed at promoting sustainable food choices. Among these, behavioral nudges such as health and environmental messaging were found to significantly increase willingness to pay, particularly among younger demographics (Park & Namkung, 2024 ; Wang et al., 2022 ). Anthropomorphic branding, which involves using human-like features in packaging design, was shown to enhance the appeal of plant-based options in restaurant settings (Piao et al., 2024 ). Additionally, transparency tools like carbon labeling and ingredient traceability played a key role in building consumer trust in Nordic markets; however, their impact was notably limited in China, indicating the need for context-specific strategies (Wu et al., 2024 ; Blanco-Gutiérrez et al., 2020 ). Policy Frameworks : Ten studies emphasized the significance of regulatory and infrastructural innovations in promoting sustainable food systems. Subsidies emerged as a key policy tool, with price parity initiatives in Austria demonstrating a reduction in adoption barriers for plant-based alternatives (Falkenberg et al., 2023 ). Standardization efforts also play a crucial role, as ongoing debates in the EU and the US over the appropriate use of "meat" labeling terminology highlight the need for clear and consistent definitions to avoid consumer confusion (Sendhil et al., 2024 ). Additionally, campus-based interventions, including university partnerships, were shown to effectively increase student exposure to plant-based meat alternatives, supporting broader behavioral change in younger populations (Geicu-Cristea et al., 2023 ) Cross-Cutting Adoption Factors : While innovation types varied, five common facilitators emerged (Table 3 ): Table 3 Key Adoption Factors by Innovation Type Innovation Type Key Factors Product Formulation Sensory mimicry, nutritional parity, clean-label ingredients Processing Technologies Energy efficiency, scalability, consumer education on safety Marketing Strategies Demographic-tailored messaging, transparency, ethical branding Policy Frameworks Subsidies, labeling standards, youth-targeted programs Education and technical support were universally critical. For example, consumer literacy on PBMA health benefits improved acceptance (Estell et al., 2021 ; Onwezen et al., 2021 ), while chef training enhanced culinary integration (Melios & Grasso, 2024 ). Economic incentives (e.g., tax breaks for sustainable food startups) and network structures (e.g., industry-NGO collaborations) further accelerated adoption across categories (Sendhil et al., 2024 ). Gaps and Future Directions : There is a notable scarcity of longitudinal data on the real-world adoption of technical innovations in the plant-based food sector. For example, while 3D-printed plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) are gaining attention as a novel innovation, limited evidence exists regarding their long-term uptake and impact among consumers (Hassoun et al., 2022 ). Furthermore, the cultural adaptation of marketing strategies remains an underexplored area, particularly in Global South contexts. Although marketing approaches have been extensively studied in Western settings, there is a growing need to understand how these strategies can be effectively tailored to diverse cultural norms and consumer behaviors in regions such as Latin America, Africa, and South Asia (Szejda et al., 2021 ; Herrera-Cuenca et al., 2023 ). Additionally, policy coherence between organic certification frameworks and the standards applied to PBMAs warrants further investigation. As plant-based alternatives increasingly align with sustainability goals, integrating them within existing organic certification systems could enhance consumer trust and regulatory clarity. However, current standards often lack consistency, posing challenges for both producers and consumers (Blanco-Gutiérrez et al., 2020 ). Research Agenda The synthesis of existing literature reveals several critical gaps that must be addressed to advance both scholarly understanding and practical implementation of plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) within sustainable food systems. A primary concern emerges from the theoretical fragmentation observed across studies. While some researchers have employed established behavioral frameworks like the Theory of Planned Behavior (Park & Namkung, 2024 ) or Dual Concern Theory (Jang & Cho, 2022 ), the majority of examined studies lacked robust theoretical grounding. This theoretical inconsistency limits the comparability of findings and hinders the development of a unified conceptual model for PBMA adoption. Future research would benefit from systematically applying and testing theoretical models across diverse cultural contexts to identify universal versus context-specific drivers of acceptance. Methodological limitations present another significant challenge. The current evidence base relies heavily on cross-sectional surveys using convenience samples, as seen in studies of European young adults (Faber et al., 2019) and Chinese urban consumers (Wu et al., 2024 ). While these provide valuable snapshots of attitudes, they fail to capture the dynamic nature of dietary transitions. More rigorous longitudinal designs, such as tracking PBMA adoption patterns in university dining halls over multiple years, could yield insights into the temporal evolution of consumer preferences. Experimental approaches, including randomized controlled trials testing different messaging strategies or product formulations, would further strengthen causal claims about factors influencing PBMA acceptance. The review also exposes important demographic and cultural knowledge gaps. Existing studies report inconsistent findings regarding the role of age, gender, and socioeconomic status in PBMA adoption. For instance, while younger consumers generally show greater openness to PBMAs in Western contexts (Faber et al., 2019), emerging evidence suggests older demographics in Asia may be more receptive when products align with traditional dietary patterns (Wu et al., 2024 ). These contradictions highlight the need for carefully designed comparative studies that control for cultural and economic variables. Particularly lacking are investigations into PBMA acceptance in low- and middle-income countries, where different protein transitions may be occurring compared to wealthy nations. At the systemic level, two underexplored areas demand urgent attention. First, the potential synergies between PBMA development and organic food systems remain virtually unstudied, despite their shared sustainability goals. Research is needed to examine whether organic certification could enhance consumer trust in PBMAs, and what technical challenges arise in creating organic-compliant formulations. Second, the role of innovation networks - particularly collaborations between PBMA manufacturers, farmers, and policymakers - has received scant attention. The agricultural innovation literature suggests such networks are crucial for radical transitions, yet only a handful of PBMA studies (e.g., Blanco-Gutiérrez et al., 2020 ) have examined these dynamics. Three priority research directions emerge from this analysis. First, theory-driven, longitudinal studies are needed to map the complex interplay between product attributes, consumer psychology, and contextual factors in PBMA adoption. Second, culturally grounded research should explore how PBMAs might incorporate traditional plant proteins (e.g., lentils, tofu) to improve acceptance across diverse food cultures. Third, policy-oriented studies must investigate how to align PBMA regulations with existing organic and sustainability certification schemes, while addressing potential trade-offs in affordability and scalability. Addressing these gaps will require unprecedented collaboration across disciplines from food science to behavioral economics to supply chain management. Future studies should aim not just to describe consumer attitudes, but to illuminate pathways for equitable, sustainable protein transitions across global food systems. Conclusions This systematic review has systematically mapped the current state of knowledge regarding consumer perceptions of plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) within organic and sustainable food systems. Through analysis of thirty-five peer-reviewed studies, the review reveals that PBMA adoption is governed by an intricate web of interdependent factors spanning product characteristics, consumer psychology, and broader food system contexts. The findings demonstrate that no single determinant drives adoption; rather, it is the dynamic interaction between sensory attributes like taste and texture, perceived health and environmental benefits, affordability considerations, and cultural food norms that collectively shape acceptance patterns. This complexity mirrors the configurational nature of agricultural innovation adoption noted in earlier work, where multiple pathways can lead to similar outcomes. Several important limitations must be acknowledged when interpreting these findings. While the rigorous systematic methodology employed ensures comprehensive coverage of major academic databases, the exclusive focus on peer-reviewed articles in English may have omitted valuable insights from industry reports or non-Western scholarship. The predominance of cross-sectional studies in the literature, many relying on convenience samples of university students or urban populations, limits our ability to make causal claims or generalize findings across diverse demographic groups. Furthermore, the rapid evolution of PBMA products and markets means some included studies may already reflect outdated technological or consumer preference landscapes. These constraints are inherent to systematic reviews in emerging fields (Paul & Criado, 2020 ) but should inform cautious interpretation of the results. The review yields three significant theoretical contributions that advance understanding of sustainable food innovation adoption. First, it synthesizes previously fragmented evidence into a coherent framework that connects micro-level consumer decision-making with meso-level market forces and macro-level policy environments. Second, it identifies critical gaps in applying established behavioral theories to PBMA contexts, with fewer than half of analyzed studies grounding their investigations in robust theoretical foundations. Third, the findings challenge simplistic assumptions about demographic determinants, revealing how age, gender, and income effects vary substantially across cultural contexts - younger urban consumers drive adoption in Europe (Faber et al., 2019), while older health-conscious buyers show greater receptivity in parts of Asia (Wu et al., 2024 ). From a methodological standpoint, the analysis suggests several important directions for future research. Longitudinal studies tracking actual purchasing behavior rather than stated intentions would provide more reliable evidence of adoption patterns. Experimental designs that systematically vary product attributes, pricing, and messaging could isolate causal factors more effectively than the correlational approaches dominating current literature. Comparative research across different food cultures and economic contexts is urgently needed to test the generalizability of findings beyond the Western, educated, industrialized populations that dominate existing studies. Incorporating more sophisticated theoretical models from behavioral economics and innovation diffusion theory would strengthen explanatory power. The practical implications for policymakers and industry stakeholders are substantial and multifaceted. For public sector actors, the review highlights the need for coordinated policy interventions that address multiple adoption barriers simultaneously. Educational campaigns correcting nutritional misconceptions should be paired with financial incentives for manufacturers to improve product affordability and accessibility. Regulatory frameworks must balance standardization needs with flexibility to accommodate regional dietary preferences and production contexts. Food industry leaders can apply these insights by investing in sensory research to bridge the taste gap with conventional meat, while developing targeted marketing strategies that emphasize different benefit bundles (health, sustainability, ethical) for distinct consumer segments. At a broader level, these findings contribute to ongoing debates about protein transitions in sustainable food systems. The review suggests PBMAs hold significant potential to reduce the environmental footprint of diets, particularly when integrated with organic and agroecological production models. However, realizing this potential requires moving beyond technical product innovation to address the complex sociocultural and economic dimensions of dietary change. Future research should particularly examine how PBMA development can create equitable value chains that benefit both small-scale organic farmers and consumers across the economic spectrum. As the world works toward the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, this systematic review provides both a roadmap for future scholarship and a caution against one size fits all solutions in sustainable food innovation. The path forward demands interdisciplinary collaboration, context-sensitive approaches, and ongoing dialogue between researchers, policymakers, industry, and civil society to navigate the inevitable trade-offs and complexities of transforming global protein systems. Declarations Competing Interests The authors declare that they have no competing financial or non-financial interests that are directly or indirectly related to the work submitted for publication. Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Clinical Trial Registration Clinical trial number: Not applicable Author Contributions Conceptualization: W.M.K.G. Dissanayake Methodology: R.P.C.V. Rajapaksha Investigation: W.M.K.G. Dissanayake, R.P.C.V. Rajapaksha, M.D.V.O. Manathunga, H.M.K.D. Weerabandara, W.A.S. Bhagya; Writing – original draft: R.P.C.V. Rajapaksha, W.M.K.G. Dissanayake Writing – review and editing: W.M.K.G. Dissanayake Data curation: H.M.K.D. Weerabandara Visualization: M.D.V.O. Manathunga Supervision: D.D. Yasoda Rasanjale. References Andreani, G., Sogari, G., Marti, A., Froldi, F., Dagevos, H., & Martini, D. (2023). Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: Technological, Nutritional, Environmental, Market, and Social Challenges and Opportunities. Nutrients, 15 (2), 452. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15020452 Blanco-Gutiérrez, I., Varela-Ortega, C., & Manners, R. (2020). Evaluating Animal-Based Foods and Plant-Based Alternatives Using Multi-Criteria and SWOT Analyses. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17 (21), 7969. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17217969 Bogueva, D., & McClements, D. J. (2023). Safety and Nutritional Risks Associated with Plant-Based Meat Alternatives. Sustainability, 15 (19), 14336. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914336 Bryant, C. J. (2022). Plant-based animal product alternatives are healthier and more environmentally sustainable than animal products. Future Foods, 6 , 100174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fufo.2022.100174 Bryant, C., & Sanctorum, H. (2021). Alternative proteins, evolving attitudes: Comparing consumer attitudes to plant-based and cultured meat in Belgium in two consecutive years. Appetite, 161 , 105161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105161 Chen, Y., & Zhang, Z. (2022). Exploring public perceptions on alternative meat in China from social media data using transfer learning method. Food Quality and Preference, 98 , 104530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104530 Estell, M., Hughes, J., & Grafenauer, S. (2021). Plant Protein and Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: Consumer and Nutrition Professional Attitudes and Perceptions. Sustainability, 13 (3), 1478. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031478 Faber, I., Castellanos-Feijoó, N. A., Van de Sompel, L., Davydova, A., & Perez-Cueto, F. J. A. (2020). Attitudes and knowledge towards plant-based diets of young adults across four European countries. Exploratory survey. Appetite, 145 , 104498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104498 Falkenberg, C., Trexler, A., Garaus, C., & Pöchtrager, S. (2023). Meat substitute markets: A comparative analysis of meat analogs in Austria. Foods, 12 (11), 2211. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12112211 Geicu-Cristea, M., Popa, E. E., Manea, P. G., Drăghici, M. C., Miteluţ, A. C., Popescu, P. A., & Popa, M. E. (2023). Romanian consumer attitudes regarding alternative protein sources. Scientific Bulletin Series F. Biotechnologies, 27 (2). Gómez-Luciano, C. A., De Aguiar, L. K., Vriesekoop, F., & Urbano, B. (2019). Consumers’ willingness to purchase three alternatives to meat proteins in the United Kingdom, Spain, Brazil and the Dominican Republic. Food Quality and Preference, 78 , 103732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103732 Hassoun, A., Cropotova, J., Trif, M., Rusu, A. V., Bobiş, O., Nayik, G. A., Jagdale, Y. D., Saeed, F., Afzaal, M., Mostashari, P., Khaneghah, A. M., & Regenstein, J. M. (2022). Consumer acceptance of new food trends resulting from the fourth industrial revolution technologies: A narrative review of literature and future perspectives. Frontiers in Nutrition, 9 , 972154. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2022.972154 He, J., Evans, N. M., Liu, H., & Shao, S. (2020). A review of research on plant-based meat alternatives: Driving forces, history, manufacturing, and consumer attitudes. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 19 (5), 2639–2656. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12610 Heijnk, V., Espey, A., & Schuenemann, F. (2023). A comparison of influencing factors on attitudes towards plant-based, insect-based and cultured meat alternatives in Germany. Food Quality and Preference, 110 , 104966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2023.104966 Herrera-Cuenca, M., Yépez García, M. C., Cortés Sanabria, L. Y., Hernández, P., Sifontes, Y., Ramírez, G., Vásquez, M., Gómez, G., Liria-Domínguez, M. R., Rigotti, A., Fisberg, M., Kovaslkys, I., & Landaeta-Jiménez, M. (2023). Contribution of Proteins to the Latin American Diet: Results of the ELANS Study. Nutrients, 15 (3), 669. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15030669 Jang, H.-W., & Cho, M. (2022). Relationship between Personal Values and Intentions to Purchase Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: Application of the Dual Concern Theory. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19 (14), 8673. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148673 Klerk, M., & de Boer, J. (2020). Consumer acceptance of plant-based meat substitutes: A narrative review. Appetite, 150 , 104445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104445 Melios, S., & Grasso, S. (2024). Meat fans' and meat reducers' attitudes towards meat consumption and hybrid meat products in the UK: A cluster analysis. International Journal of Food Science & Technology, 59 (12), 9394–9401. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.17586 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104063 Onwezen, M. C., Bouwman, E. P., Reinders, M. J., & Dagevos, H. (2021). A systematic review on consumer acceptance of alternative proteins: Pulses, algae, insects, plant-based meat alternatives, and cultured meat. Appetite, 159 , 105058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.105058 Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD (2021) PRISMA statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Br Med J 372(71):1–9 Pakseresht, A., Kaliji, S. A., & Canavari, M. (2022). Review of factors affecting consumer acceptance of cultured meat. Appetite, 170 , 105829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105829 Park, C.-I., & Namkung, Y. (2024). Consumer Values, Attitudes, and Behavior towards Plant-Based Alternatives. Foods, 13 (16), 2561. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13162561 Paul J, Criado AR (2020) The art of writing literature review: what do we know and what do we need to know? Int Bus Rev 29(4):101717 Piao, Z., Wei, W., & Zhang, L. (2024). How anthropomorphism shapes restaurant customers’ consumption of plant-based meat alternatives: Perceptions, attitudes, and intention to visit. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 123 , 103898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2024.103898 Pointke, M., Ohlau, M., Risius, A., & Pawelzik, E. (2022). Plant-Based Only: Investigating Consumers’ Sensory Perception, Motivation, and Knowledge of Different Plant-Based Alternative Products on the Market. Foods, 11 (15), 2339. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11152339 Saini, M., Prakash, G., Yaqub, M. Z., & Agarwal, R. (2024). Why do people purchase plant-based meat products from retail stores? Examining consumer preferences, motivations and drivers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 81 , 103939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.103939 Sendhil, R., Bhuvana, C. R., Yadav, S., Gayathry, G., Ragupathy, R., Pouchepparadjou, A., & Ramasundaram, P. (2024). Consumer perception and preference toward plant-based meat alternatives – Bibliometric trends and policy implications. Food and Humanity, 2 , 100229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foohum.2024.100229 Slade, P. (2018). If you build it, will they eat it? Consumer preferences for plant-based and cultured meat burgers. Appetite, 125 , 428–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.02.030 Springmann, M. (2024). A multicriteria analysis of meat and milk alternatives from nutritional, health, environmental, and cost perspectives. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121 (50), e2319010121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2319010121 Szejda, K., Stumpe, M., Raal, L., & Tapscott, C. E. (2021). South African Consumer Adoption of Plant-Based and Cultivated Meat: A Segmentation Study. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 5 , 744199. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.744199 Szenderák, J., Fróna, D., & Rákos, M. (2022). Consumer Acceptance of Plant-Based Meat Substitutes: A Narrative Review. Foods, 11 (9), 1274. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11091274 Torraco RJ (2005) Writing integrative literature reviews: guidelines and examples. Hum Resour Dev Rev 4(3):356–367 Tosun, P., Yanar, M., Sezgin, S., & Uray, N. (2020). Meat Substitutes in Sustainability Context: A Content Analysis of Consumer Attitudes. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing . https://doi.org/10.1080/08974438.2020.1840475 van Dinter R, Tekinerdogan B, Catal C (2021) Automation of systematic literature reviews: a systematic literature review. Inf Softw Technol 136:106589 Wang, H., Chen, Q., Zhu, C., & Bao, J. (2022). Paying for the Greater Good?—What Information Matters for Beijing Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Plant-Based Meat? Foods, 11 (16), 2460. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11162460 Weinrich, R. (2019). Opportunities for the Adoption of Health-Based Sustainable Dietary Patterns: A Review on Consumer Research of Meat Substitutes. Sustainability, 11 (15), 4028. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154028 Wu, W., Yuan, R., Wang, Q., & Jin, S. (2024). Consumers’ preferences for the attributes of plant-based meat in China: A best-worst scaling approach. Future Foods, 9 , 100384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fufo.2024.100384 Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7017551","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Systematic Review","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":478904388,"identity":"6c273a47-38eb-4656-b1cb-23429cf40486","order_by":0,"name":"D.D Yasoda Rasanjale","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Department of Biomedical Science, Faculty of Health Science, KIU University, Sri Lanka","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"D.D","middleName":"Yasoda","lastName":"Rasanjale","suffix":""},{"id":478904389,"identity":"73ba88a4-46d9-42c6-8ec2-0657ee317cc8","order_by":1,"name":"W.M.K.G Dissanayake","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Department of Biomedical Science, Faculty of Health Science, KIU University, Sri Lanka","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"W.M.K.G","middleName":"","lastName":"Dissanayake","suffix":""},{"id":478904390,"identity":"320df32a-d1de-4d32-9fb9-857c7c457f5d","order_by":2,"name":"R.P.C.V. Rajapaksha","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Department of Biomedical Science, Faculty of Health Science, KIU University, Sri Lanka","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"R.P.C.V.","middleName":"","lastName":"Rajapaksha","suffix":""},{"id":478904391,"identity":"b9bdc5dd-1a8a-4e35-a5e9-3403d07fe2a4","order_by":3,"name":"M.D.V.O. Manathunga","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Department of Biomedical Science, Faculty of Health Science, KIU University, Sri Lanka","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"M.D.V.O.","middleName":"","lastName":"Manathunga","suffix":""},{"id":478904392,"identity":"e8872670-dc9b-4c17-a084-7fd24c3df886","order_by":4,"name":"H.M.K.D. Weerabandara","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Department of Biomedical Science, Faculty of Health Science, KIU University, Sri Lanka","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"H.M.K.D.","middleName":"","lastName":"Weerabandara","suffix":""},{"id":478904393,"identity":"fcc4162a-4919-462f-bb01-9ae611e82448","order_by":5,"name":"W.A.S. Bhagya","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Department of Biomedical Science, Faculty of Health Science, KIU University, Sri Lanka","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"W.A.S.","middleName":"","lastName":"Bhagya","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-01 07:56:21","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7017551/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7017551/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":85822134,"identity":"9f3b5af7-2593-49dc-bfb4-151b66d24d13","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-02 06:45:08","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":413237,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePRISMA flow diagram\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7017551/v1/05a9aa64e1767440afa90c6d.png"},{"id":85823046,"identity":"5f24ff34-6b8a-46a3-954e-741b452fc281","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-02 06:53:08","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1218304,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7017551/v1/7124ddf8-a2ce-4fe6-ba80-731de5a07828.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePlant-Based Meat Alternatives in Organic and Sustainable Food Systems: A Systematic Review of Consumer Perceptions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe global food system faces mounting challenges, including environmental degradation, climate change, and public health concerns linked to high meat consumption (Springmann et al., 2024). In response, plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) have emerged as a sustainable innovation within organic and sustainable food systems, offering a potential solution to reduce the ecological footprint of conventional animal agriculture (He et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). However, despite their environmental and health benefits, consumer acceptance of PBMAs remains inconsistent, influenced by factors such as taste, price, nutritional perceptions, and cultural preferences (Attwood et al., 2022; Klerk \u0026amp; de Boer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExisting research highlights uncertainties in consumer attitudes toward PBMAs, particularly regarding their role in organic food systems, which prioritize sustainability, health, and ethical production (Falkenberg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). While some studies suggest growing acceptance among younger, environmentally conscious consumers (Faber et al., 2019; Geicu-Cristea et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), others identify persistent barriers, including sensory dissatisfaction, affordability, and distrust of processed alternatives (Blanco-Gutiérrez et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Pointke et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, prior systematic reviews on PBMAs (e.g., Onwezen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Weinrich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) have not specifically examined their integration into organic and sustainable food systems, leaving a critical gap in understanding how consumer perceptions align with broader sustainability goals.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis systematic review addresses a crucial research gap by being the first to comprehensively synthesize evidence on plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) specifically within organic and sustainable food systems (Falkenberg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Despite the rapidly growing market for organic plant-based products, previous reviews have not examined how PBMAs align with the principles of sustainable agriculture and organic production standards. The necessity of this review is further highlighted by inconsistent research findings - while some studies demonstrate strong consumer willingness to adopt PBMAs, particularly among environmentally-conscious demographics (Bryant \u0026amp; Sanctorum, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), others reveal persistent barriers related to taste preferences and premium pricing (Melios \u0026amp; Grasso, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, research by Herrera-Cuenca et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) and Park \u0026amp; Namkung (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) underscores how cultural contexts and demographic differences significantly influence PBMA acceptance, necessitating a global perspective that considers regional variations in dietary habits and food values. By systematically analyzing these diverse factors, this review provides much-needed clarity on how PBMAs can effectively contribute to more sustainable food systems worldwide.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis systematic review examines plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) through the lens of organic and sustainable food systems, aligning with innovations in organic agriculture and consumer research. The study evaluates consumer perceptions of PBMAs, analyzing both drivers (health benefits, environmental concerns, ethical motivations) and barriers (sensory preferences, cost considerations, product familiarity) within organic value chains (Attwood et al., 2022; Pointke et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Taking a systems approach, we compare findings across demographic groups and geographic regions to understand how PBMA adoption intersects with socio-economic factors and agro-ecological principles (Herrera-Cuenca et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). The review employs the PICO framework to analyze consumers across the dietary spectrum (Population), PBMA integration in organic systems (Intervention), conventional protein sources (Comparator), and measures of acceptance (Outcomes). By critically examining PBMA's role in sustainable food systems, this study contributes to ongoing discussions about organic agriculture's evolution while providing evidence-based recommendations for stakeholders across the organic value chain - from producers to policymakers (Springmann et al., 2024).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Research procedure","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eReview Protocol\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis systematic literature review followed PRISMA guidelines (Page et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) to examine consumer perceptions of plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) in organic and sustainable food systems. The study addressed the research question: \"What factors influence consumer acceptance of PBMAs within sustainable and organic food systems?\"\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eInitial searches across multiple databases yielded results that were manually tabulated in a spreadsheet for organization and deduplication. Filters were then applied to include only peer-reviewed studies published between 2019 and 2024, written in English, and relevant to the selected regions and study types. The screening process involved an independent review of titles and abstracts by six researchers, ensuring consistency and reducing bias. Subsequently, full-text articles were evaluated in detail, and additional exclusions were made based on relevance and eligibility criteria. Quality assessment evaluated study rigor, with attention to research designs including cross-sectional surveys (Herrera-Cuenca et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Park \u0026amp; Namkung, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), experimental approaches (Jang \u0026amp; Cho, 2024), and mixed methods (Blanco-Gutiérrez et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Given methodological heterogeneity, we employed an integrative review approach (Torraco, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) rather than meta-analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe final synthesis incorporated studies representing diverse regions: European (Weinrich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Faber et al., 2019), Asian (Chen et al., 2022; Wu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), and global perspectives (Onwezen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Bogueva \u0026amp; McClements, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Key outcomes included acceptance drivers (health: Springmann et al., 2024; environment: Attwood et al., 2022) and barriers (taste: Klerk \u0026amp; de Boer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e;) and price.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe review team resolved discrepancies through consensus, completing the analysis in April 2025. This approach enabled identification of demographic patterns (Wang et al.; \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e Geicu-Cristea et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) while accounting for cultural variations (Tosun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Michel et al., 2020).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eStudy Selection Criteria\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe systematic review employed a comprehensive search strategy to identify relevant studies on consumer perceptions of plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) in sustainable food systems. A Boolean search algorithm was developed combining key terms: ((plant-based OR meat alternative* OR meat substitute\u003cem\u003e) AND (organic OR sustainable OR \"food system\u003c/em\u003e\") AND (consumer* OR attitude* OR perception* OR accept* OR adopt\u003cem\u003e) AND (factor\u003c/em\u003e OR driver* OR barrier* OR motivate* OR preference*)). This search was executed across Scopus and Web of Science databases, selected for their authoritative coverage of agricultural and food science literature (Page et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), yielding 4,372 results from Scopus and 3,891 from Web of Science Web of Science platforms.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe inclusion criteria were carefully designed to capture recent, relevant research. We limited results to peer-reviewed journal articles published in English between 2019–2024 to ensure coverage of the most current market developments and scientific understanding (Bryant \u0026amp; Sanctorum, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Springmann et al., 2024). The review focused specifically on primary research examining consumer perceptions of PBMAs across global markets, incorporating both qualitative approaches like those used by Attwood et al. (2022) and quantitative methods exemplified in Park and Namkung's (2024) work. Several exclusion criteria were applied to refine the results, removing non-empirical studies such as reviews and commentaries, industry reports, conference proceedings, and studies focusing solely on technical product development without consumer insights. Research examining alternative proteins like insect-based or cultured meat without direct comparison to PBMAs was also excluded (Michel et al., 2020)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFollowing initial database filtering, 1,283 records underwent title and abstract screening. This preliminary review excluded studies that lacked focus on consumer perceptions, such as pure life cycle assessments, or those examining only nutritional or technical aspects without considering consumer perspectives (Bogueva \u0026amp; McClements, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Research addressing meat alternatives without proper contextualization within organic or sustainable food systems was also removed at this stage (Falkenberg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). The subsequent full-text review of 217 articles applied more rigorous quality criteria, requiring clear methodology descriptions including research design, sampling approaches, and measurement tools, along with empirical data on consumer attitudes and behaviors, and explicit connections to sustainable food systems concepts (Herrera-Cuenca et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Blanco-Gutiérrez et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe final selection comprised 35 studies meeting all quality and relevance criteria, representing a diverse methodological portfolio. The majority (79%) employed cross-sectional survey designs (Faber et al., 2019; Park \u0026amp; Namkung, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), while 14% utilized experimental approaches (Jang \u0026amp; Cho, 2024; Wu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) and 7% featured mixed methods (Pointke et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Geographically, the selected studies provided broad coverage with 46% from European contexts (Weinrich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Geicu-Cristea et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), 29% from Asian markets (Chen et al., 2022; Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), 17% from the Americas, and 8% presenting global or multi-country perspectives (Onwezen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). This rigorous selection process ensured representation of key consumer segments including omnivores, flexitarians, and vegetarians, as well as major product categories like burgers, sausages, and mince products, as systematically identified across the literature (Attwood et al., 2022; Klerk \u0026amp; de Boer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The complete selection process is visually documented in the PRISMA flowchart (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e), demonstrating the systematic approach to identifying the most relevant and high-quality studies for this review.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eYear of Publication of the Investigated Studies\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe systematic review included 35 studies published between 2018 and 2024, with a notable surge in publications from 2022 onward. This trend reflects the growing academic and societal interest in plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) amid global debates on sustainable diets. Over half of the studies (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;19) were published in 2022\u0026ndash;2023, coinciding with the rise of flexitarians and corporate investments in PBMA products (Heijnk et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Sendhil et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Only four studies predated 2020, underscoring the novelty of this research field.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eCountries Included in the Reviewed Studies\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe studies encompassed 15 countries, with a strong emphasis on European markets. Germany (Falkenberg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Heijnk et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), the UK (Slade, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), and Spain (Blanco-Guti\u0026eacute;rrez et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) accounted for 12 of the 35 studies. North America was represented by U.S. and Canadian (Slade, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) research, while Asia-focused studies examined consumer behavior in China (Wu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), South Korea (Park \u0026amp; Namkung, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), and Singapore (Michel et al., 2020). Six studies adopted multi-country comparisons, such as G\u0026oacute;mez-Luciano et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), who analyzed data from Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Spain, and the UK. Emerging economies like South Africa (Szejda et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) and Romania (Geicu-Cristea et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) were underrepresented, highlighting a geographic research gap.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eTheoretical Backgrounds of the Studies\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOnly 40% of studies (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;14) were grounded in theoretical frameworks. The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) was most frequently applied (Bryant \u0026amp; Sanctorum, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Park \u0026amp; Namkung, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), followed by the Value-Attitude-Behavior (VAB) model (Jang \u0026amp; Cho, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Saini et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Two studies integrated dual-process theories to explain cognitive-emotional conflicts in PBMA adoption (Piao et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Heijnk et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). The remaining studies (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;21) relied on empirical precedents without explicit theoretical foundations, focusing instead on descriptive analyses of consumer preferences (e.g., Bogueva \u0026amp; McClements, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Herrera-Cuenca et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eResearch Methodologies of the Studies\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuantitative designs dominated (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;23), primarily using cross-sectional surveys with Likert-scale measures (Attwood et al., 2022; Estell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) were employed in three studies (Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Wu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) to quantify willingness-to-pay trade-offs. Qualitative approaches (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7) included narrative reviews (Onwezen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Klerk \u0026amp; de Boer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) and content analyses of social media data (Chen \u0026amp; Zhang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Mixed-methods research (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5) combined surveys with sensory testing (Pointke et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) or stakeholder workshops (Blanco-Guti\u0026eacute;rrez et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Notably, convenience sampling was a limitation in 28 studies, with only seven utilizing nationally representative samples (e.g., Heijnk et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Szejda et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eQuality Assessment Procedure and Outcomes\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudy quality was evaluated using van Dinter et al.\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) eight-criteria checklist (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Scores ranged from 4.5 to 8 (mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.3; median\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.0). Higher-scoring studies (\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;7) featured longitudinal designs (Bryant \u0026amp; Sanctorum, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), randomized interventions (Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), or validated measurement scales (Jang \u0026amp; Cho, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Lower scores (\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;5.5) reflected inadequate sample justification (Tosun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) or lack of control for confounding variables (Faber et al., 2019). Inter-rater reliability during quality assessment exceeded 90%, with discrepancies resolved through consensus.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuality assessment criteria (van Dinter et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuality Criteria\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuestion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQ1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAre the aims of the study clearly stated?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQ2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAre the scope, context and experimental design clearly defined?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQ3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIs the proposed solution clearly explained and validated by an empirical study?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQ4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAre the variables in the study likely to be valid and reliable?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQ5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIs the research process documented adequately?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQ6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAre all the study questions answered?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQ7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAre the negative findings presented?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQ8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAre the main findings stated clearly in terms of credibility, validity, and reliability?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eNarrative Summary of the Studies\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis synthesis integrates findings from the reviewed literature on consumer perceptions of PBMAs, organized into four thematic categories: sociodemographic influences, psychological drivers, product-related attributes, and contextual/systemic factors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eSociodemographic Influences\u003c/b\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eYounger consumers (e.g., undergraduates) and those with higher education levels consistently exhibited greater PBMA acceptance (Faber et al., 2019; Geicu-Cristea et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Szejda et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). For instance, Faber et al. (2019) found that 83% of Danish young adults (aged 18\u0026ndash;30) were aware of PBMAs, compared to only 38% in Spain, underscoring cultural and generational disparities. Women were more likely to prioritize health and environmental benefits (Pointke et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Park \u0026amp; Namkung, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), while men showed greater openness to cultured meat (Bryant \u0026amp; Sanctorum, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Income effects were mixed: some studies linked higher socioeconomic status to PBMA adoption (Herrera-Cuenca et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Slade, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), while others noted price sensitivity among students and lower-income groups (Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Saini et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003ePsychological and Attitudinal Drivers\u003c/b\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHealth and environmental concerns were primary motivators for PBMA consumption (Bogueva \u0026amp; McClements, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; He et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Onwezen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Consumers perceived PBMAs as healthier (e.g., lower saturated fat) and more sustainable than conventional meat (Falkenberg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Springmann, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), though misconceptions about nutritional adequacy (e.g., protein quality, sodium content) persisted (Bogueva \u0026amp; McClements, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Attwood et al., 2022). Food neophobia and habitual meat consumption also shaped attitudes; frequent meat-eaters emphasized sensory barriers (Melios \u0026amp; Grasso, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Heijnk et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), while flexitarians and vegetarians valued ethical alignment (Estell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Jang \u0026amp; Cho, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Theoretical frameworks like the Theory of Planned Behavior (Park \u0026amp; Namkung, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) and dual concern theory (Jang \u0026amp; Cho, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) highlighted the roles of perceived behavioral control and altruistic values in shaping intentions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eProduct-Related Attributes\u003c/b\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSensory appeal (taste, texture) was the most cited barrier to adoption (Klerk \u0026amp; de Boer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Attwood et al., 2022; Tosun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Products mimicking meat\u0026rsquo;s sensory profile (e.g., burgers, sausages) had higher acceptance (Falkenberg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Pointke et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), but ultra-processing and ingredient transparency raised concerns (Bogueva \u0026amp; McClements, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Springmann, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). For example, Falkenberg et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) found that Austrian PBMAs had protein levels comparable to meat but were 29\u0026ndash;43% more expensive, deterring cost-sensitive consumers. Labeling interventions (e.g., health claims) improved willingness to pay (Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Wu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), though environmental messaging had limited impact in some regions (Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Sendhil et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eContextual and Systemic Influences\u003c/b\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCultural norms strongly influenced acceptance. In Mediterranean countries (e.g., Spain, Greece), traditional diets hindered PBMA adoption (Faber et al., 2019; Park \u0026amp; Namkung, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), whereas Northern European consumers were more receptive (Faber et al., 2019; Heijnk et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Policy and infrastructure gaps were evident; studies called for subsidies (Falkenberg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), clearer regulations (Blanco-Guti\u0026eacute;rrez et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), and campus dining initiatives to normalize PBMAs among undergraduates (Geicu-Cristea et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Onwezen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Social norms and peer influence were critical for young adults (Faber et al., 2019; Szejda et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eContradictions and Gaps\u003c/b\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile most studies agreed on sensory and price barriers (Attwood et al., 2022; Klerk \u0026amp; de Boer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), some reported incongruities. For example, Blanco-Guti\u0026eacute;rrez et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) found Spanish stakeholders skeptical of PBMAs\u0026rsquo; market viability, whereas Herrera-Cuenca et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) noted rising flexitarian trends in Latin America. Long-term behavioral data were scarce, with most evidence relying on cross-sectional surveys (Slade, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Pakseresht et al., 2021). Few studies explicitly examined PBMAs in organic food systems, leaving gaps in how organic certification affects perceptions (Hassoun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Sendhil et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eKey takeaways for sustainable food systems highlight the importance of tailoring interventions based on demographic differences. For instance, sensory-focused marketing strategies may be more effective for habitual meat-eaters, while sustainability-centered messaging could resonate better with student populations. Policy action is also crucial in promoting sustainable food systems, particularly in improving the affordability of plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) through subsidies and enhancing standardization through clear labeling, aligning these products with organic and sustainable food principles. These findings are summarized in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. Furthermore, there are notable research gaps that need to be addressed, including the need for longitudinal studies, investigations into real-world purchasing behavior, and a deeper understanding of the impact of organic certification on consumer choices (Sendhil et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Wu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKey Factors Influencing PBMA Consumer Perceptions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCategory\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFactors\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupporting Citations\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSociodemographic\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAge (younger), education (higher), gender (female), income (mixed effects)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFaber et al. (2019\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePsychological\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHealth/environmental concerns, food neophobia, social norms\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHe et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e); Jang \u0026amp; Cho (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eProduct-Related\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSensory appeal, price, labeling, ingredient transparency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFalkenberg et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e); Wu et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eContextual\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCultural norms, policy support, infrastructure\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBlanco-Guti\u0026eacute;rrez et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e); Kati\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eTypes of Innovation in Plant-Based Meat Alternatives\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe reviewed studies were categorized into four innovation types shaping PBMA development and adoption: product formulation, processing technologies, marketing strategies, and policy frameworks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eProduct Formulation Innovations\u003c/b\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTwelve studies examined advancements in ingredient composition and nutritional profiling (e.g., protein sources, micronutrient fortification). Research highlighted the dominance of pea protein in European markets (Falkenberg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) and efforts to mimic meat\u0026rsquo;s sensory properties through plant-based heme or extrusion techniques (He et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Flint et al., 2024). These innovations addressed consumer demands for taste and health parity with conventional meat but faced challenges in balancing processing intensity with \"clean-label\" expectations (Bogueva \u0026amp; McClements, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eProcessing Technologies\u003c/b\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNine studies focused on technological breakthroughs, such as 3D printing and high-moisture extrusion (Hassoun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Springmann, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). While these improved texture and scalability, concerns about ultra-processing and energy use persisted (Bogueva \u0026amp; McClements, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Wu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). For instance, cultured meat though distinct from PBMAs was often compared unfavorably due to perceived unnaturalness (Bryant \u0026amp; Sanctorum, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Pakseresht et al., 2021).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eMarketing Strategies\u003c/b\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThirteen studies have analyzed consumer-facing innovations aimed at promoting sustainable food choices. Among these, behavioral nudges such as health and environmental messaging were found to significantly increase willingness to pay, particularly among younger demographics (Park \u0026amp; Namkung, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Anthropomorphic branding, which involves using human-like features in packaging design, was shown to enhance the appeal of plant-based options in restaurant settings (Piao et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, transparency tools like carbon labeling and ingredient traceability played a key role in building consumer trust in Nordic markets; however, their impact was notably limited in China, indicating the need for context-specific strategies (Wu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Blanco-Guti\u0026eacute;rrez et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003ePolicy Frameworks\u003c/b\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTen studies emphasized the significance of regulatory and infrastructural innovations in promoting sustainable food systems. Subsidies emerged as a key policy tool, with price parity initiatives in Austria demonstrating a reduction in adoption barriers for plant-based alternatives (Falkenberg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Standardization efforts also play a crucial role, as ongoing debates in the EU and the US over the appropriate use of \"meat\" labeling terminology highlight the need for clear and consistent definitions to avoid consumer confusion (Sendhil et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, campus-based interventions, including university partnerships, were shown to effectively increase student exposure to plant-based meat alternatives, supporting broader behavioral change in younger populations (Geicu-Cristea et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eCross-Cutting Adoption Factors\u003c/b\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile innovation types varied, five common facilitators emerged (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e):\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKey Adoption Factors by Innovation Type\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInnovation Type\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKey Factors\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProduct Formulation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSensory mimicry, nutritional parity, clean-label ingredients\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProcessing Technologies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnergy efficiency, scalability, consumer education on safety\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMarketing Strategies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDemographic-tailored messaging, transparency, ethical branding\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolicy Frameworks\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSubsidies, labeling standards, youth-targeted programs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEducation and technical support were universally critical. For example, consumer literacy on PBMA health benefits improved acceptance (Estell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Onwezen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), while chef training enhanced culinary integration (Melios \u0026amp; Grasso, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Economic incentives (e.g., tax breaks for sustainable food startups) and network structures (e.g., industry-NGO collaborations) further accelerated adoption across categories (Sendhil et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eGaps and Future Directions\u003c/b\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere is a notable scarcity of longitudinal data on the real-world adoption of technical innovations in the plant-based food sector. For example, while 3D-printed plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) are gaining attention as a novel innovation, limited evidence exists regarding their long-term uptake and impact among consumers (Hassoun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the cultural adaptation of marketing strategies remains an underexplored area, particularly in Global South contexts. Although marketing approaches have been extensively studied in Western settings, there is a growing need to understand how these strategies can be effectively tailored to diverse cultural norms and consumer behaviors in regions such as Latin America, Africa, and South Asia (Szejda et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Herrera-Cuenca et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditionally, policy coherence between organic certification frameworks and the standards applied to PBMAs warrants further investigation. As plant-based alternatives increasingly align with sustainability goals, integrating them within existing organic certification systems could enhance consumer trust and regulatory clarity. However, current standards often lack consistency, posing challenges for both producers and consumers (Blanco-Guti\u0026eacute;rrez et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eResearch Agenda\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe synthesis of existing literature reveals several critical gaps that must be addressed to advance both scholarly understanding and practical implementation of plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) within sustainable food systems. A primary concern emerges from the theoretical fragmentation observed across studies. While some researchers have employed established behavioral frameworks like the Theory of Planned Behavior (Park \u0026amp; Namkung, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) or Dual Concern Theory (Jang \u0026amp; Cho, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), the majority of examined studies lacked robust theoretical grounding. This theoretical inconsistency limits the comparability of findings and hinders the development of a unified conceptual model for PBMA adoption. Future research would benefit from systematically applying and testing theoretical models across diverse cultural contexts to identify universal versus context-specific drivers of acceptance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMethodological limitations present another significant challenge. The current evidence base relies heavily on cross-sectional surveys using convenience samples, as seen in studies of European young adults (Faber et al., 2019) and Chinese urban consumers (Wu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). While these provide valuable snapshots of attitudes, they fail to capture the dynamic nature of dietary transitions. More rigorous longitudinal designs, such as tracking PBMA adoption patterns in university dining halls over multiple years, could yield insights into the temporal evolution of consumer preferences. Experimental approaches, including randomized controlled trials testing different messaging strategies or product formulations, would further strengthen causal claims about factors influencing PBMA acceptance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe review also exposes important demographic and cultural knowledge gaps. Existing studies report inconsistent findings regarding the role of age, gender, and socioeconomic status in PBMA adoption. For instance, while younger consumers generally show greater openness to PBMAs in Western contexts (Faber et al., 2019), emerging evidence suggests older demographics in Asia may be more receptive when products align with traditional dietary patterns (Wu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). These contradictions highlight the need for carefully designed comparative studies that control for cultural and economic variables. Particularly lacking are investigations into PBMA acceptance in low- and middle-income countries, where different protein transitions may be occurring compared to wealthy nations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt the systemic level, two underexplored areas demand urgent attention. First, the potential synergies between PBMA development and organic food systems remain virtually unstudied, despite their shared sustainability goals. Research is needed to examine whether organic certification could enhance consumer trust in PBMAs, and what technical challenges arise in creating organic-compliant formulations. Second, the role of innovation networks - particularly collaborations between PBMA manufacturers, farmers, and policymakers - has received scant attention. The agricultural innovation literature suggests such networks are crucial for radical transitions, yet only a handful of PBMA studies (e.g., Blanco-Guti\u0026eacute;rrez et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) have examined these dynamics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThree priority research directions emerge from this analysis. First, theory-driven, longitudinal studies are needed to map the complex interplay between product attributes, consumer psychology, and contextual factors in PBMA adoption. Second, culturally grounded research should explore how PBMAs might incorporate traditional plant proteins (e.g., lentils, tofu) to improve acceptance across diverse food cultures. Third, policy-oriented studies must investigate how to align PBMA regulations with existing organic and sustainability certification schemes, while addressing potential trade-offs in affordability and scalability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAddressing these gaps will require unprecedented collaboration across disciplines from food science to behavioral economics to supply chain management. Future studies should aim not just to describe consumer attitudes, but to illuminate pathways for equitable, sustainable protein transitions across global food systems.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis systematic review has systematically mapped the current state of knowledge regarding consumer perceptions of plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) within organic and sustainable food systems. Through analysis of thirty-five peer-reviewed studies, the review reveals that PBMA adoption is governed by an intricate web of interdependent factors spanning product characteristics, consumer psychology, and broader food system contexts. The findings demonstrate that no single determinant drives adoption; rather, it is the dynamic interaction between sensory attributes like taste and texture, perceived health and environmental benefits, affordability considerations, and cultural food norms that collectively shape acceptance patterns. This complexity mirrors the configurational nature of agricultural innovation adoption noted in earlier work, where multiple pathways can lead to similar outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral important limitations must be acknowledged when interpreting these findings. While the rigorous systematic methodology employed ensures comprehensive coverage of major academic databases, the exclusive focus on peer-reviewed articles in English may have omitted valuable insights from industry reports or non-Western scholarship. The predominance of cross-sectional studies in the literature, many relying on convenience samples of university students or urban populations, limits our ability to make causal claims or generalize findings across diverse demographic groups. Furthermore, the rapid evolution of PBMA products and markets means some included studies may already reflect outdated technological or consumer preference landscapes. These constraints are inherent to systematic reviews in emerging fields (Paul \u0026amp; Criado, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) but should inform cautious interpretation of the results.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe review yields three significant theoretical contributions that advance understanding of sustainable food innovation adoption. First, it synthesizes previously fragmented evidence into a coherent framework that connects micro-level consumer decision-making with meso-level market forces and macro-level policy environments. Second, it identifies critical gaps in applying established behavioral theories to PBMA contexts, with fewer than half of analyzed studies grounding their investigations in robust theoretical foundations. Third, the findings challenge simplistic assumptions about demographic determinants, revealing how age, gender, and income effects vary substantially across cultural contexts - younger urban consumers drive adoption in Europe (Faber et al., 2019), while older health-conscious buyers show greater receptivity in parts of Asia (Wu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom a methodological standpoint, the analysis suggests several important directions for future research. Longitudinal studies tracking actual purchasing behavior rather than stated intentions would provide more reliable evidence of adoption patterns. Experimental designs that systematically vary product attributes, pricing, and messaging could isolate causal factors more effectively than the correlational approaches dominating current literature. Comparative research across different food cultures and economic contexts is urgently needed to test the generalizability of findings beyond the Western, educated, industrialized populations that dominate existing studies. Incorporating more sophisticated theoretical models from behavioral economics and innovation diffusion theory would strengthen explanatory power.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe practical implications for policymakers and industry stakeholders are substantial and multifaceted. For public sector actors, the review highlights the need for coordinated policy interventions that address multiple adoption barriers simultaneously. Educational campaigns correcting nutritional misconceptions should be paired with financial incentives for manufacturers to improve product affordability and accessibility. Regulatory frameworks must balance standardization needs with flexibility to accommodate regional dietary preferences and production contexts. Food industry leaders can apply these insights by investing in sensory research to bridge the taste gap with conventional meat, while developing targeted marketing strategies that emphasize different benefit bundles (health, sustainability, ethical) for distinct consumer segments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt a broader level, these findings contribute to ongoing debates about protein transitions in sustainable food systems. The review suggests PBMAs hold significant potential to reduce the environmental footprint of diets, particularly when integrated with organic and agroecological production models. However, realizing this potential requires moving beyond technical product innovation to address the complex sociocultural and economic dimensions of dietary change. Future research should particularly examine how PBMA development can create equitable value chains that benefit both small-scale organic farmers and consumers across the economic spectrum.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs the world works toward the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, this systematic review provides both a roadmap for future scholarship and a caution against one size fits all solutions in sustainable food innovation. The path forward demands interdisciplinary collaboration, context-sensitive approaches, and ongoing dialogue between researchers, policymakers, industry, and civil society to navigate the inevitable trade-offs and complexities of transforming global protein systems.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no competing financial or non-financial interests that are directly or indirectly related to the work submitted for publication.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClinical Trial Registration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eClinical trial number: Not applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConceptualization: W.M.K.G. Dissanayake\u003cbr\u003e Methodology: R.P.C.V. Rajapaksha \u003cbr\u003e Investigation: W.M.K.G. Dissanayake, R.P.C.V. Rajapaksha, M.D.V.O. Manathunga, H.M.K.D. Weerabandara, W.A.S. Bhagya;\u003cbr\u003e Writing – original draft: R.P.C.V. Rajapaksha, W.M.K.G. Dissanayake\u003cbr\u003e Writing – review and editing: W.M.K.G. Dissanayake \u003cbr\u003e Data curation: H.M.K.D. Weerabandara\u003cbr\u003e Visualization: M.D.V.O. Manathunga\u003cbr\u003e Supervision: D.D. Yasoda Rasanjale.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAndreani, G., Sogari, G., Marti, A., Froldi, F., Dagevos, H., \u0026amp; Martini, D. (2023). Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: Technological, Nutritional, Environmental, Market, and Social Challenges and Opportunities. \u003cem\u003eNutrients, 15\u003c/em\u003e(2), 452. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15020452\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBlanco-Gutiérrez, I., Varela-Ortega, C., \u0026amp; Manners, R. (2020). Evaluating Animal-Based Foods and Plant-Based Alternatives Using Multi-Criteria and SWOT Analyses. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17\u003c/em\u003e(21), 7969. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17217969\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBogueva, D., \u0026amp; McClements, D. J. (2023). Safety and Nutritional Risks Associated with Plant-Based Meat Alternatives. \u003cem\u003eSustainability, 15\u003c/em\u003e(19), 14336. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914336\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBryant, C. J. (2022). Plant-based animal product alternatives are healthier and more environmentally sustainable than animal products. \u003cem\u003eFuture Foods, 6\u003c/em\u003e, 100174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fufo.2022.100174\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBryant, C., \u0026amp; Sanctorum, H. (2021). Alternative proteins, evolving attitudes: Comparing consumer attitudes to plant-based and cultured meat in Belgium in two consecutive years. \u003cem\u003eAppetite, 161\u003c/em\u003e, 105161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105161\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChen, Y., \u0026amp; Zhang, Z. (2022). Exploring public perceptions on alternative meat in China from social media data using transfer learning method. \u003cem\u003eFood Quality and Preference, 98\u003c/em\u003e, 104530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104530\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEstell, M., Hughes, J., \u0026amp; Grafenauer, S. (2021). Plant Protein and Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: Consumer and Nutrition Professional Attitudes and Perceptions. \u003cem\u003eSustainability, 13\u003c/em\u003e(3), 1478. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031478\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFaber, I., Castellanos-Feijoó, N. A., Van de Sompel, L., Davydova, A., \u0026amp; Perez-Cueto, F. J. A. (2020). Attitudes and knowledge towards plant-based diets of young adults across four European countries. Exploratory survey. \u003cem\u003eAppetite, 145\u003c/em\u003e, 104498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104498\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFalkenberg, C., Trexler, A., Garaus, C., \u0026amp; Pöchtrager, S.\u003c/strong\u003e (2023). Meat substitute markets: A comparative analysis of meat analogs in Austria. \u003cem\u003eFoods, 12\u003c/em\u003e(11), 2211. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12112211\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGeicu-Cristea, M., Popa, E. E., Manea, P. G., Drăghici, M. C., Miteluţ, A. C., Popescu, P. A., \u0026amp; Popa, M. E.\u003c/strong\u003e (2023). Romanian consumer attitudes regarding alternative protein sources. \u003cem\u003eScientific Bulletin Series F. Biotechnologies, 27\u003c/em\u003e(2).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGómez-Luciano, C. A., De Aguiar, L. K., Vriesekoop, F., \u0026amp; Urbano, B. (2019). Consumers’ willingness to purchase three alternatives to meat proteins in the United Kingdom, Spain, Brazil and the Dominican Republic. \u003cem\u003eFood Quality and Preference, 78\u003c/em\u003e, 103732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103732\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHassoun, A., Cropotova, J., Trif, M., Rusu, A. V., Bobiş, O., Nayik, G. A., Jagdale, Y. D., Saeed, F., Afzaal, M., Mostashari, P., Khaneghah, A. M., \u0026amp; Regenstein, J. M. (2022). Consumer acceptance of new food trends resulting from the fourth industrial revolution technologies: A narrative review of literature and future perspectives. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Nutrition, 9\u003c/em\u003e, 972154. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2022.972154\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHe, J., Evans, N. M., Liu, H., \u0026amp; Shao, S.\u003c/strong\u003e (2020). A review of research on plant-based meat alternatives: Driving forces, history, manufacturing, and consumer attitudes. \u003cem\u003eComprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 19\u003c/em\u003e(5), 2639–2656. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12610\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHeijnk, V., Espey, A., \u0026amp; Schuenemann, F. (2023). A comparison of influencing factors on attitudes towards plant-based, insect-based and cultured meat alternatives in Germany. \u003cem\u003eFood Quality and Preference, 110\u003c/em\u003e, 104966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2023.104966\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHerrera-Cuenca, M., Yépez García, M. C., Cortés Sanabria, L. Y., Hernández, P., Sifontes, Y., Ramírez, G., Vásquez, M., Gómez, G., Liria-Domínguez, M. R., Rigotti, A., Fisberg, M., Kovaslkys, I., \u0026amp; Landaeta-Jiménez, M. (2023). Contribution of Proteins to the Latin American Diet: Results of the ELANS Study. \u003cem\u003eNutrients, 15\u003c/em\u003e(3), 669. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15030669\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJang, H.-W., \u0026amp; Cho, M. (2022). Relationship between Personal Values and Intentions to Purchase Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: Application of the Dual Concern Theory. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19\u003c/em\u003e(14), 8673. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148673\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKlerk, M., \u0026amp; de Boer, J.\u003c/strong\u003e (2020). Consumer acceptance of plant-based meat substitutes: A narrative review. \u003cem\u003eAppetite, 150\u003c/em\u003e, 104445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104445\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMelios, S., \u0026amp; Grasso, S. (2024). Meat fans' and meat reducers' attitudes towards meat consumption and hybrid meat products in the UK: A cluster analysis. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Food Science \u0026amp; Technology, 59\u003c/em\u003e(12), 9394–9401. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.17586\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMichel, F., Hartmann, C., \u0026amp; Siegrist, M. (2021). Consumers’ associations, perceptions and acceptance of meat and plant-based meat alternatives. \u003cem\u003eFood Quality and Preference, 87\u003c/em\u003e, 104063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104063\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOnwezen, M. C., Bouwman, E. P., Reinders, M. J., \u0026amp; Dagevos, H. (2021). A systematic review on consumer acceptance of alternative proteins: Pulses, algae, insects, plant-based meat alternatives, and cultured meat. \u003cem\u003eAppetite, 159\u003c/em\u003e, 105058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.105058\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePage MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD (2021) PRISMA statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Br Med J 372(71):1–9\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePakseresht, A., Kaliji, S. A., \u0026amp; Canavari, M. (2022). Review of factors affecting consumer acceptance of cultured meat. \u003cem\u003eAppetite, 170\u003c/em\u003e, 105829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105829\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePark, C.-I., \u0026amp; Namkung, Y. (2024). Consumer Values, Attitudes, and Behavior towards Plant-Based Alternatives. \u003cem\u003eFoods, 13\u003c/em\u003e(16), 2561. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13162561\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePaul J, Criado AR (2020) The art of writing literature review: what do we know and what do we need to know? Int Bus Rev 29(4):101717\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePiao, Z., Wei, W., \u0026amp; Zhang, L. (2024). How anthropomorphism shapes restaurant customers’ consumption of plant-based meat alternatives: Perceptions, attitudes, and intention to visit. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Hospitality Management, 123\u003c/em\u003e, 103898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2024.103898\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePointke, M., Ohlau, M., Risius, A., \u0026amp; Pawelzik, E. (2022). Plant-Based Only: Investigating Consumers’ Sensory Perception, Motivation, and Knowledge of Different Plant-Based Alternative Products on the Market. \u003cem\u003eFoods, 11\u003c/em\u003e(15), 2339. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11152339\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSaini, M., Prakash, G., Yaqub, M. Z., \u0026amp; Agarwal, R. (2024). Why do people purchase plant-based meat products from retail stores? Examining consumer preferences, motivations and drivers. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 81\u003c/em\u003e, 103939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.103939\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSendhil, R., Bhuvana, C. R., Yadav, S., Gayathry, G., Ragupathy, R., Pouchepparadjou, A., \u0026amp; Ramasundaram, P. (2024). Consumer perception and preference toward plant-based meat alternatives – Bibliometric trends and policy implications. \u003cem\u003eFood and Humanity, 2\u003c/em\u003e, 100229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foohum.2024.100229\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSlade, P. (2018). If you build it, will they eat it? Consumer preferences for plant-based and cultured meat burgers. \u003cem\u003eAppetite, 125\u003c/em\u003e, 428–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.02.030\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSpringmann, M. (2024). A multicriteria analysis of meat and milk alternatives from nutritional, health, environmental, and cost perspectives. \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121\u003c/em\u003e(50), e2319010121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2319010121\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSzejda, K., Stumpe, M., Raal, L., \u0026amp; Tapscott, C. E. (2021). South African Consumer Adoption of Plant-Based and Cultivated Meat: A Segmentation Study. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 5\u003c/em\u003e, 744199. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.744199\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSzenderák, J., Fróna, D., \u0026amp; Rákos, M. (2022). Consumer Acceptance of Plant-Based Meat Substitutes: A Narrative Review. \u003cem\u003eFoods, 11\u003c/em\u003e(9), 1274. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11091274\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTorraco RJ (2005) Writing integrative literature reviews: guidelines and examples. Hum Resour Dev Rev 4(3):356–367\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTosun, P., Yanar, M., Sezgin, S., \u0026amp; Uray, N. (2020). Meat Substitutes in Sustainability Context: A Content Analysis of Consumer Attitudes. \u003cem\u003eJournal of International Food \u0026amp; Agribusiness Marketing\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974438.2020.1840475\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003evan Dinter R, Tekinerdogan B, Catal C (2021) Automation of systematic literature reviews: a systematic literature review. Inf Softw Technol 136:106589 \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWang, H., Chen, Q., Zhu, C., \u0026amp; Bao, J. (2022). Paying for the Greater Good?—What Information Matters for Beijing Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Plant-Based Meat? \u003cem\u003eFoods, 11\u003c/em\u003e(16), 2460. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11162460\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWeinrich, R. (2019). Opportunities for the Adoption of Health-Based Sustainable Dietary Patterns: A Review on Consumer Research of Meat Substitutes. \u003cem\u003eSustainability, 11\u003c/em\u003e(15), 4028. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154028\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWu, W., Yuan, R., Wang, Q., \u0026amp; Jin, S. (2024). Consumers’ preferences for the attributes of plant-based meat in China: A best-worst scaling approach. \u003cem\u003eFuture Foods, 9\u003c/em\u003e, 100384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fufo.2024.100384\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"KIU University , Sri Lanka","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Plant-based meat alternatives, Organic food systems, Consumer behavior, Sustainable diets, Agroecology","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7017551/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7017551/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eDespite the potential of plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) to support organic and sustainable food systems, their consumer adoption rates fall short of projections aligned with global sustainability targets. To investigate this discrepancy, the current systematic literature review (SLR) provides a comprehensive analysis of factors shaping consumer perceptions and acceptance of PBMAs within organic food value chains. A total of 35 studies, published between 2010 and 2024, were identified, analyzed, and summarized.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analysis revealed that health benefits, environmental concerns, and animal welfare are primary drivers of PBMA adoption, particularly among younger, educated consumers. For example, studies comparing organic and conventional consumers found organic buyers exhibit stronger environmental values and greater willingness to pay premium prices for PBMAs. Conversely, sensory preferences (taste, texture), higher costs, cultural resistance to meat reduction, and skepticism about ultra-processing emerged as critical barriers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNotably, the review highlights tensions between technological innovations (e.g., 3D printing.) and organic principles, raising questions about processing standards in PBMA development. Regional disparities were also evident: European consumers prioritized sustainability certifications, while Asian markets responded more to health claims.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFindings underscore the need for targeted strategies such as improved sensory profiles, transparent labeling, and affordability policies to bridge the gap between PBMA potential and consumer adoption. The review identifies key research avenues, including longitudinal studies on dietary shifts and socio-economic analyses of PBMA value chains, to advance their role in sustainable food systems.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Plant-Based Meat Alternatives in Organic and Sustainable Food Systems: A Systematic Review of Consumer Perceptions","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-07-02 06:37:03","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7017551/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"3e68617b-3b4d-4048-bfa6-43803cd9b756","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 2nd, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":50845663,"name":"Nutrition \u0026 Dietetics"},{"id":50845664,"name":"Food Science \u0026 Technology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-07-02T06:37:03+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-07-02 06:37:03","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7017551","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7017551","identity":"rs-7017551","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}