Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
P. Mason, T. Lang (2017)
Sustainable diets : Welcome to the arguments
L. Petetin (2014)
Frankenburgers, Risks and ApprovalEuropean Journal of Risk Regulation, 5
Carolyn Mattick, B. Allenby (2013)
The Future of MeatIssues in Science and Technology, 30
C. Morris, Josephine Mylan, Emma Beech (2019)
Substitution and food system de-animalisation: The case of non-dairy milkInternational Journal of the Sociology of Agriculture and Food, 25
L. Keefe (2018)
#FakeMeat: How big a deal will animal meat analogs ultimately be?Animal Frontiers: The Review Magazine of Animal Agriculture, 8
F. Buscemi (2015)
New Meat and the Media Conundrum with Nature and Culture
S. Bonny, Graham Gardner, D. Pethick, J. Hocquette (2015)
What is artificial meat and what does it mean for the future of the meat industryJournal of Integrative Agriculture, 14
R. Weinrich (2018)
Cross-Cultural Comparison between German, French and Dutch Consumer Preferences for Meat SubstitutesSustainability
S. O'Donohoe, Adam Ferrier (2012)
Thinking, Fast and SlowInternational Journal of Advertising, 31
M. Mouat, R. Prince (2018)
Cultured meat and cowless milk: on making markets for animal-free foodJournal of Cultural Economy, 11
Marie Plessz, S. Wahlen (2020)
All practices are shared, but some more than others: Sharedness of social practices and time-use in food consumptionJournal of Consumer Culture, 22
R. Rettie, K. Burchell, D. Riley (2012)
Normalising green behaviours: A new approach to sustainability marketingJournal of Marketing Management, 28
M. Callon (2006)
What Does It Mean to Say That Economics Is Performative?Do Economists Make Markets?
A. Mol (1999)
Ontological Politics. A Word and Some QuestionsThe Sociological Review, 47
P. Ledin, D. Machin (2020)
Replacing actual political activism with ethical shopping: The case of OatlyDiscourse, Context and Media, 34
N. Stephens (2013)
Growing Meat in Laboratories: The Promise, Ontology, and Ethical Boundary-Work of Using Muscle Cells to Make FoodConfigurations, 21
Victoria Circus, R. Robison (2019)
Exploring perceptions of sustainable proteins and meat attachmentBritish Food Journal
W. Verbeke, A. Marcu, P. Rutsaert, Rui Gaspar, Beate Seibt, Dave Fletcher, J. Barnett (2015)
‘Would you eat cultured meat?’: Consumers’ reactions and attitude formation in Belgium, Portugal and the UK
N. Stephens, E. King, C. Lyall (2018)
Blood, meat, and upscaling tissue engineering: Promises, anticipated markets, and performativity in the biomedical and agri-food sectorsBioSocieties, 13
(2019)
A burger by any other name: regulatory challenges and opportunities for cell-cultured meat
C. Bryant, J. Barnett (2018)
Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: A systematic review.Meat science, 143
M. Siegrist, Bernadette Sütterlin, C. Hartmann (2018)
Perceived naturalness and evoked disgust influence acceptance of cultured meat.Meat science, 139
Angela Lee (2018)
Meat-ing Demand: Is In Vitro Meat a Pragmatic, Problematic, or Paradoxical Solution?Canadian Journal of Women and the Law, 30
B. Wansink, Mitsuru Shimizu, A. Brumberg (2014)
Dispelling myths about a new healthful food can be more motivating than promoting nutritional benefits: the case of Tofu.Eating behaviors, 15 2
I. Carreño, Tobias Dolle (2018)
Tofu Steaks? Developments on the Naming and Marketing of Plant-based Foods in the Aftermath of the TofuTown JudgementEuropean Journal of Risk Regulation, 9
I. Kadim, O. Mahgoub, S. Baqir, B. Faye, R. Purchas (2015)
Cultured meat from muscle stem cells: A review of challenges and prospectsJournal of Integrative Agriculture, 14
M. Cole, Karen Morgan (2013)
Engineering Freedom? A Critique of Biotechnological Routes to Animal LiberationConfigurations, 21
(2017)
bean consumption in older adults. Appetite
Evelyn Pluhar (2010)
Meat and Morality: Alternatives to Factory FarmingJournal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 23
L. Laestadius (2015)
Public Perceptions of the Ethics of In-vitro Meat: Determining an Appropriate Course of ActionJournal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 28
Arianna Ferrari, A. Lösch (2017)
How Smart Grid Meets In Vitro Meat: on Visions as Socio-Epistemic PracticesNanoEthics, 11
Hanna Schösler, J. Boer, J. Boersema (2012)
Can we cut out the meat of the dish? Constructing consumer-oriented pathways towards meat substitutionAppetite, 58
H. Tuomisto, Joost Mattos (2011)
Environmental impacts of cultured meat production.Environmental science & technology, 45 14
N Brown (2003)
3Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 15
Corrina Tucker (2014)
The significance of sensory appeal for reduced meat consumptionAppetite, 81
S. Palmer, D. Winham, Ann Oberhauser, R. Litchfield (2018)
Socio-Ecological Barriers to Dry Grain Pulse Consumption among Low-Income Women: A Mixed Methods ApproachNutrients, 10
Emily Farrell, Katarina Doma, Erin Leith-Bailey, Victoria Soucier, A. Duncan (2019)
Health claims and information sources in relation to bean consumption in older adultsAppetite, 140
Natalie Figueira, Felicity Curtain, E. Beck, S. Grafenauer (2019)
Consumer Understanding and Culinary Use of Legumes in AustraliaNutrients, 11
H. Snyder (2019)
Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelinesJournal of Business Research
L. Malek, W. Umberger, E. Goddard (2019)
Committed vs. uncommitted meat eaters: Understanding willingness to change protein consumptionAppetite, 138
M. Kaljonen, M. Salo, J. Lyytimäki, E. Furman (2020)
From isolated labels and nudges to sustained tinkering: assessing long-term changes in sustainable eating at a lunch restaurantBritish Food Journal
F. Gruber (2008)
ALTEX: Alternatives to Animal Experimentation.ALTEX, 25 1
T. Dilworth, A. McGregor (2015)
Moral Steaks? Ethical Discourses of In Vitro Meat in Academia and AustraliaJournal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 28
N. Stephens, M. Ruivenkamp (2016)
Promise and Ontological Ambiguity in the In vitro Meat Imagescape: From Laboratory Myotubes to the Cultured BurgerScience as Culture, 25
C Morris, J Mylan, E Beech (2019)
Substitution and food system de-animalisationInternational Journal of Sociology of Agriculture & Food, 25
C. Weele, P. Feindt, A. Goot, B. Mierlo, M. Boekel (2019)
Meat alternatives: an integrative comparisonTrends in Food Science & Technology
W. Verbeke, P. Sans, E. Loo (2015)
Challenges and prospects for consumer acceptance of cultured meatJournal of Integrative Agriculture, 14
A. Liberati, D. Altman, J. Tetzlaff, C. Mulrow, P. Gøtzsche, J. Ioannidis, M. Clarke, M. Clarke, P. Devereaux, J. Kleijnen, D. Moher (2009)
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.Journal of clinical epidemiology, 62 10
N. Stephens, L. Silvio, Illtud Dunsford, M. Ellis, A. Glencross, Alexandra Sexton (2018)
Bringing cultured meat to market: Technical, socio-political, and regulatory challenges in cellular agricultureTrends in Food Science & Technology, 78
C. Bryant, Courtney Dillard (2019)
The Impact of Framing on Acceptance of Cultured MeatFrontiers in Nutrition, 6
J. Valk, K. Bieback, C. Buta, Brett Cochrane, W. Dirks, Jianan Fu, J. Hickman, Christiane Hohensee, R. Kolar, M. Liebsch, F. Pistollato, M. Schulz, D. Thieme, Tilo Weber, J. Wiest, Stefan Winkler, G. Gstraunthaler (2018)
Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS): Past - Present - Future.ALTEX, 35 1
M. Goodman (2016)
Food geographies IProgress in Human Geography, 40
R. Thaler, C. Sunstein (2008)
Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness
M. Tziva, S. Negro, A. Kalfagianni, M. Hekkert (2020)
Understanding the protein transition: The rise of plant-based meat substitutesEnvironmental Innovation and Societal Transitions
Matti Wilks, C. Phillips (2017)
Attitudes to in vitro meat: A survey of potential consumers in the United StatesPLoS ONE, 12
W. Moon, S. Balasubramanian, A. Rimal (2011)
Health claims and consumers’ behavioral intentions: The case of soy-based foodFood Policy, 36
J. Hocquette (2016)
Is in vitro meat the solution for the future?Meat science, 120
K. O’Riordan, A. Fotopoulou, N. Stephens (2016)
The first bite: Imaginaries, promotional publics and the laboratory grown burgerPublic Understanding of Science (Bristol, England), 26
C Kramer, N Stephens, C Karmer, Z Denfeld, R Strand (2015)
A nameWhat is in vitro meat?
G. Schaefer, J. Savulescu (2014)
The Ethics of Producing In Vitro MeatJournal of Applied Philosophy, 31
Josephine Mylan, C. Morris, Emma Beech, F. Geels (2019)
Rage against the regime: Niche-regime interactions in the societal embedding of plant-based milkEnvironmental Innovation and Societal Transitions
B Bolton (2017)
422European Food and Feed Law Review, 12
E Huan-Niemi (2020)
372Agriculture and Food Science, 29
Andy Murray (2018)
Meat cultures: Lab-grown meat and the politics of contaminationBioSocieties, 13
J. Elzerman, M. Boekel, P. Luning (2013)
Exploring meat substitutes: consumer experiences and contextual factorsBritish Food Journal, 115
J. Graça, Cristina Godinho, M. Truninger (2019)
Reducing meat consumption and following plant-based diets: Current evidence and future directions to inform integrated transitionsTrends in Food Science & Technology
C. Weele, C. Driessen (2013)
Emerging Profiles for Cultured Meat; Ethics through and as DesignAnimals : an Open Access Journal from MDPI, 3
Annukka Vainio, X. Irz, H. Hartikainen (2018)
How effective are messages and their characteristics in changing behavioural intentions to substitute plant-based foods for red meat? The mediating role of prior beliefsAppetite, 125
Matti Wilks, C. Phillips, K. Fielding, M. Hornsey (2019)
Testing potential psychological predictors of attitudes towards cultured meatAppetite, 136
Stephanie Tai (2019)
Legalizing the Meaning of MeatAgriSciRN: Environmental Impact of Agriculture (Topic)
Alexandra Sexton (2016)
Alternative Proteins and the (Non)Stuff of “Meat”Gastronomica, 16
Stefanie Havemeier, J. Erickson, J. Slavin (2017)
Dietary guidance for pulses: the challenge and opportunity to be part of both the vegetable and protein food groupsAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1392
Shunzo Majima (2014)
A brief thought on the future of global ethics: military robots and new food technologiesJournal of Global Ethics, 10
Deborah Lupton, B. Turner (2018)
Food of the Future? Consumer Responses to the Idea of 3D-Printed Meat and Insect-Based FoodsFood and Foodways, 26
Kristian Näschen, B. Diekkrüger, M. Evers, B. Höllermann, Stefanie Steinbach, Frank Thonfeld (2019)
The Impact of Land Use/Land Cover Change (LULCC) on Water Resources in a Tropical Catchment in Tanzania under Different Climate Change ScenariosSustainability, 11
(2000)
Dispelling mythsJournal of the National Cancer Institute, 92 18
J. House (2019)
Insects are not ‘the new sushi’: theories of practice and the acceptance of novel foodsSocial & Cultural Geography, 20
J. Boer, H. Aiking (2018)
Prospects for pro-environmental protein consumption in Europe: Cultural, culinary, economic and psychological factorsAppetite, 121
Josh Milburn (2016)
Chewing Over In Vitro Meat: Animal Ethics, Cannibalism and Social ProgressRes Publica, 22
V. Tu, F. Husson, A. Sutan, D. Ha, D. Valentin (2012)
For me the taste of soy is not a barrier to its consumption. And how about you?Appetite, 58
George Doumar, Mustafa Gurbuz, Imad Harb, Khalil Jahshan, Tamara Kharroub, Joe Macaron, Marcus Montgomery, Yousef Munayyer, Abdulwahab Al-Qassab, Radwan Ziadeh, Khalil Jahshan, Imad Harb (2018)
Challenges and ProspectsSustainable Sludge Management
Jessica Hayes-Conroy, Allison Hayes-Conroy (2010)
Visceral Geographies: Mattering, Relating, and DefyingGeography Compass, 4
Carlo Alvaro (2019)
Lab-Grown Meat and Veganism: A Virtue-Oriented PerspectiveJournal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 32
Mohammad Haq (2020)
Cow MilkDefinitions
D. Chauvet (2018)
Should cultured meat be refused in the name of animal dignity?Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 21
Lisa Clark, A. Bogdan (2019)
The Role of Plant-Based Foods in Canadian Diets: A Survey Examining Food Choices, Motivations and Dietary IdentityJournal of Food Products Marketing, 25
W Verbeke, A Marcu, P Rutsaert, R Gaspar, B Seibt, D Fletcher, J Barnett (2015)
“Would you eat cultured meat?”: Consumers’ reactions and attitude formation in Belgium, Portugal and the United KingdomMeat Science, 102
Z. Bhat, J. Morton, S. Mason, A. Bekhit, H. Bhat (2019)
Technological, Regulatory, and Ethical Aspects of In Vitro Meat: A Future Slaughter-Free Harvest.Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety, 18 4
Seymour Ag (1966)
What is in a name?The Cerebral palsy journal, 27 4
(2019)
On visions as socio-epistemic practices. Nanoethics
Ella Shaw, Máirtín Iomaire (2019)
A comparative analysis of the attitudes of rural and urban consumers towards cultured meatBritish Food Journal
Krishnendu Ray (2018)
The practice of eatingFood, Culture & Society, 21
Jessica Hayes-Conroy, Allison Hayes-Conroy (2013)
Veggies and visceralities: A political ecology of food and feelingEmotion, Space and Society, 6
R. Chiles (2013)
Intertwined ambiguities: Meat, in vitro meat, and the ideological construction of the marketplaceJournal of Consumer Behaviour, 12
F Buscemi (2015)
419Lexia, 19–20
Ellen Huan-Niemi, J. Niemi, M. Kaljonen, Marja Knuuttila, M. Saarinen (2020)
The impacts of dietary change in Finland: food system approachAgricultural and Food Science, 29
D. Boler, D. Woerner (2017)
What is meat? A perspective from the American Meat Science AssociationAnimal Frontiers, 7
R. Haas, Alina Schnepps, Anni Pichler, O. Meixner (2019)
Cow Milk versus Plant-Based Milk Substitutes: A Comparison of Product Image and Motivational Structure of ConsumptionSustainability
Josh Milburn (2018)
Death-Free Dairy? The Ethics of Clean MilkJournal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 31
P. Jallinoja, M. Niva, Terhi Latvala (2016)
Future of sustainable eating? Examining the potential for expanding bean eating in a meat-eating cultureFutures, 83
Əsmər Əhmədova (2022)
The role of plant – based foods in the growth and development of the child̛ s bodyNATURE AND SCIENCE
N. Brown (2009)
Prepublication Copy of
W. Galusky (2014)
Technology as Responsibility: Failure, Food Animals, and Lab-grown MeatJournal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 27
M Callon (2007)
311
Alexandra Sexton, T. Garnett, Jamie Lorimer (2019)
Framing the future of food: The contested promises of alternative proteinsEnvironment and Planning. E, Nature and Space, 2
R. Weinrich (2019)
Opportunities for the Adoption of Health-Based Sustainable Dietary Patterns: A Review on Consumer Research of Meat SubstitutesSustainability
Annukka Vainio, M. Niva, P. Jallinoja, Terhi Latvala (2016)
From beef to beans: Eating motives and the replacement of animal proteins with plant proteins among Finnish consumersAppetite, 106
T. Arppe, M. Niva, P. Jallinoja (2020)
The emergence of the Finnish edible insect arena: The dynamics of an ‘Active Obstacle’Geoforum, 108
M. Siegrist, Bernadette Sütterlin (2017)
Importance of perceived naturalness for acceptance of food additives and cultured meatAppetite, 113
A. Hoek, P. Luning, P. Weijzen, W. Engels, F. Kok, C. Graaf (2011)
Replacement of meat by meat substitutes. A survey on person- and product-related factors in consumer acceptanceAppetite, 56
Taru Peltola, M. Kaljonen, Marita Kettunen (2020)
Embodied public experiments on sustainable eating: demonstrating alternative proteins in Finnish schoolsSustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 16
R. Torraco (2016)
Writing Integrative Literature ReviewsHuman Resource Development Review, 15
Christian Fuentes, Maria Fuentes (2017)
Making a market for alternatives: marketing devices and the qualification of a vegan milk substituteJournal of Marketing Management, 33
Alexandra Sexton (2018)
Eating for the post-Anthropocene: Alternative proteins and the biopolitics of edibilityTransactions of the Institute of British Geographers
Adrian Smith, R. Raven (2012)
What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainabilityIEEE Transactions on Power Delivery
Aisha Egolf, C. Hartmann, M. Siegrist (2019)
When Evolution Works Against the Future: Disgust's Contributions to the Acceptance of New Food TechnologiesRisk Analysis, 39
C. Hartmann, M. Siegrist (2017)
Consumer perception and behaviour regarding sustainable protein consumption: A systematic reviewTrends in Food Science and Technology, 61
Erik Jönsson, Tobias Linné, Ally McCrow-Young (2018)
Many Meats and Many Milks? The Ontological Politics of a Proposed Post-animal RevolutionScience as Culture, 28
M. Bosman, S. Ellis, J. Jerling, J. Badham, D. Merwe (2011)
South African consumers' opinions and beliefs regarding the health benefits of soy and soy productsInternational Journal of Consumer Studies, 35
Erik Jönsson (2016)
Benevolent technotopias and hitherto unimaginable meats: Tracing the promises of in vitro meatSocial Studies of Science, 46
Jacob Metcalf (2013)
Meet Shmeat: Food System Ethics, Biotechnology and Re-Worlding TechnoscienceParallax, 19
A. McGregor, Donna Houston (2018)
Cattle in the Anthropocene: Four propositionsTransactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 43
Barbara Bolton (2017)
Dairy’s Monopoly on Words: the Historical Context and Implications of the TofuTown DecisionEuropean Food and Feed Law Review, 12
Chrysostomos Apostolidis, F. McLeay (2016)
Should we stop meating like this? Reducing meat consumption through substitutionFood Policy, 65
D. McBey, D. Watts, A. Johnstone (2019)
Nudging, formulating new products, and the lifecourse: A qualitative assessment of the viability of three methods for reducing Scottish meat consumption for health, ethical, and environmental reasonsAppetite, 142
PJ Mason, T Lang (2017)
10.4324/9781315802930Sustainable diets: How ecological nutrition can transform consumption and the food system
B. Pel (2016)
Trojan horses in transitions: A dialectical perspective on innovation ‘capture’Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 18
F. Geels (2004)
From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theoryResearch Policy, 33
Joop Boer, H. Aiking (2019)
Strategies towards healthy and sustainable protein consumption: A transition framework at the levels of diets, dishes, and dish ingredientsFood Quality and Preference
J. Goodwin, C. Shoulders (2013)
The future of meat: a qualitative analysis of cultured meat media coverage.Meat science, 95 3
Increasing concerns for climate change call for radical changes in food systems. There is a need to pay more attention to the entangled changes in technological development, food production, as well as consumption and consumer demand. Consumer and market interest in alternative meat and milk products—such as plant based milk, plant protein products and cultured meat and milk—is increasing. At the same time, statistics do not show a decrease in meat consumption. Yet alternatives have been suggested to have great transitional potential, appealing to different consumer segments, diets, and identities. We review 123 social scientific journal articles on cell-based and plant-based meat and milk alternatives to understand how the positioning of alternatives as both same and different in relation to animal-based products influences their role within the protein transition. We position the existing literature into three themes: (1) promissory narratives and tensions on markets, (2) consumer preferences, attitudes, and behavioral change policies, (3) and the politics and ethics of the alternatives. Based on our analysis of the literature, we suggest that more research is needed to understand the broader ethical impacts of the re-imagination of the food system inherent in meat and milk alternatives. There is also a need to direct more attention to the impacts of meat and milk alternatives to the practices of agricultural practices and food production at the farm-level. A closer examination of these research gaps can contribute to a better understanding of the transformative potential of alterna- tives on a systemic level. Keywords Alternative protein · Milk alternative · Meat alternative · Protein transition · Sustainable food system · Literature review Introduction these products is increasing. At the same time, these prod- ucts enter crowded markets and become entangled in con- Meat and milk alternatives have been proposed as a promis- tested discourses on sustainable protein transition. ing alternative to the many problems caused by the over- To date, the promises related to meat and milk alterna- reliance of contemporary Western diets on animal protein. tives have received considerable attention from social sci- They are promoted as providing solutions to animal welfare entists. They have been investigated as a dynamic example (Schaefer and Savulescu 2014), GHG emissions (Tuomisto of market driven transition, where new innovations and and Texeira de Mattos 2011); human health (Bhat et al. incumbent industries aim to provide solutions for more sus- 2019), as well as resource efficiency (van der Weele et al. tainable protein sources (e.g. Mylan et al. 2019; Tziva et al. 2019). In recent years, the food industry has taken the lead 2020). An increasing number of researchers have started in developing novel foodstuffs that are positioned as alterna- to talk specifically about protein transition to highlight the tives to meat and milk. Both consumer and market interest in necessity to find more sustainable sources of protein that can replace meat and milk in the western diets (de Boer and Aiking 2018; Tziva et al. 2020; van der Weele et al. 2019). * Annika Lonkila Much of the research on protein transition has focused upon annika.lonkila@syke.fi technological solutions offered by cell-based meat and milk Minna Kaljonen alternatives (Hocquette 2016; Bhat et al. 2019; Kadim et al. minna.kaljonen@syke.fi 2015; Sexton et al. 2019). The understanding of the role Finnish Environment Institute, Latokartanonkaari 11, of other plant-based products in the protein transition has Helsinki, Finland Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 626 A. Lonkila, M. Kaljonen remained much more fragmented (see also van der Weele consumer preferences, politics and ethics. We end the paper et al. 2019). Further investigation of the variety of prod- by calling for more attention in future social scientific uct categories (ranging from in vitro meat to soy milk) is research to different plant-based solutions. This requires required to explore the possible analogies and differences in broadening the scope of studies from market transformation their transformative potential. The broader focus allows for and consumer preferences to those of agricultural produc- scrutinizing to what extent the framings and critical analyses tion, value-chains and food systems analysis. attached to cell-based meat and milk have relevance in rela- tion to other plant-based alternatives, and what research gaps Integrative qualitative literature review follow from the current emphasis on technological innova- tion in this field of research. Although different meat and We conducted a qualitative integrative literature review to milk alternatives promote vastly different solutions to the study the emergent research themes in relation to meat and question of protein production, their various environmental milk alternatives in the protein transition. A qualitative inte- and ethical justifications share a common basis, suggesting grative literature review (Torraco 2016) departs from a sys- that they may feed each other in advancing sustainable pro- tematic literature review (Liberati et al. 2009) by providing tein transition (Arppe et al. 2020). a more dynamic method to review literature on an emergent In this paper, we review emergent social scientific peer- topic. A systematic literature review attempts to collect “all reviewed literature carried out on both cell and plant-based empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria meat and milk alternatives. We refer to the different product to answer a specific research question”, using explicit, sys- categories with an umbrella term of meat and milk alter- tematic methods to minimize bias and provide reliable find- natives. We choose this phrase to highlight the positioning ings (Liberati et al. 2009, p. 2). Systematic review, however, of these products specifically as alternatives to the animal- is not well suited for emerging topics, such as meat and milk based staples in Western diets; meat and milk. It is also our alternatives, which escape precise definition and have been attempt to find a neutral denominator for such products, conceptualized and defined in a varied manner. For example, in order to sidestep the political and contested nature of in our case, the initial searches of Google Scholar quickly many of the established terms (see Mouat and Prince 2018; showcased the multitude of terms used to describe the phe- Kramer 2015). In this vein, we purposefully choose the term nomenon in question, and also that the struggle over naming alternative as a less divisive option than ‘substitute’, which was not without tensions. This showcases the ambiguities is a term that has been actively rejected by some actors that still surround these products, which often take shape in within the industry (Sexton 2016). At the same time, focus- regulatory and political conflicts. Due to this terminological ing on such a wide range of products also creates a need to ambiguity, and the range of theoretical and methodological define clearly the different terminologies used. Under meat approaches used in the studies, it would have been very dif- and milk alternatives we separate two analytical categories, ficult to perform a systematic review of the topic. Instead, cell-based alternatives and plant-based alternatives. Cell- the integrative review is more suitable in such cases where based (referring to in vitro meat and milk) was chosen as a creative data collection methods are required (Snyder 2019). neutral alternative, as the term ‘cultured’ relates to positive The integrative review allows for generating new knowl- connotations such as cheese or beer culturing, whereas ‘lab edge about the topic under review, by synthesizing, assess- meat’ and ‘synthetic meat’ has been seen as derogatory (Ste- ing, critiquing and reflecting on representative literature on phens et al. 2018a). The category of plant-based products dynamic issues that experience rapid growth in literature involves all other meat and milk alternatives, ranging for (Torraco 2016). As the data analysis process of the integra- example from pulse-based meat analogues with genetically tive review is not as established on methodological terms engineered ingredients to textured soy protein. as in the case of the systematic review, there is a need for The aim of the review is to assess and synthesize the transparent documentation of the analysis (Snyder 2019). social scientific research on cell-based and plant-based meat To carry out the review, we searched the Scopus and Web and milk alternatives in order to better understand their role of Science databases for articles where the terms listed in within the broader protein transition. We begin the article Fig. 1 were mentioned in the title, abstract, or keywords of by explicating the integrative qualitative review used for the article (in Scopus) or the Title or Topic fields (in Web of scoping out the emergent research themes. Based on our Science). The size of the terms in the word cloud in Fig. 1 analysis of 123 social scientific journal articles on meat and shows the prevalence of articles included in the review under milk alternatives, we show how the research anchors around each search term. three research themes, which all scrutinize the promises of these products in protein transition from very different In addition to the search terms included in Fig. 1, there were also perspectives. We scrutinize in detail the tensions identified a number of search terms that did not generate articles that met the selection criteria. These were: milk substitute, non-dairy milk, non- in the studies concentrating upon market transformations, 1 3 Promises of meat and milk alternatives: an integrative literature review on emergent research… 627 the field selection was done after each search on a case-by- case basis. The other selection criteria were that articles had to be in English, appear on one of the databases between 2010 and 2019 and be either peer-reviewed journal articles or reviews. The decision to exclude older articles was sup- ported by the novelty of the issue, as well as preliminary searches that showed that most of the relevant articles were published after 2010. As the field is constantly developing, it also needs to be noted that papers that were not found by January 2020 are not included. We first selected papers based on title and abstract. After reading the full papers, some articles were eliminated because they did not match our main selection criteria: they did not focus on alternative products as such. This means that papers focusing on plant-based diets or eating in gen- Fig. 1 Search terms that generated the articles included in the review. eral were not included, if the papers did not examine spe- The size of the word signifies the number of articles that were cific products, categories, or innovations. Furthermore, only selected based on the searches related to the term articles that dealt with the use of alternative proteins for human food were included. Articles that dealt exclusively The main selection criteria for the reviewed articles was with insect or algae-based foods were excluded. Papers were centered on the articles’ focus on products, which were also eliminated if full text was not available. It should be clearly positioned as alternatives to meat and milk. This noted that three articles are included that were found during meant, for example, that the products were analyzed from the initial searches on Google Scholar (Sexton et al. 2019; the perspective of substitution or that their animal-based ref- Sexton 2016; Morris et al. 2019). These were not found erence points (e.g. in terms of consumer experience, market on Scopus or Web of Science. In total, 2,133 articles were presence, or ethics) were under scrutiny. The definition of screened, out of which 123 articles were included in the the search terms was in a crucial role in the selection of review after the selection process (Fig. 2). the articles. We first focused on the general terms such as Initially, we categorized the basic information about each ‘meat/milk substitute’ and collected terminology from initial article (author(s), year, title, journal & DOI, and keywords). Google Scholar searches, while also continuously adding We created two initial categories on the basis of the empiri- further search terms from the reviewed articles. Thus, new cal focus of the papers: cell-based and plant-based alterna- searches were made on an ongoing basis. The terminology tives. In reading the full papers, we also listed the empirical related to the plant-based alternatives seemed to be the most and theoretical focus, the research questions, the data and ambiguous, so we also added searches focusing on specific methods used, the results, the conclusions, and the potential plants or pulses to make sure all relevant articles were research gaps which are identified. included. The searches for lentil and bean-based products In the analysis, it became apparent that the articles shared mostly did not generate articles that had not already been a consistent framing: meat and milk alternatives were pre- included under previous search terms (e.g. ’plant-based pro- sented as a promise in various dimensions: in ecological, tein’). However, searches for soy/a-based products and tofu, nutritional, technological or ethical terms. This framing was which we also identified as products positioned as meat and often highlighted as a motivation for the studies. Beyond milk alternatives, generated 10 new articles for the analysis. this shared promissory framing, the articles were situated These papers were related, for example, to the regulation and widely across various theoretical approaches and empirical labelling of plant-based meat and milk alternatives as well settings. As we analyzed the articles further, we classified as to consumer preferences of soy-based meat alternatives. the emergent research themes into three broad categories In addition, to be included, the articles had to fall into the based on the research focus and the theoretical foundations broad category of social scientific research. In Web of Sci- (Table 1). The themes are (1) promissory narratives and ence, only articles in the Social Sciences Citation Index and tensions on markets, (2) consumer preferences, attitudes, Art and Humanities Index were included, while in Scopus, and behavioral change, and (3) politics and ethics. Some themes were identified more organically than others as they dealt with parallel topics and drew from a similar theoreti- Footnote 1 (continued) cal background. The themes were built around our analysis meat protein, altered protein, cultured milk, synthetic milk, artificial of the core topics within the reviewed papers. These topics milk, imitation meat, cellular agriculture, clean meat, and synthetic are listed in the tables preceding each theme. With regard meat. 1 3 628 A. Lonkila, M. Kaljonen Fig. 2 Selection of the articles for review Records identified Records identified by Scopus by Web of Science (n = 425) (n = 1708) Removal of duplicates Total records identified (n = 2133) Screening based on title, abstract and full text; evaluated against selection criteria Additional papers identified Records included in during the review process (n = 3) analysis (n = 120) Table 1 Research themes found Research themes Plant-based meat Cell-based meat and The most popular journals in the social scientific articles and milk alternatives milk alternatives on meat and milk alternatives Promissory narra- 12 articles 17 articles BioSocieties, 2 articles tives and tensions Science as Culture, 2 articles on markets Meat Science, 2 articles Consumer prefer- 38 articles 22 articles Appetite, 15 articles ences, attitudes Food Quality and Preference, 7 articles and behavioral Meat Science, 5 articles change Sustainability, 4 articles Politics and ethics 8 articles 26 articles Journal of Agricultural and Environ- mental Ethics, 7 articles Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2 European Journal of Risk Regulation, 2 articles to the discussions within the themes, we searched for recur- Emerging research themes ring topics, challenges and questions posed by the articles. We looked for both prevalence of the issues and the weight Promissory narratives and tensions on markets given to them in the papers. If a topic was only examined in one paper, it was generally not emphasized in the analysis. The first theme anchors into a broad interest in economy and It should be noted that the classification of research themes markets studying how meat and milk alternatives behave and is not exclusive. Although we have tied each article to only alter food markets (Table 2). The articles explore either the one theme in Table 1 (on the basis of their main focus), one narratives and discourses linked to meat and milk alterna- article may contribute to several themes. In particular, many tives by various food system actors or the performativity articles mainly focusing on other topics also call for atten- of their marketing practices. Many authors exploring this tion to politics and ethics. topic draw from the theories developed within science and 1 3 Promises of meat and milk alternatives: an integrative literature review on emergent research… 629 Table 2 Key empirical focuses and theoretical resources in studying promissory narratives and tensions on food markets Empirical focus Key theoretical resources Promissory narratives and discourses used by various actors in industry, media and academia Science and technology studies Market/ing practices and performance Performative economics Evaluation of transition pathways Socio-technical transitions Ontological tensions in promissory narratives Economic geography Regulatory questions arising from the ontological tensions related to meat and milk alternatives technology studies, performative economics or socio-tech- The promissory narratives of meat and milk alterna- nical transitions. tives highlight diagnosed issues within intensive livestock Several papers turn critical attention to how different agriculture, related for example to food safety, ethics, or actors such as the meat and milk alternative industry and its the environment. Stephens et al. (2018b) call this the cri- funders (Murray 2018; Sexton et al. 2019; Stephens et al. sis narrative of the alternatives. Building on performative 2018a, b; Morris et al. 2019), academia and media (Stephens economics (Callon 2007), Mouat and Prince (2018) portray 2013; Jönsson 2016; O’Riordan et al. 2017; Stephens and the making of alternative markets as the managing of the Ruivenkamp 2016; Goodwin and Shoulders 2013; Dilworth negative overflows of animal agriculture. Mouat and Prince and McGregor 2015; McGregor and Houston 2018; Buscemi (2018) suggest that the promissory narratives have a form 2015), or the meat industry (Keefe 2018; Bonny et al. 2015; of agency of their own, and through problematizing animal Boler and Woerner 2017) construct the promissory narra- agriculture, they work to continuously affirm the market for tives in their discursive and material practices. These stud- animal-free alternatives. Similarly, Sexton (2016) showcases ies show how the promise of meat and milk alternatives is that meat alternatives are constantly portrayed as what they presented as one of ‘techno-salvation’, nothing less than a are not, as the non-stuff of which they consist. In this way, kinder, healthier, fairer, tastier, safer, and more sustainable the papers showcase how the market for meat and milk alter- food system for all (Sexton et al. 2019). Fuentes and Fuentes natives becomes constituted against animal agriculture and, (2017) show how milk alternatives draw on similar ethical hence, inseparably entangled with it. and ecological justifications as alternative food networks; Furthermore, these narratives build upon the notion that whereas Murray (2018) investigates how engineers of new meat and milk are necessary components of human diets. foodstuffs incorporate ethics into them as a means to pave Murray (2018) relates how at a tasting event for the cultured the way for wider public acceptance. Especially in relation meat burger, advocates drew on human evolutionary his- to cell-based alternatives, which exist so far more as fic- tory and psychology in establishing humans as a meat-eating tions than tangible foodstuffs (Sexton et al. 2019; Mouat and species. This narrative works to normalize the high rates of Prince 2018), it is easy to see why the promises have also meat consumption as the natural predisposition of humans. gained academic attention as an empirical object of study. This also relates to nutrition: Jönsson et al. (2019) show Stephens et al. (2018b) emphasize that all technological how, in the marketing of milk alternatives, the position of innovations are embedded within sets of promissory narra- milk as a desirable, complete source of nutrition becomes tives and future imaginaries. Building on the literature on the continuously reasserted. Similarly, cultured meat is prom- sociology of expectations (Brown and Michael 2003), vari- ised to offer the same nutrition and morale boost as conven- ous authors (Jönsson 2016; Stephens and Ruivenkamp 2016; tional meat (Jönsson 2016). The narratives also highlight Stephens 2013; Sexton et al. 2019; Stephens et al. 2018b; the similarity in taste and consistency in relation to meat Ferrari and Lösch 2017) explore how promissory narratives and milk. Sexton (2018) notes that the developers of meat work in establishing a framework of meanings around meat alternatives see the lack of familiarity, mouth-feel and taste and milk alternatives, and enroll financial, institutional, and as the biggest barriers to the consumption of alternatives. public support for them. This helps to underline the material The critical analysis of the promises attached to meat and political work taking place in the present time frame to and milk alternatives highlight the complex relationship pave the way for new innovations. While there still exists between animal-based and animal-free foodstuffs. The considerable uncertainty related to these promises, the dis- reviewed papers underline a profound tension between cursive weight of the various textual and material tools har- assuring similarity and asserting difference between these nessed in their marketing contribute to their normalization products. Animal agriculture is at the same time both the (Mouat and Prince 2018, p. 317). In other words, through source for potential consumers of meat and milk alternatives performative acts, expectations help bring into being the and their “essential constitutive outside” (Mouat and Prince world they describe (Brown and Michael, 2003). 2018, p. 319). This tension is also identified in relation to the meat and milk alternatives already on the market (Fuentes 1 3 630 A. Lonkila, M. Kaljonen and Fuentes 2017; Mylan et al. 2019; Jönsson et al. 2019; similar restrictions do not currently apply on the EU level Morris et al. 2019; Ledin and Machin 2019). Examining the (Carreño and Dolle 2018; Bolton 2017). The studies call marketing of oat-milk company Oatly, Fuentes and Fuentes for further clarification of the EU regulatory structures for (2017) show how the company engages in a simultaneous cell-based meat and milk and more generally for novel foods “alternativisation and conveniesation” (p. 531) of its prod- (Petetin 2014). The ambiguities related to the use of geneti- ucts, producing a compound and plastic product potentially cally modified cell-lines make it difficult to situate in vitro capable of attracting consumer groups with varying inter- meat in the existing regulatory context. Jönssön et al. (2019) ests. Oatly is simultaneously entangling alternative values also re-emphasize that expectations of peaceful co-exist- and conventional market mechanisms. Ledin and Machin ence between animal-based foods and alternatives may be (2019) find that Oatly does not really tackle the details of the unfounded, as commodities tend to attempt to take over each political issues with which they align, while simultaneously other’s shares in the market. Thus, these studies reveal pains- opening an avenue for consumers to engage in social activ- takingly how neither of these realities—co-existing with or ism through purchasing. This easy and fun activism-lite can dethroning meat and dairy—will take shape easily. nonetheless give consumers a powerful sense of being part Furthermore, the fact that empirical cases show the prom- of a political moral order (Ledin and Machin 2019). ise of meat and milk alternatives to be both similar to and Mylan et al. (2019) also examine the tensions in the case different from animal-based foods also signifies a move away of plant-based milks showing the difficulties encountered from the division between niche-marketing and “normal- in practice (see also Morris et al. 2019). Drawing on socio- izing sustainability for the masses” (Fuentes and Fuentes technical transition studies (Geels 2004; Smith and Raven 2017, p. 548 citing Rettie et al. 2012). The inherent tension 2012), they show how the initial ‘rage against the regime’ can also be crafted into a multi-niche approach (Fuentes was watered down into a product reform, where the func- and Fuentes 2017), where actors draw on various alterna- tioning of the food system (in relation to the organization tive qualities, allowing them to maintain their politicized of food markets, retail and consumption) remained largely and subversive identity without sacrificing their appeal to unchanged. This outcome differed from the visions of the large consumer segments. Whether this hybridity enhances social movement behind the campaigns for plant-based milk, or diminishes the transitional potential of meat and milk which championed radical changes in the organization of alternatives is not yet clear on the basis of the reviewed stud- the agri-food system. Mylan et al. (2019) conclude that ies. As explicated by Mylan et al. (2019), the ‘rage against the trajectories of plant-based milks in the UK market fol- the regime’ petered out through the selective appropriation lowed hybrid ‘fit’ and ‘stretch’ patterns, contributing to both of the radical elements of plant-based milks by the regime. incremental reform and substantial transformation between However, co-existing meat and milk alternatives may still changing sites and environments. carry transitional potential as Trojan horses, luring regime The tension inherent in the promissory narratives of actors into transitional practices, as Pel (2016) notes, by meat and milk alternatives has led also to conflicts related helping to bridge contested boundaries between the diets to ontological questions as well as regulatory categories. and identities attached to animal-based and alternative foods. What exactly is meat or milk? The tension of being both the same and different renders meat and milk alternatives onto- Consumer preferences, attitudes and behavioral logically muddy. Aiming to dethrone animal-based agricul- change ture is a radical engagement in conflict with other realities. While stating that plant-based milk simply is milk can be Within the second research theme, the research interest lies perceived as an attempt to co-exist with dairy milk—and in consumer preferences or attitudes towards the alterna- even to reinforce dairy milk or meat as the norm—there is tive products on the market (Table 3). The articles scruti- also conflict involved, the reviewed papers show. The state- nize consumer perceptions, attitudes and behavioral change ments that assert similarity between animal-based foods and mainly from the point of view of individual choice or prefer- alternatives have been strongly countered by stakeholders ences. Studies also assess behavioral change policies to sup- within animal agriculture (Keefe 2018; Boler and Woerner port the use of these products as part of shifting diets. The 2017; Bonny et al. 2015). Questions about the appropriate studies on consumer preferences draw on social psychology, terminology to be used in marketing and labelling in rela- tion to the alternatives have also led to regulatory battles (Stephens et al. 2018a; Petetin 2014; Lee 2018; Bhat et al. Although the articles included in the review focused on the EU, it should be noted that the U.S. livestock industry has also pushed for 2019; Carreño and Dolle 2018; Bolton 2017). Within the stricter regulation on the use of terms such as ‘meat’ or ‘beef’ on EU, it is currently prohibited to use protected terms such the grounds of potentially misleading consumers (Sachs and Ketten- as ‘milk’ or ‘cheese’ for plant-based products even when mann 2019). In recent years, various truth-in-labelling laws have been preceded by specifications of their plant origin. With meat, passed in many U.S. states (Tai 2020). 1 3 Promises of meat and milk alternatives: an integrative literature review on emergent research… 631 Table 3 Key empirical focuses and theoretical resources in studying consumer preferences, attitudes and behavioral changes Empirical focus Key theoretical resources Barriers and facilitating factors for choosing meat and milk alternatives Social psychology Attitudes towards meat and milk alternatives Behavioral sciences and behavioral economics Sensory attributes of meat and milk alternatives Cognitive and sensory sciences The most effective promotion and marketing strategies Socio-economic differences in consumer preferences, attitudes and eating Behavioral change and policies behavioral sciences and economics as well as cognitive and aspects are the main factor (Hoek et al. 2011; Elzerman et al. sensory studies. 2013; Clark and Bodgan 2019; Weinrich 2019). Specifically, In analyzing various facilitating factors and barriers for the promise of similarity to meat and milk in relation to consumption and acceptance of alternatives, the studies on both taste and nutrition facilitates the use of processed meat consumer preferences give insight into how consumers per- alternatives (Hoek et al. 2011) and plant-based milks (Haas ceive and value the various promises attached to alternatives. et al. 2019). Similarity to the user interface and application First, moral and ethical promises are found to be impor- in meals is also valued, in terms of convenience (McBey tant for increasing the acceptance of cell-based meat and et al. 2019; Elzerman et al. 2013), conformity, ease and fit milk alternatives (Circus and Robison 2019; Verbeke et al. with current lifestyle (Apostolidis and McLeay 2016). 2015a). However, the studies highlight that these promises Existing eating motives, habits and prior beliefs play an do not necessarily lead to willingness to choose or consume important role in consumer willingness to ingest or accept the alternatives. Instead, consumers value various ethical, meat alternatives or reduce meat consumption (Vainio et al. environmental, and societal benefits on a broader level, such 2016, 2018; Hartmann and Siegrist 2017; Weinrich 2018). as in relation to global food security (Verbeke et al. 2015a; Consumers have also been found to use symbolic informa- Hocquette 2016; Lupton and Turner 2018). A framing cen- tion when evaluating foods, potentially leading to biased tered on ethical, environmental, and societal benefits of the judgments (Siegrist and Sütterlin 2017). For example, cell-based alternatives is thus likely to contribute to positive those unwilling to reduce meat consumption are less likely attitudes towards cultured meat (Bryant and Dillard 2019), to believe that livestock agriculture contributes to climate but it is unclear how it would affect willingness for personal change (Malek et al. 2019), and absolute opposition to cul- consumption. The studies also identify various concerns tured meat is predicted by conspiratorial ideation (Wilks and uncertainties in consumer acceptance when cell-based et al. 2019). Furthermore, consumers who distrust science alternatives hit supermarket shelves, especially related to and have concerns related to the governing of risks (Verbeke food neophobia (Wilks et al. 2019), disgust (Verbeke et al. et al. 2015a; Wilks et al. 2019), are less likely to accept 2015a; Wilks et al. 2019), anticipated inferior taste (Tucker cell-based meat and milk alternatives. In addition to prior 2014; Bryant and Barnett 2018), perception of unnaturalness beliefs, existing eating habits and skills influence the open- (Lupton and Turner 2018; Tucker 2014; Siegrist et al. 2018; ness of consumers to including meat and milk alternatives Verbeke et al. 2015a) and anticipation of risks to human in their diets. For example, a lack of cooking skills has been health (Siegrist and Sütterlin 2017; Egolf et al. 2019). At identified as a barrier to the use of plant-based meat alter - the same time, the novelty factor generates interest towards natives, also involving legumes (Graça et al. 2019; Palmer new products (Van der Weele and Driessen 2013; Circus and et al. 2018). Robinson 2019). The reviewed articles also suggest that different consumer Studies examining consumer attitudes and behavior in groups have different capacities and interests towards meat relation to plant-based alternatives show slightly different and milk alternatives. This line of research links to the focus results. Moral and ethical reasons (Clark and Bogdan 2019; Although highlighting the importance of skills, the reviewed arti- Circus and Robinson 2019) and promises related to human cles pay less attention to the (material) practices of eating and con- sumption. For example, research inspired by practice theories high- health (Elzerman et al. 2013; Vainio et al. 2016; Bosman lights that beliefs and attitudes about food are only translated into et al. 2011; Farrell et al. 2019; Moon et al. 2011; Palmer food practices through the shared, material and even visceral relations et al. 2018; Tu et al. 2012) are found to facilitate consumer in everyday life (see, for example, Goodman 2016; Hayes-Conroy acceptance of plant-based foods. Weinrich (2019), however, and Hayes-Conroy 2010, 2013; Kaljonen et al. 2020; Peltola et al. 2020; Plessz and Wahlen 2020; Warde 2016). Thus, one should be concludes that while these promises may encourage con- wary of drawing conclusions related to manifested eating practices sumers to try plant-based alternatives, they are less likely based on the reviewed studies focusing on attitudes and opinions on to influence regular consumption. For meat alternatives to eating. The more practice-oriented studies may have been excluded become stables in diets, taste and other positive sensory from the review due to the focus on products in the search terms. 1 3 632 A. Lonkila, M. Kaljonen on socio-economic differences in eating in consumer stud- of consumption” that ensures that the sustainable choices are ies. For example, male, politically liberal (Wilks and Phil- also the easy choices (Lee 2018, p. 36). lips 2017) and urban (Shaw and Iomaire 2019) consumers Considering the general contribution of consumer tend to be more receptive to cultured meat, while vegetar- research, it should be noted that very little long-term ians are more wary than other consumer groups (Verbeke research on the consumption of meat and milk alternatives et al. 2015b; Wilks and Phillips 2017). It is important to is yet available (Weinrich 2019), and it is thus difficult to note that both contextual and individual factors impact pro- evaluate how consumer acceptance develops over time, or tein consumption (de Boer and Aiking 2018). For example, how alternatives become staple diet components. life course differences influence the willingness to consume plant-based proteins, especially with new mothers (McBey Politics and ethics et al. 2019). Issues of availability and affordability are also potential issues for some consumer groups (Clark and Bog- Many of the reviewed individual empirical articles raise the dan 2019). importance of politics and ethical considerations in their The reviewed articles also consider how consumer accept- conclusions, when discussing the implications of their ance of these products should be promoted. The studies results (Table 4). In particular, the cell-based alternatives underline that for the cell-based products, contested issues, demand ethical reasoning. such as naturalness, should be avoided altogether, focusing There is wide consensus among ethicists that the contem- instead on the similarity of the product to conventional meat porary practices of meat production are morally corrupt. In (Bryant and Dillard 2019; Siegrist et al. 2018). Overall, it other words, moral agents must consider alternatives regard- is suggested to be more beneficial to focus on removing the less of the moral theory to which they adhere (Pluhar 2010). barriers to consumption rather than enhancing awareness For Pluhar (2010), this means that it is difficult to find objec- and acceptance of facilitating factors (e.g., health promises; tions to cultured meat if it would be affordable and available Wansink et al. 2014). These claims build upon recent interest to all, and if the animals involved would be treated with in behavioral sciences in giving more attention to intuitive, the utmost respect. There exists, however, intense debate fast thinking in people’s choices when designing behavio- in ethics regarding whether cell-based meat alternatives ral change policies (Kahneman 2011; Thaler and Sunstein are problematic in terms of animal dignity (Milburn 2018, 2008). In the case of meat and milk alternatives, attention 2016; Schaefer and Savulescu 2014; Cole and Morgan 2013; is turned specifically to the role of substitution as a strategy Chauvet 2018). Animals are still in some instances used to for supporting incremental change (Schösler et al. 2012). produce fetal bovine serum, extracted from unborn fetuses Substitute products, which closely mimic animal-based in slaughtered pregnant cows as a by-product of dairy pro- foods, can also persuade the most difficult consumer group, duction (van der Valk et al. 2018). However, the industry is the taste-driven segment, with which “sustainability-by- largely committed to replacing the serum with a synthetic stealth” may be required (Apostoloidis and McLeay 2016, alternative, which is expected to soon replace animal-based p. 84). Manageable substitution strategies may also involve media for cell-based meat (van der Valk et al. 2018). Many mixed dishes with both animal and animal-free protein (de of the articles in the review discuss whether the use of these Boer and Aiking 2019). Furthermore, substitution can help few animals can be ethically justified (Chauvet 2018; Cole bridge dietary boundaries based on prejudices or identity and Morgan 2013; Pluhar 2010). politics (Morris et al. 2019), as both those who refuse animal The reviewed articles also discuss the ethical question products and those who reduce them would be impacted on the flip side: are farm animals harmed by not being by strategies and policies related to substitution. Promoting brought into existence due to reduction in meat consump- small and manageable changes also contributes to maintain- tion? The answer depends on the quality of life of farm ani- ing dietary change over time and may increase the accept- mals. Schaefer and Savulescu (2014) suggest that an ethical ance of meat reduction strategies across consumer groups version of cell-based meat should promote the simultane- (Vainio et al. 2016). Overall, many of the reviewed articles ous strengthening of ‘happy farming’ practices. Whereas, call upon policies and regulation to build an “infrastructure Laestadius (2015) argues that the development of cell- based alternatives is only ethical if they are more effective Table 4 Key focuses in ethical Focus of ethical reasoning Theoretical resources questions and reasoning Ethics of animal-based food systems Moral philosophy Animal dignity Science and Technology Studies Technological development and relationship to animals and nature Political economy and ecology Power relations in agri-food and innovation systems Social Psychology Diversity of ethical questions and openness in their discussion Media studies 1 3 Promises of meat and milk alternatives: an integrative literature review on emergent research… 633 at reducing conventional animal meat consumption than the disastrous relations between humans, animals, land and plant-based alternatives. Also, the ethical questions of can- sustenance”. Stating that “there is no way to engineer the nibalism are addressed: what if the material used for cultur- world out of technoscience” Metcalf hopes that we instead ing comes from consenting human donors (Majima 2014; learn to “take pleasure in and responsibility for the messy Milburn 2016; Schaefer and Savulescu 2014). processes that sustain life”. For van der Weele and Dries- In addition to the problematic connection of cell-based sen (2013), the future of cell-based meat alternatives does technological solutions to animals, researchers pay attention not have to sever our relations with livestock animals. They to the cultural and symbolic implications of meat alterna- propose a model for ethical relations called “a pig in the tives. Cole and Morgan (2013) and Dilworth and McGregor backyard” (van der Weele and Driessen 2013, p. 655). In this (2015) argue that cell-based meat reproduces the fetishiza- model, cultured meat is imagined as “an element of a hybrid tion of meat, where meat retains a privileged position in community of humans and animals that would allow for both our diets and appetites. Similarly, Chauvet (2018) is con- the consumption of animal protein and meaningful relations cerned that plant-based meat alternatives also fetishize meat, with domestic (farm) animals” (p. 647). The authors call for attempting to imitate a “cooked dead animal’s body: its taste, the inclusion of a larger set of moral identities in the discus- texture, physical appearance, smell, and, sometimes, name” sion about the future of meat and suggest that aesthetics and (p. 401). Milburn (2018) agrees that in relation to meat, cul- affective experiences must also play a role here. tured products reinforce the meat norm but argues that our The reviewed articles also focus on global political relationship with milk is different. Whereas meat exists first economy and the issue of food security and justice. Alter- and foremost not as food, but as an animal body, it can be native products are seen to have the potential to play a useful seen as morally wrong to perceive meat as a resource. Milk, role in meeting predicted increases in the global demand on the other hand, exists solely as food. Mammals’ milk is for meat (Kadim et al. 2015). However, there is a need to produced to feed offspring, and milk-sharing practices are pay closer attention to the political economies of alterna- widely accepted in most human and animal cultures. tives, for example, the extent to which they take up the chal- Most papers focusing on ethics also touch upon the ques- lenge of the unequal distribution of protein-rich foods and tion of alienation from nature. According to Alvaro (2019), diets geographically. Sexton (2018) also questions whether cultured meat should not be supported because it stems from alternative proteins are able to disturb existing economic unvirtuous motivations, one of which is that it alienates us or power structures within the agri-food system. Majima from the natural processes of food production. This argu- (2014) argues that there is a cause to pay closer attention to ment rests on the idea that cell-based meat alternatives sub- the patents and ownership structure behind cell-based meat. stitute the interdependence of humans and nature by total Cole and Morgan (2013) also express concern over the anti- independence (Schaefer and Savulescu 2014), fundamentally democratic biotechnological future of food promoted by altering our place in the world. It can also be said that these cell-based meat and milk alternatives. alternatives treat nature only as a means to an end to fulfill In this vein, the studies call for more attention to politi- our needs, “rather than a partner” (Schaefer and Savulescu cal processes that contribute to inertia within decision- 2014, p. 191). Technological solutions easily push nature making in food markets and policy. In studying political and animals into the background, and as a result, the ethical stakeholders’ ideologies in relation to in vitro meat, Chiles issues also related to our relationship with meat, are hidden (2013) found that ideology works as an “indispensable from view (Galusky 2014). interpretive resource” (p. 479) in navigating the potential Ethical scholars call for openly confronting the ethical conflicts and controversies around cell-based meat. Spe- questions of engaging with animals, humans and ecolo- cifically, ideologies which support the idea that technologi- gies of food, instead of turning them into engineering ones. cal innovations will fix the matters of unsustainable food Dilworth and McGregor (2015, pp. 103–104) argue that consumption and processes must be critically evaluated. A the most common ethical issues attached to cultured meat focus on technological innovations may stem from deeply (related to environment, animal welfare and food security) ingrained assumptions about the ideal of ultimate control “lend themselves to relatively straightforward cost–benefit over food production, depending on highly integrated mod- analysis”, while the more pressing issues related to food els of industrial organization (van der Weele et al. 2019). justice, animal liberation, techno-skepticism and socio-eco- It is also highlighted that the moderate to high degrees of logical harmony require much more careful consideration. social-institutional change required by the technologically- The authors worry such questions will only be fully explored intensive alternatives may be difficult to achieve solely once the products become publicly available, when it may through a technological focus (ibid.). In other words, an eco- already be too late. Metcalf (2013, p. 83) also urges schol- nomically viable, cell-based meat sector could be created, ars to focus on the disconnection inherent in the framing of but it may not deliver all of the more altruistic or socially cell-based meat and milk alternatives as technical fixes “to and environmentally benefits currently associated with it 1 3 634 A. Lonkila, M. Kaljonen (Stephens et al. 2018a). Governance structures focused on and ethics) portray distinctively different promissory narra- just and sustainable principles are crucial in order to ensure tives for these products in relation to protein transition. First, that novel future realities of food correspond to the prom- studies focusing on the tensions in the markets highlight ises attached to meat and milk alternatives (Stephens et al. the ontologically hybrid and contested nature of meat and 2018a; van der Weele et al. 2019). For example, cell-based milk alternatives. These studies show how the new prod- products could be evaluated based on how well they con- ucts aim to be positioned both the same and different from tribute to participatory democratic processes, transparency, their animal-based counterparts. The tension calls for further corporate responsibility, and sustainability goals (Lee 2018). attention to ontological politics in understanding the protein In this vein, more critical attention should be paid to the transition, in order to make sense of how disruptive firms role of ‘Big Tech’ in designing the future of food—and its interact with established actors in contested relations. The transformative potential, as well as lack of it (van der Weele notion of ontological politics relates to the understanding et al. 2019). This is especially crucial considering that it is that practices produce effects in reality (Mol 1999) that con- pulses, rather than cell-based technological innovations, that tribute to multiple interlinked realities and ultimately multi- may offer the most potential for altering agricultural prac- ple worlds. In understanding what meat and milk alternatives tices at the same time (van der Weele et al. 2019). Pulses, do, and can do, in relation to the protein transition, it is however, lack political and economic support and suffer important to continue to focus on how the ontological bat- from neglect of attention, money, human resources, as well tles over their identity and reference points are carried out in as scientific capacity. Other research also underlines that specific contexts and for specific products. These battles can there is a further need to clarify the position of legumes and reveal crucial barriers and facilitating factors for sustainable also highlight their sustainability potential in dietary guide- protein transition. lines (Figueira et al. 2019; Havemeier et al. 2017). However, Second, the consumer studies suggest that consumer changing the direction of research and innovation programs acceptance is influenced by everyday practices, such as is difficult, due to vested interests, division of labor and silo- skills, and sensory expectations and experiences, yet these thinking (van der Weele et al. 2019). studies also touch upon the question of ontological ambigui- ties. Consumers want delicious, simple products that they know how to cook; the attributes that are attached to meat and milk. Thus, the conclusion is often that in order to get Discussion consumers on board to protein transition, it is important to produce alternatives that resemble meat and milk as closely As the methodological section of the review shows, deter- as possible. At the same time, such thinking can work to mining how to define the topic of meat and milk alterna- emphasize the role of meat and milk as superior food against tives has not been straightforward. The field is continuously which other protein products are compared. The latter is developing as new products emerge on the market or are emphasized by the review as one of the key ethical dilemmas invented in the lab. Neither is the terminology related to put forward by the meat and milk alternatives. the new foodstuffs yet fixed. However, we feel it has been Third, bringing together articles that raise ethical and crucial to attempt to collect the whole field of alternatives political questions over a variety of alternative products together, ranging from plant-based to cell-based products. also highlights how different products are attached to dif - Furthermore, the inclusion of milk alternatives allows us to ferent promises, ethics, and visions of the future of food and highlight the analogies between meat and milk alternatives proteins. Turning attention to these questions allows for a and suggest that much can be gained from analyzing these more critical analysis of the alternatives—analysis that looks alternatives together in the framework of the main animal- beyond the disruptive hype surrounding the products into the based staples of Western diets. Analyzing the whole field visions for future food systems with which they are embed- of alternative proteins together allows us to explicate that a ded and to which they contribute. Attention needs to be fundamental feature of the alternatives is their inescapable paid to how different meat and milk alternatives are entan- connection both to the attributes of meat and milk and the gled with the destructive consequences of capital-intensive crisis of livestock production, from which a fundamental agriculture on global food security, as well as to the power ontological tension follows. The collective analysis of the extended to biotechnology companies over food production alternatives turns attention also to the perspectives that have and distribution through some meat and milk alternatives. so far received less attention in the discussion over sustain- In this respect, the review contributes to further under- able protein transition. standing of the promises related to meat and milk alterna- The articles within this review stem from very different tives and the protein transition, which highlights the need for theoretical foundations. The three research themes identified an urgent move away from reliance on animal-based protein (market transformation, consumer preferences, and politics (de Boer and Aiking 2018; Tziva et al. 2020). The review 1 3 Promises of meat and milk alternatives: an integrative literature review on emergent research… 635 makes explicit how the current studies on meat and milk et al., 2020). Due to vested interests, this might be politi- alternatives often highlight the transformative potential of cally more feasible, compared to turning focus to restructur- technological innovations within the protein transition. Our ing agricultural practices, supporting new value chains or analysis suggests that the inescapable ontological tension taxing consumption. As mentioned, a focus on technologi- inherent in meat and milk alternatives does not necessar- cal innovation may also direct policy towards less sustain- ily do justice to plant-based products. When technological able options (van der Weele et al. 2019). Social scientific innovation is highlighted as the key to the protein transi- research is in a crucial role to explore how meat and milk tion, it is often assumed that improved product quality signi- alternatives re-invent and re-imagine agricultural and other fies increased similarity to meat or milk. Integrating pulses practices within the food system, as well as our relationship and plant-based products within the comprehensive review with land and sustenance. Such research could also support on alternative proteins reveals, however, that there is little finding more comprehensive policy measures for the protein sense in holding meat and milk as the ultimate reference transition (Huan-Niemi et al., 2020; Mason and Lang, 2017). point for all protein products. Plant-based alternatives may The review makes explicit that currently, most of the have the potential to develop more complex connections to studies on meat and milk alternatives stop at the farm gate. conventional meat than cell-based products—purposefully In other words, the impacts of the proposed frameworks of moving away from the narrative of similarity that reinforces the future attached to alternatives to farming practices and the nutritional, cultural, and social significance of animal communities are rarely examined. In the current social sci- protein. Furthermore, they may also help to raise critical entific studies, the journey of plant-based alternatives may questions about the overconsumption of animal protein in be followed from industry to retail shelf and to the consum- Western diets. For example, further research could focus on ers’ plate, but rarely to the farm and field. In order to tackle the need to couple reduction in animal-based protein con- transformation on the scale of the food system, re-focusing sumption with the development of alternative proteins. attention toward production and the whole food system is Plant-based alternatives highlight how similarity to meat needed. Pulse-based and grain-based alternatives are entan- and milk consists of different material practices that are not gled with changing practices of contemporary food produc- necessarily all engaged with simultaneously. For example, tion and processing in ways that differ from cell-based alter - plant-based alternatives may attempt to correspond to meat natives. Meanwhile, there is also concern over the lack of or milk in relation to the user interface, while attempting consideration for the fate of rural societies in the narratives to transform consumer preferences in relation to structure around cell-based meat alternatives (McGregor and Houston and taste. Furthermore, new associations may be needed 2018). So far, little attention has also been paid to the future in order to attach plant-based proteins as well to “festive, of human-livestock relations in the various promises of meat fulfilling, energizing, and pleasurable food” (Jallinoja et al. and milk alternatives. The consequences of a post-animal 2016, p. 12). We argue that focusing too heavily on increas- revolution built on cultured meat from which the animals ing the similarities between alternatives and animal-based have been engineered out (Metcalf 2013) are unclear both food, or equating technological innovation with quality or for the livestock animals and our relationships with them. success may unnecessarily narrow down and foreclose the Although as yet largely underexplored, these questions are imagined future realities of the protein transition. They may critical with regard to meat and milk alternatives. also foreclose discussions about the necessary reductions On the basis of the review, we suggest that the potential of in the overall protein consumption levels in Western diets. plant-based products to re-entangle rather than disentangle Further work could build links with existing research on the links between our protein production, agriculture and food practices in order to better understand how individual land, require further empirical rigour. Plant-based alterna- products become staples in our diets and shared practices tives can have significant potential to complement, diversify of eating (see, for example, Goodman 2016; Hayes-Conroy or even replace livestock production with introducing more and Hayes-Conroy 2010, 2013; Kaljonen et al. 2020; Plessz diverse crops to our production systems and diets; whilst and Wahlen 2020; Warde 2016). Currently, research on improving human and soil health in the meantime. alternative products and eating practices are largely carried out within different realms (although see e.g. House 2019, Peltola et al. 2020 as exceptions). Conclusions Specifically, we argue that the ontological tension that exists within meat and milk alternatives should not be The field of meat and milk alternatives is developing fast allowed to guide policy measures for the protein transition. as a topic for social scientific research. Examining alterna- Furthering protein transition is often seen best achieved by tive products contributes to research focusing on sustainable supporting more sustainable technological innovation (Tziva protein transition, showcasing the potential of individual 1 3 636 A. Lonkila, M. Kaljonen Arppe, T., M. Niva, and P. Jallinoja. 2020. The Emergence of the Finn- technologies or products in changing both our food con- ish edible insect arena: The dynamics of an ‘active obstacle.’ sumption and production. At the same time, analyzing the Geoforum 108: 227–236. alternatives in a comprehensive manner is crucial for teasing Bhat, Z.F., J.D. Morton, S.L. Mason, A.E.-D.A. Bekhit, and H.F. Bhat. out the fundamental features and inherent complexities of 2019. Technological, regulatory, and ethical aspects of in vitro meat: A future slaughter-free harvest. Comprehensive Reviews in the alternative futures proposed by the products. Food Science and Food Safety 18 (4): 1192–1208. Based on the review, meat and milk alternatives hang in Boler, D.D., and D.R. Woerner. 2017. What is meat? A perspective an inescapable tension with conventional meat and milk. from the American Meat Science Association. Animal Frontiers They are manifested as what they decisively are not (related 7 (4): 8–11. Bolton, B. 2017. Dairy’s monopoly on words: The historical context to the negative impacts of meat and milk), but also as what and implications of the TofuTown decision. European Food and they hope to be (closely attached to the desired qualities Feed Law Review 12: 422–430. of meat and milk). Enhancing the normative status of meat Bonny, S.P.F., G.E. Gardner, D.W. Pethick, and J.-F. Hocquette. 2015. and milk in Western diets can be detrimental, as overcon- What is artificial meat and what does it mean for the future of the meat industry? Journal of Integrative Agriculture 14 (2): sumption is a crucial issue. Facing the need to move towards 255–263. more plant-based, or even animal-free, food systems, can the Bosman, M.J.C., S.M. Ellis, J.C. Jerling, J. Badham, and D. van der alternatives afford to sustain such a referential identity? Dis- Merwe. 2011. South African consumers’ opinions and beliefs tancing themselves from animal-based food as the reference regarding the health benefits of soy and soy products. Interna- tional Journal of Consumer Studies 35 (4): 430–440. point may be necessary for establishing either cell-based Brown, N., and M. Michael. 2003. A sociology of expectations: Ret- or plant-based alternatives as diet staples and contribute to rospecting prospects and prospecting retrospects. Technology durable change within food systems. Furthermore, beyond Analysis & Strategic Management 15 (1): 3–18. the promissory narratives attached to them, it is crucially Bryant, C., J. Barnett, and J. . 2018. Consumer acceptance of cul- tured meat: A systematic review. Meat Science 143: 8–17. important that social scientic fi research explores the material Bryant, C., and C. Dillard. 2019. The impact of framing on accept- realities of the future of food that scaling up would generate ance of cultured meat. Frontiers in Nutrition 6: 103. for the alternatives. Buscemi, F. 2015. New meat and the media conundrum with nature and culture. Lexia 19–20: 419–434. Callon, M. 2007. What does it mean to say the economics is per- formative? In Do economists make markets?, ed. D. MacKen- Supplementary Information The online version contains supplemen- zie, F. Muniesa, and L. Siu, 311–358. Princetown: Princetown tary material available at https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1046 0-020-10184 University Press. -9.Acknowledgements We would like to thank Academy of Finland Carreño, I., and T. Dolle. 2018. Tofu steaks? Developments on the Project No. 315897 and Strategic Research Council of Academy of naming and marketing of plant-based foods in the aftermath of Finland Project No. 327284 for funding our work. We thank also the the TofuTown judgement. European Journal of Risk Regula- three anonymous referees for their comments, which helped to improve tion 9 (3): 575–584. the article. Chauvet, D.J. 2018. Should cultured meat be refused in the name of animal dignity? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 21: Funding Open Access funding provided by Finnish Environment Insti- 387–411. tute (SYKE). Chiles, R.M. 2013. Intertwined ambiguities: Meat, in vitro meat, and the ideological construction of the marketplace. Journal of Con- Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri- sumer Behavior 12 (6): 472–482. bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- Circus, V.E., and R. Robison. 2019. Exploring perceptions of sustain- tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long able proteins and meat attachment. British Food Journal 121 as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, (2): 533–545. provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes Clark, L.F., and A.-M. Bogdan. 2019. The role of plant-based foods in were made. The images or other third party material in this article are Canadian diets: A survey examining food choices, motivations included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated and dietary identity. Journal of Food Products Marketing 25 (4): otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in 355–377. the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not Cole, M., and K. Morgan. 2013. Engineering freedom? A critique of permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will biotechnological routes to animal liberation. Configurations 21 need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a (2): 201–229. copy of this licence, visit http://creativ ecommons .or g/licenses/b y/4.0/. de Boer, J., and H. Aiking. 2018. Prospects for pro-environmental pro- tein consumption in Europe: Cultural, culinary, economic and psychological factors. Appetite 121: 29–40. References de Boer, J., and H. Aiking. 2019. Strategies towards healthy and sus- tainable protein consumption: A transition framework at the Alvaro, C. 2019. Lab-grown meat and veganism: A virtue-oriented levels of diets, dishes, and dish ingredients. Food Quality and perspective. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Preference 73: 171–181. 32: 127–141. Dilworth, T., and A. McGregor. 2015. Moral steaks? Ethical discourses Apostolidis, C., and F. McLeay. 2016. Should we stop meating like of in vitro meat in academia and australia. Journal of Agricul- this? Reducing meat consumption through substitution. Food tural and Environmental Ethics 28: 85–107. Policy 65: 74–89. 1 3 Promises of meat and milk alternatives: an integrative literature review on emergent research… 637 Egolf, A., C. Hartmann, and M. Siegrist. 2019. When evolution works Jallinoja, P., M. Niva, and T. Latvala. 2016. Future of sustainable against the future: Disgust’s contributions to the acceptance of eating? Examining the potential for expanding bean eating in new food technologies. Risk Analysis 39 (7): 1546–1559. a meat-eating culture. Futures, SI: Futures for Food 83: 4–14. Elzerman, J.E., P.A. Luning, and M.A.J.S. van Boekel. 2013. Exploring Jönsson, E. 2016. Benevolent technotopias and hitherto unimaginable meat substitutes: Consumer experiences and contextual factors. meats: Tracing the promises of in vitro meat. Social Studies of British Food Journal 115 (5): 700–710. Science 46 (5): 725–748. Farrell, E.L., K.M. Doma, E.R. Leith-Bailey, V.D. Soucier, and A.M. Jönsson, E., T. Linné, and A. McCrow-Young. 2019. Many meats and Duncan. 2019. Health claims and information sources in rela- many milks? The ontological politics of a proposed post-animal tion to bean consumption in older adults. Appetite 140: 318–327. revolution. Science as Culture 28 (1): 70–97. Ferrari, A., and A. Lösch. 2017. How smart grid meets in vitro meat: Kadim, I.T., O. Mahgoub, S. Baqir, B. Faye, and R. Purchas. 2015. Cul- On visions as socio-epistemic practices. Nanoethics 11: 75–91. tured meat from muscle stem cells: A review of challenges and Figueira, N., F. Curtain, E. Beck, and S. Grafenauer. 2019. Consumer prospects. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 14 (2): 222–233. understanding and culinary use of legumes in Australia. Nutri- Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking fast and slow. London: Penguin. ents 11 (7): 1575. Kaljonen, M., M. Salo, J. Lyytimäki, and E. Furman. 2020. From iso- Fuentes, C., and M. Fuentes. 2017. Making a market for alternatives: lated labels and nudges to sustained tinkering: Assessing long- Marketing devices and the qualification of a vegan milk sub- term changes in sustainable eating at a lunch restaurant. British stitute. Journal of Marketing Management 33 (7–8): 529–555. Food Journal 122 (11): 3313–3329. Galusky, W. 2014. Technology as responsibility: Failure, food animals, Keefe, L.M. 2018. #FakeMeat: How big a deal will animal meat ana- and lab-grown meat. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental logs ultimately be? Animal Frontiers 8 (3): 30–37. Ethics 27: 931–948. Kramer, C. 2015. A name. In What is in vitro meat?, ed. N. Stephens, Geels, F.W. 2004. From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-techni- C. Karmer, Z. Denfeld, and R. Strand, 33–35. London: The Cen- cal systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology tre for Genomic Gastronomy, Ditto Press. and institutional theory. Research Policy 33 (6–7): 897–920. Laestadius, L.I. 2015. Public perceptions of the ethics of in-vitro meat: Goodman, M.K. 2016. Food geographies I: Relational foodscapes Determining an appropriate course of action. Journal of Agricul- and the busy-ness of being more-than-food. Progress in Human tural and Environmental Ethics 28: 991–1009. Geography 40 (2): 257–266. Ledin, P., and D. Machin. 2019. Replacing actual political activism Goodwin, J.N., and C.W. Shoulders. 2013. The future of meat: A with ethical shopping: The case of Oatly. Discourse, Context qualitative analysis of cultured meat media coverage. Meat & Media 34: 100344. Science 95 (3): 445–450. Lee, A. 2018. Meat-ing demand: Is in vitro meat a pragmatic, prob- Graça, J., C.A. Godinho, and M. Truninger. 2019. Reducing meat lematic, or paradoxical solution? Canadian Journal of Women consumption and following plant-based diets: Current evidence and the Law 30 (1): 1–14. and future directions to inform integrated transitions. Trends Liberati, A., D.G. Altman, J. Tetzlaff, C. Mulrow, P.C. Gøtzsche, in Food Science & Technology 91: 380–390. J.P.A. Ioannidis, M. Clarke, P.J. Devereaux, J. Kleijnen, and D. Haas, R., A. Schnepps, A. Pichler, and O. Meixner. 2019. Cow milk Moher. 2009. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic versus plant-based milk substitutes: A comparison of product reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care image and motivational structure of consumption. Sustainabil- interventions: explanation and elaboration. Journal of Clinical ity 11 (18): 5046. Epidemiology 62 (10): e1–e34. Hartmann, C., and M. Siegrist. 2017. Consumer perception and Lupton, D., and B. Turner. 2018. Food of the future? Consumer behaviour regarding sustainable protein consumption: A sys- responses to the idea of 3D-printed meat and insect-based tematic review. Trends in Food Science & Technology 61: foods. Food and Foodways 26 (4): 269–289. 11–25. Majima, S. 2014. A brief thought on the future of global ethics: Havemeier, S., J. Erickson, and J. Slavin. 2017. Dietary guidance Military robots and new food technologies. Journal of Global for pulses: The challenge and opportunity to be part of both Ethics 10 (1): 53–55. the vegetable and protein food groups. Annals of the New York Malek, L., W.J. Umberger, and E. Goddard. 2019. Committed vs. Academy of Sciences 1392 (1): 58–66. uncommitted meat eaters: Understanding willingness to change Hayes-Conroy, J., and A. Hayes-Conroy. 2010. Visceral Geogra- protein consumption. Appetite 138: 115–126. phies: Mattering, Relating, and Defying. Geography Compass Mason, P.J., and T. Lang. 2017. Sustainable diets: How ecologi- 4 (9): 1273–1283. cal nutrition can transform consumption and the food system. Hayes-Conroy, J., and A. Hayes-Conroy. 2013. Veggies and viscerali- London: Routledge. ties: A political ecology of food and feeling. Emotion, Space McBey, D., D. Watts, and A.M. Johnstone. 2019. Nudging, formulat- and Society 6: 81–90. ing new products, and the lifecourse: A qualitative assessment Hocquette, J.-F. 2016. Is in vitro meat the solution for the future? of the viability of three methods for reducing Scottish meat Meat Science 120: 167–176. consumption for health, ethical, and environmental reasons. Hoek, A.C., P.A. Luning, P. Weijzen, W. Engels, F.J. Kok, and C. Appetite 142: 104349. de Graaf. 2011. Replacement of meat by meat substitutes. A McGregor, A., and D. Houston. 2018. Cattle in the Anthropocene: survey on person- and product-related factors in consumer Four propositions. Transactions of the Institute of British acceptance. Appetite 56 (3): 662–673. Geographers 43 (1): 3–16. House, J. 2019. Insects are not ‘the new sushi’: Theories of practice Metcalf, J. 2013. Meet Shmeat: Food system ethics, biotechnology and the acceptance of novel foods. Social & Cultural Geogra- and re-worlding technoscience. Parallax 19 (1): 74–87. phy 20 (9): 1285–1306. Milburn, J. 2016. Chewing over in vitro meat: Animal ethics, can- Huan-Niemi, E., M. Kaljonen, M. Knuuttila, J. Niemi, and M. nibalism and social progress. Res Publica 22: 249–265. Saarinen. 2020. The impacts of dietary change in Finland: Milburn, J. 2018. Death-free dairy? The ethics of clean milk. Journal Food system approach. Agriculture and Food Science 29 (4): of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 31: 261–279. 372–384. Mol, A. 1999. Ontological politics: A word and some questions. The Sociological Review 47: 74–89. 1 3 638 A. Lonkila, M. Kaljonen Moon, W., S.K. Balasubramanian, and A. Rimal. 2011. Health claims Smith, A., and R. Raven. 2012. What is protective space? Reconsider- and consumers’ behavioral intentions: The case of soy-based ing niches in transitions to sustainability. Research Policy 41 (6): food. Food Policy 36 (4): 480–489. 1025–1036. Morris, C., J. Mylan, and E. Beech. 2019. Substitution and food Snyder, H. 2019. Literature review as a research methodology: An over- system de-animalisation. International Journal of Sociology view and guidelines. Journal of Business Research 104: 333–339. of Agriculture & Food 25 (1): 42–58. Stephens, N. 2013. Growing meat in laboratories: The promise, ontology, Mouat, M.J., and R. Prince. 2018. Cultured meat and cowless milk: and ethical boundary-work of using muscle cells to make food. On making markets for animal-free food. Journal of Cultural Configurations 21 (2): 159–181. Economy 11 (4): 315–329. Stephens, N., L. Di Silvio, I. Dunsford, M. Ellis, A. Glencross, and A. Murray, A. 2018. Meat cultures: Lab-grown meat and the politics of Sexton. 2018a. Bringing cultured meat to market: Technical, socio- contamination. BioSocieties 13: 513–534. political, and regulatory challenges in cellular agriculture. Trends Mylan, J., C. Morris, E. Beech, and F.W. Geels. 2019. Rage against in Food Science & Technology 78: 155–166. the regime: Niche–regime interactions in the societal embed- Stephens, N., E. King, and C. Lyall. 2018b. Blood, meat, and upscaling ding of plant-based milk. Environmental Innovation and Soci- tissue engineering: Promises, anticipated markets, and performa- etal Transitions 31: 233–247. tivity in the biomedical and agri-food sectors. BioSocieties 13: O’Riordan, K., A. Fotopoulou, and N. Stephens. 2017. The first bite: 368–388. Imaginaries, promotional publics and the laboratory grown Stephens, N., and M. Ruivenkamp. 2016. Promise and ontological ambi- burger. Public Understanding of Science 26 (2): 48–163. guity in the in vitro meat imagescape: From laboratory myotubes to Palmer, S.M., D.M. Winham, A.M. Oberhauser, and R.E. Litchfield. the cultured burger. Science as Culture 25 (3): 327–355. 2018. Socio-ecological barriers to dry grain pulse consump- Tai, S. 2020. Legalizing the meaning of meat. Loyola University Chicago tion among low-income women: A mixed methods approach. Law Journal 51 (3): 743–789. Nutrients 10 (8): 1108. Thaler, R.H., and C.R. Sunstein. 2008. Nudge: Improving decisions about Pel, B. 2016. Trojan horses in transitions: A dialectical perspective health, wealth, and happiness. Yale: Yale University Press. on innovation ‘capture.’ Journal of Environmental Policy & Torraco, R.J. 2016. Writing integrative literature reviews: Using the past Planning 18 (5): 673–691. and present to explore the future. Human Resource Development Peltola, T., M. Kaljonen, and M. Kettunen. 2020. Embodied public Review 15 (4): 404–428. experiments on sustainable eating: demonstrating alternative pro- Tu, V.P., F. Husson, A. Sutan, D.T. Ha, and D. Valentin. 2012. For me teins in Finnish schools. Sustainability: Science, Practice and the taste of soy is not a barrier to its consumption. And how about Policy 16 (1): 184–196. you? Appetite 58 (3): 914–921. Petetin, L. 2014. Frankenburgers, risks and approval. European Journal Tucker, C.A. 2014. The significance of sensory appeal for reduced meat of Risk Regulation 5: 168–186. consumption. Appetite 81: 168–179. Plessz, M., and S. Wahlen. 2020. All practices are shared, but some Tuomisto, H., and J. Teixeira de Mattos. 2011. Environmental impacts more than others: Sharedness of social practices and time-use of cultured meat production. Environmental Science & Technology in food consumption. Journal of Consumer Culture. https ://doi. 45 (14): 6117–6123. org/10.1177/14695 40520 90714 6. Tziva, M., S.O. Negro, A. Kalfagianni, and M.P. Hekkert. 2020. Under- Pluhar, E.B. 2010. Meat and morality: Alternatives to factory farming. standing the protein transition: The rise of plant-based meat sub- Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 23: 455–468. stitutes. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 35: Rettie, R., K. Burchell, and D. Riley. 2012. Normalising green behav- 217–231. iours: A new approach to sustainability marketing. Journal of Mar- Vainio, A., X. Irz, and H. Hartikainen. 2018. How effective are messages keting Management 28 (3–4): 420–444. and their characteristics in changing behavioural intentions to sub- Sachs, A., and S. Kettenmann. 2019. A burger by any other name: regu- stitute plant-based foods for red meat? The mediating role of prior latory challenges and opportunities for cell-cultured meat. Scitech beliefs. Appetite 125: 217–224. Lawyer 15 (2): 18–23. Vainio, A., M. Niva, P. Jallinoja, and T. Latvala. 2016. From beef to Schaefer, G.O., and J. Savulescu. 2014. The ethics of producing in vitro beans: Eating motives and the replacement of animal proteins with meat. Journal of Applied Philosophy 31 (2): 188–202. plant proteins among Finnish consumers. Appetite 106: 92–100. Schösler, H., J. de Boer, and J.J. Boersema. 2012. Can we cut out the meat van der Valk, J., K. Bieback, C. Buta, B. Cochrane, W. Dirks, J. Fu, J. of the dish? Constructing consumer-oriented pathways towards Hickman, C. Hohensee, R. Kolar, M. Liebsch, F. Pistollato, M. meat substitution. Appetite 58 (1): 39–47. Schulz, D. Thieme, T. Weber, J. Wiest, S. Winkler, and G. Gstraun- Sexton, A. 2016. Alternative proteins and the (non)stuff of “meat.” Gas- thaler. 2018. Fetal bovine serum (FBS): Past–present–future. tronomica: The Journal of Critical Food Studies 16 (3): 66–78. ALTEX—Alternatives to Animal Experimentation 35 (1): 99–118. Sexton, A. 2018. Eating for the post-Anthropocene: Alternative proteins van der Weele, C., and C. Driessen. 2013. Emerging profiles for cultured and the biopolitics of edibility. Transactions of the Institute of Brit- meat; Ethics through and as Design. Animals 3 (3): 647–662. ish Geographers 43 (4): 586–600. van der Weele, C., P. Feindt, A.J. van der Goot, B. van Mierlo, and M. Sexton, A.E., T. Garnett, and J. Lorimer. 2019. Framing the future of van Boekel. 2019. Meat alternatives: An integrative comparison. food: The contested promises of alternative proteins. Environment Trends in Food Science and Technology 88: 505–512. and Planning E: Nature and Space 2 (1): 47–72. Verbeke, W., A. Marcu, P. Rutsaert, R. Gaspar, B. Seibt, D. Fletcher, Shaw, E., and M.M.C. Iomaire. 2019. A comparative analysis of the atti- and J. Barnett. 2015a. “Would you eat cultured meat?”: Consum- tudes of rural and urban consumers towards cultured meat. British ers’ reactions and attitude formation in Belgium, Portugal and the Food Journal 121 (8): 1782–1800. United Kingdom. Meat Science 102: 49–58. Siegrist, M., and B. Sütterlin. 2017. Importance of perceived naturalness Verbeke, W., P. Sans, and E.J. Van Loo. 2015b. Challenges and prospects for acceptance of food additives and cultured meat. Appetite 113: for consumer acceptance of cultured meat. Journal of Integrative 320–326. Agriculture 14 (2): 285–294. Siegrist, M., B. Sütterlin, and C. Hartmann. 2018. Perceived naturalness Wansink, B., M. Shimizu, and A. Brumberg. 2014. Dispelling myths and evoked disgust influence acceptance of cultured meat. Meat about a new healthful food can be more motivating than promot- Science 139: 213–219. ing nutritional benefits: The case of Tofu. Eating Behaviors 15 (2): 318–320. 1 3 Promises of meat and milk alternatives: an integrative literature review on emergent research… 639 Warde, A. 2016. Practice of eating. Cambridge: Polity Press. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to Weinrich, R. 2018. Cross-cultural comparison between German, French jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. and Dutch consumer preferences for meat substitutes. Sustainability 10 (6): 1819. Weinrich, R. 2019. Opportunities for the adoption of health-based sus- tainable dietary patterns: A review on consumer research of meat Annika Lonkila is a Researcher at the Finnish Environment Institute substitutes. Sustainability 11 (15): 1–15. (SYKE) and a PhD student at the Department of Geographical and His- Wilks, M., and C.J.C. Phillips. 2017. Attitudes to in vitro meat: A survey torical Studies at University of Eastern Finland. Her research focuses of potential consumers in the United States. PLoS ONE 12 (2): on sustainable food systems. e0171904. Wilks, M., C.J.C. Phillips, K. Fielding, and M.J. Hornsey. 2019. Test- Minna Kaljonen acts as a Research Professor at the Finnish Environ- ing potential psychological predictors of attitudes towards cultured ment Institute (SYKE). Her research has focused on environmental meat. Appetite 136: 137–145. governance and sustainable food system transitions. She currently leads a transdisciplinary research project on just food system transition. 1 3
Agriculture and Human Values – Springer Journals
Published: Sep 1, 2021
Keywords: Alternative protein; Milk alternative; Meat alternative; Protein transition; Sustainable food system; Literature review
You can share this free article with as many people as you like with the url below! We hope you enjoy this feature!
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.