Plant-Based Meat Alternatives Predicted by Theory of Planned Behavior Among Midwest Undergraduates

Plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) such as the Impossible Burger (R) imitate animal meat appearance, taste, feel, and texture. Part of their consumer appeal are the views that PBMAs are more environmentally friendly, reduce inhumane treatment of animals, and/or have preferred nutritional attributes. College-educated adults are one of the larger markets for these products. This cross-sectional online survey utilized the Theory of Planned Behavior to predict self-reported intakes of PBMAs among 536 undergraduates aged 18-25 at a Midwest university. Sixty-one percent had eaten PBMAs, and 17% wanted to try them. Twenty-two percent were uninterested non-consumers. Their top reason for not eating PBMAs was that they had no reason to decrease their meat intake. Multinomial logistic regression analysis showed subjective norms and positive attitudes about PBMAs increased the odds of more frequent intake, whereas non-consumers had less support from social contacts, but greater perceived behavioral control over general food access. Thus, those with supportive social influences, concerns about the environment, and animal welfare are more likely to consume PBMAs. More frequent PBMA consumption was observed among U.S.-born multicultural students, food insecure students, and those with less perceived behavioral control over food access. Future research should investigate the nuances between these associations further by examining the types of PBMAs consumed, their costs, and retail sources across student demographics.