IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-03938233.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Consumer preferences for new fermented food products that mix animal and plant protein sources
[Les préférences des consommateurs pour de nouveaux produits alimentaires fermentés qui mélangent des sources de protéines animales et végétales]

Author

Listed:
  • Anne Saint-Eve

    (SayFood - Paris-Saclay Food and Bioproduct Engineering - AgroParisTech - Université Paris-Saclay - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

  • Françoise Irlinger

    (SayFood - Paris-Saclay Food and Bioproduct Engineering - AgroParisTech - Université Paris-Saclay - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

  • Caroline Pénicaud

    (SayFood - Paris-Saclay Food and Bioproduct Engineering - AgroParisTech - Université Paris-Saclay - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

  • Isabelle Souchon

    (SayFood - Paris-Saclay Food and Bioproduct Engineering - AgroParisTech - Université Paris-Saclay - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

  • Stéphan Marette

    (ECO-PUB - Economie Publique - AgroParisTech - Université Paris-Saclay - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

Abstract

Consumers are being encouraged to increase the proportion of plant protein in their diets to enhance the sustainability of food systems. One approach is to develop plant-protein-rich foods that are acceptable to consumers. This study examined French people's reactions to cheese alternatives—new fermented products that mixed animal and plant protein sources. We conducted experimental sessions with 240 French participants to assess their responses to three fermented products containing different percentages of yellow pea and cow's milk. First, we asked the participants to blind-taste the three products and solicited hedonic scores of products. We then provided the participants with simple information about the products' composition and asked them to taste and score the liking of the products a second time. We also asked consumers to estimate their willingness to pay (WTP) for each product before and after revealing additional information about the nutritional or environmental benefits of consuming pea-based foods. The product with the lowest percentage of pea and the highest percentage of milk received the highest hedonic scores, and WTP was correlated with the hedonic scores. The additional information about the nutritional and environmental benefits of pea-based foods led to significant increases in WTP for two of the fermented products, but not for the least preferred product, namely the one with the highest percentage of pea. This finding suggests that participant reactions to information depended on hedonic preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Anne Saint-Eve & Françoise Irlinger & Caroline Pénicaud & Isabelle Souchon & Stéphan Marette, 2021. "Consumer preferences for new fermented food products that mix animal and plant protein sources [Les préférences des consommateurs pour de nouveaux produits alimentaires fermentés qui mélangent des ," Post-Print hal-03938233, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-03938233
    DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104117
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-03938233
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-03938233/document
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104117?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Steffen Andersen & Glenn Harrison & Morten Lau & E. Rutström, 2009. "Elicitation using multiple price list formats," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 12(3), pages 365-366, September.
    2. Dan Ariely & George Loewenstein & Drazen Prelec, 2003. ""Coherent Arbitrariness": Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(1), pages 73-106.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Juliette Huguet & Christophe Chassard & René Lavigne & Françoise Irlinger & Isabelle Souchon & Stephan Marette & Anne Saint-Eve & Caroline Pénicaud, 2023. "Environmental performance of mixed animal and plant protein sources for designing new fermented foods," Post-Print hal-04132788, HAL.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maurizio Canavari & Andreas C. Drichoutis & Jayson L. Lusk & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr., 2018. "How to run an experimental auction: A review of recent advances," Working Papers 2018-5, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    2. Roxane Bricet, 2018. "Preferences for information precision under ambiguity," THEMA Working Papers 2018-09, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    3. Tesary Lin & Avner Strulov-Shlain, 2023. "Choice Architecture, Privacy Valuations, and Selection Bias in Consumer Data," Papers 2308.13496, arXiv.org.
    4. David J. Freeman & Guy Mayraz, 2019. "Why choice lists increase risk taking," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(1), pages 131-154, March.
    5. Thunström, Linda & Nordström, Jonas & Shogren, Jason F., 2015. "Certainty and overconfidence in future preferences for food," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 101-113.
    6. Kerri Brick & Martine Visser & Justine Burns, 2012. "Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence from South African Fishing Communities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 133-152.
    7. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    8. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.
    9. Yizhao Jiang, 2022. "The Influence of Payment Method: Do Consumers Pay More with Mobile Payment?," Papers 2210.14631, arXiv.org.
    10. Bartels, Lara & Kesternich, Martin, 2022. "Motivate the crowd or crowd- them out? The impact of local government spending on the voluntary provision of a green public good," ZEW Discussion Papers 22-040, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    11. Jonas Schmidt & Tammo H. A. Bijmolt, 2020. "Accurately measuring willingness to pay for consumer goods: a meta-analysis of the hypothetical bias," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 499-518, May.
    12. Johannesson Magnus & Östling Robert & Ranehill Eva, 2010. "The Effect of Competition on Physical Activity: A Randomized Trial," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-31, September.
    13. Haewon Yoon, 2020. "Impatience and Time Inconsistency in Discounting Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(12), pages 5850-5860, December.
    14. Anastasia Stepanova & Vladislav Savelyev & Malika Shaikhutdinova, 2018. "The Anchoring Effect in Mergers and Acquisitions: Evidence from an Emerging Market," HSE Working papers WP BRP 63/FE/2018, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    15. Jonathan Chapman & Erik Snowberg & Stephanie Wang & Colin Camerer, 2018. "Loss Attitudes in the U.S. Population: Evidence from Dynamically Optimized Sequential Experimentation (DOSE)," NBER Working Papers 25072, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Luisa Menapace & Gregory Colson & Roberta Raffaelli, 2016. "A comparison of hypothetical risk attitude elicitation instruments for explaining farmer crop insurance purchases," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 43(1), pages 113-135.
    17. Anna Conte & John D. Hey, 2018. "Assessing multiple prior models of behaviour under ambiguity," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 7, pages 169-188, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    18. Ajzenman, Nicolás & Elacqua, Gregory & Marotta, Luana & Westh Olsen, Anne Sofie, 2021. "Order Effects and Employment Decisions: Experimental Evidence from a Nationwide Program," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 11541, Inter-American Development Bank.
    19. Sugden, Robert & Zheng, Jiwei & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2013. "Not all anchors are created equal," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 21-31.
    20. Leuermann, Andrea & Roth, Benjamin, 2012. "Does good advice come cheap? - On the assessment of risk preferences in the lab and the field," Working Papers 0534, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-03938233. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.