4.4 Article

Future of sustainable eating? Examining the potential for expanding bean eating in a meat-eating culture

期刊

FUTURES
卷 83, 期 -, 页码 4-14

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.futures.2016.03.006

关键词

Beans; Plant protein; Meanings; Consumption; Intentions; Attitudes; Food culture

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A transition towards more sustainable food consumption requires changes in everyday eating patterns, particularly a substitution of animal protein with plant-based protein sources. However, in many European countries plant protein consumption is low compared to meat consumption. The article explores plant protein consumption frequencies, future intentions to increase bean consumption, and the associations of frequent bean eating with socioeconomic factors and bean-related meanings, material issues and competence. A population web-based survey was conducted in 2013 among 15-64-year-old Finns (n=1048). The results showed that beans and soy-based plant proteins were infrequently consumed. A fifth of the respondents intended to increase their bean consumption in the future, intention being the greatest among those who already included beans in their diets. Frequent bean consumption was most likely among persons aged 25-34, living around the capital district, with education higher than comprehensive or vocational school, and who were vegetarian. Perceiving beans as culturally acceptable and good-tasting, and having competence in preparing bean meals were positively associated with the frequent eating of beans. The results suggest that for plant proteins to replace meat, new meanings and competences related to preparing and eating pulse-based dishes are needed. Based on our results, we build alternative future scenarios for plant protein consumption and the related requirements for changes. Several actor groups, such as NGOs, politicians, celebrity chefs and teachers of home economics have a central role in the developments. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据