An investigation into consumer perception and attitudes towards plant-based alternatives to milk

Prévia do material em texto

<p>Food Research International 159 (2022) 111648</p><p>Available online 8 July 2022</p><p>0963-9969/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</p><p>An investigation into consumer perception and attitudes towards</p><p>plant-based alternatives to milk</p><p>Rachael Moss , Sophie Barker , Anika Falkeisen , Mackenzie Gorman , Sophie Knowles , Matthew</p><p>B. McSweeney *</p><p>School of Nutrition and Dietetics, Acadia University, Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canada</p><p>A R T I C L E I N F O</p><p>Keywords:</p><p>Sustainability</p><p>Check all that apply</p><p>Emotions</p><p>Oat</p><p>Soy</p><p>Pea</p><p>A B S T R A C T</p><p>Plant-based milk alternatives (PBAs) are growing in popularity, which has led to the creation of many novel</p><p>beverages from cereals, legumes, nuts, seeds, and pseudocereals. As such, the aim of this study was to evaluate</p><p>consumer attitudes towards, and perception of PBAs currently offered on the market in Canada. First, a survey</p><p>was conducted asking participants (n = 323) to complete a word association task investigating PBAs. Then six</p><p>different PBAs (oat, almond, soy, pea, cashew, and coconut) were evaluated using nine-point hedonic scales and</p><p>check-all-that-apply questions by consumers (n = 88). Lastly, consumers (n = 80) evaluated the acceptability of</p><p>flavoured PBAs (chocolate and vanilla). Participants associated PBAs with health benefits, sustainability, and</p><p>sensory characteristics. PBAs made from almond, oat, and pea were liked significantly more than PBAs made</p><p>from cashews, but not more than coconut or soy PBAs. Perception of sweet, creamy, smooth, nutty, and white</p><p>attributes increased the participants’ liking of PBAs, while attributes such as aftertaste, brown, beany, watery,</p><p>and off-flavour detracted from it. The flavouring (chocolate and vanilla) increased the participants’ liking of</p><p>almond and oat PBAs. Future studies should investigate other PBAs made from different ingredients and how</p><p>flavouring can improve the acceptability of PBAs.</p><p>1. Introduction</p><p>The plant-based alternative market is growing exponentially and has</p><p>become a prevailing food trend (Vaikma, Kaleda, Rosend, & Rosenvald,</p><p>2021). Plant-based alternatives to milk (referred to as plant-based al-</p><p>ternatives or PBAs in this study) are a product category that has been</p><p>growing recently ((Munekata et al., 2020); Vaikma et al., 2021). The</p><p>market was valued at over $17 billion in 2018 and it is expected to</p><p>grown by 11.5% by 2023 (Markets and Markets, 2019). PBAs can trace</p><p>their ancestry to soy milk in China (Jiang, Cai, & Xu, 2013) and horchata</p><p>in Spain (Rios, Tinitana, Jarrín-V, Donoso, & Romero-Benavides, 2017).</p><p>Interest in PBAs has increased due to consumers’ preference for sus-</p><p>tainable food products, along with animal welfare (Short et al., 2021). In</p><p>addition, consumers are worried about the nutritional benefits of food</p><p>products they are consuming (Van Loo, Hoefkens, & Verbeke, 2017).</p><p>Conventional dairy products have been associated with concerns about</p><p>animal welfare (treatment of farmed animals), environmental impact</p><p>(pollution, land use, and emissions of greenhouse gases), and human</p><p>health (increased antibiotic resistance and exposure to zoonotic</p><p>diseases) (Clay, Garnett, & Lorimer, 2020). PBAs offer an alternative to</p><p>conventional animal-based milk that can help address these concerns, as</p><p>PBAs are considered to be a more sustainable (Schiano, Harwood, Ger-</p><p>ard, & Drake, 2020) and an ethical alternative (Clark & Bogdan, 2019).</p><p>Furthermore, PBAs can also be consumed by those who have a dairy</p><p>allergy, lactose intolerance, or hypercholesterolemia (Valencia-Flores,</p><p>Hernández-Herrero, Guamis, & Ferragut, 2013).</p><p>PBAs have a wide variability in terms of their nutrient composition</p><p>compared to dairy products (Chalupa-Krebzdak, Long, & Bohrer, 2018).</p><p>Past studies have found that PBAs have many health and nutritional</p><p>benefits (Paul, Kumar, Kumar, & Sharma, 2020) including improved</p><p>immune system function (Rasika et al., 2021), potential antimicrobial</p><p>effects (Reyes-Jurado et al., 2021), reduced risk of cardiovascular and</p><p>gastrointestinal diseases, as well as less occurrences of low bone mass</p><p>(Chalupa-Krebzdak et al., 2018; Martínez-Padilla et al., 2020). They also</p><p>contain a large amount of antioxidants (Shori, Aljohani, Al-zahrani, Al-</p><p>sulbi, & Baba, 2022). However, PBAs do not always have the same</p><p>protein quality and content, as well as the nutrient density of dairy milk</p><p>(Chalupa-Krebzdak et al., 2018). Furthermore, significant differences in</p><p>* Corresponding author at: School of Nutrition and Dietetics, Acadia University, 15 University Ave, Wolfville, NS B4P 2R6, Canada.</p><p>E-mail address: matthew.mcsweeney@acadiau.ca (M.B. McSweeney).</p><p>Contents lists available at ScienceDirect</p><p>Food Research International</p><p>journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodres</p><p>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2022.111648</p><p>Received 23 March 2022; Received in revised form 30 June 2022; Accepted 5 July 2022</p><p>Food Research International 159 (2022) 111648</p><p>2</p><p>terms of energy, fat, carbohydrates, protein, and calcium have been</p><p>found to exist between plant-based cheese and yogurts and their dairy-</p><p>based counterparts (Clegg, Tarrado Ribes, Reynolds, Kliem, & Stergia-</p><p>dis, 2021). PBAs are usually classified into five different categories based</p><p>on their primary ingredient- including cereal-based, legume-based, nut-</p><p>based, seed-based, and pseudocereal-based (Sethi, Tyagi, & Anurag,</p><p>2016). The beverages are usually prepared by grinding the raw material</p><p>into a paste and then water is added to the paste (Jeske, Zannini, &</p><p>Arendt, 2018).</p><p>Understanding how consumers perceive food products is important</p><p>for the development of new products (Aschemann-Witzel, Varela, &</p><p>Peschel, 2019). Qualitative techniques can determine the key factors of</p><p>consumers’ choice for different product categories (van Kleef, van Trijp,</p><p>& Luning, 2005). Word association (WA) is a common method to eval-</p><p>uate conceptual structures and for studying beliefs and attitudes (Hov-</p><p>ardas & Korfiatis, 2006; Ross, 2003). WA presents a stimulus to the</p><p>participants and asks them to write down the associations that come to</p><p>mind (Roininen, Arvola, & Lähteenmäki, 2006). When investigating</p><p>food products, the associations may identify what consumers are</p><p>thinking about when making food purchasing decisions (Roininen et al.,</p><p>2006). The ideas collected during a WA task are spontaneously elicited</p><p>and may be subjected to fewer constraints than closed questionnaires</p><p>(Wagner, Valencia, & Elejabarrieta, 1996). As such, many sensory</p><p>studies have used WA to investigate a wide variety of different products</p><p>(Ares, Giménez, & Gámbaro, 2008; Bernardo, Ascheri, Carvalho,</p><p>Chávez, Martins, & Deliza, 2019; Guerrero et al., 2010; de Pinto, 2018;</p><p>Piqueras-Fiszman, Velasco, Salgado-Montejo, & Spence, 2013; Tiyo de</p><p>Godoy, Veneziano, da Cunha Rodrigues, Schoffen Enke, & Lapa-</p><p>Guimarães, 2019).</p><p>Sensory properties are another factor that influence purchasing de-</p><p>cisions and acceptability (Conti-Silva and de Souza-Borges (2019)).</p><p>Although consumer interest in PBAs is growing, there are still many</p><p>products with unacceptable sensory properties such as a beany flavour</p><p>from soy (Yuan, Chang, Liu, & Xu, 2008), painty off-flavours and a</p><p>bitterness from different seeds (Vaikma et al., 2021; Vanga & Raghavan,</p><p>2018) and a chalky mouthfeel (Aidoo, Sakyi-Dawson, Tano-Debrah, &</p><p>Saalia, 2010). The bitterness is usually contributed by the phenols, fla-</p><p>vonoids, glucosinolates, and flavonoids present in PBAs (Tangyu,</p><p>Muller, Bolten, & Wittmann, 2019; Zhao et al., 2021). PBAs have been</p><p>found to detract from consumers’ liking of coffee when they are added</p><p>instead of dairy-based products (Gorman et al., 2021). These off-flavours</p><p>are derived from the oxidation of the lipids which leads to the volatile</p><p>compounds, for example, the hexanal and hexanol in legume-based</p><p>beverages (Tangyu et al., 2019), and hexanal and pentanal in nut-</p><p>based PBAs (Pérez-González, Gallardo-Chacón, Valencia-Flores, & Fer-</p><p>ragut, 2015),</p><p>J. T., Balthazar, C. F., Hugo Scudino, Ramos, G. L. P.</p><p>A., et al. (2020). Dulce de leche submitted to ohmic heating treatment: Consumer</p><p>sensory profile using preferred attribute elicitation (PAE) and temporal check-all-</p><p>that-apply (TCATA). Food Research International, 134, 109217. doi: 10.1016/j.</p><p>foodres.2020.109217.</p><p>Spinelli, S., Masi, C., Zoboli, G. P., Prescott, J., & Monteleone, E. (2015). Emotional</p><p>responses to branded and unbranded foods. Food Quality and Preference, 42, 1–11.</p><p>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.12.009</p><p>Sukkwai, S., Kijroongrojana, K., Chonpracha, P., Pujols, K. D., Alonso-Marenco, J. R.,</p><p>Ardoin, R., et al. (2018). Effects of colorant concentration and ‘natural colour’ or</p><p>‘sodium content’ claim on saltiness perception, consumer liking and emotion, and</p><p>purchase intent of dipping sauces. International Journal of Food Science & Technology,</p><p>53(5), 1246–1254. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.13704</p><p>Short, Erin, C., Kinchla, Amanda, J., & Nolden, Alissa, A. (2021). Plant-Based Cheeses: A</p><p>Systematic Review of Sensory Evaluation Studies and Strategies to Increase</p><p>Consumer Acceptance. Foods, 10(4), 725. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10040725</p><p>Tangyu, M., Muller, J., Bolten, C. J., & Wittmann, C. (2019). Fermentation of plant-based</p><p>milk alternatives for improved flavour and nutritional value. Applied Microbiology</p><p>and Biotechnology, 103(23), 9263–9275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-019-</p><p>10175-9</p><p>Tiyo de Godoy, N., Veneziano, A. L., da Cunha Rodrigues, L., Schoffen Enke, D. B., &</p><p>Lapa-Guimarães, J. (2019). QIM, CATA, and Word Association methods for quality</p><p>assessment of flathead gray mullet (Mugil cephalus): Going beyond the trained</p><p>panel. Journal of Sensory Studies, 34(2), Article e12482. https://doi.org/10.1111/</p><p>joss.12482</p><p>Torres-Penaranda, A.v., & Reitmeier, C.a. (2001). Sensory descriptive analysis of</p><p>soymilk. Journal of Food Science, 66(2), 352–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-</p><p>2621.2001.tb11345.x</p><p>Vaikma, H., Kaleda, A., Rosend, J., & Rosenvald, S. (2021). Market mapping of plant-</p><p>based milk alternatives by using sensory (RATA) and GC analysis. Future Foods, 4,</p><p>Article 100049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fufo.2021.100049</p><p>Valencia-Flores, D. C., Hernández-Herrero, M., Guamis, B., & Ferragut, V. (2013).</p><p>Comparing the effects of ultra-high-pressure homogenization and conventional</p><p>thermal treatments on the microbiological, physical, and chemical quality of almond</p><p>beverages. Journal of Food Science, 78(2), E199–E205. https://doi.org/10.1111/</p><p>1750-3841.12029</p><p>van Kleef, E., van Trijp, H. C. M., & Luning, P. (2005). Consumer research in the early</p><p>stages of new product development: A critical review of methods and techniques.</p><p>Food Quality and Preference, 16(3), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.</p><p>foodqual.2004.05.012</p><p>Van Loo, E. J., Hoefkens, C., & Verbeke, W. (2017). Healthy, sustainable and plant-based</p><p>eating: Perceived (mis)match and involvement-based consumer segments as targets</p><p>for future policy. Food Policy, 69, 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.</p><p>foodpol.2017.03.001</p><p>Vanga, S. K., & Raghavan, V. (2018). How well do plant based alternatives fare</p><p>nutritionally compared to cow’s milk? Journal of Food Science and Technology, 55(1),</p><p>10–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-017-2915-y</p><p>Varela, P., & Ares, G. (2012). Sensory profiling, the blurred line between sensory and</p><p>consumer science. A review of novel methods for product characterization. Food</p><p>Research International, 48(2), 893–908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.</p><p>foodres.2012.06.037</p><p>Villanueva, N. D. M., & Da Silva, M. A. A. P. (2009). Comparative performance of the</p><p>nine-point hedonic, hybrid and self-adjusting scales in the generation of internal</p><p>preference maps. Food Quality and Preference, 20(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/</p><p>j.foodqual.2008.06.003</p><p>Wagner, W., Valencia, J., & Elejabarrieta, F. (1996). Relevance, discourse and the ‘hot’</p><p>stable core social representations—A structural analysis of word associations. British</p><p>Journal of Social Psychology, 35(3), 331–351. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-</p><p>8309.1996.tb01101.x</p><p>Wang, S., Chelikani, V., & Serventi, L. (2018). Evaluation of chickpea as alternative to</p><p>soy in plant-based beverages, fresh and fermented. LWT, 97, 570–572. https://doi.</p><p>org/10.1016/j.lwt.2018.07.067</p><p>Wang, B., Xiong, Y. L., & Wang, C. (2001). Physicochemical and sensory characteristics</p><p>of flavored soymilk during refrigeration storage. Journal of Food Quality, 24(6),</p><p>513–526. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4557.2001.tb00627.x</p><p>Yang, T., & Dharmasena, S. (2021). U.S. consumer demand for plant-based milk</p><p>alternative beverages: Hedonic metric augmented barten’s synthetic model. Foods,</p><p>10(2), 265. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10020265</p><p>Yang, Q., Shen, Y., Foster, T., & Hort, J. (2020). Measuring consumer emotional response</p><p>and acceptance to sustainable food products. Food Research International, 131, Article</p><p>108992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2020.108992</p><p>Yuan, S., Chang, S. K. C., Liu, Z., & Xu, B. (2008). Elimination of trypsin inhibitor activity</p><p>and beany flavor in soy milk by consecutive blanching and ultrahigh-temperature</p><p>(UHT) processing. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 56(17), 7957–7963.</p><p>https://doi.org/10.1021/jf801039h</p><p>Zhao, Y.-S., Eweys, A. S., Zhang, J.-Y., Zhu, Y., Bai, J., Darwesh, O. M., et al. (2021).</p><p>Fermentation affects the antioxidant activity of plant-based food material through</p><p>the release and production of bioactive components. Antioxidants, 10(12), 2004.</p><p>https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox10122004</p><p>R. Moss et al.</p><p>which may explain consumers dislike for PBA’s when</p><p>added to coffee. Moreover, PBAs texture or mouthfeel (chalkiness,</p><p>grittiness) have also been shown to be not well-liked by consumers</p><p>(Sethi et al., 2016; Tangyu et al., 2019). In order for PBAs to be suc-</p><p>cessful, they need to be acceptable to consumers (Wang, Xiong, & Wang,</p><p>2001). To mitigate consumers reported dislike, many PBAs include fla-</p><p>vouring (e.g. chocolate and vanilla) to increase their acceptability</p><p>(Wang et al., 2001).</p><p>To determine the acceptability of food items, nine-point hedonic</p><p>scales are most often used (Villanueva & Da Silva, 2009). Hedonic scales</p><p>are paired with check-all-that-apply (CATA) to evaluate the sensory</p><p>properties that are responsible for consumer liking or acceptability. The</p><p>CATA method asks the participants to look at a list of sensory attributes</p><p>and select all the perceived attributes that apply to the item being</p><p>evaluated (Ares et al., 2013). The CATA method has been applied to</p><p>evaluate a wide variety of food products (Alencar et al., 2019; Foguel,</p><p>Ract, & da Silva, 2021; Heo, Choi, Wang, Adhikari, & Lee, 2019; Jaeger,</p><p>Chheang, Jin, Roigard, & Ares, 2020; Mahieu, Visalli, Thomas, &</p><p>Schlich, 2020; Pramudya & Seo, 2018; Silva, Rocha, Guimarães, Balth-</p><p>azar, Scudino, & Ramos, 2020) and is a reproducible method when used</p><p>with consumers (Ares et al., 2014). Consumers also have emotional</p><p>responses to food items (Ng, Chaya, & Hort, 2013) and these responses</p><p>have been evaluated using the EsSense Profile (King & Meiselman,</p><p>2010). The most commonly used emotional questionnaire is the</p><p>EsSense25 (Nestrud, Meiselman, King, Lesher, & Cardello, 2016), which</p><p>is applicable for a wide variety of food products (Beekman & Seo, 2022;</p><p>Curutchet et al., 2022; Mora, Urdaneta, & Chaya, 2018; Moss &</p><p>McSweeney, 2021; Ruiz-Capillas, Herrero, Pintado, & Delgado-Pando,</p><p>2021).</p><p>This study aimed to explore consumers’ perceptions of PBAs. Firstly,</p><p>consumers’ attitudes towards PBAs were evaluated using a WA task. To</p><p>further explore consumers’ perceptions, the PBAs currently on the</p><p>market were evaluated using hedonic scales, CATA, and the EsSense25</p><p>profile. Lastly, the acceptability of flavoured PBAs (chocolate and va-</p><p>nilla) was investigated.</p><p>2. Materials and methods</p><p>Approval for the study was received from the Acadia University</p><p>Research Ethics Board (REB 13–72). The study took place from October</p><p>to December of 2021.</p><p>2.1. Participants</p><p>Participants for the survey and consumer acceptability trials</p><p>(referred to as unflavoured and flavoured below) were recruited from</p><p>the Annapolis Valley, Nova Scotia community. The participants were</p><p>recruited using social media, posted advertisements, and word of mouth.</p><p>The participants in the survey were invited to participate if they were</p><p>interested in PBAs. All participants in the sensory trials were asked to</p><p>self-identify if they regularly consumed PBAs and if so, they were invited</p><p>to participate in the study. The sensory trials were each recruited for</p><p>separately, but the participants were not excluded from participating in</p><p>both sensory trials. The participants’ demographics were identified</p><p>using a questionnaire (Table 1). A total of 323 participants completed</p><p>the survey, 88 completed the unflavoured consumer acceptability trial,</p><p>and 80 participants completed the flavoured consumer acceptability</p><p>trial.</p><p>2.2. Survey</p><p>The participants (n = 323) completed a consent form and were asked</p><p>to identify the frequency of which they consumed PBAs. PBAs were</p><p>defined as beverage that is made from a plant source and considered a</p><p>substitute for milk. Participants were then asked to complete a word</p><p>association task, adapted from Ares et al. (2008). The participants were</p><p>also asked to provide the first single words or phrases (products, asso-</p><p>ciations, emotions, or thoughts) that crossed their mind when they</p><p>thought of plant-based alternatives compared to milk. They were also</p><p>asked to identify what they liked and disliked about PBAs using an open-</p><p>ended comment question and what PBAs they purchased and consumed</p><p>the most. Lastly, the participants completed demographic questions.</p><p>Participants completed the survey on their personal computers or mo-</p><p>bile devices using the Compusense Cloud software (Guelph, Ontario,</p><p>Canada).</p><p>2.3. Consumer acceptability- unflavoured</p><p>This study took place during the COVID-19 pandemic, therefore,</p><p>questions pertaining to health, potential exposure to the virus, loss of</p><p>smell and taste, and travel of the participants were asked to ensure that</p><p>the health risks were minimized. The participants (n = 88) performed</p><p>the testing within white individual sensory booths, under ambient</p><p>lighting, and controlled temperature. The testing was completed on</p><p>computers using the Compusense Cloud software (Guelph, Ontario,</p><p>Canada). Six different PBAs were evaluated (Table 2). The PBAs</p><p>included in the study were based on the frequency counts from the</p><p>R. Moss et al.</p><p>Food Research International 159 (2022) 111648</p><p>3</p><p>survey. All PBAs were labelled as “unsweetened” on their packaging,</p><p>were purchased at local grocery stores one week before the sensory trial</p><p>and stored at 4 ◦C until the day of the trial. All samples were served at</p><p>approximately 22 ◦C (Vaikma et al., 2021) in a small clear standard ISO</p><p>wine glass (50 mL). The order of samples followed the Williams Latin</p><p>square design, and each sample was labelled with random three-digit</p><p>codes on the ISO wine glass. The participants were asked to take a</p><p>normal to full-sized mouthful of the sample, and filtered water was</p><p>provided as a palate cleanser.</p><p>Before participating in the trial, the participants read through a</p><p>consent form and gave informed consent. The participants evaluated the</p><p>appearance, flavour, mouthfeel, and overall liking of each sample using</p><p>a nine-point hedonic scale (1 = Dislike Extremely to 9 = Dislike</p><p>Extremely). Participants also completed a CATA questionnaire and the</p><p>attributes included were based on the sensory attributes listed in the WA</p><p>task, preliminary assessment of the beverages, and a literature review</p><p>(Bocker & Silva, 2022; Demi̇r et al., 2021; Emelike & Tamuno, 2019;</p><p>Fatima & Hekmat, 2020; Grasso, Alonso-Miravalles, & O’Mahony, 2020;</p><p>Grossmann, Kinchla, Nolden, & McClements, 2021; Rincon, Botelho, &</p><p>de Alencar, 2020; Sethi et al., 2016; Vaikma et al., 2021; Wang, Cheli-</p><p>kani, & Serventi, 2018). The attributes (beany, woody, sweet, salty,</p><p>bitter, sour, gritty, creamy, grassy, buttery, nutty, yellow, off-flavour,</p><p>aftertaste, no aftertaste, strong aftertaste, cardboard, astringent, fruity,</p><p>smooth, mouthcoating, white, brown, watery, musty, and grainy) were</p><p>randomized to avoid the possibility of bias and the possibility of par-</p><p>ticipants selecting the first attributes presented (Grasso, Smith, Bowers,</p><p>Ajayi, & Swainson, 2019; Varela & Ares, 2012). The participants were</p><p>asked to check or click all the attributes they felt described the sample.</p><p>Participants also completed a CATA question that contained the 25</p><p>emotional terms in the EsSense Profile (Nestrud et al., 2016). The</p><p>question was, “How do you feel after drinking this product? Click all that</p><p>apply” (Jaeger et al., 2018). Participants were given the option to pro-</p><p>vide any additional comments about the sample in an open-ended</p><p>comment question. The participants also completed questions about</p><p>PBA consumption and their demographics.</p><p>2.4. Consumer acceptability- flavoured</p><p>Two of the PBAs (oat and almond) were also evaluated when they</p><p>were flavoured as chocolate or vanilla (Table 2), as well as unsweetened.</p><p>The brands were consistent for all flavours of the oat and almond PBAs.</p><p>The PBAs included in this trial were based on the results of the unflav-</p><p>oured consumer</p><p>acceptability trial (above). The trial followed the</p><p>sample presentation and environmental conditions outlined above. The</p><p>Table 1</p><p>Demographics of the participants.</p><p>Survey</p><p>(n¼323)</p><p>Consumer Acceptability-</p><p>Unflavoured</p><p>(n¼88)</p><p>Consumer Acceptability-</p><p>Flavoured</p><p>(n¼80)</p><p>Gender Male 58% 56% 57%</p><p>Female 42% 44% 43%</p><p>Education High School 29% 28% 29%</p><p>Post-Secondary Certificate or</p><p>Diploma</p><p>38% 37% 36%</p><p>Bachelor or above 33% 35% 35%</p><p>Income Less than $25,000 10% 11% 10%</p><p>$25,000–$44,999 15% 14% 15%</p><p>$45,000–$64,999 22% 17% 20%</p><p>$65,000–$99,999 32% 30% 30%</p><p>$100,000–$149,999 4% 5% 5%</p><p>$150,000+ 1% 2% 3%</p><p>Prefer not to answer 16% 21% 15%</p><p>What is your preferred plant-based dairy</p><p>alternative?</p><p>Soy 32% 29% 28%</p><p>Almond 19% 20% 18%</p><p>Coconut 9% 12% 12%</p><p>Oat 17% 18% 20%</p><p>Pea 8% 5% 6%</p><p>Cashew 6% 5% 6%</p><p>Other 9% 11% 10%</p><p>How often do you drink plant-based dairy</p><p>alternatives?</p><p>At least once a week 33% 32% 5%</p><p>Several times a week 47% 49% 40%</p><p>Once a month 10% 11% 46%</p><p>A few times a year 10% 8% 9%</p><p>Table 2</p><p>Description of the plant-based cheeses included in both sensory trials.</p><p>Product Ingredients</p><p>Unflavoured</p><p>Soy Water, Soybeans, Calcium Carbonate, Natural Flavours, Vitamin A</p><p>Palmitate, Riboflavin (b2), Vitamin D2, Vitamin B12, Thiamine</p><p>(B1), Niacin (B3), Vitamin B6, Pantothenate (B5).</p><p>Almond Water, Almonds, Sea Salt, Locust Bean Gum, Sunflower Lecithin,</p><p>Gellan Gum, Natural Flavour. Vitamins & Minerals: Calcium</p><p>Carbonate, Zinc Gluconate, Vitamin A Palmitate, Riboflavin (b2),</p><p>Vitamin D2, Vitamin B12.</p><p>Oat Water, Oats, Canola Oil, Tricalcium Phosphate, Gellan Gum, Sea</p><p>Salt, Natural Flavour, Zinc Gluconate, Vitamin A Palmitate,</p><p>Vitamin D2, Riboflavin, Vitamin B12, Amylase.</p><p>Coconut Coconut, Water, Calcium Carbonate, Zinc Gluconate, Vitamin A</p><p>Palmitate, Vitamin D2, Riboflavin (B2), Vitamin B12, Locust Bean</p><p>Gum, Sunflower Lecithin, Gellan Gum, Sea Salt, Natural Flavour.</p><p>Cashew Water, Cashews, Sea Salt, Locust Bean Gum, Almont Butter,</p><p>Sunflower Lecithin, Natural Flavour, Gellan Gum, Ascorbic Acid,</p><p>Calcium Carbonate, Zinc Gluconate, Vitamin A Palmitate, Vitamin</p><p>D2, Riboflavin (B2), Vitamin B12.</p><p>Pea Water, Pea Protein, Canola Oil, Dipotassium Phosphate, Calcium</p><p>Carbonate, Oats Oil, Natural aroma, Salt, Vitamin A, Vitamin B2,</p><p>Vitamin B12, Vitamin D.</p><p>Flavoured</p><p>Oat-Chocolate Water, Oats, Cane Sugar, Sunflower Oil, Organic Cocoa Powder,</p><p>Sea Salt, Natural Flavour, Gellan Gum, Locust Bean Gum,</p><p>Amylase, Tricalcium Phosphate, Calcium Carbonate, Vitamin A</p><p>Palmitate, Vitamin D2, Riboflavin, Vitamin B12, Zinc Gluconate.</p><p>Oat-Vanilla Water, Oat, Canola Oil, Tricalcium Phosphate, Gellan Gum, Sea</p><p>Salt, Natural Flavour, Zinc Gluconate, Vitamin A Palmitate,</p><p>Vitamin D2, Riboflavin, Vitamin B12, Amylase. Sugar.</p><p>Almond-</p><p>Chocolate</p><p>Water, Evaporated Cane Juice, Almonds, Cocoa, Tricalcium</p><p>Phosphate, Sea Salt, Potassium Citrate, Carrageenan, Natural</p><p>Flavors, Soy Lecithin.</p><p>Almond-Vanilla Water, Evaporated Cane Juice, Almonds, Calcium Carbonate,</p><p>Natural Vanilla Flavor, Sea Salt, Potassium Citrate, Carrageenan</p><p>And Sunflower Lecithin.</p><p>R. Moss et al.</p><p>Food Research International 159 (2022) 111648</p><p>4</p><p>participants (n = 80) first read through a consent form and then eval-</p><p>uated their liking of the appearance, flavour, mouthfeel, and overall</p><p>liking of the samples using nine-point hedonic scales. They were also</p><p>asked to identify what they liked and disliked about the samples using</p><p>open-ended comment questions. The participants then completed</p><p>questions about PBA consumption and their demographics.</p><p>2.5. Statistical analysis</p><p>2.5.1. Survey</p><p>The results of the WA task were analyzed following the procedure by</p><p>de Andrade, de Aguiar Sobral, Ares, and Deliza (2016). Descriptive</p><p>statistics evaluated the frequency questions. Open-ended comment</p><p>questions were evaluated using the procedure by Strauss and Corbin</p><p>(1990). Important phrases within the comments were highlighted, and</p><p>recurring themes and beliefs were identified. Categorizing (organizing</p><p>and grouping to reduce the number of concepts) was completed and the</p><p>results were discussed among the authors to reach a consensus. The</p><p>participants were separated into two different consumer groups based</p><p>on consumption of PBAs. Those that frequently consumed PBAs (several</p><p>times a week, at least once a week) and participants that do not regularly</p><p>consume PBAs (once a month, a few times a year). The results of the two</p><p>groups based on consumption were analyzed as described above.</p><p>2.5.2. Consumer acceptability trials (unflavoured and flavoured)</p><p>Consumer liking scores were subjected to a two-way random factor</p><p>analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a Tukey’s Honest Significant Differ-</p><p>ence (HSD) test were completed to determine any significant differences</p><p>in overall liking of flavour, mouthfeel, or appearance among the samples</p><p>in both consumer acceptability trials. The frequency of attributes iden-</p><p>tified by participants for each sample was summed from the CATA</p><p>question in the unflavoured trial. A contingency table was used to</p><p>summarize each descriptor’s frequency choice across all the partici-</p><p>pants. A Cochran’s Q test was used to establish the difference between</p><p>the frequencies of the different samples for each descriptor. Corre-</p><p>spondence analysis was performed on the total frequency count of the</p><p>attributes for each product to identify relationships between the attri-</p><p>butes and the samples. A penalty lift analysis was carried out following</p><p>the procedure by Meyners and Castura (2016). The open-ended com-</p><p>ments questions were analyzed as described above. All analyses were</p><p>completed using XLSTAT software (Version 2021.2, New York, N.Y., U.</p><p>S.A.) in Microsoft ExcelTM.</p><p>3. Results</p><p>3.1. Word association</p><p>The participants were separated into two groups based on their</p><p>consumption on PBAs, however we did not find any large differences</p><p>between the two groups’ responses and as such, the results of the overall</p><p>population (n = 323) are presented. A total of 456 different words were</p><p>mentioned by the participants (n = 323) when they were asked to write</p><p>the first four words, terms, phrases that came to their mind when they</p><p>thought of PBAs. Most of the responses consisted of individual words,</p><p>which are shown in Fig. 1. The most frequently mentioned word was</p><p>healthy/nutritious (52%; Table 3). The other words mainly corre-</p><p>sponded to different types of plant-based beverages (almond, soy, oat,</p><p>milk alternative), but participants also discussed various sensory char-</p><p>acteristics (watery, nutty, creamy, bland, sweet). Other frequently</p><p>mentioned words were related to the products not containing dairy</p><p>(lactose intolerance, dairy-free, alternative to milk) and that PBAs are</p><p>sustainable food items (environmentally friendly, sustainable). Lastly,</p><p>the participants also used the term, expensive to describe the PBAs.</p><p>The words were grouped into 23 categories, which were then merged</p><p>into nine dimensions. The dimension and categories identified in the</p><p>word association task are outlined in Table 3. The dimension healthy</p><p>and nutrition was the most frequently mentioned and the most relevant</p><p>categories were general health benefits and specific benefits. Most of the</p><p>words included in this dimension referred to how PBAs are healthy and</p><p>possess nutritional benefits (examples: vitamins, low fat, protein). The</p><p>second dimension was related to the ingredients of PBAs and included</p><p>words like almond, soy, oat, rice, and cashew. Many participants in the</p><p>WA task listed different types of PBAs.</p><p>The third dimension was related to the sensory characteristics of the</p><p>PBAs, which participants mainly identified flavour attributes (nutty,</p><p>sweet, sour, earthy), different mouthfeels (creamy, thick), as</p><p>well as</p><p>specific flavours (original, chocolate, vanilla) of PBAs. The fourth and</p><p>fifth dimensions were sustainability (environmentally friendly, no ani-</p><p>mals involved) and lactose intolerance (lactose intolerance, dairy-free).</p><p>The remaining dimensions were less frequently mentioned and were</p><p>related to hedonic attitudes (positive and negative), non-sensory char-</p><p>acteristics (cost), as well as PBAs being different (different dimension).</p><p>Fig. 1. Frequency of mention of the most frequently mentioned words when the participants were asked to write down the first four words, terms or phrases that</p><p>came to their minds when thinking of plant-based dairy alternatives.</p><p>R. Moss et al.</p><p>Food Research International 159 (2022) 111648</p><p>5</p><p>3.2. Consumer acceptability</p><p>3.2.1. Consumer acceptability- unflavoured</p><p>The most identified PBAs by the participants in the survey were</p><p>included in the study (Table 1). The mean hedonic scores are listed in</p><p>Table 4. The appearance of the almond PBA was liked significantly more</p><p>than the cashew and pea PBAs (p</p><p>Food Research International 159 (2022) 111648</p><p>6</p><p>were compared to their flavoured counterparts (chocolate and vanilla).</p><p>The mean hedonic scores can be found in Table 5. The participants’</p><p>liking of the mouthfeel was not significantly affected, but the partici-</p><p>pants liking of the appearance of the chocolate PBAs was significantly</p><p>higher than the unsweetened and vanilla PBAs. The participants liking of</p><p>the chocolate almond PBA’s flavour was significantly higher than the</p><p>other almond PBAs; however, the chocolate and vanilla oat PBAs were</p><p>not significantly different (p</p><p>were reinforced by the bi-plot in</p><p>Fig. 2A, as the almond, oat and pea PBAs were separated from the</p><p>cashew, soy and coconut. The almond PBA was associated with very few</p><p>attributes, and was characterized by its’ appearance and lack of after-</p><p>taste.. The aftertaste was found to be important in a past study on PBAs</p><p>(Vaikma et al., 2021); however, they found that aftertaste was associ-</p><p>ated with oat PBA, which was not found in this study. Furthermore, the</p><p>samples were separated based on their flavour and their colour. Sweet</p><p>and nutty increased the participants’ liking of the PBAs, while beany and</p><p>off-flavour decreased the participants’ liking (penalty lift analysis -</p><p>Fig. 2B). Sweetness is well-established as it increases consumers’ liking</p><p>of PBAs (Sethi et al., 2016) and milk (Oliveira et al., 2017). Nutty is also</p><p>a well-known characteristic of PBAs (McClements et al., 2019). As stated</p><p>above, beany has been identified in soy PBAs in past studies and is</p><p>disliked by consumers (Ikya, Gernah, Ojobo, & Oni, 2013; Lv, Song, Li,</p><p>Wu, & Guo, 2011; Yuan et al., 2008). Off-flavours of PBAs are usually</p><p>described as beany, bitter, astringent, grassy, and rancid (Lawrence,</p><p>Lopetcharat, & Drake, 2016), which agrees with this study as bitter,</p><p>astringent, and beany were positioned very close to off-flavour on the CA</p><p>biplot (Fig. 2A). Also, Lawrence et al. (2016) in agreement with this</p><p>study, found that these off-flavours detract from consumer liking.</p><p>In addition, the attributes creamy and smooth increased consumer</p><p>liking, while watery detracted from it. Creamy and smooth have been</p><p>found to increase consumer liking of milk (Chung, 2009; McCarthy,</p><p>Parker, Ameerally, Drake, & Drake, 2017) and this may explain why</p><p>they increased consumer liking of PBAs. A past study on rice PBAs</p><p>identified that they had a low thickness, which decreased consumer</p><p>liking (Pramudya et al., 2019). This result agrees with this study as</p><p>creamy increased liking and watery decreased liking. Furthermore,</p><p>consumers dislike a gritty mouthfeel when they are consuming PBAs</p><p>(Tangyu et al., 2019) and this may explain why smoothness increased</p><p>their liking. A limitation of this study is that the perception of creami-</p><p>ness can be attributed to the appearance, flavour, and texture of the</p><p>beverage (McCarthy, Lopetcharat, & Drake, 2017; Meyer, Vermulst,</p><p>Tromp, & De Hoog, 2011), however, consumers did not identify how</p><p>they perceive creaminess. Future studies may want to include a defini-</p><p>tion of the creamy attribute in the CATA question or ask the participants</p><p>to define creaminess.</p><p>To further examine consumers’ responses to different PBAs, con-</p><p>sumers were asked to evaluate their emotional response to the PBAs.</p><p>Overall, the emotional responses (Fig. 3) agreed with the results of the</p><p>hedonic scales and positive emotions were associated with the PBAs</p><p>(almond, oat and pea) that were liked the most. This result agrees with</p><p>past studies that positive emotions have been associated with increased</p><p>consumer liking (Danner, Johnson, Ristic, Meiselman, & Bastian, 2020;</p><p>Spinelli, Masi, Zoboli, Prescott, & Monteleone, 2015; Yang, Shen, Foster,</p><p>& Hort, 2020). Disgust (Samant, Chapko, & Seo, 2017) and worried</p><p>(Sukkwai et al., 2018) have both been found to detract from the</p><p>acceptability of food products and these negative emotions were asso-</p><p>ciated with the cashew PBA, which scored the lowest on the hedonic</p><p>scales. This result may also be due to a lack of familiarity with cashew</p><p>PBA, as only 5% of participants said they regularly consumed it</p><p>(Table 1). Bored was associated with the soy PBA and this is an inter-</p><p>esting result, as it was the most frequently consumed PBA (Table 1). This</p><p>result may indicate that the consumers are not satisfied with soy milk</p><p>and may present an opportunity for other PBAs. A past study found that</p><p>PBAs are associated with negative emotions (Jaeger & Giacalone, 2021),</p><p>however, their study involved both participants who regularly</p><p>consumed PBAs and those that didn’t. The study found that those who</p><p>consumed PBAs had fewer negative emotions towards them (Jaeger &</p><p>Giacalone, 2021). Past studies have also identified that emotional re-</p><p>sponses between dairy milk and PBAs did not differ (McCarthy, Parker,</p><p>et al., 2017). This study, however, identified that consumers associated</p><p>different emotions with different PBAs.</p><p>Throughout the survey and consumer acceptability-unflavoured</p><p>sensory trial, many participants identified that they usually choose to</p><p>drink flavoured PBAs. As such, a consumer acceptability trial was</p><p>R. Moss et al.</p><p>Food Research International 159 (2022) 111648</p><p>8</p><p>conducted to identify the influence of flavouring on the acceptability of</p><p>PBAs. The addition of the vanilla and chocolate flavouring had a marked</p><p>effect on the consumers’ liking scores, and the chocolate PBAs were</p><p>liked significantly more than the unsweetened PBAs. This result in-</p><p>dicates that consumers are influenced by the flavouring of PBAs, but</p><p>future studies need to be conducted to further investigate the effect of</p><p>flavouring on consumer perception and emotional response. Addition-</p><p>ally, if the added flavouring can improve the liking of the oat and</p><p>almond milk, it may be able to address some of the negative sensory</p><p>attributes associated with the cashew and coconut PBAs. Flavourings</p><p>have been used to improve the sensory properties of soy PBAs and mask</p><p>the beany flavour, as well as other negative attributes (Wang et al.,</p><p>2001).</p><p>This study evaluated the consumer perception and attitudes towards</p><p>PBAs currently available in Canada. However, there are other PBAs</p><p>(hemp, rice, chickpea, etc.) that need to be further investigated.</p><p>Furthermore, there are PBAs that combine ingredients (e.g. rice and</p><p>oat), which should be studied to better understand their sensory prop-</p><p>erties. Also, the participants in the survey (WA task) could have been</p><p>asked about milk as well or asked to concentrate on a specific PBA.</p><p>Future studies should compare participants’ thoughts about PBAs to</p><p>milk and evaluate their perception of different types of PBAs. As stated</p><p>above, more studies need to be completed investigating the effect of</p><p>flavouring on PBAs and how they can be used to improve the accept-</p><p>ability of PBAs. Also, a more thorough characterization of the PBAs</p><p>should be conducted to specifically determine how different aromas,</p><p>aftertastes, and mouthfeel impact consumer liking. This study investi-</p><p>gated Canadian consumers; however, future studies should investigate</p><p>how consumers from different countries evaluate PBAs. All participants</p><p>in the sensory trials were consumers of PBAs, but future studies may</p><p>want to investigate if there is a difference between consumer groups (for</p><p>instance, if consumers who follow a vegan diet have different prefer-</p><p>ences than those living with lactose intolerance). Lastly, definitions were</p><p>not given for the attributes in the CATA task and participants may have</p><p>had different definitions in mind when they were evaluating the PBAs,</p><p>therefore, future studies should ask consumers to define attributes or</p><p>provide definitions for consumers to reference.</p><p>5. Conclusion</p><p>Health benefits, sustainability, and sensory characteristics were</p><p>identified as primary associations with PBAs. Participants were also</p><p>concerned with the main ingredient in the PBAs, as well as the cost. PBAs</p><p>made from almonds, oats, and peas were liked significantly more than</p><p>the PBAs made from cashews. The PBAs that were sweet, creamy,</p><p>smooth, nutty, and white increased the participants’ liking, while</p><p>aftertaste, brown, beany, watery, and off-flavour detracted from it. Also,</p><p>the PBAs that had higher overall liking scores were associated with</p><p>positive emotions. Overall, the cashew, soy, and coconut</p><p>PBAs were not</p><p>well-liked by the participants. A preliminary study found that flavouring</p><p>(chocolate and vanilla) increased the participants’ liking of almond and</p><p>oat PBAs, which may be a strategy to implement to increase the</p><p>acceptability of cashew and coconut PBAs. Further research should be</p><p>conducted to evaluate how extrinsic characteristics (sustainability,</p><p>health-related claims) impact the acceptability of PBAs. Future studies</p><p>should also investigate other PBAs made from different ingredients, a</p><p>combination of ingredients, as well as other flavours. These results are</p><p>relevant to those creating new PBAs and those working to create new</p><p>plant-based food products.</p><p>CRediT authorship contribution statement</p><p>Rachael Moss: Conceptualization, Investigation, Data curation,</p><p>Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualization.</p><p>Sophie Barker: Conceptualization, Investigation, Data curation,</p><p>Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualization.</p><p>Anika Falkeisen: Investigation, Data curation, Writing – original draft,</p><p>Writing – review & editing, Visualization. Mackenzie Gorman: Inves-</p><p>tigation, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &</p><p>editing, Visualization. Sophie Knowles: Investigation, Data curation,</p><p>Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualization.</p><p>Matthew B. McSweeney: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software,</p><p>Validation, Formal analysis, Resources, Data curation, Writing – review</p><p>& editing, Visualization, Supervision, Project administration, Funding</p><p>acquisition.</p><p>Declaration of Competing Interest</p><p>The authors declare that they have no known competing financial</p><p>interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence</p><p>the work reported in this paper.</p><p>Acknowledgments</p><p>This research was funded in part by the Centre for the Sensory</p><p>Research of Food, Canada Foundation for Innovation John R. Evans</p><p>Leaders Fund (Project No. 37528) and Research Nova Scotia. Thank you</p><p>to all the volunteers who participated in this project.</p><p>References</p><p>Aidoo, H., Sakyi-Dawson, E., Tano-Debrah, K., & Saalia, F. K. (2010). Development and</p><p>characterization of dehydrated peanut–cowpea milk powder for use as a dairy milk</p><p>substitute in chocolate manufacture. Food Research International, 43(1), 79–85.</p><p>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2009.08.018</p><p>Alencar, N. M. M., Ribeiro, T. G., Barone, B., Barros, A. P. A., Marques, A. T. B., &</p><p>Behrens, J. H. (2019). Sensory profile and check-all-that-apply (CATA) as tools for</p><p>evaluating and characterizing syrah wines aged with oak chips. Food Research</p><p>International, 124, 156–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2018.07.052</p><p>Ares, G., Antúnez, L., Giménez, A., Roigard, C. M., Pineau, B., Hunter, D. C., et al. (2014).</p><p>Further investigations into the reproducibility of check-all-that-apply (CATA)</p><p>questions for sensory product characterization elicited by consumers. Food Quality</p><p>and Preference, 36, 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.03.010</p><p>Ares, G., Giménez, A., & Gámbaro, A. (2008). Understanding consumers’ perception of</p><p>conventional and functional yogurts using word association and hard laddering.</p><p>Food Quality and Preference, 19(7), 636–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.</p><p>foodqual.2008.05.005</p><p>Ares, G., Jaeger, S. R., Bava, C. M., Chheang, S. L., Jin, D., Gimenez, A., et al. (2013).</p><p>CATA questions for sensory product characterization: Raising awareness of biases.</p><p>Food Quality and Preference, 30(2), 114–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.</p><p>foodqual.2013.04.012</p><p>Aschemann-Witzel, J., Varela, P., & Peschel, A. O. (2019). Consumers’ categorization of</p><p>food ingredients: Do consumers perceive them as ‘clean label’ producers expect? An</p><p>exploration with projective mapping. Food Quality and Preference, 71, 117–128.</p><p>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.06.003</p><p>Beekman, T. L., & Seo, H.-S. (2022). Cognitive styles influence eating environment-</p><p>induced variations in consumer perception of food: A case study with Pad Thai</p><p>noodle. Food Quality and Preference, 98, Article 104525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.</p><p>foodqual.2021.104525</p><p>Bernardo, C. O., Ascheri, J. L. R., Carvalho, C. W. P., Chávez, D. W. H., Martins, I. B. A.,</p><p>Deliza, R., et al. (2019). Impact of extruded sorghum genotypes on the rehydration</p><p>and sensory properties of soluble beverages and the Brazilian consumers’ perception</p><p>of sorghum and cereal beverage using word association. Journal of Cereal Science, 89,</p><p>102793. doi: 10.1016/j.jcs.2019.102793.</p><p>Bocker, R., & Silva, E. K. (2022). Innovative technologies for manufacturing plant-based</p><p>non-dairy alternative milk and their impact on nutritional, sensory and safety</p><p>aspects. Future Foods, 5, Article 100098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.</p><p>fufo.2021.100098</p><p>Chalupa-Krebzdak, S., Long, C. J., & Bohrer, B. M. (2018). Nutrient density and</p><p>nutritional value of milk and plant-based milk alternatives. International Dairy</p><p>Journal, 87, 84–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2018.07.018</p><p>Chung, S. J. (2009). Effects of milk type and consumer factors on the acceptance of milk</p><p>among Korean female consumers. Journal of Food Science, 74(6), S286–S295. https://</p><p>doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2009.01224.x</p><p>Clark, L. F., & Bogdan, A.-M. (2019). The role of plant-based foods in Canadian diets: A</p><p>survey examining food choices, motivations and dietary identity. Journal of Food</p><p>Products Marketing, 25(4), 355–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/</p><p>10454446.2019.1566806</p><p>Clay, N., Garnett, T., & Lorimer, J. (2020). Dairy intensification: Drivers, impacts and</p><p>alternatives. Ambio, 49(1), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01177-y</p><p>Clegg, M. E., Tarrado Ribes, A., Reynolds, R., Kliem, K., & Stergiadis, S. (2021).</p><p>A comparative assessment of the nutritional composition of dairy and plant-based</p><p>dairy alternatives available for sale in the UK and the implications for consumers’</p><p>R. Moss et al.</p><p>Food Research International 159 (2022) 111648</p><p>9</p><p>dietary intakes. Food Research International, 148, Article 110586. https://doi.org/</p><p>10.1016/j.foodres.2021.110586</p><p>Conti-Silva, A. C., & de Souza-Borges, P. K. (2019). Sensory characteristics, brand and</p><p>probiotic claim on the overall liking of commercial probiotic fermented milks: Which</p><p>one is more relevant? Food Research International, 116, 184–189. https://doi.org/</p><p>10.1016/j.foodres.2018.08.011</p><p>Craig, W. J., & Fresán, U. (2021). International analysis of the nutritional content and a</p><p>review of health benefits of non-dairy plant-based beverages. Nutrients, 13(3), 842.</p><p>https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13030842</p><p>Curutchet, A., Serantes, M., Pontet, C., Prisco, F., Arcia, P., Barg, G., et al. (2022).</p><p>Sensory features introduced by brewery spent grain with impact on consumers’</p><p>motivations and emotions for fibre-enriched products. Foods, 11(1), 36. https://doi.</p><p>org/10.3390/foods11010036</p><p>Dakin, B. C., Ching, A. E., Teperman, E., Klebl, C., Moshel, M., & Bastian, B. (2021).</p><p>Prescribing vegetarian or flexitarian diets leads to sustained reduction in meat</p><p>intake. Appetite, 164, Article 105285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105285</p><p>Danner, L., Johnson, T. E., Ristic, R., Meiselman, H. L., & Bastian, S. E. P. (2020).</p><p>Consumption context effects on fine wine consumer segments’ liking and emotions.</p><p>Foods, 9(12), 1798. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9121798</p><p>de Andrade, J. C., de Aguiar Sobral, L., Ares, G., & Deliza, R. (2016). Understanding</p><p>consumers’ perception of lamb meat using free word association. Meat Science, 117,</p><p>68–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.02.039</p><p>Demi̇r, H., Simsek, M., & Yıldırım, G. (2021). Effect of oat milk pasteurization type on</p><p>the characteristics of yogurt. LWT, 135, 110271. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2020.110271.</p><p>Dorado, R., Chaya, C., Tarrega, A., &</p><p>Hort, J. (2016). The impact of using a written</p><p>scenario when measuring emotional response to beer. Food Quality and Preference,</p><p>50, 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.01.004</p><p>Emelike, N., Tamuno, J., O.M, A., & Ohwesiri, A. (2019). Physicochemical, mineral and</p><p>sensory characteristics of cashew nut milk. International Journal of Food Science and</p><p>Biotechnology, 4, 1–6. doi: 10.11648/j.ijfsb.20190401.11.</p><p>Fatima, S. M., & Hekmat, S. (2020). Microbial and sensory analysis of soy and cow milk-</p><p>based yogurt as a probiotic matrix for Lactobacillus rhamnosus GR-1. Fermentation, 6</p><p>(3), 74. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation6030074</p><p>Foguel, A., Ract, J. N. R., & da Silva, R. C. (2021). Sensory characterization of</p><p>commercial cream cheese by the consumer using check-all-that-apply questions.</p><p>Journal of Sensory Studies, 36(4), Article e12658. https://doi.org/10.1111/</p><p>joss.12658</p><p>Ghvanidze, S., Velikova, N., Dodd, T. H., & Oldewage-Theron, W. (2016). Consumers’</p><p>environmental and ethical consciousness and the use of the related food products</p><p>information: The role of perceived consumer effectiveness. Appetite, 107, 311–322.</p><p>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.08.097</p><p>Ghvanidze, S., Velikova, N., Dodd, T., & Oldewage-Theron, W. (2017). A discrete choice</p><p>experiment of the impact of consumers’ environmental values, ethical concerns, and</p><p>health consciousness on food choices: A cross-cultural analysis. British Food Journal,</p><p>119(4), 863–881. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-07-2016-0342</p><p>Giacalone, D., Frøst, M. B., Bredie, W. L. P., Pineau, B., Hunter, D. C., Paisley, A. G., et al.</p><p>(2015). Situational appropriateness of beer is influenced by product familiarity. Food</p><p>Quality and Preference, 39, 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.06.012</p><p>Gorman, M., Knowles, S., Falkeisen, A., Barker, S., Moss, R., & McSweeney, M. B. (2021).</p><p>Consumer perception of milk and plant-based alternatives added to coffee. Beverages,</p><p>7(4), 80. https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages7040080</p><p>Grasso, N., Alonso-Miravalles, L., & O’Mahony, J. A. (2020). Composition,</p><p>physicochemical and sensorial properties of commercial plant-based yogurts. Foods,</p><p>9(3), 252. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9030252</p><p>Grasso, S., Smith, G., Bowers, S., Ajayi, O. M., & Swainson, M. (2019). Effect of texturised</p><p>soy protein and yeast on the instrumental and sensory quality of hybrid beef</p><p>meatballs. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 56(6), 3126–3135. https://doi.</p><p>org/10.1007/s13197-018-3552-9</p><p>Grossmann, L., Kinchla, A. J., Nolden, A., & McClements, D. J. (2021). Standardized</p><p>methods for testing the quality attributes of plant-based foods: Milk and cream</p><p>alternatives. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 20(2),</p><p>2206–2233. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12718</p><p>Guerrero, L., Claret, A., Verbeke, W., Enderli, G., Zakowska-Biemans, S.,</p><p>Vanhonacker, F., et al. (2010). Perception of traditional food products in six</p><p>European regions using free word association. Food Quality and Preference, 21(2),</p><p>225–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.06.003</p><p>Heo, J., Choi, K. S., Wang, S., Adhikari, K., & Lee, J. (2019). Cold brew coffee: Consumer</p><p>acceptability and characterization using the check-all-that-apply (CATA) method.</p><p>Foods, 8(8), 344. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8080344</p><p>Hovardas, T., & Korfiatis, K. J. (2006). Word associations as a tool for assessing</p><p>conceptual change in science education. Learning and Instruction, 16(5), 416–432.</p><p>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.09.003</p><p>Ikya, J., Gernah, D., Ojobo, H., & Oni, O. (2013). Effect of cooking temperature on some</p><p>quality characteristics of soy milk. Advance Journal of Food Science and Technology, 5,</p><p>543–546. https://doi.org/10.19026/ajfst.5.3123</p><p>Islam, N., Shafiee, M., & Vatanparast, H. (2021). Trends in the consumption of</p><p>conventional dairy milk and plant-based beverages and their contribution to nutrient</p><p>intake among Canadians. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 34(6), 1022–1034.</p><p>https://doi.org/10.1111/jhn.12910</p><p>Jaeger, S. R. (2006). Non-sensory factors in sensory science research. Food Quality and</p><p>Preference, 17(1), 132–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.03.004</p><p>Jaeger, S. R., Chheang, S. L., Jin, D., Roigard, C. M., & Ares, G. (2020). Check-all-that-</p><p>apply (CATA) questions: Sensory term citation frequency reflects rated term</p><p>intensity and applicability. Food Quality and Preference, 86, Article 103986. https://</p><p>doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103986</p><p>Jaeger, S. R., & Giacalone, D. (2021). Barriers to consumption of plant-based beverages:</p><p>A comparison of product users and non-users on emotional, conceptual, situational,</p><p>conative and psychographic variables. Food Research International, 144, Article</p><p>110363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2021.110363</p><p>Jaeger, S. R., Swaney-Stueve, M., Chheang, S. L., Hunter, D. C., Pineau, B., & Ares, G.</p><p>(2018). An assessment of the CATA-variant of the EsSense Profile®. Food Quality and</p><p>Preference, 68, 360–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.04.005</p><p>Jeske, S., Zannini, E., & Arendt, E. K. (2018). Past, present and future: The strength of</p><p>plant-based dairy substitutes based on gluten-free raw materials. Food Research</p><p>International, 110, 42–51.</p><p>Jiang, S., Cai, W., & Xu, B. (2013). Food quality improvement of soy milk made from</p><p>short-time germinated soybeans. Foods, 2(2), 198–212. https://doi.org/10.3390/</p><p>foods2020198</p><p>King, S. C., & Meiselman, H. L. (2010). Development of a method to measure consumer</p><p>emotions associated with foods. Food Quality and Preference, 21(2), 168–177.</p><p>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.02.005</p><p>Lawrence, S. E., Lopetcharat, K., & Drake, M.a (2016). Preference mapping of soymilk</p><p>with cifferent U.S. consumers. Journal of Food Science, 81(2), S463–S476. https://</p><p>doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.13182</p><p>Lv, Y.-C., Song, H.-L., Li, X., Wu, L., & Guo, S.-T. (2011). Influence of blanching and</p><p>grinding process with hot water on beany and non-beany rlavor in soymilk. Journal</p><p>of Food Science, 76(1), S20–S25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2010.01947.</p><p>x</p><p>Mahieu, B., Visalli, M., Thomas, A., & Schlich, P. (2020). Free-comment outperformed</p><p>check-all-that-apply in the sensory characterisation of wines with consumers at</p><p>home. Food Quality and Preference, 84, Article 103937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.</p><p>foodqual.2020.103937</p><p>Markets and Markets, 2019. Dairy Alternatives Market - Market Research Report.</p><p>Available from https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/dairy-</p><p>alternative-plant-milk-beverages-market-677.html.</p><p>Martínez-Padilla, E., Li, K., Blok Frandsen, H., Skejovic Joehnke, M., Vargas-Bello-</p><p>Pérez, E., & Lykke Petersen, I. (2020). In vitro protein digestibility and fatty acid</p><p>profile of commercial plant-based milk alternatives. Foods, 9(12), 1784. https://doi.</p><p>org/10.3390/foods9121784</p><p>McCarthy, K. S., Lopetcharat, K., & Drake, M. A. (2017). Milk fat threshold determination</p><p>and the effect of milk fat content on consumer preference for fluid milk. Journal of</p><p>Dairy Science, 100(3), 1702–1711. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-11417</p><p>McCarthy, K. S., Parker, M., Ameerally, A., Drake, S. L., & Drake, M. A. (2017). Drivers of</p><p>choice for fluid milk versus plant-based alternatives: What are consumer perceptions</p><p>of fluid milk? Journal of Dairy Science, 100(8), 6125–6138. https://doi.org/10.3168/</p><p>jds.2016-12519</p><p>McClements, D. J., Newman, E., & McClements, I. F. (2019). Plant-based milks: A review</p><p>of the science underpinning their design, fabrication, and performance.</p><p>Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 18(6), 2047–2067. https://</p><p>doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12505</p><p>Meyer, D., Vermulst, J., Tromp, R.h., & De Hoog, E.h.a. (2011). The effect of inulin on</p><p>tribology and sensory profiles of skimmed milk. Journal of Texture Studies, 42(5),</p><p>387–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4603.2011.00298.x</p><p>Meyners, M., & Castura, J. C. (2016). Randomization of CATA attributes: Should</p><p>attribute</p><p>lists be allocated to assessors or to samples? Food Quality and Preference, 48,</p><p>210–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.09.014</p><p>Mora, M., Urdaneta, E., & Chaya, C. (2018). Emotional response to wine: Sensory</p><p>properties, age and gender as drivers of consumers’ preferences. Food Quality and</p><p>Preference, 66, 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.12.015</p><p>Moss, R., & McSweeney, M. B. (2021). Do consumers want seaweed in their food? A study</p><p>evaluating emotional responses to foods containing seaweed. Foods, 10(11), 2737.</p><p>https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10112737</p><p>Munekata, P. E., Domnguez, R., Budaraju, S., Rosell-Soto, E., Barba, F. J., Mallikarjunan,</p><p>et al. (2020). Effect of innovative food processing technologies on the</p><p>physicochemical and nutritional properties and quality of non dairy plant-based</p><p>beverages. Foods, 9, 288.</p><p>Nestrud, M. A., Meiselman, H. L., King, S. C., Lesher, L. L., & Cardello, A. V. (2016).</p><p>Development of EsSense25, a shorter version of the EsSense Profile®. Food Quality</p><p>and Preference, 48, 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.08.005</p><p>Ng, M., Chaya, C., & Hort, J. (2013). Beyond liking: Comparing the measurement of</p><p>emotional response using EsSense Profile and consumer defined check-all-that-apply</p><p>methodologies. Food Quality and Preference, 28(1), 193–205. https://doi.org/</p><p>10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.08.012</p><p>Oliveira, D., Vidal, L., Ares, G., Walter, E. H. M., Rosenthal, A., & Deliza, R. (2017).</p><p>Sensory, microbiological and physicochemical screening of probiotic cultures for the</p><p>development of non-fermented probiotic milk. LWT - Food Science and Technology,</p><p>79, 234–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2017.01.020</p><p>Paul, A. A., Kumar, S., Kumar, V., & Sharma, R. (2020). Milk Analog: Plant based</p><p>alternatives to conventional milk, production, potential and health concerns. Critical</p><p>Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 60(18), 3005–3023. https://doi.org/10.1080/</p><p>10408398.2019.1674243</p><p>Penha, C. B., Santos, V. D. P., Speranza, P., & Kurozawa, L. E. (2021). Plant-based</p><p>beverages: Ecofriendly technologies in the production process. Innovative Food</p><p>Science & Emerging Technologies, 72, Article 102760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.</p><p>ifset.2021.102760</p><p>Pérez-González, M., Gallardo-Chacón, J. J., Valencia-Flores, D., & Ferragut, V. (2015).</p><p>Optimization of a headspace SPME GC–MS methodology for the analysis of</p><p>processed almond beverages. Food Analytical Methods, 8(3), 612–623. https://doi.</p><p>org/10.1007/s12161-014-9935-2</p><p>Pinto, L. de P. F., Silva, H. L. A., Kuriya, S. P., Maçaira, P. M., Cyrino Oliveira, F. L., Cruz,</p><p>A. G., et al. (2018). Understanding perceptions and beliefs about different types of</p><p>R. Moss et al.</p><p>Food Research International 159 (2022) 111648</p><p>10</p><p>fermented milks through the application of projective techniques: A case study using</p><p>Haire’s shopping list and free word association. Journal of Sensory Studies, 33(3),</p><p>e12326. doi: 10.1111/joss.12326.</p><p>Piqueras-Fiszman, B., Velasco, C., Salgado-Montejo, A., & Spence, C. (2013). Using</p><p>combined eye tracking and word association in order to assess novel packaging</p><p>solutions: A case study involving jam jars. Food Quality and Preference, 28(1),</p><p>328–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.10.006</p><p>Pramudya, R. C., Lee, J., Chapko, M. J., Lee, K., Lee, S., Lee, J., et al. (2019). Variations in</p><p>US consumers’ acceptability of commercially-available rice based milk alternatives</p><p>with respect to sensory attributes and food neophobia traits. Journal of Sensory</p><p>Studies, 34, Article e12496.</p><p>Pramudya, R. C., & Seo, H.-S. (2018). Using Check-All-That-Apply (CATA) method for</p><p>determining product temperature-dependent sensory-attribute variations: A case</p><p>study of cooked rice. Food Research International, 105, 724–732. https://doi.org/</p><p>10.1016/j.foodres.2017.11.075</p><p>Radnitz, C., Beezhold, B., & DiMatteo, J. (2015). Investigation of lifestyle choices of</p><p>individuals following a vegan diet for health and ethical reasons. Appetite, 90, 31–36.</p><p>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.02.026</p><p>Rasika, D. M., Vidanarachchi, J. K., Rocha, R. S., Balthazar, C. F., Cruz, A. G.,</p><p>Sant’Ana, A. S., et al. (2021). Plant-based milk substitutes as emerging probiotic</p><p>carriers. Current Opinion in Food Science, 38, 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.</p><p>cofs.2020.10.025</p><p>Reyes-Jurado, F., Soto-Reyes, N., Dávila-Rodríguez, M., Lorenzo-Leal, A. C., Jiménez-</p><p>Munguía, M. T., Mani-López, E., et al. (2021). Plant-based milk alternatives: Types,</p><p>processes, benefits, and characteristics. Food Reviews International, 1–32. https://doi.</p><p>org/10.1080/87559129.2021.1952421</p><p>Ribas-Agustí, A., Martín-Belloso, O., Soliva-Fortuny, R., & Elez-Martínez, P. (2018). Food</p><p>processing strategies to enhance phenolic compounds bioaccessibility and</p><p>bioavailability in plant-based foods. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 58</p><p>(15), 2531–2548. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2017.1331200</p><p>Rincon, L., Botelho, B. A. R., & de Alencar, E. R. (2020). Development of novel plant-</p><p>based milk based on chickpea and coconut. LWT, 128, Article 109479. https://doi.</p><p>org/10.1016/j.lwt.2020.109479</p><p>Rios, M., Tinitana, F., Jarrín-V, P., Donoso, N., & Romero-Benavides, J. C. (2017).</p><p>“Horchata” drink in Southern Ecuador: Medicinal plants and people’s wellbeing.</p><p>Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 13(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/</p><p>s13002-017-0145-z</p><p>Roininen, K., Arvola, A., & Lähteenmäki, L. (2006). Exploring consumers’ perceptions of</p><p>local food with two different qualitative techniques: Laddering and word association.</p><p>Food Quality and Preference, 17(1), 20–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.</p><p>foodqual.2005.04.012</p><p>Ross, T. P. (2003). The reliability of cluster and switch scores for the Controlled Oral</p><p>Word Association Test. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 18(2), 153–164. https://</p><p>doi.org/10.1016/S0887-6177(01)00192-5</p><p>Ruiz-Capillas, C., Herrero, A. M., Pintado, T., & Delgado-Pando, G. (2021). Sensory</p><p>analysis and consumer research in new meat products development. Foods, 10(2),</p><p>429. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10020429</p><p>Samant, S. S., Chapko, M. J., & Seo, H.-S. (2017). Predicting consumer liking and</p><p>preference based on emotional responses and sensory perception: A study with basic</p><p>taste solutions. Food Research International, 100, 325–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/</p><p>j.foodres.2017.07.021</p><p>Schiano, A. N., Harwood, W. S., Gerard, P. D., & Drake, M. A. (2020). Consumer</p><p>perception of the sustainability of dairy products and plant-based dairy alternatives.</p><p>Journal of Dairy Science, 103(12), 11228–11243. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-</p><p>18406</p><p>Schouteten, J. J., De Steur, H., De Pelsmaeker, S., Lagast, S., Juvinal, J. G., De</p><p>Bourdeaudhuij, I., et al. (2016). Emotional and sensory profiling of insect-, plant-</p><p>and meat-based burgers under blind, expected and informed conditions. Food Quality</p><p>and Preference, 52, 27–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.03.011</p><p>Seppä, L., Railio, J., Vehkalahti, K., Tahvonen, R., & Tuorila, H. (2013). Hedonic</p><p>responses and individual definitions of an ideal apple as predictors of choice. Journal</p><p>of Sensory Studies, 28(5), 346–357. https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12059</p><p>Sethi, S., Tyagi, S. K., & Anurag, R. K. (2016). Plant-based milk alternatives an emerging</p><p>segment of functional beverages: A review. Journal of Food Science and Technology,</p><p>53(9), 3408–3423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-016-2328-3</p><p>Shori, A. B., Aljohani, G. S., Al-zahrani, A. J., Al-sulbi, O. S., & Baba, A. S. (2022).</p><p>Viability of probiotics and antioxidant activity of cashew milk-based yogurt</p><p>fermented with selected strains of probiotic Lactobacillus spp. LWT, 153, Article</p><p>112482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2021.112482</p><p>Silva, R., Rocha, R. S., Guimarães,</p>