Assuring Food Security: Consumers’ Ethical Risk Perception of Meat Substitutes

The world’s growing population requires an adequate supply of protein to maintain food security, but animal protein production is limited by the finite resources of land, fresh water, and ocean capacity. Several meat substitutes offer protein alternatives that may improve food security in less-devel...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Weijun Liu [verfasserIn] Zhipeng Hao [verfasserIn] Wojciech J. Florkowski [verfasserIn] Linhai Wu [verfasserIn] Zhengyong Yang [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2022

Schlagwörter:	meat substitutes ethical risk plant-based meat cultured meat consumer perceptions

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Agriculture - MDPI AG, 2012, 12(2022), 5, p 671
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:12 ; year:2022 ; number:5, p 671

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.3390/agriculture12050671

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ043650465

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ043650465
003	DE-627
005	20240414223539.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230227s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.3390/agriculture12050671 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ043650465
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJc41b71be93e4491c9f445dd005fc9b3d
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
050		0	\|a S1-972
100	0		\|a Weijun Liu \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Assuring Food Security: Consumers’ Ethical Risk Perception of Meat Substitutes
264		1	\|c 2022
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a The world’s growing population requires an adequate supply of protein to maintain food security, but animal protein production is limited by the finite resources of land, fresh water, and ocean capacity. Several meat substitutes offer protein alternatives that may improve food security in less-developed economies. However, perceptions of difference in the ethical risk associated with consumption of plant-based substitutes (PM) vs. cultured meat (CM) may affect purchases of these products. This study examined differences in ethical risk perception using online survey data gathered in 2020. An ordered logit technique yielded the probabilities of changes in ethical risk perception influenced by demographic attributes, views about the technology, and adequacy of industry regulations. The results show that consumers associated PM with low ethical risk. Educated consumers were more likely to agree that the ethical risks of CM are higher than PM and to regard PM products as safer than CM. Price sensitivity made consumers more likely to agree that the ethical risks related to CM are higher than those related to PM. Ingredient safety concerns increased the ethical risk perception of CM. Consumers perceiving the meat substitute classification to be unclear were more likely to assign a higher ethical risk to CM than PM. The perception of ethical risk associated with CM was greater than that associated with PM if meat substitute industry regulations were inadequate. The results suggest a need to provide verifiable information about each type of meat substitute as well as transparent and understandable standards and rules before these products can improve protein availability and food security.
650		4	\|a meat substitutes
650		4	\|a ethical risk
650		4	\|a plant-based meat
650		4	\|a cultured meat
650		4	\|a consumer perceptions
653		0	\|a Agriculture (General)
700	0		\|a Zhipeng Hao \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Wojciech J. Florkowski \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Linhai Wu \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Zhengyong Yang \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Agriculture \|d MDPI AG, 2012 \|g 12(2022), 5, p 671 \|w (DE-627)686948173 \|w (DE-600)2651678-0 \|x 20770472 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:12 \|g year:2022 \|g number:5, p 671
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12050671 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/c41b71be93e4491c9f445dd005fc9b3d \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/12/5/671 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/2077-0472 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_70
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 12 \|j 2022 \|e 5, p 671

Indexfelder

author_variant	w l wl z h zh w j f wjf l w lw z y zy
matchkey_str	article:20770472:2022----::suigodeuiyosmrehclikecpi
hierarchy_sort_str	2022
callnumber-subject-code	S
publishDate	2022
allfields	10.3390/agriculture12050671 doi (DE-627)DOAJ043650465 (DE-599)DOAJc41b71be93e4491c9f445dd005fc9b3d DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng S1-972 Weijun Liu verfasserin aut Assuring Food Security: Consumers’ Ethical Risk Perception of Meat Substitutes 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier The world’s growing population requires an adequate supply of protein to maintain food security, but animal protein production is limited by the finite resources of land, fresh water, and ocean capacity. Several meat substitutes offer protein alternatives that may improve food security in less-developed economies. However, perceptions of difference in the ethical risk associated with consumption of plant-based substitutes (PM) vs. cultured meat (CM) may affect purchases of these products. This study examined differences in ethical risk perception using online survey data gathered in 2020. An ordered logit technique yielded the probabilities of changes in ethical risk perception influenced by demographic attributes, views about the technology, and adequacy of industry regulations. The results show that consumers associated PM with low ethical risk. Educated consumers were more likely to agree that the ethical risks of CM are higher than PM and to regard PM products as safer than CM. Price sensitivity made consumers more likely to agree that the ethical risks related to CM are higher than those related to PM. Ingredient safety concerns increased the ethical risk perception of CM. Consumers perceiving the meat substitute classification to be unclear were more likely to assign a higher ethical risk to CM than PM. The perception of ethical risk associated with CM was greater than that associated with PM if meat substitute industry regulations were inadequate. The results suggest a need to provide verifiable information about each type of meat substitute as well as transparent and understandable standards and rules before these products can improve protein availability and food security. meat substitutes ethical risk plant-based meat cultured meat consumer perceptions Agriculture (General) Zhipeng Hao verfasserin aut Wojciech J. Florkowski verfasserin aut Linhai Wu verfasserin aut Zhengyong Yang verfasserin aut In Agriculture MDPI AG, 2012 12(2022), 5, p 671 (DE-627)686948173 (DE-600)2651678-0 20770472 nnns volume:12 year:2022 number:5, p 671 https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12050671 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/c41b71be93e4491c9f445dd005fc9b3d kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/12/5/671 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2077-0472 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 12 2022 5, p 671
spelling	10.3390/agriculture12050671 doi (DE-627)DOAJ043650465 (DE-599)DOAJc41b71be93e4491c9f445dd005fc9b3d DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng S1-972 Weijun Liu verfasserin aut Assuring Food Security: Consumers’ Ethical Risk Perception of Meat Substitutes 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier The world’s growing population requires an adequate supply of protein to maintain food security, but animal protein production is limited by the finite resources of land, fresh water, and ocean capacity. Several meat substitutes offer protein alternatives that may improve food security in less-developed economies. However, perceptions of difference in the ethical risk associated with consumption of plant-based substitutes (PM) vs. cultured meat (CM) may affect purchases of these products. This study examined differences in ethical risk perception using online survey data gathered in 2020. An ordered logit technique yielded the probabilities of changes in ethical risk perception influenced by demographic attributes, views about the technology, and adequacy of industry regulations. The results show that consumers associated PM with low ethical risk. Educated consumers were more likely to agree that the ethical risks of CM are higher than PM and to regard PM products as safer than CM. Price sensitivity made consumers more likely to agree that the ethical risks related to CM are higher than those related to PM. Ingredient safety concerns increased the ethical risk perception of CM. Consumers perceiving the meat substitute classification to be unclear were more likely to assign a higher ethical risk to CM than PM. The perception of ethical risk associated with CM was greater than that associated with PM if meat substitute industry regulations were inadequate. The results suggest a need to provide verifiable information about each type of meat substitute as well as transparent and understandable standards and rules before these products can improve protein availability and food security. meat substitutes ethical risk plant-based meat cultured meat consumer perceptions Agriculture (General) Zhipeng Hao verfasserin aut Wojciech J. Florkowski verfasserin aut Linhai Wu verfasserin aut Zhengyong Yang verfasserin aut In Agriculture MDPI AG, 2012 12(2022), 5, p 671 (DE-627)686948173 (DE-600)2651678-0 20770472 nnns volume:12 year:2022 number:5, p 671 https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12050671 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/c41b71be93e4491c9f445dd005fc9b3d kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/12/5/671 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2077-0472 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 12 2022 5, p 671
allfields_unstemmed	10.3390/agriculture12050671 doi (DE-627)DOAJ043650465 (DE-599)DOAJc41b71be93e4491c9f445dd005fc9b3d DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng S1-972 Weijun Liu verfasserin aut Assuring Food Security: Consumers’ Ethical Risk Perception of Meat Substitutes 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier The world’s growing population requires an adequate supply of protein to maintain food security, but animal protein production is limited by the finite resources of land, fresh water, and ocean capacity. Several meat substitutes offer protein alternatives that may improve food security in less-developed economies. However, perceptions of difference in the ethical risk associated with consumption of plant-based substitutes (PM) vs. cultured meat (CM) may affect purchases of these products. This study examined differences in ethical risk perception using online survey data gathered in 2020. An ordered logit technique yielded the probabilities of changes in ethical risk perception influenced by demographic attributes, views about the technology, and adequacy of industry regulations. The results show that consumers associated PM with low ethical risk. Educated consumers were more likely to agree that the ethical risks of CM are higher than PM and to regard PM products as safer than CM. Price sensitivity made consumers more likely to agree that the ethical risks related to CM are higher than those related to PM. Ingredient safety concerns increased the ethical risk perception of CM. Consumers perceiving the meat substitute classification to be unclear were more likely to assign a higher ethical risk to CM than PM. The perception of ethical risk associated with CM was greater than that associated with PM if meat substitute industry regulations were inadequate. The results suggest a need to provide verifiable information about each type of meat substitute as well as transparent and understandable standards and rules before these products can improve protein availability and food security. meat substitutes ethical risk plant-based meat cultured meat consumer perceptions Agriculture (General) Zhipeng Hao verfasserin aut Wojciech J. Florkowski verfasserin aut Linhai Wu verfasserin aut Zhengyong Yang verfasserin aut In Agriculture MDPI AG, 2012 12(2022), 5, p 671 (DE-627)686948173 (DE-600)2651678-0 20770472 nnns volume:12 year:2022 number:5, p 671 https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12050671 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/c41b71be93e4491c9f445dd005fc9b3d kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/12/5/671 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2077-0472 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 12 2022 5, p 671
allfieldsGer	10.3390/agriculture12050671 doi (DE-627)DOAJ043650465 (DE-599)DOAJc41b71be93e4491c9f445dd005fc9b3d DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng S1-972 Weijun Liu verfasserin aut Assuring Food Security: Consumers’ Ethical Risk Perception of Meat Substitutes 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier The world’s growing population requires an adequate supply of protein to maintain food security, but animal protein production is limited by the finite resources of land, fresh water, and ocean capacity. Several meat substitutes offer protein alternatives that may improve food security in less-developed economies. However, perceptions of difference in the ethical risk associated with consumption of plant-based substitutes (PM) vs. cultured meat (CM) may affect purchases of these products. This study examined differences in ethical risk perception using online survey data gathered in 2020. An ordered logit technique yielded the probabilities of changes in ethical risk perception influenced by demographic attributes, views about the technology, and adequacy of industry regulations. The results show that consumers associated PM with low ethical risk. Educated consumers were more likely to agree that the ethical risks of CM are higher than PM and to regard PM products as safer than CM. Price sensitivity made consumers more likely to agree that the ethical risks related to CM are higher than those related to PM. Ingredient safety concerns increased the ethical risk perception of CM. Consumers perceiving the meat substitute classification to be unclear were more likely to assign a higher ethical risk to CM than PM. The perception of ethical risk associated with CM was greater than that associated with PM if meat substitute industry regulations were inadequate. The results suggest a need to provide verifiable information about each type of meat substitute as well as transparent and understandable standards and rules before these products can improve protein availability and food security. meat substitutes ethical risk plant-based meat cultured meat consumer perceptions Agriculture (General) Zhipeng Hao verfasserin aut Wojciech J. Florkowski verfasserin aut Linhai Wu verfasserin aut Zhengyong Yang verfasserin aut In Agriculture MDPI AG, 2012 12(2022), 5, p 671 (DE-627)686948173 (DE-600)2651678-0 20770472 nnns volume:12 year:2022 number:5, p 671 https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12050671 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/c41b71be93e4491c9f445dd005fc9b3d kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/12/5/671 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2077-0472 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 12 2022 5, p 671
allfieldsSound	10.3390/agriculture12050671 doi (DE-627)DOAJ043650465 (DE-599)DOAJc41b71be93e4491c9f445dd005fc9b3d DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng S1-972 Weijun Liu verfasserin aut Assuring Food Security: Consumers’ Ethical Risk Perception of Meat Substitutes 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier The world’s growing population requires an adequate supply of protein to maintain food security, but animal protein production is limited by the finite resources of land, fresh water, and ocean capacity. Several meat substitutes offer protein alternatives that may improve food security in less-developed economies. However, perceptions of difference in the ethical risk associated with consumption of plant-based substitutes (PM) vs. cultured meat (CM) may affect purchases of these products. This study examined differences in ethical risk perception using online survey data gathered in 2020. An ordered logit technique yielded the probabilities of changes in ethical risk perception influenced by demographic attributes, views about the technology, and adequacy of industry regulations. The results show that consumers associated PM with low ethical risk. Educated consumers were more likely to agree that the ethical risks of CM are higher than PM and to regard PM products as safer than CM. Price sensitivity made consumers more likely to agree that the ethical risks related to CM are higher than those related to PM. Ingredient safety concerns increased the ethical risk perception of CM. Consumers perceiving the meat substitute classification to be unclear were more likely to assign a higher ethical risk to CM than PM. The perception of ethical risk associated with CM was greater than that associated with PM if meat substitute industry regulations were inadequate. The results suggest a need to provide verifiable information about each type of meat substitute as well as transparent and understandable standards and rules before these products can improve protein availability and food security. meat substitutes ethical risk plant-based meat cultured meat consumer perceptions Agriculture (General) Zhipeng Hao verfasserin aut Wojciech J. Florkowski verfasserin aut Linhai Wu verfasserin aut Zhengyong Yang verfasserin aut In Agriculture MDPI AG, 2012 12(2022), 5, p 671 (DE-627)686948173 (DE-600)2651678-0 20770472 nnns volume:12 year:2022 number:5, p 671 https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12050671 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/c41b71be93e4491c9f445dd005fc9b3d kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/12/5/671 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2077-0472 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 12 2022 5, p 671
language	English
source	In Agriculture 12(2022), 5, p 671 volume:12 year:2022 number:5, p 671
sourceStr	In Agriculture 12(2022), 5, p 671 volume:12 year:2022 number:5, p 671
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	meat substitutes ethical risk plant-based meat cultured meat consumer perceptions Agriculture (General)
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Agriculture
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Weijun Liu @@aut@@ Zhipeng Hao @@aut@@ Wojciech J. Florkowski @@aut@@ Linhai Wu @@aut@@ Zhengyong Yang @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2022-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	686948173
id	DOAJ043650465
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ043650465</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240414223539.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.3390/agriculture12050671</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ043650465</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJc41b71be93e4491c9f445dd005fc9b3d</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">S1-972</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Weijun Liu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Assuring Food Security: Consumers’ Ethical Risk Perception of Meat Substitutes</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">The world’s growing population requires an adequate supply of protein to maintain food security, but animal protein production is limited by the finite resources of land, fresh water, and ocean capacity. Several meat substitutes offer protein alternatives that may improve food security in less-developed economies. However, perceptions of difference in the ethical risk associated with consumption of plant-based substitutes (PM) vs. cultured meat (CM) may affect purchases of these products. This study examined differences in ethical risk perception using online survey data gathered in 2020. An ordered logit technique yielded the probabilities of changes in ethical risk perception influenced by demographic attributes, views about the technology, and adequacy of industry regulations. The results show that consumers associated PM with low ethical risk. Educated consumers were more likely to agree that the ethical risks of CM are higher than PM and to regard PM products as safer than CM. Price sensitivity made consumers more likely to agree that the ethical risks related to CM are higher than those related to PM. Ingredient safety concerns increased the ethical risk perception of CM. Consumers perceiving the meat substitute classification to be unclear were more likely to assign a higher ethical risk to CM than PM. The perception of ethical risk associated with CM was greater than that associated with PM if meat substitute industry regulations were inadequate. The results suggest a need to provide verifiable information about each type of meat substitute as well as transparent and understandable standards and rules before these products can improve protein availability and food security.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">meat substitutes</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">ethical risk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">plant-based meat</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">cultured meat</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">consumer perceptions</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Agriculture (General)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zhipeng Hao</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wojciech J. Florkowski</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Linhai Wu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zhengyong Yang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Agriculture</subfield><subfield code="d">MDPI AG, 2012</subfield><subfield code="g">12(2022), 5, p 671</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)686948173</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2651678-0</subfield><subfield code="x">20770472</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:12</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield><subfield code="g">number:5, p 671</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12050671</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/c41b71be93e4491c9f445dd005fc9b3d</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/12/5/671</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2077-0472</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">12</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield><subfield code="e">5, p 671</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
callnumber-first	S - Agriculture
author	Weijun Liu
spellingShingle	Weijun Liu misc S1-972 misc meat substitutes misc ethical risk misc plant-based meat misc cultured meat misc consumer perceptions misc Agriculture (General) Assuring Food Security: Consumers’ Ethical Risk Perception of Meat Substitutes
authorStr	Weijun Liu
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)686948173
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
callnumber-label	S1-972
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	20770472
topic_title	S1-972 Assuring Food Security: Consumers’ Ethical Risk Perception of Meat Substitutes meat substitutes ethical risk plant-based meat cultured meat consumer perceptions
topic	misc S1-972 misc meat substitutes misc ethical risk misc plant-based meat misc cultured meat misc consumer perceptions misc Agriculture (General)
topic_unstemmed	misc S1-972 misc meat substitutes misc ethical risk misc plant-based meat misc cultured meat misc consumer perceptions misc Agriculture (General)
topic_browse	misc S1-972 misc meat substitutes misc ethical risk misc plant-based meat misc cultured meat misc consumer perceptions misc Agriculture (General)
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Agriculture
hierarchy_parent_id	686948173
hierarchy_top_title	Agriculture
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)686948173 (DE-600)2651678-0
title	Assuring Food Security: Consumers’ Ethical Risk Perception of Meat Substitutes
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ043650465 (DE-599)DOAJc41b71be93e4491c9f445dd005fc9b3d
title_full	Assuring Food Security: Consumers’ Ethical Risk Perception of Meat Substitutes
author_sort	Weijun Liu
journal	Agriculture
journalStr	Agriculture
callnumber-first-code	S
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2022
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Weijun Liu Zhipeng Hao Wojciech J. Florkowski Linhai Wu Zhengyong Yang
container_volume	12
class	S1-972
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Weijun Liu
doi_str_mv	10.3390/agriculture12050671
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	assuring food security: consumers’ ethical risk perception of meat substitutes
callnumber	S1-972
title_auth	Assuring Food Security: Consumers’ Ethical Risk Perception of Meat Substitutes
abstract	The world’s growing population requires an adequate supply of protein to maintain food security, but animal protein production is limited by the finite resources of land, fresh water, and ocean capacity. Several meat substitutes offer protein alternatives that may improve food security in less-developed economies. However, perceptions of difference in the ethical risk associated with consumption of plant-based substitutes (PM) vs. cultured meat (CM) may affect purchases of these products. This study examined differences in ethical risk perception using online survey data gathered in 2020. An ordered logit technique yielded the probabilities of changes in ethical risk perception influenced by demographic attributes, views about the technology, and adequacy of industry regulations. The results show that consumers associated PM with low ethical risk. Educated consumers were more likely to agree that the ethical risks of CM are higher than PM and to regard PM products as safer than CM. Price sensitivity made consumers more likely to agree that the ethical risks related to CM are higher than those related to PM. Ingredient safety concerns increased the ethical risk perception of CM. Consumers perceiving the meat substitute classification to be unclear were more likely to assign a higher ethical risk to CM than PM. The perception of ethical risk associated with CM was greater than that associated with PM if meat substitute industry regulations were inadequate. The results suggest a need to provide verifiable information about each type of meat substitute as well as transparent and understandable standards and rules before these products can improve protein availability and food security.
abstractGer	The world’s growing population requires an adequate supply of protein to maintain food security, but animal protein production is limited by the finite resources of land, fresh water, and ocean capacity. Several meat substitutes offer protein alternatives that may improve food security in less-developed economies. However, perceptions of difference in the ethical risk associated with consumption of plant-based substitutes (PM) vs. cultured meat (CM) may affect purchases of these products. This study examined differences in ethical risk perception using online survey data gathered in 2020. An ordered logit technique yielded the probabilities of changes in ethical risk perception influenced by demographic attributes, views about the technology, and adequacy of industry regulations. The results show that consumers associated PM with low ethical risk. Educated consumers were more likely to agree that the ethical risks of CM are higher than PM and to regard PM products as safer than CM. Price sensitivity made consumers more likely to agree that the ethical risks related to CM are higher than those related to PM. Ingredient safety concerns increased the ethical risk perception of CM. Consumers perceiving the meat substitute classification to be unclear were more likely to assign a higher ethical risk to CM than PM. The perception of ethical risk associated with CM was greater than that associated with PM if meat substitute industry regulations were inadequate. The results suggest a need to provide verifiable information about each type of meat substitute as well as transparent and understandable standards and rules before these products can improve protein availability and food security.
abstract_unstemmed	The world’s growing population requires an adequate supply of protein to maintain food security, but animal protein production is limited by the finite resources of land, fresh water, and ocean capacity. Several meat substitutes offer protein alternatives that may improve food security in less-developed economies. However, perceptions of difference in the ethical risk associated with consumption of plant-based substitutes (PM) vs. cultured meat (CM) may affect purchases of these products. This study examined differences in ethical risk perception using online survey data gathered in 2020. An ordered logit technique yielded the probabilities of changes in ethical risk perception influenced by demographic attributes, views about the technology, and adequacy of industry regulations. The results show that consumers associated PM with low ethical risk. Educated consumers were more likely to agree that the ethical risks of CM are higher than PM and to regard PM products as safer than CM. Price sensitivity made consumers more likely to agree that the ethical risks related to CM are higher than those related to PM. Ingredient safety concerns increased the ethical risk perception of CM. Consumers perceiving the meat substitute classification to be unclear were more likely to assign a higher ethical risk to CM than PM. The perception of ethical risk associated with CM was greater than that associated with PM if meat substitute industry regulations were inadequate. The results suggest a need to provide verifiable information about each type of meat substitute as well as transparent and understandable standards and rules before these products can improve protein availability and food security.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	5, p 671
title_short	Assuring Food Security: Consumers’ Ethical Risk Perception of Meat Substitutes
url	https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12050671 https://doaj.org/article/c41b71be93e4491c9f445dd005fc9b3d https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/12/5/671 https://doaj.org/toc/2077-0472
remote_bool	true
author2	Zhipeng Hao Wojciech J. Florkowski Linhai Wu Zhengyong Yang
author2Str	Zhipeng Hao Wojciech J. Florkowski Linhai Wu Zhengyong Yang
ppnlink	686948173
callnumber-subject	S - General Agriculture
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.3390/agriculture12050671
callnumber-a	S1-972
up_date	2024-07-03T18:42:49.786Z
_version_	1803584452466573312
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ043650465</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240414223539.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.3390/agriculture12050671</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ043650465</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJc41b71be93e4491c9f445dd005fc9b3d</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">S1-972</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Weijun Liu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Assuring Food Security: Consumers’ Ethical Risk Perception of Meat Substitutes</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">The world’s growing population requires an adequate supply of protein to maintain food security, but animal protein production is limited by the finite resources of land, fresh water, and ocean capacity. Several meat substitutes offer protein alternatives that may improve food security in less-developed economies. However, perceptions of difference in the ethical risk associated with consumption of plant-based substitutes (PM) vs. cultured meat (CM) may affect purchases of these products. This study examined differences in ethical risk perception using online survey data gathered in 2020. An ordered logit technique yielded the probabilities of changes in ethical risk perception influenced by demographic attributes, views about the technology, and adequacy of industry regulations. The results show that consumers associated PM with low ethical risk. Educated consumers were more likely to agree that the ethical risks of CM are higher than PM and to regard PM products as safer than CM. Price sensitivity made consumers more likely to agree that the ethical risks related to CM are higher than those related to PM. Ingredient safety concerns increased the ethical risk perception of CM. Consumers perceiving the meat substitute classification to be unclear were more likely to assign a higher ethical risk to CM than PM. The perception of ethical risk associated with CM was greater than that associated with PM if meat substitute industry regulations were inadequate. The results suggest a need to provide verifiable information about each type of meat substitute as well as transparent and understandable standards and rules before these products can improve protein availability and food security.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">meat substitutes</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">ethical risk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">plant-based meat</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">cultured meat</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">consumer perceptions</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Agriculture (General)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zhipeng Hao</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wojciech J. Florkowski</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Linhai Wu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zhengyong Yang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Agriculture</subfield><subfield code="d">MDPI AG, 2012</subfield><subfield code="g">12(2022), 5, p 671</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)686948173</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2651678-0</subfield><subfield code="x">20770472</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:12</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield><subfield code="g">number:5, p 671</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12050671</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/c41b71be93e4491c9f445dd005fc9b3d</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/12/5/671</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2077-0472</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">12</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield><subfield code="e">5, p 671</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.400918

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Assuring Food Security: Consumers’ Ethical Risk Perception of Meat Substitutes

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?