Scoping Review Parents’ and Children’s Perceptions and Attitudes Towards Traditional and Novel Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: A Scoping Review Ai Ting Goh 1,2; Yunfan Mo 1,2; Jessica C. McCormack 1; Indrawati Oey 2,3; Joanne Hort 2,4; Mei Peng 1,2,� 1Sensory Neuroscience and Nutrition Lab (SENNSE LAB), Department of Food Science, University of Otago, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand; 2Riddet Institute, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand; 3Department of Food Science, University of Otago, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand; 4Feast Lab, Massey University, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand �Corresponding Author: Mei Peng, Sensory Neuroscience and Nutrition Lab (SENNSE LAB), Department of Food Science, University of Otago, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand (mei.peng@otago.ac.nz). The growing popularity of plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) as a sustainable dietary option highlights the need to understand family perceptions to support their integration into daily diets. Early-life food preferences often stem from parents or caregivers. This scoping review synthesized existing findings on parents’ and children’s perceptions of traditional and novel PBMAs and identified motivators and barriers to adopting them in family meals. A comprehensive search across 5 databases (Nutrition and Food Sciences, Web of Science, Global Health, Scopus, PsycINFO) was performed on April 1, 2024, using predefined terms. The review adhered to Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology and PRISMA-ScR reporting guidelines. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess study quality. Twenty studies were identified: 5 articles on parents or caregivers, 11 studies on children, and 4 articles on parent–child dyads. Parents were more accepting of tra ditional PBMAs (eg, lentils, tofu, beans, chickpeas), but expressed concerns over the nutritional adequacy, sodium content, and processing of novel PBMAs. Among parents who were non-regular users, traditional PBMAs were viewed mainly as a textural enhancement rather than a nutrient source. By contrast, children were generally more receptive to novel PBMAs compared with parents, particularly when products resembled meat and were linked to environmental and animal wel fare benefits. For both parents and children, taste emerged as the primary driver for repeated consumption. Strategies to increase PBMA uptake in families should be focusing on improving the sensory appeal and nutritional profile of these prod ucts, enhancing product transparency around ingredients and processing technolo gies, and providing tailored nutrition education that aligns with existing knowledge and cooking skills. Family-based interventions that address both parental concerns and children’s motivations may be particularly effective in positioning PBMAs as an accepted component of everyday family meals. Systematic Review Registration: Open Science Framework identifier osf.io/98n7r. Key words: family food choices, consumer behaviour, food preferences. © The Author(s) 2025. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Life Sciences Institute. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permis- sions@oup.com. https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuaf257 Nutrition ReviewsVR Vol. 00(00):1–24 1 D ow nloaded from https://academ ic.oup.com /nutritionreview s/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nutrit/nuaf257/8407872 by M assey U niversity user on 16 M arch 2026 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5485-208X https://orcid.org/0009-0001-8954-5714 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6389-9610 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9966-0495 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8609-4543 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6986-2974 INTRODUCTION Plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) encompass a wide spectrum of foods, from long-established plant protein sources, such as legumes, tofu, and tempeh, to highly engineered products designed to closely mimic the taste, texture, and appearance of meat. In this review, we distinguish traditional PBMAs—that is, protein-rich plant foods in their original or minimally processed forms (eg, coagulation, fermentation, cur dling)—from novel PBMAs, which undergo substantial processing (eg, high-moisture extrusion, shear cell tech nology, or 3D printing) and are typically formulated from plant protein isolates, mycoprotein, or grain/ legume derivatives to replicate meat-based sensory pro files. This scoping review examines how parents and children perceive and respond to both traditional and novel PBMAs, the factors that motivate or deter their consumption, and strategies that may increase accept ance in household and community settings. Traditional PBMAs have been consumed for centu ries in many cultures, particularly Asia.1 In contrast, novel PBMAs have emerged more recently, driven by consumers’ growing awareness in health,2 environmen tal sustainability and ethical concerns,3 alongside advan ces in food-processing technologies allowing for improved sensory profiles.4,5 The global market for novel plant-based protein was valued at US dollars (USD) 15.7 billion in 2024 and is projected to reach USD 25.2 billion within 5 years,6 signaling a major shift in protein-consumption patterns. Nutritionally, with protein sources, animal proteins are considered the “gold standard” due to their com plete profile of 9 essential amino acids with high bioa vailability.7 In this context, traditional plant proteins are often regarded “incomplete,” as they tend to lack one or more essential amino acids, typically lysine or methio nine.7 Due to differences in their chemical structures and the presence of antinutrients (compounds that block absorption), traditional plant proteins are less bio available than animal proteins.8,9 However, combining different plant protein sources can allow individuals to achieve “complete protein” nutrition from plant sour ces.10 Moreover, traditional plant proteins have been linked to numerous health benefits, including improved metabolic responses and reduction in risks of type 2 diabetes and obesity.11–13 Novel PBMAs are generally able to provide com plete amino acid profiles equivalent to those of animal- based proteins, taking advantages of advanced process ing techniques.14 Yet, empirical findings on their health effects remain mixed. Some studies show that novel PBMAs have similar metabolic responses to animal pro teins,15 while others even suggest benefits for glycemic control and cardiovascular biomarkers.16–18 However, notably, concerns remain over their typically high sodium content,19 usage of food additives,20 and low bioavailability of nutrients such as non-heme iron.21 Previous studies of PBMA burger patties showed twice as high sodium content as conventional meat pat ties.22,23 Furthermore, although food additives in novel PBMAs are generally recognized as safe, uses of carra geenan24–26 and methylcellulose in these products have been linked to potential gastrointestinal discomfort.27,28 With the rapid evolution of the food landscape and the anticipated continuation of this trend under envi ronmental pressure to adopt PBMAs, an increasing number of young parents are choosing plant-based diets for themselves and their children.29 Indeed, parents play a pivotal role in shaping their children’s dietary preferences during the early years through making the primary food decisions30 and demonstrating eating pat terns at meals.31 Children’s eating behavior often fol lows through into adulthood, where individuals continue to make similar food decisions even after liv ing independently.32 Additionally, compared with gen eral consumers, parents have been shown to have a distinct decision-making process for food pur chases.33,34 Practical considerations related to family needs, such as accommodating children’s preferences, satisfying children’s tastes, and using foods as rewards, have been identified as barriers to purchasing healthy foods.34–37 Individual food acceptance and choices are largely shaped by environments around them. The likelihood of adults to try “novel” foods (ie, food that is not com monly part of a person’s typical diet or food created using innovative technologies)38 when they are with family and friends is higher, as opposed to when eating alone.39,40 For children, the food environment outside of home may differ from the environment of their habitual food intake. In school settings, peer modeling has been shown to increase children’s willingness to eat.41,42 The broader exposure to a wider variety of foods outside of the home can influence children’s taste and preferences, potentially altering their food choices and acceptance at home.43 Aside from genetic factors,44 children’s food prefer ences are largely moderated by exposure, familiarity, and taste.45,46 For example, Birch and Marlin47 demon strated that repeated exposure to novel dairy products and fruits increased children’s preference to these foods, highlighting the effect of repeated exposure on shaping food preference. In addition, strategies such as behavio ral modeling,48 repeated exposure,49 and use of reward50 have been shown to be effective in promoting acceptance and sustained consumption of novel foods in children. 2 Nutrition ReviewsVR Vol. 00(00):1–24 D ow nloaded from https://academ ic.oup.com /nutritionreview s/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nutrit/nuaf257/8407872 by M assey U niversity user on 16 M arch 2026 Assessing consumer behaviors within a family unit offers a holistic view of cross-generational purchasing habits and how household members influence each oth er’s decisions.51,52 For instance, previous research shows that the younger generation tends to select similar food brands as their parents, suggesting brand loyalty can be transmitted intergenerationally.53 A person’s perception towards PBMAs can influ ence their attitude in food choices and habitual intake. Perception refers to the interpretation of information based on prior experiences, expectations, and situational context.54,55 Attitude, in contrast, is a learned predispo sition—positive or negative—accompanied by emo tional responses towards a behavioral intention.56,57 While perception is dynamic and readily influenced by new information or experiences,58 attitudes are grounded beliefs, values, and emotions, which are more difficult to modify in the immediate term.57 Understanding both parents’ and children’s atti tudes toward traditional and novel PBMAs can unravel their different concerns, motivations, and barriers to incorporating these products into household meals. Identifying the similarities and differences in perceptual gaps between parents and children can provide insights to foster broader consumer adoption and market growth, ultimately supporting the wider acceptance of PBMAs into family diets, and contributing to a more sustainable and health-conscious food environment for future generations. To our best knowledge, no scoping reviews have simultaneously examined the perceptions of both parents and children regarding PBMAs. The current scoping review thus aims to: • Review perceptions of parents and children regarding PBMAs and understand their motivators and barriers to adopting PBMAs; and • Synthesize empirical data concerning parents’ and children’s acceptance or willingness to consume PBMAs in household or community settings. Key research questions comprised the following: How do parents and children perceive PBMAs?; what are the key factors that motivate or deter parents and children from consuming PBMAs?; and what are the intervention strategies available to increase PBMA acceptance and willingness to consume? METHODS This scoping review was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology59 and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR)60 (Appendix S3). The protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/98n7r) on March 28, 2024, and updated on December 24, 2024. Search Strategy Database searches were conducted on April 1, 2024, using the following sources: Nutrition and Food Sciences (CABI), Web of Science (all databases), Global Health (via Ovid), Scopus, and PsycINFO (via Ovid). A detailed list of key word search terms is provided in the Appendix S1. Gray literature searches were performed using ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global (PQDT Global, Ann Arbor, MI, USA) and the research reposi tories of 8 New Zealand universities. Following the screening process, authors A.T.G. and Y.M. manually reviewed the reference lists of included studies to iden tify additional relevant publications. Corresponding authors of the included studies were contacted to inquire about any previously published manuscripts on related topics. Figure 1 presents a flow diagram outlin ing the process. Study Selection All records identified through the database search were exported to the free version of Rayyan software (Qatar Computing Research Institute, Doha, Qatar) for eligibil ity screening. Duplicates were removed by A.T.G. using Rayyan’s automated tool. Two reviewers (A.T.G.: 100%; Y.M.: 100%) independently screened titles, abstracts, and key words using a blind review process. A 30% vali dation was conducted by a third reviewer (J.C.M.). The selected studies were then independently reviewed by A. T.G. and Y.M. to determine eligibility. If there were dis agreements between the reviewers (A.T.G. and Y.M.), a third independent reviewer (J.C.M.) adjudicated to help reach a joint consensus. The eligibility criteria, devel oped to define the 3 main concepts, are outlined in Table 1. The key outcomes extracted focus on individuals’ perceptions and attitudes towards PBMAs. Acceptance and willingness to consume or purchase PBMAs are considered indicators of readiness for adopting PBMAs. Given the limited availability of studies primarily focus ing on parents, children, or families, this review included publications with quantitative data, qualitative data, and mixed-methods approaches. Considering the relatively recent interest in plant-based diets, the searches were restricted to publications from the past 30 years. Only literature written in English was included, with no restrictions on geographic region. Reviews (narrative or systematic), commentaries, Nutrition ReviewsVR Vol. 00(00):1–24 3 D ow nloaded from https://academ ic.oup.com /nutritionreview s/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nutrit/nuaf257/8407872 by M assey U niversity user on 16 M arch 2026 https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/nutrit/nuaf257#supplementary-data https://osf.io/98n7r https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/nutrit/nuaf257#supplementary-data Figure 1. Flow Diagram of Data Selection Process Abbreviations: PB, plant-based; PBMA, plant-based meat alternatives. Table 1. Criteria for Inclusion and Exclusion of Studies Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria Participants Healthy population of parents, primary caregivers, and children. Parents: An individual with a biological or legal responsibility for the care, upbringing, and development of a child Primary caregivers: An individual predominantly responsible for the child’s meals Children: An individual under the age of 18 y (WHO) Non-human study population Population with specified health conditions Study population without information on parents, caregivers, or child subset Adolescents above 18 y Concepts Perceptions and attitudes towards PBMAs Motivators and barriers in consuming PBMAs Existing empirical data or interventions focused on family and children on acceptance or willingness to try PBMAs Unclear PBMA definition Defined PBMA that did not meet scoping review’s definition Insect protein products, plant-based dairy alternatives Intake or purchase data without information on acceptance or willingness to try Context Home, family, or community setting Hospital Abbreviations: PBMA, plant-based meat alternative; WHO, World Health Organization. 4 Nutrition ReviewsVR Vol. 00(00):1–24 D ow nloaded from https://academ ic.oup.com /nutritionreview s/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nutrit/nuaf257/8407872 by M assey U niversity user on 16 M arch 2026 opinion pieces, and conference abstracts were excluded from this review. Data Charting Process Information from all eligible studies was extracted into a standardized Microsoft® Excel® for Microsoft 365 spread sheet (Microsoft Corporation, 2024, Redmond, WA, USA) by A.T.G. and reviewed by Y.M. Any disagreements were discussed and resolved between the reviewers. The extracted information included the following: study char acteristics (year of publication, country of origin, study design), participant characteristics (age, gender, and eth nicity), methodology, outcome data, criteria used to define “plant-based” in the study, protein type and protein sour ces, and main findings. Outcome data included sample size and outcome measures for child and parent groups, including perceptions of PBMAs, attitude towards PBMAs, factors motivating or deterring PBMA consump tion, strategies for providing PBMAs, and intake or ratings of PBMAs before and after consumption or purchase. For studies that did not provide the necessary data within the publication, corresponding authors were contacted to obtain the original data. Study Risk-of-Bias Assessment The methodological quality of all included studies was evaluated using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT),61 with no studies excluded during this proc ess. Given the various study designs included in this review, MMAT can assess the overall quality of the included studies. Synthesis Method This review used narrative synthesis to summarize and interpret the characteristics and findings of the identi fied studies in relation to the research questions. The studies were grouped by populations (ie, parents, care givers, or children) and study designs; definitions of PBMAs, measurement methods, and key findings are summarized in Tables 2 and 3. RESULTS The search identified 7465 records, of which 2080 were duplicates (Figure 1). The remaining 5385 records were screened based on titles, key words, and abstracts. Of these, 5270 records were excluded due to clear irrele vance, such as studies involving non-human subjects, incorrect target populations, or research unrelated to plant-based topics. The remaining 115 records was examined in full text, and 105 records were excluded for failing to meet the inclusion criteria. Ten articles from the databases were included, with an additional 10 articles identified through forward citation, reference lists of included studies, and database alerts. In total, 20 records were included in the scoping review. The MMAT quality assessment of all included studies is summarized in Appendix S2. The results showed that all 20 records met the screening criteria. All qualitative studies (n¼ 7) showed high quality, with 5 out of 5 experimental design and outcome data quality criteria evaluated as “yes.” Eleven (out of 13) quantitative stud ies showed moderate quality, meeting at least 3 out of 5 criteria, with the remaining 2 quantitative studies meet ing only 2 out of 5 criteria due to unclear study design, completeness of outcome data, and analysis execution. Of the 20 studies identified, 7 were qualitative stud ies and 13 were quantitative studies. There were 5 stud ies on parents or caregivers, 11 studies on children, and 4 studies on parent–child dyads. The findings were pub lished between 2010 to 2025 on different types of PBMAs: traditional PBMAs (eg, lentils, tofu, beans, chickpeas) and novel PBMAs (plant-derived meat ana logs, eg, pea-based and soy-based). Intervention studies were conducted in both schools or community settings (n¼ 8) and home settings (n¼ 2), while quantitative non-intervention studies were carried out in schools or community settings (n¼ 3) and online (n¼ 1). Parents’ Perceptions of PBMAs Table 2 62-70 summarizes the studies on parents’ per ceptions and attitudes regarding PBMAs. The key find ings are coded by theme: awareness and knowledge; attitude towards specific protein sources in PBMAs; family (parent) or familiarity (child); acceptance and preferences. A total of 9 studies were identified, with 2 studies carried out in Asia and 7 studies were conducted in Western counterparts. The studies focused on only parents were conducted in Canada (n¼ 2), while parent–child dyad studies were conducted in Canada (n¼ 1), Denmark (n¼ 1), the Netherlands (n¼ 1), and Singapore (n¼ 1). For 3 studies, parents’ responses as subdata were extracted from population/consumer studies in Australia (n¼ 1), China (n¼ 1), and the Netherlands (n¼ 1). There were more non-intervention studies (n¼ 6) than empirical studies (n¼ 3) focused on parents or caregivers. Amongst the 4 qualitative studies, 2 included novel and traditional PBMAs,63,65 1 study focused on only novel PBMAs,70 and 1 study included only traditional PBMAs.62 Out of the 5 quantitative studies, there were 2 on both novel and traditional proteins,64,68 2 others on traditional proteins,66,67 and 1 study on a novel Nutrition ReviewsVR Vol. 00(00):1–24 5 D ow nloaded from https://academ ic.oup.com /nutritionreview s/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nutrit/nuaf257/8407872 by M assey U niversity user on 16 M arch 2026 https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/nutrit/nuaf257#supplementary-data Ta bl e 2. S tu di es o n Pa re nt s’ Pe rc ep tio ns a nd A tt itu de s Re ga rd in g Pl an t- Ba se d M ea t A lte rn at iv es St ud y (y ea r) Co un tr y Sa m pl e si ze a nd a ge PB M A d ef in it io n O ut co m e m ea su re Pr ot ei n ty pe a nd so ur ce s Ke y fi nd in gs Q ua lit at iv e, n on -in te rv en ti on An an t e t a l (2 02 5) 70 ,a Si ng ap or e n ¼ 19 Ag ed 3 8 to 5 6 y ol d; pa re nt s of c hi ld re n ag ed 9 to 1 5 y ol d N ov el P BM As 1. S el f- re po rt ed a w ar e ne ss o f P BM As , p re vi ou s co ns um pt io n an d w ill in gn es s to co ns um e 2. P er ce pt io ns , b el ie fs an d m ot iv at io ns o n PB M As Ty pe : n ov el So ur ce s: n ot s pe ci fie d Aw ar en es s an d kn ow le dg e -A w ar en es s ab ou t P BM As : 7 3. 3% -G re at er fo od te ch no lo gy n eo ph ob ia a nd s om e pe r ce iv ed a s ov er ly p ro ce ss ed o r a rt ifi ci al -R ef er to s oc ia l m ed ia a nd n at io na l g ui de lin es fo r in fo rm at io n ab ou t P BM As -C on ce rn ed a bo ut n ut rit io na l p ro pe rt ie s -S om e qu es tio ne d th e su st ai na bi lit y cl ai m s of n ov el PB M As -F in d it ch al le ng in g to c oo k or p re pa re n ov el P BM As co m pa re d w ith a ni m al -b as ed p ro te in In flu en ce o f f am ily -M or e lik el y to tr y if in tr od uc ed b y fa m ily , f rie nd s, o r so ci al s et tin gs Ac ce pt an ce a nd p re fe re nc es -C on su m ed P BM As p re vi ou sl y: 5 2. 6% -W ill in gn es s to c on su m e: 8 9. 5% -O pe n to in co rp or at e fo r v ar ie ty a nd /o r r ed uc in g tr a di tio na l m ea t i nt ak e -A va ila bi lit y of n ov el P BM As a t s up er m ar ke ts , r es ta u ra nt s, a nd fo od c en te rs in cr ea se d w ill in gn es s to co ns um e -A nt ic ip at es n ov el P BM As to ta st e lik e an im al p ro te in -W ill in gn es s to p ur ch as e de pe nd s on c hi ld re n’ s pr ef er en ce s an d nu tr iti on al n ee ds Ba rc o Le m e et a l (2 02 2) 62 Ca na da n ¼ 40 Ag ed 2 5 to 5 4 y ol d; pa re nt s of c hi ld re n ag ed 2 to 1 2 y ol d Pr ot ei n fr om s ou rc es ot he r t ha n m ea t Pe rc ep tio n on P BM As Ty pe : t ra di tio na l So ur ce s: n ot s pe ci fie d Aw ar en es s an d kn ow le dg e -U na w ar e ab ou t P BM As -L ac k of k no w le dg e an d gu id an ce o n w ha t t he p ro te in p la nt s ar e (e g, a si de fr om le nt ils ) a nd h ow to pr ep ar e -P ro ce ss ed P BM As v ie w ed a s “u nh ea lth y” -L ac k of in fo rm at io n on h ow to in te gr at e PB M As a t fa m ily m ea ls G ro en e t a l (2 02 5) 63 N et he rla nd s n ¼ 11 b Ag ed 3 0 to 4 3 y ol d; un sp ec ifi ed c hi ld a ge Tr ad iti on al p la nt p ro te in s: b ea ns , l en til s, le gu m es , a nd m ea t an al og s Fl ex ita ria n’ s pe rc ep tio n on P BM As Ty pe : n ov el a nd t ra di tio na l So ur ce s: le gu m es (b ea ns a nd le nt ils ); m ea t a na lo gs (n ot sp ec ifi ed ) Aw ar en es s an d kn ow le dg e -L ac k of ti m e, k no w le dg e, o r s ki lls in fi nd in g au th en tic p la nt -b as ed re ci pe s -K ee n to le ar n ne w v eg et ar ia n re ci pe s bu t s tr ug gl ed w ith fi nd in g su bs tit ut es a nd re ci pe s -L im ite d av ai la bi lit y of n ov el P BM As , s ug ge st ed fo r su pe rm ar ke ts to p ro vi de m or e in fo rm at io n ab ou t PB M As (c on tin ue d) 6 Nutrition ReviewsVR Vol. 00(00):1–24 D ow nloaded from https://academ ic.oup.com /nutritionreview s/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nutrit/nuaf257/8407872 by M assey U niversity user on 16 M arch 2026 Ta bl e 2. C on tin ue d St ud y (y ea r) Co un tr y Sa m pl e si ze a nd a ge PB M A d ef in it io n O ut co m e m ea su re Pr ot ei n ty pe a nd so ur ce s Ke y fi nd in gs At tit ud e to w ar ds s pe ci fic p ro te in s ou rc es -P er ce iv ed p ul se s an d nu ts a s in gr ed ie nt s th at a dd te xt ur e to m ea ls ra th er t ha n m ea t a lte rn at iv e In flu en ce o f f am ily -In co rp or at in g PB M As d ep en ds o n ch ild re n’ s pr ef er en ce s (e g, d is lik es o f b ea ns ) -S ug ge st ed to e at m or e pl an t- ba se d m ea ls fr om in fo rm at io n th ey le ar ne d in s ch oo l o r n ew s (e g, en vi ro nm en t, he al th , a nd a ni m al w el fa re ed uc at io n) Ac ce pt an ce a nd p re fe re nc es -P ur ch as e of m ea t i m ita tio ns is ra re -P re fe r t o cr ea te m ea ls th at a re in he re nt ly m ea t- fr ee -E xp re ss ed in te re st to tr y no ve l P BM As b ut o ft en d is ap po in te d by th e ta st e (e g, v eg et ar ia n sm ok ed sa us ag e) . -S om e pr ef er re d no ve l P BM As fo r h ig hl y pr oc es se d m ea t p ro du ct s (e g, v eg et ar ia n sa us ag e) -M en tio ne d th at th ei r c hi ld re n w er e un ab le to te ll ap ar t m ea t- a nd p la nt -b as ed m ea ls Pa te r et a l ( 20 25 )65 ,a N et he rla nd s n ¼ 36 Ag ed 3 1 to 6 7 y ol d; pa re nt s of c hi ld re n ag ed 9 to 1 1 y ol d Tr ad iti on al p la nt p ro te in s an d m ea t an al og s 1. D riv er s an d ba rr ie rs to P BM A co ns um p tio n 2. W ill in gn es s to a do pt PB M As w ith in th e fa m ily in a h yp ot he ti ca l s itu at io n 3. P er sp ec tiv es o n PB M A tr an si tio n w ith in th e fa m ily Ty pe : n ov el a nd t ra di tio na l So ur ce s: n ot s pe ci fie d In flu en ce o f f am ily -P la nt -b as ed tr an si tio n fo r c hi ld re n: o ffe rin g PB M As an d al lo w in g ch ild re n tim e to g et u se d to th em Ac ce pt an ce a nd p re fe re nc es -T op 4 d riv er s: ta st e, h ea lth in es s, e nv iro nm en t, in co r po ra tio n in to m ea ls -T op 5 b ar rie rs : t as te , f am ili ar ity , l ac k he al th in es s, na tu ra ln es s, a nd c on ve ni en ce -M os t c ar eg iv er s di sp la ye d w ill in gn es s to s ub st itu te an im al -b as ed fo od s w ith p la nt -b as ed , d ep en di ng on e as e, ta st e, a nd e at in g co nt ex t. -P la nt -b as ed tr an si tio n st ra te gi es : l ow er p ric e, re ci pe pr ov is io n, im pr ov e ta st e an d se ns or y qu al iti es , a nd in cr ea se a va ila bi lit y an d in fo rm at io n ab ou t su st ai na bi lit y Q ua nt it at iv e, n on -in te rv en ti on M al ek a nd U m be rg er (2 02 3) 64 Au st ra lia n ¼ un sp ec ifi ed c U ns pe ci fie d ag e; w ith ch ild re n < 18 y o ld in th e ho us eh ol d Pl an t- ba se d pr ot ei n fo od s (b ea ns /p ea s/ le nt ils , a nd m ea t al te rn at iv es ; e g, to fu , te m pe h, s ei ta n, v eg gi e bu rg er s, p la nt - ba se d m in ce ) In te re st in P BM As am on g no n- bu ye rs an d bu ye rs v ia o nl in e su rv ey Ty pe : n ov el a nd t ra di tio na l So ur ce s: le gu m es (b ea ns , l en til s, p ea s) ; so y (t of u, te m pe h) ; w he at g lu te n (s ei ta n) ; p la nt -b as ed m in ce (n ot s pe ci fie d) Ac ce pt an ce a nd p re fe re nc es -M os t p ar en ts h ad e ith er b ou gh t o r e xp re ss ed in te r es t i n PB M As (4 3. 7% ); am on g bu ye rs w ho ex pr es se d in te re st , h ig he st p ro po rt io n ar e (1 ) op en to a ll pr ot ei n so ur ce s (8 6. 4% ), fo llo w ed b y (2 ) “ in di ffe re nt ” (3 1. 9% ), (3 ) p re fe r P BM As (3 9. 2% ), (4 ) p re fe r P BM As b ut a ve rs e to s om e no ve l a lte rn a tiv es (4 7. 2% ), (5 ) p re fe r s om e PB M As b ut a ve rs e to no ve l a lte rn at iv es (3 8. 2% ), (6 ) a ve rs e to a ll pr ot ei n al te rn at iv e so ur ce s (8 % ) (c on tin ue d) Nutrition ReviewsVR Vol. 00(00):1–24 7 D ow nloaded from https://academ ic.oup.com /nutritionreview s/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nutrit/nuaf257/8407872 by M assey U niversity user on 16 M arch 2026 Ta bl e 2. C on tin ue d St ud y (y ea r) Co un tr y Sa m pl e si ze a nd a ge PB M A d ef in it io n O ut co m e m ea su re Pr ot ei n ty pe a nd so ur ce s Ke y fi nd in gs Ph ill ip s et a l (2 01 4) 66 Ca na da n ¼ 40 1 < 25 to 6 5 y ol d; c ar e gi ve rs o f c hi ld re n ag ed 3 –1 1 y ol d Le nt ils Pe rc ep tio n on b en ef its an d ba rr ie rs to w ar ds le nt ils v ia s el f- ad m in is te re d qu es tio nn ai re Ty pe : t ra di tio na l So ur ce s: le gu m es (le nt ils ) Aw ar en es s an d kn ow le dg e -P er ce iv ed a s “h ea lth fu l” an d go od fo r t he c hi ld (9 1% ) -L ow u se rs e xp re ss ed th e la ck o f c ul in ar y sk ill s to pr ep ar e, a nd b el ie ve th at le nt ils m ay n ot b e w el l lik ed b y th ei r f am ily -N o as so ci at io n be tw ee n kn ow le dg e an d in ta ke -W ea k as so ci at io n be tw ee n nu tr iti on k no w le dg e an d pe rc ei ve d be ne fit s an d ba rr ie rs At tit ud e to w ar ds s pe ci fic p ro te in s ou rc es -F re qu en t u se rs p er ce iv ed a s “h ea lth fu l” an d go od fo r t he c hi ld -L ow u se rs e xp re ss ed th e la ck o f c ul in ar y sk ill s to pr ep ar e, a nd b el ie ve th at le nt ils m ay n ot b e w el l lik ed b y th ei r f am ily In flu en ce o f f am ily -P ar en ta l m od el in g is b el ie ve d to e nc ou ra ge th ei r ch ild to c on su m e m or e le nt ils (8 0% ) -P ar en ts a re le ss in cl in ed to p re pa re le nt il- ba se d di sh es fr eq ue nt ly if th ei r c hi ld d oe s no t e nj oy (7 6% ) Ac ce pt an ce a nd p re fe re nc es -M od er at e as so ci at io n be tw ee n in ta ke a nd to ta l be lie f s co re s (r ¼ 0. 40 , P < .0 1) Q ua nt it at iv e, o bs er va ti on al a nd in te rv en ti on Ec ke rt e t a l (2 02 5) 67 ,a Ca na da n ¼ 33 M ea n ag e: 4 1. 5 y ol d; pa re nt s of c hi ld re n ag ed 9 to 1 4 y ol d Pl an t- ba se d pr ot ei ns (e g, le gu m es , b ea ns , le nt ils , t of u, te m pe h, te xt ur ed v eg et ab le pr ot ei n, n ut s, s ee ds ) Pr e- a nd p os t- ho m e in te rv en tio n (o nl in e m od ul es a nd c oo ki ng cl as se s ov er 4 m o) : 1. P BM A in ta ke a t ho m e an d ov er al l 2. A tt itu de s, p er ce iv ed be ha vi or al c on tr ol , an d in te nt io ns Ty pe : t ra di tio na l P BM As So ur ce s: le gu m es (b ea ns , l en til s) ; s oy (t of u, te m pe h, te x tu re d ve ge ta bl e pr o te in ); nu ts ; s ee ds Ac ce pt an ce a nd p re fe re nc es -N o si gn ifi ca nt c ha ng es in p la nt -b as ed fo od in ta ke fo r t he m ai n m ea l a t h om e (e st im at ed in ta ke a t th e fa m ily le ve l) -S ig ni fic an t i nc re as e in o ve ra ll PB M A in ta ke a t p os t in te rv en tio n co m pa re d w ith p re -in te rv en tio n am on g m ot he rs (c ha ng e, þ 0. 4; P < .0 01 ) -A m on g m ot he rs : s ig ni fic an t i nc re as e in p er ce iv ed be ha vi or al c on tr ol a nd in te nt io ns re la te d to P BM A in ta ke M ay a et a l (2 02 4) 68 ,a D en m ar k n ¼ 78 U ns pe ci fie d ag e; pa re nt s of c hi ld re n ag ed 8 to 1 0 y ol d Te st m ea ls th at c on ta in ed le nt ils (p as ta ), se ed s (c ris pb re ad ), ch ic kp ea s (fa la fe l), so y- ba se d m in ce , a nd pe a- ba se d sa us ag es Ac ce pt an ce to w ar ds no ve l a nd tr ad iti on al PB M As b et w ee n fir st (w ee k 1) a nd la st ex po su re (w ee k 6) in ho m e se tt in g Ty pe : n ov el a nd t ra di tio na l So ur ce s: le gu m es (l en til s, c hi ck pe as , p ea s) ; so y; s ee ds At tit ud e to w ar ds s pe ci fic p ro te in s ou rc es -R at in g sc or e: c ris pb re ad (s ee d- ba se d) > fa la fe l (c hi ck pe a- ba se d) > m in ce (s oy -b as ed ) a nd s au s ag e (p ea -b as ed ) Ac ce pt an ce a nd p re fe re nc es -A cc ep ta nc e sc or es b et w ee n fir st a nd la st e xp os ur e re m ai ne d st ab le e xc ep t f or s au sa ge -H ig he st ra te d ite m w as th e cr is pb re ad , f ol lo w ed b y fa la fe l, m in ce , a nd s au sa ge (c on tin ue d) 8 Nutrition ReviewsVR Vol. 00(00):1–24 D ow nloaded from https://academ ic.oup.com /nutritionreview s/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nutrit/nuaf257/8407872 by M assey U niversity user on 16 M arch 2026 Ta bl e 2. C on tin ue d St ud y (y ea r) Co un tr y Sa m pl e si ze a nd a ge PB M A d ef in it io n O ut co m e m ea su re Pr ot ei n ty pe a nd so ur ce s Ke y fi nd in gs M in e t a l ( 20 24 )69 Ch in a n ¼ 56 8d ≥ 51 y o ld ; w ith c hi l dr en a ge d ≤ 16 y o ld in h ou se ho ld A di et th at m im ic s th e ta st e an d te xt ur e of m ea t a nd u se s pr i m ar ily p la nt p ro te in W ill in gn es s to a cc ep t, ta st e, a nd p ur ch as e PB M As a ft er p os iti ve nu dg in g of in fo rm a tio n vi a on lin e st ud y Ty pe : n ov el So ur ce s: n ot s pe ci fie d Ac ce pt an ce a nd p re fe re nc es -W ill in gn es s to p ur ch as e PB M As w as s ig ni fic an tly hi gh er a ft er e xp os ur e to p os iti ve in fo rm at io n co m pa re d w ith c on tr ol g ro up (P < .0 1) -N o si gn ifi ca nt d iff er en ce fo r w ill in gn es s to a cc ep t an d w ill in gn es s to ta st e be tw ee n bo th g ro up s a Pa re nt –c hi ld d ya d. b Su bs et d at a fr om n ¼ 30 . c Su bs et d at a fr om n ¼ 10 12 . d Su bs et d at a fr om n ¼ 10 00 . Ab br ev ia tio n: P BM A, p la nt -b as ed m ea t a lte rn at iv e. Nutrition ReviewsVR Vol. 00(00):1–24 9 D ow nloaded from https://academ ic.oup.com /nutritionreview s/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nutrit/nuaf257/8407872 by M assey U niversity user on 16 M arch 2026 protein.69 The following sections are structured into key themes derived from findings about parents’ perspec tives and empirical studies related to PBMAs. Knowledge and Perception. Across the 5 studies examin ing parents’ views of PBMAs, 3 articles focused on both traditional and novel PBMAs,62,63,65 1 study focused on novel PBMAs,70 and 1 study focused on traditional PBMAs.66 Overall, parents expressed the lack of aware ness regarding novel and traditional PBMAs,62,63,65 with raised concerns about the healthiness and nutri tional content of novel PBMAs being highly proc essed.62,65,70 In terms of traditional PBMAs, parents were generally unfamiliar with what other traditional PBMAs were other than the health benefits of lentils.62 Parents also incorporate traditional PBMAs (ie, lentils) that they are familiar with and have nutritional knowl edge about into meals.66 While parents often refer to social media and national guidelines to make informed food choices, they still face challenges in preparing novel PBMAs com pared with animal protein.70 There is also a lack of information in the supermarkets and limited guidance and culinary knowledge on how to incorporate novel and traditional PBMAs into family meals.62,63,65,66 Attitude Towards Specific Protein Sources in PBMAs. Most studies did not specify the protein sources used in PBMAs. Novel PBMAs were commonly discussed in broad terms,63–65,69,70 while specific protein sources were provided for traditional PBMAs.63,66,68 Of 9 stud ies, only 3 explicitly indicated parental attitudes on spe cific protein sources.63,66,68 Parents had a positive attitude about traditional protein sources (eg, seeds and chickpeas) over novel options (eg, soy-based and pea-based analogs).68 For traditional protein foods, nuts and legumes are included primarily for their textural contribution rather than for their protein content, indicating a culinary rather than nutritional rationale.63 There are differing attitudes on the benefits of lentils and barriers between frequent and low users, where frequent-user parents viewed lentils positively from nutritional perspective, using the terms “healthful” and “good for children.”66 In contrast, low- user parents highlighted culinary barriers, such as lack ing in preparation skills and concerns about acceptance by family members.66 Influence of Family. Four articles highlighted the influ ence of family members on parents’ perspectives of PBMAs (Table 2).63,65,66,70 Although parents believed that parental modeling, offering and allowing time to adapt, could encourage their children to consume more traditional and novel PBMAs,65,66 they were also less likely to incorporate lentils or beans into family meals if their child disliked them.63,66 The preconception that their family members may not appreciate traditional PBMAs deterred parents from offering them during family meals.66 Some parents observed that their children could not differentiate between meat and PBMA meals when offered.63 Furthermore, parents shared that their chil dren sometimes suggested PBMA meals based on infor mation they learned in school or from the news, indicating the influence of children in meal planning.63 Acceptance and Preferences. Three intervention stud ies,67–69 3 qualitative studies,63,65,70 and 1 quantitative, non-intervention study64 explored parents’ acceptance and preferences towards PBMAs. Most parents pre ferred traditional PBMAs over novel PBMAs.63,68 Nevertheless, studies conducted in Asian countries reported greater openness among parents towards novel protein sources,69,70 whereas in Western countries, reception to novel PBMAs was more variable.64 Furthermore, amongst parents who were receptive to novel PBMAs, acceptance was largely driven by taste, particularly when sensory qualities closely resembled conventional meat products or other highly processed forms.63,70 Additional factors influencing parents’ will ingness to adopt PBMAs within the family were child preference and nutritional need, lower cost, provision of recipes, increasing availability, and information about sustainability.63,65,70 Intervention strategies conducted virtually (ie, learning modules, providing positive infor mation and cooking classes) led to a positive behavioral intention towards both traditional and novel PBMAs, such as intake and purchase; however, these strategies did not increase actual PBMA intake at home or will ingness to purchase.67,69 Children’s Perceptions of PBMAs Table 365,67,68,70–81 summarizes the studies on children’s perceptions and attitudes regarding PBMAs. A total of 15 studies were identified. Similarly, the findings are coded into key themes, as described above. One study was carried out in Asia,70 1 study was conducted in Africa,74 and the remaining 13 studies took place in Western counterparts. No observational or intervention studies were carried out in non- Western counterparts. The 6 non-intervention studies were conducted in Canada (n¼ 1), the Netherlands (n¼ 2), Nigeria (n¼ 1), Singapore (n¼ 1), and the United States (n¼ 1). The observational and interven tion studies (n¼ 9) were mostly conducted in the United States (n¼ 3) and there were 6 studies in Europe 10 Nutrition ReviewsVR Vol. 00(00):1–24 D ow nloaded from https://academ ic.oup.com /nutritionreview s/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nutrit/nuaf257/8407872 by M assey U niversity user on 16 M arch 2026 Ta bl e 3. S tu di es o n Ch ild re n’ s Pe rc ep tio ns a nd A tt itu de s Re ga rd in g Pl an t- Ba se d M ea t A lte rn at iv es St ud y (y ea r) Co un tr y Sa m pl e si ze a nd a ge PB M A d ef in it io n O ut co m e m ea su re Pr ot ei n ty pe a nd so ur ce s Ke y fi nd in gs Q ua lit at iv e, n on -in te rv en ti on An an t e t a l (2 02 5) 70 ,a Si ng ap or e n ¼ 19 Ag ed 9 to 1 5 y ol d N ov el P BM As 1. S el f- re po rt ed a w ar en es s of P BM As , p re vi ou s co n su m pt io n an d w ill in g ne ss to c on su m e 2. P er ce pt io ns , b el ie fs , a nd m ot iv at io ns a bo ut PB M As Ty pe : n ov el So ur ce s: n ot s pe ci fie d Aw ar en es s an d kn ow le dg e -A w ar en es s: 1 2 ou t o f 1 9 (6 3. 2% ) -M aj or ity a re a w ar e of n ov el P BM As (e g, Im po ss ib le p ro du ct s (Im po ss ib le F oo ds In c. , Re dw oo d Ci ty , C A, U SA )) -S om e as so ci at ed w ith v eg et ab le s an d he al th y In flu en ce o f f am ili ar ity -W ill in g to tr y w he n fa m ili ar o r e nc ou ra ge d by p ee rs /f am ily Ac ce pt an ce a nd p re fe re nc es -C on su m ed P BM As p re vi ou sl y: 3 6. 8% -W ill in gn es s to c on su m e: 7 8. 9% -E xh ib it m or e fo od n eo ph ob ia th an p ar en ts -P re fe re nc e fo r c on ve ni en t a nd /o r r ea dy -t o- ea t f oo ds -C ur io si ty a nd e xc ite m en t i nc re as e m ot iv at io n to tr y -P er ce iv ed n eg at iv el y (e g, s oi l/p la nt -r oo t ta st e) -P re fe r t ha t i t c os ts th e sa m e or c he ap er th an an im al p ro te in -D riv er s to c on su m pt io n: s us ta in ab ili ty a nd an im al w el fa re -W ill in gn es s to re -c on su m e de pe nd s on fi rs t ta st e ex pe rie nc e Pa te r e t a l ( 20 22 )71 N et he rla nd s n ¼ 34 Ag ed 8 to 1 0 y ol d M ea t- lik e pr od uc ts w he re m ea t p or tio n is re pl ac ed b y pl an t in gr ed ie nt s Pe rc ep tio n to w ar ds P BM As , co ns um pt io n fr eq ue nc y (r ep or te d by c ar eg iv er s) , an d de si re d ch ar ac te ris tic s of P BM As Ty pe : n ov el So ur ce s: n ot s pe ci fie d Aw ar en es s an d kn ow le dg e -P er ce iv ed a s “v eg et ar ia n, ” “m ea t a lte r na tiv es ,” “lo ok s lik e m ea t b ut n ot fr om a ni m al s, ” “h ea lth y, ” “t as ty ”; on e- th ird (n ¼ 11 ) w er e un ce rt ai n of th e ta st e In flu en ce o f f am ili ar ity -D es ire d ch ar ac te ris tic s: m ea t- lik e co lo r ( n ¼ 21 ), ap pe ar an ce (n ¼ 15 ), ta st e (n ¼ 29 ), an d cr un ch y te xt ur e (n ¼ 15 ); co nt ai ns in gr ed ie nt s, e g, c ar ro t, po ta to , c or n, to m at o, a nd c he es e (n ¼ 32 ) Ac ce pt an ce a nd p re fe re nc es -W ou ld o pt fo r P BM As fo r t he ir ta st e -O ve r h al f o f t he c hi ld re n ea t P BM As o nc e or tw ic e pe r w ee k (c on tin ue d) Nutrition ReviewsVR Vol. 00(00):1–24 11 D ow nloaded from https://academ ic.oup.com /nutritionreview s/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nutrit/nuaf257/8407872 by M assey U niversity user on 16 M arch 2026 Ta bl e 3. C on tin ue d St ud y (y ea r) Co un tr y Sa m pl e si ze a nd a ge PB M A d ef in it io n O ut co m e m ea su re Pr ot ei n ty pe a nd so ur ce s Ke y fi nd in gs Pa te r et a l ( 20 25 )65 ,a N et he rla nd s n ¼ 36 Ag ed 9 to 1 1 y ol d Tr ad iti on al p la nt p ro te in s an d m ea t an al og s 1. D riv er s an d ba rr ie rs to PB M A co ns um pt io n 2. P er sp ec tiv es o n fa ci lit at in g tr an si tio n to P BM As in th e fa m ily Ty pe : n ov el a nd tr ad i tio na l So ur ce s: n ot s pe ci fie d In flu en ce o f f am ili ar ity -F am ili ar ity d riv es w ill in gn es s Ac ce pt an ce a nd p re fe re nc es -T op 4 d riv er s: ta st e, a ni m al w el fa re , f am ili ar ity , c ur io si ty -T op 4 b ar rie rs : t as te , f am ili ar ity , a pp ea ra nc e, so ci al p re ss ur e -S ug ge st io ns fo r t ra ns iti on s tr at eg ie s: T o re se m bl e an im al p ro te in in ta st e or a pp ea r an ce , i m pr ov e ta st e, tr an sp ar en cy , a nd im pr ov ed p ac ka gi ng (e g, re du ce p la st ic a nd en ha nc e vi su al s) Zh an g et a l (2 02 2) 73 Ca na da n ¼ 35 Ag ed 9 to 1 2 y ol d Le gu m es , m ea t i m ita tio ns , n ut s an d se ed s, ot he r p la nt -b as ed fo od s Kn ow le dg e an d pe rc ep tio ns o n PB M As Ty pe : n ov el a nd tr ad i tio na l So ur ce s: le gu m es ; n ut s; se ed s Aw ar en es s an d kn ow le dg e -L ac k of k no w le dg e on P BM As , e g, u na w ar e th at p ro te in s ca n be o bt ai ne d fr om p la nt so ur ce s -H ad c om e ac ro ss P BM As b ut c ou ld n ot p ro vi de e xa m pl es -C hi ld re n w ho li st ed e xa m pl es o f P BM As w er e un su re o f t he ir an sw er s, ie , b ea ns , c hi ck pe as , t of u sp in ac h Q ua nt it at iv e, n on -in te rv en ti on Ez e et a l ( 20 18 )74 N ig er ia n ¼ 60 3 Ag ed 1 6 y ol d To fu — co ns tr uc te d fr om s oy m ilk a nd co ag ul an t t he n pr es se d in to fi rm bl oc ks Re co gn iti on o f t of u be ne fit s; a cc ep ta nc e an d w ill in gn es s to c on su m e to fu as a P BM A vi a se lf- re po rt ed q ue st io nn ai re s in s ch oo l Ty pe : t ra di tio na l So ur ce s: s oy (t of u) Aw ar en es s an d kn ow le dg e -9 4. 5% re co gn iz ed to fu b en ef its At tit ud e to w ar ds s pe ci fic p ro te in s ou rc es -9 4. 5% re co gn iz ed to fu b en ef its Ac ce pt an ce a nd p re fe re nc es -H ig h lik el ih oo d of e at in g to fu a s PB M A (4 .0 5 ou t o f 5 ) -N o as so ci at io n be tw ee n re co gn iti on o f t of u be ne fit a nd in ta ke -N o as so ci at io n be tw ee n ac ce pt an ce o f t of u w ith d iff er en t p re pa ra tio n m et ho d an d in ta ke -A cc ep ta nc e of to fu d id n ot d iff er w ith p re pa ra tio n m et ho ds (i e, s te am ed , b oi le d, a nd fr ie d) Li nd ke (2 02 1) 75 U SA n ¼ 36 Ag ed 1 1 to 1 4 y ol d PB M A di sh es c on ta in in g be an s, le nt ils , a nd pe as O ve ra ll lik in g, s pe ci fic s en so ry c ha ra ct er is tic s (a pp ea ra nc e, fl av or , t ex tu re ) a nd w ill in gn es s to pu rc ha se o f P BM A di sh es in s ch oo l Ty pe : t ra di tio na l So ur ce s: le gu m es (b ea ns , l en til s, p ea s) At tit ud e to w ar ds s pe ci fic p ro te in s ou rc es -O ve ra ll lik in g: b ea n m ac ar on i a nd c he es e (h ig he st ) > ch ili b ea ns o ve r s w ee t p ot at o fr ie s > le nt il sl op py jo e (lo w es t) Ac ce pt an ce a nd p re fe re nc es -B ea n m ac ar on i a nd c he es e: h ig he st o ve ra ll lik in g (5 .7 2/ 9) a nd w ill in gn es s to c on su m e ag ai n (6 .0 6/ 9) ; t ex tu re (< 5; ie , n ei th er li ke no r d is lik e) (c on tin ue d) 12 Nutrition ReviewsVR Vol. 00(00):1–24 D ow nloaded from https://academ ic.oup.com /nutritionreview s/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nutrit/nuaf257/8407872 by M assey U niversity user on 16 M arch 2026 Ta bl e 3. C on tin ue d St ud y (y ea r) Co un tr y Sa m pl e si ze a nd a ge PB M A d ef in it io n O ut co m e m ea su re Pr ot ei n ty pe a nd so ur ce s Ke y fi nd in gs -L en til s lo pp y jo e: lo w es t o ve ra ll lik in g (5 .3 6) an d ap pe ar an ce (3 .8 8) ; t ex tu re (5 .3 3) a nd fla vo r ( 5. 61 ) -C hi li be an s ov er s w ee t p ot at o fr ie s: h ig he st fo r f la vo r ( 5. 80 ) a nd te xt ur e (5 .7 7) ; o ve ra ll lik in g (5 .4 0) -N o si gn ifi ca nt d iff er en ce b et w ee n an y of th e re ci pe s an d w ill in gn es s to t ry (r at ed < 5) , ex ce pt fo r l ik in g Q ua nt it at iv e, o bs er va ti on al a nd in te rv en ti on D e Ke yz er e t a l (2 01 2) 76 Be lg iu m n ¼ U ns pe ci fie d Ag ed 6 to 1 2 y ol d PB M A m ea ls : v eg gi e ba lls , s pi na ch la sa gn a, s oy a st rip s w ith gr av y, v eg et ar ia n sc hn itz el Ac ce pt ab ili ty o f v eg et ar ia n lu nc he s se rv ed in s ch oo l co m pa re d w ith re gu la r m ea t d is he s (v ia p la te w as te ) Ty pe : t ra di tio na l So ur ce s: s oy Ac ce pt an ce a nd p re fe re nc es -N o si gn ifi ca nt d iff er en ce in p la te w as te be tw ee n PB M A (1 6. 7% ) a nd re gu la r ( 17 .3 % ) m ea ls Ec ka rt e t a l (2 01 0) 77 U SA n ¼ 28 53 Ag ed 5 to 1 4 y ol d Te st m ea ls : s oy -b as ed ve gg ie b ur ge r, ve ge ta ria n ch ili (k id ne y be an s an d te xt ur ed so y pr ot ei n) , r ic e, a nd be an s W ill in gn es s to b uy o f ve ga n m ea l i te m s in sc ho ol s ov er 4 w k Ty pe : n ov el a nd tr ad i tio na l So ur ce s: le gu m es (b ea ns ); so y (s oy p ro te in c on ce nt ra te , t ex tu re d so y pr ot ei n) At tit ud e to w ar ds s pe ci fic p ro te in s ou rc es -E le m en ta ry s ch oo l: be an s an d ric e (m os t so ld ); m id dl e sc ho ol : v eg gi e bu rg er (m os t so ld ) Ac ce pt an ce a nd p re fe re nc es -7 6% o f v eg an m ea ls w er e pu rc ha se d in th e el em en ta ry s ch oo l a nd 5 6% in th e m id dl e sc ho ol -E le m en ta ry s ch oo l: be an s an d ric e (m os t so ld ) > ve gg ie c hi li > ve gg ie b ur ge r ( le as t so ld ) -M id dl e sc ho ol : v eg gi e bu rg er (m os t s ol d) > ve gg ie c hi li > be an s an d ric e (le as t s ol d) Ec ke rt e t a l (2 02 5) 67 ,a Ca na da n ¼ 33 Ag ed 9 to 1 4 y ol d Pl an t- ba se d pr ot ei ns (e g, le gu m es , b ea ns , le nt ils , t of u, te m pe h, te xt ur ed v eg et ab le pr ot ei n, n ut s, s ee ds ) Pr e- a nd p os t- ho m e in te r ve nt io n (o nl in e m od ul es an d co ok in g cl as se s ov er 4 m o) : P BM A kn ow le dg e Ty pe : t ra di tio na l So ur ce s: le gu m es (b ea ns , l en til s) ; s oy (t of u, te m pe h, te x tu re d ve ge ta bl e pr o te in ); nu ts ; s ee ds Aw ar en es s an d kn ow le dg e -In cr ea se in k no w le dg e fo r P BM As w as in si gn ifi ca nt Fl or es e t a l ( 20 19 )78 U SA n ¼ 46 5 Ag ed 5 to 1 4 y ol d PB M A m ea ls : t of u w ith ro ll/ bu n, v eg et ar ia n ch ili w ith ri ce , t of u w ith ri ce , t of u or le n til s, p as ta w ith ch ic kp ea s W ill in gn es s to tr y PB M A m ea ls v s re gu la r m ea ls in s ch oo l c af et er ia (v ia pl at e w as te ) Ty pe : t ra di tio na l So ur ce s: le gu m es (l en til s, c hi ck pe as ); so y (t of u) Ac ce pt an ce a nd p re fe re nc es -P re - a nd p os t- in te rv en tio n sh ow ed n o di ffe r en ce b et w ee n PB M A m ea ls a nd re gu la r m ea ls (c on tin ue d) Nutrition ReviewsVR Vol. 00(00):1–24 13 D ow nloaded from https://academ ic.oup.com /nutritionreview s/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nutrit/nuaf257/8407872 by M assey U niversity user on 16 M arch 2026 Ta bl e 3. C on tin ue d St ud y (y ea r) Co un tr y Sa m pl e si ze a nd a ge PB M A d ef in it io n O ut co m e m ea su re Pr ot ei n ty pe a nd so ur ce s Ke y fi nd in gs Ko kk or ou e t a l (2 02 5) 79 Ita ly n ¼ 13 8 Ag ed 1 4 to 1 7 y ol d Le nt il an d ch ic kp ea - ba se d di sh es Li ki ng o f t he le gu m e- ba se d di sh es (v ia c o- cr ea tio n ex pe rim en ta l s es si on ) Ty pe : t ra di tio na l So ur ce s: le gu m es (l en til s, c hi ck pe as ) At tit ud e to w ar ds s pe ci fic p ro te in s ou rc es -L en til -b as ed d is he s w er e th e m os t l ik ed c om pa re d w ith c hi ck pe a- ba se d di sh es Ac ce pt an ce a nd p re fe re nc es -A ll di sh es ra te d ab ov e ne ut ra l f or li ki ng -S ig ni fic an t d iff er en ce in li ki ng b as ed o n di sh ty pe (P ¼ .0 31 ) -L en til -b as ed a ra nc in o di sh es w er e th e m os t lik ed (i e, le nt il pu m pk in a ra nc in o) th an th e ch ic kp ea -b as ed d is he s Ko s an d Je rm an (2 01 9) 80 Sl ov en ia n ¼ 30 (c on tr ol : 1 5; ex pe rim en t: 15 ) Ag ed 6 to 7 y o ld Be an s ee d an d gr ee n be an s Li ki ng to w ar ds in ta ke a ft er ta st in g, p os t- ex po su re fr om s ch oo l g ar de ni ng ac tiv ity (e xp er im en ta l gr ou p) Ty pe : t ra di tio na l So ur ce s: le gu m es (b ea ns ) At tit ud e to w ar ds s pe ci fic p ro te in s ou rc es -S ig ni fic an t i nc re as e in li ki ng in e xp er im en ta l gr ou p Ac ce pt an ce a nd p re fe re nc es -S ta tis tic al d iff er en ce b et w ee n co nt ro l a nd ex pe rim en ta l g ro up a t p os t- in te rv en tio n (P < .0 5) La zo r e t a l ( 20 10 )81 U SA n ¼ 39 93 Ag ed 1 1 to 1 3 y ol d So y- ba se d nu gg et s, “h yb rid ” pa tt y, s oy - ba se d ch ic ke n su bs ti tu te o n sa la d, a nd m ac ar on i a nd c he es e w /s oy p as ta Ac ce pt an ce to w ar ds s oy - ba se d PB M As c om pa re d w ith re gu la r a ni m al - ba se d fo od s vi a in ta ke in sc ho ol Ty pe : n ov el So ur ce s: s oy At tit ud e to w ar ds s pe ci fic p ro te in s ou rc es -H ig he r i nc lin at io n to c on su m e re gu la r a ni m al -b as ed fo od s co m pa re d w ith s oy -b as ed fo od s Ac ce pt an ce a nd p re fe re nc es -S ig ni fic an tly le ss s oy -b as ed c hi ck en w as c on su m ed th an re gu la r c hi ck en in s al ad (P < .0 00 1) -O th er s: in si gn ifi ca nt d iff er en ce M ay a et a l ( 20 24 )68 ,a D en m ar k n ¼ 78 Ag ed 8 to 1 0 y ol d Te st m ea ls w ith le nt ils (p as ta ), se ed s (c ris p br ea d) , c hi ck pe as (fa la fe l), s oy -b as ed m in ce , a nd p ea - ba se d sa us ag es Ac ce pt an ce to w ar ds tr ad iti on al a nd n ov el PB M As b et w ee n fir st (w ee k 1) a nd la st ex po su re (w ee k 6) in ho m e se tt in g Ty pe : n ov el a nd tr ad i tio na l So ur ce s: le gu m es (le nt ils , c hi ck pe as , pe as ); so y At tit ud e to w ar ds s pe ci fic p ro te in s ou rc es -S ta bl e ac ce pt an ce fo r c ris pb re ad ; i nc re as ed fo r f al af el (m os t) -D ec re as ed a cc ep ta nc e fo r s au sa ge s Ac ce pt an ce a nd p re fe re nc es -A cc ep ta nc e sc or es b et w ee n fir st a nd la st ex po su re d id n ot c ha ng e fo r c ris pb re ad a nd in cr ea se d fo r f al af el (m os t) , p as te , a nd m in ce (l ea st ) -D ec re as ed a cc ep ta nc e fo r s au sa ge (m os t) Pa te r e t a l ( 20 25 )72 N et he rla nd s n ¼ 37 Ag ed 9 to 1 1 y ol d Pl an t- ba se d m ea t a nd fis h (ie , t un a) , h am , sa la m i, to fu /t em pe h, ki dn ey b ea ns , n ut s Pe rc ep tio ns o f p la nt - ba se d- m ea t a nd fi sh th ro ug h de si gn p ro be bo x ap pr oa ch , i nt er vi ew an d co ok in g (ie , p iz za m ak in g) in s ch oo ls Ty pe : n ov el a nd tr ad i tio na l So ur ce s: le gu m es (b ea ns ); so y (t of u, te m pe h) ; n ut s Aw ar en es s an d kn ow le dg e -V ie w ed n ov el P BM As a nd t of u po si tiv el y fo r th ei r c lo se re se m bl an ce to a ni m al -b as ed pr od uc ts -P er ce iv ed n ut s, le gu m es , a nd to fu /t em pe h po si tiv el y -A ss oc ia te d w ith a ni m al w el fa re At tit ud e to w ar ds s pe ci fic p ro te in s ou rc es -V ie w ed n ov el P BM As p os iti ve ly -P er ce iv ed n ut s, le gu m es , o r t of u/ te m pe h po si tiv el y (c on tin ue d) 14 Nutrition ReviewsVR Vol. 00(00):1–24 D ow nloaded from https://academ ic.oup.com /nutritionreview s/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nutrit/nuaf257/8407872 by M assey U niversity user on 16 M arch 2026 Ta bl e 3. C on tin ue d St ud y (y ea r) Co un tr y Sa m pl e si ze a nd a ge PB M A d ef in it io n O ut co m e m ea su re Pr ot ei n ty pe a nd so ur ce s Ke y fi nd in gs -P os iti ve ta st e pe rc ep tio n fo r a lm on ds , t of u, bu t no t k id ne y be an s In flu en ce o f f am ili ar ity -R es po nd ed p os iti ve ly w he n pr od uc ts ta st ed an d lo ok ed fa m ili ar Ac ce pt an ce a nd p re fe re nc es -M ix ed o pi ni on s du rin g co ok in g se ss io n: ta st e, lo ok , a nd s m el l -E xp ec te d no ve l P BM As to ta st e pl ea sa nt -P er ce iv ed n ut s, le gu m es , o r t of u/ te m pe h po si tiv el y -P er ce iv ed n ov el P BM As n eg at iv el y: ta st e un pl ea sa nt c om pa re d w ith le gu m es , n ut s, or to fu /t em pe h -P os iti ve ta st e pe rc ep tio n fo r a lm on ds , t of u, bu t no t k id ne y be an s a Pa re nt –c hi ld d ya d. Ab br ev ia tio n: P BM A, p la nt -b as ed m ea t a lte rn at iv e. Nutrition ReviewsVR Vol. 00(00):1–24 15 D ow nloaded from https://academ ic.oup.com /nutritionreview s/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nutrit/nuaf257/8407872 by M assey U niversity user on 16 M arch 2026 (ie, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, and Slovenia). There were a total of 4 qualitative studies, of which 2 were about novel PBMAs70,71 and the remaining 2 were focused on both novel and traditional pro teins.65,73 For quantitative studies, 7 studies mentioned traditional protein only,67,74–76,78–80 1 study reported on only novel protein,81 while 3 studies included both novel and traditional proteins.68,72,77 The following sec tions are structured into key themes derived from find ings concerning children’s perspectives and empirical studies related to PBMAs. Knowledge and Perception. A total of 6 studies examined children’s awareness and knowledge on novel and tradi tional PBMAs.67,70–74 There was greater awareness and openness towards novel PBMAs among children in Asia,70 while findings from Western counterparts (n¼ 12) yielded mixed perceptions on both novel and traditional PBMAs. Children, especially those who are considered familiar with novel PBMAs, were able to list examples of commercial products ie, Impossible meat (Impossible Foods Inc., Redwood City, CA, USA)70 and generally described novel PBMAs as “vegetarian,” “meat alter natives,” “looks like meat but not from animals.”71,72 Overall, children’s perceptions of novel PBMAs revolved around taste and comparison to the sensory profile of meat, with few children mentioning the association between PBMA intake and animal welfare.72 Most chil dren associated novel PBMAs positively (ie, healthy, tasty, vegetables),70,71 although some perceived them negatively (eg, soil or plant-root taste).70 In contrast, 1 study found that many children lacked knowledge about novel and tra ditional PBMAs and were often unable to provide specific examples.73 Traditional PBMAs (eg, tofu, tempeh, nuts, and legumes) were perceived positively among children, with tofu being considered most similar to animal-based meat.72 Among children, having existing knowledge about traditional PBMAs (ie, tofu) did not translate to greater intake.74 Additionally, intervention strategies consisting of online learning modules and online cooking classes did not substantially increase children’s knowledge about novel and traditional PBMAs.67 Attitude Towards Specific Protein Sources in PBMAs. Twelve out of 15 studies identified specific plant protein sources in PBMAs, but only 8 included these in their key findings. Four studies examined traditional protein sources exclusively,74,75,79,80 1 study focused on novel proteins,81 and 3 studies included both traditional and novel protein sources.68,72,77 With regard to traditional PBMAs, previous studies have consistently reported that, tofu (a soy-based product), is positively perceived for its health benefits, is widely accepted by children74, and is often described as having a meat-like taste.72 In contrast, the attitude towards other types traditional proteins were more var ied. For example, nuts (ie, almonds) were perceived positively while kidney beans were less favored.72 Furthermore, there were differing attitudes towards tra ditional PBMAs between countries. In the United States, bean-based dishes (ie, bean macaroni and cheese and chili beans over sweet potato fries) were more favored than lentil-based dish (ie, lentil sloppy joe).75 Conversely, Italian children showed greater preference for lentil-based dishes (ie, lentil pumpkin arancino) over chickpea-based dishes.79 For novel protein sources, the preference of soy- based PBMAs was dependent on how the dish was pre pared, where soy-based chicken were less preferred compared with soy-based nuggets and macaroni and cheese.81 In addition, there was a shift in attitudes from traditional to novel PBMAs as children’s age increased. Among elementary school children, traditional proteins (ie, beans and rice) were most chosen, whereas middle school students showed an opposite food selection, with soy-based veggie burgers being the most purchased.77 Overall, intervention strategies applied to children showed increased openness to traditional PBMAs and selected novel PBMAs.68,80 School gardening and tast ing led to positive attitudes towards bean seeds and green beans among children.80 Similarly, a 6-week exposure study led to an increased acceptance of chickpea-based protein sources (ie, falafel) and soy- based novel protein sources (ie, soy-based mince) but a decline in pea-based sausages, which could attributed to their familiarity with the taste and texture of conven tional meat sausages.68 Influence of Familiarity. Four studies presented findings on how familiarity can influence the consumption of novel and traditional PBMAs.65,70–72 Children expressed open ness to try traditional and novel PBMAs when these prod ucts were familiar or encouraged by peers or family.65,70 Novel PBMAs that closely resembled conventional meat in appearance, taste, and texture were well received by children who were accustomed to eating meat. Additionally, incorporating familiar ingredients, such as carrots, potatoes and cheese, improved acceptance by increasing perceived familiarity.71,72 Acceptance and Preferences. Eleven empirical studies examined the acceptance and preferences of PBMAs in children.68,71,72,74–81 Of these, most studies were con ducted in school settings, while 1 study took place in a home setting.68 Additionally, 2 qualitative studies explored factors influencing acceptance.65,70 16 Nutrition ReviewsVR Vol. 00(00):1–24 D ow nloaded from https://academ ic.oup.com /nutritionreview s/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nutrit/nuaf257/8407872 by M assey U niversity user on 16 M arch 2026 Overall, children’s acceptance of both traditional and novel PBMA dishes was neutral to moderately posi tive, with most studies indicating these PBMAs were not strongly disliked, even when compared with con ventional meat-based meals.74–76,78,79,81 Some children intentionally chose and consumed novel PBMAs at least once or twice a week.71 The acceptance of PBMAs varied depending on dish type or preparation method. Typically, traditional PBMAs were generally more preferred when incorpo rated into cultural foods (eg, macaroni and cheese, ara ncino, falafel, bread), whereas novel PBMAs were favored when presented as processed-meat products (eg, nuggets and burgers).74,75,79,81 However, not all novel PBMAs were well received—for example, pea- based sausage—suggesting that the sensory attributes did not meet children’s expectations.68 The strategies identified from the studies have been shown to increase acceptance. These include school gar dening activities with tasting80 and modifying the food environment,77 and repeated exposure.68 Additional fac tors to increase children’s PBMA acceptance include posi tive first taste experience, lower cost, and accessible information about sustainability and animal welfare.65,70 DISCUSSION This scoping review provides an overview of existing knowledge on children’s and parents’ perceptions of and attitudes towards PBMAs, highlighting distinctions between traditional and novel PBMAs and their plant- protein sources. It aimed to assess levels of acceptance, awareness, potential drivers, and barriers to integrating PBMAs into family meals. Discrepancy Between Parents’ Perspectives and Children’s Openness Towards PBMAs The factors affecting perspectives and attitudes of parents and children highlight the reciprocal influence between them (Figure 2). The synthesized data revealed a discrepancy between children and parents: willingness to try PBMAs. Although our findings showed that chil dren generally expressed openness and interest in trying both traditional and novel PBMAs, they may not neces sarily be given the opportunity in the household. This is largely due to parents’ concerns about the high degree of processing involved in novel PBMAs and their lack of culinary skills to prepare novel and traditional PBMAs. As a result, children’s exposure to PBMAs remains limited, particularly when these foods are not part of their habitual intake. Novel PBMAs undergo substantial processing tech niques, such as extrusion, sheer cell technology, 3D printing, or fractionation to achieve a meat-like texture profile,14 which raises parental concerns on their health fulness.62,64,70 Although novel PBMAs may offer improved digestibility, because processing techniques Figure 2. Illustration of the Multidimensional Factors Influencing Parents’ and Children’s Perspectives and Attitudes Toward Plant-Based Meat Alternatives Nutrition ReviewsVR Vol. 00(00):1–24 17 D ow nloaded from https://academ ic.oup.com /nutritionreview s/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nutrit/nuaf257/8407872 by M assey U niversity user on 16 M arch 2026 can eliminate or decrease the antinutritional factors in natural plant proteins,14 parents often remain skeptical. This scepticism stems from the perception that these products are highly processed, coupled with evidence linking high intake of processed foods to obesity82,83 and cardiovascular diseases.84,85 These perceived con cerns create hesitation to include these products in fam ily meals, which underscores the importance of improving the sensory quality and perceived health value of novel PBMAs. Parental impact on children’s behavior, particularly in the early years, is evident in a range of research, including technology uses86 or physical activities.87 While the proportion of time spent at home may decrease as children enter school, the behavioral pat terns established during their formative years typically follow through into adolescence or adulthood.88 With parents acting as the primary food providers, their skep ticism or unfamiliarity with PBMAs directly influences their children’s acceptance. Similarly, parents’ decision to include PBMAs in meals can be influenced by their children. Recent litera ture has highlighted children’s involvement in incorpo rating sustainable food options at family meals89 and participating in grocery shopping and the planning of meals.90 This bidirectional influence suggests the poten tial to involve both parents and children in promoting PBMA intake. Perspectives on PBMAs varied by usage frequency. Parents who are frequent users of traditional PBMAs were well informed of their nutritional benefits as a pri mary protein source and did not see culinary skills as a barrier. These findings are in line with previous litera ture where regular users of legumes were likely to asso ciate them with nutritional understanding and integrate legumes as protein components, supporting the idea that familiarity leads to nutritional framing.91,92 Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that culinary capabilities not only increase cooking efficacy93–96 but also influence consumption of beans and legumes.97 This suggests a targeted opportunity to better commu nicate the nutritional potential of plant proteins as an alternative to animal-based proteins and culinary classes to encourage intake. Taste is identified as the dominant consideration to repeated PBMA consumption for children, which aligns with previous literature.98,99 While children often prefer processed foods, novel PBMAs typically mimic the appearance of animal proteins accurately, although they frequently fall short in taste. Common aftertaste charac teristics of novel PBMAs include bean-like, bitterness, or earthiness associated with soy- or pea-isolates in the ingredients.100 These negative flavors likely contribute to a lower preference compared with traditional options and suggest a need to improve the sensory aspects by reducing off-flavors.101 Alongside taste, animal welfare and familiarity were identified as motivators for children’s willingness to try both novel and traditional PBMAs. When children per ceive food products as ethically aligned with their val ues, such as being better for animals or the planet, their openness to trying these products increases, even if those products are unfamiliar.102,103 Similarly, familiar ity in the form of food product, appearance, or prior exposure was found to increase acceptance.42,104 Influence of Other External Factors The food environment and cultural differences serve as both facilitators and barriers to behavioral change. The environment in which parents and children engage the most is at home, serving as the primary setting for children’s development for preschool-aged chil dren.105,106 Parental modeling has been shown to be an important learning tool for children.107,108 Although both home-based studies on parent–child dyads did not show an increase in PBMA intake or acceptance, both parents and children displayed similar levels of prefer ence and intake. Further studies are needed to better understand the association between family dining in the home environment and PBMA acceptance. From the synthesized data, empirical studies con ducted in a school environment have demonstrated either neutral or positive acceptance of PBMAs, particu larly when PBMA meals were served. Furthermore, age- related differences with younger and older children in their preference towards types of PBMAs also suggest that food preferences may shift from “natural form” to “processed” foods with increased autonomy, age, and exposure, as supported by previous literature.109–111 Schools are one of the first settings where children gain autonomy in making food choices112,113; hence, food habits developed in schools may reflect their future eat ing behavior. Past interventions have shown the poten tial of using school as an environmental tool to integrate new or healthier foods into children’s daily routine, which supports the potential for promoting the PBMA acceptance in these settings. Cultural background influences the acceptance PBMAs. In Asia, greater openness towards novel PBMAs, particularly among children and parents, may be attributed to longstanding cultural familiarity with traditional PBMAs. Soy-based products, such as tofu, tempeh, and mock meats made from wheat gluten, have 18 Nutrition ReviewsVR Vol. 00(00):1–24 D ow nloaded from https://academ ic.oup.com /nutritionreview s/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nutrit/nuaf257/8407872 by M assey U niversity user on 16 M arch 2026 been widely consumed in Asian cuisines for centu ries.114,115 Although traditional PBMAs are minimally processed, they represent an early plant-based innova tion that may ease the transition towards novel PBMAs. Moreover, factors such as accessibility, cost, and cultural identity create barriers in translating awareness into actual food choices and behavior.116–118 Strength of Evidence Across Studies The included studies showed clear differences between qualitative and quantitative approaches. Qualitative studies were generally of higher methodological quality, whereas quantitative studies were more often con strained by moderate-to-low quality ratings and small sample sizes.67,75,80 The only home-based feeding inter vention offers insights into preference for traditional and novel PBMAs among parents and children.68 However, the generalizability of its findings was still limited, as participants were recruited based on their openness to consuming plant-based foods. Furthermore, missing data due to dropouts during the intervention may reduce the strength of the outcome. A school-based plate-waste study by De Keyzer et al76 pro vides evidence of the acceptability of traditional PBMAs and regular meat-based meals. Another school-based study examined the purchasing behavior of various novel and traditional PBMA meals over 4 weeks and showed differences in preferences between older and younger children.77 However, both studies used a con venience sampling method and lacked information on the number of participants and consideration of con founders, such as gender and dietary preferences. These reduce the representativeness and reliability of their findings. Therefore, findings from quantitative studies should be interpreted with caution, particularly in terms of generalizing to a broader population. Strengths and Limitations By including both qualitative and quantitative research, this scoping review provides a comprehensive overview of parental and child attitudes towards PBMAs, encom passing both traditional and novel protein sources. Parental perspectives were strengthened by extracting relevant data from broader population studies, and completeness was enhanced by contacting study authors regarding forthcoming publications. However, only a small number of studies specifically targeted parents, limiting representativeness despite the inclusion of parent-specific data subsets. The scarcity of research on the target groups and inconsistent definitions of PBMAs necessitated the inclusion of studies on vegeta rian meals, which align with the review’s criteria for traditional PBMAs. The scarce reporting on protein sources, especially in studies of novel proteins, restricted the assessment of ingredient-specific drivers of accept ance or rejection. Cultural comparisons were also con strained, with only 2 studies conducted in Asia.69,70 Finally, the review excluded young adults aged 18 to 26 years,119 focusing on children as the target population. FUTURE DIRECTIONS The review indicates several directions for future research, as follows: 1. Family-unit studies to ascertain the bilateral rela tionship towards PBMA preference To date, only 2 studies have examined the parent–child dyad in relation to preferences for PBMAs.67,68 It remains unclear if this shared preference extends to PBMAs. There are likely discrepancies between parents and children in terms of their ages at which they were first introduced. Parents’ exposure to novel PBMAs are generally in adulthood, whereas children are more likely to encounter them in school where plant-based meal options are increasingly available. As the market for PBMAs continues to expand to encourage plant-based diets, it is essential to gather more information on the reciprocal relationship between parents and children regarding their preferences for PBMAs to help design targeted strategies for families with varying levels of acceptance. 2. Improve nutritional adequacy and specificity in protein sources of novel PBMAs Although novel PBMAs can be nutritionally designed to match animal-based proteins, many raised concerns over their highly processed nature, presence of addi tives, excessive salt, nutrient bioavailability, and syn thetic ingredients that are also perceived by the public.9,120–122 To alleviate parental concerns towards the novel PBMAs, more work is needed from the food industry to develop a range of PBMAs, using recogniz able and natural ingredients, lower in sodium, and using innovative technologies while minimizing the use of additives.123 The nutrient adequacy of PBMAs, particularly the bioavailability of minerals such as iron and zinc, requires further investigation. While in vitro studies have demonstrated that PBMAs may offer non-heme iron and zinc bioavailability comparable to that of ani mal meat,9,124,125 very few studies have isolated these effects using intervention designs. The only nutritional randomized controlled trial was conducted recently by Nutrition ReviewsVR Vol. 00(00):1–24 19 D ow nloaded from https://academ ic.oup.com /nutritionreview s/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nutrit/nuaf257/8407872 by M assey U niversity user on 16 M arch 2026 Mayer Labba and colleagues,126 which compared non- heme iron absorption from bean-based PBMAs with animal proteins (ie, beef and fish) in healthy women. Their results showed that PBMAs had the lowest absorption and bioavailability, raising concerns about potential risk in iron deficiency. Clearly, more human trials are needed to confirm these findings and better understand the implications for iron status in PBMAs. Additionally, reporting the specificity of plant pro tein sources, particularly novel proteins, in future stud ies will help assess which ingredient drives acceptance or rejection. This will aid in product development to drive intake specific to region or culture. 3. Explore how knowledge and culinary skills shape family attitudes about PBMAs To address the lack of knowledge, public awareness of PBMAs could be raised through public messaging in supermarkets, eateries, community spaces, or directly on product packaging. The messages should provide clear information on what PBMAs are, their ingre dients, and processing methods, to foster better con sumer understanding and encourage adoption. Public guidelines and recipes promoting plant-based foods are accessible on websites in countries such as Canada,120 Germany,127 the United Kingdom,128 the United States,129 and Sweden.130 To extend their reach, alternative dissemination methods, such as printed mate rials through schools, workplaces, or directly to homes to ensure a wider reach of a target audience, could be considered. The lack of culinary skills to prepare PBMAs could be addressed through cooking demonstrations at super markets as well as community centers and schools to showcase that PBMAs can be prepared similarly to meat and may also promote their use in meal preparation.131 In addition, having workshops targeted at parent–child pairs could equip them with practical skills and inspira tion to integrate novel PBMAs into meals using herbs and spices to mask undesirable flavor profiles. 4. Meal context in family acceptance Previous studies have shown that meal context can impact food choice131–133 and acceptance.40,134,135 Furthermore, PBMAs are often better received when prepared with familiar recipes,68,71,75,79 by combining meat,81,136,137 or self-prepared.138 Traditional PBMAs could be introduced as a practi cal starting point for encouraging the adoption of a plant-based diet. For example, tofu and legumes, which are more readily accepted due to their cultural familiarity, are packed with protein, fiber, and micronutrients, and can be easily incorporated into familiar meals.72,74,115 Understanding how PBMAs can be best presented (eg, traditional vs novel PBMAs, meal location, or combining meat with PBMAs) in a family setting could be crucial to enhancing preference and acceptance to encourage greater acceptance. 5. Create a plant-based food environment and pro vide positive information to nudge families Given the high percentage of children spending a sub stantial amount of time in schools,139,140 school cafete rias present a suitable setting for offering plant-based meals, enabling broad outreach to students. To our knowledge, direct studies concerning parents dining with their children in school settings remain limited. Parents’ involvement in the school dining experience on a regular basis, such as weekly or monthly events when plant-based school meals are provided, may positively influence their perceptions of PBMAs. Such initiatives could foster a shared understanding of the benefits of PBMAs while creating opportunities to integrate plant- based meals within the family. Behavioral strategies, nudges, and boosts can func tion as motivative operations that support acceptance and willingness to try new foods over time.141–144 For parents, targeted nudges may include eye-catching product labels, product placements and informative posters, or newsletters about PBMAs, highlighting envi ronmental benefits and animal welfare. These approaches can encourage more frequent purchases and incorporation of PBMAs into household meals. Taken together, this scoping review highlights nota ble discrepancies between parental and child percep tions of and attitudes on PBMAs. Parents expressed concerns regarding the nutritional adequacy, high degree of processing in novel products, and their lack of culinary skills for preparation when they are not famil iar with these foods. The perceived rejection by their children also serves as a barrier to inclusion in family meals. In contrast, children indicated greater openness to PBMAs, often motivated by environmental and ani mal welfare considerations, as well as the visual resem blance of novel PBMAs to conventional meat products. Both parents and children, however, shared similar per ceptions that taste would determine repeated consump tion. Traditional PBMAs were also more favored when PBMAs are integrated into familiar dishes. Key factors for facilitating PBMA integration into family meals include raising awareness, fostering a supportive food environment, leveraging family influence, and increas ing exposure to these foods. 20 Nutrition ReviewsVR Vol. 00(00):1–24 D ow nloaded from https://academ ic.oup.com /nutritionreview s/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nutrit/nuaf257/8407872 by M assey U niversity user on 16 M arch 2026 CONCLUSION Increasing transparency around processing methods for novel PBMAs, alongside tailored educational and com munication strategies, could help align parents and chil dren with varying levels of nutritional knowledge and cooking skills. Leveraging existing positive perceptions of familiar PBMAs and family-based interventions to improve awareness, culinary confidence, and liking may facilitate the integration of PBMAs into everyday diets. Future work should investigate parents and child dynamics in food decision making and improve culi nary skills for preparing PBMAs at home. Addressing the gaps in the food industry to develop healthier PBMA products that align with national dietary guide lines should be prioritized to support both acceptance and public health goals. Author Contributions. M.P., J.H., and A.T.G. concep tualized the review. A.T.G. and Y.M. performed the database search and full-text screening for the scoping review. J.C.M. conducted the validation search. A.T.G. synthesized the data and drafted the manuscript. Y.M. synthesized the data and drafted the methodology. All authors reviewed the manuscript, and A.T.G. and M.P. revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final version for submission. Supplementary Material Supplementary Material is available at Nutrition Reviews online. Funding. The research was funded by the Riddet Institute via the Centre for Research Excellence New Zealand. The funding body played no role in the study design, analysis, or manuscript preparation. Conflicts of Interest None declared. Data availability Data of this review were extracted from published mate rial. Processed data are available upon request. REFERENCES 001. Arora S, Kataria P, Nautiyal M, et al. Comprehensive review on the role of plant protein as a possible meat analogue: framing the future of meat. ACS Omega. 2023;8:23305-23319. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.3c01373 002. Satija A, Hu FB. Plant-based diets and cardiovascular health. Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2018;28:437-441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcm.2018.02.004 003. Singh M, Trivedi N, Enamala MK, et al. Plant-based meat analogue (PBMA) as a sustainable food: a concise review. Eur Food Res Technol. 2021;247:2499-2526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-021-03810-1 004. McClements DJ, Grossmann L. Next-Generation Plant-Based Foods. Springer Nature; 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96764-2 005. Nyambayo I, Galindo-Pineda DM, Sarieddin G, Bogueva D, Marinova D. Consumer perception of plant-based meat substitutes. In: Bogueva D, Marinova D, Raphaely T, eds. Consumer Perceptions and Food. Springer; 2024:199-216. 006. MarketsandMarkets. Protein alternatives market by source (plant protein, micro bial protein, insect protein), application (food & beverages, animal feed, pet food), form, nature, production process (qualitative), region—global forecast to 2029. Accessed January 28, 2024. https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/ Market-Reports/alternative-protein-market-233726079.html#:�:text=What% 20is%20the%20current%20size, 9.9%25%20from%202024%20to%202029 007. Day L, Cakebread JA, Loveday SM. Food proteins from animals and plants: differ ences in the nutritional and functional properties. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2022;119:428-442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2021.12.020 008. Sarwar Gilani G, Wu Xiao C, Cockell KA. Impact of antinutritional factors in food proteins on the digestibility of protein and the bioavailability of amino acids and on protein quality. Br J Nutr. 2012;108(Suppl 2):S315-S332. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/S0007114512002371 009. Latunde-Dada GO, Kajarabille N, Rose S, et al. Content and availability of miner als in plant-based burgers compared with a meat burger. Nutrients. 2023;15:2732. 010. Hertzler SR, Lieblein-Boff JC, Weiler M, Allgeier C. C. Plant proteins: assessing their nutritional quality and effects on health and physical function. Nutrients. 2020;12:3704. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12123704 011. McMacken M, Shah S. A plant-based diet for the prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes. J Geriatr Cardiol. 2017;14:342-354. https://doi.org/10.11909/j. issn.1671-5411.2017.05.009 012. Mullins AP, Arjmandi BH. Health benefits of plant-based nutrition: focus on beans in cardiometabolic diseases. Nutrients. 2021;13:519. https://doi.org/10. 3390/nu13020519 013. Pe~na-Jorquera H, Cid-Jofr�e V, Landaeta-D�ıaz L, et al. Plant-based nutrition: exploring health benefits for atherosclerosis, chronic diseases, and metabolic syndrome—a comprehensive review. Nutrients. 2023;15:3244. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/nu15143244 014. Jang J, Lee D-W. Advancements in plant based meat analogs enhancing sensory and nutritional attributes. NPJ Sci Food. 2024;8:50. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41538-024-00292-9 015. Coelho MOC, Monteyne AJ, Dirks ML, Finnigan TJA, Stephens FB, Wall BT. Daily mycoprotein consumption for 1 week does not affect insulin sensitivity or gly caemic control but modulates the plasma lipidome in healthy adults: a rando mised controlled trial. Br J Nutr. 2021;125:147-160. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0007114520002524 016. Crimarco A, Springfield S, Petlura C, et al. A randomized crossover trial on the effect of plant-based compared with animal-based meat on trimethylamine-N- oxide and cardiovascular disease risk factors in generally healthy adults: Study With Appetizing Plantfood—Meat Eating Alternative Trial (SWAP-MEAT). Am J Clin Nutr. 2020;112:1188-1199. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqaa203 017. Farsi DN, Gallegos JL, Finnigan TJA, Cheung W, Munoz JM, Commane DM. The effects of substituting red and processed meat for mycoprotein on biomarkers of cardiovascular risk in healthy volunteers: an analysis of secondary endpoints from Mycomeat. Eur J Nutr. 2023;62:3349-3359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394- 023-03238-1 018. Malinska H, Klementov�a M, Kudlackova M, et al. A plant-based meal reduces postprandial oxidative and dicarbonyl stress in men with diabetes or obesity compared with an energy- and macronutrient-matched conventional meal in a randomized crossover study. Nutr Metab (Lond). 2021;18:84. https://doi.org/10. 1186/s12986-021-00609-5