Meat substitutes in Media Discourse

Wenxuan Guo
Wenxuan Guo
Contact Wenxuan Guo

Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

Published: 01.05.2024.

Volume 13, Issue 1 (2024)

pp. 22-35;

https://doi.org/10.7455/ijfs/13.1.2024.a2

Abstract

Shifting from meat consumption is critical for future dietary evolution. Mainstream newspapers and social media are the leading platforms for expressing this opinion. By analysing the media discourse, the proponents of the shift from meat, to plant-based meat and cultured meat were identified. The objectives were: a) to identify themes, word frequencies, and sentiment related to meat substitutes, b) to determine Chinese perceptions of the two meat substitutes, and c) to determine which food functions are of concern to Chinese consumers. Between July 2016 and July 2022, the researcher gathered data from People’s Daily and China Daily online outlets and user comments. 574 news articles and 2,345 online comments were extracted. Three techniques were applied: sentiment analysis, thematic analysis, and word cloud analysis. The results revealed that newspapers reported positively on meat substitutes, yet user comments showed negative public perception. Chinese people held positive attitudes toward plant-based meat and negative attitudes toward cultured meat. Thus, the insights from the media discourse provided valuable indicators for stakeholders to develop sustainable food education and consumption strategies.

Keywords

References

1.
Agency X. Heavyweight. 2022;
2.
Al Marouf A, Hossain R, Sarker M, Pandey B, Siddiquee S. IEEE International Conference on Electrical, Computer and Communication Technologies (ICECCT). 2019;1–6.
3.
Atenstaedt R. Word cloud analysis of the BJGP: 5 years on. British Journal of General Practice. 2017;(658):231–2.
4.
Augoustinos M, Crabb S, Shepherd R. Genetically modified food in the news: Media representations of the GM debate in the UK. Public Understanding of Science. 2010;(1):98–114.
5.
Bakshi K. Considerations for big data: Architecture and approach. IEEE Aerospace Conference. 2012;1–7.
6.
Bernstein I, Borson S. Learned food aversion: A component of anorexia syndromes [Place: US Publisher: American Psychological Association]. Psychological Review. 1986;(4):462–72.
7.
Bogueva D, Phau I. Impact of Meat Consumption on Health and Environmental Sustainability. 2016;264–76.
8.
Boyatzis R. Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. 1998;
9.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research. 2006;(2):22–35.
10.
11.
Bryant C, Szejda K, Parekh N, Deshpande V, Tse B. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. 2019;
12.
Cai X, -M, Liu C, Zeng G. The construction and re-construction of food cultural spaces in Guangzhou by the social media. Human geography. 2013;(6):1–8.
13.
Cardello A, Carnovale F, Jin X, Arney D, Descovich K, Guo W, et al. Food quality: Relativity, context and consumer expectations. Food Quality and Preference. 1995;(3):855.
14.
Chen Y, Zhang Z. Exploring public perceptions on alternative meat in China from social media data using transfer learning method. Food Quality and Preference. 2022;
15.
Domingo D, Quandt T, Heinonen A, Paulussen S, Singer J, Vujnovic M. Participatory journalism practices in the media and beyond: An international comparative study of initiatives in online newspapers. Journalism Practice. 2008;(3):326–42.
16.
Du Q, Han Z. The framing of nuclear energy in chinese media discourse: A comparison between national and local newspapers. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2020;118695.
17.
Duan R. Development of soy protein food-vegetarian meat. Sichuan Food Industry Science and Technology. 1994;(3):30–2.
18.
Fan K, Graziano F, Economides J, Black C, Song D. The public’s preferences on plastic surgery social media engagement and professionalism: Demystifying the impact of demographics. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2019;(2):619–30.
19.
García-Santillán A, Espinosa-Ramos E. Addiction to the smartphone in high school students: How it’s in daily life? Contemporary Educational Technology. 2021;(2):296.
20.
Goodwin J, Shoulders C. The future of meat: A qualitative analysis of cultured meat media coverage. Meat Science. 2013;(3):445–50.
21.
Graça J, Calheiros M, Oliveira A. Attached to meat? (Un)willingness and intentions to adopt a more plant-based diet. Appetite. 2015;113–25.
22.
Guan Q, Deng S, Wang H. A comparative study of common Chinese stopword lists for text clustering. Data Analysis and Knowledge Discovery. 2017;(3):72–80.
23.
He J, Evans N, Liu H, Shao S. A review of research on plant-based meat alternatives: Driving forces, history, manufacturing, and consumer attitudes. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety. 2020;(5):2639–56.
24.
Hillier J, Walter C, Malin D, Garcia-Suarez T, Mila-I-Canals L, Smith P. A farm-focused calculator for emissions from crop and livestock production. Environmental Modelling & Software. 2011;(9):1070–8.
25.
Holt L, Major L. Frame and blame: An analysis of how na-tional and local newspapers framed the Jena Six controversy. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 2010;3.
26. :
582–97.
27.
Iyengar S, Kinder D. Public policy: The essential readings. 1987;295–305.
28.
Kabir A, Ahmed K, Karim R. Word cloud and sentiment analysis of amazon earphones reviews with R programming language. Informatica Economica. 2020;(4):55–71.
29.
Kane D, Li K. Fertility cultures and childbearing desire after the two-child policy: Evidence from southwest China. Journal of Family Studies. 2023;(2):576–94.
30.
Kwak J, Jo G, Chung HK, M.-J. Association between sugarsweetened beverage consumption and incident hypertension in Korean adults: A prospective study. European Journal of Nutrition. 2019;(3):1009–17.
31.
Lai Y. A study of perceptions of food preparation skills in Hong Kong adolescents. Journal of the Home Economics Institute of Australia. 2007;(2):16–24.
32.
Lappé F. Diet for a small planet. 1982;
33.
Lennernäs M, Fjellström C, Becker W, Giachetti I, Schmitt A, Winter A, et al. Influences on food choice perceived to be important by nationally-representative samples of adults in the European Union. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1997;8–15.
34.
Li J, -R, Hsieh YH. Traditional Chinese food technology and cuisine. Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2004;(2):147–55.
35.
Lichtenberg E, Zimmerman R. Information and farmers’ attitudes about pesticides, water quality, and related en-vironmental effects. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment. 1999;(3):227–36.
36.
Liu J, Hocquette É, Ellies-Oury MP, Chriki S, Hocquette JF. Chinese consumers’ attitudes and potential acceptance toward artificial meat [Number: 2 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute]. Foods. 2021;(2):10020353.
37.
Mcgetrick C. Investigation into the application of personality insights and language tone analysis in spam classification. 2017;
38.
Meagher K. Public perceptions of food-related risks: A cross-national investigation of individual and contextual influences. Journal of Risk Research. 2019;(7):919–35.
39.
Moreira M, Veiga C, Su Z, Reis G, Pascuci L, Veiga C. Social media analysis to understand the expected benefits by plant-based meat alternatives consumers. 2021;
40.
Foods. (12):3144.
41.
Palmer J. Environmental education in the 21st century: Theory, practice, progress and promise. 1998;
42.
Pang B, Lee L. Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval. 2008;(1–2):1–135.
43.
Rothgerber H. Real men don’t eat (vegetable) quiche: Masculinity and the justification of meat consumption. Psychology of Men & Masculinity. 2013;(4):363–75.
44.
Ijfs. :22–35.
45.
Russell D, Russell C. Experiential reciprocity: The role of direct experience in value perceptions. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing. 2010;(6):624–34.
46.
Schösler H, Boer J, Boersema J. Can we cut out the meat of the dish? Constructing consumer-oriented pathways towards meat substitution. Appetite. 2012;(1):39–47.
47.
Scott S, Rozin P, Small D. Consumers prefer “natural” more for preventatives than for curatives. Journal of Consumer Research. 2020;(3):454–71.
48.
Shao C, Ciampaglia G, Varol O, Yang KC, Flammini A, Menczer F. The spread of low-credibility content by social bots [Number: 1 Publisher. Nature Communications. 2018;(1):4787.
49.
Sharma D, Chauhan P, Mishra S. Impact of demonetization on E-Commerce: Critical analysis. TRANS Asian Journal of Marketing & Management Research. 2017;(10):28–33.
50.
Shepherd A, Sanders C, Doyle M, Shaw J. Using social media for support and feedback by mental health service users: Thematic analysis of a twitter conversation. BMC Psychiatry. 2015;(1).
51.
Specht A, Rumble J, Buck E. Investigating social media conversations and influencers surrounding cultured meat. Journal of Applied Communications. 2020;(1).
52.
Taboada M. Sentiment analysis: An overview from linguistics. Annual Review of Linguistics. 2016;(1):325–47.
53.
Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, Springmann M, Lang T, Vermeulen S, et al. Food in the anthropocene: The eat-lancet commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet. 2019;31788–92.
54.
Wu Q, Liang X. Food therapy and medical diet therapy of traditional Chinese medicine. Clinical Nutrition Experimental. 2018;1–5.
55.
Younis E. Sentiment analysis and text mining for social media microblogs using open source tools: An empirical study. 2015;
56.
International Journal of Computer Applications. (5):44–8.
57.
Zhang M, Li L, Bai J. Consumer acceptance of cultured meat in urban areas of three cities in China. Food Control. 2020;
58.
Zhang S, Yan Y, Meng G, Zhang Q, Liu L, Wu H, et al. Protein foods from animal sources and risk of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in representative cohorts from north and south china. Journal of internal medicine. 2022;(3):340–53.
59.
Zhou H, Yip W, Ren J, To S. Thematic analysis of sustainable ultraprecision machining by using text mining and unsupervised learning method. Journal of Manufacturing Systems. 2022;218–33.
60.
Zhu Y. China’s floating population and their settlement intention in the cities: Beyond the Hukou reform. Habitat International. 2007;(1):65–76.
61.
Ijfs. :22–35.

Citation

Copyright

Article metrics

Google scholar: See link

The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Most read articles

Indexed by