Transforming practice chains through ideological objects: How plant-based meats impact consumers' everyday food practices.

This research investigates the impact of the introduction of plant-based meats (PBMs) on consumers' food practices. Based on the results of 21 in-depth interviews with consumers who use PBMs, this research uses practice theory to explore how the adoption of PBMs affects linked food practices and the meanings associated with these practices. We find that consumers adopt PBMs due to either a desire for meaning coherence or for practicality. Subsequently there are social and embodied ripple consequences associated with this adoption, with consumers revising their social food practices, reconfiguring their understandings of health, and re-orienting their relationship to their body. Our findings extend the research on practice theory by examining how the adoption of a new category of ideological objects shapes other linked consumption practices. Practically, our findings provide important insights for dietary, marketing and health practitioners to understand the overall impact of PBM adoption on consumers' dietary patterns and practices, and their perception about health and body.

Impact of a Switch to Plant-Based Foods That Visually and Functionally Mimic Animal-Source Meat and Dairy Milk for the Australian Population-A Dietary Modelling Study.

Sales of plant-based 'meat' and 'milk'-products that mimic the visual and functional characteristics of animal-source foods-have increased rapidly during the past decade and are predicted to continue to increase. As plant-based 'meat' and 'milk' are nutritionally dissimilar to the animal-source originals, this study aimed to estimate the nutritional implications for the Australian population of substituting 'Easily Swappable' animal-source meat and dairy milk with plant-based imitation products. Computer simulation modelling was undertaken using dietary intake data collected in 2011-12 from a nationally representative survey sample. Conservative and Accelerated dietary transition scenarios were modelled in which various amounts of dairy milk and animal-source meat were replaced with plant-based 'milk' and plant-based 'meat', for the entire population and for various sub-populations. The scenarios were based on sales reports and economic projections. Modelling revealed that the intake of nutrients already at risk of inadequate intake, such as iodine and vitamin B12 (particularly for females), zinc (particularly for males) and n-3 long-chain fatty acids (for adults), would likely be adversely impacted in an Accelerated scenario. In conclusion, widespread replacement of dairy milk and animal-source meat with plant-based 'milk' and 'meat' may increase the risk of nutritional inadequacies in the Australian population. Messages and policy actions promoting the transition to more environmentally sustainable diets should be designed to avoid such adverse nutritional impacts.

Towards healthier and more sustainable diets in the Australian context: comparison of current diets with the Australian Dietary Guidelines and the EAT-Lancet Planetary Health Diet.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing focus on moving populations towards healthier and more environmentally sustainable dietary patterns. The Australian Dietary Guidelines provide dietary patterns that promote health and wellbeing. It is unclear how these guidelines align with the more recently published global recommendations of the EAT-Lancet Planetary Health Reference Diet, and how Australian diets compare to both sets of recommendations. METHODS: Data from one 24-h recall collected for the 2011-13 National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey were analysed for 5,920 adults aged 19-50 years. Subgroups of this population were identified by diet quality and lower or higher consumption of foods often considered to be environmentally intensive (higher animal meat and dairy foods) or associated with healthiness (higher vegetables and lower discretionary choices). Food group and nutrient composition of Australian diets were compared to diets modelled on the Australian Dietary Guidelines and Planetary Health Reference Diet. The environmental impacts of diets were estimated using an index of combined metrics. RESULTS: Compared with the Planetary Health Reference Diet, the Australian Dietary Guidelines contained more servings of the vegetable, dairy and alternatives, fruit, and discretionary choices. The amount of meat and alternatives was higher in the Planetary Health Reference Diet than Australian Dietary Guidelines due to the inclusion of more plant-based meat alternatives. The average Australian diet contained two to almost four times the Australian Dietary Guidelines and Planetary Health Reference Diet maximum recommended intake of discretionary choices, and provided inadequate amounts of the vegetables, cereals, unsaturated fats and meats and alternatives food groups, primarily due to lower intakes of plant-based alternatives. The average Australian diet also contained less dairy and alternatives than the Australian Dietary Guidelines. In the average Australian diet, red meat and poultry contributed 73% to the total servings of meat and alternatives compared to 33% and 10% for the Australian Dietary Guidelines and Planetary Health Reference Diet respectively. The modelled Australian Dietary Guidelines diet met the relevant nutrient reference value for all 22 nutrients examined, whereas the Planetary Health Reference Diet contained an inadequate amount of calcium. The environmental impact scores of the Planetary Health Reference Diet and Australian Dietary Guidelines were 31% and 46% lower than the average Australian diet. CONCLUSIONS: Significant changes are required for Australians' dietary intake to align more closely with national and global dietary recommendations for health and environmental sustainability.