LWT - Food Science and Technology 173 (2023) 114235

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

LWT
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lwt

The best of both worlds? Challenges and opportunities in the development

of hybrid meat products from the last 3 years
Simona Grasso a, *, Gulden Goksen b
a
School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Ireland
b
Department of Food Technology, Vocational School of Technical Sciences at Mersin Tarsus Organized Industrial Zone, Tarsus University, 33100, Mersin, Turkey

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: For sustainability, health and welfare reasons, there is an increased interest in developing flexitarian eating
Hybrid meat products patterns that include more plant-forward choices. In this context, hybrid meat products are emerging as an
Flexitarian diet alternative to traditional meat products as they are produced using a combination of plant and animal in­
Technological challenges
gredients in varying proportions, with the potential advantage of providing a familiar meaty taste and texture,
Sensory challenge
Consumer attitudes
with the added nutritional benefits from plants. The development of hybrid products such as burgers, nuggets,
and sausages presents both challenges and opportunities, due to the effects that the plant portion has on the
technological and sensory properties (texture, appearance, taste, etc.) of the meat matrices. This review focuses
on the last three years, and it highlights the most recent model work that has been carried out to understand how
to best manufacture hybrid meat products, the latest research work carried out on the development of hybrid
meat products and sensory and consumer studies that have been carried out in various countries in this area to
understand how to best market these products. Finally, we mention the use of novel protein sources such as
insects and processing methods such as 3D printing and extrusion.

1. Introduction hybrid meat products have been launched in different markets,

There is an increased interest in flexitarian diets, with more and
more consumers trying meat free days, alternatives and reducing their
meat intake for several reasons, including health, the environment and
welfare (Lang, 2020). Barriers such as favourable perceptions built to
meat and meat-based societal structures make it hard to make the full
transition from a conventional meat-based diet to vegetarianism or
veganism, however adopting a semi-vegetarian diet that consists pri­
marily of plant-based foods and allows for small amounts of meat, is less
restrictive and offers positive benefits (Spencer, Cienfuegos, & Guinard,
2018). In this context, hybrid meat products have been introduced in the
market. There is no official definition for hybrid meat products, but they
have been referred to as meat products containing varying amounts of
plant-based ingredients (such as pulses, grains, fruits and vegetables in
different ratios, from about 25% to about 50%), which are not added as
extenders, but for their positive connotation (Grasso & Jaworska, 2020).
They have the potential advantage of providing a familiar meaty taste
and texture, while containing a range of plant-based ingredients that can
result in on pack claims such as “one of your five a day” or nutrition
claims such as “source of fibre” (Grasso & Jaworska, 2020). Several
including the UK (Grasso & Jaworska, 2020), Denmark (Danish Crown,
2019), Austria (Rebel Meat brand) and the US (Well Carved brand).
These include sausages, burgers, meatballs and mince. When compared
to their plant-based alternatives, these foods may demonstrate higher
sensory acceptance (Grasso, Rondoni, Bari, Smith, & Mansilla, 2022b).
Moreover, it was reported that a 32% reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions is possible if 50% of meat is replaced with plant proteins in
some meat products (Baune et al., 2021). The interest in hybrid meat
products has recently increased and this might possibly be related to the
long term effects of the pandemic, which has affected how consumers
perceive the whole food sector and food sustainability as part of it
(Galanakis, Rizou, Aldawoud, Ucak, & Rowan, 2021).
This review focuses on the strategies that have been so far investi­
gated to produce hybrid meat products with at least 10% meat reduction
and critically evaluates the instrumental and sensory qualities of the
prototypes produced. It also summarises the modest literature available
on consumer attitudes towards hybrid meat products and provides
future perspectives on this topic. While this review does not intend to be
comprehensive in covering all aspects of this topic, it aims to include all
major findings from the last three years (2020–2022).

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: simona.grasso@ucd.ie (S. Grasso), guldengoksen@tarsus.edu.tr (G. Goksen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2022.114235
Received 5 September 2022; Received in revised form 4 November 2022; Accepted 28 November 2022
Available online 2 December 2022
0023-6438/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
S. Grasso and G. Goksen
2. Model studies on the combined use of plant-based and meat
proteins
In this section we will cover the model studies that have looked at the
behaviour of plant proteins in hybrid matrices to understand the opti­
mum formulations and production conditions. These preparatory studies
are key to understanding the matrix interactions between plant-based
and meat proteins, which will be different and pose additional chal­
lenges compared to meat-only products. When plant-based and meat
proteins are combined, hurdles are to be expected because meat
myofibrillar proteins exhibit great emulsifying capacity and are able to
form elastic gels by enclosing water and fat particles in the protein
network upon heating (Sha & Xiong, 2020). More of these studies will
need to be conducted on a product-specific and protein-specific basis to
better understand hybrid meat products. A summary of all studies shown
in sections 2 and 3 are shown in Table 1.
Ebert, Michel, et al. (2022) studied the pH behaviour of a minced
model system with pork meat, salt and various amounts of wet extrudate
proteins from pea, pumpkin and sunflower. The authors used a mathe­
matical model to correlate the different variables (pH, time, acidifier,
extrudate concentration and type of plant protein) to help in the
development of dry-cured hybrid sausage formulations. Authors
concluded that similar investigations should be carried out for products
acidified by microbial fermentation with starter cultures to be more
realistic. Manufacturers will need to carefully take into account the
amount and the type of vegetable proteins to use in hybrid dry-cured
formulations to ensure sufficient coagulation takes place and therefore
a firm and sliceable product with desirable texture is obtained.
In a previous study by the same group (Ebert, Kaplan, et al., 2021),
pork meat was used with potato proteins in an aqueous model system.
The authors determined the pH-dependent miscibility and aggregation
behaviour of combinations of meat and potato proteins, with results
showing that significant texture changes can take place in hybrid sys­
tems, due to the plant proteins obstructing the structural self-association
of meat proteins. The authors concluded that it would be valuable to
look at combinations of meat with other plant proteins, perhaps those
with more similar isoelectric point to meat, to understand if structural
disruption would be similar.
Ebert, Baune, et al. (2021) looked at the buffering capacity of wet
texturized plant proteins (from two pea isolates and four oilseed flours
from pumpkin and sunflower) vs pork meat. They revealed that ash,
some minerals and amino acids were key influencing factors on the
overall buffering capacity. It was reported that buffering capacity was
greatest for wet texturized pumpkin and sunflower proteins, while pea
protein extrudates and pork meat were both more acidic and had similar
buffering capacities. It was found that both meat and pea proteins have
similar pH changes brought on by acids, so the recent popularity of using
pea proteins to create meat analogues is not surprising.
Another model study was carried out on the effects of wheat,
pumpkin, sunflower, rapeseed, and potato soluble protein fractions on
solubilized water- (ws) or salt-and-water (sws) meat protein (Gibis et al.,
2022). The interactions among ws and sws and soluble plant-based
proteins were detected to be carried out at different pH values be­
tween 4.5 and 7.0. Interaction of animal and plant-based proteins
indicated a trend toward slightly larger particle size, while microscopic
analysis and SDS-PAGE all pointed to a rise in protein solubility with pH.
As a result, in the case of meat proteins at pH values between 5.8 and
optimally 6.5, it was suggested that this had a structuring impact on
plant proteins.
Model research into hybrid meat products indicates that structural
stability in meat hybrids must be investigated to create hybrid products
with suitable processing and quality characteristics. Hence, the addition
of suitable binders and changes in pH that can engage with both meat
and plant-based proteins may be of crucial significance. These studies
have emphasised that during the manufacture of hybrid meat products,
the ingredient and ratio selection (of both meat and plant protein) as
2
LWT 173 (2023) 114235
well as process choices (ionic strength, temperature, time, amount and
time point of salt addition during the process), are essential to fully
optimize the resulting hybrid meat products. All of these variables will
have to be closely monitored on a case-to-case basis, depending on the
specific meat product, plant-based ingredients and processes chosen.
3. Hybrid meat products
3.1. Plant-based ingredients (flours, isolates and by-products)
In this section we offer a summary of the most recent research studies
available on the manufacture of hybrid meat products (specifically
burgers, sausages and nuggets), made with a variety of plant-based in­
gredients (including pulse flours, texturized proteins, protein isolates
and even by-products such as hempseed meal) looking at effects on
quality (instrumental, nutritional, sensorial) and reporting the envi­
ronmental impact of plant-based ingredient addition on meat products
where available.
Chandler and McSweeney (2022) created a hybrid chicken burger
using three types of pulse flours (yellow pea, chickpea and lentil) at 0%
(control), 25%, 50% and 75%. The authors looked at the chemical
composition, cooking properties and texture. All the hybrid burgers had
a lower fat and moisture content, while the yellow pea only had a
reduced protein content. The pulses addition resulted in improved
cooking properties, such as increased cooking yield and a lower diam­
eter and thickness reduction. Texture analysis showed significant dif­
ferences at inclusion levels of 50% and 75%, with significantly lower
values for hardness, cohesion, springiness, and gumminess compared to
the control burger made with only chicken. The authors therefore rec­
ommended pulse inclusions of up to 25%.
Argel, Ranalli, Califano, and Andrés (2020) also looked at pulse
flours (lentil, chickpea, pea and bean) at two inclusion levels and
rehydrated at different water to flour ratios, as replacement for 10%–
44% pork meat in low fat burgers. These authors also reported higher
cooking yields and lower diameter reductions with the pulse flour
addition. Sensory tests carried out with 60 untrained panellists, reported
acceptable sensory scores for hybrid burgers (above 5 in a 9-point he­
donic scale), however a control burger was not included in the sensory
evaluation.
Sun, Xiong, Feng, and Fang (2022) explored the impact that hemp­
seed meal at 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40% inclusion on a variety of quality
characteristics of chicken sausage. Hempseed meal enhanced the ash
and total dietary fibre content of chicken sausage while decreasing the
moisture, protein, and lipid content. A reduction in cooking loss was
achieved while simultaneously improving sausage emulsion stability.
Hempseed meal boosted both the total phenolic content and the 1,
1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical scavenging capacity, but
it also increased lipid oxidation, presumably because hempseed meal
contains more unsaturated fatty acids. This study demonstrated that
hempseed meal into chicken sausage might replace meat, while
providing a different application for this by-product and broadening its
food industry applications.
As shown in these studies, a range of plant-based ingredients has
already been tested in hybrid meat products, but further studies are
needed to find the best combinations of meat product, plant-based in­
gredients and processing parameters that deliver in flavour and texture.
While traditionally soy-based products have been widely used as a
vegetable source of protein, there is growing interest to explore other
sources due to allergenicity and GMO issues (Wang, Kaur, Furuhata,
Aoyama, & Singh, 2022). There is untapped potential in the use of
underutilised pulses and grains or their by-products, in the context of
developing new hybrids with sustainability in mind.
3.2. Extruded plant-based ingredients
Bakhsh et al. (2021) added 10–40% of soy-based textured vegetable
S. Grasso and G. Goksen LWT 173 (2023) 114235

Table 1
Hybrid meat products, ingredients, technological properties and sensory/nutritional effects.
Hybrid meat Meat Plant or insect-based ingredients Instrumental/Technological Sensory/Nutritional effects References
products effects

Minced Pork Pea, pumpkin and sunflower (5, • Sufficient acidification at 5% • No sensory or proximate Ebert, Michel,
model 15, 20, 40, 60, and 70% wt% but not at higher levels composition et al. (2022)
system plant protein), wet extrudates • Increasing concentrations of
plant extrudates resulted in a
linear increase of pH
Aqueous Pork Potato proteins • Significant texture changes • No sensory or proximate Ebert, Kaplan,
model • Plant proteins impeded the composition et al. (2021)
system structural self-association of
meat proteins.
Model study Pork Wet texturized plant proteins • Similar buffering capacity for • No sensory or proximate Ebert, Baune, et al.
(two pea isolates and four oilseed pea protein extrudates composition (2021)
flours, from pumpkin and • Ash, minerals and amino acids
sunflower) influence the overall buffering
capacity
Model study Solubilized water- Wheat, pumpkin, sunflower, • Meat proteins, at pH > 5.8 had • No sensory or proximate Gibis et al. (2022)
(ws) or salt-and-water rapeseed, and potato soluble a structuring effect on plant composition
(sws) meat proteins protein fractions (1 : 1 (v/v) proteins.
mixtures)
Burger Chicken Yellow pea, chickpea, lentil (0, • Enhanced cooking qualities • No sensory analysis Chandler and
25, 50, and 75%) • Much softer, less cohesive, less • Lower fat and moisture content McSweeney
springy and gummier than the (2022)
control burger
• Higher inclusion levels
(50–75%) decreased texture
parameters
Burger Pork Lentil, chickpea, pea, bean • Higher cooking yields and • Acceptable sensory with 60 Argel et al. (2020)
(10–44%) lower diameter reductions untrained panellists but no control
• Better oil and water retention included
• Lower hardness
Sausage Chicken Hempseed meal (10, 20, 30, • Improved emulsion stability • Increased fibre and lowered Sun et al. (2022)
40%) • Decreased cooking loss moisture, protein and fat content
• Softer texture
• Increased total phenolic
content and antioxidant
activity
• Increased lipid oxidation
• Significant colour changes
Patties Beef Soy-based textured vegetable • Higher water holding capacity • Sensory by Electronic Tongue Bakhsh, Lee, Lee,
protein (10–40%) and lower cooking loss System showed higher tendency for Hwang, and Joo
• Reduced hardness, sourness, astringency, umami, and (2021)
cohesiveness, and thickness saltiness values
with increased gumminess and • Improved fatty acid profile
chewiness
Patties Pork Pea, sunflower, pumpkin protein • Higher content in essential • Improved ω-6:ω-3 ratio Baune et al. (2021)
(30%), wet or dry extrudates linoleic and α-linolenic acid • Theoretical increase in fibre
• Increment in dietary fibre
Sausage Pork Pea protein (20%) as isolates, low • Softer texture and lower • No significant differences in Broucke et al.
moisture and high moisture elasticity sensorial attributes for isolates (2022)
extrudates • Large cavities with jelly-like (trained panel)
excretions
• Complete amino acid profile
• Significant colour changes
• Lower anti-nutritional factors
and pea allergen content
Dry-cured Pork Pumpkin seed proteins (12.5, 25, • Accelerated drying, moderately • No sensory analysis Ebert, Michel,
sausage 37.5, 50%) coherent and elastic ≤25% • No proximate composition et al. (2022)
• Slow/lagged drying, hardly differences at <25% inclusion
coherent and elastic ≥25%
• Changed water migration and
binding at high inclusions
• Red-green matrix up to 25%,
yellow-green matrix ≥25%
Nugget Chicken Pea, sunflower and pumpkin • Reduced weight loss • 40% high moisture pea extrudates Baune et al. (2020)
extrudates (40–60%), high scored the best (17 untrained
moisture extrudates or texturized panellists)
vegetable proteins
3D-Nugget Chicken Pea protein isolate (12–30%) • Best printability and fibre • No sensory or proximate Wang et al. (2022)
structure at 20% composition.
3D-Nugget Chicken Refined wheat flour (1:1, 2:1, and • Optimized formulation was 2:1 • Acceptable scores from 20 semi- Wilson et al.
3:1, w/w) trained panellists (2020)
Frankfurter Pork Yellow mealworm larvae flour • Lower cooking loss and similar • Lower sensory scores (16-member Zhang et al. (2022)
(YMLF)(5, 10, and 15%) freeze- textural properties in trained panel)
dried or microwave dried microwave dried YMLF
(continued on next page)

3
S. Grasso and G. Goksen
Table 1 (continued )
Hybrid meat Meat Plant or insect-based ingredients
products
Sausage Pork Superworm (5, 10, 25 and 50%)
protein (TVP) to beef patties and looked at instrumental quality prop­
erties. Beef patties including TVP minimised both released water and
cooking loss due to the water holding capacity of TVP. The levels of
linoleic acid, arachidonic acid, and linolenic acid rose dramatically as
TVP concentration increased. Since the TVP used was defatted, the
different fatty acid concentrations in different formulations were due to
the substitution of animal fat for pre-emulsified vegetable oil. This
showed a positive effect of TVP in beef burgers from both a textural and
nutritional perspective.
Baune et al. (2021) replaced 30% of pork meat with three types of
protein (from pea, sunflower or pumpkin), in two different forms (either
wet or dry extruded textured protein) in a hybrid meat product (pat­
ties-like shape). This is a different approach compared to the previous
two studies we mentioned, which used traditional powdered proteins.
Results showed that all hybrids had an improved ω-6:ω-3 ratio (approx.
8:1 in comparison to respective controls 12:1) and a theoretical increase
in dietary fibre. The authors also calculated the environmental impact of
the hybrid meat products using Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) and
concluded that hybrids had a lower environmental impact than control
meatballs made with 100% meat protein in the range of 10–20%. Wet
extrusion reduced the environmental impact of hybrid meatballs more
than dry texturization.
Another study from the same group where extruded products are
used is the one by Broucke et al. (2022). Finely comminuted sausages
were manufactured where 20% pork meat was substituted with three
types of pea: pea protein isolate (PPI), pea low moisture extrudates and
pea high moisture extrudates. The expert taste panel did not detect any
differences between sausages with PPI and control (the textured hybrids
were not tested) and the addition of texturized pea protein resulted in a
softer bite and in significant colour changes compared to control. The
authors indicated that the PPI was the most promising, considering all
aspects of the study.
Another study used wet extrudates, this time in dry-cured hybrid
pork sausages (Ebert, Jungblut, et al., 2022). The authors replaced pork
with wet extrudates from unroasted pumpkin seed flour at 12.5%, 25%,
37.5% and 50%. The hybrid dry-cured sausages were prepared by
chemically acidifying with glucono-delta-lactone (GDL) and then dry­
ing. During ripening, researchers focused on water loss and dispersion,
due to their effect on the texture of the final product. When more than
25% texturized pumpkin seed proteins were used, this slowed down the
drying process and distribution of moisture, it caused the casing to
harden and led to unfavourable changes in colour and texture. There­
fore, authors recommend up to 25% inclusions due to alterations in the
ability to bind and release water and the future possibility to add suit­
able binders to help with such issue.
An interesting study (mainly in German) used high moisture extru­
dates and texturized vegetable proteins from pea, sunflower and
pumpkin in hybrid chicken nuggets (Baune et al., 2020). The authors
replaced 40%–60% of chicken breast with pea, sunflower and pumpkin
extrudates, with some of the formulations showing promising techno­
logical results, such as in the reduced weight loss. Sensory results
showed differences between pea and pumpkin samples, with the 40%
Pisane C9-High Moisture Extrudate scoring the best, however authors
concluded that the recipes overall needed optimization.
LWT 173 (2023) 114235
Instrumental/Technological Sensory/Nutritional effects References
effects
• Lower emulsion stability and • No differences in protein and fat
worse textural properties for content
freeze dried YMLF
• Improved cooking loss • No sensory or proximate Scholliers et al.
• Similar viscoelastic properties composition (2020)
at low inclusion levels
• Lower hardness
• Good water and fat stability
Extrusion is a promising technology to use in the production of
hybrid meat products with plant-based texturized vegetable proteins.
The texturized vegetable protein products have an improved and more
fibrous texture compared to more traditional pulse flours and food
products can be texturized at low moisture conditions (10–35%) or at
high moisture conditions (40–70%), resulting in Low or High Moisture
Extrudates, respectively (Beniwal, Singh, Kaur, Hardacre, & Singh,
2021). While high temperatures have been shown to be positive to lower
the concentration of trypsin inhibitors during pea protein extrusion,
higher temperatures may lead to a higher loss of amino acids (i.e. lysine,
threonine, valine, leucine and isoleucine)(Broucke et al., 2022), so it is
important to find suitable processing conditions to optimize the nutri­
tional value of the extrudates. From a technological point of view, the
use of extrudates needs to be tailored to specific hybrid meat applica­
tions. For example, extrudates are less soluble and therefore can inter­
fere with emulsion stability in a product like an emulsified sausage and
lead to an undesirable weaker network formation (Broucke et al., 2022).
However, other applications where emulsification is not as critical, for
example burger patties, should be explored further.
3.3. 3D printing
An original 3D printing hybrid application is shown by Wang et al.
(2022). The authors used pea protein isolate and chicken mince to un­
derstand their printability, creating a chicken nugget shape. The authors
found that the addition of 20% chicken mince paste achieved better
printability and fibre structure compared to the use of pea protein isolate
paste only.
Wilson, Anukiruthika, Moses, and Anandharamakrishnan (2020)
also studied 3D printed chicken nuggets for feasible production. To in­
crease its printability, minced chicken meat was blended with varying
amounts of refined wheat flour (1:1, 2:1, and 3:1, w/w). 3D printed
samples were air-dried and deep fried after printing. The 2:1 ratio was
considered the optimal formulation for 3D printing. These two studies
show that 3D printers offer exciting possibilities for the future. 3D
printers could allow the production of softer foods for elderly with
improved nutrient selection and customisable shapes (Wang et al.,
2022). Although meat is currently classified as “non-printable” due to its
composition and fibrous structure (Wilson et al., 2020), it is possible that
a blend of plant-based ingredients with low value animal proteins or
mechanically recovered meats could be used in the context of valor­
isation and upcycling food by-products.
3.4. Insects
The last advancement that will be discussed is the use of insects,
rather than plant-based ingredients, in the manufacture of hybrid meat
products. This could be an interesting new area of research, since insects
are becoming more and more popular as food ingredients and are being
incorporated in several everyday foods. Zhang et al. (2022) looked at
how the quality profiles of hybrid frankfurters changed when ground
yellow mealworm larvae flour (YMLF) dried in two different ways
(freeze-dried and microwave dried), was substituted for varying per­
centages of lean meat (5%, 10%, and 15%). With the increasing
4
S. Grasso and G. Goksen LWT 173 (2023) 114235

replacement ratio, the cooking loss of the microwave dried YMLF groups
was always better than those of the control. Moreover, it was found that
with the increasing replacement ratio of YMLF in both drying processes,
the hybrid frankfurters exhibited lower sensory values than control
frankfurters. Even though hybrid frankfurters still displayed some
quality concerns, the authors concluded that the 10% of microwave
dried YMLF produced the best results.
Scholliers, Steen, and Fraeye (2020) looked at the partial replace­
ment of meat by superworm in cooked sausages. Specifically the authors
looked at the effect of heating temperature and different insect:meat
concentrations on the structural stability of the hybrid sausages, ana­
lysing the dynamic viscoelastic properties, cook loss, instrumental
texture and emulsion stability. The structural and physical stability of
hybrid sausages (excluding cooking loss) were found to be negatively
influenced by the replacement of more than 5% of the meat with insects.
However, the insect addition had a positive effect on the water and fat
stability during cooking and cold storage. Accordingly, it was pointed
out that more work is required to enhance the structure and physical
stability of these hybrid meat products, for example, by adding func­
tional components like hydrocolloids or proteins.
While insects have a favourable nutritional composition and high
feed conversion efficiency, making them an environmentally-friendly
choice (Rumpold & Schlüter, 2013), Western consumers are still reluc­
tant to eating them and it has been suggested that adding them into
familiar food products might help (Megido et al., 2016). In this context,
hybrid meat products could be a good choice as a food matrix, consid­
ering their versatility and popularity. However additional work is
needed to understand the use of insect in meat products, including
different ratios and processing conditions to optimize quality.
4. Consumer studies
Exploring the sensory quality of hybrid meat products with con­
sumers as well as understanding consumer attitudes towards them are
key factors to focus both reformulation and marketing efforts in the right
direction. In this section we have summarised the existing literature on
consumer and sensory work carried out on hybrid meat products,
including several research methods such as online surveys, choice ex­
periments and focus groups in several countries such as the US, Ger­
many, Belgium, UK, Denmark, Spain (Table 2).
Lang (2020) examined the acceptance of plant-based ingredients
(mushrooms) blended with meat using an online survey with 602 US
consumers. The author looked at acceptance of blending (evaluating it
favourably, liking it, being interested in it, in knowing more, and
intending to have it in the near future), ranking of blending benefits
(blending would taste better, be healthier, be more environmentally
sustainable, cost less, and be new and interesting) and five related life­
style factors: food knowledge, food involvement, cooking habits, food
innovativeness and healthy eating. Results showed that the top three
reasons for consuming blended products would all be health related (to
get more vegetables into the diet, a healthier way to consume meat,
avoiding things that are bad for health), followed by taste and price
benefits, while the environmental benefit scored last. In terms of
preferred format, burgers were first. The most impactful factors that
influenced acceptance were food innovativeness, food involvement and
healthy eating. Consumers had a high acceptance of blended products
and they believed these products to be sustainable, new and interesting,
as well as healthier, but they moderately believed that they would cost
less and taste better.
In the US Sogari et al. (2021) carried out a paper and pencil survey in
a US college campus residential dining hall with 296 students (18–35
years old), therefore using a more realistic setting than an online survey.
The authors used a burger made with 70% beef and 30% mushroom as a
model. Results show that with this young demographic (younger than
Lang’s 2020), sustainability information had a more substantial impact
on purchase intention than nutrition information. In another article
from the same study (Sogari et al., 2022), the same students were
randomly assigned to one of four information treatments (nutrition,
sustainability, indulgence, or a control group with no messaging). They
were administered three surveys, one before eating at the dining venue,
one straight after and then an online follow-up survey a month later.
Sustainability information was the only one to significantly increase
participants’ food acceptance ratings.
Caputo, Sogari, and Van Loo (2022) carried out a study in the US
combining sensory and a discrete choice experiment using a control beef
burger, two plant-based burgers (the Beyond Meat and the Impossible
Burger), and a hybrid burger (70% beef and 30% mushrooms). There
were a total of 172 consumers divided in two groups: 86 that carried out
the tasting in a blind condition and 86 that received information on the
burger composition before tasting. Results showed that while in the

Table 2
Summary of consumer studies carried out on hybrid meat products in 2020–2022.
Title Methodology Sample Region Reference/Author
size

Consumer acceptance of blending plant-based ingredients into traditional meat-based Online survey 602 US Lang (2020)
foods: Evidence from the meat-mushroom blend
Factors influencing the intention to purchase meat-mushroom blended burgers among Paper and pencil survey 296 US Sogari et al., 2021
college students
Toward a reduced meat diet: University North American students’ acceptance of a In-person and online 296 US Sogari et al., 2022
blended meat-mushroom burger survey
Do plant-based and blend meat alternatives taste like meat? A combined sensory and Sensory and choice 172 US Caputo et al. (2022)
choice experiment study experiment
Discrete Choice Analysis of Consumer Preferences for Meathybrids—Findings from Online discrete choice 1001 Germany and Profeta et al. (2021)
Germany and Belgium experiment Belgium
Part Meat and Part Plant: Are Hybrid Meat Products Fad or Future? Online reviews 201 UK Grasso and Jaworska
(2020)
The usual suspect: How to co-create healthier meat products. Online focus groups 48 UK, Spain, Barone et al., 2021
Denmark
Effect of information on consumers’ sensory evaluation of beef, plant-based and hybrid Sensory analysis 99 UK Grasso, Rondoni, et al.
beef burgers. (2022)b
Enabling sustainable plant-forward transition: European consumer attitudes and Online survey 1958 UK, Spain, Banovic et al. (2022)
intention to buy hybrid products Denmark
The hybrid enigma: The importance of self-construal for the effectiveness of Online survey 2766 UK, Spain, Banovic and Barone
communication messages promoting sustainable behaviour Denmark (2021)
European consumers’ valuation for hybrid meat: Does information matter Online choice 2477 UK, Spain, Asioli et al. (2022)
experiment Denmark
Consumer co-creation of hybrid meat products: A cross-country European survey Online co-creation 2405 UK, Spain, Grasso, Asioli, and
survey Denmark2 Smith (2022)a

5
S. Grasso and G. Goksen
blind condition beef burgers were preferred over all other alternatives,
the hybrid burger was preferred over the two plant-based alternatives,
however information did change the sensory perception, with the hybrid
burger scoring less favourably than the Impossible Burger when infor­
mation was provided. Additional studies with sensory analysis and in­
formation provision using different meat products in different countries
could help to gather a more realistic understanding of the acceptability
of products that are 100% meat vs hybrids vs 100% plant-based,
compared to the sole use of surveys.
Profeta et al. (2021) carried out a study with 500 consumers in
Germany and 501 consumers in Belgium. The study confirmed the
flexitarian trend, as more than 50% of consumers substitute meat at least
occasionally and showed that this consumer segment was more open to
meat hybrids than fully vegetarian alternatives. The authors used a
discrete choice experiment and four hybrid meat products (meatballs,
chicken nuggets, salami and mortadella). They included six attributes:
different levels of plant-based proteins, nutrition labels on fibre or fat,
prices, environmental claim, organic label and origin of the protein
source. Hybrid meat products were considered better for the environ­
ment and for animal welfare than meat-only products, but meat-only
products were perceived as tastier than hybrids. In terms of healthi­
ness, in Germany the hybrids were considered healthier than meat-only
products, while the opposite was true in Belgium. The authors reported
an open mindedness to the meat hybrid concept, and consumers
preferred hybrids to fully vegetarian alternatives. The most important
determinant of choosing meat or meat hybrid was health, so the
healthier the meat hybrids are perceived, the higher is the probability
that they will be chosen vs meat only. Health again seems to outperform
altruistic motives, such as animal welfare and environmental concerns.
An alternative way to gather consumer information is from online
reviews. Grasso and Jaworska (2020) carried out a study on 201 online
UK consumer reviews of hybrid meat products available in the market.
In the positive reviews, consumers highlighted the nice taste of the
products, followed by general positive descriptors (great, good, nice)
and by positive health descriptors. Negative reviews were the minority
and they were mainly related to the sensory quality of the product that
did not impress consumers (flavourless, tasteless, bland). These studies
could be valuable in obtaining feedback directly from the consumer
rather than through traditional surveys.
Another way of exploring consumer attitudes in relatively new
products is using focus groups. Barone et al. (2021) carried out online
focus groups in Denmark, UK and Spain, with a total of 48 consumers, to
co-create healthier meat products. Results showed that consumers
across the three countries were particularly interested in the hybrid
meat product concept, which was defined as a meat product that is
minimally processed, with plant-based ingredients but no additives,
therefore highlighting the consumer need for a more wholesome and
natural type of meat product. Overall, across the three countries, beef
was the preferred type of meat to be made healthier and results showed
that reduced fat and salt claims would further increase the healthiness
and acceptance of these new products.
Grasso, Rondoni, et al. (2022)b carried out a study on the sensory
evaluation of commercially available beef, plant-based (Beyond Burger)
and hybrid burgers (60% beef and 40% vegetables) with 99 consumers
in the UK. The same consumers assessed the burgers under blind, ex­
pected and informed conditions. Results showed that in the blind con­
dition the hybrid burger scored highest for overall liking, and providing
information on the burger composition did not negatively affect the
hybrid burger score. Once informed, consumers had a similar purchase
intention for 100% beef and hybrid burgers. The informed maximum
willingness to pay was also similar for beef and hybrid burgers. The
Beyond Burger and hybrid burgers were considered by consumers
similar for the attributes “healthy” and “nutritious” and the hybrid
burger was considered more “environmentally-friendly” than beef.
There are four cross-country survey studies that looked at consumer
attitudes towards hybrid meat products in Denmark, Spain and the UK
6
LWT 173 (2023) 114235
(Asioli, Banovic, Barone, Grasso, & Nayga, 2022; Banovic & Barone,
2021; Banovic, Barone, Asioli, & Grasso, 2022; Grasso, Asioli, & Smith,
2022a). Banovic et al. (2022) carried out a survey on a total of 1958
consumers across the three countries to investigate the effect of
self-interest (health) or self-transcendent goal (environment) and inde­
pendent (yourself) vs. interdependent (your family) self-construal on
consumers’ attitudes. Results showed that messages focused on the
environment were more effective when they were about family, while
messages leveraging on health were more effective when they were
about personal health. Authors concluded that communication efforts
promoting the consumption of hybrid meat products should take into
consideration both consumers’ goals and self-construal.
Another survey study was carried out by the same authors (Banovic
& Barone, 2021) with a total of 2766 consumers over the same three
countries. They used as a model a hybrid beef burger made with
different plant-based proteins (bean, pea, oat, rapeseed and soy). Results
showed that consumers had positive sensory perception, high attitude
towards and high intention to buy hybrid products (and this was true
also for consumers that are highly attached to meat).
Asioli et al. (2022) carried out a choice experiment in the same three
countries with a total of 2477 consumers. The hybrid burgers varied
across four attributes (ingredients, fat content, Carbon Trust label and
price) and were accompanied by different types of information (on
health, sensory and convenience). They were compared with meat-only
and plant-based only burgers. Results showed that consumer valuation
for hybrid burgers strongly depends on the type of information provided
and consumer characteristics. For example, in all three countries,
younger consumers and those with lower meat attachment tended to
prefer hybrid meat products. Consumers were generally not yet willing
to pay a premium for hybrid meat products, but providing information
on the potential benefits of hybrid meat products led to an increase in
willingness to pay.
Finally, Grasso, Asioli, and Smith (2022)a carried out a co-creation
survey in the same three countries with a total of 2405 consumers.
Among the different types of meat and meat products presented, con­
sumers preferred beef burgers. Consumers preferred hybrid meat prod­
ucts with 25–50% plant-based ingredients (especially onions, herbs and
spices) and with nutrition claims (especially on protein, fat and fibre).
Most consumers were willing to try hybrid meat products, which were
considered to be “healthy”, “ethical” and “environmentally-friendly” in
the same way as 100% plant-based alternatives.
Results from the consumer studies show a positive attitude towards
the concept of hybrid meat products, however it is important to un­
derstand the motives behind hybrid meat product interest, and use them
appropriately in the marketing of these products (for example with
messages on health or environment).
Consumer studies show that, contrary to popular belief, environ­
mental concerns are not necessarily the top priority for most consumers
and that health instead is often the most important driver for change
from meat only products. To strengthen the healthiness of hybrids, these
could be formulated to carry on-pack nutrition claims, for example on
fat, fibre or protein.
Although sustainability does not seem to be a top concern for most
consumers, any sustainability claims should also be substantiated and
backed up with proper LCAs. It is very encouraging to see multidisci­
plinary work being carried out not only on the manufacturing of hybrid
meat products but also on the evaluation of their potential to have a
lower environmental impact. This is an important direction that should
be followed in future studies where hybrid meat products could be
designed using LCA tools with the aim to maximise their environmental
performance from the very start and increase transparency with
consumers.
Consumer studies also confirmed that burgers are the most popular
meat product to make hybrid according to studies in several countries,
therefore future work should be continued to optimize model hybrid
burger formulations as these would likely be the most accepted.
S. Grasso and G. Goksen
5. Conclusion and future perspectives
Hybrid meats could represent an alternative middle-ground between
the extreme options of categorically either eating meat or not and pro­
vide flexibility to the flexitarian demographic. They could be a conve­
nient and easy low-threshold option, especially for those consumers that
would like to make some dietary changes but might not be interested in a
full switch to a vegan or vegetarian diet or for those who do not wish to
consume fully plant-based meat alternatives.
Research from the last three years is somehow lacking in sensory
work and although a few studies have shown that hybrids taste as good
or even better than their meat-only counterparts, more extensive
research is needed to better understand the sensory acceptability of
hybrids to be able to use the findings to design hybrids that deliver in
flavour and texture in the future.
While research has so far focussed on the development of hybrid
burgers (and burgers especially stand among other meat products due to
their favourable technological and consumer related aspects), sausages
(fresh and dried) and chicken nuggets, there is scope to work on several
other meat products. Technological studies have shown that perhaps
burgers are the least complex hybrid meat product to manufacture,
resulting in good yields, while for example emulsified sausages are more
complex to produce, presenting additional challenges due to emulsion
stability and protein network formation, requiring further research and
optimization. The same is true for the limited number of plant-based
ingredients used so far in hybrid meat application, with great poten­
tial for future developments using different plant-based proteins,
including underutilised sources and by-products.
Multidisciplinary studies that holistically cover all elements of the
hybrid meat product production, from recipe formulation and instru­
mental quality to environmental impact and sensory quality, should be
designed in the future. This would ensure that eating quality, sustain­
ability and nutrition can be all accounted for in the development of
hybrid meat products.
New technologies such as extrusion and 3D printing, as well as the
use of non-conventional hybrid ingredients such as insects could
represent interesting future directions for hybrid meat products.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Simona Grasso: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis,
Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administra­
tion, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization,
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Gulden Goksen:
Visualization, Data curation, Writing – original draft.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
References
Argel, N. S., Ranalli, N., Califano, A. N., & Andrés, S. C. (2020). Influence of partial pork
meat replacement by pulse flour on physicochemical and sensory characteristics of
low-fat burgers. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 100(10), 3932–3941.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.10436
Asioli, D., Banovic, M., Barone, A. M., Grasso, S., & Nayga, R. M. (2022). European
consumers’ valuation for hybrid meat: Does information matter? Applied Economic
Perspectives and Policy. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13283. n/a(n/a).
Bakhsh, A., Lee, S.-J., Lee, E.-Y., Hwang, Y.-H., & Joo, S.-T. (2021). Characteristics of
beef patties substituted by different levels of textured vegetable protein and taste
traits assessed by electronic tongue system. Foods, 10(11), 2811.
7
LWT 173 (2023) 114235
Banovic, M., & Barone, A. M. (2021). The hybrid enigma: The importance of self-
construal for the effectiveness of communication messages promoting sustainable
behaviour. Food Quality and Preference, 94, Article 104334. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104334
Banovic, M., Barone, A. M., Asioli, D., & Grasso, S. (2022). Enabling sustainable plant-
forward transition: European consumer attitudes and intention to buy hybrid
products. Food Quality and Preference, 96, Article 104440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodqual.2021.104440
Barone, A. M., Banovic, M., Asioli, D., Wallace, E., Ruiz-Capillas, C., & Grasso, S. (2021).
The usual suspect: How to co-create healthier meat products. Food Research
International, 143, Article 110304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2021.110304
Baune, M.-C., Baron, M., Profeta, A., Smetana, S., Weiss, J., Heinz, V., et al. (2020).
Impact of textured plant proteins on the technological and sensory properties of
hybrid chicken nugget batters. Fleischwirtschaft, 100(7), 82–88.
Baune, M.-C., Jeske, A.-L., Profeta, A., Smetana, S., Broucke, K., Van Royen, G., …
Terjung, N. (2021). Effect of plant protein extrudates on hybrid meatballs – changes
in nutritional composition and sustainability. Future Foods, 4, Article 100081.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fufo.2021.100081
Beniwal, A. S., Singh, J., Kaur, L., Hardacre, A., & Singh, H. (2021). Meat analogs:
Protein restructuring during thermomechanical processing. Comprehensive Reviews in
Food Science and Food Safety, 20(2), 1221–1249.
Broucke, K., Van Poucke, C., Duquenne, B., De Witte, B., Baune, M.-C., Lammers, V., …
Van Royen, G. (2022). Ability of (extruded) pea protein products to partially replace
pork meat in emulsified cooked sausages. Innovative Food Science & Emerging
Technologies, 78, Article 102992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2022.102992
Caputo, V., Sogari, G., & Van Loo, E. J. (2022). Do plant-based and blend meat
alternatives taste like meat? A combined sensory and choice experiment study.
Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13247. n/a
(n/a).
Chandler, S. L., & McSweeney, M. B. (2022). Characterizing the properties of hybrid meat
burgers made with pulses and chicken. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food
Science, 27, Article 100492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2022.100492
Danish Crown. (2019). Minced meat from Danish Crown – now with 50 per cent
vegetables. https://www.danishcrown.com/da-dk/kontakt/presse/nyheder/mince
d-meat-from-danish-crown-now-with-50-per-cent-vegetables/.
Ebert, S., Baune, M.-C., Broucke, K., Royen, G. V., Terjung, N., Gibis, M., et al. (2021).
Buffering capacity of wet texturized plant proteins in comparison to pork meat. Food
Research International, 150, Article 110803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodres.2021.110803
Ebert, S., Jungblut, F., Herrmann, K., Maier, B., Terjung, N., Gibis, M., et al. (2022).
Influence of wet extrudates from pumpkin seed proteins on drying, texture, and
appearance of dry-cured hybrid sausages. European Food Research and Technology,
248(6), 1469–1484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-022-03974-4
Ebert, S., Kaplan, S., Brettschneider, K., Terjung, N., Gibis, M., & Weiss, J. (2021).
Aggregation behavior of solubilized meat - potato protein mixtures. Food
Hydrocolloids, 113, Article 106388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodhyd.2020.106388
Ebert, S., Michel, W., Gotzmann, L., Baune, M.-C., Terjung, N., Gibis, M., et al. (2022).
Acidification behavior of mixtures of pork meat and wet texturized plant proteins in
a minced model system. Journal of Food Science, 87(4), 1731–1741. https://doi.org/
10.1111/1750-3841.16080
Galanakis, C. M., Rizou, M., Aldawoud, T. M. S., Ucak, I., & Rowan, N. J. (2021).
Innovations and technology disruptions in the food sector within the COVID-19
pandemic and post-lockdown era. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 110,
193–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2021.02.002
Gibis, M., Trabold, L., Ebert, S., Herrmann, K., Terjung, N., & Weiss, J. (2022). Effect of
varying pH on solution interactions of soluble meat proteins with different plant
proteins. Food & Function, 13(2), 944–956.
Grasso, S., Asioli, D., & Smith, R. (2022a). Consumer co-creation of hybrid meat
products: A cross-country European survey. Food Quality and Preference, 100, Article
104586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104586
Grasso, S., & Jaworska, S. (2020). Part Meat and Part Plant: Are hybrid meat products fad or
future?, 9, 12.
Grasso, S., Rondoni, A., Bari, R., Smith, R., & Mansilla, N. (2022b). Effect of information
on consumers’ sensory evaluation of beef, plant-based and hybrid beef burgers. Food
Quality and Preference, 96, Article 104417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodqual.2021.104417
Lang, M. (2020). Consumer acceptance of blending plant-based ingredients into
traditional meat-based foods: Evidence from the meat-mushroom blend. Food Quality
and Preference, 79, Article 103758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodqual.2019.103758
Megido, R. C., Gierts, C., Blecker, C., Brostaux, Y., Haubruge, É., Alabi, T., et al. (2016).
Consumer acceptance of insect-based alternative meat products in Western
countries. Food Quality and Preference, 52, 237–243.
Profeta, A., Baune, M.-C., Smetana, S., Broucke, K., Van Royen, G., Weiss, J., …
Terjung, N. (2021). Discrete choice analysis of consumer preferences for
meathybrids—findings from Germany and Belgium. Foods, 10(1), 71.
Rumpold, B. A., & Schlüter, O. K. (2013). Potential and challenges of insects as an
innovative source for food and feed production. Innovative Food Science & Emerging
Technologies, 17, 1–11.
Scholliers, J., Steen, L., & Fraeye, I. (2020). Partial replacement of meat by superworm
(Zophobas morio larvae) in cooked sausages: Effect of heating temperature and
insect:Meat ratio on structure and physical stability. Innovative Food Science &
Emerging Technologies, 66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2020.102535
S. Grasso and G. Goksen
Sha, L., & Xiong, Y. L. (2020). Plant protein-based alternatives of reconstructed meat:
Science, technology, and challenges. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 102,
51–61.
Sogari, G., Li, J., Wang, Q., Lefebvre, M., Gómez, M. I., & Mora, C. (2021). Factors
influencing the intention to purchase meat-mushroom blended burgers among
college students. Food Quality and Preference, 90, Article 104169. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104169
Sogari, G., Li, J., Wang, Q., Lefebvre, M., Huang, S., Mora, C., et al. (2022). Toward a
reduced meat diet: University North American students’ acceptance of a blended
meat-mushroom burger. Meat Science, 187, Article 108745. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.meatsci.2022.108745
Spencer, M., Cienfuegos, C., & Guinard, J.-X. (2018). The Flexitarian Flip™ in university
dining venues: Student and adult consumer acceptance of mixed dishes in which
animal protein has been partially replaced with plant protein. Food Quality and
Preference, 68, 50–63.
LWT 173 (2023) 114235
Sun, G., Xiong, Y., Feng, X., & Fang, Z. (2022). Effects of incorporation of hempseed meal
on the quality attributes of chicken sausage. Future Foods, 6, Article 100169. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.fufo.2022.100169
Wang, T., Kaur, L., Furuhata, Y., Aoyama, H., & Singh, J. (2022). 3D printing of textured
soft hybrid meat analogues. Foods, 11(3), 478.
Wilson, A., Anukiruthika, T., Moses, J. A., & Anandharamakrishnan, C. (2020).
Customized shapes for chicken meat–based products: Feasibility study on 3D-printed
nuggets. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 13(11), 1968–1983. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11947-020-02537-3
Zhang, F., Cao, C., Kong, B., Sun, F., Shen, X., Yao, X., et al. (2022). Pre-dried mealworm
larvae flour could partially replace lean meat in frankfurters: Effect of pre-drying
methods and replacement ratios. Meat Science, 188, Article 108802. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.meatsci.2022.108802