PLANT-BASED FOODS AND SUSTAINABILITY: PERCEPTIONS OF FARMERS
MARKET CONSUMERS IN KAMLOOPS, BRITISH COLUMBIA
by
SERENA ASHLEY-LYNN GIRARD
B.A. Sociology and Philosophy, Thompson Rivers University, 2021

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
KAMLOOPS, BRITISH COLUMBIA

Thesis Examining Committee:
Michael Mehta (Ph.D.), Professor and Thesis Supervisor, Department of Environment,
Culture, and Society, Thompson Rivers University
Rochelle Stevenson (Ph.D.), Associate Professor and Committee Member, Department of
Environment, Culture, and Society, Thompson Rivers University
Courtney Mason (Ph.D.), Professor and Committee Member, Department of Tourism
Management and Natural Resource Science, Thompson Rivers University
Wendy Gardner (Ph.D.), Associate Professor and Committee Member, Department of Natural
Resource Science, Thompson Rivers University
Samantha King (Ph.D.), Professor and External Examiner, Department of Gender Studies and
the Cultural Studies Program, Queen’s University
May 2024
Thompson Rivers University

© Serena Ashley-Lynn Girard, 2024

ii
Thesis Supervisor: Dr. Michael Mehta
ABSTRACT
Plant-based (PB) foods are generally more sustainable than animal-based (AB) foods when
considering impacts on humans, animals, and the environment. Minimizing harm from the
AB foods that are unsustainable may be done by reducing consumption and increasing the
consumption of the PB foods that are sustainable. Consumers at the Kamloops Regional
Farmers Market (n = 94) were surveyed to determine their perceptions of PB foods, AB
foods, and lab-grown (LG) meats. Part one of the study included closed-ended questions.
Quantitative statistical analyses (Spearman’s rho, Mann Whitney U, and Independent
samples t-tests) were conducted to determine relationships and differences in consumer food
perceptions based on sociodemographic factors. Results were consistent with existing
literature–being more educated, younger, already PB, and a woman are predictive of
consumer PB food acceptance. AB food acceptance was highest amongst those who have a
lower level of education, are older, and are omnivores. Part two of the study included free
association questions on food perceptions. Qualitative analyses (thematic, content, and
sentiment) were conducted. Consumers perceived PB foods positively while feeling unsure
of AB foods and LG meats. The overarching themes consumers reported when reflecting on
PB foods, AB foods, and LG meats were Ethics, Curiosity, and Food and Health. Consumers
perceived AB foods as least ethical toward animals and the environment, were most skeptical
of AB foods and LG meats, and viewed PB foods most positively in terms of food and health.
There are possibilities for increasing the acceptance of sustainable foods by educating
consumers at the micro-level and stakeholders at the macro-level on their benefits.
keywords: plant-based food, vegan, vegetarian, animal-based food, omnivore, lab-grown
meat, sustainability, farmers markets, consumer perceptions, questionnaire, survey,
qualitative, quantitative, Kamloops, British Columbia

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, I express my profound gratitude to the individuals who generously
participated in my survey at the Kamloops Regional Farmers Market. Their valuable
contributions have been instrumental in shaping the outcomes of this research. I sincerely
thank the market manager, Greg Unger, for wholeheartedly supporting and facilitating the
execution of this study. Without the participation and assistance of the farmers market
community, this research would not have been possible.
I am grateful for my supervisory committee's unwavering support throughout this academic
pursuit. I am very appreciative of my supervisor, Dr. Michael Mehta, for his exceptional
mentorship, guidance, and continued support. I also wish to express immense gratitude for
Dr. Rochelle Stevenson, whose mentorship and support have been pivotal since my
undergraduate years at TRU. I extend my appreciation to Dr. Courtney Mason for his
assistance in the research process and provision of office space in the Rural Livelihoods and
Sustainable Communities Lab, and to Dr. Wendy Gardner for her invaluable guidance and
direction in the program.
I am incredibly thankful to be working with Dr. Mónica J. Sánchez-Flores as her graduate
research assistant. She has provided me with remarkable academic mentorship and support.
Thank you, Dr. Robin Tapley, Dr. Tim Fitzjohn, and Dr. Robert Hanlon, for providing me
with opportunities to enhance my presentation skills through introductory guest-lecture-style
class presentations.
I would like to acknowledge the generous financial support I have received, including the
SSHRC CGS-M and the Ken Lepin Graduate Student Award. This financial assistance has
been vital to my success in the MSc in Environmental Sciences program at TRU, and I am
highly appreciative of it.
Moreover, I express my utmost respect and gratitude for the privilege of living, learning, and
conducting research on the unceded lands of Tk'emlúps te Secwépemc (Kamloops campus)
and T'exelc (Williams Lake campus) within Secwépemc'ulucw, the traditional territory of the
Secwépemc people. I also acknowledge the territories of the St'át'imc, Nlaka'pamux,
Tŝilhqot'in, Nuxalk, and Dakelh Peoples.
This study was approved by the TRU REB (file no. 103033).

iv
DEDICATION
First, I would like to dedicate this thesis to the nonhuman animals who are no longer with us
due to anthropocentric use and abuse. Their plight has served as a driving force behind my
research, as I strive to make a positive impact on their behalf. More specifically, I would like
to extend infinite gratitude to my feline companion, Bugsy, whose unwavering presence has
kept me going throughout my studies. He knows exactly when to hold my hand when I need
support, and always keeps me company when I am working.

I would also like to dedicate this work to two significant people in my life. My interest in
vegetarianism began at a young age, largely because my mother is predominantly
vegetarian, and my brother has been vegetarian for as long as I can remember. As a young
child, I often wondered why animals 'allow' humans to eat them. However, as time passed, I
quickly realized that animals do not have a choice in this matter. I knew then that I would
eventually become vegetarian as an adult. What I did not anticipate was that I would become
plant-based and dedicate my academic career to the causes of animal welfare and animal
rights.
I am immensely grateful to my mom and brother for inspiring me ever since I was a child,
and to nonhuman animals and Bugsy for keeping me motivated and focused.
Thank you for helping me help animals. ♡

v
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS
AB: animal-based (foods)
AE: Animal Ethics (theme)
BC: British Columbia
CU: Curiosity (theme)
EE: Environmental Ethics (theme)
GC: green criminology
GMO: genetically modified organism
GHG: greenhouse gas (emissions)
IAI: Illness, Allergies, and Intolerances (theme)
KRFM: Kamloops Regional Farmers Market
LCA: life-cycle assessment
LG: lab-grown (foods/meats)
MRCD: meat-related cognitive dissonance
NR: Naturalness or Realness (theme)
PB: plant-based (foods)
TT: Taste and Texture (theme)
(+): Positive (sentiment)
(-): Negative (sentiment)
(?): Unsure/neutral (sentiment)

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................................................................................... iii
DEDICATION ........................................................................................................................ iv
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS .............................................................................................. v
TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................................. ix
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................ x
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
SUSTAINABILITY AND FOOD ................................................................................................. 1
Sustainability: Impacts of Plant- and Animal-based Foods ........................................... 3
Environmental Impacts .............................................................................................. 3
Impacts on Human Health and Justice ..................................................................... 6
Impacts on Animals..................................................................................................... 9
Other Possible Sustainable Food Options .................................................................... 10
CONSUMER DEMOGRAPHICS AND FOOD PERCEPTIONS .................................................... 14
RESEARCHER POSITIONALITY ........................................................................................... 20
Putting Animal Ethics at the Center of Reflection ....................................................... 20
Utilizing a Reflexivity Journal....................................................................................... 22
METHODS............................................................................................................................ 25
Research Questions ........................................................................................................ 25
Objectives and Goals ...................................................................................................... 26
LITERATURE CITED ............................................................................................................ 28
CHAPTER 2. CONSUMER DEMOGRAPHICS AND PERCEPTIONS OF PLANTBASED FOODS .................................................................................................................... 42
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 42
METHODS............................................................................................................................ 43
Materials and Procedure ............................................................................................... 44
Participants and Site ...................................................................................................... 45
Objectives and Research Questions............................................................................... 49
RESULTS .............................................................................................................................. 53

vii
Spearman’s Rho: Demographics with Summed and Mean Scales .............................. 53
Mann Whitney U: Demographics and Mean Scales .................................................... 56
Dietary Pattern .......................................................................................................... 56
Gender........................................................................................................................ 59
Independent Samples T-Tests: Demographics with Summed Scales ........................... 59
Dietary Pattern .......................................................................................................... 60
Gender........................................................................................................................ 63
DISCUSSION......................................................................................................................... 64
Consumers and Food Decision Factors ........................................................................ 64
Consumer Perceptions of Plant-based Foods ............................................................... 65
Consumer Perceptions of Animal-based Foods ............................................................ 66
Research Implications ................................................................................................... 67
LITERATURE CITED ............................................................................................................ 69
CHAPTER 3. CONSUMER FREE ASSOCIATIONS OF DIFFERENT FOOD
CATEGORIES ...................................................................................................................... 74
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 74
METHODS............................................................................................................................ 76
Participants, Site, and Materials ................................................................................... 76
Procedure ....................................................................................................................... 77
Research Questions ........................................................................................................ 79
RESULTS .............................................................................................................................. 79
Theme One: Ethics ........................................................................................................ 81
Animal Ethics ............................................................................................................ 82
Environmental Ethics ............................................................................................... 86
Theme Two: Curiosity .................................................................................................... 90
Theme Three: Food and Health .................................................................................... 95
Taste and Texture ...................................................................................................... 95
Illness, Allergies, and Intolerances ........................................................................ 100
Naturalness or Realness ......................................................................................... 103
DISCUSSION....................................................................................................................... 108
Theme One: Ethics ...................................................................................................... 108

viii
Theme Two: Curiosity .................................................................................................. 109
Theme Three: Food and Health .................................................................................. 109
Research Implications .................................................................................................. 111
LITERATURE CITED ...........................................................................................................114
CHAPTER 4. RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE
DIRECTIONS ..................................................................................................................... 120
KEY FINDINGS .................................................................................................................. 120
IMPLICATIONS................................................................................................................... 122
Macro-Level Implications ............................................................................................ 123
Micro-Level Implications............................................................................................. 128
STRENGTHS, LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH ...................................................... 129
Final Remarks .............................................................................................................. 132
LITERATURE CITED .......................................................................................................... 133
APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................... 141
APPENDIX A CONSUMER QUESTIONNAIRE ...................................................................... 141
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH ....................................................... 141
CONSUMER SURVEY................................................................................................ 143
DEMOGRAPHICS ...................................................................................................... 148
LOW-COST AND FREE FOOD RESOURCES ........................................................ 150
APPENDIX B FULL-LENGTH CONSENT FORM ................................................................. 152
APPENDIX C VARIABLE TRANSFORMATIONS (CH. 2)...................................................... 155
APPENDIX D EXCLUDED VARIABLES AND TESTS (CH. 2)................................................ 158
Relationship, Household Members, and Children ..................................................... 158
Primary Shopper and Primary Preparer ..................................................................... 158
Meat Industry ............................................................................................................... 159
Distance from Market and Location ........................................................................... 159
Other Excluded Variables ............................................................................................ 159
Other Excluded Tests ................................................................................................... 160

ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Average Degree of Organic vs. Conventional Environmental Impacts of
Different Foods ...................................................................................................................... 12
Table 1.2 Kamloops, BC Population Centre Sociodemographic Characteristics ............... 16
Table 2.1 Sociodemographic Characteristics of KRFM Consumers ................................... 48
Table 2.2 General Predictions on Acceptance of PB Foods and AB Foods ........................ 50
Table 2.3 Summed and Mean Scale Variable Details ........................................................... 52
Table 2.4 Summed Scale Relationships with Age, Education, and Income ........................ 54
Table 2.5 Mean Scale Relationships with Age, Education, and Income ............................. 55
Table 2.6 Mean Scale Differences between Omnivores and Non-Omnivores ..................... 57
Table 2.7 Mean Rank Differences of Perceived Challenges and Benefits to a PB Diet
between Omnivores and Non-Omnivores.............................................................................. 58
Table 2.8 Mean Scale Differences between Men and Women ............................................. 59
Table 2.9 Summed Scale Differences between Omnivores and Non-Omnivores ................ 61
Table 2.10 Differences in Means of Perceived Challenges and Benefits to a PB Diet
between Omnivores and Non-Omnivores.............................................................................. 62
Table 2.11 Summed Scale Differences between Men and Women....................................... 63
Table 3.1 Definitions of Individual and Grouped Variables ................................................ 81
Table 3.2 Thematic, Content, and Sentiment Analyses of Animal Ethics ........................... 84
Table 3.3 Thematic, Content, and Sentiment Analysis of Environmental Ethics ............... 88
Table 3.4 Thematic, Content, and Sentiment Analyses of Curiosity.................................... 92
Table 3.5 Thematic, Content, and Sentiment Analyses of Taste and Texture ..................... 97
Table 3.6 Thematic, Content, and Sentiment Analyses of Illness, Allergies, and
Intolerances .......................................................................................................................... 101
Table 3.7 Thematic, Content, and Sentiment Analyses of Naturalness or Realness ........ 105
Table C.1 Scale to Dummy Variable Transformations ....................................................... 156
Table C.2 Demographic Variable Transformations ........................................................... 157

x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1 Aggregated Concept Map of Overarching Ethics Theme .................................. 82
Figure 3.2 Proportionate Sunburst Illustration of Animal Ethics Theme .......................... 86
Figure 3.3 Proportionate Sunburst Illustration of Environmental Ethics Theme.............. 90
Figure 3.4 Proportionate Sunburst Illustration of Curiosity Theme ................................... 94
Figure 3.5 Aggregated Concept Map of Overarching Food and Health Theme ................ 95
Figure 3.6 Proportionate Sunburst Illustration of Taste and Texture Theme ................... 100
Figure 3.7 Proportionate Sunburst Illustration of Illness, Allergies, and Intolerances
Theme ................................................................................................................................... 103
Figure 3.8 Proportionate Sunburst Illustration of Naturalness or Realness Theme ........ 107

1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (2018) defines a
sustainable food system as “a food system that delivers food security and nutrition for all in
such a way that the economic, social and environmental bases to generate food security and
nutrition for future generations are not compromised” (p. 1). It is the responsibility of
humans to ensure that we can adapt to help mitigate the effects of climate change. According
to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, enabling climate resiliency involves
achieving the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C by 2030 (Portner et al., 2023). One
method to help mitigate the effects of climate change is through consumer dietary ‘choices’1
and adopting sustainable food systems. This introductory literature review chapter explores
topics such as food and sustainability, the impacts of food on the environment, humans, and
animals, consumer perceptions of food and diet, and other approaches to sustainable food. An
overview of researcher positionality and research objectives follows.
Sustainability and Food
Sustainability, in general, is complex to define, and existing definitions of
sustainability using the triple-bottom-line approach merit criticism. The United Nations (n.d.a) defines sustainability as “an integrated approach that takes into consideration
environmental concerns along with economic development,” where “the needs of the present
[generations are met] without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs” (n.p.). The United Nations Industrial Development Organization (n.d.-a) defines
corporate social responsibility as a method of achieving current and future sustainability
goals, via the same ‘triple-bottom-line approach’ as their approach to a sustainable food
system. Organizations may ‘bluewash’ consumers, which is when they utilize the United
Nations’ sustainability guidelines without grounding to mislead consumers into believing the
organization is socially and environmentally responsible, even if their actions are not in line

1

This thesis acknowledges that there are systemic barriers (e.g., intersectional factors including socioeconomic
status) in regard to individual decisions on food, and that the foods individuals consume are not always a result
of free choice. Alternate wording is used where possible, such as ‘decisions’ or ‘options,’ since these do not
indicate that the foods consumed are a result of choice. Using such wording helps encapsulate that food may be
consumed based on decision factors, including cost and other accessibility barriers.

2
with such claims (Berliner & Prakash, 2014). ‘Greenwashing’ is also common amongst
organizations, where claims of sustainability in advertising are misleading via selective
disclosure, false claims, misleading labels or certifications, misleading claims of ineffective
volunteer programs, misleading discourse, and ineffective partnering with non-government
organizations (Becker-Olsen & Potucek, 2013; Jones, 2019)2. Greenwashing, or green
capitalism, creates a false sense of ‘ethical consumerism’ where consumers believe they are
making green decisions on the products they are purchasing (Budinsky & Bryant, 2013;
Jones, 2019).
German et al. (2017) argue that there may be up to 37 factors involved in
sustainability, which include broad categories such as water use, profit, costs, welfare
(humans and animals), yield, energy use, biodiversity (plants, invertebrates, and vertebrates),
greenhouse gas emissions, pollination, and soil. Drury et al. (2023) argue for a more
inclusive definition of sustainability:
In all decisions and actions on any scale, from the individual to the institutional, we
should minimise our immediate and future negative impact on humans, other animals,
and the planet, while simultaneously maximising our positive impacts on these domains
(p. 1925).
This thesis includes the following three main ethical factors to define sustainability:
(1) the environment, (2) humans, and (3) animals. Environmental ethics include justice for all
living beings that are not animals, whether human or nonhuman. Some examples include
water, biodiversity (plants, invertebrates, and vertebrates), air, land, and soil. Animal ethics
includes all animals that are not humans, including mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, and
amphibians. Human ethics include health, social, and economic factors related to the wellbeing of humans. The approach toward a sustainable future to reduce the harmful effects of
climate change needs to be one in which the interconnected needs of the planet are
considered together. Overall, animal agriculture impacts the environment, human health, and
animal welfare (Anomaly, 2015; Drury et al., 2023), amongst many other intersectional
factors, including but not limited to ethnicity, gender, and species (Lynch, 1990).

2

Greenwashing is a term originally coined by Jay Westerveld in 1986 (Becker-Olsen & Potucek, 2013).

3
Sustainability: Impacts of Plant- and Animal-based Foods
Regarding sustainability, meaning various sub-factors affecting humans, animals, and
the environment, there are drawbacks to both PB and AB foods. However, PB foods tend to
be more sustainable than AB foods when considering environmental factors throughout the
life-cycle assessment (LCA), such as GHG emissions, water use, and land use (Poore &
Nemecek, 2019; Van Kernebeek et al., 2014; Van Mierlo et al., 2017; Wickramasinghe et al.,
2021), human health factors (Maier et al., 2023; Richi et al., 2015; Sievert et al., 2022; World
Health Organization, 2023), and animal ethics (Anomaly, 2015; Delon, 2018). However,
some PB foods do have adverse effects on the environment (Food Empowerment Project,
n.d.-b, n.d.-a; International Labour Organization, 2023), human health (Maier et al., 2023;
Rodrigez-Martin et al., 2023), and human justice (e.g., forced labour) (Fairtrade
International, 2018; Food Empowerment Project, 2022; International Labour Organization,
2023; International Labour Organization & United Nations Children’s Fund, 2021;
Whoriskey & Siegel, 2019)
Environmental Impacts
Food and agriculture tend to have a significant impact on the environment. Compared
to omnivorous diets, vegan and vegetarian diets tend to have lower overall environmental
impacts (Baroni et al., 2007; Chai et al., 2019; Clark & Tilman, 2017; Rosi et al., 2017). For
example, 26% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,3 50% of land use, 70% of water use,
78% of eutrophication (includes ocean and freshwater pollution), and biodiversity, including
livestock which take up 94% of mammal biomass4 and poultry which take up 71% of bird
biomass, are the result of agricultural food practices globally (Food and Agricultural
Organization of the United Nations, 2018; Poore & Nemecek, 2019; Ritchie et al., 2022).
Food decisions impact climate change, and AB foods5 tend to have a larger environmental

3

GHG emissions are produced across the supply chain, including from land use change (e.g., from
deforestation and soil carbon changes), farming (e.g., from livestock, rice, fertilizers, manure, and farm
machinery), animal feed (e.g., from crop production and processing feed), processing (e.g., from energy use
from farm-to-table), transportation (e.g., from energy use on a local and global scale), retail (e.g., from energy
use including refrigeration), and packaging (e.g., from production, transport, and disposal) (Poore & Nemecek,
2019; Ritchie, 2020).
4
Excludes humans.
5
For the purpose of this thesis, animal based (AB) foods include any food products sourced from animals, such
as meat, dairy, fish and seafood, and eggs.

4
impact than PB foods6 (Van Kernebeek et al., 2014; Van Mierlo et al., 2017; Wickramasinghe
et al., 2021). PB foods are generally lower in GHG emissions, land use, water use and
eutrophication than AB foods, with some exceptions discussed below (Poore & Nemecek,
2019; Van Kernebeek et al., 2014; Van Mierlo et al., 2017; Wickramasinghe et al., 2021).7
However, it is important to consider that omnivorous and PB diets do overlap in what they
consume, as omnivores do still consume PB foods (e.g., coffee, chocolate, nuts, and other
foods such as fruits, vegetables, and grains) in addition to AB foods (e.g., dairy milk, beef,
and other foods such as cheese, fish, lamb, and poultry).
When comparing PB and AB protein and milk sources, PB foods generally fare better
than AB foods. GHG emissions from AB foods such as beef and dairy, with beef cattle
producing 99.48 CO2eq/kg and dairy cattle producing 33.30 CO2eq/kg, are much higher than
that of comparative PB foods such as tofu (3.16 CO2eq/kg) and soy milk (0.98 CO2eq/kg)
(Poore & Nemecek, 2019).8 Land use follows a similar trend where both beef cattle (326.21
m2/kg) and dairy cattle (43.24 m2/kg) utilize more land than tofu (3.52 m2/kg) and soy milk
(0.66 m2/kg) (Poore & Nemecek, 2019).9 Water use also follows a similar trend where both
beef cattle (2714 L/kg) and dairy cattle (1415 L/kg) withdraw higher volumes of freshwater
than tofu (149 L/kg) and soy milk (28 L/kg; Poore & Nemecek, 2019).10 Dairy (365.29
PO₄eq/g) and beef (301.41 PO₄eq/g) cattle fare similarly in that they result in more
eutrophication than tofu (6.16 PO₄eq/g) and soy milk (1.06 PO₄eq/g) (Poore & Nemecek,
2019; Ritchie et al., 2022). These results are consistent with Clark and Tilman’s (2017)
findings on the environmental impacts of food:
For all indicators examined, ruminant meat (beef, goat and lamb/mutton) had
impacts 20–100 times those of plants while milk, eggs, pork, poultry, and seafood
had impacts 2–25 times higher than plants per kilocalorie of food produced (p. 8).11

6

For the purpose of this thesis, plant-based (PB) foods include any food products sourced from plants, such as
fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, beans, legumes, and grains.
7
Measurements typically include all stages of the LCA of food, animal being transport between stages, prefarm activities, farm processes, packaging, distribution, household activities, and waste (see Veeramani et al.,
2017).
8
GHG emissions are measured over a 100-year cycle and per kilogram of food.
9
Land use is measured via square meters per kilogram of food.
10
Water use is measured via litres of freshwater withdrawals per kilogram of food.
11
Clark and Tilman (2017) used the following indicators: GHG emissions, land use, energy use, acidification,
and eutrophication.

5
Findings were also consistent with Baroni et al. (2007) and Kustar and Patino-Echeverri
(2021), who found that in terms of overall environmental impacts, omnivorous diets, in
general, had the highest impacts, with beef having the highest impacts, and dairy following
closely behind.
There are some exceptions of PB foods that fare high regarding their environmental
impacts. In terms of GHG emissions, coffee produces 28.53 CO2eq/kg and dark chocolate
produces 46.65 CO2eq/kg, which is much higher than that of other PB foods (Poore &
Nemecek, 2019; Ritchie et al., 2022). In terms of land use, dark chocolate (68.96 m2/kg) and
coffee (21.62 m2/kg) use more land than that of other PB foods (Poore & Nemecek, 2019;
Ritchie et al., 2022). Regarding water use, nuts (4134 L/kg) withdraw much more freshwater
than other PB foods (Poore & Nemecek, 2019; Ritchie et al., 2022). In terms of eutrophying
emissions, coffee (110.52 PO₄eq/g) and dark chocolate (87.08 PO₄eq/g) produce more than
most other PB foods (Poore & Nemecek, 2019; Ritchie et al., 2022).
While Crippa et al. (2021) found that only 4.8% of global GHG emissions are the
result of food transport, a more recent study found that “food-miles emissions may be 3.5 to
7.5 times higher than previous estimates” (Li et al., 2022, p. 450). Li et al. (2022) found that
food miles may account for 20% of global food system emissions. Fruits and vegetables are
the highest emitters, and Li et al. (2022) found that local purchasing, rather than international
trade, may be more environmentally sustainable. When thinking of environmental impacts of
different transportation modes of food in general on a global scale, air transport fares the
worst (1.13kg CO2eq per tonne-kilometer), followed by road transport (0.40kg CO2eq per
tonne-kilometer), rail transport (0.06kg CO2eq per tonne-kilometer), and water transport
(0.02kg CO2eq per tonne-kilometer) (Poore & Nemecek, 2019).
Food waste across the LCA has negative impacts on the environment. Higher quality
diets, which include both PB and AB food items of high quality (emphasizing fruits and
vegetables) and only moderate consumption of unhealthy foods, tend to fare worse in terms
of food waste than lower quality diets (Conrad et al., 2018). While fruits and vegetables
utilize less land than AB foods, they tend to be wasted more frequently by consumers
(Conrad et al., 2018). However, another study found that at the food packaging level, cereals,
dairy and fish fared the worst regarding food waste (Heller et al., 2019). In the EU,
approximately 75% of food waste emissions result from the production process, and in this

6
case, AB foods demonstrated the highest impacts from food waste (Scherhaufer et al., 2018).
There is conflicting evidence on food waste of PB and AB foods, but food waste is an issue,
nonetheless.
Monocultures are problematic for the environment and sustainability. These consist
of:
An agricultural operation growing one type of crop, say corn or wheat, in a specific
area of land. Sometimes, a monoculture can refer to planted forests or other humanmade ecosystems that primarily contain one species of plant, like lawns. It can also
include farming one species of animal in a single area (Olafsson, 2023, n.p.).
Monocultures have several social economic and environmental risks, including higher
pesticide and fertilizer use (see the next section for the drawbacks of pesticide and fertilizer
use), negative impacts on pollinators, decrease in ecosystem biodiversity (impacting plants
and animals), susceptibility to pests, soil degradation, and economic risks for farmers if yield
outputs are affected (Balogh, 2021; Crews et al., 2018; Olafsson, 2023; Yang et al., 2023).
Switching to polycultures and diversifying crop rotation in a way that is more similar to the
natural ecosystem can help mitigate some of these issues, including increasing food
production yields, improving soil health (e.g., carbon, and nutrients), reducing GHG
emissions, reducing water infiltration, and reducing biodiversity loss (Crews et al., 2018;
Yang et al., 2023). Monocultures are the result of both PB and AB food production, whether
it be not rotating crops, or monocropping (e.g., corn, wheat, and soy), for both human
consumption and animal feed, or only having one species of animal produced for food on the
land (e.g., livestock, and chickens) (Balogh, 2021; Crews et al., 2018; Olafsson, 2023; Yang
et al., 2023).
Impacts on Human Health and Justice
Both PB and AB foods negatively impact humans in terms of health and justice. For
instance, red and processed meats have the potential to worsen human health outcomes in
terms of non-communicable disease, including increasing risk of heart disease, certain
cancers, and diabetes, as well as obesity (Maier et al., 2023; Richi et al., 2015; Sievert et al.,
2022; World Health Organization, 2023). Other issues resulting from the consumption of
animals include antimicrobial resistance, transference of zoonotic diseases, food safety risks,
respiratory health risks (residing near livestock production), issues regarding worker welfare,
and excess consumption of calories (Smit & Heederik, 2017; World Health Organization,

7
2023). However, a possible concern in terms of PB diets is nutritional adequacy, such as lack
of vitamin B12, iron, omega-3, and protein, as well as having higher contents of
carbohydrates and sugars (Maier et al., 2023; Rodrigez-Martin et al., 2023). However, it is
possible to supplement for nutritional deficiencies and look for PB foods with lower
carbohydrate and sugar contents. Issues surrounding consuming carbohydrates, sugars, and
processed foods can be problematic not only in PB foods, but also with AB foods.
Contrastingly, some literature found that Mediterranean diets,12 consuming more
white than red meats, PB diets, and consuming alternative proteins are linked to a healthier
nutritional profile, including in terms of fibre and saturated fat contents (Fresán & Sabaté,
2019; González-García et al., 2018; Rodrigez-Martin et al., 2023). Overall, there is
conflicting evidence regarding the health impacts of PB and AB diets, yet PB diets fare better
in terms of health outcomes. This is permitting there is adequate supplementation for
vitamins and nutrients (e.g., taking supplements and consuming healthy foods like fruits,
vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds), as well as ensuring to avoid
carbohydrates, sugars and processed foods (Wang et al., 2023).
There are issues surrounding toxins that are present in the production and
consumption of both PB and AB foods. One example is the ‘dirty dozen,’13 which include
food additives and preservatives (Meyers, 2024). These toxins can be found in PB and AB
foods, and include possible health risks such as cancer, developmental harm, reproductive
harm, issues regulating metabolism and weight, behavioural difficulties, liver and kidney
injuries, and hormone disruption (Meyers, 2024). Pesticides14 and fertilizers used in
agriculture are also of concern, as they can lead to both acute and long-term toxicity by
ingestion by food and contaminated water and exposure (e.g., to farmers and nearby
communities), which include effects on the nervous system, endocrine system, hormone

12

The Mediterranean diet can be defined as being “predominantly a plant-based diet, rich in fruits, vegetables
and nuts, with moderate consumption in olive oil as fat source, as well as low in meat, added sugars, saturated
fatty acids and salty snacks” (González-García et al., 2018, p. 78).
13
Includes potassium bromate, butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), tert-butylhydroquinone (TBHQ),
propylparaben, butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), titanium dioxide, brominated vegetable oil (BVO), artificial
colours, propyl gallate, artificial sweeteners, azodicarbonamide (ADA), and sodium benzoate (Meyers, 2024).
Some of these are banned in Canada.
14
Includes various pesticide subgroups targeting different pests, including antimicrobials, fungicides,
herbicides, insecticides, and rodenticide (Srivastava & Kesavachann, 2016).

8
system, reproduction system, circulatory system, respiratory system, and energy system
(Dhankhar & Kumar, 2023; Srivastava & Kesavachann, 2016). The Earth Working Group
(2023) analyzed 46 fruits and vegetables in the United States for pesticide content. While PB
foods contain pesticides and fertilizers, some contain low amounts, and organic foods are the
safer choice in this regard (Earth Working Group, 2023).
Of concern as a result of animal husbandry is antibiotic use in the breeding of farm
animals (e.g., livestock, poultry, and pigs) (Khmaissa et al., 2024). Human health risks can
occur as a result of environmental pollution from antibiotic use in animal husbandry (e.g.,
contamination of water, soil and plants through the use of antibiotics as fertilizers and
manure) and by direct consumption of meat (Khmaissa et al., 2024). While antibiotic use in
animal agriculture results from the production of AB foods, it nonetheless still affects the PB
foods being grown nearby (Khmaissa et al., 2024).
Environmental racism is an issue resulting from the production of food in general.
Some imported PB foods result in labour rights issues, health risks, and environmental
racism in peripheral communities, including bananas, palm oil, chocolate, and coffee
(Rainforest Alliance, n.d.). Workers in developing nations experiencing forced and child
labour in these production sectors face working conditions that are sub-par, resulting in
exposure to chemicals, injuries, not seeing their families, not making a living wage, and not
having access to education (Fairtrade International, 2018; Food Empowerment Project, 2022;
International Labour Organization, 2023; International Labour Organization & United
Nations Children’s Fund, 2021; Whoriskey & Siegel, 2019). Coffee and banana production in
developing nations also result in deforestation, loss of soil biodiversity and water pollution in
peripheral communities (Food Empowerment Project, n.d.-b, n.d.-a; International Labour
Organization, 2023). The production of palm oil in Malaysia and Indonesia has led to
environmental destruction, including:
Fires set to clear forests and create land for more palm plantations are the top source
of greenhouse gas emissions in Indonesia, a country of 261 million people. The
financial incentive to produce more palm oil is helping to warm the planet, while
destroying the only habitat of Sumatran tigers, Sumatran rhinos and orangutans –
driving them towards extinction (Tullis, 2019, n.p.).
Tofu production also results in environmental racism. One example is tofu production
in the Suhigmanik Village in Indonesia. Tofu production has led to solid and water waste in

9
the community, meaning the peripheral communities suffer from groundwater and nearby
river pollution (Hartini et al., 2023). However, animal feeding operations (AFOs) can also
result in environmental racism (e.g., water and air pollution), possibly causing human illness,
including gastrointestinal and respiratory illnesses in developing nations and peripheral
communities (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, n.d.). Additionally, rather than
allocating land use for animals and animal feed, “growing food exclusively for direct human
consumption [meaning, plant-based foods] could, in principle, increase available food
calories by as much as 70%, which could feed an additional 4 billion people” (Cassidy et al.,
2013).
Migrant workers in Canada also experience slavery and exploitation. A United
Nations (2023) expert calls this contemporary slavery and points out that out of the fear of
deportation, migrant workers may not be able to report abuse from employers. Those who
already experience systemic discrimination are most likely to experience contemporary
slavery, including not only migrant workers, but also Indigenous Peoples, persons with
disabilities, and people of colour, who then experience trauma a second time over (United
Nations, 2023). Migrant workers typically work in agriculture, including “the planting and
harvesting of fruits and vegetables to meat processing” (Al Jazeera, 2023). This worker
exploitation unfortunately occurs in both the production of PB and AB foods.
Impacts on Animals
Food decisions not only impact the environment and humans, but they also impact
animals. Whether it be agricultural farming practices, backyard chickens, the destruction of
habitats (e.g., palm oil and resulting deforestation), or hunting, there is a degree of physical
harm to animals. Harm to animals can be defined as the mistreatment of animals, which may
or may not lead to death. Factory farming operations, also called concentrated animal
farming operations (CAFOs), result in the unethical treatment of farm animals via inadequate
regulating policies (Halteman, 2011). In Canada, there lacks federal laws protecting the wellbeing of farm animals, as only minimal provincial regulations and federal guidelines exist on
space allotted per animal on farms and in transport, for their veterinary care, and for their
access to food and water on farms and in transport (Government of Canada, 2022c; Health of
Animals Regulations, 2022; National Farm Animal Care Council, n.d.). Animals in CAFOs

10
are typically confined into the smallest spaces possible for reasons of cost, time and space
efficiency (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, n.d.; The Humane League, 2021a).
In order to minimize pain and suffering, farm animals used for food are initially
stunned during pre-slaughter (Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2019; The Humane League,
2021b). However, these are not without fault, as animals are not always adequately stunned
(David, 2020). This is followed by slaughter practices that vary depending on the animal
(e.g., livestock, poultry) (see Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2019; The Humane League,
2021b). While this is not the case in every farming operation, footage has been released of
farm animal mistreatment in pre/slaughter practices. David (2020) and McArthur et al.
(2020) have documented through both video and photo footage what occurs behind closed
doors in CAFOs, and policies to reduce harm to animals are not always followed. While
CAFOs result in the most extensive degree of harm to animals and the environment, they also
magnify human health concerns, including poor worker conditions including long hours,
workers experiencing physical pain from the intensive physical nature of the job, unsanitary
conditions, and negative effects on mental health (Anomaly, 2015; David, 2020).
There are other cultural or religious approaches, including Halal practices of preslaughter stunning and slaughtering of farm animals. Despite efforts to reduce harm, there is
a debate about the ethics of modern-day Halal practices (not traditional practices), which,
without generalizing, now share some similar approaches to other practices mentioned above
(Animals Australia for a Kinder World, 2015; Riaz et al., 2021). Grandin and Johnson (2006)
suggest improved measures for slaughtering farm animals, which emphasize ensuring that
protocols are carefully followed to minimize harm during both pre-slaughter and slaughter.
However, it is important to note that animals are not always consumed disrespectful,
particularly in some Indigenous hunting food practices (see p. 14-15). Reducing the
consumption of AB foods produced in unethical ways, particularly in CAFOs, means
reducing harm caused to animals.
Other Possible Sustainable Food Options
There are other approaches to perceived sustainable foods besides consuming PB
foods. Some possible approaches to sustainable eating and food production include
consuming local, seasonal, and organic foods, urban agriculture, sustainable agriculture,
insects, lab-grown meats, and traditional Indigenous approaches to food. Although, whether

11
due to mixed evidence or degrees of greenwashing, selecting sustainable foods may not be
straightforward for consumers. However, to reduce the environmental impacts of food,
consuming PB over AB foods may be helpful (Ritchie, 2020), as well as selecting foods
based on the assessment of various LCA factors, including reducing food waste. Other
potentially sustainable food options are nonetheless presented below.
Another possibility is eating local and seasonal foods. Consumers commonly assume
that local and seasonal foods are more sustainable than imported food, but this may not
always be the case (Macdiarmid, 2013; Polleau & Biermann, 2021). The locavore movement
assumes that foods that travel farther from farm-to-table emit higher GHG emissions and are
consequently worse for the environment (Lewis & Mitchell, 2014). Food miles as a single
factor do not necessarily equate to the degree of environmental harm, as LCA factors such as
land use, GHG emissions, animal feed, processing, transport, retailing and packaging must be
taken into consideration (Lewis & Mitchell, 2014; Poore & Nemecek, 2019; Ritchie, 2020).
In terms of beef, which is the least sustainable food based on the above factors, transport only
accounts for 1.0% of its total environmental impact (Poore & Nemecek, 2019; Ritchie,
2020). However, local foods that are in season can be lower in energy use (due to the use of
natural vs. artificial lighting) and GHG emissions than those out of season (Macdiarmid,
2013).
There is conflicting evidence on the sustainability of organic foods. Regarding factors
such as resources used, the quality of the ecosystem, and human health, organic diets fared
better than their conventional counterpart, whether omnivorous, vegetarian or vegan (Baroni
et al., 2007). Clark and Tilman (2017) found that, in general, organic food systems may be
less sustainable than conventional counterparts in terms of land use (25 to 110% higher) and
eutrophication (37% higher), yet they are more sustainable in terms of energy use (15%
lower) and fare similarly into terms of GHG emissions (4% lower) and acidification (13%
higher). In terms of GHG emissions, Chiriacò et al. (2022) found that organic foods (both PB
and AB) tend to be more sustainable than conventional foods, specifically in terms of GHG
emissions per land unit (43% lower) and per produce unit (12% lower). However, specific
differences are based on various food items (see Table 1.1).

12
Table 1.1
Average Degree of Organic vs. Conventional Environmental Impacts of Different Foods
Food Groups
Environmental Impact Factors
GHG Emissions

Land Use

Eutrophication

Acidification

Energy Use

Cereals
Slightly Higher
Higher
Higher
Higher
Lower
Pulses/Oil Crops
Slightly Lower
Higher
Higher
Slightly Lower Lower
Fruits
Lower
Higher
Higher
No Data
Slightly Lower
Vegetables
Slightly Higher
Higher
Higher
Higher
Higher
Dairy/Eggs
Slightly Higher
Higher
Slightly Lower Higher
Lower
Meats
Slightly Higher
Higher
Higher
Higher
Slightly Lower
Total Impact
NS1
Higher**
Higher*
NS1
Lower*
Note. Comparison of the average degree of environmental impacts of different organic vs. conventional food
groups. Based on Clark and Tilman (2017).
1
Insignificant.
*p < .05, **p < .001

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (n.d.),
organic agriculture is more sustainable amongst various environmental factors. These include
long-term sustainability (by taking a proactive approach to issues surrounding soil fertility
and pests), soil health (by avoiding mineral fertilizers to reduce erosion and nutrient loss and
increase biodiversity), water (using organic fertilizers to reduce groundwater pollution), air
(mitigating GHG emissions and climate change by reducing uses of non-renewable energy),
biodiversity (including in terms of genes, species, and ecosystems), and natural resource
degradation (including “soil forming and conditioning, soil stabilization, waste recycling,
carbon sequestration, nutrients cycling, predation, pollination and habitats”) (Chiriacò et al.,
2022; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, n.d.; Rahmann, 2011). The
limitations of these findings on organic foods are they are predominantly from Western
countries within Europe and North America.
Another potential option for sustainable food production is sustainable agriculture.
For example, urban agriculture includes both commercial and non-commercial spaces,
including personal home gardens, community gardens, aquaponics, rooftop gardens, and
vertical indoor production (Gustavsen et al., 2022; Sanyé-Mengual et al., 2016). Urban food
gardening may be a solution to the densification of cities. Still, there are challenges in
measuring the sustainability of such food systems, whether in terms of water use, food
security, biodiversity, or air quality (Gustavsen et al., 2022; Jahrl et al., 2022). However,
turning urban spaces into productive spaces for the local production of food may provide
benefits in areas of sustainability, such as social and environmental benefits, and economic
opportunities for stakeholders (Sanyé-Mengual et al., 2016). Some examples of sustainable

13
agriculture include sustainable livestock ranching, sustainable forest management, crop
rotations and varieties, high-yielding hybrids, conservation agriculture, soil redesign,
agroforestry, and aquaculture and aquaponics (Campanhola & Pandey, 2018). The United
Nations Environment Programme (2021) states that sustainable agriculture need not be
vegan, but that a reduction in AB food consumption, particularly livestock, is imperative for
current and future generations due to significant outputs of GHG emissions.
Insects as food may provide opportunities for sustainable food. Edible insects, an
alternative protein source, can potentially help food security on a global scale (Alhujaili et
al., 2023; Żuk-Gołaszewska et al., 2022). While insects have been eaten by various cultures
historically, the main barrier to adopting this alternative is the low acceptance rates of edible
insects among Western cultures (Alhujaili et al., 2023; Żuk-Gołaszewska et al., 2022).
Factors of low acceptance toward insect-based foods include “disgust, food neophobia,
familiarity, visibility of insects, and taste… [while] motivations for acceptance are found to
be familiarity and exposure” (Alhujaili et al., 2023, p.1). Those who are younger and more
educated tend to be most open to insect-based foods (Alhujaili et al., 2023).
Lab-grown meats and other cultured foods have the potential to be sustainable food
options as well, particularly in the reduction of harm to animals. However, the LCA of labgrown meat in its current small-scale and expensive production methods may be less
sustainable than beef, specifically in terms of energy use, and carbon dioxide emissions
(Risner et al., 2023). Contradictory evidence found that lab-grown meat can help reduce land
use, water use, energy use, and GHG emissions from methane compared to beef cattle (Penn,
2018; Roy et al., 2021). Overall, there remain questions about LG meat and sustainability in
terms of the environment, cost, culture, and human health (Roy et al., 2021).
Traditional Indigenous food practices merit consideration in the approaches to
mitigating climate change. This brief overview utilizes many perspectives from different
Nations and Peoples and does not aim to generalize Indigenous knowledge. At the 2017
Onjisay Aki International Climate Summit, which included global knowledge from
Knowledge Keepers from 14 Nations, Elder Courchene stated the following, “Climate
change is a reflection of values” (as cited in Climate Atlas of Canada, n.d., n.p.). In other
words, Colonial values have led to the destruction of the land through Eurocentric values
rooted in greed, disrespect, ignorance, and domination (Cameron et al., 2021). Traditional

14
food practices are typically perceived holistically, emphasizing wellness for all (including
humans in present and future generations, animals, the land, and plants) (Cameron et al.,
2021). (Cameron et al., 2021) summarize findings from conversations at the Summit:
Community members shared observations about changes in the abundance,
distribution, and health of species (e.g., fish are smaller and have sores). Drivers of
these changes identified include climate-related differences observed over time, from
more drought in the summer (necessitating frequent fire bans) to longer growing
seasons. Also shared was the observation of a growing number of invasive species
that have altered plants and local food, including the presence of wildlife in the area.
Some shared that environmental contaminants have also been responsible for
impacting water and soil quality (road spraying oil and salts), including chemical
waste dumped in waterways from a factory… As a result of these changes to local
sources of food, communities have expressed having to travel further to hunt and fish
because there’s not the same accessibility as there used to be (p. 8).
Williams Treaties First Nations in Ontario discusses the need for restoring traditional
food systems and knowledge, which should be part of the solutions relating to food and
climate change, particularly when considering food security and sustainable food (Domingo
et al., 2021). Traditional Indigenous approaches to food differ from Western approaches
based on commodity, as they are instead rooted in respectful relationships between human
and nonhuman beings, notably the land and animals (Auerbach, 2018; Nadasdy, 2007). The
local Indigenous Secwe̓pemc Peoples within the traditional lands of Tk’emlúps te
Secwe̓pemc take a similar approach to the respectful relationships between humans, the land,
animals, and plants (Stk’emlupsemc Te Secwepemc Nation, n.d.). Some Indigenous Peoples,
particularly in Northern Canada, describe the hunting of animals as a gift resulting from “a
process of reciprocal exchange between hunters and other-than-human persons” (Nadasdy,
2007). This relational approach to hunting can be viewed as an effort to maintain sustainable
relationships between human and nonhuman beings.
Consumer Demographics and Food Perceptions
Intersectional factors such as being female, younger in age, already being PB, a
higher education level, a left-leaning political orientation, and living in an urban space seem
to be predictive of PB food acceptance (Bryant & Sanctorum, 2021; Onwezen et al., 2021).15

15

Onwezen et al. (2021) compiled data from Australia, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland,
the United Kingdom, and the United States. Bryant and Sanctorum (2021) collected data in Belgium.

15
Older consumers (65+) tend to view dairy as the most acceptable, and PB alternatives as the
most sustainable, while lab-grown meat was viewed as the least acceptable and sustainable
(Grasso et al., 2019).16 Contributing factors toward the acceptance of sustainable protein
alternatives are pre-existing habits of eating sustainably and a higher achieved level of
education (Grasso et al., 2019). Faber et al. (2020) found that young consumers aged 18 to 30
perceived PB diets as either neutral or slightly positive, citing benefits to human health, the
environment, and animals.17
It is important to note that the majority of the studies being referred to in terms of
sociodemographics and their relationships with PB food acceptance are in Westernized
countries, including Europe and North America. However, none of the existing data on the
acceptance of PB foods was collected in Canada, which this study attempts to help fill some
of this gap at a small scale. This study did not have the opportunity to assess the differences
in food perceptions amongst Eastern countries and cultures, nor Indigenous perspectives.
Kamloops, British Columbia (BC) is a medium-sized population centre of 92,442
(Statistics Canada, 2021) with a unique “mix of rural, small town, and small city dynamics”
(Crabbe, 2011, p. 48-49) (see Table 1.2). In terms of age, the Kamloops population is
dispersed similarly across adult age groups (Statistics Canada, 2021).18 In terms of education,
the majority of those in Kamloops have some type of postsecondary education (Statistics
Canada, 2021).19 The dispersion of men+ and women+ within the population of Kamloops is
also relatively distributed equally (Statistics Canada, 2021).20

16

Grasso et al.’s (2019) data was collected in Belgium.
Faber et al. (2020) collected data in Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Spain.
18
Only adult ages are included and are based on the Statistics Canada (2021) census for Kamloops. The
presented ages are based on existing age categories within the census, resulting only in the inclusion of the ages
20+.
19
Based on a sample of 25% of the Kamloops population from Statistics Canada( 2021). Postsecondary
indicates any type of postsecondary education.
20
According to Statistics Canada (2021), men+ is defined as “men (and/or boys), as well as some non-binary
persons,” and women+ is defined as women (and/or girls), as well as some non-binary persons” (n.p.).
Population statistics on gender are based on the age category, as no total count of men+ and women+ was
provided, and the age population count (92,445) is similar to the total population count of 92,442 (Statistics
Canada, 2021).
17

16
Table 1.2
Kamloops, BC Population Centre Sociodemographic Characteristics
Characteristic
Population
N
%
Age
20-29
12,935
14.0%
30-39
12,940
14.0%
40-49
10,735
11.6%
50-59
11,970
12.9%
60-69
12,020
13.0%
70+
13,355
14.4%
Gender
Women+
47,080
51.0%
Men+
45,365
49.1%
Education
No postsecondary
17,950
36.2%
Postsecondary
30,005
62.5%
Note. Kamloops, BC population sociodemographic characteristics. Based on Statistics Canada’s (2021) census
data (N = 92,442).

Being a farmers market consumer is a possible factor in more conscientious food
decisions. This research specifically looks at Kamloops Regional Farmers Market (KRFM)
consumers. However, Kamloops population statistics are not representative of the KRFM
population, and the statistics available do not aid in making predictions of PB food
acceptance in Kamloops. Generally, farmers market consumers who attend markets more
frequently tend to be more conscious of their food decisions, displaying positive attitudes
toward the environment and negative attitudes toward industrial food production (Cicia et al.,
2021). Those who shop at farmers markets also tend to consume more fruits and vegetables
(Jilcott Pitts et al., 2015). It is, however, important to note the privilege of farmers market
consumers who are typically white women with access to education and economic resources
(Alkon & McCullen, 2011a; Rice, 2015). The discourse on healthy foods tends to ignore
decisions made based on cost and accessibility, while attempting to emphasize only the
morality of consuming sustainable foods (Alkon & McCullen, 2011b). This presents a larger
systemic issue where the onus of consuming sustainable foods should not be placed on the
individual.
The Saturday KRFM is considered a large market (40-99 vendors) with an estimated
900 shoppers per hour during peak season, while the Wednesday market is a medium-sized
market (20-39 vendors) with approximately 500 shoppers per hour (Connell & British
Columbia Association of Farmers Markets, 2012). Of the 33 (out of 159) assessed farmers
markets in BC, the Saturday KRFM was the sixth largest in average hourly attendance in

17
2012 (Connell & British Columbia Association of Farmers Markets, 2012). BC farmers
market consumers viewed “nutritional content, grown/produced in BC, in season,
grown/produced locally, and animal welfare” as the most important food purchase decision
factors, while “brand name, low price, and certified organic” were perceived as least
important (Connell & British Columbia Association of Farmers Markets, 2012, p. 13).
Consumer food decisions on both PB and AB foods are limited in terms of farmers market
populations. As such, a non-generalizable overview of general consumer perceptions is
provided in the following paragraphs.
Consumers tend to perceive different foods in varying manners depending on a
plethora of factors, including intersectional factors, while being picky lowered acceptance
levels (Grasso et al., 2019). Other factors possibly impacting food decisions include a lack of
knowledge on PB foods (e.g., preparing meals or nutritional information), perceptions of
ethics and justice (e.g., humans, animals, and the environment), health, product availability,
time, cost, taste, product origin, organic/non-GMO21 vs. conventional, natural vs. processed,
habits, convenience, values and beliefs, control over one’s food decisions, and image (Faber
et al., 2020; Lea et al., 2006). The meat paradox or meat-related cognitive dissonance
(MRCD) may play a role in food perceptions due to contradicting beliefs and actions
surrounding the consumption of AB foods (Bastian & Loughnan, 2017; Benningstad &
Kunst, 2020; Bouwman et al., 2022; Monteiro et al., 2017; Rothgerber, 2014, 2020;
Rothgerber et al., 2022; Rothgerber & Rosenfeld, 2021). It is, however, important to note that
MRCD may not apply in all cases. For instance, Indigenous food practices do not perceive
animal consumption as harmful, as a respectful relationship with animals is emphasized
(Auerbach, 2018; Nadasdy, 2007).
If consumers can be made aware of their possible contradicting and inconsistent
beliefs and behaviours surrounding consuming animals while believing, for example, that
they love animals, that AB foods are bad for the environment, and that AB foods may not be
healthy, then it may be possible for consumers to attempt to overcome MRCD (Monteiro et
al., 2017; Rothgerber, 2014; Rothgerber & Rosenfeld, 2021). Some other ways that MRCD

21

Genetically modified organism.

18
displays itself is through self-image, where, for instance, a person holds the belief that they
are compassionate, and that those who are compassionate do not harm animals, but they still
consume animals (Rothgerber, 2014). Rothgerber (2014) found the following:
There are a number of strategies that omnivores adopt to reduce this dissonance
including avoidance, dissociation, perceived behavioral change, denial of animal pain,
denial of animal mind, pro-meat justifications, reducing perceived choice, and actual
behavioral change (p. 1).
However, being aware of such contradicting beliefs and maladaptive coping strategies to
reduce the tension surrounding AB food consumption is likely only effective with those who
are receptive to it and may even lead to the opposite behavioural changes of further justifying
one’s AB food consumption (Rothgerber & Rosenfeld, 2021). On the other hand, consumers
likely cannot make more sustainable food decisions if they are not aware of how their own
biases and beliefs play a role in what they choose to consume. However, MRCD does not
necessarily apply in all cases, particularly in relational Indigenous hunting practices.
Consumer perceptions of food may change over time. Bryant & Sanctorum (2021)
found that amongst consumers of AB foods, there was an increase in perceived fulfillment of
needs from PB meats over time, where 44% of consumers in 2019 and 51% in 2020 agreed
with perceived fulfillment. Consumers remained unsure over time on whether they would
purchase lab-grown meats (Bryant & Sanctorum, 2021). Societal benefits (e.g., animal
welfare, world hunger, environmental sustainability) were most cited for reasons to be
motivated to purchase cultured meats, while personal costs (e.g., price, trust, healthiness, and
unnaturalness) were most cited as barriers (Bryant & Sanctorum, 2021). While some
consumers may view PB foods more positively, there is some conflicting evidence. Michel et
al. (2021) found that meat was viewed as predominantly positive and PB alternatives as
predominantly negative amongst consumers, while Polleau and Biermann (2021) found that
only a minority of consumers viewed veganism and vegetarianism as part of a sustainable
diet.22 Vegan diets tend to be perceived as unhealthy (Polleau & Biermann, 2021).
There may be ways in which PB foods and diets may become perceived more
positively. The methods in which governmental institutions promote PB foods and diets may

22

Polleau and Biermann (2021) utilized data from a survey in Germany.

19
influence how consumers perceive them. Presenting information in a clear and concise
manner in terms of practical applications such as meal preparation, and theoretical
applications, such as a consensus on the definitions of a PB diet (Faber et al., 2020), may be
beneficial. It may also be beneficial for stakeholders to try to make PB meats replicate AB
meat more closely in terms of taste, texture, and price (Michel et al., 2021). Schiano et al.
(2020) found that consumers who were seeking sustainability information on food purchases
tended to look at factors such as product labels, websites, word of mouth, newspapers, social
media, and email newsletters. Other consumers cited a lack of knowledge on PB diets as a
barrier to adopting one (Lea et al., 2006).
Possible barriers to learning about where food comes from include not only
greenwashing, but also consumer deskilling and ag-gag legislation. Consumer deskilling23
can be defined as consumers lacking food literacy, which consists the lack of knowledge on
sustainable foods, healthy foods, and food preparation (Jaffe & Gertler, 2006; Kornelsen,
n.d.; Lyon et al., 2003). Ag-gag legislation is used to prevent public trespassing into
agricultural farming operations (Lazare, 2020). Some Canadian provinces, including Ontario,
Alberta, Prince Edward Island and Manitoba, have implemented ag-gag legislation (Cecil,
2021; Lazare, 2020), which may worsen product greenwashing outcomes on consumers due
to lack of transparency, potentially worsening consumer deskilling outcomes. As
‘whistleblowers’ could be sanctioned, this means that there are potential barriers to exposing
animal cruelty, unsanitary farming practices, and the evasion of environmental laws and
sustainability regulations (Fiber-Ostrow & Lovell, 2016; Rouse, 2013). While British
Columbia has not implemented provincial ag-gag legislation (Bill M-277), there remains the
danger of the proposed federal ag-gag law (Bill C-275) (House of Commons Canada, 2023;
Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, 2019). Both bills currently remain in the hearing
stages with the possibility of being passed (House of Commons Canada, 2023; Legislative
Assembly of British Columbia, 2019).
Overall, perceptions of PB foods amongst farmers market consumers may help
determine the relative success of such products at farmers markets. If PB foods, which are

23

‘Deskilling’ was initially coined by Harry Braverman in 1974.

20
generally more sustainable than AB foods, are viewed positively by farmers market
consumers, then there is a likelihood of more interest in purchasing alternative products. As
the consumption of unsustainable AB foods is reduced, and the consumption of sustainable
PB foods is increased, food will likely have less of an impact on humans, animals, and the
environment. While this one study will not have such a generalized impact, it will begin to
provide a body of literature on the topic. Exploring perceptions of PB foods amongst KRFM
consumers may help predict the likelihood of the success of PB foods at the KRFM,
potentially having a positive impact on sustainability and PB food availability in Kamloops,
BC.
Researcher Positionality
As a social science researcher, I ensure to reflect upon my own positionality to remain
transparent in the research process, as well as to attempt to reduce the effects of any implicit
biases I may have. To attain this, I have utilized a reflexivity journal (see Bryman & Bell,
2016; Janesick, 2011; Lincoln & Guba, 2013; Rubin & Rubin, 2005). I have reflected on how
my personal experiences and perspectives as a researcher have impacted my undertaking of
this research topic. I recognize the ways in which my own positionality affects all aspects of
my research, including my research topic, the process of research (e.g., literature review,
methods, participants, data collection, and data analysis), and its results (data interpretations,
research conclusions, and implications) (see Holmes, 2020). I position myself somewhere in
the middle of the insider-outsider (emic-etic) continuum within my topic of research, as I
have been both an omnivore and PB on several occasions. I also acknowledge that I am an
outsider to Indigenous approaches to food and relationships between humans, animals, the
land, and plants.
Putting Animal Ethics at the Center of Reflection
I acknowledge my privilege as a person living in a Westernized country with access
to higher education, which may have influenced my ideologies surrounding animal rights and
welfare. While vegetarianism was present within my family and my upbringing, most of my
work as an advocate for animals began in my undergraduate degree. The courses I took
influenced my interests and guided me toward beginning to research animal ethics in various
contexts, including in the context of food. The care I have for animals has led me to provide a
voice for them where possible. However, this work barely scratches the surface of the issues

21
surrounding animals used for food, meaning that my biases are likely limited as my thesis
was not focused on solely animal ethics itself. No matter how significant or small the impact,
I aim to always include animals in my academic work, as they have frequently been missed
in intersectional work. However, being a woman of colour has allowed me to acknowledge,
from an insider perspective, what discrimination and oppression can feel like. This has only
increased my empathy for others that are being oppressed, including nonhuman animals.
My background as an animal ethics researcher did lead me to take the time to find
literature on food and its impact on animals, rather than merely focusing on environmental
sustainability and human justice. In an effort to reduce confirmation bias and the
‘romanticizing’ of PB foods, I ensured to include literature including the drawbacks of PB
foods, within the food industry and at all levels of the LCA, in terms of environmental
sustainability, human health and justice, and animal justice. Throughout the thesis, readers
are reminded that not all PB foods are sustainable foods (e.g., identifying issues surrounding
certain PB foods and eutrophication, environmental racism, health concerns, habitat
destruction, and unethical worker welfare). Other options for sustainable food are also
identified in the literature review (e.g., LG meats, consumable insects, and sustainable
farming). The bulk of the effort to reduce romanticizing is in chapter one, where drawbacks
of PB foods are discussed. Readers are reminded in the introductory and concluding sections
of each chapter that not all PB foods are sustainable, and this is particularly emphasized
when drawing conclusions based on the results. This thesis aimed to focus on PB foods
specifically, which is why the thesis was guided in this direction. If the goal of this research
was to assess food in general and sustainability, more space and attention could have been
given to other various options to sustainable foods. Despite efforts to demonstrate benefits
and drawbacks of different foods and food systems, it is potentially inevitable for PB foods to
be at least somewhat romanticized in research on the topic of PB foods, similar to any
research focusing on a given topic.
My animal ethics background likely influenced the fact that my survey did include
questions asking about perceptions of food in regard to animal welfare (e.g., food decision
factors and perceived benefits to a PB diet). I might argue that this is not a bias, but merely
an effort to be inclusive of species. My quantitative data analysis included variables derived
from the survey on animal welfare, while my qualitative analysis considered how animal

22
ethics was conceptualized by respondents. My background in animal ethics likely resulted in
sensitivity to themes and variables of animal ethics, meaning that this portion may have been
missed or not viewed as ‘important’ or ‘meaningful’ to those without such a background. My
experience also likely led to my emphasis on policy changes surrounding not only the
environment and humans, but also animals.
Utilizing a Reflexivity Journal
I utilized my reflexivity journal predominantly at the levels of pilot testing,
participant recruitment, and data analysis. I conducted pilot testing both with academic peers
and colleagues (e.g., in a classroom setting and by email) and at the farmers market. This
helped me reflect upon how respondents perceive and understand certain questions and
allowed me to make changes where needed to ensure questions had face validity. It also
allowed me to reflect upon how my own biases could potentially impact recruitment of
participants. The biases I identified during pilot testing at the farmers market included not
wanting to inconvenience consumers that were walking on the strip of the farmers market,
especially if they were with young children. This also helped me recognize that I needed to
avoid any parts of the strip that were too close to any vendors, as I did not want to impact
their sales.
I realized the best way to ensure such demographic was included, and for me not to
project any uncomfortability of ‘bothering’ consumers, was to collect data in the areas where
consumers were taking the time to sit down, chat with their friends and family, and consume
food and beverages. This was predominantly at the Saturday market, which is much busier
than the Wednesday market. The Wednesday market did not have any place to sit down, and I
ensured to recruit survey respondents at either end of the market, or more so in the middle of
the strip, not veering off too close to vendors on each side. I recognize that those at the
Saturday market seemed to be taking in the farmers market as an entire experience and taking
their time, as they were more open to participating than those at the Wednesday market.
Those who tended not to participate at the Wednesday market were typically persons working
nearby and they were on a time-constrained lunch break. I recognize that this likely impacted
the demographics of my sample, but that it was beyond my control, as I attempted to
approach a diverse sample.

23
I wrote in this journal after each round of surveys at the KRFM, reflecting on what
went well and where I could have improved. My attempt to approaching a diverse sample
meant ensuring to approach those that are not visibly24 in my sociodemographic category
(e.g., women around the ages of 20 to 30), in addition to those who are. The majority of my
sample unintentionally did match my ‘invisible’ demographic, meaning someone who is also
PB and has a university education. It is possible that those who match my demographic
simply agreed to participate more so than those who do not, perhaps due to feelings of being
‘the same.’ While I did not disclose my dietary pattern unless asked and would only discuss
this post-survey, the survey itself was on the topic of PB foods, meaning those who are more
open to such foods, typically those in my demographic, may have been more likely to
participate.
I had some uncomfortable encounters as a young female researcher, and these were
predominantly with men who are older than I am. I debriefed about these in my reflexivity
journal, as well as with some committee members. I acknowledged that these uncomfortable
experiences could have easily influenced who I was approaching moving forward. I knew
that within the grounds of the farmers market that I would be safe, and that maintaining a
professional distance as a researcher would continue to be a protective factor. These
experiences are unfortunately regular day-to-day experiences as a young woman, but this
helped me handle the uncomfortable situations effectively, meaning continuing to approach
consumers regardless of whether they fit the demographic of those who were not acting in an
appropriate manner. I avoided generalizing and stereotyping individuals as part of a larger
group, as anyone of any demographic can act in inappropriate manners.
My reflexivity journal helped me reflect upon how I was presenting myself, in terms
of both dressing to be identified as a researcher, and my choices of words, tone, and body
language. During pilot testing, I had not yet acquired a name tag, lanyard worn around my
neck identifying me as a researcher administering a survey, and felt socially anxious. I

24

Not all intersectional factors are visible. This includes but is not limited to: ‘white-passing’ persons of colour
(including myself), socioeconomic status (e.g., the way someone presents themselves does not directly translate
to their income level), level of education (not possible to determine while speaking to consumers without
asking), and those with invisible different abilities (e.g., mental illness, invisible physical illness, and different
learning abilities).

24
recognized that obtaining and wearing a university shirt, a nametag, and a lanyard would be
helpful in my presentation as a researcher. I did, however, wear a university t-shirt, as to not
come off as overly intimidating (e.g., not wearing professional office-wear to avoid creating
a potential perceived ‘power dynamic’ between researcher and respondent). My confidence
became better with each survey, and I was up to speed very quickly ensuring that I was
speaking confidently, and that my body language matched this. I recognize that having
written out scripts for recruitment and informed consent helped me remain consistent
throughout the process of administering surveys, and that most of my anxiety regarding how
I was presenting was likely worse in my head, and that others likely did not notice.
My reflexivity journal was heavily utilized for both quantitative and qualitative data
cleanup and analyses. The quantitative aspect meant reflecting on how I was creating
variables. For instance, I reflected upon how to create groups for gender based on the open
textbox that was provided for respondents to ensure that I was being inclusive, while
ensuring to best represent respondents in the way that they described themselves. The survey
included some open-ended options for respondents to expand, including on their dietary
pattern, perceived cultural influence on food decisions, and highest achieved level of
education. Open-ended responses were used where meaningful, particularly in terms of
dietary pattern. This resulted in creating a dichotomous variable of ‘non-omnivore’ and
‘omnivore,’ as the responses were predominantly PB-leaning. Variables were transformed
into various scales, into different types of variables to meet different tests assumptions (e.g.,
5-point scales, 3-point scales, dichotomous) and my reflexivity journal helped make sure that
these were transformed in a consistent manner and allowed me to record the entire process in
detail to remain transparent (see Appendix C).
For the qualitative aspect, my reflexivity journal allowed me to reflect on the entire
iterative process of content, thematic, and sentiment analyses (see Chapter 3). My journal
also included sections on variables and tests that either could not be conducted or included.
These are discussed in further detail, including their justifications, in their respective
chapters. Excluded quantitative tests and variables are included in chapter two and Appendix
D. Excluded qualitative themes are included in chapter three and Appendix D. My reflexivity
journal included lists and tables of significant results, and graphics allowing me to visualize

25
all variables, themes and tests, making it easier for me to visualize the bigger picture of my
findings, and include what is meaningful for the scope of a master’s thesis.
Methods
A survey questionnaire was utilized in this study. Respondents (n = 94) were recruited
via convenience sample. Criteria for participating in the survey included being over the age
of 18 and a farmers market consumer walking around at the Kamloops Regional Farmers
Market (KRFM) during the summer 2022 season. Participants were surveyed at both the
Wednesday and Saturday markets. The survey was administered on a tablet using Survey
Monkey, comprised of a total of 25 questions and took approximately 13 minutes to complete
(see Appendix A). Virtual consent was sought in the first question prior to beginning the
survey. Section one included qualitative free association questions, which included six
questions where respondents were asked to reflect on their thoughts and feelings about AB
foods, PB foods, and LG meats (see Chapter 3). Thematic, content, and sentiment analyses
were utilized for the qualitative portion of the survey. Section two of the survey was
predominantly quantitative and included seven questions (see Chapter 2). The last section
contained eleven questions to collect demographic information (see Chapter 2). Respondent
demographics are presented using descriptive statistics. Statistical analyses were conducted
with quantitative variables and respondent demographics to determine relationships and
differences in responses amongst consumers. Research methodology is discussed in more
detail within their respective chapters due to differing approaches and questions being
utilized from sections of the questionnaire (see Chapters 2 and 3).
Research Questions
Research questions, rather than specific hypotheses, are used in this research.
Research questions tend to be less specific than hypotheses, which limits the findings only to
pre-set hypotheses only to limit further how the data can be interpreted (Rubin & Rubin,
2005). The questionnaire used in this research includes many questions and instruments, both
quantitative and qualitative, and the use of specific hypotheses is not possible due to the
number of quantitative variables that can be tested with numerous other variables, and due to
the use of thematic and sentiment analyses. The goal of thematic analysis is to interpret the
data through the understanding of participants, which hypotheses would limit such
understanding (Bryman & Bell, 2016; Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006; Proudfoot, 2023;

26
Rubin & Rubin, 2005). While deductive reasoning is used through conducting a literature
review leading to possible anticipations of quantitative and qualitative results, inductive
reasoning is also used to interpret what participants are trying to say in this specific data set
(see Bryman & Bell, 2016; Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006; Proudfoot, 2023).
The main research question is: What are Kamloops Regional Farmers Market
(KRFM) consumer perceptions of food? Part one of this study, the quantitative consumer
survey questions, asks specifically: How do perceptions of different food categories,
specifically plant-based (PB) foods and animal-based (AB) foods, differ within KRFM
sociodemographic groups? Part two of this study, the qualitative aspect of the survey, aims to
answer the following sub-question: What are KRFM consumer perceptions of different food
categories, specifically plant-based (PB) foods, animal-based (AB) foods, and lab-grown
(LG) meats? Overall, it is anticipated that KRFM consumers will likely perceive AB foods
most positively, PB foods negatively, and be unsure about LG meats (based on Bryant &
Sanctorum, 2021; Deliens et al., 2022; Onwezen et al., 2021).25
Objectives and Goals
The main objective of this study is to determine the perceptions of foods amongst
farmers market consumers in Kamloops, BC. More specifically, the aim is to determine the
relative acceptance of alternative foods of consumers at farmers markets. Acceptance of PB
foods, in general, is typically low (Arango et al., 2023; Onwezen et al., 2021).26 If the
perception of risk can be lowered via marketing communications, it is possible to have higher
acceptance levels of alternative foods, including both PB foods and LG meats (Arango et al.,
2023). The goals of this research are to provide recommendations for raising acceptance
levels of alternative foods at both micro- and macro-levels, including consumers and
stakeholders throughout the life cycle of food production. Another goal is to help build a
body of knowledge in the literature on farmers market consumers and food acceptance, and
to communicate this to non-academic audiences as well.
Chapter one of this thesis began with an introduction of the topic and an overview of
the literature related to the social scientific approach to researching PB foods and

25
26

Deliens et al. (2022) compiled data from Belgium.
Arango et al. (2023) utilized data from the United States.

27
sustainability. Chapter two includes part one of this study, which presents the quantitative
analysis of a farmers market consumer questionnaire on PB foods and sustainability. Chapter
three provides part two of this study, which includes a qualitative analysis of the same
questionnaire. Chapter four provides concluding remarks and implications for future
research.

28
Literature Cited
Al Jazeera. (2023, September 6). Migrant Workers in Canada ‘Vulnerable’ to Modern-day
Slavery: UN expert. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/9/6/migrant-workers-incanada-vulnerable-to-modern-day-slavery-un-expert
Alhujaili, A., Nocella, G., & Macready, A. (2023). Insects as Food: Consumers’ Acceptance
and Marketing. Foods, 12(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12040886
Alkon, A. H., & McCullen, C. G. (2011a). Whiteness and Farmers Markets: Performances,
Perpetuations... Contestations? Antipode, 43(4), 937–959.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00818.x
Animals Australia for a Kinder World. (2015, August 11). Halal Slaughter in Australia.
https://animalsaustralia.org/our-work/compassionate-living/halal-slaughter-in-australia/
Anomaly, J. (2015). What’s Wrong with Factory Farming? Public Health Ethics, 8(3), 246–
254. https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phu001
Arango, L., Chaudhury, S. H., & Septianto, F. (2023). The Role of Demand‐Based Scarcity
Appeals in Promoting Cultured Meat. Psychology & Marketing, 40(8), 1501–1520.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21821
Auerbach, K. S. (2018). Hunting, Healing & Human-land Relationships: A Reflective Inquiry
Into Health and Well-being Explored Through Indigenous-informed Hunting Practices,
Land Relationships & Ways of Knowing. University of Northern British Columbia.
Balogh, A. (2021, December 13). The Rise and Fall of Monoculture Farming. Horizon: The
EU Research & Innovation Magazine. https://projects.research-andinnovation.ec.europa.eu/en/horizon-magazine/rise-and-fall-monoculture-farming
Baroni, L., Cenci, L., Tettamanti, M., & Berati, M. (2007). Evaluating the Environmental
Impact of Various Dietary Patterns Combined with Different Food Production Systems.
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 61(2), 279–286.
https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602522
Bastian, B., & Loughnan, S. (2017). Resolving the Meat-Paradox: A Motivational Account of
Morally Troublesome Behavior and its Maintenance. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 21(3), 278–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316647562
Becker-Olsen, K., & Potucek, S. (2013). Greenwashing. In Encyclopedia of Corporate Social
Responsibility (pp. 1318–1323). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28036-8_104

29
Benningstad, N. C. G., & Kunst, J. R. (2020). Dissociating Meat from its Animal Origins: A
Systematic Literature Review. Appetite, 147, 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104554
Berliner, D., & Prakash, A. (2014). “Bluewashing” the Firm? Voluntary Regulations,
Program Design, and Member Compliance with the United Nations Global Compact.
The Policy Studies Journal, 43(1), 115–138.
Bouwman, E. P., Bolderdijk, J. W., Onwezen, M. C., & Taufik, D. (2022). “Do You Consider
Animal Welfare to be Important?” Activating Cognitive Dissonance via Value
Activation Can Promote Vegetarian Choices. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 83,
1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101871
Brisman, A. (2014). Of Theory and Meaning in Green Criminology. International Journal for
Crime, Justice, and Social Democracy, 3(2), 21–34.
Bryant, C., & Sanctorum, H. (2021). Alternative Proteins, Evolving Attitudes: Comparing
Consumer Attitudes to Plant-Based and Cultured Meat in Belgium in Two Consecutive
Years. Appetite, 161, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105161
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2016). Social Research Methods (4th Canadian Edition). Oxford
University Press.
Budinsky, J., & Bryant, S. (2013). “It’s Not Easy Being Green”: The Greenwashing of
Environmental Discourses in Advertising. Canadian Journal of Communication, 38(2),
207–226. https://doi.org/10.22230/cjc.2013v38n2a2628
Cameron, L., Courchene, D., Ijaz, S., & Mauro, I. (2021). ‘A Change of Heart’: Indigenous
Perspectives from the Onjisay Aki Summit on Climate Change. Climatic Change,
164(43), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03000-8
Campanhola, C., & Pandey, S. (2018). Sustainable Food and Agriculture: An Integrated
Approach. Academic Press.
https://ezproxy.tru.ca/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db
=nlebk&AN=1845027&site=eds-live&scope=site
Canadian Food Inspection Agency. (2019, April 17). Mechanical, Electrical or Gas
Stunning; Slaughter Methods and Monitoring Signs of Unconsciousness or
Consciousness. Government of Canada. https://inspection.canada.ca/food-guidance-bycommodity/meat-products-and-food-animals/slaughter-methods-andmonitoring/eng/1539372028443/1539372028884?chap=0#c5
Cassidy, E. S., West, P. C., Gerber, J. S., & Foley, J. A. (2013). Redefining Agricultural
Yields: From Tonnes to People Nourished per Hectare. Environmental Research Letters,
8(3), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034015

30
Caviola, L., Everett, J. A. C., & Faber, N. S. (2019). The Moral Standing of Animals:
Towards a Psychology of Speciesism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
116(6), 1011–1029. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000182
Cecil, H. (2021, June 18). Manitoba Becomes Fourth Province in Canada to Pass Ag-Gag
Laws – Animals & Society Research Initiative. University of Victoria Animals & Society
Research Initiative.
https://onlineacademiccommunity.uvic.ca/asri/2021/06/18/manitoba-becomes-fourthprovince-in-canada-to-pass-ag-gag-laws/
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). Water Contamination from Animal
Feeding Operations. Water, Sanitation, & Hygiene (WASH)-Related Emergencies &
Outbreaks. Retrieved February 21, 2024, from
https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/emergency/sanitation-wastewater/animal-feedingoperations.html
Chai, B. C., van der Voort, J. R., Grofelnik, K., Eliasdottir, H. G., Klöss, I., & Perez-Cueto, F.
J. A. (2019). Which Diet has the Least Environmental Impact on our Planet? A
Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets. Sustainability
(Switzerland), 11(15), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154110
Charles, N. (2014). ‘Animals Just Love You as You Are’: Experiencing Kinship Across the
Species Barrier. Sociology, 48(4), 715–730. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038513515353
Chiriacò, M. V., Castaldi, S., & Valentini, R. (2022). Determining Organic Versus
Conventional Food Emissions to Foster the Transition to Sustainable Food Systems and
Diets: Insights from a Systematic Review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 380, 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134937
Cicia, G., Furno, M., & Del Giudice, T. (2021). Do Consumers’ Values and Attitudes Affect
Food Retailer Choice? Evidence from a National Survey on Farmers’ Market in
Germany. Agricultural and Food Economics, 9(3), 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-020-00172-2
Clark, M., & Tilman, D. (2017). Comparative Analysis of Environmental Impacts of
Agricultural Production Systems, Agricultural Input Efficiency, and Food Choice.
Environmental Research Letters, 12(6). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cd5
Climate Atlas of Canada. (n.d.). Onjisay Aki Initiative on Climate Change. Prairie Climate
Centre. Retrieved February 25, 2024, from https://climateatlas.ca/onjisay-aki-initiativeclimate-change
Connell, D. J., & British Columbia Association of Farmers’ Markets. (2012). Economic and
Social Benefits Assessment of Farmer’s Markets: Provincial Report (British Columbia,
Canada). https://www2.unbc.ca/sites/default/files/sections/david-connell/farmersmarkets/bc2012farmersmarketbenefitsprovince.pdf

31
Conrad, Z., Niles, M. T., Neher, D. A., Roy, E. D., Tichenor, N. E., & Jahns, L. (2018).
Relationship Between Food Waste, Diet Quality, and Environmental Sustainability.
PLoS ONE, 13(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195405
Crabbe, A. (2011). Mapping Deprivation for the Small City, Rural Context: A KamloopsThompson Case Study. Smalls Cities Imprint, 3(1), 40–51.
Crews, T. A., Carton, W., & Olsson, L. (2018). Is the Future of Agriculture Perennial?
Imperatives and Opportunities to Reinvent Agriculture by Shifting from Annual
Monocultures to Perennial Polycultures. Global Sustainability, 1(e11), 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2018.11
Crippa, M., Solazzo, E., Guizzardi, D., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Tubiello, F. N., & Leip, A.
(2021). Food Systems are Responsible for a Third of Global Anthropogenic GHG
Emissions. Nature Food, 2(3), 198–209. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00225-9
David, S. (2020, September 24). I Went Undercover on a Factory Farm—This Is What I
Learned. Sentient Food. https://sentientmedia.org/i-went-undercover-on-a-factory-farmthis-is-what-i-learned/
Deliens, T., Mullie, P., & Clarys, P. (2022). Plant-Based Dietary Patterns in Flemish Adults: A
10-year Trend Analysis. European Journal of Nutrition, 61(1), 561–565.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-021-02630-z
Delon, N. (2018). Social Norms and Farm Animal Protection. Palgrave Communications,
4(139), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0194-5
Dhankhar, N., & Kumar, J. (2023). Impact of Increasing Pesticides and Fertilizers on Human
Health: A Review. Materials Today: Proceedings.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2023.03.766
Domingo, A., Charles, K.-A., Jacobs, M., Brooker, D., & Hanning, R. M. (2021). Indigenous
Community Perspectives of Food Security, Sustainable Food Systems and Strategies to
Enhance Access to Local and Traditional Healthy Food for Partnering Williams Treaties
First Nations (Ontario, Canada). International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health, 18(4404), 1–16. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph189094404
Drury, M., Fuller, J., & Hoeks, J. (2023). Embedding Animals within a Definition of
Sustainability. Sustainability Science, 18(4), 1925–1938.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01310-7
Earth Working Group. (2023, March 15). EWG’s 2023 Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in
Produce. https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary.php
Edley, N. (2001). Unravelling Social Constructionism. Theory & Psychology, 11(3), 433–
441. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354301113008

32
Elder-Vass, D. (2012). The Reality of Social Construction. Cambridge University Press.
https://ezproxy.tru.ca/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db
=nlebk&AN=451727&site=eds-live&scope=site
Faber, I., Castellanos-Feijoó, N. A., Van de Sompel, L., Davydova, A., & Perez-Cueto, F. J.
A. (2020). Attitudes and Knowledge towards Plant-based Diets of Young Adults across
Four European Countries. Exploratory Survey. Appetite, 145, 1–7.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104498
Fairtrade International. (2018). Working Together for Fair and Sustainable Trade: Annual
Report 2017-2018.
Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating Rigor Using Thematic Analysis: A
Hybrid Approach of Inductive and Deductive Coding and Theme Development.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 1–11.
http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/5_1/pdf/fereday.pdf
Fiber-Ostrow, P., & Lovell, J. S. (2016). Behind a Veil of Secrecy: Animal Abuse, Factory
Farms, and Ag-Gag Legislation. Contemporary Justice Review: Issues in Criminal,
Social, and Restorative Justice, 19(2), 230–249.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580.2016.1168257
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. (2018). Sustainable Food
Systems: Concept and Framework. https://www.fao.org/3/ca2079en/CA2079EN.pdf
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (n.d.). Organic Agriculture: What
are the Environmental Benefits of Organic Agriculture?
Food Empowerment Project. (n.d.-a). Bitter Brew: The Stirring Reality of Coffee. Retrieved
February 21, 2024, from https://foodispower.org/coffee/
Food Empowerment Project. (n.d.-b). Peeling Back the Truth on Bananas. Retrieved
February 21, 2024, from https://foodispower.org/our-food-choices/bananas/
Food Empowerment Project. (2022, January). Child Labor and Slavery in the Chocolate
Industry. https://foodispower.org/human-labor-slavery/slavery-chocolate/
Fresán, U., & Sabaté, J. (2019). Vegetarian Diets: Planetary Health and Its Alignment with
Human Health. In Advances in Nutrition (Vol. 10, pp. S380–S388). Oxford University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/advances/nmz019
German, R. N., Thompson, C. E., & Benton, T. G. (2017). Relationships Among Multiple
Aspects of Agriculture’s Environmental Impact and Productivity: A Meta-analysis to
Guide Sustainable Agriculture. Biological Reviews, 92(2), 716–738.
https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12251

33
González, J. H., & Kramm, M. (2021). Applying the Five Faces of Oppression to Climate
Justice: Analysing Discussions of Climate Justice with the Help of Iris Marion Young’s
Theory of Oppression. Utrecht University.
González-García, S., Esteve-Llorens, X., Moreira, M. T., & Feijoo, G. (2018). Carbon
Footprint and Nutritional Quality of Different Human Dietary Choices. Science of the
Total Environment, 644, 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.339
Government of Canada. (2022, July 19). Provincial and Territorial Legislation Concerning
Welfare of Livestock. https://inspection.canada.ca/animal-health/terrestrialanimals/humane-transport/provincial-and-territorial-legislation-concerning/eng/1358482954113/1358483058784
Grandin, T., & Johnson, C. (2006). Animals in Translation: Using the Mysteries of Autism to
Decode Animal Behavior (1st ed.). Simon & Schuster.
Grasso, A. C., Hung, Y., Olthof, M. R., Verbeke, W., & Brouwer, I. A. (2019). Older
Consumers’ Readiness to Accept Alternative, More Sustainable Protein Sources in the
European Union. Nutrients, 11(8), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11081904
Gustavsen, G. W., Berglann, H., Jenssen, E., Kårstad, S., & Rodriguez, D. G. P. (2022). The
Value of Urban Farming in Oslo, Norway: Community Gardens, Aquaponics and
Vertical Farming. International Journal on Food System Dynamics, 13(1), 17–29.
https://doi.org/10.18461/ijfsd.v13i1.A2
Halteman, M. C. (2011). Varieties of Harm to Animals in Industrial Farming. Journal of
Animal Ethics, 1(2), 122–131. https://doi.org/10.5406/janimalethics.1.2.0122
Hartini, S., Azzahra, F., Purwaningsih, R., Ramadan, B. S., & Sari, D. P. (2023). Framework
for Increasing Eco-efficiency in the Tofu Production Process: Circular Economy
Approach. Production Engineering Archives, 29(4), 452–460.
https://doi.org/10.30657/pea.2023.29.50
Health of Animals Regulations, Pub. L. No. c 296, Justice Laws Website (2022).
Heller, M. C., Selke, S. E. M., & Keoleian, G. A. (2019). Mapping the Influence of Food
Waste in Food Packaging Environmental Performance Assessments. Journal of
Industrial Ecology, 23(2), 480–495. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12743
Holmes, A. G. D. (2020). Researcher Positionality - A Consideration of Its Influence and
Place in Qualitative Research - A New Researcher Guide. Shanlax International Journal
of Education, 8(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v8i4.3232
House of Commons Canada. (2023). Bill C-275. Parliament of Canada.
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/AGRI/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=123
14022

34
International Labour Organization. (2023). Issue Paper on Child Labour and Climate
Change.
International Labour Organization, & United Nations Children’s Fund. (2021). Child
Labour: Global Estimates 2020, Trends and the Road Forward.
Jaffe, J. A., & Gertler, M. (2006). Victual Vicissitudes: Consumer Deskilling and the
(Gendered) Transformation of Food Systems. Agriculture and Human Values, 23(2),
143–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-005-6098-1
Jahrl, I., Ejderyan, O., & Cavin, J. S. (2022). Community Gardens as a Response to the
Contradictions of Sustainable Urban Policy: Insights from the Swiss Cities of Zurich
and Lausanne. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 6, 1–12.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.902684
Janesick, V. J. (2011). The Creative Habit. In “Stretching” Exercises for Qualitative
Researchers (3rd ed., pp. 154–165). SAGE Publications.
Jilcott Pitts, S. B., Wu, Q., Demarest, C. L., Dixon, C. E., Dortche, C. J., Bullock, S. L.,
McGuirt, J., Ward, R., & Ammerman, A. S. (2015). Farmers’ Market Shopping and
Dietary Behaviours Among Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participants.
Public Health Nutrition, 18(13), 2407–2414.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980015001111
Jones, E. (2019). Rethinking Greenwashing: Corporate Discourse, Unethical Practice, and
the Unmet Potential of Ethical Consumerism. Sociological Perspectives, 62(5), 728–
754. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121419849095
Khmaissa, M., Zouari-Mechichi, H., Sciara, G., Record, E., & Mechichi, T. (2024). Pollution
from Livestock Farming Antibiotics an Emerging Environmental and Human Health
Concern: A Review. Journal of Hazardous Materials Advances, 13, 1–10.
https://ezproxy.tru.ca/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db
=edselp&AN=S2772416624000111&site=eds-live&scope=site
Kornelsen, S. (n.d.). Is That the Way the Cookie Crumbles? Consumer Deskilling in Food
Systems and the Journey Toward Food Sovereignty. In 2009. Wilfred Laurier
University.
Kustar, A., & Patino-Echeverri, D. (2021). A Review of Environmental Life Cycle
Assessments of Diets: Plant-based Solutions are Truly Sustainable, Even in the Form of
Fast Foods. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(17), 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179926
Lazare, J. (2020). Ag-Gag Laws, Animal Rights Activism, and the Constitution: What is
Protected Speech? Alberta Law Review, 58(1), 83–106.

35
Lea, E. J., Crawford, D., & Worsley, A. (2006). Public Views of the Benefits and Barriers to
the Consumption of a Plant-based Diet. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 60(7),
828–837. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602387
Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. (2019). Bill M 227: Trespass Amendment Act.
https://www.leg.bc.ca/Pages/BCLASSLegacy.aspx#%2Fcontent%2Fdata%2520-%2520ldp%2Fpages%2F41st4th%2F1st_read
%2Fm227-1.htm
Lewis, M. K., & Mitchell, A. D. (2014). Food Miles: Environmental Protection or Veiled
Protectionism’. Michigan Journal of International Law, 35(3), 579–636.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/License
Li, M., Jia, N., Lenzen, M., Malik, A., Wei, L., Jin, Y., & Raubenheimer, D. (2022). Global
Food-miles Account for Nearly 20% of Total Food-systems Emissions. Nature Food,
3(6), 445–453. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00531-w
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2013). The Constructivist Credo. Routledge.
https://ezproxy.tru.ca/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db
=nlebk&AN=506658&site=eds-live&scope=site
Lindsay, S. M. (2022). The “Problem” of Multispecies Families: Speciesism in Emergency
Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) Shelters. Social Sciences, 11, 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci
Lynch, M. J. (1990). The Greening of Criminology: A Perspective for the 1990s. Critical
Criminology, 2(3), 1–12.
Lynch, M. J., & Stretsky, P. B. (2003). The Meaning of Green: Contrasting Criminological
Perspectives. Theoretical Criminology, 7(2), 217–238.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480603007002414
Lyon, P., Colquhoun, A., & Alexander, E. (2003). Deskilling the Domestic Kitchen: National
Tragedy or the Making of a Modern Myth? Food Service Technology, 3, 167–175.
Macdiarmid, J. I. (2013). Seasonality and Dietary Requirements: Will Eating Seasonal Food
Contribute to Health and Environmental Sustainability? Proceedings of the Nutrition
Society, 73(3), 368–375. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665113003753
Maier, S. P., Lightsey, H. M., Galetta, M. D., Usoro, A. O., & Oh, L. S. (2023). Plant-based
Diets and Sports Performance: A Clinical Review. Sport Sciences for Health, 19(4),
1059–1081. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11332-023-01074-8
McArthur, J.-A., Wilson, K., & Phoenix, J. (2020). Hidden: Animals in the Anthropocene.
Meyers, I. (2024). EWG’s Dirty Dozen Guide to Food Chemicals.

36
Michel, F., Hartmann, C., & Siegrist, M. (2021). Consumers’ Associations, Perceptions and
Acceptance of Meat and Plant-based Meat Alternatives. Food Quality and Preference,
87, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104063
Mignolo, W. D. (2021). From “Human” to “Living” Rights. In The Politics of Decolonial
Investigations (pp. 254–283). Duke University Press.
Monteiro, C. A., Pfeiler, T. M., Patterson, M. D., & Milburn, M. A. (2017). The Carnism
Inventory: Measuring the Ideology of Eating Animals. Appetite, 113, 51–62.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.02.011
Nadasdy, P. (2007). The Gift in the Animal: The Ontology of Hunting and Human–animal
Sociality. American Ethnologist, 34(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.2007.34.1.25
National Farm Animal Care Council. (n.d.). Codes of Practice for the Care and Handling of
Farm Animals. Animal Health Canada. Retrieved February 22, 2024, from
https://www.nfacc.ca/codes-of-practice
Nightingale, D. J., & Cromby, J. (2002). Social Constructionism as Ontology. Theory &
Psychology, 12(5), 701–713. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354302012005901
Olafsson, B. (2023, September 23). What Monoculture Farming Is, and Why It Matters.
Sentient Food. https://sentientmedia.org/monoculture/#
Onwezen, M. C., Bouwman, E. P., Reinders, M. J., & Dagevos, H. (2021). A Systematic
Review on Consumer Acceptance of Alternative Proteins: Pulses, Algae, Insects, Plantbased Meat Alternatives, and Cultured Meat. Appetite, 159, 1–57.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.105058
Penn, J. (2018). Cultured Meat: Lab-Grown Beef and Regulating the Future Meat Market.
UCLA Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, 36(1), 104–126.
https://perma.cc/H9SM-E6381.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. (n.d.). Animals Used for Food. Retrieved
February 29, 2024, from https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/
Polleau, A., & Biermann, G. (2021). Eat Local to Save the Planet? Contrasting Scientific
Evidence and Consumers’ Perceptions of Healthy and Environmentally Friendly Diets.
Current Research in Environmental Sustainability, 3, 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsust.2021.100054
Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2019). Reducing Food’s Environmental Impacts through
Producers and Consumers. Science, 360, 987–992.

37
Portner, H.-O., Roberts, D. C., & Damns, H. (2023). Summary for Policymakers. In Climate
Change 2022 – Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (pp. 3–33). Cambridge University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844.001
Proudfoot, K. (2023). Inductive/Deductive Hybrid Thematic Analysis in Mixed Methods
Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 17(3), 308–326.
https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898221126816
Rahmann, G. (2011). Biodiversity and Organic Farming: What Do We Know? Agriculture
and Forestry Research, 3(61), 189–208.
Rainforest Alliance. (n.d.). Forced Labor. Retrieved February 21, 2024, from
https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/issues/human-rights/forced-labor/
Riaz, M. N., Irshad, F., Riaz, N. M., & Regenstein, J. M. (2021). Pros and Cons of Different
Stunning Methods from a Halal Perspective: A Review. Translational Animal Science,
5(4), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txab154
Rice, J. S. (2015). Privilege and Exclusion at the Farmers Market: Findings from a Survey of
Shoppers. Agriculture and Human Values, 32(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460014-9513-7
Richi, E. B., Baumer, B., Conrad, B., Darioli, R., Schmid, A., & Keller, U. (2015). Health
Risks Associated with Meat Consumption: A Review of Epidemiological Studies.
International Journal for Vitamin and Nutrition Research, 85(1–2), 70–78.
https://doi.org/10.1024/0300-9831/a000224
Risner, D., Kim, Y., Nguyen, C., Siegel, J. B., & Spang, E. S. (2023). Environmental Impacts
of Cultured Meat: A Cradle-to-gate Life Cycle Assessment (pp. 1–20).
https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.04.21.537778
Ritchie, H. (2020, January 24). You Want to Reduce the Carbon Footprint of Your Food?
Focus on What You Eat, Not Whether Your Food is Local. Our World in Data.
https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local
Ritchie, H., Rosado, P., & Roser, M. (2022). Environmental Impacts of Food Production.
https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food
Rodrigez-Martin, N. M., Cordoba, P., Sarria, B., Verardo, V., Pedroche, J., Alcala-Santiago,
A., Garcia-Villanova, B., & Molina-Montes, E. (2023). Characterizing Meat- and
Milk/dairy-like Vegetarian Foods and Their Counterparts Based on Nutrient Profiling
and Food Labels. Foods, 12(1151), 1–21.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12061151
Rosi, A., Mena, P., Pellegrini, N., Turroni, S., Neviani, E., Ferrocino, I., Di Cagno, R., Ruini,
L., Ciati, R., Angelino, D., Maddock, J., Gobbetti, M., Brighenti, F., Del Rio, D., &

38
Scazzina, F. (2017). Environmental Impact of Omnivorous, Ovo-lacto-vegetarian, and
Vegan Diet. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-06466-8
Rothgerber, H. (2014). Efforts to Overcome Vegetarian-induced Dissonance Among Meat
Eaters. Appetite, 79, 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.04.003
Rothgerber, H. (2020). Meat-related Cognitive Dissonance: A Conceptual Framework for
Understanding How Meat Eaters Reduce Negative Arousal from Eating Animals.
Appetite, 146, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104511
Rothgerber, H., & Rosenfeld, D. L. (2021). Meat-related Cognitive Dissonance: The Social
Psychology of Eating Animals. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 15(5).
https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12592
Rothgerber, H., Rosenfeld, D. L., Keiffer, S., Crable, K., Yeske, A., Berger, L., Camp, P.,
Smith, K., Fischer, O., & Head, A. (2022). Motivated Moral Outrage Among MeatEaters. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(5), 916–926.
https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211041536
Rouse, S. (2013). Improving Farm Animal Welfare and Promoting Education: Combating the
Introduced Ag-Gag Law in Pennsylvania. Mid-Atlantic Journal on Law and Public
Policy, 2(1), 185–190. https://heinonline.org/HOL/License
Roy, B., Hagappa, A., Ramalingam, Y. D., Mahalingam, N., Banu, A., & Alaudeen, S. (2021).
A Review on Lab-grown Meat: Advantages and Disadvantages. Quest International
Journal of Medical and Health Sciences, 4(1), 19–24.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2005). Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data (A.
Bruckner, M. Vail, T. Alpern, & P. Oman, Eds.; 2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
Sanyé-Mengual, E., Anguelovski, I., Oliver-Solà, J., Montero, J. I., & Rieradevall, J. (2016).
Resolving Differing Stakeholder Perceptions of Urban Rooftop Farming in
Mediterranean Cities: Promoting Food Production as a Driver for Innovative Forms of
Urban Agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values, 33(1), 101–120.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-015-9594-y
Scherhaufer, S., Moates, G., Hartikainen, H., Waldron, K., & Obersteiner, G. (2018).
Environmental Impacts of Food Waste in Europe. Waste Management, 77, 98–113.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.04.038
Schiano, A. N., Harwood, W. S., Gerard, P. D., & Drake, M. A. (2020). Consumer
Perceptions of the Sustainability of Dairy Products and Plant-based Dairy Alternatives.
Journal of Dairy Science, 103, 1–16. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.202018406

39
Sievert, K., Lawrence, M., Parker, C., & Baker, P. (2022). What’s Really at ‘Steak’?
Understanding the Global Politics of Red and Processed Meat Reduction: A Framing
Analysis of Stakeholder Interviews. Environmental Science and Policy, 137, 12–21.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.08.007
Smit, L. A. M., & Heederik, D. (2017). Impacts of Intensive Livestock Production on Human
Health in Densely Populated Regions. GeoHealth, 1(7), 272–277.
https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GH000103
Srivastava, A. K., & Kesavachann, C. (2016). Health Effects of Pesticides. The Energy and
Resources Institute.
https://ezproxy.tru.ca/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db
=nlebk&AN=1219185&site=eds-live&scope=site
Statistics Canada. (2021, March 29). Census Profile, 2021 Census Population: Profile Table.
Statistics Canada Catalogue No. 98-316-X2021001. Ottawa.
https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dppd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&GENDERlist=1,2,3&STATISTIClist=1,4&HEADE
Rlist=0&DGUIDlist=2021S05100397&SearchText=Kamloops
Stk’emlupsemc Te Secwepemc Nation. (n.d.). Honouring Our Sacred Connection to Pípsell:
Stk’emlúpsemc te Secwépemc Says Yes to Healthy People and Environment. Retrieved
February 25, 2024, from https://stkemlups.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/2017-03ssnajaxdecisionsummary_0.pdf
The Humane League. (2021a, January 4). How are Factory Farms Cruel to Animals?
https://thehumaneleague.org/article/factory-farming-animal-cruelty
The Humane League. (2021b, June 14). Everything You Need to Know About Animal
Slaughter. https://thehumaneleague.org/article/animal-slaughter
Tullis, P. (2019, February 19). How the World Got Hooked on Palm Oil. The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/feb/19/palm-oil-ingredient-biscuits-shampooenvironmental
United Nations. (n.d.). Sustainability. Retrieved November 19, 2023, from
https://www.un.org/en/academicimpact/sustainability#:~:text=In%201987%2C%20the%20United%20Nations,to%20me
et%20their%20own%20needs.”
United Nations. (2023, September 6). UN Expert Sounds Alarm Over “Contemporary Forms
of Slavery” in Canada. https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/09/1140437
United Nations Environment Programme. (2021, June 21). A Beginner’s Guide to
Sustainable Farming. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/beginners-guidesustainable-farming

40
United Nations Industrial Development Organization. (2023). Corporate Social
Responsibility. https://www.unido.org/our-focus/advancing-economiccompetitiveness/competitive-trade-capacities-and-corporate-responsibility/corporatesocial-responsibility-market-integration/what-csr
Van Kernebeek, H. R. J., Oosting, S. J., Feskens, E. J. M., Gerber, P. J., & De Boer, I. J. M.
(2014). The Effect of Nutritional Quality on Comparing Environmental Impacts of
Human Diets. Journal of Cleaner Production, 73, 88–99.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.028
Van Mierlo, K., Rohmer, S., & Gerdessen, J. C. (2017). A Model for Composing Meat
Replacers: Reducing the Environmental Impact of Our Food Consumption Pattern
While Retaining its Nutritional Value. Journal of Cleaner Production, 165, 930–950.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.098
Veeramani, A., Dias, G. M., & Kirkpatrick, S. I. (2017). Carbon Footprint of Dietary Patterns
in Ontario, Canada: A Case Study Based on Actual Food Consumption. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 162, 1398–1406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.025
Volsche, S. (2019). Understanding Cross-Species Parenting: A Case for Pets as Children. In
L. Kogan & C. Blazina (Eds.), Clinician’s Guide to Treating Companion Animal Issues:
Addressing Human-Animal Interaction (pp. 129–141). Elsevier.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812962-3.00008-3
Wang, T., Masedunskas, A., Willett, W. C., & Fontana, L. (2023). Vegetarian and Vegan
Diets: Benefits and Drawbacks. European Heart Journal, 44(36), 3423–3439.
https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehad436
Whoriskey, P., & Siegel, R. (2019, June 5). Cocoa’s Child Laborers. The Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/business/hershey-nestle-marschocolate-child-labor-west-africa/
Wickramasinghe, K., Breda, J., Berdzuli, N., Rippin, H., Farrand, C., & Halloran, A. (2021).
The Shift to Plant-based Diets: Are we Missing the Point? Global Food Security, 29, 1–
4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100530
World Health Organization. (2023). Red and Processed Meat in the Context of Health and
the Environment: Many Shades of Red and Green. Information Brief.
https://www.who.int/publications/book-orders.
Yang, X., Xiong, J., Taisheng, D., Xiaotang, J., Gan, Y., Li, S., Xia, L., Shen, Y., Pacenka, S.,
Steenhuis, T. S., Siddique, K. H. M., Kang, S., & Butterbach-Bahl. (2023). Diversifying
Crop Rotation Increases Food Production, Reduces Net Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Improves Soil Health. Nature Communications, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467023-44464-9

41
Young, I. M. (1990). Five Faces of Oppression. In I. M. Young (Ed.), Justice and the Politics
of Difference (pp. 39–65). Princeton University Press.
Żuk-Gołaszewska, K., Gałęcki, R., Obremski, K., Smetana, S., Figiel, S., & Gołaszewski, J.
(2022). Edible Insect Farming in the Context of the EU Regulations and Marketing—An
Overview. Insects, 13(5), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13050446

42
CHAPTER 2. CONSUMER DEMOGRAPHICS AND PERCEPTIONS OF PLANTBASED FOODS
Introduction
Climate change is a pressing issue, and Canada, along with 196 countries, has signed
the Paris Agreement intending to limit global warming temperatures to 1.5°C, and reduce
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 45% by 2030 and to net-zero by 2050 (Government of
Canada, 2023b; United Nations, n.d.-b; United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change, n.d.). Consumer dietary ‘choices’27 impact climate change, and one way to help
mitigate the effects of climate change is by ‘choosing’ sustainable foods and systems at both
the micro- and macro-levels. While there are several sustainable food options beyond those
that are PB or AB, including Indigenous food practices, sustainable farming, lab-grown
foods, and insects, this chapter will focus solely on PB and AB foods.
A substantial amount of global environmental impacts result from food production
and agricultural practices (see Chapter 1 for more details) (Food and Agricultural
Organization of the United Nations, 2018; Poore & Nemecek, 2019; Ritchie et al., 2022).
Sustainable foods may help achieve United Nations sustainability goals. When considering
overarching sustainability factors such as the environment, human health and justice, and
animal ethics, PB diets tend to be more sustainable than omnivorous diets (see Poore &
Nemecek, 2019; Van Kernebeek et al., 2014; Van Mierlo et al., 2017; Wickramasinghe et al.,
2021). There are some exceptions, notably coffee, chocolate, tofu, bananas, palm oil, and
some fruits and vegetables, that may worsen outcomes for each overarching sustainability
factor (see Food Empowerment Project, n.d.-a, n.d.-b, 2022; Hartini et al., 2023;
International Labour Organization, 2023; Poore & Nemecek, 2019; Rainforest Alliance, n.d.;
Ritchie et al., 2022; Tullis, 2019). Omnivorous diets tend to have worse outcomes with each
of these factors, notably specific AB foods including red and processed meats, as well as
dairy (see Baroni et al., 2007; Clark & Tilman, 2017; Conrad et al., 2018; Halteman, 2011;
Khmaissa et al., 2024; Kustar & Patino-Echeverri, 2021; Maier et al., 2023; Poore &

27

This thesis acknowledges that there are systemic barriers (e.g., intersectional factors including socioeconomic
status) in regard to individual decisions on food, and that this is not always a free choice.

43
Nemecek, 2019; Richi et al., 2015; Scherhaufer et al., 2018; Sievert et al., 2022; Smit &
Heederik, 2017; Van Kernebeek et al., 2014; Van Mierlo et al., 2017; Wickramasinghe et al.,
2021; World Health Organization, 2023).
This research aims to explore farmers market consumer perceptions of food. The goal
is to determine how farmers market consumers view different foods, including AB (e.g.,
dairy, meat, and fish) and PB foods (e.g., milk alternatives, meat alternatives, and tofu). This
quantitative section is particularly interested in how varying sociodemographic factors play
into farmers market consumer food decisions and dietary patterns, as well as what this means
in terms of moving forward toward the consumption and promotion of sustainable foods,
including some PB foods.
Methods
This study used a survey questionnaire with both quantitative and qualitative sections.
A survey method, rather than an interview method, was used to respect respondents’ time as
consumers at a farmers market and farmers market vendor sales. Bryman and Bell (2016),
and de Leeuw (2008) argue that the use of survey questionnaires, rather than interviews, may
help obtain a larger sample size in a lesser amount of time, minimize interviewer effects as
respondents read questions themselves in the same order, and reduce the social desirability
bias while increasing genuine responses. Surveys were, however, administered in person with
the researcher present, but the researcher could not see participant responses. As a
convenience sample was used, the researcher utilized a reflexivity journal to reduce sampling
bias and to ensure the selection of a diverse respondent sample.
The quantitative portion of the questionnaire aims to be reliable and valid. Reliability
over time and across respondents was maintained by providing what Bryman & Bell (2016)
consider a nominal definition to describe what the terms within a question mean. Internal
consistency was maintained using pre-existing questions and instruments. Inter/intra-rater
reliability was maintained by using one rater to administer the survey, and by having a
committee member vet questions and the coding of open-ended responses for consistency.
Face validity was achieved by having committee members review the questions and pilot
testing. This project received clearance from the Thompson Rivers University Research
Ethics Board (TRU-REB, file no. 103033). See Appendix A for the brief consent form and
Appendix B for the full-length consent form.

44
Materials and Procedure
Including both qualitative (section one) and quantitative (section two) survey
sections, the survey comprised of 25 questions and took on average 13 minutes to complete
(see Appendix A). Consumers walking around the KRFM were invited to participate, and a
verbal script explaining the research was utilized to establish intra-rater reliability. The
survey was administered on a portable electronic tablet with Survey Monkey. After reading
the virtual consent form, the first question asked for informed consent to participate in the
survey using a yes or no question. Zero participants selected “no,” which would have sent
them directly to the concluding resources page. Those who selected “yes” continued to the
survey.
The first question in the quantitative section asked participants to self-report their
dietary pattern. Respondents were given multiple choice options of vegan, vegetarian,
flexitarian, pescatarian, and other (open text box). Faber et al.’s (2020) survey had a similar
question, apart from using the term ‘plantarian,’ rather than ‘flexitarian.’ Definitions for each
dietary pattern based on Faber et al. (2020) were provided. The breadth of selection for
consumer self-reported dietary patterns was included to capture the values that may be laden
within various dietary patterns.28 Dietary pattern was broken down into two categories of
"omnivore” and “non-omnivore,” where the latter includes vegans, vegetarians, flexitarians,
pescatarians, and other. Participants were asked to rate on a five-point scale how often they
consume specific food product categories (never, less than once per week, 1 to 2 times per
week, 3 to 4 times per week, 5 to 7 times per week). Lea et al. (2006) had a similar question
asking about daily servings but on specific food items.
A question to help assess internal consistency with questions on perceived benefits
and challenges of a PB diet (see next paragraph) asked respondents to select all factors they
consider when making decisions on food. The following question prompted respondents to
rate on a three-point scale (no influence, some influence, no influence) and provide more
detail in an open-ended text box about how much cultural influences their food decisions.

28

It is acknowledged that dietary pattern may not be the result of moral ‘choices,’ as accessibility to different
food products may vary based upon sociodemographic factors.

45
Respondents were then asked to rate on a five-point scale (extremely unlikely, unlikely,
neutral, likely, extremely likely) how likely they are to purchase different alternative foods.
The questions assessing the degree of perceived challenges and benefits of a PB diet
were adapted from Lea et al. (2006) and Faber et al. (2020). An adapted version by Faber et
al. (2020) demonstrated a high Cronbach’s alpha (0.816) on their attitudes scale based on
both the challenges and benefits of a PB diet. Lea et al.’s (2006) instrument consisted of 27
perceived PB diet barriers and 24 perceived PB diet benefits. The adapted Likert scale
questions (strongly disagree, disagree, not sure, agree, strongly agree) used in this study
included a total of 17 perceived challenges and 17 perceived benefits with minor edits to the
wording of statements. The changes of question items were made via inter-rater consistency
(colleagues reviewing the survey) and pilot testing, ensuring face validity of the entire
questionnaire.
Participants and Site
Participants (n = 94) were recruited via convenience sampling. Two participant
surveys were removed, one of which was insufficiently complete for data analysis, and the
other, the participant did not appear to understand the questions being asked. To reduce
sampling bias, the researcher used a reflexivity journal. Criteria for participating in the
questionnaire included being over the age of 18 and a farmers market consumer at the
Kamloops Regional Farmers Market (KRFM) during the Summer 2022 season. Participants
were surveyed at both the Wednesday and Saturday markets. Before beginning the survey,
participants were asked if they were over the age of 18. No compensation was provided to
survey respondents.
The final section of the survey collected participant demographics. Age was collected
in 5-year intervals, with some exceptions (18-19, 20-24, 25-29…75-79, 80-84, 85+), similar
to the age presentation from Statistics Canada. Gender was collected with an open-ended text
box to be inclusive and prevent the potential of ‘othering’ (e.g., a respondent not feeling
represented by the multiple-choice options). Gender was defined in accordance with Conerly
et al. (2021). Due to the small sample size, gender was dichotomized into male and female,
which resulted in two cases being excluded from the analysis where gender was a variable of
relevance. The highest achieved level of education was collected similarly using Statistics
Canada categories. Respondents were provided with multiple-choice options and an open-

46
ended text option for ‘other.’ Approximate yearly household income was collected in $10,000
intervals, with some exceptions (less than $10,000, $10,000 to $19,999…$90,000 to $99,999,
$100,000 to $149,000, more than $150,000, prefer not to answer), similar to the data
presentation in Statistics Canada.
Open-ended text boxes were provided for respondents to enter how many people live
in their household, and how many children (<18 years old) they are a parent or guardian to
live in the household. The next question (yes/no) asked participants if they are in an intimate
partner relationship. Respondents were asked if they are their household's primary grocery
shopper and/or food preparer (both, only shopper, only preparer, no). The next question
assessed if any household members have work experience in the meat industry. A definition
of meat industry was provided. Participants were then asked to describe their political
orientation using a sliding scale (progressive/left, neutral/moderate, conservative/right), and
they were provided with definitions. There was an error in validating the neutral/moderate
responses and missing data, and neutral/moderate could not be distinguished, meaning
political orientation was not used in the presentation of sociodemographics or in data
analysis. The last question asked participants to enter their Canadian postal code with
instructions for those visiting from outside of the country.
Overall, 56.4% of the sample was between the ages of 25 and 39 (M = 5.2, range = 1
[18-19] to 12 [70-74]). Females represented 66.0% (n = 62) and males 30.9% (29); 3.3% (n =
3) identified as non-binary, “don’t know,” or did not answer the question.29 Omnivores
comprised 69.1% (n = 65) of the sample; non-omnivores (vegans, vegetarians, flexitarians,
pescatarians, and other) were 30.9% (n = 29). For highest achieved education level, 63.8%
had either some college or university experience, or a completed bachelor’s degree (M = 4.3,
range = 1 [some high school] to 7 [doctorate degree]). Regarding location, 67.0% reside
within Kamloops city-bounds (n = 63), while 17.0% reside outside city-bounds (n = 16).30

29

Using a reflexivity journal, the researcher attempted to obtain a diverse sample, including in terms of gender.
However, more women than men consented to taking the survey. This may be due to gender norms surrounding
food and diet, especially when considering toxic masculinity and the consumption of meat (Carson & Gleig,
n.d.; Michel et al., 2021; Modlinska et al., 2020; Onwezen et al., 2021).
30
Kamloops city-bounds were determined by using respondent postal codes.

47
For approximate yearly pre-tax household income, 37.2% made between $50,000 and
$99,999 (n = 35), 30.8% made $100,000 and over (n = 29), and 22.4% made $49,999 and
under (n = 21). Overall, 54.2% of the sample had between one or two members in their
household (M = 2.5, range = 1 [one member] to 4 [four or more]); 66.0% had no children in
their household (M = 0.5, range = 0 [none] to 2 [two or more]). In terms of intimate partner
relationship, 58.5% selected ‘yes’ (n = 55, range = 0 [no] to 1 [yes]). Most respondents were
primary shoppers (84.0%, n = 79)) and preparers (84.0%, n = 79) of food in their household;
88.3% of households do not have any work experience in the meat industry (n = 83). For
extent of influence of cultural practice on food decisions, most respondents (55.3%, n = 52)
stated that there was no influence, while 44.6% (n = 42) perceived there to be some or strong
influence. See Table 2.1 for Kamloops Regional Farmers Market (KRFM) summer 2022
season consumer sociodemographic characteristics.

48
Table 2.1
Sociodemographic Characteristics of KRFM Consumers
Characteristic
Full sample
Characteristic
Full sample
Characteristic
Full sample
n
%
n
%
n
%
Age
94 100.0%
Gender
93 100.0%
Household
93 100.0%
18-19
2
2.1%
Female
62 66.0%
1
18 19.1%
20-24
8
8.5%
Male
29 30.9%
2
33 35.1%
25-29
22 23.4%
Non-binary
1 1.1%
3
21 22.3%
30-34
16 17.0%
Don’t know
1 1.1%
4 or more
21 22.3%
35-39
15 16.0%
Missing
1 1.1%
Missing
1
1.1%
40-44
9
9.6%
Household Income
85 100.0%
Children
91 100.0%
45-49
6
6.4%
Under $10,000
3 3.2%
0
62 66.0%
50-54
1
1.1%
$10,000 to $19,999
4 4.3%
1
11 11.7%
55-59
4
4.3%
$20,000 to $29,999
3 3.2%
2 or more
18 19.1%
60-64
2
2.1%
$30,000 to $39,999
5 5.3%
Missing
3
3.2%
65-69
4
4.3%
$40,000 to $49,999
6 6.4%
Primary Shopper
94 100.0%
70-74
5
5.3%
$50,000 to $59,999
7 7.4%
No
15 16.0%
Education
94 100.0%
$60,000 to $69,999
14 14.9%
Yes
79 84.0%
Some high school
2
2.1%
$70,000 to $79,999
3 3.2%
Primary Preparer
94 100.0%
High school or equivalent
11 11.7%
$80,000 to $89,999
4 4.3%
No
15 16.0%
Postsecondary
9
9.6%
$90,000 to $99,999
7 7.4%
Yes
79 84.0%
Some college or university
22 23.4%
$100,000 to $149,999
13 13.8%
Meat Industry
94 100.0%
Bachelor’s degree
38 40.4%
$150,000 and over
16 17.0%
No
83 88.3%
Master’s degree
11 11.7%
Prefer not to answer
9 9.6%
Yes
11 11.7%
Doctorate degree
1
1.1%
Location
79 100.0%
Cultural Practice
94 100.0%
Dietary Pattern
94 100.0%
Outside city-bounds
16 17.0%
No influence
52 55.3%
Vegan
4
4.3%
City-bounds
63 67.0%
Some Influence
35 37.2%
Vegetarian
5
5.3%
Missing
15 15.9%
Strong Influence
7
7.4%
Flexitarian
12 12.8%
Relationship
93 100.0%
Pescatarian
3
3.2%
No
38 40.4%
Omnivore
65 69.1%
Yes
55 58.5%
Other
5
5.3%
Missing
1 1.1%
Note. Kamloops Regional Farmers Market (KRFM) summer 2022 season consumer sociodemographic characteristics (questionnaire respondents; n = 94).

49
Objectives and Research Questions
The main research question is: What are Kamloops Regional Farmers Market
(KRFM) consumer perceptions of food? The sub-research question is: How do perceptions of
different food categories, specifically plant-based (PB) foods and animal-based (AB) foods,
differ within KRFM sociodemographic groups?
The main objective of this study is to determine the perceptions of foods amongst
farmers market consumers. More specifically, the aim is to determine the relative acceptance
of alternative foods of consumers at farmers markets. Among general consumers, acceptance
of plant-based (PB) foods tends to be relatively low (Arango et al., 2023; Onwezen et al.,
2021). If the perception of risk can be lowered via marketing communications, it is possible
to then have higher acceptance levels of alternative foods (Arango et al., 2023). The goals
associated with this research are to provide recommendations for raising acceptance levels of
alternative foods amongst consumers at both micro- and macro-levels.
Existing literature has found that urban, young, educated, female, and liberal
consumers are most likely to accept PB foods (Bryant & Sanctorum, 2021; Deliens et al.,
2022; Onwezen et al., 2021). McInnes et al. (2023), from a small qualitative sample of
persons aged 18 to 24 (n = 21), found that some young persons perceived that those of higher
income might be more likely to adopt a PB diet. However, farmers market consumers tend to
be more conscious of their food decisions, be more environmentally conscious and critical of
industrial-scale food production and consume more fruits and vegetables (Cicia et al., 2021;
Jilcott Pitts et al., 2015). There may be challenges regarding the decision to consume
sustainable foods, which include accessibility and personal beliefs (Faber et al., 2020; Grasso
et al., 2019; Lea et al., 2006; Michel et al., 2021; Polleau & Biermann, 2021) It is anticipated
that those KRFM consumers with similar sociodemographic characteristics will likely be
more acceptance of PB foods. Onwezen et al. (2021) included various factors to measure
alternative food acceptance, including consumer purchase behaviours and understandings of
protein alternatives; more specifically, food product factors, individual factors, and
environmental factors. General hypotheses and predictions are based on existing literature
and used as guidelines for statistical analysis (see Table 2.2).

50
Table 2.2
General Predictions on Acceptance of PB Foods and AB Foods
General Hypothesis
Predictions
Variables Included
Tests Used
There is a
(a) There is a negative relationship between
Summed Scales,
Spearman’
relationship between age and acceptance of PB foods.
Mean Scales,
s
age and PB/AB food (b) There is a positive relationship between
Individual items if
acceptance.
age and acceptance of AB foods.
scale significant
There is a
(a) There is a positive relationship between
Summed Scales,
Spearman’
relationship between education level and acceptance of PB foods.
Mean Scales,
s
education and
(b) There is a negative relationship between
Individual items if
PB/AB food
age and acceptance of AB foods.
scale significant
acceptance.
There is a
(a) There is a positive relationship between
Summed Scales,
Spearman’
relationship between income and acceptance of PB foods.
Mean Scales,
s
income and PB/AB
(b) There is a negative relationship between
Individual items if
food acceptance.
income and acceptance of AB foods.
scale significant
There is a difference (a) Non-omnivores are more likely to be
Summed Scales,
Mann
in PB/AB food
acceptant of PB foods.
Mean Scales,
Whitney U,
acceptance based on (b) Omnivores are more likely to be acceptant Individual items if
t-Tests
diet.
of AB foods.
scale significant
There is a difference (a) Women are more likely to be acceptant of
Summed Scales,
Mann
in PB/AB food
PB foods.
Mean Scales,
Whitney U,
acceptance based on (b) Men are more likely to be acceptant of AB Individual items if
t-Tests
gender.
foods.
scale significant
Note. Table demonstrating general hypotheses and predictions on the acceptance of PB foods and AB foods.
Variables and tests used to test hypotheses included.

Acceptance of PB foods was measured via relationships or differences in summed
and mean scales, including the number of PB foods consumed weekly, average weekly
consumption frequency of PB foods, number of PB foods likely to be purchased, and number
of perceived benefits to a PB diet, as well as individual scale items/variables with
demographic variables. Acceptance of AB foods was measured via relationships or
differences in summed and mean scales, including the number of AB foods consumed
weekly, average weekly consumption frequency of AB foods, and number of perceived
challenges to a PB diet, as well as individual scale items/variables with demographic
variables. See Table 2.3 for a list of summed and mean scale variables, definitions and
included items.
Survey responses are presented below utilizing a participant sociodemographic table
and various tables for statistical analyses. IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 29.0.0.0 [241]) was
used. Statistical analyses included Spearman’s rho correlations, Mann Whitney U Tests, and
t-Tests to determine relationships and differences between demographic variables and
dependent variables. Both open-ended and closed-ended questions were quantified to create
testable variables. Where possible, and by using Jeong’s (2016) recommendations on variable

51
transformations, summed and mean scales were created by combining related question items
(see Appendix C). See Table 2.3 for a list of summed and mean scale variables, definitions
and included items.

52
Table 2.3
Summed and Mean Scale Variable Details
Scales
Summed Scale Definition
(# of x)c
Decision Factors
Number of factors
considered when making
food decisions.
Consumption/Frequency
AB Food Consumptiona Number of AB foods
consumed weekly.
PB Food Consumption
Purchase Likeliness
PB Purchase Likeliness
Alternative Purchase
Likelinessb
Challenges/Benefits
Perceived Challenges

Mean Scale Definition
(Average x)d
-e

Items
Animal Welfare, Environment, Health, Human Justice, Culture,
Time, Product Availability, Cost, Taste, Store Distance, Food
Location, Organic/Non-GMO, Natural

# of
Items
13

Average weekly
consumption frequency of
AB foods.
Average weekly
consumption frequency of
PB foods.

Meat, Fish/Seafood, Dairy

3

PB Meat, PB Milk, Other PB Foods, Tofu

4

Number of PB foods
likely to be purchased.
Number of alternative
foods likely to be
purchased.

Average purchase
likeliness of PB foods.
Average purchase
likeliness of alternative
foods.

PB Meat, PB Milk, Other PB Foods, Tofu

4

PB Meat, PB Milk, Other PB Foods, Tofu, LG Meat

5

Number of perceived
challenges of a PB diet.

Average degree of
perceived challenges of a
PB diet.

Number of PB foods
consumed weekly.

Need information, Habits, Family/partner barrier, Dining
17
choices, Someone else decides, Cost, Strange food, Not filling,
Health concerns, Inconvenient, Preparation,
Protein/vitamins/nutrients, Taste, Meant to eat meat, Store
availability, Time, Appear strange/hippy
Perceived Benefits
Number of perceived
Average degree of
Natural, Vitamins/nutrients, Weight, Variety, Be fit, Quality of
17
benefits to a PB diet.
perceived benefits of a PB life, Energy, Taste, Food poisoning, Environment, Animals,
diet.
Food production efficiency, World hunger, Cost, Time, Appear
trendy
Note. List of summed and mean scale variables, definitions, and items (variables) included in each scale.
a
Not normally distributed and not used in t-tests as a result (See Appendix D).
b
Lack of meaningful and significant results, as well as predictions due to lack of evidence in the literature on sociodemographic factors and perceptions of LG
meats (See Appendix D). See Appendix C for definitions and variable transformation processes for alternative purchase likeliness variables.
c
Number of combined scale items.
d
Average of combined scale items.
e
Decision factors cannot be transformed into a mean scale as the variables are dichotomous.

53
Results
Mann Whitney U Tests, T-tests, and Spearman’s Rho correlations were conducted
with demographic variables and summed and mean scales (see Table 2.3), depending on test
assumptions. Summed scales included the number of decision factors, number of PB foods
consumed weekly, number of AB foods consumed weekly, number of PB foods likely to be
purchased, number of perceived challenges to a PB diet, and number of perceived benefits to
a PB diet. Mean scales included the average weekly consumption of PB foods, average
weekly consumption of AB foods, average degree of purchase likeliness of PB foods,
average degree of perceived challenges to a PB diet, and average degree of perceived
benefits to a PB diet. Both summed and mean scales for purchase likeliness of alternative
foods and LG meats are not included here due to a lack of meaningful or significant results
(see Appendix D).
Demographic variables included in analyses were age, highest achieved education
level, dietary pattern, gender, household income, location, and having children. The analysis
excludes the number of household members, having children, and relationship status due to a
lack of meaningful predictions. Primary household grocery shopper, primary household food
preparer, and meat industry employment were excluded in the results section as no tests were
significant (see Appendix D). The political orientation scale was not included due to an error
validating neutral/moderate responses. For gender, two cases were excluded from analyses
(non-binary and don’t know) as this did not meet test assumptions for dichotomous
independent variables in Mann Whitney U Tests and T-tests. Gender could not be used in
Spearman’s Rho correlations as the level of measurement is nominal. Any significant results
were further analyzed via the same initial testing method. There was one exception for t-tests
where the summed scale for the number of AB foods consumed is not normally distributed.
Further analysis of significant relationships for AB food scale items was included to fill a gap
in analyzing AB food consumption.
Spearman’s Rho: Demographics with Summed and Mean Scales
Spearman’s rho was conducted to determine relationships between ordinal and
interval demographic variables (age, education, and income) and summed scale variables
(see Table 2.4). Tests were conducted with children and summed and mean scales but were
not included due to a lack of meaningful results (see Appendix D). A negative relationship

54
was found between income and the number of food decision factors (r(83) = -.28, p = .009).
This means that those with less income are more likely to consider a greater number of food
decision factors than those with more income. A positive relationship was found between
education and the number of PB foods consumed per week (r(92) = .28, p = .007), which
means respondents with a higher education level are more likely to consume a greater
number of PB foods in a week than those with a lower education level. There were no
significant relationships among the remaining demographic and summed scale variables.
Table 2.4
Summed Scale Relationships with Age, Education, and Income
Demographics
Summed Scales (# of x)
Age
Education
Income
Decision Factors
-.05
.08
-.28*
AB Food Consumption
.12
-.10
.06
PB Food Consumption
.20
.28**
-.16
PB Purchase Likeliness
-.20
.08
-.16
Perceived Challenges
-.05
-.18
-.09
Perceived Benefits
-.09
.05
-.17
Note. Spearman’s rho correlations for ordinal and interval level demographic variables (age, highest achieved
level of education, and approximate yearly household income) and summed scale variables.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

Further analysis of significant relationships between demographics and summed
scales was conducted with individual scale items to determine if there were any specific
significant relationships. Positive relationships were found between education and both
weekly consumption frequency of PB milk products (r(92) = .31, p = .002) and other PB
foods (r(90) = .26, p = .012), in that increased education levels were significantly related to
the more frequent consumption of PB foods. No significant relationship was found between
education, and weekly consumption of PB meat and tofu. Due to violating test assumptions,
income and specific food decision items (dichotomous variables) could not be analyzed
further with Spearman’s rho or Fisher’s exact test.
Spearman’s rho was conducted to determine relationships between ordinal and
interval demographic variables (age, education, and income) and mean scale variables (see
Table 2.5). Negative relationships were found between age and the average purchase
likeliness of PB foods (r(92) = -.26, p = .013), meaning that older respondents were
significantly less likely to purchase PB foods than younger respondents. Positive
relationships were found between age and the average weekly consumption frequency of AB
foods (r(92) = .23, p = .026), between education and the average weekly consumption

55
frequency of PB foods (r(92) = .29, p = .005), and between income and the average weekly
consumption frequency of AB foods (r(83) = .25, p = .024). This means that older
respondents were significantly more likely to purchase AB foods than younger respondents,
respondents with a higher educational level were significantly more likely to consume PB
foods more frequently than those with a lower education level, and respondents with more
income were significantly more likely to consume more AB foods than those with less
income. There were no significant relationships among rthe emaining demographic and mean
scale variables.
Table 2.5
Mean Scale Relationships with Age, Education, and Income
Demographics
Mean Scales (Average x)
Age
Education
Income
AB Food Consumption
.23*
-.04
.25*
PB Food Consumption
-.16
.29**
-.08
PB Purchase Likeliness
-.26*
.11
-.18
Perceived Challenges
.01
-.02
-.02
Perceived Benefits
-.14
.03
-.14
Note. Spearman’s rho correlations with ordinal and interval level demographic variables (age, highest achieved
level of education, and approximate yearly household income) and mean scale variables.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

Further analysis of significant relationships between demographics and mean scales
was conducted with individual scale items to determine if there were any specific significant
relationships. A positive relationship was found between age and weekly consumption
frequency of dairy (r(92) = .32, p = .002), meaning that those who are older are significantly
more likely to consume dairy more frequently per week than those who are younger. No
significant relationship was found between age and weekly consumption frequencies of
either meat or fish. Specific relationships between age and purchase likeliness of PB foods,
and education and consumption frequencies were concurrent with that of significant summed
scale variables.31 Such concurrent relationships with both mean and summed scales are
indicators of internal consistency, demonstrating that both scale types have similar and
relatively consistent results. A positive relationship was found between income and weekly

31

Significant equivalent mean scale (average x) relationships concurrent with further testing of summed scales
(number of x): Age: Negative relationship with tofu purchase likeliness. Education: Positive relationship with
PB milk and other PB foods, and no relationship with consumption of PB meat and tofu.

56
consumption frequency of dairy (r(83) = .25, p = .020), meaning that those with higher
income levels are significantly more likely to consume dairy more frequently per week than
those with a lower income. No significant relationships were found between income and
consumption frequencies of meat and fish.
Mann Whitney U: Demographics and Mean Scales
Mann Whitney U tests were conducted to determine differences in means between
dichotomous demographic variables (dietary pattern [omnivore/non-omnivore], gender
[men/women], children [yes/no], employment in the meat industry [yes/no] and location
[city-bounds/outside]) and mean scale variables. Tests with mean scales and children, meat
industry and location were insignificant and are not reported (see Appendix D). Mann
Whitney U tests were used in place of t-tests as assumptions of t-tests, such as no outliers and
normal distribution, were not met for all variables (see Appendix D). Test consistency was
prioritized to allow for a clearer presentation of results and ease of result comparisons. Ttests were only used with summed scale variables to present more reliable results, and as test
assumptions were met for all mean scales except for the number of AB foods consumed per
week.
Dietary Pattern
Mann Whitney U tests were conducted to determine the mean differences between
dietary patterns (omnivores and non-omnivores)32 with mean scale variables (see Table 2.6).
Compared to non-omnivores, omnivores consume, on a weekly average, AB foods more
frequently (z = -4.74, p < .001) and PB foods less frequently (z = -3.60, p < .001). Compared
to omnivores, non-omnivores are, on average, more likely to purchase PB foods (z = -2.21, p
= .027). Omnivores are, on average, more likely to perceive a higher degree of challenges to
a PB diet than non-omnivores (z = -3.96, p < .001). Non-omnivores are, on average, more
likely to perceive a higher degree of benefits to a PB diet (z = -3.25, p = .001).

32

Dietary patterns include non-omnivores (vegans, vegetarians, flexitarians, pescatarians, and other) and
omnivores.

57
Table 2.6
Mean Scale Differences between Omnivores and Non-Omnivores
Dietary Pattern
Omnivore
Non-Omnivore
Mean Scales (Average X)
Mean Rank
Mean Rank
Z-value
p
Cohen’s d
AB Food Consumption
56.35
27.67
-4.74
<.001
-.49
PB Food Consumption
40.76
62.60
-3.60
<.001
-.37
PB Purchase Likeliness
43.36
56.78
-2.21
.027
-.23
Perceived Challenges
54.95
30.81
-3.96
<.001
-.41
Perceived Benefits
41.39
61.19
-3.25
.001
-.34
Note. Mann Whitney U Tests determining mean rank differences of mean scales between omnivores and nonomnivores.

Further analysis of significant differences between dietary patterns with mean scales
was conducted with individual scale items to determine if there were any specific significant
differences (see Table 2.7). As expected, on a weekly average, omnivores consume meat (z =
-5.88, p < .001), fish (z = -2.24, p = .025) and dairy (z = -2.97, p = .003) more frequently,
while non-omnivores consume PB meat (z = -3.44, p < .001) and tofu (z = -3.86, p < .001)
more frequently. When perceived challenges to a PB diet were analyzed, 13 of 17 challenges
were significant for omnivores, while none were significant for non-omnivores. When
perceived benefits of a PB diet were analyzed, 12 of 17 were significant for non-omnivores,
while none were significant for omnivores. There were no significant differences among the
remaining variables.

58
Table 2.7
Mean Rank Differences of Perceived Challenges and Benefits to a PB Diet between Omnivores and Non-Omnivores
Dietary Pattern
Dietary
Pattern
Omnia
NonOmni NonOmnib
Omni
Perceived Challenge
Mean
Mean
Zp
Cohen’s Perceived Benefit
Mean Mean
Zp
Cohen’s
Rank
Rank value
d
Rank Rank value
d
Need more information
51.33
36.95 -2.47
.013
-.26
Prevent disease
43.86 55.66 -2.07
.038
-.21
Don’t want to change habits
53.41
34.26 -3.32 <.001
-.34
More natural diet
42.82 58.00 -2.68
.007
-.28
Family/partner won’t eat PB
49.71
42.55 -1.21
.227
NS
Many vitamins and
42.85 56.63 -2.41
.016
-.25
nutrients
Not enough choice
44.43
54.38 -1.70
.089
NS
Control weight
43.15 57.24 -2.40
.016
-.25
Someone else decides
46.66
46.14
-.10
.923
NS
More food variety
42.98 57.64 -2.55
.011
-.26
Too expensive
53.02
35.12 -3.05
.002
-.31
Be fit
43.72 54.63 -1.90
.058
NS
Avoid strange foods
51.39
38.78 -2.21
.027
-.23
Better quality of life
40.85 61.29 -3.50 <.001
-.36
Not filling enough
53.69
33.62 -3.47 <.001
-.36
Lots of energy
40.41 61.55 -3.74 <.001
-.39
Health concerns
53.58
32.48 -3.72 <.001
-.39
Tasty diet
41.28 60.27 -3.37 <.001
-.35
Inconvenient
51.34
36.93 -2.46
.014
-.26
Less food poisoning
44.10 55.12 -1.87
.061
NS
Unsure how to prepare
54.77
31.21 -4.02 <.001
-.41
Help the environment
42.02 58.55 -2.93
.003
-.30
Not enough
55.67
29.19 -4.49 <.001
-.46
Help animal
43.97 55.41 -2.07
.038
-.21
protein/vitamins/nutrients
welfare/rights
Not tasty enough
53.97
33.00 -3.60 <.001
-.37
More efficient food
43.13 57.29 -2.44
.015
-.25
production
Meant to eat meat
55.61
29.33 -4.44 <.001
-.46
Less world hunger
40.66 61.71 -3.66 <.001
-.38
Not available at shops
51.23
29.33 -2.34
.019
-.24
Save money
45.23 50.91 -.98
.326
NS
Takes too long to prepare
53.35
32.25 -3.71 <.001
-.39
Save time
45.44 50.63 -.90
.366
NS
Don’t want to seem
48.70
44.81
-.75
.451
NS
Appear more trendy
49.44 40.10 -1.63
.104
NS
strange/hippy
Note. Mann Whitney U Tests determining the mean rank differences of individual perceived challenges and benefits to a PB diet between omnivores and nonomnivores.
a
Omnivore.
b
Non-omnivore.

59
Gender
Mann Whitney U tests were conducted to determine differences in means between
men and women with mean scale variables (see Table 2.8). Compared to men, women, on
average, tend to consume more PB foods in a week (z = -2.76, p = .006), are more likely to
purchase PB foods (z = -3.47, p < .001), and perceive a higher degree of perceived benefits to
a PB diet (z = -2.20, p = .028). There were no significant gender differences in the average
weekly consumption of AB foods and degree of perceived challenges to a plant-based diet.
Table 2.8
Mean Scale Differences between Men and Women
Gender
Men
Women
Mean Scales (Average x)
Mean Rank
Mean Rank
Z-value
p
Cohen’s d
AB Food Consumption
50.17
44.05
-1.04
.300
NS
PB Food Consumption
34.86
51.21
-2.76
.006
-.29
PB Purchase Likeliness
32.02
52.54
-3.47
<.001
-.36
Perceived Challenges
50.24
44.02
-1.05
.295
NS
Perceived Benefits
37.12
50.15
-2.20
.028
-.23
Note. Mann Whitney U Tests determining mean rank differences of mean scales between men and women.

Further analysis was conducted with individual scale items to determine if there were
any specific significant differences between genders. Compared to men, women, on a weekly
average, consume more PB meat (z = -2.00, p = .046), PB milk (z = -2.10, p = .036), and tofu
(z = -2.55, p = .011). Compared to men, women are, on average, more likely to purchase PB
meat (z = -2.24, p = .025), and other PB alternatives (z = -2.09, p = .037), and tofu (z = -2.52,
p = .012). When perceived challenges to a PB diet were analyzed, 1 of 17 challenges were
significant for men, while none were significant for women. Specifically, men perceived the
inconvenience of diet (z = 2.22, p = .027) as a challenge to a PB diet. When perceived
benefits to a PB diet were analyzed, 3 of 17 benefits were significant for women, while none
were significant for men. Specifically, women perceived a greater food variety (z = -2.61, p
= .009), helping animal welfare (z = -2.06, p = .039), and decreasing world hunger (z = -2.45,
p = .014) as benefits of a PB diet. There were no significant differences among the remaining
variables.
Independent Samples T-Tests: Demographics with Summed Scales
Independent samples T-tests were conducted to determine differences in means
between dichotomous demographic variables (dietary pattern [omnivore/non-omnivore],
gender [male/female], children [yes/no], employment in the meat industry [yes/no] and

60
location [city-bounds/outside]) and summed scale variables. Tests with meat industry,
children and location were insignificant and/or not meaningful, and results are not reported
(see Appendix D). Two-tailed tests were used when the direction of the relationship could not
be predicted, and one-tailed tests were used when the direction could be predicted. T-tests
were utilized with summed scale variables to present more reliable results, and as test
assumptions were met for all mean scales except for the number of AB foods consumed per
week. See Appendix D for details on non-normally distributed dependent variables.
Dietary Pattern
Independent samples t-tests were conducted to determine differences in means
between dietary patterns (omnivore and non-omnivore) and summed scale variables (see
Table 2.9). Two-tailed tests determined insignificance in mean differences between dietary
patterns with the number of food decision factors. The remaining significant tests are onetailed. There was a significant difference in the weekly number of PB foods consumed,
where non-omnivores (M = 3.24, SD = 1.06) consumed a greater number than omnivores (M
= 2.78, SD = 1.07; t(92) = 1.92, p = .029). There was a significant difference in the number of
PB foods likely to be purchased, where non-omnivores (M = 2.76, SD = 1.38) were likely to
purchase a greater number than omnivores (M = 2.29, SD = 1.17; t(92) = 1.69, p = .047).
There was a significant difference in the number of perceived challenges to a PB diet, where
omnivores (M = 4.17, SD = 3.02) were likely to perceive a greater number than nonomnivores (M = 2.38, SD = 2.47; t(92) = -2.79, p = .003). There was a significant difference
in the number of perceived benefits to a PB diet, where non-omnivores (M = 11.17, SD =
4.18) were likely to perceive a greater number than omnivores (M = 8.46, SD = 4.59; t(92) =
2.72, p = .004). There were no significant differences between dietary patterns with the
number of food decision factors.

61
Table 2.9
Summed Scale Differences between Omnivores and Non-Omnivores
Dietary Pattern
Omnivore
Non-Omnivore
Summed Scales (# of x)
M
SD
M
SD
t(92)
p
Cohen’s d
Decision Factors
6.86
2.52
7.10
2.70
.42a
.676
NS
PB Food Consumption
2.78
1.07
3.24
1.06
1.92b
.029
.43
PB Purchase Likeliness
2.29
1.17
2.76
1.38
1.69b
.047
.38
Perceived Challenges
4.17
3.02
2.38
2.47
-2.79b
.003
-.62
Perceived Benefits
8.46
4.59
11.17
4.18
2.72b
.004
.61
Note. T-Tests determining differences between dietary patterns (omnivore/non-omnivore) with summed scales.
Equality of variances assumed for all tests.
a
Two-tailed independent samples t-test.
b
One-tailed independent samples t-test.

Further analysis between dietary patterns and individual scale items was conducted to
determine if there were significant differences (see Table 2.10). For weekly food
consumption frequency variables (including AB foods),33 only meat, fish and tofu met the
assumption of normality. One-tailed tests determined that there were significant differences
in weekly consumption frequencies between dietary patterns, where omnivores (M = 3.92,
SD = .83) consumed more meat than non-omnivores (M = 2.14, SD = 1.18); t(39.38) = -7.23,
p = <.001, Cohen’s d = -1.88), omnivores (M = 2.56, SD = .75) consumed more fish than
non-omnivores (M = 2.10, SD = .98, t(91) = -2.48, p = .008, Cohen’s d = -.55), and nonomnivores (M = 2.72, SD = 1.25) consumed more tofu than omnivores (M = 1.70, SD = .68;
t(35.78) = 4.13, p = <.001, Cohen’s d = 1.14). Six perceived challenges to a PB diet met the
assumption of normality. Five out of six challenges were perceived as barriers to a PB diet by
omnivores, and non-omnivores perceived none. Fifteen perceived benefits to a PB diet met
the assumption of normality. Twelve out of fifteen benefits were perceived as benefits to a
PB diet by non-omnivores, and one benefit out of fifteen was perceived by omnivores. There
were no significant differences among the remaining variables.

33

As the summed scale for the number of AB foods consumed did not meet the test assumption of normality,
further testing was conducted with normally distributed scale items to determine differences in weekly AB food
consumption frequencies between men and women.

62
Table 2.10
Differences in Means of Perceived Challenges and Benefits to a PB Diet between Omnivores and Non-Omnivores
Omnivore
M

Dietary Pattern
Non-Omnivore
SD
M
SD

Perceived Challenges and Benefits
t
p
Cohen’s d
Challenges
Don’t want to change habits
2.78
1.04
2.03
1.02
-3.26a
<.001
-.73
Family/partner won’t eat PB
2.85
1.29
2.48
1.18
-1.29a
.100
NS
Not filling enough
2.28
1.05
1.52
.83
-3.44a
<.001
-.77
Not tasty enough
2.46
1.21
1.62
1.08
-3.21a
<.001
-.72
Not available at shops
2.53
.96
2.06
1.22
-1.97b
.026
-.44
Takes too long to prepare
2.18
.81
1.54
.74
-3.64b
<.001
-.82
Benefits
Prevent disease
3.62
.72
3.93
1.07
1.68a
.048
.38
More natural diet
3.57
.93
4.07
1.07
2.29a
.012
.51
Many vitamins and nutrients
3.77
.79
4.18
.90
2.20b
.015
.50
Control weight
3.25
1.00
3.79
1.11
2.36a
.010
.53
More food variety
3.48
.89
4.00
.93
2.61a
.005
.58
Be fit
3.35
.87
3.75
.93
1.97b
.026
.45
Better quality of life
3.37
.94
4.14
.93
3.64b
<.001
.82
Lots of energy
3.27
.88
4.00
.89
3.73b
<.001
.83
Tasty diet
3.52
.83
4.18
.86
3.45b
<.001
.78
Less food poisoning
3.25
1.19
3.72
1.25
1.78a
.040
.40
More efficient food production
3.49
1.05
4.03
.98
2.36a
.010
.53
Less world hunger
3.29
.95
4.11
.83
3.94b
<.001
.89
b
Save money
2.83
1.00
3.03
1.05
.91
.183
NS
Save time
2.91
.82
3.07
1.12
.786b
.217
NS
Appear more trendy
2.30
1.20
1.86
.99
1.72c
.044
-.39
Note. One-tailed independent samples t-tests determining the differences in means of perceived challenges and benefits to a PB diet between omnivores and nonomnivores. Equality of variances assumed for all tests.
a
df = 92
b
df = 91
c
df = 90

63
Gender
Independent samples t-tests were conducted to determine mean differences between
genders (men and women) and summed scale variables (see Table 2.11). All significant tests
are one-tailed. There was a significant difference in the weekly number of PB foods
consumed, where women (M = 3.11, SD = .99) consumed a greater number than men (M =
2.28, SD = 1.18; t(89) = 2.65, p = .005). There was a significant difference in the number of
PB foods likely to be purchased, where women (M = 2.82, SD = 1.15) were likely to
purchase a greater number than men (M = 1.66, SD = 1.11; t(89) = 4.55, p < .001). There was
a significant difference in the number of perceived benefits to a PB diet, where women (M =
9.92, SD = 4.79) were likely to perceive a greater number than men (M = 7.79, SD = 3.99;
t(89) = 2.08, p = .020). There were no significant differences between genders with the
number of food decision factors and number of perceived challenges to a PB diet.
Table 2.11
Summed Scale Differences between Men and Women
Gender
Men
Women
Summed Scales (# of x)
M
SD
M
SD
t(89)
p
Cohen’s d
Decision Factors
6.67
2.53
7.10
2.60
.76a
.448a
NS
PB Food Consumption
2.48
1.18
3.11
.99
2.65b
.005b
.60
PB Purchase Likeliness
1.66
1.11
2.82
1.15
4.55b
<.001b
1.02
Perceived Challenges
3.59
2.77
3.68
3.12
.134b
.444b
NS
b
Perceived Benefits
7.79
3.99
9.92
4.79
2.08
.020b
.47
Note. T-Tests determining differences between genders (men/women) and summed scales. Equality of variances
assumed for all tests.
a
Two-tailed independent samples t-test.
b
One-tailed independent samples t-test.

Further analysis was conducted with individual scale items to determine if there were
any specific significant differences based on gender. For weekly food consumption frequency
variables (including AB foods),34 only meat, fish and tofu met the required assumption of
normality for t-tests, meaning dairy, PB meat, PB milk, and other PB foods were not
normally distributed and could not be analyzed further. One-tailed tests determined that there
were significant differences in weekly consumption frequencies between genders, where men

34

As the summed scale for the number of AB foods consumed did not meet the test assumption of normality,
further testing was conducted with normally distributed scale items to determine differences in weekly AB food
consumption frequencies between men and women.

64
(M = 3.75, SD = 1.00) consumed more meat than women (M = 3.22, SD = 1.35; t(69.37) = 2.07, p = .021, Cohen’s d = -.43), and women (M = 2.21, SD = 1.09) consumed more tofu
than men (M = 1.61, SD = .74; t(74.40) = 3.07, p = .001, Cohen’s d = .61). There was no
significant difference in fish consumption between men and women.
Fifteen perceived benefits to a PB diet met the assumption of normality. Four out of
fifteen benefits were perceived as benefits to a PB diet by women, and none were perceived
by men. Specifically, one-tailed tests determined that women (M = 3.85, SD = .76) perceived
preventing disease as more of a benefit than men (M = 3.52, SD = .87; t(89) = 1.88, p = .032,
Cohen’s d = .42); women (M = 3.79, SD = .96) perceived a greater food variety as more of a
benefit than men (M = 3.28, SD = .80; t(89) = 2.51, p = .007, Cohen’s d = .56); women (M =
3.66, SD = 1.01) perceived decreasing world hunger as more of a benefit than men (M =
3.14, SD = .80; t(64.40) = 2.61, p = .006, Cohen’s d = .55); and women (M = 3.00, SD =
1.00) perceived saving money as more of a benefit than men (M = 2.59, SD = .98; t(88) =
1.85, p = .034, Cohen’s d = .42). There were no significant differences among remaining
variables.
Discussion
There were mixed results in terms of perceptual factors used to determine relative
acceptance of PB foods (PB purchase likeliness, PB food consumption, and perceived
benefits and challenges to a PB diet) and AB foods (AB food consumption) amongst
consumers based on sociodemographic characteristics. Some results were aligned with
general predictions. KRFM consumers with less income tended to consider more factors
when making decisions on food. Those with a higher level of education, are younger, are
non-omnivores (vegan, vegetarian, flexitarian, pescatarian, and other), and are women tended
to have a higher degree of acceptance toward PB foods. Consumers who have a lower level
of education, are older, and are omnivores tended to have a higher degree of acceptance
toward AB foods.
Consumers and Food Decision Factors
Farmers market consumers with a lower level of household income considered a
greater number of food decision factors than those with a higher level of household income.
This indicates that the cost of food may be a barrier to whether farmers market consumers
consider certain sustainability-related food decision factors. However, while PB diets tend to

65
be the lowest in cost compared to other dietary styles, individuals and countries with high
income levels tend to be most likely to adopt PB diets (Hopwood & Bleidorn, 2019; McInnes
et al., 2023). Some farmers markets do have vouchers available to low-income consumers,
including the KRFM, helping make local and nutritious foods more accessible (see
Kamloops Regional Farmers Market Society, 2023). Age, education level, gender, and dietary
pattern were not related to the number of food decision factors. However, it is important to
note that PB foods such as PB meats and PB milks may not be commonly sold at farmer’s
markets. Rather, other PB foods such as fruits, vegetables, and other unprocessed protein
foods such as beans and legumes may be more common.
Consumer Perceptions of Plant-based Foods
Consumers seem to be somewhat open to PB foods. Generally, farmers market
consumers who are more educated, younger, non-omnivores, and women tended to have
some degree of acceptance toward PB foods. Consumers with a higher level of education
were more likely to consume more PB foods (specifically PB milk and other PB foods), than
those with a lower level of education. These findings are consistent with existing literature on
education level and PB food acceptance, where those with a higher level of education tend to
be more acceptant of PB foods than those with a lower level of education (Bryant &
Sanctorum, 2021; Deliens et al., 2022; Onwezen et al., 2021). This indicates that perhaps
those with a higher education level have been more exposed to knowledge of PB foods than
those with a lower education level. However, the onus of accepting PB foods and consuming
more sustainable food cannot be placed on the individual. There are systemic barriers,
including that farmers market consumers tend to be privileged, indicating that accessibility
may be limited to those of a lower socioeconomic status (Alkon & McCullen, 2011a; Rice,
2015). Future research will need to analyze exposure to knowledge on PB foods based on
varying education levels, and if cost is a barrier to accessing such foods.
KRFM consumers who are younger were more likely to purchase PB foods than those
who are older. These findings are consistent with existing literature (Bryant & Sanctorum,
2021; Deliens et al., 2022; Onwezen et al., 2021). Non-omnivores were more likely than
omnivores to consume PB foods more frequently (specifically PB meat products and tofu),
consume a greater number of PB foods per week (specifically tofu), purchase PB foods,
purchase a greater number of PB foods, perceive fewer challenges to a PB diet, and perceive

66
more benefits to a PB diet. These findings are consistent with existing literature on dietary
patterns and acceptance of PB foods, where those who are already PB tend to be more
accepting than those who are not (Bryant & Sanctorum, 2021; Deliens et al., 2022; Onwezen
et al., 2021). Women were more likely than men to consume PB foods more frequently
(specifically PB meat products and tofu); to consume more PB foods per week (specifically
tofu); to purchase PB foods (specifically PB meat products and other PB foods); to purchase
a greater number of PB foods; and to perceive more benefits to a PB diet. These findings are
consistent with existing literature on gender and PB food acceptance, where women tend to
be more accepting than men (Bryant & Sanctorum, 2021; Deliens et al., 2022; Onwezen et
al., 2021).
Overall, some sociodemographics provided some contradictions to the conclusions on
the acceptance of PB foods above, where tests were insignificant but did not directly oppose
predictions and existing literature. Household income was not related to the relative
acceptance of PB foods amongst farmers market consumers. Age and household income were
not related to the number of and average frequency of PB foods consumed per week, number
of PB foods likely to be purchased, average degree of perceived challenges to a PB diet, and
number of and average degree of perceived benefits to a PB diet. Education level and
household income were not related to average degree of purchase likeliness of PB foods.
Gender was not related to number of and average degree of perceived challenges of a PB
diet.
Consumer Perceptions of Animal-based Foods
Generally, farmers market consumers who are less educated, older, and omnivores
tended to have higher levels of acceptance toward AB foods. Consumers who are older
consumed, on a weekly average, AB foods (specifically dairy) more frequently than those
who are younger. This is consistent with a study by Grasso et al. (2019) who found that older
consumers were more likely to be acceptant of dairy rather than other alternative foods.
Consumers with a higher income level consumed, on a weekly average, AB foods
(specifically dairy) more frequently than those with a lower income level. This finding is not
surprising as PB diets tend to be less expensive than AB diets (see Springmann et al., 2021).
Omnivores were more likely to, on a weekly average, consume AB foods more frequently
(specifically meat, fish, and dairy products) than non-omnivores. This is consistent with the

67
finding on non-omnivores consuming more PB foods than omnivores, and with existing
literature with similar findings (Bryant & Sanctorum, 2021; Deliens et al., 2022; Onwezen et
al., 2021).
Overall, some sociodemographics provided some contradictions to the conclusions on
acceptance of both PB and AB foods above, where tests were insignificant but did not
directly oppose predictions and existing literature. More specifically, age and education level
were not related to the number of, and frequency of AB foods consumed per week. Gender
was not associated with the average weekly consumption frequency of AB foods.
Research Implications
As with any study, this research has some limitations. The sample size is relatively
small for a quantitative questionnaire (n = 94). This means that the sample may not be
generalizable or representative of farmers market populations, there is a risk of type I errors,
and certain statistical analyses could not be conducted due to not meeting sample, case
number or normality assumptions (e.g., chi square, regressions and Pearson’s correlation; see
Appendix D). The sample is also not generalizable to the greater population of Kamloops or
other cities, as the sample only included farmers market consumers. Additionally, as there
was a greater distribution of women (66.0%) than men (30.9%) within the sample, results
could be skewed. However, this study could be used as a model or example for other farmers
market studies assessing acceptance of alternative foods.
Future research has opportunities to examine the impact of culture and political
orientation on food decisions and Indigenous food practices. Existing literature demonstrates
that being left-leaning politically indicates a stronger likelihood of PB food acceptance
(Bryant & Sanctorum, 2021; Deliens et al., 2022; Onwezen et al., 2021). There are also
opportunities to investigate how consumers perceive LG meats, as well as other alternatives,
including consuming local, organic or seasonal foods, urban agriculture, sustainable
agriculture, and consuming insects. Future research may also examine the explicit and indepth connection between food decisions and animal rights/welfare. However, the evidence
on the sustainability of such options is limited and/or contradictory. Insects and LG meats
may be sustainable options, but consumer acceptance remains low (Alhujaili et al., 2023;
Onwezen et al., 2021; Żuk-Gołaszewska et al., 2022).

68
Unfortunately, the entirety of the quantitative data analysis could not be included in
this thesis due to time and space constraints, as well as relevance. Excluded from the
analyses are some sociodemographic variables (independent variables), different types of
statistical tests, and certain variables on the perceptions of foods (dependent variables) (see
Appendix D). This is not a limitation of the current study, as a large amount of data was
produced as a result of this questionnaire. This provides future opportunities to share these
findings in other avenues, including possible publications in academic journals.
There are some possibilities in which the acceptance of PB foods amongst consumers
might be increased. Macro-level actors, including stakeholders in the food industry,
educational institutions, governments that regulate food, non-governmental organizations that
promote sustainable food, and researchers, can make an effort to better educate consumers on
what sustainable food entails. Micro-level actors, meaning consumers, also have a role to
play in food and sustainability. Consumers could ‘choose’ more sustainable food options,
such as alternative foods, and to reduce their consumption of AB foods. In order to ‘choose’
more sustainable food options, consumers can also educate themselves on the impacts of
food on sustainability (humans, animals, and the environment). However, the onus should not
be placed on the individual, as barriers to sustainable foods, such as cost and socioeconomic
status, may limit consumer abilities to make choices on the foods they would like to
consume.
Some possible marketing opportunities for institutions based on the farmers market
consumers’ views include marketing PB food products to those with a higher level of
education, who are younger, who are non-omnivores (vegan, vegetarian, flexitarian,
pescatarian, and other), and who are women. Efforts to educate those with a lower level of
PB food acceptance include consumers who have a lower level of education, who are older,
and who are omnivores. Also, either lowering the price of food in general or subsidizing
alternative foods would likely help consumers make decisions on food utilizing the factors
they would like to consider (e.g., animal ethics, environmental sustainability and health),
rather than worrying about the cost as a decision factor. Overall, this research creates
opportunities for future research and implications on how to increase acceptance of PB foods.

69
Literature Cited
Alhujaili, A., Nocella, G., & Macready, A. (2023). Insects as Food: Consumers’ Acceptance
and Marketing. Foods, 12(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12040886
Alkon, A. H., & McCullen, C. G. (2011). Whiteness and Farmers Markets: Performances,
Perpetuations... Contestations? Antipode, 43(4), 937–959.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00818.x
Arango, L., Chaudhury, S. H., & Septianto, F. (2023). The Role of Demand‐Based Scarcity
Appeals in Promoting Cultured Meat. Psychology & Marketing, 40(8), 1501–1520.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21821
Baroni, L., Cenci, L., Tettamanti, M., & Berati, M. (2007). Evaluating the Environmental
Impact of Various Dietary Patterns Combined with Different Food Production Systems.
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 61(2), 279–286.
https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602522
Bryant, C., & Sanctorum, H. (2021). Alternative Proteins, Evolving Attitudes: Comparing
Consumer Attitudes to Plant-Based and Cultured Meat in Belgium in Two Consecutive
Years. Appetite, 161, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105161
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2016). Social Research Methods (4th Canadian Edition). Oxford
University Press.
Carson, S., & Gleig, A. (n.d.). Eat Like a White Man: Meat-Eating, Masculinity, Eat Like a
White Man: Meat-Eating, Masculinity, and Neo-Colonialism and Neo-Colonialism (Vol.
13). www.URJ.ucf.edu
Cicia, G., Furno, M., & Del Giudice, T. (2021). Do Consumers’ Values and Attitudes Affect
Food Retailer Choice? Evidence from a National Survey on Farmers’ Market in
Germany. Agricultural and Food Economics, 9(3), 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-020-00172-2
Clark, M., & Tilman, D. (2017). Comparative Analysis of Environmental Impacts of
Agricultural Production Systems, Agricultural Input Efficiency, and Food Choice.
Environmental Research Letters, 12(6). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cd5
Conerly, T. R., Holmes, K., & Tamang, A. L. (2021). Introduction to Sociology (3rd ed.).
Rice University.
Conrad, Z., Niles, M. T., Neher, D. A., Roy, E. D., Tichenor, N. E., & Jahns, L. (2018).
Relationship Between Food Waste, Diet Quality, and Environmental Sustainability.
PLoS ONE, 13(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195405

70
de Leeuw, E. (2008). Self-Administered Questionnaires and Standardized Interviews. In P.
Alasuutari, L. Bickman, & J. Brannen (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Research
Methods (pp. 313–327). SAGE Publications Ltd.
Deliens, T., Mullie, P., & Clarys, P. (2022). Plant-Based Dietary Patterns in Flemish Adults: A
10-year Trend Analysis. European Journal of Nutrition, 61(1), 561–565.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-021-02630-z
Faber, I., Castellanos-Feijoó, N. A., Van de Sompel, L., Davydova, A., & Perez-Cueto, F. J.
A. (2020). Attitudes and Knowledge towards Plant-based Diets of Young Adults across
Four European Countries. Exploratory Survey. Appetite, 145, 1–7.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104498
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. (2018). Sustainable Food
Systems: Concept and Framework. https://www.fao.org/3/ca2079en/CA2079EN.pdf
Food Empowerment Project. (n.d.-a). Bitter Brew: The Stirring Reality of Coffee. Retrieved
February 21, 2024, from https://foodispower.org/coffee/
Food Empowerment Project. (n.d.-b). Peeling Back the Truth on Bananas. Retrieved
February 21, 2024, from https://foodispower.org/our-food-choices/bananas/
Food Empowerment Project. (2022, January). Child Labor and Slavery in the Chocolate
Industry. https://foodispower.org/human-labor-slavery/slavery-chocolate/
Government of Canada. (2023). Net-zero Emissions by 2050.
https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climateplan/net-zero-emissions-2050.html
Grasso, A. C., Hung, Y., Olthof, M. R., Verbeke, W., & Brouwer, I. A. (2019). Older
Consumers’ Readiness to Accept Alternative, More Sustainable Protein Sources in the
European Union. Nutrients, 11(8), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11081904
Halteman, M. C. (2011). Varieties of Harm to Animals in Industrial Farming. Journal of
Animal Ethics, 1(2), 122–131. https://doi.org/10.5406/janimalethics.1.2.0122
Hartini, S., Azzahra, F., Purwaningsih, R., Ramadan, B. S., & Sari, D. P. (2023). Framework
for Increasing Eco-efficiency in the Tofu Production Process: Circular Economy
Approach. Production Engineering Archives, 29(4), 452–460.
https://doi.org/10.30657/pea.2023.29.50
Hopwood, C. J., & Bleidorn, W. (2019). Psychological Profiles of People Who Justify Eating
Meat as Natural, Necessary, Normal, or Nice. Food Quality and Preference, 75, 10–14.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.02.004

71
International Labour Organization. (2023). Issue Paper on Child Labour and Climate
Change.
Jeong, H. J. (2016). “The Level of Collapse we are Allowed: Comparison of Different
Response Scales in Safety Attitudes Questionnaire.” Biometrics & Biostatistics
International Journal, 4(4), 128–134. https://doi.org/10.15406/bbij.2016.04.00100
Jilcott Pitts, S. B., Wu, Q., Demarest, C. L., Dixon, C. E., Dortche, C. J., Bullock, S. L.,
McGuirt, J., Ward, R., & Ammerman, A. S. (2015). Farmers’ Market Shopping and
Dietary Behaviours Among Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participants.
Public Health Nutrition, 18(13), 2407–2414.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980015001111
Kamloops Regional Farmer’s Market Society. (2023). BC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Coupon
Program. https://www.kamloopsfarmersmarket.com/fmncp
Khmaissa, M., Zouari-Mechichi, H., Sciara, G., Record, E., & Mechichi, T. (2024). Pollution
from Livestock Farming Antibiotics an Emerging Environmental and Human Health
Concern: A Review. Journal of Hazardous Materials Advances, 13, 1–10.
https://ezproxy.tru.ca/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db
=edselp&AN=S2772416624000111&site=eds-live&scope=site
Kustar, A., & Patino-Echeverri, D. (2021). A Review of Environmental Life Cycle
Assessments of Diets: Plant-based Solutions are Truly Sustainable, Even in the Form of
Fast Foods. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(17), 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179926
Lea, E. J., Crawford, D., & Worsley, A. (2006). Public Views of the Benefits and Barriers to
the Consumption of a Plant-based Diet. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 60(7),
828–837. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602387
Maier, S. P., Lightsey, H. M., Galetta, M. D., Usoro, A. O., & Oh, L. S. (2023). Plant-based
Diets and Sports Performance: A Clinical Review. Sport Sciences for Health, 19(4),
1059–1081. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11332-023-01074-8
McInnes, C., Carstairs, S. A., & Cecil, J. E. (2023). A Qualitative Study of Young Peoples’
Thoughts and Attitudes to Follow a More Plant-based Diet. Frontiers in Psychology, 14,
1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1196142
Michel, F., Hartmann, C., & Siegrist, M. (2021). Consumers’ Associations, Perceptions and
Acceptance of Meat and Plant-based Meat Alternatives. Food Quality and Preference,
87, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104063
Modlinska, K., Adamczyk, D., Maison, D., & Pisula, W. (2020). Gender Differences in
Attitudes to Vegans/Vegetarians and Their Food Preferences, and Their Implications for

72
Promoting Sustainable Dietary Patterns: A Systematic Review. Sustainability
(Switzerland), 12(16). https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12166292
Onwezen, M. C., Bouwman, E. P., Reinders, M. J., & Dagevos, H. (2021). A Systematic
Review on Consumer Acceptance of Alternative Proteins: Pulses, Algae, Insects, Plantbased Meat Alternatives, and Cultured Meat. Appetite, 159, 1–57.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.105058
Polleau, A., & Biermann, G. (2021). Eat Local to Save the Planet? Contrasting Scientific
Evidence and Consumers’ Perceptions of Healthy and Environmentally Friendly Diets.
Current Research in Environmental Sustainability, 3, 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsust.2021.100054
Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2019). Reducing Food’s Environmental Impacts through
Producers and Consumers. Science, 360, 987–992.
Rainforest Alliance. (n.d.). Forced Labor. Retrieved February 21, 2024, from
https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/issues/human-rights/forced-labor/
Rice, J. S. (2015). Privilege and Exclusion at the Farmers Market: Findings from a Survey of
Shoppers. Agriculture and Human Values, 32(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460014-9513-7
Richi, E. B., Baumer, B., Conrad, B., Darioli, R., Schmid, A., & Keller, U. (2015). Health
Risks Associated with Meat Consumption: A Review of Epidemiological Studies.
International Journal for Vitamin and Nutrition Research, 85(1–2), 70–78.
https://doi.org/10.1024/0300-9831/a000224
Ritchie, H., Rosado, P., & Roser, M. (2022). Environmental Impacts of Food Production.
https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food
Scherhaufer, S., Moates, G., Hartikainen, H., Waldron, K., & Obersteiner, G. (2018).
Environmental Impacts of Food Waste in Europe. Waste Management, 77, 98–113.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.04.038
Sievert, K., Lawrence, M., Parker, C., & Baker, P. (2022). What’s Really at ‘Steak’?
Understanding the Global Politics of Red and Processed Meat Reduction: A Framing
Analysis of Stakeholder Interviews. Environmental Science and Policy, 137, 12–21.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.08.007
Smit, L. A. M., & Heederik, D. (2017). Impacts of Intensive Livestock Production on Human
Health in Densely Populated Regions. GeoHealth, 1(7), 272–277.
https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GH000103
Springmann, M., Clark, M. A., Rayner, M., Scarborough, P., & Webb, P. (2021). The Global
and Regional Costs of Healthy and Sustainable Dietary Patterns: A Modelling Study.

73
The Lancet Planetary Health, 5(11), 797–807. https://doi.org/10.1016/S25425196(21)00251-5
Tullis, P. (2019, February 19). How the World Got Hooked on Palm Oil. The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/feb/19/palm-oil-ingredient-biscuits-shampooenvironmental
United Nations. (n.d.). Sustainability Development Goals. Retrieved October 31, 2023, from
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/climate-change/
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (n.d.). The Paris Agreement.
United Nations. Retrieved October 31, 2023, from https://unfccc.int/process-andmeetings/the-paris-agreement
Van Kernebeek, H. R. J., Oosting, S. J., Feskens, E. J. M., Gerber, P. J., & De Boer, I. J. M.
(2014). The Effect of Nutritional Quality on Comparing Environmental Impacts of
Human Diets. Journal of Cleaner Production, 73, 88–99.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.028
Van Mierlo, K., Rohmer, S., & Gerdessen, J. C. (2017). A Model for Composing Meat
Replacers: Reducing the Environmental Impact of Our Food Consumption Pattern
While Retaining its Nutritional Value. Journal of Cleaner Production, 165, 930–950.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.098
Wickramasinghe, K., Breda, J., Berdzuli, N., Rippin, H., Farrand, C., & Halloran, A. (2021).
The Shift to Plant-based Diets: Are we Missing the Point? Global Food Security, 29, 1–
4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100530
World Health Organization. (2023). Red and Processed Meat in the Context of Health and
the Environment: Many Shades of Red and Green. Information Brief.
https://www.who.int/publications/book-orders.
Żuk-Gołaszewska, K., Gałęcki, R., Obremski, K., Smetana, S., Figiel, S., & Gołaszewski, J.
(2022). Edible Insect Farming in the Context of the EU Regulations and Marketing—An
Overview. Insects, 13(5), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13050446

74
CHAPTER 3. CONSUMER FREE ASSOCIATIONS OF DIFFERENT FOOD
CATEGORIES
Introduction
The production of food and agricultural farming are responsible, on a global scale, for
26% of GHG emissions, 50% of land use, and 70% of water use (Food and Agricultural
Organization of the United Nations, 2018; Poore & Nemecek, 2019; Ritchie et al., 2022). To
meet the sustainability goals of limiting global temperature increases to 1.5°C set out by the
Paris Agreement, GHG emissions must be reduced by 45% by 2030, and to net-zero by 2050
(Government of Canada, 2023b; United Nations, n.d.-b; United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change, n.d.). One way to help meet these sustainability goals is to
reduce the consumption of unsustainable foods,35 while increasing the consumption of
sustainable foods. With some exceptions, PB foods tend to be more sustainable than AB
foods (see Chapter 1 for more details).
PB foods tend to be better for human health and justice than AB foods, with some
exceptions (see Chapter 1 for more details). Whether at the level of production or
consumption, there are various potential health risks to humans, as well as issues surrounding
worker ethics (see Cassidy et al., 2013; Fresán & Sabaté, 2019; González-García et al., 2018;
Richi et al., 2015; Sievert et al., 2022; Smit & Heederik, 2017; World Health Organization,
2023). Compared to AB foods, PB foods are much lower in their generation of animal
cruelty. Whether the approach is ethical or unethical from an animal welfare perspective,
animals used for food are harmed regardless due to slaughter, with CAFOs being the least
ethical (Anomaly, 2015; Halteman, 2011). The Western approach to AB food production is
one of greed and commodity, and not all approaches are the same. For instance, Indigenous
food and hunting practices are based on relationality, respect, and viewing nonhuman animals
as living beings capable of feeling.
Another possible sustainable food option for reducing harm to animals, humans, and
the environment is lab-grown (LG) meats. Due to the current small-scale and costly

35

Sustainable foods include three overarching factors with various sub-factors, including environmental,
human, and animal justice (see Chapter 1 for more details).

75
production methods of LG meats, these products may be less sustainable than beef in terms
of energy use and GHG emissions (Risner et al., 2023). However, other studies found that
LG meats may use less land and water and produce less GHG emissions than beef (Penn,
2018; Roy et al., 2021). While there is contradictory evidence in the literature on the
sustainability of LG meats in terms of the environment, cost, and human health (Penn, 2018;
Risner et al., 2023; Roy et al., 2021), there is potential for such products to be viable options
in the future. LG meats may also reduce cruelty to animals, as animals’ lives are not lost, and
fewer animals need to be used, as only animal cells are collected from a small number of
animals (Chriki et al., 2022). However, the acceptance of LG meats remains low amongst
consumers, particularly due to cost, lack of trust, and skepticism surrounding health, its
artificial nature, and how it impacts animals (Bryant & Sanctorum, 2021; Chriki et al., 2022;
Grasso et al., 2019).
This study strives to investigate farmers market consumer perceptions of PB foods,
AB foods, and LG meats. Determining the reasons for consumer acceptance and
apprehension of different food products may help with recommendations on sustainable
foods, and how these can help mitigate climate change and injustices toward humans and
animals. For example, there is potential for providing suggestions on increasing the
acceptance of PB foods at the micro-level (e.g., consumers), and at the macro-level (e.g.,
stakeholders in the food business industry, non-governmental and governmental
organizations, and educational institutions). This qualitative section is particularly interested
in deriving thematic patterns from participant responses on their thoughts and feelings on
different foods,36 as well as how this plays into the consumption and promotion of
sustainable foods, including some PB foods.

36

The origins and production methods of food items, whether PB, AB, or LG, are not provided for respondents
in the questions. These are up for respondent interpretation to capture their initial thoughts and feelings on
different food items. This allowed space for respondents to refer to Western food practices (e.g., CAFOs, local
farms, etc.), Eastern food practices, and Indigenous food practices. However, responses reflected thoughts and
feelings on Western food practices.

76
Methods
This study was conducted using a survey questionnaire with both quantitative and
qualitative sections. Qualitative research aims to obtain trustworthiness37 rather than
reliability, validity, and objectivity (Bryman & Bell, 2016; Lincoln & Guba, 2013). While
respondents could not review their free association responses due to surveys not collecting
any personal information (e.g., email address), credibility was maintained by providing
definitions of lesser-known terms (e.g., lab-grown meat) within the question, and by doing
multiple rounds of coding. The goal of qualitative research is not to be generalizable, but
transferability was maintained via providing a thick description (see Bryman & Bell, 2016;
Geertz, 1973; Lincoln & Guba, 2013) of survey question concepts to respondents, using a
pre-existing instrument (adapted from Possidónio et al., 2021), and coding data in a detailed
manner. Dependability was maintained by recording all steps of the research process, having
a committee member review data analyses (called auditing; see Bryman & Bell, 2016;
Lincoln & Guba, 2013), and pilot testing the survey. Confirmability was maintained via a
reflexivity journal to reduce biases and provide transparency (Bryman & Bell, 2016;
Janesick, 2011; Lincoln & Guba, 2013; Rubin & Rubin, 2005). This project has received
clearance from the Thompson Rivers University Research Ethics Board (TRU-REB, file no.
103033).
Participants, Site, and Materials
Participant demographics were collected as part of the survey but were not utilized
for the qualitative analysis (see Tables 2.2 and 2.3 in Chapter 2 for participant
sociodemographics and definitions). Participants (n = 94) were recruited via convenience
sampling. Criteria for participating in the questionnaire included being over the age of 18 and
a farmers market consumer at the Kamloops Regional Farmers Market (KRFM) Summer
2022 season. Participants were surveyed at both the Wednesday and Saturday markets.
The questionnaire included both qualitative (section one) and quantitative (section
two) sections (see Appendix A). The first section of the survey was open-ended and based on

37

Trustworthiness is comprised of credibility (internal validity equivalent), transferability (external validity
equivalent), dependability (reliability equivalent), and confirmability (objectivity equivalent; Bryman & Bell,
2016).

77
a free association instrument created by Possidónio et al. (2021). The adapted instrument
included six free association questions, where participants reflected upon what they “think,
feel or imagine” about meat, lab-grown (LG) meat, plant-based (PB) meat, tofu, dairy
products, and plant-based (PB) milk products.
Respondents were provided with definitions of each individual food item (see
Appendix A for questionnaire and definitions). Each question included two open text boxes,
and participants were instructed to list the first two words or phrases that came to mind. Not
all participants utilized both text boxes, and some included more than one idea per text box.
The final analysis combined both textboxes and did not differentiate between the two levels
as it was not meaningful to do so. The free association questions were included to assess how
consumers perceive food and sustainability.
Procedure
Free associations were analyzed by thematic, content, and sentiment analyses using
NVivo (Release 1.7.1 [4844]). According to Braun and Clarke (2006, 2021), the steps for
conducting a thematic analysis are as follows: (1) Data familiarization and notes, (2) Coding,
(3) Initial themes based on codes, (4) Reviewing themes, (5) Refining and defining themes,
and (6) Reporting themes. Bryman and Bell (2016) provide quantitative content analysis
guidelines, which include counting words, subjects, themes, and values, creating a case-bycase coding schedule based on the variables to be analyzed, and creating a coding manual for
code definitions and interpretations. Qualitative content analysis guidelines include the use of
semiotics, which comprises both denotative (manifest) and connotative (latent) meanings, in
addition to polysemy semiotics38 (Bryman & Bell, 2016). Liu (2012) provides an extensive
and comprehensive guide on sentiment analysis, where guidelines are provided on analyzing
dichotomies of regular/comparative and explicit/implicit references, and how to code
conditional statements.
The analysis process was iterative and contained deductive aspects of considering
pre-existing themes in the literature as a starting point, but inductive methods were primarily
used to analyze the data. Initially, utilizing word clouds, all responses were read by the

38

According to Bryman and Bell (2016), “polysemy refers to the notion that signs can be interpreted in many
ways” (p. 324).

78
researcher and notes were taken. Then, using a coding schedule of all cases and variables, a
content analysis was conducted based on word frequency counts and coding of words or
short phrases for the researcher to become familiarized with the manifest content of the data.
A thematic analysis was then conducted to provide latent context and meaning where
concepts, words, ideas, and phrases were coded. A coding manual was created to maintain
intra-coder reliability, where code definitions and interpretations were included. Themes and
sentiments were then revised and refined. The coding scheme was exhaustive in that all cases
were coded. Efforts to reduce overlap were made, but in some cases, some polysemantic
phrases either involved ambiguous statements or included words that could be coded under
more than one code. Polysemantic sentiments where both positive and negative feelings were
present, sometimes in comparative statements, were coded as ‘unsure/neutral’ to capture the
whole meaning of the sentiment. Analyses were then reviewed one final time for intra-rater
reliability purposes.
Possidónio et al. (2021), whose free association instrument was adapted, utilized a
similar qualitative analysis process with some similarities in content, sentiment, and thematic
results. Similar results are discussed in each theme’s results section. Thao and Thanh (2022)
also conducted a similar study based on consumer perceptions of vegetarian foods, where
they utilized a sentiment analysis comprised of positive, negative, and neutral on various
aspects (themes). Most results indicated positive sentiments in relation to the variables of
packaging, shipment, price, brand, and quality of PB products (Thao & Thanh, 2022).
Overarching themes (Ethics, Feelings, and Food and Health) are presented in concept
map figures depicting how subsequent themes, sentiments, and possible subthemes/sentiments are aggregated. Each individual theme (aggregated to its respective
overarching theme) was analyzed by grouped variables (AB foods, PB foods, and LG meat).
Tables in each theme demonstrate how the variables were grouped by reference counts and
for theme and sentiment definitions, respective reference representations, and subsequent
examples. Reference counts are broken down by grouped variable. Representations include
concepts representative of specific examples. Examples are verbatim from participant free
association responses to each singular food item variable. Examples are noted by grouped
variable, and further detail is provided in the table notes for any meaningful examples. Not
all examples are included. Examples have been selected as they are common within and

79
between grouped variables. Meaningful examples are defined as examples where further
details are required for context, such as noting the individual variable, or food item (meat,
dairy, PB milk, PB meat, tofu, and LG meat), in which the example is in reference to.
Sunburst figures in each theme present a visualization of reference proportions broken down
by grouped variable per each theme and sentiment.
Research Questions
The main research question is: What are Kamloops Regional Farmers Market
(KRFM) consumer perceptions of food? The sub-research question is: What are KRFM
consumer perceptions of different food categories, specifically plant-based (PB) foods,
animal-based (AB) foods, and lab-grown (LG) meats?
The main objective of this study is to determine the perceptions of PB foods (e.g.,
milk alternatives, meat alternatives, and tofu), AB foods (e.g., meat and dairy), and LG meats
amongst farmers market consumers. The goal is to determine consumers' acceptance of
alternative foods at farmers markets. PB food and LG meat acceptance is typically low
amongst general consumers (Arango et al., 2023; Onwezen et al., 2021). If the perceived
risks of sustainable alternative foods can be lowered (e.g., via stakeholder marketing,
government policies, and non-governmental organization promotions), it is possible to have
higher acceptance levels of such foods (Arango et al., 2023). This research aims to provide
recommendations for raising acceptance levels of alternative foods amongst consumers at
both micro- and macro-levels. Based on the high percentage of omnivorous respondents
(69.1%; n = 65), it is anticipated that consumers will perceive AB foods more positively, PB
foods more negatively, and LG meats in an unsure or neutral manner. Predictions are also
based on existing literature on general consumer food perceptions (see Bryant & Sanctorum,
2021; Deliens et al., 2022; Onwezen et al., 2021). However, farmers market consumers may
have different perceptions than general consumers, whether due to awareness of the impacts
of food or privilege (see Alkon & McCullen, 2011a; Cicia et al., 2021; Jilcott Pitts et al.,
2015; Rice, 2015).
Results
Three main overarching themes were found: (1) Ethics, (2) Curiosity, (3) Food and
Health. Each overarching theme includes subsequent themes. The first theme, Ethics,

80
contains sub-themes of Animal Ethics and Environmental Ethics. Ethics also yielded the
theme of Farm Ethics, which was not included due to limited salience in responses. The
second theme, Curiosity, is a standalone theme. Initially, Curiosity was a theme included in
the overarching theme of Feelings alongside the theme of Other Feelings. For the purpose of
this thesis, Curiosity is the primary focus as a feeling due to prevalence and meaning. The
third theme, Food and Health, includes sub-themes of Taste and Texture, Illness, Allergies,
and Intolerances, and Naturalness or Realness. Initially, Food and Health included the
themes Vitamins and Nutrients and Other Health. For the purpose of this thesis, Taste and
Texture, Illness, Allergies, and Intolerances, and Naturalness or Realness are the primary
focus due to being the most meaningful sub-themes. Most themes contain sentiments,
generally comprising Positive (+), Negative (-), and Unsure/Neutral (?) sentiments, or a
similar variation. This is further explained in each theme’s respective section below, as
themes contain varying types of sentiments.
Other excluded themes include an overarching food-related theme, broken down by
themes of Animal Products, Plant-based Products and Alternatives, and Other Food. These
were excluded as they were a mere count of each type of food and did not add any meaning
to the thematic analysis. The theme Other was also excluded due to salience and limited
appearance of responses, and it was initially included to ensure transparency via ensuring that
all cases were coded. Due to the sample size (n = 94) and total number of references (1980
references)39, thematic, content, and sentiment analyses are conducted with grouped
variables, rather than individual variables (Meat, Dairy, PB Meat, PB Milk, Tofu, and LG
Meats). The grouped variables include Animal-based (AB) Foods, Plant-based (PB) Foods,
and Lab-grown (LG) Meats (see Table 3.1).

39

Includes references for all themes, including those not reported in this thesis.

81
Table 3.1
Definitions of Individual and Grouped Variables
Variable
Definition
AB Foods Grouped variable. Includes individual AB variables Dairy and Meat. Does not include LG Meats
(see LG Meats definition for details).
Dairy
Individual variable. To do with thinking, feeling, or imagining consuming dairy products.
Meat
Individual variable. To do with thinking, feeling, or imagining consuming meat products. Meat
products include white meat (e.g., chicken and turkey), red meat (e.g., beef and pork), and
seafood (e.g., fish and other seafood).
PB Foods Grouped variable. Includes PB variables PB Meat, PB Milk and Tofu.
PB Meat
Individual variable. To do with thinking, feeling, or imagining consuming PB meat products.
PB Milk
Individual variable. To do with thinking, feeling, or imagining consuming PB milk products.
Tofu
Individual variable. To do with thinking, feeling, or imagining consuming tofu.
LG Meats Individual variable (standalone grouped variable). Not included in the grouped variable AB Foods
as LG Meats solicited different responses from participants than Meat and Dairy, and LG Meats
consist of a different creation process than Meat and Dairy. Not included under PB Foods as LG
Meats are not plant-based. To do with thinking, feeling, or imagining consuming LG meat products.
Note. Table provides a breakdown of both grouped and included individual variables, and their respective
definitions.

Theme One: Ethics
The Ethics theme is defined as words, thoughts, ideas, or items aggregated from the
themes Animal Ethics (AE) and Environmental Ethics (EE), and their respective sentiments.
This excludes any references outside of the scope of the subsequent themes and sentiments.
Figure 3.1 depicts how themes and sentiments were aggregated and visually represents how
themes appeared together in the data. In this case, the sentiments negative, positive, and
unsure/neutral are aggregated to their relevant themes, being AE and EE. Then, AE and EE
are aggregated into the overarching theme of Ethics.

82
Figure 3.1
Aggregated Concept Map of Overarching Ethics Theme
Negative (-)

Animal Ethics

Positive (+)
Unsure/
Neutral (?)

Ethics
Negative (-)
Environmental
Ethics

Positive (+)
Unsure/
Neutral (?)

Note. Concept map showcasing how the overarching Ethics theme, its subsequent themes of Animal Ethics and
Environmental Ethics, and their respective sentiments are aggregated.

Animal Ethics
The theme of Animal Ethics (AE) is defined as words, thoughts, ideas, or items which
have been aggregated from positive, negative, and unsure/neutral sentiments related to
animal ethics (e.g., animals, animal cruelty, animal rights/welfare, pain/death, and animals as
food). AE was also concurrently found in the thematic results of Possidónio et al. (2021). It
excludes references to food production, farm animals (e.g., ‘cattle’), and local food (included
in Environmental Ethics or Farm Ethics). Such references are excluded as they do not
directly reference animals or related ethics. AE is typically a factor in food decisions
(Connell et al., 2008; Connell & British Columbia Association of Farmers Markets, 2012;
Possidónio et al., 2021). Respondents seemed to imagine ideas related to animal ethics when
prompted to reflect upon PB foods, AB foods and LG meats, indicating that there may be a
connection between the thought of food and the source (in this case, animals). Existing
literature on cognitive dissonance demonstrates that there is a connection between consuming
animals and the love for animals, depicting tension held between two conflicting beliefs and
behaviours (called the meat paradox or MRCD)40 (Benningstad & Kunst, 2020; Bouwman et

40

While this might be the case in Western methods of food production, including the commodification of
animals, this is not the case across culture. Indigenous food practices emphasize respectful relations with
nonhuman beings (Auerbach, 2018; Nadasdy, 2007).

83
al., 2022; Monteiro et al., 2017b, 2017a; Rothgerber, 2014, 2020; Rothgerber et al., 2022;
Rothgerber & Rosenfeld, 2021). See Table 3.2 for grouped variable reference counts, theme
and sentiment definitions, respective reference representations, subsequent examples, and
expansions on meaningful examples of note for the theme of Animal Ethics. Following Table
3.2, further explanations of the analysis of AE are provided.

84
Table 3.2
Thematic, Content, and Sentiment Analyses of Animal Ethics
Theme or
Variable
Definition
Representation
Sentiment
AB PB LG
Animal
43 15
7
Theme. Any (+), (-), or
-e
Ethics
(?) items related to
animal ethics.a Excludes
production and local.b
Negative 32 1
2
Sentiment. Any (-)
Animal
animal ethics
cruelty
references. Includes
animals without
Animals
context.e
Pain/death

Examples
-e

“Animal abuse,”f “Animal suffering,”f “Torturing animals,”f “Animal cruelty,”f
“Inhumane,”h “I would probably view it similarly to farmed meat because it still
involves a live animal.”h
“Animals,”f “Cows.”f
“Pain,”f “Harmful,”f “Violence,”f “Death,”f “Killing Animals,”f “Slaughter of
animals,”f
Food
“I’m not a calf, why would I drink from it’s [sic] mom.”g
Positive
6 14
1
Sentiment. Any (+)
Ethical
“Good. Consider ethical treatment of animals,”f “Not as bad as meat
animal ethics
treatment
consumption,”f “Animal friends,”f “Ethical,”g “Better than milk,”g “Happy that
references.
I’m not hurting animals.”g
Helping
“Helping our fur friends,”h “helping out the little guys,”g “Helping the planet
and our environment in regards to the pollution created by using animals.”g
Values/
“I can be compassionate and act on my values,”g “Connected,”g “Kindness.”g
connection
“Like a good person LOL.”g
Unsure or 5
0
4
Sentiment. Any (?)
Questioning
“Is it humane,”f “Consider source r [sic] animals treated fairly.”f
Neutral
animal ethics
Selective
“Conscious of where it came from,selective [sic],” f “Needs to be organic and
references. Includes
free range.”f
conflicting (+) and (-) Unsure/
“Seems unnecessary but I mean the less of two evils,”h “Curious if this involves
sentiments.d
conflicted
animal cruelty,”h “I don’t know if I would feel morally wrong eating it...I think
it is a [sic] really cool to be able to source these cells without harm to animals.”h
Note. Table includes reference counts by grouped for the theme Animal Ethics and its respective sentiments. Representations include words or phrases to
summarize the references within a given sentiment. Examples of references included.
a
May be overlap with Animal Ethics for references that fit both themes (e.g., “Ethical.”).
b
Included in Environmental Ethics and Farm Ethics themes.
c
May indicate cognitive dissonance (e.g., simultanously picturing animals and reflecting on the animal product, such as stating “Animals,” or “Cows.”).
d
Not included as a standalone (-) or (+) reference to capture the full meaning of the sentiment.
e
No representations or examples for Animal Ethics theme itself. Sentiments merely aggregated to theme for total reference counts.
f
Refers to AB Foods. Meaningful reference: “Not as bad as meat consumption” refers to dairy.
g
Refers to PB Foods. Meaningful reference: “Better than milk” refer to PB milk.
h
Refers to LG Meats.

85
An analysis of AE reference frequency counts demonstrates that 66.2% of references
included in the theme AE were in relation to AB foods (43 of 65 total animal ethics
references), with 74.4% of AB food references being associated with negative feelings (32 of
43 AB food sentiment references). General negative sentiments (not only in reference to AB
foods) included representations such as animal cruelty, mentioning animals, pain and death,
and animals as food. Some examples of negative AB food sentiments: “Animal abuse,”
“Cows,” and “Killing Animals.” Specifically, dairy was perceived more positively than meat
(e.g., “Not as bad as meat consumption”).41
Regarding PB foods, 93.3% of references were associated with positive feelings
surrounding AE (14 of 15 PB food sentiment references). General positive sentiments (not
only in reference to PB foods) included representations such as the ethical treatment of
animals, helping animals, and values/connection. Some examples of positive PB food
sentiments: “happy I’m not hurting animals,” “Helping out the little guys,” and “Like a good
person LOL.” Specifically, PB milk was perceived as “Better than [dairy] milk.”
In terms of LG meats, 57.1% of references were unsure/neutral (4 of 7 LG meat
sentiment references), indicating consumers seemed uncertain about whether LG meats cause
harm to animals. Unsure/neutral sentiments in general, not only for LG meats, included
questioning, being selective and being unsure/conflicted.42 Some examples of unsure/neutral
LG meat sentiments: “Seems unnecessary but I mean the less of two evils,” and “Curious if
this involves animal cruelty,”
When referring to AE, KRFM consumers seemed to view AB foods more negatively
and PB foods more positively, meaning that AB foods were generally perceived as being
crueller to animals than PB foods. Consumers seemed unsure about animal ethics and LG
meats. Overall, KRFM consumers appear to consider PB foods as most beneficial when
considering harm to animals within the food industry. See Figure 3.2 for a visualization of
AE reference proportions broken down by grouped variable to demonstrate relative sentiment
scopes.

41

Note that these references are vague and could be interpreted in terms of sustainability, health, or taste, in
addition to animal ethics. Vague references are included under all potentially relevant themes.
42
Conflicting feelings not included as standalone negative or positive references to include the full meaning of
the sentiment.

86
Sunburst figures can be interpreted by first looking at the circle in the centre, which
refers to the presented theme. In this case, it is Animal Ethics (AE). The second outermost
layer of the expanding circle represents the grouped variables (PB foods, AB foods, and LG
meats) and the proportion of the theme’s references (in this case, AE) for each grouped
variable. The outermost layer of the expanding circle represents the proportion of sentiment
references (typically, positive (+), negative (-), and unsure/neutral (?)) in relation to each
grouped variable (PB foods, AB foods, and LG meats) for the given theme (in this case, AE).
Subsequent sunburst figures can be interpreted using the same logic.
Figure 3.2
Proportionate Sunburst Illustration of Animal Ethics Theme

Animal Ethics

Note. Proportionate sunburst illustration of the theme Animal Ethics partitioned by grouped variable (AB foods,
PB Foods, and LG Meats) and their respective sentiments.

Environmental Ethics
The theme of Environmental Ethics (EE) is defined as words, thoughts, ideas, or
items aggregated from positive, negative, and unsure/neutral sentiments related to
sustainability and ethics (e.g., sustainability, environmental ethics, local food, and water
usage). Possidónio et al. (2021) did not find a theme related directly to the environment but
did find a theme related to the reduction of AB food consumption. EE is a typical factor in

87
food decisions (Cicia et al., 2021; Connell et al., 2008; Connell & British Columbia
Association of Farmers Markets, 2012). Respondents seemed to think about the environment
and sustainability, and how they feel about these, when prompted to reflect upon PB foods,
and LG meats, indicates that there is likely a connection between the thought of food and its
effects on the environment. See Table 3.3 for grouped variable reference counts, theme and
sentiment definitions, respective reference representations, subsequent examples, and
expansions on meaningful examples of note for the theme EE.

88
Table 3.3
Thematic, Content, and Sentiment Analysis of Environmental Ethics
Theme or
Variablea
Definition
Representation
Sentiment
AB PB LG
Environmental
17 25
9
Theme. Any (+), (-), or (?)
-e
Ethics
items related to sustainability
and ethics.b
Negative
7
3
2
Sentiment. Any (-) EE
Unsustainable
references.

Examples
-e

“Unsustainable,”f,h “Waste,”f “Factory farming,”f “Almond milk
causes for [sic] damage to the earth than cow [sic] milk,”g “Bad for
environment,”g “Water intensive.”g
Positive
5 18
6
Sentiment. Any EE
Sustainability
“Green,”g “Sustainable,”g,h “Ethical,”g “Eco conscious,”g
references.
and ethics
“Environment friendly,”g,h “Helping the planet and our environment
in regards to the pollution created by using animals,”g “Good
alternative we should all do our part for sustainability.”h
Local
“I grow my own meat so feel very good about not supporting feed
lots,”f “Fine…I support our local dairy,”f “Local is fine.”f
Water usage
“Love it and conscious of water waste,”g “Less water.”g
Personal
“I can be compassionate and act on my values,”g “Like a good person
values
LOL.”g
Unsure or
5
4
1
Sentiment. Any (?) EE
Sustainability
“Environment,”f “Sustainability,”f,g “Production process/ resources
Neutral
references. Includes unclear
used.”g
and conflicting (+) and (-)
Unsure/
“I consume dairy but prefer local suppliers when available,”f “Only
.c
sentiments Includes local
conflicted
local,”f “Not sure about how it’s made or what kind of impact this has
or sustainability references
on environment or workers,”g “Seems unnecessary but I mean the less
d
without context.
of two evils.”h
Note. Table includes reference counts by grouped for the theme Environmental Ethics and its respective sentiments. Representations include words or phrases to
summarize the references within a given sentiment. Examples of references included.
b
May be overlap with Animal Ethics for references that fit both themes (e.g., “Ethical.”).
c
Not included as a standalone (-) or (+) reference to capture the full meaning of the sentiment.
d
May indicate having conflicting or unclear feelings about the food item itself where the food product is only consumed under specific circumstances (e.g., “Only
local.”). Does not include positive framing of specfic circumstances of food items.
e
No representations or examples for overarching theme. Sentiments merely aggregated to theme for total reference count.
f
Refers to AB Foods.
g
Refers to PB Foods.
h
Refers to LG Meats.

89
An analysis of EE reference frequency counts demonstrates that 49.0% of references
on EE were in relation to PB foods (25 of 51 total EE references), with 72.0% of PB food
references being associated with positive feelings (18 of 25 PB food EE sentiment
references). Regarding LG meats, 66.7% of EE references were framed positively (6 of 9 LG
meat EE sentiment references). In general, positive EE sentiments (not only in reference to
PB foods) included representations such as positively framed EE references, references to
local food and production, water usage, and personal values. Some examples of positive PB
food and/or LG meat EE sentiments: “Green,” “Sustainable,” “Environment friendly,” “Less
water,” and “I can be compassionate and act on my values.”43
In terms of AB foods, references were spread out across EE sentiments relatively
equally. However, compared to PB foods and LG meats, AB foods had the most negative EE
references (58.3%; 7 of 12 negative EE references). In general, negative EE sentiments (not
only in reference to AB foods) included the representation of being unsustainable. Some
examples of negative AB EE food sentiments are “Unsustainable,” “Waste,” and “Factory
farming.” AB foods also had more unsure/neutral EE references (50.0%; 5 unsure/neutral EE
references). Generally, unsure/neutral EE sentiments (not only in reference to AB foods)
included representations of mentioning sustainability without context44 and feeling
unsure/conflicted.45 Some examples of unsure/neutral AB food EE sentiments:
“Environment,” “Sustainability,” “I consume dairy but prefer local suppliers when
available,” and “Only local.”
When referring to EE, KRFM consumers seemed to view PB foods and LG meats
more positively than AB foods, indicating that PB foods and LG meats may be perceived as
more sustainable. Consumers seemed unsure about AB foods but leaned toward viewing
them in both a negative and unsure/neutral manner. See Figure 3.3 for a visualization of EE

43

Note that these references are vague and could be interpreted in terms of animal ethics and/or sustainability.
Vague references are included under all potentially relevant themes.
44
No context in terms of sustainability (e.g., “Environment”) is likely not indicative of either a positive or
negative sentiment. It has been interpreted as unsure/neutral.
45
If the food product is only consumed under specific circumstances (e.g., “Only local.”), this may indicate
having conflicting or unclear feelings about the specific food item being referred to. Conflicting feelings not
included as standalone negative or positive references to include the full meaning of the sentiment.

90
reference proportions broken down by grouped variable to demonstrate relative sentiment
scopes.
Figure 3.3
Proportionate Sunburst Illustration of Environmental Ethics Theme

Environmental
Ethics

Note. Proportionate sunburst illustration of the theme Environmental Ethics partitioned by grouped variable
(AB Foods, PB Foods, and LG Meats) and their respective sentiments.

Theme Two: Curiosity
The theme of Curiosity (CU) is defined as words, thoughts, ideas, or items which
have been aggregated from skeptical (-) or open (+) sentiments relating to feelings of
curiosity. It does not contain references outside the scope of the themes or sentiments. CU
was also concurrently found in the thematic results of Possidónio et al. (2021), as were
unfamiliarity and thoughts of future alternatives. This excludes the standalone unsure/neutral
(?) sentiment as skeptical (-) includes being unsure or questioning. References focused on
comparisons are not included (included in Animal Products, and Plant-based Products and
Alternatives). CU may provide insight into the degree of openness toward AB food, PB food,
and LG meats. Respondents seemed to be both curious and apprehensive toward all three
food categories. It is possible that having more information on such foods may help

91
consumers feel more comfortable and open toward certain foods. See Table 3.4 for grouped
variable reference counts, theme and sentiment definitions, respective reference
representations, subsequent examples, and expansions on meaningful examples of note for
the theme CU.

92
Table 3.4
Thematic, Content, and Sentiment Analyses of Curiosity
Variable
Definition
Representation
Theme or
Sentiment AB PB LG
Curiosity
25 92 77 Theme. Any (-) or (+)
-e
items related to CU.
Excludes (?) sentiment.a
Skeptical 17 45 46
Sentiment. Any (-) CU Concern/fear/
references. Includes
disinterest
resistance and
questioning.b Excludes Conflicted
food item
comparisons.c
Selective
Questioning

Examples
-e

“Concerned,”f,g,h “Fear,”f “Problematic,”f “Avoid the thought of where meat comes
from,”f Not interested,”g,h “Anti soy,”g “Never consume this,”g “Skeptical,”g,h
“Risky,”h “Scared,”h “Nervous,”h “Really freaked out,”h “Kinda sketchy.”h
“Conflict,”f “Slightly bad but grew up with it,”f “Complication,”f “Seems
unnecessary but I mean the less of two evils,”h “Compromise.”h
“Selective,”f “Limiting,”f “I try to limit.”f
“Why make plants taste like meat,”g “Is it good,”g “Is it necessary,”g “Curious if this
involves animal cruelty,”h “Why.”h
Unsure/
“Unsure,”g,h Uncertainty,”g “Undecided,”g “Confused,”g,h Hesitant,”h “Many
confused
unknowns,”h “Don’t know about the hygiene factor.”h
Change
“Change,”g “Different.”g
Prep difficult
“Hard to cook,”g “Lots of prep,”g “Need to know what you’re doing.”g
Open
8 47 31
Sentiment. Any (+) CU Comfort/
“Tradition,”f “familiar,”f “Comfort,”f,g “History of millions eating and producing
references. Includes
familiarity
tofu,”g “Safe meat alternative.”g
d
curiosity. Excludes
Open/interest
“I’m ok with it,”f Easy availability,”f “Curious,”g,h “Open minded,”g “Interest,”g,h
food item
“Fascinated,”h “Intrigued,”h “I’m all for it,”h “Cool.”h
c
comparisons.
Want to
“It’s something I would like to eat,”g “Interested in learning how to cook it,”g “I
try/learn
want to try,”g,h “Would be worth trying.”h
Creative/novel “Creative,”g “So many fun ways to use it,”g “New,”g “Good to change it up.”g
Science/
“The future is here,”h “Trail blazing,”h “Amazed by science,”h “Futuristic,”h
progress
“Progress,”h “Innovative,”h “A possible solution.”h
Note. Table includes reference counts by grouped for the theme Curiosity and its respective sentiments. Representations include words or phrases to summarize
the references within a given sentiment. Examples of references included.
a
Does not include unsure/neutral sentiment as Skeptical includes being unsure or questioning.
b
Includes words of change, as these indicate a degree of skepticism or resistance to change.
c
Included in Animal Products and Plant-based Products and Alternatives.
d
Includes words of history, familiarity, the future and comfort, as these may indicate a degree of openness.
e
No representations or examples for theme. Sentiments merely aggregated to theme for total reference count.
f
Refers to AB Foods.
g
Refers to PB Foods.
h
Refers to LG Meats.

93
An analysis of CU frequency counts demonstrates that 47.4% of references included
in the theme CU were in relation to PB foods (92 of 194 total CU references), with 51.1%
being associated with openness (47 of 92 PB food CU sentiment references). In general, open
CU sentiments (not only in reference to PB foods) include representations such as feelings of
comfort and/or familiarity, being open and/or interested in the product, wanting to try or learn
about the product, viewing the product as creative and/or novel, and thinking of science
and/or progress. Some examples of open PB food CU sentiments are “Comfort,” “History of
millions eating and producing tofu,” “Safe meat alternative,” “Curious,” “Open minded,”
“Interest,” “Interested in learning how to cook it,” “I want to try,” “Creative,” and “So many
fun ways to use it.” PB foods had the most references to openness (47 of 86 open CU
references).
Demonstrating a similar count of both open and skeptical CU references to PB foods,
48.9% of these were associated with skepticism (45 of 92 PB food CU sentiment references).
General skeptical CU sentiments (not only in reference to PB foods) included representations
such as feelings of concern, fear and/or disinterest, feeling conflicted, being selective,
questioning the product, feeling unsure and/or confused, references to change without
context,46 and finding the preparation of the product difficult. Some examples of skeptical
CU PB food sentiments are “Concerned,” “Not interested,” “Anti soy,” “Why make plants
taste like meat,” “Is it good,” “Unsure,” “Confused,” “Change,” and “Hard to cook.”
In terms of AB foods, 68.0% of CU references were associated with skeptical feelings
(17 of 25 AB food CU sentiment references). Some examples of skeptical AB food CU
references: “Concerned,” “Fear,” “Problematic,” “Avoid the thought of where meat comes
from,” “Conflict,” “Slightly biased but grew up with it,” “Selective,” and “I try to limit.”
Regarding LG meats, 59.7% of CU references were associated with skeptical feelings (46 of
77 LG meat sentiment references). Some examples of skeptical LG meat CU references are
“Concerned,” “Not interested,” “Skeptical,” Risky,” “Scared,” “Nervous,” “Kinda [sic]
sketchy,” “Seems unnecessary but the less of two evils,” “Compromise,” “Curious if this
involves animal cruelty,” “Why,” “Unsure,” “Confused,” “Hesitant,” and “Many unknowns.”

46

Change without context is included under skepticism.

94
Both PB foods (45 of 109 skeptical CU references) and LG meats (46 of 109 skeptical CU
references) had the most references to skepticism.
When referring to CU, KRFM consumers seemed to be equally open and skeptical
about PB foods, meaning that there is likely a degree of openness to trying, but perhaps
consumers need more information and knowledge on PB foods. Consumers seemed mostly
skeptical about AB foods and LG meats. Overall, KRFM consumers might be open to PB
foods if provided with more information on benefits to their health, the environment, and
animal welfare. Perhaps due to LG meats being relatively new and not yet being available on
the market, consumers seem to be skeptical of the product as they lack any direct experience
with such products. This may also be due to preferences for natural foods. Overall, most
KRFM consumers were skeptical of AB foods. See Figure 3.4 for a visualization of CU
reference proportions broken down by grouped variable to demonstrate relative sentiment
scopes.
Figure 3.4
Proportionate Sunburst Illustration of Curiosity Theme

Curiosity

Note. Proportionate sunburst illustration of the theme Curiosity partitioned by grouped variable (AB Foods, PB
Foods, and LG Meats) and their respective sentiments.

95
Theme Three: Food and Health
The overarching Food and Health theme is defined as any words, thoughts, ideas, or
items which have been aggregated from the themes Taste and Texture (TT), Illness, Allergies,
and Intolerances (IAI) and Naturalness or Realness (NR), and their respective sentiments and
sub-themes/sentiments. Figure 3.5 depicts how themes and sentiments were aggregated and
visually represents how themes appeared together in the data. In this case, the sentiments
negative, positive, and unsure/neutral are aggregated to their relevant themes, being TT, IAI,
and NR. Then, such themes are aggregated into the overarching theme of Food and Health.
Figure 3.5
Aggregated Concept Map of Overarching Food and Health Theme
Negative (-)
Taste and
Texture

Disgust (-)

Positive (+)
Unsure
/Neutral (?)

Food/Health

Illness/
Allergies/
Intolerances

Naturalness/
Realness

Negative (-)

Positive (+)
Unnatural/
Fake (-)
Natural/Real
(+)

Note. Concept map showcasing how the overarching Health theme, its subsequent themes of Taste and Texture,
Illness, Allergies and Intolerances and Naturalness or Realness, and their respective sentiments and subthemes/sentiments are aggregated.

Taste and Texture
The theme of Taste and Texture (TT) is defined as words, thoughts, ideas, or items
which have been aggregated from positive, negative, and unsure/neutral sentiments related to
the taste and texture of food. The sub-theme and sub-sentiment of Disgust (-) is aggregated
into negative sentiments. Taste, texture, flavour, freshness, lightness, and disgust were also
concurrently found in the thematic results of Possidónio et al. (2021). TT is relevant to the
research question as it is directly related to food, and human perceptions of food regarding
taste and texture tend to influence whether they choose to consume a food or not (see Michel

96
et al., 2021; North et al., 2021). See Table 3.5 for grouped variable reference counts, theme
and sentiment definitions, respective reference representations, subsequent examples, and
expansions on meaningful examples of note for the theme TT.

97
Table 3.5
Thematic, Content, and Sentiment Analyses of Taste and Texture
Variable
Definition
Representation
Theme or
Sentiment AB PB LG
Taste and
34 89 29 Theme. Any (+), (-) or (?) items
-d
Texture
related to TT.
Negative 15 34 27
Sentiment. Any (-) TT
Not tasty
references. Includes subtheme of Disgust.a
Disgust 15 10 20
Sub-theme and negative
Disgust
sentiment. Any (-) items
related to disgust.
Positive 16 42 0
Sentiment. Any (+) TT
Tasty
references.
Versatile

Examples
-d
“Bland,”f “Not always flavourful,”f “Not great tasting,”f “Chewy,”f
“Rubbery,”f,g “Less enjoyable flavour and texture,”f “Tasteless,”g “Not
appetizing,”g “Mushy.”g
“Dirty,”e,g “Disgust,”e,g “Weird,”e “Yuck,”e,f,g “Ew,”e “Gross,”e,f,g “Infected,”g
“Don’t know about the hygiene factor,”g “Icky.”g

“Tasty,”e,f “Yum,”e,f “Delicious,”e,f “It tastes good.”f
“Lots of diversity,”f “Versatile,”f “You can flavour it a million different
ways,”f “I enjoy it in many forms, savoury and sweet.”f
Unsure
3 13 2
Sentiment. Any (?) TT
Taste/texture
“Bbq,”e “Grilled,”e “Taste,”e “Sweet,”f “Umami,”f “Texture.”g
or
references. Includes unclear
Questioning/
“Does it taste as good as animal meat,”f “If it’s good taste-wise…then sure,”f
Neutral
and conflicting (+) and (-)
unsure
“Apprehension about flavour,”f
sentiments.b Includes lack of
Conflict
“Oat ok almond milk too watery,”f “Doesn’t taste good unless mixed,”f
c
context.
“Plant based milk doesn’t always have the exact flavour I want but I’m
happy they exist and oat milk is my favourite.”f
Note. Table includes reference counts by grouped for the theme Taste and Texture, its respective sentiments and sub-theme (Disgust). Representations include
words or phrases to summarize the references within a given sentiment. Examples of references included.
a
Sub-theme of Disgust aggregated to (-) sentiment.
b
Not included as a standalone (-) or (+) reference to capture the full meaning of the sentiment.
c
Challenging to interpret as (+) or (-) as each person may have a differing subjective view on different flavours and textures (e.g., “Sweet,” “Umami.”).
d
No representations or examples for theme. Sentiments merely aggregated to theme for total reference count.
e
Refers to AB Foods.
f
Refers to PB Foods. Meaningful examples: “Lots of diversity” and “Doesn’t taste good unless mixed” refer to PB milk. Remaining three Versatile examples
refer to tofu.
g
Refers to LG Meats.

98
An analysis of TT reference frequency counts demonstrates that 58.6% of references
included in the theme TT were in relation to PB foods (89 of 152 total TT references), with
47.12% being associated with positive feelings toward the food product (42 of 89 PB food
sentiment references). Compared to AB foods and LG meats, PB foods also had the most
positive sentiments (72.5%; 42 of 58 positive sentiment references). In general, positive
sentiments (not only in reference to PB foods) include representations such as tasty and
versatile. Some examples of positive PB food sentiments: “Tasty,” “Yum,” “Delicious,” “Lots
of diversity,”47 “Versatile,” “You can flavour it a million different ways,” and “I enjoy it in
many forms, savoury and sweet.”48 In terms of AB foods, 47.1% of AB food sentiment
references were viewed as positive (16 of 34 AB food sentiment references). Some examples
are “Tasty,” “Yum,” and “Delicious.”
Regarding LG meats, sentiments were predominantly negative (93.1%; 27 of 29 LG
meat sentiment references). Generally, negative sentiments (not only in reference to LG
meats) include representations such as not tasty and Disgust (sub-theme/sentiment). Some
examples of LG meats being referred to as not tasty: “Rubbery,” “Tasteless,” “Not
appetizing,” and “Mushy.” LG meats had the most references (44.4%) to the subtheme/sentiment of Disgust (20 of 45 references to Disgust). Examples include “Dirty,”
“Disgust,” “Yuck,” “Gross,” “Infected,” “Don’t know about the hygiene factor,” and “Icky.”
In terms of AB foods, 44.1% of AB food sentiment references were viewed as negative (15 of
34 AB food sentiment references), and all 15 references fell under the sub-theme/sentiment
of Disgust. Some examples: “Dirty,” “Disgust,” “Weird,” “Yuck,” “Ew,” and “Gross.”
Compared to AB foods and LG meats, most negative sentiment references (44.7%) were in
terms of PB foods (34 of 76 negative sentiment references). Some examples are “Bland,”
“Not always flavourful,” “Not great tasting,” “Chewy,” “Rubbery, “Less enjoyable taste and
texture,” “Yuck,” and “Gross.”
Compared to AB foods and LG meats, 72.2% of unsure/neutral references were in
terms of PB foods (13 of 18 unsure/neutral references). General unsure/neutral sentiments

47

Specifically in reference to the diversity of PB milks, likely in terms of different types of PB milks (e.g., oat,
soy, almond, etc.).
48
“Versatile,” “You can flavour it a million different ways,” and “I enjoy it in many forms, savoury and sweet,”
are in reference to tofu and its versatility in cooking.

99
include representations such as mentions of taste or texture without context,49 questioning or
feeling unsure, and feeling conflicted.50 Some examples of unsure/neutral PB food
references: “Sweet,” “Umami,” “Does it taste as good as animal meat,” “Apprehension about
flavour,” “Oat ok almond milk too watery,” and “Plant based milk doesn’t always have the
exact flavour I want but I’m happy they exist and oat milk is my favourite.”
When referring to TT, KRFM consumers seemed to feel primarily positive about PB
foods. Both PB milks and tofu were referred to as diverse and versatile, demonstrating the
potential for both products to be able to perhaps match a person’s subjective view of ‘tasty.’
Some consumers had mixed feelings about different types of PB milks, where some (e.g.,
almond milk) were viewed as less tasty than others (e.g., oat milk). Consumers felt mostly
negative and disgusted about LG meats and, had conflicted views on AB foods, as references
were predominantly both negative and positive. This is consistent with the theme of curiosity,
where consumers felt skeptical (-) toward LG meats. Perhaps due to LG meats being
relatively new, not being ‘natural,’ and typically not yet being on the market, consumers seem
apprehensive of the product since they do not have any experience with it. See Figure 3.6 for
a visualization of TT reference proportions broken down by grouped variable to demonstrate
relative sentiment scopes.

49

References to taste and texture without context cannot be interpreted as positive or negative, as different
respondents may have different subjective preferences (e.g., “Taste,” “Sweet,” and “Texture.”).
50
Feeling conflicted about a food product, where both positive and negative references are concurrent, is
categorized under unsure or neutral to capture the full meaning of the sentiment.

100
Figure 3.6
Proportionate Sunburst Illustration of Taste and Texture Theme
Unsure/Neutral

Unsure/
Neutral

Taste and
Texture

Note. Proportionate sunburst illustration of the theme Taste and Texture partitioned by grouped variable (AB
Foods, PB Foods, and LG Meats), their respective sentiments and the sub-theme of Disgust. This sunburst is to
be read in the same manner as other sunburst figures, with the exception of the sub-theme of disgust being
presented in the fourth outermost layer of the expanding circle in terms of its proportion of references within
each sentiment in the third outermost layer.

Illness, Allergies, and Intolerances
The theme of Illness, Allergies, and Intolerances (IAI) is defined as words, thoughts,
ideas, or items which have been aggregated from positive and negative sentiments51 related
to illness, allergies, or intolerances. Well-being and disease were also concurrently found in
the thematic results of Possidónio et al. (2021). This excludes references to being full, as this
is not necessarily related to a positive or negative sentiment nor digestive issues (included in
Other Food). IAI is a relevant theme as it could be a limiting factor in food decisions, which
may even be outside of one’s control. See Table 3.6 for grouped variable reference counts,
theme and sentiment definitions, respective reference representations, subsequent examples,
and expansions on meaningful examples of note for the theme IAI.

51

No unsure or neutral sentiments, as the framing of IAI was either negative or positive, positive indicating the
absence of such issues.

101
Table 3.6
Thematic, Content, and Sentiment Analyses of Illness, Allergies, and Intolerances
Variable
Definition
Representation
Examples
Theme or
Sentiment AB PB LG
Illness,
43 20 3 Theme. Any (-) or
-c
-c
Allergies
(+) items related to
and
IAI.a Excludes being
Intolerances
full.b
Negative 42 4
3
Sentiment. Any (-) Upset stomach “Bloated,”d “Indigestion,”d “Tummy aches,”d “Stomach issues,”d “Gas and bloating,”d
IAI references.
“Nauseous,”d,f “Fart,”d “Stomach ache,”e “Constipation,”e “Still indigestible.”f
“Ill,”d “Sick,”d,f “Feel unwell,”d “Mucous,”d “Congested,”d “Inflammation.”e
“Intolerant,”d “Lactose intolerant.”d
“Allergic,”d “Allergies.”d,e
Positive
1 16 0
“Feel my stomach [sic] comfortable,”d “No gout from too much red meat,”e “It makes
me feel lighter in my stomach,”e “Less bloated,”e “My stomach better,”e “Settled
tummy,”e “Stomach friendly,”e “Easiest to digest.”e
Note. Table includes reference counts by grouped for the theme Ilness, Allergies and Intolerances, and its respective sentiments. Representations include words or
phrases to summarize the references within a given sentiment. Examples of references included.
a
Excludes unsure/neutral sentiments as none emerged.
b
Not necessarily related to stomach issues. Included in Other Food.
c
No representations or examples for theme. Sentiments merely aggregated to theme for total reference count.
d
Refers to AB Foods. Meaningful references: Excluding “Indigestion,” the remaining six examples refer to dairy (36 out of 42 total negative sentiments refer to
dairy). All examples of the Intolerance and Allergies representations refer to dairy.
e
Refers to PB Foods.
f
Refers to LG Meats.
Illness
Intolerance
Allergies
Sentiment. Any (+) Comfortable
IAI references.
stomach

102
An analysis of IAI reference frequency counts demonstrates that 65.2% of IAI
references were in relation to AB foods (43 of 66 IAI references), with 97.7% of AB food IAI
references being associated with negative feelings (42 of 43 AB food IAI sentiment
references). In general, negative IAI sentiments (not only in reference to AB foods) included
representations such as having an upset stomach, illness in general, food intolerances, and
food allergies. Some examples of negative AB food IAI sentiments are “Bloated,”
“Indigestion,” “Tummy aches,” “stomach issues,” “Gas and bloating,” “Nauseous,” “Fart,”
“Ill,” “Sick,” Feel unwell,” “Intolerant,” “Lactose intolerant,” and “Allergic.” Dairy was
perceived more negatively than meat, where 85.7% of negative sentiment references were
about dairy (36 of 42 total negative AB food IAI sentiment references). All examples of
intolerances and allergies were in reference to dairy, meaning lactose intolerance may be
viewed as a barrier to dairy consumption. In terms of LG meats, 100% of IAI references were
associated with negative feelings (3 of 3 LG meat sentiment references). All LG meat IAI
reference examples: “Still indigestible,” “Nauseous,” and “Sick.”
Regarding PB foods, 80.0% of IAI references were associated with positive feelings
surrounding the absence of illness, allergies and/or intolerances (16 of 20 PB food IAI
sentiment references). In general, positive IAI sentiments (not only in reference to PB foods)
included the representation of having a comfortable stomach. Some examples of positive PB
food IAI sentiments: “No gout from too much red meat,” “It makes me feel lighter in my
stomach,” “Less bloated,” “My stomach better,” “Settled tummy,” “Stomach friendly,” and
“Easiest to digest.” These examples may be representative of PB foods being perceived as
easier on one’s stomach than AB foods (specifically dairy).
When referring to IAI, KRFM consumers seemed to view AB foods more negatively
and PB foods more positively. Dairy was most associated with negative sentiments, where
lactose intolerance was commonly referred to. The frequent mention of lactose intolerance
leaves a possibility for the consumption of PB milk alternatives instead of dairy. There were
limited references to LG meats, but all references were negative. It is possible that the lack of
knowledge on LG meats led to limited references within this theme, especially since it likely
has not been consumed by most due to the lack of market availability. Overall, KRFM
consumers appear to consider PB foods as more beneficial than AB foods when considering

103
reducing digestive issues. See Figure 3.7 for a visualization of IAI reference proportions
broken down by grouped variable to demonstrate relative sentiment scopes.
Figure 3.7
Proportionate Sunburst Illustration of Illness, Allergies, and Intolerances Theme

Illness,
Allergies, and
Intolerances

Note. Proportionate sunburst illustration of the theme Illness, Allergies, and Intolerances partitioned by grouped
variable (AB Foods, PB Foods, and LG Meats) and their respective sentiments.

Naturalness or Realness
The theme of Naturalness or Realness (NR) is defined as words, thoughts, ideas, or
items which have been aggregated from natural/real (+) and unnatural/fake (-) sentiments52
related to the food product being viewed as either natural/real or unnatural/fake. Artificial
was also concurrently found in the thematic results of Possidónio et al. (2021). NR could be a
limiting factor in food decisions if foods are not considered to be ‘natural.’ See Table 3.7 for
grouped variable reference counts, theme and sentiment definitions, respective reference

52

No unsure or neutral sentiments. The framing in terms of naturalness or realness was either negative or
positive, where the food product being perceived as unnatural or fake was framed negatively and where
natural/real was framed positively.

104
representations, subsequent examples, and expansions on meaningful examples of note for
the theme NR.

105
Table 3.7
Thematic, Content, and Sentiment Analyses of Naturalness or Realness
Variable
Definition
Representation
Theme or
Sentiment AB PB LG
Naturalness
7 41
18 Theme. Any (-) or (+) items
-b
a
or Realness
related to NR.
Unnatural 6 31
18
Sentiment. Any (-) framing of
Unnatural/fake
or Fake
the item being referred to, in the
context of being unnatural/fake.

Examples
-b

“Tricked,”d “Concerned about authenticity,”d “Fake beef burgers,”d
“Fake,”d,e “Wish this was real meat,”d “Not real,”d “Unnatural,”e “Not
natural,”e “Would rather have natural grown meat,”e “Opposite of
natural food,”e “False nature,”e “Petrie dish,”e “Lab coats,”e
“Artificial.”e
Chemicals
“Chemicals,”d “Chemicals affecting our babies,”c “Cows [sic] milk
seems chemically,”c “Additives,”d “Consuming more chemicals then
[sic] natural products.”d
Processed
“Overprocessed,”c “How likely is it more processed vs. Natural,”d
“Processed,”d “Worry about the processed nature,”d “Super
processed.”d
Needs to be
“How much better the organic tastes,”c “Needs to be organic,”c
organic
“Better organic.”d
Natural or 1 10
0
Sentiment. Any (+) framing of
Natural/real
I would probably eat that before lab grown meat,”d “Regular,”c “Same
Real
the item being referred to, in the
as regular milk products,”d “Clean,”d “More pure,”d “Tofu is simple,”d
context of being natural/real.
“More natural.”d
Note. Table includes reference counts by grouped for the theme Naturalness or Realness, and its respective sentiments. Representations include words or phrases
to summarize the references within a given sentiment. Examples of references included.
a
Excludes unsure/neutral sentiments as none emerged. Unnatural/fake is classified as negative and natural/real as positive as participant responses seemed to
indicate such feelings.
b
No representations or examples for theme. Sentiments merely aggregated to theme for total reference count.
c
Refers to AB Foods.
d
Refers to PB Foods.
e
Refers to LG Meats.

106
An analysis of NR reference frequency counts demonstrates that 59.1% of NR
references were in relation to PB foods (39 of 66 total animal ethics references), with 75.6%
of PB food NR references being associated with negative (unnatural/fake) feelings (31 of 41
PB food sentiment NR references). Compared with AB foods and LG meats, PB foods also
had the most NR references to unnatural/fake (56.4%; 31 of 55 negative sentiment
references). In general, negative NR sentiments (not only in reference to PB foods) included
representations such as the food product being perceived as unnatural/fake in general,
referring to chemicals, perceiving the food as processed, and how the food product should be
organic. Some examples of negative PB food NR sentiments: “Tricked,” “Concerned about
authenticity,” “Fake beef burgers,” “Fake,” “Wish this was real meat,” “not real,”
“Chemicals,” “Additives,” “Consuming more chemicals then [sic] natural products,” “How
likely is it more processed vs. Natural,” “Worry about the processed nature,” and “Better
organic.”
Both AB foods and LG meats also mostly had negative NR sentiments comprising
perceptions of the food product being unnatural/fake. In terms of AB foods, 85.7% of NR
references were associated with negative feelings (6 of 7 AB food NR sentiment references).
Some examples of negative AB food NR sentiments are “Chemicals affecting our babies,”
“Cows [sic] milk seems chemically,” “Overprocessed,” “How much better the organic
tastes,” and “Needs to be organic.” In terms of LG meats, all NR references (100%) were
associated with negative feelings (18 of 18 LG meat food sentiment references). Some
examples of negative LG meat NR sentiments: “Fake,” “Unnatural,” “Would rather have
natural grown meat,” “Opposite of natural food,” “False nature,” “Petrie dish,” “Lab coats,”
and “Artificial.”
Compared to AB foods and LG meats, PB foods had the most positive NR sentiments
comprising perceptions of the food product being natural/real (90.9%; 10 of 11 positive
sentiment references). Generally, positive NR sentiments (not only in reference to PB foods)
included the representation of being perceived as natural/real in general. Examples of
positive PB food NR examples include: “I would probably eat that before lab grown meat,”
“Same as regular milk products,” “Clean,” “More pure,” “Tofu is simple,” and “More
natural.”

107
When referring to NR, KRFM consumers seemed to view all three groups (AB foods,
PB foods, and LG meats) as mostly negative (unnatural/fake), which may be indicative of
farmers market consumers being aware of processed foods in general, or considering
naturalness in food purchasing decisions (Connell et al., 2008). PB foods did have the most
positive sentiments (natural/real) when compared to both AB foods and LG meats, perhaps
indicating a slight view toward PB foods being the most natural/real choice, even if it is not
predominantly perceived as so. Some references would support such a claim, where PB foods
were framed as being better than LG meats. LG meats were also referenced as being less
natural than AB foods (meat). Overall, KRFM consumers appear to view food in general as
unnatural/fake. See Figure 3.8 for a visualization of NR reference proportions broken down
by grouped variable to demonstrate relative sentiment scopes.
Figure 3.8
Proportionate Sunburst Illustration of Naturalness or Realness Theme

Naturalness or
Realness

Note. Proportionate sunburst illustration of the theme Naturalness or Realness partitioned by grouped variable
(AB Foods, PB Foods, and LG Meats) and their respective sentiments.

108
Discussion
The three main overarching themes included in this chapter are Ethics, Curiosity, and
Food and Health. The two themes aggregated to Ethics were Animal Ethics and
Environmental Ethics. Generally, AB foods were perceived as less ethical than alternative
food options. Curiosity is a standalone theme, and consumers were skeptical of PB foods, AB
foods, and LG meats, but were most open to PB foods. The three themes aggregated to Food
and Health were Taste and Texture, Illness, Allergies, and Intolerances, and Naturalness or
Realness. Consumers generally viewed PB foods most positively regarding food and health,
LG meats most negatively, and seemed unsure about AB foods. Across themes, PB foods
seemed to be framed as the most positive, while AB foods and LG meats were framed in an
unsure manner. Based on the general predictions of this study, the findings on AB foods and
PB foods were unexpected, but the results on LG meats are aligned with predictions. More
specifically, some of the negative and unsure attitudes toward AB foods were unexpected due
to most of the KRFM sample being omnivores (69.1%; n = 65).
Theme One: Ethics
Animal Ethics is a common factor in consumer food decisions (see Connell et al.,
2008; Connell & British Columbia Association of Farmers Markets, 2012; Possidónio et al.,
2021). Regarding Animal Ethics, AB foods tended to be viewed by KRFM consumers as
negative (specifically with dairy being viewed more positively than meat), while PB foods
were generally viewed as positive (specifically with PB milk being viewed more positively
than dairy milk). This means that AB foods seemed to be perceived as crueller to animals
than PB foods, which may be an unexpected finding as most survey respondents identified as
omnivores. However, consumers perceiving AB foods as cruel while mostly being
omnivorous may point toward what Bastian & Loughnan (2017) refer to as the meat paradox
or MRCD, in which an individual holds two contradictory beliefs and actions (called
cognitive dissonance) of both consuming animals while valuing animal welfare (Benningstad
& Kunst, 2020; Bouwman et al., 2022; Monteiro et al., 2017; Rothgerber, 2014, 2020;
Rothgerber et al., 2022; Rothgerber & Rosenfeld, 2021). However, MCRD is a Westernized
conceptualization of animal consumption. For instance, many Indigenous practices in relation
to hunting emphasize the respectful connection to the animal as a being that is capable of
feeling (Auerbach, 2018; Nadasdy, 2007). Consumers seemed unsure about the implications

109
of animal ethics regarding LG meats. This finding is not surprising, as limited information is
currently available on LG meats.
The environment is a common factor in consumer food decisions (Cicia et al., 2021;
Connell et al., 2008; Connell & British Columbia Association of Farmers Markets, 2012). In
terms of Environmental Ethics, AB foods were viewed most negatively, while PB foods were
perceived most positively, followed by LG meats. This indicates that PB foods and LG meats
may be perceived as more sustainable than AB foods, which may be an unexpected finding
since most survey respondents identified as omnivores. It is possible that consumers may
have cognitive dissonance with the foods they consume (see Bastian & Loughnan, 2017;
Benningstad & Kunst, 2020; Bouwman et al., 2022), while holding the belief that AB foods
are less environmentally friendly (rather than cruel to animals), and still choosing to consume
them. Some motivations to continue to consume AB foods, despite understanding the
damages to sustainability, might include taste, texture, habit, cost, and social norms (Bryant
& Sanctorum, 2021; Hopwood & Bleidorn, 2019; Michel et al., 2021).
Theme Two: Curiosity
Curiosity is a predominant theme within respondent free associations and was also
found in Possidónio et al.’s (2021) study on consumer food perceptions. PB foods tended to
be perceived by farmers market consumers in both open/positive and skeptical/negative
manners. This means that consumers may be open to trying PB foods, but that some may
need more knowledge on PB foods. AB foods and LG meats were both mainly perceived in a
skeptical/negative manner. Perhaps LG meats are viewed in a skeptical or apprehensive
manner due to being relatively new and due to a perceived artificialness. It is an unexpected
finding that AB foods were viewed in a skeptical or negative manner, as most survey
respondents were omnivores. It is possible that consumers merely consume AB foods due to
social norms (Hopwood & Bleidorn, 2019; Michel et al., 2021), and perhaps omnivorous
habits.
Theme Three: Food and Health
In terms of Taste and Texture, PB foods were perceived most positively amongst
farmers market consumers, which is inconsistent with findings in existing literature, given
that most respondents are omnivores (see Michel et al., 2021; Onwezen et al., 2021; Pointke
et al., 2022). Specifically, PB milk and tofu were viewed as diverse and versatile. This may

110
indicate possibilities for increased acceptance of both PB milk and tofu, if consumers are
open to trying them, where the curiosity theme suggests there is a degree of openness to
trying PB foods. However, Michel et al. (2021) hypothesize that some consumers may have
had previous bad experiences with tofu, which may play a role in apprehension toward PB
foods. Many respondents also negatively viewed PB foods, mainly citing feelings of disgust,
which is consistent with the literature (Michel et al., 2021; Onwezen et al., 2021; Pointke et
al., 2022). Perhaps consumers trying different kinds of PB milks, such as oat milk (cited
more positively by respondents than almond milk), or trying tofu prepared in different ways
may help with negative perceptions of taste and texture. Feelings of disgust concerning
sensory perceptions of PB foods are consistent with existing literature, and it has been
hypothesized that if PB foods are more similar in taste and texture to their AB counterparts,
there may be more acceptance (Michel et al., 2021; Onwezen et al., 2021; Pointke et al.,
2022).
LG meats were viewed as primarily negative in taste and texture, where consumers
mainly cited feeling disgusted. This is not unexpected, considering findings in the literature
(see Arango et al., 2023; Grasso et al., 2019; Onwezen et al., 2021), and that LG meat is new
and not yet available on the market. These findings are consistent with the skepticism toward
LG meats found in the curiosity theme. AB foods were viewed as both positive and negative,
indicating conflicting feelings, possibly indicating yet another form of the meat paradox or
cognitive dissonance (Bastian & Loughnan, 2017; Benningstad & Kunst, 2020; Bouwman et
al., 2022), where consumers may enjoy the taste of AB foods while understanding the
potential damages to sustainability. However, the findings on AB foods may be unexpected,
as most respondents were omnivores.
Illness, Allergies, and Intolerances is a common theme found within respondent free
associations, consistent with the themes of well-being and disease found in Possidónio et
al.’s (2021) study. Respondents perceived AB foods as mostly negative, while PB foods were
perceived as primarily positive. Specifically, dairy was viewed most negatively, with many
respondents citing issues with lactose intolerance. This indicates that lactose intolerance is a
possible barrier to dairy consumption, meaning there may be more acceptance toward
wanting to try PB milks. Globally, about two-thirds of the population likely has a lactose
intolerance (Storhaug et al., 2017), which is consistent with the frequent mentioning of

111
lactose intolerance in this study. While LG meats were barely referred to within this theme,
all references were negative sentiments. A lack of knowledge and market availability on LG
meats may play a role in the limited number of references and negative perceptions. It might
be an unexpected finding that most respondents viewed PB foods more positively than AB
foods regarding stomach issues, as most self-reported being omnivores. Factors such as
enjoying the taste of AB foods may play a role in consumers still consuming such products,
despite citing gastrointestinal problems.
In terms of Naturalness or Realness, consumers viewed AB foods, PB foods, and LG
meats as predominantly unnatural/fake/negative. This may be due to farmers market
consumers being more aware of the decisions on food, including choosing more natural foods
(see Connell et al., 2008). However, PB foods were viewed as more natural/real/positive than
AB foods. This may indicate consumers viewing PB foods as the most positive, natural, or
authentic option among the three food groups. However, these findings on naturalness are
inconsistent with existing literature that found that AB meat was perceived as the most
natural (Michel et al., 2021; Possidónio et al., 2021).
LG meats were also viewed as more unnatural/fake/negative than AB foods
(specifically meat). This is not an unexpected finding considering the lack of information,
market availability, and consumer skepticism in the curiosity theme. The findings on
concerns surrounding LG meats not being natural are consistent with existing literature
(Bryant & Sanctorum, 2021; Possidónio et al., 2021). Overall, farmers market consumers
seemed to view food in general as unnatural, fake, or negative, which may be an unexpected
finding considering most survey respondents are omnivores. Considering that food is
generally viewed as unnatural, perhaps this indicates a larger systematic issue of food and
health in North America. The Western diet is heavily based on the consumption of both AB
foods and processed foods, which have negative impacts on human health, and this could be
playing a role in consumer perceptions of food in general (see Clemente-Suarez et al., 2023;
Rakhra et al., 2020).
Research Implications
As with any study, this research has some limitations. The farmers market sample is
not generalizable to the greater population of Kamloops or other cities, as the sample only
included farmers market consumers. However, this study could be used as a model or

112
example for other farmers market studies assessing acceptance of alternative foods. Themes
were not connected back to individual cases based on sociodemographic factors, which limits
the understanding of the data in context. Due to a small sample size, individual variables
(meat, dairy, PB milk, PB meat, other PB foods, tofu, and LG meats53) were combined.
While some main findings are highlighted if a specific food item was prevalent in a theme, it
is not possible to know the thematic and sentiment findings for particular food items.
Participants were also not asked to reflect on other foods, including fish and seafood, eggs,
and other lab-grown foods (e.g., dairy, fish and seafood, and eggs).
Unfortunately, not all themes could be included in this thesis due to lack of space,
time constraints, and for reasons of prioritizing the most prevalent and relevant themes. The
themes that were not included are (1) Ethics: Farm Ethics; (2) Feelings: Other Feelings; (3)
Food and Health: Other Health, Animal Products, Plant-based Products and Alternatives
and Other Food; and (4) Other. This is not a limitation, as this research produced a
substantial amount of data and knowledge. This provides opportunities for sharing the
findings from the thesis in other avenues, including in future publications.
Future research has opportunities to examine the perceptions of LG meats, and how to
increase its acceptance amongst consumers. LG meats may be sustainable options, but
consumer acceptance remains low (Alhujaili et al., 2023; Onwezen et al., 2021; ŻukGołaszewska et al., 2022). There are also possibilities for research to investigate the impacts
of LG meats on animals in terms of ethics, its environmental impacts, and impacts on human
health. Existing literature on LG meats and sustainability impacts is limited and contradictory
(see Penn, 2018; Risner et al., 2023; Roy et al., 2021). Connecting free association themes to
sociodemographic factors is another potential direction for future research. As there were
contradictory findings in terms of the sample being mostly omnivorous while viewing AB
foods in a negative light regarding animal ethics and environmental ethics, this indicates the
possibility of cognitive dissonance (see Bastian & Loughnan, 2017; Benningstad & Kunst,
2020; Bouwman et al., 2022), and future research should aim to investigate this further.

53

LG meats is the only variable in which remained the same and was not grouped.

113
As lactose intolerance was frequently cited, future studies could also look into the
percentage of farmers market consumers who are lactose intolerant, while analyzing their
perspectives of both AB and PB foods, and their motivations and interests in terms of
alternative options. An analysis of specific food items (meat, dairy, PB milk, PB meat, other
PB foods, tofu, and LG meats) without aggregating them to grouped variables (PB foods, AB
foods, and LG meats) would provide more insight into how farmers market consumers view
individual food items. Including food items such as fish and seafood, eggs, LG fish and
seafood, LG milk, LG eggs, and consumable insects in free associations could be a potential
future research direction.
There are some possibilities in which the acceptance of PB foods amongst consumers
might be increased. Macro-level actors, including stakeholders in the food industry,
educational institutions, governments that regulate food, non-governmental organizations that
promote sustainable food, and researchers, can make an effort to better educate consumers on
what sustainable food entails. Micro-level actors, meaning consumers, also have a role to
play in food and sustainability. Consumers could choose more sustainable food options, such
as alternative foods, and reduce their consumption of AB foods. In order to choose more
sustainable food options, consumers must also educate themselves on the impacts of food on
sustainability (humans, animals, and the environment). The research implications of the
current research are explored in depth in chapter four.
Some possible marketing opportunities for institutions based on the farmers market
consumers’ views include promoting: (1) PB milk as more ethical toward animals than dairy
milk; (2) the reduction of meat consumption based on animal and environmental ethics; (3)
LG meat in general to gain more information on it and to reduce skepticism, including the
implications on animal ethics; and (4) PB foods in general for educational purposes to also
reduce feelings of skepticism. However, as local farmers frequent farmers markets as
vendors, there may be difficulties surrounding promoting PB milk and meat options,
including considering the financial well-being of local farmers. Overall, this research creates
opportunities for future studies to delve deeper into the topic of PB foods and for
implications on how to increase the acceptance of PB foods.

114
Literature Cited
Alhujaili, A., Nocella, G., & Macready, A. (2023). Insects as Food: Consumers’ Acceptance
and Marketing. Foods, 12(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12040886
Alkon, A. H., & McCullen, C. G. (2011). Whiteness and Farmers Markets: Performances,
Perpetuations... Contestations? Antipode, 43(4), 937–959.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00818.x
Anomaly, J. (2015). What’s Wrong with Factory Farming? Public Health Ethics, 8(3), 246–
254. https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phu001
Arango, L., Chaudhury, S. H., & Septianto, F. (2023). The Role of Demand‐Based Scarcity
Appeals in Promoting Cultured Meat. Psychology & Marketing, 40(8), 1501–1520.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21821
Auerbach, K. S. (2018). Hunting, Healing & Human-land Relationships: A Reflective Inquiry
Into Health and Well-being Explored Through Indigenous-informed Hunting Practices,
Land Relationships & Ways of Knowing. University of Northern British Columbia.
Bastian, B., & Loughnan, S. (2017). Resolving the Meat-Paradox: A Motivational Account of
Morally Troublesome Behavior and its Maintenance. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 21(3), 278–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316647562
Benningstad, N. C. G., & Kunst, J. R. (2020). Dissociating Meat from its Animal Origins: A
Systematic Literature Review. Appetite, 147, 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104554
Bouwman, E. P., Bolderdijk, J. W., Onwezen, M. C., & Taufik, D. (2022). “Do You Consider
Animal Welfare to be Important?” Activating Cognitive Dissonance via Value
Activation Can Promote Vegetarian Choices. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 83,
1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101871
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One Size Fits All? What Counts as Quality Practice in
(Reflexive) Thematic Analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238
Bryant, C., & Sanctorum, H. (2021). Alternative Proteins, Evolving Attitudes: Comparing
Consumer Attitudes to Plant-Based and Cultured Meat in Belgium in Two Consecutive
Years. Appetite, 161, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105161
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2016). Social Research Methods (4th Canadian Edition). Oxford
University Press.

115
Cassidy, E. S., West, P. C., Gerber, J. S., & Foley, J. A. (2013). Redefining Agricultural
Yields: From Tonnes to People Nourished per Hectare. Environmental Research Letters,
8(3), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034015
Chriki, S., Ellies-Oury, M. P., & Hocquette, J. F. (2022). Is “Cultured Meat” a Viable
Alternative to Slaughtering Animals and a Good Comprise between Animal Welfare and
Human Expectations? Animal Frontiers, 12(1), 35–42.
https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfac002
Cicia, G., Furno, M., & Del Giudice, T. (2021). Do Consumers’ Values and Attitudes Affect
Food Retailer Choice? Evidence from a National Survey on Farmers’ Market in
Germany. Agricultural and Food Economics, 9(3), 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-020-00172-2
Clemente-Suarez, V. J., Beltran-Velasco, A. I., Redondo-Florez, L., Martin-Rodriguez, A., &
Tornero-Aguilera, J. F. (2023). Global Impacts of Western Diet and Its Effects on
Metabolism and Health: A Narrative Review. Nutrients, 15, 1–44.
Connell, D. J., & British Columbia Association of Farmers’ Markets. (2012). Economic and
Social Benefits Assessment of Farmer’s Markets: Provincial Report (British Columbia,
Canada). https://www2.unbc.ca/sites/default/files/sections/david-connell/farmersmarkets/bc2012farmersmarketbenefitsprovince.pdf
Connell, D. J., Smithers, J., & Joseph, A. (2008). Farmers’ Markets and the Good “Food”
Value Chain: A Preliminary Study. Local Environment, 13(3), 169–185.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13549830701669096
Deliens, T., Mullie, P., & Clarys, P. (2022). Plant-Based Dietary Patterns in Flemish Adults: A
10-year Trend Analysis. European Journal of Nutrition, 61(1), 561–565.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-021-02630-z
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. (2018). Sustainable Food
Systems: Concept and Framework. https://www.fao.org/3/ca2079en/CA2079EN.pdf
Fresán, U., & Sabaté, J. (2019). Vegetarian Diets: Planetary Health and Its Alignment with
Human Health. In Advances in Nutrition (Vol. 10, pp. S380–S388). Oxford University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/advances/nmz019
Geertz, C. (1973). Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture. In The
Interpretation of Cultures (pp. 310–323). Basic Books, Inc.
González-García, S., Esteve-Llorens, X., Moreira, M. T., & Feijoo, G. (2018). Carbon
Footprint and Nutritional Quality of Different Human Dietary Choices. Science of the
Total Environment, 644, 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.339

116
Government of Canada. (2023). Net-zero Emissions by 2050.
https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climateplan/net-zero-emissions-2050.html
Grasso, A. C., Hung, Y., Olthof, M. R., Verbeke, W., & Brouwer, I. A. (2019). Older
Consumers’ Readiness to Accept Alternative, More Sustainable Protein Sources in the
European Union. Nutrients, 11(8), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11081904
Halteman, M. C. (2011). Varieties of Harm to Animals in Industrial Farming. Journal of
Animal Ethics, 1(2), 122–131. https://doi.org/10.5406/janimalethics.1.2.0122
Hopwood, C. J., & Bleidorn, W. (2019). Psychological Profiles of People Who Justify Eating
Meat as Natural, Necessary, Normal, or Nice. Food Quality and Preference, 75, 10–14.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.02.004
Janesick, V. J. (2011). The Creative Habit. In “Stretching” Exercises for Qualitative
Researchers (3rd ed., pp. 154–165). SAGE Publications.
Jilcott Pitts, S. B., Wu, Q., Demarest, C. L., Dixon, C. E., Dortche, C. J., Bullock, S. L.,
McGuirt, J., Ward, R., & Ammerman, A. S. (2015). Farmers’ Market Shopping and
Dietary Behaviours Among Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participants.
Public Health Nutrition, 18(13), 2407–2414.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980015001111
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2013). The Constructivist Credo. Routledge.
https://ezproxy.tru.ca/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db
=nlebk&AN=506658&site=eds-live&scope=site
Liu, B. (2012). Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining: Synthesis Lectures on Human
Language Technologies (G. Hirst, Ed.). Morgan & Claypool Publishers.
Michel, F., Hartmann, C., & Siegrist, M. (2021). Consumers’ Associations, Perceptions and
Acceptance of Meat and Plant-based Meat Alternatives. Food Quality and Preference,
87, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104063
Monteiro, C. A., Pfeiler, T. M., Patterson, M. D., & Milburn, M. A. (2017a). The Carnism
Inventory: Measuring the ideology of eating animals. Appetite, 113, 51–62.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.02.011
Monteiro, C. A., Pfeiler, T. M., Patterson, M. D., & Milburn, M. A. (2017b). The Carnism
Inventory: Measuring the Ideology of Eating Animals. Appetite, 113, 51–62.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.02.011
Nadasdy, P. (2007). The Gift in the Animal: The Ontology of Hunting and Human–animal
Sociality. American Ethnologist, 34(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.2007.34.1.25

117
North, M., Klas, A., Ling, M., & Kothe, E. (2021). A Qualitative Examination of the
Motivations Behind Vegan, Vegetarian, and Omnivore Diets in an Australian Population.
Appetite, 167, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105614
Onwezen, M. C., Bouwman, E. P., Reinders, M. J., & Dagevos, H. (2021). A Systematic
Review on Consumer Acceptance of Alternative Proteins: Pulses, Algae, Insects, Plantbased Meat Alternatives, and Cultured Meat. Appetite, 159, 1–57.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.105058
Penn, J. (2018). Cultured Meat: Lab-Grown Beef and Regulating the Future Meat Market.
UCLA Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, 36(1), 104–126.
https://perma.cc/H9SM-E6381.
Pointke, M., Ohlau, M., Risius, A., & Pawelzik, E. (2022). Plant-Based Only: Investigating
Consumers’ Sensory Perception, Motivation, and Knowledge of Different Plant-Based
Alternative Products on the Market. Foods, 11(15).
https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11152339
Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2019). Reducing Food’s Environmental Impacts through
Producers and Consumers. Science, 360, 987–992.
Possidónio, C., Prada, M., Graça, J., & Piazza, J. (2021). Consumer Perceptions of
Conventional and Alternative Protein Sources: A Mixed-methods Approach with Meal
and Product Framing. Appetite, 156, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.104860
Rakhra, V., Galappaththy, L., Bulchandani, S., & Cabandugama, P. K. (2020). Obesity and
the Western Diet: How We Got Here. Diets & Health Miniseries, 117(6), 536–538.
Rice, J. S. (2015). Privilege and Exclusion at the Farmers Market: Findings from a Survey of
Shoppers. Agriculture and Human Values, 32(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460014-9513-7
Richi, E. B., Baumer, B., Conrad, B., Darioli, R., Schmid, A., & Keller, U. (2015). Health
Risks Associated with Meat Consumption: A Review of Epidemiological Studies.
International Journal for Vitamin and Nutrition Research, 85(1–2), 70–78.
https://doi.org/10.1024/0300-9831/a000224
Risner, D., Kim, Y., Nguyen, C., Siegel, J. B., & Spang, E. S. (2023). Environmental Impacts
of Cultured Meat: A Cradle-to-gate Life Cycle Assessment (pp. 1–20).
https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.04.21.537778
Ritchie, H., Rosado, P., & Roser, M. (2022). Environmental Impacts of Food Production.
https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food
Rothgerber, H. (2014). Efforts to Overcome Vegetarian-induced Dissonance Among Meat
Eaters. Appetite, 79, 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.04.003

118
Rothgerber, H. (2020). Meat-related Cognitive Dissonance: A Conceptual Framework for
Understanding How Meat Eaters Reduce Negative Arousal from Eating Animals.
Appetite, 146, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104511
Rothgerber, H., & Rosenfeld, D. L. (2021). Meat-related Cognitive Dissonance: The Social
Psychology of Eating Animals. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 15(5).
https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12592
Rothgerber, H., Rosenfeld, D. L., Keiffer, S., Crable, K., Yeske, A., Berger, L., Camp, P.,
Smith, K., Fischer, O., & Head, A. (2022). Motivated Moral Outrage Among MeatEaters. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(5), 916–926.
https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211041536
Roy, B., Hagappa, A., Ramalingam, Y. D., Mahalingam, N., Banu, A., & Alaudeen, S. (2021).
A Review on Lab-grown Meat: Advantages and Disadvantages. Quest International
Journal of Medical and Health Sciences, 4(1), 19–24.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2005). Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data (A.
Bruckner, M. Vail, T. Alpern, & P. Oman, Eds.; 2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
Sievert, K., Lawrence, M., Parker, C., & Baker, P. (2022). What’s Really at ‘Steak’?
Understanding the Global Politics of Red and Processed Meat Reduction: A Framing
Analysis of Stakeholder Interviews. Environmental Science and Policy, 137, 12–21.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.08.007
Smit, L. A. M., & Heederik, D. (2017). Impacts of Intensive Livestock Production on Human
Health in Densely Populated Regions. GeoHealth, 1(7), 272–277.
https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GH000103
Storhaug, C. L., Fosse, S. K., & Fadnes, L. T. (2017). Country, Regional, and Global
Estimates for Lactose Malabsorption in Adults: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis. The Lancet Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 2(10), 738–746.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-1253(17)30154-1
Thao, T. T. H., & Thanh, H. T. (2022). Exploring Consumer Opinions on Vegetarian Food by
Sentiment Analysis Method. Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science Economics and Business Administration, 13(2), 69–84.
https://doi.org/10.46223/HCMCOUJS.econ.en.13.2.2256.2023
United Nations. (n.d.). Sustainability Development Goals. Retrieved October 31, 2023, from
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/climate-change/
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (n.d.). The Paris Agreement.
United Nations. Retrieved October 31, 2023, from https://unfccc.int/process-andmeetings/the-paris-agreement

119
World Health Organization. (2023). Red and Processed Meat in the Context of Health and
the Environment: Many Shades of Red and Green. Information Brief.
https://www.who.int/publications/book-orders.
Żuk-Gołaszewska, K., Gałęcki, R., Obremski, K., Smetana, S., Figiel, S., & Gołaszewski, J.
(2022). Edible Insect Farming in the Context of the EU Regulations and Marketing—An
Overview. Insects, 13(5), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13050446

120
CHAPTER 4. RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE
DIRECTIONS
Key Findings
For the quantitative part of the study discussed in chapter two, there were mixed
results in terms of perceptual factors used to determine relative acceptance of PB foods (PB
purchase likeliness, PB food consumption and frequency, and perceived benefits and
challenges to a PB diet), and AB foods (AB food consumption and frequency) amongst
consumers based on sociodemographic characteristics. Some results were consistent with
existing literature and general predictions– being more educated, young, plant-based, and a
woman are predictive of consumer PB food acceptance (see Bryant & Sanctorum, 2021;
Deliens et al., 2022; Onwezen et al., 2021). AB food acceptance, particularly dairy, was
highest amongst those who are older (see Grasso et al., 2019), have a lower educational level,
and are omnivores. Those consumers with less income tended to consider more factors when
making decisions on food than those with a higher income level. However, some tests did not
yield significant results, and did not directly contradict existing literature on PB and AB food
acceptance (see Chapter 2). A specific finding on consumers who are more educated
consuming more PB foods leads to the possibility of future research determining if there is a
relationship between exposure to knowledge of PB foods, a higher education level and PB
food acceptance.
For the qualitative section of this study described in chapter three, KRFM consumers
perceived PB foods positively while feeling unsure of AB foods and LG meats. The three
main themes are Ethics, Curiosity, and Food and Health. Animal Ethics and Environmental
Ethics were themes aggregated to the main theme of Ethics, and similar to some themes and
findings found in the literature (see Cicia et al., 2021; Connell et al., 2008; Connell & British
Columbia Association of Farmers Markets, 2012; Possidónio et al., 2021). Generally, AB
foods were perceived as less ethical than both PB foods and LG meats in terms of both
Animal Ethics and Environment Ethics, which is an unexpected finding given that most
respondents were omnivores. Curiosity is a standalone theme (also found in Possidónio et al.,
2021), and consumers were skeptical of all three food groups (PB foods, AB foods, and LG
meats). However, they were most open to PB foods, which is an unexpected finding with a
predominantly omnivorous sample. Future research could assess the possible relationship

121
between cognitive dissonance and the motivations behind consuming AB foods. More
specifically, looking at what is called the meat paradox or MRCD, which can be defined as
holding the belief of caring for animal welfare, the environment, and human health –and
knowing that AB foods tend to worsen outcomes in these areas—while still consuming AB
foods (Benningstad & Kunst, 2020; Bouwman et al., 2022; Monteiro et al., 2017a;
Rothgerber, 2014, 2020; Rothgerber et al., 2022; Rothgerber & Rosenfeld, 2021).
There are also possibilities for future research to assess other factors in skepticism
toward various food products, including through lack of consumer trust in food and other
perceived risks. There may be lack of trust and a high degree of perceived risk in consuming
AB foods due to concerns surrounding food safety, foodborne illnesses, and animal disease
outbreaks, including Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Chronic Wasting Disease (see
Berg, 2004; Carolan, 2006; Cohen, 2007; Muringai & Goddard, 2018). Another possibility
resulting in a lack of consumer trust is the debate surrounding the zoonotic origins of
COVID-19, including live market exposure (e.g., Wuhan market exposure in 2019 and the
sales of raccoons, snakes, and bats) (Abd El-Wahab et al., 2020; Brüssow, 2023; Ray, 2023).
Consumers may also lack trust and perceive risks in consuming GMO foods, foods
containing preservatives and other additives (including monosodium glutamate), and
irradiated foods (D’Souza et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2022; Lang & Hallman, 2005; Parrella et
al., 2023; Rihn et al., 2021; S. Wang & Adikari, 2018).
Taste and Texture, Illness, Allergies, and Intolerances, and Naturalness or Realness
were aggregated to the main theme of Food and Health, and some similar themes were found
in Possidónio et al. (2021). Consumers generally viewed PB foods most positively regarding
food and health, LG meats most negatively, and they seemed unsure about AB foods. More
specifically, PB foods were viewed most positively in terms of Taste and Texture, which is
inconsistent with existing literature (see Michel et al., 2021; Onwezen et al., 2021; Pointke et
al., 2022). LG meats were viewed negatively and as disgusting in terms of Taste and Texture,
which is consistent with existing literature (see Arango et al., 2023; Grasso et al., 2019;
Onwezen et al., 2021). Future research should be conducted to determine if consumers tend
to view alternatives positively or negatively, and how such products' perceived taste and
texture can be improved.

122
In terms of Illness, Allergies, and Intolerances, AB foods were viewed negatively,
while PB foods were viewed positively. Lactose intolerance was frequently mentioned, and
future research could assess the relationship between consuming dairy milk and alternatives
and being lactose intolerant. More specifically, future research could collect statistics on the
frequency of lactose intolerance and its relation to various sociodemographic factors,
including age (e.g., possibilities for generational differences). Other possibilities include
investigating how consumers realized they are lactose intolerant, whether they avoid dairy,
take precautions (e.g., taking lactase enzyme supplements before consuming dairy), or still
choose to consume dairy, if they consumed dairy as a child, if all or only specific dairy foods
are aggravators (e.g., yogurt, milk, ice cream), if they choose lactose-free or PB milk
products (e.g., oat, almond), and if consumed, where the dairy products are from (e.g., North
America, Europe, organic farms, large-scale farms).
In terms of Naturalness or Realness, consumers viewed AB foods, PB foods, and LG
meats as predominantly unnatural/fake/negative, with a slightly more positive view of PB
foods. Future research could assess the relationship between perceptions of food quality in
North America (NA) and food decisions. In general, the EU has stricter regulations on food
than Canada and the United States (e.g., beef hormones, GMO foods, animal feed antibiotics)
(Agri-Food Analytics Lab, n.d.; European Commission, n.d.; The Council of Canadians,
2016; Thomas, 2014; Vogel, 2012), which could lead to different food decisions based on
food quality and safety (e.g., GMO foods, foodborne illness, labelling regulations),
accessibility (e.g., to organic foods based on availability and cost premiums), and perceived
naturalness (e.g., additives in pre-packaged foods, hormones and antibiotics in agricultural
practices) Overall, KRFM consumers seem somewhat open to PB food alternatives, and there
is potential to increase acceptance of PB foods through suggestions at both macro- and
micro-levels.
Implications
There are possibilities for increasing alternative food acceptance by educating
consumers and stakeholders on their benefits. Both macro- and micro-level actors play a role
in securing a sustainable future, and various approaches can be taken through sustainable
food options and systems s. This section first discusses what macro-level actors (e.g.,
stakeholders, non-governmental and governmental organizations, and educational

123
institutions) can do in terms of promoting sustainable food systems, policy implications in
terms of the environment, human health, and animal cruelty, and some challenges
surrounding the enforcement of sustainability goals. Next, what micro-level actors (e.g.,
consumers) can do toward efforts to consume more sustainable foods is discussed.
Macro-Level Implications
There are some means by which the acceptance of PB foods amongst consumers may
be increased. Macro-levels actors, including stakeholders in the food industry, nongovernmental and governmental organizations, educational institutions and researchers,
should make an effort to better educate consumers on what sustainable food entails.
However, some challenges exist in leaving the onus entirely on macro-level actors. Power
relations may play a role where institutional actors may have the power to help resolve or
worsen sustainability outcomes (Brisman, 2014; Lynch & Stretsky, 2003). Some examples of
worsening outcomes for humans, animals, and the environment include harm (e.g., situating
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations near marginalized communities, which negatively
impacts quality of life) (see Hribar & Schultz, 2010), crime (e.g., violation of environmental
and animal welfare regulations), and greenwashing (e.g., misleading food packaging labels
and certifications, claims on human, animal and environmental welfare).
Stakeholders who produce or sell food could promote the sustainability aspects—
human, animal, and environmental welfare—of PB foods, while being transparent about the
damages of AB foods on humans, animals, and the environment. However, organizations
may not be entirely truthful in their claims of being ‘green,’ which can occur in terms of both
AB and PB foods. Governments could provide clearer guidelines on what healthy and
sustainable foods look like. Canada’s Food Guide has already made some changes, in which
they promote PB proteins as the top protein choice and provide guidelines on sustainable
food options (Government of Canada, 2023a). However, Canadian food legislation lacks
transparency and accountability for providing consumers with the ability to make informed
decisions on the foods they consume. The Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act (1985,
s.3(3); CLPA) in Canada:
Requires that prepackaged non-food consumer products bear accurate and meaningful
labelling information to help consumers make informed purchasing decisions. The
CPLA prohibits the making of false or misleading representations and sets out
specifications for mandatory label information such as the product's name, net

124
quantity and dealer identity. All information on a package, whether in symbols or
words, must be neither false nor misleading to consumers (Competition Bureau
Canada, 2021, n.p.).
The Competition Act (1985) states that any misleading or false claims on products are
prohibited (Competition Bureau Canada, 2021). The Food and Drugs Act (1985) states the
following in s. 5(1):
No person shall label, package, treat, process, sell or advertise any food in a manner
that is false, misleading or deceptive or is likely to create an erroneous impression
regarding its character, value, quantity, composition, merit or safety (p. 8).
Additionally, the Government of Canada (2022a; 2022b) provides accessible checklists for
stakeholders to follow regarding food labelling requirements.
Despite s. 5(1) of the Food and Drugs Act, greenwashing can still occur with food
products sold in Canada. Greenwashing can occur via deceptiveness of claims (e.g., selective
disclosure or omission, being vague or ambiguous, and lying), political spins (e.g., making
claims of being green while supporting anti-green legislation), stating irrelevant information,
making claims that cannot be verified (e.g., empty claims on justice, not having any reliable
or accessible evidence, and using jargon that is not easily understandable), and executional
greenwashing (e.g., using misleading symbols, colours, sounds, or certifications)
(Competition Bureau Canada, 2022; de Freitas Netto et al., 2020; Nemes et al., 2022). Such
claims may occur at either the entire organization's level or for a specific product or service
(de Freitas Netto et al., 2020). The difficulty with the lack of transparency with food labelling
is that consumers may not be sure where to get reliable information on the food products they
are buying and consuming, which limits their ability to be an ethical consumer. Changes to
existing policy could help build transparency by using a farm-to-table approach. This may
help reduce instances of greenwashing, and to increase consumer acceptance of more
sustainable food options.
Some provinces have already implemented ag-gag legislation, and Bill C-275 and Bill
M-277 risk the passing of these laws both provincially in British Columbia and federally in
Canada (Fiber-Ostrow & Lovell, 2016; House of Commons Canada, 2023; Legislative
Assembly of British Columbia, 2019; Rouse, 2013). As ‘whistleblowers’ could be
sanctioned, there are potential barriers to exposing animal cruelty, unsanitary farming
practices, and the evasion of environmental laws and sustainability regulations (Fiber-Ostrow

125
& Lovell, 2016; Rouse, 2013). Abolishing ag-gag legislation would help ensure that policies
and laws surrounding human health, the environment, and animal welfare are followed
(Fiber-Ostrow & Lovell, 2016; Rouse, 2013).
While there are laws in place for the ethical treatment of animals in Canada, these
laws risk not being followed behind closed doors of agricultural farming practices due to
such legislation. For instance, the Criminal Code (RSC 1985, c C–- 46) states the following
on animals, not including farm animals:
Animals: Injuring or endangering other animals: 445(1) Every one commits an
offence who, wilfully and without lawful excuse, (a) kills, maims, wounds, poisons or
injures dogs, birds or animals that are kept for a lawful purpose; or (b) places poison
in such a position that it may easily be consumed by dogs, birds or animals that are
kept for a lawful purpose… Cruelty to Animals: Causing unnecessary suffering: 445.1
(1) Every one commits an offence who (a) wilfully causes or, being the owner,
wilfully permits to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal or a
bird (n.p.).
These laws are ambiguous, and animals are considered ‘property’ and not ‘living beings’
under the Criminal Code in Canada. The National Farm Animal Care Council (n.d.) provides
guidelines to create codes of practice for the welfare of farm animals, including specific
guides for specific types of animals (e.g., cattle, chickens, goats, pigs, sheep, and other
animals). These guidelines include codes of practice regarding shelter, space, feed, water,
transport, health, safety, emergencies, and euthanasia (National Farm Animal Care Council,
n.d.). However, these guidelines are not enforced legislation, which poses problems in terms
of enforcing these codes of practice.
Legislation surrounding the welfare of farm animals in Canada tends to be under
provincial and territorial jurisdiction (Government of Canada, 2022c). While British
Columbia has legislation protecting farm animals, not all Canadian provinces and territories
have this. In British Columbia, the Animal Care Codes of Practice provides codes of practice
for commercial animals, the Regulation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act aims to
protect farm animals (excludes regular farming practices), the Milk Industry Act and Milk
Industry Standards Regulations provide regulations for handling livestock, and the
Agricultural Produce Grading Act/Hatchery Regulation provides regulations for poultry
housing (Government of Canada, 2022c).

126
While regulations and guidelines on the ethical treatment of farm animals exist in
some parts of Canada, these nonetheless have the intention of using animals for human
benefit, and typically for the purposes of consumption. Issues lie in the legal
conceptualization of animals as property (Criminal Code, 1985), and therefore, they are
viewed as objects that are not sentient nor sapient. Changing the legal status of animals in
Canada to living beings, moving away from defining them as objects or property, and
abolishing ag-gag legislation may help reshape Canadian legislation on animal cruelty to
better support justice for agricultural animals. It is important to note that Indigenous hunting
practices take a more relational approach to animals, understanding that animals are sentient
and sapient beings worthy of respect (Auerbach, 2018; Nadasdy, 2007).
Canada has plans to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, meaning either no
emissions or the ability to completely offset emissions (Government of Canada, 2023b).
Canada, along with 196 other countries through the legally-binding Paris Agreement, has
goals to limit global warming temperatures to 1.5°C and achieve a 45% reduction in GHG
emissions by 2030 and zero-emissions by 2050, which is one of the goals of the United
Nations Sustainability Development Goals (Government of Canada, 2023b; United Nations,
n.d.-b; United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, n.d.). Canada has a NetZero Advisory Body which, “provides independent advice to the Minister of Environment
and Climate Change that supports achieving Canada’s net-zero target,” and a Net-Zero
Accelerator Fund “to help large emitters reduce their emissions” (Government of Canada,
2023b).
Some goals are to reduce the emissions from transport by land, air, and water (e.g.,
heavy-duty transport trucks, trains, boats, and planes), fund sustainable food systems (e.g.,
subsidies to fund cleaner agricultural processes and food-related businesses, and incentives
for organizations to reduce food waste), and aims for food security (Environment and
Climate Change Canada, 2020). Within the United Nations’ and Canada’s goals toward a
sustainable future, there are no mentions of how switching to PB foods and reducing AB food
consumption would help. A suggestion is for the United Nations and individual countries to

127
promote the climate benefits of eating more PB foods that are considered sustainable54 via
campaigns and subsidies. Additionally, enforcing sanctions for not abiding by the United
Nations climate goals via international law poses some challenges. Using Nationally
Determined Contributions, Okonkwo (2017) argues that the countries that are part of the
Paris Agreement may be sanctioned for not abiding by their sustainability goals and
commitments. If macro-level actors can recognize that PB foods play a substantial role in
reducing the impacts of food on climate change, then they may take a different approach with
food regulations, marketing, and product sales regarding more sustainable alternative food
options.
Regardless of level (e.g., elementary, secondary, and postsecondary), educational
institutions could take the time to educate students on sustainability and food. Examples of
courses surrounding topics of food and sustainability include sustainable diets (e.g., PB diets)
and food systems, healthy diets, cooking classes on how to cook sustainable meals, animal
cruelty, ethical consumerism, and greenwashing. This poses some challenges, however,
where consumers would have to take extra time to learn about the food products they are
purchasing, whether on their own or through the education system. Researchers could also
play a role in continuing to investigate greenwashing, Canadian legislation surrounding green
claims (including ag-gag legislation and its lack of transparency in terms of human health,
animal welfare, and environmental regulations), the impacts of various food products on
humans, animals, and the environment, and consumer perceptions of different foods and
dietary patterns. Consumer deskilling may be playing a role in the lack of education on food.
Consumer deskilling can be defined as the lack of consumer knowledge on food, or lack of
food literacy, and includes the lack of knowledge on sustainable foods, healthy foods, and
food preparation (Jaffe & Gertler, 2006; Kornelsen, n.d.; Lyon et al., 2003). Overall,
educating consumers may help increase food literacy, including the acceptance of healthier
and more sustainable alternative food options. The educational approach begins at the macrolevel, but then creates responsibility for individuals at the micro-level.

54

As previously discussed in chapter one, there are some exceptions to PB foods that are not sustainable.

128
Micro-Level Implications
Micro-level actors, meaning consumers, also have a role to play in food and
sustainability. Consumers could ‘choose’ more sustainable food options, such as alternative
foods, and decide to reduce their consumption of AB foods. In order to make decisions on
more sustainable food options, consumers must also educate themselves on the impacts of
food on sustainability (humans, animals, and the environment). However, due to issues
regarding accessibility and those of lower socioeconomic status, it may not be possible to
choose sustainable foods. Some other examples of educating oneself include learning about
ethical consumerism, greenwashing and bluewashing55 (see Becker-Olsen & Potucek, 2013;
Berliner & Prakash, 2014; Jones, 2019). However, potential issues are finding reputable
sources, as not everyone has access to peer-reviewed material nor the capacity to interpret it.
Academics and researchers should aim to make their contributions to the knowledge of food
and sustainability open-sourced and strive to explain their work in other media, including the
popular press, blogs, etc.
Consumers may also choose to advocate for a switch toward PB foods via activist
strategies (e.g., protesting and demonstrations), joining groups and clubs, word of mouth
(e.g., discussions with peers and colleagues), engaging in conversations online (e.g., social
media, blogs and sharing news), engaging in academic projects (e.g., papers, presentations
and conferences), and other creative outlets (e.g., podcasts, radio, music, art, videos and
posters). Overall, if there is a greater acceptance of PB foods amongst consumers at a microlevel, then there may be room for stakeholders to introduce more of these products both at
farmers markets and perhaps beyond to any food-related organization within all levels of the
LCA (e.g., grocery stores and restaurants, farming practices, packaging, transport, and food
waste). In other words, within the profit-based capitalist market system, there is the
possibility for stakeholders to respond to consumer demand in exchange for higher profits.
The onus toward more sustainable options and systems falls more so on macro-level actors,
but micro-level actors can attempt to make efforts where suitable.

55

Bluewashing refers to organizations utilizing the United Nations’ sustainability guidelines without any
legitimate grounding, misleading consumers into believing that the organization is socially and environmentally
responsible, even if their actions are not representative of their sustainability claims (Berliner & Prakash, 2014).

129
Strengths, Limitations and Future Research
As with any study, this research has both strengths and limitations, but these can lead
to future research. First, the methodology used had limitations. Compared to interviews,
questionnaires may lack the ability to build rapport and acquire detailed responses (Rubin &
Rubin, 2005). However, questionnaires were used to save time, obtain a larger sample,
minimize interviewer effects, and reduce the social desirability bias (Bryman & Bell, 2016;
de Leeuw, 2008). An outdated criticism of the limited ability of social science research states
that such studies cannot remain objective and value-free. However, the quantitative portion
of the survey demonstrates reliability and validity (see Chapter 2), and the qualitative portion
demonstrates trustworthiness through credibility, transferability, dependability, and
confirmability (see Chapter 3) (see Bryman & Bell, 2016; Geertz, 1973; Lincoln & Guba,
2013).
A limitation of this study is the inability to generalize the results. The sample size of
the consumer questionnaire is relatively small (n = 94), and the sample is skewed towards
being predominantly female (66.0%). This means that the sample may not be generalizable or
representative of farmers market populations and certain statistical analyses could not be
conducted due to not meeting minimum sample requirements or normality assumptions (see
Appendix D). Future research could aim to recruit a larger and more representative sample to
address these issues. The sample itself is also not generalizable to the greater population of
Kamloops, other cities, or consumers in general, as the sample only included farmers market
consumers recruited through convenience sampling. However, the goals of qualitative
research are not supposed to be generalizable; instead, the goal is transferability (Bryman &
Bell, 2016; Lincoln & Guba, 2013). Despite the researcher utilizing a reflexivity journal,
future research could use other sampling methods to further reduce bias (e.g., a booth where
participants approach the researcher themselves or online surveys). Future research could use
this study as a model or example for other farmers markets or broader city population studies
assessing acceptance of alternative foods.
There were some constraints in terms of both time and space allotted. For instance,
not all statistical and qualitative results were included. Only the results most relevant to the
research questions and with the most meaning were included, and justifications for
exclusions are presented (see Chapters 2 and 3, and Appendix D). Only the quantitative

130
results in chapter two utilized sociodemographic characteristics within the analysis. The
qualitative results in chapter three did not use sociodemographic characteristics in its
analysis. Future research could aim to analyze free association relationships with consumer
sociodemographics. The analysis of culture and its role in food perceptions was not included,
and future research should aim to assess this. Both analyses included the grouping of
variables (see Chapters 2 and 3, and Appendices C and D). As such, most results on specific
food items (meat, dairy, PB meat, PB milk, other PB foods, and LG meats) within both
sections were not presented, but meaningful results were presented on these individual
variables where possible. Future research could look further into consumer perceptions of
individual food items. This thesis initially intended to not only survey consumers, but also
conduct interviews with stakeholders in the food industry on their perceptions of PB foods,
sustainability, and the market. As such, only the food perceptions of consumers at a microlevel were assessed, and including the voices of stakeholders (e.g., farmers market vendors,
restaurants, and coffee shops) in future research could be beneficial for a well-rounded
understanding.
There were some other limitations with the demographic variables used in this thesis.
In the quantitative section, there was an error in validating the political orientation scale, and
this variable could not be used despite its prevalence in the literature on PB food acceptance
(see Chapter 2 and Appendix D; see Bryant & Sanctorum, 2021; Deliens et al., 2022;
Onwezen et al., 2021). Sample size limited the ability to determine the different food
perceptions based on the urban-rural divide, which is frequently explored in the literature on
food perceptions (see Bryant & Sanctorum, 2021; Deliens et al., 2022; Onwezen et al., 2021).
Future research could include analyses of the relationships or differences in food perceptions
between political orientations and the urban-rural divide.
Due to a lack of literature on certain related topics, there were some limitations with
the data analysis. As there is limited literature on perceptions of LG meats, and since this
study’s results were limited on LG meats in the quantitative section, the results were not
included (see Appendix D). Participants were also not asked to reflect on other foods,
including fish and seafood (limited questions in the quantitative section), eggs, other LG
foods (e.g., dairy, fish and seafood, and eggs), and other possibly sustainable food options
(e.g., local, organic, seasonal, insects, and urban and sustainable agriculture). Further

131
research could be conducted on consumer perceptions of foods not included in this study.
Additionally, the sustainability of alternative food options and systems do have contradictory
findings, and more research would be helpful to determine impacts on humans, animals, and
the environment (see Baroni et al., 2007; Clark & Tilman, 2017; Gorissen & Weijters, 2016;
Gustavsen et al., 2022; Jahrl et al., 2022; Lewis & Mitchell, 2014; Macdiarmid, 2013; Penn,
2018; Polleau & Biermann, 2021; Poore & Nemecek, 2019; Risner et al., 2023; Ritchie,
2020; Roy et al., 2021; Sanyé-Mengual et al., 2016).
Overall, this thesis has various strengths in that it provides numerous opportunities
for future research and subsequent implications for increasing the acceptance of PB foods at
both micro- and macro-levels. One strength of this research is transparency. The researcher
utilized a reflexivity journal to remain transparent throughout the research process. This not
only helped reduce potential biases, but also helped provide the reader with the researcher’s
positionality. Acknowledging positionality helps readers understand how the research came
about. Another strength is how the researcher used both quantitative and qualitative
approaches to questionnaire data collection and analysis, providing a breadth of knowledge
on the topic from more than one angle. As the survey asked numerous questions, many
variables and themes resulted, meaning a high degree of knowledge production.
Knowledge production has occurred at both the levels of the general public and
academia. As the data collection occurred at a farmers market, this allowed for informative
conversations post-questionnaire with interested respondents to learn more on the topic. This
research was also shared online, including on a blog, social media, and YouTube. At the
academic level, guest lectures and showcase presentations provided students and professors
with a greater understanding of the research conducted. In conducting research in Kamloops,
BC and at the KRFM, knowledge on the topic of food and sustainability that had not yet been
produced in the city and at the farmers market was created. This research helps start
conversations in a city where PB foods are slowly becoming more prevalent in stores,
restaurants and markets. This helps inform stakeholders about the potential success of selling
sustainable foods (e.g., the farmers market and its vendors, and possibly other grocery stores
and restaurants in Kamloops). Researchers may also build upon this research at the KRFM or
in Kamloops in general. As the conversation was opened with farmers market consumers in
Kamloops, word of mouth and discussions surrounding PB foods may help reduce any

132
stigmatization surrounding PB diets. Additionally, there is the potential to take action toward
asking politicians and governments to improve their policies surrounding food and
sustainability that affect human, animal, and environmental justice.
Final Remarks
This thesis was written with the ultimate goal of producing empathy and compassion
for all living beings through the understanding of how food can affect all of us, whether
positively or negatively. Perfection does not exist, but micro- and macro-level actors may
challenge their assumptions and take the compassionate steps that work best for them toward
reducing harm through food. Compassion through food decisions is not the only form of
compassion. Consuming more sustainable foods, including some PB foods, is not always a
moral ‘choice.’ While some who are privileged may be able to freely choose what they would
like to purchase and consume, this is not the case for everyone. Compassion is also for those
who are simply trying to survive and may be less fortunate, as their food decisions may or
may not reflect their personal values and beliefs. Rather than creating a divide of who is the
‘most ethical,’ working together will help us take steps, no matter how small, toward a more
equitable, sustainable world. We may also learn compassion from Indigenous hunting and
food practices. Rather than viewing nonhuman living beings (e.g., plants, fungi, animals,
insects, etc.) as a commodity, Indigenous practices may help us understand that there are
ways to be more respectful in our food consumption. We may learn that a reciprocal
relationship with nature, acknowledging the ability of nonhuman animals to think and feel, is
much more ethical than the Westernized mass production of AB foods. Working together
instead of against one another may help us gain an understanding of how we can have a
balanced ecosystem for humans, animals, and the environment of both current and future
generations.

133
Literature Cited
Abd El-Wahab, E. W., Eassa, S. M., Metwally, M., Al-Hraishawi, H., & Omar, S. R. (2020).
SARS-CoV-2 Transmission Channels: A Review of the Literature. MEDICC Review,
22(4), 51–69.
Agri-Food Analytics Lab. (n.d.). A Comparative Study of Canadian and International Food
Safety Systems and How to Improve Canadians Access to Safe Food.
Arango, L., Chaudhury, S. H., & Septianto, F. (2023). The Role of Demand‐Based Scarcity
Appeals in Promoting Cultured Meat. Psychology & Marketing, 40(8), 1501–1520.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21821
Auerbach, K. S. (2018). Hunting, Healing & Human-land Relationships: A Reflective Inquiry
Into Health and Well-being Explored Through Indigenous-informed Hunting Practices,
Land Relationships & Ways of Knowing. University of Northern British Columbia.
Baroni, L., Cenci, L., Tettamanti, M., & Berati, M. (2007). Evaluating the Environmental
Impact of Various Dietary Patterns Combined with Different Food Production Systems.
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 61(2), 279–286.
https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602522
Becker-Olsen, K., & Potucek, S. (2013). Greenwashing. In Encyclopedia of Corporate Social
Responsibility (pp. 1318–1323). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28036-8_104
Benningstad, N. C. G., & Kunst, J. R. (2020). Dissociating Meat from its Animal Origins: A
Systematic Literature Review. Appetite, 147, 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104554
Berg, L. (2004). Trust in Food in the Age of Mad Cow Disease: A Comparative Study of
Consumers’ Evaluation of Food Safety in Belgium, Britain and Norway. Appetite, 42(1),
21–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-6663(03)00112-0
Berliner, D., & Prakash, A. (2014). “Bluewashing” the Firm? Voluntary Regulations,
Program Design, and Member Compliance with the United Nations Global Compact.
The Policy Studies Journal, 43(1), 115–138.
Bouwman, E. P., Bolderdijk, J. W., Onwezen, M. C., & Taufik, D. (2022). “Do You Consider
Animal Welfare to be Important?” Activating Cognitive Dissonance via Value
Activation Can Promote Vegetarian Choices. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 83,
1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101871
Brisman, A. (2014). Of Theory and Meaning in Green Criminology. International Journal for
Crime, Justice, and Social Democracy, 3(2), 21–34.

134
Brüssow, H. (2023). Viral Infections at the Animal–human Interface—Learning Lessons from
the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic. Microbial Biotechnology, 16(7), 1397–1411.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.14269
Bryant, C., & Sanctorum, H. (2021). Alternative Proteins, Evolving Attitudes: Comparing
Consumer Attitudes to Plant-Based and Cultured Meat in Belgium in Two Consecutive
Years. Appetite, 161, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105161
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2016). Social Research Methods (4th Canadian Edition). Oxford
University Press.
Carolan, M. S. (2006). Risk, Trust and “The Beyond” of the Environment: A Brief Look at
the Recent Case of Mad Cow Disease in the United States. Environmental Values, 15(2),
233–252.
Cicia, G., Furno, M., & Del Giudice, T. (2021). Do Consumers’ Values and Attitudes Affect
Food Retailer Choice? Evidence from a National Survey on Farmers’ Market in
Germany. Agricultural and Food Economics, 9(3), 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-020-00172-2
Clark, M., & Tilman, D. (2017). Comparative Analysis of Environmental Impacts of
Agricultural Production Systems, Agricultural Input Efficiency, and Food Choice.
Environmental Research Letters, 12(6). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cd5
Cohen, A. S. (2007). Brain Trust. The Hidden Connection Between Mad Cow Disease and
Alzheimer’s Disease. Amyloid, 14(4), 313–314.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13506120701658039
Competition Bureau Canada. (2021, December 2). Environmental Claims and Greenwashing.
Government of Canada. https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/competition-bureaucanada/en/environmental-claims-and-greenwashing#sec03-2
Competition Bureau Canada. (2022, January 26). Be on the Lookout for Greenwashing.
Government of Canada.
Connell, D. J., & British Columbia Association of Farmers’ Markets. (2012). Economic and
Social Benefits Assessment of Farmer’s Markets: Provincial Report (British Columbia,
Canada). https://www2.unbc.ca/sites/default/files/sections/david-connell/farmersmarkets/bc2012farmersmarketbenefitsprovince.pdf
Connell, D. J., Smithers, J., & Joseph, A. (2008). Farmers’ Markets and the Good “Food”
Value Chain: A Preliminary Study. Local Environment, 13(3), 169–185.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13549830701669096
Criminal Code, Pub. L. No. c C-46, Justice Laws Website (1985).

135
de Freitas Netto, S. V., Sobral, M. F. F., Ribeiro, A. R. B., & Soares, G. R. da L. (2020).
Concepts and Forms of Greenwashing: A Systematic Review. Environmental Sciences
Europe, 32(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-020-0300-3
de Leeuw, E. (2008). Self-Administered Questionnaires and Standardized Interviews. In P.
Alasuutari, L. Bickman, & J. Brannen (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Research
Methods (pp. 313–327). SAGE Publications Ltd.
Deliens, T., Mullie, P., & Clarys, P. (2022). Plant-Based Dietary Patterns in Flemish Adults: A
10-year Trend Analysis. European Journal of Nutrition, 61(1), 561–565.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-021-02630-z
D’Souza, C., Apaolaza, V., Hartmann, P., Brouwer, A. R., & Nguyen, N. (2021). Consumer
Acceptance of Irradiated Food and Information Disclosure – A Retail Imperative.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 63, 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102699
Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2020). A Healthy Environment and a Healthy
Economy: Canada’s Strengthened Climate Plan to Create Jobs and Support People,
Communities and the Planet.
European Commission. (n.d.). The Organic Logo. European Commission. Retrieved
February 12, 2024, from https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/farming/organicfarming/organic-logo_en#
Fiber-Ostrow, P., & Lovell, J. S. (2016). Behind a Veil of Secrecy: Animal Abuse, Factory
Farms, and Ag-Gag Legislation. Contemporary Justice Review: Issues in Criminal,
Social, and Restorative Justice, 19(2), 230–249.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580.2016.1168257
Food and Drugs Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-27, 1 (1985).
Geertz, C. (1973). Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture. In The
Interpretation of Cultures (pp. 310–323). Basic Books, Inc.
Gorissen, K., & Weijters, B. (2016). The Negative Footprint Illusion: Perceptual Bias in
Sustainable Food Consumption. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45, 50–65.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.11.009
Government of Canada. (2022a, July 6). Food Labelling for Industry: Industry Labelling
Tool. Government of Canada. https://inspection.canada.ca/foodlabels/labelling/industry/eng/1383607266489/1383607344939
Government of Canada. (2022b, July 7). Food Labelling Requirements Checklist.
Government of Canada. https://inspection.canada.ca/food-labels/labelling/industry/foodlabelling-requirements-checklist/eng/1393275252175/1393275314581

136
Government of Canada. (2022c, July 19). Provincial and Territorial Legislation Concerning
Welfare of Livestock. https://inspection.canada.ca/animal-health/terrestrialanimals/humane-transport/provincial-and-territorial-legislation-concerning/eng/1358482954113/1358483058784
Government of Canada. (2023a). Canada’s Food Guide: Resources for Health Professionals
and Policy Makers. https://food-guide.canada.ca/en/guidelines/section-1-foundationhealthy-eating/
Government of Canada. (2023b). Net-zero Emissions by 2050.
https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climateplan/net-zero-emissions-2050.html
Grasso, A. C., Hung, Y., Olthof, M. R., Verbeke, W., & Brouwer, I. A. (2019). Older
Consumers’ Readiness to Accept Alternative, More Sustainable Protein Sources in the
European Union. Nutrients, 11(8), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11081904
Gustavsen, G. W., Berglann, H., Jenssen, E., Kårstad, S., & Rodriguez, D. G. P. (2022). The
Value of Urban Farming in Oslo, Norway: Community Gardens, Aquaponics and
Vertical Farming. International Journal on Food System Dynamics, 13(1), 17–29.
https://doi.org/10.18461/ijfsd.v13i1.A2
House of Commons Canada. (2023). Bill C-275. Parliament of Canada.
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/AGRI/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=123
14022
Hribar, C., & Schultz, M. (2010). Understanding Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
and Their Impact on Communities. www.nalboh.org
Jaffe, J. A., & Gertler, M. (2006). Victual Vicissitudes: Consumer Deskilling and the
(Gendered) Transformation of Food Systems. Agriculture and Human Values, 23(2),
143–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-005-6098-1
Jahrl, I., Ejderyan, O., & Cavin, J. S. (2022). Community Gardens as a Response to the
Contradictions of Sustainable Urban Policy: Insights from the Swiss Cities of Zurich
and Lausanne. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 6, 1–12.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.902684
Jones, E. (2019). Rethinking Greenwashing: Corporate Discourse, Unethical Practice, and
the Unmet Potential of Ethical Consumerism. Sociological Perspectives, 62(5), 728–
754. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121419849095
Kim, Y., Kim, S. A., & Arora, N. (2022). GMO Labeling Policy and Consumer Choice.
Journal of Marketing, 86(3), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429211064901

137
Kornelsen, S. (n.d.). Is That the Way the Cookie Crumbles? Consumer Deskilling in Food
Systems and the Journey Toward Food Sovereignty. In 2009. Wilfred Laurier
University.
Lang, J. T., & Hallman, W. K. (2005). Who Does the Public Trust? The Case of Genetically
Modified Food in the United States. Risk Analysis, 25(5), 1241–1252.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00668.x
Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. (2019). Bill M 227: Trespass Amendment Act.
https://www.leg.bc.ca/Pages/BCLASSLegacy.aspx#%2Fcontent%2Fdata%2520-%2520ldp%2Fpages%2F41st4th%2F1st_read
%2Fm227-1.htm
Lewis, M. K., & Mitchell, A. D. (2014). Food Miles: Environmental Protection or Veiled
Protectionism’. Michigan Journal of International Law, 35(3), 579–636.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/License
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2013). The Constructivist Credo. Routledge.
https://ezproxy.tru.ca/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db
=nlebk&AN=506658&site=eds-live&scope=site
Lynch, M. J., & Stretsky, P. B. (2003). The Meaning of Green: Contrasting Criminological
Perspectives. Theoretical Criminology, 7(2), 217–238.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480603007002414
Lyon, P., Colquhoun, A., & Alexander, E. (2003). Deskilling the Domestic Kitchen: National
Tragedy or the Making of a Modern Myth? Food Service Technology, 3, 167–175.
Macdiarmid, J. I. (2013). Seasonality and Dietary Requirements: Will Eating Seasonal Food
Contribute to Health and Environmental Sustainability? Proceedings of the Nutrition
Society, 73(3), 368–375. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665113003753
Michel, F., Hartmann, C., & Siegrist, M. (2021). Consumers’ Associations, Perceptions and
Acceptance of Meat and Plant-based Meat Alternatives. Food Quality and Preference,
87, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104063
Monteiro, C. A., Pfeiler, T. M., Patterson, M. D., & Milburn, M. A. (2017). The Carnism
Inventory: Measuring the Ideology of Eating Animals. Appetite, 113, 51–62.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.02.011
Muringai, V., & Goddard, E. (2018). Trust and Consumer Risk Perceptions Regarding BSE
and Chronic Wasting Disease. Agribusiness, 34(2), 240–265.
https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21524
Nadasdy, P. (2007). The Gift in the Animal: The Ontology of Hunting and Human–animal
Sociality. American Ethnologist, 34(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.2007.34.1.25

138
National Farm Animal Care Council. (n.d.). Codes of Practice for the Care and Handling of
Farm Animals. Animal Health Canada. Retrieved February 22, 2024, from
https://www.nfacc.ca/codes-of-practice
Nemes, N., Scanlan, S. J., Smith, P., Smith, T., Aronczyk, M., Hill, S., Lewis, S. L.,
Montgomery, A. W., Tubiello, F. N., & Stabinsky, D. (2022). An Integrated Framework
to Assess Greenwashing. Sustainability, 14(8, Suppl.), S1–S7.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084431
Okonkwo, T. (2017). How International Law Can Deal with Lack of Sanctions and Binding
Targets in the Paris Agreement. Journal of Sustainable Development, 10(5), 225.
https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v10n5p225
Onwezen, M. C., Bouwman, E. P., Reinders, M. J., & Dagevos, H. (2021). A Systematic
Review on Consumer Acceptance of Alternative Proteins: Pulses, Algae, Insects, Plantbased Meat Alternatives, and Cultured Meat. Appetite, 159, 1–57.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.105058
Parrella, J. A., Leggette, H. R., Lu, P., Wingenbach, G., Baker, M., & Murano, E. (2023).
Evaluating Factors Explaining U.S. Consumers’ Behavioral Intentions toward Irradiated
Ground Beef. Foods, 12, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12173146
Penn, J. (2018). Cultured Meat: Lab-Grown Beef and Regulating the Future Meat Market.
UCLA Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, 36(1), 104–126.
https://perma.cc/H9SM-E6381.
Pointke, M., Ohlau, M., Risius, A., & Pawelzik, E. (2022). Plant-Based Only: Investigating
Consumers’ Sensory Perception, Motivation, and Knowledge of Different Plant-Based
Alternative Products on the Market. Foods, 11(15).
https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11152339
Polleau, A., & Biermann, G. (2021). Eat Local to Save the Planet? Contrasting Scientific
Evidence and Consumers’ Perceptions of Healthy and Environmentally Friendly Diets.
Current Research in Environmental Sustainability, 3, 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsust.2021.100054
Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2019). Reducing Food’s Environmental Impacts through
Producers and Consumers. Science, 360, 987–992.
Possidónio, C., Prada, M., Graça, J., & Piazza, J. (2021). Consumer Perceptions of
Conventional and Alternative Protein Sources: A Mixed-methods Approach with Meal
and Product Framing. Appetite, 156, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.104860
Ray, S. (2023). Genetic Data Links Covid Origins To Raccoon Dogs Sold At Wuhan Wet
Market, Reports Say. Forbes.Com.

139
https://ezproxy.tru.ca/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db
=bth&AN=162502263&site=eds-live&scope=site
Rihn, A., Khachatryan, H., & Wei, X. (2021). Perceived Subjective versus Objective
Knowledge: Consumer Valuation of Genetically Modified Certification on Food
Producing Plants. PLoS ONE, 16(8), 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255406
Risner, D., Kim, Y., Nguyen, C., Siegel, J. B., & Spang, E. S. (2023). Environmental Impacts
of Cultured Meat: A Cradle-to-gate Life Cycle Assessment (pp. 1–20).
https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.04.21.537778
Ritchie, H. (2020, January 24). You Want to Reduce the Carbon Footprint of Your Food?
Focus on What You Eat, Not Whether Your Food is Local. Our World in Data.
https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local
Rothgerber, H. (2014). Efforts to Overcome Vegetarian-induced Dissonance Among Meat
Eaters. Appetite, 79, 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.04.003
Rothgerber, H. (2020). Meat-related Cognitive Dissonance: A Conceptual Framework for
Understanding How Meat Eaters Reduce Negative Arousal from Eating Animals.
Appetite, 146, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104511
Rothgerber, H., & Rosenfeld, D. L. (2021). Meat-related Cognitive Dissonance: The Social
Psychology of Eating Animals. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 15(5).
https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12592
Rothgerber, H., Rosenfeld, D. L., Keiffer, S., Crable, K., Yeske, A., Berger, L., Camp, P.,
Smith, K., Fischer, O., & Head, A. (2022). Motivated Moral Outrage Among MeatEaters. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(5), 916–926.
https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211041536
Rouse, S. (2013). Improving Farm Animal Welfare and Promoting Education: Combating the
Introduced Ag-Gag Law in Pennsylvania. Mid-Atlantic Journal on Law and Public
Policy, 2(1), 185–190. https://heinonline.org/HOL/License
Roy, B., Hagappa, A., Ramalingam, Y. D., Mahalingam, N., Banu, A., & Alaudeen, S. (2021).
A Review on Lab-grown Meat: Advantages and Disadvantages. Quest International
Journal of Medical and Health Sciences, 4(1), 19–24.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2005). Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data (A.
Bruckner, M. Vail, T. Alpern, & P. Oman, Eds.; 2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
Sanyé-Mengual, E., Anguelovski, I., Oliver-Solà, J., Montero, J. I., & Rieradevall, J. (2016).
Resolving Differing Stakeholder Perceptions of Urban Rooftop Farming in
Mediterranean Cities: Promoting Food Production as a Driver for Innovative Forms of

140
Urban Agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values, 33(1), 101–120.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-015-9594-y
The Council of Canadians. (2016). Food Safety, Agriculture and Regulatory Cooperation in
the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA).
Thomas, C. I. P. (2014). In Food We Trust: The Politics of Purity in American Food
Regulation. University of Nebraska Press.
https://ezproxy.tru.ca/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db
=nlebk&AN=847116&site=eds-live&scope=site
United Nations. (n.d.). Sustainability Development Goals. Retrieved October 31, 2023, from
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/climate-change/
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (n.d.). The Paris Agreement.
United Nations. Retrieved October 31, 2023, from https://unfccc.int/process-andmeetings/the-paris-agreement
Vogel, D. (2012). The Politics of Precaution: Regulating Health, Safety, and Environmental
Risks in Europe and the United States. Princeton University Press.
https://ezproxy.tru.ca/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db
=nlebk&AN=439326&site=eds-live&scope=site
Wang, S., & Adikari, K. (2018). Consumer Perceptions and Other Influencing Factors about
Monosodium Glutamate in the United States. Journal of Sensory Studies, 33, 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.111/joss.12437

141
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Consumer Questionnaire
Plant-based Foods and Sustainability: Perceptions of Farmers Market Consumers in
Kamloops, British Columbia56
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
Weytk! Thompson Rivers University campuses are located on the traditional lands of the
Tk'emlúps te Secwépemc (Kamloops campus) and the T’exelc (Williams Lake campus) within
Secwépemc'ulucw, the traditional and unceded territory of the Secwépemc. Territories of the
St’át’imc, Nlaka’pamux, Tŝilhqot'in, Nuxalk, and Dakelh are also served by TRU's region.
With this land acknowledgment comes utmost gratitude for the privilege to live, work and
study in these beautiful regions.
You are invited to participate in survey research!
Title of Study: Plant-based Foods and Sustainability: Perceptions of Consumers and
Stakeholders in British Columbia
Participant Requirements: Kamloops Regional Farmers Market (KRFM) consumers, 18+
Primary Investigator (PI): Serena Girard, MSc Environmental Science Candidate
Contact: girards12@mytru.ca
Project Supervisor: Dr. Michael Mehta, Professor, Department of Environment, Culture,
and Society. Contact: mmehta@tru.ca or 250-852-7275.
Purpose of the Study:
(1) Explore KRFM consumers’ perceptions and knowledge of plant-based foods (PBFs)
(2) Contribute to knowledge on the topic of PBFs and sustainability
(3) Determine relative market success of PBFs foods in Kamloops, BC
Procedures: If you volunteer to participate, you will be asked to complete a ~10-minute
survey on a disinfected portable electronic tablet. Questions are regarding your opinion and
knowledge on the topic of PBFs and sustainability.

56

Original title: “Plant-based Foods and Sustainability: Perceptions of Consumers and Stakeholders in British
Columbia.” Changed to reflect the current study scope of only having surveyed KRFM consumers in Kamloops,
BC.

142
Potential Risks: Risks are minimal. Some minor discomfort may result from questions
surrounding food. Low- cost/free food-related resources are offered via contact information
on a business card or via hard copy.
Potential Benefits:
(1) Opportunity to anonymously share opinions on PBFs and sustainability in Kamloops
(2) Potential for bringing more PBF options into Kamloops.
Anonymity and Confidentiality: Identity and information known only by Serena Girard, the
PI. Please refrain from using names in your answers. Pseudonyms will be used in
disseminated data. Only if you reveal intention to harm yourself or others confidentiality will
be breached.
Data Management and Storage: A password-protected TRU-licensed Survey Monkey
account is used. Electronic data will be kept on a password-protected computer and destroyed
after 5 years. Only Serena Girard, the PI, and Dr. Michael Mehta, her supervisor, have access
to the files.
Participation and Withdrawal: Participation is completely voluntary. You may withdraw at
any point and may skip questions you do not want to answer. You cannot withdraw once the
survey has been submitted as no identifying information is collected. Incomplete surveys will
be discarded.
Results of the Study: A summary of results will be made available. A business card and
copy of the consent form with contact information are offered post-survey.
Data Usage:
(1) Utilized for Serena Girard’s master’s thesis
(2) May be presented at a future conference, used in academic projects and/or published in
academic journals
Participant Rights: If you have questions regarding your rights as a research participant,
please contact:
Research Ethics Board, Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, BC, V2C 0C8
250-828-5000 or tru-reb@tru.ca
Electronic Signature of Participant: I understand the information provided above for the
study Plant-based Foods and Sustainability: Perceptions of Consumers and Stakeholders in
British Columbia. Any questions I have about the study have been answered, and I agree to
participate. Consent form copies are available electronically or printed. By checking “Yes”
electronically, you consent to participating in this survey.
* 1. Do you consent to participating in this survey?
☐ Yes, I consent to participating. (Proceed to survey)
☐ No, I do not consent to participating. (Proceed to exit page)

143
CONSUMER SURVEY
The following section will ask you to reflect on how each statement makes you think and/or
feel. For each question, list the first TWO word(s)or phrase(s) that come to mind. This
section is intended to be open for interpretation. Answer in any which way that makes sense
to you.
For the purpose of this study (excluding questions 8 and 9), meat includes all animals,
including white meat (e.g., chicken and turkey), red meat (e.g., beef and pork), and seafood
(e.g., fish and other seafood).
2. Eating meat makes me think, feel or imagine...

3. Eating lab-grown, in-vitro or cultured meat makes me think, feel or imagine...
Lab-grown meat, also called in-vitro meat or cultured meat, is best described as meat that
has been grown in a lab rather than on a farm. It uses real cells from animals and is not plantbased.

4. Eating plant-based meat makes me think, feel or imagine...

5. Eating tofu makes me think, feel or imagine...

6. Eating dairy products makes me think, feel or imagine...

7. Eating plant-based milk products makes me think, feel or imagine...

144
CONSUMER SURVEY
The following section will ask you questions about your diet, and your knowledge and
perceptions of plant-based foods.
8. My diet is best described as...
As mentioned in the previous section, meat ONLY in questions 8 and 9 does NOT include
fish.
☐ Vegan (no animal products)
☐ Pescatarian (no meat, fish OK)
☐ Vegetarian (no meat/fish, dairy/eggs OK)
☐ Omnivore (no restrictions)
☐ Flexitarian (mostly vegan, but not be as strict)
Other (please specify)

9. How frequently do you consume the following food products?
As mentioned in the previous section, meat ONLY in questions 8 and 9 does NOT include
fish.
Never
Less than 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-7 times
once per per week per week per week
week
Meat
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
Fish and seafood
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
Dairy products
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
(e.g., cow's milk, cheese)
Plant-based
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
meat (e.g., 'burger' patties,
'chicken' strips)
Plant-based milk products
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
(e.g., almond milk, oat milk,
soy cheese)
Other plant-based products
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
(e.g., grains, beans, legumes,
nuts, seeds)
Tofu
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐

145
10. When making decisions on food, I consider the following... (Select all that apply)
☐ Animal Welfare/Rights
☐ Cost
☐ Environmental Sustainability
☐ Taste
☐ My Health (e.g., nutrition, disease, fitness) ☐ Distance to Store/Market
☐ Human Justice (e.g., global issues like
☐ Location (e.g., local food, importation,
exploitation, world hunger)
production)
☐ Cultural Practice
☐ Organic/Non-GMO Foods (rather than
'conventional')
☐ Time (e.g., to prepare, cook)
☐ Product Availability (e.g., in stores,
☐ Natural Foods (rather than processed)
restaurants)
Other (please specify)

11. To what extent, if any, does cultural practice impact your decisions on food?
☐ Strong Influence
☐ Some Influence
☐ No Influence
If you wish, you may provide detail in the textbox below on how cultural practice impacts
your food choices.

12. How likely are you to purchase the following?
Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely
Plant-based
☐
☐
meat (e.g., 'burger' patties,
'chicken' strips)
Plant-based milk products
☐
☐
(e.g., almond milk, oat
milk, soy cheese)
Other plant-based protein
☐
☐
alternatives (e.g., grains,
beans, legumes, nuts,
seeds)
Lab-grown meats
☐
☐
(cultured cells or in- vitro)
Tofu
☐
☐

Neutral

Likely

☐

☐

Extremely
Likely
☐

☐

☐

☐

☐

☐

☐

☐

☐

☐

☐

☐

☐

146
13. Some people believe that eating a plant-based diet has certain challenges. (Please
select one answer for each statement.) Eating a plant-based diet is challenging for me
because...

I need more information about plantbased diets
I don’t want to change my eating
habits
My family/partner won’t eat a plantbased diet
There is not enough choice when I eat
out
Someone else decides on most of the
food I eat
It would be too expensive
I don’t want to eat 'strange' and
'unusual' foods
It would not be filling enough
I would be worried about my health
It is inconvenient
I don’t know how to prepare plantbased meals
I wouldn’t get enough protein,
vitamins and nutrients
It would not be tasty enough
I think humans are meant to eat meat
The plant foods I would need aren’t
available where I shop
It takes too long to prepare plantbased meals
I don’t want people to think I’m
'strange' or a 'hippy'

Strongly Disagree
Disagree
☐
☐

Not
Sure
☐

Agree
☐

Strongly
Agree
☐

☐

☐

☐

☐

☐

☐

☐

☐

☐

☐

☐

☐

☐

☐

☐

☐

☐

☐

☐

☐

☐
☐

☐
☐

☐
☐

☐
☐

☐
☐

☐
☐
☐
☐

☐
☐
☐
☐

☐
☐
☐
☐

☐
☐
☐
☐

☐
☐
☐
☐

☐

☐

☐

☐

☐

☐
☐
☐

☐
☐
☐

☐
☐
☐

☐
☐
☐

☐
☐
☐

☐

☐

☐

☐

☐

☐

☐

☐

☐

☐

147
14. Some people believe that eating a plant-based diet has certain benefits. (Please select
one answer for each statement.) I believe eating a plant-based diet helps me to...

Prevent disease in general (e.g., heart
disease, cancer)
Eat a more ‘natural’ diet
Have lots of vitamins and nutrients
Control my weight
Eat a greater variety of foods
Be fit
Have a better quality of life
Have plenty of energy
Have a tasty diet
Lower my chances of getting food
poisoning
Help the environment
Help animal welfare/rights
Increase efficiency of food
production
Decrease world hunger
Save money
Save time
Appear more ‘trendy’ to my friends

Strongly Disagree
Disagree
☐
☐

Not
Sure
☐

Agree
☐

Strongly
Agree
☐

☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐

☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐

☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐

☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐

☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐

☐
☐
☐

☐
☐
☐

☐
☐
☐

☐
☐
☐

☐
☐
☐

☐
☐
☐
☐

☐
☐
☐
☐

☐
☐
☐
☐

☐
☐
☐
☐

☐
☐
☐
☐

148
DEMOGRAPHICS
The following section will ask for some basic demographic information. This information
will remain anonymous and confidential.
15. What is your age in years?
☐ 18-19
☐ 40-44
☐ 20-24
☐ 45-49
☐ 25-29
☐ 50-54
☐ 30-34
☐ 55-59
☐ 35-39
☐ 50-64

☐ 65-69
☐ 70-74
☐ 75-79
☐ 80-84
☐ 85+

16. How do you currently describe your gender identity?
Gender is "a term that refers to social or cultural distinctions of behavio[u]rs that are
considered male or female,' while sex is "a term that denotes the presence of
physical...differences between males and females" (Conerly et al., 2021, p. 356). Gender
identity is defined as "a person’s deeply held internal perception of one's gender" (ibid.),
which may or may not conform to the male-female gender binary.

17. Which category best describes your current highest achieved level of education?
☐ Some high school
☐ Bachelor’s degree (e.g., BA, BSc, BBA,
BEd, JD)
☐ High school diploma or equivalent
☐ Vocational training, postsecondary
☐ Master’s degree (e.g., MA, MBA, MSc,
diploma or associate's degree (e.g.,
MEd)
trades, ECE, AAS)
☐ Doctorate degree (e.g., PhD, PsyD, MD)
☐ Some college or university
☐ Post-doctoral studies
Other (please specify)

18. What is your approximate yearly pre-tax household income?
☐ Under $10,000
☐ $50,000 to $59,999
☐ $100,000 to $149,999
☐ $10,000 to $19,999
☐ $60,000 to $69,999
☐ $150,000 and over
☐ $20,000 to $29,999
☐ $70,000 to $79,999
☐ Prefer not to answer.
☐ $30,000 to $39,999
☐ $80,000 to $89,999
☐ $40,000 to $49,999
☐ $90,000 to $99,999
19. How many people currently live in your household?

149
20. How many children are you a parent or guardian to that currently live in your
household (aged 18 or younger only)?

21. Are you currently in an intimate partner relationship?
☐ Yes ☐ No
22. Would you describe yourself as the primary grocery shopper and food preparer in
your household?
If you shop and/or prepare along with another member of your household, please still select
"yes".
☐ Yes, both shopper and preparer ☐ Yes, but only preparer
☐ Yes, but only shopper
☐ No, someone else does the shopping and preparing
23. Have you or any members of your household previously worked or currently work
in the meat industry?
The meat industry refers to farming, butchering, slaughtering, packaging, distributing of
animal products. Does NOT include retail (e.g., grocery stores) and the service industry (e.g.,
restaurants, bars).
☐ Yes ☐ No
24. How would you best describe your political orientation? (Please use the sliding scale
to best indicate where your political orientation lies.)
Political orientation can be viewed on a "political spectrum as a scale with two opposite ends
- the left and the right” (Unifrog, n.p., 2022).
- Progressive/Left:
Equality attainable, higher taxes, welfare, more government
intervention, social change
- Neutral/Moderate:
Mixed or somewhere in the middle
- Conservative/Right: Equality unattainable, lower taxes, economy, less
government intervention, tradition
Progressive/Left

Neutral/Moderate

Conservative/Right

25. What is your postal code? (e.g., X0X 0X0)
If you are VISTING from OUTSIDE OF CANADA, please enter "000 000".

Thank you for taking the time to participate in this survey!

150
LOW-COST AND FREE FOOD RESOURCES
Please note that this is NOT a comprehensive list of resources. These are just some services
available in Kamloops, BC and at TRU. Ensure to check that services listed below are still
available prior to accessing them.
Off-Campus Resources
Organization
Services
BC211
Directory of
services in BC
Kamloops Food
Food hampers
Bank
Kamloops Reach
Meals and
hampers
Salvation Army
Food hampers
Kamloops

Mount Paul
Community Food
Centre
Hills of Peace
Lutheran Church

Meals,
hampers and
food delivery
Meals

The Mustard Seed Meals
- Outreach Centre
Kamloops United Meals
Church - PIT Stop

On-Campus Resources
Organization
Services
TRUSU Food
Food hampers
Bank
TRUSU
Application
Emergency
required. For
Bursary
temporary
financial
emergencies.

Website
https://bc211.ca
https://www.kamloopsfo
odbank.org
https://www.kamloopsrea
ch.com/kamloops-reach
https://www.kamloopssal
vationarmy.ca

Contact
info@bc211.ca
Dial or text 2-1-1
171 Wilson St
help@kamloopsreach.co
m
344 Poplar St
salvationarmykamloops
@ gmail.com
(250) 554-1611

https://www.interiorcom
munityservices.bc.ca/pro
grams/food- security
https://www.hillsofpeace.
com/youngadults/suppers/

140 Laburnum St (236)
421-1011

Website
https://trusu.ca/services/f
ood-bank/
https://trusu.ca/services/fi
nancial -aid/

Contact
info@trusu.ca
(250) 828-5289
studentawards@tru.ca
(250) 828-5024

695 Robson Drive
office@hillsofpeace.co
m
250-828-2221
https://www.theseed.ca
181 Victoria St W
infokamloops@theseed.
ca
(250) 434-9898
https://kamloopsunited.ca 421 St. Paul St
/pit-stop/
pitstop@kamloopsunite
d.ca
(250) 372-3020

151
QUESTIONS AND CONTACT
If you have questions regarding this study, please contact either Serena Girard at
girards12@mytru.ca, or Dr. Michael Mehta at either mmehta@tru.ca or 250-852-7275.
If you have questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact:
Research Ethics Board, Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, BC, V2C 0C8
Telephone: 250-828-5000 Email: tru-reb@tru.ca
Paper copies of the consent form and resources are available if needed. A business card with
online access to both of these forms, as well as to the results of the study, is also available.

152
Appendix B
Full-Length Consent Form
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
Weytk! Thompson Rivers University campuses are located on the traditional lands of the
Tk'emlúps te Secwépemc (Kamloops campus) and the T’exelc (Williams Lake campus) within
Secwépemc'ulucw, the traditional and unceded territory of the Secwépemc. Territories of the
St’át’imc, Nlaka’pamux, Tŝilhqot'in, Nuxalk, and Dakelh are also served by TRU's region.
With this land acknowledgment comes utmost gratitude for the privilege to live, work and
study in these beautiful regions.
Title of Study: Plant-based Foods and Sustainability: Perceptions of Consumers and
Stakeholders in British Columbia
You are invited to participate in a research study titled Plant-based Foods and Sustainability:
Perceptions of Consumers and Stakeholders in British Columbia. You were invited to
participate in this study because you are a consumer at the Kamloops Regional Farmers
Market (KRFM). This study is being conducted by Serena Girard, a graduate student
researcher completing a thesis as part of the Master of Science in Environmental Science.
This project is supervised by Dr. Michael Mehta, Professor in the Department Environment,
Culture, and Society at Thompson Rivers University (TRU). If you have questions regarding
this study, please contact either Serena Girard at girards12@mytru.ca, or Dr. Michael Mehta
at either mmehta@tru.ca or 250-852-7275.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of the study is to explore consumers’ perceptions and knowledge of plant-based
foods. The aim of this research project is to utilize KRFM consumer survey responses to help
build a body of knowledge on the topic of plant-based foods and sustainability. In surveying
KRFM consumers and interviewing outside key informants of food companies, the goal is to
determine the relative market success of plant-based foods in Kamloops, British Columbia.
PROCEDURES
If you agree to partake in this study, you will be asked to participate in a survey on a portable
electronic tablet. It will be disinfected between uses. In the survey, you will be asked
questions regarding your opinion and knowledge on the topic of food and sustainability. The
survey should take about 10 minutes of your time.
POTENTIAL RISKS
Risks from participating in this survey research are minimal. There may be some minor
discomfort from answering survey questions surrounding food and sustainability. Each
participant will be provided with a list of contact information for low-cost and/or free foodrelated resources. The list will be available post-survey. Contact information for electronic
copies is provided via business card. Paper copies are also available.

153
POTENTIAL BENEFITS
Survey respondents may directly benefit from having an opportunity to anonymously have
their voices heard on the topic of food and sustainability in Kamloops, BC. As we gain more
insight as to how KRFM consumers perceive plant-based foods, there may be an argument
for bringing more plant-based foods options into Kamloops, BC. Phase 1 of this research,
which you have been invited to participate in, helps provide a voice via a survey for
consumers. Phase 2, interviews with key informants of food companies, will be informed via
this initial phase. If stakeholders are aware of consumer preferences, there is a higher chance
of such preferences becoming available. In sum, both current survey respondents and many
other consumers and stakeholders may benefit directly or indirectly from this study.
CONFIDENTIALITY
The identity and information shared by the participants will only be known by Serena Girard,
the primary investigator. In open-ended questions, we ask that you do not use names of
people or places, as this will help maintain confidentiality. Only in the event that you reveal
any intention to harm yourself or anyone else, then confidentiality will be breached. The data
disseminated from the survey will not contain any identifying information. Pseudonyms will
be used in the data dissemination and publications of this research to help maintain
anonymity and confidentiality.
Survey Monkey is used for the surveys and a password-protected account is provided by
TRU. Once the Survey Monkey license expires at the end of this research project (Summer
2023), any electronic data will be kept on a password-protected computer and subsequently
destroyed after 5 years. Only Serena Girard, the primary investigator, and Dr. Michael
Mehta, her supervisor, will have access to these files.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Participants will be adult consumers (18+) at the Kamloops Regional Farmers Market.
Participation is completely voluntary. You may choose to withdraw at any given point and
may also choose not to answer any questions you do not want to. Since the survey will not
ask you for any identifying information, it will not be possible to withdraw your answers
once they have been submitted. Incomplete surveys will be discarded. Your identity will
remain anonymous to anyone who is not the primary investigator (Serena Girard).
RESULTS OF THE STUDY
A summary of the research findings will be made available. Please contact either Serena
Girard at girards12@mytru.ca or Dr. Michael Mehta at mmehta@tru.ca for more
information. You will be offered paper copies of the consent form and of business cards with
this contact information.
SUBSEQUENT USE OF DATA
This data will be used for the thesis component of Serena Girard’s graduate degree. Data may
be presented at a future conference, used in other academic projects and/or published in an
academic journal.

154
RIGHTS OF PARTICIPANTS
If you have questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact:
Research Ethics Board, Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, BC, V2C 0C8
Telephone: 250-828-5000
Email: tru-reb@tru.ca
ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE OF PARTICIPANT
I understand the information provided above for the study Plant-based Foods and
Sustainability: Perceptions of Consumers and Stakeholders in British Columbia. Any
questions I have about the study have been answered, and I agree to participate. Consent
form copies are available either electronically or by paper copy. By checking “Yes” below,
you consent to participating in this survey.

155
Appendix C
Variable Transformations (Ch. 2)
Items (consumption frequency, purchase likeliness, perceived challenges, and
perceived benefits variables) were initially coded as five-point scales and were transformed
as both trichotomous and dichotomous variables (see Table C.1). Trichotomous variables
were created based on Jeong’s (2016) guidelines for variable transformations from five-point
scale data to three-point scales, where scores one to two become zero (no), and scores four to
five become one (yes). Demographic variables were also transformed to create versatility of
use dependent upon various test assumptions. Variables were not on five-point scales,
meaning demographic variable transformations did not follow Jeong’s recommendations on
variable transformations. Merged variables were created with combined data points from
original variables, and dummy (dichotomized) variables were created from merged variables
(see Table C.2). Gender is an exception, which was dichotomized via filtering out cases, and
only including women and men due to the small number of cases for non-binary (n = 1) and
not sure (n = 1).

156
Table C.1
Scale to Dummy Variable Transformations
Variable
Original (5-point)
Transformation Expression
New (Trichotomized)
Transformation
New (Dichotomized)
Group
(Original to Tri)
Label
Value
Label
Value Expression (Tri to Di)
Label
Value
Frequencya
Never
1
-e
-e
-e
(1 → 0)
No
0
<1
2
(2 to 5 → 1)f
Yes
1
1 to 2
3
3 to 4
4
5 to 7
5
Purchase
Extremely Unlikely
1
(1 to 2 → 1)
Extremely Unlikely
1
(1 to 2 → 0)
No/
0
Likelinessb
or
Unlikely
Neutral
Unlikely
2
Neutral
3
(3 → 2)
Neutral
2
Likely
4
(4 to 5 → 3)
Extremely Likely or
3
(3 → 1)
Yes
1
Extremely Likely
5
Likely
Challengesc
Strongly Disagree
1
(1 to 2 → 1)
Strongly Disagree
1
(1 to 2 → 0)
No/
0
Disagree
2
or Disagree
Unsure
Not Sure
3
(3 → 2)
Not Sure
2
Agree
4
(4 to 5 → 3)
Strongly Agree or
3
(3 → 1)
Yes
1
Strongly Agree
5
Agree
Benefitsd
Strongly Disagree
1
(1 to 2 → 1)
Strongly Disagree
1
(1 to 2 → 0)
No/
0
or Disagree
Unsure
Disagree
2
Not Sure
3
(3 → 2)
Not Sure
2
Agree
4
(4 to 5 → 3)
Strongly Agree or
3
(3 → 1)
Yes
1
Disagree
Strongly Agree
5
Note. Table of variable transformations from original five-point ordinal scale variables to trichotomized and dichotomized variables s presented via variable
group. Transformation methods follow Jeong’s (2016) guidelines and recommendations for variable transformations.
a
Weekly consumption frequency of food item. All frequency variables included (see Table 2.3 in Chapter 2). Includes both AB and PB foods.
b
Purchase likeliness of food item. All purchase likeliness variables included (see Table 2.3 in Chapter 2). Includes only PB foods and LG Meats. Alternative food
purchase likeliness variables not included in analysis (See Appendix D).
c
Perceived PB diet challenges. All challenges variables included (see Table 2.3 in Chapter 2).
d
Perceived PB diet benefits. All benefits variables included (see Table 2.3 in Chapter 2).
e
No trichotomized variable created for frequency variables as it would not be meaningful.
f
Jeong’s method was not utilized for frequency variables as only value 1 was representative of a negative response.

157
Table C.2
Demographic Variable Transformations
Variable
Original Variable
Labels
Age
18-19, 20-24…80-84, 85+
Education

Values
1 to
15

Some high school, High
school, Postsecondary,
Some college or university,
Bachelor’s, Master’s,
Doctorate, Post-doc
< $10,000, $10,000 to
$19,999…$90,000$99,999, $100,000 to
$149,999, $150,000+

1 to 8

Household

1 to 8

1 to 8

Children

0 to 3

0 to 3

Shopper
and
Preparer

No, Primary shopper and
preparer, Only shopper,
Only preparer

0 to 4

Income

1 to
12

Transformation
Expression
(1 to 3 → 1), (4 to
5 → 2), (6 to 7 →
3), (8 to 15 → 4)
(1 to 2 → 1), (3 to
4 → 2), (5 → 3), (6
to 8 → 4)

Merged Variable
Labels
Values
<29, 30-39, 40-49,
1 to 4
50+
High school or below,
Postsecondary,
Bachelor’s
Postgraduate

1 to 4

-a

-a

-a

(1 to 2 → 1), (3 to
4 → 2), (5 to 6 →
3), (7 to 8 → 4), (9
to 10 → 5), (11 →
6), (12 → 7)
(1 → 1), (2 → 2),
(3 → 3), (4 to 8 →
4)
(0 → 0), (1 → 1),
(2 to 3 → 2)
-a

<$19,999, $20,000 to
$39,999…$80,000 to
$99,999, $100,000 to
$149,000, $150,000+

1 to 7

-a

-a

-a

1, 2, 3, 4+

1 to 4

(1 → 0), (2 to 4)

No, Yes

0, 1

0, 1, 2+

0 to 2

(0 → 0), (1 to 2 →
1)
Shopper (0 → 0),
(1 to 2 → 1)
Preparer (0 → 0),
(1, 3 → 1)c
(1 to 4, 6 → 0), (5
→ 1)

No, Yes

0, 1

Shopper (No,
Yes)
Preparer (No,
Yes)
Non-omnivore,
Omnivore

0, 1

-a

-a

Transformation
Expression
-a

Dummy Variable
Label
Values
-a
-a

Vegan, Vegetarian,
1 to 6
-a
-a
-a
0, 1
Flexitarian, Pescatarian,
Omnivore, Other
Gender
Female, Male, Non-binary,
0 to 3
-a
-a
-a
Select cases
Female, Male
0, 1
Don’t know
(Gender < 2)
Location
City-bounds, Provincial1 to 4
-a
-a
-a
(1 → 0), (2 to 4 →
Outside, City0, 1
bounds, Country-bounds,
1)
bounds
Outside country
Note. Table of demographic variable transformations to merged and dummy (dichotomized) variables. Variables were grouped together based on logic, as Jeong’s
method only applies to five-point scale data.
a
Not meaningful to create a merged or dummy variable.
c
Shopper and Preparer has been divided into two dummy variables, being primary shopper and primary preparer.
Dietary
Pattern

158
Appendix D
Excluded Variables and Tests (Ch. 2)
Demographic variables excluded from the analysis include being intimate partner
relationship, the number of people in the household, whether the respondent has children in
the household they are a parent or guardian to, whether the respondent is the primary grocery
shopper in the household, whether they are the primary food preparer in the household, and
whether themselves or a household member has work experience in the meat industry. Some
variables were excluded from specific tests, such as a respondent’s distance from the farmers
market and their location, being within or outside of Kamloops city-bounds.
Relationship, Household Members, and Children
It is possible that Relationship and Household Members may have yielded
meaningful results, perhaps related to peer pressure or challenges surrounding eating PB due
to those around them not eating PB (e.g., if acceptance of PB foods was low in terms of those
being in a relationship or those living with others), but it is not possible to know if that is
what it means. While it could be anticipated that having children may lead to a lowered
acceptance level of PB foods due to challenges surrounding existing habits and norms
surrounding changing one’s diet from the ‘norm’ of omnivorous diets. Spearman’s
correlations with Household and both summed and mean scales were all insignificant. Mann
Whitney U tests with Relationship, Household Members (dichotomized), Children
(dichotomized) and mean scales were insignificant. While t-tests were used as a more reliable
test for summed scales, Mann Whitney U was nonetheless initially conducted, and
Relationship, Household Members (dichotomized), and Children (dichotomized) were
insignificant. T-tests with Relationship, Household Members (dichotomized), and Children
(dichotomized) and summed scales were also all insignificant.
Primary Shopper and Primary Preparer
Primary Shopper and Primary Preparer may have yielded meaningful results in terms
of those perhaps not being the primary shopper or preparer not making their own decisions
on food and those being the primaries having more power over their food decisions, but it is
not possible to know if that is what it means. Statistical analyses were not significant. Tests

159
conducted include Mann Whitney U tests with Primary Shopper and Primary Preparer and
both mean and summed scales were all insignificant. T-tests with Primary Shopper and
Primary Preparer and summed scales were also all insignificant.
Meat Industry
Meat Industry may have yielded meaningful results in terms of those having
previously worked in the meat industry having different perceptions of PB foods than those
who have not, whether it be more or less acceptance as a result of exposure to the process of
making AB food products (e.g., farming, slaughter, butchering, etc.). However, it is not
possible to know if that is absolutely what it means. Mann Whitney U Tests with Meat
Industry and both summed and mean scales were all insignificant. T-tests with Meat Industry
and summed scales were also all insignificant.
Distance from Market and Location
Specifically, Spearman’s correlations with a variable derived from postal code
(Distance from Market) were not meaningful, as it is difficult to interpret how a respondent’s
distance from the market influences their perceptions of food. Factors to consider beyond
distance include mode of transportation (e.g., driving, cycling, walking, scooter, wheelchair)
and distance then becomes difficult to interpret. Regardless, correlations were insignificant
with Distance from Market, and both summed and mean scales. A Mann Whitney U test with
Location, being inside or outside Kamloops city-bounds (variable dichotomized from
Distance from Market), yielded no significant results with both mean and summed scales.
This test would nonetheless be challenging to interpret as outside of Kamloops can mean
anywhere else globally, where perceptions may differ largely from place to place depending
upon factors such as country, province or state, city population, and culture. T-tests with
Location and summed scales were also all insignificant.
Other Excluded Variables
Some variables were created for the purpose of creating other variables. Political
Orientation was not used as a result of there being an error in data collection based on the
inability to differentiate between City and Province were only used to create the variable of
Location and were not used for any statistical analyses as there was not enough data per city
or province to use these variables. Postal Code was not used as it was merely used to create

160
other subsequent variables of City and Province to then create Location, and to create
Distance from Market. As there was no meaningful information to analyze, whether through
operationalizing the variable for quantitative statistical analysis or via qualitative thematic
analysis, the open-ended variables of Education (to elaborate on multiple choice selection of
Education), Food Decisions (to elaborate on multiple choice selection of Food Decisions),
and Extent of Cultural practice (to elaborate on the three-point scale of Extent of Cultural
Practice) were not utilized. The open-ended Dietary Pattern variable was used to create the
category of ‘other’ in the closed-ended Dietary Pattern variable based on multiple choice.
Extent of Cultural Practice (closed-ended) was not used in the analysis, but future research
should look at the relationship between culture and diet. Additionally, Cultural Practice was
transformed from a trichotomized variable into a dichotomized variable initially where value
one (no influence) becomes zero (no), and values two and three (some and strong influence)
become one (yes influence).
Some non-normally distributed variables were attempted to be transformed as normal
distributions, whether through selected cases or transformation. The following were still not
normally distributed after transformations and were not used, as their sole purpose was to use
them for parametric tests with the assumption of normality: Number of AB foods consumed
per week (Summed Scale), Average degree of perceived benefits to a PB diet (Mean Scales),
Household Members, Number of Children, and Distance from Market. Additionally, both
summed and mean scales for alternative food purchase likeliness, and the individual
variables of purchase likeliness of LG meats were not included due to lack of meaningful and
significant results. There is a lack of evidence in the literature on sociodemographics and
perceptions of LG meats, making predictions subsequently difficult.
Other Excluded Tests
T-tests were used for the reporting of summed scale variables in place of Mann
Whitney U tests, as results from t-tests tend to be more reliable (reference). Kruskal-Wallis H
tests were conducted but were not used as results are repeated from Spearman’s on age,
income, education, and children with mean scales. Spearman’s is a more reliable test
(reference). ANOVA and Welch, a more reliable test than Kruskal-Wallis H (reference), were
excluded for the same reason as Kruskal-Wallis H. Fisher’s and Chi 2x2 tests were run with
food decision variables and demographics but yielded no significant results. The initial goal

161
of including Fisher’s and Chi 2x2 was to elaborate on Spearman’s and t-tests on the food
decisions summed scale with individual decision factors variables and dichotomous
demographic variables. The other goal was to explore relationships between dichotomous
demographic variables, including those that were transformed.
All statistical tests ran (t-tests, Mann Whitney U, Spearman’s, Kruskal-Wallis H,
ANOVA, Welch, Fisher’s, Chi 2x2) whether included or excluded in the main results section
comprised of specific statistical analyses of the individual items on mean and summed scales
with demographic variables that met each test’s assumptions on levels of measurement.
However, tests with individual variables were only reported in the results section if the
overarching summed or mean scale to which the item belongs was significant.
Statistical tests that were not run included Chi Square, some ANOVA, some t-tests,
Pearson’s and Point-Biserial. For Chi Square, the minimum expected cell count of five was
not met for the majority of tests. In place of Chi Square, Fisher’s, and Chi 2x2 were used. For
ANOVA, some t-tests, Pearson’s, Point-Biserial, Linear Regression, and Multiple
Regression, the assumption of normality was not always met. Variable transformations were
not always possible due to most variables being ordinal. In place of ANOVA and regressions,
Kruskal-Wallis H was used. Mann Whitney U was used in place of some t-tests. Spearman's
was used in place of Pearson’s and Point-Biserial.