Attitudes toward milk alternatives and motives for (non-)consumption: an interview study with adolescents from Germany

RESEARCH Open Access © The Author(s) 2025. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit h t t p : / / c r e a t i v e c o m m o n s . o r g / l i c e n s e s / b y / 4 . 0 /. Szczepanski et al. BMC Nutrition (2025) 11:101 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40795-025-01072-8 BMC Nutrition *Correspondence: Lena Szczepanski [email protected] 1Biology Didactics, Department of Biology/Chemistry, Osnabrück University, Osnabrück, Germany Abstract Background Consuming alternatives to cow’s milk (CM) could help counteract current environmental problems. Plant-based milk alternatives (PBMA) and precision fermentation-based milk alternatives–also called “animal-free milk” (AFM)–are potentially more sustainable alternatives to CM. Therefore, our study aimed to analyze young peoples’ attitudes toward PBMA and AFM and their motives for/against consuming these milk alternatives. Methods For this purpose, semi-structured interviews were conducted with adolescents from Germany (N = 25; MAge = 17.6). The data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Results The results show that the young people in our study have positive attitudes toward PBMA, as they perceive PBMA as healthy and environmentally friendly. In addition, they have predominantly positive attitudes toward AFM, as they perceive AFM as an environmentally friendly and suitable alternative to CM. Animal welfare and environmental protection motivate the young people in our study to consume these milk alternatives. In contrast, sensory properties (PBMA) and food safety concerns (AFM) were identified as barriers to the consumption of milk alternatives. Conclusions Adolescents generally have positive attitudes toward milk alternatives, motivated by perceived health, environmental, and animal welfare benefits. However, sensory properties and production-related uncertainties are barriers to consumption. These findings highlight the importance of addressing these concerns to foster the acceptance of sustainable milk alternatives among young people. Keywords Consumer research, Qualitative research, Sustainable nutrition, Dairy alternatives, Animal-free dairy, Young people, Germany Attitudes toward milk alternatives and motives for (non-)consumption: an interview study with adolescents from Germany LenaSzczepanski1* , Laura-MarieBahlmann1, CorinnaRötker1, AnnikeEylering1 and FlorianFiebelkorn1 Page 2 of 21Szczepanski et al. BMC Nutrition (2025) 11:101 Background Food production and livestock farming contribute significantly to current environmental problems, such as climate change and biodiversity loss [1–5]. Livestock farming accounts for approximately 60% of the anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions of food production. It also contributes about 9% of total global CO₂ emissions and 40% of global anthropogenic methane emissions [5– 7]. Furthermore, livestock farming requires 61–83% of the world’s farmland [4, 8, 9]. The consumption of cow’s milk (CM) remains consistently high worldwide and in Europe [10–12]. However, the recommended daily consumption amounts of milk and dairy products outlined in the national dietary guidelines of European countries vary greatly between 200 and 600g [13]. In Germany, for example, milk is a staple food and an established element of people’s diets with a recommended consumption of two portions per day, which can be one slice of cheese (30g) and one portion of milk (250g) [14, 15]. Germany is also the largest milk producer in the European Union [16]. In 2022, about 32.4million tons of CM were produced in Germany, and the average per-person consumption of CM in Germany has been around 50kg per year over the last twenty years [16–18]. There are two potentially more sustainable alternatives to CM: Plant-based milk alternatives (PBMA) and “animal-free milk” (AFM) [1, 4, 19, 20]. PBMA are defined as suspensions of water and crushed or dissolved plant materials [21–23]. In general, PBMA are categorized according to whether they are made from cereals, legumes, nuts, oilseeds, or pseudo-cereals [21, 23–26]. PBMA, such as oat, soy, or almond milk, are intended to be similar to CM in appearance, sensory properties, and possible uses [22, 23]. The production of oat, soy, or almond milk causes three times less greenhouse gas emissions than the production of conventional CM, for example [1, 4]. However, the macroand micronutrients in oat, soy, or almond milk do not correspond to those in CM, nor does the energy, fat, vitamin (e.g., B12), and other mineral (e.g., calcium) content [26–28]. Some producers thus enrich PBMA with calcium and/or vitamins [23]. In addition to continuously optimizing their PBMA portfolios, various companies are working on producing another milk alternative termed “animal-free milk” (AFM), which is equivalent to CM in appearance, sensory properties, and nutrients [20, 29–31]. Like CM, AFM mainly consists of water and the CM proteins casein and whey protein, which are produced via precision fermentation. During precision fermentation, microorganisms (e.g., fungi or yeasts) are genetically modified to express casein and whey protein, which are then mixed with minerals, sugar, water, and vegetable fats to produce the AFM [20, 29, 30, 32–34]. While the first alternative dairy products made with precision fermentation technology have been available in the United States, Singapore, and Hong Kong since 2021, these products are not yet available on the European market [34–36]. In Germany, only the food technology company Formo is working on the production of cheese alternatives (i.e., “animal-free cheese”) using precision fermentation technology [34, 37]. In general, information about the potential sustainability of dairy products made with precision fermentation technology should be considered carefully because companies are currently researching and developing animal-free dairy products and are thus unwilling to publish the details of their production processes [38]. Furthermore, compared to the production of conventional CM, the production of AFM is estimated to emit 35–97% less greenhouse gases and requires 77–97% less land [20, 35, 39, 40]. In addition to the lower environmental impact of AFM compared to conventional CM, its taste, appearance, and uses are equivalent to those of conventional CM, which could encourage people to make changes to their dietary habits by reducing their consumption of animal-based foods [31, 41]. In the European Union, 28% of all adults already consume PBMA [42, 43], while in Germany, 33–38% of people do [43, 44]. The most consumed PBMA in Germany are oat, soy, and almond milk [11, 45]. Whether people would be willing to consume AFM has not yet been investigated, though. To date, only the willingness to consume other animal-free dairy products, such as cheese, has been investigated [31, 32, 46–49]. For instance, a study with young adults from the United States showed that 64% of participants would be willing to buy products created with precision fermentation technology [46]. In Germany, Zollman Thomas and Bryant [31] showed that 75.9% of adult consumers would try animal-free cheese, 62.7% would buy it, and 36.1% would buy it regularly. To analyze consumer intentions and behaviors in relation to the consumption of milk alternatives, consumers’ attitudes and motives have often been examined in existing research [50–52]. Attitudes toward milk alternatives Attitudes are defined as an overall evaluation of an attitude object [53–55]. According to the ABC model of attitudes, they consist of three components: affective (A), behavioral (B), and cognitive (C) components. The affective component comprises a consumer’s feelings or emotional reactions to an attitude object (e.g., “Oat milk is delicious”). The behavioral component comprises a consumer’s behavior or behavioral intentions toward an attitude object (e.g., “I would never drink oat milk”). The cognitive component comprises a consumer’s beliefs about an attitude object, i.e., what they think about the Page 3 of 21Szczepanski et al. BMC Nutrition (2025) 11:101 attitude object in terms of fact (e.g., “Oat milk is healthier than CM”) [54, 55]. Consumers’ attitudes toward a product cannot be determined simply by identifying their beliefs [53, 54]. Understanding consumers’ attitudes toward milk alternatives could provide valuable insights into their decision-making processes, which can then be used to develop education and marketing campaigns [56]. The current research focuses on adults’ attitudes toward PBMA, mostly in comparison to CM [50–52, 56– 60]. Overall, most studies have demonstrated that PBMA are perceived less positively than CM [50, 51, 57, 59]. Specifically, PBMA—in comparison to CM—are consistently evaluated as unhealthier, less nutritious, worse for the bones [50], and more expensive [51, 56]. To our knowledge, only two studies have investigated adolescents’ attitudes toward PBMA. Palacios et al. [61] showed that adolescents from the United States rated soy milk slightly more negatively than CM, whereby unflavored CM was rated less favorably than chocolate-flavored soy milk [61]. In Germany, a third of adolescents have exhibited a positive attitude toward PBMA [62]. Attitudes toward AFM have not yet been investigated. Broad et al. [32], Zollman Thomas and Bryant [31], and Zollman Thomas and Dillard [63] were the only studies that examined adults’ perceptions of animal-free dairy products. In the study by Zollman Thomas and Bryant [31], animal-free cheese was evaluated as less tasty and natural than conventional cheese. Zollman Thomas and Dillard [63] showed that potential consumers from the United States of America and Germany, for example, perceived the production of animal-free dairy products as technical and scary. However, animal-free cheese was evaluated as the most ethical and environmentally friendly product compared to conventional and vegan cheese. Among German adults, the perception of animal-free cheese as ethical, tasty, and healthy positively affected their willingness to consume animal-free cheese [31]. To our knowledge, young people’s attitudes toward AFM or dairy products have not yet been investigated. Motives for/against the consumption of (or willingness to consume) milk alternatives In addition to attitudes toward a product, motives play a decisive role in consumers’ decision-making as they affect attitudes [64, 65]. In general, motives are defined as a person’s reasons for a specific behavior [66]. Therefore, consumers’ motives in food selection correspond to their goals: Motives describe what the consumer wants to achieve in or with their food consumption [54]. Food choice motives influence consumers’ attitudes toward a product [50, 64]. Consumers are often unaware of their food choice motives. However, they can be made aware of their motives through reflection or questioning [67]. Insights into consumers’ food choice motives can be used to develop and optimize marketing strategies by addressing (potential) consumers’ motives in marketing communication to increase their consumption of (or willingness to consume) certain products [54]. In addition to physiological factors, health, convenience, natural content, price, weight control, familiarity, and ethical concerns are motives that affect food choices. Furthermore, consumer behavior can be determined by social motives [65]. For European consumers, price, sensory appeal, and natural content are the most important food choice motives [68]. Regarding the consumption of milk alternatives, current research focuses on adults’ motives for and against the consumption of PBMA [44, 51, 52, 57–59, 69–73]. Adults from the United States of America, Austria, and Germany, for example, often cite health, environmental, and ethical aspects as motives for consuming PBMA [50–52, 57–59, 69, 73]. Adults in Germany indicate specific diets and health reasons, as well as environmental and animal protection as motives for not consuming milk and dairy products [44]. Motives for and against the consumption of AFM have not yet been investigated. However, a few studies exist that examine adults’ motives for their willingness to consume animal-free dairy products. Animal welfare and environmental protection have been identified as motives for the willingness to consume animal-free dairy products among adults. Uncertainties regarding food safety were identified as motives against the willingness to consume animal-free dairy products [32, 46, 63]. Study aims and research questions To foster a change in dietary habits, we must analyze the consumption of or willingness to consume more sustainable milk alternatives. Attitudes and motives offer a route to analyze this consumption or willingness to consume. The existing research has focused on adults’ attitudes toward PBMA and their consumption motives. Attitudes toward PBMA have often been investigated quantitatively via attitude statements or semantic differentials to determine consumers’ perceptions. To date, limited research has been conducted on the specific beliefs and feelings about the consumption of milk alternatives that underlie positive or negative attitudes toward them. In addition, motives for or against the consumption of PBMA have rarely been surveyed compared to the current consumption of PBMA. Therefore, the first aim of our study is to identify how PBMA and AFM are evaluated, and which beliefs and feelings determine a positive or negative evaluation. The second aim of our study is to determine the motives for and against the consumption of (or willingness to consume) PBMA and AFM based on the current consumption (or willingness). A qualitative research approach was Page 4 of 21Szczepanski et al. BMC Nutrition (2025) 11:101 chosen to allow participants to express and explain their beliefs, feelings, and motives for consuming or being willing to consume milk alternatives [67, 74]. In this study, we focus on adolescents in Germany, as they have not been investigated and represent a crucial group for shaping future dietary trends as their dietary habits are less entrenched and easier to influence than those of adults [75, 76]. This results in the following research questions: Research Question 1: What are adolescents’ attitudes toward milk alternatives? Research Question 1.1: How do adolescents evaluate PBMA? Research Question 1.2: How do adolescents evaluate AFM? Research Question 2: What are adolescents’ motives for/against the consumption of (or willingness to consume) milk alternatives? Research Question 2.1: What are adolescents’ motives for/against the consumption of PBMA? Research Question 2.2: What are adolescents’ motives for/against their willingness to consume AFM? Methods The methods are described following the “Qualitative Design Reporting Standards (JARS-Qual)” [77] and the criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) [78]. Selection of participants, characteristics of the participants, and recruitment For sample construction, the inductive sampling method for exploratory studies according to Reinders [79] was chosen. The sample was selected based on three criteria. Firstly, adolescents needed to attend upper secondary school because they need biological knowledge about genetics to understand the production of AFM, which is covered in the upper secondary school biology curriculum in Germany [80]. Secondly, the adolescents needed to identify as different genders, and, thirdly, consume CM or PBMA to allow us to identify their attitudes toward milk alternatives and their motives for and against consumption across genders (female, male, and other) and consumer groups (CM consumers and PBMA consumers). The final sample consisted of 25 adolescents 16 to 19 years old (N = 25; MAge = 17.60 years; SDAge = 0.63 years; 60% female). The adolescents came from five secondary schools in the city and district of Osnabrück (Lower Saxony, Germany) and were in the eleventh to thirteenth grades (upper secondary school) at the time of data collection. Descriptive statistics of the sample and their self-reported consumption of CM, PBMA, and their willingness to consume AFM are presented in Table1. All names have been replaced with pseudonyms to ensure anonymity. To recruit participants, the school principals of all secondary schools in the city and district of Osnabrück were contacted by email with an invitation to participate in this study. The school principals forwarded the email to the biology teachers at their schools and asked the biology teachers to request voluntary participants from their upper secondary school courses. The biology teachers were instructed to ensure an equal distribution of genders and consumption of PBMA and CM when selecting participants. The interviews were always scheduled in blocks by the teachers so that the participants from the same school were interviewed on the same day and one after the other. After each interview block, the first and third authors (two coders) discussed content saturation. The coders used the deductive category system as a basis and the audio recordings to discuss whether new content and inductive codes had been added. Content saturation occurred after 21 interviews. At this point, four more interviews were planned, which were subsequently conducted and a total of 25 interviews were analyzed. Before the data were collected, both the school principals and the students (and their parents, for students under the age of 18) signed a declaration of consent. The student’s parents also received an informative letter explaining the study’s aim, that participation was voluntary, and that the data would be anonymized. Before the interviews began, students’ (and parents’) signed declaration of consent was reviewed and confirmed verbally. Participation in the interviews was voluntary and anonymous. All students had the opportunity to decline participation at any time without consequences. Data collection occurred in September and October 2022. The first author (characteristics: female; qualification: physics and biology teacher with two years of teaching experience; current occupation: PhD student and research assistant) conducted all interviews in a quiet room in the students’ schools. The interviews were recorded with a digital audio recorder (Olympus LS-P1). They ranged from 29.33 to 51.63 min (MDuration = 41.83min; SDDuration = 6.07min). Study design and interview procedure We chose a qualitative approach with in-depth semistructured interviews to better understand adolescents’ attitudes and motives in relation to the consumption of PBMA and AFM since qualitative Page 5 of 21Szczepanski et al. BMC Nutrition (2025) 11:101 methods allow for a detailed investigation of individual associations, beliefs, and feelings, which are difficult to assess through standardized questionnaires [64]. For our study, the first author, in cooperation with biology didactics experts, biology teachers, and psychologists, developed an interview guide based on (consumer) psychological theories [53, 54, 64]. We decided to use a semi-structured interview guide to allow for more flexibility and to enable participants to express their thoughts more freely [79]. To gain a deeper understanding of participants attitudes and consumption motives, we mainly asked “why” questions [54, 64]. To optimize the interview questions and process, the interview guide was tested in a pilot study with four students aged 17 to 18 before data collection [81, 82]. Minimal adjustments were made to the questions based on the pilot study results. Notably, the pilot interviews were not included in the final sample. Interviews were divided into four broad phases: (1) the introduction, (2) the main phase on PBMA, (3) the main phase on AFM, and (4) the conclusion with a short questionnaire (Fig.1). During data collection, the order of the second and third phases was switched after each participant to minimize any possible influence of the order of the phases on participants’ responses. The second and third phases were divided into three subphases: (1) conceptions of PBMA/AFM and their/its production, (2) attitudes toward PBMA/ AFM (RQs 1.1 and 1.2), and (3) motives for and against the consumption of PBMA/AFM (RQs 2.1 and 2.2; Fig. 1). To answer the research questions, only data on attitudes and motives from the second and third phases were analyzed. The complete interview guide, Table 1 Overview of the sample of adolescents (N = 25) Name aGender Age Residence bInterview duration Diet cConsumption CM dConsumption PBMA eWillingness to consume AFM f Liam male 17 urban area 50.30min omnivorous daily never willing Sophia female 17 rural area 43.11min omnivorous weekly casual (monthly) willing Alexander male 17 urban area 47.63min omnivorous daily never not willing Emma female 17 rural area 45.11min vegetarian monthly regular (daily) willing Elias male 18 rural area 39.01min vegetarian monthly casual (monthly) not willing Mathys male 17 rural area 29.33min omnivorous daily never willing Mason male 17 urban area 46.80min omnivorous weekly regular (daily) willing Benjamin male 16 urban area 41.13min other weekly casual (weekly) willing Oliver male 17 rural area 41.40min other never regular (weekly) willing Emilia female 17 rural area 32.32min vegetarian monthly regular (weekly) willing Mila female 18 rural area 38.01min omnivor daily never willing Lily female 18 rural area 35.07min vegetarian weekly regular (daily) willing Sophie female 18 urban area 40.47min omnivorous never casual (weekly) willing Mia female 19 urban area 49.21min vegetarian monthly regular (daily) willing Isabella female 18 rural area 50.67min omnivorous daily never willing Maëlys female 18 urban area 42.56min vegetarian weekly never willing Jack male 18 rural area 34.73min omnivorous daily regular (daily) willing Samuel male 18 urban area 46.07min omnivorous never casual (weekly) willing Ella female 18 urban area 51.63min omnivorous weekly casual (weekly) willing Olivia female 18 rural area 47.87min vegetarian weekly casual (weekly) willing Emmy female 17 urban area 46.07min vegan never regular (weekly) willing Amelia female 18 rural area 39.88min omnivorous daily never willing Charlotte female 18 urban area 35.73min omnivorous daily never willing Emily female 18 rural area 35.78min omnivorous weekly regular (weekly) willing Lucas male 18 urban area 37.63min omnivorous daily regular (daily) willing Mean value 17.60 41.86min Standard deviation 00.63 06.07min Minimum 16.00 29.33min Maximum 19.00 51.63min Notes. a Randomly selected pseudonym according to the most popular first names in 2022 in the United States of America. b The adolescents were asked about their area of residence after the interview and could choose either urban area or rural area. c The adolescents were asked about their diets after the interview and could choose omnivorous, vegetarian, vegan, or other. d The adolescents were asked about their consumption of CM after the interview and could choose daily, weekly, monthly, or never. e During the interview, the adolescents were asked to describe their consumption of PBMA and, on this basis, classify their consumption as regular, casual, or never. The frequency of consumption is given in parentheses. f During the interview, the adolescents received an informative text about AFM and were asked to decide accordingly whether they were willing or unwilling to consume AFM. Page 6 of 21Szczepanski et al. BMC Nutrition (2025) 11:101 Fig. 1 Key questions and research interests in the main phases of the interviews about milk alternatives Notes. This study did not analyze phase 1 of the main phases of the interview. In the first phase, the adolescents were asked about their conceptions of PBMA and AFM and their production Page 7 of 21Szczepanski et al. BMC Nutrition (2025) 11:101 including guiding questions and prompts, is provided in the supplementary material (Supplementary Material 1). Before the first phase, the interviewer talked with the participant about how they were doing and briefly introduced herself (a PhD student at a university researching “sustainable nutrition”). The interviewer clarified that the interview topic was “milk alternatives” and pointed out that the interview was not about their knowledge but their thoughts on the topic. Participants were also informed that the collected data would be treated confidentially, meaning that their teachers would not receive any of the data, and they were encouraged to say anything that came to mind. During the first phase, participants were asked about their conceptions of PBMAs and AFM, their ingredients, and their production; this phase is not included in this article. Additionally, participants were shown the list of ingredients for a carton of oat drink (water, oats [12%], sunflower oil, and sea salt) so that they could discuss their conceptions of the production of PBMAs. After this first phase, participants were given no further information about the production of PBMAs. During the second phase, participants were asked to evaluate PBMAs or AFM overall as “(rather) positive” or “(rather) negative” to assess their attitudes toward milk alternatives [53]. Participants were then asked to explain their positive or negative evaluation using three productrelated attributes to identify the beliefs and feelings about PBMAs or AFM that determined their positive or negative evaluation [55]. Since AFM is not yet available on the European market and the public is less familiar with dairy products produced with precision fermentation technology [31, 32], participants were given a brief informative text detailing what AFM is and how it is produced to help them evaluate it (Supplementary Material 2). During the third phase, participants were first asked about their consumption of PBMA or their willingness to consume AFM. Their current consumption of PBMA was assessed by asking, “Do you drink PBMA as an alternative to CM?” If participants already consumed PBMA, they were asked to provide the frequency of consumption and types of PBMA consumed during a typical school week. In addition, participants were asked to classify their consumption of PBMA as “regular,” “casual,” or “never” based on their self-reported consumption frequency. Participants were also asked whether they would be willing to consume AFM as an alternative to CM if it became available in all supermarkets and restaurants. Based on their responses to this question, participants’ motives for and against the consumption of milk alternatives were assessed with the questions, “Why do you never/casually/regularly drink PBMA as an alternative to CM?” and “Why are you (not) willing to consume AFM as an alternative to CM?” [64]. During the interview, the interviewer asked individual, thought-provoking questions to identify participants’ feelings, beliefs, and thoughts about the topic (see Supplementary Material 1). At the end of the interview, participants were asked to complete a short questionnaire on their sociodemographic data and consumption of milk (alternatives; Supplementary Material 1). Data analysis The audio recordings were transcribed according to Dresing and Pehl [83]. The transcripts were not returned to the participants for comments or corrections. In the next step, the transcripts were redacted according to Gropengießer’s [84] guidelines to improve readability and reduce the research question content in the transcripts. The transcription and redaction rules are provided in the supplementary material (Supplementary Material 3). The redacted data were analyzed in MAXQDA [85] with qualitative content analysis according to Kuckartz and Rädiker [86] which enables a systematic but flexible analysis of qualitative data through a combination of deductive and inductive coding. As we followed a qualitative interview approach, we do not have a representative sample of adolescents in Germany. Therefore, we do not intend to make generalized statements for adolescents (in Germany) with our qualitative results. As part of the content analysis, we use frequencies to illustrate trends within our sample [77]. According to the research questions and the interview phases, a deductive category system was created with the following superordinate categories: (1.1) “Attitudes toward PBMA,” (1.2) “Attitudes toward AFM,” (2.1) “Motives for/against PBMA consumption,” and (2.2) “Motives for/against the willingness to consume AFM” (Figs. 2 and 3). The superordinate categories “Attitudes toward PBMA” and “Attitudes toward AFM” were each deductively divided into two subcategories, “Positive attitudes toward PBMA/AFM” and “Negative attitudes toward PBMA/AFM”. Within each of these subcategories, deductive codes were derived from the current state of research, and inductive codes (*) were derived from participants’ statements during the data analysis (Fig.2). The superordinate categories “Motives for/against PBMA consumption” and “Motives for/against the willingness to consume AFM” were also each deductively divided into two subcategories (“Motives for PBMA consumption/the willingness to consume AFM” and “Motives against PBMA consumption/the willingness to consume AFM”). Within each of these subcategories, deductive codes were derived from the current state of Page 8 of 21Szczepanski et al. BMC Nutrition (2025) 11:101 research, and inductive codes (*) were derived from participants’ statements during the data analysis (Fig.3). The complete category system is provided in the supplementary material (Supplementary Material 4). The analysis of the entire qualitative data was carried out by the first author. To affirm the internal consistency of the coding, 20% of all statements that were relevant for answering the research questions were also coded with the complete category system by the second author [86]. To assess intercoder agreement, the kappa coefficient was calculated in MAXQDA according to Brennan and Fig. 2 Category systems for analyzing adolescents’ attitudes toward milk alternatives Notes. * Inductively coded categories. PBMA = plant-based milk alternatives; AFM = animal-free milk Page 9 of 21Szczepanski et al. BMC Nutrition (2025) 11:101 Prediger [87]. The kappa value is 0.79, which indicates substantial intercoder agreement [87]. Results In total, seventeen of the 25 adolescents stated they already consumed plant-based alternatives to CM. Of these, seven stated that they consumed PBMA casually, and ten regularly. The regular consumers in our study said that they used PBMA three to seven days a week, while the casual consumers used PBMA two to four days a week. The regular and casual consumers reported that they most frequently consumed oat milk (n = 15), followed by almond milk (n = 5). Eight of the adolescents stated that they did not consume any plant-based alternatives to CM. Of these, six said that they had not yet tried any PBMA (Table1). Concerning AFM, 23 of the adolescents said that they would be willing to try, buy, or drink AFM as an alternative to CM. Two adolescents stated that they would not be willing to try AFM (Table1). Fig. 3 Category systems for analyzing adolescents’ motives for and against the consumption of (or willingness to consume) milk alternatives Notes. * Inductively coded categories. PBMA = plant-based milk alternatives; AFM = animal-free milk Page 16 of 21Szczepanski et al. BMC Nutrition (2025) 11:101 was considered a healthy alternative to CM since it has lower calorie and fat content. Animal welfare was also a crucial motive to consume PBMA among our participants and was linked to the moral stance against the abuse of animals for food production. Adults also consider animal welfare to be one of the most important considerations when buying dairy products or plant-based dairy alternatives [44, 101]. The growing awareness of health, animal welfare, and the environment is also reflected in the dynamic development of young people’s dietary habits in Germany. Young people (aged 15 to 30) are increasingly avoiding the consumption of animal products for climate and animal welfare [62, 102]. Motives against consuming PBMA As our results show, the sensory characteristics of PBMA are a major barrier to their consumption [59, 72, 103, 104]. American children and adolescents (aged 8 to 16), for example, rated lactose-free milk as better, in general, than soy milk since lactose-free milk had better sensory properties, such as taste and mouthfeel [61]. In addition, the price of PBMA compared to that of CM—perceived or real—was a motive against the consumption of PBMA. This motive is important for younger people, as they have limited incomes and depend on their family’s shopping and dietary habits [99] and since one in five young people in Germany grows up in a low-income household [105]. In addition to individual factors, environmental factors affect sustainable food consumption [106]. We found that social influence and social norms related to the consumption of CM are also barriers to the consumption of PBMA, as CM consumption is often considered “normal” and an integral dietary habit [71, 97, 107]. Motives for the willingness to consume AFM The willingness of our participants to consume AFM depended mainly on individual factors, such as a concern for animal welfare. Animal welfare was a key motive to consume milk alternatives (AFM and PBMA) among our participants, as they questioned the necessity and conditions of contemporary livestock farming. The importance of animal welfare for younger people when making food choices is reflected in Generation Z’s increasing commitment to animal welfare [99, 108]. Similarly, Zollman Thomas and Dillard [63] showed that promoting animal welfare or reducing animal suffering in livestock farming is the strongest motivation for adults’ consumption of animal-free dairy (e.g., cheese or milk). The feeling of unease about livestock farming drives the need to protect animal welfare and thus avoid consuming animal products. This unease can be enhanced by presenting information about or showing pictures of the conditions of dairy farms (“animal welfare framing”), which could encourage consumers to consume animal-free dairy [63]. Motives against the willingness to consume AFM First, most of our participants were very interested in trying AFM and gave few motives against consuming it. Regarding their justifications for their negative attitudes toward AFM, uncertainties about its safety for human health were mentioned. Zollman Thomas and Dillard [63] observed that uncertainties about dairy products produced with precision fermentation hinder their acceptance. The European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) approval of AFM for sale on the European market could help to reduce uncertainties about AFM. In addition, all companies and marketing campaigns should use a consistent description of the production process of AFM to minimize uncertainties and facilitate understanding of “animal-free dairy” as a product category [63]. Suggestions for marketing and policy Young people’s growing awareness of health, animal welfare, and the environment, as well as their doubts about our current food system [99, 102], could be a good starting point for developing marketing campaigns for CM alternatives. Based on our results, marketing campaigns should be aimed at emphasizing the health, ethical, and environmental benefits of consuming PBMA instead of CM and directly addressing misconceptions (e.g., rainforest deforestation to produce soya milk). Since our results show a discrepancy between young people’s attitudes toward and consumption of PBMA (attitude–behavior gap), we should consider how existing barriers can be overcome. The barrier of flavor and consistency may result from the perception of CM as “nice,” while PBMA do not meet sensory expectations in comparison [59, 69, 71]. This barrier among “CM lovers” may be overcome by producing PBMA with sensory properties similar to those of CM. One example of this is Alpro’s “Not Milk,” which is available on the German market and is advertised with the slogan “Not milk, but it tastes like milk” [109]. Advertising that highlights milk alternatives’ similarity to CM could be particularly important for people who have not yet been able to eliminate CM since they prefer its flavor. Another barrier to the consumption of PBMA is cost. PBMA are currently taxed at 19% in Germany, while CM is taxed at 7% since it is considered a staple food there. Equalizing taxes on CM and PBMA is one way to lower the price barrier [110]. Furthermore, the potential for the social environment to promote the consumption of PBMAs should be considered since family and friends influence adolescents’ food choices [111]. Adolescents also influence each other’s diets and food choices (e.g., Page 17 of 21Szczepanski et al. BMC Nutrition (2025) 11:101 via social media) [112]. This could be used to actively drive the normalization of PBMA consumption. The approval of animal-free dairy products in Europe could allay safety concerns. Hence, communication should be focused on the advantages of AFM, as previous research has shown that the perceived benefits of animal-free cheese have a positive effect on the willingness to buy it [47]. In addition, previous studies have suggested that companies should make it clear when AFM has not been produced using genetically modified organisms (GMOs), as associating AFM with GMOs could have a negative impact on risk perception and willingness to consume [49, 63, 113]. Open, transparent communication about the new product category of animal-free dairy products could also help to increase familiarity, which is crucial for the willingness to consume novel foods [98]. Furthermore, attention should be paid to the placement of AFM in the supermarket when it is introduced; for example, placing AFM close to CM could promote familiarity with the product [32]. In summary, AFM could become a suitable milk alternative among younger people [31]. Most of our participants already perceived AFM as a reasonable milk alternative. Whether they will integrate AFM into their diets will mainly depend on their food choice motives, such as price and taste, and the assuaging of uncertainties about AFM in marketing campaigns. Limitations Since we used a qualitative interview approach and had specific inclusion criteria for our sample, we did not aim for a sample that was representative of young people in Germany. Therefore, based on our results, we could not make generalized statements about young people’s attitudes toward milk alternatives and their motives for or against consuming them [82]. Future studies could examine attitudes toward milk alternatives and motives for or against consuming them among adults or young people following another eating culture. Another idea for further research would be to examine the attitudes of young people from the United States, where AFM is already available on the market. Moreover, all our participants were engaged in higher education (upper secondary level), which may have affected our results since previous studies have shown that people with high levels of education are more likely to adopt sustainable dietary habits [114, 115]. In addition, only the most frequently mentioned product attributes and motives for consuming milk alternatives were presented and discussed in detail. Less frequently mentioned categories were only mentioned, but not further explained with anchor quotations, which represents a methodological limitation. It is important to consider this methodological limitation when interpreting the results. Self-selection bias was another major limitation of this study. Participation in the study was voluntary, which could have biased the sample since only students interested in sustainable food choices volunteered to participate. In this context, the results may also have been distorted by social desirability–particularly in responses about the willingness to consume AFM. Of the 25 participants, 23 were willing to consume AFM, which could have been as a result of an improvement in selfpresentation [116]. Additionally, food choices are not only determined by cognitive factors such as willingness to consume; they are also determined by personal (e.g., psychological components and habits), external (e.g., the social environment), and sociocultural (e.g., culture, economic variables) factors [117]. These factors should be considered when interpreting our results since there may have been differences between participants’ statements about their consumption of milk alternatives and their actual behavior. Furthermore, 24 of the 25 participants stated that they have the right to co-determination when making purchases. Participants’ opportunities, cultural background, and level of education should be considered when interpreting our results since our results do not apply to adolescents from other educational backgrounds, younger people, or people from different cultural backgrounds. Differences in perceptions of PBMA and AFM can occur due to traditions and cultures [31, 57]. In addition, adolescents are largely financially dependent on their parents and do not have to make their own purchases. Therefore, young people’s attitudes and consumer behavior could change after they leave their parents’ homes. Particularly during the transition from school to university, new lifestyles often develop, and existing habits are reconsidered [118]. Labeling milk produced via precision fermentation as “AFM” was another methodological limitation. Zollman Thomas and Dillard [63] demonstrated that using different names for dairy products produced with precision fermentation has different effects on potential consumers. Following Zollman Thomas and Dillard’s [63] recommendations, we used the term “AFM” because it is simple and clearly differentiates AFM from CM. Nevertheless, the use of the English term “AFM” may have confused participants during the interviews, with some mistakenly thinking that it referred to PBMAs. Conclusions Our results showed that the adolescents in our study generally had positive attitudes toward PBMA and AFM. However, uncertainties about the production of AFM and its safety for human health diminished their positive attitudes. In addition, our results indicated that adolescents’ decisions to consume PBMA were driven by Page 18 of 21Szczepanski et al. BMC Nutrition (2025) 11:101 environmental protection and health promotion motives. The main motives to consume AFM were animal welfare and the equivalency of AFM to CM (e.g., in taste and consistency). Despite the perceived benefits of PBMA and AFM, their perceived sensory properties, costs, and production uncertainties represented barriers to their consumption. Based on our results, we derived implications for further research, education, and the food industry. Future studies could comparatively analyze young people’s and adults’ attitudes toward CM and dairy alternatives, as well as their motives for or against consuming these products. Another idea for further research would be to compare the attitudes and motives of young people in a country with a strong tradition of consuming dairy products, such as Germany, with those of young people in a country with a weaker tradition of consuming dairy products. Furthermore, we recommend that as the range of alternative products grows, the environmental impact and nutritional values of traditional foods and alternative products be discussed in more depth in the context of Education for Sustainable Development to reduce misconceptions about milk and milk alternatives and promote informed food choices. For the food industry, our results suggest that product communication for PBMA should be focused on the health benefits of such products and transparency in the unique nutritional profiles of various milk alternatives. For AFM, the positive attitudes of our sample provide a good starting point for market introduction. That is, during its introduction, its similarities to traditional milk, as well as its environmental benefits, should be emphasized. To overcome safety concerns about AFM, the EFSA’s approval of AFM for sale on the European market is essential. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 8 6 / s 4 0 7 9 5 - 0 2 5 - 0 1 0 7 2 - 8. Supplementary Material 1 Supplementary Material 2 Supplementary Material 3 Supplementary Material 4 Supplementary Material 5 Supplementary Material 6 Acknowledgements We want to thank the headmasters, teachers, and students at the participating schools for their cooperation in the present study. We acknowledge support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) and the Open Access Publishing Fund of Osnabrück University. Author contributions LS: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Methodology, Investigation, Formal Analysis, Writing– Original Draft Preparation, Writing– Review & Editing. LMB: Formal Analysis, Writing– Original Draft Preparation. CR: Formal Analysis, Writing– Original Draft Preparation. AE: Writing– Review & Editing. FF: Conceptualization, Writing– Review & Editing, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision. Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: This work was funded by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) and the Open Access Publishing Fund of Osnabrück University. Data availability The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate The study was carried out following the national and institutional guidelines, the Declaration of Helsinki, the German Research Foundation, and the American Psychological Association [119–121]. The ethics approval for the present study was issued by the Regional State Office for Schools and Education Osnabrueck (OS 1 R.24–0541 2/N). Participants gave their written informed consent to participate. Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Clinical trial number Not applicable. Received: 17 January 2025 / Accepted: 21 April 2025 References 1. Geburt K, Albrecht EH, Pointke M, Pawelzik E, Gerken M, Traulsen I. A comparative analysis of Plant-Based milk alternatives part 2: environmental impacts. Sustainability 2022;14;14. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 3 3 9 0 / s u 1 4 1 4 8 4 2 4 2. IPBES. The global assessment report of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Bonn: IPBES; 2019. 3. IPCC. Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. h t t p s : / / w w w . i p c c . c h / r e p o r t / a r 6 / s y r /; 2023 [accessed 14 December 2024]. 4. Poore J, Nemecek T. Reducing food´s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science. 2019;363. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 2 6 / s c i e n c e . a a w 9 9 0 8. 5. Vermeulen SJ, Campbell BM, Ingram JSI. Climate change and food systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 2012;37:195–222. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 4 6 / a n n u r e v - e n v i r o n - 0 2 0 4 1 1 - 1 3 0 6 0 8. 6. Agudelo Higuita NI, LaRocque R, McGushin A. Climate change, industrial animal agriculture, and the role of physicians– Time to act. J Clim Change Health. 2023;13. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . j o c l i m . 2 0 2 3 . 1 0 0 2 6 0 7. Xu X, Sharma P, Shu S, Lin TS, Ciais P, Tubiello FN, et al. Global greenhouse gas emissions from animal-based foods are twice those of plant-based foods. Nat Food. 2021;2(9):724–32. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 3 8 / s 4 3 0 1 6 - 0 2 1 - 0 0 3 5 8 - x. 8. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Livestock solutions for climate change. h t t p : / / w w w . f a o . o r g / g l e a m / r e s u l t s / e n /; 2017 [accessed 14 December 2024]. 9. Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar TD, Castel V, Rosales M, De Haan C. Livestock’s long shadow: Environmental issues and options. Rom: 2006. 10. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation. OECD-FAO agricultural outlook 2021–2030. Paris: OECD; 2021. 11. Statista. Milchersatzprodukte [Milk substitutes]. 2021. 12. Wyrzykowski Ł, Reincke K, Hemme T. IFCN Long-term Dairy Outlook. 2018. Page 19 of 21Szczepanski et al. BMC Nutrition (2025) 11:101 13. European Commission. Food-Based dietary guidelines recommendations for milk and dairy products. Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Knowledge Gateway; 2024. 14. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ernährung [The German Nutrition Society]. Einsatz von Milch und Milchprodukten in den DGE-Qualitätsstandards im Kontext von Altersgruppen und einer nachhaltigen Ernährung. Wissenschaftliche Hintergründe [Use of milk and dairy products in the DGE quality standards in the context of age groups and sustainable nutrition. Scientific background]. Bonn; 2021. 15. Röös E, Garnett T, Watz V, Sjörs C. The role of dairy and plant based dairy alternatives in sustainable diets. 2018. 16. Statistisches Bundesamt [Federal Statistical Office of Germany]. Deutschland größter Milcherzeuger der Europäischen Union [Germany is the largest milk producer in the European Union]. h t t p s : / / w w w . d e s t a t i s . d e / E u r o p a / D E / T h e m a / L a n d - F o r s t w i r t s c h a f t - F i s c h e r e i / M i l c h q u o t e . h t m l; 2022 [accessed 14 December 2024]. 17. Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung. [Federal Office for Agriculture and Food]. Milcherzeugung, Milchlieferung und Milchertrag in den Regionen 2023 [Milk production, milk supply and milk yield in the regions in 2023]. h t t p s : / / w w w . b l e . d e / D E / B Z L / D a t e n - B e r i c h t e / M i l c h - M i l c h e r z e u g n i s s e / _ f u n c t i o n s / T a b e l l e M i l c h e r z e u g u n g V e r w e n d u n g 2 0 2 3 . h t m l ? n n = 8 9 0 6 9 7 4; 2024 [accessed 14 December 2024]. 18. Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (BMEL). [Federal ministry of food and agriculture]. Milch und Milcherzeugnisse. Versorgungsbilanzen [Milk and dairy products. Supply Balances]. h t t p s : / / w w w . b m e l - s t a t i s t i k . d e / e r n a e h r u n g - fi s c h e r e i / v e r s o r g u n g s b i l a n z e n / m i l c h - u n d - m i l c h e r z e u g n i s s e; 2022 [accessed 14 December 2024]. 19. Carlsson Kanyama A, Hedin B, Katzeff C. Differences in environmental impact between plant-based alternatives to dairy and dairy products: A systematic literature review. Sustainability. 2021;13(22). h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 3 3 9 0 / s u 1 3 2 2 1 2 5 9 9. 20. Mendly-Zambo Z, Powell LJ, Newman LL. Dairy 3.0: cellular agriculture and the future of milk. Food Cult Soc. 2019;24(5):675–93. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 8 0 / 1 5 5 2 8 0 1 4 . 2 0 2 1 . 1 8 8 8 4 1 1. 21. Bridges M. Moo-ove over, cow’s milk: the rise of Plant-Based dairy alternatives. Pratical Gastroenterol. 2018;171:20–7. 22. Mäkinen OE, Wanhalinna V, Zannini E, Arendt EK. Foods for special dietary needs: Non-dairy Plant-based milk substitutes and fermented Dairy-type products. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2016;56(3):339–49. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 8 0 / 1 0 4 0 8 3 9 8 . 2 0 1 2 . 7 6 1 9 5 0. 23. Reyes-Jurado F, Soto-Reyes N, Dávila-Rodríguez M, Lorenzo-Leal AC, JiménezMunguía MT, Mani-López E, et al. Plant-Based milk alternatives: types, processes, benefits, and characteristics. Food Reviews Int. 2021;1–32. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 8 0 / 8 7 5 5 9 1 2 9 . 2 0 2 1 . 1 9 5 2 4 2 1. 24. Astolfi ML, Marconi E, Protano C, Canepari S. Comparative elemental analysis of dairy milk and plant-based milk alternatives. Food Control. 2020;116. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . f o o d c o n t . 2 0 2 0 . 1 0 7 3 2 7. 25. Fructuoso I, Romão B, Han H, Raposo A, Ariza-Montes A, Araya-Castillo L, et al. An overview on nutritional aspects of plant-based beverages used as substitutes for cow’s milk. Nutrients. 2021;13. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 3 3 9 0 / n u 1 3 0 8 2 6 5 0. 26. Pointke M, Albrecht EH, Geburt K, Gerken M, Traulsen I, Pawelzik E. A comparative analysis of Plant-Based milk alternatives part 1: composition, sensory, and nutritional value. Sustainability. 2022;14(13). h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 3 3 9 0 / s u 1 4 1 3 7 9 9 6. 27. Paul AA, Kumar S, Kumar V, Sharma R. Milk analog: plant based alternatives to conventional milk, production, potential and health concerns. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2019;60(18):3005–23. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 8 0 / 1 0 4 0 8 3 9 8 . 2 0 1 9 . 1 6 7 4 2 4 3. 28. Singh-Povel CM, Van Gool MP, Gual Rojas AP, Bragt MCE, Kleinnijenhuis AJ, Hettinga KA. Nutritional content, protein quantity, protein quality and carbon footprint of plant-based drinks and semi-skimmed milk in the Netherlands and Europe. Public Health Nutr. 2022;25(5):1416–26. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 7 / S 1 3 6 8 9 8 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 4 5 3. 29. Ercili D, Barth D. Cellular agriculture: lab grown foods. American Chemical Society; 2021. 30. Milburn J. Death-Free Dairy? The Ethics of Clean Milk. J Agric Environ Ethics. 2018;31(2):261–79. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / s 1 0 8 0 6 - 0 1 8 - 9 7 2 3 - x 31. Zollman Thomas O, Bryant C. Don’t Have a Cow, Man: Consumer Acceptance of Animal-Free Dairy Products in Five Countries. Front Sustain Food Syst 2021;5. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 3 3 8 9 / f s u f s . 2 0 2 1 . 6 7 8 4 9 1 32. Broad GM, Zollman Thomas O, Dillard C, Bowman D, Le Roy B. Framing the futures of animal-free dairy: using focus groups to explore earlyadopter perceptions of the precision fermentation process. Front Nutr. 2022;9(997632):01–14. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 3 3 8 9 / f n u t . 2 0 2 2 . 9 9 7 6 3 2. 33. Eibl R, Senn Y, Gubser G, Jossen V, van den Bos C, Eibl D. Cellular agriculture: opportunities and challenges. Annu Rev Food Sci Technol. 2021;12(1):51–73. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 4 6 / a n n u r e v - f o o d - 0 6 3 0 2 0 - 1 2 3 9 4 0. 34. Waltz E. Cow-less milk: the rising tide of animal-free dairy attracts big players. Nat Biotechnol. 2022;40(11):1531–3. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 3 8 / s 4 1 5 8 7 - 0 2 2 - 0 1 5 4 8 - z. 35. Lawton G. Brewing milk. New Sci 2021;46–9. 36. The Good Food Institute. 2023 State of the Industry Report Fermentation: Meat, seafood, eggs and dairy. 2024. 37. Formo. Cheese like you´ve always known. https://formo.bio/cheese/; 2022 [accessed 14 December 2024]. 38. Bhandari P, Mason S, Olander L. Life Cycle Assessment and Carbon Offset Potential for Cultured Milk Protein. Duke University: 2021. 39. Gasteratos K. 90 Reasons to Consider Cellular Agriculture. h t t p : / / n r s . h a r v a r d . e d u / u r n - 3 : H U L . I n s t R e p o s : 3 8 5 7 3 4 9 0; 2019 [accessed 14 December 2024]. 40. Perfect Day Inc. ISO-CONFORMANT REPORT, COMPARATIVE LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF. PERFECT DAY WHEY PROTEIN PRODUCTION TO DAIRY PROTEIN. Portland; 2021. 41. Sexton AE, Garnett T, Lorimer J. Framing the future of food: the contested promises of alternative proteins. Environ Plan E Nat Space. 2019;2(1):47–72. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 7 7 / 2 5 1 4 8 4 8 6 1 9 8 2 7 0 0 9. 42. European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (No 862957). Plant-based foods in Europe: How big is the market? Smart Protein Plant-based Food Sector Report. www.smartproteinproject.eu. 2021 [accessed 14 December 2024]. 43. European Union’s. Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (No 862957). What consumers want: A survey on European consumer attitudes towards plant-based foods. www.smartproteinproject.eu; 2021 [accessed 15 December 2024]. 44. POSpulse GmbH. Voll im Trend: Beliebte Milchersatzprodukte und auffällige Marken. Über Gründe für den Konsum von Milchersatzprodukten, liebste Produkte und auffällige Marken [Survey on popular milk alternatives in Germany]Popular milk substitutes and eye-catching brands. About reasons for consuming milk substitutes, favorite products and eye-catching brands]. 2021. 45. Statista. Umfrage zu beliebten Milchalternativen in Deutschland 2021 [Survey on popular milk alternatives in Germany in 2021]. 2024. 46. Hartman Group. Fermentation Fermenting the Future: The Growing Opportunity for Products Made with Precision Fermentation. 2023. 47. Kossmann H, Schulze H, Mergenthaler M, Breunig P. Acceptance of animalfree cheese products: evidence from an information experiment in Germany. Food Qual Prefer. 2023;111. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . f o o d q u a l . 2 0 2 3 . 1 0 4 9 8 4. 48. Slade P, Zollman Thomas O. Cheese without cows: consumer demand for animal-free dairy cheese made from cellular agriculture in the united Kingdom. Int Food Agribusiness Manage Rev:01–20. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 2 2 4 3 4 / i f a m r 2 0 2 2 - 0 1 5 0 49. Kühl S, Schäfer A, Kircher C, Mehlhose C. Beyond the cow: consumer perceptions and information impact on acceptance of precision fermentationproduced cheese in Germany. Future Foods. 2024;10. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . f u f o . 2 0 2 4 . 1 0 0 4 1 1. 50. Haas R, Schnepps A, Pichler A, Meixner O. Cow milk versus plant-based milk substitutes: A comparison of product image and motivational structure of consumption. Sustainability. 2019;11(18). h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 3 3 9 0 / s u 1 1 1 8 5 0 4 6. 51. Kempen E, Kasambala J, Christie L, Symington E, Jooste L, Van Eeden T. Expectancy-value theory contributes to Understanding consumer attitudes towards cow’s milk alternatives and variants. Int J Consum Stud. 2017;41(3):245–52. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 1 1 / i j c s . 1 2 3 3 1. 52. McCarthy KS, Parker M, Ameerally A, Drake SL, Drake MA. Drivers of choice for fluid milk versus plant-based alternatives: what are consumer perceptions of fluid milk? J Dairy Sci. 2017;100(8):6125–38. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 3 1 6 8 / j d s . 2 0 1 6 - 1 2 5 1 9. 53. Ajzen I. Nature and operation of attitudes. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52:27–58. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 4 6 / a n n u r e v . p s y c h . 5 2 . 1 . 2 7. 54. Solomon MR. Consumer Behavior: buying, having and being. 12th edition. Harlow: Pearson Education, Limited; 2018. 55. Solomon MR. Consumer behavior: a European perspective. 6th ed. Harlow: Pearson; 2016. Page 20 of 21Szczepanski et al. BMC Nutrition (2025) 11:101 56. Schiano AN, Nishku S, Racette CM, Drake MA. Parents’ implicit perceptions of dairy milk and plant-based milk alternatives. J Dairy Sci. 2022;105(6):4946–60. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 3 1 6 8 / j d s . 2 0 2 1 - 2 1 6 2 6. 57. Adamczyk D, Jaworska D, Affeltowicz D, Maison D. Plant-Based dairy alternatives: consumers’ perceptions, motivations, and Barriers—Results from a qualitative study in Poland. Ger France Nutrients. 2022;14(10). h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 3 3 9 0 / n u 1 4 1 0 2 1 7 1. 58. Halme M, Pirttilä-Backman AM, Pham T. The perceived value of oat milk and the food-choice motives of young, urban people. Br Food J. 2023;125(13):375–89. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 0 8 / B F J - 0 3 - 2 0 2 2 - 0 2 3 8. 59. Jaeger SR, Giacalone D. Barriers to consumption of plant-based beverages: A comparison of product users and non-users on emotional, conceptual, situational, conative and psychographic variables. Food Res Int 2021;144. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . f o o d r e s . 2 0 2 1 . 1 1 0 3 6 3 60. Martínez-Padilla E, Faber I, Petersen IL, Vargas-Bello-Pérez E. Perceptions toward Plant-Based Milk Alternatives among Young Adult Consumers and Non-Consumers in Denmark: An Exploratory Study. Foods. 2023;12(2). h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 3 3 9 0 / f o o d s 1 2 0 2 0 3 8 5 61. Palacios OM, Badran J, Spence L, Drake MA, Reisner M, Moskowitz HR. Measuring acceptance of milk and milk substitutes among younger and older children. J Food Sci. 2010;75(9). h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 1 1 / j . 1 7 5 0 - 3 8 4 1 . 2 0 1 0 . 0 1 8 3 9 . x. 62. Wunder S. Ersatzprodukte. Überall wird experimentiert [Experimenting everywhere]. Fleischatlas 2021;44–5. 63. Zollman Thomas O, Dillard C. A new way of making dairy: Perceptions, Naming and Implications. 64. Kroeber-Riel W, Gröppel-Klein A. Konsumentenverhalten [Consumer behavior]. 10th edition. München: Verlag Franz Vahlen; 2013. 65. Renner B, Sproesser G, Strohbach S, Schupp HT. Why we eat what we eat. Eat Motivation Surv (TEMS) Appetite. 2012;59(1):117–28. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . a p p e t . 2 0 1 2 . 0 4 . 0 0 4. 66. American Psychological Association. APA Dictionary of Psychology. h t t p s : / / d i c t i o n a r y . a p a . o r g / ; 2024 [accessed 15 December 2024]. 67. Boltz D-M, Trommsdorff V. Konsumentenverhalten [Consumer behavior]. 9th edition. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer GmbH; 2022. 68. Markovina J, Stewart-Knox BJ, Rankin A, Gibney M, de Almeida MDV, Fischer A, et al. Food4Me study: validity and reliability of food choice questionnaire in 9 European countries. Food Qual Prefer. 2015;45:26–32. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . f o o d q u a l . 2 0 1 5 . 0 5 . 0 0 2. 69. Cardello AV, Llobell F, Giacalone D, Roigard CM, Jaeger SR. Plant-based alternatives vs dairy milk: consumer segments and their sensory, emotional, cognitive and situational use responses to tasted products. Food Qual Prefer. 2022;100:104599. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . f o o d q u a l . 2 0 2 2 . 1 0 4 5 9 9. 70. Clark BE, Pope L, Belarmino EH. Perspectives from healthcare professionals on the nutritional adequacy of plant-based dairy alternatives: results of a mixed methods inquiry. BMC Nutr. 2022;8(1). h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 8 6 / s 4 0 7 9 5 - 0 2 2 - 0 0 5 4 2 - 7. 71. Collier ES, Harris KL, Bendtsen M, Norman C, Niimi J. Just a matter of taste? Understanding rationalizations for dairy consumption and their associations with sensory expectations of plant-based milk alternatives. Food Qual Prefer. 2023;104. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . f o o d q u a l . 2 0 2 2 . 1 0 4 7 4 5. 72. Giacalone D, Clausen MP, Jaeger SR. Understanding barriers to consumption of plant-based foods and beverages: insights from sensory and consumer science. Curr Opin Food Sci. 2022;48. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . c o f s . 2 0 2 2 . 1 0 0 9 1 9. 73. Sethi S, Tyagi SK, Anurag RK. Plant-based milk alternatives an emerging segment of functional beverages: a review. J Food Sci Technol. 2016;53:3408–23. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / s 1 3 1 9 7 - 0 1 6 - 2 3 2 8 - 3. 74. Jervis MG, Drake MA. The use of qualitative research methods in quantitative science: A review. J Sens Stud. 2014;29(4):234–47. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 1 1 / j o s s . 1 2 1 0 1. 75. Lien N, Lytle LA, Klepp KI. Stability in consumption of fruit, vegetables, and sugary foods in a cohort from age 14 to age 21. Prev Med. 2001;33(3):217–26. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 0 6 / p m e d . 2 0 0 1 . 0 8 7 4. 76. Lytle LA, Seifert S, Greenstein J, McGovern P. How do children’s eating patterns and food choices change over time?? Results from a cohort study. Am J Health Promotion. 2000;14(4):222–8. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 4 2 7 8 / 0 8 9 0 - 1 1 7 1 - 1 4 . 4 . 2 2 2. 77. American Psychological Association. Qualitative Design Reporting Standards (JARS-Qual). 2018. 78. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 9 3 / i n t q h c / m z m 0 4 2. 79. Reinders H. Qualitative Interviews mit Jugendlichen führen [Conducting qualitative interviews with young people]. 3rd edition. Berlin, Boston: Walter de Gruyter GmbH; 2016. 80. Kultusminister Konferenz [The Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs]. Bildungsstandards im Fach Biologie für die Allgemeine Hochschulreife [Educational standards in biology for the general higher education entrance qualification]. Berlin; 2020. 81. Döring N, Bortz J. Forschungsmethoden und -evaluation in den Sozialund Humanwissenschaften [Research methods and evaluation in the social and human sciences]. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2016. 82. Niebert K, Gropengießer H. Leitfadengestützte Interviews [Guided interviews]. In: Krüger D, Parchmann I, Schecker H, editors. Methoden in der naturwissenschaftsdidaktischen Forschung [Methods in didactic research in the natural sciences]. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2014. pp. 121–32. 83. Dresing T, Pehl T, Interview. Transkription & Analyse–Anleitungen und Regelsysteme für qualitativ Forschende [Interview, transcription & analysis – Instructions and rule systems for qualitative researchers]. 8th edition. 2018. 84. Gropengießer H. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse in der fachdidaktischen LehrLernforschung [Qualitative content analysis in didactic teaching and learning research]. 2008. 85. Verbi. MAXQDA 2020. 2020. 86. Kuckartz U, Rädiker S. Analyse qualitativer Daten mit MAXQDA. Text, Audio und Video [Analyzing qualitative data with MAXQDA. Text, audio and video]. Wiesbaden: Springer; 2019. 87. Brennan RL, Prediger DJ. Coefficient kappa: some uses, misuses, and alternatives. Educ Psychol Meas. 1981;41:687–99. 88. Bus AEM, Worsley A. Consumers’ health perceptions of three types of milk: A survey in Australia. Appetite. 2003;40(2):93–100. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / S 0 1 9 5 - 6 6 6 3 ( 0 3 ) 0 0 0 0 4 - 7. 89. People for the ethical treatment of animals. 12 Reasons to Stop Drinking Cow’s Milk. h t t p s : / / w w w . p e t a . o r g / l i v i n g / f o o d / r e a s o n s - s t o p - d r i n k i n g - m i l k /; 2022 [accessed 15 December 2024]. 90. Askew K, Food Navigator E. 2022. Half of Gen Z ashamed to order milk in public: Arla probes how social media and cancel culture shape attitudes toward dairy. h t t p s : / / w w w . f o o d n a v i g a t o r . c o m / A r t i c l e / 2 0 2 2 / 0 5 / 0 9 / h a l f - o f - g e n - z - a s h a m e d - t o - o r d e r - m i l k - i n - p u b l i c - a r l a - p r o b e s - h o w - s o c i a l - m e d i a - a n d - c a n c e l - c u l t u r e - s h a p e - a t t i t u d e s - t o - d a i r y; 2022 [accessed 15 December 2024]. 91. Fehlenberg V, Baumann M, Gasparri NI, Piquer-Rodriguez M, Gavier-Pizarro G, Kuemmerle T. The role of soybean production as an underlying driver of deforestation in the South American Chaco. Glob Environ Change. 2017;45:24–34. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . g l o e n v c h a . 2 0 1 7 . 0 5 . 0 0 1. 92. Goldsmith PD. Economics of soybean production, marketing, and utilization. Soybeans: Chem Prod Process Utilization. 2008;117–50. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / B 9 7 8 - 1 - 8 9 3 9 9 7 - 6 4 - 6 . 5 0 0 0 8 - 1. 93. Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, Springmann M, Lang T, Vermeulen S, et al. Food in the anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet Commissions. 2019;393:1–47. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / S 0 1 4 0 - 6 7 3 6 ( 1 8 ) 3 1 7 8 8 - 4. 94. Ajzen I. Consumer attitudes and behavior: the theory of planned behavior applied to food consumption decisions. Rivista Di Economica Agrar. 2015;70(2):121–8. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 3 1 2 8 / R E A - 1 8 0 0 3. 95. Shaw D, Hogg G, Wilson E, Shiu E, Hassan L. Fashion victim: the impact of fair trade concerns on clothing choice. J Strategic Mark. 2006;14(4):427–40. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 8 0 / 0 9 6 5 2 5 4 0 6 0 0 9 5 6 4 2 6. 96. Vermeir I, Verbeke W. Sustainable food consumption: exploring the consumer attitude - Behavioral intention gap. J Agric Environ Ethics. 2006;19(2):169–94. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / s 1 0 8 0 6 - 0 0 5 - 5 4 8 5 - 3. 97. Deutsche. Gesellschaft für Ernährung [The German Nutrition Society]. DGEErnährungskreis [DGE-nutrition circle]. 2024. 98. Bryant C, Barnett J. Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: an updated review (2018–2020). Appl Sci. 2020;10(15). h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 3 3 9 0 / a p p 1 0 1 5 5 2 0 1. 99. Bohlayer C, Geisel S, Greiff K, Frohnert K, Grabbe J, Grabbe J et al. Generationen-Management. Konzepte, Instrumente, Good-Practice-Ansätze [Generation Management. Concepts, instruments, good practice approaches]. 2nd edition. Wiesbaden: Springer; 2021. 100. Silanikove N, Leitner G, Merin U. The interrelationships between lactose intolerance and the modern dairy industry: global perspectives in evolutional and historical backgrounds. Nutrients. 2015;7(9):7312–31. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 3 3 9 0 / n u 7 0 9 5 3 4 0. Page 21 of 21Szczepanski et al. BMC Nutrition (2025) 11:101 101. Ammann J, Mack G, El Benni N, Jin S, Newell-Price P, Tindale S, et al. Consumers across five European countries prioritize animal welfare above environmental sustainability when buying meat and dairy products. Food Qual Prefer. 2024;117. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . f o o d q u a l . 2 0 2 4 . 1 0 5 1 7 9. 102. Zühlsdorf A, Jürkenbeck K, Schulze M, Spiller A. Politicized Eater: Jugendreport zur Zukunft nachhaltiger Ernährung [Politicized Eater: Youth report on the future of sustainable nutrition]. Göttingen; 2021. 103. Fiorentini M, Kinchla AJ, Nolden AA. Role of sensory evaluation in consumer acceptance of Plant-Based meat analogs and meat extenders: A scoping review. Foods. 2020;9(9):1334. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 3 3 9 0 / f o o d s 9 0 9 1 3 3 4. 104. Ammann J, Grande A, Inderbitzin J, Guggenbühl B. Understanding Swiss consumption of plant-based alternatives to dairy products. Food Qual Prefer. 2023;110. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . f o o d q u a l . 2 0 2 3 . 1 0 4 9 4 7. 105. Funcke A, Menne S. Kinderund Jugendarmut in Deutschland [Child and youth poverty in Germany]. Gütersloh; 2023. 106. Hoek AC, Malekpour S, Raven R, Court E, Byrne E. Towards environmentally sustainable food systems: decision-making factors in sustainable food production and consumption. Sustain Prod Consum. 2021;26:610–26. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . s p c . 2 0 2 0 . 1 2 . 0 0 9. 107. Muehlhoff E, Bennett A, McMahon D. Milk and dairy products in human nutrition. Rome; 2013. 108. Kleinjohann M, Reinecke V. Marketingkommunikation mit der Generation Z [Marketing communication with generation Z]. Wiesbaden: Springer; 2020. 109. Alpro, Keine Milch, schmeckt aber so. [No milk, but tastes like it.]. 2024. [accessed 15 December 2024]. h t t p s : / / w w w . a l p r o . c o m / d e / p r o d u k t e / n o t - m l k ? g a d _ s o u r c e = 1 & g c l i d = C j 0 K C Q i A 1 K m 7 B h C 9 A R I s A F Z f E I t O P 8 F R C x e I 8 v Y i F M d q M c u 2 Q x 5 d O l R y X 5 W n G A A h O l 2 u w R U Z a 8 X e a i Y a A q x 5 E A L w _ w c B & g c l s r c = a w . d s 110. The Good Food Institute Europe. VAT disparity: leveling the playing field for plant-based milk in Europe. h t t p s : / / g fi e u r o p e . o r g / b l o g / v a t - d i s p a r i t y - l e v e l l i n g - t h e - p l a y i n g - fi e l d - f o r - p l a n t - b a s e d - m i l k - i n - e u r o p e /; 2023 [accessed 15 December 2024]. 111. Salvy SJ, Elmo A, Nitecki LA, Kluczynski MA, Roemmich JN. Influence of parents and friends on children’s and adolescents’ food intake and food selection. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011;93(1):87–92. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 3 9 4 5 / a j c n . 1 1 0 . 0 0 2 0 9 7. 112. Neufeld LM, Andrade EB, Ballonoff Suleiman A, Barker M, Beal T, Blum LS, et al. Food choice in transition: adolescent autonomy, agency, and the food environment. Lancet. 2022;399:185–97. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / S 0 1 4 0 - 6 7 3 6 ( 2 1 ) 0 1 6 8 7 - 1. 113. Costa-Font M, Gil JM, Traill WB. Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: review and implications for food policy. Food Policy. 2008;33:99–111. 114. Mensink GBM, Lage Barbosa C, Brettschneider AK. Prevalence of persons following a vegetarian diet in Germany. J Health Monit. 2016;1(2). h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 7 8 8 6 / R K I - G B E - 2 0 1 6 - 0 3 9. 115. Zhu Q, Li Y, Geng Y, Qi Y. Green food consumption intention, behaviors and influencing factors among Chinese consumers. Food Qual Prefer. 2013;28(1):279–86. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . f o o d q u a l . 2 0 1 2 . 1 0 . 0 0 5. 116. Graeff TR. Response Bias. Encyclopedia of social measurement. Elsevier; 2005. pp. 411–8. 117. Chen PJ, Antonelli M. Conceptual models of food choice: influential factors related to foods, individual differences, and society. Foods. 2020;9. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 3 3 9 0 / f o o d s 9 1 2 1 8 9 8. 118. Downes L. Physical activity and dietary habits of college students. J Nurse Practitioners. 2015;11(2). h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . n u r p r a . 2 0 1 4 . 1 1 . 0 1 5. 119. American Psychological Association. ETHICAL PRINCIPLES OF PSYCHOLOGISTS AND CODE OF CONDUCT. 2017. 120. World Medical Association. WMA DECLARATION OF HELSINKI-ETHICAL PRINCIPLES FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS. 2022. 121. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft e.V. [German Research Foundation]. Guidelines for safeguarding good research practice. Code of Conduct. Bonn; 2022. Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.