How healthy are meat alternatives? A qualitative exploration among Dutch adults using the model of positive health

The global population is rapidly increasing, with the United Nations projecting 9.8 billion people by 2050 (1) . This growth places mounting pressure on both the environment and the global food system. Shifting dietary habits—particularly reducing the intake of environmentally intensive animal products in favour of plant-based alternatives—can help mitigate this impact (2) . However, changing meat consumption behaviour is complex, influenced not only by physical needs but also by psychological, cultural, emotional, and moral factors (3) . This study aimed to explore how meat alternatives influence the perceived health of young vegetarian adults, using the Positive Health model, which includes six dimensions: bodily functions, mental well-being, meaningfulness, quality of life, participation, and daily functioning (4-5) . A phenomenological qualitative design was employed, using semi-structured interviews to examine the perceived health effects of meat alternatives among young vegetarians. Participants (N=12) were aged 18–30 and had adopted a vegetarian diet after age 15. The study followed COREQ guidelines, ensuring transparency in recruitment, data collection, and analysis. The interviews were transcribed verbatim . The transcripts were analysed in ATLAS.ti using a thematic analysis approach. Findings reveal that meat alternatives influence multiple dimensions of positive health, particularly through their convenience, taste, and ethical alignment. For example, participants reported enhanced enjoyment of life due to the improved taste and availability of meat alternatives, with one participant noting they are now “little moments of happiness.” Mental well-being was often indirectly affected; several participants mentioned reduced stress in social settings due to the ease of finding vegetarian options. The dimension of meaningfulness was strongly tied to ethical and sustainability considerations, where one participant emphasised reducing their ecological footprint, while another participant expressed satisfaction in “not eating animals”, linking a dietary choice to their own ethical principles. Themes such as upbringing and motivations for dietary change also emerged, highlighting how early experiences or parenting roles shape dietary decisions. Notably, convenience surfaced as a cross-cutting concept influencing mental well-being, participation, and daily functioning—underscoring the interconnectedness of perceived health domains. This study offers a novel, holistic perspective on the role of meat alternatives in perceived health, extending beyond nutritional value to psychological and social dimensions. By framing health more broadly through the Positive Health model, this research underscores the potential of meat alternatives to support sustainable dietary transitions and encourages greater awareness of their multidimensional impact.