“I Have No Idea What's in It!”—A Qualitative Study of Adolescents' Conceptions of Milk Alternatives

1 of 17 Food Science & Nutrition, 2025; 13:e70259 https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.70259 Food Science & Nutrition SPECIAL ISSUE SDG 13 Climate Action ORIGINAL ARTICLE OPEN ACCESS “I Have No Idea What's in It!”—A Qualitative Study of Adolescents' Conceptions of Milk Alternatives LenaSzczepanski | InsaStonner | FlorianFiebelkorn Biology Didactics, Department of Biology/Chemistry, Osnabrück University, Osnabrück,Germany Correspondence: Lena Szczepanski ([email protected]) Received: 10 December 2024 | Revised: 18 March 2025 | Accepted: 21 April 2025 Keywords: consumer perception| dairy alternatives| nutrition education| sustainable nutrition| young people This study aimed to analyze and compare adolescents' conceptions of plantbased milk alternatives (PBMAs) and precision fermentationbased milk alternatives (AFM), their ingredients, and production. For this purpose, a qualitative approach with semistructured interviews was chosen. A total of twentyfive adolescents from Germany aged between 16 and 19 years were interviewed in September and October 2022. The interviews were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. The results show that the adolescents in our study held simplified conceptions of the ingredients (water, oats, sugar) and production (grind oats, mix with water, and heat the liquid if necessary) of PBMAs. Their conceptions differed depending on cow's milk and PBMA consumption, with PBMA consumers having the most differentiated conceptions. Regarding AFM, the adolescents held vague conceptions and expressed their lack of familiarity with the product. They either had no concept of AFM or believed AFM to be artificial, synthetic, or laboratory milk. In conclusion, adolescents' conceptions of milk alternatives were simplified and dependent on consumption patterns, with PBMA consumers having more differentiated conceptions. Based on our findings, we suggest that nutritional education should address the ingredients and production of cow's milk and milk alternatives, as well as their advantages and disadvantages, to enable young people to make informed decisions about their consumption of milk (alternatives). 1 | Introduction Over the past decade, the consumption of plantbased milk alternatives (PBMAs) has become increasingly popular in Europe, with oat, almond, and soy milk being the most consumed (European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme [No 862957],2021a, 2021b). The environmental impact of PBMAs is lower than that of cow's milk. For example, the production of 1 L of conventional cow's milk causes between 1.4 and 3.2 kg CO2 equivalents, while the production of 1 L of oat, almond, or soy milk causes between 0.4 and 1.0 kg CO2 equivalents (Carlsson Kanyama etal.2021; Geburt etal.2022; Poore and Nemecek 2019). Furthermore, the production of conventional cow's milk requires more land than the production of oat, almond, or soy milk (Carlsson Kanyama etal.2021; Geburt etal.2022; Poore and Nemecek2019): Producing 1 L of conventional cow's milk requires 1 m2 of land, while producing 1 L of oat, almond, or soy milk requires between 0.4 and 0.6 m2 (Geburt etal.2022). Water use is also lower in the production of oat and soy milk (1.7–2.7 m3/L) than in the production of conventional cow's milk (7.4 m3/L). Water use in the production of almond milk depends heavily on the region, though, and studies have shown both higher and lower values compared to cow's milk (Carlsson Kanyama etal.2021; Geburt etal.2022). Notably, the environmental impacts of cow's milk and PBMA production generally depend on the area of cultivation and the production method (organic or conventional; Carlsson Kanyama etal.2021; Geburt etal.2022; Poore and Nemecek2019). However, the nutritional values of PBMAs and cow's milk differ. The macroand micronutrients in oat, almond, or soy milk are not equivalent to those in cow's milk, nor is the energy, fat, vitamin (e.g., A, B2, B12, and D), and other mineral (e.g., calcium, iodine, zinc, magnesium) content (Paul etal.2019; SinghPovel This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2025 The Author(s). Food Science & Nutrition published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. 2 of 17 Food Science & Nutrition, 2025 etal.2022). For example, 100 g of oat and almond milk have a lower protein content than 100 g of cow's milk, while the protein content of soy milk is roughly comparable to that of cow's milk (Paul etal.2019; Pointke etal.2022b; SinghPovel etal.2022). Because cow's milk provides essential nutrients such as calcium and iodine, some manufacturers add minerals or vitamins to PBMAs (ReyesJurado etal.2021). Companies worldwide are working on the production of another milk alternative—termed “animalfree milk” (AFM)—that is molecularly identical to conventional cow's milk but does not require breeding and maintaining dairy cows for its production (Gasteratos2019; Lawton2021; MendlyZambo etal.2019). Scientists have estimated that the production of AFM emits 35%–96% less greenhouse gases and requires 77%–97% less land than the production of cow's milk (Lawton2021; MendlyZambo etal.2019; Perfect Day Inc.2021). 1.1 | Perceptions of Milk Alternatives Previous research has already identified some drivers of and barriers to consuming milk alternatives (e.g., Adamczyk etal.2022; Giacalone etal.2022; Haas etal.2019; Pointke etal.2022b). The most important reasons mentioned for consuming PBMAs include animal welfare, environmental protection, and the promotion of individual health (Adamczyk etal.2022; Haas etal.2019; Pointke etal.2022b). Curiosity about and interest in new products also drive people to consume PBMAs and AFM (Adamczyk etal.2022). In contrast, sensory properties (expected or real) and unfamiliarity with milk alternatives were identified as barriers. Accordingly, the acceptance of milk alternatives depends not only on the personal preferences of consumers but also on productrelated factors such as perceptions of milk alternatives (Giacalone etal.2022). In more detail, PBMAs are often perceived as less nutritious, more artificial, and more expensive than cow's milk (Haas etal.2019; Kempen etal.2017; Schiano etal.2020). However, perceptions of PBMAs vary depending on the consumption of PBMAs. For example, consumers of PBMAs perceive them as natural, healthy, tasty, or nutritionally equivalent to cow's milk, while people who do not consume PBMAs perceive them as highly processed or artificial (MartínezPadilla etal.2023). In addition, perceptions differ among the types of milk alternatives (Haas etal.2019; Halme etal.2023; Kempen etal.2017). Oat milk, for example, is perceived as more environmentally friendly due to its lower carbon footprint than cow's milk (Halme etal.2023). Animalfree dairy products such as cheese are often perceived as less tasty and natural than conventional cheese (Zollman Thomas and Bryant2021). Zollman Thomas and Dillard(2022) also showed that consumers from the US, Singapore, the UK, and Germany perceived the production of animalfree dairy products as technical and scary. However, animalfree cheese was perceived as the most ethical and environmentally friendly product compared to conventional and vegan cheese in their study (Zollman Thomas and Bryant2021). Perceptions of milk alternatives are based on memorized or current product information (i.e., conceptions; KroeberRiel and GröppelKlein2013). In our study, we define conceptions as mental constructs of varying complexity that concern a topic, object, or behavior, including ideas, beliefs, and knowledge (Duit etal.2012; Gropengießer2020). Conceptions can be categorized as cognitive processes, as cognitions include all forms of thinking and knowledge (American Psychological Association,2022). Importantly, conceptions of an object or topic may be scientifically inaccurate or false (i.e., misconceptions), as conceptions may arise subconsciously (Coley and Tanner2012). In consumer psychology, conceptions include subjective beliefs and knowledge about a product or product category based on individual experiences, social influences, and media information (KroeberRiel and GröppelKlein2013). People already have simple conceptions about most products that can be deeply embedded. These conceptions affect how people perceive a product and thus influence consumer acceptance of that product (KroeberRiel and GröppelKlein 2013). For example, the perception of PBMAs as artificial might be based on complex conceptions about their production process. However, to the best of our knowledge, no study has yet examined young consumers' conceptions of PBMAs and AFM. 1.2 | Aims of the Study In this study, we aim to close this research gap by identifying and analyzing adolescents' conceptions of PBMAs and AFM. We focus on adolescents because younger people are more adventurous in their food choices, and their diets are more flexible than those of adults, which are important factors for shaping future dietary trends (Desbouys etal.2021; Diethelm etal.2012; Lytle etal.2000; Shaikh etal.2016). Furthermore, education can inform young people about how their diets affect human health, animal welfare, and the environment, prompting them to make responsible consumption choices. This can promote sustainable food consumption, as per the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 12; UNESCO2017). Thus, the first aim of our study was to examine adolescents' conceptionsof milk alternatives—in particular, their conceptions of PBMAs and AFM, their ingredients, and production. This aim resulted in two research questions (RQs): • RQ1: What are adolescents' conceptions of PBMAs, their ingredients, and their production? • RQ2: What are adolescents' conceptions of AFM, its ingredients, and its production? In Germany, people currently consume more cow's milk than PBMAs (Quantilope2024), despite the consumption of milk in Germany decreasing in recent years (Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung2024). Therefore, the second aim of our study was to analyze how the conceptions of adolescent cow's milk consumers (CMCs; i.e., nonconsumers of PBMAs), PBMA consumers (PBMACs), and consumers of both cow's milk and PBMAs (BCs) differ. A differentiated consideration of the conceptions of these user groups may enable the development of specific market strategies (e.g., by motivating casual consumers or CMCs to consume milk alternatives or by increasing the loyalty of existing PBMACs to milk 20487177, 2025, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/fsn3.70259 by Universitätsbibliothek Osnabrück, Wiley Online Library on [20/02/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 3 of 17 alternatives; MartínezPadilla etal.2023). This aim resulted in the third RQ: • RQ3: How do conceptions of milk alternatives differ among adolescent CMCs, PBMACs, and BCs? 2 | Milk Alternatives—Definition, Ingredients, and Production 2.1 | PBMAs PBMAs are defined as suspensions of water and dissolved plant components and are similar to cow's milk in their appearance, sensory properties, and possible uses (Bridges2018; Mäkinen etal.2016; ReyesJurado etal.2021). A general classification is made between PBMAs made from cereals (e.g., oats), legumes (e.g., soy), nuts (e.g., almonds), oilseeds (e.g., flaxseeds), and pseudocereals (e.g., quinoa; Astolfi etal.2020; Bridges2018; Paul etal.2019; Sethi etal.2016). PBMAs are produced by processing raw plant materials with water, turning them into a homogeneous liquid, following which stabilizers or other ingredients such as oil are added to achieve the desired texture and taste. In the first step, the plant's raw materials are soaked in water and then wet milled to extract nutrients such as carbohydrates, proteins, and fats (wet grinding). Alternatively, the plant's raw materials can be processed into flour and then mixed with water (dry grinding). The rough plant components are then separated from the resulting suspension via filtering, decanting, or centrifuging. Additional ingredients can then be added to formulate the product, including oils, salt, sugar, sweeteners, flavorings, or colorings, to improve consistency and/or taste. Emulsifiers and stabilizers may also be added to optimize the consistency and stability of the PBMA. This mixture of water, plant extracts, and other ingredients is then homogenized to produce a stable emulsion. After homogenization, the emulsion is heattreated via either pasteurization or ultrahigh temperatures. Both processes are used for preservation, resulting in the longer shelf life of PBMAs (Mäkinen etal.2016; ReyesJurado etal.2021). Due to the production process, PBMAs can be categorized as processed or ultraprocessed foods according to the NOVA food classification system (Monteiro etal.2016). This categorization depends on the list of ingredients: PBMAs that consist of plantbased raw materials, water, oil, and salt are considered processed foods, while those that contain emulsifiers or food colorings are considered ultraprocessed foods (Monteiro etal.2019). In the European Union, PBMAs may not be referred to as milk, as this term is legally protected (European Parliament and Council of the European Union2013). Therefore, PBMAs are often marketed as a “drink” and not “milk” (e.g., oat drink) in Europe. In contrast, in the US, PBMAs are allowed to be sold and marketed as “milk”. The Food and Drug Administration(2023) recommends that producers indicate the nutritional values of PBMAs and their comparisons with those of conventional cow's milk on the packaging, though. 2.2 | AFM AFM is equivalent to cow's milk in appearance, sensory properties, and nutrients. The main ingredients are water and the cow milk proteins casein and whey protein, which are produced using precision fermentation. With this process, microorganisms (fungi or yeasts) are genetically modifiedand placed into a bioreactor with a culture medium to express casein and whey protein. These are then mixed with water, sugar, plantbased fats, and minerals to produce animalfree products such as AFM (Ercili and Barth2021; Lawton2021; MendlyZambo etal.2019; Waltz2022). In the US, Singapore, and Hong Kong, animalfree dairy products made through precision fermentation have been available since 2021. In Europe, neither animalfree dairy nor AFM is available, though. The Novel Food Regulation of the European Union is expected to approve AFM in Europe soon, as the ingredients of AFM (casein and whey protein) are produced with microorganisms (European Parliament and Council of the European Union2015). In Germany, the food technology company Formo is working on the production of cheese alternatives using precision fermentation, and there were plans to introduce animalfree cheese to the German market in 2024 (Formo2022, 2024). Based on the production process and the presence of casein and whey protein, AFM can be categorized as an ultraprocessed food according to the NOVA food classification system (Monteiro etal.2019). 3 | Methods The materials and methods are described following the Qualitative Design Reporting Standards (JARSQual; American Psychological Association2018). 3.1 | Study Design and Interview Procedure We chose a qualitative approach using individual interviews and a semistructured interview guide to identify adolescents' conceptions of milk alternatives (Kumar2024). A qualitative research design provides a detailed exploration of individual associations and conceptions that are difficult to access through standardized questionnaires (Flick2018). In contrast, a semistructured interview guide provides flexibility, allowing participants to express their thoughts freely (Reinders 2016). The interview guide was tested in a pilot study with four adolescents before data collection to optimize the interview questions, prompts, and process (Döring and Bortz2016). The pilot interviews were not included in the data analysis. The interview guide was divided into four parts: (1) the introduction, (2) the main part concerning PBMAs, (3) the main part concerning AFM, and (4) the conclusion comprising a short questionnaire to characterize the participants (Figure1). During data collection, the order of the two main interview 20487177, 2025, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/fsn3.70259 by Universitätsbibliothek Osnabrück, Wiley Online Library on [20/02/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 4 of 17 Food Science & Nutrition, 2025 parts was switched after each participant to minimize the possible influence of the order on participants' statements. The main parts were divided into three phases: (1) conceptions of PBMAs/ AFM and their production, (2) attitudes toward PBMAs/AFM, and (3) motives for and against the consumption of PBMAs/the willingness to consume AFM (Figure1). To address our RQs, only data from the first phase of the main parts were analyzed. The complete interview guide with the guiding questions and prompts is provided in AppendixS1. In the first phase, the adolescents were asked about their conceptions of PBMAs/AFM, their ingredients, and their production. Participants were first asked what they understood by PBMAs/AFM. They were then asked about their conceptions of the ingredients of PBMAs/AFM. To capture adolescents' conceptions of PBMA production, they were first informed about PBMA ingredients by showing them an oat milk carton (water, oats [12%], sunflower oil, and sea salt). They were then asked how they imagined the production of a PBMA, such as oat milk, using these ingredients. As AFM is not yet available on the European market, it was not possible to present AFM and its ingredients. Thus, the adolescents were asked about their conceptions of producing AFM without further information and then received a short text about AFM for the second phase (AppendixS2). This text contained a brief explanation of the impact of livestock farming, what AFM is, and how it is produced. In the second phase, the adolescents were asked to evaluate PBMAs or AFM as “(rather) positive” or “(rather) negative” to assess their attitudes toward milk alternatives (Ajzen2001). In the third phase, the adolescents were asked about their consumption of PBMAs or their willingness to consume AFM. Based on these results, the motives for and against the consumption of PBMAs/AFM were assessed with the questions “Why do you (never) drink PBMAs as an alternative to cow's milk?” and “Why are you (not) willing to consume AFM as an alternative to cow's milk?” (KroeberRiel and GröppelKlein2013). This article focuses on the results from the first interview phase. The results of the second and third interview phases are presented in a seperate publication (Szczepanski etal. 2025). However, the motives for and against consuming PBMAs from the third interview phase were considered when describing the sample and discussing the results (Table1). At the end of the interview, a short questionnaire was completed by each participant that included sociodemographic information and questions about their consumption of cow's milk and milk alternatives (AppendixS1). The questionnaire was purely descriptive (not a psychometric measuring instrument). It was used to collect data on gender (male, female, or other), place of residence (urban or rural), diet (omnivorous, vegetarian, vegan, or other), and consumption of plantbased drinks (never, monthly, weekly, or daily) and cow's milk (never, monthly, weekly, or daily; Table1). 3.2 | Sample and Data Collection For sample construction, the inductive sampling method for exploratory studies, according to Reinders(2016), was chosen. The sample was selected based on three criteria: participants had to (1) be at least uppersecondary school students, (2) identify with different genders, and (3) consume either cow's milk or PBMAs. The criteria ‘uppersecondary school’ ensured that the adolescents had sufficient biological knowledge to understand the production of AFM for the interview phases two and three. The criteria “gender” and “consumer behavior” were chosen to determine the conceptions, attitudes, and motives of adolescents of all genders and consumer groups. In September and October 2022, we interviewed 25 adolescents from Germany aged between 16 and 19 (N = 25; MAge = 17.60 years; SDAge = 0.63 years; 60% female). The interviews took an average of 41.86 min (SDDuration = 6.07 min). The FIGURE 1 | Key questions and research interests in the main phase of the interview regarding conceptions of milk alternatives. Note. Phases two and three of the main parts of the interview were not analyzed in this study. In the second phase, the adolescents were asked about their evaluation of plantbased milk alternatives and animalfree milk. In the third phase, the adolescents were asked about their motives for and against the consumption of plantbased milk alternatives and animalfree milk. Main parts Introduction Closing Main part Animal-free milk (AFM) Main part Plant-based milk alternatives (PBMAs) Phase 1 Conceptions of PBMAs and their production Phase 3 Motives for/against PBMA consumption Phase 2 Attitudes toward PBMAs Phase 3 Motives for/against willingness to consume AFM Key questions conceptions “What do you comprehend by plant-based milk alternatives?“ “What do you think are the ingredients of plantbased milk alternatives?” “How do you imagine the production of plantbased milk alternatives such as oat milk?” Research interest Adolescents' conceptions of PBMAs and their production Phase 1 Conceptions of AFM and its production Phase 2 Attitudes toward AFM Key questions conceptions “What do you think “animal-free milk” is?“ “What do you think are the ingredients of “animal-free milk”?” “How do you imagine the production of “animalfree milk”?” Research interest Adolescents' conceptions of AFM and its production 20487177, 2025, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/fsn3.70259 by Universitätsbibliothek Osnabrück, Wiley Online Library on [20/02/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 5 of 17 TABLE 1 | Overview of the sample (N = 25). NameaGender Age Interview duration Consumption cow milkb Consumption PBMAsc Willingness to consume AFMd Motives for PBMAconsumptione Motives against PBMAconsumptionf Cow's milk consumers Liam Male 17 50.30 min Daily Never Willing / Lack of familiarity Social influence Alexander Male 17 47.63 min Daily Never Not willing Social norm Price Taste and consistency Mathys Male 17 29.33 min Daily Never Willing Animal welfare Social influence Convenience Mila Female 18 38.01 min Daily Never Willing /Price Taste and consistency Isabella Female 18 50.67 min Daily Never Willing /Taste and consistency Individual health Amelia Female 18 39.88 min Daily Never Willing /Social influence/norm Convenience Charlotte Female 18 35.73 min Daily Never Willing / Lack of familiarity Convenience Maelys Female 18 42.56 min Weekly Never Willing Animal welfare Environmental protection Taste and consistency Plantbased milk alternative consumers Oliver Male 17 41.40 min Never Weekly Willing Individual health Social influence / Samuel Male 18 46.07 min Never Weekly Willing Taste and consistency Environmental protection Environmental protection Sophie Female 18 40.47 min Never Weekly Willing Animal welfare Social influence/norm / Emmy Female 17 46.07 min Never Weekly Willing Individual health Animal welfare Uncertainties Cow's milk and plantbased milk alternative consumers Jack Male 18 34.73 min Daily Daily Willing Environmental protection Individual health Taste and consistency (Continues) 20487177, 2025, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/fsn3.70259 by Universitätsbibliothek Osnabrück, Wiley Online Library on [20/02/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 6 of 17 Food Science & Nutrition, 2025 NameaGender Age Interview duration Consumption cow milkb Consumption PBMAsc Willingness to consume AFMd Motives for PBMAconsumptione Motives against PBMAconsumptionf Lucas Male 18 37.63 min Daily Daily Willing Social influence Environmental protection / Mason Male 17 46.80 min Weekly Daily Willing Environmental protection Individual health Price Lily Female 18 35.07 min Weekly Daily Willing Individual health Animal welfare Price Taste and consistency Emma Female 17 45.11 min Monthly Daily Willing Individual health Animal welfare Environmental protection Mia Female 19 49.21 min Monthly Daily Willing Environmental protection Animal welfare / Ella Female 18 51.63 min Weekly Weekly Willing Environmental protection Animal welfare Social norm Taste and consistency Olivia Female 18 47.87 min Weekly Weekly Willing Environmental protection Animal welfare Lack of familiarity Taste and consistency Emily Female 18 35.78 min Weekly Weekly Willing Taste and consistency Individual health Social influence/norm Taste and consistency Benjamin Male 16 41.13 min Weekly Weekly Willing Individual health Animal welfare / Emilia Female 17 32.32 min Monthly Weekly Willing Environmental protection Individual health Social influence Sophia Female 17 43.11 min Weekly Monthly Willing Animal welfare Environmental protection Taste and consistency Elias Male 18 39.01 min Monthly Monthly Not willing Generation ideales Environmental protection Price Note: “/” means that no motives for or against consuming PBMAs were given. Abbreviations: AFM, animalfree milk; PBMAs, plantbased milk alternatives. aRandomly selected pseudonym according to the most popular first names in 2022 in the United States of America. bThe adolescents were asked about their consumption of cow's milk after the interview and could choose daily, weekly, monthly, or never. cThe adolescents were asked about their consumption of PBMAs after the interview and could choose daily, weekly, monthly, or never. dDuring 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. eIn the third phase of the interview, the adolescents were asked what they considered to be the most important motive for the consumption of PBMAs. fIn the third phase of the interview, the adolescents were asked what they considered to be the most important motive against the consumption of PBMAs. TABLE 1 | (Continued) 20487177, 2025, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/fsn3.70259 by Universitätsbibliothek Osnabrück, Wiley Online Library on [20/02/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 7 of 17 adolescents came from five secondary schools in the city and district of Osnabrück (Lower Saxony, Germany). They were in the eleventh to thirteenth grades (uppersecondary school) and living with their parents at the time of data collection, with 13 living in a rural and 12 in an urban area. Fifteen adolescents were omnivorous, seven were vegetarian, two were flexitarian, and one was vegan. Eight adolescents reported not consuming PBMAs but consuming cow's milk daily or weekly. Four adolescents reported not consuming cow's milk but consuming PBMAs weekly. Thirteen adolescents consumed both cow's milk and PBMAs. The most important reasons for the consumption of PBMAs for the adolescents in our study were environmental protection, animal welfare, and health promotion. The main reasons against the consumption of PBMAs were taste and consistency, social influence, social norms, and price (Table1). Descriptive statistics of the sample and their selfreported consumption of cow's milk, PBMAs, and their willingness to consume AFM are presented in Table1. All names mentioned in the article have been replaced with pseudonyms to ensure anonymity. School principals of all secondary schools in Osnabrück were contacted via email to recruit uppersecondary school students to participate in the study. The email contained a description of the research project and a request for permission to collect data from uppersecondary school students. The ethics approval for the study by the Regional State Office for Schools and Education Osnabrück (OS 1 R.24–0541 2/N) was also attached. Principals forwarded the invitation to biology teachers, who then recruited voluntary participants. The biology teachers were instructed to ensure an equal distribution of genders and consumption of PBMAs and cow's milk when selecting participants. The interviews were scheduled in blocks, with participants from the same school being interviewed on the same day. After each interview block, content saturation was discussed by two coders. The two coders used the deductive category system as a foundation, in addition to the audio recordings, to discuss whether new content and inductive codes had arisen. After 21 interviews, the content was considered to be saturated. At this point, four more interviews were scheduled, which were then conducted. This resulted in a final sample size of 25. Consent declarations were signed by the school principals, the students, and—in the case of underage students—the parents before the data were collected. The students and parents also received an information letter informing them about the aims of the study, the voluntary nature of participation, and the anonymization of the data. The content of the interview guide was not communicated to the students before the study. Participation was voluntary and anonymous, and students could withdraw from the study without consequences. 3.3 | Data Processing and Analysis Interview audio records were transcribed according to Dresing and Pehl(2018). The transcripts were then redacted according to Gropengießer(2008) to improve readability and reduce the content in the transcripts concerning the research questions. The transcription and redaction rules are provided in AppendixS3. The redacted data were analyzed in MAXQDA 2020 (Verbi.2020) using qualitative content analysis (Kuckartz and Rädiker2019). This was done to compare the respondents' conceptions with the scientific content. As our sample was not representative of adolescents in Germany, we did not aim to make any generalized statements; however, we used frequency data to illustrate trends within our sample (American Psychological Association2018). Based on the research questions and interview phases, a deductive category system was developed with the following superordinate categories: “Conceptions of PBMAs” and “Conceptions of AFM.” The two superordinate categories were each subdivided deductively into three subcategories, “Definition PBMAs/AFM,” “Ingredients of PBMAs/AFM,” and “Production of PBMAs/AFM”. Within each subcategory, deductive codes were created based on the science content concerning PBMAs/AFM, their ingredients, and the production process (Chapters2.1 and 2.2). Inductive codes (*) were derived from the statements made by the participants during data analysis (Tables2 and 3). To compare the conceptions of adolescents who consumed cow's milk, PBMAs, or both, participants were assigned to one of three consumption groups (CMCs, n = 8; PBMACs, n = 4; and BCs, n = 13) based on their selfreported consumption habits (RQ3; Table1). The complete category system can be found in AppendixS4. To confirm the internal coding agreement, 20% of all relevant statements that answered the RQs were additionally coded by the second author (Kuckartz and Rädiker2019). To assess the agreement between the coders, the kappa coefficient, according to Brennan and Prediger (1981), was calculated in MAXQDA. The resulting kappa value was 0.80, indicating nearperfect intercoder agreement (Landis and Koch1977). 4 | Results 4.1 | Conceptions of PBMAs 4.1.1 | Definition of PBMAs All adolescents in our study were familiar with at least one PBMA, with cerealbased (n = 29), nutbased (n = 27), and legumebased (n = 23) PBMAs being the most mentioned. Oat milk (n = 23) was the bestknown PBMA, followed by soy (n = 21) and almond (n = 21). Most adolescents perceived PBMAs as a substitute for cow's milk (n = 16), with Sophie, Mila, and Charlotte emphasizing the role of PBMAs for people with a vegan diet or lactose intolerance (Sophie: “PBMAs are definitely something that you can consume as a substitute for milk […] or if you are lactose intolerant”). Only Emma, Charlotte, and Lucas provided more details; specifically, that PBMAs are a suspension of water and plant components that has a “[…] milklike taste, consistency and color […]” (Charlotte). Furthermore, all adolescents in our study referred to PBMAs as milk (e.g., oat milk) and not as a drink. 20487177, 2025, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/fsn3.70259 by Universitätsbibliothek Osnabrück, Wiley Online Library on [20/02/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 8 of 17 Food Science & Nutrition, 2025 4.1.2 | Ingredients and the Production of PBMAs Almost all the adolescents in our study named water (n = 25) and raw plant material such as oats (n = 23) as the main components of PBMAs (e.g., Isabella: “Oats or almonds are naturally in it and water, of course, to make it liquid”); however, the participants had different ideas about the proportion of the two main components. For some, they believed the main ingredient was the raw plant material, which is mixed with “[…] a little bit of water […]” (Lucas) to produce the liquid. Others believed water was the “[…] basic substance of plantbased milk […]” (Amelia). The adolescents thought the third component of plant milk was “[…] probably sugar/sweetener” (n = 14). Other ingredients of PBMAs such as oil (n = 0), salt (n = 2), minerals (n = 4), vitamins (n = 1), and stabilizers (n = 0) were rarely mentioned (Table4). Regarding the production process of PBMAs, most study participants envisioned two steps needed to produce oat milk: soaking or mixing raw plant material with water (n = 19) and dry or wet grinding of raw plant material (n = 16) (Table4). Emma described the production process: “First, the oats or almonds are soaked in water, and then everything is mixed to get a smooth liquid.” Participants predominantly shared the idea that the ingredients (water and oats) were mixed, and then “[…] oat milk is produced by stirring” (Mathys). Olivia's description provides insights into her view of the production process: “I think water is the basis of oat milk. Then, I guess water is mixed with oats, and probably the rest, like salt and oil, is added. I would say it's all mixed.” Subsequently, only some participants envisioned how the oatwater mixture would be further processed. They described that, after mixing the oats and water, the mixture is filtered (n = 6), and eventually, “[…]something happens with heat” (Mila) (n = 10). Mila stated: “You mix the ingredients in a pot and heat them up. Then oat milk comes out.” Only Benjamin explained the purpose of heat treatment in this context: “[…] PBMAs have to be heated so that they last longer, as with pasteurization.” None of the adolescents imagined that technical processes such as homogenization would be carried out on PBMAs to achieve the required consistency and shelf life. Furthermore, some adolescents expressed uncertainties about the production process and said that they either knew little about the process or had not thought about it. For example, Emma mentioned: “I've never actually thought about how exactly plant milk is made.” Isabella agreed, stating: “It's something I've never really thought about.” TABLE 2 | Category system for analyzing adolescents' conceptions of PBMAs. Conceptions of PBMAs Definition PBMAs Ingredients PBMAs Production of PBMAs Aloe vera milk Additives*Cleaning raw plant material* Banana milk*Binders*Cultivation/Harverst raw plant material* Cereal milk Chemicals*Dry or wet grinding Coconut milk*Emulsifiers*Filtration Cow's milk alternative Fat*Heat treatment Legume milk Fiber*Homogenization Nut milk Flavor enhancer*Mixing ingredients* Oilseed milk Flavors*Packaging Smoothie*Food colorings*Product formulation Minerals Pressing raw plant material* Nutrients*Quality tests/controls* Oil Soaking/Mixing with water (Plantbased) proteins* Preservatives* Raw plant material Salt Stabilizers Sweeteners/Sugar Vitamins Water Abbreviation: PBMAs, plantbased milk alternatives. *Inductively coded categories. 20487177, 2025, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/fsn3.70259 by Universitätsbibliothek Osnabrück, Wiley Online Library on [20/02/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 9 of 17 4.2 | Conceptions of AFM 4.2.1 | Definition of AFM Nearly all adolescents in our study conceptualized AFM as a vegan/PBMA (n = 24), which “[…] is free from animal ingredients and no animals are involved in its production […] ” (Lucas). They had difficulty differentiating AFM from PBMAs, often perceiving both as animalfree products. For example, Mila stated: I imagine that AFM is something that doesn't contain any animal ingredients, so it's not going to be regular milk. I just don't know what the difference is to PBMAs because they don't contain any animal ingredients either. After the adolescents expressed their conceptions of AFM, they were informed that AFM is not a PBMA. As a result, some imagined AFM as an artificial (n = 9) or laboratory milk (n = 7). However, the participants then stated that they did not have differentiated conceptions of artificial or laboratory milk, as Amelia and Charlotte explained: Well, if it's not plantbased and not animalbased, then it can only be chemical and artificial. But I don't have any idea what it's like. (Amelia) If it's not plantbased, it sounds very artificial to me, a bit synthesized. (Charlotte) 4.2.2 | Ingredients and the Production of AFM Most of our study participants had limited or no conceptions of the ingredients and production of AFM (Table5). Lily, Benjamin, Emmy, and Mathys stated: TABLE 3 | Category system for analyzing adolescents' conceptions of AFM. Conceptions of AFM Definition AFM Ingredients AFM Production of AFM Animalfriendly milk*Additives*Copying milk* Artificial milk*Binders*Cultivating milk cells* Cow's milk equivalent Cereals*(Further) processing Lab milk*Chemicals*Heat treatment* Plantbased/Animalfree*Different substances*Modification of microorganisms Fat*Multiplication of milk glands* Flavor enhancer*Precision fermentation Flavors*Production in a bioreactor* Food supplements*Production with bacteria* Lactose*Production with genetic engineering* Milk cells*Production with yeast* Milk proteins Recycling of old dairy products* Minerals Nuts* Oats* Oil* Plantbased fats* Plant substances* Salt* Soy* Sugar* Water Abbreviation: AFM, animalfree milk. *Inductively coded categories. 20487177, 2025, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/fsn3.70259 by Universitätsbibliothek Osnabrück, Wiley Online Library on [20/02/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 16 of 17 Food Science & Nutrition, 2025 Vorstellungsforschung. Zukunftsweisende Praxis, edited by B. Reinisch, K. Helbig, and D. Krüger, 9–25. Springer VS. Haas, R., A. Schnepps, A. Pichler, and O. Meixner. 2019. “Cow Milk Versus PlantBased Milk Substitutes: A Comparison of Product Image and Motivational Structure of Consumption.” Sustainability 11, no. 18: 5046. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su111 85046 . Halme, M., A. M. PirttiläBackman, and T. Pham. 2023. “The Perceived Value of Oat Milk and the FoodChoice Motives of Young, Urban People.” British Food Journal 125, no. 13: 375–389. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ BFJ0320220238. Hartman Group. 2023. “Fermentation Fermenting the Future: The Growing Opportunity for Products Made With Precision Fermentation.” Heseker, H., R. Dankers, J. Hirsch, et al. 2019. “Schlussbericht für das Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (BMEL). Ernährungsbezogene Bildungsarbeit in Kitas und Schulen.” Kempen, E., J. Kasambala, L. Christie, E. Symington, L. Jooste, and T. Van Eeden. 2017. “ExpectancyValue Theory Contributes to Understanding Consumer Attitudes Towards Cow's Milk Alternatives and Variants.” International Journal of Consumer Studies 41, no. 3: 245– 252. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ ijcs. 12331 . Köster, E. P. 2009. “Diversity in the Determinants of Food Choice: A Psychological Perspective.” Food Quality and Preference 20, no. 2: 70– 82. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. foodq ual. 2007. 11. 002. KroeberRiel, W., and A. GröppelKlein. 2013. Konsumentenverhalten. 10th ed. Verlag Franz Vahlen GmbH. Kuckartz, U., and S. Rädiker. 2019. Analyzing Qualitative Data With MAXQDA: Text, Audio, and Video. Springer. Kumar, V. 2024. International Marketing Research. Springer Nature. Landis, J. R., and G. G. Koch. 1977. “The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data.” Biometrics 33: 159–174. Lawton, G. 2021. “Brewing Milk.” New Scientist 251: 46–49. Lytle, L. A., S. Seifert, J. Greenstein, and P. McGovern. 2000. “How Do Children's Eating Patterns and Food Choices Change Over Time? Results From a Cohort Study.” American Journal of Health Promotion 14, no. 4: 222–228. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4278/ 0890117114.4. 222. Mäkinen, O. E., V. Wanhalinna, E. Zannini, and E. K. Arendt. 2016. “Foods for Special Dietary Needs: NonDairy PlantBased Milk Substitutes and Fermented DairyType Products.” Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 56, no. 3: 339–349. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10408 398. 2012. 761950. Markovina, J., B. J. StewartKnox, A. Rankin, et al. 2015. “Food4Me Study: Validity and Reliability of Food Choice Questionnaire in 9 European Countries.” Food Quality and Preference 45: 26–32. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. foodq ual. 2015. 05. 002. MartínezPadilla, E., I. Faber, I. Lykke Petersen, and E. VargasBelloPérez. 2023. “Perceptions Toward PlantBased Milk Alternatives Among Young Adult Consumers and NonConsumers in Denmark: An Exploratory Study.” Food 12, no. 2: 385. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ foods 12020385. MendlyZambo, Z., L. J. Powell, and L. L. Newman. 2019. “Dairy 3.0: Cellular Agriculture and the Future of Milk.” Food, Culture & Society 24, no. 5: 675–693. Mensink, G. B. M., C. Lage Barbosa, and A.- K. Brettschneider. 2016. “Prevalence of Persons Following a Vegetarian Diet in Germany.” Journal of Health Monitoring 1, no. 2: 2–14. https:// doi. org/ 10. 17886/ RKIGBE2016039. Monaco Bissonnette, M., and I. R. Contento. 2001. “Adolescents' Perspectives and Food Choice Behaviors in Terms of the Environmental Impacts of Food Production Practices—Application of a Psychosocial Model.” Journal of Nutrition Education 33, no. 2: 72–82. Monteiro, C. A., G. Cannon, M. Lawrence, M. L. Costa Louzada, and P. Pereira Machado. 2019. UltraProcessed Foods, Diet Quality, and Health Using the NOVA Classification System. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Monteiro, C. A., G. Cannon, R. B. Levy, etal. 2016. “NOVA. The Star Shines Bright. Food Classification. Public Health.” World Nutrition 7, no. 1–3: 28–38. Oatly, A. B. 2024. “Oatly Sustainability Update.” https:// www. oatly. com/ enus/ oatly - who/ susta inabi lityplan/ susta inabi lityreport. Paul, A. A., S. Kumar, V. Kumar, and R. Sharma. 2019. “Milk Analog: Plant Based Alternatives to Conventional Milk, Production, Potential and Health Concerns.” Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 60, no. 18: 3005–3023. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10408 398. 2019. 1674243. Perfect Day Inc. 2021. “IsoConformant Report. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Perfect Day Whey Protein Production to Dairy Protein.” Pointke, M., E. H. Albrecht, K. Geburt, M. Gerken, I. Traulsen, and E. Pawelzik. 2022a. “A Comparative Analysis of PlantBased Milk Alternatives Part 1: Composition, Sensory, and Nutritional Value.” Sustainability 14, no. 13: 7996. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su141 37996 . Pointke, M., M. Ohlau, A. Risius, and E. Pawelzik. 2022b. “PlantBased Only: Investigating Consumers' Sensory Perception, Motivation, and Knowledge of Different PlantBased Alternative Products on the Market.” Food 11, no. 15: 2339. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ foods 11152339. Poore, J., and T. Nemecek. 2019. “Reducing Food's Environmental Impacts Through Producers and Consumers.” Science 363: 987–992. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1126/ scien ce. aaw9908. POSpulse GmbH. 2021. “Voll im Trend: Beliebte Milchersatzprodukte und Auffällige Marken. Über Gründe für den Konsum von Milchersatzprodukten, Liebste Produkte und Auffällige Marken.” Quantilope. 2024. “Welche der Folgenden ‘Milch’- Getränke Hast du in Den Letzten 3 Monaten Konsumiert?” Reinders, H. 2016. Qualitative Interviews mit Jugendlichen Führen. Walter de Gruyter GmbH. Renner, B., G. Sproesser, S. Strohbach, and H. T. Schupp. 2012. “Why We Eat What We Eat. The Eating Motivation Survey (TEMS).” Appetite 59, no. 1: 117–128. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. appet. 2012. 04. 004. REWE. 2024. “Sortiment: Milchalternativen.” https:// shop. rewe. de/c/ milch alter nativ en/ . ReyesJurado, F., N. SotoReyes, M. DávilaRodríguez, et al. 2021. “PlantBased Milk Alternatives: Types, Processes, Benefits, and Characteristics.” Food Reviews International 39: 1–32. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 87559 129. 2021. 1952421. Schiano, A., W. Harwood, P. Gerard, and M. Drake. 2020. “Consumer Perception of the Sustainability of Dairy Products and PlantBased Dairy Alternatives.” Journal of Dairy Science 103, no. 12: 11228–11243. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3168/ jds. 202018406 . Sethi, S., S. K. Tyagi, and R. K. Anurag. 2016. “PlantBased Milk Alternatives an Emerging Segment of Functional Beverages: A Review.” Journal of Food Science and Technology 53: 3408–3423. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1319 701623283. Shaikh, N. I., S. S. Patil, S. Halli, U. Ramakrishnan, and S. A. Cunningham. 2016. “Going Global: Indian Adolescents' Eating Patterns.” Public Health Nutrition 19, no. 15: 2799–2807. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S1368 98001 6001087. SinghPovel, C. M., M. P. Van Gool, A. P. Gual Rojas, M. C. E. Bragt, A. J. Kleinnijenhuis, and K. A. Hettinga. 2022. “Nutritional Content, Protein Quantity, Protein Quality and Carbon Footprint of PlantBased Drinks and SemiSkimmed Milk in The Netherlands and Europe.” Public Health Nutrition 25, no. 5: 1416–1426. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S1368 98002 2000453. 20487177, 2025, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/fsn3.70259 by Universitätsbibliothek Osnabrück, Wiley Online Library on [20/02/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 17 of 17 Statista. 2021. “Milchersatzprodukte.” Statista. 2024. “CONSUMERS & BRANDS Consumer Insights Report Report Overview Consumer Insights Global Methodology.” Swaim, J. A., M. J. Maloni, S. A. Napshin, and A. B. Henley. 2014. “Influences on Student Intention and Behavior Toward Environmental Sustainability.” Journal of Business Ethics 124, no. 3: 465–484. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1055 10131883z. Szczepanski, L., L. M. Bahlmann, C. Rötker, A. Eylering, and F.Fiebelkorn. 2025. “Attitudes toward milk alternatives and motives for (non- ) consumption: an interview study with adolescents from Germany.” BMC Nutrition. The Good Food Institute. 2024a. 2023 State of the Industry Report Fermentation: Meat, Seafood, Eggs and Dairy. The Good Food Institute. 2024b. “State of the Industry Report: Cultivated Meat and Seafood.” UNESCO. 2017. Education for Sustainable Development Goals. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Verbi. 2020. MAXQDA 2020. Verbi. Von Koerber, K., N. Bader, and C. Leitzmann. 2017. “Conference on “Sustainable Food Consumption” Wholesome Nutrition: An Example for a Sustainable Diet.” Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 76, no. 1: 34–41. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S0029 66511 6000616. Waltz, E. 2022. “CowLess Milk: The Rising Tide of AnimalFree Dairy Attracts Big Players.” Nature Biotechnology 40, no. 11: 1531–1533. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ s4158 702201548 - z. World Medical Association. 2022. “WMA Declaration of HelsinkiEthical Principles Formedical Research Involving Human Subjects.” Zhu, Q., Y. Li, Y. Geng, and Y. Qi. 2013. “Green Food Consumption Intention, Behaviors and Influencing Factors Among Chinese Consumers.” Food Quality and Preference 28, no. 1: 279–286. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. foodq ual. 2012. 10. 005. Zollman Thomas, O., and C. Bryant. 2021. “Don't Have a Cow, Man: Consumer Acceptance of AnimalFree Dairy Products in Five Countries.” Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 5: 678491. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fsufs. 2021. 678491. Zollman Thomas, O., and C. Dillard. 2022. “A New Way of Making Dairy: Perceptions, Naming and Implications.” Supporting Information Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section. 20487177, 2025, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/fsn3.70259 by Universitätsbibliothek Osnabrück, Wiley Online Library on [20/02/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License