Reimagining fast food: Consumers' judgments and acceptance of fast food alternatives

Fast food corporations specializing in cheeseburgers are highly successful. However, consumption of cheeseburgers' main components (white flour buns, cheese, and beef patties) has been related to public health risks and environmental issues. Drawing on the theory of planned behavior, this study aimed to characterize consumers' acceptance of burger component alternatives (wholegrain buns, vegetables, and hybrid beef-oat patties) that promoted cardiovascular health and were more environmentally-friendly than some of the offered items. Analyzing the results of two online surveys comprising choice and rating tasks ( N = 986), this study suggested that most consumers perceived the alternatives to be healthier but less tasty than the original items. Many consumers were unsure about the alternatives' environmental impact. Consumers' taste judgments influenced their acceptance of the alternatives more strongly than their healthiness and environmental impact judgments, and these results were robust for consumers who were concerned about their health, had high body mass indices, or ate fast food frequently. Accordingly, most consumers preferred the original burger components over the alternatives. Nevertheless, a substantial proportion of consumers perceived the healthier alternatives to be tastier, expressed their readiness to adopt them, and were willing to pay for them. This study offers applications for fast food corporations and educators. • Fast food is often related to cardiovascular risks and environmental issues. • Consumers' acceptance of healthier and more sustainable burger components was studied. • Taste judgments affected acceptance more than healthiness or sustainability judgments. • A substantial proportion of consumers considered the alternatives to be tastier. • Consumers expressed the intention to pay additional price for component alternatives.