Tourists disappointed by limited vegan food options in Croatia

From croatiaweek.com

Croatia’s growing tourism sector is being urged to improve its vegan food offering, with an animal protection organisation warning that some international visitors are leaving disappointed by the lack of suitable meals 

The association Prijatelji životinja (Animal Friends) says it is increasingly receiving complaints from foreign tourists who struggle to find quality vegan dishes in Croatian restaurants.

The organisation argues that Croatia’s natural beauty and Mediterranean cuisine are not always enough for visitors who choose their holiday destinations based on the availability of plant-based food.

According to Prijatelji životinja, many restaurants still offer little beyond chips, boiled Swiss chard or salad when customers request a vegan meal. The association says some establishments also lack knowledge about what constitutes vegan food or are unwilling to adapt existing dishes.

The group points to Germany, one of Croatia’s largest tourism markets, where it says 8.12 million people are vegetarian or vegan. It says an increasing number of travellers consider access to plant-based food when choosing destinations, accommodation and restaurants.

Prijatelji životinja believes Croatia has considerable potential to expand its offering, noting that many traditional Croatian dishes are naturally plant-based or can be easily adapted.

The organisation says improving vegan options could strengthen Croatia’s competitiveness as a modern and sustainable tourism destination. It is calling for greater awareness among hospitality workers and for vegan options to be included more prominently in tourism guides.

The issue will also be highlighted at the upcoming ZeGeVege Festival, which will take place at Zagreb’s European Square from 4 to 6 September 2026, showcasing plant-based food and products.

https://www.croatiaweek.com/croatia-vegan-food-tourists/

URI Ph.D. candidate asks: What motivates people to buy vegan cosmetics?

From uri.edu/news

Research finds pride—not guilt—a stronger motivator 

KINGSTON, R.I. – Aug. 20, 2026 – Major cosmetics retailers such as Sephora, Ulta, and Amazon now feature sections aimed at socially conscious consumers, highlighting products that are sustainable, eco-friendly, cruelty-free, or packaged with recycled materials. This shift reflects changing consumer preferences. 

Consumers are increasingly mindful of their purchases—often seeking out products that are ethically aware—and manufacturers have responded by incorporating related claims into product webpages and labels designed to appeal to them. 

                                                                                                                                              Credit: iStock/zsv3207

“Today, consumers may choose certain lifestyles not only to show who they are, but also to express their values through what they buy,” said Mona Safizadeh, a Ph.D. candidate in the University of Rhode Island’s College of Business, who is studying this trend.

The cosmetics industry has seen a surge in vegan and sustainable products in recent years. Globally, the market for vegan cosmetics is in the billions of dollars. Yet despite growing demand, research that examines the motivations, psychological processes, and conditions that influence consumers’ preferences for these products has been limited.

Even basic questions, such as whether consumers are more influenced by animal-welfare or environmental-benefit messages, have remained largely unanswered.

“Although vegan cosmetics are growing in popularity, we still know relatively little about what influences consumers’ decisions to buy them,” said Safizadeh.

Mona Safizadeh, a Ph.D. candidate in the University of Rhode Island’s College of Business, researched how brand messages influence consumers’ decisions to buy vegan cosmetics. (Credit: Mona Safizadeh)

Safizadeh’s research focuses on how brand messages influence consumers’ decisions to buy vegan cosmetics.

While most previous research on vegan consumption has focused on food, research examining non-food products such as cosmetics remains limited, especially in developed markets like the United States. 

In her research paper, “Taking Pride in Vegan Consumption: A Construal Level Theory Account of Ad Message Appeal and Future Self Connectedness,” published earlier this year in the peer-reviewed journal Psychology & Marketing, Safizadeh says that animal-welfare messages generally lead to stronger preferences for vegan cosmetics than messages focused on environmental benefits. 

She demonstrated this through three experiments. Participants viewed advertisements for vegan sunscreen, shampoo, and hand lotion featuring messages focused on animal welfare or environmental benefits. The researchers measured participants’ interest in buying the products, their product choices, and how much pride they expected to feel from buying vegan cosmetics. They also measured how much guilt participants expected to feel from buying nonvegan products. 

Researchers found that feelings of pride played a stronger role than feelings of guilt. Animal-welfare messages were more effective partly because they made consumers expect to feel proud about choosing vegan cosmetics.

The findings suggest that brands may be more successful when they help consumers feel good about choosing vegan products instead of trying to make them feel guilty about choosing nonvegan products.

“Animal-welfare claims such as ‘cruelty-free’ and ‘no animal testing’ focus on more immediate concerns, while claims such as ‘recyclable’ and ‘eco-friendly’ focus more on long-term environmental benefits,” said Safizadeh.

The research also shows that the way consumers think about the future and how they connect to their future selves can affect how they respond to advertising.

People who focus more on the future are more likely to respond to messages about long-term environmental benefits, while those focused more on the present are more likely to respond to animal-welfare messages that focus on more immediate effects.

Safizadeh said companies marketing to consumers who care about ethical and environmental issues should focus on creating positive feelings around their purchases rather than relying mainly on guilt. It is also important for marketers to understand how consumers think about the future versus simply grouping consumers by age.

“Companies should create messages that help consumers feel proud about choosing vegan products,” said Safizadeh. “They should also consider whether their audience responds more strongly to immediate animal-welfare concerns or long-term environmental benefits.”

As interest in vegan cosmetics continues to grow, the findings suggest that one advertising message may not work equally well for everyone. Brands may get better results by matching animal-welfare and environmental messages to the way their target consumers think about the present and the future.

https://www.uri.edu/news/2026/08/uri-ph-d-candidate-asks-what-motivates-people-to-buy-vegan-cosmetics/

One Month of Vegan Eating Alters Gene Activity Tied to Aging and Inflammation, Trial Finds

From vegconomist.com

Switching to a vegan diet for four weeks can change how certain genes behave, shifting activity in ways linked to immune function, metabolism, and cancer, according to a randomized clinical trial from researchers at the University of California San Diego and the University of Freiburg in Germany. The study was published in the journal MedComm.

The researchers analysed blood from 48 healthy adults who first spent a week on the same standardized diet, then switched to either a vegan or a meat-rich regime for one month. Both diets held calories constant, so any effects could not be explained by weight loss. Participants in the control group ate more than 150 grams of meat per day.

“Our biology is far more dynamic and responsive to everyday choices than we often assume”

The team tracked DNA methylation, a process that acts like a dimmer switch on genes, turning their activity up or down.

Jerome Mertens, associate professor of neurosciences at UC San Diego School of Medicine and co-senior author, said, “Our genes are not our destiny. The remarkable finding isn’t simply that one diet outperformed another. It’s that the epigenome responded measurably in just four weeks, showing that our biology is far more dynamic and responsive to everyday choices than we often assume.”

Image: Ella Olsson on Pexels

A shift toward less inflammation

The vegan group showed a move toward a calmer immune system, with fewer of the white blood cells that drive inflammation and more of the type that helps keep immune responses in check. Those predictions, drawn from the methylation data, matched actual blood counts taken during the trial.

“That agreement told us we weren’t just seeing changes on a computer screen. We were detecting real and meaningful biological changes,” said Lukas Karbacher, a neuroscience graduate student at UC San Diego and first author.

Mixed signals on aging

The researchers also estimated participants’ biological age using so-called epigenetic clocks, tools that gauge aging from molecular markers rather than birthdays. Two clocks built to predict health outcomes suggested the vegan diet slowed biological aging over the month. A third, designed to track chronological age, pointed the other way.

The authors are cautious. The study was small, ran for only a month, and the changes did not hold up once the data were adjusted for statistical rigor, a limitation the paper states plainly.

“Our study adds to growing evidence that nutrition can shape biology at the molecular level. The next step is to understand whether these epigenetic changes persist over time and whether they translate into meaningful improvements in long-term health. That will require larger clinical studies, but these findings provide an important foundation,” said Max Storz of University of Freiburg Medical Center and co-senior author. 

https://vegconomist.com/studies-numbers/one-month-vegan-eating-alters-gene-activity-tied-aging-inflammation-trial-finds/

Ben & Jerry’s launches vegan Cookie Dough ice cream

From favorflav.com

Good news for vegan ice cream lovers! Ben & Jerry’s is adding two new flavors to its Non-Dairy range. Finally, vegans can also taste why everyone is so enthusiastic about Cookie Dough 

The company started its Non-Dairy range in 2016 with four flavours; by now, that number has doubled. Still, it took a while for the most requested flavour to join the range. The Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough flavour has long been a favourite among Ben & Jerry’s fans. “Our biggest challenge was creating a Cookie Dough flavour that stands alongside the original, but we succeeded,” says Ben & Jerry’s flavour guru Sarah Fidler. Thanks to this dairy-free version, vegans and people with lactose intolerance can now also enjoy this ultimate comfort ice cream.

Caramel Cluster

The other new flavour is exclusive to the Non-Dairy range and consists of a chocolate ice cream base with peanuts, caramel fudge and salted caramel swirls. For now, these flavours are only available in the United States; unfortunately, it is not yet known when they will come to the Netherlands. In the meantime, we can simply enjoy their other Non-Dairy flavours, such as Chunky Monkey or Chocolate Fudge Brownie.

https://favorflav.com/en/new/ben-jerrys-launches-vegan-cookie-dough-ice-cream/

Scientists ranked 20 popular protein sources – and tofu came out on top for people and the planet

From veganfoodandliving.com

Tofu has beaten 19 other popular protein sources in a new scientific scoring system that considers nutrition, affordability and environmental impact

If you’ve ever been asked where vegans get their protein, you might want to point them in the direction of a new paper from a University of Cambridge scientist.

Tofu has been crowned the best all-round source of protein in a new ranking that looked beyond protein content alone to consider how different foods affect both people and the planet.

The new Better Protein Institute (BPI) Score, developed by behavioural scientist Dr Chris Macdonald, compared 20 popular protein-rich foods across measures including nutritional quality, affordability, greenhouse gas emissions, land use and water use, and plant-based foods dominated the leaderboard.

Tofu took the number one spot overall, followed by chia seeds, beans and quinoa. In fact, every food in the top 20% of the ranking was plant-based.

At the other end of the table, the bottom four foods were all animal-derived: mozzarella, lamb, beef and cheddar, with cheddar receiving the lowest overall score.

                                                                                                                                            Photo © Pixel-Shot/Adobe

Why was tofu ranked the best source of protein?

Published in Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, the paper introduces the first version of the BPI Score, designed to offer a more rounded way of assessing protein sources.

Macdonald argues that existing systems, such as nutritional traffic-light labels and carbon-footprint scores, can be useful but only tell part of the story.

A food might appear favourable when judged on a single nutritional measure, for example, while carrying a much larger environmental footprint. The BPI Score therefore brings several measures together under two broad categories: people and planet, and tofu came out on top in both.

Tofu came out on top for the planet, using dramatically less land and producing fewer greenhouse gas emissions than many animal protein sources. Photo © nungning20/Adobe Stock

For the Planet Score, the study compared the greenhouse gas emissions, water pollution, land use and freshwater use associated with producing 100g of protein from each food, with tofu achieving the maximum possible Planet Score of 16 out of 16.

The differences between some plant and animal proteins were striking. Producing 100g of protein from tofu was associated with around 0.61kg of CO2-equivalent emissions, compared with 64.19kg for beef – more than 100 times as much.

The land required showed a similarly dramatic difference; tofu used an estimated 2.16 square metres of land per 100g of protein, compared with 211.38 square metres for beef.

Freshwater use was also relatively low for tofu at 14.23 litres per 100g of protein. Meanwhile, beans used just 0.07 litres, while sunflower seeds used 6.68 litres.

Overall, tofu, chia seeds, beans and quinoa occupied the top 20% of the environmental ranking, while mozzarella, pork, cheddar and beef made up the bottom 20%.

Tofu tops the chart for nutrition and affordability

Environmental impact was only half of the equation in the study as the People Score considered health-related measures, including sodium, saturated fat and cholesterol, as well as whether each food provided all nine essential amino acids.

This last point is particularly notable given the persistent myth that plant proteins are somehow nutritionally “incomplete”. While not every plant food in the ranking was classed as a complete protein on its own, tofu was – providing all nine essential amino acids.

It’s also worth remembering that individual foods don’t need to contain every essential amino acid for a healthy diet. As the paper itself acknowledges, eating a varied selection of plant proteins throughout the day can provide all the amino acids the body needs.

Affordability and supermarket availability were also included in the People Score, with lentils emerging as the cheapest protein source assessed when prices were adjusted per 100g of protein.

Once all six People Score measures were combined, plant foods again occupied every position in the top 20%, with tofu first, followed by beans, lentils and chia seeds.

Plant proteins dominate the ranking

Combining the People and Planet scores gave tofu 36 points, making it the highest-scoring protein of the 20 foods assessed.

The overall ranking was:

Tofu

Chia seeds

Beans

Quinoa

Sunflower seeds

Lentils

Chicken breast

Tuna

Peanuts

Chickpeas

Walnuts

Brazil nuts

Salmon

Eggs

Pork chops

Cod

Beef steak

Lamb chops

Mozzarella

Cheddar

That means plant-based foods claimed six of the top six positions, as well as 10 of the top 12. In comparison, cheddar scored just 13 points overall, compared with tofu’s 36, after performing poorly across both the People and Planet measures.

Animal welfare could widen the gap further

Interestingly, the first version of the BPI Score doesn’t yet factor animal welfare into the final rankings.

Macdonald discusses animal ethics separately in the paper, arguing that including them in future versions of the scoring system could create an even greater divide between plant and animal protein sources.

He highlights what he describes as a “lose-lose trade-off” within animal agriculture: giving farmed animals more space may improve some aspects of their welfare, but doing so can require more agricultural land, potentially placing greater pressure on wildlife and biodiversity.

The paper also points to the sheer scale of animal agriculture, noting that more than 80 billion land animals are killed for meat globally each year.

Macdonald suggests future versions of the BPI Score could also incorporate factors such as antimicrobial resistance and the risk of zoonotic disease associated with animal agriculture.

Is tofu really the world’s ‘best’ protein?

There are some important caveats as this is the first iteration of a newly proposed scoring system rather than a definitive universal ranking of every protein source. The paper itself acknowledges several limitations, and Macdonald says a second version is already in development.

For example, affordability was calculated using prices from a single UK supermarket, meaning the results won’t necessarily reflect food costs elsewhere in the world. The relatively simple points system can also flatten some of the very large differences between foods.

The foods included aren’t exhaustive either as tempeh, seitan and many of the newer plant-based protein products aren’t among the 20 foods assessed.

Nevertheless, the results add to a growing body of evidence showing that choosing plant proteins can dramatically reduce the environmental footprint of our diets – without compromising on protein.

And for tofu fans, it’s another reason to celebrate one of the most versatile foods in the vegan kitchen.

As Macdonald concludes in the paper, our protein choices ultimately extend far beyond what’s on our plates, reflecting “the compassion we are willing to show to animals, to the planet, and to future generations.”

https://www.veganfoodandliving.com/news/tofu-ranked-the-best-protein-source-for-health-and-the-planet/ 

Plant-Based Basics Now Undercut Meat and Dairy at Every Major Dutch Supermarket

From vegconomist.com

A plant-based basket of staple groceries is cheaper per kilogram than a comparable animal-based basket at all nine major Dutch supermarkets surveyed, according to new price research from ProVeg Nederland. Consumers save an average of 18% on a basic basket, with the gap reaching 30% at the cheapest chain.

“The more accessible and affordable plant-based products are, the easier it becomes for consumers to actually make that choice.”

The Utrecht-based food awareness organisation compared the lowest-priced plant-based meat and dairy alternatives against the lowest-priced animal versions in packaging up to one kilogram at Albert Heijn, Aldi, Dirk, Ekoplaza, Hoogvliet, Jumbo, Lidl, Picnic, and Plus. The basic basket covered mince, burgers, butter, milk, yoghurt, and cheese. Even plant-based products in small packs now often carry a lower kilo price than their animal counterparts sold in bulk formats, a reversal ProVeg attributes partly to supermarket private-label pricing and partly to inflation weighing more heavily on animal products.

Private label drives the largest savings

The biggest relative saving on basic groceries was recorded at Plus (30%), followed by Dirk (28%) and Lidl (24%). Ekoplaza showed the narrowest gap at 5%. Burgers, chicken-style pieces, and mince were the most favourably priced against meat, at 31%, 29%, and 21% respectively.

“The idea that plant-based products are expensive holds many people back from eating healthier and more sustainably. By pricing plant-based alternatives slightly lower than the animal version, the sustainable choice also becomes the cheapest choice. We are seeing more and more supermarkets consciously acting on that,” said Martine van Haperen, food industry expert at ProVeg Nederland.

Sales data lines up with this. GFI Europe figures cited in the research show cheaper plant-based private-label products grew revenue 12% in 2025, while pricier branded products fell 12%.

© Albert Heijn

Yoghurt and mayonnaise remain the outliers

Not every category has closed the gap. In 13% of cases the plant-based version costs at least twice as much as the animal one. Plant-based mayonnaise averages four times the price of egg mayonnaise, and the cheapest plant-based yoghurt runs roughly double the cheapest dairy yoghurt.

Van Haperen linked this to volume and format. “If plant-based alternatives are bought little, sales volumes stay low and offering a sharp price becomes harder for supermarkets. Plant-based yoghurts are also barely available in a litre carton. That makes it harder to offer the same low kilo price as with dairy. There are still opportunities for supermarkets to expand the range further.”

Lidl was the only chain to place in the top three on both the basic and extended baskets, which added items such as chicken-style pieces, shawarma, sausage, schnitzel, and mayonnaise. ProVeg pointed to the retailer’s policy of pricing plant-based meat and dairy variants at or below animal equivalents in comparable pack sizes.

The research frames retailer pricing as a lever for the Dutch grocery sector’s target of a 60/40 plant-to-animal protein sales ratio by 2030. Van Haperen noted, “The more accessible and affordable plant-based products are, the easier it becomes for consumers to actually make that choice.”

https://vegconomist.com/market-and-trends/plant-based-basics-now-undercut-meat-and-dairy-at-every-major-dutch-supermarket/