## 4 Discussion  
In this study, it was aimed to determine consumer perception of the importance of chosen product characteristics. The research has improved our understanding of how factors such as the source of protein (meat vs. plant) and the labelling of a product with \"high protein\" Nutrition Claims affect consumers. The conclusions of the study indicate that both factors are significant for consumers, however, not in all studied areas.  
Unlike meat patties, plant-based ones are associated with more healthy and environmentally friendly choices, which may be due to the assessment of meat being potentially risky for health [31, 49] and harmful to the environment [81, 82]. Criticism of meat consumption takes different forms depending on a region's history of environmental awareness [83] and culinary traditions [84]. In poorer regions, such as the southern and eastern parts of the European Union, the need to replace meat products with plant-based products is less often considered [85], which may result from the perception of meat as a luxury good. Protein's origin also determines the perception of the product as natural, which is considered one of the key features of food [33] and which is in accordance with the results obtained by [PERSON], [PERSON], and [PERSON] [86]. The choices made also involve perceptions of whether a product has \"light\" or \"deep\" environmental elements and the amount of tradeoffs involved in that choice [85]. In the case of food containing more proteins, it can be viewed as more \"effective\", meaning that consuming a smaller portion will provide the body with the nutrients it needs. The \"high protein\" Nutrition Claim increases the perceived environmental friendliness of protein content for both plant-based and meat-based products. Nonetheless, the strength of the effect is marginal. Despite the suggested differences in the quality perception of meat and its substitutes [10] but partly in accordance with [PERSON] et al. [87], protein source does not significantly affect the perceived quality of a product, which can also be interpreted so that for products that were intended to be meat, the use of substitutes does not mean a reduction in their quality. However, this should be analyzed within a broader context, for example, with regard to purchasing decisions. The willingness to consume a product is the result of evaluating all its attributes. The study did not allow us to reveal that an alternative source of protein for meat-like products adversely affected consumption willingness, which contradicts earlier studies with a low acceptance of such products [10, 16, 88]. This may indicate that consumer attitudes towards this type of product are improving. It also shows that factors such as naturalness, environmental friendliness, and healthiness, against which the plant-based product was perceived to be superior, were not decisive in making consumption decisions. This is consistent with previous research, in which it was shown that while the pro-ecological awareness of consumers is increasing, this does not always have a direct impact on their behavior [31, 32].  
The authors are aware of certain research limitations, which may also be eliminated in future studies. The conducted inter-group study was aimed at identifying the influence of the analyzed factors under ceteris paribus conditions. Such research is declarative and deliberately minimizes the number of variables. The factors that have been omitted and could be an element of subsequent research are either the dependent or independent