The growing popularity of meat alternatives goes hand in hand with the spread of misconceptions. In this blog post, we explore four different myths that are commonly believed about plant-based meat alternatives.
Myth 1: Plant-based meat alternatives taste bad
Consumers are commonly skeptical when it comes to the taste of plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) – often referred to as ‘fake meat’. In our recent study, 140 consumers tasted 21 different plant-based meat alternatives. Products included plant-based burgers, sausages, ‘meat’-balls, chicken, beef, and bacon alternatives. We found a wide range in consumer acceptance across these products – although some were commonly disliked, many were commonly liked as well. The most liked products scoring 8/10) were also the products that reminded the consumers most of meat.
Myth 2: Plant-based meat alternatives are for vegans
Flexitarian, vegetarian, and vegan diets are increasing in popularity. Whereas less than 10% of Aotearoa’s population don’t consume meat, a third claims to consume a flexitarian diet and therefore they’re the true drivers of the PBMA market. In general, consumers who eat meat in their diet seem less keen on tofu or legumes to replace their meat and would rather replace their meat with a meat-like product such as Impossible Meat or the Beyond burger. In contrast, vegans may find a product that resembles meat ‘too real’ and find a vegetable-based product more appealing.
Myth 3: Plant-based meat alternatives and meat are similar in nutrition
Despite the use of product names for meat alternatives that may remind a consumer of a meat product (for example, plant-based meatballs), there are nutritional differences between meat and their alternatives. For example, the more vegetable-like products often do not contain much protein. Meat-like products contain more protein, but also often contain more sodium and/or saturated fat than conventional meat.
Although PBMAs generally contain more sodium and the same amount of calories as meat products, our studies showed that consumers believe that PBMAs contain less sodium and calories than conventional meat. This indicates that consumers are not aware of the potential nutritional differences between meat and their plant-based alternatives.
Myth 4: Plant-based meat alternatives are consumed for reasons of environmental sustainability
PBMAs can be healthier for the environment. For example, the Beyond burger claims to use 99% less water, 93% less land, and produce 90% fewer greenhouse gas emissions than a traditional beef patty. Interestingly, consumers do not necessarily believe that PBMAs contribute to environmental sustainability.
Our research shows that only a third of consumers believe that reducing meat intake and/or consuming plant-based alternatives instead of meat contributes to environmental sustainability. Other studies have shown that consumers believe that other initiatives, such as driving less and recycling materials, contribute more towards the environment than reducing their meat intake.
Rather than environmental sustainability, we found that health is the most important driver for consumption of PBMAs.
With exploration of these myths, we aim to provide insights for you to make informed decisions about choosing plant-based meat alternatives that meet your values and needs. With a widely varied range of plant-based meat alternatives available, there surely is a product for everyone!
Caroline Giezenaar, October 2023