Plant-Based Meat Has Had Little Impact On Animal Meat Demand

The food sector accounts for around a third of global greenhouse gas emissions, with nearly 80% of these coming from the production of animal-based foods. In response, there’s been growing recognition among both scientists and consumers of the need for more sustainable diets. Plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) have emerged in recent years as a promising option. While these products aim to mirror the sensory experience of eating meat, they continue to face considerable barriers, including consumer concerns about taste and price, as well as perceptions that they’re overly processed and unhealthy.

Historically, analysis of PBMA demand has combined them into just one or two major categories, or relied on surveys or experimental studies. But these approaches reveal little about how consumers split their meat spending across specific plant-based and animal-based products. To address this gap, the present study explored product-level meat purchasing behavior to understand how prices and household income shape the choice between PBMAs and animal meats.

The data were collected from household-level grocery store purchases among a representative sample of 136,553 U.S. households from 2019 to 2021. The researchers modeled household income and meat-budget shares to examine how purchasing varied with household purchasing power. They also examined whether changes in the price of one type of meat were associated with changes in purchases of another. Finally, they ran simulations to see how lowering PBMA prices would affect purchasing behavior.

The researchers used two models to analyze meat purchases. The first grouped all meat products into one of three categories: fresh, processed, and fully cooked. The second model further split these three categories into 26 sub-categories, of which there were 10 directly comparable pairs (e.g., plant-based versus animal-based sausages). For each product, grocery-store unit prices were calculated from expenditure and quantity data. Where price data were missing, the researchers estimated them using median prices from increasingly broader geographic areas, starting with the store chain and ZIP code level.

Notably, households allocated 19% of their income to meat products on average. Just 3% of meat spending went towards PBMAs. Between 2019 and 2021, this allocation was roughly the same each year, suggesting that substitution towards PBMA products remains small and has stalled as of 2021. Over the three-year period, products in the beef patty category were consistently the most popular PBMAs, followed by products mimicking poultry.

Additionally, PBMAs cost more than animal meats — about $0.19 more per ounce on average. PBMA products in the bacon, beef patty, chicken or poultry, and other cooked meats categories were twice as expensive as their animal-based counterparts. Only PBMA lunchmeat was cheaper. Demand for PBMAs was also responsive to household income, suggesting that their relatively high prices may limit adoption among lower-income consumers. PBMA bacon and beef meatballs were the most income-responsive, while PBMA ground beef, lunchmeat, and beef patties were among the least.

Further, demand for several PBMA categories, including chicken, lunchmeat, meatballs, and other meats, was more sensitive to price than demand for the animal-meat versions. The reverse was true for PBMA beef patty, ground beef, bacon, and sausage products.

The study also found that relative prices influenced purchasing decisions. For most product pairs, including beef patties, ground beef, chicken, lunchmeat, meatballs, and sausages, when PBMAs became more expensive, households tended to purchase more affordable animal meats instead. According to the researchers, this may apply even to well-established consumers, suggesting that increases to the already relatively high price of PBMAs can lead households to choose animal products.

Some product pairs, like those in the bacon category, acted as complements rather than substitutes, meaning that households tended to buy them both. So when the PBMA increased in price, they bought less of the animal-meat version too. The researchers note that this may reflect the habits of flexitarian consumers.

The study’s simulations suggest that a 10% reduction in PBMA prices would increase their demand by at least 6% (depending on the specific product), while reducing demand for animal meats by no more than 5%. Demand for PBMA beef meatballs, cooked poultry, and lunchmeat would increase the most (by over 10%). Lowering the price of one PBMA product could also increase demand for others. For example, cheaper plant-based lunchmeat would raise demand for several other categories, including plant-based bacon, beef patties, and ground beef.

As the study relied on data from 2019 to 2021, inferences about the current PBMA market are limited, particularly given the rapid development of new PBMA products. The data also only include food-at-home purchases, meaning that purchases made at restaurants, workplaces, or other locations aren’t considered. Additionally, the analysis compares changes in demand relative to price rather than actual substitution at the individual meal level. In other words, the research can’t determine whether a particular PBMA purchase directly replaced a particular animal-meat purchase. Lastly, the study only measures demand for meat products and doesn’t measure substitution away from animal meats towards plant-based foods such as beans, lentils, or tofu.

Despite growing consumer awareness and the perceived benefits of PBMAs for animal welfare, the environment, and health, these products haven’t significantly eroded demand for animal meat. PBMAs make up a small percentage of household meat purchasing, in part because of their higher price and sensitivity to economic constraints. As a result, they currently function primarily as niche products rather than widely adopted replacements for animal meats, with some products acting as substitutes and others as complements. These findings suggest that efforts to increase PBMA adoption should prioritize making products more affordable and appealing to consumers. However, lower PBMA prices alone may have only a modest effect on animal meat demand, so advocates may need to pair efforts to improve PBMA adoption with other strategies for reducing demand for animal-based foods.