Who’s Buying Plant-Based Ground Beef?
Over the last few years, there has been growing concern around the impact that meat consumption has on public health and the environment. From an environmental perspective, encouraging people to adopt a plant-based diet could reduce dietary-related land use, water use, and greenhouse gas emissions. From a public health perspective, a plant-based diet could also reduce the risk of several chronic diseases and even mortality.
Despite these benefits, the demand for meat continues to grow and there is not much support for government policies that tax foods based on health or environmental outcomes. One of the most promising solutions to this dilemma is to invest in plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) that have the potential to convince consumers to transition to a plant-based diet without sacrificing the experience of eating meat-like products. Novel PBMAs use ingredients like wheat, pea, and soy to mimic the characteristics of meat.
The potential environmental benefits of PBMAs have been highlighted by many studies, which suggests that these products are a promising — and relatively accessible — way for consumers to take action on behalf of the planet. However, in order for the benefits of PBMAs to come to fruition, consumers must choose PBMA products over meat.
The primary aim of this study is to determine the characteristics of PBMA consumers using household scanner data from November 2018 to November 2020. The researchers specifically looked at animal-based and plant-based ground beef purchases for 38,966 U.S. households. This data will help answer some questions about consumer demand for PBMAs, like:
- What are the drivers of PBMA purchases?
- To what extent is substituting meat with PBMA products likely to hamper the demand for meat?
- What are the characteristics of people who buy PBMAs?
Over two years, 7,761 households (20%) purchased a PBMA at least once, while 31,205 households (80%) did not purchase a PBMA. Furthermore, 12% of all households (6,670) bought PBMAs on multiple occasions. These dual-purchasing households were mainly young (with a head of household <35), African American, Hispanic, with a college education and a high household income (>$100,000). Also, while both married and single women were more likely to buy PBMAs, a higher share of households with single women purchased plant-based ground beef than married or single man households did. Among the consumers who bought a PBMA, 14.5% did not purchase ground meat. Most households (86%) that purchased a PBMA also purchased ground meat. However, consumers who purchased PBMAs spent less on ground meat than non-PBMA buyers.
The majority of consumers did not purchase PBMAs at all. Non-PBMA buyers were more likely to be older (65+), married or single, white men, with no college education, no children, and no form of employment. There were some households, however, that did not purchase any ground meat. The households in this group were mainly younger (<35), with one member, single men, college educated, and employed.
The average household in the full sample purchased 1.53 units of PBMA over the two-year study period. Among households who purchased at least one unit of PBMA, the average two-year expenditure was $34.04. In contrast, the average two-year expenditure for households who purchased ground meat was $112.74.
One of the primary objectives of this study was to identify consumer PBMA purchasing behavior. The data suggest that a noticeable portion of ground meat-consuming households purchased PBMAs, and that for consumers who purchased one PBMA, around 60% bought another one.There is also evidence that many of the first-time buyers were seeking something new but ultimately weren’t satisfied with PBMAs, as around 40% of consumers only tried them once. Regardless, it’s clear that entering the PBMA market does not necessarily deter consumers from purchasing conventional ground meat, as the average household increased the amount of ground beef they bought each week (as well as their weekly spending on ground beef).
While some of this news may seem discouraging for animal advocates, it’s promising that many meat consumers are at least willing to try plant-based products. It’s even more encouraging that the majority of consumers who tried them once were willing to give them another go. Based on the results of this study, it may be effective for advocates to target single, college-educated men with their campaigns, given that these households were the most likely to purchase only plant-based meat. While it’s great to see that meat consumers are willing to try alternative protein products, more research is needed to understand how we can convince them to actually replace their meat with plant-based options.