Consumer Valuation of Meat Alternatives and Labeling Policies: A Comparative Perspective

Abstract

This study investigates and compares US consumer perceptions and the impact of environmental, human health, and animal welfare information related to conventional meat on preferences for meat alternatives and labeling policies. Using the best–worst scaling method across 10 different burger alternatives, our results show that the meat burger is largely the most preferred option, while meat alternatives collectively account for nearly 40% of total consumer preferences. Information about the health effects of meat consumption and consumer characteristics influences preferences for meat alternatives. Consumers perceive the meat burger as tastier, more natural, more nutritious, and more expensive. In contrast, the plant burger is viewed as healthier and more environmentally friendly, while also being perceived as very distinct from the meat burger. Interestingly, most consumers oppose labeling meat alternatives as “meat.” Our findings provide useful insights into the psychology of consumer acceptance, which can be useful in communicating the nature of meat alternatives to the public and shaping meat alternatives labeling policies.