The pet food sector is a large and growing global industry, yet the negative implications of meat-based pet food are often overlooked. For example, latest estimates indicate that animal-based foods are responsible for 20% of anthropogenic GHG emissions. According to one study, dogs and cats consume 9% of livestock animals globally, and this figure is 20% in the US. As such, in the US, 25-30% of the environmental impacts of animal production have been attributed to companion animal diets. Some studies have even estimated that the environmental impact of some canine diets even exceed those of average human diets, and the harm to animals is immense.

Therefore, a transition to nutritionally sound non-animal based pet food could achieve significant GHG and land use savings, as well as prevent the harm of potentially billions of animals. One study suggested that the benefits of this transition in wealthy nations with high rates of animal guardianship, are demonstrably equivalent to one quarter to one third of the environmental benefits achieved through human dietary change. Therefore, it is paramount that the concept of plant-based pet food is investigated thoroughly.

Fortunately, the future for plant-based pet food is cause for optimism. The plant-based pet food sector’s estimated global market is between USD 12.6 billion and USD 22.5 billion, and is increasing rapidly, with an estimated compound annual growth rate between 7.8% and 8.8%. There is evidence to suggest that plant-based pet food can be nutritionally complete via the use of synthetic nutrients such as taurine. In fact, research suggests that a vegan pet diet could be healthier than a meat-based diet. There is ongoing research into cultivated meat and fermentation for pet food, signalling an exciting future for animal-free pet food.

Consequently, it is important to consider consumer attitudes towards plant-based pet food. This report examines the barriers currently preventing pet guardians from feeding their companion animals a nutritionally sound plant-based diet in the UK. Understanding what is important to consumers could guide the animal movement, climate crisis movement and pet food sector when it comes to marketing and advocating for plant-based pet food.

Each year, Bryant Research conducts a nationally representative survey of 1,000 people across the UK on animal agriculture and food choices. The findings in this report come from the 2025 Summer Survey.

• 483 respondents were guardians for dogs and/or cats; 233 of those were guardians of just dogs, and 187 were guardians of just cats, while 63 had a dog and a cat. Guardians of other animals were excluded.
• Participants were asked what barriers would prevent them from feeding their pet a plant-based diet. They ranked six potential barriers from 1 to 6: Naturalness, Palatability, Health, Price, Availability, and Other. They were also given an option to specify further in an open text box. The data is presented as the percentage of respondents ranking each barrier as the first, second, or third most important. This approach illuminates which barriers are of overall highest concern, while avoiding over-interpreting fine-grained differences across lower ranks.
• They were also surveyed on their openness to feeding their companion animal plant-based food. Participants were asked how open they would be to feeding their pet a plant-based diet, and chose an option on a scale between ‘Not at all open’ and ‘Very open’, with 2, 3, 4 representing varying degrees of openness.

For dog and cat owners N=483, ‘other’ stands out as being ranked the number one most concerning barrier by 28.6% of respondents, more than any other barrier, which contrasts with existing literature that suggests health or nutrition focused barriers to rank at the highest. However, when considering ranks beyond the top 1, naturalness, palatability and health rank higher than ‘other’, representing the barriers which matter most overall.

Of the 138 respondents who ranked ‘other’ as their most concerning barrier, only around half specified the reason. Among those who did, approximately a third articulated concerns closely related to health or nutritional inadequacy, including beliefs around cats and dogs as carnivores, for example; ‘Nutritional requirements’ or ‘Dogs are not meant to eat primarily plant-based diets. They are carnivores’. Around half of respondents who ranked ‘other’ as their main concern did not specify further, limiting interpretability. One plausible interpretation is that ‘other’ functioned as a residual or expressive response for some, reflecting discomfort with or rejection of the provided barriers. It is also possible that some respondents believe feeding their pets meat is a default or necessity rather than a decision shaped by a specific barrier, though this cannot be directly inferred from the data.

Interestingly, palatability emerges as the overall highest barrier when considering respondents’ top three concerns (62%). This also contrasts with the existing literature which typically identifies health as the most concerning barrier. Instead, this data suggests that many guardian’s primary hesitation relates to whether their pet would accept plant-based food. One interpretation is that guardians’ preoccupation with palatability may indicate practical rather than per se resistance to plant-based pet food. If so, interventions that allow guardians to test palatability directly, e.g. free trials or samples, may warrant further exploration. However, another possible interpretation may be more closely related to assumptions that cats and dogs are carnivorous, such that non-meat food would not be palatable for them.

Finally, price and availability appear to be of least concern for many guardians. These practical barriers fall below the belief-based concerns about health, nutrition and palatability. This suggests that guardians’ attitudes towards plant-based pet food are currently driven less by access or cost, and more by questions of acceptance and suitability. This is interesting, since price is a primary barrier preventing humans from adopting a plant-based diet across all dietary lifestyles, which implies different priorities for research in the pet food sector. This suggests that generating positive public attention and changing beliefs is more of a priority than reducing the prices of products. An alternative explanation for why price and availability were of lower concern may be due to perceptions of plant-based food as reasonably priced and available, though this was not directly measured and should be treated with caution.

This data suggests that beliefs around the acceptance and suitability of plant-based diets is a primary concern among dog and cat guardians. This is made clear through written references to nutrition, palatability, and the perception of cats and dogs as carnivorous, along with the data demonstrating how belief-based barriers are more concerning to guardians.

This perception that plant-based pet diets are not suitable is perpetuated by vets and other trusted sources. Dog guardians tend to consult food labels, scientific journals, business webpages and veterinarians for information about their pet’s diet. For curious guardians, their first point of research might often be Google, and for cats, the Google AI overview response (at time of writing) to the question of whether cats can eat a plant based diet is a decided “no”. The top three search results after that, The Blue Cross, Cats Protection, and British Veterinary Association are unanimously against the idea of plant-based cat food. This is a significant barrier and explains why cat owners may simply not see plant-based food as an option. This highlights a key focus point for the animal advocacy movement. While there is positive early research for cats, and this should be acknowledged, more research must be conducted to assess clinical health markers in order to achieve crucial vet endorsement and scientific consensus. Effectively influencing the public perception of plant-based pet food is essential, and research could be communicated in pet care magazines, blogs and social media groups – but ultimately, vet endorsement is key.

The Google search results for dogs are, while cautious, more positive. Additionally, openness to plant-based dog food is slightly higher than that for cat-food, as seen in Figure 2. The most significant data point highlights that only 40% of dog guardians are ‘not at all open’ to plant-based pet food, as opposed to 49% of cat owners. Though this is still a high percentage, it is significantly lower than for cat guardians, suggesting that fewer dog guardians are completely against the prospect.

Fortunately, there are 1 million more dogs than cats as pets in the UK, and they consume on average double the intake of animal products annually. This reveals that dogs consume approximately two thirds of the meat used for pet food, as seen in Figure 3. This, along with the openness data, suggests that research into and communications about plant-based dog food may be a more effective and impactful current focal point. Furthermore, once plant-based dog food has been publicly accepted, the perception of vegan cat food may be easier to shift.

Additionally, plant-based pet food could allow non-vegan consumers to reduce their meat consumption without impacting their own meat intake. Engaging in plant-based products may even encourage them to reconsider their own diets.

In conclusion, the primary barriers preventing pet guardians from adopting a plant-based diet for their pets is belief based, and generating positive public attitude and belief change is important. Additionally, cat guardians tend to be less open to plant-based pet food than dog guardians, but fortunately the dog food market is twice as big. Moreover, cultivated meat was approved for pet food in the UK in 2024, so real meat without using animals could be available for dogs and cats soon.

A limitation of this research is the inclusion of ‘other’ as a barrier, without the requirement of a written explanation. While the written responses were illuminating, it may be that many of those who ranked ‘other’ as a high concern, do in fact find health or naturalness to represent their beliefs. Perhaps an option referencing the belief that cats and dogs are carnivores would be a useful addition. . Another limitation was in not labelling all the options when assessing openness to plant-based pet food, as only labelling the two extremes may bias the responses. Future research should ensure all options are labelled to remain consistent with prior research, and increase reliability.