We recruited a representative sample of 1,000 people in the UK through the online survey platform Attest in July 2023. 

The participants were representative of the UK in terms of age groups, gender, and region, and were compensated for their participation through Attest. Full demographic details are in Appendix 1.

Participants answered closed and open-text questions about their diet, how and whether they purchase(d) PBMs, and their opinions about different aspects of PBMs. The full survey questionnaire is in Appendix 2.

Participants also gave their views on a series of statements about plant-based meat (see above).

1. The majority (54%) agreed that when they eat PBMs, it is usually as a substitute for meat. This supports the view that alternative proteins do, indeed, displace demand for meat. This helps frame how consumers are judging their experience of the category both in taste and price terms.
2. The most agreed-upon statements related to the most important factors: taste and price.
   1. Two thirds of respondents (66%) agreed that some PBMs taste much worse than others, indicating that there is inconsistent quality in PBMs. This is a particularly important point, as innovation in the PBM sector is continuous and ongoing, with rapid improvements in product quality in recent years. Continually reviewing and refreshing product ranges in this category is recommended, and indeed, is practised by many retailers.
   2. A majority (62%) agreed that plant-based meat costs much more than the equivalent animal meat. Retailers should consider how to make PBMs accessible to all, including continuing to invest in their own products, which are often cheaper than PBM brands, and offering price promotions. One strategy that has been observed is to target price parity for products where the animal product is relatively expensive, thus providing a higher price point for PBMs to compete with. 
3. Nearly half (49%) were worried that plant-based meat is too processed or unnatural. This suggests that the idea of ‘ultra-processed’ food has had some traction in affecting plant-based meat demand. That said, it is worth noting that being processed/unnatural was mentioned by just 7% of respondents in open text questions, which could suggest this concern is not top-of-mind.
4. A large portion of respondents (51%) said they wanted more information about plant-based meat. More information is given in Sections 3.2.4. And 3.3.4.
5. Nearly half (43%) said they saw no reason to replace conventional meat. This suggests there is room for far more public information and education about the benefits of meat reduction, especially for those who consume meat in higher-than-recommended volumes. 
6. Low hunger satiation and having too much choice were a concern for a minority of respondents: just 32% and 27% agreed with these statements, respectively. Notably, ‘too much choice’ was the most disagreed-with statement, indicating that consumers are not opposed to retailers exploring different brands in the category, as many have done.

When asked open-text questions about why they bought plant-based meat and what they liked about it, among the most commonly mentioned words were ‘taste’, ‘better’, ‘healthy’, ‘healthier’, and ‘good’. Respondents often mentioned both health and taste reasons together. This is an indication that some consumers do like the tastes of products on offer currently, and largely view them as healthier options.

When asked open-text questions about why they reduced their consumption of plant-based meat, if they had, the most commonly-mentioned themes were taste and price, reiterating the importance of these two main drivers of adoption. PBM producers and retailers must continue their efforts to drive down production and sale prices, and to improve product taste and texture profiles. Consumers tended to discuss price especially as relative to animal products – i.e. plant-based products are more expensive than meat. 

We also asked participants which brands they thought were worse and why. In general, this analysis revealed very low brand recognition – most respondents did not mention specific brands, and many said they could not remember brands. The reasons given were generally related to taste, and included words like ‘taste’, ‘texture’, and ‘bland’.

Of those respondents who indicated that plant-based meat alternatives cost more than animal-derived meat, the most common estimated price gap was 20–50%, followed by 10-20%. Very few people indicated that the price gap was above 50%.  This represents a fairly accurate estimate, and highlights the need for producers and retailers to further drive down the price of PBMs.

For the 51% who said they needed more information, there was quite a range of different types of information they wanted. Approximately 41–46% of people said that they wanted more information about the benefits of PBM over conventional meat, the nutrition they might miss if they replaced meat with PBM, how to cook and prepare meals with PBM, and specific nutrition questions such as iron and protein.

Although we allowed an ‘Other’ text entry option here, fewer than 1% of participants wrote in, and the majority of those responses were covered by other topics. The topic of what further information consumers want about plant-based meat is worthy of further research.

As shown, the only group where omnivores are a minority is the Frequent PBM Eaters. This group was approximately evenly split between omnivores, flexitarians, and non-meat-eaters (pescetarians, vegetarians, and vegans). The Occasional PBM Eaters were about two-thirds omnivores, while the Former Frequent PBM Eaters were about 60% omnivores. Omnivores were upwards up 80% of the three least engaged groups: Eaten PBM Before, Never Tried PBM, and Unfamiliar with PBM (N.B. This last group was only 3%). 

On the graph above, the average agreement with each statement is represented for each group. The scale was from ‘Strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘Strongly agree’ (5), with a mid-point of ‘Neither agree nor disagree’ (3). Values above 3.00 indicate a tendency to agree, while values below 3.00 indicate a tendency to disagree. All of the observed mean values fell in the range of 2.00 – 4.00, so we have zoomed in on the axis to highlight the differences. This data is also given in percentages in Appendix 3.

Some of the most striking observations:

1. The Frequent PBM Eaters are the most likely group to say they use PBMs as a substitute for meat, though all groups tended to agree with this, except for those who have never tried PBMs. This group was also the least likely to agree that there are no good reasons to reduce meat consumption, as well with a range of concerns about PBMs. 
2. All groups tended to agree that PBMs were more expensive than conventional meat, and that some products taste worse than others. Interestingly, the groups most likely to cite these concerns were the Occasional PBM Eaters and the lapsed consumer groups. This supports the view that price and taste are major barriers, especially for consumers who are open to PBMs in principle.
3. The less familiar consumers were more likely to agree that PBMs are processed/unnatural, that there is no good reason to reduce meat consumption, that PBMs would fail to give them enough energy/satiation, that there is too much choice of PBMs, and that they need more information about PBMs. This reflects the general disengagement with the category of these groups, and reflects the need for more persuasive information on reasons to shift.
4. The statements on which there is general agreement/disagreement is reflected in the graph in Section 3.2.

It is worth noting here that, in terms of their price estimates for PBMs, the Former Frequent PBM Eaters more closely resemble the Never Tried and Eaten Before groups than the Occasional and Frequent PBM Eaters. This could indicate that price is a particular concern for the Former Frequent PBM Eaters.

In terms of additional information, the Former Frequent PBM Eaters and the Occasional PBM Eaters were most likely to say they wanted more information about the benefits of PBM over conventional meat. Nutrition was the key concern for the Never Tried, Eaten Before, and Frequent PBM Eaters.