IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/apecpp/v45y2023i1p164-181.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Market potential of new plant‐based protein alternatives: Insights from four US consumer experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Glynn T. Tonsor
  • Jayson L. Lusk
  • Ted C. Schroeder

Abstract

This article reports results from four studies determining the US market potential for plant‐based meat alternatives in different contexts and settings. The first study shows that a pair‐wise choice between beef and a plant‐based alternative was not significantly affected by the presence of nutrition facts panels or ingredient lists. A second study, framed as a food service meal choice, reveals that the introduction of a plant‐based burger has roughly the same effect on beef sales as does the presence of a chicken wrap. The final two studies estimate own‐ and cross‐price elasticities of retail demand. We find small cross‐price elasticities between plant‐based patties and ground beef. Each of the aforementioned results varies for regular meat consumers as compared to consumers who self‐identify with an alternative diet such as flexitarian, vegetarian, or vegan. Combined, this study increases understanding of the impact presented by plant‐based offerings in the US protein market.

Suggested Citation

  • Glynn T. Tonsor & Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder, 2023. "Market potential of new plant‐based protein alternatives: Insights from four US consumer experiments," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(1), pages 164-181, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:apecpp:v:45:y:2023:i:1:p:164-181
    DOI: 10.1002/aepp.13253
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13253
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/aepp.13253?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Riccardo Scarpa & Raffaele Zanoli & Viola Bruschi & Simona Naspetti, 2013. "Inferred and Stated Attribute Non-attendance in Food Choice Experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(1), pages 165-180.
    2. Glynn T. Tonsor, 2011. "Consumer inferences of food safety and quality," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 38(2), pages 213-235, June.
    3. Apostolidis, Chrysostomos & McLeay, Fraser, 2016. "Should we stop meating like this? Reducing meat consumption through substitution," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 74-89.
    4. Jayson L. Lusk & Glynn T. Tonsor, 2016. "How Meat Demand Elasticities Vary with Price, Income, and Product Category," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 38(4), pages 673-711.
    5. Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder & Glynn T. Tonsor, 2014. "Editor's choice Distinguishing beliefs from preferences in food choice," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 41(4), pages 627-655.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nouve, Yawotse & Zheng, Yuqing & Zhao, Shuoli & Kaiser, Harry M. & Dong, Diansheng, 2024. "A detailed demand analysis of plant-based meat alternatives vs. animal-based meat in the United States," 2024 Annual Meeting, July 28-30, New Orleans, LA 343798, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Meike Rombach & Xiaomeng Lucock & David L. Dean, 2023. "No Cow? Understanding US Consumer Preferences for Plant-Based over Regular Milk-Based Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-12, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ortega, David L. & Sun, Jiayu & Lin, Wen, 2022. "Identity labels as an instrument to reduce meat demand and encourage consumption of plant based and cultured meat alternatives in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    2. Shr, Yau-Huo (Jimmy) & Zhang, Wendong, 2024. "Omitted downstream attributes and the benefits of nutrient reductions: Implications for choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    3. Benjamin DeMuth & Trey Malone & Brandon R. McFadden & Christopher A. Wolf, 2023. "Choice effects associated with banning the word “meat” on alternative protein labels," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(1), pages 128-144, March.
    4. Julianna M. Butler & Christian A. Vossler, 2018. "What is an Unregulated and Potentially Misleading Label Worth? The case of “Natural”-Labelled Groceries," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 70(2), pages 545-564, June.
    5. Van Loo, Ellen J. & Caputo, Vincenzina & Lusk, Jayson L., 2020. "Consumer preferences for farm-raised meat, lab-grown meat, and plant-based meat alternatives: Does information or brand matter?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    6. Leonardo Cei & Edi Defrancesco & Paola Gatto & Francesco Pagliacci, 2023. "Pay more for me, I’m from the mountains! The role of the EU Mountain Product term and other credence attributes in consumers’ valuation of lamb meat," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 11(1), pages 1-21, December.
    7. Shiwen Quan & Yinchu Zeng & Xiaohua Yu & Te Bao, 2018. "WTP for baby milk formula in China: Using attribute nonattendance as a priori information to select attributes in choice experiment," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 300-320, March.
    8. Lusk, Jayson L. & Tonsor, Glynn T. & Schroeder, Ted C. & Hayes, Dermot J., 2018. "Effect of government quality grade labels on consumer demand for pork chops in the short and long run," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 91-102.
    9. Wolf, Christopher A. & Tonsor, Glynn T., 2017. "Cow Welfare in the U.S. Dairy Industry: Willingness-to-Pay and Willingness-to-Supply," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 42(2), May.
    10. Yau-Huo Shr & Wendong Zhang, 2021. "Does Omitting Downstream Water Quality Change the Economic Benefits of Nutrient Reduction? Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 21-wp620, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    11. Yuan, Rao & Asioli, Daniele & Jin, Shaosheng & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2021. "Consumers’ Valuation for Cultured Chicken Meat: A Multi-city Choice Experiment in China," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313957, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Caputo, Vincenzina & Scarpa, Riccardo & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Ortega, David L., 2018. "Are preferences for food quality attributes really normally distributed? An analysis using flexible mixing distributions," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 10-27.
    13. Shr, Yau-Huo Jimmy & Zhang, Wendong, 2021. "Does Omitting Downstream Water Quality Change the Economic Benefits of Nutrient Reduction Programs: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313927, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Neill, Clinton L. & Holcomb, Rodney B., 2019. "Does a food safety label matter? Consumer heterogeneity and fresh produce risk perceptions under the Food Safety Modernization Act," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 7-14.
    15. Dudinskaya, Emilia Cubero & Naspetti, Simona & Zanoli, Raffaele, 2020. "Using eye-tracking as an aid to design on-screen choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    16. Elliott J. Dennis & Glynn T. Tonsor & Jayson L. Lusk, 2021. "Choosing quantities impacts individuals choice, rationality, and willingness to pay estimates," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(6), pages 945-962, November.
    17. Kelvin Balcombe & Michail Bitzios & Iain Fraser & Janet Haddock-Fraser, 2014. "Using Attribute Importance Rankings Within Discrete Choice Experiments: An Application to Valuing Bread Attributes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(2), pages 446-462, June.
    18. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    19. Tingqiang Chen & Lei Wang & Jining Wang & Qi Yang, 2017. "A Network Diffusion Model of Food Safety Scare Behavior considering Information Transparency," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2017, pages 1-16, December.
    20. Marco Costanigro & Yuko Onozaka, 2020. "A Belief‐Preference Model of Choice for Experience and Credence Goods," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(1), pages 70-95, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:apecpp:v:45:y:2023:i:1:p:164-181. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)2040-5804 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.