Tasting and labeling meat substitute products can affect consumers’ product evaluations and preferences

Abstract

Moving towards plant-based diets and reducing meat consumption is key to achieving the Paris climate targets. One option for reducing meat consumption is replacing meat products with substitutes. In two field experiments, we tested how labeling and tasting experiences with substitutes affected omnivores’ evaluations of such products and investigated the latter’s stated and revealed preferences regarding the consumption of meat substitutes and reduction of meat consumption. In our first experiment, we randomly labeled meat substitutes vegetarian or meat products, finding that this labeling resulted in more positive evaluations of the effects of the product on the environment, animal welfare, and health. However, labeling did not directly affect the assessment of the products’ taste or participants’ stated and revealed preferences regarding modifications to their food consumption. Nevertheless, we find evidence that vegetarian labeling indirectly affects the intention to consume more meat substitutes by enhancing climate and health-related product evaluations (i.e., significant mediation effects). Our second experiment shows that tasting meat substitutes results in a more positive assessment of the product’s taste and texture than not tasting them. However, tasting did not directly affect the perceived effect of meat substitutes on health, the environment, and animal welfare, nor stated and revealed preferences. In contrast, we find strong indirect effects of the tasting experience on stated and revealed preferences regarding consuming more meat substitutes and plant-based dishes mediated by improvements in product taste and texture evaluations (i.e., significant mediation effects). The theoretical and policy implications of these findings are discussed.