Meaty names do not cause confusion - Summary
- European Parliament approved ban on meat terms for plant alternatives
- Review shows meat-related names cause little actual consumer confusion
- Meat terms often boost taste expectations but effects vary by wording
- Labels like plant-based or vegetarian rated tastier than vegan labels
- Avoiding meat terms improves perceived sustainability and health credentials
An amendment that would ban the use of meat-related terms for meat alternatives recently made its way through the European Parliament.
It’s not the first time it’s been proposed, but it’s the first time the ban has been approved. While there are still several stages through which the law must pass, this is a significant step on the road to implementation.
One of the most prominent claims policymakers use to argue in favour of such a ban is the idea that meat-related terms for meat alternatives cause consumer confusion. But do they really?
‘Meaty’ names do not cause confusion
Meat-related terms for plant-based meat cause little confusion for consumers.
One study found that more than 30% of consumers are confused by such products, uncertain whether or not they contain animal-origin ingredients. Yet meat-related term do little to affect this, with the term ‘protein’ confusing nearly as many people.
However, the review also suggests that meat-related terms enhance taste expectations. Essentially, this means that consumers expect it to taste meatier when reading such a term. The findings on this were not always consistent, and it differed for different terms.
In terms of other descriptors, phrases such as “plant-based” and “vegetarian” were significantly more likely to be associated with a tasty product than “vegan”. In fact, products labelled as “vegan” may even be associated with negative taste perceptions.
Highlighting the source of the ingredients on pack, however, does not affect taste perceptions (although emphasising the product is less artificial might).
Avoiding meat-related terms meant that consumers’ perceptions of the products’ sustainability credentials were boosted, as well as their perceptions of the product’s health and animal welfare credentials.
What this means for industry
While labelling can play a significant role in how consumers perceive a product, it doesn’t always always have the same effect.
On the one hand, meat-related terms were found to have little effect on consumer confusion. Whether or not meat-related terms are present, consumers stand a significant chance of being confused by plant-based products.
Rather than playing around with terminology, then, industry should see this as an opportunity to explore other ways of making the ingredients of products clearer, such as putting the products’ meat-free status front-and-centre.
However, terms like ‘vegan’ may not be helpful – consumers may be put off by such a term, as it lowers consumers’ expectations on how the product will taste.
If manufacturers highlight the ingredients they use on-pack, this will not negatively affect consumer taste perceptions. It could even clear up confusion, making it clearer to the consumer that a product contains a form of plant-based protein rather than meat.
This provides an opportunity for manufacturers. If they want to focus on promoting the product as a meat substitute, using terms such as “chicken” or “sausage” consumers expect a more meat-like taste.
