Sustainable Food Research

At MCM, we are proud to lead innovative research exploring key facets of sustainability with a focus on sustainable food systems. Recently, in collaboration with scholars from the University of Cambridge, the University of Texas at Austin, and Colorado State University, we conducted a comprehensive study using textual analysis of Reddit discussion threads to explore public perceptions and conversations about meat substitutes. We recently published our paper titled “The influence of personal and pro-social concerns on consumers’ evaluation of meat substitutes” in the British Food Journal, authored by Ivana Beveridge, Jaideep Prabhu, Katherine Blackburn and Christopher Berry.

Research on Perceptions of Meat Substitutes

We analysed how people perceive and talk about meat substitutes, or products designed to mimic meat but made from plant or cultivated sources, positioning them within a complex social and emotional landscape. Although meat substitutes are promoted as a strategy to lower our carbon footprint given the environmental impact of large-scale industrial farming, these products have been met with mixed and ambiguous public reactions.

Exploring Cultural and Environmental Dimensions of Meat Substitution

These diverging perceptions are not surprising, because meat holds powerful symbolic meaning across many cultures; it is often seen as the centrepiece of a meal, and it is deeply embedded in traditions and social norms. We were particularly interested in understanding the cultural aspects of meat consumption which are deeply embedded in many cultures. Avoiding meat is frequently regarded as counter-normative and culturally challenging, and this tension is well captured by the idea of "meat paradox," a cognitive dissonance where individuals care about animal welfare yet continue to consume meat, often coping with this contradiction through dissociation or cultural norms.

Discussions about meat evoke intense feelings as individuals negotiate their personal identities, cultural heritage, and ethical considerations around food. But we found that attitudes to meat substitutes beyond binary strictly “pro” or “against” meat substitutes (or meat), which is a dichotomy that is often depicted in public discourse, featuring heated debates on multiple platforms. Even the Super Bowl, renowned for hosting some of the world's most expensive advertising slots in the world, has spotlighted the stark polarisation between meat traditions and the emerging discourse around sustainability.

Methodology - Textual Analysis of Reddit Discussions

Our study analysed natural language from over 33,000 Reddit unique text observations. Reddit is one of the top ten most visited websites globally, and food related ‘subreddits’ have over 23 million subscribers. The evaluation of what people say and mean with content is one of the cornerstones of communication research, and we used the Meaning Extraction Method, a computerised textual analysis method used to analyse content patterns from large-scale language data. Platforms such as Reddit offer the advantage of unfiltered conversations and user anonymity, with spontaneous, socially curated content where popular discussions are promoted through community voting.

We looked at how people assess meat substitutes by weighing personal concerns such as taste, health, and economic factors against pro-social considerations like environmental impact, animal welfare, and cultural norms.

Cultural and Environmental Significance, Taste, Health and Economics

Cultural attachment to meat is very strong; many people are sceptical towards "lab-grown" or "clean meat" products as they are sometimes called, often describing them with terms like "frankenmeat" or "fake meat." Some users liken lab-grown meat to “how a zombie apocalypse would begin,” expressing nostalgia with statements such as “once upon a time meat came from animals.”

Some are sarcastic when discussing diets such as vegan (avoiding all animal products), vegetarian (avoiding meat products) of flexitarian (reducing meat and animal products). Some even said “Do we need a name for eating healthy... a healthier diet needs a name to gain traction?” or “Huh, turns out I’m part of a movement. So, they’ve now just put a name on having a balanced diet, right? This is my diet, I didn’t know it was a thing.”

It was obvious that the symbolism of meat is difficult to replicate through substitutes. Some users fear that the rise of meat alternatives may erode important culinary traditions, while others embrace the prospect if the plant-based options can deliver on taste, health, satisfaction, and affordability.

Environmental concerns were a very frequent theme, with many users suggesting that livestock is a large contributor to environmental degradation, and that “this is much bigger than vegan propaganda.” These environmental concerns are closely intertwined with and often counterbalanced by other personal and cultural factors, shaping the complex and sometimes conflicting attitudes toward meat substitutes.

Many people were concerned about health impact of these products, some stating that “we don’t even know the health problems, but everyone is pretending it’s a magic solution.” Animal welfare was also a key motivation for some consumers but intersected with complex views on ethical farming practices and personal taste preferences.

Taste emerged as one of the most decisive factors influencing consumer acceptance. While some people praised meat substitutes for their meat-like flavour and texture, others found them unappealing or "too processed.” This reluctance, known as “food technology neophobia”, represents a significant psychological barrier that affects consumer acceptance by triggering fears or mistrust towards foods made with new or emerging technologies.

This variability highlights the challenge of designing products that can satisfy traditional meat consumers as well as flexitarians or vegetarians.

Our research underscores that promoting meat substitutes requires a careful balance of messages addressing diverse consumer concerns. Strategies that integrate cultural sensitivity and acknowledge the symbolic significance of meat alongside health and environmental benefits are essential. Emphasising sensory qualities that align with consumer expectations, ensuring affordability, and educating consumers about sustainability can facilitate broader acceptance.

These insights inform our ongoing efforts to foster sustainable food systems by understanding the complex motivations behind dietary choices. Recognising the multi-dimensional nature of how people evaluate meat substitutes helps develop communication, policy, and educational approaches tailored to meet the evolving needs of different consumer segments. This nuanced perspective is vital for supporting the transition to more sustainable diets while respecting cultural values and personal preferences.