The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Consumer preferences for farm-raised meat, lab-grown meat, and plant-based meat alternatives: Does information or brand matter?
Open accessAbstract
Despite rising interest in and sales of innovative non-animal-based protein sources, there remains a lack of information about consumer demand for these new foods and their ultimate market potential. This study reports the results of a nationwide survey of more than 1800 U.S. consumers who completed a choice experiment in which they selected among conventional beef and three alternative burger patties, (lab-grown, plant-based with pea protein, and plant-based with animal-like protein) at different prices. Respondents were randomly allocated to treatments that varied in the presence/absence of brands and information about the competing alternatives. Results from random parameter logit models indicate that, holding prices constant and conditional on choosing a food product, 72% chose farm-raised beef and 28% chose one of the alternatives: 16% plant-based (pea protein) meat alternative, 7% plant-based (animal-like protein) meat alternative, and 5% lab-grown meat. Adding brand names (Certified Angus Beef, Beyond Meat, Impossible Foods, and Memphis Meats) increased the share for choosing farm-raised beef to 80%. Environment and technology information had minor effects on conditional market shares but reduced the share of people not buying any options, indicating information pulled more people into the market. Even if plant- and lab-grown alternatives experienced significant (e.g., 50%) price reductions, farm-raised beef maintains the majority market share. Vegetarians, males, younger, and more highly educated individuals tend to have relatively stronger preferences for the plant- and lab-grown alternatives relative to farm-raised beef. More people opposed than supported taxing conventional beef for environmental and animal welfare objectives and more opposed than supported having plant- and lab-grown alternatives use the label ‘beef’
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior
McFadden, D. L. (1972) · eScholarship (California Digital Library) · Cited by 14,203
Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems
Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S., Garnett, T., Tilman, D., DeClerck, F., Wood, A., et al. (2019) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(18)31788-4 · Cited by 10,880
Forouzanfar, M. H., Afshin, A., Alexander, L. T., Anderson, H. R., Bhutta, Z. A., Biryukov, S., Brauer, M., Burnett, R., Cercy, K., Charlson, F. J., et al. (2016) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(16)31679-8 · Cited by 7,698
Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications
Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A., Swait, J. D., & Adamowicz, W. (2000) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511753831 · Cited by 4,595
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks
Hockstad, L., & Hanel, L. (2018) · University of North Texas Digital Library (University of North Texas) · doi:10.15485/1464240 · Cited by 2,821
Forouzanfar, M. H., Alexander, L., Anderson, H. R., Bachman, V. F., Biryukov, S., Brauer, M., Burnett, R., Casey, D., Coates, M. M., Cohen, A., et al. (2015) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(15)00128-2 · Cited by 2,701
Meat consumption, health, and the environment
Godfray, H. C. J., Aveyard, P., Garnett, T., Hall, J. W., Key, T. J., Lorimer, J., Pierrehumbert, R. T., Scarborough, P., Springmann, M., & Jebb, S. A. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aam5324 · Cited by 2,077
The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice
Hensher, D. A., & Greene, W. H. (2003) · Transportation · doi:10.1023/a:1022558715350 · Cited by 2,047
Food consumption trends and drivers
Kearney, J. (2010) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0149 · Cited by 1,987
Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat
Bouvard, V., Loomis, D., Guyton, K. Z., Grosse, Y., Ghissassi, F. E., Benbrahim-Tallaa, L., Guha, N., Mattock, H., & Straif, K. (2015) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(15)00444-1 · Cited by 1,882
Cited by
Review of factors affecting consumer acceptance of cultured meat
Pakseresht, A., Ahmadi Kaliji, S., & Canavari, M. (2022) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2021.105829 · Cited by 317
Bryant, C. J. (2022) · Future Foods · doi:10.1016/j.fufo.2022.100174 · Cited by 303
Consumer willingness to pay for environmentally sustainable meat and a plant‐based meat substitute
Katare, B., Yim, H., Byrne, A., Wang, H. H., & Wetzstein, M. (2023) · Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy · doi:10.1002/aepp.13285 · Cited by 63
Leveraging microalgae as a sustainable ingredient for meat analogues
Zhu, J., Xiao, X., Du, W., Cai, Y., Yang, Z., Yin, Y., Wakisaka, M., Wang, J., Zhou, Z., Liu, D., et al. (2024) · Food Chemistry · doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2024.139360 · Cited by 45
The potential footprint of alternative meat adoption on corn and soybean producers
Blaustein-Rejto, D., Merener, N., & Smith, A. (2024) · Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems · doi:10.3389/fsufs.2024.1400515 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Van Loo, E. J., Caputo, V., & Lusk, J. L.
- Venue
- Food Policy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-08
- Volume
- 95
- Pages
- 101931
- ISSN
- 0306-9192 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3040667231
- Cited by
- 447
- References
- 47
- FWCI
- 28.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Consumer preferences for farm-raised meat, lab-grown meat, and plant-based meat alternatives: Does information or brand matter? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101931
- The paper
- Van Loo, E. J., Caputo, V., & Lusk, J. L. (2020). Consumer preferences for farm-raised meat, lab-grown meat, and plant-based meat alternatives: Does information or brand matter? Food Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101931
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
