By Callum McCadden – Word count: 1999
Introduction
Animal agriculture has been increasingly implicated in having a primary role within the ecological and climate crisis (Garnett et al., 2017). As a response, plant-based diets have been assessed to be one of the most effective personal behavioural changes tackling this global issue (Hallström et al., 2015). Companies have responded by innovating new ‘alternative proteins’ in the Western market – some genuinely new, laboratory creations; others taken from other cultures (Sexton, 2018). Currently the most popular of these alternative proteins are ‘mock meats’ – meat-like proteins made from reconstructed plant matter (Sexton, 2018). In academia, these mock meats have been analysed for their aspirations to be like meat (Adise et al., 2015; Sexton, 2016; Stahl, 2017), the problematic acceptance of their place in meals (Elzerman et al., 2013, 2011; Schösler et al., 2012), their positive role in creating plant-based diets (Nath and Prideaux, 2011) and the varied perception of the products’ taste (Adise et al., 2015; Hoek et al., 2013). These studies are set in a broader academic context that has analysed meat consumption to be reliant upon disassociation between the final product and the animals they came from (Evans and Miele, 2012; Kubberød et al., 2002; Kunst and Hohle, 2016). In addition, taste and edibility have been analysed as something socially produced (Hayes-Conroy and Hayes-Conroy, 2010; Roe, 2006; Waitt, 2014), which can have geopolitical ramifications through what is deemed as good taste (Cook, 2018). At an even broader level there exists analysis on the gendered construction of meat affinity in general (Adams, 2010; Kubberød et al., 2002). With these analyses in mind, a relatively unexplored area of this research can be expanded: how the tastes of ‘meatiness’ in mock meats are received, and if these tastes influence dietary identities. Little primary research exists specifically on this field with the most relevant being Sexton (2018) who interviewed key members of the industry in order to establish an understanding of the biopolitics of alternative protein.
Methods
To collect the required data, an online survey was personally marketed on Facebook and Instagram. As such, the responses are only representative of the audience that the algorithms of these platforms allowed the author to reach. The polling period was short (12 hours), but likely effective due to the current stay-at-home order in the United Kingdom due to the 2020 Coranavirus outbreak. The survey adopted a mixed methods approach, using both short quantitative and long qualitative questions. Participants were asked about their mock meat consumption, their feelings regarding ‘meatiness’ and how this fit with their reported dietary identity. Traditional alternative proteins such as tofu were included where they are prepared to be like meat – breaking from their separation in Sexton’s (2018) analysis. Due to their low commercial popularity in the United Kingdom, insect protein was ignored in this study.
The survey responses were anonymous and an ethical declaration atop the survey informed the participants of anonymity, the purpose of the research and the use of the data (see Appendix A). The analysis of the results is influenced by a general epistemological position of feminist-veganism (Adams, 2010). Positionally, previous public posting in favour of veganism by the author has likely alienated respondents who disagree with vegan perspectives, limiting the research where the audience reached by the social media algorithms are those who want to listen to these views. The long form responses were analysed for emerging key themes and the short form responses were used to contextualise the data.
Results
The survey was answered by forty-four people. Of these forty-four, twelve (27.3%) identified as omnivorous, eight (18.2%) as omnivorous but actively reducing meat intake, seventeen (38.6%) vegetarian, five (11.4%) vegan, one ‘freegan’ and one pescatarian (each 2.3%). The ‘reducing meat intake’ option was added to attempt to catch recent interest in ‘flexitarianism’ (Raphaely and Marinova, 2014). As predicted, the participants were largely plant-based in diet. The sample was predominantly youthful, with thirty-two (72.7%) respondents in the 18-25 age bracket, with only minor figures in the three older categories. The respondents predominantly self-described as ‘female’ in gender (61%). The self-description of ‘male’ was reported by 30%, ‘not-applicable’ by 2% and the remaining 8% did not answer this optional question. As such, this sample should not be considered representative of the general population of the United Kingdom, with plant-based diets, youth and female gender overrepresented (Office for National Statistics, 2012; Vegan Society, 2019).
Eighteen (41%) of the sample regularly consumed mock meats, twelve (27%) occasionally ate them and the remaining fourteen (32%) either have never tried them or did not consume them. Mock meats were most popular amongst vegetarians, of which 70% regularly consumed them. In the small vegan sample, three of them occasionally ate mock meats, one regularly and one did not. In the ‘reducing meat intake’ or ‘omnivorous’ categories, mock meats were the least popular with twelve (60%) indicating they had tried them but either did not consume, or enjoy, them. Regular consumption amongst these two groups was exclusively by those attempting to reduce their meat intake (four of the eight meat reducers) and occasional consumption was more prevalent amongst those not self-describing as lowering their meat reduction.
As can be seen in Table 1, behaviours of mock meat consumption varied across respondents’ ages and genders. Regular consumption was more prevalent amongst youthful respondents with 46% of the youngest age bracket being regular consumers. Likewise, regular consumption was more prevalent amongst females with 51% of them being regular consumers.
Table 1: Cross tabulation of age and gender compared to mock meat consumption:
| Age: | Totals: | Gender: | Totals: | ||||||
| Consumption of mock meats: | 18-25 | 26-40 | 40-65 | 65+ | Female | Male | N/A | ||
| Never Consume: | 4 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 9 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 12 |
| Occasionally Consume: | 13 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 16 | 9 | 5 | 0 | 14 |
| Regularly Consume: | 15 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 18 | 14 | 3 | 1 | 18 |
| Totals: | 32 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 44 44 | 27 | 13 | 4 | 44 44 |
Of those who regularly consumed mock meats, taste, texture and form were rated highly important qualities. However, being like meat in these qualities was more divisive. Only six of the eighteen regular consumers (33%) wanted their mock meats to be like meat in this sense, with a further nine (50%) reporting negative feelings towards meaty qualities. The remaining three participants occupied a middle ground, reporting texture to be vital but a preference for mock meats that don’t resemble animal meat too closely. The negative responses amongst regular consumers centred around wanting texturally satisfying proteins, but feelings of disgust were invoked by ideas of bloodiness and rawness. In this sense the form of mock meat was important, with ‘sausages’ and ‘hamburgers’ eliciting positive responses and ‘steak’ negative ones. These forms of consumption were reported by two participants as a way of maintaining social eating norms, such as ‘good to put on a BBQ’, or because of the ‘overall eating experience’ of eating hamburgers. Among the lower consuming participants, predominantly omnivores, these qualities were negatively rated with a common response indicating preference for the ‘real thing’. That said, among the omnivorous ‘meat reducers’ positive responses to meat-qualities were more popular (25%) but still a minority opinion.
In relation to their food identities, the strongest negative answers were from the omnivore category. A preference, or ‘love’, for ‘real meat’ was felt multiply and doubt was expressed of the nutritional content of mock meats. Amongst meat reducers, mock meats were identified as a popular gateway food item to eating less meat which was often felt beneficial for themselves in reducing their meat intake. For the vegetarians and vegans, mock meats were placed as being an easily accessible protein that broadened their dietary diversity (31%), although concerns were expressed about them being highly processed. For this group, mock meats often made eating out easier (27%) and a couple participants felt mock meats allowed the consumption of (altered) ‘traditional’ meals. The vegetarian and vegan group also reported mixed feelings when reflecting on the taste of meat, now and in the past. A small contingent (26%) missed the taste (often with guilty feelings), another 26% could not recall the tastes and the remainder either disliked the tastes or were actively repulsed.
Discussion
Despite the sample not being generally representative, it still holds valuable results for tensions in the literature. Firstly, this research expands upon a commonly held, relatively unproven, assumption in the literature: that some consumers like ‘meaty’ mock meats, and others do not (Elzerman et al., 2013; Sexton, 2018; Stahl, 2017). These results indicate that ‘meatiness’ may be less important than originally thought, with a high degree of responses reacting negatively towards overly-meaty characteristics, particularly amongst regular consumers. Some participants indicated meat characteristics may be important in gaining new consumers, particularly amongst omnivores, which has been noted elsewhere (Nath and Prideaux, 2011). However, omnivores often felt mock meats could never be the ‘real thing’. For the vegetarian and vegan groups, meat like texture was most popular but carnal touches such as blood invoked a disgust response. These findings potentially contradict Sexton (2018) and Elzerman et al. (2011) who find meatiness to be a necessary prerequisite in expanding mock meats’ markets. Furthermore, meat products most distant from their animal origins, such as highly processed products, are the most popular as they avoid ethical provocations (Kunst and Hohle, 2016). As such, a different pathway for consumer innovation is mock meats utilising their own tastes within common cultural food categories (e.g. burgers) – which is broadly acceptable to conservative omnivorous eaters and the plant-based in this study, and in other studies (Elzerman et al., 2013, 2011). With multiple respondents feeling mock meats were best suited as ‘conversion aids’ (Nath and Prideux, 2011), mock meat may be more popular within meal concepts as opposed to aspirations to be ‘real’ meat in their own merits. With that said, this research is weighted in favour of those who already consume mock meats, as meaty characteristics could remain a prerequisite in expanding mock meat markets to occasional consumers.
The social construction of what is good taste can have geopolitical ramifications dependent on how good taste is used by institutional powers (Cook, 2018). Likewise, the relationship between meatiness, mock meats and dietary identity in this study revealed geopolitical ramifications. Sexton (2018) notes that recreating feelings of nostalgia is a key strategy of mock meat companies. Although a minor finding, the implication that mock meats allow easier dining experiences and the consumption of traditional foods may confirm Sexton’s (2018) analysis. That said, the industry concept of good taste (meaty, bloody, juicy) could be considered dissonant from their regular consumers considering the evidence above. Again, expanded research with a larger curious and omnivorous contingent would be needed to explore this question for potential markets. Similarly, a small contingent of the respondents felt disgust towards tastes of meatiness, associating the taste with the ethical issues of animal farming. In this sense, meatiness is a biosocially created taste with negative associations – aversion creates distaste, and distaste creates aversion (Hayes-Conroy and Hayes-Conroy, 2010). When viewed not as a single variable, but as a process between taste and ethics, this contradicts Adise et al.‘s (2015: 52) assertation that distaste is not ‘a primary reason for rejection of animal-based foods’. This influence of ethics upon taste was not present amongst those who continue to eat meat.
Finally, the results were notably gendered. The aversion to carnal attributes of animal meats, such as bloodiness, amongst young woman has been previously noted (Kubberød et al., 2002). The results compound these findings within mock meats as all reservations regarding the realness of mock meats (and the associated disgust) were reported amongst the self-described females. This adds to the literature statistically grounding cultural theories regarding the links between masculinity and meat consumption such as Adams (1990) (Dowsett et al., 2018; Hayley et al., 2015) by extending the scope to include mock meats alongside animal meat.
Conclusions
This probing research aimed to explore key assumptions regarding the ‘meatiness’ of mock meats and their relationship to personal dietary identities. In doing so, this research found that aspirations to meat realism may be less important than assumed amongst regular consumers. This has important market ramifications and may represent the pushing of a correct form of mock meat taste by large food companies. However, due to a small response and relatively unrepresentative sample, extrapolation should proceed cautiously as the research says little of potential consumers. Finally, the taste of meatiness was also understood as biosocially produced and gendered, contradicting and confirming different positions in the literature.
References:
Adams, C.J., 2010. Why feminist-vegan now? Feminism & Psychology 20, pp. 302–317. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353510368038
Adams, C.J., 1990. The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory. 1990. New York: Continuum.
Adise, S., Gavdanovich, I., Zellner, D.A., 2015. Looks like chicken: Exploring the law of similarity in evaluation of foods of animal origin and their vegan substitutes. Food Quality and Preference 41, pp.52–59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.10.007
Cook, B., 2018. The aesthetic politics of taste: Producing extra virgin olive oil in Jordan. Geoforum, 92, pp.36–44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.03.004
Dowsett, E., Semmler, C., Bray, H., Ankeny, R.A., Chur-Hansen, A., 2018. Neutralising the meat paradox: Cognitive dissonance, gender, and eating animals. Appetite, 123, pp.280–288. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.01.005
Elzerman, J.E., Hoek, A.C., van Boekel, M.A.J.S., Luning, P.A., 2011. Consumer acceptance and appropriateness of meat substitutes in a meal context. Food Quality and Preference, 22, pp.233–240. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.10.006
Elzerman, J.E., van Boekel, M.A.J.S., Luning, P.A., 2013. Exploring meat substitutes: consumer experiences and contextual factors. British Food Journal, 115, pp.700–710. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/00070701311331490
Evans, A.B., Miele, M., 2012. Between Food and Flesh: How Animals are Made to Matter (and Not Matter) within Food Consumption Practices. Environmental Planning D, 30, pp.298–314. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1068/d12810
Garnett, T., Godde, C., Muller, A., Röös, E., Smith, P., de Boer, I., zu Ermgassen, E., Herrero, M., van Middelaar, C., Schader, C., 2017. Grazed and confused? Ruminating on cattle, grazing systems, methane, nitrous oxide, the soil carbon sequestration question – And what it all means for greenhouse gas emissions. Oxford, UK: Food Climate Research Network (FCRN)
Hallström, E., Carlsson-Kanyama, A., Börjesson, P., 2015. Environmental impact of dietary change: a systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 91, pp.1–11.
Hayes-Conroy, A. and Hayes-Conroy, J., 2010. Visceral Difference: Variations in Feeling (Slow) Food. Environmental Planning A, 42, pp.2956–2971. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1068/a4365
Hayley, A., Zinkiewicz, L., Hardiman, K., 2015. Values, attitudes, and frequency of meat consumption. Predicting meat-reduced diet in Australians. Appetite, 84, pp.98–106. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.10.002
Hoek, A.C., Elzerman, J.E., Hageman, R., Kok, F.J., Luning, P.A., Graaf, C. de, 2013. Are meat substitutes liked better over time? A repeated in-home use test with meat substitutes or meat in meals. Food Quality and Preference, 28, pp.253–263. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.07.002
Kubberød, E., Ueland, Ø., Rødbotten, M., Westad, F., Risvik, E., 2002. Gender specific preferences and attitudes towards meat. Food Quality and Preference, 13, pp.285–294. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(02)00041-1
Kunst, J.R., Hohle, S.M., 2016. Meat eaters by dissociation: How we present, prepare and talk about meat increases willingness to eat meat by reducing empathy and disgust. Appetite, 105, pp.758–774. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.07.009
Nath, J., Prideaux, D., 2011. The civilised burger: Meat alternatives as a conversion aid and social instrument for Australian vegetarians and vegans. Australian Humanities Review, 51.
Office for National Statistics, 2012. 2011 Census. Available: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/2011censuspopulationestimatesfortheunitedkingdom/2012-12-17#the-structure-of-the-population-of-the-united-kingdom (Accessed 29.04.20).
Raphaely, T., Marinova, D., 2014. Flexitarianism: Decarbonising through flexible vegetarianism. Renewable Energy, 67, pp.90–96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.11.030
Roe, E.J., 2006. Things Becoming Food and the Embodied, Material Practices of an Organic Food Consumer. Sociologia Ruralis, 46, pp.104–121. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2006.00402.x
Schösler, H., Boer, J. de, Boersema, J.J., 2012. Can we cut out the meat of the dish? Constructing consumer-oriented pathways towards meat substitution. Appetite, 58, pp.39–47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.09.009
Sexton, A., 2016. Alternative Proteins and the (Non)Stuff of “Meat.” Gastronomica, 16, pp.66–78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/gfc.2016.16.3.66
Sexton, A.E., 2018. Eating for the post-Anthropocene: Alternative proteins and the biopolitics of edibility. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 43, pp.586–600. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12253
Stahl, G., 2017. Making a Mockery of Meat: Troubling Texture and the Failings of the “Flesh.” Journal of Asia-Pacific Pop Culture, 2, pp.184–204.
Vegan Society, 2019. Statistics. United Kingdom. Available: https://www.vegansociety.com/news/media/statistics (Accessed 29.04.20).
Waitt, G., 2014. Embodied geographies of kangaroo meat. Social & Cultural Geography, 15, pp.406–426. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2014.894113
Appendix A: Ethical Declaration
The following declaration introduced the online survey accessible via the author’s personal Facebook that states themselves a student at The University of Edinburgh:
“First please read this ethical declaration:
Any and all responses here will be anonymous. Any personal information revealed will result in your responses being discarded. Any responses here will be used to create an analysis by myself for a class essay. It is unlikely the work will be published, however if it is judged good enough this remains a possibility. If you are uncomfortable with this please do not respond. There are two questions regarding broad personal information at the bottom. They are non-identifying but could be useful in analysis. They are optional.”