Title: Are plant-based foods a threat to the livestock industry? | Department of Agricultural Economics

July 29, 2026

In the recent past, headlines have heralded a seismic shift in how Americans eat. We’ve been told that we are in the midst of a "meatless revolution," with meatless Mondays and tech companies producing plant-based alternatives like the Beyond Burger and Impossible Burger poised to disrupt the multi-billion-dollar animal agriculture industry. Motivated by concerns about impacts of animal production on human and environmental health, the narrative makes sense: estimates suggest that livestock production is responsible for an out-sized proportion of environmental impacts, and diets high in red meat are linked to obesity, type-2 diabetes, and heart disease. On paper, substituting a beef patty for one made from pulses—protein-rich plants like beans, lentils, or peas—could reduce the environmental impact and improve the nutritional profile of that meal.

However, despite this narrative—and the growing presence of veggie burgers and plant-based meat alternatives in restaurants and supermarkets, a significant gap remains between the narrative of a "threatened" meat industry and the reality of what ends up in our shopping carts. Recent research suggests that the plant-based takeover might be more of a slow crawl than a sea change. In a study involving hundreds of American consumers, researchers found that when faced with the complexity of a real-world market, only around 10% of people chose a plant-based option—even when the percentage of plant-based options was artificially inflated relative to real-world product assortments to examine the impact of product prevalence on choice. This finding stands in stark contrast to other recent studies suggesting that as many as one-third of consumers would choose plant-based options when offered at the same price as meat-based burgers. The question is: why is there such a big difference in the results from these studies?

The "External Validity Gap"

To understand why the public narrative often overestimates the success of plant-based foods, we have to look at methods for studying consumer behavior. Much of the most striking data that find support for plant-based foods comes from simple choice experiments or surveys. In these studies, a participant is typically presented with just two options: a beef burger and a plant-based burger, which ensures that people see all of the details of the two products presented to them. In the sterile environment of two items presented on a computer screen, 25% to 35% of people often say they would pick the plant-based version. Some surveys have even found that 50% of respondents say they intend to increase their purchases of plant-based proteins.

However, these "simple" experiments don't reflect how we actually shop. In a real supermarket, you aren't choosing between two items; you are choosing from dozens or hundreds of alternatives. Our recent research addresses this gap by creating a realistically complex choice environment featuring 50 unique frozen burger products—a mix of animal and plant-based patties.

When the choice environment is this crowded, our brains process information differently than when they face only two options. Rather than reacting to what is presented to us—and processing all of the available information, we likely search or scan for the details that are important to us. Eye-tracking studies have shown that in a real supermarket, nearly 75% of shoppers pick a product to purchase without looking at any other options or even checking the price tag. They simply grab what they’ve always grabbed. By mimicking this real-world complexity, our study found that the interest in plant-based burgers was markedly smaller, leaving only a small, dedicated 10% of individuals choosing a plant-based food. This much lower number aligns more closely with recent real-world sales data.

What Are You Thinking?

A novel element of this research was the use of "Ecological Momentary Assessment" (EMA). Instead of just asking people what they usually care about when making food choices, the researchers asked them what they were actively thinking about precisely when they made their choice.

The results were telling. While many people say in surveys that they care about the environment or their health, those thoughts may not show up at the "point of decision." In this study, two-thirds of participants reported thinking about taste. Roughly half were thinking about price. On the other hand, just over 10% were actively thinking about the environment while looking at the burgers. However, those who were thinking about the environment were much more likely to choose a plant-based burger.

This is the crux of the problem for plant-based advocates. If a consumer isn't actively thinking about the environment in the three seconds it takes to grab a box of frozen patties, the environmental benefits of a veggie burger—no matter how significant—become invisible. However, for the vast majority of shoppers, "taste" remains king during food choice, and taste is overwhelmingly associated with traditional meat-based burgers.

The Health Paradox

Perhaps the most surprising finding was the role of health. Common sense suggests that people choose veggie burgers because they want to be healthier. Indeed, the study confirmed that the plant-based burgers included in the study—drawn from a USDA database of branded food products—were objectively superior nutritionally: they had significantly less saturated fat and significantly more fiber, iron, and potassium than their meat-based counterparts.

But surprisingly, even though the plant-based burgers were healthier, participants who said they were thinking about "health" while making their choice weren't necessarily more likely to pick them. This suggests a potential knowledge gap. Consumers may be unaware of the health benefits of plant-based foods, or may view burgers as a fundamentally indulgent, unhealthy food category, predisposing them to ignore or discount nutrition information. If a health-conscious shopper doesn't believe (or care) that the plant-based burger is better for them, they’ll stick with the conventional option.

Is Animal Agriculture Really Under Threat?

The narrative that plant-based foods are an imminent threat to animal agriculture appears, at least for now, to be exaggerated. While firms like Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods have tried to create products that mimic the texture and sizzle of beef, they are fighting against deep-seated human habits.

The research suggests that for a meaningful shift to occur, at least a few things would need to change:

Because shopping is so automatic, consumers would need "disruptions"—like health reminders or prompts—while they are looking at the shelf to reconsider their choices.
People would need to be convinced—and care—that these products are actually nutritionally superior to red meat.
With shoppers focusing primarily on flavor, plant-based options must not just be "as good as" meat; they would likely need to taste better or be cheaper to break out of well-established habits.

A Reality Check for Behavior Change

This study serves as a vital reality check. It reminds us that while we might—truthfully—report that we want to save the planet or eat more greens, our behavior in the grocery store is governed by split-second thoughts of "Will this taste good?" and "How much does it cost?".

The finding that only 10% of people chose plant-based burgers in a realistic setting suggests that the meat industry isn't going anywhere soon. However, it also provides a roadmap for those who want to see a shift toward more sustainable proteins. It isn't enough to just put a "green" product on the shelf; you have to change what the consumer is thinking about in the moment they reach for the handle of the freezer door. They probably won’t see the “low emissions” or “high fiber” label unless they’re looking for it, and they won’t be looking for it unless they’re actively prioritizing health or the environment.

Ultimately, the threat to animal agriculture isn't a new technology or a fancy new patty—it’s a shift in human priorities and cognition. Until the environment and long-term health become as salient as the immediate craving for a juicy burger, the meatless revolution will likely only be a headline, while the meat-filled shopping cart will remain the reality.

Christopher R. Gustafson
Professor
Department of Agricultural Economics
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
cgustafson6@unl.edu

Content