What's in a name? Examining the confusion of meat-like terminology on meat imitating plant-based products.

Abstract

Meat alternatives are becoming increasingly popular amongst consumers. The names on these products, specifically the use of meat-like designations on non-animal products, remains a major point of contention. The aim of this study was to investigate whether meat-like vs. non-meat-like names are potentially confusing or even misleading. In this study, a categorisation task was used where participants classified products as animal-based or plant-based. Our results show that the presence of a meat-like name on a meat alternative label leads to significantly more mistakes when classifying a product as plant- vs. animal-based. The response latency was on average 116ms longer when classifying these products compared with the other categories. This indicates that a consumer is in doubt whether the product should be classified as plant- or animal-based, possibly explained by the activation of unconscious cognitive processing and interference due to stimulus-response compatibility. When participants were asked to give their opinion about meat alternative labelling, views divided into two camps: some strongly believe that using meat-like names is misleading, while others consider it fully acceptable and not misleading in any way. Assessing whether a meat-like name is misleading involves more than the name itself; it requires considering label details, retail placement, and advertising. Ensuring accurate and transparent meat alternative labels begins with a clear legal basis and policy guidelines based on scientific research.