FWIW, Iâm not sure if Iâd say âUnfamiliarâ was the âtopâ reason for not trying the Impossible option in Malanâs PhD thesis, because âOtherâ had a lot of specific answers indicating respondents preferred real meat (Appendix. XI.) and people might also use âUnwilling to spend swipeâ to mean that without filling it in explicitly. Both options were popular. (Also, the answers sum past 100% because people could select multiple.)
I also wouldnât necessarily take the views of taste from people who hadnât even bothered to try it as good evidence against taste parity. Only 5% âTried it elsewhere, didnât likeâ according to Table 23, although thatâs compatible with the rest trying it elsewhere and liking it, just less than real meat.
Of those that did try it, 90% agreed/âsomewhat agreed that it was delicious, and 85% agreed/âsomewhat agreed that it was a satisfying alternative to meat, according to Table 20. Maybe âsomewhat agreeâ isnât a strong enough endorsement, though. And, of course, one-time consumers, who made up about 29% of interviewed ever-consumers of the Impossible option, tended to agree less with both statements. Furthermore, we can see that East Asians were more likely to try it than other race/âethnicities (Table 18), so we can possibly use race/âethnicity as a variable for openness or food neophobia, but among respondents who did try it, breaking down by race/âethnicity, East Asians found it the least satisfying as an alternative to meat, and were kind of middling on how delicious they thought it was (Table 26).
I think itâs possible it did reach taste parity for some people, but not others. (Tasting as good, not necessarily tasting the same, although people differ in how well they can distinguish tastes.) Taste is subjective!
FWIW, Iâm not sure if Iâd say âUnfamiliarâ was the âtopâ reason for not trying the Impossible option in Malanâs PhD thesis, because âOtherâ had a lot of specific answers indicating respondents preferred real meat (Appendix. XI.) and people might also use âUnwilling to spend swipeâ to mean that without filling it in explicitly. Both options were popular. (Also, the answers sum past 100% because people could select multiple.)
I also wouldnât necessarily take the views of taste from people who hadnât even bothered to try it as good evidence against taste parity. Only 5% âTried it elsewhere, didnât likeâ according to Table 23, although thatâs compatible with the rest trying it elsewhere and liking it, just less than real meat.
Of those that did try it, 90% agreed/âsomewhat agreed that it was delicious, and 85% agreed/âsomewhat agreed that it was a satisfying alternative to meat, according to Table 20. Maybe âsomewhat agreeâ isnât a strong enough endorsement, though. And, of course, one-time consumers, who made up about 29% of interviewed ever-consumers of the Impossible option, tended to agree less with both statements. Furthermore, we can see that East Asians were more likely to try it than other race/âethnicities (Table 18), so we can possibly use race/âethnicity as a variable for openness or food neophobia, but among respondents who did try it, breaking down by race/âethnicity, East Asians found it the least satisfying as an alternative to meat, and were kind of middling on how delicious they thought it was (Table 26).
I think itâs possible it did reach taste parity for some people, but not others. (Tasting as good, not necessarily tasting the same, although people differ in how well they can distinguish tastes.) Taste is subjective!