I think it’s pretty difficult to infer the attitudes that people might have regarding plant based or cultivated meat shortly after PTC(N) parity based on current data.
Such attitudes may very well be malleable, especially in conjunction with animal welfare campaigns putting to front of mind the torture associated with the alternative option.
Asking one to switch to PTC(N) equal alternatives is just a much, much lower ask than asking one to be vegan with current options.
Hi Brad, thanks for your comment. I’d contend that the Malan 2022 field experiment, among other studies, does give us some insight into behavior towards a putatively PTC-competitive plant-based meat. (There is also some survey data included which might cover attitudes, but I’m assuming you mean something closer to behavior. Let me know if not.) Can you clarify why you don’t find it compelling, if that’s the case?
Was there data suggesting that the students in the dining hall believed that the beyond meat tasted the same? It will be perception of parity that would matter for such experiments. In a post-parity world actual parity may quickly translate into perceived parity. Probably if you were to survey the steak burrito eaters, they would say they got it because it tastes better.
I’m also skeptical that the brief campaigns are an adequate substitute for for the discussion that would be prompted by a post-PTC(N) world.
It seems intuitive to me that if you give people the opportunity to get a product that tastes the same, costs the same, is just as convenient and nutritionally identical, most people will shift. It will probably take a reasonable period of time for people to adjust to the weirdness factor of something like cultivated meat, but I anticipate that it would happen quickly (whether PTC(N)can be achieved on a reasonable time line is a different question.)
People are selfish and awful, but not typically psychopathic. If they can not contribute to animal abuses without sacrificing anything, they will. It will take some modest degree of time and effort to make this choice clear to people (which is why I don’t think these experiments are very probative), but I think the outcome will be analogous to recycling or drunk driving campaigns.
People suck, but not quite as much as EAs often think they do.
Just a quick comment to add to what Jacob said—my intuition is if I am currently using A, and B appears which seems the same, then I will not switch because I already know A and am used to A, and people I have personal relations with are selling me A etc… For me to switch, B must be much better; in this case, plant-based causes less suffering, but how much do people care about this, compared to signalling and such? Seems intuitive to me that to make the shift, additional campaigns need to be made to make this a clear-cut change, it will not happen 100% by default.
With regards to taste, Impossible ground beef specifically has not been subjected to any public taste tests. However, as reviewed above, the Impossible Burger, which is made of similar ingredients, has been found to taste equivalent in some studies. The study does not describe exactly the form of the beef in the steak burrito, making its taste equivalence less certain but probably still a reasonable inference. For the ground beef served on the build-your-own entree line, taste equivalence seems very likely. We can further surmise that the Impossible ground beef meals in the study were at least desirable: a follow-up survey found that 71% of purchasers were repeat purchasers (Malan, 2020, p. 189).
Sogari et al. (2023) found the Impossible Burger’s mean preference ranking in a blind taste test was not statistically significantly different than a beef burger (2.1 vs 2.5, respectively, indicating both burgers ranked around second on average). That said, the beef burger may have been significantly less salty than the Impossible Burger, potentially lowering the bar for taste equivalence. Another blind taste test found that the Impossible burger patty had a similar average liking score to a beef burger (Chicken and Burger Alternatives, 2018).[6] Moreover, complete meals containing plant-based meats tend to be somewhat better liked than plant-based meats on their own (Hoek et al., 2012, Table 6; Qammar et al., 2010, p. 554), although this trend may not be universal (Elzerman et al., 2011, fig. 2).
There are also numerous other studies discussed in the paper to which I’d refer you. I discuss some of the issues with the idea of “tastes the same” and “as convenient” here.
It seems intuitive to me that if you give people the opportunity to get a product that tastes the same, costs the same, is just as convenient and nutritionally identical, most people will shift.
I appreciate this intuition, but wold urge you to consider the empirical evidence alongside it.
I think it’s pretty difficult to infer the attitudes that people might have regarding plant based or cultivated meat shortly after PTC(N) parity based on current data.
Such attitudes may very well be malleable, especially in conjunction with animal welfare campaigns putting to front of mind the torture associated with the alternative option.
Asking one to switch to PTC(N) equal alternatives is just a much, much lower ask than asking one to be vegan with current options.
Hi Brad, thanks for your comment. I’d contend that the Malan 2022 field experiment, among other studies, does give us some insight into behavior towards a putatively PTC-competitive plant-based meat. (There is also some survey data included which might cover attitudes, but I’m assuming you mean something closer to behavior. Let me know if not.) Can you clarify why you don’t find it compelling, if that’s the case?
Was there data suggesting that the students in the dining hall believed that the beyond meat tasted the same? It will be perception of parity that would matter for such experiments. In a post-parity world actual parity may quickly translate into perceived parity. Probably if you were to survey the steak burrito eaters, they would say they got it because it tastes better.
I’m also skeptical that the brief campaigns are an adequate substitute for for the discussion that would be prompted by a post-PTC(N) world.
It seems intuitive to me that if you give people the opportunity to get a product that tastes the same, costs the same, is just as convenient and nutritionally identical, most people will shift. It will probably take a reasonable period of time for people to adjust to the weirdness factor of something like cultivated meat, but I anticipate that it would happen quickly (whether PTC(N)can be achieved on a reasonable time line is a different question.)
People are selfish and awful, but not typically psychopathic. If they can not contribute to animal abuses without sacrificing anything, they will. It will take some modest degree of time and effort to make this choice clear to people (which is why I don’t think these experiments are very probative), but I think the outcome will be analogous to recycling or drunk driving campaigns.
People suck, but not quite as much as EAs often think they do.
Just a quick comment to add to what Jacob said—my intuition is if I am currently using A, and B appears which seems the same, then I will not switch because I already know A and am used to A, and people I have personal relations with are selling me A etc… For me to switch, B must be much better; in this case, plant-based causes less suffering, but how much do people care about this, compared to signalling and such? Seems intuitive to me that to make the shift, additional campaigns need to be made to make this a clear-cut change, it will not happen 100% by default.
On the Malan trial, I write:
There are also numerous other studies discussed in the paper to which I’d refer you. I discuss some of the issues with the idea of “tastes the same” and “as convenient” here.
I appreciate this intuition, but wold urge you to consider the empirical evidence alongside it.