Hi Wyatt, it's indeed confusing, but journals often plan their issues several months in advance. So this article is published online and will appear in a January 2026 issue of Appetite, thus the future publication date.

Hi Dorsal, thank you for your kind words about the work and thoughtful questions. I agree with Seth's reply and would add for (A), there is some evidence of this effect for plant-based foods in general, for example: Garnett 2019, Parkin 2021, and Pechey 2022. I don't know of any studies which have tested adding animal-based meats.

Thank you for writing this thoughtful piece! I especially appreciate the transparency in reasoning and the careful attention to empirical evidence (some of which I’ve contributed to).

I wanted to share a few notes on the displacement section—specifically, some important papers that weren’t mentioned and a few potential misinterpretations of others:

1. Carlsson 2022 presents a hypothetical discrete choice experiment on lower prices for plant-based meat, finding that 30% of consumers in Sweden would not choose plant-based meat even if it were free. This highlights a key limitation of many other discrete choice experiments: they may not be testing sufficiently low prices and could be subject to floor effects. In other words, consumers' willingness to pay for plant-based meat may be even lower than some studies estimate.
2. Lusk 2022 is strictly a modeling paper (as you note) and effectively assumes a cross-price elasticity between plant- and animal-based meats. The specific quantities used are derived from hypothetical discrete choice experiments, but Lusk 2022 itself does not adduce new empirical evidence of displacement to my knowledge. (However, it does provide a useful review of cross-price elasticities.)
3. Mendez 2023 reviews cross-price elasticities between butter and margarine. It's important to note that cross-price elasticities do not directly measure displacement—they measure (in theory) how a price change in one product affects demand for another. While price displacement is one possible mechanism, other mechanisms could also be at play.
4. Grundy 2022 finds evidence supporting some interventions using mycoprotein-based meat alternatives. However, if I recall correctly, these are intensive, multi-component interventions that go beyond simply making mycoprotein-based meat alternatives available. As a result, it’s unclear whether the meat alternative itself was the causal factor in the outcomes observed.
5. Malan 2022 is, in my opinion, one of the strongest studies on this topic. It finds either null or very small effects under reasonable analyses (see Peacock 2024).
6. Several observational studies use grocery store scanner data to measure behavioral displacement between plant- and animal-based meat. Neuhofer 2024 is one such study, cited for its findings on the proportion of consumers purchasing both plant- and animal-based meat. It also provides an observational estimate suggesting that displacement is either small or nonexistent. Additional studies in this vein include Cuffey 2022, Gordon 2023, and Meyer 2024, some of which explore potential sources of exogeneity. To my recollection, each finds either null or very small displacement effects. However, since some of these papers rely on the same data sources, they shouldn't necessarily be treated as independent pieces of evidence.

Overall, I think this section may place too much emphasis on self-reported surveys that may tend toward finding effects, rather than studies that measure behavioral outcomes.

Thank you, that's all helpful!

I'm thinking more about this interpretation, but I'm not sure it is correct because WFP's calculations are designed to be conservative in estimating the welfare improvements and exclude various welfare harms. For example, it looks like the broiler estimates exclude welfare harms from transport to slaughter. When these hours of suffering are added back in, the ratio between the two scenarios can go down.

As a hypothetical example, suppose BCC chickens are currently estimated to suffer 50 hours, while non-BCC chickens suffer 100 hours. If we add in 10 hours of suffering from transport for non-BCC chickens and only 2 hours for BCC chickens (as they are believed to be more heat tolerant), this ratio then increases to 53%. So while excluding harms from transport to slaughter is fine for keeping the absolute difference in hours suffered conservative (50=100-50 < 58 = 110-52), it does not necessarily keep the ratio conservative (50% vs 47% suffering reduction).

I think this is fine when comparing between different welfare levels for species, but I suspect it means they can not be used to compare directly to non-existence?

[Tagging @saulius as well since this seems relevant to the extent of whether cage-free is 'still pretty bad'.]

Thank you for writing this! It was very helpful learn how these initiatives went and I found my self agreeing with much of what you wrote.

I am curious to learn more of what costly signals you had in mind when you write:

politicians wanting to make extremely costly signals to show how much they support animal agriculture — two states have already preemptively banned the sale of cultivated meat.

My initial thinking was that these were pretty low costs for these politicians: cultivated meat isn't salient to the constituency, there are no sales in the state, and the industry is very small, so no one is really bothered to inflict a cost, but I'm curious what else I should consider.

Hi Elliot, I cite a couple of studies similar to that in my review Price-, Taste-, and Convenience-Competitive Plant-Based Meat Would Not Currently Replace Meat; I suspect you're thinking of Malan 2022.

Hi Bruce, thank you for your questions. I’m leading this project and made the decision to recruit volunteers, so thought I’d be best positioned to respond. (And Ben’s busy protesting for shrimp welfare today anyway!)

1. Did the team consider a paid/minimum wage position instead of an unpaid one? How did it decide on the unpaid positions?

Yes, we would prefer to offer additional paid positions. However, given the budget for this project, we were not able to offer such positions. We regularly receive unsolicited inquiries from people interested in volunteering for our research. There is not always a good fit, but since this project is highly modular allowing people to meaningfully contribute with just a few hours of time, we decided to provide a formal volunteer opportunity.

2. Is the theory of change for impact here mainly an "upskill students/early career researchers" thing, or for the benefits to RP's research outputs?

The primary theory of change is to improve the evidence-base for interventions to reduce animal product usage, thus allowing more and better interventions to be implemented and reducing the numbers of animals harmed by factory farming. RP’s research outputs are a mediator in this theory of change. The volunteer opportunity itself also represents an opportunity to upskill, but ultimately the goal for all involved is to benefit non-human animals.

3. What is RP's current policy on volunteers?

RP occasionally considers and engages with volunteers for some projects, especially where relatively small time-limited contributions are possible.

4. Does RP expect to continue recruiting volunteers for research projects in the future?

In practice, this will depend on the project and whether there are other opportunities that would be an appropriate fit.

I've made some updates and corrections to this paper—(2) and (3) are most important in my opinion and make the Malan 2022 field experiment a somewhat weaker test of the PTC hypothesis. Thanks to all who commented!

Changes are noted below (which I've also added to the post):

1. Correction to Figure 1 to indicate Ikea 2019 data represent all stores globally, rather than just the United States.

Corrections and updates in the "Malan 2022 field experiment" section:

2. Replace "On Thursdays, students had the option of receiving prepared burritos with either Impossible ground beef, animal-based steak, or veggies, while the build-your-own entree line offered Impossible ground beef every day alongside animal-based ground beef." with "On Thursdays, students had the option of receiving prepared burritos with either Impossible ground beef, animal-based cubed steak, or veggies, while the build-your-own entree line offered Impossible ground beef every day alongside animal-based cubed steak, shredded beef and other animal products."

3. Replace the second paragraph in this section. Briefly, this updates and corrects the text to indicate that a negligible portion of participants did pay for meals; an animal-based ground beef equivalent to the Impossible ground beef was not served; and dining hall staff served all food. Furthermore, it adds information on a survey of participants' perception of the taste of Impossible ground beef. The paragraph previously read:

   In this study, price is entirely equivalent since students pay for dining hall access for the entire semester, not individual meals. 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). Convenience is likely equivalent as well since the burritos are prepared for students by dining hall staff, and the build-your-own entree line is self-serve for both animal- and plant-based ground beef.

   It now reads:

   In this study, price is almost always equivalent since students pay for dining hall access for the entire semester, not individual meals; a negligible proportion of meals were purchased with other means of payment. With regards to taste, Impossible ground beef is not directly comparable to either the cubed steak or shredded beef served in the study, nor has it been subjected to any public taste tests comparing it with ground beef. However, as reviewed above, the Impossible Burger, which is made of similar ingredients, has been found to taste equivalent to ground beef burgers in some studies. Furthermore, Malan (2020) includes a survey on taste perceptions of 215 participants at the intervention site, although some of the question phrasing might evoke slight agreement or social desirability bias, and the survey may be affected by selection bias. Of the 96 surveyed participants who self-selected to try the Impossible ground beef, 86% agreed or somewhat agreed it was delicious; 85% that Impossible ground beef "is a satisfying alternative to animal meat" (Malan, 2020, Table 20); and 71% choose to eat it more than once (Malan, 2020, p. 189). Of the 89 open-ended responses describing what was liked about the Impossible ground beef, 52% mentioned the flavor, feel or texture and 30% its similarity to animal-based meat (Malan, 2020, Table 27). Conversely, of the 49 open-ended responses on what was disliked, 29% mentioned the flavor or feel and 24% the texture (Malan, 2020, Table 28). Given these results it may be reasonable to conclude the Impossible ground beef was fairly well-liked among those participants who consumed it, although it is not equivalent to the other beef products offered. Finally, convenience is likely equivalent since all meals are prepared for students by dining hall staff.

4. Replace "Dining halls were not randomized to intervention and control status, and participants were free to cross over between dining halls during the study, both factors that could bias effects in either direction. Control dining hall A was adjacent to the intervention dining hall, so intervention materials were potentially visible, while control dining hall B was isolated from the intervention." with "Dining halls were not randomized to intervention and control status, and participants were known to cross over between dining halls (Malan et al., 2022, p. 226), both factors that could bias effects in either direction. Control dining hall A was adjacent to the intervention dining hall, and some intervention materials were thus visible (Malan, 2020, p. 119), while control dining hall B was isolated from the intervention."

Clarifications and a correction in the "Conclusions & recommendations" section:

5. Clarify "The underlying premise of PTC as the key determinants of food choice is not supported by evidence from cross-sectional surveys on consumers' self-reported determinants."
6. Correct "Finally, a controlled experiment introducing high-quality plant-based meat to a dining hall—at almost always equal price and convenience to animal-based meat—shows that most participants did not choose plant-based meat."
7. Correction to replace "six" with "five" in "Across five lines of evidence, it is clear that the empirical evidence opposes the PTC hypothesis."

This source suggests the rate of self-identified veganism in Germany is about 3% in 2022. (We did not do any data collection ourselves; this report is a re-analysis of existing data collected by Brachem et al.)