A coalition of industry bodies representing the meat, poultry, and seafood industries has released findings from a consumer survey into plant-based meats in the lead up to a federal senate inquiry into the topic.
The industry bodies that funded the research were Australian Chicken Meat Federation, Australian Livestock Exporters’ Council, Lot Feeder’s Association, Australian Meat Industry Council, Cattle Council of Australia, Goat Industry Council of Australia, Red Meat Advisory Council, Seafood Industry Australia, and Sheep Producers Australia.
They commissioned Pollinate to carry out an online 10-minute survey, which drew from a nationally representative sample of 1000 people aged over 18 and was conducted during 9-14 July.
Respondents were shown five plant-based meat products and one animal meat product for three seconds, asked to choose which category they belonged to (plant based, mix of plant and animal, animal) and then asked a series of questions.
A spokesperson for the group told Food & Drink Business, the items that were chosen as they were products available at major retailers.
The products were Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger, Unreal Co Beefy Brat, Sunfed Chicken Free Chicken, Next! Extra Crispy Bacon, Plant Asia Tender Beef, and Woolworths beef mince as the control.
It found an average of 25 per cent of consumers misattributed a plant-based product to either containing animal and plant-based ingredients or only containing animal meat. Across the five products, the highest misattribution was Plant Asia (17 per cent thought plant/animal, 16 per cent animal) followed by Next! (12 per cent plant/animal, 18 per cent animal) and Sunfed (13 per cent plant/animal, 16 per cent animal).
Confusion about what was a plant-based product was being driven by packaging and supermarket placement, the group said. Those that had seen plant-based meat instore or online were asked if they “had a hard time figuring out whether a product is made of plant-based vs animal meat”:
- 47% said they had a hard time figuring it out from where the products were placed in the supermarket;
- 45% due to product packaging;
- 42% on how the product was categorised online.
Of the five products they were shown, respondents were asked: “When it comes to being able to determine whether there is any animal meat in the product, how confusing is this packaging for you?”
- 16% not at all confusing
- 33% not very confusing
- 33% somewhat confusing
- 12% very confusing
- 6% extremely confusing.
From the 509 (51 per cent) people who found the product packaging confusing:
- more than a third (36 per cent) said it was because of the use of animal imagery;
- 23% said packaging looks just like animal meat
- 21% said it was hard to understand
- 19% said it was hard to read/small font
- 14% said because it used meat descriptors.
All survey participants were asked if plant-based meat should be allowed to use meat descriptors or imagery:
- 70% said no to images/icons of animals
- 63% said no to meat descriptors (beef, chicken, lamb)
- 73% said no to describing the product as meat.
The senate inquiry was launched by Queensland senator Susan McDonald, also the co-founder of the Parliamentary Friends of Red Meat advocacy group (with Labor MP Milton Dick).
Coalition member Seafood Industry Australia CEO Veronica Papacosta said the upcoming inquiry was “vital for the animal-based protein industries to protect our name, definitions, brands and integrity systems”.
Papacosta said: “We firmly believe the sale of products marketed as ‘seafood ' or associated subspecies, which are in actual fact synthetic or plant-based, threatens the sustainability and commercial viability of not just our businesses, but of the entire animal-based protein sector.
“More and more of these plant-based products are being sold in supermarkets right around the country and it’s clear their labelling is becoming increasingly deceptive.”
Papacosta’s comments echo those made by Red Meat Advisory Council chair John McKillop when the senate inquiry was launched, who said allowing “highly processed plant-based protein made from imported ingredients to be labelled as Australian meat” was a “national disgrace”.
The Alternative Proteins Council cautioned against the inquiry becoming a conventional protein versus new proteins debate as it implied new protein industries would grow at the expense of more conventional ones.
Papacosta said: “We welcome increased consumer competition however it is important it is done in a fair, honest and balanced regulatory environment.
“We advocate for plant-based proteins to establish themselves in a category of their own. We’ve seen successful category creation in the past with the development of margarine, and the push-back that it could not be branded butter.
“We respect people’s rights to make choices about what they eat. If you’d rather tofu than Tuna, soy than Salmon, or potatoes over Prawns, then go for it, but don’t tell people they’re eating seafood.”
In response to what outcome the coalition is seeking from the inquiry, the spokesperson for the coalition told Food & Drink Business plant-based products should not be allowed to use any meat species names or descriptors on labelling, marketing or packaging.
They said: “The use of manufactured plant-based protein descriptors cannot contain any reference to seafood, meat, chicken etcetera and their associated species/cuts, for example “fish”, “prawn”, or “bacon”.
“And there is no use of seafood, meat, chicken etcetera and their associated species/cuts, for example “fish”, “prawn”, or “bacon” related imagery on manufactured plant-based protein packaging or marketing materials.”
