From Hype to Habit: The Story of Plant-Based Meat Products Unfolds

By Mario Ortez

Mario Ortez is a collegiate assistant professor of agribusiness and entrepreneurship at Virginia Tech. He previously worked in beef pricing for one of the world’s largest meat producers, in agricultural investments helping connect public capital with the agri-food sector, and as owner-investor of a specialty coffee farm, where he improved operations and opened new markets.

The story of plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) continues to unfold. I remember sitting at my desk in July 2019, working as a beef pricing manager, when the markets erupted in both euphoria and confusion. Beyond Meat’s valuation had just soared past $10 billion, even though the company held less than $1 billion in assets. At the very same time, Pilgrim’s Pride, one of the largest chicken producers in the world with over $6 billion in assets and years of steady profits, was valued at under $7 billion. In other words, Wall Street was valuing a newcomer with little physical infrastructure higher than an established global meat giant. It was a stunning signal of just how much faith — and hype — investors were placing in the promise of plant-based meat to upend the protein sector.

Fast forward to today, and the landscape looks very different. While PBMAs still attract material investment, $127 million in the second quarter of 2025, U.S. retail sales tell another story. Sales of refrigerated plant-based burgers have fallen sharply, down 26% year-over-year as of April 20, even as conventional meat sales continue to rise, in spite of higher prices at the store. This contrast raises an important question: how are consumers actually incorporating PBMAs into their shopping routines? Are they becoming a regular part of some households’ grocery baskets, or are purchases mostly occasional?

That question is at the heart of a new study I coauthored with Zachary Neuhofer and Jayson Lusk, published in the Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics (JAAE). By following nearly 8,000 U.S. households from November 2018 through November 2020, we examined how people actually buy PBMAs and ground meats. Our analysis sheds light on whether plant-based meats are winning over long-term customers, what role beef loyalty plays, and whether PBMAs and meat compete or coexist in the grocery basket.

Our Study:

We used two years of data from the IRI Consumer Network (now part of Circana), a panel dataset that tracks grocery purchases from thousands of households across the United States. Our final sample includes nearly 8,000 households and captures what people actually bought, week by week, from November 2018 to November 2020. By following the same households over time, we were able to test whether prior behavior influences future purchases.  To analyze these data, we estimated a multivariate logit (MVL) model, which allowed us to answer two key questions:

1. How do prior purchases (of PBMAs or meats) influence future purchase behavior? (Table 1)
2. And how do PBMAs and traditional meat products relate to one another in consumers’ choices? Are they substitutes, or do they complement each other? (Table 2)

Table 1. Effects of Prior Purchases on the Likelihood of Purchasing PBMA Products

Note: Excerpt from Table 5 in Neuhofer, Lusk and Ortez (2025), Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics Volume 57, Issue 4, November 2025, pp. 606–632, https://doi.org/10.1017/aae.2025.10013. Model estimates how cumulative past purchases influence the likelihood of choosing a PBMA product in the current period. Positive coefficients suggest a larger likelihood of purchases; negative coefficients suggest a lower likelihood of purchase. * denotes significance at the 5% level. SE means standard error.

Habit Buyer or Variety Seeker?

Our results suggest that PBMA demand is fueled more by habit than by curiosity. Once a household buys plant-based ground meat, they are much more likely to buy it again. This finding is important because it pushes back against the narrative that PBMAs were simply a “novelty” purchase. Instead, for a portion of households, PBMAs are becoming part of a routine shopping list.

For example, the 9.555 coefficient on prior PBMA purchases (Table 1) captures how past buying influences future decisions. Because past purchases are scaled by the number of weeks observed (we observed 104 consecutive weeks in our sample), a single purchase by week 50 adds 1⁄50 (= 0.02) to that measure. Plugging this into the model gives exp(9.555 × 0.02) ≈ 1.21, meaning the odds of buying a PBMA again in week 50 are about 21% higher if it was purchased once before.

This pattern of repeat buying indicates that consumers who do purchase PBMAs seem to be loyal. For PBMA companies, this suggests that long-term growth depends on expanding this base rather than chasing one-time trial buyers. In other words, if PBMA companies can convince shoppers to try their products once, they are likely to win new, and extremely loyal, customers.

Loyal Ground Beef

While PBMA buyers may be loyal, heavy beef buyers are not converting. Our study found that households with a history of frequent ground beef purchases are significantly less likely to choose PBMAs. Specifically, the coefficient of –4.820 for prior ground beef purchases (Table 1) means that at week 50, a household with one prior beef purchase (N = 1⁄50 = 0.02) is about 9 percent less likely to buy a PBMA that week [exp(–4.820 × 0.02) ≈ 0.91], highlighting how beef loyalty dampens the likelihood of switching to plant-based options. This suggests that most PBMA growth may be coming from consumers who are already open to alternatives — rather than from the traditional beef loyalist.

This is a critical insight for both the livestock and plant-based industries. It means PBMAs are not yet making a major dent in beef demand, despite their visibility. Instead, they seem to be finding a niche among households willing to mix and match proteins, rather than displacing the most committed meat eaters. For ranchers and beef processors, that’s a sign that their core customer base may not be threatened. For PBMA companies, it highlights the uphill challenge of winning over the most dedicated beef buyers.

Do PBMAs and Meat Get Along?

While earlier results showed that frequent beef buyers are less likely to choose PBMAs overall (Table 1), our model also reveals that PBMAs and ground meat products are still often purchased together, suggesting these products can complement each other in household meal planning (Table 2). This complementarity could reflect households with mixed dietary preferences, perhaps one member prefers beef while another chooses plant-based, or simply a desire for variety in meal planning.

Table 2. Key Findings from the MVL Model—Cross Product Relationships

Note: Excerpt from Table 5 in Neuhofer, Lusk and Ortez (2025), Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics Volume 57, Issue 4, November 2025, pp. 606–632, https://doi.org/10.1017/aae.2025.10013. Positive values indicate that two products are more likely to be chosen together (complementarity), while negative values would suggest substitution. * denotes significance at the 5% level. SE means standard error.

This has important implications for marketing strategies. Instead of framing PBMAs as direct replacements for beef, companies might find success positioning them as part of a broader protein portfolio. Some meat companies are already experimenting with hybrid products that blend beef and plant proteins, or with co-marketing PBMAs alongside their traditional meat products. Our findings suggest these strategies could resonate with households that want options without abandoning meat altogether.

It is important to note that these findings reflect purchasing behaviors observed during our sample period from November 2018 through November 2020. Consumer preferences and market conditions continue to evolve, and as new products, prices, and perceptions emerge, patterns of adoption and substitution may shift accordingly. That constant change is what makes our work as food and agricultural economists so fascinating — there’s always something new to learn from the grocery cart.

Check out the original article here:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-agricultural-and-applied-economics/article/demand-for-plantbased-meat-alternatives-and-the-role-of-habit-formation-and-variety-seeking/8DF311C5B1059AAF075786F7B75B7BBE

Recommended citation format: Ortez, M. “From Hype to Habit: The Story of Plant-Based Meat Products Unfolds” Campus to Commonwealth 1(1). Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Virginia Tech. October 2025.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

The Campus to Commonwealth (CC) article series highlights the Virginia Tech Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics' mission in generating and sharing knowledge in applied economics and agribusiness principles that help address the food, financial, health, development, policy, environmental, and social needs in Virginia and beyond.

John Bovay is the managing editor and Melissa Vidmar is the production editor.