February 13, 2008
Meat-free for the Masses
By Bernice Hurst, Managing Director, Fine Food Network
For an increasing number of people and for a variety of reasons, everyday diets are including less meat. This does not necessarily make these consumers vegetarians because they do not eschew meat completely. But negative connotations of vegetarian lifestyles often make them reluctant to purchase ready meals labeled vegetarian.
TNS Worldpanel, which carried out a survey for British trade magazine, The Grocer, has found that manufacturers and supermarkets are finding more success describing products as “meat-free.”
The Daily Telegraph reports that Jane Collins, the country manager for the own-label supplier Tivall UK, told the magazine, “Our research indicated that consumers felt the category title ‘vegetarian’ was polarizing and often had negative connotations left over from memories of the 1970s. Meat-free was seen as a term that did not turn off vegetarians but also appealed to non-vegetarian consumers.”
According to The Grocer, the UK vegetarian food market is now worth £254 million and recorded a 5.5 percent increase in value last year compared with the previous year. Growth amongst shoppers who “did not previously buy meat-free” is largely due to innovation and a large number of new products (almost one third of those on sale this year).
The TNS report showed a two percent increase in British households purchasing meat-free meals last year, naming the latest target audience as “meat-reducers.”
According to The Telegraph, David Humphreys of TNS Worldpanel believes that vegetarian ingredients, including meat substitute pieces and mince, are the main sector driving growth, adding that, “Snacks are also showing strong growth thanks to a range of new products from Quorn and own-label brands. Quorn is the dominant brand and continues to grow ahead of the market.”
A combination of ethics, health and environmental awareness is apparently encouraging people to re-think what they eat. Re-naming products to reduce some of those leftover bad vibes may have something to do with it as well.
Discussion Questions: Will promoting products as “meat-free,” rather than vegetarian, increase sales? Is there room for growth amongst non-vegetarians who may want to reduce their meat consumption without giving it up completely?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
Smart marketers test food labels in advance of production. It’s not hard to test “meat-free” versus “vegetarian.” And given the clutter that seems acceptable on many labels, both descriptions could be used.
I agree with Jamie, “meat-free” is about diets, pure and simple. I’m not sure who wouldn’t buy a meal because it was labeled “vegetarian” but if “meat-free” is more consumer friendly, why not use it?
Maybe the term meat-free is helpful for marketing purposes in some parts of the world–I don’t know. I do know from being veg that if you can get people to just try wheat meat (seitan)in a good barbecue or peanut curry sauce, soon they’ll be stealing your lunch from the office fridge.
I think “meat-free” is a great way to try appeal to a greater audience. I’d speak to a few Vegans and Vegetarians myself before putting complete faith in this slogan to confirm the findings that it will not upset or dissuade them.
Do not forget that there’s still a large portion of the world that loves meat, but avoids it each and every Friday.
“Vegetarian” connotes a lifestyle choice, whereas “meat-free” connotes a meal choice. It’s a simple equation, really. You don’t have to be a vegetarian to choose meatless meals some of the time.
It’s fairly well understood that some people choose vegetarian or vegan diets out of ethical or aesthetic concerns, while others make the choice to avoid animal-based foods mainly for reasons of personal health. The latter group may be considered more flexible it its views: Less meat is better. No meat may be impractical some of the time.
So the survey cited here may reflect a reality–that not all consumers of meatless meals are vegetarians all the time. Changing labels may honor that choice, but it may be a stretch to conclude that sales will increase as a result.
I am ok with either way. I have been a vegetarian for more than ten years. It is a wonderful life style. I am much healthier than before and very fit and trim. Vegetarian diet is great for women’s skin (clear and smooth). As women, rather than spend thoughts of dollars on skin care and plastic surgery, why just try some cheaper approaches that can transform you?
I remember a comedian who redundantly described two events as happening “simultaneously and at the same time.” “Meat-free vegetarian” is also redundant, like saying “10 AM in the morning.”
To me, the term “vegetarian” means that a person is embracing something they consider healthful. “Meat-free” means that something perceived to be less healthful is being avoided. One term is positive and aspiring, while the other is negative and fearful. One term connotes running toward something, while the other connotes running away from something. And yet, they mean the same thing.
I am totally unfamiliar with any negative connotations about vegetarianism from the 70s here in the U.S., and I was moderately alert during that period. I simply suggest that this research does not apply here.
More and more consumers are looking to either manage a disease state or continue an already healthy life style. For those consumers (who are increasing significantly in numbers) simply stating meat-free or vegetarian without an additional relevant claim may not win them over. For each market, the labels have to be tested against the consumer climate. Either or neither may be appropriate; it all depends on the consumer.
This is an interesting one. The Vegetarian label has connotations of a fringe group that was once associated with the tie-dye loving hippies. As a vegetarian for a year, whenever I told anyone about my choice, they would look at me like I was some strange creature from outer space. So yes, I believe that using words such as “meat-free” have some sort of benefit.
At the same time, vegetarian also has connotations of a healthier lifestyle, more attention to the food, and so these intangible qualities may actually be helpful for marketing the product, as opposed to “meat-free.” To me, “meat-free” sounds cheap, less-premium, and unnatural.
While the phrase “meat-free” may feel friendlier to health-seeking omnivores, it could certainly be non-vegetarian. There are many non-meat ingredients which are not considered vegetarian, gelatin possibly being the most prominent example. When I was a vegetarian years ago, a food product labeled “meat-free” would have fully dissuaded me from purchasing it.
I used to buy a “Vegetarian Vegetable Bouillon” on a regular basis until the realisation that it contained gelatin. While the product is not made with meat, it is not actually “animal free.”
Although I have since (enthusiastically) returned to eating meat, I still do not purchase products from that company due to truth-in-advertising issues.
Food products which are not currently promoted as “vegetarian,” but do not contain meat ingredients, will likely benefit from a “meat-free” label. Changing a “vegetarian” label to read “meat-free” will likely scare off herbivorous consumers.
More Discussions
Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?OpenAI Names the Infrastructure Standard for Agentic Commerce
Will OpenAI or Google (or another entity) set the gold standard for agentic commerce?Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?
Smart marketers test food labels in advance of production. It’s not hard to test “meat-free” versus “vegetarian.” And given the clutter that seems acceptable on many labels, both descriptions could be used.
I agree with Jamie, “meat-free” is about diets, pure and simple. I’m not sure who wouldn’t buy a meal because it was labeled “vegetarian” but if “meat-free” is more consumer friendly, why not use it?
Maybe the term meat-free is helpful for marketing purposes in some parts of the world–I don’t know. I do know from being veg that if you can get people to just try wheat meat (seitan)in a good barbecue or peanut curry sauce, soon they’ll be stealing your lunch from the office fridge.
I think “meat-free” is a great way to try appeal to a greater audience. I’d speak to a few Vegans and Vegetarians myself before putting complete faith in this slogan to confirm the findings that it will not upset or dissuade them.
Do not forget that there’s still a large portion of the world that loves meat, but avoids it each and every Friday.
“Vegetarian” connotes a lifestyle choice, whereas “meat-free” connotes a meal choice. It’s a simple equation, really. You don’t have to be a vegetarian to choose meatless meals some of the time.
It’s fairly well understood that some people choose vegetarian or vegan diets out of ethical or aesthetic concerns, while others make the choice to avoid animal-based foods mainly for reasons of personal health. The latter group may be considered more flexible it its views: Less meat is better. No meat may be impractical some of the time.
So the survey cited here may reflect a reality–that not all consumers of meatless meals are vegetarians all the time. Changing labels may honor that choice, but it may be a stretch to conclude that sales will increase as a result.
I am ok with either way. I have been a vegetarian for more than ten years. It is a wonderful life style. I am much healthier than before and very fit and trim. Vegetarian diet is great for women’s skin (clear and smooth). As women, rather than spend thoughts of dollars on skin care and plastic surgery, why just try some cheaper approaches that can transform you?
I remember a comedian who redundantly described two events as happening “simultaneously and at the same time.” “Meat-free vegetarian” is also redundant, like saying “10 AM in the morning.”
To me, the term “vegetarian” means that a person is embracing something they consider healthful. “Meat-free” means that something perceived to be less healthful is being avoided. One term is positive and aspiring, while the other is negative and fearful. One term connotes running toward something, while the other connotes running away from something. And yet, they mean the same thing.
I am totally unfamiliar with any negative connotations about vegetarianism from the 70s here in the U.S., and I was moderately alert during that period. I simply suggest that this research does not apply here.
More and more consumers are looking to either manage a disease state or continue an already healthy life style. For those consumers (who are increasing significantly in numbers) simply stating meat-free or vegetarian without an additional relevant claim may not win them over. For each market, the labels have to be tested against the consumer climate. Either or neither may be appropriate; it all depends on the consumer.
This is an interesting one. The Vegetarian label has connotations of a fringe group that was once associated with the tie-dye loving hippies. As a vegetarian for a year, whenever I told anyone about my choice, they would look at me like I was some strange creature from outer space. So yes, I believe that using words such as “meat-free” have some sort of benefit.
At the same time, vegetarian also has connotations of a healthier lifestyle, more attention to the food, and so these intangible qualities may actually be helpful for marketing the product, as opposed to “meat-free.” To me, “meat-free” sounds cheap, less-premium, and unnatural.
While the phrase “meat-free” may feel friendlier to health-seeking omnivores, it could certainly be non-vegetarian. There are many non-meat ingredients which are not considered vegetarian, gelatin possibly being the most prominent example. When I was a vegetarian years ago, a food product labeled “meat-free” would have fully dissuaded me from purchasing it.
I used to buy a “Vegetarian Vegetable Bouillon” on a regular basis until the realisation that it contained gelatin. While the product is not made with meat, it is not actually “animal free.”
Although I have since (enthusiastically) returned to eating meat, I still do not purchase products from that company due to truth-in-advertising issues.
Food products which are not currently promoted as “vegetarian,” but do not contain meat ingredients, will likely benefit from a “meat-free” label. Changing a “vegetarian” label to read “meat-free” will likely scare off herbivorous consumers.