Why do consumers keep choosing meat, even when alternatives are widely available, promoted as healthier and marketed as sustainable? This was the question driving More than Meat, a major new study from the EIT Food Consumer Observatory. Durk Bosma, the organisation’s head of insights, explores.

Unlike most consumer surveys that stop at taste, price or health perceptions, this project

explored the cultural and symbolic weight of meat. Combining thousands of cultural artefacts – advertising, packaging, cookbooks, social media, even historical references – with in-depth consumer interviews, it represents one of the largest semiotic studies ever conducted in the food sector. Our findings reveal why meat retains such a strong hold on European diets, and why plant-based options still struggle to claim the same space.

Our study shows that meat is much more than a source of protein: it is a cultural anchor. From Sunday roasts and Christmas dinners to summer barbecues, meat is embedded in rituals that connect families and communities. It signals generosity and care when served at home, indulgence and status in restaurants, and strength or resilience in everyday meals. Meat also carries national pride – think German bratwurst or Spanish jamón – as well as personal identity, with many consumers proudly calling themselves ‘meat lovers’.

These associations explain why efforts to reduce meat consumption can feel like a cultural, not just dietary, challenge. Plant-based products that focus narrowly on functionality – taste, texture or nutrition – risk overlooking the deeper reasons people choose meat.

For plant-based producers, our report highlights both pitfalls and opportunities. Many products are still seen as processed or artificial, sitting in the same commoditised category as low-quality processed meat. This weakens their promise of naturalness and keeps them from being seen as the ‘main event’ of the meal.

To win wider acceptance, plant-based foods need to connect with the same cultural codes that make meat meaningful. That means celebrating abundance and conviviality at barbecues or signalling trust and reliability in weekday meals. It also means using design, language and imagery that resonate with heritage, indulgence and care.

A common call for plant-based foods to be ‘less processed’ or ‘more natural’ misses the point: meat itself is rarely chosen for those reasons. Instead, it embodies cultural values that alternatives must learn to engage with. Packaging and communication play a key role here. Borrowing from the familiar cues of meat – while layering in fresh associations such as innovation and modernity – can help plant-based products feel both authentic and aspirational.

Our study also cautions against moralising. Positioning alternatives as a ‘better’ or

‘virtuous’ choice risks alienating meat eaters. Warm, inclusive messaging that emphasises pleasure and celebration is more effective in shifting perceptions.

More than Meat shows that plant-based success will depend not on mimicking meat in every detail, but on understanding which cultural meanings matter most, and reinterpreting them credibly. By doing so, alternatives can move from the margins to the mainstream – not just as substitutes, but as desirable, satisfying foods in their own right.