The Meatball Matchup: Plant vs. Animal Proteins on Campus

Abstract

Institutional dining halls increasingly serve plant-based meat products, yet it remains unclear how consumers perceive these products relative to animal-based options in real-world settings. This study compares consumer sensory perceptions of two plant-based meatballs (soy, soy-wheat) and two animal-based meatballs (beef, beef-mushroom) among university dining hall patrons (n = 116), complemented by instrumental Texture Profile Analysis. Animal-based meatballs received significantly higher ratings for moistness, meatiness, fattiness, and tastiness (all p < 0.001), with the meatiness gap being the largest ({Delta} = 1.40 on a 5-point scale). Texture analysis revealed that animal-based samples were significantly harder, more cohesive, and chewier than plant-based samples. In contrast, consumers perceived no differences in chewiness or hardness between categories, revealing a disconnect between instrumental and sensory measures. Just-About-Right penalty analysis identified insufficient savoriness as a universal improvement target across all products, including beef. Flavor and texture emerged as the dominant drivers of dining choice, while sustainability and animal welfare ranked lowest in importance. These findings suggest that sensory parity--particularly in moistness, meatiness, and savoriness--may drive acceptance of plant-based meat more strongly than sustainability messaging. Data and code are available at https://github.com/LivingMatterLab/AI4Food