Plant‐Based versus Conventional Meat in Food Away From Home Settings: Substitution, Complementarity, and Market Impacts

ABSTRACT Evidence regarding whether consumers view plant‐based meat alternatives (PBMAs) as substitutes for or complements to meat is mixed; however, the ultimate effect of increased demand for PBMAs on poultry and livestock production depends on this relationship. Existing elasticity estimates primarily come from stated‐preference discrete‐choice models, which assume all options are substitutes. This study employs a basket‐based choice experiment (BBCE) to estimate own‐ and cross‐price elasticities in food‐away‐from‐home consumption settings. The elasticity estimates from the BBCE are then used to calibrate an equilibrium displacement model, which links shifts in demand for PBMAs to livestock and poultry supplies. Our findings indicate (1) there is a mix of complementarity and substitution between conventional meat and PBMAs, (2) the own‐price elasticity of PBMAs lies between those of premium meat options (salmon and ribeye steak) and more affordable choices (burgers and chicken breast), and (3) lowering prices of PBMAs (or increasing consumers’ willingness‐to‐pay for PBMAs) is unlikely to significantly impact conventional poultry and livestock production.