ArticleFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Open-Source Benchmarking of Plant-Based and Animal Meats.
Article in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The meatball matchup: Plant vs. animal proteins on campus.Food research international (Ottawa, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence for food innovation.Nature food · 2026Review
- Generative artificial intelligence creates delicious, sustainable, and nutritious burgers.NPJ science of food · 2026Article
- Texture Independently Drives Liking in AI-Generated Alternative Protein Burgers.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Mechanical, rheological, and sensory characterization of lion's mane mushroom steak.Current research in food science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Global food production must reduce environmental impact while meeting rising demand for dietary protein. Plant-based meats aim to preserve the sensory and cultural role of animal meat while lowering greenhouse gas emissions, land use, and health risks. Advances in protein structure and flavor chemistry have improved product quality, yet consumers continue to prioritize taste and texture over sustainability, and systematic large-scale consumer surveys are scarce. It remains unclear how plant-based products rank against animal benchmarks and which product attributes most strongly influence overall liking. Here we show, in a large-scale blinded in-person sensory evaluation across 14 product categories, 2684 consumers, more than 11,000 product evaluations and 800,000 data points, that plant-based products still trail animal benchmarks at the category average level but approach parity in selected formats. Plant-based unbreaded chicken filets, chicken nuggets, and burgers achieved mean overall liking scores of 5.1, 4.9, and 5.2, differing from the animal benchmarks by only Δ = 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 points on a seven-point scale. For unbreaded chicken filets and burgers, 48% and 47% of the participants rated the plant-based product the same as or better than the animal benchmark. Categories with higher sensory parity captured 5-14% market share compared with less than 1% for low-parity categories. Penalty analysis identified savoriness, aftertaste, juiciness, and tenderness as the strongest determinants of liking. These findings show that sensory parity is technically achievable but not yet consistent across product types. By publicly sharing all the sensory, preference, and market-linked data, we establish an open benchmark for alternative protein performance to democratize research and accelerate principled data-driven innovation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.