Science Would YOU order one? Scientists claim we should rename vegan burgers 'Juicy American burgers' to make them more appealing to meat lovers

Link (Archive)

Would YOU order one? Scientists claim we should rename vegan burgers 'Juicy American burgers' to make them more appealing to meat lovers​

'Plant-based burger' may not sound like the most appealing dish on a menu board.

But a new study suggests restaurants can sell them by the bucket load – by giving them more appetizing, descriptive names.

Using names like 'Juicy American' or 'smoky Aussie' for vegan burgers can make people choose them over the real meat equivalents, experts in Australia found.

Plant-based food companies and restaurants may need to get more creative if they want to encourage meat-lovers to reduce their intake and help save the planet.

Cutting down on animal products can improve our health but also that of the planet, as livestock farming at scale destroys habitats and pumps out CO2 and methane.

More appealing names for vegan food can entice meat-eaters​

- 'Juicy American burger'

- 'Juicy smoky American burger'

- 'Delicious Aussie burger'

- 'Aussie sausages and buttery mash'

- 'Scrumptious succulent Aussie parmigiana'

'Altering the names of plant-based meals on restaurant menus significantly increases the food’s appeal,' said study author Danyelle Greene at University of Queensland.

'A simple change such as renaming a "vegan burger" to a "Juicy American burger" could increase plant-based orders and encourage meat-eaters to give vegan options a go.'

The researchers say environmentally friendly meals that are rich in plant matter tend to be described in restaurants with unappealing names.

In comparison, language used in the top 100 most profitable US restaurants to describe meat-heavy meals are more likely to be described as 'American', 'tasty' or 'juicy', a 2017 paper found.

For their new study, the experts wanted to find out if using appealing meal names could persuade people to order more plant-based meals in restaurants.

From an initial online survey of 537 participants, they identified a range of alternative names for classic Australian pub dishes, such as burgers, lasange and parmigiana.

The second part of study involved a simulated restaurant experiment where 312 participants ordered one of four meals based off the name assigned to each – either appealing or unappealing.

The meals were not specifically labelled as vegan or vegetarian (unless these were included in the original names of the dishes), although each meal had a detailed ingredients list.

As expected, having descriptive adjectives in the names of dishes made people more inclined to order them, whether the dishes were plant-based or not.

For example, 'juicy Aussie burger' was more enticing than simply 'beef burger' or 'vegan burger', while 'tasty Italian vegetable lasagne' was better than just 'vegetable lasagne'.

Finally, the third part of the included 898 participants, all separated into different groups of meat eaters, who were surveyed on how the appealing names affected their choices.

Overall, researchers found that dish names that highlight food flavour, texture, and place of origin can positively influence the appeal of plant-based meals.

Crucially, meat-eaters opted for the vegan food with a descriptive name when the name for the meat version was more boring.

But this wasn't the case across all groups of meat eaters; for example, 'uncompromising meat eaters' were less likely to opt for the vegan option despite a name change.
7B4ADBB7-6AB9-43D2-A63A-6EE0B2FE66CA.jpeg
The team admit that the effect is stronger among meat-eater groups that identify as environmentally or health-oriented.

But this group is increasingly making up a bigger and bigger proportion of people who eat meat, so the authors hope their findings could have an effect in the real world.

'We conclude that using appealing names for plant-based dishes on restaurant menus may represent a cost-effective way to entice specific market segments of consumers to choose plant-based rather than meat-based dishes when dining,' they say.

'With food contributing nearly 25 per cent to global emissions, changing meal choices for even the smallest of market segments can make a meaningful contribution to climate change mitigation.'

The new study has been published in Elsevier journal Food Quality and Preference.
 
That would make people even more cautious around them. You'd have a better chance marketing them as "genuine human patties".
 
A burger should have the inherent quality of "juicy". It shouldn't have to tell me that, it is just assumed .If a burger has to describe itself as "juicy" I immediately become suspicious on why the burger is giving me such a hard sell.

I would much more likely eat a black bean burger than this fake meat crap.

The more qualifiers you have to sell me the less interested I am. This reminds me of a barbecue place in Central Texas that didn't have sauce for years and years (less than a decade ago they finally switched), presumably because they thought they didn't need it.

If I eat something so good that condiments just feel extraneous, I'll let YOU know.
 
They should call it the Extra ultra yummy tasty good rumbly tumbly wholesome reddit chungus realfood burgerino deluxe Special Championship Edition Rev. 1.2.4-b.

Let the money flow.
 
Whenever someone invokes 'science' in an argument, remember this is the kind of science they are referring to. Cunts sold out truth for quick pay, then walk around pretending they deserve the respect along the lines of the real science that makes airplanes fly. Call these faggots out at every opportunity
 
I wouldn’t mind this “stop eating beef” argument that’s being made by these scientists if they just told people to eat more chicken. Instead, they keep telling people to trick themselves into thinking some mystery meat created in a lab is as delicious and satisfying as a regular beef burger. Also, I highly doubt those imitation burgers are as environmentally friendly as they claim. It still involves a lot of monocropping and pesticides to even produce enough soy for people to regularly eat Beyond burgers. It’s so much easier to just eat cows that will eat grass.

That raises an interesting point. Rather than trying to get people to stop eating meat, or eating lab meat, how about doing a study to demonstrate which typical barnyard animal, using modern practices, gives the most meat per input, and ask people to switch to that? If enough people did that, it would be a huge gain. People get meat, less ecological impact. Everyone wins.

I think the dramatic transitions is where most of this crap fails. Instead of saying "ICE-only engines are really creating a lot of CO2, how about you switch to a hybrid?" which I think most people could be convinced to do with the right incentives. Nope, it has to be "Switch to battery electric vehicles or you're fucking killing the planet!!!" which just makes people say "BTFO!" and probably makes them want a bigger SUV just to say "Fuck You!" to the people they think are crazy assholes. It would be better to go "It would be better ecologically if you eat this meat rather than this meat since you get more meat for what they need to eat" again, with education and incentives, I'm sure it would work. Instead they go "Meat is murder and death for the planet, eat the fake meat and bugs!!!" which makes people go "BTFO!!" and they probably end up eating more meat just to spite the freaks they now hate.

Don't they realize a gradual transition is an easier sell than an abrupt one? Or is that the point? The use the abrupt sell, knowing it will fail, so then they can try to force it through with mandate and legislation? Is it all just one big stalking horse attempt? Go for the extreme, when people reject it, point at it and say "Look! Obviously people don't know what is good for them! They need to be told to eat the bugs!!"?
 
Every time I see an article that's reposted in this forum, they look more and more like satire, it's downright ridiculous
 
That raises an interesting point. Rather than trying to get people to stop eating meat, or eating lab meat, how about doing a study to demonstrate which typical barnyard animal, using modern practices, gives the most meat per input, and ask people to switch to that? If enough people did that, it would be a huge gain. People get meat, less ecological impact. Everyone wins.
Good luck with that. Any switch to an underutilized animal (goat, etc.) would cause prices to spike (before a major supply chain is established) and people don't like to eat "cute" things like rabbits or horses. And nothing really has the bulk that pigs and cows do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AnotherPleb
Not that I'm a huge fast-food hound, but sometimes I get a hankering for a Baconator, or a Double Western Bacon, and other things. So a couple of months ago I went to Carl's (or Hardee's, whatever), get my order, they ask me to park near the front and they'll run it out to me. When I pull up to the parking, I see a banner above their doorway about how... I can't remember if they are making the move or have already made the move, to "impossible meat," and how it tastes just the same as real meat.

I noped out so fucking fast; sure I paid damn near $20 for a fatty burger and criss-cut fries, but I'm not putting that shit in me. If this is the way shit's going, I'm just gonna start hunting or turn to cannibalism, fuck you, I'm not eating your weird lab experiment.
 
@thegooddoctor came up with the Idea.
lol, what

It's just a marketing trick. The moment people realize what it is, they'll warn everyone else. It's like the fucking Wire side-plot where Idris Elba has shitty coke and keeps trying to sell it under different competing names to get junkies to buy.
 
That raises an interesting point. Rather than trying to get people to stop eating meat, or eating lab meat, how about doing a study to demonstrate which typical barnyard animal, using modern practices, gives the most meat per input, and ask people to switch to that? If enough people did that, it would be a huge gain. People get meat, less ecological impact. Everyone wins.
Because of financial interests of the parties involved. This isn't so much me saying "elite conspiracy to extract monies" but rather that if they did that and found that say, Chicken, was the peak product to go into, then you'd have a mass explosion of the chicken industry - but its all still chicken. Outside of free range or antibiotic free production (which is more expensive) you have very few methods to differentiate your product. It becomes extremely hard to compete, and the market becomes incredibly saturated by huge piles of chicken.

Synthetic meats, meanwhile, have a huge opportunity on paper to have massive market variation, depending on how you make it, what you make it out of, textures, flavors, appearances, price points, etc, that allow it to compete in similar ways as candy or breakfast cereals compete. You can assemble the goyslop in a million different ways to have cheap bulk slop, 'premium' slop at 'premium' price points, and everything in between. Industrial food rather than agricultural food means you can make new products, lines, acquisitions and create lifelong consumers and habits. Meanwhile, a chicken thigh is a chicken thigh, only way you change that is with the huge expense of genetically engineering a not-chicken or some wild shit like that.

In reality, people are really uninterested in goyslop, but the people making these fake meat businesses don't live in reality, they graduated from business management degrees and believe the real world is just a market study problem like in their textbooks. Everything they've learned told them this should be working.
 
It does not bode well that these products are getting on the euphemism treadmill.

Such a cargo cult mindset, that changing the name will change the essence of the thing.

What idiots, cretins, retards, super smarts!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Executive Petrel
Back