Clean meat consumer survey: Public is hungry for clean meat!

The Good Food Institute partnered with research organization Faunalytics to create a poll that would gauge public opinion regarding clean meat. Two-thirds of respondents were willing to try it, and a majority were willing to swap conventional meat out for clean meat.
People shopping in meat aisle of supermarket

The verdict is in: when given a choice, people will choose clean meat. Indeed, many will even pay more for it!

Before now, no survey about clean meat had used accurate terminology. Also, most had not provided much if any context or used misleading language.

To remedy this, The Good Food Institute partnered with the research organization Faunalytics to develop a proper experimental study that would gauge public opinion regarding clean meat (rather than manipulate opinion via a push poll). Thanks to funding from Animal Charity Evaluators and design, planning, and analysis by Faunalytics, we now have the results of the first accurate survey of the public’s opinion of clean meat.

The results, which can be viewed in greater detail here, are exceptionally encouraging:

The survey also found that more than half believed clean meat would be healthy, safe, and environmentally friendlier than conventional meat, while looking and tasting the same. 

The survey also tested the effect of different framing messages. During the survey, each respondent received one of four accompanying messages that:

  1. Described the natural side of clean meat
  2. Described the unnatural side of conventionally-produced meat
  3. Questioned the importance of naturalness
  4. Demonstrated the benefits that clean meat offers for people, animals, and the environment, generally.

People who learned about the unnatural aspects of conventional meat — such as the use of antibiotics and hormones, unsanitary farming conditions, and the unnatural rate of growth of farmed animals — were most likely to say they would pay more for clean meat. Almost half of people who read that message were willing to pay more for clean meat than conventional meat (47%) versus only 38% of those who read a more general message.

Even before this study, GFI was convinced that any concern about clean meat consumer acceptance is really unnecessary, as I discussed a few years ago. There simply is no widespread “ick” factor regarding clean meat. Rather, people are significantly uncomfortable with conventional meat and are looking for an alternative that competes on taste, price, and convenience. That fact has been corroborated yet again in this survey.

Even in this very short survey, accurately describing clean meat and talking about its benefits convinced consumers that it’s a product they want to consume — in a real-world scenario over time, these numbers should be even better.

The complete research report, additional analysis, and infographics are available from Faunalytics on their clean meat page. These materials include detail on consumer attitudes and reported willingness to pay as well as the full text of all messages.


Bruce friedrich


Bruce Friedrich serves as GFI’s chief thought leader and relationship-builder, working in close partnership with GFI’s global teams and food system stakeholders around the world. Areas of expertise: alternative proteins generally, GFI’s global programs and strategy, bicycling in heavy traffic.