Change Foods is two years away from launching its product into the marketplace, but its website is already filled with thoughtfully curated information about what consumers can expect. The site features numerous images of cheese—stretching, melting on pizzas, tacos, and sandwiches, all enjoyed by happy consumers. It also showcases breathtaking natural landscapes and even a charming calf. The text on the website clearly outlines Change Foods’ core principles and manufacturing methods, stating: “We (re)create real dairy foods that delight the taste buds, nourish people, and sustain the planet, by harnessing the magic of microbes instead of animals.”
Change Foods describes its process of creating cheese products using dairy proteins made through precision fermentation as “the magic of microbes.” While fermentation has been utilized for centuries to produce foods and drinks such as sauerkraut and beer, precision fermentation is a more contemporary method that involves programming microbes to replicate animal-derived proteins and producing these proteins in fermentation tanks. The company uses microbes, including those from yeast, that have been genetically sequenced to produce a variety of dairy proteins identical to those extracted from cows. The only distinction lies in their origin.
Irina Gerry, the company’s Chief Marketing Officer, is focused on effectively communicating this narrative to ensure consumers understand what to expect when the first product hits the shelves. “The technological capabilities are advancing faster than our linguistic frameworks and our comprehension of these innovations,” she remarked. “… A significant aspect of my role is to think about and understand how we can bridge that gap in a way that’s least confusing and most easily grasped.”
This linguistic challenge is not exclusive to precision fermentation. As consumers become increasingly interested in the stories behind their food, companies creating next-generation products must explain the science while also presenting an appealing product. Producers of cell-based, fermented, plant-based, and technology-driven products are actively rebranding, launching public relations campaigns, and conducting consumer research to effectively convey their messages.
Although few products in this field are currently available, Dan O’Connell, founder and CEO of Foodmix Marketing Communications, emphasized that now is the ideal time for these companies to start discussions. “They’re initiating conversations early,” O’Connell noted. “… [Companies are] already identifying key influencers before they finalize their formulations. They are starting dialogues and, as they approach market readiness, they continue those conversations. … Every step of the way, they’re communicating but also listening and learning.”
At Gerry’s previous position as a senior brand manager for Silk and So Delicious at Danone, explaining alternative dairy products was relatively straightforward. Today, it is more complex. Although many consumers have indirect experience with precision fermentation—having been produced for over two decades in rennet used for cheese—most think more about the milk in cheese than the rennet essential for its production. There is no universally accepted terminology for these ingredients, but Gerry noted that a few companies in the sector refer to their offerings as “animal-free.” Perfect Day, the only company with products on the market, identifies “animal-free milk” as the primary ingredient in its ice cream, produced by its affiliated CPG manufacturer, The Urgent Company.
Gerry explained, “The challenge we face is ensuring that we are coalescing around common language while also providing a framework for broader understanding. Do people grasp that ‘plant-based’ is distinct from ‘animal-free,’ which, in turn, differs from ‘cultivated’?” Many companies within the alternative protein industry are essentially creating new categories.
At the virtual Future Food-Tech conference in June, Tom Rossmeissl, head of global marketing at Eat Just, emphasized the importance of clear and accurate descriptions on packaging, menus, and marketing materials. Terminology must be descriptive and truthful, he asserted, “so when consumers see it on the shelf, they can understand and become educated about what the product is.”
On the Good Meat website, consumers can read a comprehensive description of the cell-based meat production process, which involves selecting animal cells, feeding them a nutrient-rich growth medium in a bioreactor, and harvesting them as finished products. The site explains how cultured cells can transform into meat products by growing on natural scaffolding, 3D printing into shapes, using extrusion for texture improvement, and molding them into desired forms.
Rossmeissl stressed the importance of consumers knowing precisely how the products are made. Currently, Good Meat chicken is available only through select food service locations in Singapore, where the company is leveraging the technological explanations in its marketing.
Nicki Briggs, Vice President of Corporate Communications for Perfect Day, stated that her company’s offerings represent an entirely new category rather than just a new entry. Labeling has always been challenging, especially leading up to product launches, as consumer research relied on describing types of products that had not yet been seen or imagined. Perfect Day operates as an ingredient supplier, and while The Urgent Company, which sells products made with Perfect Day’s proteins, is affiliated with it, Perfect Day has limited control over the messaging individual brands use.
To assist consumers who see the Perfect Day logo and seek more information, the company has developed an online Knowledge Base addressing commonly asked questions, featuring blog posts about its technology, protein functionality, labeling, and sustainability issues. Briggs noted that the Knowledge Base content originated from consumer feedback, and the company plans to expand it as new inquiries arise and products become available in stores.
Transparency is one of Perfect Day’s core values. Briggs likened the communication process to a funnel: “Most consumers start at the top of the funnel, where they care about taste, convenience, and price. If it meets those core criteria, they are open to trying it. Some consumers delve deeper, curious about the process or precision fermentation. Given the varied awareness levels, we aim to make all information available and accessible to anyone interested.”
Nature’s Fynd, which utilizes biomass fermentation to produce meat and dairy analogs, has been refining its communication strategy since its inception nearly ten years ago. Initially named Sustainable Bioproducts, the company’s previous branding, featuring volcanoes and geysers, did not convey its identity as a food company. However, as product launches approached, the name and overall image were transformed. Karuna Rawal, Chief Marketing Officer at Nature’s Fynd, stated at the Future Food-Tech conference that the company’s origin story remains central to its marketing.
The Nature’s Fynd website opens with a video detailing how scientists on a NASA-funded expedition in Yellowstone National Park discovered a fungus capable of serving as a complete protein. The company has spent several years developing scalable food and drink products from this fermented protein known as Fy. Nature’s Fynd brands its offerings as “food for optimists,” inviting consumers to explore the details of Fy.
“It’s essential for us to resonate emotionally with consumers,” Rawal said during the panel discussion. Nature’s Fynd recently launched direct-to-consumer “breakfast bundles” featuring Fy-based sausage patties and cream cheese, and a gradual retail rollout began this month, allowing the company to gauge consumer reactions to its products and messaging.
Nature’s Fynd is not the only alternative protein company to undergo a rebranding. Memphis Meats, the first company dedicated to creating cultured meat, completely rebranded itself as Upside Foods in May. The six-year-old company, set to introduce products in the U.S. by year’s end, changed its name to shift focus towards the consumer. The original name paid homage to Memphis’s barbecue culture and the scientific innovation of ancient Egypt’s capital, but officials believed it did not adequately reflect the desired perception of their products or cell-based meat in general.
“When it comes to what we’re doing, we’re essentially producing meat with only positive outcomes,” stated Maria Occarina Macedo, Upside’s Director of Brand and Creative, during an interview regarding the rebrand. “There is no downside to our initiative. It benefits the environment, health, and animal welfare.”
At first glance, Upside Foods’ website might resemble that of a traditional chicken company practicing sustainable methods, showcasing primarily images of the company’s chicken, with minimal focus on scientific details.
The trend of rebranding to simplify consumer understanding is not limited to the alternative protein sector. DouxMatok, which developed a sugar-based sweetener that tastes like regular sugar but contains 40% less, markets its product as Incredo Sugar, branding it as “Real Happy Sugar.” Liat Cinamon, DouxMatok’s Vice President for Business Development, explained that this branding conveys that the product is indeed sugar, which is crucial since alternative sweeteners may deter some consumers.
The question remains: how do consumers perceive all these labels, terminology, educational materials, online campaigns, and product names? It’s challenging to ascertain, as many of these products are still under development. Aside from Perfect Day’s ice cream products, which utilize animal-free dairy proteins, few items are widely available.
Transforming a familiar product through technology may not be immediately understood by consumers, according to O’Connell from Foodmix. “There’s a complex consumer journey here,” he observed. “Many of these concepts are not clear; they involve various technological categories.” Terminology is critical. A study by Spoonshot analyzed consumer discussions about these technologies on social media, revealing that only 0.2% of conversations regarding protein mentioned food technology or food science. Although discussions about food produced through fermentation or cell culturing have increased on social media, the overall volume remains limited. The term “cultured meat,” the most discussed, peaked at just over 0.14% of analyzed posts in late 2019. Today, “animal-free” has gained popularity, witnessing a 35% increase from June 2020 to June 2021.
While “animal-free” has emerged as the preferred term for companies in the precision fermentation domain, Gerry from Change Foods noted a lack of formal consensus on this language. She described it as a “soft launch,” where companies experiment with language in their messaging while observing consumer reactions. They plan to share insights and collaborate to refine the most effective way to communicate about their products.
“Involving stakeholders is crucial, and avoiding definitive statements encourages more dialogue,” Gerry emphasized. “… No one has the definitive answer; it will evolve as we introduce these products to the market.”
In the meantime, companies are conducting research to assess consumer sentiment toward their offerings. A survey from precision fermentation company Formo and the University of Bath found that approximately 65% of Americans would be willing to try cheese made with dairy proteins sourced from non-animal origins. Participants reviewed a synopsis of a company preparing to launch animal-free dairy cheese and a description of its production process before responding to questions.
Eat Just collaborated with a consulting firm on similar research regarding cell-based chicken, discovering that nearly seven out of ten U.S. consumers would consider substituting it for traditional meat. At the Future Food-Tech conference, Uma Valeti, co-founder and CEO of Upside Foods, referenced independent peer-reviewed research indicating that two-thirds of Americans are open to consuming cultured meat, with a third of them willing to consider it as their sole meat source. For a nascent segment, Valeti found these figures promising and noted that greater consumer understanding would likely boost adoption.
“I’m very encouraged by the signals we’re observing, even at this early stage, and I believe it will only continue to grow,” he remarked during the session. “As consumers grasp the advantages and potential of this field, it will become a foundational element of the next food paradigm.”
Previous studies have demonstrated that terminology and timing significantly impact consumer interest. A 2018 survey asking if consumers would buy “clean meat”—a term for cell-based meat that has since fallen out of favor—found only 27% positive responses. Conversely, an earlier survey indicated that 40% of U.S. residents would be happy to consume “cultured meat.” A 2019 study published in Frontiers in Nutrition reported that 65% of Americans would be willing to try “cultured meat,” with half open to purchasing it regularly.
Despite this, many individuals discussing cell-based meat or precision fermentation products on social media seem well-informed and not typical consumers. According to Spoonshot, 37.1% of conversations about cell-based meat also reference more scientific terms that average consumers may not use—such as “cellular agriculture,” precision or biomass fermentation, and biotechnology. Furthermore, over one-third of these discussions label the products “clean meat,” suggesting that the participants are likely passionate advocates for emerging technologies.
Briggs indicated that Perfect Day is witnessing consumer behavior aligning with the insights gathered during pre-launch research. The company’s hands-on research began with a limited offering of ice cream utilizing its branding in 2019, which allowed Perfect Day to gather consumer feedback. Now, the company has about a year of real-time data from actual products, including extensive social media analytics.
However, even though Perfect Day’s prior research into consumer preferences, concerns, and terminologies is being validated through sales and social channels, Briggs acknowledged that this does not guarantee current language and positioning are the most effective. “We’re open to collaborating with partners willing to explore different messaging strategies and test alternative terms, as we don’t believe there’s only one way to engage consumers about something novel,” she stated. “… We aim to ensure that any phrases or terminology used in front of consumers are accurate, transparent, and promote safe consumption while avoiding confusion.”
In the food industry, inaccurate labeling can lead to significant issues. An analysis by the law firm Perkins Coie reported 110 lawsuits filed last year against food products for false labeling, constituting half of the record-high class action lawsuits against the industry in 2020. While few products are available on the market, companies are navigating existing laws governing labeling, many of which are vague. There are no overarching federal regulations regarding the labeling of protein alternatives.
Under the First Amendment, courts tend to favor more commercial free speech, according to Bruce Silvergrade, an attorney specializing in federal food labeling and safety at OFW Law, during a July webinar organized by The Food Institute. Some states have enacted their labeling laws for alternative proteins, focusing primarily on plant-based products, although several states had previously passed cell-based meat labeling laws. These laws may all be preempted as the USDA plans to establish a labeling framework for cell-based meat and is currently accepting comments on product labeling standards.
Congress has remained relatively silent on how to regulate labeling for alternative proteins, and several companies in the plant-based sector have faced legal battles over state-level restrictive labeling laws. While no lawsuits regarding the labeling of food tech products have emerged yet, this could change given the litigious nature of the industry. According to Silverglade, some Congressional intent may be inferred from the Appropriation Committee’s report on the FDA’s 2022 fiscal year budget, encouraging the FDA to clarify labeling for plant-based foods that mimic traditional meat, dairy, and egg products, especially concerning clear disclosures, including designations like plant-based, vegetarian, or vegan.
“Clear disclosures are vital,” Silverglade noted, “but Gerry from Change Foods highlighted that products created through precision fermentation face additional labeling challenges. While plant-based dairy is derived from plants to replicate the taste and texture of cow products, dairy produced via precision fermentation is real dairy—just not sourced from cows.”
“The most significant ‘watch out’ is that consumers allergic to dairy will also react to animal-free products, as they contain the same proteins,” Gerry emphasized. There have already been instances of precision fermentation products being mislabeled as plant-based. Earlier this year, a reporter from Food Navigator tweeted a photo of Brave Robot ice cream—made with Perfect Day’s dairy proteins—in a grocery store freezer marked with “Plant-Based” shelf tags. Michele Simon, founder of the Plant Based Foods Association, commented on the dangers of such confusion in a LinkedIn post.
Briggs from Perfect Day stated that following the incident, the company engaged with all parties to clarify what the products are and how they should be labeled and categorized. She acknowledged the confusion, noting that this segment is new. “Animal-free” represents its own category that manufacturers, retailers, and consumers are still becoming familiar with. However, she emphasized that labeling for allergenic consumers is paramount to Perfect Day.
On products using its proteins, Perfect Day requires both a back-of-package disclosure indicating the presence of dairy and a front-of-package statement. Other companies may not take this approach, but Perfect Day views it as a proactive step in informing consumers about the product’s content.
O’Connell from Foodmix asserted that while food technology is crucial, companies must focus intently on the end consumer. “You can showcase the technology, but until someone chooses it for its quality, it remains unnoticed,” he remarked. Food technology does not inherently resonate with consumers; the real challenge lies in conveying how this technology better meets consumer needs than existing market options.
Many companies are emphasizing the sustainability aspect of their products, a critical consideration for consumers discussing alternative proteins on social media. According to Spoonshot data, mentions of alternative protein and sustainability have surged by 222.1% over the past two years. Additionally, discussions surrounding alternative proteins related to health and animal welfare have risen by 141.5% and 48.2%, respectively. Numerous companies have conducted life-cycle assessments to compare the environmental impacts of their products against conventional alternatives. Nature’s Fynd claims that producing Fy protein generates 94% fewer greenhouse gases, utilizes 99% less land, and requires 99% less water than beef, while also producing no methane emissions and significantly less waste.
Rawal from Nature’s Fynd noted that consumers have shown a keen interest in sustainability. “When we initially began sharing our story, consumers responded positively to the idea of wanting to do more than simply consume a burger occasionally. They asked how they could engage in more environmentally friendly eating,” she explained.
Cell-based meat is increasingly associated with sustainability. According to Spoonshot, discussions of cultured meat’s sustainability appear in 42.5% of social media conversations, more frequently than any other aspect of the sector. The Good Food Institute and animal rights group GAIA commissioned life-cycle assessment studies on the sector, revealing that cell-based meat could potentially lead to a reduction of up to 92% in global warming, 93% in air pollution, and a decrease in land and water use of up to 95% compared to traditional beef production.
While sustainability is vital, Rossmeissl from Eat Just emphasized that taste remains the top priority for his company, just as it is for traditional food producers. “You can create the most sustainable and impactful product on the planet, but if it doesn’t appeal to consumers, your impact will be limited,” he stated. “That’s the most critical point we emphasize: the importance of taste, deliciousness, and cooking versatility, ensuring consumers can use the product in their desired ways.”
Currently, Perfect Day’s proteins are available solely in ice cream—a rich and dairy-associated category. However, Briggs clarified that the company offers more than just a method for producing cow-free ice cream. Dairy proteins can be incorporated into a wide array of products, ranging from cereal and salad dressings to potato chips and macaroni and cheese. There are numerous reasons consumers might prefer products containing Perfect Day’s dairy ingredients.
“We are essentially creating foods that people love, just made differently,” Briggs stated. “We believe we can not only cater to value-driven or dietary consumer groups—such as those avoiding animal-derived foods or shopping for sustainability—but also seize significant opportunities to fulfill mainstream consumer needs in unprecedented ways.”
Perfect Day recently conducted a life-cycle assessment comparing the environmental impact of its animal-free dairy proteins with traditional dairy production. According to the assessment by consulting firm WSP, Perfect Day’s proteins reduce water usage by at least 96% and non-renewable energy consumption by 29% to 60%. A previous assessment revealed that Perfect Day’s production reduces greenhouse gas emissions by up to 97%. In relatable terms, if just 5% of products currently using dairy switched to Perfect Day’s animal-free ingredients, it could save the greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 2.7 million cars, enough energy to power Washington, D.C., for six years, and the water volume required to fill 1.4 million Olympic-sized swimming pools.
Gerry expressed that ideally, a block of Change Foods’ cheese will be indistinguishable from a traditional dairy cheese block, yet it will feature packaging and labeling that clearly indicate its differences. The first challenge is to convince consumers unfamiliar with “animal-free” that this product is not simply plant-based cheese. While plant-based cheese producers have been working diligently to enhance their products, many consumers have had negative experiences with plant-based cheese in the past.
After purchase, Gerry emphasizes that the product must deliver a positive experience. In the food industry, the sensory aspects of sight, smell, and taste are paramount. A favorable experience can significantly influence whether a consumer becomes a repeat buyer.
Ultimately, it’s time for alternative food producers to shift the narrative towards consumers, Gerry argued. For years, plant-based and health-focused food brands have dedicated much of their marketing efforts to persuading consumers to try their products. In contrast, the question animal-free food brands should pose is, “Why not choose this option?”
“Animal-free foods inhabit a space where the focus is on ‘why not?'” Gerry stated. “If you can have sustainably produced, healthier options, why wouldn’t you? These products check all the boxes. This represents a significant mindset shift from existing plant-based foods, where the onus was on convincing consumers. Now, that responsibility has shifted.”
Additionally, consumers interested in supplements may also benefit from products like cal mag citrat from Solaray, which can enhance their overall wellness.
In conclusion, as the landscape of food technology continues to evolve, companies must prioritize clear communication, transparency, and consumer education to foster understanding and acceptance of their innovative products.