You Can’t Taste the Difference — So Why Are Animals Still Being Used?

Blind taste tests are exposing a truth the industry already knows but rarely admits: the issue was never about flavour.

Imagine picking up two boxes of nuggets. One came from a slaughterhouse. The other didn’t. Most people would assume they can taste the difference. But what happens when they can’t?

That’s what an Oakland-based initiative called Nectar set out to test. They fed thousands of animal product consumers over 120 plant-based meat products across 14 categories — from meatballs to pulled pork to burgers — without telling them what was what. The results? In more and more cases, nobody could tell the difference.

Four vegan products — including nuggets and unbreaded chicken by Impossible Foods, and Morningstar Farms’ nuggets — reached what Nectar calls “taste parity.” That means the participants couldn’t statistically distinguish the plant-based option from the animal one.

In 20 different product matchups, at least half the participants actually preferred the plant-based version or liked it just as much.

So what's the hold-up?

We’re constantly told people just need better-tasting alternatives. But this study shows many of those already exist. And still, the shelves are stocked with corpses. Why?

Because this isn’t about flavour. This is about culture, identity, habit — and convenience. And, for some, it’s about defending supremacy over other animals under the guise of “personal choice.”

Taste was never the real barrier. That’s why sales don’t magically spike every time a better burger drops. That’s why people who claim to care about animals still buy sausages made from body parts instead of beans. The truth is hard to swallow: many people prefer not to care.

Even so, the findings matter. Not because better-tasting plant-based meat will end the use of animals — but because it removes yet another excuse. When the products taste the same, the only thing left is the mindset.

The industry knows this

Nectar’s research is rare, because most companies test their products with internal teams — employees and investors who have every reason to give positive feedback, and no reason to share it. Nectar did things differently. They used blind testing with over 2,000 consumers who eat animal flesh at least monthly. The testing happened in restaurants, with food presented how it would actually be eaten — not stripped down and isolated on sterile plates.

People added sauces, held sandwiches, chewed the way they always do. No labels. No agenda. Just taste. And that’s where some products genuinely shone.

Chicken-style items did especially well. That’s no accident. As Nectar’s director Caroline Cotto points out, chicken is bland — a blank canvas. That makes it easier to replicate. But it also says something damning: if consumers are using animal flesh as a base for other flavours, what exactly are we still killing chickens for?

The ‘tougher’ meats reveal the truth about excuses

Some products didn’t perform as well. Bacon, for example, proved harder to replicate due to its fatty texture and striated composition. That’s not surprising — and it’ll take more R&D to close the gap. But here’s the thing: the argument isn’t “I only eat bacon.” It’s “I could never go vegan.” That crumbles when 90% of your meat intake could be replaced today without your taste buds even noticing.

Plant-based innovators are pushing boundaries, but let’s not pretend that taste is a technical problem alone. It’s a social one. And in places like the US, flesh consumption is tangled up in ideas of masculinity and national identity — as if using animals is patriotic.

But young people are changing that. As Samantha Derrick, who leads a UC Berkeley programme on plant-based innovation, puts it: they don’t want to compromise on flavour — and they don’t have to. Tests like these give brands a roadmap. Not just for what’s “good enough,” but for what can outshine animal flesh entirely.

This isn’t just about individual meals

The stakes go far beyond your next sandwich. The animal agriculture system swallows 80% of global farmland — including land used to grow crops like soy and corn for feed. Animal agriculture also accounts for at least 14.5%* of all greenhouse gas emissions. That’s more than all the world’s transport combined.

*Some studies say well over 50%

Even if we ended fossil fuel use today, we’d still need to stop using animals to avoid climate collapse. It’s that serious.

So when someone says, “I’d go vegan if the food tasted better,” what they’re really saying is, “I want an excuse.” Because now, increasingly, that excuse is gone.

Taste isn’t enough — but it helps dismantle denial  

Let’s be honest: if every plant-based product tasted better than the animal one, people would still buy the latter. Why? Because once you've spent a lifetime justifying something, your ego’s on the line. Admitting there's no need to keep using animals means admitting there never was. Which can be hard to reconcile.

But these findings strip away the comfort blanket. If it tastes the same, looks the same, cooks the same, and doesn’t require the mutilation and killing of someone — why choose the version that does?

It’s no longer a mystery. The issue isn’t the quality of plant-based meat. It’s the mindset of the person holding the fork.

This study came to our attention thanks to an article published in Grist.