Eating more plant-forward meals is often promoted as a way to save money at the grocery store. But the cost question is more complicated than comparing a package of ground beef with a carton of plant-based milk or a bag of dry beans.
A study of loyalty-card purchases from more than 87,000 shoppers in Finland and Quebec, Canada, found that people reduced their purchases when protein prices rose, whether the foods came from plants or animals. But purchasing patterns shifted more sharply for animal-based foods. The findings suggest that price matters, although it may not be the only reason shoppers do or do not put more plant-based foods in their carts.
The observational study, published in Communications Sustainability, examined real grocery purchases rather than asking shoppers what they intended to buy or relying on their memories of what they ate. It was designed to study consumer behavior and sustainability, not to compare the nutritional quality of different protein sources or calculate the cost of complete meals.
“Price has often been described as a major barrier to buying plant-based foods, but our data suggests the relationship is more complicated,” said Cameron McRae, the study’s lead author and a postdoctoral fellow at Simon Fraser University.
Researchers analyzed purchasing data from 29,131 loyalty-card users in Finland and used records from about 58,000 shoppers in Quebec as a comparison. The Finnish dataset included purchases made from 2017 to 2018. The Quebec data came from 2015 to 2016.
The team tracked monthly purchases across seven plant-based categories, including legumes, nuts and seeds, plant-based beverages, simulated meat products and plant-based versions of cheese and yogurt. It also examined 14 animal-based categories, including beef, pork, poultry, eggs, dairy products, fish and seafood.
The researchers measured how purchases changed when prices rose or fell. Economists call this price elasticity. A product is more price-sensitive when shoppers change how much they buy more sharply in response to a price change.
Shoppers were generally less responsive to price changes for plant-based proteins than for animal-based foods. Differences tied to income, education and socioeconomic status were also more pronounced for animal-based products.
The results do not mean shoppers were unconcerned about the price of plant-based foods. People bought less when prices rose across both broad categories. Instead, the researchers suggested that other factors may also influence plant-based purchases, including personal values, dietary preferences and the number of affordable choices available in stores.
One possible explanation is that shoppers often have more ways to trade down within established animal-based categories. A shopper who sees a higher price for steak might choose ground beef instead. Someone shopping for plant-based cheese or a meat alternative may have fewer lower-cost options on the shelf.
“With meat, shoppers can usually trade down when prices are higher, choosing ground beef instead of steak, for example,” McRae said. “If there are only two or three plant-based options on the shelf, consumers who want those products have fewer cheaper alternatives to switch to.”
The study does not prove that adding more plant-based products to grocery shelves would automatically persuade shoppers to buy them. It also does not show that plant-based eating is always less expensive.
That depends heavily on what someone buys.
Replacing dairy cheese with a packaged plant-based alternative is a different type of grocery swap than replacing part of the meat in a chili, soup or taco filling with beans or lentils. One may cost more. The other may stretch a grocery budget.
“Whole foods tell a very different story,” McRae said.
The study included legumes as one of its plant-based protein categories, but it did not calculate how much a household could save by cooking with beans, lentils or peas more often. It also did not compare the protein content, sodium levels, fiber or overall nutritional profiles of the foods shoppers purchased.
Those distinctions matter. The label “plant-based protein” can refer to foods with very different costs, ingredients and uses. Beans, tofu, nuts, oat milk and imitation meat products are not nutritionally or economically interchangeable.
The findings also come with several limitations. The purchasing records came from retailers in Finland and Quebec, not the United States. The data does not capture restaurant meals or every grocery purchase a household made. Cultural traditions, taste preferences, cooking habits and food availability may also influence what shoppers choose.
The grocery market also has changed since the data was collected. Plant-based products have expanded considerably, and today’s shoppers may encounter a different mix of brands, prices and options.
Still, the study offers a useful reminder for anyone trying to eat more plant-forward meals without driving up the grocery bill: the most direct substitute is not always the most practical one.
A shopper does not necessarily need a specialty product for every animal-based food they want to replace. Adding beans to a familiar meal, choosing a lentil soup for lunch or using tofu in a stir-fry may be simpler and more affordable starting points.
The grocery-store math is not the same for every household. But eating more plant-forward meals does not have to mean filling a cart with premium substitutes.
The research received support from public, academic and research organizations in Canada and Finland, including the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Michael Smith Health Research BC and the Academy of Finland. The S-Group in Finland and an anonymous grocery retailer in Canada provided access to loyalty-program datasets.