The Meatball Matchup: Plant vs. Animal Proteins on Campus

Despite growing availability of plant-based meat, limited data exist on how these products perform relative to animal-based options in real-world consumption settings. This study compares consumer sensory perceptions of two plant-based meatballs (soy, soy-wheat) and two animal-based meatballs (beef, beef-mushroom) among university dining hall patrons (n = 128), complemented by instrumental Texture Profile Analysis. Animal-based meatballs received significantly higher ratings for moistness, meatiness, fattiness, and tastiness (all p < 0.001), with the meatiness gap being the largest ({Delta} = 1.40 on a 5-point scale). Texture analysis found that animal-based samples were significantly harder, more cohesive, and chewier than plant-based samples. In contrast, consumers perceived no difference in chewiness or hardness between categories, revealing a disconnect between instrumental and sensory measures. Just-About-Right penalty analysis identified insufficient savoriness as a universal improvement target across all products, including beef. Flavor and texture were the dominant drivers of dining choice, while sustainability and animal welfare ranked lowest in importance. These findings indicate that achieving sensory parity--particularly in moistness, meatiness, and savoriness--rather than emphasizing sustainability messaging, may be critical for increasing acceptance of plant-based meat in institutional food service. Data and code are available at https://github.com/LivingMatterLab/AI4Food