Rethinking the Fast-Food Menu: How Plant-Based and Upcycled Foods Offer a Competitive Edge

Study 1: new profits from new proteins

In our first study, we invited over 2,000 U.S. consumers to build their ideal meal from a fast food-style menu. Alongside familiar items like burgers and fries, we introduced newer options such as: 

• Bean-based burgers 

• Mycoprotein burgers (made from fermented fungi) 

• Savory strips made from upcycled soybean and yeast by-products 

• Protein-rich fries made from food industry waste 

The economic insight? Fast food consumers are more open than expected to affordable, innovative alternatives, especially when the value is clearly communicated. 

• When shown short videos, participants were significantly more likely to try alternative items, particularly when the message came from relatable consumer stories rather than scientific explanations. 

• Removing red meat from the average fast-food meal led to a substantial drop in emissions, from approximately 1774g CO₂ to 345g CO₂. Applying a standard social cost of carbon (e.g., $150/ton), this means a reduction in climate-related economic costs from $0.27 to $0.05 per meal. 

• Scaled across millions of meals served daily, this shift could generate significant financial savings for society, making low-carbon choices not just sustainable, but economically smart. 

Key takeaway: With the right messaging, even unfamiliar ingredients can become profitable. And reducing meat doesn’t just cut emissions — it lowers social and operational costs. 

Study 2: what do consumers really believe about Upcycled Foods? 

Upcycled foods, made from ingredients that would otherwise go to waste, are a rising force in food innovation. From snacks using spent grains to sauces from imperfect produce and meat alternatives made with spent yeast and soybeans, these products offer not just environmental benefits but real economic value. 

To understand what drives or hinders consumer acceptance, we surveyed 701 U.S. participants. 

Key findings: 

• Low awareness, low trust. Consumers rated upcycled meat alternatives poorly for taste and safety, especially when considering them for family consumption. 

• High demand for transparency. Despite concerns, the majority supported clear labeling and backed certification marks, a strong signal that verified information can boost acceptance. 

• Younger, more innovative consumers and those who trust institutions like the USDA were most supportive. However, only 40% supported financial incentives, suggesting that credibility may matter more than subsidies, at least for now.  

Why it matters economically: 

• Lower input costs: These foods turn would-be waste into usable ingredients, reducing disposal costs. 

• New revenue streams: Upcycled products can deliver higher margins when paired with strong branding and certification. 

Takeaway: Consumers remain skeptical about taste and safety, but they’re open to upcycled foods, especially when positioned as safe, innovative, and transparent. Smart investment in labeling, education, and storytelling can turn food waste into market growth and economic gain. 

Author/Contact Information: Rachele De Cianni (decianni@msu.edu)