A blended protein mince made from chicken and soy-derived ingredients has outperformed a 100% chicken mince in a blind taste test.
The test was part of an Asia-Pacific sensory study by NECTAR, SIFBI and GFI APAC, involving 116 consumers evaluating 20 blended protein products across 10 categories – these include various minced meats, patties, chicken chunks, and meatballs.
NECTAR, SIFBI, and GFI APAC
NECTAR is a San Francisco-based non-profit under Food System Innovations (FSI), a philanthropic impact platform that funds and creates efforts to accelerate the protein transition towards a more humane and sustainable food system.
SIFBI – The Singapore Institute of Food and Biotechnology Innovation – is a research institute under Singapore's Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR).
GFI APAC – The Good Food Institute APAC – is headquartered in Singapore. It is an alternative protein think tank that aims to accelerate the shift towards a more sustainable food system through open access to R&D, corporate engagement, and public policy.
“We have one product that achieved taste superiority over a 100% animal product. This was particularly impressive result given the nascency of the category in APAC. The product is a chicken mince that is 70% chicken and 30% plant-based, mostly soy-derived,” said NECTAR Director Caroline Cotto.
“In addition to the mince which outperformed the animal equivalent, we had several others that were within striking distance of taste parity. For example, the leading chicken chunk and the leading beef mince were only 0.2 points away [on a 7-point scale] from achieving parity with the animal product.”
However, she stressed that further R&D is needed, as consumer preference still leans strongly towards animal meat.
“Because this report included both commercial and pre-commercial products, we believe that with some further tweaking, these products could reach parity or even superiority in taste,” Cotto said.
“We want to emphasise that R&D is still needed to drive category growth. Around 60% of participants rated the animal product as ‘liked’ or ‘liked very much’, compared to just 37% for the blended protein products. This indicates a significant gap in how animal products continue to resonate with consumers.”
How blended protein can be improved
Appearance
Appearance has emerged as a more significant barrier than previously observed, with colour playing a key role in lower consumer appeal.
This differs from previous findings, where flavour and texture were typically the main barriers. In this study, only 42% of consumers rated the appearance of leading blended protein products as ‘liked’ or ‘liked very much’, compared to 62% for animal products. Colour appears to be a key factor driving this gap.
Participants also noted that colour and shape could be improved, and that burnt notes should be reduced, particularly in beef patties despite standardised cooking conditions.
Flavour
Additionally, flavour is the main factor that determines whether people like blended protein products – it is also where they fall short the most compared to real meat in terms of aftertaste, savouriness, saltiness. Participants also pointed out the need to reduce off-flavours and bland notes.
On average, only 35% of people said they liked the flavour of blended proteins. That’s noticeably lower than the best-performing blended products (50%), and much lower than regular meat (65%), which still leads by a wide margin.
Participants also showed the greatest interest in blended formats that incorporate familiar, savoury ingredients.
The right plant-meat balance
Consumers showed the strongest interest in blended products featuring familiar savoury vegetables such as onion, garlic, cauliflower, and mushrooms, particularly in ground formats like nuggets and mince.
This aligns with findings from our US study,” Cotto said.
However, most participants preferred meat-forward blends, with 57% favouring products containing around 75% animal meat, and 18% preferring a balance of both animal meat and alternative protein (50/50).
Only 6% preferred blended proteins using mostly alternative protein or plant ingredients, suggesting limited appeal for blended proteins that are not at least 50% meat.
A majority of 69–87% favoured animal products on taste, price, or familiarity, compared to blended proteins at just 3–16% preference.
Despite these gaps, Cotto said blended proteins still hold strong potential for the alt-protein sector.
What can food brands take away from this study?
The study identified health as a key differentiator, with 69% of consumers perceiving blended proteins as healthier than conventional meat and 15% viewing them as comparable.
Participants also showed the most interest in blended products made with chicken (47%), pork (37%), and beef (27%).
In contrast, 6% were interested in seafood-based blended products, suggesting low appeal for that category.
Nuggets were the top performing format, selected by 64% of participants. Ground products were well received too, with more than 40% selecting meatballs, burger patties, tenders, or mince.
Only 2–13% selected whole cuts such as chunks, steak, or cold cuts.
Generally, blended proteins appeal more to those concerned about the health or price of meat, as participants showed higher purchase intent when they questioned the health, nutrition, and affordability of meat.
Blended proteins appeal more to health-conscious consumers than plant-based meat, scoring 0.4 points higher while plant-based meat scored 0.2 points lower on a 7-point scale.
The study concluded that blended proteins offer clear advantages for both the meat and alternative protein sectors. They enable meat companies to offer new products that lean into the health benefits consumers say they want, like high protein, more fibre, and lower fat and cholesterol, without compromising on flavour.
This sensory analysis aimed to assess how blended proteins – combining meat and plant-based ingredients – can support alt-protein adoption.
