Consumer Perception of Plant‐Based Cheese

ABSTRACT

Plant‐based dairy alternatives have been an increasing trend among consumers, with plant‐based milk being the most profitable and rapidly growing dairy alternative. Plant‐based cheese (PBC), however, has recently remained static. The objectives of this study were to determine purchase motivations, consumer acceptance, and areas for improvement for Cheddar and mozzarella‐style PBC. An online survey was conducted with consumers of dairy cheese (DC) and PBC (n = 311). Subsequently, consumer acceptance testing was conducted with both plant‐based Cheddar‐style cheese (n = 105) and plant‐based mozzarella‐style cheese (n = 117). Two days of testing were dedicated to each PBC style, consumers evaluated the shreds cold (as‐is) on the first day and melted on the second day. The online survey consisted of a maximum difference (MXD) scaling, agreement questions, and an ingredient list activity. Consumer acceptance testing utilized liking and check‐all‐that‐apply (CATA) questions. Conceptually, flavor, texture, ingredients, and protein content were the most important attributes for PBC purchase. A short ingredient list was preferred. Dairy cheese (DC) was perceived as superior in flavor and texture, while PBC was perceived as more sustainable, more ethical, and healthier. Both products were perceived as equally nutritious. Cheesy, creamy, buttery, and soft were desirable attributes when served cold and melted for both PB styles. Undesirable attributes for both styles when evaluated cold included gritty, rubbery, artificial, and off flavor. During the melted evaluation (both styles), artificial and off flavors were undesirable. Two major pain points remain for the PBC market: flavor and texture.

Practical Applications

Flavor and texture, both cold and hot, remain challenges for Cheddar and mozzarella‐style plant‐based cheeses. Understanding consumer perceptions of plant‐based cheeses can aid in the development of products that meet consumer expectations and desires.

1. Introduction

Plant‐based foods have become a staple in many consumer diets, bringing in $8.1 billion in U.S. sales during 2023 (Pierce et al. 2023). Prospectively, plant‐based foods are predicted to increase to $160 billion by 2030 (Witherington 2023). In terms of contribution, plant‐based dairy alternatives (PBDAs), specifically plant‐based milks, are the most profitable and sought after plant‐based alternative, making up $2.9 billion of total plant‐based food sales (Pierce et al. 2023). Other PBDAs, such as yogurts, butters, ice creams, and cheeses, are not as widely purchased and consumed, with many of these product categories experiencing a decrease in sales (Pierce et al. 2023). These decreases in sales could be a result of continued consumer dissatisfaction, resulting in declining repeat purchases.

Shifting focus to the cheese market, the U.S. is expected to see an increase in cheese sales amounting to $62.6 billion by 2032 (Fortune Business Insights 2025). This trend is already realized, as more consumers seek to increase cheese consumption during snacking occasions (Riebe 2023). When it comes to plant‐based cheese (PBC), only 0.77% of the total cheese sold in the US was plant‐based. With dairy cheese penetrating 97% of all US households, the section PBC industry has a chance to capitalize on consumer desires to increase cheese consumption. However, from 2021 to 2023, PBC sales decreased by 10% (Pierce et al. 2023). To remain relevant in the volatile market, PBC manufacturers and product developers must understand the existing barriers to consumer purchase and consumption.

The main barrier that exists within PBCs is a dissatisfactory sensory profile. Taste/flavor plays a significant role in a consumer's purchase decisions and has been proven to be the main driver for consumer purchase and re‐purchase (Parry and Szejda 2019). The current flavor profiles of commercial PBCs are either attempting to mimic the flavor of conventional cheese or utilizing plant‐sourced natural flavors (Short et al. 2021). Jaeger et al. 2024) explored consumer acceptance of plant‐based Cheddar cheeses in New Zealand and found that consumer needs were not met based on sensory properties, emotion‐based responses, and situation‐based occasions. Similarly, Falkeisen et al. (2022) reported that Canadian consumers had a strong interest in PBC due to their perceptions of sustainability, ethicality, and health benefits; however, poor liking scores for commercial products remained a barrier. Aside from flavor, texture has also been noted as a poor sensory quality associated with PBCs. Grittiness is a large contributor to consumer dislike, which is a prominent attribute of soy‐based PBCs. Characteristically, PBCs also tend to have decreased meltability compared to dairy counterparts. These barriers have led researchers to search for viable methods to improve the sensory quality of PBCs (Li et al. 2013; Ferawati et al. 2021; Lyu et al. 2023; Mattice and Marangoni 2020; Liu et al. 2023a; Li et al. 2013; Mårtensson et al. 2000).

Few research studies have evaluated consumer acceptance of plant‐based Cheddar‐style cheeses (Jaeger et al. 2024; Falkeisen et al. 2022). There is a lack of research on plant‐based mozzarella‐style cheeses. This study sought to understand consumer purchase/consumption behaviors and consumer liking and perception of current plant‐based Cheddar and mozzarella‐style cheeses. Therefore, the objectives of this research were to identify and understand what motivates consumers to purchase PBC, consumer acceptance, and needed improvements within this category space. Two approaches were employed to meet research objectives: an online survey and consumer acceptance testing via central location testing.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Overview

All study procedures were carried out in compliance with the North Carolina State University Institutional Review Board regulations (IRB exempted protocols #26370, #26718, #26716). An online survey was conducted with consumers (n = 311) to understand consumer opinions of PBCs and to identify consumer purchase motivations and pain points within the PBC category. Following the survey, consumer acceptance testing was executed to determine consumer acceptance of commercial plant‐based Cheddar (n = 105) and mozzarella cheeses (n = 117) in cold (as‐is) and hot (melted) formats.

2.2. Online Survey

The survey was developed and launched using Lighthouse Studio (Sawtooth Software version 9.14.0, Orem, UT). Participants were recruited from the Sensory Service Center database of more than 10,000 consumers at North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. Consumers who were 18 years of age and older, had no food allergies, intolerances, or dietary restrictions, and currently purchased or were interested in PBC were invited to participate (n = 311). After consumers completed the demographics portion of the survey, they were asked to answer questions regarding their current purchase and consumption behaviors. Other questions presented included 5‐point agree/disagree questions regarding sustainability, purchase habits, and usage for PBC, a maximum difference scaling (MXD) exercise, previous PBC experiences, 5‐point satisfaction/dissatisfaction questions, Kano questions, an ingredient list evaluation activity, and 100‐point sliding scales about PBC and how PBC compared to dairy cheese.

The MXD exercise was used to determine which of 25 attributes related to PBC were most or least important to consumers. Consumers were shown 25 questions with 5 attributes presented per question. Consumers were asked to select which attribute was the “most important” and “least important” regarding the purchase of PBC. Following the MXD exercise, a single select question regarding each attribute was asked. Responses provided for each of the 25 attributes were “I am more likely to purchase when thinking about this aspect of PBC,” or “I am less likely to purchase when thinking about this aspect of PBC,” or “This item would not influence my purchase decision.” These questions were used in the calculation of utility scores to create an anchor point, where attributes above the anchor indicated attributes that played a positive role in consumer purchase of PBC if the attribute was present and attributes below the anchor were attributes that had little or no influence on the purchase of PBC (Lattery 2010).

Kano questions can provide product‐specific insights into consumer needs and satisfaction. The Kano questions in this study presented consumers with functional and dysfunctional statements for both plant‐based Cheddar and plant‐based mozzarella, 10 statements and 11 statements each, respectively. Each statement was met with five options: “I will dislike it,” “I can live with it,” “I do not care,” “I expect it,” or “I will like it,” In this survey, Kano model responses were employed to determine what attributes satisfied consumer needs specific to each style of PBC. The combination of functional and dysfunctional responses was then converted into six categories—attractive, indifferent, must‐have, performance, questionable, or reverse (Song 2016; Ullah and Tamaki 2011). The insights gained from Kano questions can be useful to product developers as they create products that aim to satisfy consumers and meet their needs (Xu et al. 2009).

For the ingredient list evaluation activity, consumers were shown seven different ingredient lists from commercially available PBC presented in a randomized block presentation. Consumers evaluated each ingredient list for overall liking (9‐point hedonic scale), a 5‐point expectations (1 = much worse than expected, 2 = slightly worse than expected, 3 = about the same as expected, 4 = slightly better than expected, and 5 = much better than expected), an amount of ingredients question (1 = the amount of ingredients look fine to me, 2 = I would prefer to see less ingredients, and 3 = I don't care how many ingredients are in PBC), and sliding scales (0–100) regarding consumer perceptions of unhealthy–healthy and artificial–natural. In addition, a text highlighting activity asked respondents to select/highlight ingredients, if any, that they wished to eliminate from the ingredient list.

2.3. Consumer Evaluation of Plant‐Based Cheeses

Representative PB Cheddar and PB mozzarella shreds were selected based on market share and availability. Five samples were selected for each type of cheese. PB cheeses were purchased locally in duplicate lots across a 2‐week period. Cheese shreds were evaluated within 3 weeks or more of the pull date. Consumer acceptance testing consisted of cold (as‐is) shreds and hot (melted) formats. Four days of consumer acceptance tests were conducted—two days dedicated to PB Cheddars and two days dedicated to PB mozzarellas. Each set of consumer tests was roughly 6 weeks apart.

Consumers were recruited from the database maintained by the Sensory Service Center to participate in 2 days of PB Cheddar and/or 2 days of PB mozzarella. For each cheese type, the first day was dedicated to cold (as‐is) shred evaluation and the second for hot (melted) evaluation. Each day of testing took consumers approximately 30 min to complete. Consumers who met the following testing criteria were eligible to participate: no allergies, intolerances, or dietary restrictions, did at least some of the household shopping, and had purchased and/or consumed plant‐based products in the past 6 months or were interested in trying/purchasing PBC.

For cold PB shred evaluation, 15 g of PB cheese was placed into 120 mL soufflé cups, which were lidded and labeled with 3‐digit blinding codes. Hot (melted) evaluation format was based on previous research (Meals et al. 2020) and results from the current study survey. In the current study, surveyed consumers were asked, “What dish (that requires heating/cooking) would you most likely incorporate PBC in?” The dishes with the highest frequency of responses included: pizza, pasta, quesadillas, and grilled cheese. Thus, quesadilla and pizza applications were selected for PB Cheddar and PB mozzarella acceptance testing, respectively.

Quesadillas were prepared using the methods of Meals et al. (2020). Approximately 30 g of PB cheese was spread evenly on top of a 6″ Mission flour tortilla fajita super soft (UPC: 7373100830) and baked in a Lincoln impinger oven (Model 1301, Fort Wayne, IN) set to 204°C with the belt speed set to allow for even heating, about 2 min. The quesadillas were cooked as needed, cut in half, and served open‐faced on a 15.24 cm Karat Earth Bagasse paper plate (PFS Sales Co., Raleigh, NC). Hot PB mozzarellas were served to consumers in a cheese pizza format. Prior to consumer testing, preliminary test cooks were conducted to determine the proper cook temperatures and times. A Vulcan commercial convection oven (Model VC4GD‐10) set to 218°C with a cooking time of 7.5 min resulted in the most even melting and browning across all five cheese shreds. Mama Mary's Original 30.48 cm pizza crusts (UPC: 0003545777001) were layered with 70 g of Rao's Pizza Sauce (UPC: 747479000611) and then 170 g of PB mozzarella and then cooked. Pizzas were cut into eight equal‐sized slices after baking, and participants received one slice of pizza per sample. Plain pizza boxes sized 30.48 × 30.48 × 5.08 cm (Uline, Braselton, GA) were used to hold cooked pizzas in a warming cabinet (InterMetro Industries Crop., Wilkes‐Barre, PA) set to 60°C for no more than 10 min. Samples of each cheese (cold or hot) were served monadically using a Williams Latin Square design with Compusense Cloud software (Compusense, Guelph, Canada) for each day of testing.

Before the start of each consumer test, consumers were asked to share their overall liking of plant‐based dairy foods based on their previous experiences. Additionally, participants were asked to select from a list of 22 attributes identifying their top five most liked and top five least liked attributes regarding the plant‐based alternative dairy foods category. The attributes provided were those presented in the MXD exercise in the survey. Finally, participants were given a list of 18 emotional responses adapted from EsSense25 (Nestrud et al. 2016), where they were asked, “How do plant‐based dairy foods make you feel? Select all that apply.” After completion of these questions, consumers received samples one at a time and answered questions regarding appearance, aroma, overall liking, flavor, and texture liking using a 9‐point hedonic scale in that sequence. Cold and hot shreds were also evaluated using a color JAR (too light–too dark) question following appearance liking. Additional just‐about‐right (JAR) questions were asked when shreds were evaluated hot (melted). For PB Cheddar in quesadilla, a visual meltability JAR (not melted enough–too melted) was asked. For PB mozzarella in pizza format, JAR questions included visual meltability, browning (not brown enough–too brown), and stretch (not enough stretch–too much stretch).

After tasting, consumers answered a yes/no question if they detected an aftertaste. If they responded yes, they were prompted to scale the pleasantness of the aftertaste on a 5‐point scale. A list of flavor and texture attributes was then shown as a CATA question, and consumers were asked to check all that applied for the coded sample in front of them. Following these questions, purchase intent and expectations were asked using a 5‐point scale. A comparison of PB cheese flavor to traditional dairy cheese was evaluated on a 9‐point scale (does not taste like Cheddar/mozzarella cheese at all–tastes exactly like Cheddar/mozzarella cheese). Also, in comparison to dairy cheese, a 5‐point scale (much worse than dairy Cheddar/mozzarella–much better than dairy Cheddar/mozzarella). Panelists were asked to rinse their palates with bottled water during a 3‐min rest between samples. After all samples were tasted each day, consumers were asked to rank the samples (1 = most liked and 5 = least liked). An additional ranking question (1 = most appealing and 5 = least appealing) was asked regarding the appearance of each hot mozzarella pizza slice. The question provided consumers with five photos, which were generated by placing each slice of pizza on a piece of white parchment paper and taking the photos via iPhone 11 Pro (Apple Inc., Cupertino, CA). Upon completion of each 2‐day test, consumers received a $20 gift card to a local store as compensation.

2.4. Data Analysis

Prior to survey data analysis, a root likelihood fit statistic was used to identify random respondents. Using recommendations from Orme (2019), the 95th percentile value from 500 randomly generated sets of MXD data was determined. This cut‐off value (0.265) served to eliminate 12 potentially random respondents. MXD data was analyzed using hierarchical Bayesian (HB) regression through Lighthouse Studio (Sawtooth Software, Version 9.10.0, Orem, UT) to gather zero‐centered utility scores. Other data from the survey and consumer acceptance testing were analyzed using XLSTAT (version 2019.3.1, Addinsoft, Boston, USA) at 95% confidence (p < 0.05). Kano responses were categorized based on Kano modeling attributes and frequency tables were constructed to obtain percentages. The text highlighting activity was analyzed by converting participant highlighted responses into CATA‐like responses, where 1 = a highlighted ingredient and 0 = an unhighlighted ingredient. Frequencies were tabulated and percentages were calculated for each ingredient within each ingredient deck. Analysis of variance followed by Fisher's LSD was used to determine statistical lettering for MXD utility scores, descriptive analysis, and hedonic scale liking questions. Chi‐square with Marascuillo procedure was used to determine statistical lettering for JAR questions. Statistical lettering for pleasantness of aftertaste, purchase intent, expectations, and comparison of PB cheese to dairy cheese was determined using Kruskal–Wallis with Dunn's post hoc test. Flavor and texture attributes shown during the CATA question were analyzed using Cochran's Q test with Sheskin's pairwise comparison test. Penalty lift analysis was applied to CATA and overall liking data. Consumer clusters were identified from the MXD survey and consumer acceptance test responses (overall liking scores) using agglomerative hierarchical clustering with Ward's method.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Online Survey

Of surveyed consumers, 69.5% were female, 22.5% were male, and 0.6% preferred not to answer. Those aged 27–47 years (37.6%) made up the largest portion of participants, closely followed by 18–26 years (26.4%) and 43–58 years (24.1%). Participants 59–77 years made up 11.9% of those surveyed. White/Caucasian was the primary ethnicity of participants (65.3%), followed by Black/African American (10.0%), South Asian or Indian (10.0%), East Asian (6.1%), Hispanic/Latino (2.9%), and Other/Prefer not to answer (5.8%). Most participants resided in North Carolina (85.9%). All participants purchased plant‐based products in the past 6 months, and 98.1% of consumers also purchased and consumed dairy products. When comparing the purchase frequency of PBC, 11.6% of participants indicated they regularly purchased PBC. However, 28.0% had tried PBC and would consider purchasing it again and 28.6% had not tried/purchased PBC but would be willing to try/purchase it. On average consumers took 106.6 ± 470.3 min with a median of 30.3 min to complete the entire survey, confirming that many participants took breaks in between survey tasks/exercises (as they were informed they were able to do).

Average zero‐anchored utility scores were evaluated for each attribute presented in the MXD exercise (Figure 1). Fifteen attributes were found above the anchor, indicating participants are more likely to purchase a PBC when these attributes are present. The top five most important attributes for the purchase of PBCs for the consumers surveyed were: taste/flavor, ingredients, texture, protein content, and made from plant or plant‐derived sources. Two consumer clusters were identified from the MXD exercise (Figure 2). Cluster 1 (n = 167) identified taste/flavor, texture, ingredients, protein content, and a good source of calcium as the most important attributes when purchasing a PBC. Cluster 2 (n = 144) similarly placed a high importance on taste/flavor and ingredients. However, this group differed by their preference for label claims of plant or plant‐derived sources, animal‐free, and dairy‐free when purchasing a PBC. Overall, consumers placed some importance on sustainability and ethicality as they were found above the anchor. Differing opinions were shown for consumer clusters 1 and 2, where cluster 1 consumers placed less importance on sustainability and ethicality (below the anchor) and cluster 2 believed these items were more important when purchasing a PBC. Age (<45 years or >45 years) had no impact on cluster membership (p > 0.05). With some consumers reporting that sustainability and ethicality influence their purchasing decisions for PBC, the PB dairy alternative industry may have a competitive edge over conventional dairy. However, responses regarding sustainability may be overestimated due to consumer confusion surrounding the definition of sustainability (Schiano et al. 2020).

FIGURE 1.

Average zero‐anchored interval utility scores for plant‐based cheese MXD exercise for all survey participants (n = 311). A higher score indicates higher appeal. Attributes with a positive value signify that an attribute would increase the likelihood of plant‐based cheese purchase, whereas attributes with a negative value signify attributes that would not increase the likelihood of purchase.

FIGURE 2.

Average zero‐anchored interval utility scores for plant‐based cheese MXD exercise for (a) cluster 1 (n = 167) and (b) cluster 2 (n = 144). A higher score indicates higher appeal. Attributes with a positive value signify that an attribute would increase the likelihood of plant‐based cheese purchase, whereas attributes with a negative value signify attributes that would not increase the likelihood of purchase.

Depending on a consumer's beliefs and motivations, their understanding or definition of sustainability may differ. Schiano et al. (2021) documented three different consumer perspectives on sustainability as it pertained to dried dairy ingredients: ingredient/processing focused, farming practices‐focused, and environmental‐focused. One systematic review revealed that consumers utilize a wide range of terms to define sustainability as it relates to food, and these definitions span across the entire supply chain (Van Bussel et al. 2022). For example, some consumers may focus on sustainable packaging and label claims (Cook et al. 2023), while others may perceive sustainability as consuming a balanced diet or consuming locally grown and organic foods (Kenny et al. 2023). Thus, sustainability encompasses many aspects, and the interconnectedness of such topics impacts perception and purchase intent. For example, PBCs are often marketed as sustainable, which causes a halo effect on consumer purchase and consumption behaviors (Schiano and Drake 2021b). Similarly, the importance of ethicality may be inflated (Devinney et al. 2010).

Out of the survey participants, 222 had tried or purchased PBCs in the past 6 months. The frequency of these consumers who were satisfied/dissatisfied with each aspect is shown in Figure 3 and Table 1. Healthiness and nutrition were among the most satisfying aspects of PBC (Table 1). In terms of dissatisfaction, meltability was less satisfying than other intrinsic aspects presented. Consumers were the least satisfied with the available selection and price of PBC (p < 0.05). Although purchasing decisions may vary between consumers, sensory properties and perceived health benefits are the main purchase motivators of PBDAs (McCarthy et al. 2017; Haas et al. 2019; Etter et al. 2024). One study conducted focus groups with European consumers and found that curiosity invoked consumers to seek out PBDAs rather than ethical and sustainable practices (Adamczyk et al. 2022). In general, overall satisfaction with product sensory properties, quality, and price tends to motivate repeat purchase for most consumers (Liu et al. 2023b; Marian et al. 2014; Moon and Ji 2023).

FIGURE 3.

Satisfaction frequencies of different aspects of plant‐based cheese based on consumers who had tried plant‐based cheese in the past 6 months (n = 222).

TABLE 1.

Satisfaction of different aspects of plant‐based cheese based on consumers who had tried plant‐based cheese in the past 6 months (n = 222).

Aspect of plant‐based cheese	Satisfaction
Flavor	3.6abc g , h
Texture	3.4d
Meltability	3.1e
Sustainability	3.7ab
Price	2.7f
Amount of selection at the grocery store	2.7f
Types of ingredients	3.6abc
Amount of ingredients	3.5cd
Calories per serving	3.5cd
Amount of macronutrients	3.5cd
Healthiness	3.8a
Nutrition	3.8a

^g Satisfaction was scored on a 5‐point scale where 1 or 2 = dissatisfied, 3 = neutral, 4 or 5 = satisfied.

^h Different letters in columns following means signify significant differences (p < 0.05).

The results from the ingredient deck evaluation activity (n = 311) revealed that PBCs with shorter ingredient decks displayed higher overall liking and expectations scores (Table 2). Ingredient list 1 contained the lowest number of ingredients and received an overall liking score of 7.6 and an expectations score of 4.1. Ingredient list 3 contained the highest number of ingredients and received an overall liking score of 4.8 and an expectations score of 2.5. When asked about the amount of ingredients, 82.3% of consumers indicated “The amount of ingredients looks fine to me” for ingredient list 1 and 69.8% indicated “I would prefer to see less ingredients” for ingredient list 3. Consumers perceived PBCs with shorter ingredient decks as healthier and more natural (p < 0.05). Rune et al. (2022) showed similar findings regarding plant‐based burger ingredient lists. During text highlighting, consumers showed a strong dislike for xanthan gum and powdered cellulose. In the current study, ingredient lists 6 and 7 contained xanthan gum, which 37.0% and 34.7% of consumers said they would eliminate, respectively. Powdered cellulose was the most highlighted ingredient in lists 4 (24.4%) and 5 (24.1%). List 7 also contained powdered cellulose and was the second most highlighted ingredient with 27.0% of consumers saying they would eliminate this ingredient from the product. Rovai et al. (2025) documented stabilizers and hydrocolloids as undesirable ingredients in protein beverages. These included xanthan gum and cellulose. Consumers also placed value on short ingredient decks in protein beverages.

TABLE 2.

Ingredients list, overall liking and expectations scores based on provided ingredient list of commercial plant‐based cheeses shown for the ingredient list evaluation activity (survey).

Ingredient list	Ingredients	Overall liking	Expectations
1	Ingredients: Cashews, water, sea salt, natural flavor, cultured brown rice, lactic acid, live cultures	7.6a e , g	4.1a f
2	Ingredients: Filtered water, coconut oil, food starch‐modified (tapioca, potato and corn), Potato starch, salt (sea salt), dextrose, calcium phosphate, lentil protein, flavor (Cheddar, Mozzarella, Monterey Jack) (vegan sources), olive extract, paprika extract, and beta carotene (color), Vitamin B12	6.2b	3.2b
3	Ingredients: Modified potato starch, palm fruit oil, filtered water, expeller‐pressed canola oil, cellulose, maltodextrin, natural flavors (contains autolyzed yeast), less than 2% of: vegetable glycerin, sea salt, citric acid, nutritional yeast, calcium phosphate, bamboo fiber, sodium phosphate, carrageenan, organic chickpea miso (organic handmade rice koji, organic whole chickpeas, sea salt, water, koji spores), sunflower lecithin, annatto for color	4.8d	2.5d
4	Ingredients: Filtered water, coconut oil, corn and potato starch, modified potato starch, fermented tofu (soybeans, water, salt, sesame oil, calcium sulfate), sea salt, natural flavor, olive extract (antioxidant used as a preservative), beta carotene (color), powdered cellulose (to prevent caking)	6.1b	3.2b
5	Ingredients: Filtered water, coconut oil, food starch‐modified (potato & corn), corn starch, salt (sea salt), cheddar flavor (vegan sources), olive extract, paprika extract & beta carotene (color), Vitamin B12, powdered cellulose added to prevent caking	6.3b	3.3b
6	Ingredients: Filtered water, tapioca flour, coconut oil, expeller pressed: canola and/or safflower oil, vegan natural flavors, chickpea protein, salt, tricalcium phosphate, lactic acid (vegan), konjac flour, yeast extract, xanthan gum, annatto color, turmeric color, nutritional yeast, potassium salt	5.5c	2.9c
7	Ingredients: Dairy‐free Mozzarella cheese alternative (water, coconut oil, potato starch, pea protein, salt, potato protein, modified food starch, rowanberry fruit extract [a mold inhibitor], natural flavor, xanthan gum, konjac flour, lactic acid, annatto extract color), powdered cellulose added to prevent caking	5.7c	3.0c

^e Overall Liking was scored on a 9‐point hedonic scale where dislike extremely = 1 and like extremely = 9.

^f Expectations was scored on a 5‐point scale where 1 or 2 = worse than expected, 3 = about the same as expected, 4 or 5 = better than expected.

^g Different letters following means in a column signify significant differences (p < 0.05).

When asked about their ideal PBC, 92.6% of participants agreed that PBC should taste as good as dairy cheese, and 93.2% said that PBC should have the same texture and melt properties as dairy cheese. PBC should taste good, but does not have to mimic the taste of dairy cheese, according to 61.4% of respondents. When compared to PBC via sliding scales, surveyed consumers perceived dairy cheese to have superior flavor and texture (p < 0.05) while PBCs were perceived as more ethical, more sustainable and healthier than dairy cheese (p < 0.05) (Table 3). Keefer et al. (2023) found similar results regarding protein sources in protein fortified foods, where one cluster of surveyed consumers believed that plant proteins were more ethical, more sustainable, and healthier than dairy proteins.

TABLE 3.

Consumer comparison of plant‐based cheese versus dairy cheese using sliding scales (n = 311).

Sliding scale (0–100)	Plant‐based cheese	Dairy cheese
Horrible taste–great taste	54.6b c , d	83.0a
Horrible texture–great texture	49.7b	80.1a
Not sustainable at all–very sustainable	71.1a	48.1b
Not ethical at all–very ethical	71.1a	49.4b
Extremely unhealthy–extremely healthy	68.0a	54.8b
Not at all nutritious–very nutritious	67.6a	67.0a

^c Sliding scale questions were used with a range of 0–100 where the left attribute = 0 and the right attribute = 100.

^d Different letters in rows following means signify significant differences (p < 0.05).

Surveyed consumers scored PBC as healthier than dairy cheese (Table 3). The current FDA guideline outlines two criteria that a food product must meet to be claimed as healthy. First, the food must contain a certain amount of at least one food group or subgroup, and second, the food must meet specific limits for added sugars, saturated fat, and sodium (FDA 2025). In general, PBCs do not meet these criteria as they are high in saturated fat due to the use of oils such as coconut, canola, and palm, and high in sodium. When it comes to the perception of “healthy,” consumers have differing ideas of what the term means. Lusk (2019) found that consumers used differing definitions, but in general, they used fat content to determine “healthiness.” Palmer and Winham (2017) asked consumers to define a “healthy” food through an online survey and concluded that most consumers related “healthy” to the nutritional composition of a food. In the present study, consumers identified PBC and dairy cheese as being equally nutritious (Table 3). These perceptions may be influenced by social media, which can cause confusion and misguided judgments due to contradictory information surrounding nutrition and health (Clark et al. 2019). Although perceived as equally nutritious, PBCs generally lack a robust nutritional profile compared to dairy cheese (Clegg et al. 2021; Craig et al. 2022; Fresán and Rippin 2021). In fact, many PBCs contain no protein at all, while dairy cheese is considered a good source of protein. Aside from protein, calcium content is also a differentiating factor between PBC and dairy cheese. Dairy cheese is considered a good source of calcium, but many PBCs are not fortified with calcium, resulting in no calcium content. These results point to a lack of nutritional knowledge of dairy products from a consumer standpoint. Schiano and Drake (2021a) found that consumers were able to identify major components of different dairy products; however, there was a lack of knowledge regarding the percentage of each component in the composition of dairy products.

For plant‐based Cheddar cheese usage and applications, as‐is, in sandwiches or as a topping were must‐have (32.2%) and performance (37.0%) attributes, suggesting consumer satisfaction increases when these attributes are present (Table 4). Melts when heated showed the following distribution: must‐have (32.5%), performance (30.2%), and indifferent (25.7%), suggesting that some consumers are neutral towards melting (at least with plant‐based Cheddar) while some classify melting as an essential characteristic or expectation for plant‐based Cheddar cheeses. An even distribution was also displayed for sharp aged flavor: performance (34.1%), indifferent (23.5%) and must‐have (22.2%). This result might not be unexpected since not all consumers picture a “sharp aged flavor” as their ideal or target Cheddar flavor profile. Other Cheddar Kano attributes fell into the indifferent category, indicating these attributes did not drive consumer satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Similarly, most of the mozzarella attributes were categorized as indifferent. However, melts when heated were categorized as must‐have (35.7%) and performance (40.5%). Can be used as‐is or in sandwiches or as a topping, also had a strong presence as a must‐have (28.0%) and performance (31.8%) attribute, which aligned with the Cheddar Kano results. Stretches when heated were evenly distributed between indifferent (27.7%), must‐have (24.4%) and performance (24.1%). Thus, consumers place a high value on PB Cheddars and mozzarellas that are versatile in application, meaning they can be enjoyed cold (as‐is) or melted.

TABLE 4.

Kano modeling classification of plant‐based Cheddar and Mozzarella functionality (n = 311). Attractive indicates that the attribute is not expected by consumers but are satisfied if this attribute is present. Indifferent indicates that consumers do not care about the attribute. Must have indicates the attribute is essential. Performance indicates that when present, consumer liking increases. Questionable indicates conflicting responses from consumers. Reverse indicates decreased consumer liking when present.

	Attractive	Indifferent	Must have	Performance	Questionable	Reverse
A Cheddar that has mild milky flavor	11.3%	42.4%	11.9%	9.0%	14.8%	10.6%
A Cheddar that has buttery creamy flavor	12.9%	38.9%	15.8%	13.2%	14.1%	5.1%
A Cheddar that has sharp aged flavor	12.9%	23.5%	22.2%	34.1%	5.1%	2.3%
A Cheddar that has firm texture	13.2%	39.2%	19.6%	19.0%	7.7%	1.3%
A Cheddar that has soft texture	8.0%	48.2%	9.3%	4.2%	19.6%	10.6%
A Cheddar that melts when heated	7.7%	25.7%	32.5%	30.2%	3.5%	0.3%
A Cheddar that can be used as‐is in sandwiches or as a topping	7.7%	18.6%	32.2%	37.0%	3.5%	1.0%
A Cheddar that browns during cooking	10.0%	52.1%	11.6%	13.8%	7.4%	5.1%
A Cheddar that is salty	7.4%	43.4%	14.5%	15.4%	11.9%	7.4%
A Cheddar that is white in appearance	12.5%	58.5%	4.5%	2.6%	15.1%	6.8%
A Mozzarella that has mild milky flavor	11.9%	43.7%	21.9%	9.3%	9.6%	3.5%
A Mozzarella that has buttery creamy flavor	18.0%	33.4%	19.9%	18.0%	8.7%	1.9%
A Mozzarella that has firm texture	10.0%	48.9%	9.6%	7.1%	16.7%	7.7%
A Mozzarella that has soft texture	8.7%	44.4%	19.0%	11.6%	13.2%	3.2%
A Mozzarella that melts when heated	8.4%	12.5%	35.7%	40.5%	2.9%	0.0%
A Mozzarella that has stretches when heated	16.7%	27.7%	24.4%	24.1%	5.1%	1.9%
A Mozzarella that has browns during cooking	13.8%	49.5%	9.3%	12.9%	8.4%	6.1%
A Mozzarella that can be used as‐is in sandwiches or as a topping	15.1%	20.9%	28.0%	31.8%	3.9%	0.3%
A Mozzarella that is salty	12.9%	41.8%	11.6%	14.5%	10.3%	9.0%
A Mozzarella that is white in appearance	19.3%	50.2%	18.0%	8.7%	3.5%	0.3%
A Mozzarella that is pale yellow in appearance	7.7%	53.7%	4.8%	1.9%	15.4%	16.4%

3.2. Plant‐Based Cheddar Cheese Acceptance Tests

Consumers who participated in plant‐based Cheddar evaluation were predominantly female (69.5%, 30.5% males). Consumers aged 18–28 years made up 47.6% of the sampled population, followed by those aged 29–43 years (31.4%), 44–58 years (13.3%), and 59–77 years (7.6%). Ethnicity distributions were as follows: White/Caucasian (60.0%), Asian or Indian (20.1%), Black/African American (8.6%), Hispanic/Latino (8.6%), Native American/Pacific Islander (1.0%), prefer not to answer (2.0%). The top three most liked aspects for PBDAs in general were: it is interesting to try (43.8%), taste/flavor (39.0%), and healthy (39.0%). The top three aspects disliked were: artificial (78.1%), texture (73.3%), and taste/flavor (56.2%). Plant‐based Cheddar liking scores ranged from 3.4 to 5.9 when cold and 3.7 to 6.4 when evaluated hot (on a 9‐point hedonic scale) (Table 5). When evaluated cold (as‐is), PBCC1 and PBCC5 had the highest overall liking scores (p < 0.05) (Table 5). Consumers also liked the flavor and texture of these plant‐based Cheddars. PBCC3 was the least liked (p < 0.05) when evaluated cold. Consumers liked the texture of PBCC2 but disliked the flavor more than other PBCs evaluated. When evaluated, melted PBCC4 scored the highest overall liking (p < 0.05). Although PBCC2 had one of the highest texture liking scores when evaluated cold, its texture was disliked (p < 0.05) when it was evaluated melted. Of the five commercial Cheddar PBC that consumers evaluated, there was not a PBC that was liked when evaluated both cold (as‐is) and melted. As an example, consumers found PBCC2 to be too light in color when evaluated cold (Table 6). However, when melted in quesadilla format, PBCC2 was perceived as too dark in color (p < 0.05). Similar discrepancies in cold versus hot color were noted with other Cheddar PBC. There were no differences in overall liking scores for cold or hot Cheddar applications based on age or gender (p > 0.05).

TABLE 5.

Mean liking scores for liking questions for cold (as‐is) and melted plant‐based Cheddar cheese shreds (n = 105).

Sample	Appearance	Aroma	Overall	Flavor	Texture
Cold (As‐is)
PBCC1	6.8b f , g	5.8ab	5.7a	5.5ab	6.0a
PBCC2	4.0e	5.0c	4.8b	4.4c	6.2a
PBCC3	5.0d	5.4bc	3.4c	3.7d	2.6c
PBCC4	6.1c	6.1a	4.6b	4.9bc	4.0b
PBCC5	7.3a	5.7ab	5.9a	5.7a	6.0a
Melted
PBCC1	3.4d	5.7a	5.3b	5.3bc	5.5b
PBCC2	4.4c	5.1b	3.7c	3.8d	4.8c
PBCC3	6.0b	5.9a	5.8b	5.8ab	5.6b
PBCC4	7.1a	5.9a	6.4a	6.3a	6.4a
PBCC5	5.6b	5.8a	5.3b	5.2c	5.8ab

^f Liking attributes were scored on a 9‐point hedonic scale where dislike extremely = 1 and like extremely = 9.

^g Different letters in columns within a format following means signify significant differences (p < 0.05).

TABLE 6.

Just‐about‐right scores for cold (as‐is) and melted plant‐based Cheddar cheese shreds (n = 105). Melted shreds were served in a quesadilla.

		PBCC1	PBCC2	PBCC3	PBCC4	PBCC5
Cold (As‐is)
Color JAR (%)	Too light	20.0%c e , f	65.7%a g	13.3%cd	44.8%b	2.9%d
	JAR	78.1%b	16.2%d	64.8%bc	45.7%c	93.3%a
	Too dark	1.9%b	18.1%a	21.9%a	9.5%ab	3.8%b
Melted
Color JAR (%)	Too light	9.5%ab	6.7%b	22.9%a	2.9%b	11.4%ab
	JAR	81.9%a	29.5%b	73.3%a	87.6%a	76.2%a
	Too dark	8.6%b	63.8%a	3.8%b	9.5%b	12.4%b
Visual meltability JAR (%)	Not melted enough	94.3%a	66.7%b	14.3%c	3.8%c	48.6%b
	JAR	5.7%d	26.7%c	66.7%b	84.8%a	43.8%c
	Too melted	0.0%b	6.7%ab	19.0%a	11.4%a	7.6%ab

^e Just‐about‐right (JAR) questions were scored on a 5‐point hedonic scale where 1 or 2 = too little, 3 = just about right, and 4 or 5 = too much. The percentage of consumers who selected these options is presented.

^f Different letters in columns following means signify significant differences (p < 0.05).

^g Numbers that are bolded indicate that the attribute resulted in a penalty on overall liking (p < 0.05).

Consumers characterized each Cheddar PBC by CATA cold and hot (Figures 4a and 5a). F1 and F2 explained 81.11% of the variation for cold shreds. Factor 1 made up much of the variation (61.83%) and separated the PBC by their textural properties—oily, rubbery, firm, gritty (positive loading) and creamy, soft, and melts in my mouth (negative loading). Factor 2 (19.29%) separated PBC by texture and flavor, natural, coconut, and gritty (positive loading). When CA was conducted on melted Cheddar shreds, F1 and F2 explained 84.37% of the variation (Figure 5a). Factor 1 again accounted for much of the variation (64.32%). However, flavor attributes primarily separated the PBC—strong aftertaste, fruity, pungent, artificial flavor, and off‐flavor (all positive loading). Factor 2 explained 20.05% of the variation and separated the PBC by flavor and textural attributes—oily and rubbery (both negative loading) and fruity, firm, and gritty (positively loading). Based on these findings, consumers primarily differentiated the PBCs by texture. Meals et al. (2020) noted that consumers were generally better at distinguishing attributes that were conceptually easier to understand, such as basic tastes, simple flavor characteristics like sharp and mild, and textural differences.

FIGURE 4.

(a) Correspondence analysis biplot for cold (as‐is) plant‐based Cheddar shreds from consumer CATA responses (n = 105). (b) Penalty‐lift analysis plot for cold (as‐is) plant‐based Cheddar shreds from consumer 9‐point overall liking and CATA responses. Attributes that increase (positive) consumer liking (blue) and decrease (negative) consumer liking (red) are shown.

FIGURE 5.

(a) Correspondence analysis biplot for melted plant‐based Cheddar shreds in quesadilla from consumer CATA responses (n = 105). Melted shreds were served in a quesadilla. (b) Penalty analysis biplot for melted plant‐based Cheddar shreds in quesadilla from consumer liking and CATA responses. Attributes that increase (positive) consumer liking (blue) and decrease (negative) consumer liking (red) are shown.

Penalty lift analysis for cold (as‐is) evaluation showed that consumers liked PBC that were cheesy, creamy, soft, buttery, and salty (Figure 4b). Buttery and cheesy flavors were more associated with PBCC1 and PBCC5, which explains why these PBC had the highest overall liking. PBCC2 was best characterized by being texturally creamy and soft, however, the flavor of this PBC was not preferred by consumers. Gritty, rubbery, pungent, artificial flavor, and off flavor were disliked by consumers. When shreds were melted in a quesadilla, similar attributes were identified as drivers of liking by penalty lift (Figure 5b). Attributes associated with melted cheese also drove consumer liking, which was expected: smooth, melts in the mouth, melted, and stretchy. PBCC4 was best characterized by being cheesy and buttery, which led to an increase in consumer liking. An artificial flavor and off‐flavor lead to consumer dislike. These attributes characterized PBCC2 (Figure 5a), which received significantly lower flavor and overall liking scores (p < 0.05). Of the five PB Cheddar‐style cheeses sampled, PBCC2 was the only cashew‐based cheese, while all other cheeses were coconut oil‐based (PBCC1, PBCC3, and PBCC5), or palm oil‐based (PBCC4). Falkeisen et al. (2022) utilized a cashew‐based PBC and found low acceptance scores for cold and increased acceptance scores for melted evaluation, although off‐flavor was not noted. In contrast, the melted evaluation scores decreased in the present study for the cashew‐based PB cheese. An issue highlighted by Falkeisen et al. (2022) was consumer confusion between the terms off‐flavor and pungent. This phenomenon may have occurred in the current study as PBCC2 was also characterized as pungent during the melted evaluation.

3.3. Plant‐based Mozzarella Cheese Acceptance Tests

Similar to the PB Cheddar evaluation, females (63.2% and 35.9% males) made up the majority of participants for the plant‐based mozzarella evaluation. Age and ethnicity were similarly distributed to PB Cheddar acceptance testing, where those aged 18–28 y (43.6%) and White/Caucasian (60.7%) made up a majority of the consumers. The top three aspects most liked about PBDAs in general were: it is interesting to try (46.2%), nutrition (42.7%), and healthy (41.9%). The top three disliked aspects were: artificial (82.1%), texture (74.4%), and taste/flavor (61.5%). Appearance, aroma, overall, flavor, and texture liking scores for PB mozzarellas are shown in Table 7. When evaluated cold (as‐is), PBMC1 and PBMC2 received the highest overall liking and flavor liking scores. PBMC2 outperformed other plant‐based mozzarellas for texture liking (p < 0.05). PBMC3 was the least liked plant‐based mozzarella and received the lowest scores for flavor and texture (p < 0.05). When evaluated, melted on pizza format, PBMC1 had the lowest appearance and texture liking score (p < 0.05), most likely due to the lack of melting (Table 8). PBMC5 received the highest flavor, texture, and overall liking scores (p < 0.05). When consumers were asked to rank representative photos of PB mozzarellas on pizza, PBMC4, and PBMC5 ranked the best, while PBMC1 and PBMC2 ranked the lowest. Consistent with plant‐based Cheddars, there was not a consistently scoring plant‐based mozzarella that was liked cold and melted. Plant‐based mozzarella liking scores ranged from 3.2 to 5.9 when cold and 4.6 to 6.3 when evaluated hot (on a 9‐point hedonic scale) (Table 7). Color and melt properties varied widely in consumer JAR scores (Table 9). Penalty analysis applied to JAR scores showed that PBMC4 was too light for cold (as‐is) evaluation (Table 9). When the shreds were melted on pizza, PBMC1 was penalized for being too brown, while PBMC5 was not brown enough, and PBMC2 was not stretchy enough. Similar to PB Cheddars, age and gender had no effect on the overall liking scores for cold or hot mozzarella applications (p > 0.05).

TABLE 7.

Mean liking scores for liking questions for cold (as‐is) and melted plant‐based mozzarella cheese shreds (n = 117). Melted mozzarella shreds were served in a cheese pizza format.

Sample	Appearance	Aroma	Overall	Flavor	Texture
Cold (As‐is)
PBMC1	6.9a e , f	5.2a	5.9a	5.8a	5.5b
PBMC2	4.9b	4.6b	5.8ab	5.5ab	6.7a
PBMC3	5.2b	5.4a	3.2d	3.6c	2.6e
PBMC4	6.9a	5.6a	4.9c	5.0b	4.2d
PBMC5	6.8a	5.6a	5.3bc	5.4ab	4.9c
Melted
PBMC1	3.0e	5.5bc	4.6c	4.9b	4.1d
PBMC2	3.5d	5.3c	4.8bc	5.1b	4.5cd
PBMC3	6.0c	5.4c	5.3b	5.3b	5.1b
PBMC4	7.2a	5.9ab	5.2b	5.3b	4.8bc
PBMC5	6.5b	6.1a	6.3a	6.5a	5.7a

^e Liking attributes were scored on a 9‐point hedonic scale where dislike extremely = 1 and like extremely = 9.

^f Different letters in columns within a format following means signify significant differences (p < 0.05).

TABLE 8.

Photos of melted plant‐based Mozzarella pizza slices used in the appearance ranking question in the consumer evaluation of hot (melted) plant based Mozzarellas.

PBMC1	PBMC2	PBMC3	PBMC4	PBMC5

TABLE 9.

Just‐about‐right scores for cold (as‐is) and melted plant‐based Mozzarella cheese shreds (n = 117). Melted mozzarella shreds were served in a cheese pizza format.

		PBMC1	PBMC2	PBMC3	PBMC4	PBMC5
Cold (As‐is)
Color JAR (%)	Too light	1.7%c e , f	82.9%a	16.2%b	20.5%b g	3.4%c
	JAR	93.2%a	16.2%d	66.7%c	78.6%bc	89.7%ab
	Too dark	5.1%ab	0.9%b	17.1%a	0.9%b	6.8%ab
Melted
Color JAR (%)	Too light	23.1%b	72.6%a	15.4%bc	5.1%c	13.7%bc
	JAR	27.4%b	24.8%b	81.2%a	91.5%a	86.3%a
	Too dark	49.6%a	2.6%b	3.40%	3.4%b	0.0%b
Visual meltability JAR (%)	Not melted enough	98.3%a	95.7%a	45.3%b	3.4%c	8.5%c
	JAR	1.7%c	4.3%c	52.1%b	88.9%a	73.5%a
	Too melted	0.0%c	0.0%c	2.6%bc	7.7%ab	17.9%a
Browning JAR (%)	Not brown enough	44.4%b	84.6%a	35.9%b	29.1%b	41.0%b
	JAR	21.4%b	12.8%b	61.5%a	68.4%a	57.3%a
	Too brown	34.2%a	2.6%b	2.6%b	2.6%b	1.7%b
Cheese stretch JAR (%)	Not enough stretch	88.9%a	80.3%a	57.3%b	53.8%b	40.2%b
	JAR	10.3%b	16.2%b	35.9%a	34.2%a	49.6%a
	Too much stretch	0.9%b	3.4%ab	6.8%ab	12.0%a	10.3%a

^e Just‐about‐right (JAR) questions were scored on a 5‐point hedonic scale where 1 or 2 = too little, 3 = just about right, and 4 or 5 = too much. The percentage of consumers who selected these options is presented.

^f Different letters in columns following means signify significant differences (p < 0.05).

^g Numbers that are bolded indicate that the attribute resulted in a penalty on overall liking (p < 0.05).

The symmetric row plots from CA of the CATA question for cold (as‐is) and melted mozzarella shreds are shown in Figures 6a and 7a. For cold shreds, factor 1 made up a majority of the variation (70.04%) and separated the PBCs by their textural properties—creamy, soft, and melts in my mouth (positive loading) and rubbery and firm (negative loading). Factor 2 (17.81%) also separated PBCs by flavor and texture—oily (positive loading) and gritty, salty, sour, fruity (negative loading). For melted mozzarella shreds on pizza, factor 1 accounted for 61.86% of the variation, while factor 2 accounted for 16.69% of the variation. Firm and gritty (positive loading), melted and stretchy (negative loading) contributed the most to factor 1. Gritty, stretchy, and natural flavors loaded negatively on factor 2, while oily flavors loaded positively. Textural attributes again were a main differentiating factor for PB mozzarella cheeses in both cold and melted applications.

FIGURE 6.

(a) Correspondence analysis biplot for cold (as‐is) plant‐based Mozzarella shreds from consumer CATA responses (n = 117). (b) Penalty analysis plot for cold (as‐is) plant‐based mozzarella shreds from consumer liking and CATA responses. Attributes that increase (positive) consumer liking (blue) and decrease (negative) consumer liking (red) are shown.

FIGURE 7.

(a) Correspondence analysis biplot for melted plant‐based mozzarella shreds on pizza from consumer CATA responses (n = 117). Melted mozzarella shreds were served in a cheese pizza format. (b) Penalty analysis biplot for melted plant‐based mozzarella shreds on pizza from consumer liking and CATA responses. Attributes that increase (positive) consumer liking (blue) and decrease (negative) consumer liking (red) are shown.

Cheesy, creamy, soft, buttery, and salty (Figure 6b) were liked attributes for cold (as‐is) PB mozzarella shreds, while firm, gritty, rubbery, artificial and off flavor were undesirable by penalty lift analysis. PBMC1 was characterized by consumers as cheesy and buttery (Figure 6a), which explains its high overall liking and flavor liking. PBMC2 was not different in overall liking and flavor liking scores, but received a significantly higher texture liking score (p < 0.05). Consumers characterized this cheese as creamy, soft, and melts in the mouth (Figure 6a), which are desirable texture attributes (Figure 6b). PBMC5 received a lower overall liking score than PBMC 1 or 2, and although comparable in flavor liking to PBMC1 and PBMC2, lacked a desirable texture (Table 7) and was characterized as gritty and firm (undesirable attributes) (Figure 6a,b). PBMC3 was defined as rubbery and having an artificial and off‐flavor.

When shreds were melted on pizza, like PB Cheddar, new desirable attributes included those associated with melted cheese—melted, melts in my mouth, and smooth, while sticks to teeth was undesirable along with artificial and off flavor (Figure 7b). PBMC4 was characterized as being melted, which may explain the high appearance liking score for this cheese (p < 0.05). However, consumers noted that this cheese had the undesirable attribute “sticks to teeth” which may explain the lower texture liking score. Smooth, cheesy, and creamy were attributes consumers used for PBMC5, which reflect the high liking scores for this cheese. PBMC4 was the most visually appealing cheese based on appearance photo ranking, which is consistent with its significantly higher appearance liking score of 7.2 (p < 0.05) (Table 8). In terms of the least visually appealing, PBMC1 was the lowest ranked sample, remaining consistent with its significantly lower appearance liking score of 3.0 (p < 0.05) most likely attributed to the shreds still being intact (Table 8). In the survey, consumers (93.2%) agreed PBCs should have similar texture and melt properties to dairy cheese, so it is no surprise that significantly lower appearance liking scores were observed for PBMC1.

From a texture standpoint, the current study, as well as others, have demonstrated that PBCs are generally not similar in cold or melted form to natural dairy cheese due to their composition of plant proteins, starches, and oils (Table 2) (Grossman and McClements 2021; Grasso et al. 2021; Saraco and Blaxland 2020). The 10 PB cheeses utilized in the consumer acceptance test were not all the same as those shown in Table 2, but the ingredient decks were similar. Water was the first ingredient, followed by oil or starch. Both the survey and consumer taste test results of this study point to the melting capabilities of PBCs being an important aspect. Many researchers are exploring ways to improve the functionality (including melt) of PBCs including the use of zein (Mattice and Marangoni 2020; Liu et al. 2023a) and fermentation (Li et al. 2013; Mårtensson et al. 2000). If these methods prove to be feasible, the PBC industry may increase consumer acceptance from a texture standpoint.

Besides texture, flavor is the most important intrinsic aspect of PBC that influences consumer purchase decisions as shown from the MXD exercise (Figure 1). Plant‐based Cheddars and mozzarellas evaluated by consumers received generally low overall liking scores and were inconsistent within cold versus melted format. PBCs that were liked cold in many cases were not liked melted and vice versa (Tables 5 and 7). For PB Cheddars, results from this study were comparable to Falkeisen et al. (2022), whose average overall liking score for plant‐based Cheddars was 4.5 for cold evaluation and 5.1 for melted evaluation on a 9‐point hedonic scale. In comparison, the average overall liking score for cold Cheddar shreds was 4.9, and melted shreds was 5.3 (on a 9‐point hedonic scale) for this research study. However, there is a lack of comparable literature regarding plant‐based mozzarellas.

3.4. Future Work and Limitations

Further exploration into the consumer notion that dairy cheese and PBCs are nutritionally equivalent is needed. Fresán and Rippin (2021) showed that PBCs were not nutritionally comparable to their dairy equivalent in terms of protein, calcium, vitamin D, and vitamin B12. As previously stated, Schiano and Drake (2021a) documented that dairy food consumers generally lacked knowledge regarding dairy food nutrition and processing. Similarly, Racette et al. (2023) noted parents believed dairy milk should be served in schools, however, they were unfamiliar with the specific nutritional aspects of school lunch milk, including basic components such as percent milk fat in school lunch milk.

It is important to note that many consumers in the current study were not regular consumers of PBC. However, consumers were required to purchase and/or consume plant‐based products in the past 6 months or be interested in trying/purchasing PBC. Future studies may seek to follow a similar framework as this study but focus on a population of consumers who follow a plant‐based diet or consume PBCs regularly. The findings of such a study may provide a different depiction of consumer acceptance. Additionally, geographical location may influence consumer perceptions due to cultural, political, and societal differences (Stoll‐Kleemann and Schmidt 2016; Fresán et al. 2020). Thomas and Bryant (2021) examined consumer acceptance of dairy‐free dairy products across five countries and documented higher enthusiasm in Brazil and India when compared to Germany, the UK and the USA. Giacalone and Jaegar (2023) found similar results where novel food technologies (i.e., 100% plant‐based, urban farming, aquaponics, etc.) were generally more accepted by Indian consumers compared to Singaporean, US, and Australian consumers. Therefore, the locality of participants in both the survey and consumer acceptance approaches of this study may not provide a complete landscape of PB cheese.

The use of trained panel profiling to collect objective data is another area in the sensory science landscape that should be further investigated with PBCs. Utilizing trained panelists and consumers in tandem could generate meaningful results regarding the drivers of liking for PBCs, which may provide further guidance in the development of an “ideal” PBC. This study is an exploratory consumer study that focuses on the perception and evaluation of existing market products. Therefore, formulation adjustments or technical validation were not included. Further research that utilizes formulation adjustment may uncover a means to improve the versatility of PBC. That is, creating a product that meets consumer expectations in both cold (as‐is) and heated (melted) applications, which was not the case with the ten commercial PBC evaluated in the current study acceptance test. Aside from formulation adjustments, future studies may also include (real) dairy‐based cheeses along with PBCs to gather more information regarding consumer acceptance and improvements for the PBC category. The purpose of this study was to understand PBC purchase motivations and barriers to consumption. Therefore, a dairy cheese was excluded from this study.

4. Conclusion

Consumers remain interested in PBC and other PB alternatives due to curiosity as well as increased awareness for sustainability and ethically produced products. In terms of consumer satisfaction, conceptually, consumers are neutral or slightly satisfied with current PBCs. However, when consumers evaluate (taste) current PBCs, overall liking scores indicate some dissatisfaction. In general, cheesy, soft, creamy, and buttery are desirable attributes in both cold (as‐is) and melted PBC applications, while artificial and off‐flavor are undesirable. The meltability of PBC also plays a significant role in consumer acceptance and an emphasis on this ideal characteristic should be prioritized alongside flavor. A cheese alternative that is liked in both cold and hot applications and meets consumer expectations for both flavor and texture is required for success. PBC manufacturers and formulators may find these insights valuable for the continued development and improvement of PBCs.

Author Contributions

Ella Warner: writing – original draft, investigation. Kumpol Homwongpanich: investigation, methodology. MaryAnne Drake: conceptualization, funding acquisition, writing – review and editing, methodology, visualization, project administration.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.