Dissertation
“Real” vs. “fake”? Contention, disruption, containment, and realignment in the meat industry
University of Iowa
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), University of Iowa
Spring 2026
Abstract
This dissertation examines how collective actors contest, construct, and realign the sociocognitive categories that define market boundaries. Using the illustrative case of the U.S. plant-based meat market between 2009 and 2024, I trace how startup companies, incumbent meat corporations, industry associations, nonprofit advocacy groups, industry-funded front groups, and federal regulatory agencies shaped the emergence and trajectory of a new market segment through competing rhetorical strategies. I analyze a novel dataset of 23,655 public-facing communications using a combination of dictionary-based text analysis, BERTopic modeling with large language model classification, and qualitative content analysis.
The empirical analysis documents three sequential phases of market contention. During market disruption (2009 to 2016), institutional entrepreneurs deployed new sociocognitive categories linking conventional meat production to climate change within an open discursive opportunity structure characterized by complete incumbent silence. During market containment (2017 to 2019), incumbent-aligned organizations broke this silence through a two-pronged strategy: proxy groups launched public relations campaigns reframing plant-based products as "fake," "ultra-processed," and potentially dangerous to human health, while incumbent meatpackers simultaneously entered the market with their own competing plant-based product lines. During market realignment (2020 to 2024), challengers pivoted from environmental claims to emphasize human health, nutritional profiles, and ingredient transparency, drawing on latent health-focused discursive resources cultivated years earlier rather than constructing a new frame from scratch.
The dissertation makes five theoretical contributions. First, I extend the theory of strategic action fields by documenting a systematic division of labor between incumbent corporations and their aligned organizations, in which meatpackers insulated their brands through conventional sustainability messaging while delegating aggressive categorical policing to allied front groups and trade associations. Second, I demonstrate that sociocognitive categories are dynamically refined under competitive pressure: the label "plant-based meat" persisted across all three phases, but challengers progressively reconstructed the justificatory content attached to it, shifting from climate benefits during disruption to health superiority during realignment. Third, I show how challengers recalibrate framing strategies by activating latent discursive resources cultivated during earlier phases rather than constructing new frames from scratch. Fourth, I extend the analysis of oppositional category positioning to a case where challengers defined their products in likeness to, rather than solely in contrast with, the incumbent category, a strategy that invited the categorical policing and labeling battles that defined the containment phase. Fifth, the consistent refusal of incumbents to engage on climate change terrain complicates the expectation from field theory that episodes of contention produce direct engagement on the contested terrain, suggesting that the theory of strategic action fields may benefit from more explicit attention to what incumbents strategically choose not to contest. The analysis also uncovers a regulatory contradiction: while the federal government approved cultivated meat products and declined to restrict alternative protein terminology, seven states simultaneously banned cultivated meat and enacted labeling restrictions on plant-based products.
A methodological contribution is the demonstrated convergence between the supervised dictionary analysis and the unsupervised BERTopic modeling pipeline, with both methods independently identifying the same core discursive patterns across the full fifteen-year study period.
Details
- Title: Subtitle
- “Real” vs. “fake”? Contention, disruption, containment, and realignment in the meat industry
- Creators
- Levi Sands
- Contributors
- Ion Bogdan Vasi (Advisor)Michael Sauder (Committee Member)Yongren Shi (Committee Member)Sarah Harkness (Committee Member)
- Resource Type
- Dissertation
- Degree Awarded
- Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), University of Iowa
- Degree in
- Sociology
- Date degree season
- Spring 2026
- Publisher
- University of Iowa
- Number of pages
- xvi, 222 pages
- Copyright
- Copyright 2026 Levi Sands
- Language
- English
- Date submitted
- 04/26/2026
- Description illustrations
- color illustrations
- Description bibliographic
- Includes bibliographical references (page 158-172).
- Public Abstract (ETD)
When startup companies began selling plant-based burgers designed to look, cook, and taste like beef, they started a fight over the meaning of "meat." This dissertation examines that fight by analyzing over 23,000 press releases, blog posts, and advertisements from plant-based companies, meat corporations, industry groups, and federal agencies between 2009 and 2024.
The study documents three phases. First, companies like Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods promoted their products by connecting meat production to climate change, while the meat industry ignored them. Second, meat industry groups fought back by attacking plant-based products as "fake," "ultra-processed," and loaded with chemicals, while major meat companies launched competing plant-based products. Third, plant-based companies shifted their marketing from environmental messaging toward health and nutrition.
The research reveals key findings. The meat industry relied on a division of labor: large corporations maintained positive public images while allied organizations carried out aggressive attacks. The industry never engaged with the climate arguments, instead redirecting the debate toward health and processing. Plant-based companies claimed the label "meat" rather than marketing their products as alternatives, inviting the labeling battles and regulatory disputes that followed. The study also uncovers a regulatory contradiction: while the federal government approved cultivated meat and declined to restrict meat-related terminology on plant-based packaging, seven states banned cultivated meat and restricted how alternative products could be labeled.
These findings show that market competition is not just about better products or lower prices but about who controls the words and categories that define what counts as food.
- Academic Unit
- Sociology and Criminology
- Record Identifier
- 9985177375002771
Metrics
1 Record Views