The 2023-2028 Outlook for Meat Substitutes for US Zip Codes

January 2023 | 512 pages | ID: 23527C562560EN
ICON Group International

Abstracts

This study covers the latent demand outlook for meat substitutes across the states and zip codes of the United States. Latent demand (in millions of U.S. dollars), or potential industry earnings (P.I.E.) estimates are given across some 10,833 zip codes in the United States. For each zip code in question, the percent share the zip code is of its state and of the United States as a whole is reported. These comparative benchmarks allow the reader to quickly gauge a zip code vis-à-vis others. This statistical approach can prove very useful to distribution and/or sales force strategies. Using econometric models which project fundamental economic dynamics within each state and zip code, latent demand estimates are created for meat substitutes. This report does not discuss the specific players in the market serving the latent demand, nor specific details at the product level. The study also does not consider short-term cyclicalities that might affect realized sales. The study, therefore, is strategic in nature, taking an aggregate and long-run view, irrespective of the players or products involved.

In this report we define the sales of meat substitutes as including all commonly understood products falling within this broad category, irrespective of product packaging, formulation, size, or form. Companies participating in this industry include A&B Ingredients, AB Foods, LLC, ADF Foods, ADM, All Organic Treasures GmbH, Alpha Foods, Amy's Kitchen, Archer Daniels Midland, Atlantic Natural Foods, Axiom Foods, Bean Supreme, Beyond Meat, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Blue Chip Group, Bob's Red Mill Natural Foods, Boca Foods Company, Bute Island Food (U.K.), Butler Foods, LLC, Campbell Soup Company, Cargill, Cauldron Foods, Cedar Lake Foods, Chez Marie, Inc, CHS, Closed Loop Capital, Conagra Brand, Inc, Corbion Biotech, COSUCRA, Crespel & Deiters, Daloon Foods UK, Ltd, Dee's Wholefoods, DM, DowDuPont, Dragonfly Foods, DuPont, E.I. Du Pont De Nemours, El Burrito Mexican Food Products Corporation, Emsland Group, Fake Meats (Chicago), Famleigh, Inc, Fantastic World Foods, Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain (FASFC), Field Roast, Food and Drugs Administration (FDA), Fry Group Foods, Gardein, Garden Protein International, Gillie Food, Ltd, Greggs, Hain Celestial, Health Canada, Hilton Food Group, House Foods America Corporation, Impossible Foods, Ingredion, Inn Foods (U.S.), Just, Kellogg, Kerry, Kim's Simple Meals, LIGHTLIFE FOODS, Marlow Foods, Meatless, Memphis Meats, MGP Ingredients, Monde Nissin, Morgan Creek Capital, Morinaga Nutritional Foods, Inc, Morning Star Farms, MTA Foods, Ltd, Neat Foods, LLC, Nisshin Oillio Group, Northern Soy, Inc, Phoney Baloney's, Pinnacle Foods, Puris, Quorn Foods, R And R Tofu, SANA (U.S.), Savage River, Inc, Schouten Europe, Scientific Committee of the FASFC, Secret Sausages, Sonic Biochem Extraction Pvt, Sophie's Kitchen, Sotexpro, S?dzucker, Sunfed, Ltd, Superbom, Sweet Earth Foods, Symington's, Thank Goodness, Ltd, The Kraft Heinz Company, Tivall, Ltd, Tofu Shop Specialty Foods, Inc, Tofutti Brands, Topas Klaus Gaiser GmbH, Triballat Noyal, Turtle Island Foods, Tyson Foods, Ungar's Food Products, Inc, Unilever, United Nations (UN), Upton's Naturals, Vbites, Vegabom Healthy Option, Vege USA, Vegefarm Corporation, Vegetarian Butcher, Vegusto UK & Eire, Ltd, and Wilmar International, Ltd. In addition to the sources indicated, additional information available to the public via news and/or press releases published by players in the industry was considered in defining and calibrating this category. All figures are in a common currency (U.S. dollars, millions) and are not adjusted for inflation (i.e., they are current values). Exchange rates used to convert to U.S. dollars are averages for the year in question. Future exchange rates are assumed to be constant in the future at the current level (the average of the year of this publication's release in 2022).

Contents

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 OVERVIEW
1.2 WHAT IS LATENT DEMAND AND THE P.I.E.?
1.3 THE METHODOLOGY
  1.3.1 STEP 1. PRODUCT DEFINITION AND DATA COLLECTION
  1.3.2 STEP 2. FILTERING AND SMOOTHING
  1.3.3 STEP 3. FILLING IN MISSING VALUES
  1.3.4 STEP 4. VARYING PARAMETER, NON-LINEAR ESTIMATION
  1.3.5 STEP 5. FIXED-PARAMETER LINEAR ESTIMATION
  1.3.6 STEP 6. AGGREGATION AND BENCHMARKING
1.4 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)
  1.4.1 CATEGORY DEFINITION
  1.4.2 UNITS
  1.4.3 METHODOLOGY

2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

2.1 LATENT DEMAND IN THE UNITED STATES
2.2 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR IN THE UNITED STATES
2.3 TOP 100 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES

3 FAR WEST

3.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3.2 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - ALASKA
3.3 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - ALASKA
3.4 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - CALIFORNIA
3.5 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - CALIFORNIA
3.6 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - HAWAII
3.7 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - HAWAII
3.8 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - NEVADA
3.9 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - NEVADA
3.10 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - OREGON
3.11 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - OREGON
3.12 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - WASHINGTON
3.13 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - WASHINGTON

4 GREAT LAKES

4.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
4.2 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - ILLINOIS
4.3 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - ILLINOIS
4.4 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - INDIANA
4.5 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - INDIANA
4.6 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - MICHIGAN
4.7 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - MICHIGAN
4.8 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - OHIO
4.9 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - OHIO
4.10 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - WISCONSIN
4.11 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - WISCONSIN

5 MID-ATLANTIC

5.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
5.2 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - DELAWARE
5.3 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - DELAWARE
5.4 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
5.5 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
5.6 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - MARYLAND
5.7 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - MARYLAND
5.8 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - NEW JERSEY
5.9 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - NEW JERSEY
5.10 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - NEW YORK
5.11 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - NEW YORK
5.12 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - PENNSYLVANIA
5.13 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - PENNSYLVANIA

6 NEW ENGLAND

6.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
6.2 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - CONNECTICUT
6.3 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - CONNECTICUT
6.4 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - MAINE
6.5 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - MAINE
6.6 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - MASSACHUSETTS
6.7 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - MASSACHUSETTS
6.8 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - NEW HAMPSHIRE
6.9 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - NEW HAMPSHIRE
6.10 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - RHODE ISLAND
6.11 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - RHODE ISLAND
6.12 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - VERMONT
6.13 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - VERMONT

7 PLAINS

7.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
7.2 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - IOWA
7.3 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - IOWA
7.4 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - KANSAS
7.5 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - KANSAS
7.6 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - MINNESOTA
7.7 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - MINNESOTA
7.8 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - MISSOURI
7.9 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - MISSOURI
7.10 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - NEBRASKA
7.11 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - NEBRASKA
7.12 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - NORTH DAKOTA
7.13 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - NORTH DAKOTA
7.14 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - SOUTH DAKOTA
7.15 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - SOUTH DAKOTA

8 ROCKIES

8.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
8.2 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - COLORADO
8.3 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - COLORADO
8.4 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - IDAHO
8.5 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - IDAHO
8.6 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - MONTANA
8.7 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - MONTANA
8.8 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - UTAH
8.9 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - UTAH
8.10 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - WYOMING
8.11 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - WYOMING

9 SOUTHEAST

9.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
9.2 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - ALABAMA
9.3 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - ALABAMA
9.4 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - ARKANSAS
9.5 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - ARKANSAS
9.6 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - FLORIDA
9.7 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - FLORIDA
9.8 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - GEORGIA
9.9 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - GEORGIA
9.10 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - KENTUCKY
9.11 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - KENTUCKY
9.12 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - LOUISIANA
9.13 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - LOUISIANA
9.14 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - MISSISSIPPI
9.15 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - MISSISSIPPI
9.16 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - NORTH CAROLINA
9.17 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - NORTH CAROLINA
9.18 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - SOUTH CAROLINA
9.19 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - SOUTH CAROLINA
9.20 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - TENNESSEE
9.21 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - TENNESSEE
9.22 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - VIRGINIA
9.23 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - VIRGINIA
9.24 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - WEST VIRGINIA
9.25 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - WEST VIRGINIA

10 SOUTHWEST

10.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
10.2 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - ARIZONA
10.3 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - ARIZONA
10.4 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - NEW MEXICO
10.5 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - NEW MEXICO
10.6 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - OKLAHOMA
10.7 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - OKLAHOMA
10.8 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - TEXAS
10.9 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - TEXAS

11 DISCLAIMERS, WARRANTIES, AND USER AGREEMENT PROVISIONS

11.1 DISCLAIMERS & SAFE HARBOR
11.2 ICON GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. USER AGREEMENT PROVISIONS