The market growth of plant-based alternatives to animal food products pushes agencies around the world to discuss specific regulations regarding their communication, terminology, and packaging design. We created and tested 18 packages of plant-based milk and plant-based chicken meat varying the “animalness” of terminology, container, image, and claim. An online survey was answered by a sample of 600 US participants. The image (cow or soybean on milk; chicken or wheat on meat) had a significant effect on the expected origin (animal or vegetable) of the products, but terminology (“milk”, “mylk” or “drink”; “chicken”, “strips” or “seitan”), container (plastic jug or carton box; plastic tray or glass jar), sensory claim (“creamy” or “smooth” on milk) and nutritional claim (“no cholesterol” or “low sodium” on chicken) did not. We found significant effects of the type of container on the willingness to try the meat and of terminology on the willingness to try the milk. Finally, terminology and image significantly affected consumers’ expectations for the sensory characteristics of the two products. These findings can help agencies effectively regulate terminology and packaging aspects of plant-based substitutes, as well as inform industries, scientists, and designers.