Certain types of alternative proteins are in some ways worse in nutritional terms than meat products, a report issued today (28 August) has said.
The Rethinking Plant-Based Meat Alternatives report from UK pressure group The Food Foundation said “a lot of the more recently developed processed meat alternative products” are more likely to contain “higher levels of salt than other alternative proteins and only a third are fortified with iron and vitamin B12, as would be found in meat”.
However, The Food Foundation, which campaigns for food system change, found all plant-based meat alternative categories it analysed contained fewer calories, lower levels of saturated fat and higher levels of fibre on average compared to the meat products analysed.
The London-based organisation, a registered charity which is campaigning for a sustainable and healthy food system, compared the environmental impact, nutritional profile and price of 68 plant-based products with that of 36 meat products.
For its research, it split plant-based meat alternatives into three different sub-categories: processed (new generation), processed (traditional) and less processed (beans and grains).
It found that “while the environmental case for eating less meat in higher income countries is clear, the health implications of shifting diets towards more plant-rich diets is more nuanced, depending on what is being substituted and by whom".
The organisation suggested that concentrating on those alternatives that offer the best outcomes for both health and environmental outcomes in order to minimise any potential trade-offs “ought to be central to the transition to more healthy and sustainable diets”.
It added the vast majority of plant-based meat alternatives come with significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions and water footprints compared to meat but said “the nutritional profile of plant-based alternatives varies depending on the product and level of processing”.
Rebecca Tobi, senior business and investor engagement manager, said: “Despite increasing public concern about the healthiness of many plant-based meat alternatives we found a huge variety of options for consumers looking to eat less meat.
"While plant-based alternatives that mimic the taste of meat can play a really useful role in helping people to shift towards more plant-rich diets and come with significant environmental benefits, alternative sources of protein to meat such as beans perform strongly compared to both meat and other plant-based meat alternatives. They are also the most affordable alternative to meat by quite some way.”
She added: “There is a huge opportunity in the UK to get people eating more beans, as an affordable, healthy and sustainable alternative protein source. They’re a win-win-win for environmental, health and equity outcomes.”
The report suggested “much greater nuance is needed” when discussing the healthiness of plant-based meat alternatives.
“Grouping all plant-based alternatives into a single category is an unhelpful strategy for encouraging a shift away from meat and towards more plant-rich diets as it hides a wide variety of options with differing nutrition and health profiles within the plant-based alternative category,” The Food Foundation said.
“The proportion of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) within each plant-based meat alternative category analysed varies considerably, despite media and popular discourse often depicting all plant-based meat alternatives as being UPFs.”
It concluded that while more processed plant-based meat alternatives can be a useful stepping stone for encouraging people to shift their diets, less processed alternatives such as beans and grains offer the greatest number of benefits.
