SEARCHCROSS-SECTIONALnutrition, public_health

cross-sectional·nutrition, public_health, gastroenterology, preventive_medicine·PMC10048389

Characterizing Meat- and Milk/Dairy-like Vegetarian Foods and Their Counterparts Based on Nutrient Profiling and Food Labels

Foods · 8 authors, 7 centres

AI SUMMARY

POPULATIONFood products marketed in Spain (544 PB meat/dairy alternatives and 373 AB counterparts)

INTERVENTIONNot applicable (cross-sectional nutritional analysis of food products)

COMPARISONPB foods vs. AB foods across five categories (milks, meats, pates, cheeses, yoghurts)

This summary was generated by AI from a single paper. It has not been reviewed by a clinician and is not clinical advice. Verify against the source before acting on it.

AGENT 01 · STRUCTURED SUMMARY

TRACE TO SOURCE

“

TL;DR

This study analyzed 544 plant-based (PB) meat and dairy alternatives on the Spanish market and compared them to 373 animal-based (AB) counterparts. While PB foods generally had healthier fat profiles and contained fiber, many were ultra-processed and had lower protein content than AB foods, with PB cheese alternatives being notably high in saturated fat. The findings highlight that PB foods are not automatically healthier than AB foods, and consumers should carefully read nutrition labels.

Full summary

4,174 CHARS

**Background:** Plant-based (PB) foods have seen a 49% increase in sales in Europe from 2018 to 2020, driven by health, animal welfare, and environmental concerns. While PB diets are associated with favorable health outcomes, PB alternatives to meat and dairy can be ultra-processed and may differ substantially in nutritional quality from their animal-based (AB) counterparts. This study aimed to comprehensively characterize the nutritional composition, processing degree, and ecological impact of PB meat and dairy alternatives on the Spanish market compared to AB analogues.

**Methods:** Nutritional data were collected from Open Food Facts and supermarket websites between March and May 2022 (with additional PB beverage data collected in November 2022). After applying inclusion/exclusion criteria, 917 food items remained: 544 PB foods (313 milk alternatives, 134 meat alternatives, 64 pate alternatives, 21 cheese alternatives, 12 yoghurt alternatives) and 373 AB foods (204 milks, 121 meat products, 16 pate, 16 cheese, 16 yoghurt). Variables collected included energy, total fat, saturated fat, carbohydrates, sugars, protein, fiber, salt, ingredients, additives, and nutrition/health claims. Nutri-Score, NOVA (processing degree), and Eco-Score were assessed. Non-parametric tests (Kruskal-Wallis, Wilcoxon rank sum) were used for comparisons; p-values <0.05 were considered significant.

**Key Results:** PB milk alternatives had lower energy than whole milk (e.g., almond milk: 29 kcal/100mL; oat milk: 48 kcal/100mL; soy milk: 42 kcal/100mL vs. whole milk: 63 kcal/100mL, p<0.001) and lower saturated fat (0.2-0.3 g vs. 2.4 g in whole milk). However, PB milks had higher carbohydrate content (oat milk: 8.3 g/100mL vs. whole milk: 4.6 g/100mL, p<0.001) and sugars (oat milk: 5.5 g vs. whole milk: 4.6 g, p<0.001). Protein content varied widely among PB milks: soy milk (3.1 g/100mL) matched cow milk (~3.1 g), while almond milk (0.7 g) and oat milk (1.1 g) were significantly lower (p<0.001). Fiber was present only in PB milks (0.5-0.6 g/100mL).

PB meat alternatives (median 177 kcal/100g) had similar energy to chicken hamburgers (158 kcal) but lower than pork sausages (225 kcal). PB meat had significantly lower saturated fat (1.4 g/100g) than all AB meats (range 2.35-6.9 g, p<0.001) and contained fiber (4.0 g/100g) while AB meats had none. However, PB meat had higher carbohydrates (9.05 g vs. 1.0-2.5 g in AB meats, p<0.001). Protein content of PB meat (14 g/100g) was comparable to AB meats (13-16 g).

PB cheese alternatives had high energy (311 kcal/100g) and saturated fat (14 g/100g), similar to AB cheese (272 kcal, 12.5 g saturated fat). PB cheese had significantly lower protein (2 g vs. 17 g, p<0.001) and higher carbohydrates (19 g vs. 1.25 g, p<0.001) and salt (1.6 g vs. 1.06 g, p=0.03).

Regarding Nutri-Score, 93% of PB milk alternatives were classified A or B. Among other PB foods, ~60% were A or B, ~30% C, and ~10% D. However, NOVA classification revealed that 43.8% of PB milk alternatives and 22.4% of PB meat alternatives were ultra-processed (NOVA 4). Eco-Score was available for 85% of PB milk alternatives but rarely for other PB foods (>95% missing for meat and pate alternatives).

Common ingredients in PB meat alternatives included soy (72%), wheat (22%), and pea/chickpea flour (20%). PB cheese alternatives frequently contained coconut oil (52%) and starch (67%). Nutrition claims were present in a minority of products: calcium (34% of milk alternatives), protein (21% of PB foods), and fiber (16% of PB foods).

**Clinical Implications:** PB alternatives are not uniformly healthier than AB foods. While they offer advantages in fiber content and often lower saturated fat, many are ultra-processed and provide less protein. PB cheese alternatives are particularly concerning due to high saturated fat content. Consumers should be advised to read nutrition labels carefully, and policymakers should consider requiring processing-level information on labels alongside Nutri-Score. The study is limited by reliance on label data rather than chemical analysis, and by incomplete NOVA and Eco-Score data for many products.

PICO

PPOPULATION

Food products marketed in Spain (544 PB meat/dairy alternatives and 373 AB counterparts)

IINTERVENTION

Not applicable (cross-sectional nutritional analysis of food products)

OOUTCOME

Nutrient composition (energy, fat, saturated fat, carbs, sugars, protein, fiber, salt), Nutri-Score, NOVA classification, Eco-Score, ingredient and additive profiles

STUDY TYPE

cross-sectional

SPECIALTY

nutrition

SUMMARISED BY

AI pipeline

FIDELITY CHECK

Not run

ORIGINAL PAPER

PMC10048389

Characterizing Meat- and Milk/Dairy-like Vegetarian Foods and Their Counterparts Based on Nutrient Profiling and Food Labels

Foods

READ THE FULL PAPER

JUMP TO SECTION

ABSTRACT

Abstract Vegetarian foods are plant-based (PB) foods, often perceived as healthier foods than animal-based (AB) foods. The objective of this study was to analyze the nutritional quality of a set of PB foods (meat, milk and dairy products) marketed in Spain, and to compare their nutrient profiles with respect to some AB counterparts. Nutritional information per 100 g or mL, ingredients, and nutritional declarations, as well as the Nutri-Score, NOVA, and Eco-Score of each food were collected from Open Food Facts. Differences in the nutrient compositions between PB foods and their counterparts, and between the different groups of PB foods, were assessed at a 5% significance level. A total of 544 PB foods and 373 AB foods were identified. Overall, PB foods had a higher median content of fiber and carbohydrates, but a lower amount of proteins (except PB “meat” analogues: 14 g) and saturated fats (except PB “cheese alternatives”: 12.5 g), than the AB counterparts ( p < 0.05). PB “milk alternatives”, particularly oat “milk”, showed a higher median content of total carbohydrates (8 g) and sugars (5.5 g) compared to cow milks (4.7 g carbohydrates/sugars, on average; p < 0.001). PB “meat alternatives” also had a significantly higher value of carbohydrates (9 g) than AB meats (2 g, on average; p < 0.001). PB foods were mostly classified as Nutri-Score A and B (86%). However, more than half of them were of NOVA groups 3 and 4. Thus, there is a great diversity of PB meat and milk/dairy product alternatives on the Spanish market. Despite being products of good nutritional quality compared to AB foods, they also carry drawbacks that could have an impact on nutritional health. Keywords: vegetarian, vegan, plant-based food, animal-based food, Nutri-Score, nutritional quality

CITATION EXPORT

Noelia María Rodríguez-Martín, Patricia Córdoba, Beatriz Sarriá et al.. Characterizing Meat- and Milk/Dairy-like Vegetarian Foods and Their Counterparts Based on Nutrient Profiling and Food Labels. Foods. (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12061151

AUTHORS

8 · 7 CENTRES

Noelia María Rodríguez-Martín, Patricia Córdoba, Beatriz Sarriá, Vito Verardo, Justo Pedroche, Ángela Alcalá-Santiago, Belén García-Villanova, Esther Molina-Montes

1Group of Plant Protein, Department of Food and Health, Instituto de la Grasa-CSIC, Campus Universitario Pablo de Olavide, Edificio 46, Carretera de Utrera Km. 1, 41013 Seville, Spain
2Department of Nutrition and Food Science, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain
3Department of Metabolism and Nutrition, Institute of Food Science, Technology and Nutrition (ICTAN-CSIC), Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), José Antonio Nováis 10, 28040 Madrid, Spain
4Department of Nutrition and Food Science, Faculty of Pharmacy, University Complutense of Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain
5Institute of Nutrition and Food Technology (INYTA) ‘José Mataix’, Biomedical Research Centre, University of Granada, Avenida del Conocimiento s/n, 18071 Granada, Spain
6Instituto de Investigación Biosanitaria ibs.GRANADA, 18012 Granada, Spain
7CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), 28029 Madrid, Spain