Researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine looked at the effect of replacing processed meat with the most popular, nutritionally balanced, or affordable plant-based meat alternatives available in the UK.
Previous studies show plant-based meat has better nutritional profiles than its processed counterpart, but this is the first time research has confirmed the distinction is significant enough to make a meaningful difference across overall diets.
Published in Current Developments in Nutrition, the paper outlines the potential for increased nutritional value. It claims that switching to plant-based options could increase fibre uptake by 4-6%, and reduce saturated fat and salt intake by 6-7% and 3-4% respectively.
The study also points out that while plant-based meat is often classified as ultra-processed, most products the researchers examined didn’t contain the typical indicators of unhealthy UPFs, such as high levels of salt, fat and sugar. In fact, all products evaluated had ‘healthy’ nutritional profiles, as defined by the current Nutrient Profiling Model.
Missed opportunity in fortification
A second study from the same team, published in the Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, has further complemented its findings whilst pointing out missed opportunities for manufacturers.
The paper shows, on average, plant-based meat contains more fibre and less saturated fat than conventional meat. While fortifying plant-based meat and dairy with essential vitamins and minerals could enable products to match the micronutrient levels of animal foods, the researchers claim producers are inconsistent over how much they do this. This results in varied nutritional quality across products.
The trend towards shorter ingredients lists could derail this further, potentially deterring brands from developing products that help to meet recommended intakes of all essential nutrients.
The researchers say producers should fortify products with micronutrients commonly found in conventional meat and dairy, such as iodine, calcium, iron and vitamin B12; but can also go further by using these products to provide other essential nutrients lacking in UK diets, such as fibre, not found in animal-based foods.
Corrine Toyn, marketing consultant and dietitian, says the research is welcome and reinforces the potential for plant-based foods to support healthier eating patterns. In particular, she says the message it provides around fortification is interesting.
“There’s a lot of variation between products; consistent micronutrient fortification (e.g. iodine, calcium, iron, B12) could help address common gaps in UK diets,” she said. “An example of this working well is the fortification of flour with vitamin B12 in countries such as Australia and Canada to prevent neural tube defects in babies, which is now being adopted in the UK.”
Big barriers
However, a bone of contention could lie in current trends, with consumers opting for natural plant-based options over more processed products.
The move towards eating more beans, for example, is a positive shift; but unless consumers have a comprehensive understanding of what makes up a properly balanced diet and how to get all the nutrients they need, deficiencies will persist. This risk is further heightened by the rise of GLP-1s, with reduced appetites restricting opportunities for nutrients to enter the body.
Further challenges lie in a lack of policy and price parity - obstacles the researchers have highlighted.
The team behind the study point to standards akin to the Netherlands which has introduced measures for plant-based meat. Despite being voluntary, this policy has led more than three quarters of Dutch products being fortified with micronutrients.
Ruth Dolby, director at Food Science Fusion and Co-Founder at How Many Beans agreed a framework is needed: “The most significant unresolved issue concerns micronutrients. While improvements in fibre and fat are relatively consistent across the category, fortification with iodine, vitamin B12, iron and calcium remains highly variable.
“Iodine is particularly under-recognised by consumers and its absence can contribute to poor health outcomes over time. Without clearer expectations or standards, plant-based substitutes are not nutritionally equivalent and consumers are unlikely to understand the difference.”
But Dolby also pointed out another big barrier for plant-based meats - taste and texture.
Previous consolidation in the plant-based market has arguably been driven by alternatives not delivering, and as Dolby said: “Without sustained acceptance and repeat purchases, even well-designed nutritional improvements struggle to translate into real health outcomes.”
Overall, the research offers an important message: processing level alone does not define nutritional quality, and demonising individual food groups rarely leads to better diets.
“Quantity, formulation and context matter,” added Dolby. “Plant-based meat has an important role to play, but only when supported by clearer nutritional benchmarks, realistic affordability and honest communication."
