Are plant-based alternatives healthier? A two-dimensional evaluation from nutritional and processing standpoints

Area of Science:

• Nutritional Science
• Food Science
• Public Health

Background:

• Plant-Based Alternative Products (PBAPs) are increasingly prevalent in markets.
• The nutritional quality of PBAPs compared to traditional animal-based foods is not well-documented.

Purpose of the Study:

• To evaluate the nutritional composition, profile, and processing levels of PBAPs available in Spain.
• To compare these PBAPs against their animal-based counterparts.

Main Methods:

• Nutritional data for 922 PBAPs (cheese, dairy, eggs, meat, fish) and 922 processed/381 unprocessed animal products were sourced from the Spanish 'Veggie base' database.
• The Food Standard Agency Nutrient Profiling System (FSAm-NPS) and NOVA classification were used for evaluation.

Main Results:

• PBAPs generally had higher sugar, salt, and fiber content than animal foods.
• Meat and fish PBAPs were lower in protein and saturated fats.
• 68% of PBAPs and 75% of unprocessed animal foods had favorable Nutri-Score ratings (A or B).
• 37% of PBAPs and 72% of processed animal foods were classified as ultra-processed (NOVA group 4).

Conclusions:

• While many PBAPs show a better nutrient profile, cheese, fish, and meat alternatives can be more processed and nutritionally inferior.
• A comprehensive, multi-faceted health impact assessment is necessary for PBAPs due to their processing levels and varied nutritional content.