Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 23, 2026

Species Determination and Quantitation in Mixtures Using MRM Mass Spectrometry of Peptides Applied to Meat Authentication
Published on: September 20, 2016
Comparing the nutritional value and prices of meat and milk substitutes with their animal-based benchmarks across six
Armin Siegrist1, Ashley Green1, Fabienne Michel2
1ETH Zurich, Laboratory of Sustainable Food Processing, Schmelzbergstrasse 9, Zurich 8092, Switzerland.
Abstract:
Since overconsumption of animal-sourced foods is directly linked to multiple environmental and health issues, a dietary shift is imperative. One approach to facilitate this change is the production of substitutes for animal-sourced foods based on plant-based or novel ingredients. However, to be a valid alternative, substitute products must match animal-sourced foods regarding their nutritional value while being price competitive. To understand where substitutes currently stand in that regard, this study presents a novel dataset containing the prices, main ingredients, and nutritional composition of almost 2600 substitute products as well as prices of approximately 7500 conventional products sold in major supermarket chains in France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Although comparative analyses (non-parametric two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum tests at a 5 % significance level) of the results indicate that the meat substitutes generally contain a higher level of dietary fiber with lower saturated fats, these meat substitutes often also have lower protein quality and higher salt and sugar levels than the conventional products. On average, meat substitutes were found to be 24 to 115 % more expensive compared to conventional meat, except for the German samples where price parity has been reached. Among milk substitutes, only soy-based products have favorable macronutrient profiles. The average price premium charged for milk substitutes compared to cows' milk is 35 to 58 %. In general, fortification rates of substitutes should be increased to ensure sufficient supplies of micronutrients, particularly among meat substitutes where fortification rates are below 20% except for the Netherlands. Following these results, certain individual products already provide high nutritional value at low costs. However, further improvements are required for substitutes to become a compelling alternative at scale.
More Related Videos
07:46Author Spotlight: Improving Beef Cattle Nutrition and Production with a Focus on Feed Efficiency and Meat Quality Traits Through Advanced Biochemical and Molecular Assays
Published on: July 12, 2024
04:56An Efficient Single—Person Technique for Milk Sampling from Laboratory Mice
Published on: March 28, 2025
Related Concept Videos
Bioequivalence: Overview
Proteins: Dietary Sources and Requirements
Equivalence: In Vitro and In Vivo Bioequivalence
Bioequivalence studies: Biowaivers
Bioequivalence Data: Statistical Interpretation
Pharmaceutical Equivalents