Virginia Messina1*
Nanci S. Guest2
Alison M. Duncan3
Ann Reed Mangels4Jack Norris5Matt Ruscigno6
Andrea J. Glenn7Taylor Wolfram8
Christopher P. F. Marinangeli9
Mark Messina10- 1Nutrition Matters, Inc., Pittsfield, MA, United States
- 2Department of Nutritional Science, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- 3Department of Human Health and Nutritional Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada
- 4Retired, Santa Cruz, CA, United States
- 5Vegan Outreach, Sacramento, CA, United States
- 6Consultant, Los Angeles, CA, United States
- 7Department of Nutrition and Food Studies, New York University, New York, NY, United States
- 8Taylor Wolfram PLLC, La Grange, IL, United States
- 9Centre for Regulatory Research and Innovation, Protein Industries Canada, Regina, SK, Canada
- 10Director of Nutrition Science and Research, Soy Nutrition Institute Global, Jefferson City, MO, United States
A new generation of plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) has entered the mainstream. These products contain concentrated sources of plant protein and are formulated to mimic the taste and texture of their meat-based counterparts, especially red meat. The increased availability of these products coincides with calls from health agencies to increase the dietary plant-to-animal protein ratio for health and environmental reasons. The role of PBMAs in achieving the goal of consuming more plant protein may be particularly important since consumption of whole plant foods, such as legumes, which includes pulses (e.g., beans, peas and lentils), is unlikely to increase without major public policy initiatives. Nevertheless, there is debate about the healthfulness of PBMAs and about whether the benefits associated with traditional plant-based diets emphasizing whole plant foods apply to PBMAs. These products are heavily processed, often high in sodium, and contain lower levels of compounds (e.g., fiber, resistant starch, polyphenols) typically associated with the benefits of plant-based diets. On the other hand, PBMAs are excellent sources of protein, and many are fortified with nutrients of concern in plant-based diets. Collectively, the evidence suggests that while they may not provide all the benefits of whole legumes, PBMAs have health and environmental advantages over comparable animal-derived foods. For most individuals, a daily serving of a PBMA fits well within the context of an overall healthy diet. Higher intakes may also be compatible with healthy eating, especially for those whose protein and/or calorie needs are increased.
Introduction
Over the past decades, several protein-rich plant foods such as tofu, tempeh, seitan, and textured vegetable (soy) protein (TVP) have made inroads among mainstream consumers. However, none of these have achieved the same level of adoption as the newest generation of plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) (1). These modern alternatives closely mimic the organoleptic characteristics and nutritional profile of their meat-based counterparts through enhanced orosensory properties and nutrient fortification (2). And unlike previous meat alternatives that were mainly available in niche health food stores, PBMAs are now widely available in grocery chains and restaurants. Researchers in countries including Hong Kong (3), South Africa (4), Germany (5–7), Italy (6, 8), Belgium (9), United Kingdom (6, 10–12), Singapore (13), France (6), Spain (6, 14–16), New Zealand (17), Canada (11, 18), Australia (19), Greece (20), United States (11, 21, 22), the Netherlands (23), Malaysia (24), and Sweden (25) have recognized this growing trend and have conducted extensive nutritional analyses of PBMAs to better understand their potential contribution to meeting nutrient needs in various dietary patterns.
Plant foods aimed at replacing meat have existed for centuries. For example, tofu has been consumed for two millennia (26). Meat alternatives made from peanuts and grains were available in the late 19th century in the United States and were developed specifically to improve health (27, 28). The 1960s saw the emergence of “veggie burgers” made primarily from legumes, such as dried beans, which targeted both vegetarian and nonvegetarian health-conscious consumers (29). A significant advancement came in the form of TVP, which is produced by heating defatted soy meal through extrusion texturization, altering its physical and chemical properties and creating a meat-like texture. TVP was seen as a sustainable product and versatile ingredient in early developments of meat substitutes (30). The evolving formulations of PBMAs warrant a close examination of their health effects and rationale for their inclusion in the diet. Although there are also mycoprotein-based meat alternatives (31), the discussion that follows specifically focuses on alternatives to meat that are based on proteins derived from plants. The intent of this perspective is to provide health professionals with brief background information on PBMAs designed specifically to replace red meat (beef), to highlight nutritional considerations relevant to incorporating PBMAs into the diet, and to offer guidance on intake recommendations.
Rationale for PBMAs: increasing the dietary plant-to-animal protein ratio
The emergence of PBMAs aligns with increasing calls, for both environmental (32, 33) and health (34–36) reasons, for high-income nations to adopt more sustainable plant-forward diets through the replacement of some animal protein with plant-based options. PBMAs generally consist of a concentrated source of one or more proteins, often extracts from legumes such as soybeans or peas, but also wheat protein, usually classified as an isolate (≥90% protein) or concentrate (≥65% protein) (37), along with fat, binding and flavoring agents, and colorants. While the protein content of PBMAs can vary, products mimicking beef burgers typically have 15–20 g of protein per 100 g serving (Table 1) (10, 12, 18, 38–40).
Table 1. Nutrient content of beef and widely available plant-based (vegan) meat alternatives in North America and Europe.
High-income countries currently derive roughly two-thirds of their dietary protein from animal sources and one-third from plants (41, 42). Although efforts such as the EAT-Lancet Commission on Food, Planet, Health have called for a dramatic reduction in animal protein intake (32), a more practical and achievable goal for the near future may be to balance protein intake equally between plant and animal sources. Epidemiologic evidence suggests this approach is likely to result in health benefits. A recent analysis of the Nurses’ Health Studies I & II and Health Professionals Follow-up Study, found that a plant-to-animal protein of roughly 1:1.3 was associated with a 27% lower risk of coronary heart disease compared to a ratio of approximately 1:4.2, with a likelihood of further protection with even higher intakes of plant protein and corresponding reductions in animal protein intake (43).
Previous estimates have indicated that consuming PBMAs four times per week in place of meat would reduce the ratio of plant to animal protein in the diets of high-income countries from about 1: 2 to almost 1:1 (44). Because PBMAs may not provide all the benefits of traditionally prepared legumes, guidance on varying sources of plant protein is warranted. The fiber, resistant starch (45), and bioactives (46) in whole legumes may act additively and synergistically to produce health benefits (47, 48). These components can be decreased in food products that use extracted protein sources. Based on nutrient composition and limited clinical research, evidence suggests that a daily serving of a PBMA fits well within the context of an overall healthy diet. Whether higher intakes are also compatible with healthy eating, especially for those whose protein and/or calorie needs are increased, will depend on the overall content of the diet. The key findings supporting the incorporation of PBMAs into the diet are highlighted in Box 1.
BOX 1. Key points related to the incorporation of PBMAs into the diet.
1. The new generation of PBMAs provide a convenient means by which consumers in high income countries can increase their dietary plant-to-animal protein ratio.
2. Unlike earlier meat substitutes, which often had distinct tastes or textures, newer PBMAs closely replicate the experience of eating meat.
3. Debate exists about the extent to which the health benefits associated with plant-based diets apply to PBMAs.
4. PBMAs can contain fiber and many are lower in saturated fat while providing similar amounts of protein as meat, but are often high in sodium and may not contain, or contain in lower amounts, some beneficial plant compounds.
5. The composition of PBMAs widely varies depending upon primary sources of fat and protein and the degree of nutrient fortification.
6. PBMAs are versatile and can fit into traditional dietary habits and patterns.
PBMAs provide a means for increasing plant protein intake
Increased intake of dried beans, nuts, seeds and soy products is one approach toward increasing the dietary plant-to-animal protein ratio. Legumes are rich in protein and fiber (49, 50), affordable (51), have a small environmental footprint (52, 53), and have several reported health benefits (54–56). In particular, legume-rich diets are associated with a more optimum nutrient intake (57).
However, despite evidence that legume consumption improves the nutrient density of the diet (58), these foods are a relatively minor protein source in high-income countries (59–61). Indeed, even among vegans, legume intake is relatively low (50, 62, 63). Numerous real and perceived barriers to consuming legumes such as dried beans cooked in the traditional manner (boiled) are well-documented (64). These barriers include the time and effort required for cooking, possible gastrointestinal disturbances, dislike of the taste and texture and the association of legumes with lower socioeconomic status (poor man’s meat). There is little reason to think that consumption will substantially increase without greater public policy initiatives (64–66).
Health effects of PBMAs
PBMAs are Nova-classified as ultra-processed foods
Given their convenience, improved orosensory properties (67), and similar culinary role to the products they are intended to replace, it is reasonable to expect that modern PBMAs will continue their growth in popularity among consumers and will be seen as acceptable options by nutrition professionals. Despite these positive attributes, there are concerns about the lack of data on the long-term health effects of regular consumption of these products (68) and some have cautioned against assuming that the benefits associated with consuming plant protein from whole foods applies to PBMAs (2, 69, 70).
The Nova food classification system classifies the new generation of PBMAs as ultra-processed foods (UPFs) because of their formulation, which can include additives such as emulsifiers, and because of the processing involved in the ingredients they contain, such as concentrated sources of protein (71). Proponents of Nova recommend avoiding UPFs as much as possible (72, 73), citing the many observational studies linking UPF intake with a wide range of adverse health outcomes (74–78). Recent research indicates that consumers view PBMAs more unfavorably than other categories of equally processed foods (79). In fact, a recently published survey of French consumers found more respondents consider UPFs to be a cancer risk factor than red and processed meat (80). While research is needed to better understand how the processing and formulation of foods may affect health, several lines of evidence suggest that Nova is insufficiently nuanced to serve as a consumer guide for food purchasing decisions.
Many UPFs are highly rated by nutrient profiling models (81–83) and have demonstrated health benefits (84, 85). For example, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis that included 17 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared the effects on health outcomes of cow’s milk, a Nova group 1 food (unprocessed/minimally processed) to soymilk, a Nova group 4 food (ultra-processed). Results showed that in comparison to cow’s milk, soymilk lowered blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, and inflammation (84).
As noted, total UPF intake has been linked with a range of adverse health outcomes (74–78), including type 2 diabetes (T2D), cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer (85). However, although many subcategories of UPFs, such as processed meats and sweetened beverages, have been linked with harmful effects, several reports have found that other UPFs, including PBMAs, breads and cereals, are not linked with harmful effects or are associated with improved health status (86–88). Particularly relevant are the findings that plant-based UPFs and animal-based UPFs often exhibit opposite effects. For example, plant-based UPFs were linked with a decreased risk of developing T2D in a recent prospective analysis of the European Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort (88), and with longer leukocyte telomere length (LTL) in a cross-sectional analysis of the UK Biobank (89) whereas intake of animal-based UPFs was associated with an increased risk of T2D (88) and shorter LTL (89). Also of potential relevance is the conclusion from one analysis that none of the common attributes of UPFs (e.g., high caloric density, fast eating rate, fast energy intake rate, soft texture, hyper-palatable, inexpensive, and low satiety) apply to PBMAs more so than to beef, a food designated as unprocessed/minimally processed (group 1) (38).
Finally, one recently published analysis of data from the UK Biobank that included over 126,000 adults and a median follow-up of 9 years found that intake of plant-sourced UPFs was associated with an increased risk of CVD and total mortality (90). However, because the meat alternative category represented only 0.2% of daily energy intake (~4 kcal), the intake levels of these foods were not large enough to provide meaningful insight about their health impacts. Furthermore, this food group included several products such as tofu and tempeh, suggesting that intake of PBMAs was negligible. Also, in the Cardiovascular Health Study, both plant and animal-sourced UPFs were associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality. This study is a prospective analysis of 2,582 participants (median age: 77 years) who were followed up for 10 years during which time there were 2,242 deaths. However, the plant-sourced UPF category did not include PBMAs (or plant-based dairy alternatives) but instead was populated by foods such as candy bars, brownies, potato chips and crackers (122).
Randomized controlled trials involving PBMAs
Although limited clinical research involving PBMAs has been conducted, some evidence shows that PBMAs lead to improved markers of cardiometabolic risk compared to meat (91–93). For example, one RCT showed reductions in body weight and lower circulating levels of LDL-C and trimethylamine-N-oxide (TMAO) when participants consumed approximately 2.5 servings daily of PBMAs versus an equivalent amount of meat products (91). This trial also found that the PBMAs led to lower urinary excretion of sulfate, ammonium, phosphorus, and nitrogen and higher urinary excretion of citrate, suggesting benefits for patients with kidney disease (94). No differences between diets were observed for other outcomes such as blood pressure and inflammation (91, 95). However, a comparable trial measuring similar outcomes showed no differences in LDL-C, body weight, or TMAO (92), most likely due to the differences in the nutrient composition of the PBMAs used in these two comparable trials. These findings suggest that the focus should be on nutrient content, not on the degree of processing.
Although long-term data on the health impact of the new generation of PBMAs is unavailable, over the past several decades, a considerable amount of clinical work has examined the health effects of a range of concentrated sources of protein including soy (96), wheat (97), and to a lesser extent, pea protein (98). There is also evidence upon which to evaluate the healthfulness of the various sources of fat used in PBMAs (99, 100). Thus, considerable information on the two main ingredients in PBMAs is readily available. Therefore, although the new generation of PBMAs are novel, from a nutritional perspective, their likely health impact can be surmised from the existing research on their main ingredients and the clinical work directly involving these products conducted thus far.
Potential indirect benefits of incorporating PBMAs into the diet
By aiding in the reduction of red meat intake, PBMAs may indirectly contribute to improved health outcomes since red meat is linked with an increased risk of several chronic diseases, including T2D (101), CVD (102), and various cancers (103, 104). Depending upon the specific product, PBMAs may help increase fiber and decrease saturated fat intake if they are replacing animal products. There is also likely an environmental benefit since even with the processing involved in the production of PBMAs, life-cycle analyses indicate these foods have a lower impact than their meat-based counterparts (10, 105).
In general, the digestibility and quality of plant protein is lower than animal protein (106–108). However, protein is not a nutrient of concern for vegetarians or omnivores in high-income countries. Furthermore, differences between plant and animal proteins noted in acute studies in which muscle protein synthesis is assessed, or based on digestibility and amino acid composition, are not apparent in longer-term studies measuring muscle protein synthesis (109, 110) and gains in muscle mass and strength (111). While the quality of the protein in PBMAs will vary according to the source, pea protein and soy protein, which are the main sources of protein currently found in PMBAs, are well-digested and provide good amounts of essential amino acids (106, 107, 112, 113). Given that many PBMAs provide equivalent amounts of protein per serving as red meat, and twice that of dried beans (50), protein nutriture is unlikely to be compromised by the inclusion of PBMAs in the diet.
Potential to enhance the nutrient content of PBMAs
PBMAs can be fortified with nutrients such as iron, zinc, selenium, iodine, and vitamin B12 to increase their nutritional similarity to corresponding animal products. The addition of vitamin B12 to these products would be of particular benefit to those consuming plant-based diets, but among the PMBAs listed in Table 1, only one is fortified with this nutrient. Very limited information is available on the bioavailability of added nutrients in PBMAs, although considerable data are available on the absorption of iron from soybeans and from various concentrated sources of soy protein (114). Although the absorption of nonheme iron from plants is lower than the absorption of heme iron from animal products, evidence that vegan diets increase risk of anemia is unimpressive (123). Although speculative, recent evidence suggests vegans absorb iron more efficiently than omnivores (117). PBMAs are likely to be relatively low in inhibitors of mineral absorption, such as fiber, phytate, and polyphenols, but until otherwise shown, it is reasonable to assume that many of these fortificants will be less well-absorbed from PBMAs compared to meat (50, 115, 116). Whether mineral bioavailability is better than or comparable to that of dried beans is unclear, but the potential for nutrient fortification is likely to be an advantage of PBMAs. For example, the iron content per serving of PBMAs is roughly twice that of dried beans (~2.3 mg/100 g cooked) (114) and lean ground beef (Table 1) (117).
The adequate intake for zinc established by the European Food Safety Authority is based on the phytate content of the diet (118), which typically increases as the diet contains more plant foods. Manufacturers of PBMAs would be well-advised to consider fortifying their products with zinc. Only one of the PBMAs included in Table 1 is fortified with this mineral (5.5 mg/serving).
Sodium content can be high in PBMAs (44, 119), although these foods may contain more or less sodium than comparable meat products, depending on how much salt is added during meat preparation (12, 13, 120). For individuals on low-sodium diets (≤1,500 mg/d) (121), most PBMAs could not be consumed on a daily basis. However, the nutrient composition of PBMAs varies markedly and consumers who limit dietary sodium can be guided toward lower-sodium products. Furthermore, there are often reformulations aimed at improving nutrient content. For example, Impossible Foods now has a “lite” version of their burger which is much lower in saturated fat and Beyond Meat recently switched from using coconut oil to avocado oil in their burger, which markedly reduced its saturated fat content. Although some PBMAs may still be relatively high in saturated fat, the amounts are not higher than what would be found in lean ground beef. By working closely with consumers, dietitians can guide the selection of PBMAs that align with individual needs, while ensuring that these foods contribute meaningfully to their diet and promote overall healthy eating patterns. It is important for consumers to understand that there is a large variability in the nutrient content of PBMAs and for this reason, all PBMAs should not be similarly viewed from a health and nutritional perspective.
Discussion
As discussed, in recent years several criticisms about the role of PBMAs in a healthy diet have been raised. Notable among them is that these products are Nova-classified as UPFs. However, although in most instances UPFs are designed to displace more healthful foods in the diet, such as chicken nuggets for the replacement of chicken, an argument can be made that in the case of PBMAs, they are displacing a less healthful food, as red meat is linked with an increased risk of several chronic diseases. Collectively, evidence indicates that PBMAs are a healthful option for increasing plant protein intake. They may also serve as a gateway to more plant-focused diets, which may result in greater consumption of whole plant foods. From a practical perspective, the replacement of meat with a PBMA may be easier and cause less cognitive dissonance than replacing meat with tofu, beans, or lentils. Because PBMAs can be fortified, there is the potential for these products to more closely match the nutrient content of the foods they are intended to replace compared to dried beans consumed in the traditional manner.
Increasingly, PBMAs are incorporating a variety of legumes and ingredient derivatives that provide consumers with nutrient-dense products with a favorable sensory experience. Therefore, PBMAs can potentially aid in the transition to the long-term adoption of more plant-based dietary patterns. Nevertheless, the popularity of PBMAs suggests the need for research aimed at better understanding their health effects. It is important that dietary intake instruments accurately assess the intake of different types of PBMAs so more insight from observational studies can be gained and for longer-term RCTs involving PBMAs to be conducted.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.
Author contributions
VM: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. NSG: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. AMD: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. ARM: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. JN: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MR: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AJG: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. TW: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. CPFM: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MM: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. The publication work was supported by Soy Nutrition Institute Global, which receives funding from the United Soybean Board.
Conflict of interest
AMD is a scientific advisor for Soy Nutrition Institute Global. AJG has received travel support and/or honoraria from the University of Toronto, Good Food Institute, Vinasoy, and the British Nutrition Society. CPFM is currently employed by Protein Industries Canada and a former employee of Pulse Canada and Kellogg Canada. JN is the executive director of Vegan Outreach Inc., a nonprofit organization that advocates for vegan diets. Some funders of Vegan Outreach have invested in companies producing plant-based meats. MM is an employee of Soy Nutrition Institute Global which receives funding from the United Soybean Board. VM was employed by Nutrition Matters, Inc. TW owns Taylor Wolfram PLLC.
Generative AI statement
The authors declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Abbreviations
CVD, cardiovascular disease; EPIC, European Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition; LTC, leukocyte telomere length; LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; NHANES, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey; PBMA, plant-based meat alternatives; RDNs, registered dietitian nutritionists; TVP, textured vegetable protein; TMAO, trimethylamine-N-oxide; T2D, type 2 diabetes; UPFs, ultra-processed foods.
References
1. Zhao, S, Wang, L, Hu, W, and Zheng, Y. Meet the meatless: demand for new generation plant-based meat alternatives. Appl econ Perspect policy. (2023) 45:4–21. doi: 10.1002/aepp.13232
2. Gonzales, GE, Berry, C, Meng, MD, and Leary, RB. Identifying and addressing the “health halo” surrounding plant-based meat alternatives in limited-information environments. J Public Policy Mark. (2023) 42:242–61. doi: 10.1177/07439156221150919
3. Zhang, Q, Liu, Y, He, C, Zhu, R, Li, M, Lam, H-M, et al. Nutritional assessment of plant-based meat products available on Hong Kong market: a cross-sectional survey. Nutrients. (2023) 15:684. doi: 10.3390/nu15173684
4. Moonaisur, N, Marx-Pienaar, N, and de Kock, HL. Plant-based meat alternatives in South Africa: an analysis of products on supermarket shelves. Food Sci Nutr. (2024) 12:627–37. doi: 10.1002/fsn3.3765
5. Grea, C, Dittmann, A, Wolff, D, Werner, R, Turban, C, Roser, S, et al. Comparison of the declared nutrient content of plant-based meat substitutes and corresponding meat products and sausages in Germany. Nutrients. (2023) 15:3864. doi: 10.3390/nu15183864
6. Petersen, T, and Hirsch, S. Comparing meat and meat alternatives: an analysis of nutrient quality in five European countries. Public Health Nutr. (2023) 26:3349–58. doi: 10.1017/s1368980023001945
7. Pointke, M, and Pawelzik, E. Plant-based alternative products: are they healthy alternatives? Micro- and macronutrients and nutritional scoring. Nutrients. (2022) 14:601. doi: 10.3390/nu14030601
8. Cutroneo, S, Angelino, D, Tedeschi, T, Pellegrini, N, and Martini, DGroup SYW. Nutritional quality of meat analogues: results from the food labelling of Italian products (FLIP) project. Front Nutr. (2022) 9:852831. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2022.852831
9. Mertens, E, Deriemaeker, P, and Van Beneden, K. Analysis of the nutritional composition of ready-to-use meat alternatives in Belgium. Nutrients. (2024) 16:1648. doi: 10.3390/nu16111648
10. Coffey, AA, Lillywhite, R, and Oyebode, O. Meat versus meat alternatives: which is better for the environment and health? A nutritional and environmental analysis of animal-based products compared with their plant-based alternatives. J Hum Nutr Diet. (2023) 36:2147–56. doi: 10.1111/jhn.13219
11. Guess, N, Klatt, K, Wei, D, Williamson, E, Ulgenalp, I, Trinidade, O, et al. A cross-sectional analysis of products marketed as plant-based across the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada using online nutrition information. Curr Dev Nutr. (2023) 7:100059. doi: 10.1016/j.cdnut.2023.100059
12. Alessandrini, R, Brown, MK, Pombo-Rodrigues, S, Bhageerutty, S, He, FJ, and MacGregor, GA. Nutritional quality of plant-based meat products available in the UK: a cross-sectional survey. Nutrients. (2021) 13:225. doi: 10.3390/nu13124225
13. Yeo, MTY, Bi, X, and Henry, CJ. Are plant-based meat analogues richer in minerals than their meat counterparts? Food and Humanity. (2023) 1:670–4. doi: 10.1016/j.foohum.2023.07.006
14. Costa-Catala, J, Toro-Funes, N, Comas-Baste, O, Hernández-Macias, S, Sánchez-Pérez, S, Latorre-Moratalla, ML, et al. Comparative assessment of the nutritional profile of meat products and their plant-based analogues. Nutrients. (2023) 15:2807. doi: 10.3390/nu15122807
15. Rizzolo-Brime, L, Orta-Ramirez, A, Puyol Martin, Y, and Jakszyn, P. Nutritional assessment of plant-based meat alternatives: a comparison of nutritional information of plant-based meat alternatives in Spanish supermarkets. Nutrients. (2023) 15:1325. doi: 10.3390/nu15061325
16. Rodriguez-Martin, NM, Cordoba, P, Sarria, B, Verardo, V, Pedroche, J, Alcalá-Santiago, Á, et al. Characterizing meat- and milk/dairy-like vegetarian foods and their counterparts based on nutrient profiling and food labels. Food Secur. (2023) 12:1151. doi: 10.3390/foods12061151
17. Young, L, Mackay, S, and Bradbury, KE. Nutrient content and cost of canned and dried legumes and plant-based meat analogues available in New Zealand supermarkets. Nutr Diet. (2023) 80:472–83. doi: 10.1111/1747-0080.12834
18. Lee, JJ, Srebot, S, Ahmed, M, Mulligan, C, Hu, G, and L'Abbe, MR. Nutritional quality and price of plant-based dairy and meat analogs in the Canadian food supply system. J Food Sci. (2023) 88:3594–606. doi: 10.1111/1750-3841.16691
19. Melville, H, Shahid, M, Gaines, A, McKenzie, BL, Alessandrini, R, Trieu, K, et al. The nutritional profile of plant-based meat analogues available for sale in Australia. Nutr Diet. (2023) 80:211–22. doi: 10.1111/1747-0080.12793
20. Katidi, A, Xypolitaki, K, Vlassopoulos, A, and Kapsokefalou, M. Nutritional quality of plant-based meat and dairy imitation products and comparison with animal-based counterparts. Nutrients. (2023) 15:401. doi: 10.3390/nu15020401
21. Harnack, L, Mork, S, Valluri, S, Weber, C, Schmitz, K, Stevenson, J, et al. Nutrient composition of a selection of plant-based ground beef alternative products available in the United States. J Acad Nutr Diet. (2021) 121:2401–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2021.05.002
22. Cole, E, Goeler-Slough, N, Cox, A, and Nolden, A. Examination of the nutritional composition of alternative beef burgers available in the United States. Int J Food Sci Nutr. (2022) 73:425–32. doi: 10.1080/09637486.2021.2010035
23. Huybers, S, and Roodenburg, AJC. Cross-sectional study to map nutritional quality of meat, fish, and dairy alternatives in Dutch supermarkets according to the Dutch food-based dietary guidelines and Nutri-score. Food Secur. (2023) 12:738. doi: 10.3390/foods12091738
24. Lou, KJQ, Rajaram, NN, and Say, YH. Availability, price and nutritional assessment of plant-based meat alternatives in hypermarkets and supermarkets in Petaling, the most populated district in Malaysia. PLoS One. (2024) 19:e0309507. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0309507
25. Bryngelsson, S, Moshtaghian, H, Bianchi, M, and Hallstrom, E. Nutritional assessment of plant-based meat analogues on the Swedish market. Int J Food Sci Nutr. (2022) 73:1. doi: 10.1080/09637486.2022.2078286
26. Zhang, T, Dou, W, Zhang, X, Zhao, Y, Zhang, Y, Jiang, L, et al. The development history and recent updates on soy protein-based meat alternatives. Trends Food Sci Technol. (2021) 109:702. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2021.01.060
27. Bachmann, B.. "The Battle Creek Diet System”: A pamphlet and birth of the fake meat industry. (2020). Available online at: https://blogs.loc.gov/inside_adams/2020/02/battle-creek-diet-fake-meat/ (Accessed January 16, 2025).
28. Whorton, JC. Historical development of vegetarianism. Am J Clin Nutr. (1994) 59:1103S–9S. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/59.5.1103s
29. Smith, AK. The history of the veggie burger. Smithsonian Magazine. (2014) Available online at: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/history-veggie-burger-180950163 (Accessed January 6, 2021).
30. Broad, GM. Making meat, better: the metaphors of plant-based and cell-based meat innovation. Environ Commun. (2020) 14:919–32. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2020.1725085
31. Lurie-Luke, E. Alternative protein sources: science powered startups to fuel food innovation. Nat Commun. (2024) 15:4425. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-47091-0
32. Willett, W, Rockstrom, J, Loken, B, Springmann, M, Lang, T, Vermeulen, S, et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-lancet commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet. (2019) 393:447–92. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(18)31788-4
33. Gibbs, J, and Cappuccio, FP. Plant-based dietary patterns for human and planetary health. Nutrients. (2022) 14:1614. doi: 10.3390/nu14081614
34. Song, M, Fung, TT, Hu, FB, Willett, WC, Longo, VD, Chan, AT, et al. Association of animal and plant protein intake with all-cause and cause-specific mortality. JAMA Intern Med. (2016) 176:1453–63. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.4182
35. Al-Shaar, L, Satija, A, Wang, DD, Rimm, EB, Smith-Warner, SA, Stampfer, MJ, et al. Red meat intake and risk of coronary heart disease among US men: prospective cohort study. BMJ. (2020) 371:m4141. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m4141
36. Naghshi, S, Sadeghi, O, Willett, WC, and Esmaillzadeh, A. Dietary intake of total, animal, and plant proteins and risk of all cause, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. BMJ. (2020) 370:m2412. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m2412
37. Food and Agriculture of the United Nations/World Health Organization. Codex General Standard for Soy Protein Products, Codex Standard 175–1989. Adopted in 1989. Rome, Italy: Codex Alimentarius (2019). 2022 p.
38. Messina, M, Sievenpiper, JL, Williamson, P, Kiel, J, and Erdman, JW. Perspective: soy-based meat and dairy alternatives, despite classification as ultra-processed foods, deliver high-quality nutrition on par with unprocessed or minimally processed animal-based counterparts. Adv Nutr. (2022) 13:726–38. doi: 10.1093/advances/nmac026
39. de Las Heras-Delgado, S, Shyam, S, Cunillera, E, Dragusan, N, Salas-Salvado, J, and Babio, N. Are plant-based alternatives healthier? A two-dimensional evaluation from nutritional and processing standpoints. Food Res Int. (2023) 169:112857. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2023.112857
40. Romao, B, Botelho, RBA, Torres, ML, DDC, M, de Holanda, M, Borges, V, et al. Nutritional profile of commercialized plant-based meat: an integrative review with a systematic approach. Food Secur. (2023) 12:448. doi: 10.3390/foods12030448
41. Pasiakos, SM, Agarwal, S, Lieberman, HR, and Fulgoni, VL. Sources and amounts of animal, dairy, and plant protein intake of US adults in 2007-2010. Nutrients. (2015) 7:7058–69. doi: 10.3390/nu7085322
42. Halkjaer, J, Olsen, A, Bjerregaard, LJ, Deharveng, G, Tjønneland, A, Welch, AA, et al. Intake of total, animal and plant proteins, and their food sources in 10 countries in the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition. Eur J Clin Nutr. (2009) 63:S16–36. doi: 10.1038/ejcn.2009.73
43. Glenn, AJ, Wang, F, Tessier, AJ, Manson, JAE, Rimm, EB, Mukamal, KJ, et al. Dietary plant-to-animal protein ratio and risk of cardiovascular disease in 3 prospective cohorts. Am J Clin Nutr. (2024) 120:1373–86. doi: 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2024.09.006
44. Messina, M, Duncan, AM, Glenn, AJ, and Mariotti, F. Perspective: plant-based meat alternatives can help facilitate and maintain a lower animal to plant protein intake ratio. Adv Nutr. (2023) 14:392–405. doi: 10.1016/j.advnut.2023.03.003
45. Kadyan, S, Sharma, A, Arjmandi, BH, Singh, P, and Nagpal, R. Prebiotic potential of dietary beans and pulses and their resistant starch for aging-associated gut and metabolic health. Nutrients. (2022) 14:14. doi: 10.3390/nu14091726
46. Alcazar-Valle, M, Lugo-Cervantes, E, Mojica, L, Morales-Hernández, N, Reyes-Ramírez, H, Enríquez-Vara, JN, et al. Bioactive compounds, antioxidant activity, and antinutritional content of legumes: a comparison between four Phaseolus species. Molecules. (2020) 25:528. doi: 10.3390/molecules25153528
47. Messina, M, Lampe, JW, Birt, DF, Appel, LJ, Pivonka, E, Berry, B, et al. Reductionism and the narrowing nutrition perspective: time for reevaluation and emphasis on food synergy. J Am Diet Assoc. (2001) 101:1416–9. doi: 10.1016/S0002-8223(01)00342-X
48. Jacobs, DR Jr, and Tapsell, LC. Food, not nutrients, is the fundamental unit in nutrition. Nutr Rev. (2007) 65:439–50. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2007.tb00269.x
49. Messina, V. Nutritional and health benefits of dried beans. Am J Clin Nutr. (2014) 100:437S–42S. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.113.071472
50. Marinangeli, CPF, Curran, J, Barr, SI, Slavin, J, Puri, S, Swaminathan, S, et al. Enhancing nutrition with pulses: defining a recommended serving size for adults. Nutr Rev. (2017) 75:990–1006. doi: 10.1093/nutrit/nux058
51. Drewnowski, A, and Rehm, CD. Vegetable cost metrics show that potatoes and beans provide most nutrients per penny. PLoS One. (2013) 8:e63277. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0063277
52. Harwatt, HS, Eshel, G, Soret, S, and Ripple, W. Substituting beans for beef as a contribution toward US climate change targets. Clim Chang. (2017) 143:262–70. doi: 10.1007/s10584-017-1969-1
53. Carey, CN, Paquette, M, Sahye-Pudaruth, S, Dadvar, A, Dinh, D, Khodabandehlou, K, et al. The environmental sustainability of plant-based dietary patterns: a scoping review. J Nutr. (2023) 153:857–69. doi: 10.1016/j.tjnut.2023.02.001
54. Mullins, AP, and Arjmandi, BH. Health benefits of plant-based nutrition: focus on beans in cardiometabolic diseases. Nutrients. (2021) 13:13. doi: 10.3390/nu13020519
55. Becerra-Tomas, N, Papandreou, C, and Salas-Salvado, J. Legume consumption and cardiometabolic health. Adv Nutr. (2019) 10:S437–50. doi: 10.1093/advances/nmz003
56. Zhao, N, Jiao, K, Chiu, YH, and Wallace, TC. Pulse consumption and health outcomes: a scoping review. Nutrients. (2024) 16:16. doi: 10.3390/nu16101435
57. Kaimila, Y, Olotu, OA, Clegg, ME, Jackson, KG, and Lovegrove, JA. Pulse and legume consumption is associated with a more optimal nutrient intake and a higher EAT-lancet index in a representative UK population. Eur J Nutr. (2025) 64:139. doi: 10.1007/s00394-025-03611-2
58. Mitchell, DC, Marinangeli, CPF, Pigat, S, Bompola, F, Campbell, J, Pan, Y, et al. Pulse intake improves nutrient density among US adult consumers. Nutrients. (2021) 13:13. doi: 10.3390/nu13082668
59. Shan, Z, Rehm, CD, Rogers, G, Ruan, M, Wang, DD, Hu, FB, et al. Trends in dietary carbohydrate, protein, and fat intake and diet quality among US adults, 1999-2016. JAMA. (2019) 322:1178–87. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.13771
60. Perera, T, Russo, C, Takata, Y, and Bobe, G. Legume consumption patterns in US adults: national health and nutrition examination survey (NHANES) 2011-2014 and beans, lentils, peas (BLP) 2017 survey. Nutrients. (2020) 12:1237. doi: 10.3390/nu12051237
61. Tao, MH, Liu, JL, and Nguyen, UDT. Trends in diet quality by race/ethnicity among adults in the United States for 2011-2018. Nutrients. (2022) 14:1–12. doi: 10.3390/nu14194178
62. Orlich, MJ, Jaceldo-Siegl, K, Sabate, J, Fan, J, Singh, PN, and Fraser, GE. Patterns of food consumption among vegetarians and non-vegetarians. Br J Nutr. (2014) 112:1644–53. doi: 10.1017/s000711451400261x
63. Rolands, MR, Hackl, LS, Bochud, M, and Le, KA. Protein adequacy, plant protein proportion and main plant protein sources consumed across vegan, vegetarian, pesco-vegetarian and semi-vegetarian diets: a systematic review. J Nutr. (2024) 155:153. doi: 10.1016/j.tjnut.2024.07.033
64. Whittall, B, Warwick, SM, Jackson, M, and Appleton, KM. Barriers and facilitators to consuming pulses: a qualitative exploration including effects of trying recipes at home. J Nutr Sci. (2024) 13:e6. doi: 10.1017/jns.2023.119
65. Sinclair, M, Combet, E, Davis, T, and Papies, EK. Sustainability in food-based dietary guidelines: a review of recommendations around meat and dairy consumption and their visual representation. Ann Med. (2025) 57:2470252. doi: 10.1080/07853890.2025.2470252
66. Kwasny, T, Dobernig, K, and Riefler, P. Towards reduced meat consumption: a systematic literature review of intervention effectiveness, 2001-2019. Appetite. (2022) 168:105739. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2021.105739
67. Sogari, G, Caputo, V, Joshua Petterson, A, Mora, C, and Boukid, F. A sensory study on consumer valuation for plant-based meat alternatives: what is liked and disliked the most? Food Res Int. (2023) 169:112813. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2023.112813
68. Tso, R, and Forde, CG. Unintended consequences: nutritional impact and potential pitfalls of switching from animal- to plant-based foods. Nutrients. (2021) 13:527. doi: 10.3390/nu13082527
69. Hu, FB, Otis, BO, and McCarthy, G. Can plant-based meat alternatives be part of a healthy and sustainable diet? JAMA. (2019) 322:1547–8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.13187
70. Grosso, G. A pinch too much: the sodium price of plant-based analogues. Int J Food Sci Nutr. (2025) 76:1–3. doi: 10.1080/09637486.2025.2510345
71. Robinson, E, Cummings, JR, Gough, T, Jones, A, and Evans, R. Consumer awareness, perceptions and avoidance of ultra-processed foods: a study of UK adults in 2024. Food Secur. (2024) 13:317. doi: 10.3390/foods13152317
72. Monteiro, CA, Cannon, G, Levy, R, Moubarac, J-C, Jaime, P, and Martins, AP. NOVA. The star shines bright. [Food classification. Public health]. World Nutr. (2016) 7:28–38. Available at: https://www.worldnutritionjournal.org/index.php/wn/article/view/5
73. Haneberg, J, Molin, M, Gjeitung Byfuglien, M, and Garnweidner-Holme, L. Vegetarians' and vegans' experiences with and attitudes towards ultra-processed foods (UPF): a qualitative study. BMC Nutr. (2024) 10:121. doi: 10.1186/s40795-024-00925-y
74. Barbaresko, J, Broder, J, Conrad, J, Szczerba, E, Lang, A, and Schlesinger, S. Ultra-processed food consumption and human health: an umbrella review of systematic reviews with meta-analyses. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. (2024) 65:877. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2024.2317877
75. Lane, MM, Gamage, E, Du, S, Ashtree, DN, AJ, MG, Gauci, S, et al. Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses. BMJ. (2024) 384:e077310. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2023-077310
76. Lv, JL, Wei, YF, Sun, JN, Shi, Y-C, Liu, F-H, Sun, M-H, et al. Ultra-processed food consumption and metabolic disease risk: an umbrella review of systematic reviews with meta-analyses of observational studies. Front Nutr. (2024) 11:1306310. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2024.1306310
77. Wang, Z, Lu, C, Cui, L, Fenfen, E, Shang, W, Song, G, et al. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and multiple health outcomes: an umbrella study of meta-analyses. Food Chem. (2024) 434:137460. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2023.137460
78. Dai, S, Wellens, J, Yang, N, Li, D, Wang, J, Wang, L, et al. Ultra-processed foods and human health: an umbrella review and updated meta-analyses of observational evidence. Clin Nutr. (2024) 43:1386–94. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2024.04.016
79. Collier, ES, Harris, KL, Bendtsen, M, Moshtaghian, H, Bryngelsson, S, and Niimi, J. Perceptions of processed foods as unhealthy: heuristic strength, prevalence, and potential implications for the protein shift. Fut Foods. (2024) 10:100445. doi: 10.1016/j.fufo.2024.100445
80. Lamore, K, Fournier, V, Cervenka, I, Srour, B, and Foucaud, J. Is diet perceived as a cancer risk factor? Lay perceptions in a representative French sample. Cancer Med. (2025) 14:e70944. doi: 10.1002/cam4.70944
81. Barrett, EM, Gaines, A, Coyle, DH, Pettigrew, S, Shahid, M, Maganja, D, et al. Comparing product healthiness according to the health star rating and the NOVA classification system and implications for food labelling systems: an analysis of 25 486 products in Australia. Nutr Bull. (2023) 48:523. doi: 10.1111/nbu.12640
82. Baldridge, AS, Huffman, MD, Taylor, F, Xavier, D, Bright, B, Van Horn, LV, et al. The healthfulness of the US packaged food and beverage supply: a cross-sectional study. Nutrients. (2019) 11:704. doi: 10.3390/nu11081704
83. Barrett, EM, Shi, P, Blumberg, JB, O'Hearn, M, Micha, R, and Mozaffarian, D. Food compass 2.0 is an improved nutrient profiling system to characterize healthfulness of foods and beverages. Nat Food. (2024) 5:911–5. doi: 10.1038/s43016-024-01053-3
84. Erlich, MN, Ghidanac, D, Blanco Mejia, S, Khan, TA, Chiavaroli, L, Zurbau, A, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials of substituting soymilk for cow's milk and intermediate cardiometabolic outcomes: understanding the impact of dairy alternatives in the transition to plant-based diets on cardiometabolic health. BMC Med. (2024) 22:336. doi: 10.1186/s12916-024-03524-7
85. Cordova, R, Viallon, V, Fontvieille, E, Peruchet-Noray, L, Jansana, A, Wagner, K-H, et al. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and risk of multimorbidity of cancer and cardiometabolic diseases: a multinational cohort study. Lancet Reg Health. (2023) 35:100771. doi: 10.1016/j.lanepe.2023.100771
86. Chen, Z, Khandpur, N, Desjardins, C, Wang, L, Monteiro, CA, Rossato, SL, et al. Ultra-processed food consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: three large prospective U.S. cohort studies. Diabetes Care. (2023) 46:1335–44. doi: 10.2337/dc22-1993
87. Mendoza, K, Smith-Warner, SA, Rossato, SL, Khandpur, N, Manson, JAE, Qi, L, et al. Ultra-processed foods and cardiovascular disease: analysis of three large US prospective cohorts and a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Lancet Reg Health. (2024) 37:100859. doi: 10.1016/j.lana.2024.100859
88. Dicken, SJ, Dahm, CC, Ibsen, DB, Olsen, A, Tjønneland, A, Louati-Hajji, M, et al. Food consumption by degree of food processing and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a prospective cohort analysis of the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition (EPIC). Lancet Reg Health. (2024) 46:101043. doi: 10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.101043
89. Li, C, Zhang, Y, Zhang, K, Fu, H, Lin, L, Cai, G, et al. Association between ultra-processed food consumption and leucocyte telomere length: a cross-sectional study of UK biobank. J Nutr. (2024) 154:3060–9. doi: 10.1016/j.tjnut.2024.05.001
90. Rauber, F, da Costa, L, Louzada, M, Chang, K, Huybrechts, I, Gunter, M, et al. Implications of food ultra-processing on cardiovascular risk considering plant origin foods: an analysis of the UK biobank cohort. Lancet Reg Health Eur. (2024) 43:100948. doi: 10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.100948
91. Crimarco, A, Springfield, S, Petlura, C, Streaty, T, Cunanan, K, Lee, J, et al. A randomized crossover trial on the effect of plant-based compared with animal-based meat on trimethylamine-N-oxide and cardiovascular disease risk factors in generally healthy adults: study with appetizing plantfood-meat eating alternative trial (SWAP-MEAT). Am J Clin Nutr. (2020) 112:1188–99. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqaa203
92. Toh, DWK, Fu, AS, Mehta, KA, Lam, NYL, Haldar, S, and Henry, CJ. Plant-based meat analogs and their effects on cardiometabolic health: an 8-week randomized controlled trial comparing plant-based meat analogs with their corresponding animal-based foods. Am J Clin Nutr. (2024) 119:6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2024.04.006
93. Roberts, AK, Busque, V, Robinson, JL, Landry, MJ, and Gardner, CD. Swap-MEAT athlete (study with appetizing plant-food, meat eating alternatives trial)—investigating the impact of three different diets on recreational athletic performance: a randomized crossover trial. Nutr J. (2022) 21:69. doi: 10.1186/s12937-022-00820-x
94. Ward, CP, Landry, MJ, Cunanan, KM, Raphael, KL, Dant, CC, Gardner, CD, et al. Urinary response to consuming plant-based meat alternatives in persons with normal kidney function: the SWAP-MEAT pilot trial. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. (2024) 19:1417–25. doi: 10.2215/CJN.0000000000000532
95. Crimarco, A, Landry, MJ, Carter, MM, and Gardner, CD. Assessing the effects of alternative plant-based meats v. animal meats on biomarkers of inflammation: a secondary analysis of the SWAP-MEAT randomized crossover trial. J Nutr Sci. (2022) 11:e82. doi: 10.1017/jns.2022.84
96. Messina, M, Duncan, A, Messina, V, Lynch, H, Kiel, J, and Erdman, JW Jr. The health effects of soy: a reference guide for health professionals. Front Nutr. (2022) 9:970364. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2022.970364
97. Jenkins, DJ, Kendall, CW, Vidgen, E, Augustin, LSA, van Erk, M, Geelen, A, et al. High-protein diets in hyperlipidemia: effect of wheat gluten on serum lipids, uric acid, and renal function. Am J Clin Nutr. (2001) 74:57–63. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/74.1.57
98. Ge, J, Sun, CX, Corke, H, Gul, K, Gan, RY, and Fang, Y. The health benefits, functional properties, modifications, and applications of pea (Pisum sativum L.) protein: current status, challenges, and perspectives. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf. (2020) 19:1835–76. doi: 10.1111/1541-4337.12573
99. Zhang, Y, Chadaideh, KS, Li, Y, Gu, X, Liu, Y, Guasch-Ferré, M, et al. Butter and plant-based oils intake and mortality. JAMA Intern Med. (2025) 185:205. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2025.0205
100. Drakpa, D, Paul, T, Chakrabarty, S, Jigdrel, K, Mukherjee, P, and Gupta, J. Avocado oil: recent advances in its anti-diabetic potential. Curr Med Sci. (2025) 45:10. doi: 10.1007/s11596-025-00010-w
101. Li, C, Bishop, TRP, Imamura, F, Sharp, SJ, Pearce, M, Brage, S, et al. Meat consumption and incident type 2 diabetes: an individual-participant federated meta-analysis of 1.97 million adults with 100 000 incident cases from 31 cohorts in 20 countries. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. (2024) 12:619–30. doi: 10.1016/s2213-8587(24)00179-7
102. Shi, W, Huang, X, Schooling, CM, and Zhao, JV. Red meat consumption, cardiovascular diseases, and diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Heart J. (2023) 44:2626–35. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehad336
103. Poorolajal, J, Mohammadi, Y, Fattahi-Darghlou, M, and Almasi-Moghadam, F. The association between major gastrointestinal cancers and red and processed meat and fish consumption: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the observational studies. PLoS One. (2024) 19:e0305994. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0305994
104. Di, Y, Ding, L, Gao, L, and Huang, H. Association of meat consumption with the risk of gastrointestinal cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. (2023) 23:782. doi: 10.1186/s12885-023-11218-1
105. Springmann, M. A multicriteria analysis of meat and milk alternatives from nutritional, health, environmental, and cost perspectives. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. (2024) 121:e2319010121. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2319010121
106. Hughes, GJ, Ryan, DJ, Mukherjea, R, and Schasteen, CS. Protein digestibility-corrected amino acid scores (PDCAAS) for soy protein isolates and concentrate: criteria for evaluation. J Agric Food Chem. (2011) 59:12707–12. doi: 10.1021/jf203220v
107. Mathai, JK, Liu, Y, and Stein, HH. Values for digestible indispensable amino acid scores (DIAAS) for some dairy and plant proteins may better describe protein quality than values calculated using the concept for protein digestibility-corrected amino acid scores (PDCAAS). Br J Nutr. (2017) 117:490–9. doi: 10.1017/s0007114517000125
108. Rutherfurd, SM, Fanning, AC, Miller, BJ, and Moughan, PJ. Protein digestibility-corrected amino acid scores and digestible indispensable amino acid scores differentially describe protein quality in growing male rats. J Nutr. (2015) 145:372–9. doi: 10.3945/jn.114.195438
109. Arentson-Lantz, EJ, Von Ruff, Z, Connolly, G, Albano, F, Kilroe, SP, Wacher, A, et al. Meals containing equivalent total protein from foods providing complete, complementary, or incomplete essential amino acid profiles do not differentially affect 24-h skeletal muscle protein synthesis in healthy, middle-aged women. J Nutr. (2024) 154:3626–38. doi: 10.1016/j.tjnut.2024.10.010
110. Askow, AT, Barnes, TM, Zupancic, Z, Deutz, MT, KJM, P, CF, MK, et al. Impact of vegan diets on resistance exercise-mediated myofibrillar protein synthesis in healthy young males and females: a randomized controlled trial. Med Sci Sports Exerc. (2025) 4:375. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000003725
111. Morton, RW, Murphy, KT, McKellar, SR, Schoenfeld, BJ, Henselmans, M, Helms, E, et al. A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of the effect of protein supplementation on resistance training-induced gains in muscle mass and strength in healthy adults. Br J Sports Med. (2018) 52:376–84. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2017-097608
112. Fanelli, NS, Bailey, HM, Thompson, TW, Delmore, R, Nair, MN, and Stein, HH. Digestible indispensable amino acid score (DIAAS) is greater in animal-based burgers than in plant-based burgers if determined in pigs. Eur J Nutr. (2022) 61:461–75. doi: 10.1007/s00394-021-02658-1
113. Reynaud, Y, Buffiere, C, Cohade, B, Vauris, M, Liebermann, K, Hafnaoui, N, et al. True ileal amino acid digestibility and digestible indispensable amino acid scores (DIAASs) of plant-based protein foods. Food Chem. (2020) 338:128020. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.128020
114. Hackl, LS, Moretti, D, and Sabatier, M. Absorption of iron naturally present in soy. Adv Nutr. (2025) 16:100396. doi: 10.1016/j.advnut.2025.100396
115. Najera Espinosa, S, Hadida, G, Jelmar Sietsma, A, Alae-Carew, C, Turner, G, Green, R, et al. Mapping the evidence of novel plant-based foods: a systematic review of nutritional, health, and environmental impacts in high-income countries. Nutr Rev. (2024) 83:31. doi: 10.1093/nutrit/nuae031
116. da Silva, VT, Mateus, N, de Freitas, V, and Fernandes, A. Plant-based meat analogues: exploring proteins, fibers and polyphenolic compounds as functional ingredients for future food solutions. Food Secur. (2024) 13:303. doi: 10.3390/foods13142303
117. Lopez-Moreno, M, Vina, I, Marrero-Fernandez, P, Galiana, C, Bertotti, G, Roldán‐Ruiz, A, et al. Dietary adaptation of non-heme iron absorption in vegans: a controlled trial. Mol Nutr Food Res. (2025) 69:e70096. doi: 10.1002/mnfr.70096
118. Gibson, RS, Raboy, V, and King, JC. Implications of phytate in plant-based foods for iron and zinc bioavailability, setting dietary requirements, and formulating programs and policies. Nutr Rev. (2018) 76:793–804. doi: 10.1093/nutrit/nuy028
119. Biscotti, P, Angelino, D, Del Bo, C, Strazzullo, P, Chehade, L, Meuren, J, et al. Sodium content of plant-based meat and cheese analogues: comparison with benchmarks proposed by the World Health Organization. Int J Food Sci Nutr. (2025) 76:1–10. doi: 10.1080/09637486.2025.2494156
120. Liaw, CW, Potretzke, AM, Winoker, JS, Matlaga, BR, Lieske, JC, and Koo, K. Dietary assessment of lithogenic factors in plant-based meat products. J Endourol. (2023) 37:119–22. doi: 10.1089/end.2022.0189
121. Salman, E, Kadota, A, and Miura, K. Global guidelines recommendations for dietary sodium and potassium intake. Hypertens Res. (2024) 47:1620–6. doi: 10.1038/s41440-024-01663-1
122. Feinberg, A, Rebholz, CM, Lemaitre, RN, Fretts, AM, Wiggins, K, Sotoodehnia, N, et al. Ultra-processed foods, plant and animal sources, and all-cause, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality in older adults in the united states: results from the cardiovascular health study. Am J Clin Nutr. (2025). doi: 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2025.05.033
Keywords: environment, vegetarian, ultra-processed foods, legumes, plant-based meat
Citation: Messina V, Guest NS, Duncan AM, Mangels AR, Norris J, Ruscigno M, Glenn AJ, Wolfram T, Marinangeli CPF and Messina M (2025) Dietary guidance on plant-based meat alternatives for individuals wanting to increase plant protein intake. Front. Nutr. 12:1641234. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2025.1641234
Edited by:
Gianluca Rizzo, Independent Researcher, Messina, ItalyReviewed by:
Silvia Lisciani, Council for Agricultural Research and Agricultural Economy Analysis (CREA), ItalyRubén Fernández-Rodríguez, Universidad de Granada, Spain
Copyright © 2025 Messina, Guest, Duncan, Mangels, Norris, Ruscigno, Glenn, Wolfram, Marinangeli and Messina. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Virginia Messina, Z2lubnltZXNzaW5hQGdtYWlsLmNvbQ==