New research indicates that compared to animal-derived products like burgers and sausages, plant-based meat substitutes are healthier and more environmentally friendly. UK food policy group, the Food Foundation, found that these meatless alternatives generate less greenhouse gas emissions and consume less water in their production. In terms of nutritional value, these alternatives excel as they contain fewer calories, less saturated fat, and more fiber.
The study analysed 68 plant-based products and 36 meat products, such as regular and imitation bacon, chicken nuggets, and meatballs, in terms of their environmental impact, nutrition, and cost. However, the Food Foundation, a British charity campaigning for public access to affordable and nutritious food, found that some “alternative proteins” underperform in nutritional value compared to traditional meat.
Many newly developed meat-free products were found to contain high levels of salt. Additionally, only one-third are fortified with elements like iron and vitamin B12, which are naturally found in meat. The Richmond brand’s meatless sausages, for instance, contain alarmingly high amounts of salt. Rebecca Tobi, the charity’s senior business and investor engagement manager, suggested that producers could modify these products to make them healthier.
Furthermore, the researchers found that plant-based meat substitutes tend to be lower in protein than actual meat. However, Tobi expressed that this is not concerning considering the small difference and the UK population’s already high protein consumption.
This research coincides with the growing market for vegetarian and vegan foods. Despite the shutting down of several plant-based food brands in recent years and a decline in sales in the past year, analysts, including Bloomberg, expect the market to continue growing until 2030. Based on the Green Alliance’s analysis last year, the sector could be worth £6.8bn annually and generate 25,000 jobs in the UK by 2035.
Conducted by the Food Foundation, the examination evaluated a variety of substitute protein sources. These comprised of traditional options like tofu, seitan, and tempeh; processed innovations such as those manufactured by Quorn and Linda McCartney Foods; and less manipulated protein alternatives, particularly beans and grains.
The research drew attention to the fact that non-meat products often command a higher price than their genuine meat counterparts. Plant-based replacements like tofu, Future Farm and THIS brand that tend to be more processed demand a higher price, putting them at a disadvantage despite their environmental advantages. For example, products classified as “new generation” were found to be 73% more expensive per 100g compared to meat, whereas traditional items were found to cost 38% more.
Contrarily, beans and grains appeared as the most health-beneficial, ecologically responsible, and moreover, the most economically priced amongst the four classes of products investigated. They represented a natural protein source and were found to provide the best cost-efficiency in terms of health and environment. Beans and grains carried fewer amounts of saturated fats, calories, and salt, but contained the highest fibre content amongst all products studied. Furthermore, they were labelled as the most economically viable category,” stated the charity. – Guardian.