Healthiness of meat-based products in comparison to their plant-based alternatives in the UK market: a packaging evaluation

Ciobotaru, Ruxandra, Tas, Ayten Aylin ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5642-939X and Khan, Tabrez Ahmed (2024) Healthiness of meat-based products in comparison to their plant-based alternatives in the UK market: a packaging evaluation. Foods, 13 (21). 3346. ISSN 2304-8158

Preview

Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (1MB) | Preview

Abstract

This study evaluated the healthiness of meat products (n = 62) and their plant-based (PB) counterparts (n = 62) available in the UK market. Back-of-pack (BoP) and front-of-pack (FoP) nutrition label information, nutrition and health claims, and nutrient profiling model scores were compared. BoP labels revealed that meat products had higher protein, fat, and saturated fat content (p = 0.029), whilst PB alternatives were higher in dietary fibre and carbohydrates (p < 0.001). Red colour coding (FoP) for fat and saturated fat (‘high’) was more prominent in meat products (23 and 35%, respectively), and the red meat category had the most products with high fat and saturated fat content. Only 15% of meat products made nutrition claims compared to 40% of PB alternatives, and none included health claims. Most red meat PB alternatives made a nutrition claim, all related to the protein content (34%). The nutrient profiling model indicated that 74% of the PB alternatives were ‘healthy’ compared to 60% of the meat products. No association was found between the product type (meat/PB) and healthiness, except for the red meat products, which showed a significant negative association (p = 0.005), suggesting that these products corresponded to less healthy options. Therefore, PB alternatives can be considered as healthier substitutes for meat products.