Comparative assessment of the nutritional composition and degree of processing of meat products and their plant-based analogues

• Type: Article in International Scientific Journal
• Date: 2024

Authors

Sultan, Laila (Author) FCNAUP; Maganinho, Marta (Author) FCNAUP; Padrão, Patrícia (Author) FCNAUP

Journal

Title: Journal of Food Composition and Analysis

Vol. 133

ISSN: 0889-1575

Publisher: Elsevier

Indexing

Scopus - 0 Citations

Scientific classification

CORDIS: Health sciences

FOS: Medical and Health sciences

Other information

Authenticus ID: P-010-JS0

DOI: 10.1016/j.jfca.2024.106390

Abstract (EN): A cross-sectional study was conducted to compare the nutritional composition and the degree of processing of prepackaged plant-based meat analogues (PBMA) products (n=63) and their meat counterparts (n=153). Labeling data was collected from all the products available for sale in a main retail chain in Portugal. The products were categorized into burgers, meatballs, sausages, smoked sausages, breaded products, and others. Foods were classified by degree of processing using NOVA. Differences in the nutritional composition (energy, total and saturated fat, carbohydrates, sugars, protein, fiber, and salt) overall and across categories were assessed. Compared to meat-based products (MBP), PBMA had a higher median/100 g carbohydrate (9.8 g vs. 3.0 g, p<0.001), sugar (1.6 g vs.0.6 g, p<0.001) and fiber (3.7 g vs.0.6 g, p<0.001) but lower energy (203 kcal vs.220 kcal, p=0.026), fat (9.6 g vs.14.0 g, p<0.001), saturated fat (1.0 g vs.5.4 g, p<0.001) and salt (1.4 g vs.1.7 g, p=0.007). A higher proportion of ultra-processed foods was found among PBMA products (100 % vs. 85.6 %). All PBMA were ultra-processed but with higher fiber content, and lower fat, saturated fat, and salt levels, despite category variations. The differences in nutritional composition underscore that PBMA and MBP should not be considered equivalent alternatives. © 2024

Language: English

Type (Professor's evaluation): Scientific