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.
affordability
greenhouse gas emissions
nutritional analysis
sustainability
Journal
Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association
ISSN: 1365-277X
Titre abrégé: J Hum Nutr Diet
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8904840
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2023
Dec 2023
Historique:
revised:
31
05
2023
received:
02
02
2023
accepted:
13
07
2023
medline:
27
11
2023
pubmed:
3
8
2023
entrez:
3
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Poor diets lead to negative health outcomes, including increased risk of noncommunicable diseases. Food systems, most notably agriculture, contribute to greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) that lead to climate change. Meat consumption plays a role in both health and environmental burden. Consumption of meat alternatives may reduce these harms. The aim was to compare meat products and their plant-based alternatives on nutritional parameters, GHGE and price to examine if it is feasible and beneficial for policymakers and health professionals to recommend meat alternatives. Data on nutritional information and cost for 99 selected products were collected from five UK supermarkets. Estimates for GHGEs for 97 of these products were found through secondary articles. Median values for nutritional value, GHGE (kgCO Meat alternatives contained significantly more fibre and sugar and were significantly higher in price compared to the equivalent meat products. Meat alternatives had a significantly lower number of calories, saturated fat, protein and kgCO Overall, this paper found that meat alternatives are likely to be better for health according to most parameters, while also being more environmentally friendly, with lower GHGEs. However, the higher price of these products may be a barrier to switching to meat alternatives for the poorest in society.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Poor diets lead to negative health outcomes, including increased risk of noncommunicable diseases. Food systems, most notably agriculture, contribute to greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) that lead to climate change. Meat consumption plays a role in both health and environmental burden. Consumption of meat alternatives may reduce these harms. The aim was to compare meat products and their plant-based alternatives on nutritional parameters, GHGE and price to examine if it is feasible and beneficial for policymakers and health professionals to recommend meat alternatives.
METHODS
METHODS
Data on nutritional information and cost for 99 selected products were collected from five UK supermarkets. Estimates for GHGEs for 97 of these products were found through secondary articles. Median values for nutritional value, GHGE (kgCO
RESULTS
RESULTS
Meat alternatives contained significantly more fibre and sugar and were significantly higher in price compared to the equivalent meat products. Meat alternatives had a significantly lower number of calories, saturated fat, protein and kgCO
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, this paper found that meat alternatives are likely to be better for health according to most parameters, while also being more environmentally friendly, with lower GHGEs. However, the higher price of these products may be a barrier to switching to meat alternatives for the poorest in society.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2147-2156Subventions
Organisme : None
Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Dietetic Association.
Références
WHO. Healthy diet. 2020. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/healthy-diet
Vaughan CA, Ghosh-Dastidar M, Dubowitz T. Attitudes and barriers to healthy diet and physical activity: a latent profile analysis. Health Educ Behav. 2018;45(3):393. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5794658/
Afshin A, Sur PJ, Fay KA, Cornaby L, Ferrara G, Salama JS, et al. Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. 2019;393(10184):1958-1972. Available from: http://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140673619300418/fulltext
Haines A. Climate change is a health emergency. 2019. Available from: https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/newsevents/expert-opinion/climate-change-health-emergency
Watts N, Amann M, Arnell N, Ayeb-Karlsson S, Belesova K, Boykoff M, et al. The 2019 report of The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: ensuring that the health of a child born today is not defined by a changing climate. Lancet. 2019;394(10211):1836-1878. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673619325966
Vermeulen SJ, Campbell BM, Ingram JSI. Climate change and food systems. Ann Rev Enviro Res. 2012;37:195-222.
Edenhofer O, Sokona Y, Minx JC, Farahani E, Kadner S, Seyboth K, et al. Climate change 2014 mitigation of climate change. 2014. Available from: www.cambridge.org
Mensah DO, Nunes AR, Bockarie T, Lillywhite R, Oyebode O. Meat, fruit, and vegetable consumption in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Nutr Res. 2021;79(6):651-692. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article/79/6/651/5859427
Godfray HCJ, Aveyard P, Garnett T, Hall JW, Key TJ, Lorimer J, et al. Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science. 2018;361(6399):eaam5324. Available from: https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aam5324
Richi EB, Baumer B, Conrad B, Darioli R, Schmid A, Keller U. Health risks associated with meat consumption: a review of epidemiological studies. Int J Vitam Nutr Res. 2015;85(1-2):70-78. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26780279/
De Smet S, Vossen E. Meat: the balance between nutrition and health. A review. Meat Sci. 2016;120:145-156.
NHS. Red meat and the risk of bowel cancer. 2021. Available from: https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/red-meat-and-the-risk-of-bowel-cancer/
World Cancer Research Fund. Limit red and processed meat. American Institute for Cancer Research. 2018. Available from: https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer/limit-red-and-processed-meat/
Ismail I, Hwang Y-H, Joo S-T. Meat analog as future food: a review. J Anim Sci Technol. 2020;62(2):120. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7142285/
Khandpur N, Martinez-Steele E, Sun Q. Plant-based meat and dairy substitutes as appropriate alternatives to animal-based products? J Nutr. 2021;151(1):3-4. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/151/1/3/6029136
Vegan-Society. Statistics. 2019. Available from: https://www.vegansociety.com/news/media/statistics
McGowan L, Pot GK, Stephen AM, Lavelle F, Spence M, Raats M, et al. The influence of socio-demographic, psychological and knowledge-related variables alongside perceived cooking and food skills abilities in the prediction of diet quality in adults: a nationally representative cross-sectional study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2016;13(111):111.
Parker HW, Vadiveloo MK. Diet quality of vegetarian diets compared with nonvegetarian diets: a systematic review. Nutr Res. 2019;77(3):144-160. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article/77/3/144/5280773
Dinu M, Abbate R, Gensini GF, Casini A, Sofi F. Vegetarian, vegan diets and multiple health outcomes: a systematic review with meta-analysis of observational studies. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2017;57(17):3640-3649. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10408398.2016.1138447
Aleksandrowicz L, Green R, Joy EJM, Smith P, Haines A. The impacts of dietary change on greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use, and health: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2016;11(11):e0165797.
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(5):1188-1199. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7657338/
Willett W, Rockström 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;393:447-492.
Gibbs J, Leung G-K. The effect of plant-based and mycoprotein-based meat substitute consumption on cardiometabolic risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled intervention trials. Dietetics. 2023;2(1):104-122.
Moss R. Why is plant-based “meat” so damn expensive? Huffington Post. 2021. Available from: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/why-is-plant-based-meat-so-damn-expensive_uk_609d46c4e4b014bd0ca917a1
Rosenberg L. Plant-based meat prices are about to drop - but why was it expensive in the first place? Green Matters. 2020. Available from: https://www.greenmatters.com/p/why-is-plant-based-meat-so-expensive
YouGov. The most popular supermarket chains in the UK. 2019. Available from: https://yougov.co.uk/ratings/food/popularity/supermarket-chains/all
Augusto Monteiro C, Cannon G, da Costa Louzada ML, Pereira Machado P. Ultra-processed foods, diet quality, and health using the NOVA classification system. Rome. 2019.
Poore J, Nemecek T. Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science. 2018;360(6392):987-992.
Fresán U, Mejia MA, Craig WJ, Jaceldo-Siegl K, Sabaté J. Meat analogs from different protein sources: a comparison of their sustainability and nutritional content. Sustainability. 2019;11(12):3231.
Robinson B, Winans K, Kendall A, Dlott J, Dlott F. A life cycle assessment of Agaricus bisporus mushroom production in the USA. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2019;24(3):456-467. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1456-6
IBM SPSS Statistics. IBM SPSS Statistics for Macintosh. Armonk: IBM corporation; 2019.
Stephen AM, Champ MM-J, Cloran SJ, Fleith M, Lieshout L, van Mejborn H, et al. Dietary fibre in Europe: current state of knowledge on definitions, sources, recommendations, intakes and relationships to health. Nutr Res Rev. 2017;30(2):149-190. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/nutrition-research-reviews/article/dietary-fibre-in-europe-current-state-of-knowledge-on-definitions-sources-recommendations-intakes-and-relationships-to-health/B263D1D7B3440DC9D6F68E23C2B4212F
Jovanovski E, Mazhar N, Komishon A, Khayyat R, Li D, Blanco Mejia S, et al. Can dietary viscous fiber affect body weight independently of an energy-restrictive diet? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Clin Nutr. 2020;111(2):471-485. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/111/2/471/5695296
Leslie WS, Taylor R, Harris L, Lean MEJ. Weight losses with low-energy formula diets in obese patients with and without type 2 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Obes. 2017;41(1):101. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5368342/
Beulen Y, Martínez-González MA, Rest O, van de Salas-Salvadó J, Sorlí JV, Gómez-Gracia E, et al. Quality of dietary fat intake and body weight and obesity in a mediterranean population: secondary analyses within the PREDIMED Trial. Nutrients. 2018;10(12):2011. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6315420/
Public Health England, Food Standards Agency. National Diet and Nutrition Survey Rolling programme Years 9 to 11. London; 2020. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/943114/NDNS_UK_Y9-11_report.pdf
NHS. Sugar: The Facts. 2020: Available from: https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/food-types/how-does-sugar-in-our-diet-affect-our-health/#:~:text=Adults
Johnson RJ, Sánchez-Lozada LG, Andrews P, Lanaspa MA. Perspective: a historical and scientific perspective of sugar and its relation with obesity and diabetes. Adv Nutr. 2017;8(3):412-422. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5421126/
van Vliet S, Burd NA, van Loon LJ. The skeletal muscle anabolic response to plant- versus animal-based protein consumption. J Nutr. 2015;145(9):1981-1991. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/145/9/1981/4585688
Yang Y, Churchward-Venne TA, Burd NA, Breen L, Tarnopolsky MA, Phillips SM. Myofibrillar protein synthesis following ingestion of soy protein isolate at rest and after resistance exercise in elderly men. Nutr Metab. 2012;9(1):57. Available from: http://nutritionandmetabolism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-7075-9-57
Gorissen SHM, Crombag JJR, Senden JMG, Waterval WAH, Bierau J, Verdijk LB, et al. Protein content and amino acid composition of commercially available plant-based protein isolates. Amino Acids. 2018;50(12):1685-1695. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6245118/
Grillo A, Salvi L, Coruzzi P, Salvi P, Parati G. Sodium intake and hypertension. Nutrients. 2019;11(9):1970. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6770596/
Mente A, O'donnell MJ, Rangarajan S, McQueen MJ, Poirier P, Wielgosz A, et al. Association of urinary sodium and potassium excretion with blood pressure. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(7):601-611. Available from: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1311989
Petit G, Jury V, de Lamballerie M, Duranton F, Pottier L, Martin J-L. Salt intake from processed meat products: benefits, risks and evolving practices. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf. 2019;18(5):1453-1473. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1541-4337.12478
Adams J, White M. Characterisation of UK diets according to degree of food processing and associations with socio-demographics and obesity: cross-sectional analysis of UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey (2008-12). Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015;12:160.
Rauber F, da Costa Louzada ML, Steele E, Millett C, Monteiro CA, Levy RB. Ultra-processed food consumption and chronic non-communicable diseases-related dietary nutrient profile in the UK (2008-2014). Nutrients. 2018;10(5):587.
Rauber F, Chang K, Vamos EP, da Costa Louzada ML, Monteiro CA, Millett C, et al. Ultra-processed food consumption and risk of obesity: a prospective cohort study of UK Biobank. Eur J Nutr. 2021;60(4):2169-2180.
Reynolds CJ, Horgan GW, Whybrow S, Macdiarmid JI. Healthy and sustainable diets that meet greenhouse gas emission reduction targets and are affordable for different income groups in the UK. Public Health Nutr. 2019;22(8):1503-1517. Available from: www.kantarworldpanel
Specht L. Why plant-based meat will ultimately be less expensive than conventional meat. 2019. Available from: https://www.gfi.org/plant-based-meat-will-be-less-expensive
Pais DF, Marques AC, Fuinhas JC. Reducing meat consumption to mitigate climate change and promote health: but is it good for the economy? Environ Moseling Assess. 2020;25:793-807.
Briggs ADM, Kehlbacher A, Tiffin R, Garnett T, Rayner M, Scarborough P. Assessing the impact on chronic disease of incorporating the societal cost of greenhouse gases into the price of food: an econometric and comparative risk assessment modelling study. BMJ Open. 2013;3(10):e003543. Available from: http://bmjopen.bmj.com/
Health Canada. Canada's Dietary Guidelines. Ottawa. 2019. Available from: https://food-guide.canada.ca/static/assets/pdf/CDG-EN-2018.pdf
Tichenor Blackstone N, Nelson ME, El-Abbadi MPHNH, Griffin TS, Tichenor Blackstone N, El-Abbadi NH, et al. Linking sustainability to the healthy eating patterns of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans: a modelling study. Lancet Planet Heal. 2018;2:344-352. Available from: www.thelancet.com/
Coleman PC, Murphy L, Nyman M, Oyebode O. Operationalising the EAT - Lancet Commissions' targets to achieve healthy and sustainable diets. Lancet. 2021;5:398-399. Available from: www.thelancet.com/planetary-health