The Food Foundation – United Kingdom
- Plant-based alternatives to meat offer a way to reduce meat consumption, with the plant-based meat alternatives market growing exponentially in recent years. However, focusing on alternatives that deliver the best outcomes in terms of both health and environmental impacts should be central to the transition to healthier and more sustainable diets, in order to minimize potential downsides.
- In this briefing, we design a taxonomy for a range of plant-based meat alternatives by looking at both nutritional and environmental indicators, as well as price, to assess how different categories and individual products compare to meat. Based on the OECD taxonomy, we divided plant-based meat alternatives into three distinct subcategories: processed (next-generation), processed (traditional), and less processed (beans and grains).
- All three categories of plant-based meat alternatives in this analyzed classification have, on average, fewer calories, lower saturated fat levels, and higher fiber content compared to the analyzed meat products.
- Plant-based meat alternatives have, on average, a lower protein content than meat, but there is no problem of protein deficiency among the general population in the United Kingdom.
- Only one-third of more processed plant-based meat alternatives are fortified with iron and vitamin B12. The new generation processed category has the highest salt content of the three categories, and there is potential for improvement in this area in terms of fortification and reducing salt content.
- Less processed meat alternatives (beans and grains) perform strongly on many nutritional indicators. Compared to meat and other plant-based meat alternatives, this category has significantly lower saturated fat, calorie, and salt content per 100 grams and the highest fiber content. It also stands out as the most affordable category per 100 grams.
- Therefore, there is a real opportunity to better promote beans in the UK as an affordable, healthy, and sustainable meat alternative and to understand how their consumption can be increased. Beans are a win-win-win alternative in terms of environmental, health, and equity outcomes.
- The independent National Food Strategy for the UK proposes reducing meat consumption in the UK by 30% by 2032 in order to achieve both climate and health targets. Additionally, the Climate Change Committee has recommended that the UK reduce meat consumption by at least 20% by 2030 and 35% by 2050 to ensure climate targets are met (National Food Strategy, 2021).
- Although meat consumption in the UK fell by 17% between 2008/09 and 2018/19 (Stewart et al, 2021), this rate of change is insufficient to meet the targets set. From an environmental perspective, the situation is clear: the UK will not achieve its Net Zero target unless emissions from the food system (and therefore livestock production and consumption) are reduced (Clark et al, 2020).
- Counterarguments to such alternatives often focus on the poor nutritional profiles of some meat alternatives and the high level of processing required for their production. Furthermore, lobbying by the meat and dairy industry has influenced the broader political and public debate on this issue.
- One of the key advantages of plant-based protein alternatives is that they prevent the feed-to-food conversion loss associated with animal protein. While approximately 1.3 kg of agricultural crops are needed to produce 1 kg of plant-based meat, 7-10 kg of feed is required to produce 1 kg of beef (Frezal, Nenert & Gay, 2022).
- Since a large portion of livestock-related greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) and nature loss is related to land use and conversion, the transition to alternative proteins is expected to provide significant environmental benefits (Green Alliance, 2024). Alternative proteins can also serve as a bridge for individuals whose diets are heavily reliant on meat consumption, helping them reduce their meat intake without radically changing their cooking and eating habits.
- However, while most meat alternatives have significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions and water footprints compared to meat, their nutritional profiles are quite variable, and evidence regarding their health effects is more limited. Therefore, there are concerns that the shift toward meat alternatives could lead to unexpected negative consequences for public health.
- According to GFI, as of 2023, there are a total of 138 sustainable protein companies operating in the United Kingdom: 100 in the plant-based sector, 23 in cultured meat development, and 15 producing using fermentation technologies (GFI, 2023). Between 2012 and 2023, the UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) invested at least £43 million in research and development for these three protein alternative categories, with the largest amount allocated to cultured meat (GFI, 2023).
- Quorn Foods is the leading producer of fermentation-based proteins in the UK. Quorn is a mycoprotein-based meat alternative produced from biomass obtained from large fermentation tanks. The company operates the world’s largest sustainable protein production facility in North Yorkshire (GFI, 2023). However, sophisticated fermentation technology is relatively less developed in the United Kingdom and lags behind other high-income countries such as Israel and the United States (GFI, 2023).
- An analysis conducted by the Green Alliance in 2023 predicts that with targeted investments and regulations, the industry in the United Kingdom could be worth £6.8 billion annually by 2035 and create 25,000 new jobs (Green Alliance, 2023). Furthermore, it is widely expected that economies of scale will reduce production costs over time.
- Less processed meat alternatives (legumes and grains) perform strongly on many different nutritional indicators. Compared to both meat and other plant-based meat alternatives, this category has the highest fiber content per 100 grams, as well as significantly less saturated fat, calories, and salt.
- The processed (new generation) category has the highest salt level among the four categories, containing three times more salt than the processed (traditional) category. In contrast, products in the processed (new generation) category have a higher average fiber content than products in the processed (traditional) category (4.7 g and 3.1 g per 100 grams, respectively). This difference may be due to the widespread use of pea protein in this category.
- All four categories contain very low amounts of sugar (>1 g/100 g), but the processed (new generation) category has the highest total sugar content. Interestingly, the two more processed meat alternative categories have only marginally lower protein levels compared to the meat category. This may be because processed (next-generation) plant-based meat alternatives often attempt to approach meat’s protein levels by using protein isolate or concentrate (Andreani et al., 2023) and can also be explained by the high protein content of soybeans used in processed (traditional) meat alternative products.
- It should be noted that plant-based alternatives have lower protein content compared to animal-based foods. However, in high-income countries such as the United Kingdom, protein deficiency is not a problem among the general population. On average, adults in the UK consume 35% more protein than the recommended amount (British Nutrition Foundation, 2023). Therefore, transitioning to diets containing more plant-based foods is unlikely to have a negative impact on overall protein adequacy. Although animal foods are the most bioavailable source of protein, containing all nine essential amino acids, it is possible to meet the recommended protein intake by consuming a variety of plant-based protein sources throughout the day.
- In general, most plant-based meat alternative groups have, on average, lower energy density, lower saturated fat content, higher fiber content, and sodium levels similar to meat (Nájera Espinosa et al., 2024).
- The meat category has a higher average protein content compared to the other three categories. It contains twice as much protein as legumes and grains, respectively (18.1 g and 7 g per 100 grams). However, these findings are consistent with a recent comprehensive systematic review showing that the nutritional profiles of plant-based alternatives vary greatly depending on the production process (factors such as the main ingredient used, processing techniques, duration, and temperature).
- Price is an important determining factor in food choices. However, our analysis shows that two categories of processed meat alternatives have a significant price difference compared to meat products. This is concerning because these two categories, by offering products that directly or largely mimic meat, may more easily encourage the substitution of meat consumption with plant-based products compared to unprocessed alternatives. The processed (next-generation) alternative category is 73% more expensive per 100 grams than the meat category, while the processed (traditional) category is 38% more expensive.
- As an alternative way to evaluate price, we also examined the cost per 100 calories, as calories can be used as a measure of satiety. A similar pattern was observed: Purchasing processed (new generation) meat alternatives is 79% more expensive than purchasing the same amount of calories from meat products, while processed (traditional) alternatives are 60% more expensive.
- With the growth of the plant-based market and the decline in production costs, the prices of meat alternatives are expected to decrease over time. However, the current price difference may make many plant-based options unaffordable for low-income individuals. Indeed, research shows that high-income households in the United Kingdom are more likely to purchase plant-based alternatives than low-income households (Alae-Carew, 2022).
- Less processed meat alternatives (legumes and grains) are the most affordable options and are 2.5 times cheaper per 100 grams compared to the processed (next-generation) category. Therefore, there is a significant opportunity to better promote and encourage legumes and whole grains in the UK as an affordable, healthy, and sustainable meat alternative during the cost-of-living crisis.
Conclusion:
Plant-based meat alternatives offer clear environmental benefits in terms of lower greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) and smaller water footprints. While research on the health outcomes associated with plant-based meat alternatives is limited, this analysis found no evidence that their nutritional profiles are significantly lower than those of meat products in general. Furthermore, depending on the product type, a wide variety in the processing level and nutritional profiles of plant-based meat alternatives has been identified. There is an opportunity to better fortify more processed plant-based meat alternatives with important micronutrients, particularly iron and vitamin B12.
All three plant-based categories have higher fiber content compared to meat. However, traditional processed meat alternatives such as tofu and tempeh, along with whole plant foods such as legumes and grains, stand out as the most nutritious meat alternatives. Less processed meat alternatives (legumes and grains) perform strongly in many health indicators compared to both meat and other plant-based meat alternatives. They are also the most affordable meat alternatives.
Therefore, there is a significant opportunity in the United Kingdom to better invest in, support, and promote legumes and whole grains as affordable, healthy, and sustainable meat alternatives. These foods offer a win-win solution in terms of environmental, health, and equity considerations.
