A metabolomics comparison of plant-based meat and grass-fed meat indicates large nutritional differences despite comparable Nutrition Facts panels

Stephan Van Vliet,Scott L Kronberg,James R Bain,Frederick D Provenza,Kim M Huffman,Michael J Muehlbauer,Carl F Pieper

doi:10.1038/s41598-021-93100-3

Abstract

A new generation of plant-based meat alternatives—formulated to mimic the taste and nutritional composition of red meat—have attracted considerable consumer interest, research attention, and media coverage. This has raised questions of whether plant-based meat alternatives represent proper nutritional replacements to animal meat. The goal of our study was to use untargeted metabolomics to provide an in-depth comparison of the metabolite profiles a popular plant-based meat alternative (n = 18) and grass-fed ground beef (n = 18) matched for serving size (113 g) and fat content (14 g). Despite apparent similarities based on Nutrition Facts panels, our metabolomics analysis found that metabolite abundances between the plant-based meat alternative and grass-fed ground beef differed by 90% (171 out of 190 profiled metabolites; false discovery rate adjusted p < 0.05). Several metabolites were found either exclusively (22 metabolites) or in greater quantities in beef (51 metabolites) (all, p < 0.05). Nutrients such as docosahexaenoic acid (ω-3), niacinamide (vitamin B3), glucosamine, hydroxyproline and the anti-oxidants allantoin, anserine, cysteamine, spermine, and squalene were amongst those only found in beef. Several other metabolites were found exclusively (31 metabolites) or in greater quantities (67 metabolites) in the plant-based meat alternative (all, p < 0.05). Ascorbate (vitamin C), phytosterols, and several phenolic anti-oxidants such as loganin, sulfurol, syringic acid, tyrosol, and vanillic acid were amongst those only found in the plant-based meat alternative. Large differences in metabolites within various nutrient classes (e.g., amino acids, dipeptides, vitamins, phenols, tocopherols, and fatty acids) with physiological, anti-inflammatory, and/or immunomodulatory roles indicate that these products should not be viewed as truly nutritionally interchangeable, but could be viewed as complementary in terms of provided nutrients. The new information we provide is important for making informed decisions by consumers and health professionals. It cannot be determined from our data if either source is healthier to consume.

Highlights

By 2050, global food systems will need to meet the dietary demands of almost 10 billion people
One of the earliest engineered meat alternatives was Protose, a plant-based meat alternative made from wheat gluten, peanuts, and soybean oil, which was designed by John Kellogg in the late nineteenth century
Eighteen different packages (340 g or 12 oz each) of a commercially-available plant-based meat alternative was purchased from a local grocery store in Raleigh, NC, USA

Summary

Introduction

By 2050, global food systems will need to meet the dietary demands of almost 10 billion people To meet these demands in a healthy and sustainable manner, it is put forward that diets would benefit from a shift towards consumption of more plant-based foods and less meat, in Western c ountries[1]. The new generation of plant-based meat alternatives such as the Impossible Burger and Beyond Burger are becoming increasingly popular with consumers. Their success has led other international food companies— including traditional meat companies—to invest in their own product versions[6]. Modern meat alternatives match the protein content of meat by using isolated plant proteins (e.g., soy, pea, potato, mung bean, rice, mycoprotein, and/or wheat), and they are sometimes fortified with vitamins and minerals found in red meat (e.g., vitamins B12, zinc, and iron) to provide an even more direct nutritional r eplacement[4,8]

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion