Ultra-processing markers are more prevalent in plant-based meat products as compared to their meat-based counterparts in a German food market analysis.

Abstract

To compare ultra-processing markers and nutrient composition in plant-based meat products (PBMP) with equivalent meat-based products (MBP). A total of 282 PBMP and 149 MBP within 18 product categories were assessed. Based on the NOVA classification, 33 ultra-processing markers were identified and six ultra-processing bullet categories were defined, that is flavour, flavour enhancer, sweetener, colour, other cosmetic additives and non-culinary ingredients. The ingredient lists were analysed concerning these ultra-processing markers and ultra-processing bullet categories, as well as nutrient composition, for all PBMP and MBP. Differences between PBMP and MBP were assessed using chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests, respectively. Cross-sectional analysis. 282 PBMP and 149 MBP. The percentage of ultra-processed food (UPF) items was significantly higher in PBMP (88 %) as compared to MBP (52 %) (P < 0·0001). The proportion of UPF items was numerically higher in 15 out of 18 product categories with differences in six categories reaching statistical significance (P < 0·05). Flavour, flavour enhancer, colour, other cosmetic additives and non-culinary ingredients were significantly more prevalent in PBMP as compared to MBP (P < 0·0001). Concerning nutrient composition, median energy, total fat, saturated fat and protein content were significantly lower, whereas the amounts of carbohydrate, sugar, fibre and salt were significantly higher in PBMP (P < 0·05). Ultra-processing markers are significantly more prevalent in PBMP as compared to MBP. Since UPF intake has been convincingly linked to metabolic and CVD, substituting MBP with PBMP might have negative net health effects.