Future perspectives: Current trends and controversies of meat alternatives classified as ultra‐processed foods

Abstract

This study reviewed the current state of meat alternatives including plant‐based or cell‐based ingredients and discussed the contentious factor surrounding the classification of meat alternatives as ultra‐processed foods (UPFs). The term UPFs refers to foods undergoing extensive industrial processing and containing additives such as flavors, colors, emulsifiers, and preservatives. There is growing concern regarding the potential adverse effects of UPF consumption on health, nutrition, and sociodemographic factors. Additionally, this study examined the market potential, drivers, and barriers associated with different types of meat alternatives. In light of barriers focused on UPFs, meat alternatives can be disputed in that they undergo extensive processing and are highly processed, including numerous ingredients, while meat alternatives offer potential solutions to the environmental, ethical, and health issues associated with animal meat consumption. Consequently, it is important to distinguish them from other UPFs, which are known to have detrimental effects on health. Therefore, this paper proposed a reassessment of the UPF classification system, the establishment of uniform nutritional profiles for meat alternatives, and the dissemination of their beneficial impacts. These measures are necessary to validate the exclusion of meat alternatives from the UPF category and to promote their development and adoption.