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

Abstract

BackgroundPoor 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.MethodsData 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 (kgCO2e) and price per 100 g were calculated to allow comparisons between meat products and their alternatives. Mann–Whitney U tests were used to look for significant differences for each nutrient, emissions and price.ResultsMeat 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 kgCO2e than meat products. There was no significant difference in the amount of salt between meat and meat alternatives.ConclusionsOverall, 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.

Sustainability in dietetics means embracing complexity, contributing and collaborating

“…Variation in definitions also amplifies that there is no single answer: our collective challenge is that the specifics of sustainable dietary patterns will vary among regions. Coffey et al 7 examine meat versus meat alternatives in the UK, with findings supporting the dominant message targeted to the wealthy, industrialised world (e.g., in the much publicised Eat-Lancet Planetary Health guidelines): meat alternatives are likely to be better for health according to most parameters, and more environmentally friendly than meat products. However, the higher cost of meat alternatives may be a barrier for some consumers.…”

Nutritional Analysis of Plant-Based Meat: Current Advances and Future Potential

“…Median values for nutrients per 100 g of plant-based meat versus conventional meat (adapted and reproduced with permission from[24]). …”