Nutritional marketing of plant-based meat-analogue products: an exploratory study of front-of-pack and website claims in the USA

Abstract

Objective: To explore how some of the largest food companies involved in producing alternative proteins use health and nutrition claims to market their products. Design: We identified the largest food manufacturers, meat processors, and alternative protein companies selling plant-based alternative protein products in the United States. Using publicly available data, we analysed the voluntary health and nutrition claims made on front-of-pack labels and company webpages. We also analysed company websites for further nutrition and health-related statements about their products or alternative proteins more generally. Claim classification was guided by the INFORMAS (International Network for Food and Obesity/Non-Communicable Diseases Research, Monitoring, and Action Support) taxonomy for health-related food labelling. Setting: United States. Results: 1394 health and nutrition-related front-of-pack label (FOPL) claims were identified on 216 products, including 685 nutrition claims and 709 ´other health-related´ claims. No FOPL health claims were identified. Most nutrient claims were for nutrients associated with meat, with 94% of products carrying a protein claim and 30% carrying a cholesterol claim. 74% of products carried a GMO-free claim and 63% carried a plant-based claim. On their websites, some companies expanded on these claims or discussed the health benefits of specific ingredients. Conclusions: Companies involved in this category appear to be using nutritional marketing primarily to position their products in relation to meat. There is a focus on nutrient and ingredient claims, with discussion of processing largely avoided. The findings highlight the challenges companies face in positioning AP products as healthy against the backdrop of debates about ultra-processed foods.

Nutritional Quality of Meat Analogues: Results From the Food Labelling of Italian Products (FLIP) Project

“…The same authors also found a 19 and 21% rate of products with vitamin- and mineral-related claims, respectively. This finding is pretty higher than the one found in the present survey (<4% of the total) and in the US market-based survey by Lacy-Nichols and collaborators, showing <1% of those claims ( 29 ). These last data are as interesting as weird by considering that the presence of anti-nutritional factors potentially affects mineral bioavailability.…”

“…These values are higher than those found by an Australian survey of analogue products on the US market. Here only 49% of the products retrieved in supermarkets and 40% in online stores boasted a nutrition claim, mainly on the protein content ( 29 ). The “ Safe food” report showed that the protein-related claim in the plant-based analogues sold in Ireland was present in 50% of the products (11% “source of protein” and 39% “high in protein”) ( 26 ), while in the paper of Curtain and Grafenauer ( 25 ) this value accounted for 60% of the items.…”

A cross-sectional study of the commercial plant-based landscape across the US, UK and Canada

“…Plant-based products tend to be marketed as healthy alternatives [23]. In general we found that whole meals available from supermarkets and delivery chains meet dietary requirements for saturated fat content, and the saturated fat content of vegan and vegetarian meals available from both fast-food and sit-down chains was also significantly lower than the meat-based meals.…”

A taste of things to come: Effect of temporal order of information and product experience on evaluation of healthy and sustainable plant-based products

“…Nutrition and health claims are major means of informing consumers about characteristics of food products and are also important regarding the promotion of healthy and sustainable plant-based products ( 49 ). Research has shown, though, that consumer attention to nutrition and health claims at the point of purchase is limited ( 50 ).…”