Next Article in Journal
Co-Immobilization of Alcalase/Dispase for Production of Selenium-Enriched Peptide from Cardamine violifolia
Previous Article in Journal
Biochemical, Histological, and Transcriptomic Analyses Reveal Underlying Differences in Flesh Quality between Wild and Farmed Ricefield Eel (Monopterus albus)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 13
Issue 11
10.3390/foods13111752
foods-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Industrially Produced Plant-Based Food Products: Nutritional Value and Degree of Processing

by
Marta Maganinho
1,2,
Carla Almeida
2,3,4 and
Patrícia Padrão
2,3,4,*
1
Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade do Porto, 4169-007 Porto, Portugal
2
Faculdade de Ciências da Nutrição e Alimentação, Universidade do Porto, 4150-180 Porto, Portugal
3
EPIUnit—Instituto de Saúde Pública, Universidade do Porto, 4050-600 Porto, Portugal
4
Laboratório para a Investigação Integrativa e Translacional em Saúde Populacional (ITR), 4050-600 Porto, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2024, 13(11), 1752; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13111752
Submission received: 7 May 2024 / Revised: 28 May 2024 / Accepted: 31 May 2024 / Published: 3 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Plant Foods)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The plant-based food market is rapidly growing, offering innovative options to meet consumer expectations. However, a comprehensive analysis of the nutritional quality of these foods is lacking. We aimed to characterize industrial plant-based food products’ nutritional value and degree of processing. A cross-sectional study was conducted on two market-leading Portuguese food retail chains by assessing the nutritional composition of all the available pre-packaged plant-based food products (n = 407). These products were categorized into meal alternatives, dairy alternatives, and other products containing dairy/meat alternative ingredients including ready meals and desserts. The products’ nutritional quality was assessed according to the cut-offs established by the Portuguese Directorate General of Health [DGS] on total fat, saturated fat, sugar, and salt, and considering the degree of processing using NOVA classification. One-tenth of the products were classified as having a high total fat, saturated fat, sugars, or salt content. In some sub-categories, half of foods were classified as high in saturated fat, and over two-thirds were considered high salt products. Less than one-third exhibit a good nutritional profile based on the national cut-offs. A total of 84.3% of plant-based food products were ultra-processed. These findings emphasize the need to improve the nutritional profile of plant-based options.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The last few years have been marked by an exponential increase in the demand and consumption of plant-based food products [1]. This trend is driven by the widespread promotion of plant-based diets, the reduced intake of animal-source foods, and the limitation of highly processed foods consumption. These dietary changes offer co-benefits related to human health improvements and reduced environmental impact [2,3,4,5]. Health, environmental, and animal welfare reasons are among the main consumption determinants, although the desire for new food experiences and especially social influence have been huge drivers to the rising trend of plant-based diets [1,6,7,8]. Consequently, a simple increase in the availability of plant-based food products can act as a cue leading to a food behavior change [9].
In this context, the plant-based segment market has differentiated positively over time, with a food industry strongly focused on innovation and the development of new products, to meet the expectations and needs of the modern consumer [10,11,12]. Indeed, the sales of plant-based options in Europe increased by 21% from 2020 to 2022 [13], and according to data from the Plant-Based Food Association [14], the 2022 U.S. plant-based market reached USD 8.0 billion, representing an impressive 6.6% growth of retail sales, reflected in a total of 44.5% three-year growth. Despite the pandemic challenges and the constraints in the food supply chain followed by rising inflation, the plant-based trend has a staying power. It will continue to drive growth in the food industry, with a global market valuation of USD 11.3 billion in 2023 and a forecasted USD 35.9 billion for 2032 [15]. These values result from a growing number of flexitarians, consumers who have effectively contributed the most to the increase in sales of plant-based products and encouraging continuous innovation in this market segment [16].
The increasingly diversified range of products available on the market (e.g., meat alternatives, dairy alternatives, plant-based ready meals), facilitates the adherence to lower/animal-based-free diets and are commonly perceived as healthier options [17,18,19]. However, insufficient attention to the quality of plant-based food products has been given [20] an issue of concern, as recent evidence has been pointing out that these products might be predominantly ultra-processed with high content of fat, sugars, and salt [19,21]. The increased availability and intensive marketing of ultra-processed foods (UPFs), frequently characterized by being energy-dense, nutrient-poor food products, highly convenient, and hyper-palatable, leads to the increased consumption of these foods, which has been recognized as a key dietary risk factor for diet-related non-communicable diseases (NCDs), such as overweight and obesity [22,23]. The current range of plant-based food products contributes to an oversimplified perspective regarding plant-based diets, as they can often be perceived as practical alternatives [10,24]. However, according to the NOVA classification system [25], many of the plant-based food products could be classified as UPF products, typically characterized by high extent of processing, the use of starches, protein isolates, sugars, fats, and frequent addition of colors and flavors to improve sensory appearance, and emulsifiers and other cosmetic additives to promote a higher shelf-life [25,26]. Nevertheless, there is an important knowledge gap regarding the composition of the plant-based options launched daily on the market.
Although plant-based diets are reported to have health benefits, their quality may be heterogeneous and should be carefully assessed [26]. The present study aims to characterize the nutritional quality of pre-packaged plant-based food products sold in the Portuguese market by assessing their nutritional composition and degree of processing.

2. Materials and Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted to collect labeling data on the plant-based food product supply of the two main Portuguese food retail chains.
The nutritional information of the plant-based food products of every brand available for sale was collected using a systematic approach and compiled in a database. All pre-packaged products with plant-based mentions on the label were included, considering the following inclusion expressions: plant-based, vegan, vegetarian, meat-free, meatless, dairy-free, non-dairy, and also expressions such as “made from plants” and “veggie-based”. Subsequently, the list of ingredients for each eligible product was consulted, and those containing ingredients of animal origin were excluded.
(a)
Data collection
Product information was collected from two representative supermarkets regarding availability (one for each food retailer) from April 2021 to November 2022. The ingredient list of the products was analyzed to guarantee that only food products exclusively plant-based were included, e.g., made of ingredients from plants and not containing animal ingredients of any kind (including milk, egg protein, or egg white). The research team went to the referred supermarkets and collected information from the food packaging of the eligible foods using photographs regarding the ingredients list and nutritional composition by 100 g/mL (energy (kcal), total fat (g), saturated fat (g), carbohydrates (g), sugars (g), protein (g), fiber (g), and salt (g)), mandatory parameters according to the Council Regulation (EU) 1169/2011 [27].
 (i)
Plant-based food product categorization
The eligible food products were grouped according to the definition proposed by Beacom et al. (2021) [11] into the following plant-based food categories: 1. meat alternatives (e.g., meat-free burgers, sausages, nuggets, or tofu); 2. dairy alternatives (e.g., plant-based beverages, yogurts, or cheeses manufactured from ingredients such as soya, coconut, rice, or almond); and 3. Other products that contain a dairy or meat alternative ingredient, such as plant-based desserts and ready meals.
Considering the diversity of products among the different plant-based food categories, sub-categories were additionally established based on the products’ main ingredients and/or typology (Table 1).
The sub-category “mixed” was applied to any food product of dairy alternative categories, made from a mixture of plant-based food matrices (e.g., soy and almond; or other combination).
 (ii)
Nutritional composition
The nutritional data of the eligible products, including energy value, macronutrients (total fat, saturated fat, carbohydrate, sugars, protein, fiber), and salt were, respectively, reported in kJ/kcal and grams per 100 grams of the product. In addition, plant-based foods of different categories were classified as having low, medium, or high energy value (kcal/100 g) and content (g/100 g) of saturated fat, sugar, and salt, using the label decoder proposed by the National Program for the Promotion of Healthy Eating (PNPAS) that establish cut-offs for different nutritional parameters [28], according to the Nutrient Profiling Model recommendations of the UK Department of Health [29]. Food categories were ranked based on the percentage of products observed in each of these levels.
 (iii)
Degree of Processing
All the food products assessed were classified according to the NOVA food classification system [25], which divides foods according to the degree of processing. Groups 1 and 2 are the classifications applied to foods with a lower degree of processing, related to unprocessed or minimally processed foods (e.g., fresh fruits, vegetables, and grains) and processed culinary ingredients such as oils and sugar, respectively. Group 3 comprises foods with a moderate processing degree, while Group 4 represents the higher degree of processing associated with ultra-processed foods, which are industrial formulations typically high in additives and with a high extent of processing. Considering the characteristics of the eligible products included in this study, the items were only classified into minimally processed, processed, or ultra-processed foods, groups 1, 3, and 4 of the NOVA classification system, respectively.
Following the NOVA guidelines, we identified UPFs within the selected plant-based food product samples by examining ingredient lists. Additionally, a detailed analysis of the ingredient profile of ultra-processed plant-based products was conducted by counting the ingredients that contributed to classifying each food as ultra-processed.
(b)
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics (median and interquartile range) of energy, macronutrients, and salt content were used to describe the nutritional composition of the eligible food products. The normality of data distribution was first assessed through the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney tests were applied as appropriate to test the variability in energy value and nutrient content of the products according to sub-categories. The IBM SPSS statistics version 29.0 was used for the statistical analysis. The significance level was set at p ≤ 0.05.

3. Results

Of a total of 543 plant-based food products identified with eligible plant-based mentions on the label, 136 were excluded because they contained ingredients of animal origin, resulting in a total of 407 products for the analysis. In terms of plant-based food categories’ representation, dairy alternatives lead the offer in this market segment, with 55.0% of the products collected corresponding to this category, especially plant-based beverages (29.6%), followed by meat alternatives (30.0%) (mainly, plant-based burgers (30.0%)) and other plant-based options (15.0%), such as ready meals (40.0%) and desserts (60.0%), among which plant-based frozen meals (75.0%) and plant-based ice creams (52.7%) are the predominant options, respectively.

3.1. Nutritional Composition of Plant-Based Food Products

The nutritional composition of plant-based food products by category is described in Table 2. The three categories assessed cover a wide range of plant-based food products with heterogeneous nutritional compositions. The meat alternative category has the highest energy content and higher levels of total fat, fiber, protein, and salt compared to the dairy alternatives and others’ categories, which stand out for their carbohydrate and sugar content.
The following subsections present the nutritional composition results by category.

3.1.1. Meat Alternatives

The median energy value of meat alternatives ranged between 146 kcal/100 g in tofu and seitan alternatives and 250 kcal/100 g in nuggets (Table 3).
The total fat content ranged between 8.1 g/100 g in tofu and seitan and 18.0 g/100 g in sausages, with the others’ category presenting the lowest saturated fat level (0.8 g/100 g) and sausages the highest (2.4 g/100 g). The total carbohydrates ranged between 0.6 g/100 g in sausages and 20.0 g/100 g in nuggets. The lowest median sugar content was observed in tofu and seitan category (0.5 g/100 g) in opposition to falafel which presented the highest sugar median (2.8 g/100 g). In terms of the fiber median content, it ranged between 0.5 g/100 g in sausages and 5.9 g/100 g in the falafel category. About the protein content, the falafel category presented the lowest median value, while meatballs and tofu and seitan had the highest median content (6.7 g/100 g vs. 16.0 g/100 g and 16.5 g/100 g, respectively). Significant statistical differences were observed for all the nutrients across products.

3.1.2. Dairy Alternatives

The nutritional composition analysis of this category is presented according to the sub-categories defined, i.e., plant-based beverages, yogurts, and cheeses (Table 4, Table 5, and Table 6, respectively).
Regarding plant-based beverages, the median energy value ranged between 26 kcal/100 mL and 54 kcal/100 mL in almond and rice beverages, respectively. Rice beverages were the ones that presented the lowest median total fat content (1.0 g/100 mL), and soy beverages had the highest (1.8 g/100 mL), with a similar scenario observed for saturated fat content. The total carbohydrates and sugar content ranged between 2.5 g/100 mL and 2.1 g/100 mL and 11.0 g/100 mL and 4.8 g/100 mL in “others” and rice beverages, respectively. Regarding fiber, the lowest median was observed in rice beverages (0.3 g/100 mL) and the highest in oat beverages (0.8 g/100 mL). The median protein content ranged between 0.2 g/100 mL and 3.0 g/100 mL in rice and soy beverages, respectively. Moreover, considering the plain and flavored beverages, it was possible to observe significant differences in the nutritional composition, with the flavored ones standing out not only with higher median energy but mainly with higher total carbohydrates and sugar median quantities (Table 4). Statistical differences in the nutritional content were observed among dairy alternatives categories, except for salt.
Regarding plant-based yogurts, statistical differences in nutritional content were observed among its sub-categories. The median energy value of the plant-based yogurts ranged between 56 kcal/100 g and 90 kcal/100 g in the “mixed” and coconut yogurts, respectively. Regarding the total fat content, the soy yogurts were the ones that presented the lowest median (2.1 g/100 g) and the almond ones the highest (4.7 g/100 g), with the coconut yogurts exhibiting the highest saturated fat content, 3.7 g/100 g in comparison with the other yogurt options (0.4 g/100 g in the soy and almond yogurts; 1.1 g/100 g in the “mixed” ones). The total carbohydrates varied between 2.4 g/100 g and 11.8 g/100 g in the “mixed” and coconut yogurts. Nevertheless, the almond yogurts had the lowest median sugar levels (0.8 g/100 g), and soy had the highest (7.7 g/100 g). Regarding fiber content, the almond yogurts presented the highest median value, 4.5 g/100 g, while the remaining alternatives showed levels between 0.64 and 1.0 g/100 g. The protein content was significantly lower in the coconut and almond yogurts compared to the soy and mixed options (0.5 g/100 g and 2.0 g/100 g vs. 3.7 g/100 g and 3.9 g/100 g, respectively). Considering the different yogurt typologies, the median energy value ranged between 55 and 84 kcal/100 g in natural and Greek, respectively. The flavored and Greek yogurts have the highest carbohydrate and sugar content, while the natural yogurts have the lowest sugar levels (Table 5).
Regarding plant-based cheeses, the median energy value was 281 (260–292) kcal/100 g, and no statistical differences were found for energy and macronutrients among sub-classifications and typologies (Table 6).

3.1.3. Ready Meals and Desserts

The nutritional composition analysis of this category was presented according to the sub-categories defined, i.e., ready meals and desserts, with the median results expressed in Table 7.
Considering the plant-based ready meals, the canned options presented the lowest median energy value (76 kcal/100 g) and the refrigerated ones had the highest levels (161 kcal/100 g). The total fat content ranged between 2.7 g/100 g and 8.9 g/100 g in the frozen and refrigerated ready meals, respectively, with a similar pattern for saturated fat. Regarding the total carbohydrates, the canned ready meals presented the lowest median (4.0 g/100 g) in opposition to the refrigerated ready meals which showed the highest median (16.0 g/100 g). However, in terms of sugar contribution, it ranged between 1.8 g/100 g and 3.1 g/100 g in the refrigerated and canned ready meals, respectively. For the fiber content, the median was significantly lowest in the refrigerated ready meals (1.1 g/100 g) and highest in the frozen ones (3.2 g/100 g). In terms of protein, the median ranged between 3.6 g/100 g and 5.7 g/100 g in the refrigerated and canned plant-based meals. Regarding the salt content, the lowest median was observed in the frozen meals (0.7 g/100 g) and the highest in canned (1.0 g/100 g).
Regarding plant-based desserts, the median energy value was significantly higher in ice cream compared to creamy desserts, with a median energy value of 250 kcal/100 g and 95 kcal/100 g, respectively. Regarding the median fat and sugar content, the creamy desserts exhibited 2.3 g/100 g of fat (of which 0.6 g/100 g was saturated fat) and 11.0 g/100 g of sugars in comparison to the ice creams, which showed 13.9 g/100 g of fat (of which 11.0 g/100 g was saturated fat) and 21.2 g/100 g of sugars.

3.2. Nutritional Profile of Plant-Based Food Products

According to the food label decoder of PNPAS, the nutrition profile by food category is expressed in Table 8. A total of 29.0% of the plant-based food products presented a nutrition profile characterized by a low level of all the target nutrients (total fat, saturated fat, sugars, and salt). Overall, the proportions of products classified as having high total fat, saturated fat, sugars, and salt were 5.9%, 7.4%, 3.2%, and 10.3%, respectively. Cheese and meat alternatives reached a proportion of 71.4% and 29.5% of high salt products, respectively, while a high content of saturated fat was observed in 50.0% of the desserts. The remaining products varied in the cut-off levels, with no products revealing high levels for the four nutrient categories, with only one product showing high levels in three of them.

3.3. Degree of Processing of Plant-Based Food Products

Considering the NOVA classification system, 84.3% of the plant-based food products collected were classified as ultra-processed, followed by 15.5% of the processed foods and 0.2% corresponding to a single product classified as a minimally processed food product in Table 8. Table 9 presents the total number of ingredients responsible for the ultra-processed classification (NOVA group 4).
It can be observed that the median (P25–P75) total number of ingredients included in a plant-based food product is 15 (10–18), from which a median of 4 (2–5) ingredients were responsible for the ultra-processed classification. Nuggets and meatballs were the meat alternatives with the longest list of ingredients (22 (21–23) and 20 (17–23)), respectively, and those with the most ingredients which classified as ultra-processed (6 (6–7) and 8 (7–9); p < 0.01). Regarding dairy alternatives, rice and oat beverages presented simultaneously the shortest ingredient list and the ones with fewer ingredients, which classified them as ultra-processed (6 (4–10)–8 (5–11); p < 0.01 and 1 (0–2); p < 0.05, respectively). The main NOVA group 4 ingredients responsible for classifying ultra-processed plant-based food products are exhibited in Table 10.

4. Discussion

Overall, and considering the results of the present study, the current Portuguese plant-based food offer includes a range of products with high energy value, total fat, sugar, salt, and low protein content. Most plant-based food products were classified as ultra-processed, presenting extensive ingredient lists with a high set of associated ultra-processed ingredients. In addition, less than one-third exhibit a good nutritional profile based on the national cut-offs, i.e., low levels of total fat, saturated fat, sugar, and salt.
In fact, the World Health Organization has raised attention regarding the urgency of evaluating the nutritional profile of these plant-based food alternatives since most of them were expected to be ultra-processed products [19,20], recognized for their high-energy density, and frequent consumption of which may be positively related to a higher risk of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) [30,31,32,33].
This fact assumes special relevance given the recognized growth potential of the plant-based food options available on the shelves, despite already being considerable, as demonstrated by the number of items collected in this study—407 products. These findings not only show the commitment of food retailers to expand and diversify their offers but also signal the growing interest of Portuguese consumers in plant-based alternatives.
Regarding specifically dairy alternatives, this is an increasingly pronounced segment of the plant-based market [34], with growing investments to expand its portfolio (e.g., plant-based beverages, plant-based yogurts, and cheese analogs) in order to meet current consumer demands. In fact, dairy alternatives were the predominant plant-based food products found on supermarket shelves and assessed in the present study (55%), with plant-based beverages leading this segment (64.4%), followed by plant-based yogurts (32.4%), and cheese analogs (3.1%) that are dairy alternatives for which exploration and innovation have been increasing. Particularly, plant-based beverage consumption has become a popular trend, as options like oat, almond, rice, or soy, are appealing alternatives to dairy milk and simultaneously associated with lower environmental impact and larger health benefits (e.g., frequently richer in vitamins and minerals and cholesterol and lactose-free) [35,36,37,38]. Additionally, vegan, vegetarian, and flexitarian consumers, especially health-conscious individuals, and the rising prevalence of lactose intolerance worldwide have been key drivers of the increased value of this plant-based segment, which is also held by the countries where dairy milk consumption is culturally lower [35,36,38].
Considering plant-based beverages, our findings revealed some variability among the types of beverages. Regarding the nutritional values observed in the present study and comparing to the Italian market [39], we can note similar results, with oat (7.7 g/100 g vs. 7.9 g/100 g) and rice (11.0 g/100 g vs. 12.0 g/100 g) beverages being the rich options in total carbohydrates, with rice ones standing out for their higher sugar levels (4.8 g/100 g vs. 6.2 g/100 g) and soy beverages for the highest protein content (3.3 g/100 g vs. 3.0 g/100 g). In the Craig and Fresán (2021) [40] study, 55.0% of the beverages had less than 5.0 g/serving of sugars compared to the 73.1% of the present study. Furthermore, if considering the cut-offs proposed by the Portuguese Directorate General of Health [Direção-Geral da Saúde (DGS)] for beverages (g/100 mL) [28], only 31.7% of the assessed beverages satisfy the recommended low levels of sugars (≤2.5 g/100 mL) in opposition to the 68.3% of plant-based beverages that presented medium level of sugars (2.5–11.25 g/100 mL). Moreover, we found that flavored beverages (e.g., vanilla, coffee, and chocolate), compared to plain ones, have about twice the sugar content, in line with data that indicate a tendency for this type of beverage to be sweeter [40]. In terms of protein content, soy beverages presented the highest levels (3.0 g/100 mL), similar to findings relative to the soy-based beverages of New Zealand [41] and also in the European Market [39,42], 2.87 g/100 g and 3.0–3.4 g/100 g, respectively, which also shows that the remaining plant-based beverages options have a much lower protein content of less than 1.0 g/100 mL. Regarding fat content, and especially saturated fat levels, and according to Clegg et al. (2021) [43], the plant-based beverages analyzed presented ≤ 0.3 g/100 ml, and therefore were also in accordance with the less restricted cut-off recommended by the DGS (≤0.75 g/100 mL). Recently, Drewnowski et al. (2021) [44] proposed nutrient standards for milk alternatives, suggesting a maximum energy value of 85–100 kcal/100 g, not less than 2.2 g/100 g of high-quality protein, saturated fat content lower than 0.75 g/100 g, and 5.3–6.25 g/100 g of added sugars. Attending to the proposed values, only 21.4% of the plant-based beverages included in this study accomplished those recommended nutrient levels.
Looking closely at plant-based yogurts, our results revealed that the soy-based yogurts, besides being the main plant-based option available, are the ones with lower energy value (68 kcal/100 g) in opposition to the nuts-based (e.g., almond) yogurts (77 kcal/100 g), and the coconut yogurts (90 kcal) that are the most caloric options, in accordance with the results presented by Clegg et al. (2021) [43], i.e., 68.4 kcal/100 g, 96.8 kcal/100 g, and 111.7 kcal/100 g, respectively. In line with our results, the coconut and nuts yogurts (e.g., almond), due to their fatty food matrix, are the products that most contribute to the higher fat content of the plant-based yogurts [43,45,46]. Nevertheless, in terms of saturated fat, plant-based yogurts have low levels except for those that are coconut-based [47]. Regarding the protein content, evidence shows relatively lower levels than in dairy yogurts, with an overall picture for the plant-based yogurts’ protein similar to our findings, i.e., of about 3.6 g/100 g, with soy-based as the ones with the highest content [43,45,47,48]. Despite the launch of non-dairy protein yogurt options, it is relevant to highlight that these cannot be automatically considered rich in protein if it does not meet the minimum 12% of the total energy value (VET) established by the Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 [49]. It is fully recognized that the role of yogurt as a nutrient-dense food capable of providing multiple health benefits, in virtue of its composition in probiotic bacteria and/or prebiotic compounds, significantly contributes to improving gastrointestinal health and reducing the risk of chronic diseases, such type II diabetes, and breast or colorectal cancer [50,51,52]. However, some concerns have been raised regarding the possibility of it being unrecognized as a high-sugar food source [48,53], in line with the results of the present study (i.e., 6.8 (2.2–8.2) g/100g) corroborated by Moore et al. (2018) [48], who reported that dairy alternatives to yogurt available in the UK market presented about 9.2 g/100 g of sugars. Evidence shows that compared to dairy ones, the plant-based options have a higher energy value, total fat, and carbohydrate content, with similar levels of saturated fat, sugar, and salt [43,45].
Albeit the lack of evidence regarding the nutritional composition of plant-based cheeses, recent findings show that these dairy alternatives are energy-dense products with a high energy value, total fat, saturated fat, as well as high levels of salt [54,55]. Most cheese alternatives are made of coconut oil [19,45,54,55], a rich source of saturated fat. Furthermore, we observed that 71.4% of the plant-based cheeses presented salt levels greater than 1.5 g/100 g, similar to values reported by previous studies [19,54,55]. As these dairy alternatives are mainly coconut-oil based, the protein content is very limited (i.e., 0.0 (0.0–1.6) g/100 g) and, in some cases near-zero, in line with previous studies, 0.0 (0.0–0.3) g/100 g and 0.4 (0.0–0.6) g/100 g, respectively [54,55].
Recent findings revealed an increase in the global consumption of animal-source foods (e.g., unprocessed red meat, eggs, milk, processed meat, seafood, and cheese) [56]. It is important to consider that animal-source foods, especially meat, are among the food groups that most influence both human and planetary health [57,58]. The intense use of natural resources and the large proportion of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGEs) are environmental burdens related to the high animal consumption patterns that have been threatening the sustainability of the global food system [5,59,60].
Hence, in a time where the unsustainable food system calls for an urgent reduction in meat consumption, finding protein alternatives is a great challenge, and the innovation and development of meat alternative products have been an important strategy to help consumers shift to increasingly low meat/meat-free diets [61]. According to Bryngelsson et al. (2022) [62], meat alternatives are predominantly rich protein sources, with low saturated fat content and a source of fiber. The present study shows indeed a lower content of saturated fat and high fiber levels of meat analogs, almost five times lower and three times higher, respectively, in line with Tonheim et al. (2022) [63], who observed almost six times lower levels of saturated fat and four times higher fiber levels. Although plant-based meat references have similar fat levels to traditional meat products, the main differences in saturated fat content are due to the lipidic profile of the plant ingredients used on meat analogs, i.e., mostly mono- and polyunsaturated fat, with short-chain and intermediate-chain fatty acids’ introduction as the main differentiating factor [64]. The frequent use of cereals and pseudocereals in meat analog formulations leads to the highest fiber levels of these products, which, when consumed as part of a balanced diet, can contribute to increased fiber intake [63,65]. Despite this, and compared to meat references, not all alternatives provide optimum protein levels [66]. In fact, there has been observed a high variability of protein content among the remaining plant-based options, which is usually lower than the animal-based ones [19,67,68]. Moreover, despite the continuous improvement of meat alternatives and the increase in protein levels presented, it is important to highlight that plant-based options can not be considered equivalent to their animal-based versions, because, aside from the fact that they are multi-ingredient food products, the protein quality is different (i.e., distinct PDCAAs, presence of anti-nutritional factors, essential amino acids deficiencies) [69,70] and can be only claimed as a high source of protein if this corresponds to 12% of the total energy value (VET) [49]. Furthermore, in the present study, 59.0% and 29.5% of the meat alternatives exhibited medium (0.3–1.5 g/100 g) and high (≥1.5 g/100 g) levels of salt, respectively, in line with recent data from Spanish and Australian markets, which showed that meat analogs have upper-moderate to high salt levels [65,71], a dietary factor intimately related to the global burden of disease. The nutritional composition of meat alternatives, along with extensive ingredient lists composed of food components with a high degree of processing associated, leads to the ultra-processed classification of these plant-based options according to the NOVA classification system. In our study, 86% of the meat analogs were considered UPFs, in agreement with the 94% identified in the study of Rizzolo-Brime et al. (2023) [71].
The current fast-paced, dynamic lifestyles have driven consumers to demand more convenient food options, such as ready meals that can be an easy and timely alternative to the regular diet [72]. However, when compared to home-cooked meals, these food options are not just more expensive, but they also frequently present lower nutritional quality, as demonstrated by recent data that reveals that plant-based ready meals present high fat and salt content [73,74] in line with our results. Nevertheless, considering the lack of culinary skills and the unfamiliarity with replacing the best animal-based proteins [7], plant-based ready meals could facilitate the transition to plant-based diets.
It is indisputable that the growing market of plant-based food products and the increasing portfolio of several alternatives have responded to modern consumers’ demands, who increasingly seek and expect a more diversified plant-based diet [12,75,76]. However, the higher quality of this diet cannot be taken for granted when the innovation and development of new plant-based products are mostly associated with an ultra-processed offer, as observed in the present study. In fact, meat and dairy alternatives are the plant-based options that have contributed most to the increased consumption of ultra-processed products, leading not just to changes in diet nutritional adequacy but also to unhealthy plant-based diet indices [77,78]. In addition, it is well established that UPFs are frequently energy-dense foods, usually nutrient-depleted, and positively correlated with an increased intake of free sugars, sodium, total fat, and saturated fat [79,80]. Nevertheless, food processing has played a crucial role in society’s evolution by increasing the diversity of food products and ensuring food safety through extended shelf life and the control of health risk factors from foodborne diseases—a persistent global public health challenge [81]. Even so, the role of UPF consumption in the increased prevalence of NCDs, with a special contribution to the global obesity pandemic and increased risk of all-cause mortality is currently fully recognized [30,82,83]. The UPF consumption is significantly high worldwide, with recent data showed an energy contribution ranging from 14% to 44% across 22 European countries [84]. Consumption levels could be underestimated, as consumers still present some confusion regarding foods’ degree of processing identification, contributing to the uncertainty of food purchases [85]. Although the increasing availability of plant-based food products may facilitate the transition to a more plant-based diet, this food trend could also contribute to the perpetuation of excessive UPF consumption with negative health outcomes as well as to nullify the associated sustainability of plant-based diets [86]. However, little attention has been given to the impact that the growing consumption of ultra-processed plant-based food products might have in the long term.
Despite some of the disadvantages of food processing which is often associated with energy-dense and low nutrient profile, new and emerging technologies are continually being developed to enhance the integration and contribution of food processing in the food system [84]. In this context, we should take a cautious approach when studying nutritional adequacy and processing. The association is not absolute nor true for all cases.

Strengths and Limitations

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study aiming to comprehensively evaluate the nutritional quality of the plant-based food products offered by the leading Portuguese food retail market chains. We systematically collected nutritional data from a broad range of plant-based food products, assessing the nutritional quality of three plant food categories: meat alternatives, dairy alternatives, and “others” (i.e., plant-based ready meals and desserts). However, the fact that the collected data were derived only from plant-based products of two food retail chains could be a limitation of the study. Nevertheless, it is important to highlight that we consider the two major Portuguese supermarket retail chains, which account for approximately 50% to 75% of the market share [87]. Therefore, we believe that the present findings are not only an overview of the remaining Portuguese food retailers but may reflect a wider market as the main plant-based food brands are multinational. Furthermore, the fact that the degree of processing was assessed according to NOVA classification could be somewhat of a limitation as this system is based on a qualitative approach that brings ambiguity and differences in interpretation [88,89,90] that may underestimate the healthiness of some nutrient-dense foods, adding no value to existing nutrient profile systems [91]. However, new classification systems of processing degree evaluation, such as SIGA, intended to address NOVA limitations, suggest that foods with over five ingredients are highly likely to be UPFs [92], indicating that products with longer ingredient lists are more likely to contain multiple markers of ultra-processing (MUPs), supporting our study results. Nevertheless, and despite our findings being in line with recent evidence, future multidimensional assessment should be performed for a broader evaluation of the nutritional profile of plant-based food products and for a more accurate estimation of their long-term impact on health.

5. Conclusions

The plant-based food market presents a wide diversity of nutritional composition, although the proportion of products classified as having a high content of total fat, saturated fat, sugars, or salt reached one-tenth. In some sub-categories, half of the foods were classified as high in saturated fat, and over two-thirds were considered high salt products. Moreover, the present study’s findings revealed that most plant-based alternatives present extensive ingredient lists composed of ingredients with a high degree of processing, intimately responsible for more than 75% of the plant-food products classified as UFPs according to the NOVA classification system.
Despite using data on plant-based food products available from the two market-leading Portuguese food retail chains supermarkets, we believe that our results may reflect the European panorama since a large part of the food products available in Portugal are imported and belong to multinational companies.
Given the increasing growth of plant-based foods, we are convinced that the results of this study alert us to the contribution of ultra-processed foods to this food segment, which can potentially impact the quality of the diets of specific groups of the population, now and in the future.
The umbrella of plant-based food product categories covered in this study emphasizes the need to improve the nutritional profile of industrial plant-based food supply and nutritional literacy promotion among consumers to ensure a transition to plant-based diets based on healthy food choices.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.M. and P.P.; methodology, M.M. and P.P.; software, M.M.; validation, M.M. and P.P.; formal analysis, M.M.; investigation, M.M.; resources, M.M. and C.A.; data curation, M.M. and C.A.; writing—original draft preparation, M.M.; writing—review and editing, M.M., C.A. and P.P.; visualization, C.A. and P.P.; supervision, P.P.; project administration, M.M. and P.P.; funding acquisition, C.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Foundation for Science and Technology—FCT (Portuguese Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education), grant number UIDB/04750/2020, LA/P/0064/2020. An individual Ph.D. grant attributed to Carla Almeida (2020.08208.BD) was funded by FCT and the “Programa Operacional Regional Norte” (NORTE 2020/FSE).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The data of the present study were provided by two national food retail companies, but the authors report that they have no financial or other conflict interests to declare. The findings and opinions expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not represent the position or views of the aforementioned retail companies. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Alcorta, A.; Porta, A.; Tárrega, A.; Alvarez, M.D.; Pilar Vaquero, M. Foods for Plant-Based Diets: Challenges and Innovations. Foods 2021, 10, 293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. EAT. Healthy Diets From Sustainable Foos Systems—Summary Report of the EAT—Lancet Commission; EAT: Oslo, Norway, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  3. Jarmul, S.; Dangour, A.D.; Green, R.; Liew, Z.; Haines, A.; Scheelbeek, P.F.D. Climate change mitigation through dietary change: A systematic review of empirical and modelling studies on the environmental footprints and health effects of ‘sustainable diets’. Environ. Res. Lett. 2020, 15, 123014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Springmann, M.; Godfray, H.C.J.; Rayner, M.; Scarborough, P. Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 4146–4151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Willett, W.; Rockström, J.; Loken, B.; Springmann, M.; Lang, T.; Vermeulen, S.; Garnett, T.; Tilman, D.; DeClerck, F.; Wood, A.; et al. Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 2019, 393, 447–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Aschemann-Witzel, J.; Gantriis, R.F.; Fraga, P.; Perez-Cueto, F.J.A. Plant-based food and protein trend from a business perspective: Markets, consumers, and the challenges and opportunities in the future. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 61, 3119–3128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Fehér, A.; Gazdecki, M.; Véha, M.; Szakály, M.; Szakály, Z. A Comprehensive Review of the Benefits of and the Barriers to the Switch to a Plant-Based Diet. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Reipurth, M.F.S.; Hørby, L.; Gregersen, C.G.; Bonke, A.; Perez Cueto, F.J.A. Barriers and facilitators towards adopting a more plant-based diet in a sample of Danish consumers. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 73, 288–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Raghoebar, S.; van Kleef, E.; de Vet, E. Increasing the Proportion of Plant-Based Foods Available to Shift Social Consumption Norms and Food Choice among Non-Vegetarians. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Alae-Carew, C.; Green, R.; Stewart, C.; Cook, B.; Dangour, A.D.; Scheelbeek, P.F.D. The role of plant-based alternative foods in sustainable and healthy food systems: Consumption trends in the UK. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 807, 151041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Beacom, E.; Bogue, J.; Repar, L. Market-oriented Development of Plant-based Food and Beverage Products: A Usage Segmentation Approach. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2021, 27, 204–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. GFI. 2021 State of the Industry Report Plant-Based Meat, Seafood, Eggs, and Dairy; GFI: Washington, DC, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  13. GFI Europe. Europe Plant-Based Food Retail Market Insights (2020–2022); GFI: Forest, Belgium, 2023; Available online: https://gfieurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2020-2022-Europe-retail-market-insights_updated-1.pdf (accessed on 18 May 2024).
  14. PBFA. 2022 U.S. Retail Sales Data for the Plant-Based Foods Industry; PBFA: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2023; Available online: https://plantbasedfoods.org/2022-retail-sales-data-plant-based-food (accessed on 20 May 2024).
  15. FMI. Plant-Based Food Market—Size, Growth, Trends, Share|2033; FMI: Newark, NJ, USA, 2023; Available online: https://www.futuremarketinsights.com/reports/plant-based-food-market (accessed on 20 May 2024).
  16. Knaapila, A.; Michel, F.; Jouppila, K.; Sontag-Strohm, T.; Piironen, V. Millennials’ Consumption of and Attitudes toward Meat and Plant-Based Meat Alternatives by Consumer Segment in Finland. Foods 2022, 11, 456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Davitt, E.D.; Winham, D.M.; Heer, M.M.; Shelley, M.C.; Knoblauch, S.T. Predictors of Plant-Based Alternatives to Meat Consumption in Midwest University Students. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2021, 53, 564–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Faber, I.; Castellanos-Feijoó, N.A.; Van de Sompel, L.; Davydova, A.; Perez-Cueto, F.J.A. Attitudes and knowledge towards plant-based diets of young adults across four European countries. Exploratory survey. Appetite 2020, 145, 104498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Pointke, M.; Pawelzik, E. Plant-Based Alternative Products: Are They Healthy Alternatives? Micro- and Macronutrients and Nutritional Scoring. Nutrients 2022, 14, 601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Wickramasinghe, K.; Breda, J.; Berdzuli, N.; Rippin, H.; Farrand, C.; Halloran, A. The shift to plant-based diets: Are we missing the point? Glob. Food Secur. 2021, 29, 100530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Nolden, A.A.; Ciarán, G. Forde. The Nutritional Quality of Plant-Based Foods. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Pineda, E.; Poelman, M.P.; Aaspõllu, A.; Bica, M.; Bouzas, C.; Carrano, E.; de Miguel-Etayo, P.; Djojosoeparto, S.; Blenkuš, M.G.; Graca, P.; et al. Policy implementation and priorities to create healthy food environments using the Healthy Food Environment Policy Index (Food-EPI): A pooled level analysis across eleven European countries. Lancet Reg. Health-Eur. 2022, 23, 100522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Souza Oliveira, J.; Cristina Egito de Menezes, R.; Almendra, R.; Israel Cabral de Lira, P.; Barbosa de Aquino, N.; Paula de Souza, N.; Santana, P. Unhealthy food environments that promote overweight and food insecurity in a brazilian metropolitan area: A case of a syndemic? Food Policy 2022, 112, 102375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Noguerol, A.T.; Pagán, M.J.; García-Segovia, P.; Varela, P. Green or clean? Perception of clean label plant-based products by omnivorous, vegan, vegetarian and flexitarian consumers. Food Res. Int. 2021, 149, 110652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Monteiro, C.A.; Cannon, G.; Lawrence, M.; Laura Da Costa Louzada, M.; Machado, P.P. Ultra-Processed Foods, Diet Quality, and Health Using the NOVA Classification System; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  26. WHO. Plant-Based DIETS and Their Impact on Health, Sustainability and the Environment—A Review of the Evidence; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  27. EC. Regulation (Eu) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the Provision of Food Information to Consumers; Official Journal of the European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  28. PNPAS. 2015 Descodificador de Rótulos. Available online: https://nutrimento.pt/noticias/descodificador-de-rotulos/ (accessed on 15 September 2023).
  29. DH. The Nutrient Profiling Model—GOV.UK. (n.d.). 2011. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-nutrient-profiling-model (accessed on 24 October 2023).
  30. Beslay, M.; Srour, B.; Méjean, C.; Allès, B.; Fiolet, T.; Debras, C.; Chazelas, E.; Deschasaux, M.; Wendeu-Foyet, M.G.; Hercberg, S.; et al. Ultra-processed food intake in association with BMI change and risk of overweight and obesity: A prospective analysis of the French NutriNet-Santé cohort. PLoS Med. 2020, 17, e1003256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chang, K.; Gunter, M.J.; Rauber, F.; Levy, R.B.; Huybrechts, I.; Kliemann, N.; Millett, C.; Vamos, E.P. Ultra-processed food consumption, cancer risk and cancer mortality: A large-scale prospective analysis within the UK Biobank. EClinicalMedicine 2023, 56, 101840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. González-Palacios, S.; Oncina-Cánovas, A.; García-de-la-Hera, M.; Martínez-González, M.Á.; Salas-Salvadó, J.; Corella, D.; Schröder, H.; Martínez, J.A.; Alonso-Gómez, Á.M.; Wärnberg, J.; et al. Increased ultra-processed food consumption is associated with worsening of cardiometabolic risk factors in adults with metabolic syndrome: Longitudinal analysis from a randomized trial. Atherosclerosis 2023, 377, 12–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Jardim, M.Z.; Costa, B.V.d.L.; Pessoa, M.C.; Duarte, C.K. Ultra-processed foods increase noncommunicable chronic disease risk. Nutr. Res. 2021, 95, 19–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. FMI. Dairy Alternatives Market—Size, Growth, Trends & Forecast. 2023. Available online: https://www.futuremarketinsights.com/reports/dairy-alternatives-market (accessed on 25 October 2023).
  35. FMI. Plant Based Beverage Market Outlook from 2024 to 2034. 2024. Available online: https://www.futuremarketinsights.com/reports/plant-based-beverages-market (accessed on 23 May 2024).
  36. Aydar, E.F.; Tutuncu, S.; Ozcelik, B. Plant-based milk substitutes: Bioactive compounds, conventional and novel processes, bioavailability studies, and health effects. J. Funct. Foods 2020, 70, 103975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bryant, C.J. Plant-based animal product alternatives are healthier and more environmentally sustainable than animal products. Future Foods 2022, 6, 100174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Carlsson Kanyama, A.; Hedin, B.; Katzeff, C. Differences in environmental impact between plant-based alternatives to dairy and dairy products: A systematic literature review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Angelino, D.; Rosi, A.; Vici, G.; Russo MDello Pellegrini, N.; Martini, D. Nutritional Quality of Plant-Based Beverages Sold in Italy: The Food Labelling of Italian Products (FLIP) Study. Foods 2020, 9, 682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Craig, W.J.; Fresán, U. International Analysis of the Nutritional Content and a Review of Health Benefits of Non-Dairy Plant-Based Beverages. Nutrients 2021, 13, 842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Smith, N.W.; Dave, A.C.; Hill, J.P.; McNabb, W.C. Nutritional assessment of plant-based beverages in comparison to bovine milk. Front. Nutr. 2022, 9, 957486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Singh-Povel, C.M.; van Gool, M.P.; Gual Rojas, A.P.; Bragt, M.C.; Kleinnijenhuis, A.J.; Hettinga, K.A. Nutritional content, protein quantity, protein quality and carbon footprint of plant-based beverages and semi-skimmed milk in the Netherlands and Europe. Public Health Nutr. 2022, 25, 1416–1426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Clegg, M.E.; Tarrado Ribes, A.; Reynolds, R.; Kliem, K.; Stergiadis, S. A comparative assessment of the nutritional composition of dairy and plant-based dairy alternatives available for sale in the UK and the implications for consumers’ dietary intakes. Food Res. Int. 2021, 148, 110586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Drewnowski, A.; Henry, C.J.; Dwyer, J.T. Proposed Nutrient Standards for Plant-Based Beverages Intended as Milk Alternatives. Front. Nutr. 2021, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Boukid, F.; Lamri, M.; Dar, B.N.; Garron, M.; Castellari, M. Vegan Alternatives to Processed Cheese and Yogurt Launched in the European Market during 2020: A Nutritional Challenge? Foods 2021, 10, 2782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Grasso, N.; Alonso-Miravalles, L.; O’Mahony, J.A. Composition, Physicochemical and Sensorial Properties of Commercial Plant-Based Yogurts. Foods 2020, 9, 252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Craig, W.J.; Brothers, C.J. Nutritional content and health profile of non-dairy plant-based yogurt alternatives. Nutrients 2021, 13, 4069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Moore, J.B.; Horti, A.; Fielding, B.A. Evaluation of the nutrient content of yogurts: A comprehensive survey of yogurt products in the major UK supermarkets. BMJ Open 2018, 8, e021387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. EC. Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European parliament and of the council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods. In Nutrition and Health Claims; European Parliament, Council of the European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  50. Gómez-Gallego, C.; Gueimonde, M.; Salminen, S. The role of yogurt in food-based dietary guidelines. Nutr. Rev. 2018, 76 (Suppl. S1), 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Tremblay, A.; Panahi, S. Yogurt Consumption as a Signature of a Healthy Diet and Lifestyle. J. Nutr. 2017, 147, 1476S–1480S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Savaiano, D.A.; Hutkins, R.W. Yogurt, cultured fermented milk, and health: A systematic review. Nutr. Rev. 2021, 79, 599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Coyle, D.H.; Ndanuko, R.; Singh, S.; Huang, P.; Wu, J.H. Variations in Sugar Content of Flavored Milks and Yogurts: A Cross-Sectional Study across 3 Countries. Curr. Dev. Nutr. 2019, 3, nzz060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Craig, W.J.; Mangels, A.R.; Brothers, C.J. Nutritional Profiles of Non-Dairy Plant-Based Cheese Alternatives. Nutrients 2022, 14, 1247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Fresán, U.; Rippin, H. Nutritional Quality of Plant-Based Cheese Available in Spanish Supermarkets: How Do They Compare to Dairy Cheese? Nutrients 2021, 13, 3291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Miller, V.; Reedy, J.; Cudhea, F.; Zhang, J.; Shi, P.; Erndt-Marino, J.; Coates, J.; Micha, R.; Webb, P.; Mozaffarian, D.; et al. Global, regional, and national consumption of animal-source foods between 1990 and 2018: Findings from the Global Dietary Database. Lancet Planet. Health 2022, 6, e243–e256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Beal, T.; Gardner, C.D.; Herrero, M.; Iannotti, L.L.; Merbold, L.; Nordhagen, S.; Mottet, A. Friend or Foe? The Role of Animal-Source Foods in Healthy and Environmentally Sustainable Diets. J. Nutr. 2023, 153, 409–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Clark, M.A.; Springmann, M.; Hill, J.; Tilman, D. Multiple health and environmental impacts of foods. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 23357–23362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Fresán, U.; Sabaté, J. Vegetarian Diets: Planetary Health and Its Alignment with Human Health. Adv. Nutr. 2019, 10, S380–S388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Magkos, F.; Tetens, I.; Bügel, S.G.; Felby, C.; Schacht, S.R.; Hill, J.O.; Ravussin, E.; Astrup, A. A Perspective on the Transition to Plant-Based Diets: A Diet Change May Attenuate Climate Change, but Can It Also Attenuate Obesity and Chronic Disease Risk? Adv. Nutr. 2020, 11, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kołodziejczak, K.; Onopiuk, A.; Szpicer, A.; Poltorak, A. Meat Analogues in the Perspective of Recent Scientific Research: A Review. Foods 2022, 11, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Bryngelsson, S.; Moshtaghian, H.; Bianchi, M.; Hallström, E. Nutritional assessment of plant-based meat analogues on the Swedish market. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022, 73, 889–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Tonheim, L.E.; Austad, E.; Torheim, L.E.; Henjum, S. Plant-based meat and dairy substitutes on the Norwegian market: Comparing macronutrient content in substitutes with equivalent meat and dairy products. J. Nutr. Sci. 2022, 11, e9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Bohrer, B.M. An investigation of the formulation and nutritional composition of modern meat analogue products. Food Sci. Hum. Wellness 2019, 8, 320–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Curtain, F.; Grafenauer, S. Plant-Based Meat Substitutes in the Flexitarian Age: An Audit of Products on Supermarket Shelves. Nutrients 2019, 11, 2603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Cole, E.; Goeler-Slough, N.; Cox, A.; Nolden, A. Examination of the nutritional composition of alternative beef burgers available in the United States. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022, 73, 425–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Cutroneo, S.; Angelino, D.; Tedeschi, T.; Pellegrini, N.; Martini, D. Nutritional Quality of Meat Analogues: Results From the Food Labelling of Italian Products (FLIP) Project. Front. Nutr. 2022, 9, 852831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Romão, B.; Botelho, R.B.A.; Torres, M.L.; Maynard, D.d.C.; de Holanda, M.E.M.; Borges, V.R.P.; Raposo, A.; Zandonadi, R.P. Nutritional Profile of Commercialized Plant-Based Meat: An Integrative Review with a Systematic Approach. Foods 2023, 12, 448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Nath, H.; Samtiya, M.; Dhewa, T. Beneficial attributes and adverse effects of major plant-based foods anti-nutrients on health: A review. Hum. Nutr. Metab. 2022, 28, 200147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Samtiya, M.; Aluko, R.E.; Dhewa, T. Plant food anti-nutritional factors and their reduction strategies: An overview. Food Prod. Process. Nutr. 2020, 2, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Rizzolo-Brime, L.; Orta-Ramirez, A.; Puyol Martin, Y.; Jakszyn, P. Nutritional Assessment of Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: A Comparison of Nutritional Information of Plant-Based Meat Alternatives in Spanish Supermarkets. Nutrients 2023, 15, 1325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. FMI. Ready-to-Eat Food Market Outlook (2022–2032); Market Insights on Ready-to-Eat Food Covering Sales Outlook, Demand Forecast & up-to-Date Key Trends; FMI: Newark, NJ, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  73. Action on Salt. Salt Content of Vegan and Plant-Based Meals Served in the Out of Home Sector; Salt Awareness Week 2020 Report; Action on Salt: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  74. Guess, N.; Klatt, K.; Wei, D.; Williamson, E.; Ulgenalp, I.; Trinidade, O.; Kusaslan, E.; Yilidrim, A.; Gowers, C.; Guard, R.; et al. A cross-sectional study of the commercial plant-based landscape across the US, UK and Canada. BioRxiv 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. GFI. 2021 U.S. Retail Market Insights Plant-Based Foods; GFI: Washington, DC, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  76. Unilever. Five Trends That Will Take Plant-Based Eating Mainstream in 2023; Unilever: London, UK, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  77. Gehring, J.; Touvier, M.; Baudry, J.; Julia, C.; Buscail, C.; Srour, B.; Hercberg, S.; Péneau, S.; Kesse-Guyot, E.; Allès, B. Consumption of Ultra-Processed Foods by Pesco-Vegetarians, Vegetarians, and Vegans: Associations with Duration and Age at Diet Initiation. J. Nutr. 2021, 151, 120–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Salomé, M.; Huneau, J.F.; Le Baron, C.; Kesse-Guyot, E.; Fouillet, H.; Mariotti, F. Substituting Meat or Dairy Products with Plant-Based Substitutes Has Small and Heterogeneous Effects on Diet Quality and Nutrient Security: A Simulation Study in French Adults (INCA3). J. Nutr. 2021, 151, 2435–2445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Martini, D.; Godos, J.; Bonaccio, M.; Vitaglione, P.; Grosso, G. Ultra-processed foods and nutritional dietary profile: A meta-analysis of nationally representative samples. Nutrients 2021, 13, 3390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Mertens, E.; Colizzi, C.; Peñalvo, J.L. Ultra-processed food consumption in adults across Europe. Eur. J. Nutr. 2022, 61, 1521–1539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Albuquerque, T.G.; Bragotto, A.P.A.; Costa, H.S. Processed Food: Nutrition, Safety, and Public Health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Chen, X.; Zhang, Z.; Yang, H.; Qiu, P.; Wang, H.; Wang, F.; Zhao, Q.; Fang, J.; Nie, J. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and health outcomes: A systematic review of epidemiological studies. Nutr. J. 2020, 19, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Rauber, F.; Chang, K.; Vamos, E.P.; da Costa Louzada, M.L.; Monteiro, C.A.; Millett, C.; Levy, R.B. Ultra-processed food consumption and risk of obesity: A prospective cohort study of UK Biobank. Eur. J. Nutr. 2021, 60, 2169–2180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Knorr, D. Food processing: Legacy, significance and challenges. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2024, 143, 104270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. EIT Food. Consumer Perceptions Unwrapped: Ultra-Processed Foods (UPF); European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT): Budapest, Hungary, 2024; Available online: https://www.eitfood.eu/news/consumers-fear-health-risks-of-ultra-processed-foods (accessed on 23 May 2024).
  86. Ohlau, M.; Spiller, A.; Risius, A. Plant-Based Diets Are Not Enough? Understanding the Consumption of Plant-Based Meat Alternatives Along Ultra-processed Foods in Different Dietary Patterns in Germany. Front. Nutr. 2022, 9, 852936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. ESM. Top 10 Supermarket Retail Chains in Portugal. European Supermarket Magazine, 9 March 2023. [Google Scholar]
  88. Davidou, S.; Christodoulou, A.; Fardet, A.; Frank, K. The holistico-reductionist Siga classification according to the degree of food processing: An evaluation of ultra-processed foods in French supermarkets. Food Funct. 2020, 11, 2026–2039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Kaliora, A.; Katidi, A.; Vlassopoulos, A.; Noutsos, S.; Kapsokefalou, M. Ultra-Processed Foods in the Mediterranean Diet according to the NOVA Classification System; A Food Level Analysis of Branded Foods in Greece. Foods 2023, 12, 1520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Sadler, C.R.; Grassby, T.; Hart, K.; Raats, M.; Sokolović, M.; Timotijevic, L. Processed food classification: Conceptualisation and challenges. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 112, 149–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Astrup, A.; Monteiro, C.A.; Ludwig, D.S. Does the concept of “ultra-processed foods” help inform dietary guidelines, beyond conventional classification systems? NO. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2022, 116, 1482–1488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Davidou, S.; Christodoulou, A.; Frank, K.; Fardet, A. A study of ultra-processing marker profiles in 22,028 packaged ultra-processed foods using the Siga classification. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2021, 99, 103848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Plant-based food product categorization.
Table 1. Plant-based food product categorization.
Plant-Based CategoriesSub-CategoriesTypology
1. Meat Alternatives Burgers; Sausages; “Meatballs”; Nuggets; Falafel; Tofu and/or seitan; Others (e.g., schnitzels, bites, smoked sausages (plant-based versions of Portuguese traditional smoked sausages such as “Alheira”, “Morcela” and “Chouriço”)).
2. Dairy AlternativesPlant-based BeveragesAlmond; Oat; Rice; Soy; Blends (contain 2 or more plant-based ingredients); Others (e.g., coconut, hazelnut, tiger-nut, chickpea, pea, cashew). Plain; Flavored (e.g., vanilla, chocolate)
Plant-based YogurtsSoy; Almond; Coconut;
Mixed (2 plant-based ingredients)		Natural; Flavored; Greek; Protein
Plant-based CheesesAlmond; Coconut oil;
Mixed (2 plant-based ingredients)		Spreadable; Slices; Grated
3. OthersPlant-based Ready MealsFrozen; Canned; Fresh/refrigerated
Plant-based DessertsCreamy; Ice Cream
Table 2. Nutritional composition of plant-based food products categories.
Table 2. Nutritional composition of plant-based food products categories.
Number of ProductsEnergyTotal
Fat		Saturated FatTotal CarbohydratesSugarsFiberProteinSalt
Plant-Based CategoriesKcal/100 gg/100 gg/100 gg/100 gg/100 gg/100 gg/100 gg/100 g
n (%)P50 (P25–P75)P50 (P25–P75)P50 (P25–P75)P50 (P25–P75)P50 (P25–P75)P50 (P25–P75)P50 (P25–P75)P50 (P25–P75)
Meat Alternatives122 (30) 198 (166–226) 9.2 (7.2–13.0) 1.0 (0.8–1.6) 11.4 (3.2–20.0) 1.5 (0.6–2.7) 3.6 (2.1–6.0) 14.0 (8.8–17.4) 1.2 (0.9–1.5)
Dairy Alternatives225 (55) 51 (39–64) 1.7 (1.4–2.2) 0.3 (0.2–0.4) 6.8 (2.8–8.5) 4.4 (2.1–6.3) 1.2 (0.4–1.0) 0.8 (0.5–3.3) 0.1 (0.1–0.2)
Others (Ready meals and Desserts)60 (15) 100 (87–178) 3.2 (2.3–8.1) 0.6 (0.3–3.9) 13.0 (8.1–17.9) 3.4 (2.3–14.8) 2.7 (1.4–3.6) 3.2 (1.2–4.1) 0.4 (0.1–0.7)
Table 3. Nutritional composition of plant-based meat alternatives.
Table 3. Nutritional composition of plant-based meat alternatives.
Number of ProductsEnergyTotal
Fat		Saturated FatTotal CarbohydratesSugarsFiberProteinSalt
Kcal/100gg/100 gg/100 gg/100 gg/100 gg/100 gg/100 gg/100 g
Total Meat AlternativesnP50 (P25–P75)P50 (P25–P75)P50 (P25–P75)P50 (P25–P75)P50 (P25–P75)P50 (P25–P75)P50 (P25–P75)P50 (P25–P75)
122 198 (166–226) 9.2 (7.2–13.0) 1.0 (0.8–1.6) 11.4 (3.2–20.0) 1.5 (0.6–2.7) 3.6 (2.1–6.0) 14.0 (8.8–17.4) 1.2 (0.9–1.5)
CategoriesBurgers 37 206 (179–230) a 8.9 (5.2–12.0) bc 1.0 (0.8–1.3) b 12.0 (7.7–19.0) b 2.2 (1.3–3.1) abc 3.7 (2.6–6.2) b 14.1 (12.0–18.0) a 1.3 (1.0–1.8) bc
Sausages 12 224 (224–224) a 18.0 (18.0–18.0) a 2.4 (2.3–2.4) a 0.6 (0.6–3.5) d 0.5 (0.5–0.5) e 0.5 (0.5–0.7) d 15.0 (12.0–15.0) a 2.0 (1.5–2.0) a
Meatballs 8 196 (173–224) a 8.1 (6.8–14.6) bc 1.1 (0.8–1.8) b 10.0 (4.8–16.1) c 1.1 (0.9–3.0) c 4.2 (2.6–4.9) ab 16.0 (9.3–19.0) a 1.4 (1.1–1.6) bc
Nuggets6 250 (211–250) a 13.5 (9.6–17.0) b 1.1 (0.9–1.4) b 20.0 (15.0–24.0) ab 0.6 (0.5–0.8) d 4.8 (3.6–5.9) ab 11.6 (9.7–33.4) a 1.2 (1.0–1.3) bc
Falafel 10 194 (190–232) a 10.0 (7.6–12.0) bc 1.0 (0.8–1.0) b 19.5 (18.5–22.0) ab 2.8 (2.0–4.3) abc 5.9 (4.6–9.5) a 6.7 (5.9–7.4) b 1.1 (0.9–1.2) c
Tofu and Seitan 19 146 (125–150) b 8.1 (2.2–9.1) c 1.4 (0.7–1.8) b 0.9 (0.1–3.4) d 0.5 (0.1–1.2) de 1.4 (0.8–2.0) c 16.5 (14.0–22.1) a 0.1 (0.0–0.2) d
Others 30 183 (149–236) a 8.2 (5.4–13.0) bc 0.8 (0.6–1.5) b 17.3 (3.1–22.2) abc 1.8 (1.1–2.4) bc 4.5 (2.7–6.3) ab 13.2 (5.6–17.2) a 1.0 (0.9–1.4) c
p-value <0.001 <0.001 0.006 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001
BrandPrivate 12 230 (159–304) 6.2 (2.2–11.8) 1.1 (0.5–2.3) 22.4 (12.5–40.5) 2.6 (1.0–6.2) 4.6 (1.4–9.1) 11.7 (8.9–13.5) 1.4 (0.8–3.0)
Industrial 110 194 (166–225) 9.2 (7.4–13.0) 1.0 (0.8–1.6) 9.9 (3.1–19.0) 1.4 (0.5–2.6) 3.7 (2.2–5.9) 14.4 (8.8–17.6) 1.2 (0.9–1.5)
p-value 0.262 0.061 0.685 0.006 0.048 0.548 0.159 0.506
a,b,c,d,e homogenous subsets according to the Mann–Whitney test with 95% confidence.
Table 4. Nutritional composition of plant-based beverages.
Table 4. Nutritional composition of plant-based beverages.
Number of ProductsEnergyTotal
Fat		Saturated FatTotal CarbohydratesSugarsFiberProteinSalt
Kcal/100 mLg/100 mLg/100 mLg/100 mLg/100 mLg/100 mLg/100 mLg/100 mL
Total Plant-based BeveragesnP50 (P25–P75)P50 (P25–P75)P50 (P25–P75)P50 (P25–P75)P50 (P25–P75)P50 (P25–P75)P50 (P25–P75)P50 (P25–P75)
14546 (32–56)1.5 (1.1–1.8)0.2 (0.1–0.3)6.6 (2.7–8.4)4.0 (1.9–5.3)0.5 (0.4–0.9)0.9 (0.5–2.1)0.1 (0.08–0.13)
CategoriesAlmond24 26 (18–35) b 1.4 (1.2–1.7) b 0.1 (0.1–0.2) c 3.0 (0.4–3.4) c 3.0 (0.0–3.2) bcd0.4 (0.3–0.6) b 0.6 (0.5–0.7) cd 0.12 (0.09–0.14)
Oat43 48 (43–56) a 1.5 (0.8–1.6) b 0.2 (0.1–0.3) b 7.7 (7.0–8.9) b 4.5 (4.0–6.1) a0.8 (0.5–1.2) a 0.9 (0.6–1.2) bcd 0.1 (0.09–0.1)
Rice14 54 (46–57) a 1.0 (0.8–1.0) c 0.1 (0.1–0.1) c 11.0 (8.3–12.0) a 4.8 (4.6–6.5) a 0.3 (0.0–0.5) c 0.2 (0.1–0.4) e 0.1 (0.09–0.1)
Soy35 46 (36–57) a 1.8 (1.6–1.9) a 0.3 (0.3–0.3) a 4.5 (1.8–5.4) c 2.7 (1.7–5.1) cd 0.6 (0.4–0.9) ab 3.0 (3.0–3.2) a 0.1 (0.09–0.14)
Blend17 45 (30–55) a 1.4 (1.2–2.2) b 0.3 (0.2–0.3) ab 6.7 (3.4–9.4) b 4.3 (2.2–5.8) abc 0.6 (0.4–0.8) ab 0.5 (0.4–1.2) cd 0.1 (0.08–0.1)
Others12 33 (23–48) b 1.4 (1.3–1.8) b 0.3 (0.2–1.0) ab 2.5 (1.0–7.4) c 2.1 (0.0–3.6) d 0.5 (0.2–1.2) ab 0.4 (0.4–2.2) d 0.1 (0.08–0.14)
p-value <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.404
TypePlain121 42 (30–51) 1.4 (1.1–1.7) 0.2 (0.1–0.3) 5.7 (2.5–8.3) 3.3 (1.5–4.6) 0.5 (0.3–0.8) 0.7 (0.4–1.5) 0.1 (0.08–0.1)
Flavored24 57 (50–62) 1.7 (1.5–1.9) 0.3 (0.3–0.4) 7.7 (5.4–9.6) 6.0 (4.8–7.0) 0.9 (0.5–1.1) 2.6 (1.3–3.1) 0.14 (0.1–0.17)
p-value <0.001 0.002 <0.001 0.034 <0.001 0.004 <0.001 <0.001
BrandPrivate26 46 (34–54) 1.6 (1.2–1.9) 0.2 (0.1–0.3) 7.3 (3.2–8.4) 4.5 (2.7–6.0) 0.5 (0.3–1.2) 1.1 (0.5–2.5) 0.1 (0.08–0.1)
Industrial119 46 (31–56) 1.5 (1.1–1.8) 0.2 (0.1–0.3) 6.0 (2.6–8.5) 3.8 (1.8–5.0) 0.5 (0.4–0.9) 0.9 (0.5–2.1) 0.1 (0.09–0.14)
p-value 0.797 0.797 0.284 0.987 0.738 0.225 0.178 0.596
a,b,c,d,e homogenous subsets according to the Mann–Whitney test with 95% confidence.
Table 5. Nutritional composition of plant-based yogurts.
Table 5. Nutritional composition of plant-based yogurts.
Number of ProductsEnergyTotal
Fat		Saturated FatTotal CarbohydratesSugarsFiberProteinSalt
Kcal/100 gg/100 gg/100 gg/100 gg/100 gg/100 gg/100 gg/100 g
Total Plant-based YogurtsnP50 (P25–P75)P50 (P25–P75)P50 (P25–P75)P50 (P25–P75)P50 (P25–P75)P50 (P25–P75)P50 (P25–P75)P50 (P25–P75)
7369 (58–76)2.0 (2.0–3.0)0.4 (0.3–1.1)8.1 (2.6–9.7)6.8 (2.2–8.2)0.9 (0.8–1.1)3.6 (3.2–3.9)0.18 (0.1–0.24)
CategoriesSoy54 68 (58–74) bc 2.1 (2.0–2.3) c 0.4 (0.3–0.4) c 8.0 (2.6–8.8) b 7.7 (2.2–8.5) 1.0 (0.8–1.1) b 3.7 (3.6–3.9) 0.2 (0.1–0.2) a
Almond377 (68–83) abc4.7 (4.1–5.0) a0.4 (0.4–0.4) c4.2 (3.9–6.4) b0.8 (0.4–2.9)4.5 (4.5–4.5) a2.0 (1.6–2.1)0.02 (0.02–0.03) c
Coconut12 90 (73–95) a 4.5 (2.8–4.9) ab 3.7 (2.3–4.6) a 11.8 (11.0–12.1) a 6.7 (5.5–8.8) 0.6 (0.1–1.1) b 0.5 (0.5–0.5) 0.07 (0.07–0.09) b
Mixed4 56 (53–70) c 3.0 (2.5–3.0) b 1.1 (0.7–1.2) b 2.4 (1.5–7.2) b 2.4 (1.2–5.0) 1.0 (0.8–1.4) b 3.9 (3.8–3.9) 0.17 (0.1–0.3) a
p-value 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 0.013 0.139 <0.001 0.198 <0.001
TypeNatural15 55 (51–58) b 2.8 (2.3–3.4) ab 0.4 (0.4–1.1) 2.4 (2.1–3.5) b 1.4 (0.0–2.2) b 1.0 (0.9–1.0) bc 3.9 (1.1–4.0) 0.24 (0.07–0.25)
Flavored53 69 (63–76) a 2.1 (2.0–2.8) b 0.4 (0.3–0.4) 8.3 (6.1–11.0) a 7.9 (5.6–8.8) a 0.9 (0.8–1.1) c 3.6 (3.2–3.7) 0.16 (0.1–0.23)
Greek384 (72–85) a2.7 (2.4–3.0) ab0.4 (0.4–0.5)10.5 (6.0–11.3) a7.5 (3.8–8.6) a1.8 (1.8–1.8) a4.6 (4.1–5.2)0.1 (0.09–0.1)
Protein2 76 (68–84) a 3.2 (3.0–3.3) a 0.5 (0.5–0.6) 5.6 (2.6–8.5) ab 5.4 (2.5–8.2) a 1.4 (1.2–1.5) b 5.5 (5.2–5.8) 0.3 (0.22–0.36)
p-value 0.007 0.005 0.171 <0.001 <0.001 0.006 0.083 0.339
BrandPrivate8 76 (70–80) 2.2 (1.8–3.0) 0.35 (0.3–0.4) 10.2 (6.6–12.6) 9.1 (5.1–10.4) 0.5 (0.5–1.0) 3.2 (3.1–3.6) 0.1 (0.08–0.1)
Industrial65 68 (57–75) 2.2 (2.0–3.0) 0.4 (0.4–1.1) 8.1 (2.5–9.6) 6.7 (2.2–8.1) 1.0 (0.8–1.1) 3.7 (3.6–3.9) 0.22 (0.11–0.24)
p-value 0.293 0.232 0.034 0.060 0.047 0.092 0.294 0.132
a,b,c homogenous subsets according to the Mann–Whitney test with 95% confidence.
Table 6. Nutritional composition of plant-based cheeses.
Table 6. Nutritional composition of plant-based cheeses.
Number of ProductsEnergyTotal
Fat		Saturated FatTotal CarbohydratesSugarsProteinSalt
Kcal/100 gg/100 gg/100 gg/100 gg/100 gg/100 gg/100 g
Total Plant-based CheesesnP50 (P25–P75)P50 (P25–P75)P50 (P25–P75)P50 (P25–P75)P50 (P25–P75)P50 (P25–P75)P50 (P25–P75)
7281 (260–292)23.0 (20.0–24)21.0 (15.5–21.5)20.0 (9.5–22.0)0.0 (0.0–0.24)0.0 (0.0–1.6)1.7 (1.5–1.9)
TypeSpreadable3239 (167–272)23.0 (20.2–26.0)21.0 (15.6–23.5)8.0 (5.5–9.5)0.0 (0.0–0.24)0.0 (0.0–1.4)1.2 (0.8–1.5)
Slices2283 (282–284)21.5 (20.8–22.3)19.5 (18.8–20.3)22.5 (21.3–23.8)0.2 (0.1–0.4)0.2 (0.1–0.4)2.1 (1.9–2.2)
Grated2290 (285–294)22.0 (21.0–23.0)17.5 (15.2–19.8)22.0 (21.5–22.5)0.0 (0.0–0.0)1.5 (0.8–2.2)2.0 (2.0–2.0)
p-value0.7540.9240.9780.1050.5770.8130.123
Table 7. Nutritional composition of plant-based ready meals and desserts.
Table 7. Nutritional composition of plant-based ready meals and desserts.
Number of ProductsEnergyTotal
Fat		Saturated FatTotal CarbohydratesSugarsFiberProteinSalt
Kcal/100 gg/100 gg/100 gg/100 gg/100 gg/100 gg/100 gg/100 g
Total Plant-based Ready MealsnP50 (P25–P75)P50 (P25–P75)P50 (P25–P75)P50 (P25–P75)P50 (P25–P75)P50 (P25–P75)P50 (P25–P75)P50 (P25–P75)
24 92 (75–136) 3.0 (2.3–5.1) 0.4 (0.3–0.6) 8.3 (5.3–12.7) 2.3 (1.7–2.8) 2.8 (2.2–3.6) 4.0 (3.3–5.1) 0.7 (0.5–1.0)
CategoriesFrozen18 92 (75–135) 2.7 (2.3–3.5) 0.4 (0.2–0.5) c 10.0 (5.9–12.4) b 2.3 (1.6–2.5) 3.2 (2.7–3.8) 4.0 (2.9–4.7) ab 0.7 (0.4–0.8) b
Canned3 76 (73–76) 3.7 (3.0–3.7) 0.6 (0.5–0.6) b 4.0 (4.0–6.2) b 3.1 (2.9–3.1) 1.8 (1.8–1.9) 5.7 (4.4–5.7) a 1.0 (1.0–1.1) a
Refrigerated2 161 (152–169) 8.9 (6.7–11.0) 2.4 (0.8–3.9) a 16.0 (13.0–19.0) a 1.8 (1.2–2.4) 1.1 (1.0–1.1) 3.6 (3.4–3.9) b 0.9 (0.7–1.1) ab
p-value 0.057 0.091 0.020 0.030 0.099 0.705 0.003 0.040
BrandPrivate6 100 (43–105) 2.9 (2.6–3.5) 0.4 (0.4–0.4) 12.1 (3.6–12.4) 1.6 (1.5–1.8) 3.8 (3.4–4.0) 4.2 (2.3–4.7) 0.4 (0.2–0.8)
Industrial18 88 (75–152) 3.3 (2.3–6.7) 0.4 (0.2–0.6) 8.1 (5.9–13.0) 2.4 (2.3–2.9) 2.7 (2.0–3.0) 3.9 (3.4–5.7) 0.7 (0.7–1.0)
p-value 0.537 0.626 0.721 0.770 0.018 0.030 0.713 0.022
Total Plant-based Desserts36 162 (95–264) 4.3 (2.3–10.0) 3.9 (0.6–8.6) 17.0 (14.0–31.0) 15.0 (11.0–24.1) 1.7 (0.8–3.5) 1.2 (0.5–3.3) 0.14 (0.1–0.4)
CategoriesCreamy17 95 (88–244) 2.3 (1.2–2.9) 0.6 (0.2–2.3) 14.2 (12.9–54.0) 11 (8.8–49.4) 1.5 (0.8–4.1) 1.1 (0.5–3.1) 0.1 (0.1–0.4)
Ice Cream19 250 (196–265) 13.9 (10.8–16.0) 11.0 (9.2–12.1) 29.2 (19.6–31.1) 21.2 (17.4–24.9) 1.1 (0.9–1.7) 1.5 (1.2–3.7) 0.3 (0.1–0.4)
p-value 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 0.021 0.009 0.479 0.004 0.382
BrandPrivate12 249 (164–379) 9.4 (1.3–13.5) 7.6 (0.4–11.2) 30.1 (16.8–63.6) 22.6 (15.2–57.1) 2.3 (1.1–3.8) 1.1 (0.5–1.8) 0.2 (0.1–0.4)
Industrial2495 (87–97)2.9 (2.5–4.3)2.3 (0.8–3.9)14.0 (12.0–14.7)9.0 (6.8–11.0)1.5 (0.7–3.1)1.5 (0.5–3.2)0.1 (0.1–0.1)
p-value0.0180.8560.8300.0780.0060.4640.2650.097
a,b,c homogenous subsets according to the Mann–Whitney test with 95% confidence.
Table 8. Nutritional profile and degree of processing of plant-based food products by categories.
Table 8. Nutritional profile and degree of processing of plant-based food products by categories.
Total
Plant-Based Products		Meat AlternativesDairy AlternativesOthers
BeveragesYogurtsCheesesReady MealsDesserts
n (%)n (%)n (%)n (%)n (%)n (%)n (%)
Total FatLOW (≤3 g)238 (58.5)15 (12.3)84 (57.9)57 (78.1)0 (0.0)12 (50.0)12 (33.3)
MEDIUM (3–17.5 g)145 (35.6)94 (77.0)61 (42.1)16 (21.9)1 (14.3)12 (50.0)19 (52.8)
HIGH (≥17.5 g)24 (5.9)13 (10.7)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)6 (85.7)0 (0.0)5 (13.9)
Saturated FatLOW (≤1.5 g)323 (79.4)85 (69.7)135 (93.1)61 (83.6)0 (0.0)22 (91.7)10 (27.8)
MEDIUM (1.5–5 g)54 (13.3)34 (27.9)10 (6.9)10 (13.7)0 (0.0)2 (8.3)8 (22.2)
HIGH (≥5 g)30 (7.4)3 (2.4)0 (0.0)2 (2.7)7 (100)0 (0.0)18 (50.0)
SugarsLOW (≤5 g)280 (68.8)113 (92.6)46 (31.7)28 (38.4)7 (100)24 (100)2 (5.6)
MEDIUM (5–22.5 g)114 (28.0)9 (7.4)99 (68.3)45 (61.6)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)21 (58.3)
HIGH (≥22.5 g)13 (3.2)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)13 (36.1)
SaltLOW (≤0.3 g)258 (63.5)14 (11.5)144 (99.3)69 (94.5)0 (0.0)2 (8.3)30 (83.3)
MEDIUM (0.3–1.5 g)106 (26.1)72 (59.02)1 (0.7)4 (5.5)2 (28.6)21 (87.5)6 (16.7)
HIGH (≥1.5 g)42 (10.3)36 (29.5)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)5 (71.4)1 (4.2)0 (0.0)
NOVA ClassificationGroup 1: no/minimaly processed1 (0.2)----1 (4.2)-
Group 3: Processed63 (15.5)17 (13.9)33 (22.8)3 (4.1)-10 (41.7)-
Group 4: Ultra-Processed343 (84.3)105 (86.1)112 (77.2)70 (95.9)7 (100.0)13 (54.2)36 (100.0)
Table 9. Total number of ingredients and respective total number of ultra-processed food items that compose the different plant-based food products.
Table 9. Total number of ingredients and respective total number of ultra-processed food items that compose the different plant-based food products.
Plant-Based Food Categories Total nº of Ingredientsp ValueTotal nº of Ingredients
(Group 4—NOVA)		p Value
P50 (P25–P75) P50 (P25–P75)
Meat AlternativesBurgers16 (13–19)<0.0014 (2–5)<0.001
Sausages16 (14–18)5 (4–5)
Meatballs20 (17–23)8 (7–9)
Nuggets22 (21–23)6 (6–7)
Falafel18 (16–21)2 (2–2)
Tofu&Seitan9 (8–14)1 (1–1)
Others17 (13–22)3 (2–5)
Dairy AlternativesBeveragesAlmond 10 (6–13) <0.001 3 (3–4) <0.001
Oat 8 (5–11) 1 (0–2)
Rice6 (4–10)1 (0–2)
Soy11 (10–13)3 (2–4)
Blend11 (8–12)3 (2–4)
Others10 (5–12)2 (0–4)
YogurtsSoy17 (13–20)>0.054 (2–5)>0.05
Almond9 (8–9)4 (4–4)
Coconut15 (8–17)4 (4–6)
Mixed17 (14–20)4 (3–7)
CheesesAlmond6>0.052>0.05
Coconut oil9 (8–11)4 (2–5)
OtherReady Meals Frozen15 (11–25)>0.052 (0–5)>0.05
Canned20 (20–20)3 (2–3)
Refrigerated12 (7–18)3 (1–4)
DessertsCreamy11 (10–13)<0.0014 (3–7)<0.001
Ice Cream20 (18–23)9 (7–10)
Total plant-based food products15 (10–18) 4 (2–5)
Table 10. Description of the main NOVA group 4 ingredients presented among the plant-based foods categories.
Table 10. Description of the main NOVA group 4 ingredients presented among the plant-based foods categories.
Ultra-Processed FoodsMeat AlternativesDairy AlternativesReady MealsDesserts
BeveragesYogurtCheese
Food SubstancesSugarsMaltodextrin; dextrose;Maltodextrine; dextrose; high-fructose corn syrup;Fruit juice concentrates;
high-fructose corn syrup;		 Dextrose;
Fruit juice concentrates;		High-fructose corn syrup; maltodextrine; Fruit juice concentrates;
Modified OilsPalm oil; Palm oil;
Sources of proteinSoy protein isolate; rehydrated pea protein; textured wheat protein; gluten;Pea protein;
Soy protein isolate		Pea protein;Pea protein;Soy protein isolate; textured wheat protein; textured pea protein; gluten;Rehydrated pea protein
Food AdditivesFlavours and flavour enhancersDifferent aromas;
monosodium glutamate;		Different aromasDifferent aromasDifferent aromas(e.g., cheese)Different aromasDifferent aromas
Artificial sweeteners Sucralose;
acesulfame K;
Emulsifiers, thickeners, and gelling agentsModified starch;
Sodium alginate;
xanthan gum; carrageenan;		Sunflower lecithin; gellan gum; locust bean gum;Modified starch;
Agar; Pectin;		Modified starch; Agar;Modified starc; mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids;Modified starch; xanthan gum; pectin; guar gum; mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids; carrageenan;
Others (e.g., colours, and extracts)Potato extract; caramel; paprika;β-Carotene;β-Carotene;Olive leaf extract;β-Carotene;Malted barley extract;
paprika extract;
Yeast extract;		Coconut extract;
β-Carotene;
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Maganinho, M.; Almeida, C.; Padrão, P. Industrially Produced Plant-Based Food Products: Nutritional Value and Degree of Processing. Foods 2024, 13, 1752. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13111752

AMA Style

Maganinho M, Almeida C, Padrão P. Industrially Produced Plant-Based Food Products: Nutritional Value and Degree of Processing. Foods. 2024; 13(11):1752. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13111752

Chicago/Turabian Style

Maganinho, Marta, Carla Almeida, and Patrícia Padrão. 2024. "Industrially Produced Plant-Based Food Products: Nutritional Value and Degree of Processing" Foods 13, no. 11: 1752. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13111752

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop