Impact of Plant-Based Meat Alternatives on the Gut Microbiota of Consumers: A Real-World Study

Perspective: Soy-based Meat and Dairy Alternatives, Despite Classification as Ultra-processed Foods, Deliver High-quality Nutrition on Par with Unprocessed or Minimally Processed Animal-based Counterparts

In many non-Asian countries, soy is consumed via soy-based meat and dairy alternatives, in addition to the traditional Asian soyfoods, such as tofu and miso. Meat alternatives are typically made using concentrated sources of soy protein, such as soy protein isolate (SPI) and soy protein concentrate (SPC). Therefore, these products are classified as ultra-processed foods (UPFs; group 4) according to NOVA, an increasingly widely used food-classification system that classifies all foods into 1 of 4 groups according to the processing they undergo. Furthermore, most soymilks, even those made from whole soybeans, are also classified as UPFs because of the addition of sugars and emulsifiers. Increasingly, recommendations are being made to restrict the consumption of UPFs because their intake is associated with a variety of adverse health outcomes. Critics of UPFs argue these foods are unhealthful for a wide assortment of reasons. Explanations for the proposed adverse effects of UPFs include their high energy density, high glycemic index (GI), hyper-palatability, and low satiety potential. Claims have also been made that UPFs are not sustainably produced. However, this perspective argues that none of the criticisms of UPFs apply to soy-based meat and dairy alternatives when compared with their animal-based counterparts, beef and cow milk, which are classified as unprocessed or minimally processed foods (group 1). Classifying soy-based meat and dairy alternatives as UPFs may hinder their public acceptance, which could detrimentally affect personal and planetary health. In conclusion, the NOVA classification system is simplistic and does not adequately evaluate the nutritional attributes of meat and dairy alternatives based on soy.

Meat tastes good, legumes are healthy and meat substitutes are still strange - The practice of protein consumption among Swedish consumers

Replacing meat with grain legumes would benefit human health, the environment and agriculture. This study analysed legume and meat consumption practices by investigating consumer perceptions and competences relating to lightly processed grain legumes (LPL), legume-based meat substitutes (LBMS) and meat in Sweden, and how these (and demographic variables) influenced stated intention to change consumption. Major differences in consumer perceptions of LPL and LBMS compared with meat related to product attractiveness and status, with meat seen as more fun, popular, suitable in diets and for festive occasions, and tastier. Most consumers knew of the environmental impact of meat and health benefits of LPL. Country of origin, i.e. Swedish origin was important for many consumers (especially for meat and women). Preferences relating to health and environmental impact were important for intention to decrease meat consumption. Perceived environmental impact was important for intention to change consumption of LPL, but taste, healthiness, weight control, ease of preparation and suitability in the diet were equally or more important. Leveraging stated consumer willingness and intention to eat more LPL by making LPL more accessible to consumers could increase their consumption. For LBMS, there are still important barriers in terms of taste, familiarity and overall attractiveness of these products that need to be overcome to increase their consumption in Sweden.