Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The promotion of dietary shifts towards reduced meat consumption and increased plant protein consumption, has resulted in increased availability and consumption of meat alternatives which are products made from non-meat proteins to replicate the organoleptic and functional properties of meat. However, a knowledge gap exists on the impact of the production and consumption of these products on the environment and human health. This systematic review aims to address this research gap by evaluating the literature on the ingredient composition, environmental, nutritional and health impact of meat alternatives compared to meat. Five databases, reference lists and web alerts were searched to identify articles published from 2011-2023. 54 articles were included in this systematic review. Meat alternatives have a lower environmental impact than beef and pork and similar impact to chicken. Meat alternatives contain more ingredients, allergens and food additives than comparable meat products. Overall, meat alternatives had lower contents of total and saturated fat, zinc and vitamin B12, and higher contents of carbohydrates, sugars, dietary fibre, salt/sodium, iron and calcium than comparable meat products. Protein contents were comparable or lower for meat alternatives depending on the category. A limited number of single test meal studies and short-term trials investigated the impact of meat alternative consumption on health outcomes, however, from these studies, no adverse effects were observed. Further research examining the impact of meat alternative consumption on health outcomes is needed to better understand the role of these foods (if any) in healthy and sustainable dietary patterns.
Lindberg et al. (Wed,) studied this question.