Ultra-processing markers are more prevalent in plant-based meat products as compared to their meat-based counterparts in a German food market analysis

Abstract Objective: To compare ultra-processing markers and nutrient composition in plant-based meat products (PBMP) with equivalent meat-based products (MBP). Design: A total of 282 PBMP and 149 MBP within 18 product categories were assessed. Based on the NOVA classification, 33 ultra-processing ma...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Kemja-Maria Metz (Author), Nathalie Judith Neumann (Author), Mathias Fasshauer (Author)
Format: Book
Published: Cambridge University Press, 2023-12-01T00:00:00Z.
Subjects:
Online Access:Connect to this object online.
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

MARC

LEADER 00000 am a22000003u 4500
001 doaj_f6d27fb2d2854d0fb6576d721cd4bea6
042 |a dc 
100 1 0 |a Kemja-Maria Metz  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Nathalie Judith Neumann  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Mathias Fasshauer  |e author 
245 0 0 |a Ultra-processing markers are more prevalent in plant-based meat products as compared to their meat-based counterparts in a German food market analysis 
260 |b Cambridge University Press,   |c 2023-12-01T00:00:00Z. 
500 |a 10.1017/S1368980023002458 
500 |a 1368-9800 
500 |a 1475-2727 
520 |a Abstract Objective: To compare ultra-processing markers and nutrient composition in plant-based meat products (PBMP) with equivalent meat-based products (MBP). Design: A total of 282 PBMP and 149 MBP within 18 product categories were assessed. Based on the NOVA classification, 33 ultra-processing markers were identified and six ultra-processing bullet categories were defined, that is flavour, flavour enhancer, sweetener, colour, other cosmetic additives and non-culinary ingredients. The ingredient lists were analysed concerning these ultra-processing markers and ultra-processing bullet categories, as well as nutrient composition, for all PBMP and MBP. Differences between PBMP and MBP were assessed using chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests, respectively. Setting: Cross-sectional analysis. Participants: 282 PBMP and 149 MBP. Results: The percentage of ultra-processed food (UPF) items was significantly higher in PBMP (88 %) as compared to MBP (52 %) (P < 0·0001). The proportion of UPF items was numerically higher in 15 out of 18 product categories with differences in six categories reaching statistical significance (P < 0·05). Flavour, flavour enhancer, colour, other cosmetic additives and non-culinary ingredients were significantly more prevalent in PBMP as compared to MBP (P < 0·0001). Concerning nutrient composition, median energy, total fat, saturated fat and protein content were significantly lower, whereas the amounts of carbohydrate, sugar, fibre and salt were significantly higher in PBMP (P < 0·05). Conclusions: Ultra-processing markers are significantly more prevalent in PBMP as compared to MBP. Since UPF intake has been convincingly linked to metabolic and CVD, substituting MBP with PBMP might have negative net health effects. 
546 |a EN 
690 |a Metabolic syndrome 
690 |a NOVA classification 
690 |a Nutrient composition 
690 |a Plant-based meat products 
690 |a Ultra-processed food 
690 |a Public aspects of medicine 
690 |a RA1-1270 
690 |a Nutritional diseases. Deficiency diseases 
690 |a RC620-627 
655 7 |a article  |2 local 
786 0 |n Public Health Nutrition, Vol 26, Pp 2728-2737 (2023) 
787 0 |n https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1368980023002458/type/journal_article 
787 0 |n https://doaj.org/toc/1368-9800 
787 0 |n https://doaj.org/toc/1475-2727 
856 4 1 |u https://doaj.org/article/f6d27fb2d2854d0fb6576d721cd4bea6  |z Connect to this object online.