Here’s a bold statement: swapping meat for plant-based alternatives might not be the nutritional slam dunk many think it is. But here’s where it gets controversial—while these swaps cut saturated fat and boost fiber, they often come at the cost of lower protein intake, especially for key age groups like teens and older adults. And this is the part most people miss: the changes might not be significant enough to improve cholesterol levels, leaving us to wonder if the trade-offs are worth it.
A recent study published in npj Science of Food (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41538-025-00577-7) dove deep into this issue. Researchers analyzed how replacing meat with plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) or mycoprotein (MP) impacts nutrient intake across different age groups in the UK. They used a retail nutrient database linked to the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS) to model these swaps, focusing on categories like bacon, burgers, chicken, and sausages.
The rise of plant-based alternatives is undeniable. Nearly one in three UK households now buys PBMAs at least once a year, driven largely by younger shoppers seeking eco-friendly options. Families want the familiarity of burgers, sausages, and nuggets without the environmental footprint of livestock. But here’s the catch: meat is a key source of high-quality protein and essential micronutrients like iron, zinc, and vitamin B12. Many plant-based products, on the other hand, add carbohydrates and sugars to mimic flavor and texture, often falling into the ultra-processed foods (UPFs) category. This raises questions about their long-term health implications.
Building the Retail Nutrient Database
Researchers created a database of products within a five-mile radius, categorizing them as meat (ME), plant-based (PB), or mycoprotein (MP). They grouped items into everyday categories like bacon, burgers, and sausages, excluding certain meat categories like beef and lamb due to a lack of comparable plant-based options. For each product, they analyzed energy, macronutrients, fiber, salt, and price. PB and MP products were 38–73% more expensive per kilogram than meat equivalents, which could limit their accessibility.
Modeling Nutrient Swaps Across Age Groups
The study modeled like-for-like swaps of meat with PB or MP, keeping portion sizes constant by age group. Results were compared against dietary reference values for children, adults, and older adults. The focus was on nutrients linked to cardiometabolic health, like saturated fat, which impacts LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular disease (CVD).
Comparing Nutritional Profiles
Across categories, meat products were cheaper but higher in energy, fat, saturated fat, and protein. PB and MP options contained more carbohydrates, sugars (especially PB), and fiber (with MP leading in fiber). When modeled as swaps, these differences became significant.
Category-Specific Insights
- Bacon and Ham: Swapping meat for PB or MP lowered saturated fat and increased fiber but reduced protein intake, which could be a concern for school lunches.
- Burgers and Kebabs: PB and MP swaps reduced saturated fat and boosted fiber, beneficial for fiber-deficient teens, but protein intake dropped.
- Chicken and Turkey: MP swaps reduced energy and saturated fat, while PB swaps sometimes increased energy despite fiber gains. Salt levels were higher in PB options, highlighting the need for label checking.
- Sausages: PB and MP swaps cut energy and saturated fat but significantly reduced protein, particularly for older adults, who may need protein-rich sides to prevent sarcopenia.
Combined Impacts of Full Meat Replacement
Fully replacing meat with PBMAs reduced saturated fat intake by 2.6–3.0% across age groups, but this is unlikely to improve blood lipids significantly. Fiber increased, but protein intake consistently dropped. Salt effects varied, and price differences remained a barrier.
Balancing Fiber Gains and Protein Shortfalls
While swapping meat for PB or MP can modestly improve dietary quality by increasing fiber and reducing saturated fat, the protein shortfall is a real concern, especially for teens and older adults. The study’s lack of micronutrient analysis (e.g., iron, zinc, B12) leaves gaps in understanding overall dietary adequacy. Additionally, the higher cost of PB and MP products may limit their adoption.
Thought-Provoking Question: Is the environmental benefit of plant-based alternatives worth the potential nutritional trade-offs, especially for vulnerable age groups? Share your thoughts in the comments—let’s spark a conversation!
Journal Reference:
Gouela, M., Stergiadis, S. & Clegg, M.E. (2025). The nutritional composition and impact on UK dietary intakes of meat and plant-based meat alternatives. npj Science of Food, 9. DOI: 10.1038/s41538-025-00577-7, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41538-025-00577-7
