Nutritional quality of plant-based meat and dairy alternatives, and new front-of-package labeling (FOPL) in Brazil

Abstract

The nutritional quality of 132 plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) and 242 plant-based dairy alternatives (PBDAs) in the Brazilian market was evaluated for nutritional content reported in the labeling. Added sugar, saturated fat, and sodium limits were also observed according to the new Brazilian front-of-pack labeling (FOPL). In general, PBMAs have a considerable content of protein, dietary fiber and reduced content of saturated fat and sodium, while PBDAs have a low Na content, a high content of total and saturated fat, but are poor in protein and dietary fiber. Regarding micronutrients, PBMAs can be considered a source of iron, and PBDAs are a source of calcium. For FOPL, 37% of PBDAs and 21% of PBMAs must have the descriptions “high in saturated fat” and “high in sodium”, respectively, on their labels. Therefore, the PBMAs and PBDAs available on the Brazilian market have great potential to contribute to a healthy diet, however, aspects such as the absorption of nutrients and their effects on health and the possibility of total or partial replacement of meat and dairy products should be considered in future investigations. In addition, the data presented are useful to assist consumers, food industries, and regulatory bodies.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13197-023-05887-w.

Introduction

Meat is an animal-origin food that is a source of high energy and essential nutrients for the human body, which includes fats, proteins of high biological value, vitamins, and essential elements, being considered a fundamental component of a balanced diet (Godfray et al. 2018). The global market for meat, or animal protein, reached $1.30 trillion in 2021, and it is estimated that in the period from 2022 to 2027, market growth will be around $1.60 trillion; even with the uncertainties generated by the COVID-19 pandemic (IMARC Group 2022; USDA 2022).

Another nutritious food of animal origin is milk, produced by the mammary glands of healthy mammals, and is also a significant source of energy and nutrients; such as fats, carbohydrates (lactose), high biological value proteins, minerals, and vitamins for humans (Scholz-Ahrens et al. 2020). Foods derived exclusively from milk are called dairy products (processed milk, cheese, butter, desserts, yogurt, among others), and the global market for this food category was valued at $481 billion in 2021 and is expected to reach $641 billion by 2030 (Precedence Research 2022a).

Despite the nutritional richness and growth in the global marketplace, the production and consumption of meat and/or meat products has raised concerns regarding the environment and human health; included in these concerns are dairy products, due to their production and lactose intolerance and milk protein allergies in humans (Chalupa-Krebzdak et al. 2018). In addition, commercial, social, individual, economic, and cultural issues, are also being singled out as factors that modify consumption patterns; and consequently, interfere with consumers’ purchasing decisions (Boukid 2021). Such factors, as well as the search for a healthy and functional diet, make plant-based food alternatives (PBFAs) the target of interest for new consumers.

This shift in consumption provides major challenges for the food industry, where the interest in developing or producing alternative foods, analogues or alternatives for conventional meat or dairy products, is related to the continuous advances in engineering, innovation and development of new formulations (Grahl et al. 2018). Plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) are generally products that resemble meat-based foods (MBFs) in appearance, flavor and texture; and are formulated using proteins from various plant sources (Bedin et al. 2018). Plant-based dairy alternatives (PBDAs) are products similar to cheese, butter, ice cream, and yogurt, among others, and are produced using plant extracts (Sethi et al. 2016).

The presence of these proteins from different plant sources favors the creation of products that can be alternatives for animal proteins; through technological characteristics, such as gelling and emulsifying properties (Serdaroglu et al. 2005). In addition, other ingredients are utilized to contribute to the aroma, flavor, color, nutritional quality and shelf life of the products; such as vegetable oils, spices, pigments, vitamins and minerals, and preservatives (Sha and Xiong 2020; He et al. 2021). The global PBMAs market was valued at $5.10 billion in 2021 and is expected to expand at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 19.3% over the period 2022 to 2030; while the global PBDAs market was estimated at $25.2 billion in 2021 and could reach $68.8 billion by 2030 (Grand View Research 2022; Precedence Research 2022b).

Despite knowing the nutritional capacity that PBFAs carry, due to the raw materials used in their production, the lack of formulation standardization generates doubts about the nutritional intake related to macro and micronutrients that these foods offer when ingested (Leroy and Cofnas 2019). In Brazil, the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAPA) published on June 28th, 2023, the Ordinance No. 831/2023 submitting to public consultation a proposal to establish the minimum identity and quality requirements for plant-based analogues products in Brazil, as well as their visual identity and labeling rules (Brasil 2023). Currently, a specialized product that meets the standards expected for food and food ingredients framed as vegan and vegetarian, can be recognized through certification offered by the Brazilian Vegetarian Society (SVB 2022).

Given the rise in production and consumption of industrialized plant-based foods, and the limited exploration of nutritional aspects, this study aims to investigate PBFAs available in the Brazilian market, focusing on PBMAs and PBDAs, regarding the nutritional content reported in the labeling under a general overview. In addition, the added sugars, saturated fats, and sodium limits are also evaluated, according to the new Brazilian front-of-package labeling (FOPL).

Materials and methods

Data collection

The commercial products evaluated were consulted in 10 physical supermarkets (Carrefour, Pague Menos, Pão de Açúcar, Extra, Oba Hortifruti, Savegnago, St. Marche, Covabra, Dalben and Good Bom) located in Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil. These stores were chosen due to the great availability of products of real interest for the study among all retailers present in Campinas. Supermarkets that have online stores were also consulted to increase the number of samples.

Data collection was carried out between September and November 2022; complying with the following criteria: (i) availability of the product in the physical or virtual store during the data collection phase and (ii) energy value and macro and micronutrient content described on the product label or on the supermarket's web page. The data of the products selected in the online stores, which were not available in the physical stores and did not fit the second criterion, were requested directly from the manufacturer through web pages, email, or WhatsApp. Products that did not fit the two selection criteria were excluded from the study.

Data organization

A database was created with photos of the products, information collected from physical and virtual stores, and content obtained through email or WhatsApp communications with manufacturers. The information collected included the product categories of PBMAs or PBDAs, the retailer, the manufacturing company, and the nutritional composition of macro- and micronutrients.

The data on energy value (kcal) and main nutrients, calculated for 100 g or 100 ml of the product (depending on the product) based on the portion mentioned in the nutritional table, such as carbohydrates (g), proteins (g), total fats (g), saturated fats (g), trans fats (g), dietary fiber (g) and sodium content (Na; mg), followed the Brazilian legislation IN No. 75/2020; which establishes the technical requirements for the declaration of nutrition labeling of packaged foods (Brasil 2020a). This legislation applies in a complementary manner to RDC No. 429/2020, which provides for the nutrition labeling of packaged foods (Brasil 2020b) of the National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA), belonging to the Ministry of Health (MS) in Brazil. The nutritional content of other micronutrients (minerals, vitamins, and fatty acids) was collected from the products eligible for the study. The discussion was carried out separately as not all products evaluated had the declared nutritional content for micronutrients.

Determination of added sugars, saturated fat, and Na limits for FOPL

For all PBMAs and PBDAs evaluated, added sugars, saturated fats and Na limits were established for declaration on FOPL, according to the IN No. 75/2020. The rules for each nutrient evaluated, according to the type of food, are described in Table 1. If the product has a high value for one or all these nutrients, alert labels can be added to the FOPL.

Table 1.

Limits established on added sugars, saturated fats, and sodium for front-of-package labeling (FOPL)

Nutrients	Solid or semi-solid foods	Liquid food
Added sugars	An amount greater than or equal to 15.0 g of added sugars per 100 g of food	An amount greater than or equal to 7.50 g of added sugars per 100 ml of food
Saturated fat	An amount greater than or equal to 6.00 g of saturated fats per 100 g of food	An amount greater than or equal to 3.00 g of saturated fats per 100 ml of food
Sodium	An amount greater than or equal to 600 mg of sodium per 100 g of food	An amount greater than or equal to 300 mg of sodium per 100 ml of food

Limits are set based on total energy of 2000 kcal of the recommended daily value (RDV), described in IN 75/2020 (Brasil, 2020a)

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using Statistica 12.0 software (StatSoft Inc., Tulsa, USA). For the investigation of differences between PBMAs or PBDAs categories, the nor-mal distribution of data was rejected, within the different categories of evaluated products, through the Shapiro–Wilk test. Therefore, the median values and range of the contents of each nutrient was presented, and the Kruskal–Wallis non-parametric one-way ANOVA for independent samples with multiple pairwise comparisons test was used at a significance level of 95% (p < 0.05).

Results and discussion

General information

The criteria for selecting products for data collection are schematized in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Decision tree diagram to outline the data collection of plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) and plant-based dairy alternatives (PBDAs) in supermarkets through the selection criteria

Overall, data were collected from 142 PBMAs available in the 10 surveyed supermarkets. Of this total, 66 products that were available in physical stores and 66 in virtual stores were included in the study. Among the products available in virtual stores, only 1 product required contact with the manufacturer to obtain data. Another 9 products were available in virtual stores, however, they did not pass criterion (ii) pre-established for data collection, as this data was not informed by the manufacturers. Therefore, these products, including ground beef, meat strips, chicken fillet, kibe and burgers, were excluded from the study.

The 132 PBMAs included in the study belonged to 32 brands and were separated into 6 categories: seasoned meat (52%), appetizer (13%), processed meat (13%), red meat (11%), chicken (8%) and fruits from the sea (3%). All products were produced in Brazil and formulated with different types of cereals, legumes, vegetables, seeds, fruits, mushrooms, roots, and tubers, such as: soybeans, peas, chickpeas, lentils, beans, corn, cassava, potatoes, oats, quinoa, chia, green jackfruit, shitake, among other vegetable ingredients. MS Ordinance No. 1002/1998 presents meat products distributed in 3 categories: (I) fresh, cooked, dried, cured and/or matured industrialized products (embedded or not); (II) raw and cooked salted products and (III) offal and semi-preserves of animal origin (Brasil 1998). These classifications are exclusive for conventional products. As for PBMAs, there is still no legislation that informs about the necessary identity and quality parameters that they must follow, they are commercially presented as alternative products to their respective conventional products.

Therefore, the PBMAs were categorized according to Table 2 because they have similar characteristics in terms of formulation, consumption, and marketing in Brazil. The categories of seasoned meats, appetizers and processed meats were made up of similar products in terms of formulation (lists of the same or very similar ingredients, especially when they were developed by the same company, even if sold in different formats) and consumption in Brazil (consumed in special occasions, such as celebrations between friends and family). The categories of red meat, chicken and seafood are formed by PBBAs that have the same trade name as their respective conventional products, being classified by the format in which they are sold in Brazil.

Table 2.

Plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) by category

Categories	Alternative products
Seasoned meat	Burgers, meatballs, kafta, croquette and kibe
Appetizer	Codfish dumplings, crab dumplings, chicken dumplings and chicken nuggets
Processed meat	Bacon, sausage, mortadella, turkey breast and ham
Red meat	Steak, cubes, strips and minced
Chicken	Fillet, cubes, strips and minced
Seafood	Filet, strips and minced

For the PBDAs, data were collected from 242 products available in the 10 surveyed supermarkets. Of this total, 102 products that were available in physical stores and 140 in virtual stores were included in the study. Among the products available in virtual stores, 3 products did not present all the important data for carrying out the study, however, they met the pre-established criterion (ii) for data collection, as these data were later informed by the manufacturers by e-mail message. e-mail or WhatsApp. Therefore, all 242 PBDAs found during the research were included in the study, being distributed in 54 brands, and categorized in: beverage (34%), cheese (15%), spreadable cream (10%), yogurt (10%), butter (7%), ice cream (7%), powdered milk (6%), cream cheese (4%), heavy cream (3%) and others (3%). In general, PBDAs were produced using nuts (cashew nuts, Brazil nuts), almonds, walnuts, coconut, potatoes, peas, soybeans, and oats, amongst other vegetable ingredients.

The cheese category was composed of Parmesan, Minas Padrão, Minas Frescal, Mozzarella, Cheddar, Provolone, Chevré and Feta. The other category was comprised of alternative products, such as mousse, condensed milk, margarine, and white sauce, which were found in low quantities in supermarkets (maximum 2 products of each type) and making it impossible to form an individual group for each of them. Considering the country of origin, most of the products were produced in Brazil. Only one product in the powdered milk category was produced in Thailand and sold in Brazil. There is a similar occurrence with 7 products in the cheese category and 1 product from the spreadable cream category, which are produced in Greece and sold in Brazil.

Nutritional content of PBMAs and PBDAs

Tables 3 and 4 provide the nutritional content data for each category of PBMAs and PBDAs evaluated, respectively, to observe under general, the contribution of these foods to the diet of Brazilians. Data are expressed as median and range per 100 g or 100 ml of sample, calculated based on the portion of food provided in the nutrition table as not all nutrients presented data with normal distribution. Median values and percentile ranges are useful when the data present a high variation and consequently do not follow a normal distribution, as was the case with the data in this study. This high variation can be explained by the diversity of products gathered in the same category. PBFAs do not present legislation about the necessary identity and quality parameters in Brazil. Thus, the same product can have several formulations, which reflect the nutritional content. In addition, the products were grouped also following similar consumption and commercialization patterns in Brazil, further contributing to the high variation of data in each category.

Table 3.

Nutritional content of plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) by category

Category	Energy (kcal)	Carbohydrates (g)	Proteins (g)	Total fat (g)	Saturated fat (g)	Dietary fiber (g)	Na (mg)
Seasoned meat (n = 69)	177b (154–223)	18.3a (8.00–28.0)	11.0b (6.09–13.0)	5.15b (3.00–10.4)	0.95a (0.18–4.50)	4.63a (3.70–6.00)	381b (273–473)
Appetizer (n = 17)	225a (195–245)	20.8a (14.6–25.0)	10.0b (6.57–12.5)	11.1a (8.80–14.0)	2.20a (1.54–3.61)	4.50a (2.20–4.83)	307b (298–419)
Processed meat (n = 17)	186ab (162–196)	4.50b (3.00–9.00)	16.0ab (12.2–17.3)	11.0ab (9.00–11.8)	1.35a (1.20–1.77)	4.97a (4.00–6.25)	676a (588–1086)
Red meat (n = 14)	165ab (140–197)	6.00b (2.40–7.88)	18.1a (14.0–22.0)	4.59ab (1.90–12.0)	0.74a (0.00–3.60)	4.65a (1.00–7.20)	413b (198–480)
Chicken (n = 11)	118b (115–210)	5.00b (3.88–12.0)	17.1ab (10.0–21.3)	3.00ab (2.00–11.0)	0.50a (0.20–4.00)	3.25a (2.50–5.43)	458ab (400–700)
Seafood (n = 4)	178ab (168–227)	15.6ab (9.11–20.0)	12.1ab (11.4–19.6)	9.28ab (4.69–13.1)	1.88a (0.83–3.94)	7.03a (4.11–11.4)	185b (21.7–404)

Data expressed as median and range (25°–75° percentile). n = number of items in categories. Na = sodium. Nutrients expressed per 100 g. Different letters in the same column refer to significant differences among categories by Kruskal–Wallis non-parametric one-way ANOVA, for independent samples with multiple pairwise comparisons test, p < 0.05

Table 4.

Nutritional content of plant-based dairy alternatives (PBDAs) by category

Category	Energy (kcal)	Carbohydrate (g)	Protein (g)	Total fat (g)	Saturated fat (g)	Dietary fiber (g)	Na (mg)
Beverage (n = 82)	40.5d (29.5–51.0)	4.05de (1.45–7.50)	1.15 cd (0.45–1.75)	1.60d (1.10–2.50)	0.34c (0.20–0.75)	0.50c (0.00–0.85)	37.3c (19.5–48.0)
Cheese (n = 36)	285ab (205–312)	19.8 abc (7.33–21.3)	1.33bc (0.00–10.0)	21.4ab (15.7–25.0)	10.3b (1.58–13.0)	0.00c (0.00–0.96)	263ab (12.5–640)
Spreadable cream (n = 25)	250abc (165–277)	6.00cde (5.00–7.00)	3.00ab (2.00–5.00)	24.0ab (15.0–26.0)	4.00b (3.00–6.00)	0.00c (0.00–0.50)	380a (310–480)
Yogurt (n = 25)	74.5c (67.3–124)	13.3abc (5.06–14.6)	0.67bcd (0.40–3.33)	2.82 cd (2.16–6.89)	2.65b (1.60–6.22)	0.55abc (0.20–1.48)	17.7c (10.0–69.0)
Butter (n = 18)	886a (570–900)	0.00e (0.00–0.00)	0.00d (0.00–0.00)	98.5a (63.0–100)	50.5a (41.0–63.0)	0.00c (0.00–0.00)	1.50c (0.00–280)
Ice cream (n = 18)	232bc (164–258)	24.5ab (20.0–30.0)	2.27abc (1.79–2.75)	11.5bc (8.10–14.2)	7.28ab (5.00–10.7)	1.75a (1.33–4.17)	54.8bc (14.3–92.0)
Powdered milk (n = 15)	405ab (380–482)	47.0a (37.0–66.7)	14.3a (6.00–24.0)	9.70bc (4.00–24.0)	5.10bc (0.00–12.0)	4.33ab (1.00–7.80)	300ab (80.0–518)
Cream cheese (n = 9)	277abc (223–277)	7.67abcd (7.67–10.0)	3.00abc (1.33–5.33)	24.0abc (18.7–25.0)	12.3ab (12.0–17.0)	0.00bc (0.00–0.33)	227abc (70.0–237)
Heavy cream (n = 7)	180abcd (133–193)	4.00cde (0.00–6.67)	0.00 cd (0.00–1.33)	18.0abc (16.7–20.0)	9.33abc (0.00–11.3)	0.00c (0.00–0.67)	6.67bc (0.33–127)
Other (n = 7)	245abc (100–680)	18.0abcd (0.00–46.0)	0.80bcd (0.00–2.40)	6.50abcd (2.90–75.0)	4.00abc (0.00–20.0)	0.00c (0.00–0.00)	60.0abc (18.0–360)

Data are expressed as median and range (25°–75° percentile). n = number of items in categories. Na = sodium. Nutrients expressed per 100 g (for solids and semi-solids products: cheese, spreadable cream, yogurt, butter, ice cream, powdered milk, cream cheese, heavy cream, other: mousse, condensed milk, margarine, and white sauce) and 100 ml (for the liquid product: beverage). Different letters in the same column refer to significant differences among categories by Kruskal–Wallis non-parametric one-way ANOVA, for independent samples with multiple pairwise comparisons test, p < 0.05

For PBMAs, the seasoned meats and appetizers categories had the highest median content for carbohydrates. Most of these products were formulated with sugar, maltodextrin, modified starch, flour or starch from legumes, cereals, and tubers (cassava, potato, beet, chickpea, wheat, maize, rice, beans, and lentil) which naturally have a good carbohydrate content and fiber from various sources (maize, bamboo, wheat, psyllium, cashew, orange, and lemon). The appetizers category also had the highest median total fat content, where products were formulated with different types of oils (cottonseed, palm, sunflower, coconut, olive, and soybean). The red meat and processed meat categories had the highest median content for protein and Na, respectively. The products of the red meat category presented in their formulation isolated/concentrated/texturized proteins or protein flours of soybean, pea, chickpea, wheat, fava bean and quinoa and the high median content may be the result of the attempt to formulate alternative products with content of this nutrient like beef.

The same reasoning can be applied to the high median Na content of the products in the processed meat category (formulated with salt, prepared and natural seasonings and spices), since conventional products formulated with meat from this category are also known to have high Na content. For saturated fat and dietary fiber, the product categories analyzed did not show significant differences between them (p > 0.05). In addition, no product presented trans fat content, being a differential in relation to some MBFs. Regarding energy value, the appetizers category had the highest median value, not differing statistically (p > 0.05) from the processed meat, red meat, and seafood categories. The chicken category did not stand out for any nutrient evaluated, when compared to the other categories.

For PBDAs, the highest median content for carbohydrates and proteins was observed for the powdered milk category, since most of these products are formulated with isolated proteins and/or cereal and/or legume flours (soy, pea, rice, and oats), sugars, maltodextrins, and syrups. Statistically, the ice cream category showed a considerable median content for dietary fiber, compared to the other categories that also showed content for this nutrient (powdered milk, yogurt, and beverage). Among the 18 PBDAs of the category, 10 products are formulated with fibers (inulin and/or polydextrose) and all products contain gums (guar, acacia, carob, jataí, carrageenan and xanthan), in addition to oat, wheat, barley flour that have fibers in their composition.

The median Na content was high for the spreadable cream category, possibly due to the products presenting salt, condiments and spices in their formulation and other ingredients with high sodium content such as canned vegetables, as well as thickeners such as sodium carboxymethylcellulose and sequestrant calcium disodium EDTA. The butter category had higher median content for total and saturated fats, as they are formulated with coconut, sunflower, palm, and linseed oils. This category also had the highest energy value. Like the PBMAs, none of the PBDAs evaluated had trans fat in their formulation. The beverage category stood out for having low median contents for all nutrients evaluated, including energy value. The cheese, yogurt, cream cheese, heavy cream, and other categories did not stand out for any nutrient evaluated.

Comparing data on the nutritional content of PBMAs is already difficult across product categories in Brazil, and worldwide comparison is even more difficult. However, studies by Curtain and Grafenauer (2019), Safefood (2021), Bryngelsson et al. (2022) and Cutroneo et al. (2022) carried out in Australia, Ireland, Sweden and Italy, respectively, present data on the nutritional content of several PBMAs that can be compared with the present research. The Swedish study analyzed 142 PBMAs distributed across 24 brands of sausage, burger, nuggets, bacon, meatballs, and meat (minced, steak, strips) types, and presented the highest median contents that ranged from 171 to 232 kcal/100 g for energy, 11.0–27.2 g/100 g for protein, 5.70–15.4 g/100 g for total fat, and 800–2400 mg/100 g for Na, among all the previously cited studies.

The Italian study, with 229 PBMAs of steaks, burger, meatballs, and cutlet types, reported a median content for total fat of 8.70 g/100 g; and the Irish study with 8.90 g/100 g, with 354 PBMAs of burger, steaks, mince, meatballs, nugget, sausage, seafood, bacon, ham, duck, and other products. The total fat contents for these two studies were like that observed in the present study (8.44 g/100 g). For Na, the second and third highest median content was for the Italian (1200 mg/100 g) and Irish (1100 mg/100 g) studies, respectively; and the lowest median content observed was for the present study (393 mg/100 g). As for carbohydrates, the Irish study had the highest median content (15.5 g/100 g). The Italian (12.5 g/100 g) and Brazilian (12.8 g/100 g) studies showed similar median contents.

The Irish study had the highest median content for saturated fat (2.10 g/100 g). The Australian study, which evaluated the nutritional quality of 137 PBMAs of burger, sausage, mince, chicken, seafood, and bacon types, showed a median content for saturated fats that ranged from 0.50 to 2.20 g/100 g, while the Brazilian and Italian studies presented median contents like each other, of 1.23 and 12.8 g/100 g, respectively. For dietary fiber, all studies had similar median contents, which ranged from 4.00 g/100 g (Italian study) to 4.90 g/100 g (Irish study).

In general, the PBMAs in the present study showed a nutritional content very similar to the products evaluated in the Italian study, mainly in terms of carbohydrates, total and saturated fat, and dietary fiber. Only the Australian and Swedish studies reported content for other micronutrients. In the first study, the median Fe content ranged from 3.00 to 3.90 mg/100 g, and for seafood products, the content was not reported. Few PBMAs reported Fe (n = 18) and vitamin B12 (n = 8) content in the Swedish study, however, of those that did, all met the Swedish nutritional criteria for source claim in Fe or vitamin B12.

As with PBMAs, worldwide comparison of data on the nutritional content of PBDAs is difficult, with only 2 studies being found that could be compared with the present Brazilian study. The Italian study by Angelino et al. (2020) evaluated 330 beverages based on oats, almonds, rice, soy, and blends (hazelnut, spelled, walnut, and cashew nut), and reported higher median carbohydrate contents (7.70 g/100 ml) and Na (100 mg/100 ml), when compared to the present study.

Brazilian beverages had higher median protein (1.15 g/100 ml) and dietary fiber (0.55 g/100 ml) content compared to the Italian study. The median content of energy, total and saturated fat of Brazilian and Italian beverages were like each other. The Spanish study by Fresán and Rippin (2021) analyzed the nutritional content of 40 PBDAs of cheese, composed of coconut oil, chestnut, and tofu, which had higher content of saturated fat (20.0 g/100 g) and Na (1500 mg/100 g), compared to the present Brazilian study. For the other nutrients, the median content was similar between both studies, and none of them showed dietary fiber content. Neither of the two studies (Italian and Spanish) presented content for other micronutrients.

Among the 132 PBMAs evaluated, 28 presented at least one nutrient declaration for minerals, such as iron (Fe), calcium (Ca), zinc (Zn) and potassium (K), vitamins A and B (B1, B2, B3, B6, B7, B9 and B12), and eicosapentaenoic (EPA) and docosahexaenoic (DHA) fatty acids, obtained by fortification (except K). Fe and Vitamin B12 were the most declared micronutrients; with 24 products (median: 2.36 mg/100 g; range: 2.10–5.80), and 20 products (median: 0.90 µg/100 g; range: 0.72–1.96), respectively.

As for PBDAs, among the 242 products evaluated, 73 also presented at least one nutrition declaration for minerals such as Ca, Fe, Zn, K, magnesium (Mg), phosphorus (P), selenium (Se), (iodine) I, manganese (Mn) and copper (Cu), vitamins A, B (B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B7, B9 and B12), C, D2, E and K2, linolenic acid (omega-3) and linoleic acid (omega-6). Most of these micronutrients were obtained through fortification or were naturally present in the ingredients used to formulate the products. The types of mineral compounds used in the fortification of PBDAs are presented in Table S1. Ca and Vitamin B12 were the most declared micronutrients in the nutritional labeling of PBDAs. For Ca, 69 beverages were counted (median: 2.99 mg/100 ml; range: 2.40–347) and 35 products in the rest of the categories (median: 95.0 mg/100 g; range: 4.00–305). The only product in the other category that declared Ca was a chocolate mousse. For vitamin B12, 36 beverages were counted (median: 0.71 µg/100 ml; range: 0.44–0.97) and 24 products in the remaining categories (median: 0.77 µg/100 g; range: 0.60–1.14).

IN No. 75/2020 guides that the recommended daily value (RDV), in 100 g, for Fe is 14 mg, for Ca is 1000 mg and for vitamin B12 is 2.4 mg (Brasil 2020a). The legislation also informs that for a food to be considered a source of a certain micronutrient (vitamin or mineral) it must contain at least 15% of the RDV. Therefore, of the 24 PBMAs evaluated and with declared Fe, 19 can be considered a source of this mineral. For vitamin B12, none of the 20 declared products can be considered a source of this micronutrient. Among the 104 PBDAs with declared Ca, 57 could be considered a source of this mineral. On the other hand, as observed for PBMAs, none of the PBDAs (n = 60) that declared vitamin B12 can be considered a source of this micronutrient.

Added sugars, saturated fat, and sodium limits for FOPL

In Brazil, packaged foods produced until October 8th, 2022, were not required to contain FOPL and the value of sugars added to the formulation discriminated on the labeling. After this date, RDC No. 429/2020 and IN No. 75/2020 instructs that for the commercialization of these foods, manufacturing companies must follow the rules described in Table 1, for the application of FOPL through the "high in added sugars", "high in saturated fat" and high in sodium" stamps. In addition, in the nutritional table on the label, the content of added sugars, expressed in g per portion of the food, must be informed right after the content of total sugars. However, as data collection took place between September and November 2022, all products eligible for the study were manufactured before the new legislation came into force. Thus, data such as the content of sugars added to the formulation were not present for most of the products evaluated in the nutritional table.

As there is still no specific Brazilian legislation for plant-based foods, the new FOPL rules also apply to them. However, as previously stated, all the products analyzed in this study were produced before the legislation came into force, so they do not present FOPL. However, considering that companies will continue to formulate products with the same ingredients to obtain the same or similar nutritional composition, a simulation was performed of how many PBMAs or PBDAs, by category, are likely to contain the "high in saturated fat" and "high in sodium" stamps. Products in the beverage, yogurt, and ice cream categories of the PBDAs, as well as any sweet product that may be produced, may carry the "high in added sugars" stamp.

As a result, 11% of the PBMAs (seasoned meat = 9; red meat and appetizer = 2 each; processed meat = 1) and 37% of the PBDAs (cheese = 25; butter = 17; ice cream = 12; cream cheese = 8; custard, yogurt, and powdered milk = 7 each; cream = 5; others = 2) are likely to be labeled "high in saturated fat". For the PBMAs, the median saturated fat content ranged from 6.13 to 13.0 g/100 g and for the PBDAs ranged from 6.00 to 78.0 g/100 g, values equal to or higher than those established by the legislation (6.00 g/100 g). On the other hand, 21% and 6% of the PBMAs (processed meat = 11; seasoned meat = 9; chicken = 4; appetizer = 2; red meat = 1) and PBDAs (cheese = 10; cream = 2; powdered milk and others = 1 each), respectively, are likely to receive the "high sodium content" label, as they presented content higher than that reported in the legislation (600 mg/100 g). The median Na content ranged from 185 to 676 mg/100 g for PBMAs and from 1.50 to 300 mg/100 g for PBDAs.

Only 3 PBDAs (2 yogurts and 1 mousse of the other category) of the same brand declared the content of added sugars in the formulation, which ranged from 6.30 to 10.0 g/100 g. These values are lower than those indicated by the legislation (15.0 g/100 g), therefore, none of these foods can receive "high added sugar content" stamp in the future if they keep the formulation the same or like the current one. The added sugar content must appear on the labeling of all products, as it is now mandatory information by law.

In Brazil, the FOPL starts to be adopted in October 2022, according to new nutrition labeling legislation, however, it is already being applied in some Latin American countries, such as Chile, Peru, Mexico, Uruguay, Colombia and Argentina, with positive results and the seals are similar, as shown in Fig. 2 (Crosbie et al. 2022). Consumers can use FOPL information as a tool to choose healthier foods. With the mandatory FOPL, it is hoped that the content of the nutrients of concern can be reduced or replaced through product reformulations by manufacturing companies. However, there is a possibility that replacing sugars, saturated fats and sodium will require the use of food additives.

Fig. 2.

Examples of front-of-pack labeling (FOPL) in different Latin American countries. a Brazil (RDC No. 429/2020 and IN No. 75/2020), b Argentina (Law No. 27.642/2022), c Mexico (NOM No. 51/2020), d Uruguay (Decree No. 272/2018), e Chile (Law 20,606/2016), f Peru (Law 30021, and Supreme Decree No. 71/2017), and g Colombia (Resolution No. 2492/2022)

The ANVISA is responsible for post-marketing control of food in Brazil. Post-marketing control covers the measures taken after a company has started its activities and a food product has been marketed, assessing compliance with legal requirements. Current control includes monitoring activities of the samples collected to verify that they meet the Identity and Quality Standards (IQS) and the contaminant limits defined in the legislation. These actions may be routine or result from the investigation of complaints. For PBFAs, IQSs have not yet been registered for each type of product, therefore, the control of the ingredients present in the formulation and the nutritional content of the products is carried out based on the tolerances presented of the legislation. On ANVISA's website (https://www.gov.br/anvisa/pt-br/english), it is possible to consult the documents of each post-marketing control carried out, with information on the objective, methodologies applied, results and conclusions and the measures that the agency will adopt for each action.

Another important point is that, even though they are 100% plant-based foods, the ingredients used in the formulation of PBFAs go through different processes until they reach the desired final product, losing the identity of fresh foods. This factor contributes to these foods being classified as "ultra-processed", belonging to group 4 of the NOVA food classification system developed by researchers at the University of São Paulo in Brazil (Monteiro et al. 2019). This classification also meets the new guidelines for ultra-processed foods of the World Health Organization (WHO) in the Americas, represented by the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) (PAHO 2016). The two classification measures aim to assist governments in implementing legislation on unhealthy foods and are also related to the criteria for FOPL. Therefore, it is expected that the establishment of product identity and quality parameters by Brazilian regulatory bodies, as well as the creation of specific legislation, will facilitate the development of healthier PBFAs. The lack of standardization and specific legislation affects not only the nutritional quality of products in Brazil, but also international trade, since many companies that currently produce such products are multinational.

Conclusion

The PBFAs available on the Brazilian market have great potential to contribute to a healthy diet. For a better assessment of the nutritional content, the products were grouped into categories created according to the similarities found between them. It was possible to observe that, for PBDAs, the categories are the same as those for dairy products since the consumption and commercialization of these products are also the same. PBMAs, on the other hand, were categorized according to similarities in the formulation (in addition to consumption and commercialization), different from what happens with meat products. Therefore, a great variation and heterogeneity of the categories regarding nutrients was observed, due to the lack of standardization in the formulations.

Nutritionally, PBMAs stood out for having a considerable content of proteins, dietary fiber and reduced content of saturated fat and sodium, when compared to products from other countries and even meat products. PBDAs, in general, are products with a low Na content, low in protein and dietary fiber and with a high content of total and saturated fat. As for micronutrients, data are very limited, indicating that PBMAs in general can be considered a source of Fe, PBDAs can be considered a source of Ca, and that even if these products are fortified with vitamin B12, the content is not enough to classify them as a source of this vitamin.

Given the data observed in this study, the absorption of nutrients from these alternative foods and their effects on health and the possibility of total or partial replacement by meat and dairy products are important aspects that should be considered in future investigations. Therefore, all the information is useful both to help consumers in the purchase decision, food industries in the development of new products and regulatory bodies in the elaboration of new legislation.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Author's contribution

GML Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, preparation, review and editing of the manuscript; ACCS formal analysis, preparation of the manuscript; VFMN formal analysis, preparation of the manuscript; JALP preparation, review and editing of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors have not disclosed any funding.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.