Nutrient composition of a selection of plant-based ground beef alternative products available in the U.S.

Abstract

Background

Sales of plant-based foods intended as direct replacements for animal products have been growing in the U.S. Little is known about the nutritional quality of these products.

Objective

To evaluate the nutritional quality of a selection of plant-based ground beef alternative products available in the U.S. marketplace, and compare with the nutrient content of ground beef.

Design

Analysis of the food and nutrient composition information available for plant-based ground beef alternative products in the 2020 version of the University of Minnesota Nutrition Coordinating Center (NCC) Food and Nutrient Database.

Participant/setting

A selection of 37 plant-based ground beef alternative products available in the U.S. in 2019.

Main outcomes measures

Food product content of energy, macronutrients, fatty acids, vitamins, minerals and selected additional food components.

Statistical analysis

The percent Daily Value (DV) per 3 ounce cooked portion of each product was determined for nutrients with a DV. The median, interquartile range (IQR), minimum, and maximum nutrient values were calculated for all products by classification as vegan and non-vegan.

Results

The median saturated fat content of the plant-based ground beef alternatives products as a percent DV was 4% (IQR 2%). Vitamin and minerals for which median % DV values for plant-based ground beef alternative products were 10% or higher included folate (10%, IQR 10%), niacin (21%, IQR 7%), iron (10%, IQR 5%), phosphorous (10%, IQR 4%), sodium (18%, IQR 7%), manganese (20%, IQR 20%) and copper (24%, IQR 10%). The median dietary fiber content of the plant-based ground beef alternative products was 15% of the DV (IQR 6%). Most of the products contained less protein, zinc and vitamin B12 than ground beef.

Conclusions

The major brands of plant-based ground beef alternative products examined in this study have nutritional strengths as well as some shortcomings. Additional research to examine a broader set of plant-based meat alternative products, such as those designed as substitutes for chicken and pork, is warranted.

Introduction

Approximately one-half of the more than 1,000 respondents to a 2017 U.S. consumer survey reported eating more plant-based foods and beverages.¹ Proponents of plant-based eating have cited health and environmental benefits^2–4, which may be contributing to widespread interest in eating a plant-based diet. Observational epidemiologic studies suggest that diets high in red meat increase the risk for cardiometabolic and cancer outcomes to a small extent.⁵ Further, those who consume a plant-based diet tend to have a higher intake of foods and nutrients recommended for the prevention of chronic disease and a lower intake of nutrients for which limited consumption is recommended compared with those eating a diet that includes animal products.⁶ From an environmental perspective, plant-based foods are estimated to generally have a lower impact on the environment compared to animal-based foods.⁷

Insufficient intake of nutrients founds in animal meats (protein, iron, zinc, niacin, riboflavin, vitamin B6, and vitamin B12) is a potential concern with eating a plant-based diet. Research indicates those eating a plant-based diet tend to consume less of or are at higher risk for deficiency for some of these nutrients, most notably vitamin B12,^{8, 9} iron,^{10, 11} protein,⁶ and possibly zinc.^{12, 13} But, there is broad agreement that it is possible to consume a plant-based diet while meeting nutrient requirements with careful meal planning that includes incorporation of fortified food products and supplementation.^14–17

Plant-based products that mimic meat appear to be supporting Americans in making the transition toward a more plant-based diet and potentially support the intake of nutrients found in the meats they are replacing. Market research data indicates grocery sales of plant-based food intended as a direct replacement for animal products grew 29% between 2017 and 2019 to 5 billion in 2019 in the U.S.¹⁸ In addition, a number of leading restaurants have added plant-based meat alternative products to their menus.¹⁹ These products have the potential to support adequate intake of the nutrients founds in the meats they replace. But little is known about the nutritional quality of plant-based meat alternative products available in the U.S. marketplace, even as the popularity of these products has risen.

To our knowledge, only one study has examined the nutrient content of plant-based meat alternative products in a systematic way.²⁰ Curtain and Grafenauer sampled plant-based meat alternative products from four supermarkets in the Sydney Australia metropolitan area in 2015. They recorded the nutrition information panel, ingredient, and nutrition label claim information for each product. The authors comprehensively examined some nutrients (energy, macronutrients, saturated fat, dietary fiber, and sugars), but due to the study’s reliance on nutrition panel information, they were only able to quantify the vitamin and mineral content of fortified products, and less than a quarter of the products were fortified with iron, B12 or zinc.

The dearth of information on the nutrient content of plant-based meat alternative products available in the U.S. marketplace poses a challenge to public health and medical professionals in making informed food recommendations to the public and patients. As pointed out in a recent viewpoint by Hu et al., there is a need for research to understand the nutrient content of plant-based meat alternative products and their potential role in human health.²¹

To address the aforementioned knowledge and information gap we carried out an evaluation of the nutritional content of some plant-based ground beef alternative products available in the U.S. marketplace, and compared nutrient values with that of animal meat ground beef. Products designed to substitute/mimic ground beef in the form of crumbles or hamburger patties were the focus in this analysis because beef is a leading contributor to population intake of a number of nutrients including protein, zinc, and vitamin B12.²² To circumvent limitations associated with relying on nutrient information provided on product nutrition facts labels, the analyses in this paper used data from a food and nutrient database that includes complete values for nutrients beyond those required on the nutrition facts panel. The nutrient composition of ground beef is also reported for comparison purposes.

Materials and Methods

Nutrient Data Source

Data on the nutrient content of plant-based ground beef patty and crumble alternative products available in the U.S. marketplace were obtained from the 2020 version of the University of Minnesota Nutrition Coordinating Center (NCC) Food and Nutrient Database (released July 2020)²³. This Database is maintained using a standard set of procedures that are described in detail elsewhere.^24–27 To summarize, when adding and updating nutrient information for branded foods in a product category, a full listing of products available from major food companies are assembled by NCC database staff. Ingredient and nutrition facts panel information is then sought for each available product to develop a formulation (recipe) for the product. This information is typically obtained from food company websites or other online sources (e.g. product information provided through major online grocery retailer website). Information may be gathered from the product packaging during a visit to a supermarket as needed. The ingredient information is assumed to list ingredients in descending order of content in the product in accordance with FDA food labeling regulations.²⁸ The nutrition facts label generally provides composition information for nutrients required by FDA labeling regulations (kilocalories, macronutrients, saturated fat, trans fat, cholesterol, sodium, dietary dietary fiber, total sugars, added sugars, vitamin D, calcium, potassium, and iron). Information for additional nutrients may be provided at the discretion of the food company, and consequently is inconsistently provided. For each product, NCC database scientists create formulations (recipes) using an NCC-developed program²⁹ that estimates, via a linear optimization algorithm combined with professional knowledge, the amount of each ingredient needed to produce a product with a nutrient profile close to that specified in the nutrition facts label. From this recipe, the composition data for nutrients beyond those provided on the nutrition facts label are calculated based on the known nutrient content of each product ingredient. The nutrient content of product ingredients (e.g. pea protein, canola oil, coconut oil, salt, etc.) are derived primarily from the USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference (SR) with additional sources (e.g. values from other databases and articles in scientific journals that contain values obtained using appropriate analytic techniques) relied on as needed.

Plant-based Meat Alternative Products in the NCC Database and Product Selection

NCC aims to include all products available from food companies considered to be market leaders within a food product category, with the identification of leading companies based on publicly available industry reports (if available) and expertise of the NCC database scientists. To keep pace with marketplace changes, products and nutrient values for products in various food categories are updated on a rotating basis over time. During the update process, additional food companies are added as necessary to ensure leading companies are included.

In 2019, the plant-based meat alternative food product category was updated, and these updates were included in the 2020 version of the NCC Food and Nutrient Database. As a result of this update work a total of 103 individual products available from 11 food companies that produce plant-based meat alternative products were included in the 2020 version of the database. These products encompass those intended as replacements for beef, pork, and chicken. For the present analyses, the 103 products were reviewed by three of the authors to identify products designed to mimic ground beef in the form of crumbles or patties, and products identified as ground-beef alternatives were further classified as vegan (contained no animal-based ingredients) or non-vegan (contained one or more animal-based ingredients such as eggs or cheese). Through this selection process, a total of 37 plant-based ground beef alternative products from nine food companies were identified. Food companies with one or more products included in the analyses are as follows: Amy’s Kitchen, Inc.; Beyond Meat®; Conagra, Inc.; Impossible Foods Inc.; Kellogg NA Co.; Kraft Foods, Inc.; Marlow Foods, Ltd.; Tofurky; and Worthington®. Most of the products were vegan (n=26) while some were non-vegan (n=11).

Selection of Nutrients and other Food Components to Examine

Nutrients and other food components examined include energy, macronutrients (total protein, total fat, total carbohydrate), major classes of fatty acids (saturated, monounsaturated, polyunsaturated, Omega 3, Omega 6), gluten, phytic acid, and vitamins and minerals for which one or more of the products provided 5% or more of the Daily Values (DV) per 3 ounce cooked portion. Daily Values are defined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as reference amounts of nutrients to consume or not exceed each day. They are based on a 2,000 kcal diet for healthy adults, and the % DV is the percentage of the Daily Value for each nutrient in a serving of the food.³⁰ The NCC Database does not include five nutrients for which DVs exist (biotin, chloride, chromium, iodine, and molybdenum) and consequently, values for these nutrients could not be evaluated in relation to the DV or reported in this paper.

For comparison purposes, nutrient values per 3 ounce cooked portions of 70%, 80% and, 90% lean ground beef are also reported. Nutrient values for these foods were obtained from the NCC Food and Nutrient Database.

This project was exempt from Institutional Review Board approval because it did not involve human subjects.

Statistical Analysis

Nutrient values were calculated per 3 ounce cooked portion for each product. Percent DVs were calculated for nutrients for which a DV exists by dividing the nutrient amount in the product by the DV for the nutrient³⁰ and multiplying the resulting quotient by 100. The median, interquartile range (IQR), minimum, and maximum values were determined for each nutrient for all products and by product type (vegan versus non-vegan). The numbers of products considered to be ‘good’ or ‘high’ sources of nutrients in accord with FDA labeling standards (10–19% DV ‘good’ and ≥ 20% DV ‘high’)³¹ were also calculated. See supplemental Table 1 for a listing of the DVs for each nutrient and amounts that correspond with 10% and 20% of the DV.

Results

In Table 2 the median, IQR, minimum and maximum DV or nutrient values per 3 ounce cooked portion for the plant-based ground beef alternative products overall and by type (vegan versus non-vegan) are reported. Product specific results are included in supplemental Tables 3–7. For reference, the nutrient values for 70%, 80% and 90% lean ground beef per 3 ounce cooked portion are provided in Table 8.

Table 2:

Median, interquartile range, minimum and maximum nutrient content per 3 ounce cooked portion of plant-based ground beef alternative products available in the U.S. marketplace, nutrient data from the NCC Food and Nutrient Database

	Overall (n=37)				Vegan Products (n=26)				Non-Vegan Products (n=11)
Nutrients	Median	IQRa	Minb	Maxc	Median	IQR	Min	Max	Median	IQR	Min	Max
Macronutrients
Energy (kcal)	153	45	71	211	155	49	87	211	150	33	71	176
Protein (g)	12.6	7.7	4.7	21.8	11.6	7.2	5.9	20.5	13.9	5.8	4.7	21.8
Fat (g)	6.0	2.8	0.2	13.8	6.5	6.1	0.2	13.8	5.7	2.2	1.6	9.8
Carbohydrate (g)	12.7	10.5	3.0	25.3	9.2	9.2	3.0	20.6	11.1	7.1	7.2	20.3
Fatty Acids
SFAd (% DVe)	4	2	0	30	3	2	0	30	4	2	1	15
PUFAf (g)	2.5	1.6	0.1	6.7	2.5	1.6	0.1	6.7	2.4	1.8	0.5	4.9
MUFAg (g)	1.9	1.6	0.0	7.3	2.0	2.6	0.0	7.3	1.6	0.9	0.8	3.4
Omega-6 (g)	2.2	1.5	0.1	6.2	2.2	1.5	0.1	6.2	2.3	1.7	0.4	4.5
Omega-3 (g)	0.2	0.3	0.0	0.7	0.3	0.3	0.0	0.7	0.2	0.1	0.0	0.4
Minerals
Iron (% DV)	10	5	5	39	11	4	6	39	9	5	5	16
Zinc (% DV)	7	4	3	38	8	3	3	38	6	3	3	11
Potassium (% DV)	5	4	1	13	5	4	1	13	4	3	2	8
Sodium (% DV)	18	7	2	29	18	7	12	29	21	4	2	26
Calcium (% DV)	4	3	1	10	4	3	1	10	5	3	3	9
Phosphorus (% DV)	10	4	2	17	11	4	2	17	8	4	2	13
Magnesium (% DV)	9	5	2	19	9	6	2	19	7	4	2	12
Manganese (% DV)	20	20	6	56	25	18	7	56	13	12	6	34
Copper (% DV)	24	10	7	51	29	11	7	51	22	3	9	24
Selenium (% DV)	9	11	0	31	8	8	0	31	17	11	2	26
Vitamins
Vitamin B12 (% DV)	0	2	0	190	0	0	0	190	0	4	0	12
Folate (% DV)	10	10	0	31	11	13	0	31	5	3	0	18
Thiamin (% DV)	7	8	0	1763	9	7	0	1763	5	6	1	13
Riboflavin (% DV)	6	5	0	23	5	5	0	23	7	9	1	20
Niacin (% DV)	21	7	10	53	19	8	10	53	22	5	19	30
Vitamin B5 (% DV)	4	7	0	15	4	7	0	15	3	6	0	14
Vitamin B6 (% DV)	6	6	0	27	6	6	0	27	4	4	0	6
Vitamin C (% DV)	2	3	0	15	2	3	0	15	1	3	0	5
Vitamin A (% DV)	1	2	0	12	1	1	0	12	1	3	0	12
Vitamin E (% DV)	9	8	0	22	9	11	0	22	7	6	1	15
Vitamin K (% DV)	4	3	0	40	5	5	0	40	3	3	0	6
Other
Dietary Fiber (% DV)	15	6	5	27	15	7	5	27	16	5	9	21
Added Sugars (% DV)	0	0	0	5	0	0	0	5	0	0	0	5
Phytic Acid (g)	193.9	151.4	6.5	426.0	221.1	106.8	18.9	426.0	133.9	98.9	6.5	317.4
Gluten (g)	0.6	3.8	0.0	9.5	0.0	2.0	0.0	6.8	2.9	4.4	0.0	9.5
Choline (% DV)	4	2	0	10	4	2	0	10	3	1	0	4

^aInterquartile range

^bMinimum

^cMaximum

^dSaturated fatty acids

^eDaily value

^fPolyunsaturated fatty acids

^gMonounsaturated fatty acids

Table 8:

Nutrient content of 3 ounces of cooked ground beef by percent lean, nutrient data from the NCC Food and Nutrient Database

Nutrients	70% lean	80% lean	90% lei
Macronutrients
Energy (kcal)	230	216	182
Protein (g)	21.7	21.5	22.6
Fat (g)	15.2	13.8	9.4
Carbohydrate (g)	0	0	0
Cholesterol/Fatty Acids
Cholesterol (% DVa)	25	25	25
SFAb (% DV)	30	26	19
PUFAc (g)	0.4	0.4	0.3
MUFAd (g)	7.1	6.1	4.0
Omega-6 (g)	0.3	0.3	0.2
Omega-3 (g)	0	0	0
Minerals
Iron (% DV)	12	12	14
Zinc (% DV)	46	48	51
Potassium (% DV)	6	5	5
Sodium (% DV)	4	2	2
Calcium (% DV)	3	2	1
Phosphorus (% DV)	14	12	13
Magnesium (% DV)	4	4	4
Manganese (% DV)	0	0	0
Copper (% DV)	7	7	7
Selenium (% DV)	33	31	33
Vitamins
Vitamin B12 (% DV)	99	88	88
Folate (% DV)	3	1	1
Thiamin (% DV)	3	3	3
Riboflavin (% DV)	12	11	11
Niacin (% DV)	37	36	40
Vitamin B5 (% DV)	14	10	11
Vitamin B6 (% DV)	21	16	17
Vitamin C (% DV)	0	0	0
Vitamin A (% DV)	0	0	0
Vitamin E (% DV)	1	1	1
Vitamin K (% DV)	2	1	1
Other
Dietary Fiber (% DV)	0	0	0
Added Sugars (% DV)	0	0	0
Phytic Acid (g)	0	0	0
Gluten (g)	o	o	o
Choline (% DV)	12	13	13

^aDaily value

^bSaturated fatty acids

^cPolyunsaturated fatty acids

^dMonounsaturated fatty acids

The median energy content of the plant-based ground beef alternative products was 153 kcals per 3 ounce cooked portion, with an IQR of 45 kcals. In contrast, the kcal content of 3 ounces of cooked ground beef ranged from 182 kcals (90% lean) to 230 kcals (70% lean). Median protein, fat, and carbohydrate content of the plant-based ground beef alternative products per 3 ounce portion were 12.6 g (IQR 7.7 g), 6.0 g (IQR 2.8 g), and 12.7 g (IQR 10.5 g) respectively. Corresponding values for 70%, 80%, and 90% lean ground beef are provided in Table 8.

The median saturated fat content of the plant-based ground beef alternatives products per 3 ounce cooked portion as a percent DV was 4% (IQR 2%). Three of the 37 products provided 20% or more of the DV for saturated fat and two contained between 10–19% of the DV. The % DV for saturated fat for 70%, 80%, and 90% lean ground beef ranged from 19%−30%.

Minerals for which median % DV values for plant-based ground beef alternative products were 10% or higher included iron (10%, IQR 5%), phosphorous (10%, IQR 4%), sodium (18%, IQR 7%), manganese (20%, IQR 20%) and copper (24%, IQR 10%). For ground beef, regardless of the level of leanness, all were found to be good or high sources of iron (12%−14% DV), zinc (46%−51% DV), selenium (31%−33% DV), and phosphorous (12%−14% DV).

Vitamins for which the plant-based ground beef alternative products had a median % DV of 10% or more per 3 ounce cooked portion included folate (10%, IQR 10%) and niacin (21%, IQR 7%). In contrast, the median % DV for vitamin B12 was 0% (IQR 2%). Only two products contained > 10% DV for vitamin B12 (94% and 190% of the DV respectively). Ground beef, regardless of level of leanness, was a good or high source of vitamin B12 (88%−99% DV), riboflavin (11%−12% DV), niacin (36%−40% DV), vitamin B5 (10%−14% DV), and vitamin B6 (16%−21% DV) (Table 8).

Other food components examined included dietary fiber, added sugars, phytic acid, gluten, and choline. The median dietary fiber content of the plant-based ground beef alternative products was 15% of the DV (IQR 6%). Some of the products contained added sugars (n=8), but in small amounts (<5% DV). All of the products contained phytic acid, with a median value of 193.9 mg (IQR 151.4 mg). Median gluten content was 0.6 g (IQR 3.8 g). Median choline content was 4% DV (IQR 2%). Ground beef, regardless of level leanness, was a good source of choline (12–13% DV) and contained no dietary fiber, added sugars, phytic acid or gluten.

Median nutrient values for vegan and non-vegan products were generally similar, and in cases where differences were apparent the direction of the difference varied by nutrient. For example, the median manganese content of vegan and non-vegan products were 25% DV and 13% DV respectively whereas the median selenium content of vegan and non-vegan products were 8% DV and 17% DV respectively.

Discussion

In the U.S., careful consideration must be given to efforts to reduce or eliminate meat consumption due to the current contribution of meat to population intake of protein, iron, zinc, vitamin B12, vitamin B6, niacin, and riboflavin.²² In particular, efforts to reduce beef consumption require special attention because beef is a leading contributor to population intake of these nutrients. For example, among U.S. adults, beef is the leading source of protein, zinc, and vitamin B12, accounting for 16.9%, 24.6%, and 27.2% of total population intake respectively.²²

Findings from the present study indicate that most plant-based ground beef alternative products are formulated in ways that partially address the aforementioned nutrition concerns. To elaborate, most of the plant-based ground beef alternative products were found to contain an amount of iron close to that in ground beef. But, iron found in plant foods is generally considered to have lower bioavailability than iron found in meats because some of the iron in meats is bound to hemoglobin (heme-iron), which is a more bioavailable form of iron than non-heme iron.³² In addition, some antinutrients found in plants such as phytic acid may reduce absorption of iron.³³ One of the plant-based meat alternative products (Impossible™ Burger) contains heme-iron from soy leghemoglobin, a novel product ingredient.³⁴ The iron in this product potentially has bioavailability comparable to that of ground beef. But, data regarding iron bioavailability for this product is lacking.

The median zinc content of the plant-based ground beef alternative products (7% DV) was substantially less than the zinc content of ground beef (46%−51% DV). Further, antinutrients such as phytic acid ³³ potentially reduce the absorption of zinc in the plant-based meat alternative products.

Vitamin B12 is a nutrient found exclusively in animal products, and consequently, those adhering to a vegan diet must rely on foods fortified with vitamin B12 or supplemental sources to meet requirements for this vitamin. It could therefore be advantageous for plant-based meat alternative products to contain this nutrient, but only two of the plant-based ground beef alternative products evaluated in this study were found to contain 10% or more of the DV for this nutrient.

Most of the plant-based ground beef alternative products were found to contain protein in an amount that was substantially less than that of ground beef. The lower protein of these products may not be of public health concern because most Americans consume protein in amounts well above recommended intake levels.³⁵ Further, a trial in which participants were randomized to consume either a diet that contained animal meats or a diet that contained plant-based meat alternative products in place of animal meats found total protein intake to be similar in the two diets.³⁶ Protein quality was not assessed in this study, but the quality of plant protein in comparison to animal sources is known to generally be lower.³⁷ Thus, protein quality may be lower in some or all of the products depending on plant protein sources, processing methods, and inclusion of antinutritional factors such as phytic acid.³⁸

Findings indicate that plant-based ground beef alternative products have the potential to contribute to chronic disease prevention by providing some nutrients recommended for disease prevention.¹⁷ Most notably, the products examined in this study had a median fiber content of 15% of the DV for this food constituent that is under-consumed in the U.S.¹⁷

Findings were somewhat mixed with respect to nutrients for which limited consumption is encouraged for chronic disease prevention.¹⁷ While most of the plant-based ground beef alternative products were found to contain less than 10% DV for saturated fat, a few were found to contain amounts comparable to that found in ground beef. With regard to sodium, all of the products were found contain sodium in an amount >10% DV. Though the sodium content of ground beef was substantially lower (2–4% DV), it is important to note that salt or sodium containing seasonings may be added to ground beef during preparation, potentially resulting in sodium content similar to that of the plant-based ground beef alternative products examined in this study.

Findings from the present study are mostly consistent with a marketplace survey carried out in Australia in 2015,²⁰ the only other systematic evaluation of plant-based meat alternative products carried out to date. Similar to findings reported in the present study, Curtain and Grafenauer found that plant-based ground beef patty (burger) alternative products were generally lower in saturated fat and higher in dietary fiber and sodium compared with the meats they were designed to mimic.²⁰ The researchers were not able to evaluate the vitamin and mineral content of all of the products in a quantitative way due to reliance on nutrition information available on product nutrition labels.

Study findings may have implications for dietitians, food manufacturers, and public health nutrition guidance and policy. Because there is a tendency for consumers to assume that plant-based products are healthy, dietitians need to advise patients to read nutrition facts panels to identify products that best align with their health and nutrition goals. Survey data indicates that consumer motivations for meat alternative products center on health (e.g. heart health, prevent illness, longer life).¹ Consequently, food manufacturers may want to consider optimizing the nutritional profile of their products to meet these consumer expectations. From a public health perspective, in making dietary recommendations to adapt a plant-based diet consideration should be given to the role that plant-based ground beef alternative products may play in this dietary transition. Most notably, the extent to which these products may or may not replace nutrients currently provided by beef in the American diet should be considered.

Limitations of the present study include non-random selection of plant-based ground beef alternative products in the marketplace and reliance on expert judgement in identifying brands believed to be marketplace leaders. As a result, findings are not representative of all plant-based ground beef alternative products in the marketplace and may not encompass all leading brands. Consequently, findings should not be generalized beyond the specific products included in this evaluation. Another limitation is that nutrient composition information for the products was not obtained via chemical analysis of the foods. Instead, the information provided on the product nutrition facts panel and ingredient statement was relied on to develop formulations (recipes) from which nutrition content values were estimated. Inaccuracies on product labels and shortcomings in the approach used by NCC to develop food formulations may contribute to inaccurate nutrient content values for products.

The present study has a number of strengths. The study provides complete nutrient content values for the full range of nutrients of relevance from a public health and clinical perspective. Findings also have relevance to plant-based meat alternative products most apt to be purchased and consumed by Americans because products from major brands were included.

Conclusions

The major brands of plant-based ground beef alternative products examined in this study have nutritional strengths as well as some shortcomings. Additional research to examine a broader set of plant-based meat alternative products, such as those designed as substitutes for chicken and pork, is warranted.

Research snapshot.

Research Question:

What is the nutritional quality of plant-based ground beef alternative products sold by major brands in the U.S. marketplace in 2019?

Key Findings:

The plant-based ground beef alternative products examined in this study were found to have nutritional strengths (e.g. most were a good or high source of dietary fiber, iron, manganese, copper, folate, and niacin; and low in saturated fat) as well as shortcomings (e.g. most contained >10% DV for sodium and less protein, zinc and vitamin B12 than ground beef).