A metabolomics comparison of plant-based meat and grass-fed meat indicates large nutritional differences despite comparable nutrition facts panels

Authors: VAN VLIET, STEPHAN - Duke University; BAIN, JAMES - Duke University; MUEHLBAUER, MICHAEL - Duke University; PIEPER, CARL - Duke University; Kronberg, Scott; PROVENZA, FREDERICK - Utah State University

Submitted to: Scientific Reports
Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal
Publication Acceptance Date: 6/14/2021
Publication Date: 7/5/2021
Citation: Van Vliet, S., Bain, J.R., Muehlbauer, M.J., Pieper, C.F., Kronberg, S.L., Provenza, F.D. 2021. A metabolomics comparison of plant-based meat and grass-fed meat indicates large nutritional differences despite comparable nutrition facts panels. Scientific Reports. 11:13828. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-93100-3.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-93100-3

Interpretive Summary: Concerns about the effects of red meat on human health and the environment have led to interest in plant-based diets. A new generation of plant-based meat alternatives – made to mimic the taste and nutritional composition of red meat – have attracted interest from consumers, researchers, and the media. We used metabolomics to compare the nutrient profiles of grass-fed ground beef and a market-leading plant-based meat alternative. Results showed a 90% difference in nutritional profiles of beef and a popular plant-based meat. Many of the differences may be important for health. This information could not be determined from their Nutritional Facts, which suggests that they are similar. Beef and a popular plant-based meat should not be viewed as being the same nutritionally, but as being complementary. These results are useful to researchers, nutritionists, and consumers in better understanding the nutritional characteristics of beef and plant-based meat products.

Technical Abstract: Concerns regarding the effects of red meat on human and environmental health are prompting consumer interest in plant-based diets. As global food systems strive to meet the dietary needs of an estimated mid-century population of 10 billion people, a new generation of plant-based meat alternatives – formulated to mimic the taste and nutritional composition of red meat – have attracted considerable consumer interest, research attention, and media coverage. We used metabolomics to provide an in-depth comparison of the nutrient profiles of grass-fed ground beef and a market-leading plant-based meat alternative. Metabolomics revealed a 90% difference in nutritional profiles of beef and a popular plant-based meat, many of which have important consumer health implications. This information could not be determined from their Nutritional Facts, which suggests similarity. We conclude that beef and a popular plant-based meat should not be viewed as nutritionally interchangeable, but as complementary in terms of provided nutritional entities. The meat and the plant-based meat industries will likely coexist and complement each other as society aims to increase food production ~ 60% by 2050.