Plant Based Animal Product Alternatives Healthier

Plant Based Animal Product Alternatives Healthier and More Environmentally Friendly

May 2023

“By now, it is well-established that industrial animal agriculture causes severe harms to the planet, to human health, and to animals. But while many of these arguments have been known for years, global meat consumption has risen steadily since the 1960s. This is because consumers’ food choices are primarily shaped by price, taste, health and convenience, not ethical or environmental influences. One suggested solution to this problem is PBAPAs – Esra Nur Guner

Cutting through the Jargon: PBAPAs

Products that imitate animal products in terms of appearance, taste, smell, functionality and cooking experience. PBAPAs are intended to be animal product alternatives – not fruit and vegetable alternatives. Their forms, sensory properties, and product labels are similar to those of meat, fish, eggs, and dairy.

Background

By now, it is well-established that industrial animal agriculture causes severe harms to the planet, to human health, and to animals.

Environmental harms: It causes greenhouse gas emissions, eutrophication, deforestation, and an increase in fresh water use.
Public health problems: It increases the risk of zoonotic pandemics and the development of antibiotic resistance.
Personal health problems: Excessive consumption of red and processed meat increases the risk of heart disease and cancer.
Harm to animals: Worldwide, over 90% of farmed animals are kept on factory farms, where they have extremely low welfare.

But while many of these arguments have been known for years, global meat consumption has risen steadily since the 1960s. This is because consumers’ food choices are primarily shaped by price, taste, health and convenience, not ethical or environmental influences.

Evidence suggests that people buying PBAPAs are eating them in place of animal products, rather than in place of whole plant foods. It seems fairly unlikely that somebody would serve a plant-based burger and a meat burger in the same dish with no sides. It is much more likely that somebody who eats a plant-based burger swaps out the meat burger, and also eats other accompaniments such as beans or salad. Therefore, it makes sense to compare the health and environmental outcomes of PBAPAs with animal foods – not with plant foods.

Consumers can essentially adopt PBAPAs as a way to reduce their meat consumption without compromising the cooking and eating experiences they are used to and enjoy. Moreover, it has been argued that PBAPAs can more effectively displace demand for animal products more effectively than whole plant foods alone. This review summarised the research on whether these products are healthier and more environmentally sustainable than the animal products they replace.

Findings

Environmental sustainability of PBAPAs

The evidence shows that PBAPAs cause significantly less climate change, use less farmland, water, and energy, and cause less eutrophication compared to animal products

The healthiness of PBAPAs

While some products are lower in protein, iron, and B12, or higher in sugar and salt, PBAPAs consistently have lower levels of fat, including saturated fat and trans fatty acids, as well as lower cholesterol, higher fibre, and more vitamins and minerals compared to their animal-based counterparts.
Evidence shows that PBAPAs are no different from animal products in terms of muscle synthesis, and are superior in terms of aiding weight loss. They are also suitable for people at risk for bone fractures, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and hyperuricemia, and can lower cholesterol, improve gut health, and prevent premature death by lowering disease risk.
Research to improve the healthiness of PBAPAs has identified ingredients and processes to optimise protein and fibre content, improve vitamin content, and reduce antinutrient content. Further such research should address ways to increase protein, iron, antioxidant, and Vitamin B12 content while reducing salt content.

Discussion

Consumer perceptions of healthiness & sustainability of PBAPAs

The evidence broadly supports the view that consumers tend to correctly view PBAPAs as healthy. However, some consumers may view PBAPAs as unnatural or overly-processed, and incorrectly infer that they are therefore unhealthy, damaging to the environment, or bad in other ways.
Most evidence suggests that PBAPAs are healthier than animal products, but consumers may infer the opposite to be true if they rely on heuristics like the presence of additives or perceived unnaturalness as indicators of healthiness.

The relevance of ‘processing’ to food healthiness and sustainability

The idea that naturalness equates to goodness, and unnatural things are therefore bad, is known as the naturalistic fallacy and is evident to some extent in alternative proteins. It is found that consumers rated taste, texture, and convenience as amongst the most appealing aspects of PBAPAs, but rated naturalness and nutritional value as amongst the least appealing. These results indicate that although the sensory properties of PBAPAs are improving, concerns remain about their naturalness, and this may lead to negative inferences about their nutritional quality. Overcoming these concerns could accelerate the adoption of PBAPAs.
The perception of PBAPAs as unnatural may be exacerbated by interests in the conventional animal product industry who seek to cast public doubt on these competing products. Consumers and policymakers must resist the heuristic that animal meat is natural and therefore better, and instead listen to the science, which suggests that PBAPAs can be a sustainable and healthy part of our future protein landscape.

Download the Report