03 Issues & Trends
Cereal Foods World, Vol. 65, No. 4
Print To PDF
The Nutrition Limitations of Mimicking Meat
Marianne Smith Edge1 and Jennifer L. Garrett2

1 M.S., RDN, FADA, FAND. The AgriNutrition Edge, LLC, 516 Ford Ave, Owensboro, KY 42301, U.S.A. Tel: +1.270.684.7647; E-mail: marianne@agrinutritionedge.com; LinkedIn: Marianne Smith Edge https://www.linkedin.com/in/marianne-smith-edge-a0b5a232; Instagram: @msmithedge; Twitter: @msmithedge; Facebook: The AgriNutrition Edge; Website: www.agrinutritionedge.com.

2 M.S., Ph.D., JG Consulting Services, LLC, 8291 S Cedar Rd, Dowling, MI 49050, U.S.A. Tel: +1.269.270.6656; E-mail: jgconsultingservices@gmail.com; LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jennifer-garrett-6b08727.


© 2020 Cereals & Grains Association

Abstract

Over the past decade, the pursuit of developing plant-based alternatives that mimic meat products in order to give consumers a wider range of choices at the supermarket has reached a new level of production and investment. Plant-based meat alternatives provide consumers with choices for enjoying the sensory characteristics of meat products, but nutritional implications exist. Because these new products are plant based, they often have a “health halo.” However, currently available plant-based burgers have macronutrient profiles similar to 80% lean ground beef burgers, especially with regard to their fat and saturated fat contents. In addition, sodium levels are significantly higher and the bioavailability of protein, calcium, and iron are lower in plant-based burgers. Recent consumer surveys indicate that plant-based meat alternatives are viewed through a wider lens than nutrient composition and personal health.





Trying to reach content?

View Full Article

if you don't have access, become a member