Key insights from our study into the nutritional value of plant-based meat and milk alternatives
Health is the most significant motivating factor for eating more plant-based foods. Yet, some people still have concerns regarding plant-based meat and dairy alternatives. Two critical consumer questions require answering: are plant-based meat and dairy alternatives as nutritious as their animal-based counterparts, and are they healthy?
To bring clarity, ProVeg International conducted a global nutritional assessment of plant-based alternatives. We evaluated plant-based meat and milk products from 11 countries across four continents: Belgium, Czechia, Germany, Italy, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Poland, South Africa, Spain, the UK, and the USA. Using criteria from the WHO Nutrients Profile model (NPM), the Netherlands Nutrition Centre, and EFSA guidelines, we assessed 422 meat alternatives and 251 plant-based milk products, comparing them to their animal-based equivalents.
Let’s explore the review’s main findings and uncover what they mean for stakeholders across the food system. Through actionable insights, we’ll also share recommendations for product strategy (and beyond).
Good to know:
Plant-based meat products in our assessment were scored out of eight (with eight being a high nutritional value and one being low) and milk alternatives were scored out of nine. Read the full methodology here.
Key findings
1. Overall, plant-based meat alternatives have a more beneficial nutritional profile than animal meats
Our study found that the average nutritional quality of all plant-based meat alternatives analysed is slightly better than that of animal-based meat products. To put this into numbers, the average score for plant-based meat alternatives is 5.32 out of 8, while for animal-based meat it is 4.50 out of 8. This indicates that both categories have moderate nutritional value with room for improvement. Measured by country, the average score of plant-based meat alternatives is similar to or higher than that of animal-based meat.
Country ranking
Which country possesses plant-based meat products with the highest average nutritional value?
- The Netherlands
- Belgium
- Spain
- The UK
- The US
- Italy
- South Africa
- Czechia
- Germany
- Poland
- Malaysia
The Netherlands has the highest average score with 6.70 points out of 8, indicating that plant-based meat alternatives on the Dutch market have a high nutritional value. Of the 82 Dutch plant-based meat products, 22 have a maximum score of 8. In contrast, animal-based meat products (of any subcategory) never exceed a score of 6.
In some countries such as Poland, Germany, and Czechia, the score of plant-based products is similar to animal-based meat, primarily due to a lack of fortification, excessive salt content, and insufficient protein or fibre. Malaysian plant-based meat products have an average score of 4.12 because of low fortification (especially vitamin B12), high salt, and low protein and fibre levels.
Deep dive: plant-based meat products:
- Strong subcategories: Plant-based bacon, chicken nuggets, and sausages have a better average score in most countries compared to animal-based meat. Meanwhile, plant-based burgers and chicken breast/strips score similarly to their animal-based counterparts. Only the schnitzel category performs worse in almost all countries – except the Netherlands – compared to animal-based schnitzel.
- Good amount of protein: Most plant-based meat alternatives provide 11.2g-19.6g of protein per 100g, similar to animal-based meat (15g-19.5g). Over 60% of the plant-based products meet this threshold globally, with more than 90% in the UK and US, and 80% in Spain, the Netherlands, and Belgium. In the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, and Poland, 70-80% of products meet the range. In subcategories like sausages, minced meat, bacon, and meatballs, plant-based options often match or exceed the protein content of animal-based products.
- High fibre: Plant-based meat alternatives contain significantly more fibre than their animal-based counterparts. In all countries except the US, more than 60% of the plant-based meat alternatives contain more than 3g of fibre per 100g – the required amount to be considered a source of fibre according to EFSA nutrition claim legislation. 1 This confirms the results of previous studies.2 3 4 5 6
- Low in saturated fatty acids: Plant-based meat alternatives have significantly lower saturated fat than animal-based products, averaging 2g per 100g. The saturated fat in plant-based meat products is primarily due to coconut oil, which is the case for 87 products. In contrast, animal-based meat averages over 6g per 100g. In almost all countries (except Malaysia), most plant-based meat alternatives fall below the maximum set level of 2.5g of saturated fat per 100g. The only subcategory where animal-based products perform similarly in saturated fat is chicken breast/strips, due to chicken’s naturally lower fat content.
- Low in sugar: The sugar content for 98% of all plant-based meat alternatives analysed is below the set maximum of 5g per 100g as defined by EFSA’s Nutrition Claim legislation. Comparably, animal-based meat products normally do not contain sugar, except for products like meatballs and sausages that can have small amounts of sugar (not more than 2.8 g, according to USDA and UK databases) depending on the recipe. Thus, sugar is not a nutrient of concern for plant-based meat or animal-based meat products.
Recommendation
Some manufacturers use coconut oil, which is 90% saturated fat and only 10% unsaturated fat. To align with healthier substitutions, we recommend that product developers base plant-based meat alternatives on healthier raw materials to improve their fat profile. Olive oil, rapeseed oil, sunflower oil, cashews, and almond paste are good ingredients that can maintain healthy nutritional values while maintaining the desired texture and taste.
2. The nutritional value of plant-based meat alternatives could be improved by reducing salt content
In most countries, both plant-based and animal-based meat products exceed the salt limit of 1.1g per 100g to be considered within the recommended healthy range. This highlights a need for reformulation.
Plant-based meat averages 1.3g per 100g (ranging from 0.15-4.1g), with only four countries – South Africa, the UK, Spain, and the Netherlands – meeting the limit in at least half their products. Similarly, animal-based meat averages 1.1g per 100g (ranging from 0.11-3.75g), with animal-based bacon, sausages, and nuggets consistently exceeding the limit.
Manufacturers must work on staying below the salt limit (1.1g per 100g) when producing plant-based meat alternatives. Salt can be replaced with spices, herbs, and high-quality ingredients that are tasty in their own right. Potassium salt (KCl) can also replace some of the added salt without altering the sensory characteristics of the product.
3. Plant-based milk alternatives have an average nutritional score that is close to cow’s milk (and in some cases, better!)
Plant-based milk averages a nutritional score of 6.5 out of 9, slightly lower than US cow’s milk (7 out of 9) but higher than UK cow’s milk (6 out of 9), reflecting differences in country-specific fortification, particularly with vitamins D and A in the US.
Country ranking
Which country possesses plant-based milk products with the highest average nutritional value?
- The Netherlands
- Italy
- Belgium
- The UK
- Czechia
- Poland
- Germany
- The US
- Spain
- Malaysia
- South Africa
The countries offering the best-performing plant-based milk alternatives are the Netherlands, Italy, Belgium, the UK, and Czechia, with scores of between 7 and 7.7 out of 9.
Deep dive: plant-based milk products:
- Low fat: The plant-based milk alternatives analysed contain less total fat and saturated fat than cow’s milk, aligning with previous studies.7 8 9 10 In all countries analysed, over 90% of plant-based milk alternatives fall below the maximum saturated fat threshold (less than 1.1g per 100ml), averaging 0.2g to 0.8g per 100ml, compared to 1.5g in cow’s milk.
- Less sugar: Plant-based milk in all countries contains significantly less sugar than cow’s milk, which naturally has 4.8g of milk sugar per 100ml (12g per 250ml serving). Even lactose-free cow’s milk retains sugar in a more absorbable form. In contrast, plant-based milk averages 2g of sugar per 100ml (5g per 250ml), with most products – except in the UK – meeting the ‘low sugar’ threshold of less than or equal to 2.5g per 100ml. In Belgium and Czechia, 80% of plant-based options qualify as low in sugar.
- Low in salt: In all countries, more than 90% of the plant-based milk alternatives fall below the set maximum level of salt (less than 0.5g per 100ml). The average salt content of plant-based milk alternatives is 0.16g per 100ml. This is similar to cow’s milk, which averages between 0.09g and 0.1g of salt per 100ml on average. Therefore, salt is not a nutrient of concern for the plant-based milk category.
- A source of calcium: Most countries, except South Africa and Malaysia, fortify plant-based milk with calcium, typically at 120mg per 100ml, comparable to cow’s milk. The US has the highest amount of fortified products, and South Africa has the lowest. This is likely due to different regulations on ingredients added to foods or for taste and texture reasons.
- A source of vitamin D: Over 70% of plant-based milk alternatives are fortified with vitamin D in all countries, except for South Africa and Malaysia. The US has the highest level with 1.95mcg per 100ml. It should be noted that vitamin D fortification is very common in the US and even cow’s milk is fortified with it. In European countries, the typical amount of vitamin D fortification is 0.8mcg per 100ml.
4. Micronutrient fortification is not a common practice
Our analysis found that while plant-based meat and milk alternatives generally have beneficial nutritional profiles, micronutrient fortification varies significantly by product and region.
For example, fortification with iron and vitamin B12 is common in countries like the US, Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain, where 40-90% of plant-based meat products are fortified. In contrast, less than 20% of products are fortified in regions where fortification is uncommon, and none in South Africa. In the US, 95% of products are fortified with iron but only 24% with B12, whereas in the Netherlands, over 70% are fortified with both.
For plant-based milk, fortification also varies widely. While many of the milk alternatives we analysed were fortified with calcium and vitamin D, fewer countries fortified their products with vitamins B12 and B2 (riboflavin). Notably, B2-fortified milk alternatives often surpass cow’s milk in riboflavin content, as seen in countries like Italy, the UK, and Belgium.
Examples like plant-based bacon and soya milk, which outperform their animal-based counterparts nutritionally, highlight the potential of well-developed products. To close micronutrient gaps, manufacturers must adopt fortification strategies and ingredient optimisation, supported by scientific guidance and policy initiatives.
Good to know:
Organic products were excluded from our analysis because, unlike in the US, European regulations prohibit their fortification. In the US, fortification is allowed if added nutrients comprise no more than 5% of the product. This limitation poses a nutritional disadvantage for organic producers compared to non-organic and animal-based alternatives.11 12
“Fortification plays a significant role in enhancing the nutritional profile of plant-based products. However, barriers to fortification can include regulatory restrictions, consumer acceptance of fortified foods, and the technical challenges of incorporating certain nutrients without affecting the product’s taste and texture.”
Conclusion
Our study highlights the potential of plant-based alternatives to support daily fibre and protein intake without excessive amounts of saturated fat and sugar. As such, plant-based meat and milk products can be enjoyed as part of a balanced and healthy diet. However, their nutritional value varies globally, emphasising the need for robust policies and consistent industry practices, such as fortification. Properly fortified products can provide essential micronutrients like vitamins B12 and D, iron, and calcium.
To close nutritional gaps, strategies like salt reduction, precision fermentation, fortification, and using spices as alternatives to salt are crucial. These innovations, combined with high-quality ingredients, can enhance the health impact of plant-based options.
Promoting healthy, sustainable diets is a shared responsibility. We encourage stakeholders to create and advocate for high-nutrition plant-based products, benefiting both public health and industry growth, as health remains a top motivator for consumers.
“The report really highlights how much potential plant-based alternatives have to bring more diversity to people’s plates and replace vast quantities of animal-based products currently dominating the supermarket shelves. Plant-based alternatives can build bridges between people’s current eating habits and healthy, climate-friendly eating habits. Each stakeholder can play an important role in enabling the establishment of healthy and sustainable diets.”
Actionable insights
ProVeg International makes the following recommendations to support the development and adoption of healthy and sustainable plant-based alternatives:
For producers:
- Formulate products that contribute to healthy and sustainable diets – look to International recommendations to guide product development.
- Fortify plant-based products with specific micronutrients – read our guide on fortification for more information.
- Develop a strategy to reduce sugar and salt, limit ingredients that are high in saturated fats (such as coconut and palm oil), and avoid highly refined ingredients such as inverted glucose syrup.
- Leverage industry expertise through strategic collaborations to develop nutritious and tasty plant-based products.
- Provide transparency to consumers about the ingredients of your products.
For retailers:
- Ensure plant-based products are no more expensive than their animal-based equivalents.
- Reshape the environment where food choices are made – increase the visibility of plant-based products by positioning them on the same shelves as animal-based products, offering them as convenient options, and making them stand out more effectively.
- Make your promotions more plant-focused – implement in-store offers, discounts, and rewards for plant-based purchases to attract new customers and encourage repeat buys. Offer bulk purchase deals and bundle promotions to provide better value and further incentivise plant-based product sales.
- Train staff on the benefits, uses, and varieties of plant-based products. Provide ongoing education and resources to keep them informed and engaged, ensuring they remain excited and knowledgeable about your plant-based products.
- Commit to the ‘Protein Split’ – we recommend that food retailers track their sales volume of plant-based and animal proteins, setting goals that are aligned with the Planetary Health Diet – 60% plant-based to 40% animal-based by 2030. Establishing a standardised measurement method for this ratio will pave the way to a comprehensive shift toward healthier, more sustainable food systems.
For governments:
- Provide national guidelines for plant-based alternatives to help manufacturers develop healthy, sustainable products.
- Include plant-based alternatives in national dietary guidelines (FBDGs) – this could help consumers and health professionals to make healthier choices.
- Develop regulations and strategic plans for food fortification to support the development of healthy fortified product formulations.
- Set and implement salt reformulation targets for both animal-based meat products and plant-based alternatives to ensure a level playing field in the food industry.
- Reduce VAT for plant-based alternatives – the tax discrimination that exists in some countries poses a threat to plant-based products, which are usually taxed as luxury items, even though they are staple foods for people with allergies and dietary preferences. The VAT on plant-based milk alternatives should be no more than that on cow’s milk (e.g. Czechia, France and Belgium), or even reduced further, given their lower environmental impact.
- Don’t impose naming restrictions on plant-based alternatives – terms such as soya ‘milk’ and veggie ‘sausage’ provide important information about the taste profile and uses that consumers can expect from a product.
For science and research:
- Investigate the long-term health effects of plant-based alternatives.
- Conduct large-scale studies to assess the impact of fortifying plant-based products.
- Explore salt reduction techniques while maintaining good taste.
- Examine the bioavailability of micronutrients in plant-based alternatives compared to animal-based products.
- Research effective strategies that can help to facilitate population-wide dietary shifts towards plant-based diets.
Access the full report and recommendations here. You can also find a more visual deep dive on Food System Data.
For more support on your alternative protein strategy, contact our experts at [email protected] and subscribe to our newsletter.
References
- Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the Europe an Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/le gal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32006R1924.
- Food Frontier (n.d.): Plant-based meat: A healthier choice? A comprehensive health and nutrition analysis of plant-based meat products in the Australian and New Zealand markets. Avail able at: https://www.foodfrontier.org/wp-content/ uploads/2022/10/Plant-Based_Meat_A_Healthi er_Choice-1.pdf.
- Ritchie, H., D. S. Reay & P. Higgins (2018): Potential of Meat Substitutes for Climate Change Mitigation and Improved Human Health in High-Income Markets. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 2 16. Doi:10.3389/fsufs.2018.00016.
- Bryngelsson, S., H. Moshtaghian, M. Bianchi, et al. (2022): Nutritional assessment of plant-based meat analogues on the Swedish market. Interna tional Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition 73(7), 889–901. Doi:10.1080/09637486.2022.2078286.
- Gibbs, J. & G.-K. Leung (2023): The Effect of Plant-Based and Mycoprotein-Based Meat Sub stitute Consumption on Cardiometabolic Risk Factors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Controlled Intervention Trials. Dietetics 2(1), 104–122. Doi:10.3390/dietetics2010009.
- Andreani, G., G. Sogari, A. Marti, et al. (2023): Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: Technological, Nutritional, Environmental, Market, and Social Challenges and Opportunities. Nutrients 15(2), 452. Doi:10.3390/nu15020452.
- Johnson, A. J., J. Stevenson, J. Pettit, et al. (2024): Assessing the Nutrient Content of Plant Based Milk Alternative Products Available in the United States. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics S2212267224002697. Doi:10.1016/j. jand.2024.06.003
- Craig, W. J. & U. Fresán (2021): International Analysis of the Nutritional Content and a Review of Health Benefits of Non-Dairy Plant-Based Beverages. Nutrients 13(3), 842. Doi:10.3390/ nu13030842
- ProVeg e.V. (2019): Plant Milk Report 2019. Berlin. Available at: https://proveg.com/ wp-content/uploads/2019/10/PV_Plant_Milk_ Report_281019-1.pdf [22.11.2024]
- Fructuoso, I., B. Romão, H. Han, et al. (2021): An Overview on Nutritional Aspects of Plant-Based Beverages Used as Substitutes for Cow’s Milk. Nutrients 13(8), 2650. Doi:10.3390/nu13082650
- Medici, E., W. J. Craig & I. Rowland (2023): A Comprehensive Analysis of the Nutritional Composition of Plant-Based Drinks and Yogurt Alternatives in Europe. Nutrients 15(15), 3415. Doi:10.3390/nu15153415
- Alpro Foundation (2023): New insights: Nutrition comparison of plant-based dairy al ternatives in Europe. Available at: https:// www.alprofoundation.org/scientific-updates/ new-insights-nutritional-profiles-of-plant-based dairy-alternatives-in-europe
