As ultra-processed foods (UPFs) come under increasing scrutiny, a new evidence-based report reveals that lumping plant-based meat products in with all UPFs could mislead consumers about their true health impact.
Plant-based meat alternatives have surged in popularity as many seek healthier and more sustainable ways to reduce meat consumption. Yet, concerns about their classification as ultra-processed foods (UPFs) have left many consumers hesitant.
A new evidence-based report from the Physicians Association for Nutrition (PAN) and Good Food Institute (GFI) Europe, alongside emerging research, now challenges oversimplified views and urges a more nuanced understanding.
Courtesy: Physicians Association for Nutrition/GFI Europe
Why Are Plant-Based Meats Controversial?
Across the UK and Europe, about half of consumers avoid plant-based meat, worried these products are “too processed” or “unnatural.” In the US, 25% of consumers say they would buy more meat analogues if they were less processed or nutritionally closer to real meat. This perception has contributed to slowed or declining sales in some markets; for instance, US plant-based meat retail sales dropped 7% last year.
Much of the concern centers on the ultra-processed food label, which has become a major dietary buzzword. But health experts and recent research caution against grouping all UPFs together — especially when it comes to plant-based meat.
What Exactly Are Ultra-Processed Foods?
The NOVA classification, developed by Brazilian researchers, defines UPFs as industrially formulated products involving multiple processing steps and additives like high-fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated oils, and artificial flavors. Common examples include sugary drinks, snacks, and processed meats.
However, plant-based meats do not fit neatly into this category from a nutritional standpoint. PAN and GFI Europe’s new report highlights that plant-based meat meets only 3 out of 8 UPF criteria, whereas conventional processed meat meets 7 out of 8. Furthermore, plant-based meat tends to have more fiber, less saturated fat, and similar protein content compared to processed meat.
Processing: A Double-Edged Sword
While many UPFs are linked to negative health outcomes due to high calorie density, low fiber, and additives, not all processing reduces nutritional value. Some techniques used in plant-based meat production can actually improve protein quality, increase nutrient bioavailability, and enable fortification with beneficial nutrients.
Limitations in Existing Research
Much of the evidence associating UPF consumption with poor health relies on outdated food diaries and broad datasets that lump all processed foods together. These often fail to distinguish modern plant-based meat from older or less healthful processed foods like cakes or sugary drinks.
For example, in the UK Biobank dataset, plant-based meat contributed a mere 0.2% of total calorie intake, yet media often blamed “fake meats” for negative health trends more likely driven by highly processed sugary and fatty foods.
Health Benefits of Plant-Based Meat Alternatives
The latest evidence suggests that replacing processed meat with plant-based alternatives can have medically relevant health benefits, including:
- Lower LDL cholesterol levels
- Improved diet quality
- Modest weight loss
This positions plant-based meat as a potentially better-for-you option within the broader UPF category.
Calls for More Nuanced Research and Policy
The PAN’s Dietary Guidelines Initiative director, stresses the need to challenge misconceptions: “Not all UPFs are created equal. This resource equips professionals with a clearer understanding of where plant-based meat fits — based on science, not sensationalism.”
Researchers are encouraged to conduct more interventional studies that isolate the effects of specific processing techniques and ingredients. Meanwhile, policymakers should update dietary guidelines to reflect the diverse nutritional profiles within the UPF category and incentivize healthier options.
Balanced Perspective: Navigating the Complex Food Landscape
While plant-based meat shows promise as a healthier alternative to conventional processed meat, it is important to remember:
- Not all plant-based meats are equal: Nutritional quality varies widely depending on ingredients and formulation. Some may contain high levels of salt or additives, which consumers should monitor.
- Whole foods remain foundational: Diets rich in whole plant foods like legumes, vegetables, fruits, and whole grains continue to be the gold standard for health.
- Processing is not inherently bad: Some processing improves safety, digestibility, and nutrient absorption, but excessive additives and ultra-high salt or sugar content can be harmful.
- Consumer preferences and accessibility matter: The best dietary changes are those people can maintain. For many, plant-based meat offers a practical step towards reduced animal product consumption.
Conclusion
As the conversation around ultra-processed foods intensifies, it’s crucial to move beyond broad labels and evaluate foods on their individual merits. Plant-based meat alternatives, while processed, often offer meaningful health and sustainability benefits compared to conventional processed meats. Future research, clearer public communication, and thoughtful policy can help consumers make informed choices aligned with both their health and environmental values.
What We Think of the Report
Consumers deserve clear, honest, and science-backed information. Rather than demonising all ultra-processed foods, it’s time we embrace a more mature, evidence-led conversation — one that empowers people to make healthier, more sustainable, and realistic dietary choices.
The PAN and GFI Europe report is a well-constructed, timely, and science-backed resource that helps untangle the often confusing and emotionally charged conversation around ultra-processed foods (UPFs) — especially when it comes to plant-based meat. Here’s a concise breakdown of what we think of the report:
Strengths of the Report
1. Scientific Rigour & Clarity
The report leans heavily on randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews — the gold standard in nutrition research — which adds credibility. It carefully dissects the NOVA classification and explains how plant-based meat does not fit the UPF label neatly, at least not in the way that’s commonly perceived.
2. Nuanced Communication
It challenges the ‘all UPFs are bad’ narrative and makes a clear case that processing and nutritional quality are not the same thing. This is a critical distinction for healthcare professionals and consumers alike.
3. Balanced View on Health Impact
The report highlights specific health benefits of plant-based meat compared to conventional processed meat — such as reduced LDL cholesterol, higher fiber intake, and potential for fortification — without claiming they’re perfect.
4. Call to Action for Policy & Research
The report doesn’t just criticise existing narratives — it offers solutions. It urges:
- Better research designs
- Policy guidance that reflects the diversity of food products
- National dietary recommendations to support positive reformulation
5. Empowers Healthcare Professionals
By equipping health professionals with evidence-based talking points, the report can help dispel consumer confusion and misinformation, often driven by media headlines rather than facts.
Our Final Verdict
The PAN & GFI Europe report is a valuable, evidence-based contribution to the public and policy debate on ultra-processed foods. It helps restore balance and nuance to a conversation that has become dominated by fear and simplification.
It gives researchers, policymakers, and health professionals a better lens through which to assess plant-based meats — not as silver bullets, but as tools that can play a meaningful role in public health and protein diversification when chosen and communicated wisely
Read more:
https://gfieurope.org/is-plant-based-meat-ultra-processed
Summary
Full report
