ArticlePublic health nutrition2021
Nutritional marketing of plant-based meat-analogue products: an exploratory study of front-of-pack and website claims in the USA.
Article in Public health nutrition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Higher Consumption of Ultra-Processed Foods Is Associated with Lower Plant-Based Diet Quality in Australian Adults.Nutrients · 2025Article
- Plant-based Meat Analogs: Perspectives on Their Meatiness, Nutritional Profile, Environmental Sustainability, Acceptance and Challenges.Current nutrition reports · 2024Review
- Transforming plant proteins into plant-based meat alternatives: challenges and future scope.Food science and biotechnology · 2024Review
- Analysis of the Nutritional Composition of Ready-to-Use Meat Alternatives in Belgium.Nutrients · 2024Article
- Nutritional Description of Processed Foods with Fibre-Related Nutrition Claims in Spain: The BADALI Project.Nutrients · 2023Article
- Beyond Plants: The Ultra-Processing of Global Diets Is Harming the Health of People, Places, and Planet.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Article
- Prospects for Plant-Based Meat: Current Standing, Consumer Perceptions, and Shifting Trends.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Latest Trends in Investing for Improved Nutrition and Obesity Prevention.Current nutrition reports · 2022Review
- Perspective: Unpacking the Wicked Challenges for Alternative Proteins in the United States: Can Highly Processed Plant-Based and Cell-Cultured Food and Beverage Products Support Healthy and Sustainable Diets and Food Systems?Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2022Article
- Nutritional Quality of Meat Analogues: Results From the Food Labelling of Italian Products (FLIP) Project.Frontiers in nutrition · 2022Article
- Marketing strategies used for alternative protein products sold in Australian supermarkets in 2014, 2017, and 2021.Frontiers in nutrition · 2022Article
- A taste of things to come: Effect of temporal order of information and product experience on evaluation of healthy and sustainable plant-based products.Frontiers in nutrition · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore how some of the largest food companies involved in producing alternative proteins (AP) use health and nutrition claims to market their products.
designWe identified the largest food manufacturers, meat processors and AP companies selling plant-based AP products in the USA. Using publicly available data, we analysed the voluntary health and nutrition claims made on front-of-pack labels (FOPL) and company webpages. We also analysed company websites for further nutrition and health-related statements about their products or AP more generally. Claim classification was guided by the INFORMAS (International Network for Food and Obesity/Non-Communicable Diseases Research, Monitoring, and Action Support) taxonomy for health-related food labelling.
settingUSA.
participantsNot applicable.
results1394 health and nutrition-related FOPL claims were identified on 216 products, including 685 nutrition claims and 709 'other health-related' claims. No FOPL health claims were identified. Most nutrient claims were for nutrients associated with meat, with 94 % of products carrying a protein claim and 30 % carrying a cholesterol claim. 74 % of products carried a GMO-free claim, and 63 % carried a plant-based claim. On their websites, some companies expanded on these claims or discussed the health benefits of specific ingredients.
conclusionsCompanies involved in this category appear to be using nutritional marketing primarily to position their products in relation to meat. There is a focus on nutrient and ingredient claims, with discussion of processing largely avoided. The findings highlight the challenges companies face in positioning AP products as healthy against the backdrop of debates about ultra-processed foods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.