Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34176542›Full record

ArticlePublic health nutrition2021

Nutritional marketing of plant-based meat-analogue products: an exploratory study of front-of-pack and website claims in the USA.

Jennifer Lacy-Nichols, Libby Hattersley, Gyorgy Scrinis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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 · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jennifer Lacy-NicholsCentre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, 207 Bouverie St, Carlton, Melbourne, VIC3053, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5157-2098
Libby HattersleyCentre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, 207 Bouverie St, Carlton, Melbourne, VIC3053, Australia.
Gyorgy ScrinisSchool of Agriculture and Food, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3897-4778

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Food LabelingMarketingFast FoodsHumansMeatNutritive ValueUnited StatesAlternative proteinFood industryFront-of-pack labellingHealth claimsMeat analoguePlant-basedUltra-processed foods

Identifiers

PMID34176542
PMCPMC10195267

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.