ArticleEuropean journal of nutrition2025
Health and environmental impacts of shifting to plant-based analogues: a risk-benefit assessment.
Article in European journal of nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- When ultra-processing obscures sustainable dietary transitions.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePlant-based analogues (PBAs) simulate animal-based foods' attributes and can facilitate adherence to flexitarian and vegetarian dietary patterns, which have been associated with health benefits. However, possibly classifying PBAs as ultra-processed (UPF) and excluding healthy animal-based foods (e.g., fish) can result in unintended health risks. This study aims to quantify the health and environmental impact of replacing animal-based foods with PBAs.
methodsUsing data from the Portuguese National Dietary Survey (n = 3852 adults; 2015-2016), three substitution scenarios of animal-based foods with PBAs were modelled: vegan (replacing all animal-based foods with PBAs), ovolactovegetarian (replacing meat and fish with PBA), and pescatarian (replacing meat with PBA). Varying degrees of substitution (33%, 50%, 67%, 100%) and two classification approaches for PBAs were explored: UPF or non-UPF. The overall health impact was estimated considering several health outcomes (cancer, cardiovascular diseases and metabolic outcomes) combined through Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs). The environmental impact was measured through greenhouse gas emissions and land use.
resultsEnvironmental benefits were evident, especially for the vegan scenario. Regarding health impact, the 100% substitution of all animal-based foods (vegan scenario) might represent a risk if PBAs are classified as UPF (∆DALY
conclusionPBAs can be considered feasible alternatives to animal-based foods, and the results emphasise meat substitution as a crucial factor for health and environmental benefits.
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.