Abstract
Consumer enthusiasm in plant-based eating has resulted in the rapid expansion of plant-based meat (PBM) products. The extensive processing required to simulate meat warrants further investigation regarding PBMs nutritional quality and healthiness, particularly considering the health halo that has surrounded these products. An online audit of dominant UK supermarkets evaluated PBM (n = 209) against 'standard' (n = 2143) and 'reduced' (e.g. low fat) meat equivalents (n = 100), across eight product categories. This evaluation included NOVA categorisation, Nutritional Profiling Model (NPM) classification, on-pack claims, micronutrient content and product affordability. PBM products were typically more favourable than 'standard' meat equivalents for energy density, dietary fibre, total and saturated fat content. However, they contained significantly higher salt in most product categories. Differences between PBM and 'reduced' meat comparators were more nuanced. PBM products were significantly more expensive than 'standard' meat equivalents in four of the eight product categories (p < .05). Few PBM and zero meat-based products reported micronutrient information. While all PBM and most meat-based products were characterised as ultra-processed, PBM products demonstrated a lower ('healthier') NPM score compared to 'standard' meat equivalents across all product categories (p ≤ .001). Although no significant differences were detected between PBM and 'reduced' meat-based products, a greater proportion of PBM products were classified as 'healthier' according to NPM compared to 'standard' and 'reduced' meat equivalents. Thus PBM products may offer healthier alternatives with the potential to synergistically support public and planetary health. Future manufacturing practices should consider cost-effective fortification and reformulation strategies to improve nutritional quality and affordability of PBMs.