Comparison of the Nutrient Content and Cost of Canned and Dried Legumes and Plant-Based Meat Alternatives Available in Supermarkets †
by
, ,
Leanne Young
1,*
,
Sally Mackay
2,
Akeena Raphael
3,
Joey Tan
3,
Christina Cao
1 and
Kathryn Bradbury
1 1
National Institute for Health Innovation, University of Auckland, Auckland 1023, New Zealand
2
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Population Health, University of Auckland, Auckland 1023, New Zealand
3
Nutrition Section, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland 1023, New Zealand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Presented at the Nutrition Society of New Zealand Annual Conference, Online, 2–3 December 2021.
Med. Sci. Forum 2022, 9(1), 20; https://doi.org/10.3390/msf2022009020
Published: 29 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Proceedings of 2021 Annual Scientific Meeting of the Nutrition Society of New Zealand: Tūhono - Reconnecting)
Abstract
:Plant-based diets are recommended for personal health and to protect the environment. Plant-based protein foods available in supermarkets include traditional options, such as canned and dried legumes, and an increasing range of meat analogues such as plant-based sausages. This study aims to compare the nutritional content, healthiness, and cost of canned and reconstituted dried legumes with the same factors of plant-based meat alternatives. Information on the nutritional content, ingredients, and nutrient claims of canned legumes (N = 112), dried legumes (N = 21), and meat alternatives (tofu, felafels, and meat analogues) (N = 68) was obtained from Nutritrack (2019), a database of New Zealand (NZ) packaged foods available in supermarkets. The mean (SD) energy, protein, total fat, sodium, and fibre content, and the proportion of products fortified with iron, B12, and zinc was calculated. Healthiness was assessed using estimated Health Star Rating (HSR) and comparison with United Kingdom (UK) sodium targets. Product data were linked with household purchasing data from Nielsen Homescan® to compare the mean purchase price/100 g. The number and type of nutrient claims on packaging were identified. All canned and dried legumes and plain tofu scored an HSR ≥ 3.5; for other sub-categories of meat alternatives, 29% or fewer products scored ≥3.5. Although all tofu met UK sodium targets, less than half of the products within other categories met the associated target; meat alternatives (46%), canned legumes (21%), and baked beans (17%). Reconstituted dried legumes were the cheapest plant protein source (Mean = NZ$0.30, SD = 0.16/100 g (lowest of four categories)) compared to meat alternatives (‘Other’ meat-free products mean = NZ$2.57, SD = 0.88/100 g (highest of six categories)). The most common nutrient claims on meat alternatives were vegetarian/vegan, protein, and dietary fibre. Fifteen percent of meat alternatives were fortified with iron, and 12% each for Vitamin B12 and zinc. Although meat alternatives offer consumers more choice, these products may be less healthy and are more expensive than the more traditional plant-based protein sources—canned and dried legumes.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, L.Y., S.M. and K.B.; methodology, L.Y., S.M. and K.B.; formal analysis, L.Y., S.M., K.B., A.R., J.T. and C.C.; investigation, A.R., J.T. and C.C.; writing—original draft preparation, L.Y.; writing—review and editing, S.M. and K.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
The Nutritrack data collections and database are funded by a Health Research Council of New Zealand program grant (18/672). Leanne Young is funded by a Heart Foundation of New Zealand post-doctoral fellowship (1830).
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Because of the commercial and legal restrictions to the use of copy-righted material, it is not possible to share data openly, but unredacted versions of the dataset are available with a licensed agreement that they will be restricted to non-commercial use. For access to Nutritrack, please contact the National Institute for Health Innovation at the University of Auckland at [email protected].
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Young, L.; Mackay, S.; Raphael, A.; Tan, J.; Cao, C.; Bradbury, K. Comparison of the Nutrient Content and Cost of Canned and Dried Legumes and Plant-Based Meat Alternatives Available in Supermarkets. Med. Sci. Forum 2022, 9, 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/msf2022009020
AMA Style
Young L, Mackay S, Raphael A, Tan J, Cao C, Bradbury K. Comparison of the Nutrient Content and Cost of Canned and Dried Legumes and Plant-Based Meat Alternatives Available in Supermarkets. Medical Sciences Forum. 2022; 9(1):20. https://doi.org/10.3390/msf2022009020
Chicago/Turabian StyleYoung, Leanne, Sally Mackay, Akeena Raphael, Joey Tan, Christina Cao, and Kathryn Bradbury. 2022. "Comparison of the Nutrient Content and Cost of Canned and Dried Legumes and Plant-Based Meat Alternatives Available in Supermarkets" Medical Sciences Forum 9, no. 1: 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/msf2022009020
