Alternative proteins are receiving increased global attention. This burgeoning interest in plants (especially plant-based meat alternatives), insects, algae, and cultured meat has been attributed to their reported health benefits, lower environmental impact and improved animal welfare compared to conventional animal-based meat. Food producers and the media are promoting acceptance of these products, claiming superior nutritional, environmental and ethical credentials and a desirable novel sensory experience. However, the evidence supporting these claims remains unclear. In this review, we summarise the main evidence underlying the nutritional, sensorial, economical, ethical, and environmental reasons reported for the rise in consumer demand for alternative proteins. We found many of these reasons to lack a strong evidence base. For instance, evidence is emerging for the nutritional benefits of plant-based meat alternatives, but present claims are largely based on established evidence for plant-based diets. Significant research gaps remain, especially longitudinal evidence on the sustained effects of replacing conventional animal-based proteins with alternative sources. For many alternative proteins, challenges exist in achieving desirable sensory properties akin to animal-based meat to promote their acceptance by consumers. Overall, fundamental shifts in the food system are required to create a culture in which healthful and sustainable food choices are the norm.

Background Consumption of ultra-processed foods has been linked with higher energy intakes. Food texture is known to influence eating rate (ER) and energy intake to satiation, yet it remains unclear whether food texture influences energy intakes from minimally-processed and ultra-processed meals. Objectives We examined the independent and combined effects of food texture and degree of processing on ad-libitum food intake. We also investigated whether differences in energy intake during lunch influenced post-meal feelings of satiety and later food intake. Design In this crossover study, 50 healthy-weight participants (n = 50 (24 men); 24.4 ± 3.1y; BMI = 21.3 ± 1.9kgm−2) consumed four ad-libitum lunch-meals consisting of “soft- minimally-processed,” “hard-minimally-processed,” “soft-ultra-processed,” and “hard-ultra-processed” components. Meals were matched for total energy served, with some variation in meal energy density ( ±0.20 kcal/g). Ad-libitum food-intake (kcal and g) was measured and ER derived using behavioral coding of videos. Subsequent food intake was self-reported by food-diary. Results There was a main effect of food texture on intake, where “hard-minimally-processed” and “hard-ultra-processed” meals were consumed slower overall, and produced a 21% and 26% reduction in food weight (g) and energy (kcal) consumed respectively. Intakes were higher for “soft-ultra-processed” and “soft-minimally-processed” meals (P < 0.001), after correcting for meal pleasantness. The effect of texture on food weight consumed was not influenced by processing levels (weight-of-food: Texture*Processing-effect, P = 0.376), but the effect of food-texture on energy intake was (energy-consumed: Texture*Processing-effect, P = 0.015). The lowest energy was consumed from “hard-minimally-processed” meal (482.9 kcal; 95%CI: 431.9, 531.0), and the most from “soft-ultra-processed” meal (789.4 kcal; 95%CI: 725.9, 852.8; Δ=↓∼300 kcal). Energy intake was lowest when harder texture was combined with the “minimally-processed” meals. Total energy intake across the day varied directly with energy intakes of the test meals (Δ15%, P < 0.001). Conclusions Findings suggest that food texture-based differences in ER and meal energy density contribute to observed differences in energy intake between minimally-processed and ultra-processed meals.

No abstract